id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
160,996,485 |
The applicant is the informant, who lodged the First Information Report (for short, "the FIR"), dated 17th August, 2011 in respect of homicidal death of his brother namely Sunil on 16th August, 2003 at about 8.30 ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:36 ::: 2 crirevnapln22-2007 p.m. at village Bangaon, Taluka Chalisgaon, on the basis of which Crime No. 203 of 2003 was registered against one Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:36 :::Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar, his wife Sunderabai and respondent No. 2 were chargesheeted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("the IPC", for short) for committing murder of Sunil.Since Hiraman Pawar and respondent No. 2 were alleged to have been absconded, their names were shown in the chargesheet as absconded persons.Sunderabai alone was available when the chargesheet was filed.After committal of the case, Sessions Case No. 171 of 2004 came to be instituted.A separate chargesheet was filed against respondent No. 2 on the basis of which Sessions Case No. 91/2005 came to be instituted against him.Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the applicant has come with this revision application contending that the said judgment is not legal, proper and correct.It has not been delivered by appreciating the evidence properly and correctly.There was sufficient material to convict respondent No. 2 available on record.It is, therefore, prayed that respondent No. 1 may be directed to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 9th October, 2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 91 of 2005 and that the said judgment may be set aside.It is further prayed that respondent No. 2 may be convicted for the offences punishable under sections 174 and 302 of the IPC.It is also prayed that the case may be remanded to the Sessions Court for fresh trial.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:36 :::This revision application was heard with Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 2013 that was filed by accused Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar, who was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC on the allegations of committing murder of Sunil.appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court found ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:36 ::: 4 crirevnapln22-2007 that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient, cogent, consistent and dependable evidence on record to establish the guilt of the said Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:36 :::Therefore, he came to be acquitted.While considering the evidence, recorded in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2012, filed against Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar, it was noticed that the name of respondent No. 2 was not even mentioned as a co-accused in the FIR lodged by the present applicant.It is only on the basis of the insistence of the present applicant that his supplementary statement came to be recorded on 5th June, 2004 and respondent No. 2 came to be arrayed as a co-accused.At the outset, it may be stated that the prayers of the applicant seeking directions against respondent No. 1 for filing appeal against acquittal of respondent No. 2 and further seeking conviction of respondent No. 2 in the present revisional proceedings cannot at all be considered since they fall beyond the ambit of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.Admittedly, the applicant was not an eye witness to the incident.None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is an eye witness.Besides respondent No. 2, Hiraman Bhimrao Pawar and Sunderabai were stated to be in the house of respondent No.2 at the time of the alleged incident.No motive on the part of respondent No. 2 has been attributed and established on the basis of which it can be said that he had any reason to cause death of Sunil.The evidence on record was so scanty that it was difficult to connect respondent No. 2 with the alleged offences.There is no substance in the revision application.Hence, the order :-::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:36 :::The Criminal Revision Application is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2016 00:35:36 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,997,282 |
On behalf of the applicants, this petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 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.
|
161,015,944 |
Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 376, 366, 506-B, 354 of IPC and section 3(1) (12) of SC & ST Act registered as Crime No. 288/2012 at Police Station Sabalgarh, District Morena.Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Applicant apprehends arrest in respect of aforesaid offences, where allegation against the applicant is of assisting co-accused for committing rape against the prosecutrix, who is stated to be a major lady.It is stated that the applicant helped and assisted the co-accused to reach at the destination along with prosecutrix.There is no allegation of rape against the applicant and the applicant is stated to be Government servant holding the post of Lab Technician at Community Health Centre, Sabalgarh, Dist.Morena and his arrest may entail serious and adverse consequences on his service condition, therefore, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.Accordingly, bail application u/S 438 Cr.P.C is allowed in 2 Patiram Rawat Vs.M.Cr.C.No.4903/2014 the following terms.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,016,011 |
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.214 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division.There were two other accused by name (1) Ganesan and (2) Murugan, who were arrayed as A3 and A4 respectively.The trial court, however, acquitted A1 to A4 from the charge under Section 506(ii) of IPC.Challenging the conviction and sentence, A1 and A2 have come up with this criminal appeal.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Santhosh @ Santhoshkumar.On 10.07.2011 at around 01.00 p.m. the deceased went to the TASMAC bar attached to the Shop No.1577 situated near Kannan Departmental Stores at Mettupalayam Road.P.Ws.1 and 2 had accompanied the deceased.They were taking liquor together by sitting across a table.These four accused had also come to the said bar for consuming liquor.They were sitting across a nearby table.While so, accidentally, the deceased had hit the brandy bottle kept on the table of the accused.It fell down and got broken.A2, pulled the shirt of the deceased and questioned him.In retaliation, the deceased attacked A2 with hands.The workers of the TASMAC bar separated them.The deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 had gone out of the shop.The accused had also gone out.Then, A2 to A4 kicked the deceased with legs and also fisted him.The deceased fell down.John who brought the deceased to the hospital told the doctor that the deceased had met with an accident and sustained injuries.But, one Mr.Nagaraj who had come with the deceased said that the deceased was attacked by three known persons with iron rod and stones.He admitted him as inpatient and gave an intimation to the police.P.17 is the accident register.He noticed the following:-"(1) Both eyes were contused.(5) A lacerated injury 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 on the back side of the head."As a matter of fact, at about 01.45 p.m. on 10.07.2011, when P.W.26 was at the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, Central Gandhipuram Range, one Mr.Gopalasamy, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, informed over phone that near ARC Junction, one person had been attacked by few others and the victim was lying unconscious with injuries.According to him, he instructed, the Special Sub Inspector of Police to rush to the place of occurrence and to make arrangements to forward the deceased to the hospital for treatment.P.W.26 also rushed to the hospital.In the meanwhile, the deceased had been brought to the hospital and admitted as inpatient.According to P.W.26, the deceased was then unconscious.He, therefore, went to the place of occurrence and then to the police station.Then, he recovered a big stone weighing about 5 kgs and yet another another stone weighing about 3 Kgs with blood stains, a full sleeve black colour shirt with white stripes stained with blood, blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazar [Ex.P.4] in the presence of the same witnesses.He examined many other witnesses at the place of occurrence.The deceased continued to be unconscious.She is the wife of the deceased.P.W.10 has stated about the earlier occurrence in the TASMAC Bar.He was a supplier in the said bar.P.W.13, who was the woman Police Constable at the police control room, has stated that in the CCTV camera recordings she noticed that four persons had attacked another with stones and hands.After having witnessed the incident on computer set up at police control room, which was displaying the scenes through CCTV camera installed at the place of occurrence, she informed the same to her higher police officials.M.Os.1 and 2 are CDs containing the recordings of the alleged incident.P.W.14 has spoken about photographs taken at the place of occurrence as instructed by the Inspector of Police.P.W.15 was the the then Assistant Engineer of Tamail Nadu Electricity Board, Rathinapuri.He has stated that there was no electricity failure at the time of alleged occurrence at the place of occurrence.P.W.16 has stated that he sold his motor cycle bearing Regn.P.W.17 is the Traffic Police Constable attached to R.S.Puram Police Station.According to him, he received information at 01.30 p.m. on 10.07.2011 about the occurrence from the police control room.He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence as instructed by the higher police officer where he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood with injuries and he was unconscious.At that time, he found four persons leaving the place of occurrence in two motor cycles.The stones were lying there.All the four accused stood charged for offences under Section 302 r/w 34 and 506(ii) of IPC.By judgement dated 26.02.2015, the trial court convicted A1 and A2 for offence under Section 304(i) of IPC instead of Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and convicted A3 and A4 for offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The deceased , P.W.1 and P.W.2 were proceeding towards north.When they were nearing a bakery known as "K.R.Bakery", these four accused came to the place of occurrence in two motorcycles.On reaching the place of occurrence, where the deceased was standing, they parked the motor cycles.A1 took a big stone and threw it on the face of the deceased.A2 took another stone and hit the deceased on his head and face.All the four accused immediately fled away from the scene of occurrence in their motor cycles.P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the house of the deceased and informed his family members about the occurrence.The auto drivers who were present near the place of occurrence took the deceased to Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital.3. P.W.19, Dr.K.Raguramaiah, examined the deceased on 10.07.2011 at 02.00 p.m. at Coimbatore Government Medical College Hospital.At that time, the deceased was conscious.(2) Blood was oozing out through the nostrils (3) A lacerated injury measuring 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left side of the head.(4) A lacerated injury measuring 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm on the left side of the head.By that time, P.W.1 was waiting for him at the police station.P.W.1 made complaint [Ex.P.W.26, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in crime No.739 of 2011 under Section 307 and 506(ii) of IPC against all the four accused.P.29 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded the complaint-Ex.P.1 and the FIR-Ex.P.19 to the court which were received by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate at 05.45 p.m. on the same day.On the same day, he arrested all the four accused near Thayir Itteri Railway Gate at Rathinapuri.On such arrest, A1 and A2 gave independent voluntary confessions one after the other.In pursuance of the disclosure statement made by A2, a green colour TVS 50 motor cycle bearing Regn.No. TN 33 X 7323 was recovered.Similarly, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by A1, blue colour Bajaj CD100 motor cycle bearing Regn.TN 38 AE 5881 was recovered.On returning to the police station, P.W.26 forwarded A1 and A2 to the court for judicial remand.He forwarded the material objects also to the court.On 12.07.2011, the deceased, despite treatment, succumbed to the injuries at the hospital.P.W.24, Dr.Karthikeyan, who treated the deceased had finally declared the deceased dead at 03.45 p.m. on 12.07.2011 and passed on the information to the police.On receiving the death intimation form the hospital P.W.26 altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC and forwarded an alteration report to the court.Then, he went to the hospital, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and made arrangements to forward the body for post-mortem.P.W.25, Dr.He found the following injuries:-"Ante mortem injuries:-Bluish contusion 6 x 3 x 0.5 cm noted over the outer aspect of middle third of left thigh.Bluish contusion 4 x 4 x 1 cm noted over front of right upper thigh.Bluish contusion 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm noted over back of left side shoulder.Bright red colour scratch abrasion 2 x 1 cm noted 3 cm below to left ear."V" shaped bright red graze abrasion 4 x 3 cm noted over right side neck, 4 cm below angle of right mandible.Bright red colour abrasion 3 x 2.5 cm noted over 2 cm in front of left ear over zygomatic area.Bright red colour abrasion 3 x 0.5 cm and 1 x 0.5 cm noted over superior part of left pinna, 4 x 2 cm noted 3 cm above to left ear in the left temporal region, 4 x 2.5 cm noted over right frontal prominence and 2 x 1 cm noted over anterior part of right frontal region and 0.5 x 0.5 cm noted over right maxillary prominence.Transverse sutured laceration 2 cm in length noted over left temporal region.The anterior end is 7 cm above to left ear superior attachment and posterior end is 12 cm above to left mastoid tip.Transverse sutured laceration 3 cm in length noted over left parieto temporal region 2 cm.The anterior end is 12 cm above to tip of left mastoid and posterior end is 10 cm above to tip of left mastoid.Horizontal sutured laceration 1.5 cm in length noted over left occipital prominence.Sub conjuctival hemorrhage noted over inferior aspect of cornea of left eye and temporal aspect of cornea right eye.On dissection of Scalp, Skull and Dura: Sub scalpal contusion with bluish colour 14 x 7 cm noted over right fronto parieto temporal region, 7 x 6 cm noted over left parietal region and 6 x 4 cm noted over left temporal region.Left temporalis muscle found contused with bluish colour transversely oblique depressed fracture 10 x 2 x 0.5 cm over left parieto temporal bone.A depressed vertically oblique crack fracture 5 cm in length extending downwards and another vertically oblique crack crack fracture 8 cm in length noted over left parieto temporal bone extending downwards from the posterior part of the above depressed fracture.Vertical oblique crack fracture 9 cm in length extending from the right subra orbital margin towards the right fronto parietal suture.Extra dural clot weighing about 15 grams noted over left temporal region and 10 grams noted over right frontal region.Diffuse sub dural and sub arachnoid hemorrhages noted over entire brain.Skull base fracture noted over both anterior cranial fossa on its anterior part and left middle cranial fossa on its posterior part.Crack fracture noted over greater wing of sphenoid on both sides and ethmoid bone on both sides.Crack fracture noted over lateral and superior wall of right orbital cavity.- Pleural and Peritoneal cavities empty.- Heart: all chambers contains about few cc of fluid blood.Coronaries patent.- Hyoid bone intact.- Stomach contains about 200 ml of dark brown colour fluid with unpleasant smell, mucosa pale.- Small intestine contains about 10 ml of bile stained fluid with unpleasant smell, mucosa pale.- Urinary Bladder: empty."He preserved the visceral organs and send them for chemical analysis.P.27 is the post-mortem certificate.He further opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries and their complications.According to P.W.25, the doctor, the deceased was found drunk.P.W.26, in the further course of investigation, examined the doctor who treated the deceased and the doctor who conducted autopsy and few other officials witnesses, collected the medical records and also the chemical analysis report and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the four accused.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed two charges as detailed in first paragraph of this judgement.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 26 witnesses were examined, 36 documents and 24 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses P.W.1 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.1 has further stated about the complaint made by him to the police upon which the present case was registered.P.W.6 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch by the police at the place of occurrence and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence.P.W.7 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the confession statements made by A1 and A2 and the consequential recoveries of material objects.P.W.8 has stated that he took the deceased to the hospital along with the others from the place of occurrence.P.W.11 was the Sub Inspector of Police [Telecommunications], Police Control Room, Coimbatore.On 10.07.2011, according to him, one Mrs.Punithavalli, an Armed Reserve Woman Police Constable came to the control room and informed that there was a fight between two groups near ARC Junction.According to him, he informed the same to the Inspector of Police over phone and then, he went to the place of occurrence.P.W.12 yet another Sub Inspector of Police has also stated about the same fact.According to him, within a short while, the Sub Inspector of Police and the other police officials had come to the place of occurrence.Then, they took the deceased to the hospital.P.W.18, has stated that he handed over the dead body to the Doctor and identified the same for post-mortem.He has further stated about the injuries found on the body of the deceased.P.W.20 has stated that the motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 33 X 7323 stood in the name of one Mr.M.Murugan, Son of Murugesan of Kumarapalayam Village.P.W.21 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the material objects forwarded by the court.P.W.22 has also stated about the same.P.W.23 has stated that he was working as Technical Inspector at Telecommunication Wing of the police department.According to him on 10.07.2011, he copied the recordings relating to the occurrence from the computer which had recorded the incident through CCTV camera installed at the place of occurrence.He gave appropriate certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. M.O.24 is the master compact disc [The trial court had displayed the said CD in the absence of the accused and the witnesses and from the footages, the trial court found that these four accused had attacked the deceased].P.W.24, the doctor, has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased and the cause of death.P.W.25 has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.26 has spoken about the entire investigation done by him and the filing of charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted A1 and A2, the appellants herein and also A3 and A4 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 and A2 alone have come up with this criminal appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 and A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully.A perusal of the judgement of the trial court would go to show that it had not made any reliance on M.O.24 master compact disc for want of appropriate certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. The trial court has rightly placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar.P v. P.K.Bahseer and others, 2014 (10) SCC 473 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that an electronic record which does not carry a certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act to admit as a primary evidence.In this conclusion arrived at by the trial court, we do not find any infirmity.The trial court has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 to hold that these appellants/A1 and A2 had attacked the deceased with stones which resulted in the death.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws. 1 to 5 would not have seen the occurrence at all.We find it difficult to accept the said contention for more than one reason.First of all, all these witnesses had no grudge against the accused.They are independent eye-witnesses to the occurrence.Therefore, we need not begin our appreciation of evidences of these witnesses with suspicion.P.W.1, 2 and the deceased had gone to the bar for taking liquor where the first occurrence took place.This has been spoken by the supplier in the bar also.After the said occurrence, when the deceased was proceeding along with P.Ws.1 and 2, the second occurrence had taken place, that is, all the accused had come there in two motor cycles and on reaching the deceased, A1 and A2 hit the deceased with stones and the others attacked him with hands and legs.The trial court has found that these witnesses are believable.The learned counsel for the appellants is not in a position to point out any infirmity so that this court could take a different view.Though these witnesses have been cross examined, at length, nothing has been elicited to doubt their credibility.The learned counsel for the appellants would next submit that there was an inordinate delay in FIR reaching the hands of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate.According to P.W.26 the case was registered at 02.45 p.m. on 10.07.2011 and the same had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 05.45 p.m. on the same day.The distance between the police station and the court is not known.At any rate, the time gap between the time of registration of FIR and the time taken for the same reaching the learned Magistrate is hardly three hours.The medical evidence also duly corroborates the eye witness account.But, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that at the earliest point of time, the doctor was told that the deceased had sustained injury in an accident.In this regard, P.W.19 has stated that one John told him that the deceased had met with a road accident, whereas, one Nagarajan told him that three persons had attacked the deceased with iron pipes and stones.The statement made by Mr.This could be used to contradict him provided he has been examined as witnesses.These appellants had no motive against the deceased.When A2 questioned the same, the deceased gave him a slap.The trial court was right in doing so.Now, turning to the quantum of sentence, the punishment imposed on A1 and A2 by the trial court is highly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence as well as the mitigating circumstances.The trial court in para 25 of the judgement has stated that the accused belonged to economically weaker section.The occurrence was on account of the loss caused to the liquor bottle.The accused were not armed with weapons.They have got their respective family to take care of and they have got no bad antecedents.The trial court has not made any discussion regarding the mitigating circumstances as well as the aggravating circumstances before deciding the quantum of sentence.The trial court has inflicted sentence of imprisonment for life without assigning any reason and without analysing the above vital facts which need to be examined.Having regard to these mitigating and aggravating circumstances, in our considered view, sentencing the appellants/A1 and A2 to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each would meet the ends of justice.Thus, the trial court judgement needs interference at the hands of this court to the extent indicated above.In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,610,184 |
ORDER R.C. Chopra, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against an order dated 10.11.2000 passed by learned ACMM rejecting petitioner's application for exemption from personal attendance during trial.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.The petitioner is facing trial under Section IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Section 5 of the Imports & Exports (control) Act 1947 on the basis of a complaint filed by the Chief Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi.The case is still at the stage of pre-charge evidence.The prosecution has cited 140 witnesses out of which only 24 have been examined so far.ArthrIT is suddenly fell ill and as such could not appear before the Court.Her application seeking exemption was rejected and non-bailable warrants were issued against her.Her application for cancellation of warrants was pending for 27.9.2000 but that morning itself she was arrested in pursuance of non-bailable warrants.She had to remain in custody for about a week and was released on bail only when orders were passed by the High Court.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a large number of witnesses still remains to be examined at the stage of pre-charge as well as post charge evidence.The petitioner who is an old lady and is suffering from various ailments is not required to be present in person on all the dates as she is not disputing her identity.He submits that there was no good reason for declining her request for exemption from personal appearance.It is prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and she be exempted from personal attendance.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,019,435 |
1 February 1, 2019 39 ARDR (Allowed) CRM 160 of 2019 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21/12/2018 in connection with Bhadreswar Police Station Case No. 410/2018 dated 19/10/2018 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/307 of the Indian Penal Code.And Re: Raju Mallick ... Petitioner Mr. Suman Chakraborty, ... for the petitioner Mr. Imran Ali, Mr. Nirupam Dhali ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Bhadreswar Police Station Case No. 410/2018 dated 19/10/2018 registered for investigation into offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/307 of the Indian Penal Code.The matter was adjourned by an order dated January 11, 2019 with a direction to the investigating officer to recover the stridhan articles.The State says that the complainant has indicated that cash money of Rs.50,000/-, wearing apparel and some items were presented at the time of marriage, but there was no gold or other valuable jewellery which was gifted.1 2 It appears that the complainant's clothes have been recovered from the matrimonial home.The money has, presumably, been spent or said to have been spent.The petitioner claims to be a small-time employee at a grille factory earning a paltry salary.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.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 2
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,021,574 |
C3.D.O.No.75/2019 dated 14.07.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Prabhakaran,S/o.Boopathi, male, aged about 21 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.(M.M.S.,J.) (R.H.,J.) 21.10.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, of Vellore, Vellore District.Page 5 of 7Page 7 of 7The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.Page 2 of 74.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:M.P.No.3423/2019 and the same is pending before the Court.As far as the ground case is concerned, in a similar case registered at Kanchi Taluk Police Station Crime No.15/2016, under Section 147,148,506(ii), 302 IPC @ 120B, 147, 148, 506(ii), 302 IPC and 149, 109,114 IPC Page 3 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1621 of 2019 bail was granted to the accused Tvl.K.Sandhar, S/o.Kuppan, and Moses, S/o.As bails are being granted by courts in such cases, there is a real possibility of his (Thiru.Prabhakaran) coming out on bail, in the above pending bail application before the court.If he enlarged himself on bail, he would indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace. ......."M.P.No.600/2016 on 06.04.2016, and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case in Crime No 293/2019 case and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 147,148,506(ii), 302 IPC @ 120B, 147, 148, 506(ii), 302 IPC Page 4 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1621 of 2019 and 149, 109,114 IPC whereas the offences involved in the ground case are u/s 341,302,506(ii) IPC.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1621 of 20193.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 6 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1621 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and R. HEMALATHA, J.mmi H.C.P. No. 1621 of 2019 21.10.2019 Page 7 of 7http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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.
|
161,028,866 |
(Patherya,J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee,J.) 1
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,034,329 |
Then, complainant told to petitioner to take out his goats.On that, petitioner started abusing him and committed marpeet with kick and fists.During this, wife of complainant-Savita came there and tried to save her husband/complainant but petitioner assaulted her with axe due to which blood oozing out from her head and ear.Complainant's brother Chandrabhan Rajak, Halkai Rajak and worker of anganwadi also intervened into the matter and visualized it.This is first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The petitioner is in custody since 16.09.2019 in connection with Crime No.177/19 registered at Police Station-Naryavali, District-Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 324, 323, 294, 506, 326 of IPC.Prosecution story in short is that on 29.07.2019, complainant-Pappu Rajak lodged an FIR by stating that on the same day at about 10 o'clock, when petitioner was grazing his goats they entered in the fence of the complainant.On these grounds, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.Certified copy as per rules.C. stands disposed of.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 30/09/2019 11:11:05
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,040,893 |
(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 14.12.2018 made in Cr.M.P. No. 25/G/2018/E1, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Goonda’ and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.4.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:"5.......... In similar case registered in Coimbatore District, Negamam Police Station Crime No.197/2014 u/s. 147, 148, 364, 302 IPC, the conditional bail was granted to Thiru.Hence there is a real possibility of Thiru.Murugesan @ Ponmurugesan to be released on bail in the case of Coimbatore District, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station in Crime No.479/2018 u/s 120(b), 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 302 IPC.Further, if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in similar activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace......."5.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration a similar case registered in Coimbatore District, Negamam Police Station Crime No.197/2014 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 IPC and bail was granted to one Anthony in C.M.P.No.1900/2014 on 26.06.2014 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 IPC whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 302 IPC.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.25/G/2018/E1 dated 14.12.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Murugesan @ Ponmurugesan, S/o.Balasundaram, aged about 39http://www.judis.nic.in 5 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.(M.M.S.J.,) (M.N.K.J.,) 04.06.2019 Index:Yes/No mmi To2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.3.The Inspector of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,043,593 |
Heard on I.A. No.1155/2018, which is the third application for sh suspension of sentence/conviction and grant of bail on behalf of e appellant Siyaram Saket, on rejection of the first application as not ad pressed and the second application as not pressed with liberty to renew Pr the prayer after serving half of the jail sentence.The appellant namely Siyaram Saket has been convicted for the a hy offences punishable under Sections 376, 506-II and 323 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, 1 year and 6 months ad with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.500/- respectively with default M stipulations.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the last of application for suspension of sentence was dismissed as not pressed rt with liberty to renew the prayer after serving half of the jail sentence.ou The appellant has already suffered more then half of the jail sentence and the prosecutrix is a major who appears to be a consenting party, C therefore, the substantive jail sentence of the present appellant may be h ordered to be suspended and he may be released on bail.List this appeal for final hearing in due course as per the scheme formulated.Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE e sh L.R.ad Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2018.04.18 14:51:17 +05'30' Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,610,557 |
It is submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that two statements of Kapil Sahu and Seema do not indicate any offence of abetment to suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.Mahender Sahu(hereinafter referred to as `the deceased') was admitted to Tirath Ram Shah Hospital on 10th July, 2002 at 1.30 AM.He had been brought there by his wife and brother.JUDGMENT Manju Goel, J.The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 2004 whereby the petitioner-Mamta Sahu has been charged of abetting suicide by her husband-Mahender Sahu.The impugned order is brief.By way of ground for framing charge, the Additional Sessions Judge has merely stated in the order that from the statement of Kapil Sahu(son of the accused) and Seema, there is a prima facie material under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code(for short `IPC') against the accused.The MLC shows that the deceased had consumed melathion 50% EC half-an-hour before he was brought to the hospital.The FIR which was originally registered under Section 309 of the IPC Page 1682 was, thereafter, converted to Section 306 of the IPC.A copy of the translation of the statement of Kapil Sahu has been placed on record.I, however, prefer to read the original statement recorded in Hindi available in the trial court record.As per this statement, the deceased and the revision petitioner/accused had a fight on the evening preceding the incident at around 8.30 PM.The cause of the quarrel was that the brother of the revision petitioner, about two months before, had stated that he was not bothered as to whether Kapil or his father was dead.The deceased asked the accused again and again as to whether her brother had said such a thing and the accused again and again denied the same.The witness Kapil Sahu goes on to say that on getting angry the deceased asked the accused to recover Rs.8 lacs from her brother as he wanted to purchase another house.Such money had been given by the deceased to the brother of the accused.The witness says that thereafter the mother/accused became angry and said that she would go back home.When the accused started leaving their house, the deceased wanted to restrain the accused from leaving the house on which there was a scuffle.The deceased, however, succeeded in preventing the accused from leaving the house.He had made the accused sit in a room and bolted the room from outside and even got the main gate locked.Later, however, the room was opened.The son Kapil Sahu was asked to go back to sleep as he was to attend school next morning.Kapil Sahu says that his parents thereafter also went to bed at around 1.00 a.m. Kapil Sahu says, he got up on hearing some noise and found that the deceased was vomiting in the varandah while the accused was standing.The accused told him that the deceased had consumed something.He went to the deceased and asked him but the deceased denied having taken anything.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 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.
|
161,057,691 |
as (Allowed) C.R.M. 10392 of 2020 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Khanakul P. S. Case No.206 of 2020 dated 31.08.2020 under Sections 498a/304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and charge sheet submitted under Sections 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.In the matter of : Soumen Bera..... Petitioner....for the Petitioner....for the State.Heard the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arambagh, 2 Hooghly subject to condition that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing until further orders and shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the Trial Court without any justifiable cause, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.The application, being C.R.M. 10392 of 2020, is disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,433,617 |
Prosecution version, in a nutshell, is as follows:The accused, the deceased and the prosecution witnesses were theresidents of Venkuru village of Vijayawada, Krishna district.The deceasedwas the wife of the accused.PW-1 was the mother, PWs 2 and 3 weredaughters and PW-4 was brother of the deceased.The deceased and PW-2were attending cooli work and were maintaining the family.On the intervening night of 2/3-3-2000 at about 3.45a.m.the deceased was sleeping on her cot in their house in Venkuru.Theaccused hacked her with a knife on her neck and caused her instantaneousdeath and later he attempted to commit suicide by cutting his throat partiallywith a knife.PW-1 woke up in the early hours and noticed that the deceased 2 was lying with bleeding injury on her neck and the knife with blood was inthe hands of the accused.Then on seeing PW-1 the accused fled away.Acomplaint was lodged and it was registered in Cr.No.48 of 2000 ofPenamluru police station.Inquest was held over the dead body of thedeceased and the same was sent for post mortem examination.PW-8, theMedical Officer conducted autopsy and issued post mortem certificate.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of theAndhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who facedtrial for having allegedly committed the murder of his wife VeerankiBhulaxmi (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased').It was the prosecution case that after committing the murder of his wife, the accused had tried tocommit suicide by cutting his throat with knife.He was charged forcommission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 309 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC').He was tried for both theoffences, but he was sentenced only in respect of offence punishable underSection 302 IPC.Thestatements of the witnesses were recorded and investigation was undertaken.On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.As the accusedperson pleaded innocence trial was held.As noted above, the trial Courtplaced reliance on the evidence of mother (PW-1) of the deceased andrecorded conviction.The High Court found that the evidence of PW-1 onwhose evidence the conviction was recorded does not inspire confidence.Itwas also noted that the report was given to the police officer on telephone asadmitted by the brother of the deceased at about 4.00 a.m. The same doesnot appear to have been recorded in writing and on the other hand the policeofficer claimed to have come to the place of occurrence and recorded thestatement of the mother and converted it into the FIR.The High Court notedthat it was not explained by the investigating officer as to why the telephonicmessage was not reduced into writing.3 With reference to the evidence of PW-1 the High Court noted that shestated that her son had informed the police.It is not known as to what theson of PW-1 told the police i.e. whether he told about the details of thecrime or that some crime had taken place.If it is former then the messagewas required to be reduced in writing.According to him he received a telephonicmessage that some murder had taken place.He categorically admitted thathe did not reduce the information into writing.Added to that the HighCourt noted that the FIR reached the police station after about 7 hours.Inthe FIR it was noted the injuries which were of very serious nature on theperson of the accused were not explained.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,361,700 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is second repeat application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., whereas his previous application was dismissed on 11.05.2016 being withdrawn.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.
|
1,433,629 |
JUDGMENT2003 Supp(5) SCRThe following Order of the Court was delivered :The High Court by its impugned judgmentand order dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and affirmed theirconviction and sentence under Sections 409, 467 and 471 IPC as also underSection 5(1) (c) and (d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct.The appellant in Criminal Appeal 204 of 1997 namely L. Chandraiah hasbeen sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one yearunder Section 409 IPC and Section 5(1) (c) and (d) read with Section 5(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment forone month for the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC.So far as theappellant in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1997 namely Y.V. Kamesham isconcerned he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for aperiod of two years under Section 409 and Section 5(1)(c) and (d) read withSection 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and has also been foundguilty of the offence under Section 467 IPC for which he has been sentencedto undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.The trial court also imposed thesentence of fine against both.The third accused namely G.Sambamurthy was also convicted and sentenced in the same manner asappellant Y.V. Kamesham, but he did not prefer any appeal before the HighCourt.Itmay here be noticed that the other three accused namely A-4, A-5 and A-6were acquitted of the charges levelled against them by the trial court andno appeal was preferred by the State against their acquittal.Theappellants have assailed the judgment of the High Court before us in theseappeals by special leave.At the relevant time A-3 worked as Postal Assistant inthe same Sub-Post Office. A-4 was employed as a Postmen in the said PostOffice during the relevant period.A-6 is astudent and is related to A-3 and was staying with A-3 as a tenant atBellampally.The Case of the prosecution is that several recurring deposit accounts wereopened in the said Sub-Post Office in the names of a large number ofworkers of M/s. Singareni Collieries Ltd. The amount contributed in thesaid account by the concerned workers was deducted from their wages anddirectly remitted to the Post Office by the management.Instead ofremitting large number of cheques, a single cheque was remitted for thetotal sum and thereafter the Postal Authorities made the necessary entriesin each account as per the list attached to the communication received fromthe management.The procedure prescribed for withdrawal of amount from therecurring deposit account was that the management after fixing its seal onthe withdrawal voucher would send the same to the Post Master, and theconcerned workman with a view to withdraw the amount would sign the saidvoucher in the presence of the Post Master, whereafter the withdrawal waspermitted.The case of the prosecution is that a large number ofwithdrawals were made during the period in question and approximately a sumof Rs. 91,280 was withdrawn from these accounts in a clandestine mannerpursuant to conspiracy between the accused.It is the case of theprosecution that fabricated vouchers were prepared with forged signaturesand forged seal of the management and payment was made on the basis of thesaid forged vouchers.Evidence was examined before the trial court to prove such withdrawals andthe concerned workmen deposed to the fact that they had never withdrawn theamounts in question from their accounts.The trial court after considering the evidence on record came to theconclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against A-l, A-2 andA-3 under Sections 409, 467, 471 IPC and Section 5(1) (C) and (d) read withSection 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It, however, recorded acategorical finding that there was no evidence on record to support thecase of conspiracy as there was no evidence to show that A-l, A-2 and A-3acted pursuant to a common plan.The trial court, however, observed that even if the evidence on recorddisclosed that the vouchers were prepared by A-3, the appellants whofunctioned as Sub-Post Master during the relevant period could have takenpains to verify the genuineness of the vouchers passed by them.They didnot take requisite care before passing the vouchers and did not care toverify whether the vouchers were genuine or forged.In this manner theypermitted a large number of fraudulent withdrawals on the basis of forgedvouchers.The voucher were prepared in most of the cases by A-3 and thevouchers were also initialled by him on the reverse side.From this thetrial court came to the conclusion that it was proved that A-l to A-3 usedforged documents as genuine documents for withdrawal of the amount from theaccounts of recurring deposit account holders.They were, therefore, guiltyas public servants for having committed offences under Sections 409, 467and 471 IPC and for the offences under the aforesaid provisions forPrevention of Corruption Act.As noticed earlier A-3 did not prefer any appeal against his conviction butthe appellants before us preferred an appeal before the High Court whichhas been dismissed.We have gone through the judgment of the High Court andwe find that the High Court also fell into the same error as the trialcourt.It has considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution.It hasalso considered the procedure which was followed for making suchwithdrawals.It has noticed the fact that the voucher had been forged andfabricated by A-3 and the vouchers contained initials of A-3 on the reverseside of the vouchers.Having considered thematerial on record the High Court has recorded the following finding:The Expert opinions of PWs48 and 49 confirm this fact.It is theirprimary duty to compare the signatures and thumb impressions from thespecimen signatures and thumb impressions available in the bank whilepassing the vouchers.They have to follow the procedure as stated by Awl.They have certainly failed to do so with ulterior motive."The trial court has found in clear termsthat A-l, A-2 and A-3 were not acting pursuant to a conspiracy and,therefore, acquitted them of that charge.Such being the position, beforerecording a conviction, the court should have insisted on evidence whichwould have proved that A-1 to A-3 passed the vouchers with knowledge thatthe vouchers were forged and fabricated, it appears that no such evidenceis available on record.Learned counsel also brought to our notice the factthat in respect of the same Sub-Post Office some vouchers prepared andcounter-signed by A-3 on the reverse side were sent to the Head Post Officeat Mancherial.PW.5 the investigating officer has referred to several suchvouchers which were sent to the Head Post Office for payment, and theofficers of the Head Office also sanctioned payment on the basis of suchfabricated vouchers.Obviously, the officers at the Head Post Office werealso not very careful, and as a result A-3 succeeded in his evil design tofraudulently withdraw a large sum of money.In the absence of any evidence to show that A-3 was acting in conspiracywith A-l and A-2 or that A-l and A-2 had knowledge of the fact that A-3 hadfraudulently and dishonestly prepared forged vouchers on the basis of whichthe amounts were sought to be withdrawn, the offences under Sections 467,471 or 409 IPC are not proved against the appellants.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,336,859 |
learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the instance of the applicant a criminal case under Section 498-A and 506-B of the IPC and under Section 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the applicant's husband Pushpraj Sing.In support of the applicant has filed the copy of the written complaint which is submitted to SHO Station Road, Ratlam and Mahila Thana, Ratlam.On the other hand learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for non- applicant/State opposes the prayer and she submits that there is no compelling ground for transferring the Criminal Case from Ratlam Court to Chhindwara Court.Therefore, she prays for dismissal of application.This Court has called the status report from the Court of learned Shri Virendra Verma JMFC, Ratlam.Pushpraj Singh and Anrs).Copy of this order be sent to both the Courts for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,368,674 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Looking to the description of MLC report, she appears to be above 18 years of age.No ossification test has been performed.No external or internal injury was found on her person.As per allegations, she remained with the applicant for 3 months, without any resistance.Under such circumstances, it appears that either the prosecutrix M.Cr.C.No.39/2015 was a consenting party or the applicant is falsely implicated in the matter.The applicant is in custody since 16.9.2014, without any substantial reason.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.It is directed that the present applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.C.No.39/2015 (N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,433,726 |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.SUDHANTHIRAM,J.) The appellants 1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.1456 of 2003 and the appellant inCrl.(a) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Sekar and P.W.2 is the wife ofthe deceased.About six months prior to this occurrence, one Chinnaya @ Selvamwas murdered and a case was registered by Kottampatii Police, in which thedeceased Sekar was shown as accused.In connection with that case, the deceasedalso surrendered before the Court and he was in judicial custody for some timeand thereafter, he was released on bail.The accused were related to thedeceased Selvam.P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased Sekar were residing in a rentedhouse at Manogipatti, South Pookadai in Thanjavur.On 07.03.1993, at about 8.15p.m., P.W.2 was standing at threshold of the house and was expecting the arrivalof her husband.At that time, she heard a noise from the place near the house ofa person who was working in a Bank and she ran to that place.P.W.2 saw theaccused 1 and 2 each one holding an aruval and attacking her husband on severalparts of body.P.W.2 shouted not to attack her husband.Then she was threatened.According to P.W.2, the occurrence was also witnessed by P.W.1, the brother ofthe deceased and also the Panchayat President.The accused had run away from thescene of occurrence.The accused 1 and 3 escaped from the place in a TVSvehicle.(b) P.W.2 went along with P.W.1 to the Thanjavur South Police Station andgave a complaint against the accused at 11.00 p.m. Ex.P3 is the complaint givenby P.W.1 to P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police.P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, on receiving the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.80 of 1993 forthe offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report -Ex.P.W.15, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation.While he wasabout to go to the scene of occurrence received an information from P.W.9 andthereafter, he arrested the second accused and recorded his confession statementat about 12.15 a.m. In pursuance of his confession, recovered an aruval at about1.15 a.m. and also recovered the dress materials of the accused.On furtherinformation, he went near the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and recoveredHyundai motorcycle, an aruval, a citizen watch and bloodstained earth.Thereafter, on further information, he went inside the hospital to Ward No.28and saw the first accused, who was admitted for having sustained injury on hisright leg.He recovered the cloths of the first accused.Thereafter, he went tothe scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch and recovered a Herculescycle from the scene of occurrence.He sent the body for thepostmortem examination with the requisition.(c) P.W.12, the doctor held autopsy on the body of the deceased on08.03.1993 at 1.35 p.m. and he had noticed multiple cut injuries on the body ofthe deceased and issued postmortem certificate - Ex.P5 and opined that thedeceased appears to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple cutinjuries.Even according to P.W.2, after hearingthe noise, ran to the scene of occurrence and she had witnessed the occurrencefrom a distance of quarter mile.She also stated that she stood in front of thehouse of P.W.8 and witnessed the occurrence, which is at the distance of 28meters from the place of occurrence, as per the observation mahazar.P.W.2 hadnot spoken about the presence of the light at night hours at the scene ofoccurrence.According to her, she did not know the accused earlier to theoccurrence.No identification parade was conducted by the prosecution.The appellants areacquitted of the charges.A.No.1603 of 2003 are the accused 1 to 3 respectively in S.C.No.46 of 2002on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.The accused 1 and 2stand convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and each one ofthe accused sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.5,000/- and in default to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and alsoconvicted for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and each one of the accusedsentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment.The third accused standsconvicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 109 I.P.C. and sentenced toundergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default toundergo four years rigorous imprisonment and convicted for the offence underSection 341 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment andalso convicted for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced toundergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment.Challenging the said conviction andsentence, the appellants had preferred the above said appeals.(d).P.W.15 handed over the investigation to P.W.16 on 16.03.1993, who hadreturned from the leave.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating materials appearing againstthem through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they have denied theircomplexity.The trial Court after analysing the evidence available on record,convicted and sentenced all the three accused as already stated above.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that except P.W.2,wife of the deceased, other eye witnesses did not support the case of theprosecution and even P.W.2 being the wife of the deceased is an interestedwitness and the cross-examination of P.W.2 established the fact that she couldnot have been present at the scene of occurrence.The learned counsel for theappellants pointed out that P.W.2 has stated in the cross-examination that shehas witnessed the occurrence from a distance of quarter mile and it was nighttime occurrence.According to her evidence, she is a resident of Pookara Streetat Thanjavur and according to P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, the distancebetween the place of occurrence Manogipatti to Thanjavur Pookara Street is at 8kms.Though P.W.2 claimed that she was residing in the house of oneParvathiammal - P.W.8, Parvathiammal had stated that the deceased and P.W.2 werenot residing in her house.The learned counsel for the appellants vehementlycontended that P.W.2 had no occasion to come to the scene of occurrence in thenight hours.The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted thatP.W.1, the brother of the deceased who had given the complaint Ex.P3 had notsupported the prosecution case and he had admitted only the signature Ex.It was further pointed out that even as per the evidence of P.W.2, shewent to the police station along with P.W.1 and the complaint was given.At thetime of going to police station she had seen the second accused in the policestation.According to P.W.15, the second accused was arrested in the night at12.00 o' clock, wherein Ex.P4, FIR was registered at 11.00 p.m., which is notpossible.P.W.2 also stated that she had given a complaint and signed in thecomplaint and according to the evidence, there are two complaints and thecomplaint said to have been given by P.W.2 is suppressed.It was further pointedout that P.W.2 had admitted in the cross-examination that she had not seen theaccused prior to the occurrence and she had not known about the details of theaccused.No identification parade has been conducted by the prosecution.P.W.2admitted in the cross-examination that it was only the police, who pointed outthe second accused to P.W.2 in the police station.The learned counsel for theappellants submitted that the trial Court had erred in relying on the solitaryand unreliable testimony of P.W.2 for convicting the accused.The learned Additional PublicProsecutor pointed out that the house of P.W.2 was shown in the plan near thehouse of P.W.8 - Parvathi.Though P.W.1 who gave the complaint had turnedhostile, the complaint was received by police at 10.00 p.m. and after FIR beingregistered, on information, the second accused was arrested at 00.15 hours on08.03.1993 and the first accused, who sustained injury was admitted in theThanjavur Medical College Hospital on 07.03.1993 at 9.00 p.m. itself and thepolice officer had recovered the motorcycle of the first accused on 08.03.1993at 2.30 a.m. and he had also seen the first accused in the hospital.We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused therecords.12. P.W.2, wife of the deceased had stated in her evidence that on07.03.1993, at 8.15 p.m., she was standing at the entrance of her house and atthat time, she heard noise.She had stated that she was residing in the house ofParvathiammal at Thanjavur Pookara Street.The place of occurrence was atMangampatti, Muthusami Nagar.According to P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police,Thanjavur Pookara Street was 2 kms away from the police station and the policestation was at a distance of 6 kms from the place of occurrence and the distancebetween the place of occurrence Mangampatti to Thanjavur Pookara Stret was 8kms.In the observation mahazar- Ex.Further according to P.W.2,when she went to the police station, the second accused was already kept in thepolice station.She had admitted in the cross-examination that before givingevidence, her statement was read out by the police and she was asked to giveevidence and she was tutored by the police to give evidence.On scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.2, we do not find her trustworthyand reliable witness.The manner in which the First Information Report was alsoprepared throws considerable doubt.The suppression of the complaint said tohave been given by P.W.2 and failure to hold the test identification parade alsoaffects the case of the prosecution.In the result, the judgment of the trial Court, dated 28.08.2003, madein S.C.No.46 of 2002, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur is setaside.Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are allowed.The bail bonds executed, if any, by the appellantsstand canceled.Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to theappellants.The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur South Police Station, Thanjavur.The Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,433,751 |
1. Darshan Singh son of Kartar Singh, the appellant herein has assailed the order of conviction and sentence passed by Addl.Sessions Judge dated 6th and 11th October, 1976 respectively.Darshan Singh s/o Shri Sunder Singh was an accused in another case under S. 304, I.P.C. The facts of the case were that in May, 1971, one Nagina Singh s/o Shri Ujagar Singh was killed and a case under S. 304, I.P.C. was registered against Mahinder Singh, P.W. 6, Darshan Singh S/o Lal Singh, P.W. 8 injured of that case, Joginder Singh, P.W. 11 son of injured Darshan Singh and Sudesh and Om Prakash sons of Balak Ram, P.W. 9 and one Subhash who came to attend the Court from the complainant's side in that case.All these were the accused in that case.The hearing of that case was over at about 11.45 a.m. and they came out from the Court and reached the stair case of the verandah.When they reached near the verandah, Chaman Singh, the accused in that case gave abuses and Darshan Singh retaliated and at that time Pyara Singh accused caught hold of Darshan Singh from his right arm and accused Darshan Singh s/o Sunder Singh caught hold of him from his neck.Ujagar Singh and Nirmal Singh also grappled with him stating that they would finish him that day and that time Darshan Singh s/o Kartar Singh accused took out the knife from the dub of his payjama and stabbed Darshan Singh in his chest.The present appellant Darshan Singh s/o Shri Kartar Singh was nabbed at the spot by the Head Constable, Naresh Chand, P.W. 7 who was working as Naib Court in the Court of Addl.The knife was snatched from the hands of the appellant.Other accused managed to escape but were arrested from near the Court room.Injured Darshan Singh was removed to the hospital.It was under these circumstances that the case against the appellate and others was registered under S. 307 read with S. 34, I.P.C.On behalf of the prosecution number of witnesses were examined but the relevant witness on whom the Addl.The factum of relationship between Chaman Singh and Pyara Singh, Ujagar Singh and Nirmal Singh and Darshan Singh are not disputed while the appellant Darshan Singh, son of Kartar Singh was not related to other accused.The factum of the pendency of a Sessions case under S. 304, I.P.C. is also not disputed.It is also an admitted fact that the case was fixed on that day for evidence.Sessions Judge.It is in the testimony of Naresh Chand, P.W. 7 that on hearing the noise he came out of the Court room and saw Darshan Singh s/o Kartar Singh present appellant stabbing Darshan Singh s/o Shri Lal Singh in his chest on the right side with a knife when the present appellant tried to run away, he caught hold of him and took away the knife from his hand.This deposition has remained unrebutted and uncontroverter on the record.To my mind, the Addl.Sessions Judge rightly placed reliance on his testimony.The appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 304 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.
|
143,378,975 |
This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), has been preferred for quashment of First Information Report bearing crime No.583/2017, dated 23/09/2017, registered at Police Station- Madhav Nagar, District-Ujjain for offence punishable under Sections 420, 408 of IPC against the applicant, on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2-Jagdishlal Huria and all consequential proceedings.The relevant facts for disposal of the case, briefly stated, are that respondent No.2 Jagdishlal Huria and his wife Meena Rai are the proprietor of New Orient Transport Company and J.J. Roadways, Ujjain, respectively.Applicant Sunil Kasliwal was working as accountant in their transport company.During the employment of respondent No.2, the applicant has stolen 13 cheques and by making forged signature on the cheques, he fraudulently drawn Rs.15.00 lakhs from the bank account of respondent No.2 and his wife, maintained at Punjab & Sindh Bank and Punjab National Bank.The respondent came to the knowledge of the aforesaid cheating when he found that some of the bank entries were not tallied with the books of accounts and the accused/ applicant became untraceable, therefore, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the applicant at M.Cr.C. No.24195/2017 2 Police Station-Madhav Nagar, District-Ujjain for offence punishable under Sections 420, 408 of IPC.Hence the applicant has filed this petition for quashing the F.IR and other consequential proceedings registered against him.M.Cr.C. No.24195/2017 2Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant who was on a pilgrimage, on his returning back has deposited an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs on 17/11/2007 in the bank account of respondent No.2 maintained at Punjab and Sindh Bank through R.T.GS.Resultantly, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and the respondent No.2 filed a compromise petition u/S 320(2) of 'the Code' before this Court.It is further submitted that considering the fact that the parties have arrived at a peaceful settlement thus the continuance of proceedings before the Court with regard to offence under Sections 420, 408 of IPC will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment to the parties.It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which a compromise petition was also filed before this Court and the same has been duly verified by the Registrar of this Court.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and M.Cr.C. No.24195/2017 3 perused the record.M.Cr.C. No.24195/2017 3C. No.24195/2017 4 continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose.M.Cr.C. No.24195/2017 4
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,379,615 |
1] This is an application under 438 of Cr.P.C for pre-arrest bal inCR No.410 of 2018 dated 31.10.2018 registered with Warje Malwadi PoliceStation, Pune under sections 326, 325, 323, 504, 506, read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code.2] Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learnedAPP.Perused the record of investigation.3] The first information report is lodged by Mr. Tushar Prajapatiaged about 22 years, a student taking education at Pune.It is theprosecution case that, the first informant along with his two friends had 1/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:15:45 ::: ABA.2464-2018.doctaken a flat bearing No.201 situated at Omkar Abhinav Society, KarveNagar, Pune on rental basis from the applicant No.1 and had paid depositof Rs.19,500/- to him.As the said flat was not in habitable condition, thefirst informant retained Rs.7000/- with him out of the said deposit amount.On 20.9.2018 when the first informant had been to the applicant No.1 formaking balance balance payment, the applicant No.1 informed him that,he is likely to receive a deposit of Rs.22,000/- from another occupant andasked the first informant to vacate the flat.Till 19.10.2018, the first informant repeatedlyrequested applicant No.1 to pay his balance amount.On 19.10.2018, theapplicant No.1 and his wife from mobile phone asked the first informant tocome to their residence to collect the balance of Rs.8000/- on 20.10.2018at about 10.00 a.m. On 20.10.2018, when the first informant had been tothe house of the applicant No.1, and was waiting for applicant No.1 in theparking lot.The applicant No.1 along with applicant No.2 arrived at sceneof offence and all of a sudden assaulted the first informant with the aid of"kada" on his left ear and the applicant No.2 assaulted first informant withthe aid of a wooden plank on the waist and right shoulder of the first 2/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:15:45 ::: ABA.2464-2018.docinformant.It is the prosecution case that, due to said assault, the firstinformant vomited at the spot and also there was bleeding from his ear.He submitted that, for investigation of the present crime, thecustody of the applicants is not necessary and prayed that the applicantsmay be granted pre-arrest bail.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:15:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:15:45 :::5] Perused the record of investigation.The eye-witness Pankaj hasduly corroborated the version of the first informant.The medial reportsubmitted by the Chief Medical Officer, Sassoon Hospital, Pune supportsthe version of the first informant.In the said report, it is stated that, thefirst informant suffered loss of hearing of his left ear.That there is severemix hearing loss to the left ear of the first informant.6] Thus prima facie it appears that the version of the firstinformant has been duly corroborated by the eye-witness as well medical 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:15:45 ::: ABA.2464-2018.docreport.The weapons used in the present crime i.e. "Kada" and "woodenPlank" are yet to be recovered by the police and the same is not possiblewithout there being custodial interrogation of the applicants.7] In view of the above and after taking into consideration theallegation against the applicants which are serious in nature and the gravityof the offence and since the weapons used the crime are yet to be recoveredby the police, this Court is of the opinion that the both applicants do notdeserve to be protected by pre-arrest bail.::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:15:45 :::Application is accordingly rejected.(A.S.GADKARI, J.) 4/4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:15:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2018 23:15:45 :::
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,433,806 |
JUDGMENT Shiv Dayal, J.This revision was referred to the Chief Justice by Sharma, J., sitting alone, with the recommendation that it be placed before a Bench of two Judges in view of important questions of law involved.The petitioners were tried under Sections 447, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code by the Nyaya Panchayat, Jigni, established under the M.B. Panchayat Act, No. 58 of 1949 (hereinafter called the Act).The Nyaya Panchayat found the petitioners guilty and punished them with a fine of Rs. 25/- each.Their revision was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Morena.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,387,610 |
No.78 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. 2238 of 2020 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28.02.2020 in connection with Singur Police Station Case No. 42 of 2020 dated 11.02.2020 under Sections 447/323/354/354B/379/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Borhal Ali @ Borhan Ali Sekh ... ... Petitioner Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli .. Ld. Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharya .. Advocate ... ... for the State Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer and hand over his passport, if any, within four weeks from date.In the event he does not have a passport, he shall personally appear before the Investigating Officer and furnish an affidavit to that effect within the time frame mentioned hereinabove.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,391 |
Heard Sri M.P.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standingcounsel for the opposite parties.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,339,736 |
Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Kotwali Police Station F.I.R. No. 535/2017 dated 01.07.2017 under Sections 498A/323/313/376/506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner (husband of the victim) has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary.The application, thus, stands allowed with the direction that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/-, with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,410,006 |
Petitioners have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 08/01/2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar in Sessions Trial No.11/2018, whereby the charges under Sections 294,506 Part-II, 148, 149, 307, 307/34, 323, 324 of the IPC and 25 (1-B)(B) of the Arms Act have been framed against the petitioners respectively.Brief facts of the case are that, on 30.10.2017 at around 21.30 hours, complainants Mohit, Mukesh, Rajesh, Shyamlal, Rajat and Sachin were at the agriculture field of Mohit at that time the accused persons came there and started using filthy language and also assaulted the complainant persons by means of sword etc. due to which the complainant persons sustained injuries.The incident was reported to the Police station Badnagar and on the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered for the commission of offence under above mentioned Sections against the petitioners.After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.The trial Court while passing the impugned order, framed the charges for offence regarding the injuries :2: Cr.Being aggrieved by the order of framing charges, the petitioners have filed the present revision.:2:He further submits that an application under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. has filed on behalf of the petitioners before the court below for acquittal of the petitioners from offence under Section 307 of the IPC, but the court below has rejected the said application In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned order regarding framing charges against the petitioners be quashed.Learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the court below and submits that there is ample evidence on record on the basis of which charges have been framed against the petitioner and it does not call for any interference.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned order as well as the record.From perusal of the record as well as the complaint, it reveals that, in the present case allegations have been made against the petitioners.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,891,440 |
P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 all belonged to the same place.The appellants/A-1 to A-3 are brothers.They had a long standing dispute in respect of a landed property.On the date of occurrence that was on 20.3.2006, at about 7.00 A.M., the accused were plowing the land in dispute.P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased Devakumar went to the land, and P.W.2 raised objection that the accused should not plow the land.Then there was a wordy altercation.Immediately, A-3 caught hold of P.W.2, when A-2 attacked him on his head with a koduval.When P.W.1 went to the rescue of his father P.W.2, A-3 caught hold of him while A-2 attacked him with a stick.On seeing this, the deceased Devakumar who was standing nearby, tried to prevent the attacks made on the above witnesses.Immediately, A-2 caught hold of him, and A-1 stabbed him with a knife at different parts of the body.Devakumar died at the spot.When the neighbours gathered, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence along with the weapons of crime.(b) Immediately, P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, where P.W.13 was the Doctor on duty.At about 8.40 A.M., he medically examined P.W.1 and noted the injuries found on him in Ex.P12, the wound certificate.He also examined P.W.2 and noted the injuries found on him in Ex.P13, the wound certificate.(c) An information was given to the Out-Post Police Station attached to the Government Hospital, and thereafter an intimation was given to the respondent police.On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in Crime No.84 of 2006 under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 302 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P25, was sent to the Court.On the strength of the statement given by A-1, a case was registered in Crime No.85 of 2006 under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC.(d) P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.Then he recovered the sample earth, bloodstained earth and other material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.The place of occurrence was photographed through P.W.19, the Photographer, and the photos and negatives were marked as M.Os.12 and 13 respectively.Then the Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of Devakumar and prepared Ex.P28, the inquest report.The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of postmortem.(e) P.W.14, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Devakumar and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P16, with her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died about 24 to 36 hours prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the vital organs.For Appellants : Mr.V.Rajamohan For Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public ProsecutorCOMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) These two appeals challenge a judgment of the trial Court namely Principal Sessions Division, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.22 of 2008 whereby the appellants/A-1 to A-3 stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows:ACCUSEDCHARGESFINDINGPUNISHMENTA-1 to A-3307 r/w 34 IPCGuilty10 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500 and default sentenceA-2 & A-3307 r/w 34 IPCGuilty under Sec.325 r/w 34 IPC7 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500 and default sentenceA-1 and A-3302 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPCLife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000 and default sentence2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:(f) Pending investigation, A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate.Then police custody was taken.He gave a confessional statement.An aruval produced by him was recovered.He was sent for judicial remand.Equally, A-1 was taken to police custody, and he gave a confessional statement.Pursuant to the confession made by A-2, M.O.2, uruttu kattai, was recovered under a cover of mahazar.A-3 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, and police custody was taken.He gave a confessional statement.All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also the weapons of crime recovered on production by the accused pursuant to the confessional statements were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department pursuant to the requisition made by the Judicial Magistrate's Court concerned.P21 is the Serologist's report, and Exs.P22 and P23 are the Chemical Analyst's reports.On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and also relied on 31 exhibits and 18 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. procedurally as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.But, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked on their side.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found them guilty and awarded punishment as referred to above.Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants.4.Assailing the judgment of the trial Court, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, admittedly, the same police officer who rushed to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, has recorded the statements from P.W.1 which was marked as Ex.P1, and also from A-1; that he registered two cases; that at the time of cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has deposed that Crime No.84 of 2006 was registered on the strength of the complaint given by P.W.1, and another case was registered on the complaint of A-1 under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC; that though an occurrence has taken place at the time and place of occurrence, it has actually taken place in the land of the accused; that even P.Ws.1 to 3 have candidly admitted that they rushed to the land when the accused were plowing the lands with the tractor; that it would be quite clear that P.Ws.1 to 3 along with the deceased went to the place and picked up a quarrel, and thus they were the aggressors.5.Added further the learned Counsel that when two cases were registered one at the instance of P.W.1 and the other at the instance of A-1, the prosecution should have been fair enough to produce the documents in Crime No.85 of 2006, namely the FIR, the statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. or the medical records; that nothing was produced before the Court; that all have been suppressed by the prosecution; that when P.W.14, the Doctor, was examined by the prosecution, Ex.D5, the accident register copy pertaining to A-1, was marked by the defence in order to indicate that A-1 has actually sustained injuries; that the injuries that are narrated in Ex.D5 would clearly indicate that those injuries could not have been caused except by a weapon like knife; that the injuries were also found on the skull and on different parts of the body; that it would be quite clear that when P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased went to the spot, they were actually armed with weapons; that though the injuries were described by the medical person as simple, since one of the injuries was actually found on the skull and also could not have been caused except by a weapon like knife as deposed by the medical person, a duty was cast upon the prosecution to explain the injury that was sustained by A-1 in the course of the same transaction; but, the prosecution has miserably failed; that the non-production of the documents in Crime No.85 of 2006 and also the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by A-1 in the course of the same transaction would clearly indicate that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused; that these vital aspects would go to the root of the matter; that the trial Court has not at all considered either the factual or legal aspects, and hence they are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.7.It is not in controversy that one Devakumar, the son of P.Ws.2 and 3, following an incident that took place at 7.00 A.M. on 20.3.2006, succumbed to the injuries at the spot.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.14, the Doctor, who has given a categorical opinion as a witness before the Court and also through the contents of the postmortem certificate that Devakumar died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.The place, time and cause of death as put forth by the prosecution were never disputed by the appellants, and hence it could be recorded so.8.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants/accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 as eyewitnesses out of whom P.Ws.1 and 2 were injured witnesses.It is well settled proposition of law that in a given case like this where eyewitnesses happened to be injured witnesses, the Court should not discard their testimony unless and until a strong circumstance is noticed or reason is brought about.In the instant case, admittedly, there was an incident that had taken place at the time and place as put forth by the prosecution.It is also an admitted position that the Sub Inspector of Police rushed to the Government Hospital and recorded two statements one from P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P1, and the consequent FIR is marked as Ex.The Inspector of Police has candidly admitted that on the strength of the complaint given by A-1, who was under treatment at that time, a case came to be registered in Crime No.85 of 2006 under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC.Thus it would be clear that there was an occurrence that had taken place as put forth by the prosecution, in which the prosecution witnesses and the accused were actually involved.It is also true that the defence at the time of cross-examination of P.W.14, the Doctor, has brought out that A-1 had taken treatment in the hospital, and Ex.D5 is the accident register copy in that regard.A perusal of Ex.D5 would clearly indicate that there was a lacerated injury on the scalp and also abrasions on different parts of the body.The Doctor has given his opinion that the injury found on the skull could have been caused by a knife.But, at the same time, it is pertinent to point out that the injuries were actually described as simple.It is not that in every case, the prosecution is duty bound to explain the injuries that were sustained by the accused.In the case on hand, the injuries were simple.In such circumstances, the prosecution did not think about production of the records.In the considered opinion of the Court, the non-production of the same will not in any way affect the case since the prosecution was able to show the genesis of the occurrence, the way in which the occurrence has taken place and who are all actually injured in the occurrence.At the same time, the Court is able to notice that there was a clash in which A-1 also sustained injuries.Apart from that, in the above transaction, it was A-1 who stabbed the deceased to death.Though A-2 and A-3, according to the prosecution, shared common intention, there is nothing to indicate that they had got any common intention to share with because at that time, there was a clash, and P.Ws.1 to 3 along with the deceased went to the field, and further P.W.2 has objected to the accused plowing the land.Hence, there is nothing to call it as common intention to be shared with by the accused.But, at the same time, it was A-1 who stabbed the deceased to death, and hence the act of A-1 cannot but be termed only as murder.But, at the same time, there is nothing to indicate that he has got any intention to cause their death.However, grievous injuries are noticed, and hence A-2 has got to be found guilty under Sec.326 of IPC for two counts and awarding punishment of 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.In the absence of any overt act, A-3 merely because of his presence at that time, could not be fastened with liability.A-3 has got to be acquitted of all the charges.The sentence already undergone by him shall be given set off.14.The conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC are set aside, and he is acquitted of that charge.The fine amount if any paid by him, will be refunded to him.15.A-3 is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him, and the fine amounts if any paid by him, will be refunded to him.The bail bond executed by him shall stand terminated.16.In the result, C.A.No.456 of 2009 is partly allowed, and C.A.No.466 of 2009 is, accordingly, dismissed.Consequently, connected MPs are closed.1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge Dharmapuri2.The Inspector of Police Paupparapatti Police Station Paupparapatti Dharmapuri District (Crime No.84 of 2006)3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,891,502,822 |
This appeal, therefore, survives only so far as accused/appellant Bhagchand is concerned.(3) Undisputedly co-accused persons Babloo alias Umakant, Raju alias Rajendra and Ramesh were acquitted by trial Court.Deceased Sangeeta was married to appellant Bhagchand on 12.3.1992 and she died an unnatural death due to burn by fire on 8.8.1992 (within five months from the date of marriage) in the house of the appellant.She was ill treated both mentally and physically for demand of dowry to bring cash of Rs.20,000/-.When demand of dowry was not fulfilled she was brutally beaten and was threatened to life, so, it is alleged that on 8.8.1992 in the evening Sangeeta committed suicide due to burn by fire as she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in respect of demand of dowry.She died forthwith.Information regarding her death was sent to her mother Shanti Devi (PW 2) at Jhansi, so she came at Bina and reported the matter to G.R.P. Bina vide Ex.P/1 in which Crime No.403/92 was registered.The matter was investigated and it was found that the appellant his mother and his brothers were treating the deceased with cruelty both mental and physical for demand of dowry to bring cash of Rs.20,000/- when demand of dowry was not fulfilled, she was brutally beaten and she was threatened to life.7.12.2011 Per : M.A.SIDDIQUI,(1) Appellant Bhagchand has preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') alongwith his mother Appellant no.2 Ramabai (since dead), feeling aggrieved against the judgment dated 5.1.1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai in Sessions Trial No.341/92, convicting him u/s 304-B, 498-A, of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and u/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(for short 'the Act, 1961') and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default S.I. for 3 months, R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.15,000/- in default S.I. for 1 year and R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default S.I. for 3 months respectively.died during pendency of this appeal on 13.9.2008 so her name was deleted from the array of appeal and so far as appeal filed against her is concerned stands disposed of having been abated .She died on 8.8.1992 due to burn by fire within five month from the date of marriage in matrimonial house.As unnatural death took place within seven years from the date of (3) Criminal Appeal No. 134/94 marriage, a criminal case u/s 304-B and 498-A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 was registered.During investigation, the appellant and other co-accused persons were arrested.After completing investigation the police filed the challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class where Criminal Case no. 605/91 was registered and in due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.The trial Court framed charges u/s 304-B, 498-A of IPC and U/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the appellant as well as other co-accused persons.The appellant and other co-accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication and claimed to be tried.(5) Prosecution examined 25 witnesses in support of its case and accused persons examined three witnesses in their defence in Court.Trial Court after appreciation of the evidence and documents available on record, acquitted three co-accused persons viz. Babloo alias Umakant, Raju alias Rajendra and Ramesh and punished the appellant and his mother Smt. Rama Bai, as aforesaid.(6) Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence appellant and co-accused/appellant Ramabai (since dead) filed this appeal on the ground that appreciation of the evidence is not proper.Findings of the trial Court are based on surmises, conjectures and wrong presumptions.There are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.The conviction is bad in law.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.Findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court were justified and called for no interference .perused the original record including the impugned judgment and evidence available on record carefully.(8) Learned trial court has relied on the evidence of prosecution witnesses and we took the evidence into consideration.As far as death of Sangeeta occurred within 7 years from the date of marriage is concerned, learned trial Court has relied on evidence of Harprasad (PW 1) Shanti Bai (PW 2), Nathuram (PW 3) Francis Joshaf (PW 7), B.B. Quilton (PW 8), Kamta Prasad (PW 9), Stiphan (PW 10), Ramesh Kumar (PW 11), Charli (PW 12), Shanti bai (PW 14), Ramsunder (PW 15), Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (PW 18), Dr. G.C.Motwani (PW 19), Shivram Singh Bhadoria (PW 24) and Kailash Kumar Photographer (PW 25) and has come to the right conclusion that the death had taken place within five months from the date of marriage which is within 7 years of marriage, the statutory period mentioned u/s 304-B IPC.(9) So far as demand of dowry is concerned, learned counsel for appellant submitted that Shanti Bai (PW 2) mother of deceased stated that Rs.20,000/- was demanded by Ramabai and appellant Bhagchand and Sangeeta bai was also threatened that if money will not be given then she will be killed.Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that this witness in her-chief categorically stated that she does not know for what purpose Rs.20,000/- was demanded by appellant.As per statement of Francis Joshaf (PW 7), Rs.20,000/- was demanded by the appellant.In paragraph 4 this witness specifically and categorically stated that Sangeeta told him that appellant Bhagchand was in debt and as he was unable to return debt so he was demanding Rs.20,000/- for return of debt.his elder brother Ramesh and his mother Shanti Bai (PW 2) demanded Rs.10,000/- and their demand of Rs.10,000/- was fulfilled at the time of engagement but this statement is missing in his police statement vide Ex.As far as demand of Rs.20,000/- is concerned, he stated that he did not know this thing that demand of Rs.20,000/- was made to return debt and when he was confronted with his police statement vide Ex.D/1 then he denied this in his statement at portion B to B that Sangeet told him that demand of Rs.20,000/- was made to return the debt.From the perusal of police statement vide Ex.D/1 and confronted portion it is very well clear that Harprasad (PW 1) told the police that Rs.20,000/- was demanded by appellant as debt or loan and not for dowry.These are the main witnesses in the case about demand of dowry on which learned trial Court believed for demand of dowry.Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case Appasaheb and another v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2007 SC 763 in which it has been held that demand for money on account of financial stringency or for meeting urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.As per the definition of 'dowry' as given in 1961 Act, giving and taking of property or valuable security must have some connection with the marriage of the parties and a correlation between the giving or taking of property or valuable security with the marriage of the parties is essential.Being a penal provision it has to be strictly construed.Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or practice in India.As there is no demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased, so no case u/s 304-B IPC from the prosecution was proved beyond reasonable doubt.(12) Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no case u/s 498-A of IPC is made out from the prosecution evidence.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is specific allegation in the statements of Shanti Bai (PW 2) and Francis Joshaf (PW7) that Sangeeta Bai was treated with cruelty both mentally and physically by the appellant.We have perused the evidence of Shanti Bai (PW 2) who categorically stated that when Sangeeta visited her house she had no ornaments on her body and she stated that appellant Bhagchand used to drink liquor and he was in habit to beat her and threatened her to life.She further stated that at the time of Id when she (Sangeeta) came at Jhansi Sangeeta told her all these things before Francis Joshaf (PW 7).Francis Joshaf (PW 7) supported the version of Shanti Bai (PW 2) on the part of cruelty and stated that Sangeeta narrated that appellant used to tease her both mentally and physically.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that it is not necessary that (7) Criminal Appeal No. 134/94 every relative shall be informed about illtreatment in her matrimonial home.Sangeet was living Theek-thak (its O.K.) means she was not happy, otherwise she would have informed that she was living satisfactory.So this version of Harprasad (PW 1) is not very much importance and it can not be said that Sangeeta was not ill-treated by appellant.(14) Sangeeta committed suicide within five months from the date of marriage that too in the house of appellant, this fact, itself corroborates the version of Shanti Bai (PW 2) and Francis Joshaf (PW 7) that the appellant was treating Sangeeta with cruelty both mentally and physically.In our opinion, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant u/s 498-A of IPC as such no interference is called for, so this appeal is partly allowed.The goods given at the time of marriage are said to be in the custody of Nazarat of trial Court.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,152,900 |
We have read her testimony including the cross-examination.We do not see that there was any sustainable suggestion in her cross-examination as to any oblique motive of her in inculpating the accused appellant.P.W.3 is the father of the victim.His version corroborated P.W.1 inasmuch as P.W.1 is stated to have complained about the incident to the members of her family including the father on the date of the incident.Beyond such corroboration between P.W.1 and P.W.3, we see the testimony of P.W.8, the Doctor (Gynecologist and Obstetrician), who examined the victim and noted certain injuries on her body.We do not see any other reasons, which would entitle the appellant / applicant to be granted an order of suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The application being CRAN 3767 of 2018 fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J.) ( Arijit Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,915,334 |
The prosecution case as set up in the complaint against the appellant/accused in brief is that the complainant, Ashish Kumar and his brother, Prashant Kumar along with one Santosh Duggal and her minor daughter, Kavita Duggal were accused under Section 376/506/34 IPC vide FIR No.312/94 lodged at the instance of the one Rakesh Jain.The said case was pending before Addl.Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.Kavita being a minor, her case was being tried separately in the Childrens Court.The accused was posted as a Public Prosecutor and was representing the State in the Childrens Court in the case against Kavita.On 3rd June, 1996, the complainant, Ashish Kumar along with his brother, Prashant and Smt. Santosh Duggal are stated to have visited the Childrens Court.There a case under Section 506/34 vide FIR No.191/96 was registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar against them at the instance of the appellant/accused, Ram Rattan, the Public Prosecutor.The complainants case was that Ram Rattan had been asking for some money indirectly for doing favour to Kavita in the said case.On 5th July, 1996 he met the appellant/accused who demanded `5,000/- Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 2 of 21 for doing favour to Kavita which would ultimately be of help to them also in their trial in the Sessions Court at Karkardooma.It is alleged that the accused assured them that he shall also save them from the proceedings relating to FIR No.191/96 IPC.Since the complainant was not willing to pay any bribe, he made a complaint to CBI on 8th July, 1996, whereupon, this case was registered.CBI Inspector Rajesh Kumar organized a trap.One independent witness, Aneesh Kumar and two other members of the raiding party assembled in the room of CBI Inspector, Rajesh Kumar where the complainant produced 40 notes of `100/- denomination each.The numbers of these notes were taken down in the handing over memo.As per the procedure, the complainant was asked to hand over the money to the accused only on specific demand and the public witness, Aneesh Kumar was to act as a shadow witness.The trap party reached the Childrens Court at about 3.45 P.M. The complainant and the shadow witness Aneesh were asked to contact the accused at 4:20 p.m.. After sometime, the complainant and PW4 Aneesh were seen coming out along with a person whose identity later came to be known as accused Ram Rattan.At about 4:25 p.m., PW4 Aneesh gave pre-appointed signal.The accused Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 3 of 21 got suspicious and started running in the Juvenile Court Campus and while running, he took out the notes from his pocket and threw the same on the ground.However, he was overpowered and caught by Inspectors Rajesh Kumar and S.R. Singh.The notes were picked up by PW4 Aneesh.The same were compared by PW- 4 and Inspector Mallik with the numbers as noted in the handing over memo.The numbers were found to be tallying.The washes of both the hands of accused and that of right pocket of his pant and the handkerchief were taken separately which turned the sodium carbonate solution pink.The rest of the investigation was conducted.The CFSL opinion confirmed the presence of Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate in all the four washes."...I and Ashish Complainant were standing very closely to each other.The money was accepted in the court compound.I gave the signal near the gate and then the police reached there...""...Many people assembled there and accused threw away the GC notes on the ground on seeing the CBI Officials.I do not know how many people assembled there.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 21 of 21This is an appeal against the judgment dated 21st February, 2002 whereby the appellant/accused was held guilty and convicted of offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, for short the Act) and the order dated 5th March, 2002 where under he was sentenced to undergo SI for two years with fine of `500/- under Section 7 and SI for three years with fine of `1,000/- under Section Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 1 of 21 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In default of payment of fines he was ordered to undergo SI of seven days and fifteen days, respectively.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 1 of 21After completion of investigation and requisite sanction, the accused was challaned and sent to face prosecution.He was charged under the aforesaid Sections of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses.The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.He stated that on 3rd June, 1996, the complainant with his brother and co-accused, Santosh had come to the Childrens Court and threatened the prosecutrix Priya Jain, her mother and father.On this, the accused made a complaint to P.S. Mukherjee Nagar whereupon a case was registered against the complainant and his brother.The accused Crl.The accused also examined one Mukesh as his only witness from the office of Chief Public Prosecutor to the effect that a complaint (Ex.PW-5/DA) against the accused/appellant Ram Rattan was received on 10th June, 1996 which was sent to the accused for his comments.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 2 of 21Appeal No.240/2002 Page 3 of 21Appeal No.240/2002 Page 4 of 21He also sought corroboration from the CFSL report (PW2/A).The learned defence counsel, Dr. Chauhan has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds.The prosecution examined the Chief Secretary of the Govt. of NCT, Sh.He was the Appointing-cum- Disciplinary Authority.It is noted in this regard that earlier also, an application was filed by the accused for his discharge and dropping the proceedings on the ground of want of valid sanction.The same was dismissed vide detailed order dated 22nd July, 1999 of the learned Special Judge.I do not see any infirmity and illegality in the sanction order Ex.PW1/A and the findings recorded by the learned Judge in this regard.It is seen that in his cross-examination, he not only admitted the prosecution case and corroborated the complainant/PW5, but also identified the accused.He had heard the conversation between the accused and the complainant and was able to reproduce the same verbatim.He stated that the accused said, "Paise To Laye Ho Na" (Have you brought the money), to which the complainant said, "Jaise Aap Ne Mangay The Laaya Hoon" (As you demanded, I have brought).On this, the accused said, "Lao Do, Abhi Meine Bahut Sarae Jaruri Kaam Karne Hain" (Give me, I have to do some important works).In answer to the question put by the Prosecutor in his cross- examination, this witness stated that he could not identify the accused due to lapse of time.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 6 of 21This witness (PW4) corroborated the complainant by stating that he (the complainant) took out the tainted money from his pocket and handed over to the accused in his presence.The accused accepted the money and kept it in the right side pocket of his pant.Thereafter, the accused threw the tainted money on the ground.He (PW4) and Inspector caught hold of the accused.He along with other members picked up the tainted money thrown by the Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 7 of 21 accused from the ground.He with the help of one Inspector Sh.A.K. Mallik tallied the numbers of notes with those as already noted in the handing over memo and the same were tallied.He said that the accused got perplexed when he was apprehended.The suggestions were put to him that he was not present on the spot and that the accused/appellant did not demand or accept any money from the complainant or that he has conspired with the complainant and trapped the accused/appellant.All these suggestions were denied by him.This witness also supported the prosecution case in all minute details of the pre-raid and post-raid proceedings as conducted by the IO.In his cross-examination by the defence also this public witness maintained that he was standing close to the complainant.He stated as under:-Appeal No.240/2002 Page 7 of 21"...I heard the complainant saying that only if his work will be done on which Ram Rattan told him that his work will be done and further asked "PAISE LAYE HO" to which the complainant replied that "HAAN LAYA HOON" and Rattan said that his work will be done..."I was directed by the CBI officials to collect the GC notes from the ground.None else other then me collected the notes.I tallied the number of GC notes by ticking on the handing over memo where the numbers were already noted down in the CBI office and the numbers were found to be the same.All these proceedings were conducted in the Court Compound..."Appeal No.240/2002 Page 8 of 21" ...It is incorrect to suggest that accused Ram Rattan did not demand or accept any money.It is incorrect to suggest that I had conspired with the complainant and got trapped accused Ram Rattan in a false case.It is incorrect to suggest that the complainant is a friend of mine..."PW4 stood lengthy cross-examination of defence.He remained unshaken in cross-examination and nothing could be elicited to doubt his testimony.There was no reason as to why this witness would depose falsely against the accused in such a serious case.There was not even a suggestion to this witness that he had any animosity towards the accused.I am left with an impression that he is a truthful witness and can be relied upon.With regard to the credence that could be given to such a witness, the law is trite that there is no rule of law that even if a witness is otherwise reliable and independent, his association in a pre arranged raid makes him accomplice or a partisan witness.Conviction is not untenable on the testimony of such witnesses [vide Maha v. State AIR 1976 SC 449].It was next submitted by the learned defence counsel that the accused was falsely implicated inasmuch as he had lodged a complaint against the complainant and his brother with P.S. Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 9 of 21 Mukherjee Nagar whereupon FIR No.191/96 came to be registered against them since they had threatened the prosecutrix, Priya Jain and her father and mother on the day when they had come to the Childrens Court.It was submitted that, in any case, since the accused was not the prosecutor in the case pending against the complainant at Karkardooma Court, there was no reason for the accused to have demanded from complainant any money as bribe.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 9 of 21It is a fact that the complainant with his brother and Santosh Duggal were present in the Children Court on 3rd June, 1996 and that subsequently on the complaint of the accused, a case came to be registered against them at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar vide FIR No.191/96 under Section 506/34 IPC.It is also a fact that the complainant also made a complaint against the accused to his department as stated by DW-1, Mukesh Kumar.Though, there is nothing on record to substantiate this plea of the accused that the present complaint was foisted against him as a counterblast, but keeping in view the fact that the accused had lodged a complaint against him and his brother at PS Mukherjee Nagar, I have taken a very cautious approach in analyzing the testimony of the complainant.The complainant had stated and maintained that the accused had demanded `5,000/- from him so as to help his co-accused, Kavita Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 10 of 21 Duggal who was facing trial in the Childrens Court in FIR No.312/94 in which they were also co-accused and facing trial at Karkardooma.It was only then that the complainant made this complaint against the accused.The complainant was put to lengthy cross-examination by learned defence counsel.He was very categorical in saying that when the accused demanded, he gave him the money.He has narrated the verbatim conversation which took place between them.After accepting the money, the accused tried to move towards the Childrens Court after crossing the iron gate.When the CBI officials asked him to stop, he became suspicious and started running and in the meanwhile took out the tainted money from his right side pocket of the pant and with his left hand splashed the same in the air.The accused was apprehended and when interrogated, he remained mum and became nervous.The conduct of the accused is also one of the relevant and admissible piece of evidence, the aid of which is available in corroboration of the testimony of a witness.All the three material witnesses, Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 11 of 21 namely, complainant (PW5), independent witness (PW4) and IO (PW10) separately deposed about the accused getting nervous when challenged by the officers of raiding party.In the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 and State of Madras v. A. Vidyanatha Iyer, AIR 1958 SC 61, the Apex Court relied on the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when confronted by the police officials with the allegation that he had received bribe.In the case of Rao Shiv Bahadur (supra) the evidence relating to conduct on which reliance was placed was to the effect that the accused was confused and could not furnish any explanation when questioned by the officer.Likewise, in the case of Vidyanatha (supra) also evidence to the effect that the accused was seen trembling and that he silently produced the notes was acted upon for recording conviction.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 10 of 21Appeal No.240/2002 Page 11 of 21The complainant further said that PW-4 picked up the money from the ground and he along with Inspector Mallik (PW10) tallied the numbers with those mentioned in the Handing Over Memo.He identified the currency notes Ex.P1 to P-40 taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/2 as the same which were used as trapped money.He also denied that he had threatened the Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 12 of 21 witnesses as alleged or that this complaint was filed by him on account of accused having filed a complaint with P.S. Mukherjee Nagar and because no action was taken on his complaint made to the department of the accused.Nothing material could be elicited in his lengthy cross-examination to doubt his testimony.As is seen, the testimony of this witness finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-4 on demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe by the accused from the complainant.The testimonies of complainant and public witness PW4 are also fully corroborated from the testimony of PW10 with regard to the recovery of the tainted money from the accused.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 12 of 21When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction."LJ 1338 the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 13 of 21When a given complainant first visits a public servant for doing or not doing some task for him he does not go to him as a trap witness.He goes there in a natural way for a given task.To require a witness to take a witness with him at that stage would amount to attributing to the complainant a thought and foreknowledge of the fact that the accused would demand bribe."Another submission of the learned defence counsel was that the place of conversation between the accused and the complainant was not clear and there was discrepancy in this regard in the statements of the witnesses.He also submitted that if the money was kept in the right side pocket of the pant of the accused, how could he splash the same with his left hand.PW-4 stated that the accused did not meet them outside the compound, but inside the compound while he was talking to someone.On seeing him, the accused signaled him to stay and then came to him and wished him.He stated that when they were coming out of the Court compound towards the iron gate, the conversation took place between the complainant and the accused in his presence.In his cross- examination also, he maintained that he and the complainant were standing close to each other when the conversation took place between them.It may be proved by direct evidence as in the present case it has been proved from the direct evidence of testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for helping the complainant in the criminal case pending against him and other co-accused persons.In the case of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC p. 571, the Apex Court held as under:-The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification.In the present case, as is seen above, nothing could be brought out from the cross-examinations of Complainant (PW5), public witnesses (PW4) and IO, (PW10) to persuade this Court to doubt their reliability of untrustworthiness.On the other hand, the Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 19 of 21 accused has not led any evidence to rebut the presumption.If there was allegation that the complainant threatened Priya Jain and her parents and also attempted to win over them, the same could have been very conveniently proved by the accused.Thus, while maintaining the conviction as recorded by the learned Crl.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 20 of 21 Special Judge, the sentence under Section 7 of the Act is modified to six months and that under Section 13(2) to one year.The rest of the order shall remain unchanged.Both sentences shall run concurrently.The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off.The accused shall be taken into custody to undergo the imprisonment as awarded.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.Appeal No.240/2002 Page 20 of 21
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,156,452 |
And In the matter of: Satish Chandra Mahata... Appellant (In custody).In a sessions trial, total 10 persons were charged under sections 447/324/3304/34 IPC.While 10 co-accuseds were acquitted, only the present appellant was convicted under section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine with default clause.After admission of appeal, he has approached this court for suspension of sentence.The learned advocate for the appellant vehemently contends that the witnesses and their associates are the aggressors and while they were constructing a wall in their own land, they came in a body and attacked them and a free-fight was ensued and in that free-fighting both sides suffered injuries.Having heard the learned advocates of the parties and considered the impugned judgement and depositions of the witnesses.This is a case of term imprisonment and during trial, the appellant was all along on bail and never misused the liberty of bail.If the record is already there, the requisite number of paper books shall be prepared within four (4) months from this date or then four (4) months from the date of arrival of the records and immediately after the preparation of the paper books is complete and the appeal is made ready for hearing, the same shall be listed before the appropriate Bench for hearing.We make it clear that any of the observations made hereinabove must not be construed as to our opinion regarding the merit of the case.We make it clear that those observations were made only for the reason that the same were necessary for taking the decision as to the question of bail.The application of bail, being CRAN 737 of 2016 stands disposed of.Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the learned advocates for the parties on their usual undertakings.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,156,764 |
Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for the objector.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that reply has been filed on 06.04.2015 by the prosecution when a common application for suspension of sentence was filed by the appellants Bhura and others, therefore, no further reply is required.Heard on I.A.No.4152/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant No.5 Bhura.Appellant No.5- Bhura has been convicted as under:-304 Part II/149 IPC 10 Yrs.RI Rs.5000/- 6 months RI 148 IPC 1 Yr.RI Rs.1000/- 2 months RI 395 r/w 11/13 10 Yrs.RI Rs.2000/- 4 months RI of MPDVPK Act 324/149 IPC 1 Yr.RI Rs.500/- 1 month RI 323/149 IPC 6 months RI Rs.500/- 1 month RI.In the present case, according to Dr. A.L. Sharma (P.W.5) who examined the deceased and gave the MLC report (Exhibit P-4) and found a single injury on the head of the deceased.Dr. Rajnikant Sai (P.W.4) who proved the PM report (Exhibit P-3) found a single wound on the head of the deceased.It was mentioned 2 Cr.A.No.370/2014 that fracture was found over left temporo parioto region of scalp and brain meninges were also damaged.Two other wounds were also found but those were caused due to surgery done by the doctors.It is stated by the eye witness Deependra Singh Chauhan (P.W.1) and Ajay Rathore (P.W.2) that Lallu Singh has inflicted farsa blow on the head of the deceased.There is no allegation against the appellant Bhura that he assaulted the victim Yogendra Singh.It is alleged against the appellant Bhura that he assaulted the victim Deependra and Ajay, however, it is stated that for such an offence maximum sentence of one year has been recorded by the trial court which has already been served.It would be apparent that the quarrel took place as the cattle of the appellants were grazing the crop of the complainant.It was not a pre-planned incident and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant Bhura was a member of unlawful assembly.The eye witnesses Deependra Singh Chauhan (P.W.1) and Ajay Rathore (P.W.2) have stated omnibus allegations against all the appellants that they snatched the gun and robbed the motorcycle.However, one stick has been recovered from the appellant Bhoora.Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that he is liable for crime of offence under Section 395 of IPC or any offence under the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act. There are fair chances of success of appeal.If the appellant No.5- Bhura is not released on bail then the appeal filed by the appellant - Bhura may turn infructuous.Under these circumstances, 3 Cr.A.No.370/2014 appellant - Bhura prays for bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the application on the pretext that the complainant has filed cross appeal which has been admitted for final hearing so that the appellants may be convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC.Consequently, application I.A.No.4152/2016 is hereby allowed.If the appellant No.5 Bhura furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 31.08.2016 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal then the appellant No.5 shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of this appeal, subject to deposit of fine amount.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,157,297 |
The petitioners used to advise his client in the matters relating to property disputes, inheritance issues as well as assisting in matters relating to his client's aged and infirm mother, Shaktibala Karmakar.After the death of client's father there were various property disputes as the brothers and sisters of the of the client were attacking him with a view to getting control of the property in question.According to the petitioner, his client was all along looking after his aged and infirm mother since the death of his father together with his elder brother 2 Ashim, as she was abandoned by her other children.The client and his elder brother are not well off, and somehow they were looking after their mother.In the meanwhile the problem was created by the middle brother Ashish and the husband of the O.P.No. 2, being Palash who were demanding that the mother should sign off all the property in their names, after which they would look after her and contribute financially to her maintenance and welfare.So a lot of litigation has also been initiated by the parties.In this litigation the petitioner had been advising the said Biswajit Karmakar, his elder brother, Ashim Karmakar and their mother Shaktibala Karmakar.The petitioner has appeared on several occasions for these clients as well and has all along dealt with them professionally and in a transparent and clear manner respecting and upholding all the best rules standards and traditions of the legal professions.The petitioner had also advised his clients to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure that their mother was properly looked after and that the other brother Ashish and sister Rita contributed to her welfare and maintenance.Thereafter as a counterblast a false case was initiated by the O.P.No. 2 which was registered as Sonamukhi Police Station Case No. 86 of 2018 dated 01.08.2018 under Sections 341/323/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Ashim Karmakar and Laxmi Karmakar.The petitioner's client namely Biswajit along with his wife his mother and elder brother were invited by his brother Ashish and brother in law Palash to come over to Bishnupur to discuss matters in maintenance and property dispute.The petitioner's client became afraid on the assertion that be would be pressurized in some form and probably forced to sign some documents against his wishes or that they would all be subjected to some form of torture or coercion, 4 as had happened on several occasions before, therefore, he asked the petitioner in his capacity as his acquaintance and lawyer to accompany his family to Bishnupur in order to advise them on the spot and hoping that his presence would deter the other relatives from taking any extreme steps during this visit.Still the petitioner did not accept to go to Bishnupur but finally being influenced by his client that he would show him their village house and the ancient architectural tourist attractions of Bishnupur, he had gone along to be present during the meeting.The petitioner took his own vehicle and together they all left Kolkata about 9 P.M. on 18.08.2018 so as to spend the night at Bishnupur.On 19.08.2018 in the night at around 01.00 A.M. they had their evening meal and were going to sleep when suddenly the client's younger brother Ashish together with his wife Baishakhi younger sister, O.P.No.2 with her husband Palash came to the house of his client and started abusing their mother Shaktibala shouting about the case initiated by her for maintenance.Ashish assaulted their mother with a stick mercilessly, and Palash had taken a bucket and banged it on the back of her head.When she collapsed on the floor the sister Rita had tried to strangulate her.Hearing her hue and cries the petitioner's client Biswajit, his elder brother Ashim ran downstairs and intervened to save her life.The petitioner and his driver had also come downstairs and was aghast at seeing the situation.By that time the petitioner had reached downstairs, those attackers had left the house, as his client had warned them that his lawyer was present, and they would immediately take legal steps with the help of the lawyer as an 5 independent witness.Ironically those persons held out that they would see the lawyer as well as Biswajit and left the place.The client's mother was taken to the hospital.This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner, Somenath Bhattyacharjee @ Bhattacharjee who is a practicing advocate on regular basis at Alipore Judges Court as well as Calcutta High Court and is a member of Calcutta High Court Bar Association and the petitioner is the advisor to his client, Biswajit Karmakar who is a resident of Bishnupur, Bankura and lives and work at Calcutta.The said matter was duly filed before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, Bankura being Misc.Case No. 42/64 of 2018 filed on 11.07.2018 and the same was fixed on 30.08.2018 when none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and date was fixed on 31.10.2018 for appearance as a last chance.A complaint was registered being case no. 38C/2018 which was filed by Ashis Karmakar before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur which is still pending.Shaktibala Karmakar lodged an FIR on 22.07.2018 under Sections 341/323/325/448/427/379/507/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Asish Karmakar, Baisakhi Karmakar and Sukumar Karmakar and as no steps were taken therefore she lodged another complaint on 29.07.2018 before Sonamukhi Police Station.Finally after getting the proper medical attention, they immediately went to the Police Station but were receiving no cooperation.It was about 5 A.M. in the morning and the police officers were not at all interest in taking a complaint but at the insistence of the petitioner who disclosed his identity as an Advocate and his threat to go to the Court over this matter for police inaction, the officer on duty agreed got to get in touch with his superiors and ultimately the complaint was taken by the police at the intervention of the petitioner which was registered as Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 97 of 2018 dated 19.08.2018 at 05.05 hours under Sections 448/323/325/307/506/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the said Ashish Karmakar and his wife Baishakhi Karmakar and sister Rita Mondal @ Karmakar.The petitioner was shocked to find that he was arraigned as an accused along with his client Biswajit in a case being Bishnupur Police Station Case No. 98 of 2018 dated 19.08.2018 at 07.45 A.M. under Section Sections 448/323/354A/354/376/511/120B of the Indian Penal Code registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the O.P.No.2 as a counter blast.It is also evident that the Investigating Officer of the case completed the investigation within six days of the initiation of the case and submitted charge sheet before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 6 Bishnupur vide Charge Sheet No. 87 of 2018 dated 26.08.2018 under Sections 448/323/354A/354/376/ 511/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code.In this background the petitioner has been falsely entangled in the instant proceeding without any material basis whatsoever as it is crystal clear from the scrutiny of the FIR and Charge Sheet that the petitioner was not at all involved in any offences under Sections 448/323/354A/354/ 376/ 511/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Mukherjee submits that the petitioner as an advocate was conducting cases on behalf of his client, Shaktibala Karmakar and Biswajit Karmakar who had filed Title Suit No. 28 of 2018 through his junior in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Bishnupur for permanent injunction against the defendants including O.P.No. 2/ complainant, Smt. Rita Karmakar (Mondal) who happens to be the daughter of plaintiff no. 1 Shaktibala Karmakar and sister of plaintiff no. 2 Biswajit Karmakar of the said suit.It is submitted that there is a land dispute by and between the parties and it is peculiar to take note of the fact that the mother of the Opposite Party No. 2 had lodged a case being Sonamukhi P.S.Case No. 82/18 dated 22.07.2018 against the Ashim Karmakar & Ors.The present Opposite Party No. 2 Rita Karmakar (Mondal) lodged a case being Sonamukhi P.S.Case No. 86/18 dated 01.08.2018 against Asish Karmakar.On 19.08.2018 Biswajit Karmakar had lodged a case being Sonamukhi P.S.Case No. 97/18 against Asish Karmakar and ors.including Rita Karmakar (Mondal).Thereafter the said Rita Karmakar (Mondal), the opposite party no. 2 lodged a counter case being Sonamukhi Police Station Case No. 98 of 2018 dated 19.08.2018 against 7 her own brother, Biswajit Karmakar and his lawyer, Mr. Somenath Bhattyacharjee @ Bhattacharjee alleging attempt to commit rape and molestation on her by criminal trespass to her premises.There appears, personal ire between the parties.Rather she was asked to put her signature of the FIR.The opposite party no. 2 has also submitted an affidavit by contending that she is well aware of the circumstances leading to filing of this supplementary affidavit in connection with the instant criminal revisional application. 8The OP No. 2 voluntarily filed the supplementary affidavit to submit before this Court that she had filed this criminal case as because she was pressurized by the police only with an intention to harass the accused persons including the petitioner.She has no objection if the prosecution under reference being G.R.Case No. 500 of 2018 arising out of Sonamukhi Police Station Case No. 98 of 2018 dated 19.08.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 448/323/354(A)/354/376/511/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the Charge Sheet being No. 87 of 2018 dated 26.08.2018 submitted after investigation pending before the court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bishnupur, Bankura is quashed and set aside by this Court.(Shivakant Prasad, J.)
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,158,215 |
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousands Only) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti-J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,891,742 |
J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.10384/2006INCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1006/2006Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversing the order of acquittal passed by the trial Judge i.e. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur.Appellant was tried for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').The State preferred an appeal questioning the said order of acquittal.There was no appearance on behalf of the present appellant who was the respondent in the appeal before the High Court when the matter was taken up for final hearing.It is the stand of learned counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of the appeal the appellant filed an application for permission to change the counsel and sought permission to engage one Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Advocate to appear on his behalf in place of Mr. Anil Nima who was earlier appearing at the time of hearing.By order dated 31.1.2005 the application was allowed and the Court granted permission to Mr. Ashutosh Singh to appear on behalf of the appellant in place of earlier counsel.But in the cause list for the concerned day in respect of the appeal, the name of earlier counsel appeared.According to learned counsel for the appellant in view of the aforesaid position, the appellant was unrepresented.Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the factual position as stated by the appellant.Since the name of learned counsel who had been permitted to appear on behalf of the present appellant was not reflected in the cause list, obviously the appellant has been prejudiced.This is a case where the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant has been reversed by the impugned judgment of the High Court.In the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter for fresh consideration.To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the High Court on 13th April, 2007 so that appropriate orders can be passed by the concerned bench.The name of Mr. Ashutosh Singh who was permitted to appear on behalf of the present appellant by order dated 31.1.2005 shall be indicated in the cause list and not the name of learned counsel who was earlier appearing.We make it clear that by remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,174,252 |
S.B. SINHA, J :1. Leave granted.Before adverting to the said question, we may notice the admitted factof the matter.Both the complainant and the accused company have been dealing with one another by way of contractual agreement and a MOU dt. 05/08/05 was entered between them as alleged in the complaint.From the complaint and the documents placed on record, it appears that there is some dispute between the parties in respect of immovable property and the payments pertaining to the sale of the same.The complainant submits that the accused had cheated him.In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no requirement of collection of evidence by the police at this stage as the complainant can lead his evidence.In view of this, present application u/s 156(3) CrPC is dismissed.The complaint can be conveniently dealt with U/s 200 CrPC and subsequent provisions.If there is necessity however of police that shall be taken u/s 202 Cr.P.C."On the aforementioned premise, the complainant was asked to leadpre-summoning evidence.It was directed to furnish list of witnesses, if any.Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, respondent No. 1 filed arevision application before the High Court impleading the State only as aparty.By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court, having regard 4to the purported consent of the learned APP appearing for the State, on thevery first day of hearing, passed the following order:"On hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is agreed that the impugned order dated 7.2.2008 be set aside with direction to the learned MM to examine the matter afresh after calling for a report from the police authorities.The police authorities to hold a preliminary inquiry on basis of the complaint made by the petitioner/ complainant and submit a report to the learned Magistrate within three weeks from today.Petition stand disposed of."The High Court shall implead theappellant as a party in the criminal revision application, hear the matterafresh and pass an appropriate order.
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,917,756 |
Harinarayan. 'Barat' had gone to village Belot Chakk.At Belot Chakk, Sanman Singh (P.W. 4) informed Mohar Singh that prosecutrix is missing and Kalyan Singh is also missing.Thereafter compLalnant, Harinarayan, Khilan Singh and Lalaram went to search the prosecutrix and came back to village Kheronda.Even after report the family members were involved in searching the girl.Bhagwan Singh (P.W. 10) was coming back from village Ghatera on bullock cart after leaving his sister Guddibai.In the way Machla also joined him.When they both reached near village Rochhai they found the prosecutrix and Kalyan Singh both under a tree.Seeing them Kalyansingh tried to run away but he was caught on the spot.Prosecutrix was lying unconscious.Blood was oozing from her vagina.Her undergarments were stained with blood.Thereafter both were brought at village Shekhpur on a bullockcart and report was lodged.In the way one Chunnilal also accompanied them.The another report Ex. P/2 was lodged by Mohar Singh and matter was investigated.The prosecutrix was referred to medical examination at Govt. Hospital at Tyonda, thereafter to District Hospital Vidisha, where she was examined by lady doctor Manju Jain (P.W. 1) in presence of Dr. Kusum Garg (P.W. 2).On examination, it was found that she was aged 5 years.She was having 5 plus 5 milk teeth in the jaw.She was restless having temperature of 99 degree.She was unable to walk and stand.JUDGMENT Abhay Gohil, J.State has filed this appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence being aggrieved by the judgment dated 22-6-1990 passed by Ilnd Additional District Judge to the Sessions Judge Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 73/86, whereby the learned Judge convicted the respondent under Section 376, I.P.C. but sentenced him to undergone jail sentence, which was of five years and two months.As per prosecution story on 23rd April, 1985, the compLalnant Moharsingh had gone to the village Kheroda alongwith his daughter (prosecutrix) aged abouf5 years for marriage of Sirnam Singh s/o.The bladder was full up to umbilical cord.On external examination dried blood was found over both the thighs.Yellowish discharge over both labia majora present.After separating labia, mid line tear over skin up to external anal sphincter.Swab taken from the discharge out side the vulva and vagina and dried blood from thighs.Swab was sealed and handed over to constable.Underwear and frock having spot were also sealed and handed over to constable.Hymen was found torn up to 3 to 9 o' clock position.Tenderness ++.Vagina is covered with sluff.Upper portion of the hymen was red, conjested and inflamed and lacerated.In the opinion of the doctor, patient passed stool during the examination.In the opinion of the doctor rape was committed with the girl.She was referred to Dr. Kusum Garg, Gynaecologist for detailed examination and necessary action and information.Dr. Garg has also written her opinion.She also gave the same finding and it was found that she was subjected to rape.The sealed packets were referred for chemical examination.As per this report on the underwear, frock and slides blood was found and the human sperm were also found on the undergarment, of the prosecutrix and on the Dhoti (Pancha) of the accused.The accused was also examined by Dr. S.K. Khatri (P.W. 9) and he was found fully competent to intercourse.After the investigation charge sheet was filed and the respondent was tried.Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 376, I.P.C. and convicted him.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.Sufficient evidence is available for committing rape with minor and immature girl.At the time of the trial the age of the respondent was 26 years as has been mentioned in the charge sheet.In the medical examination report Ex. P/4 his age has been mentioned as 26 years.Dr. Manju Jain (P.W. 1) and Dr. Kusum Garg (P.W. 2) both have clearly opined that she was subjected to rape.Her Hymen was found ruptured and she was also having internal and external injuries in the vagina.There was tenderness and she was compLalning severe pain.Vagina was covered with sluff.Upper part of the hymen was red, conjested and inflamed and lacerated.Therefore sufficient evidence is available in the case for committing rape with a minor and immature girl in a brutal manner.
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,817,709 |
The prosecution case in brief is that on 22nd July, 1999 when the complainant Mojaffar Hossain Molla along with Nousad Ali Molla, Nurul Islam Molla and Noor Md. Molla were proceeding towards their village Durgapur from Dewantala, Durgapur More with their bicycle at about 7:50 hours the accused persons, who assembled at the side of the road, started hurling bombs towards them, as a result of which Nousad Ali Molla and his son Noor Md. Molla sustained some injuries and they fell down from the bicycle.The accused persons thereafter slit the throat of Nousad Ali Molla by sharp cutting weapon.The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 8 witnesses being PW1, Mujaffar Hossain Molla - complainant; PW2, Nurul Islam Molla - son of the victim, Nousad Ali Molla; PW3, Mohamudul Haque - resident of Village Nurpur; PW4, Abu Haraiya Mondal - bus conductor who was present at the cloth shop; PW5, Omed Ali Molla - resident of Durgapur; PW6, Dr. Tapas Kanti Roy - post mortem doctor; PW7, Ranjit Kumar Mondal - SI of Police who filled up formal FIR and PW8, Bipad Bhanjan Mondal - SI of Police and the Investigation Officer (IO).The defence did not examine any witness.The plea of the defence was one of false implication and they being framed because of grudge of the complainant.The Ld. Trial Court on appreciation of the material evidence relied upon by the prosecution which included the oral deposition of the 8 witnesses and the documents being written complaint (Ext.1), signature of complainant (Ext.1/1), signature of PW2 in the seizure list (Ext.2), signature of Noor in the seizure list (Ext.2/1), post mortem report (Ext.3), endorsement of SI in written complaint (Ext.3/1), formal FIR (Ext.4), inquest report (Ext.5), chalan (Ext.6) and sketch map (Ext.7), expressed his ambiguity regarding involvement of the accused persons in connection with the instant case.The Ld. Trial Court first took into account the contention of the defence which surfaced out during the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witnesses, according to the Ld. Court, PW3 for the first time in Court stated that Nurul Islam sustained injuries on his person.The Ld.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:The Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh C.R.R. 1187 of 2006 Mojaffar Hossain MollaThe State of West Bengal & Ors.The revisional application has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15th March, 2006 passed by the Ld.Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas in connection with ST Case No. 2(1)/2001, wherein the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused persons from the charges under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 9(b) of the Indian ExplosivesThe informant recognized the accused persons when the bombs exploded.It is alleged that Nurul Islam Molla also sustained injuries and on hearing hue and cry many persons assembled there and as a result the accused persons fled away.The aforesaid facts were reduced in the form of a written complaint and addressed to the Officer-in-Charge, Diamond Harbour Police Station, pursuant to which Diamond Harbor Police Station Case No. 211 dated 23rd July, 1999 was registered for investigation against the accused persons under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 9 of the Indian Explosives Act.On completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer (IO) of the case submitted chargesheet under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 9 of the Indian Explosives Act against the accused persons and the case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions.The Ld. Trial Court on consideration of the materials on record and after hearing submissions of the Ld.Further, the Court expressed its agony in respect of the investigation being not carried out with regard to the blood stained wearing apparels, blood stained earth, jute string along with non production of injury report of victim Nurul Islam, which according to the Ld. Court created dent in the prosecution case, as Nurul Islam happened to be an eye-witness of the incident and inspite of that the Investigating Officer did not endeavor to collect the injury reports nor did the IO examine any of the persons in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, as there were many shops and houses near the place of occurrence and according to the prosecution case about 100/150 persons gathered at the time of incident.The Ld.Court thereafter took into account that the previous enmity amongst the complainant and his relatives and the accused persons cannot be ruled out as there was a scope of politically rivalry, because of the complainant and the accused persons belonging to different political parties.The Ld. Court disbelieved the version of PW1 as deposed by him that identification of the accused persons were done in the light of the bombs while they exploded.The Court therefore proceeded to disbelieve the PW1 and PW2 who were the main prosecution witnesses and as such arrived at his findings of acquittal so far as the accused persons are concerned.I have perused the manner in which the Ld.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,892,426 |
He died receiving one gun shot injury.During investigation, the names of Rohit Sharma and Ajay Tyagi were surfaced and it was found that there was illicit relation between Rohit Sharma and applicant, hence Rohit Sharma with the help of Ajay Tyagi killed the deceased.One country made pistol with two live cartridges were recovered at the pointing out of Rohit Sharma and one country made pistol with two live cartridges and one empty cartridge were recovered at the pointing out of Ajay Tyagi and scooty used in the crime was also recovered at the pointing out of Ajay Tyagi.It was also found that deceased was killed by shot fire by co-accused Ajay Tyagi.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is a lady and languishing in jail since 28.2.2019 (about ten months) having no criminal history.The applicant is wife of the deceased.In one way she lost her husband and on other she is languishing in jail since 28.2.2019 having two children.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.Let the applicant Bina involved in Case Crime No. 051 of 2019, under Section 302, 102-B IPC, Police Station-Ganganagar, District- Meerut be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:Order Date :- 19.10.2019 OP
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,976,141 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity.First information report has been lodged with delay of about two days without giving any plausible explanation.As per the medical report her age was found to be 18-20 years.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant Raman Kumar involved in Case Crime No.312 of 2019, under Sections, 376 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Bhira, District Lakhimpur Kheri be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,038,657 |
On the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.178/2004 of Police Station Sadar Bazar, the appellant herein was summoned and sent up for trial in Sessions Case No.113/2005, which was held in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, he having been proceeded against on the charge for offence punishable under Sections 341/308/506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) allegedly committed in the course of the incident that had occurred at about 11.00 p.m. on 12.04.2004, in the area described as Barnawali Masjid, Kasabpura within the Crl.Appeal No.475/2006 Page 1 of 4 jurisdiction of the said Police Station, the first informant Mohd. Gulfam (PW-1) being the victim.On the basis of the evidence adduced, the trial court rendered its judgment on 24.05.2006 acquitting the appellant on charges under Sections 341/506 IPC, but holding him guilty and convicting him for offence punishable under Section 308 IPC.By order dated 26.05.2006, the trial Judge pronounced the punishment in the form of rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 308 IPC.Appeal No.475/2006 Page 1 of 4The acquittal of the appellant on the charge for offences under Sections 341/506 IPC was not challenged by the State by any appeal or petition for leave to appeal.The same, thus, has attained finality.The conviction and the order on sentence qua the offence under Section 308 IPC has been assailed by the appeal at hand which has remained pending all these years.The FIR of the case was initially registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 IPC.On the basis of the then assessment of the evidence, charge under Section 308 IPC, however, was also framed.In the considered opinion of this court, charge under Section 308 IPC cannot be held to be proved.Though the evidence would show that the appellant was wielding a cutting instrument (chhuri) at the time of assault on the person of victim, such weapon was never used.The only injury inflicted was by the blunt edge, it having been found as per the medico legal certificate (Ex. PW5/A) as proved by Dr. Pawan Rawal (PW-5) to be simple in nature.There is no evidence Crl.Appeal No.475/2006 Page 2 of 4 of any excessive force having been used and therefore, it cannot be said that the intention was to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.In these circumstances, the conviction for the offence under Section 308 IPC cannot be upheld.The guilt of the appellant only for the offences under Section 323 IPC has been brought home.The conclusion is modified accordingly.Appeal No.475/2006 Page 2 of 4On 19.02.2017, the appellant submitted Crl.Application No.4355/2017 submitting that the offence under Section 308 IPC has also been settled amicably by a compromise entered into with the victim Mohd. Gulfam (PW-1).The Compromise Deed/Settlement Deed dated 18.02.2017 was submitted with the said application.The victim Mohd. Gulfam, on being examined, has confirmed that he has amicably resolved the dispute with the appellant having settled the matter.The offence under Section 323 IPC may be compounded by the person to whom hurt is caused in terms of Section 320 Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case where both the parties were residents of the same area, they having agreed to bury the past and move ahead in life, the compromise deed submitted is accepted.The offence under Section 323 IPC for which the conviction has been modified stands compounded.In the result, the proceedings come to an end with the appellant having been acquitted on compounding of the offence.The appeal and the application filed therewith are disposed of in above terms.R.K.GAUBA, J.OCTOBER 01, 2018 vk Crl.Appeal No.475/2006 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,133,366 |
The petitioners sought relief of quashing the charges framed in Sessions Trial No. 337/2014 pending in the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in which the learned trial Court has framed charges under Sections 363/109 and in alternative Sections 366-a/109, 366/109 and Section 5(l)/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and in alternative Section 376(2)
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,922,823 |
The appellants in this appeal were accused Nos. 1 and 2, while accused Nos. 3 and 4 before the learned Sessions Judge were acquitted of the offences with which they had been charged.For the sake of convenience we will refer to the appellants as accused Nos. 1 and 2 and we will not refer to the evidence relating to accused Nos. 3 and 4 at all except where in the context of the discussion of evidence relating to accused Nos. 1 and 2 their names appear.The incident in which the said Gukul Trimbak Jadhav was killed took place at Sinnar town in Sinnar Taluka of Nasik district.At Sinnar there is said to celebrate a Holi on a smaller scale and this celebration takes place on the day earlier to the regular Holi day.The Holi was burning about 100 to 150 paces away from the house of the accused at about 9.30 p.m. on that day.The prosecution has alleged, and to some extent it has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, that there were two incidents on 6th March, 1982 and on 7th March, 1982 in which there was heated exchange of abuses between accused Nos. 3 and 4 on the one hand and Krishnabai and Satyabhamabai on the other.A similar incident involving exchange of abuses took place again on 8th March, 1982, that is, on that Kokat Holi day.The prosecution has alleged that when Vasudeo Pandurang, P.W. 1, was sitting in his house along with his mother and sister Krishnabai and Satyabhamabai respectively after the evening meals, they heard accused Nos. 3 and 4 abusing them.On hearing such abuses they came out and questioned accused Nos. 3 and 4 as to why they were abusing them.This only resulted in further exchange of abuses.At that time accused No. 1 suddenly came from his house with a knife in his hand and inflicted knife blows on the abdomen of Krishnabai who fell unconscious almost instantaneously.Her daughter Satyabhamabai was present near the place and when she went to intervene she was assaulted by accused No. 2 who caused her incised wound again on her abdomen.Vasudeo naturally came on the scene in order to prevent any further mischief being committed on his mother and sister and in that process he was also, according to the prosecution, beaten.But worse fate awaited one Gokul Trimbak who is the son of one Hausabai, a neighbor of the family of Vasudeo.Accused No. 2 inflicted severe knife injuries on the said Gokul.Thereafter accused Nos. 1 and 2 retreated from the scene.The incident was almost immediately reported by Vasudeo Pandurang to the Police Station of Sinnar.Investigations were taken up.The other two injured persons were taken to the hospital.Gokul, however, succumbed to his injuries before any effective treatment could be given to him.As an alternative charge accused No. 2 alone was charged with the offence of committing the murder of the said Gokul Trimbak Jadhav and thus committing an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.It may be stated here that the learned Sessions Judge has ultimately convicted accused No. 2 alone of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused No. 1 was further charged with the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused knife injuries to one Krishnabai Pandurang with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the act committed by accused No. 1 death had ensued, he would have been guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused No. 2 was further charged with a similar offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that he had caused knife injuries to one Satyabhamabai, wife of Jivaji at the same time and place.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged with the offence punishable under section 323 for having caused simple hurt to one Vasudeo Pandurang Chavan who is the main prosecution witness in this case, but both of them were acquitted of the said offence.In order to appreciate the substance of the charge leveled against accused Nos. 1 and 2, it would be profitable to briefly mention the prosecution case, though the same has been given in great details in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.It is not necessary to refer to the medical evidence in any great details because apart from the question as to whether the injuries suffered by Gokul would bring the offence to one under section 302 or section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, no other arguments have been advanced on the actual injuries caused to the various persons.The statements of Krishnabai and Satyabhamabai were, however, recorded somewhat later, namely, on 23rd March, 1982 and 2nd April, 1982 respectively.Some arguments have naturally been advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the accused before us on this belated recording of statements of Krishnabai and Satyabhamabai and naturally we will refer to the same in the course of the judgment.On these facts the accused were put up for trial.Krishnabai and Satyabhamabai, P.Ws. 2 and 10 respectively being injured persons were also examined.Two other eye-witnesses, namely, Hausabai Trimbak Jadhav, the unfortunate mother of Gokul, and one Nivrutti Maluji Jadhav, a neighbour, were examined as P.Ws. 11 and 15 respectively.Dr. Ashok Bachhav of Nasik Civil Hospital was also examined for proving the treatment which was given to Satyabhamabai and Krishnabai in the Civil Hospital at Nasik.Two Investigating Officers were also examined on behalf of the prosecution.The defence of the accused was one of total denial.Accused No. 1 in fact contended that he was not at all present at Sinnar on the date of the incident, while accused No. 2 said that he only came outside the house after he heard the commotion consequent upon the quarrel between his mother and the mother of Vasudeo.According to accused No. 2, he admonished Vasudeo Pandurang as to why he and his mother were giving abuses.It is only the knife held by Vasudeo that caused injuries to all the injured persons one of whom was the deceased Gokul.There is in evidence discovery of dagger pursuant to a statement made by accused No. 2 under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Since, however, the said evidence does not directly connect the accused with the incident in question, we are refraining from referring to the same.It has not been also referred by the Court below for holding accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty.The learned Sessions Judge was sufficiently impressed by the testimonies of the five witnesses two of them inured and three eye-witness.He was, therefore, not persuaded to hold that accused No. 1 could be held guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code because there could not have been a common intention between accused No. 1 and 2 for committing the murder of Gokul.Consistent with these findings the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused No. 1 of the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.Accused No. 2 was in the first place convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of Gokul and in the second place for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the injury caused to Satyabhamabai.For the first of the offences, he was naturally sentenced to imprisonment for life, while for the second of the offences, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.We do not see any reason as to why the learned Sessions Judge made a distinction between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 while awarding the sentence in respect of the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.The injuries caused by both accused Nos. 1 and 2 to Krishnabai and Satyabhamabai were equally serious, equally unprovoked and equally unjustified.In terms of ferocity and cruelty there was no distinction between the injuries caused by accused Nos. 1 and 2 to Krishnabai and Satyabhamabi.It however behoves the Sessions Judges to give reasons when they make such distinctions while awarding sentence to different accused for the same types of offences punishable under the same sections of the Indian Penal Code.In support of this appeal Mr. W.G. Dighe has appeared for both accused Nos. 1 and 2, while Mrs. Bhonsale has appeared for accused No. 1 alone.On this somewhat unusual appearance, we will say something towards the end of this judgment.Since however, both the Advocates had filed their appearances and both expressed their willingness to argue the appeal, we have heard both of them in support of this appeal.After the dinner himself, his mother Krishnabai and sister Satyabhamabai were chit-chatting in the house when they heard Parwatibai and Chandrakalabai on the Ota of their house giving abuses to his mother and sister.Naturally his mother and sister went out of the house and questioned them as to why they were abusing them without any provocation.It is at this stage that the parties seem to have gone to the middle of the road when Parwatibai is said to have caught the hair of Krishnabai.Vasudeo himself went to the Ota of his own house but did not deem it necessary to rush to the help of his mother because the dispute was between the ladies of the two households.Unfortunately for Krishnabai and others, accused No. 1 immediately came from his house on the road with a knife in his hand and gave with that knife two blows on the abdomen of his mother.The evidence of Vasudeo as well as the evidence of Krishnabai shows that after the receipt of these knife blows Krishnabai immediately collapsed on the ground.Accused No. 2 also again came from his house with a dagger (Khanjir) in his hand and gave 2 or 3 blows to his sister Satyabhamabai again on the abdominal portion.Satyabhamabai also naturally fell down.Trying to be a good Samaritan and a good neighbour, Gokul Trimbak came there to the rescue of the sister of Vasudeo, namely, Satyabhamabai but was unfortunate enough to receive knife blows at the hands of accused No. 2 who was already holding the dagger with which he had earlier stabbed Satyabhamabai.Gokul was drenched with blood and collapsed on the scene.All the accused ran away from the scene.Vasudeo thereafter has narrated as to how he went to the Sinner Police Station and lodged the complaint.In the cross-examination of this witness it has been brought out that he had not mentioned that Parwatibai had held his mother by the hair.He was asked as to why he did not intervene in the dispute between the ladies, probably with the idea that if he were present on the scene, he would have definitely intervened.The witness has given his explanation that he thought it expedient not to intervene in the dispute between the ladies, Considerable cross-examination was directed at his statement that accused No. 2 had used the word 'Khanji' in the testimony before the Court whereas in the first information report at Ex. 5 he had referred to the weapon in the hands of accused No. 2 as a knife (Chaku).Pressed to explain whether he could distinguish between dagger and knife, Vasudeo Pandurang admitted tat he understood the distinction between the two weapons.However, he insisted that while giving the first information report he referred to the weapon as knife.Since however, article No. 4 before the Court, which is obviously a dagger is not clearly relatable to the injuries caused by accused No. 2 either to Satyabhamabai or to Gokul, it is not necessary to dwell on this evidence at length.It is sufficient to note that the incident took place some time after 9 O'clock when all the parties had their meals.The incident took place suddenly inasmuch as accused No. 2 came out of his house after Krishnabai had already been injured and Vasudeo's attention was drawn on the injuries sustained by Krishnabai.That Gokul suffered injuries which ultimately resulted in his death and that Satyabhamabai received an injury which is clearly the result of some sharp instrument being used is clearly established on the medical evidence which is unimpeachable in this case.In the light of this evidence, we do not attach any importance to the apparent inconsistency between the descriptions given by P.W. 1 Vasudeo Pandurang about the weapon of offence used by accused No. 2 in the first information report and in his testimony before the Court.It is in evidence of P.W. 1 Vasudeo Pandurang himself that he was unable to intervene effectively partly for the reason that his movements are restricted.This restriction of the movements is due to the fact that his leg was fractured some time earlier.A question was asked on behalf of the defence to Vasudeo Pandurang whether he knows that accused No. 1 himself had also some fracture in an earlier incident.If the attempt of the defence was to prove that accused No. 1 could not have himself indulged in the acts in which he had indulged on that night and that he could not have run away from the scene of offence, in our opinion, that attempt has been made in a half-hearted manner.The witness has specifically stated that despite the rod, accused No. 1 could run away.It has not been suggested to this witness that the injury which had been sustained by accused No. 1 was such as to disable him from running away after he committed the offence.We have referred to practically every line of challenge adopted by the defence to the testimony of Vasudeo Pandurang.We have seen how the defence has totally failed to make any dent in the testimony of Vasudeo Pandurang.One cannot forget that Vasudeo Pandurang was a natural witness inasmuch as he was the son of Krishnabai and brother of Satyabhamabai who were injured in the incident; the incident itself took place in front of the house of P.W. 1 Vasudeo Pandurang; and Vasudeo Pandurang lodged the first information report within three hours after the incident took place, at the Sinnar Police Station.In the first information report all the part of the incident which ultimately led to the prosecution have been clearly delineated by Vasudeo Pandurang and the said information report is so wholly corroborative of the testimony of Vasudeo Pandurang that one is not free the temptation of sustaining the conviction on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of Vasudeo.Fortunately for the prosecution, however, there is available corroboration to the testimony of Vasudeo Pandurang in the testimonies of two injured witnesses, namely, Krishnabai and Satyabhamabai.Krishnabai examined as P.W. 2 has been honest enough to mention that she did not know as to how injuries to her daughter or to Gokul were caused.Satyabhamabai (P.W. 10) has seen the incident in all the three aspects.She has spoken about the injuries sustained by her mother Krishnabai.This is natural because it is only after Krishnabai was being handled that she came on the scene in order to save her mother.She was thus able to see accused No. 1 giving the knife blows on the abdominal portion of her mother.The injury sustained by Satyabhamabai at the hands of accused No. 2 has also been mentioned by her.There could not be any mistake about the identity of her assailant because the injuries have been sustained by her on the front portion of her body which necessarily meant that she was face to face with her assailant.She had the occasion to notice the injuries which were caused by accused No. 2 on Gokul who had appeared on the scene in the meantime.Thereafter Satyabhamabai had narrated about the treatment given to her and her mother in the hospital.We have with great diligence gone through the material which has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness and we must notice that the cross-examination has been as ineffective as it was in the case of P.W. 2 Krishnabai.Apart from suggesting that Vasudeo himself had a knife in his hand, no other worthwhile attempt was made in the cross-examination to challenge what has been mentioned by this witness in her examination-in-chief.We must at this stage, however, give some serious thought to the submissions made by Mr. Dighe on what he called the inexcusable delay in recording the statements of Satyabhamabai and Krishnabai.Satyabhamabai's statement was recorded on 23rd March, 1982, nearly 14 days after the incident, while the statement of Krishnabai was recorded on 2nd April, that is, nearly 28 days after the incident.Some comment is, therefore, justified and Mr. Dighe has not hesitated to make the same.However, the prosecution, in our opinion, has given adequate explanation as to why there was delay in the recording of the statements of these two witnesses.P.W. 18, P.S.I. Javare of Sinnar Police Station has in paragraph 9 to his deposition mentioned that he was visiting the Civil Hospital from time to time and he could not record the statements of these two witness because they were unable to speak.Thereafter he went to the hospital again on 23rd March, 19892 when Satyabhamabai could speak while Krishnabai was unable to speak.Therefore, he recorded the statement of Satyabhamabai.Surprisingly to the discomfiture of Mr. Dighe before us, no questions were asked either to this witness P.S.I. Javare or to the doctors who have treated the injured witnesses as to whether the witnesses were unable to give any statement relating to the incident.He has mentioned that on 2nd April, 1982 Satyabhamabai was able to speak and the doctor certified to that effect.He, therefore, recorded her statement on that day.There is no cross-examination of Head constable, Vidhate.We do not see how in the light of this evidence which is on record it is open for Mr. Dighe at the appellate stage to contend that the Appeal Court should reject the statements of these two witnesses on the ground that their statements have been recorded rather late.Satyabhamabai has not been examined as a Court witness; she was examined by the prosecution; despite this, the defence did not while she was in the witness-box, confront her with the statement which she is alleged to have made before the Police under section 161 of the Code.The correctness or otherwise of a statement made by a witness examined by the prosecution to the Police could only be tested by asking questions about the same to the said witness in the manner provided by proviso to section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Now, we turn to other witnesses, one of whom P.W. 11 Hausabai, is the mother of Gokul.At the time and on the day when the alleged incident took place, she and her another son called Shantaram were preparing the bed.Then she heard exchange of abuses between Parwatibai and Chandkalabai on the one hand and Satyabhamabai and Krishnabai on the other.Curiosity naturally overtook this witness and she came and stood in the door of her house to see what the quarrel was about.Parwatibai according to this witness, caught hold of Krishnabai and felled her down.It is at this stage that accused No. 1 suddenly came from inside his house and inflicted knife blows to Krishnabai on the abdominal portion.Her son Gokul who was always regarded as nephew by Krishnabai, also rushed to intervene and save Satyabhamabai.Accused No. 2 had already done mischief in so far as Satyabhamabai was concerned, but he did not hesitate to strike knife blows on the chest and neck portions of Gokul who thereafter shouted that he was dead and collapsed.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter ran way.Next but equal in importance is P.W. 15 Nivrutti Waluji Jadhav.He can be safely characterised as an independent witness.He is a neighbour in the same locality and he witnessed the incident exactly in the same manner in which it was witnessed by other persons examined on behalf of the prosecution.He has given details in almost the same terms in which Vasudeo and later Hausabai have deposed before the Court.Dr. Ujalmabkar examined as P.W. 13 has deposed to the injuries of all the three persons.Before we proceed to examine the injuries to Gokul let us take the liberty of examining his deposition in so far as the injuries to Krishnabai and Bhamabai are concerned.At about 10.45 p.m. on 8th March, 1982 he examined Krishnabai and found the following injuries :-(1) Irregular punctured incised wound 3" x 1/4" abdomen deep on right side of epigastrium, 3 inches above right side of the umbilicus.(2) Transverse punctured incised would 2" x 1/4" chest deep on the right side of the chest 4 inches below the right nipple 4 in inframatmmary line.(3) Punctured incised would 3" x 1/4" muscle deep on right mammary region, on 6th rib in mid-axillary line.According to the doctor, the injuries of Krishnabai were fresh when he examined and they were caused by a sharp pointed weapon.He also examined Bhamabai at abut 10-30 p.m. on the same day and found the following two injuries on her person :---(1) Two irregular shaped punctured incised wounds of 3" x 1" abdomen deep and 1 1/2" x 1/4" abdomen deep on the left side of the abdomen.Both were irregular shaped, punctured incised wounds 3 inches above the right anterior superior iliac spine.(2) Oblique punctured incised would 2" x 1/4" abdomen deep on left rental angle, 7 inches above and lateral to anterior superior iliac spine.These injuries were also fresh and were caused by sharp pointed substance.Dr. Bachhav, P.W. 14, attached at the relevant time to the Civil Hospital at Nasik examined both Krishnabai and Bhamabai some time after they had been examined by Dr. Ujalambkar.Dr. Bachhav has stated that on Krishnabai he found following injuries :---(1) Stab injury on right hypochondrium 1 1/2" x 1/2" muscle deep.(2) Stab injury 1" x 1/2" muscle deep on 6th intercostal space on the right side.(3) Stab injury on the right side of breast on the lower part.Similarly he found the following injuries on Bhamabai whom he examined at the same time :---(1) Stab injury on the abdomen left lumber region 1 1/2" x 1".(2) Stab injury on the abdomen 1" x 1/2 on the left side.(3) Stab would no the abdomen lateral region 1" x 1/2" x 2".Dr. Bachhav has, in unequivocal terms, stated that the condition of both Krishnabai and Bhamabai was serious and the injuries to both of them were on the vital parts of their bodies.In the absence of the treatment, the injuries of both would have endangered their lives.After reading the medical evidence in respect of the injuries to both Krishnabai and Satyabhamabai in the light of the cross-examination which is practically nil as far as these injuries are concerned, we are of the opinion that the offence punishable under section 301 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly established in so far as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.We now turn to the testimony of Dr. Ujalambakr in relation to the injuries of Gokul.Dr. Ujalambkar found the following external injuries on the body of Gokul :---(1) Oblique incised would 1 1/2" x 1" organ deep on right side of the chest 1/4' lateral to sternum and just below the lateral 1/3rd of clavicle.(2) Oblique incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" organ deep on right grain, 2 inches below and medial to anterior superior iliac spine in line of injuinal ligament.(3) Linear abrasion 2" x 1/10" on upper 1/3rd right side of the neck.(4) Abraded area 1/4" x 1/4" on posterior aspect of left elbow joint.(5) Old healing would 1 1/2" x 1/8" x 1/8" with cellulities of right ankle joint, on medial aspect.All these injuries were antemortem and in fact were fresh.Injuries Nos. 1 to 3 noticed by him were possible by a sharp weapon like article No. 4 before the Court.On an internal examination Dr. Ujalambkar found the following injuries :---(1) There was the fracture of first rib on the right side of stereo costal junction.(2) Rupture of appex of the right lung.(3) Irregular tears, 3 in number on upper lobe of right lung.(4) Tear of pericardium on the right side of heart.(5) Irregular tear of aorta.Tear of pulmonary (Rt) artery.(6) Injury No. 1 (external) i.e. oblique incised would which was organ deep is the corresponding external injury for causing the fracture of the first rib.The same oblique incised would is again responsible for causing all the above internal injuries such as rupture and irregular tears of lung and the heart.Dr. Ujalambkar has stated that the death of Gokul was due to haemorrhage and shock which themselves were due to injuries on the body and the injuries on the internal organs.He has mentioned that external injuries Nos. 1 and 2 together with the internal injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Gokul.In the cross-examination surprisingly not a single question has been put to Dr. Ujalambkar relating to the injuries suffered by Gokul and the cause of death as certified by the doctor in his examination.In this appeal originally Mr. Dighe had filed his appearance for both the appellants.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,387,022 |
The Private Complaint filed by the RDO, Periyakulam has been put to challenge before this Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.http://www.judis.nic.in 2The short facts of the case is that one Chandrasekar was called to the Police Station on 20.11.2010 to enquire on the suspicion that he is involved in a case of theft of gold jewellery.The deceased Chandrasekar was found dead near a Temple at Madurai Road, and the same was entered in the accident register as brought dead.Immediately thereafter an FIR was registered on 21.11.2010 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C and the RDO conducted an inquiry.In the meantime, the Post mortem was also conducted and certain injuries were found in the body of the deceased.The investigation was taken up by the DSP, Periyakulam and after a detailed investigation, a Closure Report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam and RCS Notice was also served upon the wife of the deceased.In the meantime, the RDO who conducted the inquiry has chosen to file a Private Complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.This complaint has now been put to challenge before this Court.The learned Senior Counsel in order to substantiate his submissions relied upon the following judgments:Tej Kishan Sadhy .Vs.2. R.Kasthuri .Vs." 1..............................................................But, the accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as five witnesses were examined and ten documents were exhibited.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,584,431 |
Izhar and Mohd.Aslam are not to be believed.As regards the knife he highlights that the FSL report Ex.PW-12/J and Ex.CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 1 of 10The post mortem report Ex.PW-11/A records two stab wounds inflicted on Ram Babu : (i) a stab wound of length 2 cm into bone deep gaping 1 cm, oval shaped, margin clean cut, transversely present over left arm, outer aspect in upper 1/3rd , 7 cm below left shoulder tip, 31 cm above the left elbow joint in the mid line of the left arm; and (ii) stab wound of length 2.5 cm gaping 1 cm oval shape with acute margin and clean cut vertically present over the left side of abdomen 11 cm right to the mid line 8 cm above the left anterior superior iliac spine, 25 cm below the left nipple.A loop of omentum 3.8 cm X 2 cm is coming out through the bone.One multiple abrasion over front of left elbow joint and back of left elbow joint, and two abrasions over back of right elbow joint and over outer aspect of right thigh in upper 1/3rd are also noted.Internal examination revealed that blood was present in the peritoneal cavity.The cause of death is obviously haemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding.Injury No.2 was opined as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Ram Babu was found lying dead in the morning of April 16, 2011 by somebody who conveyed the information to the duty officer at P.S.Darya Ganj.DD No.14A, Ex.SI Dharmender Kumar PW-10 went to the spot accompanied by HC Ishwar Singh PW-7 and Ct.On reaching the place they saw a CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 2 of 10 dead body and summoned a crime team.SI Dharmender Kumar left HC Ishwar Singh at the spot and with the help of Ct.Ram Babu relied, holding his stomach, that he would be all right.Suresh @ Muchhad ran away and he returned to the shop.Next morning he saw Ram Babu lying unconscious with blood around.He saw him bleed.CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 10 of 101. Suresh @ Muchhad has been held guilty for having murdered Ram Babu in the late evening of April 15, 2011 at a Tikona park (Triangular Park) adjoining Sulabh Shochalaya near gate No.3 of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital.The learned Trial Judge has believed Mohd. Izhar PW-1 and Mohd.Alam PW-3 as truthful eye witnesses.The knife Ex.P-1 opined by Dr.Kulbhushan PW-11 who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Ram Babu as the one from which injuries could be caused to the deceased, which knife was recovered from the personal search of Suresh when he was arrested is the second incriminating evidence against him.He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.PW-12/K records that when subjected to serological analysis blood could not be detected on the knife and therefrom he urges that there would be no incriminating evidence against him.Sanjay Singh removed the dead body to JPN Hospital and after insuring that the body was kept at the mortuary he returned to the spot and when he was in the process of lifting earth control by breaking the tiles of the pavement with a hammer and a chisel Mohd.Izhar came to the spot and disclosed himself to be an eye witness of the incident.SI Dharmender Kumar recorded statement Ex.PW- 1/A of Mohd.Izhar and made an endorsement Ex.PW-10/B beneath the same and got the FIR registered.He thereafter completed the spot proceedings.CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 2 of 10At about 7.30 P.M. Insp.Dharmesh Kumar was informed that Suresh @ Muchhad, the person named by Mohd.Izhar as the assailant was sitting at Asaf Ali Park.He proceeded to the park and arrested Suresh and recovered the knife Ex.P-1 during the personal search of Suresh.Subsequently Mohd.Alam PW-3 also presented himself before Insp.Dharmesh Kumar and claimed to be an eye witness and thus his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.Deposing in Court as PW-1 Mohd.Izhar stated that he was running a shop at gate No.3 of JPN Hospital and that he used to sleep on the pavement at Sulabh Shochalaya.On April 15, 2011 at 6.30 P.M. he went to the Sulabh Shochalaya and met Mohd.The two saw three or four persons one of whom was Ram Babu, a rickshaw puller, known to him for the last six or seven years, taking smack in the Tikona Park.Suresh @ Muchhad came to the park and asked Ram Babu to share smacks with him at which Ram Babu replied that he would not give even water to him, what to think of smack.Annoyed at the response Suresh who was a notorious criminal and had gone to jail several times, took out a knife and stabbed CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 3 of 10 Suresh on the shoulder and left side of the stomach.Everybody ran away.He asked Ram Babu if there was a need to take him to the hospital.The police came.Same day somebody informed the police that Suresh was near Asaf Ali Park.He accompanied the police and pointed out Suresh who was arrested and on his personal search knife Ex.P-1 was recovered.CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 3 of 10Izhar was cross-examined and nothing was brought out to discredit him.Alam PW-3 has deposed in sync with Mohd.Izhar and nothing has been brought out during cross-examination to discredit him.Instinctively, one would take the victim to the hospital.Counsel further highlighted that it was strange that Ram Babu, in spite of being so grievously injured, responded to Mohd.Izhar saying that he would be all CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 4 of 10 right.Counsel urged that the nature of the injuries on Ram Babu would have made him shriek and cry in pain and any person around would have responded to the summons for rescue i.e. the shrieks and would have taken Ram Babu to the casualty of LNJP Hospital.CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 4 of 10The arguments appear attractive, but overlook the fact that it is an admitted fact that Ram Babu was stabbed in a public place adjoining gate No.3 of LNJP Hospital.Thousands of relatives and well wishers of hundreds of patients move in and out of the gate, day in and day out.Yet, nobody responded to the cries and shrieks of Ram Babu, who was grievously injured! But that would presume that Ram Babu shrieked and yelled.The two eye witnesses have said that Ram Babu was taking smack.It tells us that the man was heavily doped.He was highly intoxicated.There is no other rational explanation for his conduct.This explains nobody hearing shrieks and thus not responding to try and give any aid to Ram Babu.But what about the conduct of Mohd.CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 7 of 10Nothing demoralizes a human more than : I may do my best but yet I will achieve nothing.Drunkenness and drugs become the panacea.The reactions are un-concerning and may appear abnormal to the others.But are explainable as normal for the slum and the pavement dweller.In his statement Ex.Izhar correctly described the two injuries which were inflicted on Ram Babu.This lends credence to Mohd.The two fatal blows were struck with full force.The direction of the two injuries shows that full blooded blows with the arm extended vertically up, with the knife in the wrist, and then with full force brought down with the knife directed towards Ram Babu.One wound caused the injury over the left arm and the length of the incised wound gives us an indication of the force with which the blow was struck.The second stab wound on the left side of abdomen which proved to be fatal also evidences the ferocity of the blow.Izhar said that he was running a shop he was obviously giving credence to his avocation, for it is apparent that he was selling petty retail goods from the pavement.He did not have a shop as is conventionally understood.For if he had one he would not be sleeping on the pavement, a fact stated by him on oath.CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 9 of 10We dismiss the appeal and affirm the sentence to undergo imprisonment of life inflicted upon Suresh.The appeal and application are dismissed.Two copies of the present order be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar.One for his record and the other to be given to Suresh @ Muchhad.TCR be returned.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 14, 2014 skb CRL.A. 1326/2012 Page 10 of 10
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,595,637 |
2017 dated 17.4.2017 under Sections 341/448/509/506/323/325/354B of the Indian Penal Code.Petitioner has been notified by the investigating agency to meet the investigating officer of the said case.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,895,960 |
The appellants and Harchand (P.W. 1) are residents of village Bhunnasa near Harda.Deceased Ramchand was Sarpanch of that village.On 5-9-1984 Ramchand had come to Harda to attend some Court work.After that he was going to Janpad office along with Harchand.At a short distance from the Janpad office the deceased requested Harchand to follow on foot, himself got on his bicycle and proceeded towards the Janpad office.No sooner he reached in front of Janpad office building he was assaulted by the appellants with sharp edged weapons.The appellants then made good their escape towards their village.Harchand, who had witnessed the assault from a short distance, came near the fallen victim and found him dead.This daring murder had taken place in broad-day-light at 1300 Hrs. in a busy locality with shops nearabout.Harchand lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P-8) in Harda Police Station within twenty minutes at 1320 Hrs. Crime was registered.Station House Officer Shri P. N. Gupta (P.W. 8) reached the spot and held inquest vide Ex.He deputed police force to go in search of the miscreants.The dead body was sent for post mortem examination.Dr. R. K. Garg (P.W. 7) vide autopsy report Ex.P-27 found twentyone injuries on the body, eleven of which were caused by sharp edged weapon on vital parts which had involved both the lungs, the heart, the stomach, the intestines, the kidney and the liver.The head injury had resulted in fracture in the right parietal region where fragmented bones had caused subdural and extradural haematoma as shown in diagram in Ex.The cause of death; as per the Doctor, was syncope resulting from shock as a result of massive hemorrhage.The lime of death was approximately within six hours from post mortem examination which had taken place at 1630 Hrs. The injuries were held by the Doctor sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The Doctor had found one blade of knife imbedded in one of the injuries.He removed the same and also removed the clothes found on the body and sent them in a sealed packet to the police along with his autopsy report.One Shirt and one.Pant (Articles F-'l arid F-2) were seized from appellant Balram vide Ex.One Bush-shirt and one Pant (Articles D-l and D-2) were seized from appellant Ram Kishore vide Ex.One Shirt and one Pajama (Articles G-l and G-2) were seized vide Ex.P-10 from appellant Gulab Singh, one Pant and one Shirt (Articles C-l arid C-2) were seized from appellant Ramnarayan vide Ex.The clothes and knife blade removed from the dead body by the Doctor were produced in a sealed cover by Constable Jugal Kishore before the Investigating Officer, who seized the packet vide memorandum Ex.JUDGMENT P.N.S. Chouhan, J.In this appeal the appellants challenge their conviction under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of two years Rigorous Imprisonment on the charge of riot and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000.00 each, in default Rigorous Imprisonment for six months on the charge of murder with direction for concurrent running of sentences recorded vide judgment dated 10-1-1987 passed in Sessions Trial No. 20/1986 of Hoshangabad Sessions Division.Confessional memorandum of appellant Shyam being 'B' marked portion of Ex.P-17 was recorded at 1730 Hrs. on 5-9-1984 by the Investigating Officer which led to the recovery of an iron rod and seized vide Ex.Similar memorandum of appellant Balram being portion marked B and C of Ex.P-18 was recorded at 0905 Hrs. on 6-9-1984 which led to the recovery of one Katar (Article-D) and seized vide Ex.Similar memorandum of appellant Gulab Singh being portion marked B and C of Ex.P-20 was recorded at 0845 Hrs. on 6-9-1984 which led to the recovery of a brass handle of a knife cane blade (Article-A), seized vide Ex.Similar memorandum of appellant Ramnarayan being 'B' marked portion of Ex.P-21 was recorded at 0830 Hrs. on 6-9-1984 which led to the recovery of a knife (Article-C), seized vide Ex.All these articles were after seizure duly sealed and - along with some other material evidence, collected during investigation, sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar.The Chemical Examiner, vide his report Ex.P-31, confirmed presence of blood stains on all the above clothings and weapons seized from the appellants.He also confirmed presence of blood stains on the stained earth sample collected from the spot and the clothes found on the dead body.All these articles were after examination sent by the Chemical Examiner to Serologist, Govt. of India, Calcutta, whose report is Exs.P-33 and 34 which shows that the Pant seized from the appellant Ram Kishore and the Shirt and Pant seized from appellant Balram, the iron rod recovered at the instance of appellant Shyam and the clothes removed from the dead body were stained with human blood.The origin of blood on remaining articles could not be determined either due to disintegration or its insufficiency for test.Two of the accused, namely, Rambharose and Narayan were shown absconding in the charge-sheet.It appears out of them Rambharose subsequently became available for trial and was acquitted.Narayan is still absconding.The case then went to trial.The defence consisted of total denial of all allegations.Majju Singh (P.W. 5) in whose presence the confessional memorandums were recorded and resultant seizures were made, was declared hostile.The learned trial Judge found the eye witness account of Harchand (P.W. 1) reliable and convicted and sentenced the appellants on its basis.Thereafter an application was made under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to recall the said witness for further cross-examination in the light of an inland letter produced by the defence to show that the said letter was written by the said witness wherein he admitted ignorance about this murder.On 31-3-1986, the learned trial Judge after hearing passed the following order rejecting this application :It was vehemently argued that the rejection of defence application for recalling the said Harchand (P.W. 1) for further cross-examination in the light of Ex.D-10 was patently erroneous.The next submission was that Harchand did not disclose in the F.I.R. that appellant Shyam was armed with a rod and first struck with it on the head of the deceased.After going through the evidence of Harchand, we conclude that the above inconsistency between his evidence in the Court and the F.I.R. is due to the fact that when he gave his statement in the Court he was not under shock and could better recollect the details of the assault.Had he been a got up witness, as has been suggested, he could well have said that it was appellant Shyam who opened the assault with his rod, but he has not named the person who dealt the rod blow.We agree with the learned trial Judge that inability on the part of Harchand (P.W.1) to state specifically the particular weapon used by each assailant is indicative of his being an honest witness otherwise had he been an interested or tutored witness, he would not have hesitated in giving all these details.It was argued that Harchand had informed R. P. Patware (P.W. 4), who prepared the spot sketch of the scene of occurrence, that Radheshyam, cousin of the deceased, was present at the spot, shown at No. 3 in Ex.P-16, at a short distance from the scene of occurrence.During his evidence Harchand has denied the presence of Radheshyam on or near the scene of occurrence.He has denied the fact that he informed the Patwari of the presence of Radheshyam near the scene of occurrence.From all this, it ought to have been inferred that Harchand is a liar who had tried during the investigation to show that Radheshyam was also one of the eye witnesses.A person who tries to falsely project some one as eye witness who was not present at or near the scene of occurrence must be held to be unreliable.It is a fact that Radheshyam was cited as a witness but was given up.There is no reason to doubt the evidence of the Patwari that he had prepared the spot sketch on the basis of information received from Harchand.His evidence shows that presence of Radheshyam at point No. 3 is indicated in the spot sketch.The evidence of Harchand that Radheshyam was no where near the scene of occurrence may be due to loss or confusion of memory.In fact, these injuries were found by the Doctor to whom the said appellants were sent for examination immediately after their arrest.The medical report in this behalf was available with the prosecution.Still the same was not proved and the defence had to prove some of them.Thus the prosecution conduct in this behalf was unfair.Thus evidence only proves the fact that these persons were on arrest found to have certain bodily injuries and were sent for medical examination.Doctor M. M. Nanda, who examined the appellants, was not examined.It was not explained as to why the said Doctor was not called in evidence by the defence particularly when three Doctors were examined as defence witnesses to prove part of this material.The Investigating Officer has clarified in para-24 of his statement that when the appellants were produced before him by his men he was informed that the appellants had tried to run away and in that process had sustained the injuries as a result of fall.That is why they were referred for medical examination.Therefore, it is not correct to say that the prosecution acted unfairly in not getting the medical reports of these appellants proved.Because in view of the aforesaid explanation of the circumstances in which they sustained injuries it was not necessary for the prosecution to have proved the said medical reports.It is significant that none of the appellant has in his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code alleged that he sustained injuries in the course of the same transaction in which Ramchand was done to death.Since they denied the evidence of the Investigating Officer that such injuries were caused as a result of fall when the appellants tried to evade arrest, it was necessary for them to have disclosed the circumstances in which they had sustained injuries because this fact was in their personal knowledge and they alone could have thrown light on it when they denied the truth of the explanation tendered by the Investigating Officer in this behalf.Before admission his left hand was X-rayed the skiagram being Ex.He had sustained fracture of 4th metacarpal bone and multiple radio opaque shadows of metallic density were seen in the skiagram indicating presence of foreign bodies like pellets discharged from a fire-arm.From the evidence of Investigating Officer, it is clear that after arrest Balaram was remanded to judicial custody and, therefore, he must have been produced before the Magistrate, but he did not make any complaint in this behalf.In such circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the injuries sustained by the appellants were caused in the course of the transaction which claimed the life of Ramchand.We are, therefore of view that the defence evidence on this aspect of the case in no way renders the testimony of Harchand (PE-1) doubtful.Lastly it was argued that Harchand in his evidence implicated the acquitted accused Rambharose equally with the appellants, but the trial Court found that his evidence was insufficient to convict Rambharose.Therefore, the same evidence could not have been reliable and sufficient for conviction of the present appellants.In Para-22 of the judgment, the learned Judge has discussed this aspect of the case.Rambharose was acquitted because his name does not find mention in the F.I.R. and also in the case-diary statement of Harchand.There was no other incriminating evidence against him save the evidence of Harchand and, therefore, he was acquitted on benefit of doubt.As already observed above there are corroborative circumstances available in relation to the appellants to lend support to the evidence of Harchand on the point of appellants involvement in the crime and, therefore, their conviction was proper.In result, we find that appellant's impugned conviction and sentences call for no interference.This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,895,971 |
Gambling on an extensive scale more or less in an open manner seems to have been carried on in the open spaces near the Radio Park and My Lady's Garden in People's Park, Madras, in spite of the fact that there is a police station in close vicinity.It is also in evidence that some military personnel had not only been taking part in the gambling .but were supplying cards on hire or for price.People who come join one group or the other according to their capacity- On the day of occurrence, 7th November, 1945, in the morning, gambling as usual was in progress.The first accused, third accused and Natarajan were playing in one group at about 11 a.m. Nammalwar, the deceased, was also playing in that group, and it would appear that except Nammalwar all the rest were losing and the first accused among them was losing particularly heavily, while the whole time the deceased was winning.The first accused having lost his money asked the deceased for money.The request was refused by Nammalwar who continued to play.Thereupon the first accused and Natarajan rose and went a short distance to the place where two boys were sitting and from those boys, they brought two knives.The deceased observed them coming with knives and hastily collected all his money and ran away.A little while afterwards the first accused and Natarajan went away from the place, but the third accused continued the gambling.This marked the first episode.The deceased .appears to have gone home and had a hurried meal.He returned soon afterwards to the same place at about 1-30 p.m. and joined the group in which the third accused was playing.Four persons, namely, the first accused, the second accused, one Charlie and Karuvatu Krishnan turned up at about 2 p.m. Among them the lirst accused and Charlie were armed with knives.In the crowd there was Perumal (P.W4) and Nondi Kuppan alias Kuppuswami (P.W 5).They had evidently come for gambling and had lost and were watching.Seeing the four persons coming P.Ws. 4 and 5 warned the-deceased saying that his enemies were coming, but curiously the deceased paid no heed whatever to the warning in spite of his experience in the forenoon, but continued playing.P.Ws. 4 and 5 however could not bear the sight of these four persons coming in the direction of the group in that manner, and they left the scene.They saw nothing more.The four assailants approached the deceased and among them, Charlie alone stayed behind the deceased and stabbed him with the knife (called patta knife) on the back.This blow caused the injury which is described as the first wound in the post mortem certificate.It is, penetrating stab wound with clean cut edges on the left side of the back measuring 7/8 inch by 1/4 inch and had cut the muscles and gone through the gap between the left 6th, and 7th ribs slicing the upper margin of 7th rib and then penetrated through the left lung completely through the pericardium and ended on the left ventricle of the heart.According to the opinion of the doctor who held the autopsy this was definitely the fatal injury.At the time when Charlie attacked the deceased, none of the other assailants appear to have done anything." The deceased after receiving this blow had sufficient presence of mind and strength to collect all his monies and things and to get up and walk a few paces and he was allowed to do so.After he had walked a few paces it is said that the first accused inflicted a cut on him with the knife on the face.The deceased moved forward unmolested about 100 to 150 paces and reached a tree which is marked in the plan.There, according to the prosecution, the third accused, who had been playing the whole time and who had to leave the place because the whole crowd dispersed after this disturbance, went and caught hold of the deceased from behind and as he did that, the first accused and Charlie cut the deceased with knives on the face and on other parts of the body and the second accused and Karuvatu Krishnan fisted him.The deceased fell down, and the assailants ran in different directions.The third accused ran in the direction of the Moore Market while the four others ran in the direction of the wicket gate leading up Sydenham's Road.At that juncture Sanjimuthu who was coming in the opposite direction found the third accused running and caught him, and just at the moment, an employee in the P.W.D. office who was also passing along the road helped Sanjimuthu in apprehending the third accused.Sanjimuthu was in a position before he chased and caught the third accused to see the last phase of the attack 5 namely, the deceased being caught by the third accused and his being beaten and cut by others.After the third accused was caught, Sanjimuthu went to the place where the deceased was lying and tried to administer some tea to him which was brought from a tea-vendor, but since the fluid did not go down the throat of the deceased he sent the deceased in a rickshaw to the hospital along with Manavalan and Thanapal who were there and to whose presence we shall advert presently.They Took the deceased to the hospital but there he was pronounced to be dead and the body was taken to the police station.JUDGMENT Yahya Ali, J.The three respondents were tried in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1946 of the First Criminal Sessions of this Court and six charges were framed against them.The first charge was one of murder against all the accused read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.The second charge was under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, against the first accused.The third and fourth charges were under Section 326 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, against the second and third accused.The fifth charge related to the simple hurt committed by the second accused, and the sixth charge was under Section 323 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, against the third accused.The jury by a majority of 7 to 2 found the first and second accused not guilty in respect of all the charges against- them, and by a verdict which was unanimous found the third accused not guilty and of any of the charges.The learned Judge who presided had directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty so far as the third accused was concerned in relation to the first charge.The learned Judge " accepted " (presumably agreed .with) the verdict of the jury in- respect of the charges, and he acquitted the three accused of all the charges against them and directed them to be set at liberty.In the meantime Sanjimuthu and Kannan had taken the third accused to the police station and had mentioned to the police officer there all that they knew.Before the complaint Ex. P-2 was recorded, Manavalan and Thanapal also arrived with the body of the deceased.The complaint which was given by Sanjimuthu was attested by Kannan and Thanapal, and although Manavalan was present, his signature was not taken because he was illiterate This is, in brief, the prosecution case.The main story from the commencement until the production of the third accused at the police station is spoken to by Manavalan.It receives support in certain portions from other witnesses.P.Ws. 4 and 5 speak to that part of the incident which related to the coming of the four persons, namely, the first and second accused, Charlie and Karuvatu Krishnan to the scene, the warning given to the deceased, and Perumal and Nondi kuppan (P.Ws. 4 and 5) leaving the scene immediately.Thanapal and Sanjimuthu corroborate that portion of the storv which relates to what happened near the tree where the third accused went and caught hold of the deceased and the deceased was cut and beaten by the other assailants.They also speak to the running of the assailants, the apprehension of the third accused, and the other events that followed ; Kannan speaks virtuallv to the very last phase of the incident.He only knew about Sanjimuthu catchier hold of the third accused while he was running away, and he helped him in doing so.He saw the other four assailants running away.He also speaks to what transpired letter.The main criticism with regard to the evidence so far as Manavalan is concerned is that it is exceedingly improbable.It is said that he is a gambler and that his version that he was there from 11 o'clock in the morning till 8 in the evening is to a degree incredible.Reference is made to the circumstance that although he is said to have been present at the time of the making of the complaint his name does not appear even as an attestor in the complaint.If his evidence stood by itself wholly uncorroborated by any other testimony or circumstance there might have been some force in this contention.It was apparently a notorious place of gambling and certain sets of persons used to frequent it during their leisure hours whenever they had little spare money, partly in the hope of winning more money and partly in view of their interest in the game.It is therefore difficult to reject the evidence of Manavalan on the ground that he is a gambler or that he happene to stay so long.He was at the scene only from 11 a.m. until the actual incident was over before 3 p.m. Afterwards he was asked by Sanjimuthu to take the deceased in a rickshaw to the hospital.He brought back the body and he was required at the police station Until the proceedings there were over and he then went home.Nothing has been shown by way of animosity against any of the other witnesses namely, Perumal, Nondi Kuppan, Thanapal, Sanjimuthu and Kannan.They (sic)The first respondent is said to have been armed with a knife and caused the injuries on the face of Nammalwar both when he was on his way to the tree and at the tree after he was held up by the third accused.The injury on the face is , mentioned as the second wound in the post mortem certificate, and is described as " four cut wounds with clean cut edges on the left side of face and head measuring 7 inches by 1 inch, 3-3/8 inches by 3/4 inch, o,\ inches by 3/8 inch and 3^ inch by \ inch and making cuts on the left molar bone and left side of frontal bone.Further it is not possible on the evidence to attribute all these injuries to the first accused alone, because the evidence consistently of the witnesses who speak to the incident is that both Charlie and the first accused cut the deceased on his face with knives.It is not possible therefore to attribute all the four, injuries on the face to the first accused.The other injuries in the post mortem certificate are relatively minor.The doctor who was examined in the case, P.W. 18, stated that the other injuries, besides the first one, were not necessarily fatal, and with regard to the second injury he said that it could be said to be grievous.He also stated that if the first injury was not there and the rest were present there were chances of his living.With regard to the second charge under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, it is clear from the foregoing discussion that no grievous hurt within the meaning of Section 322, Indian Penal Code, was caused by reason of the cuts that he is said to have inflicted with the knife.There was no fracture and there was no endangering of life.Life had been endangered and death had resulted wholly on account of the first injury inflicted by Charlie.In these circumstances the first accused can be held to be guilty only of an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, of causing simple hurt with a deadly weapon.The second accused has been charged under the first, third and fifth charge8 under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, under Section 326 read with Section 1145 Indian Penal Code and under Section 323, -Indian Penal Code.For the reasons we have mentioned with reference to the first accused, the second accused cannot also be held to be guilty under Section 302 or under Section 326 read with Section 114 Indian Penal Code.The only act attributed to him is that he fisted the deceased when he was held up by the third accused.He can be held guilty under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, under the fifth charge and he must be acquitted of the other charges.The case of the third accused hinges upon the sole circumstances that he held the deceased near the tree "when he was trying to get away and when he moved about 150 paces from the place where he was first attacked by Charlie, and this afforded the opportunity to the first accused and the second accused to again come and attack the deceased.He is charged for murder under the first charge, under Sections 326 and 114, Indian Penal Code, on the fourth charge and under Section 323 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code, on the sixth charge.As we have indicated before the learned Sessions Judge directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty against A-3 on the first charge, he did not grant leave to appeal against his acquittal under Section 302 -read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.For reasons already.given the third accused cannot be held guilty under Section 326 read with Section 114,-Indian Penal Code.The only question that remains is whether he is guilty on the sixth charge of abetting the causing of simple hurt by the act of holding the deceased.There are in the evidence a host of circumstances which negative the existence of any criminal intention on his part.The third accused was interested in the gambling to such an extent that he was there throughout.Even when the first and second accused and the deceased went away before noon he continued to play.He was there until the second episode occurred.He left the place only when as a result of the disturbance the Whole crowd broke up.Then he was going away.He did not ask for money and he did not mix up with any of the other accused at any stage.He did not, even run with the other appellants but ran in a different direction.All that is said against him is that he went up to the deceased and held him up by putting his hands under the arm-pits round his body.Just when he did it, within a very short space of time, possibly in less than a minute or two, the others had come and inflicted injuries on the deceased.There is no other circumstance from which it could be inferred that this accused held the deceased in order to enable the other accused to come and attack the deceased.There was, no necessity for him to do so nor had he any interest in the matter.Presumably,' he found the deceased tottering on the way as he had already received a fatal injury, and as he must have got completely exhausted on account of the distance of 100 to 150 paces he had walked and as he was not able to move on steadily the third accused wanted to enable him to stand up and walk.Taking advantage of this, however, the assailants attacked the deceased.The third accused is, in our opinion, entitled to acquittal on all the charges.We would in the result allow the appeal only to the following extent.The first accused will be convicted under Section 324, Indian Penal Code and the second accused will be convicted under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and in other respects the appeal will be dismissed.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,895,991 |
Husband of the deceased was not present in the house.The appellant's husband Santosh Singh, however, got the door opened and thereafter, both the appellant and her husband tried to put off the fire.The deceased was, however, severely burnt and was rushed to D. K. Hospital, where she was found to have 95% burns.Her dying declaration (Ex.P/16) was recorded by Komal Singh, ADM (PW 7) at 12.05 p.m. on 3-1-1985 itself, where the deceased stated that the appellant had poured kerosene oil on her and lighted the fire, resulting in burn injuries.JUDGMENT Gulab C. Gupta, J.The appellant, Smt. Surjeet Kaur, feels aggrieved by her conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment by judgment dated 2nd April, 1986 passed by Shri D. P. Verma, I Addl.Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1985 and challenges legality and validity thereof in this appeal filed under Section 374, Cr.P.C.The appellant is alleged to have caused death of Smt. Harjinder Kaur, wife of Gurdeep Singh, her daughter-in-law on 3rd January, 1985 by pouring kerosene oil on her body and lighting fire.Prosecution alleges that the deceased was married to appellant's son on 25-2-1984 and lived with the appellant in the same house at Housing Board Colony, Birgaon, Raipur.It is also alleged that the appellant used to ill-treat the deceased and demand dowry.It is alleged that on 3-1-1985 at about 9.00 a.m., the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on the deceased and set fire to her.The deceased is alleged to have been pushed inside the room and locked from outside.The deceased started crying for help loudly and her screams attracted attention of neighbours, who assembled at the place for help.The deceased succumbed to injuries on the night between 7th and 8th January, 1985 at the hospital.Dr. D. C. Jain (PW 2) performed autopsy of the dead body and opined that' death was caused due to burn injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The appellant and her minor daughter Nirmal Kaur were thereafter charged under Sections 302 and 498A, I.P.C. and sent for trial.Nirmal Kaur being a juvenile is being tried before the Juvenile Court.The appellant denied having committed any offence.She however, admitted that deceased suffered burn injuries and died as a result thereof.She however, submitted that the deceased, in order to pressurise her and the family to remake gold bangles for her, had sprinkled kerosene oil on her person and put fire.She could not, however, manage the fire and suffered severe burns.Her specific defence is that her husband and son are engaged in business.In order to restart the business, her two gold bangles were sold much against her wish.She wanted the family to remake two gold bangles for her before Lodhi festival and in order to put pressure on them, followed the aforesaid method.It is also the appellant's case that the deceased having burnt her thumbs, could not have put her thumb-impression on the dying declaration.Evidence of Dr. Chandra-kar (PW 8) did not, according to learned ASJ, establish that the dying declaration was suspicious or that the deceased was not in a fit condition to give the statement.The learned ASJ also held the defence unreliable and wholly unjustified and rejected the same.The learned Judge, therefore, held that offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was established beyond reasonable doubt.The learned Judge, however, held that the dying declaration could not be used to establish demand of dowry and consequent cruelty as it was outside the purview of Section 34(1) of the Evidence Act. The other evidence, in this behalf, was not of the requisite quality.The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration.The evidence was held not sufficient to discredit dying declaration.In Surajmal v. State of Punjab, , the Medical Officer had during cross-examination stated that he was not sure if the prosecution version of the incident was correct and hence he did not attest the statement.This statement was used to submit that dying declaration was unreliable.In his cross-examination, Dr. Chandrakar has further stated that "when 1 examined the patient, then I found that she was not in a state of shock." (para-9).Even the A.D.M., Komalsingh (PW7) has stated on oath that the deceased was fit to give her statement and doctor was present throughout her statement.The statement (Ex.P/16) clearly alleges that the appellant poured kerosene oil on her and lighted fire and thereafter pushed her inside the room.The incident has taken place at about 9.00 a.m. and the deceased was brought to the hospital at 11.00 a.m. The dying declaration was recorded at 12.05 p.m. indicating that it was recorded without any delay and with utmost promptness.No relation of the deceased is shown to have been present with her at the time of recording of the dying declaration or immediately before it.The witness has emphatically denied such a suggestion.Since this Court is satisfied that the document contains the statement of the deceased recorded voluntarily without affording any opportunity to anyone to tutor .her, the same must be held to be admissible as evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. It may, therefore, be examined if the document contains the true version of the incident, making it reliable and sufficient to base the conviction on its basis.This interpretation is said to be based on the evidence of Narendra Singh (PW 3), who had reached the spot immediately and taken photographs.The witness has in para-5 of his statement stated that a glass bottle was found outside the room and was smelling kerosene oil.In cross-examination, he has admitted that the bottle was outside the room.Serious arguments were made about portions marked 'A-A' and 'B-B' in document (Ex.P/2), the seizure memo.The document is said to be originally written as indicating that the said bottle was inside the room, but subsequently, it was corrected to mean that it was seized from outside.Even if it was to be accepted that originally the bottle was seized from inside the room, it will not help the appellant.It will only support the prosecution case, which is, that the entire incident had taken place inside the room.The change in Ex.P/12 would, therefore, provide the basis for argument of the learned counsel and for that reason be treated to be an act in her favour.But, that by itself is not enough to hold that the kerosene in the bottle was used for causing injuries on the deceased.The dying declaration does not state that the kerosene oil was sprinkled outside the room and thereafter the deceased was pushed inside the room.Other witnesses, namely, Jagtar singh (PW4), the brother of the deceased, who met the deceased on 4-1-1984 at about 12.00 noon, has clearly and specifically stated that the incident had taken place inside the room.Smt. Paramjeet (PW 15), who had met the deceased on the night of the incident has also stated that the whole incident had taken place inside the room (para-7).In reply to a specific question she categorically stated that she was put to fire inside the room.Smt. Minder Kaur (PW 16), the mother of the deceased has also deposed that the incident had taken place, when she was called inside the room and went in there (para-3).She specifically denied the suggestion that she was put on fire outside and thereafter pushed into the room (para-7).Her statement in Ex.P/5 does not specifically mention that kerosene oil was poured on her outside the room and she was pushed after she had been put on fire.Under the circumstances, no prosecution witness justifies the aforesaid interpretation.Even the appellant in her written statement does not say that she saw the deceased burning outside the room.She has, on the contrary, stated that she saw the deceased buring inside the room and pushed her out on the "ANGAAN" and tried to extinguish the fire.Santosh Singh (PW 1) has also stated that when on hearing shouts of the deceased, he went towards her room.He saw his wife pushing the door opened.Thereafter, both of them entered into the room and tried to extinguish the fire.This should not leave any doubt in the mind of anyone that the deceased was buring inside the room.It is nobody's suggestion that the incident had taken place outside in the "ANGAAN".Under the circumstances, the criticism that it does not contain the true version of the deceased cannot be accepted.This would necessarily involve consideration of defence.The appellant has in her examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. stated that the deceased was insisting that if her gold bangles were not remade, she would not participate in the Lodhi festival and in order to pressurise the appellant and her husband, she lit fire to herself.There was thus 10 days gap between the incident and the festival, indicating that there was no urgency to adopt such a dangerous course of action.Then, if the deceased had intended to pressurise the appellant and the members of the family, she would not put herself to fire in a bolted room.If the purpose was to pressurise the family members, such a course should normally have been attempted in the presence of all concerned.Admittedly, the husband of the deceased was not present in the house.The father-in-law, Santosh Singh (DW 1) was also not on the spot.The appellant claims to be with the father-in-law, at the relevant point of time.It is difficult to believe that the deceased, who was married only about 10 months before and had no complaint against her husband, would indulge in an act like this, by closing herself into a room.Then, the dying declaration (Ex.P/16) mentions that the appellant, after putting fire to her, closed the room and opened only when she started shouting loudly.The appellant has stated nothing about the door in her written statement, but appellant's husband Santosh Singh (DW 1) has in para-4 of his evidence, stated that he heard the shouts of his daughter-in-law and rushed to that spot.The appellant also went towards that.According to him, "MERI AURAT NE DHAKKA MAAR-KAR KAMRE KA DARBAAJAA KHOLA".Now, if the door was really open, no push should have been necessary.If the door was locked from inside, the push would not have made any difference.This evidence, therefore, provides justification to the statement in the dying declaration that the door was closed from outside.There appears to be no justification for such an inference.Statement of Smt. Nirmala Bai (PW 9), as aforesaid, has come at the fag-end of her cross-examination.It is only at the fag-end of her cross-examination that she volunteered the said statement.Earlier, she had stated that several persons asked the deceased questions, but she did not give any reply.In the context of this statement, it is difficult to attach any significance to the statement relied upon by the learned counsel.Ram Murthy Naidu (DW 2) has stated that several persons, who had assembled on the spot were asking as to how she got burnt and the deceased replied that she had committed a mistake.Evidence of this witness is contradicted by Smt. Nirmala Bai (PW 9), who has stated that she did not give any reply.Even if the statement was accepted as having been made by the deceased, it would not mean that the deceased had put fire to herself.In the instant case, the deceased was married to the appellant's son only about 10 months before.The relationship between the deceased and her husband was cordial.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,960,033 |
3] Facts which led to the prosecution of applicants culled out inbrief, are as under :-After theaudit, he forwarded the report to the superior i.e. District Deputy Registrar,Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as, "the DDR" forsake of brevity).On receipt of report, from the concerned GovernmentAuditor, the DDR, Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon referred the matter to theDistrict Level Scrutiny Committee and accordingly the Audit Report was dealtwith by the Scrutiny Committee, wherein it was found that there were ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {4} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtseveral mis-deeds committed by the Directors, employees and borrowers ofthe concerned credit society in connivance with each other andduped/defrauded the credit society,its members and depositors.It hasbeen alleged that huge loans were disbursed to the relatives of the officebearers as well as their kiths and kins and friends without obtaining propersecurity and without following regular norms.The Directors and employeesof the Credit Society as well as borrowers hatched a conspiracy andmisappropriated the funds of the depositors kept in the custody of CreditSociety.The loans were sanctioned contrary to the bye-laws prescribed forloan proposals of the society.It came to be filed only totarnish and malign the reputation of the applicants within the vicinity of ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {6} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtJamner Tahsil.According to learned counsel, the applicants have repaid theentire loan amount and discharged their financial liability.Therefore,they can not be held guilty for any financial irregularities or infirmities inthe affairs of the credit society.They are only members of the creditsociety.They have no concern at all with the Board of Directors or officebearers of the credit society.In order to rectify the defect, the applicants depositedthe entire loan amount and discharged their financial liability towards thecredit society for due rectification of the irregularities pointed out by theGovernment auditor.The applicants cannot be blamed for any misdeeds or ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {7} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtirregularities in the affairs of the credit society.According to the learnedcounsel, there are no complaints against the applicants by any members ordepositors of the credit society.He alleged that the first informant Mr. Deepak Atrawalkarwas forced to file FIR against the applicants and others by concerned DDR,Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon vide his confidential letter dated 28.6.2016.Hence, he prayed to exercise the inherent jurisdiction and quash and setaside the impugned FIR registered against the applicants.6] The learned counsel for applicants - Shri Sachin Jain and Smt. SheetalJain in Criminal Application No. 4907 of 2016 stepped into the shoes oflearned counsel appearing for applicants in Criminal Application No. 4744 of2016, and strenuously asserted that these applicants have no concern at allwith the allegations made in the impugned FIR.They have not committed ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {8} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtany illegal act and they are innocent.These applicants borrowed the loansfor business purpose under the Cash-credit loan facility.They have regularlyrepaid the loan amount without any default.These applicants also producedthe "No Dues Certificate" issued by the Credit Society in their favour, onrecord.It is not denied thatapplicants being members of the credit society availed the financialassistance for their business purpose.However, during the course of audit ofthe accounts of credit society, it was revealed that the financial assistanceprovided to the applicants were contrary to the model bye-laws of the creditsociety.Moreover, these loan facilities were granted without obtainingproper security from the borrowers/applicants.It has been alleged that theapplicants, concerned Directors of the Credit Society, its office bearers, allin connivance with each other, hatched the criminal conspiracy and misused ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {10} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtthe hard earned money of the depositors kept in the custody of creditsociety.JUDGMENT : ( Per : K.K. Sonawane, J.)1] Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.The matter is taken upfor final hearing with the consent of parties.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::In view of the financial misdeeds andirregularities the concerned DDR, Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon bade thefirst informant - Mr. Deepak Atrawalkar, a Government Auditor to lodge thereport to the police of Jamner Police Station, for penal action against themiscreants.Accordingly, First Information Report No. 102 of 2016 came tobe lodged in Police Station, Jamner, District Jalgaon, for the offence underSections 420,406, 408, 409, 120-B, r/w. 34 of IPC and set the criminal law inmotion.The impugned FIR is the subject matter of present applications forexercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by this court.4] It has been alleged that huge loan amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs each, intotal Rs. 75 Lakhs, came to be disbursed in favour of these applicant Nos. 1to 3 i.e. Abhay Jain, Arvind Jain and Ajay Jain without obtaining propersecurity as well as contrary to the model bye-laws of the credit society.Thebye-laws of the society contemplates that such huge amount of Rs. 75 Lakhscould not have been sanctioned and disbursed to its member and ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {5} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtparticularly, not more than one member of the same family.According toprosecution, the applicants in connivance with the Directors and officebearers of the credit society availed the financial assistance for theirpersonal gain.They hatched the criminal conspiracy to commit CriminalBreach of Trust and deputed the members and depositors of the creditsociety.In regard to the allegations of the applicant No.4 Mr. Alkesh Lalwani,the first informant - Government auditor, casted allegations that the Cash-credit Loan Facility of Rs. 25 Lakhs was sanctioned to him for his food grainbusiness.But, the applicant No.4 procured the finance under the pretext ofcash credit loan facility to the tune of Rs. 1,42,92,883/-, which is against theprovisions as envisaged under the model bye-laws of the credit society.Theapplicants and the Directors as well as office bearers of the credit society, inconnivance with each other, duped/defrauded the members and depositorsof the society.The first informant - Government auditor came across severalmisdeeds and financial irregularities and, therefore, he filed the FIR againstthe applicants.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::5] The Learned counsel for the applicants - Shri Jain brothers and ShriAlkesh Zumbarlal Lalawni in Criminal Application No. 4744 of 2016vehemently contended that these applicants have no concern at all with theallegations nurtured in the impugned FIR by the Government Auditor ShriAtrawalkar.The learned counsel for the applicants explained that theimpugned FIR is politically motivated action.Therefore, no question arises to initiate penal actionagainst the borrowers/applicants.The applicants also produced the "No DuesCertificate" issued by the credit society in their favour on record.Thelearned counsel submitted that in view of the Government Circular dated 1 stJune, 2012, the concerned DDR, Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon should havegiven opportunity of hearing to the applicants prior to any penal actionagainst them.But, persons, namely, Advocate Shri KrishnaBankar and Dr. Sanjay Patil, who have no concern with the functioning of thecredit society were instrumental to lodge the impugned FIR against theapplicants and others with oblique motive to stall the functioning and windup the functions of the credit society.The applicants have earned goodreputation in their business.The credit society is also gaining profit byproviding financial assistance to the applicants.The securities of the assetsof applicants were also furnished to the credit society against loan facilityprovided to the applicant.The learned counsel explained the facts andcircumstances on record in detail and urged that there are no circumstanceson record, prima facie, to constitute any sort of cognizable offence againstthe applicants.He submitted thatthe alleged FIR against the applicants is vexatious and an abuse of process oflaw.The applicants are embroiled in the crime with ulterior motive to wreakvengeance.The counsel for applicants, therefore, prayed that theapplication may be allowed and the impugned FIR be quashed and set aside.7] Per contra, learned APP appearing for the prosecutionvociferously opposed the contentions propounded on behalf of respectiveapplicants in both the applications.He submitted that the allegationsnurtured on behalf of prosecution are serious in nature.The applicants, inconnivance with the Board of Directors of the credit society and its officials,hatched the criminal conspiracy and committed misdeeds for availingfinancial benefits.They committed mischief by utilizing the funds of thesociety for their business purpose, without following regular procedure, asprescribed under the bye-laws.Learned APP submitted that one of themembers of the credit society - Dr. Patil, ventilated the grievances about theillegal financial affairs of the society to the concerned authority of the ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {9} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtCooperation Department.He casted the aspersions that the credit societyhas disbursed huge loan in favour of applicants without any security andcontrary to the provisions of the bye-laws.The allegations in the FIR, prima-facie, constitute a cognizable offence against the applicants.The allegationsnurtured in the FIR demonstrates that the applicants in collusion with eachother, availed the financial benefits and duped the members and depositorsof the credit society.The investigation is in progress and it is at initialstage.It would unjust and improper to cause any interference in theinvestigation at this primitive stage of investigation, by exercising inherentpowers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned APP prayed notto nod in favour of the applicants and dismiss the applications.8] We have carefully considered the rival contentions propoundedon behalf of both sides.We have also perused the impugned FIR as well asthe material placed on record.It is not put in controversy that the applicantsare members of the Urban Credit Cooperative Society namely, "Suresh DadaJain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Pvt. Ltd.", Jamner.There was violation of bye-laws for the financial benefits of the applicants.Therefore, the impugned FIR came to be lodged for penal action against theapplicants, for the offence of criminal breach of trust, cheating andconspiracy etc.9] It is to be borne in mind that the Supreme Court in number of caseshas laid down the scope and ambit of the powers of Court as recognizedunder Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The powers are to be exercised foradministration of real and substantial justice.The inherent powers underSection 482 of Cr.P.C. would be exercised:::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::It has been delineated that the inherent powers under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though wide, have to be exercisedsparingly, carefully and with great caution.The frequent or uncalled forinterference by the High Court at the preliminary stage of the investigationmay result in causing obstruction in the progress of the investigation, whichmay not be in public interest.The learned counselfor the applicants harped on the circumstances that the applicants haverepaid the amount and, therefore, the FIR be quashed.12] In view of attending circumstances and nature of allegationsnurtured on behalf of prosecution, we are not in agreement with the ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {14} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtsubmissions propounded on behalf of applicants that as they repaid theentire loan amount, they cannot be blamed for any irregularities ormisconduct in the affairs of the society.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::impugned order.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::{17} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odt15] The learned counsel for the applicants laid much moreemphasis on the provisions of Section 82 of the Maharashtra CooperativeSocieties Act, in regard to rectification of error/defects in the accountspointed out by the Government Auditor, i.e. first informant - Shri Atrawalkar.But, in the matter in hand, the allegationsmade against the applicants can not be considered as a defect in theaccounts.But, the applicants, in connivance with the Directors and officebearers, with a dishonest intention siphoned off the fund of society contraryto the provisions of the bye-laws.It would not be a mere defect but anserious financial offence under the criminal law.The applicants are thebeneficiaries, who procured the finance without entitlement.They areequally responsible with the office bearers and Directors of the CreditSociety for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating as well asdefrauding the members and depositors of the Credit Society.Therefore,the provisions of section 82 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,1960 would not render any assistance to absolve the applicants from thecriminal liability as alleged against the them.The applicants cannot use theprovisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as a shield toevade the prosecution under IPC in the case.The account holders and ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {18} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtdepositors used to keep their hard earned money in the hands of strangers ofCredit Society.But the borrowers like applicants, now a days, are utilizingthe banking institution for making money over and above the money of thedepositors.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::The financial misdeeds on thepart of applicant borrower, with the help of the Directors and office bearerscannot be overlooked in view of the seriousness of allegations of social ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 ::: {19} CRAPLN 4744.16 W 4907.16.odtwrong and it has a grave impact on the society.We do not find anysubstantial reason to cause any interference in the FIR at this primitive stageby exercising the inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Theapplications being devoid of merits deserve to be dismissed.In sequel, boththe applications stand rejected.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 01:24:52 :::
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,961 |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J.) There were 9 accused before the trial Court of whom the appellant inCrl.A.No.200 of 2008 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.201 of 2008 arrayed asaccused Nos.6, 1,4,7 and the acquitted accused arrayed as 2,5,8,9 respectivelytook their trial in S.C.No.102 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Districtand Sessions Judge (FTC), Pudukkottai.They were convicted and sentenced toimprisonment as under:Accused/ Appellants Convicted under Section Sentence of imprisonmentA-6 (Appellant in 302 read with 34 IPC Imprisonment for life and toC.A.No.200/ 2008), pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.A-7 (Appellant in 302 read with 34 IPC Imprisonment for life and toC.A.No.201/ 2008) pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.2.These two appeals are filed by the convicted appellants who took theirtrials under different charges for offences as indicated above on theallegations that on 16.11.2006 at 15.00 p.m. in front of the house of P.W.1 atThethampatti village within the limits of Ganesh Nagar Police Station,Pudukkottai District formed themselves into an unlawful assembly along withother acquitted accused armed with deadly weapons with intention to murder thedeceased Chinnadurai (brother of P.W.1) and indiscriminately made murderousattack by inflicting many vital injuries as a result of which the victiminstantly fell down on the spot and then died on 24.11.2006 while undergoingtreatment in the hospital due to the injuries sustained and also during thecourse of the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2, the father and son respectively of thedeceased also received grievous injuries at the hands of the accused, whichresulted in the trial of the case.3.The case of the prosecution in short is that the appellants/accused andthe acquitted accused are the residents of the village namely, Thethampattiwithin the limits of Ganesh Nagar Police Station.But P.Ws.1 and 2 were notinclined to accede the request of A-1 and their relatives.Since there isformation of a separate public path way from the village to go to the cremationground, P.Ws.1 and 2 approached the Village Administrative Officer and VillageHead and other important persons in the village and requested them to advise A-1and his people to take the body of the father of A-1 through the public pathway.Pursuant to the request made by P.Ws.1 and 2, the family members of A-1 wereinstructed to take the body of the deceased Mariappan through the publicpathway.Due to this, A-1 and his family members got annoyed and on 16.11.1996,at 3.00 p.m. before taking the body to the cremation ground, A-1 along with hisbrother A-2, A-5 and his relatives A-3, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9 went to thehouse of P.W.1 armed with deadly weapons and shouted at them to come out of thehouse.The deceased, Chinnadurai (the son of P.W.2) came out of the house and onseeing Chinnadurai, Appellant No.2 (A-1, Arangan) shouted at him saying only ifhe was killed they could live peacefully and so saying he delivered a cut on thecentre of the head of the deceased.Following that the first appellant, Senthil(Appellant in Crl.A.No.200/2008) snatched the Aruval from A-1 and delivered acut on the centre of the head of the deceased.On seeing this, A-7 (3rdAppellant in Crl.A.No.201 of 2008) assaulted the deceased with a stick on theleft side of the head.The deceased become unconscious and fell down.Then A-9assaulted the deceased with a stick on his back.While P.W.1 rushed to thescene to prevent the accused from making further attacks, A-2 and A-3 deliveredcuts on the head of P.W.1 and when P.W.2 attempted to prevent the cut, he hadalso sustained injuries on his left hand.During the same transaction, A-4 andA-5 delivered cuts on the head of P.W.1 when P.W.1 attempted to prevent thesame, he also sustained injury on the right hand side.After committing theattack, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.19, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the First InformationReport, took up investigation and on 17.11.2006 and at 10.00 A.M., proceeded tothe scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 prepared anobservation mahazar Ex.P.16 and rough sketch of the scene, Ex.P.17 and recoveredbloodstained earth and sample earth M.Os.5 and 6 under a cover of MahazarEx.On the same day, at 12.30 noon P.W.19 arrested A-1 to A-5 and recordedtheir voluntary confession statements.The admissible portion of which weremarked as Exs.P.19 to P.23 respectively.Pursuant to their confessionstatements, M.Os.2,7,8,9,10 and 11 were recovered under the cover of MahazarsExs.Brain was paleand oedematous.Lungs : c/s both congested and oedematous.Laryunx and hyoid bone :intact.Stomach : contained 200 ml of light brown coloured semisolid materialwith no specific smell.Mucosa - congested Liver, spleen, kidneys : c/scongested Small intestine : Empty.Mucosa - congested No specific smell madeout.Bladder : Empty.Pelvis - Intact".The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to headinjuries involving the vital organ namely the brain.Thereafter, P.W.18, took up the investigation and on 28.11.2006 at 10.30A.M. and arrested A-7 and sent him to judicial custody and on 10.12.2006 hearrested A-8 at 9.00 a.m. on 10.12.06 and recorded his voluntary confessionstatement given by him, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.14.Pursuant to his confession, P.W.18, Investigating Officer recovered wooden logM.O.3 under a cover of Mahazar Ex.P.15 in the presence of P.W.10 and oneSenthil.Thereafter, on the same day he sent A-8 and recovered material objectsto the Court.Then, P.W.18, Investigating Officer arrested A-9 on 10.01.2007 at10.00 a.m. near Alangudi Police Station and sent him to judicial custody on thesame day and handed over the case to his successor.The material objects were despatched to the court with Ex.P-10 requestingto forward the same for chemical examination.Thereafter,P.Ws.1 and 2 and the injured Chinnadurai were taken to the Government Hospitalat Pudukkottai by the village people and since Chinnadurai was in very seriouscondition, he was taken to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and admittedtherein.On receipt of intimation from the Pudukkottai Government Hospital, P.W.14,Sub Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 08.00 p.m. On16.11.1996 and recorded the statement of P.W.1 who was taking treatment in WardNo.41 of the hospital and returned to the police station and registered a casein Crime No.795 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 IPC.P.1 isthe complaint given by P.W.1 and Ex.P.6 is the copy of First Information Reportand P.W.14 forwarded the same to the higher officials in the Department.P.W.19, Investigating Officer took up the investigation.PW-11 is the Medical Officer, who on receipt of the requisition from theInvestigating Officer, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on25.11.2006 at 3.00 P.M. Ex.3.Diffuse Dense contusion over the whole of right side frontal, parietal andTemporal regions.4.A Semicircular surgically sutured wound with intact silk sutures noted overthe right side frontal, parietal and temporal regions of scalp found extendingfrom the middle of right side hair margin upto the front of right ear measruig25cm in length found infected.5.Diffuses contusion over the whole of left side forehead and left frontalregion of scalp.6.Infected Bed sores over the whole of occipital region, both parietal eminenceareas and saccral region.Internal Injuries:7.On reflecting the scalp skin - Thick sub scalp contusion whole of scalp -Right side Temporal Bone was found surgically removed and the infected laceratedBrain matter was found bulging out through this bone gap.Depressed communittedfracture over the vertex of skull over an area of 4x4cm found compressing theBrain matter.Multiple radiating fissured fractures over all the bones of vaultskull from this fractured vertex area with fracture seperation of all thecranial sutural lines.Thick extradural Haematoma and blood clots of about 600gms noted over the vertex and both sides parietal regions.PW-16/Head Clerk in the Court, onreceipt of the same, sent those items with a letter of the court under EX.P-10to the forensic Laboratory.P-2 and P-11 are the forensic reports.Oncompletion of the investigation, the final report was filed against the accusedunder Sections 302 read with 34, 307, 323, 325, 326 read with 149 IPC beforethe Court.4.The trial court on a perusal of the documents and after hearing thelearned counsel framed totally eight charges as against all the accused, ofwhich the appellants in these appeals, are covered under charge Nos.1,2,3,4,6and 7 which are follows:i)On 16.11.2006, Accused Nos.3,7,8 and 9 formed themselves into anunlawful assembly and indulged in rioting and thereby committed an offencepunishable under Section 147 IPC.ii)The Accused Nos.1,2,4,5 and 6 formed themselves into an unlawfulassembly with deadly weapons and indulged in rioting with an intention toassault the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby committed for an offencepunishable under Section 148 IPC.iii)Accused Nos.1,6,7 and 9 with a common intention to commit the cause ofthe death of the deceased attacked him with deadly weapons, pursuant to which24.11.2006, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him and therebythe Accused Nos.1,6,7 and 9 committed an offence punishable under Section 302IPC.iv)Accused Nos.4,6,7 and 9 stood in support of A-1 to commit the murder ofthe deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 readwith 34 IPC.v)During the same transaction, A-4 cut the middle finger of P.W.2 andthereby committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.vi)During the same transaction, A-7 assaulted P.W.2 with stick and therebycommitted an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.6.When the accused questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference tothe incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution against them, they deniedtheir complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.7.The learned trial Judge, after assessing the oral and documentaryevidence adduced by the prosecution, and after considering the submissions madeon either side, delivered his judgment convicting and sentencing asaforementioned.Challenging the same, the convicted accused have preferred theabove Appeals.In order to appreciate the facts of the case in the properperspective, we have clubbed both the appeals together and accordingly, we aredisposing the same.8.The learned counsel for the appellants intensively contended that theorigin and genesis of the case is totally suppressed by the prosecution andinstead the prosecution has presented a new case before this Court with falseevidence and fabricated documents.According to him P.Ws.1 and 2 havecategorically stated that the occurrence took place on 16.11.2006 at 03.00 p.m.and immediately thereafter, P.Ws.1,2 and the victim Chinnadurai were taken tothe hospital by the villagers and P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted in the GovernmentHospital, at Pudukkottai and Chinnadurai who was in serious condition was takento Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.It is the further evidence of P.W.2 thatimmediately after their admission in the hospital, the police arrived at theGovernment Hospital, Pudukkottai.But according to P.W.14, the Sub Inspector ofPolice, he received intimation from the Hospital only at 8.00 p.m. andthereafter, he proceeded to the Government Hospital and recorded the statementof P.W.1 and returned to the police station by 9.00 p.m. and registered a casein Crime No.795 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 323,324 and 307 IPC.Whereas P.W.17, the Medical Officer had stated in his evidencethat P.Ws.1 and 2 were brought to the hospital by 04.10 p.m. Thus, the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants by comparing the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,14and 17 put forth the submissions stating that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2,14 and 17cumulatively together would go to show that the injured P.Ws.1 and 2 werebrought to the hospital immediately after the occurrence and further P.Ws.1 and2 in their evidence also have confirmed that the police have arrived at thehospital immediately after their admission in the hospital.Under suchcircumstances, the police should have recorded the statement of P.W.1immediately after their arrival at the hospital.But P.W.14, stated in hisevidence that he received intimation only by 8.00 p.m. and thereafter heproceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement and returned to the policestation and registered a case at 9.00 p.m. These contradictions found in theevidence clearly would go to show that the complaint which would have beenrecorded by the police immediately after their arrival, should have beensuppressed subsequently and they would have brought another complaint by falselyimplicating the accused in the case.That apart, P.W.2 (father of the deceased)had also clearly stated in his evidence that the statement was recorded from himby the police, while he was in hospital.But the said complaint was suppressedby the prosecution and no proper explanation was given for this.The learneddefence counsel continued his argument saying that it is the evidence of P.W.2that A-1 had delivered a cut on the centre of the head of the deceased withAruval and thereafter, A-6 snatched the same and delivered another cut on thecentre of the head of the deceased.According to prosecution, pursuant to thearrest and confession of A-6 on 18.11.2006, the police has recovered M.Os.2 and3, Aruvals and a wooden log respectively under a cover of Mahazar Ex.Thus,by pointing out the evidence of P.W.2 and arrest of A-6 and the recovery made byP.W.14 and P.W.18, the learned counsel for the appellants intensively contendedthat when it is the evidence of P.W.2 that A-6 snatched the Aruval from A-1 anddelivered the cut, the question of recovery of M.O.2 and 3 Aruvals pursuant toconfession statements of A-1 and A-6 is highly doubtful.In fact, the evidenceof P.W.2 and recovery made by P.Ws.18 and 14 collectively go to prove that theentire case of the prosecution is a concocted one.Though, it is the case of theprosecution that the deceased was admitted in Thanjavur Medical CollegeHospital, immediately after the occurrence, he had died only on 24.11.2006 butthe entire records pertaining to his treatment was suppressed by theprosecution.P.W.2, in his evidence stated that before the occurrence tookplace there was a commotion for an hour and he had also stated in his evidencethat he is not aware when the police has arrived to the village and whether thecommotion was going on in front of his house before the occurrence.Thus, thelearned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that had there been anycommotion in front of the house where 500 to 600 people had assembled to attendfuneral function of the father of A-1 definitely the police would have arrivedat this spot.The learned counsel hasalso very emphatically submitted that there was a delay in sending the FirstInformation Report to the Judicial Magistrate even though the said report wasregistered by P.W.15, even at 9.00 p.m. on 16.11.2006, the same was sent on thenext day viz., 17.11.2006 at 10.00 a.m., which delay was not properly explained.Further, it is contended that there are lot of infirmities in the evidence ofProsecution witnesses and subsequent improvement also had been made to suit thecase of prosecution.The contentions submitted on behalf of the appellantsrelating to the recovery of some of the M.Os.have not been clearly proved sinceall the witnesses examined in this behalf have turned hostile.The othersubmission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.2 in hisevidence stated that his signature was obtained from him by the police at thehospital would show that earlier one another complaint was recorded from P.W.2which has not been placed before the Court but suppressed.P.1.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 demonstrably establishes the case of theprosecution and though the P.W.5 was treated as hostile, his evidence supportsthe evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 so far as the participation of the appellants inthe occurrence and the entire overtacts attributed to them as well the motivepart are concerned.In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has clearly stated that A-1 and A-6 camewith aruval at the scene of occurrence under such circumstances, the recovery ofaruval in no way weaken the case of the prosecution.Under such circumstances,the evidence deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their chief examination that the policehad arrived immediately after their admission, does not assume any significanceto accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellants thatthere should have been earlier complaint.Similarly, though recovery and Mahazarwitnesses turned hostile, the other evidence available on record and themedical evidence talling with the injuries sustained by the deceased and P.Ws.1and 2 with the weapons as spoken by P.Ws.1,2 and 5 prove the case.Under suchcircumstances, no case has been made out by the appellants to disbelieve thecase of the prosecution except pointing out some minor contradictions here andthere which would be no way helpful to throw away the case of the prosecution.Ultimately, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that theprosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, theconviction and sentence passed by the trial court has to be sustained and theappeals dismissed.10.We have perused the materials available on record and carefullyconsidered the submissions made on both sides.In this connection, P.W.5 though had clearly spoken aboutthe occurrence in the chief examination, she had been treated as hostile witnessfor the simple reason that P.W.5 had not supported the prosecution caseregarding the recovery of some of the M.Os.and his attestation in the Mahazars.Nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of P.W.5 by the defencelawyer adversely affecting the veracity of his evidence.Therefore, we acceptthis evidence serving as corroborative piece of evidence to that of P.Ws.1 andAs stated supra, the very presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 during the occurrence isstrongly supported by the injuries sustained by them.These injured eyewitnesses speak about the motive part of for the murder.A perusal of Ex.P.1,clearly reveals that after the death of the father of A-1, till 16.11.2006 at03.00 p.m., A-1 and their relatives were creating commotion every now and thenregarding the taking the body of the father of A-1 through the street where thehouse of the deceased is situated in spite of the fact that a separate publicpath way was available to take the body to cremation.It was in such circumstances, thisoccurrence had taken place.So far as the motive part is concerned, in ouropinion, the appellants have miserably failed to raise even an iota of doubt inthe minds of the Courts.But on the contrary, the learned counsel for theappellants made an attempt to shatter the case of the prosecution by pointingout some infirmities found in the prosecution witnesses to establish that theoccurrence would not have taken place in the manner put forth by the prosecutionand the entire prosecution story as a distorted story designedly framed by falseevidence and fabricated documents.12.Now let us analyse the submission made by the learned counsel for theappellants one by one.The main submission made by the learned counsel for theappellants is that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the police arrived atthe Government Hospital immediately after their admission and it is also in theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that they were admitted in the hospital within a shortspan of time from the time of occurrence which took place at 03.00 p.m. on16.11.2006 and added that P.W.17, the Medical Officer, in his evidence statedthat P.Ws.1 and 2 were admitted in the hospital at 04.10 p.m. on 16.11.2006,under such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.14 that he on receipt ofintimation, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 andreturned to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.795 of 2006 by9.00 p.m. is not an acceptable contention.Further, according to the learnedcounsel, the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 17 leads to a conclusion that the policewould have arrived in the evening itself on the date of occurrence andimmediately thereafter, P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police should have recorded aReport much earlier which report is now suppressed and the present Ex.P.1 isconcocted and substituted.13.We have carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.On going throughthe evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we find that they did not state anything about theexact time of arrival of the police at Pudukkottai Government Hospital and whatthey have stated is immediately after their admission in the hospital the policehad arrived.Further more, P.W.1 has also stated in his evidence that he wasunconscious for more than one hour immediately after the admission.Under suchcircumstances, the doubt raised by the learned counsel for the appellants tothrow away the case of the prosecution is not worthy of consideration.Therefore, we are not inclined to acceptthe submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.With regard tothe other submission made by the defence counsel for the appellants that theevidence of P.W.2, has stated that after A-1 delivered a cut with Aruval on thehead of the deceased, A-6 snatched the same from A-1 and inflicted a cut on thehead of the deceased.Therefore, the seizure of two aruvals pursuant to theirconfession would go to show that the prosecution case is concocted one.We areof the opinion that the careful analysis of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1would go to show that A-6 has also possessed with an aruval at the time ofoccurrence.No conclusion can be even inferred with regard to the recovery ofthe two aruvals on the contention that each of A-1 and A-6 did not possessseparate aruvals and therefore, we are not inclined to accept the theory ofdefence.No doubt there was some delay in despatching the First InformationReport to the Court.In our view, under such circumstances of the case, thisdelay alone is not sufficient to reject the case of the prosecution.In fact,P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, explains the delay saying that he recordedthe statement at 9.00 p.m. and on the ext day morning at 10.00 a.m., the samewas sent to the Judicial Magistrate.As stated supra, though all the mahazarwitnesses have turned hostile, the unimpeachable evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 5which is cogent and convincing coupled with the medical evidence clearly anddemonstrably establish the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.P.W.11,the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy 8 days after the treatment in thehospital, of course had stated that the crushed injuries found on the bony partof the head of the deceased, in her admitted assumption would have probably beeninflicted by wooden log.On carefully going through the ocular testimony ofP.Ws.1,2 and 5 and taking into consideration the nature and situs of theinjuries as described in the Post Mortem Certificate, providing supporting tothe veracity of the case, we are of the firm view that the case against A-1, A-6and A-7 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and caseas against A-4 for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC are wellestablished and, therefore, we reject the submission of the learned defencecounsel to throw away the prosecution case on the minor contradictions andomissions appearing in this case cannot at all be acceded to.Further, the prosecution case on these insignificant and minorcontradictions and omissions appearing here and there which would normally occurin every case in such circumstances, in this case will never serve as a validground to throw away the case overboard.14.In fine, we are of the opinion that no worthy reason has been made outby the learned Senior counsel for the appellants to allow the appeals.15.In the result, we confirm the conviction and the sentences passed bythe trial Court and dismiss the appeals.The Inspector of Police, Ganesh Nagar Police Station Pudukkottai District
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,896,343 |
Complainant replied that she did not have any knowledge about the dispute then Khelan Bai told her whether it is possible that you have no knowledge about the dispute.Then she abused, caught hold her hairs, beaten her by fist and threw her on the ground thereby she received the injuries on head, abdomen and back side of the body.The incident was witnessed by Shanker Lodhi and others.Complainant, Omwati Bai rushed to the Police Station Kirnapur.As per : G.S. Solanki, J.Learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Balaghat has passed the impugned judgment dated 3.8.1994 in Criminal Case No.788 of 1991 whereby he acquitted the respondent-Khelan Bai wife of Shobhelal from the charges punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.Being aggrieved, State of Madhya Pradesh has filed this appeal against the acquittal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2/ Prosecution case, in short, was that on 26.10.1991 at about 10 a.m., respondent-accused, Khelen Bai enquired from complainant, Omwati Bai regarding dispute occurred between their husbands in the last night.Doctor found fracture in superior pubic ramica bone.After investigation respondent/accused, Khelan Bai was charge-sheeted.3/ Learned trial court framed the charges under Section 325 of the Indian Penal code against the respondent/accused.She abjured her guilt and pleaded that her husband Shobhelal was servant in the house of father-in-law of complainant and there was a dispute of money between them.She further stated that on the date of incident, Omwati Bai having sickle came to her house and beaten her.4/ After appraisal of the evidence on record, learned trial court acquitted the respondent/accused to the charges leveled against her, hence this appeal.5/ Learned counsel for the State submitted that the trial court committed error in appreciating the evidence on record, therefore, finding recorded by the trial court is perverse, contrary to law and liable to be set aside.6/ On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that finding recorded by the trial court is according to law and there is no perversity or illegality.Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.7/ I perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record.8/ Complainant, Omwati Bai stated that when she was in a way of her field, respondent/accused, Khelan Bai enquired from her about the dispute occurred between their husbands in night.W hen complainant replied that she did not know about the dispute.On this point of time, respondent-Khelan Bai caught hold her hairs, beaten her by fist and pushed her, on mango tree as a result of which she fell down and became unconscious.She narrated the incident to his father-in-law, Bhadulal (P.W.6) and they lodged the report in Police Station.9/ Dr. N.P. Tamrakar (P.W.2) who examined Omwati Bai stated that she complained the pain in chest, abdomen and back side but he did not find any external injury on her body.He referred her for X-ray of abdomen, to the District Hospital, Balaghat.His report is Exh.In his cross examination, he admitted that he did not find any abrasion in the back portion of the complainant.Dr. K.K. Khosla (P.W.7) on X-ray examination found fracture on superior pubic ramica bone of complainant.He admitted that such type of fracture can be caused when the patient fell down on the ground.10/ In these circumstances, version of complainant is corroborated by medical evidence and further corroborated by FIR Exh.P-3 and Shana report.It is proved that the complainant Omwati Bai received injuries during incidence.12/ On the contrary, defense witness Preetam Lal (D.W.1) stated that when he was going towards his field he saw that complainant Omwati Bai assaulted Khelan Bai by Sickle and her father-in-law had also beaten Khelan Bai.Shobhelal (D.W.2), husband of Khelan Bai also stated that his wife complained him that complainant Omwati Bai beaten her.He admitted that he tried to report the matter but the Police did not record his report.Yadav Lal (D.W. 3) also supported the version of other defense witnesses and stated that the respondent Khelan Bai was beaten by complainant.Though defense witnesses Preetam Lal, Shobhelal and Yadav lal cross examined by Assistant Public Prosecuted but nothing brought on their cross examination to disbelieve them.13/ In these circumstances, it is proved that that there was a quarrel between the complainant and respondent.Both of them beaten each other.In this process, respondent pushed Omwati Bai thereby she fell down on the ground and got fracture of superior pubic ramica bone.15/ On considering the facts and circumstances, I am also of the opinion that fracture version of defense witnesses, it is proved that there was free fight between the complainant and accused, Khelan Bai and during the course of fighting accused Khelan Bai pushed complainant on the ground thereby she fell down and received the injury.Since, complainant also gave blow on back of accused, accused have right to defend her person, in exercising of that right.Therefore, appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.As respondent/accused is on bail, her bail bond stands cancelled.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
106,668,244 |
The brief facts giving rising to this appeal are that in Rewa Collectorate there is Hanuman Temple where deceased Balmik Prasad Mishra was worshiping on 19/10/2006, the appellant being a saint and having "Trishul" came to the temple and with the permission of the deceased taken shelter in the temple in the night and on the next day (20/10/2006) when the appellant was not intended to go back the deceased asked him to go and 2 leave the temple and suddenly altercation took place between them.The appellant started abusing the deceased and also said that he would kill him and thereafter the appellant assaulted the deceased with "Trishul" and caused injury on his chest.At that time Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-3), Dinesh Kumar Goswami (PW-10) and Anil Kumar Mishra (PW-11) were present.The deceased fell down and became unconscious.Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-3) lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-7 to police station Civil Lines, Rewa and the deceased was shifted to the hospital where after few minutes he died.In police station Civil Lines Rewa initially Crime No. 621/2006 under section 307 of IPC was registered against the appellant.During the investigation autopsy on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.K Pathak (PW-6).According to the Postmortem Report Ex.{ 8 /02/2018 } Per J.P.Gupta, J :This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 29/08/2005 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in Sessions Trial No.10/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of IPC for committing murder of one Balmik Prasad Mishra and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/- and in default further imprisonment of 1 month.P-13 the cause of the death was homicidal and the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.On 20/10/2006 the appellant was arrested as per arrest memo Ex.P-11 and from his possession "Trishul" was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-10, which was sent to the FSL and as per FSL Report Ex.P-20 on the "Trishul" presence of human blood was confirmed.After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under section 302 of IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa, who committed the case to the Session Judge, Rewa and after receiving the case on transfer, the 1 st Additional Session Judge, Rewa tried the case.During trial against the appellant charge for the offence punishable under sections 302 of IPC was framed.He abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.His defence is that he 3 has been falsely implicated in this case only on suspicion and in his defence no evidence has been adduced.Learned trial court after the trial convicted the appellant for commission of the offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned earlier.In this case the finding of the trial court with regard to nature of the death has not been challenged.Dr. S.K Pathak (PW-6) has categorically stated that on 20/10/2006 he conducted autopsy on the person of the deceased and he prepared Postmortem report Ex.P-13 and there was one stab wound on the left side of the chest and on dissection left lung were found punctured and also damaged heart and the injuries were antemortem and injuries were caused by sharp and pointed object and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of the nature.The aforesaid statement of the medical expert has remained unimpeachable.So far finding of conviction of the appellant is concerned, the trial court has placed reliance on the statement of eyewitness Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-3) and recovery of "Trishul" from the possession of the appellant on which presence of human blood was confirmed.So far other eyewitness Dinesh Kumar Goswami (PW-10) and Anil Kumar Mishra (PW-11) are concerned they have not claimed to be eyewitness of the incident and prosecution has declared them hostile.The aforesaid findings of the learned trial court has been assailed on the ground that Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-3) is also not an eyewitness and his statement is not creditable and there is no other corroboratory evidence to support the testimony of Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-3) and the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt.On behalf of appellant further submission is made that the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that incident has taken place suddenly on account of altercation between the deceased and appellant without any pre- meditation in the heat of passion and only one blow was dealt with.If the appellant had an intention to kill the deceased then he would have dealt with further blow.Therefore appellant's conviction under section 302 of IPC is required to be modified to conviction under section 304 of IPC.Learned G.A has supported the findings of the learned trial court and opposed the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant stating that the findings of the learned trial court are based on the cogent evidence and prayed for rejection of this appeal.Having considered the contention of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that despite of non-supporting of the prosecution case by Dinesh Kumar Goswami (PW-10) and Anil Kumar Mishra (PW-11) the prosecution case has been proved by the statement of Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-3), who is an independent witness have no relationship with the deceased and grudge with the appellant and he categorically stated that on 19/10/2006 when he was in temple, the appellant came to the temple and asked for permission to stay in the 5 temple and the deceased allowed the appellant.On the next day near about 10 o'clock when deceased asked the appellant to leave the temple, the appellant started abusing the deceased and the deceased was pacifying the appellant and the appellant refused to come out from the temple and suddenly attacked on the deceased with the "Trishul" on his chest and from the injuries blood was flowing and deceased became unconscious and thereafter he informed to the police authorities and lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-7 which has been proved by S.K Mehra, Sub Inspector (PW-4).S.K Mehra, Sub Inspector (PW-4) has also stated that on the same day he arrested the appellant and prepared arrest memo Ex.P-11 and also seized one trishul from the possession of the appellant and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-10 and seized articles were sent to the FSL vide Ex.According to the FSL report on the "Trishul" human blood was found confirmed and about this circumstance there is no explanation of the appellant.As mentioned earlier Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-3) is an independent witness and there is nothing in his cross examination to suspect on his testimony.His statement has got corroboration from the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-7 and also got corroboration with the medical evidence and recovery of human blood stained "Trishul" from the possession of the appellant.In such circumstance, the testimony of Anjani Kumar Pandey (PW-This contention have no substance as there is no law that if other eyewitnesses have became hostile then the eyewitness supporting the prosecution case can't be relied.In this case Anil Kumar Mishra (PW-11) has supported the prosecution version stating that after the incident he rushed to the spot where there was crowd and people were saying that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with the trishul and this statement has not been challenged during the cross examination.Only one blow was struck by the appellant at Ran Singh.On the evidence it does not appear that there was any intention to kill Ran Singh.He is directed to be released forth with, if not required to be detained in any other case.A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court and jail authorities for information and necessary action.Certified copy as per rules.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR (DIVISION BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.K.MAHESHWARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P.GUPTA) Criminal Appeal No. 1882 /2007 Moti lal Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION (J.P.Gupta) Judge __/02/2018 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRI J.K MAHESHWARI (Judge) __/02/2018 JUDGMENT Post for : __/02/2018 Judge __
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
106,668,822 |
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the applicants.Shri S.P. Chadar, Panel Lawyer for the State.Shri S.B. Shrivastava, Advocate for the objector.This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 509/2014 registered at P.S. Kareli, District Narsinghpur for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506, 333, 353, 427, 326 and 302 of the IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged that complainant Manoj Sharma had lodged a report that at about 12:30 PM Yashwant Singh and A.K. Namdeo informed him that co-accused Brijraj Singh Kaurav, Lakshman Singh Kaurav, Shriom Kaurav and Deepak Kaurav were quarreling with his brother Chandra Shekhar.On receiving the aforesaid information, he reached to the spot and saw that Brijraj Singh, Lakshman Singh, Shriom and Deepak were having lathi and Axe and they were assaulting his brother Chandra Shekhar Sharma.When he tried to intervene, then Brijraj Singh caught hold of him and Lakshman, Deepak and Shriom assaulted him by lathi, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head, claw of his right hand, back and thigh of right leg.His nephew Akhilesh came to rescue him, the accused persons assaulted him also.Chandra Shekhar sustained injuries on his head, back, left foot and other parts of the body.After the incident all the accused persons threatened to kill them.It is further alleged that the incident was witnessed by Bhanu Lodhi, Dayal Lodhi and Pravindra Lodhi.Initially the offence was registered under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 of the IPC.The injured persons were sent for medical examination.Manoj Sharma was also admitted in the hospital and ultimately he died due to hepatorenal failure secondary to septicaemia and deep jaundice.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.The names of the applicants do not find place in the FIR as well as in the statements of Bhanu Lodhi, Dayal Lodhi and Pravindra Lodhi recorded under Sections 161 of the Cr.P.C. Later on their names have been included in the statement of Chandra Shekhar, Akhilesh and other witnesses, in these circumstances, the possibility of false implication of the applicants cannot be ruled out.They are reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, their reputation will be tarnished, therefore, they be enlarged on anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for State and the objector have opposed the application.It reveals from the FIR said to have been lodged by Manoj Sharma that injured Chandra Shekhar and Akhilesh also accompanied him at the time of lodging the report, in these circumstances, they have not expressed the names of the applicant and after a lapse of time, they made statements against the applicants.It also reveals from the statements of the witnesses that the applicants have not assaulted the deceased.It also reveals from the post mortem report that Manoj Sharma due due to hepatorenal failure secondary to septicaemia and deep jaundice.Considering the aforesaid facts on record, if these applicants were present at the time of the incident, certainly their names should have found place in the FIR and in the statements of Bhanu Lodhi, Dayal Lodhi and Pramindra Lodhi.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
106,678 |
L.A.C. No. 2040/1987 under Section 37(a) of Bombay Police Act at Kalachowky Police Station;2) Spl.L.A.C. No. 1809/1988 under Section 37(a) of Bombay Police Act at Kalachowky Police Station;3) L.A.C. No. 78/1989 under Section 37(a) of Bombay Police Act at Kalachowky Police Station;4) C.R.No.317/1989 under Section 326, 448, 506(II) of I.P.C. at Kalachowky Police Station.5) C.R.No. 12/1990 under Section 326, 114 of I.P.C. at Kalachowky Police Station.6) C.R.No.2/1991 under Section 379, 114 of I.P.C. at Kalachowky Police Station.7) C.R.No.337/1991 under Section 326, 114 of I.P.C. at Kalachowky Police Station.8) C.R.No.4) C.R.No.This application has been filed to quash the FIR No.23/2008 registered by the Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai, on 21st January, 2008 for the offences under Section 326, 324, 506, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The main ground for quashing of FIR is that the complainant and the applicants have settled the differences in between themselves.It may be stated at the outset that the criminal law is based on the principles that the offences committed are against the State and also against the victim.Therefore, the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code is such that most of the serious offences are not compoundable, less offences are compoundable with the permission of the court and some trivial offences are compoundable at the behest of the complainant.If this scheme is kept in mind, then it will be clear that even if the victims or the injured are prepared to compromise the matter the State itself insists on conviction and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 ::: 3 punishment because the offence is against the State.In any case the applicants have not come to this court for compounding of the offence but have come for quashing of the FIR against them.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 :::The Applicant No.1 is involved in following cases :1) C.R. No. 89/2008 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code registered at D. B. Marg Police Station.218/1993 under Section 450, 395, 346 r/w 34 of I.P.C. at Dongari Police Station.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 :::9) C.R.No.172/2004 under Section 379 r/w 34 of I.P.C. at Bhandup Police Station.208/2004 under Section 379, 34 of I.P.C. at Mahim Police Station.57/2003 under Section 324 of I.P.C. at Antop Hill Police Station.12)L.A.C. No. 17/2005 under Section 37(a) of Bombay Police Act at Antop Hill Police Station.The Applicant No.3 is involved in following cases :1) C.R.No.107/1998 under Section 324, 34 of Indian Penal Code;2) C.R.No.181/1998 under Section 397, 460, 34 of Indian Penal Code;3) C.R.No.398/2002 under Section 324, 34 of Indian Penal Code;64/2003 under Section 324, 506(II), 34 of Indian Penal Code;5) C.R.No.38/2004 under Section 324, 506(II), 34 of Indian Penal Code;6) C.R.No.45/2004 under Section 324, 506(II) of Indian Penal Code;7) C.R.No.311/2005 under Section 326, 34 of Indian Penal Code;8) C.R.No.203/2006 under Section 506(II), 452, 34 of Indian Penal Code;9) C.R.No.227/2006 under Section 506(II) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 27 of Indian Arms Act.This was an appeal pending before the Supreme Court where the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code had been challenged and during the hearing of the appeal the parties want ed to compound the offence.The Supreme Court ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 ::: 8 noted, "The accused were acquitted by the trial court, but they were convicted by the High Court for the offence under Section 307 IPC.The parties, however, want to treat it as a special case, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case." Then the Supreme Court in paragraphs 3 and 4 held as under:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 :::We gave our anxious consideration to the case and also the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence.The case of Madan Mohan Abbot v/s State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 582, is the case where the offence was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 ::: 9 allowed to be compounded by the Supreme Court on the ground that it came to the following conclusion:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 :::"We notice from a reading of the FIR and the other documents on record that the dispute was purely a personal one between two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against the accused."Accordingly, the application for quashing of the FIR No.22 of 2008 registered with the Antop Hill Police Station, Mumbai on 21st January, 2008 is rejected.(BILAL NAZKI, J.)::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:00:36 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
106,680,950 |
With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.The passport in question i.e. Passport No.However, later, on receiving an adverse police verification report from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur stating that a criminal case vide Crime No.413/2008 for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506 :: 2 ::WP-9063-2015 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioner.The petitioner vide reply filed on 8.10.2011 refuted the allegation of false information/suppression of material information.The petitioner stated that as on 17.1.2011 when he filed an application along with affidavit, no criminal case was pending in any Court.It was stated that the criminal case said to have been registered was not within the personal knowledge of the petitioner as he was never called upon to furnish even a bail bond.:: 3 ::
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
106,689,742 |
as per rules.(SHANTANU KEMKAR)Heard with the aid of case diary.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.96/2015 registered at Police Station Shahpur, District Rewa for offence under Sections 294, 323, 341, 354, 506 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the allegation itself no offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out.He also submits that the complainant has falsely alleged against the applicant in regard to other offence of the Indian Penal Code.According to him on the basis of some previous enmity and dispute about the land a false complaint has been lodged against the applicant.On the other hand learned P.L. for the respondent/State has opposed the application.Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence collected in the case diary I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. is allowed.On applicant's furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, he be released on bail.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
106,694,992 |
all Crl.The appellants herein are accused Nos.2, 3 and 1, respectively, inS.C.No.93 of 2006, on the file of the learned Additional District andSessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin.The 4th accused in thecase is one Mr.Joseph.Some time before the alleged occurrence, one Glory was allegedly raped by one Vimal and others.(b)While so, on 30.09.2002, at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased was coming just in front of the house of one Mr.Karuppiah (P.W.5) on the main road.It is further alleged that they restrained the deceased, wrongfully, fromproceeding further, by surrounding him.It is also alleged that in thecourse of the same transaction, the first accused Vinoth stabbed the deceasedMurugan, repeatedly, on various parts of his body.Absconding accused Sureshalso stabbed the deceased, indiscriminately, on various parts of his body.If is further alleged that the another absconding accused Kavi @ Kavithaithen stabbed the deceased, repeatedly, on his body.Then the 2nd accusedFrancis stabbed the deceased, repeatedly with knife.Then, the deceasedaccused Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu stabbed the deceased, repeatedly, with knife, on his left leg, neck and other parts of the body.The 3rd accused Sekar,then stabbed the deceased on his neck and other parts of the body.Thus,these six accused caused the death of the deceased by indiscriminatelystabbing him with knives.So far as the 4th accused Mr.Joseph is concerned,it is alleged that he was also a member of the unlawful assembly and thus heis liable to be punished under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.(c)Out of the injuries sustained in the occurrence, the deceased diedon the spot.Then, the father of the deceased (P.W.1) went to the policestation and made a complaint to P.W.20, a Head Constable, attached toTuticorin South Police Station.P-40 is the First Information Report.Then P.W.20 forwardedboth the documents (Exs.P-1 and P-40) to Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police, Tuticorin South Police Station(P.W.21).(d)P.W.21 investigated the case.He proceeded to the place ofoccurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth fromthe place of occurrence.24.Horizontal superficial cut injury 2 x 0.2cm seen over posterioraspect of middle Right fore arm.?According to him,the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple cut injuries, involving neck vessels, lungs and intestine.On such arrest, A-3 made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the placewhere he had hidden a knife.In pursuance of the same, A-3 took P.W.21 andwitnesses to the said place and produced a knife and it was recovered underEx.P-46 Mahazar.On 13.10.2002 at 8.00 a.m., in the presence of P.W.8 andP.W.9, P.W.21 arrested accused Vinoth (A-1), Suresh (absconding accused), Kavi @ Kavithai (another absconding accused), Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu (died).On such arrest, they started giving confessions, voluntarily, one after theother.In pursuance of the confession made by Vinoth (A-1), a knife wasrecovered under a mahazar, marked as Ex.Then, in pursuance of theconfession made by accused Suresh, a knife was recovered from him, under Ex.P-50 Mahazar.Then, in pursuance of disclosure statement by the accused Kavi @ Kavithai (absconding accused) a knife was recovered under Ex.P-52 Mahazar.At 2.30 p.m., in pursuance of confession made by Sudai @ Sudalaimuthu (absconding accused), a knife was recovered under Ex.P-54 Mahazar, in the presence of the same witnesses.On returning to the policestation, P.W.21 forwarded the accused to court for judicial remand and handedover the material objects to the court.On 17.10.2002, at 12.00 Noon,P.W.21 arrested the 4th accused Joseph at Ettaiyapuram bus-stand.On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place wherehe had hidden a knife.In pursuance of the same, he took the police andwitnesses to said place and produced a knife, that was recovered under Ex.P-56 Mahazar.Then, on returning to the Police Station, P.W.21 forwarded theaccused to court for judicial remand.He examined the Doctor, who conductedautopsy and collected medical records.Finally, he lodged charge-sheetagainst all the accused.4.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges, asdetailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.The accused denied thesame.Originally, there were seven accused in the case,against whom final report was laid.As a matter of fact, the trial courtframed charges against all the seven accused.As against all the seven accused, the trial courtframed charges, as detailed below.Charge Accused 1U/s.148 IPC Against all the accused.2.U/s.341 IPC Against all the accused.U/s.302 IPC Against accused 1 to 64U/s.302 r/w.149 IPCAgainst accused No.72.Before the trial could commence, the 5th accused Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu passed away.The other two accused by name Suresh and Kavi @ Kavithai were absconding and therefore the case against them was split-up.Thus, the remaining accused, namely the appellants herein and Mr.Joseph,hereafter referred to as accused Nos.1 to 4, faced trial.By judgment dated04.10.2010, the trial court convicted all the four accused as detailed below.Accused ConvictionSentence A-1 to A-4U/s.148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year to each accused.A-1 toA-4U/s.341 IPC Simple imprisonment for one month to each accused.A-1 to A-3U/s..302 IPCLife imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year, to each accused.A-4U/s.302 r/w.149 IPCLife imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year, to each accused.The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The deceased and his men helped the police to arrest the accused in thatcase.The accused in this case were aggrieved over the same.This isstated to be the motive for the present occurrence.P.W.20, on receipt of Ex.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of thedeceased and forwarded the body for postmortem.(e)P.W.18 Dr.He found the following external injuries:?1.A lacerated cut injury 24 x 4 cm size starting from left angle ofmandible encircling anterior aspect of neck ends behind right ear.Thyroidcartilage cut in the middle.Neck vessels on right side seen cut.Underlying neck muscle cut.3.Vertical stab injury 3 x 2cm x muscle deep seen over left side ofchest 3cm from midline over 3rd intercostal space.4.Vertical stab injury 3 x 2cm x cavity deep seen over the left side ofchest 3cm from midline over 3rd intercostal space.5.Stab injury over midline at the level of nipple 1 x 2 cm size.6.Horizontal stab injury 3 x 2cm size x cavity deep 7cm below the leftnipple.7.Stab injury over lower end of sternum 5cm x 2cm x muscle deep.8.Oblique cut injury 3cm x 1cm x muscle deep seen over the right sideof chest 5cm above nipple.9.Vertically oblique stab injury 3 x 2cm x cavity deep seen 2cm belowthe left skills.10.Horizontal cut injury 6 x 3cm x muscle deep seen over the left sideof abdomen lumber region.11.A horizontal cut injury 3 x 1 cm x muscle deep seen 2cm below angleof Right scapula.12.Vertically oblique cut injury seen over the back, 2cm to left ofmidline communicating into abdominal cavity 2cm x 0.5cm size.14.Vertical cut injury 3 x 1cm x bone deep starting from root of Rightlittle finger on the palmer side cutting 5th metacarpal bone.15.Horizontal cut injury 2 x 0.5cm x tendon deep over the back side ofwrist.16.Lacerated cut injury 7 x 4cm x muscle deep seen over the medial sideof middle of Right arm.17.A cut injury 0.5 x 0.2cm x 0.2cm lateral aspect of left wrist.18.Cut injury root of left index finger 3 x 0.5cm x bone deep.19.Horizontal cut injury 2 x 1cm x muscle deep seen 6cm above left towrist.20.Two cut injuries 0.5 x 0.2cm seen 10cm below the elbow.21.Lacerated cut injury 7 x7 cm lateral aspect of left knee with skinhanging as a flap from above muscle deep.22.Horizontally oblique lacerated cut injury 8 x 4cm x muscle deep overthe middle of Right thigh anteriorly with upper margin of the skin rolled up.23.Horizontal cut injury 3 x 2cm x bone deep middle of Right leganteriorly.As stated earlier, before the trial could commence, Accused Suresh andKavi @ Kavithai absconded and therefore the case against them was split-up.Accused Sudalai @ Sudalaimuthu passed away.Therefore, the trial proceeded against the present appellants and the other accused Mr.Joseph.5.In order to prove the charges against the appellants (A-1 to A-3) andthe other accused Mr.Joseph (A-4), on the side of the prosecution, as manyas 21 witnesses were examined and 58 documents were exhibited, besides 13 Material Objects.6.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.2, 3, 5 to 12, 14 and 15 have turnedhostile and they have not supported the prosecution, in any manner.P.W.4 isthe mother of the deceased.She has stated that on hearing about theoccurrence, she came to the place of occurrence and found the dead body.Thus, her evidence is also not useful for the prosecution.P.W.16 has spokenonly about the motive.P.W.1 is the eye-witness to the occurrence.According to him, at about 8.30 p.m., on 30.09.2002, when he was in hishouse, his wife told him that she was searching for their son, but she couldnot locate him and then she wanted him to go and search for their son, thedeceased.Therefore, according to him, he proceeded in search of thedeceased.When he found the deceased near the temple, he told him to go home as his mother was searching for him.Accordingly, he started proceedingtowards his house.P.W.1 followed him.At that time, it is alleged that allthe accused emerged there, armed with weapons and attacked the deceased with knives.He further stated that he, immediately, went to the police stationand made a complaint.P.W.18 Dr.Arunachalam has spoken about the postmorterm conducted by him and his final opinion.P.W.19 is the Constable, who carried the bodyfor postmorterm.P.W.20 has spoken about the registration of case and P.W.21about the investigation.7.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did notchoose to examine any witness on their side nor to mark any document.9.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convictedand sentenced the appellants (A-1 to A-3) and the other accused Mr.Joseph (A-4), as detailed in the second paragraph of this Judgment and therefore theyare before this Court with these criminal appeals.They would further submit that P.W.1 has not explainedthe reasons for his presence, by chance, at the place of occurrence when theoccurrence is said to have taken place.They would further submit that inEx.P-1, P.W.1 has mentioned the names and the fathers' names of all theaccused; whereas, in cross-examination, he did not see the accused prior tothe occurrence and even he did not know the names of the accused.Theywould further submit that P.W.1 has spoken even about the minute details ofthe accused, thereby speaking about the individual overt acts of eachaccused in a meticulous manner.13.We have considered the above submissions.18.The fourth accused Mr.Joseph has not filed any appeal.Since hiscase is inseparable from the case of the appellants, as per law laid down bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 69, we are inclined to set aside theconviction and sentence imposed on him also.19.In the result, all the appeals are allowed; the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants as well as Mr.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,066,998 |
The first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle.The second respondent is the insurer.Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimant.Further, the compensation claimed under Column 21, 21A of Part I and Part II of the claim petition is too high, excessive, arbitrary and are not inconsonance with the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant.It is to be proved that the driver of the first respondent at the time of accident has a valid driving licence.Moreover, the appellant has to prove that the offending lorry has a valid permit and fitness certificate to ply on the road on the date of accident.P.1 to P.17 were marked.On the side of respondents, no one witness was examined and no documents were marked.After trial, the Tribunal, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced, has passed an award granting a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of payment together with costs payable by the second respondent/ Insurance Company.5.To prove negligence, the appellant/claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and he has deposed that on 02.06.1999 at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning, while he was riding his scooter TN-09-7141 in Jawharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Chennai (traveling from Ashok Nagar to Guindy) at that time the lorry bearing Registration No.T.M.P.6379 came from behind and dashed against his vehicle, as a result of which he fell down and the lorry's back wheel ran over his hip and his hip and bones in three places were broken and he sustained grievous injuries on his left hand, abrasions in his right hand and other injuries all over the body and he lost his Cane Bag in which he had kept his credit card, licence and a sum of Rs.2,000/- in his hand bag and immediately he received first aid treatment at Pallavan Hospital and later since his condition was stable he was taken to the Apollo Hospital, where he remained as inpatient for 44 days and also he underwent two surgeries and that his discharge summary is Ex.P.8-FIR indicates that the complainant is Azeez Rahman and that the suspected accused is scooter driver bearing Registration No.In his complaint Ex.P.2 (series) is the inpatient medical bills and Ex.P.3 is the deposit receipt (series), Ex.P.4 is the payment and outpatient counter cash bill and that he has spent a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards body exercise by engaging a doctor and that he is unable to walk continuously and that he cannot travel more than two hours and he has been advised by the Apollo Hospital authorities that he should undergo third surgery and that he is an income tax assessee and Ex.Challenge in this civil miscellaneous appeal is to the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal viz., IV Judge, Fast Track Court, Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.3761 of 1999 dated 20.05.2003 awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment etc. and thereby the appellant/claimant has prayed for an enhancement of compensation.2.The short facts of the claim are as follows:On 02.6.1999 at about 9.00 a.m. the appellant/ claimant was riding the scooter bearing Registration No.TN-09-7141 from north to south direction in Jawharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, Chennai-32 and at that time a lorry bearing Registration No.T.M.P.6379 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his scooter causing grievous injuries.4.Before the Tribunal, on the side of appellant/ claimant witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Ex.P.1 and the treatment medical bills of the Apollo Hospital is Ex.P.2 (series) and Ex.P.3 is the Apollo Hospital receipts (series) and that he prays for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.6.However, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has considered all the available material on record and has come to the correct conclusion in awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment etc. and therefore, the same need not be interfered by this Court.7.P.W.3 the Sub Inspector of Police in his evidence has stated that based on the complaint of one Madhavan for the accident that has taken place on 02.06.1999 at 8.30 a.m. in Jawharlal Nehru Road near Guindy SIPCOT Company involving lorry T.M.P.No.6379 and the Scooter TN-09-7141, the scooter rider has suffered grievous injuries and that the Sub Inspector-Chinnadurai has registered a case in Crime No.308/S.2/99 under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act and that after completion of investigation before the Saidapet IV Magistrate Court as against the lorry driver-Sekar, a case has been registered under Section 338 of I.P.C. and under Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act and that in C.C.No.4264/99 the lorry driver has admitted his guilt and paid fine of Rs.1,200/- on 23.09.1999 and that the First Information Report is Ex.P.9 and the Rough Sketch is Ex.8.P.W.2 the doctor in his evidence has stated that the P.W.1/appellant/claimant has suffered a total disability of 65%, as per Ex.P.16-Disability Certificate and Ex.P.17 is X-ray and that the appellant/claimant has been examined by him on 11.12.2000 and that the appellant's flat bone on the right hip joint upper portion has been broken and rods were fixed from outside and that treatment has been given for the road accident sustained and the front portion bones of the hip bone were dislocated and still it is in dislocated stage and the broken bone has been mal-united with tightened muscles and the appellant has difficult in regard to driving of his vehicle and while sitting for which he has assessed disability at 35% and for the left side of the hip bone two cross bones were fractured and they were mal-united and the claimant walks limping and the left side hip bone part has moved lower, for which he assessed disability at 30%.9.A perusal of Ex.P.9 the complainant has stated that the scooter TN-09-7141 which was proceeding in front of him in the direction of north to south on 02.06.1999 at about 8.30 a.m. near SIPCOT in Jawharlal Nehru Road, Guindy, the lorry T.M.P.No.6379 which came in the same direction has dashed against and as a result of which, the kinetic bright scooter rider suffered injury and fell down below the lorry in an unconscious state and immediately he took him to Apollo Hospital with the help of General Public for treatment and admitted him there and that action is to be taken against the lorry driver T.M.P.No.6379, who is responsible for causing the accident.10.Even though the complainant of Ex.P.9 has not been examined as a witness in the case yet the appellant/claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 before the Tribunal and he has spoken about the manner and mode of occurrence in a clear cut way.In view of the fact that the evidence of P.W.1/appellant/claimant is unimpeachable as to the manner and mode of occurrence and taking note of the fact that the offending lorry driver T.M.P.No.6379 has paid a fine of Rs.1,200/- before Criminal Court after admitting the offence, this Court comes to the inescapable conclusion that the driver of the offending lorry T.M.P.No.6379 is solely and squarely responsible for causing the accident and that the accident has taken place because of the negligence of the lorry driver and the point is answered accordingly.11.In regard to the quantum of compensation to be awarded, it is to be pointed out that the appellant/claimant in his claim petition has made the following claim under different heads claiming different amounts and the same is as below:Amount of compensation claimed : Rs.3,00,000/-(a) Loss of earning from : Nil to(b) Partial loss of earning from : Nil to(c) At the net rate of Rs. :(d) Transport to Hospital : Rs. 3,000/-12.The tribunal in respect of transportation expenses, nourishment and medical expenses has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under these heads, it has granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, towards disability it has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, in respect of loss of income it has granted Rs.20,000/- and in all thus awarded a total sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the appellant/ claimant.13.According to the evidence of P.W.1(appellant/ claimant), he has remained as an inpatient for 44 days at the Apollo Hospital, where he underwent two surgical operations and that in the pelvis region two rods have been fixed and that his discharge summary is Ex.P.1, Ex.The plaintiff can never sue again for it.In Ex.In Ex.Admittedly, the appellant/claimant has not filed his Income Tax Return before the Tribunal.27.In fine, this Court awards a sum of Rs.2,20,033/- (Rupees Two lakhs twenty thousand and thirty three only) along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of payment as total compensation to the appellant/claimant and consequently, the award of Rs.1,50,000/- passed by the Tribunal together with interest at 9% per annum with default interest clause at 3% over and above 9% is not correct and this Court allows the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in above terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.27.02.2009Index : YesInternet : Yes sglToThe IV Judge,Fast Track Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,ChennaiM.VENUGOPAL,J.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
106,701,925 |
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.By way of filing present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the detention order dated 11th July 2016 passed by Respondent No.1, bearing No. PCB/DET/2663/2016 under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons (And Video Pirates) Act, 1981 (for short "M.P.D.A. Act, 1981").The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that though the number of ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 ::: cwp1237.16 3 grounds are taken in the Petition, he is restricting his arguments to three grounds.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::Firstly, it is submitted that though the Petitioner is acquitted from the offence (Crime No.63 of 2003) punishable under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") by the Court of Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2004 decided on 15th February 2011, the said Judgment and order in the aforesaid appeal was not placed on record before the detaining authority.The detaining authority proceeded to pass an order of detention even relying upon the said offence without taking into consideration a fact that the Petitioner stands acquitted from the said offence.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the reported Judgment in the case of Smt. Vijaya Raju Gupta vs. Shri R.H. Mendonca and others, 2001 ALL M.R. (Cri)::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::Thus, it is clear that the detaining authority has considered extraneous material apart from the material shown in para 4 and 5 of the grounds of detention and his satisfaction was influenced.The subjective satisfaction vitiates on the count of considering extraneous material.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.appearing for the State, relying upon the grounds mentioned in the order of the detaining authority and also the original record and averments in the affidavit in reply filed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, Pune, submits that the Petitioner is involved in number of offences since the year 2000 as it is evident from the offences mentioned in the grounds of detention order passed by the detaining authority.Therefore, the learned A.P.P. submits that the Writ Petition deserves to be rejected.We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::cwp1237.16 7 appearing for the State.With their able assistance, we have perused the grounds agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner during the course of hearing and also the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. and also perused the Petition, annexures thereto and the reply filed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City, Pune.Upon perusal of the said Judgment and order, it clearly emerges that the Petitioner stands acquitted for the offence (Crime No.63 of 2003) punishable under Section 399 of the I.P.C. Vide the said Judgment, the order passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune dated ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 ::: cwp1237.16 8 7th January 2014 in Sessions Case No.222 of 2003 convicting the present Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 399 of I.P.C. and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, has been quashed and set aside by the Appellate Court.The said Judgment and Order is passed on 15th February 2011 i.e. five years prior to the passing of the order of detention.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::Upon careful perusal of the discussion/ grounds in the detention order passed by the detaining authority, in Ground No.3, it is stated thus:-" The above mentioned offences have been registered against you from time to time for your criminal acts but the same have had no effect on you.In the past, on 07/01/2004, you have been convicted in CR.No. 63/2003 u/s 399 of IPC registered at Hadapsar Police Station.In the said offence, the Hon'ble 15th Ad-Hoc ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 ::: cwp1237.16 9 Addl.District and Asstt.Sessions Judge, Pune sentenced you to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for one month."have been convicted in CR.No. 63/2003 u/s 399::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::The result is that the non-placing of the material fact - namely the acquittal of detenu in the above-said two cases resulting in non-application of minds of the detaining authority to the said fact has vitiated the requisite subjective satisfaction, rendering the impugned detention order invalid."::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::Coming to the second ground urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the detaining authority has not recorded his satisfaction to the effect that he has considered the in-camera statements, more particularly their truthfulness of the incidents which is a mandatory requirement of law is concerned, we have perused ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 ::: cwp1237.16 12 the original record made available for our perusal and we find that the detaining authority has relied upon the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the detaining authority himself has not verified the truthfulness of the incidents stated by the witnesses in their in-::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Principal Seat, in the case of Mrs. Mrunali Virendra Lonare vs. Commissioner of Police and others, supra, while considering similar arguments/ grounds agitated by the detenu therein, in Para 6 and 7 held thus:We have perused in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. We find on careful perusal of the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has not at all recorded a subjective satisfaction that the incidents narrated in the in-camera statements were truthful.::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::Thus the order of detention suffers from a very serious infirmity which ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 ::: cwp1237.16 17 goes to the root of the matter.The liberty of the subject being an extremely precious right, where any infraction of such a right is involved the court must act as a watch-dog and a sentinel on the qui vive to see that every benefit of the lacunae goes to the detenu."::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::In our considered opinion, in the present case for more than one reason including non-placing of the order of acquittal of detenu i.e. Petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2004 ( Mr. Deepak Dattu Suryawanshi vs. The State of Maharashtra) decided on 15th February 2011, and also on other two grounds, the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority stands vitiated, rendering the detention order invalid.Accordingly the Petition must succeed and we pass the following order:-::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::(III) The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.(IV) Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.[K.K. SONAWANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/DEC16 ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 01:07:22 :::
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,792,104 |
No.91 akd [ALLOWED] C. R. M. 3721 of 2018 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.06.2018 in connection with Chanditala Police Station Case No. 180 of 2018 dated 05.05.2018 under Sections 341/323/325/307/354B/379/427/468/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Sambhunath Das & Ors. ... ... Petitioners Mr. Ashok Das .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Debajyoti Deb .. Advocate ... ... for the State Heard the learned advocate appearing for both the parties.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the accused/petitioners, namely (1) Sambhunath Das, (2) Srinath Das, (3) Biswajit Das & (4) Somnath Das, be 2 released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that they shall meet the Investigating Officer once in a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,796,138 |
2.D.Varatharajulu .. 2nd Respondent in Crl.O.P.21714 and 24938/20112.P.Selvamani .. 2nd respondent in Crl.O.P.23140/2011 Crl.O.P.Nos.21714 and 23140 of 2011 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to Crime Nos.834 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 and 758 of 2011 dated 1.8.2011 respectively on the file of V7 Nolambur Police Station, Chennai-37 and to quash the same.O.P.No.24938/2011 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to C.C.No.293 of 2011 dated 21.9.2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and to quash the same.For Petitioners : Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram and N.R.Elango, SC for Mr.A.Saravanan and K.Muralibabu in all OPs For respondents : Mr.I.Subramanian, PP for R1 assisted by Mr.C.Balasubramanian, APP Mr.An extent of 20.59 acres of land situated in various survey Nos.81, 88 to 91, 93, 94/2, 94/3, 106 to 108, 109/1, 109/2, 111 and 112, 123 and 124/1 in Nolambur Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvellore District originally belonged to one Balakrishnan and others, who sold it to N.K.Kirubai Nayagam and others and a suit O.S.No.3427 of 1974 came to be filed for dissolution of firm by name M/s.Kiruba Brick Works by one P.Jeyamani and the land and property in question were shown as assets of the firm in the suit and the suit was subsequently disposed of, on the basis of joint compromise memo.In pursuance of the compromise decree, the second set of parties in the compromise memo through power of attorney created sale deeds in favour of number of individuals, who are also the members of one association by name Annamalai Avenue (Nolambur) Plot Owners Association.During 2008, O.S.23 of 2008 came to be filed by (i)Dhanasingh (ii) Albert (iii) Jayapal (iv) Rathinavathy and (v) Juliet Gnanavathy, represented by their power of attorney T.C.Venkatesh @ T.C.Gowri Sankar, who is the second petitioner herein, for various reliefs for declaring the compromise decree made in O.S.No.3427 of 1974 on the file of City Civil Court, Chennai as null and void on the ground of fraud and for consequential permanent injunctions and for preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiffs' 5/7th share in the suit properties, after declaring the compromise decree as not binding upon the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs along with the plaint filed 22 documents as per the list appended to the plaint.The suit was, as per the memo of valuation appended to the plaint, valued at 30 times of kist value and court fee was paid under Tamil Nadu Court fee Act for such value of the properties.The complaint proceeds as if the defacto complainant is the permanent resident of Moon Enclave Apartment, Mugappair and he purchased a house site measuring 1 ground from one Gupta during 2002 and obtained due license and permission for putting up construction and while so, during 2008 he along with 120 persons, who are all the purchasers of land measuring 20 acres in different survey numbers in Nolambur, received copy of exparte injunction order granted in favour of one Gowri Sankar on the basis of the documents produced on his side before Poonamallee court and the defacto complainant and others immediately entered appearance in the suit and injunction order was modified into an order of status quo.While so, the named second accused Venkatesh @ Gowri Sankar at the instigation of the named first accused B.Ranganathan, came to the property along with his hirelings, armed with weapons and put up a shed and installed a board and when the defacto complainant and others met Gowri Sankar and others in the site, they were threatened with dire consequences, to leave the site, after receiving 25% of the amount paid by them by way of sale consideration.The enquiry in the Tahsildar office reveals that kist receipts in C77 series for the faslis 1405, 1406 and 1407, which were filed into court by Gowrisankar, are forged documents on the strength of which Ranganathan and others threatened the individual owner of the land with dire consequences and action is warranted against all the seven accused for act of criminal intimidation on the basis of the forged documents.The kist receipts are admittedly filed along with plaint in OS.No.23 of 2008 by the accused Dhanasingh, Albert, Jayapaul, Rathinavathy and Juliet Gnanavathy, who are arrayed as A3 to A7 herein through the second accused T.C.Venkatesh @ Gowrisankar/A2 as their power of attorney.The three kist receipts are for the faslis 1405 to 1407 corresponding calender years 1995 to 1997 having S.No.M.Krishnamoorthy, for R2COMMON ORDER While Crl.OP.No.21714 of 2011 is filed by A1 and A2 in Crime No.834 of 2011 against the State represented by Inspector of Police, V7 Nolambur Police Station, Chennai-37/Investigation officer and one D.Varatharajulu/defacto Complainant to call for the records relating to Crime No.834 of 2011 dated 24.8.2011 on the file of V7 Nolambur Police station and to quash the same, Crl.O.P.No.23140 of 2011 is filed for similar relief as sought for in Crl.O.P.No.21714 of 2011 in respect of Crime No.758 of 2011 dated 1.8.2011 on the file of the same police station registered on the basis of the complaint given by one Selvamani who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the Crl.2.Few facts, which are relevant for consideration herein are:The suit was filed against other rival claimants, who are the claimants of other set of suit property, individuals, who obtained sale deeds in respect of different extent in different suit survey numbers and Annamalai Avenue (Nolambur) Plot Owners Association and other revenue and other departmental officials for the reliefs as stated supra.The suit was filed along with IA.Nos.156 and 157 of 2008 for interim reliefs of injunction.3.The contesting defendants/respondents in the suit as well as in IAs, having entered appearance through their respective counsel, seriously contested I.As by raising various contentions both on legal and factual aspects.Aggrieved against the same, CRP.Nos.2913 and 3006 of 2008 came to be filed by the defendants to struck off the suit on different grounds.Both the CRPs were disposed of by common order dated 5.8.2009, in and under which, CRPs were dismissed and direction was issued to the trial court to dispose of the suit within the time specified in the order.The compliant was received at 3pm on 1.8.2011 and the same was registered on the file of V7 Nolambur Police station as Cr.no.758 of 2011 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 387, 506(ii), 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC and the same was followed by commencement of investigation by the first respondent/IO.Pending investigation, A1 to A5 were arrested on 2.8.2011 and were remanded to judicial custody on 3.8.2011 and an application was filed into court on 3.8.2011 under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C seeking police custody of the accused 1 and 2 for their custodial interrogation and the same was rejected by the concerned judicial Magistrate.O.P.No.18888 of 2011 and this court by order dated 12.8.2011 dismissed the criminal Original Petition on the ground that the police custody of A1 and A2 for custodial interrogation is unwarranted.5.Immediately thereafter, the second respondent in Crl.The allegations raised in the complaint giving rise to Crime No.834 of 2011 culminating into CC.No.293 of 2011 relates to criminal acts constituting the offences under sections 420, 468, 506(ii) r/w 120 B IPC relating to misrepresentation made by A1 and A2 regarding ownership of the property and offer made by them for sale of the property on behalf of the owners and negotiation held between the defacto complainant and his close relatives on one hand and A1 and A2 on other hand and acceptance of the defacto complainant and others to purchase the property for sale consideration of Rs.5 crores arrived at by them and payment of Rs.2.50 crores by way of two cheques each on two occasions drawn in favour of M/s.National Developers and sale agreement executed between the defacto complainant and A3 to 6 in Poonamallee Sub Registrar Office and postponement of execution of sale deed by A1 and A2 inspite of repeated demands and relating to act of criminal intimidation by A1 and A2 by threatening the defacto complainant and others to leave the property, after receiving part of the money etc.6.The complaint proceeds as if the defacto complainant, his brother Dhanasekaran and his paternal uncles Padmanabhan and Venkatraman have been running Brick Klins and are income tax assessees and T.C.Venkatesh @ Gowrisankar claiming himself to be the representative of M/s. National Developers established and run by B.Ranganathan, former M.L.A of Villivakkam and Purasaiwakkam constituencies, represented to them that other four accused are the absolute owners and possessors of vacant land in various survey numbers measuring 20.95 acres in Nolambur Village and a portion of the land measuring 94 cents is offered for sale and the owners have authorised M/s.National Developers to mediate for and on their behalf to fix the sale price and to sell the said portion of the land and the second petitioner herein T.C.Venkatesh @ Gowrisankar was assisting the first accused Ranganathan and the same was also verified from A1 Ranganathan.When the defacto complainant and others met him in person, A1 and A2 assured and represented that other four accused have valid and marketable title and the landed property in question is not subjected to any encumbrance and all of them bonafidly believed and trusted the representation made by A1 and A2 respectively as genuine and agreed to purchase the land for sale consideration of Rs.5 crores and paid advance of Rs.2,50,00,000/- by way of two cheques drawn in favour of National Developers and two cheques were also encashed and thereafter, the intending purchasers were summoned to Sub Registrar Office at Konnur at 4 pm for getting the sale agreement executed and three out of four persons had been to Registrar office and the remaining four accused were shown as owners and family cards and bank cards were shown as proof of their identity and the defacto complainant and two others were compelled to sign the documents without being allowed to read the same and the same was also registered.Subsequently, they came to know that larger extent of 17.15 acres as against 94 cents has been mentioned as the land agreed to be purchased for Rs.34,30,00,000/- instead of Rs.5,00,00,000/- and when they questioned A1 and A2 regarding the discrepancy, they promised them to set right all the matters and make other four persons to execute the sale deed by mentioning the correct particulars.In the mean while, they approached the civil court by filing suit O.S.No.23 of 2008 for certain reliefs and again, the defacto complainant met them and they promised them to settle the issue shortly and thereafter to execute the sale deeds.Subsequently, there was no proper response from the persons concerned, which compelled the defacto complainant and others apprehending foul play to approach the plot owners association, who filed earlier complaint against A1 and A2 and who issued publication in the newspaper.7.The complaint further proceeds as if the enquiry with Annamalai Avenue Nolambur Plot Owners Association revealed pendency of Civil Suit and that the predecessors-in-title of the members of the said association were the real owners and possessors of the entire Nolambur vacant land and after the sales made by them, the members of the said association become the absolute owners and possessors of the same and A1, A2 and others dishonestly and fraudulently created invalid and illegal sale agreement dated 5.4.2007 in favour of the defacto complainant and others to cheat and defraud the complainant and others.Again, the defacto complainant and others met A1 and A2 and demanded return of sale advance amount, but A1 and A2 threatened the defacto complainant and others to end their life, if they make any such demand.The complaint was received at 10.30 am on 24.8.2011 and was registered as Crime No.834 of 2011 on the file of V7 Nolumbur Police Station against the petitioners 1 and 2 and four others.8.Admittedly, during pendency of civil suit filed by A3 to A7 represented through A2/power of attorney and investigation upon police complaints, compromise was arrived at between the individuals by A1 and A2 returning entire amount to the defacto complainant and others and by their giving up any claim upon the land in question and the defacto complainant in both FIRs and others have mainly on the strength of such settlement arrived at between the parties, intended and agreed to drop the criminal proceedings.The petitioners 1 and 2, who are arrayed as A1 and A2 in both the crime Nos.758 and 834 of 2011 have hence approached this court by way of Crl.O.P.Nos.21714 of 2011 and 23140 of 2011 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to both crime numbers and to quash the same.O.P.Nos.21714 and 23140 of 2011 were filed on 6.9.2011 and 21.9.2011 respectively to call for the records relating to both Crime Nos.834 and 758 of 2011 respectively and to quash the same on the ground that the petitioners/A1 and A2 have settled the issue with the defacto complainant and all 120 members of Annamalai Avenue Nolambur Plot Owners Association and in pursuance of the compromise, the civil suit O.S.No.23 of 2008 was dismissed by Supreme Court and SLPs pending before the Supreme Court were also dismissed and consequent upon the same, the civil suit O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of sub court, Poonamallee was also withdrawn by the plaintiffs, who are the accused in both Crime numbers.However, before obtaining any order in both the Crl.OPs., investigation was completed in Crime No.834 of 2011 and charge sheet was filed and the same was taken up on file as C.C.No.293 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, as such, the accused 1 and 2 herein have filed subsequent Crl.O.P.No.24938 of 2011 to call for the records in CC.No.293 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and to quash the same.10.The petitioners have also in support of the settlement theory produced identical affidavits of the defacto complainant and remaining 120 owners/members of plot owners association to the effect that after the dispute was amicably settled, it was represented before the Supreme Court and on the basis of representation, O.S.No.23 of 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court and the petitioners have, as per the settlement, relinquished their claim in property and the defacto complainant and others have no other claim against the petitioners either civil or criminal and they have no intention to continue the prosecution against the petitioners and have no objection to quash the proceedings.13.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides.OPs are filed against identical set of accused for identical relief to quash the FIR on the same ground of settlement between the parties.Persuade your neighbours to compromise wherever you can.This suit is filed against the rival claimants and against the members of Annamalai Avenue Nolambur Plot owners Association and other officials for questioning the validity and enforceability of compromise decree made in earlier suit OS.No.3427 of 1974 and for other consequential and permanent injunctions.The suit is filed along with 22 documents, out of which, the documents 19 to 21 filed along with plaint are kist receipts dated 19.3.1995, 18.2.1996 and 18.4.1997 obtained from Deputy Tahsildar by the plaintiffs.The kist receipts are issued in the names of N.K.K.Dhanasingh, N.K.K.Albert and N.K.K.Jayapaul for the faslis 1405, 1406 and 1407 for 20.59 acres in S.No.88 situated in Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District and the amount collected under each of the receipts is Rs.11,968/-.But, the kist receipts are not produced as exhibits in the course of enquiry in IAs.But, the trial court declined to render any finding on the genuineness of the documents on the ground that the documents are not marked as exhibits and while doing so, the trial court also stated that in the event of the property being valued on the basis of the documents, the property can be, for the purpose of suit reliefs, re-valued and subject to such revaluation be presented before the appropriate court, but the suit cannot be dismissed on the basis of the documents, the genuineness of which need not be gone into.39.Similar observation was made by High court in para 27 of its order dated 5.8.2009 made in CRP.Nos.2913 and 3006 of 2008 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against numbering and entertaining of suit OS.23 of 2008 and to strike out the same from the file of the same court.Our High court though pointed out certain discrepancies in the kist receipts produced by the plaintiffs, was not inclined to render any observation and finding as regards the pleadings on merits, probative value of the documents, nature of the reliefs sought for and the right of the parties and left the same to be decided by the trial court.Aggrieved against the same, SLP.30471 and 30472 of 2011 are filed before the Supreme court, where again, forgery nature of the documents, is seriously agitated.The serious objection raised before the Supreme Court is that the kist receipts for previous years i.e. receipts dated 19.3.95, 18.2.96 and 18.4.1997 are forged by using the kist receipt book printed in the year 2003 and the entries made therein are written in hand.Similarly, the plaintiffs have produced adangal register relating to the fasli year 1388 corresponding with calendar year 1978-79, which is much prior to compromise decree dated 8.10.1980 and which is also forged document and the same was used to make the court to believe that they are the persons in possession and enjoyment of the property, thereby obtained interim injunction using the forged documents.The supreme court by order dated 6.1.2010 entertained SLPs and issued notice to the respondents and stayed the proceedings.The supreme court thereafter, in view of the compromise entered into between parties, finally disposed of SLPs on 13.9.2011 in and under which, interlocutory applications filed by the respondents 1 to 5, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.23 of 2008 are allowed and the suit is dismissed as withdrawn and SLP are also dismissed as infructuous.40.In the present compliant registered as FIR No.758 of 2011 filed on 1.8.2011, during the pendency of SLPs before the Supreme Court, here again, the allegations raised for the offences under sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC are that three receipts are forged and such forged receipts are produced before the court for obtaining an order of status quo.No.4548/2011/A6 dated 2.7.2011 and the reply is addressed to the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Nolambur Police Station and the letter of the Inspector of Police dated 20.7.2011 is mentioned in the reference column.It is stated therein that the receipts in question in C.77 serial numbers, on verification of the original kist receipts book, found to be not genuine.The Investigating Officer has also reported to have obtained statement from the author of the aforementioned letter and collected further particulars on 4.10.2011 and also obtained statement from one Manoharan, VAO, Ambattur Taluk and Retired VAO, Murthy, who is the signatory in the receipts in question.44.However, the next aspect to be considered herein is as to whether the criminal prosecution for the three offences as referred to above has to go on against both the petitioners.It is sought to be argued on the side of the petitioners herein that the suit along with the documents in question having been filed only by A3 to A7 through A2 power of attorney and as the proceedings of the supreme court having been agitated between A2 to A7 on one hand and the individuals on other hand, A1 cannot be involved into the alleged act of forgery of the documents.Thus, viewing from both the angles, the complaint lodged by the individuals in respect of the document allegedly forged outside and produced in a proceeding before the court is maintainable. Thus, applying the same view, the objection regarding maintainability of the complaint on locus standi issue has to be necessarily negatived.The defacto complainant is but competent person to set in motion criminal law against the offenders for act of forgery alleged.51.In the result, Crl.OP.Nos.21714 and 24938 of 2011 are ordered as prayed for, thereby the criminal proceedings in CC.No.293/11 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur arising out of Crime No.834 of 2011 dated 24.08.2011 on the file of V7 Nolambur Police Station is quashed.52.In the result, Crl.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,796,751 |
Heard with aid of the case diary.This first bail application filed by applicant Sanjay Sahu under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 729/2014 registered at Police Station, Garha, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC.As per the prosecution case, on 22.08.2012 applicant stole motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP20- MC-9195 from the campus of Laxmi Narayan Technology College Jabalpur.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier on 12.11.2013 police arrested the applicant under Section 41 (1) 4 of CrPC r/w 379 IPC and seized four motorcycles from the possession of the applicant which included motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP 20- MC- 9195 and police registered case no.02/13 at P.S. Narsinghpur and produced before the court.In that case learned JMFC granted bail to the applicant.On that report police registered crime no. 729/14 for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC.In that crime police again wanted to arrest the applicant.The applicant is a student of Laxmi Narayan College of Technology.No custodial interrogation is required.So, applicant be released on anticipatory bail.The 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 concerned Station House Officer for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
328,181 |
It is contended that though the Government has issued the above referred notification and respondents 2 and 3 extended benefit of these guidelines to other convicts in respect of remission, the same benefit is denied to the present petitioner only because the petitioner was awarded punishment under the Central Act. The relevant portion of the said Notification reads thus (though in the present case we are concerned with Sub-clause (iii) :--(i) The prisoners who are in jail for the offence punishable under Sections 106 and 110 of Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter Cases),(ii) The prisoners sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 120 to 130 of the Indian Penal Code (The offence pertaining to activities against the State).(iii) The prisoners sentenced under the Central Act.(iv) Civil prisoners and(v) The children from the Remand Home for children."JUDGMENT D.D. Sinha, J.1. Heard Mr. Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gavai, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents.The petitioner, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of this court, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court bearing No. 636 of 1995, which was admitted by the Apex Court and the petitioner, vide order, dated 27-9-1993, passed by the Supreme Court, was released on bail.No order as to costs.
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
331,526 |
JUDGMENT Beg, J.This is a revision filed by Jageshwar Dayal, Kamla Prasad, Kamla Kant and Nathu, who have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100/- fine, in default six months' rigorous imprisonment, under Section 332, Penal Code.Nathu has been further sentenced under Section 323, Penal Code, to six months' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently.The case against these applicants was that on 8-9-1949, at about 5 P.M. they beat the Naib Tahsildar Sri Lakshmi Narain, when he was returning after his work from the Tahsil to his house.It is alleged by the prosecution that the Naib Tahsildar Sri Lakshmi Narain had made a report against the patwari Jageshwar Dayal, as a result of which Jageshwar Dayal had been suspended.As a consequence of this report and his suspension Jageshwar Dayal was harbouring ill will against him, and along with the other three accused Kamta Pershad, Kamla Kant and Nathu attacked Lakshmi Narain and caused injuries on him.Deolok Singh, Qanungo, who was accompanying Sri Lakshmi Narain, raised an alarm and tried to intervene but he was also beaten.The prosecution case was supported by the statement of Lakshmi Narain Naib Tahsildar, who appeared as P.W. 1 and Deolok Singh Qanungo (P.W. 2) who corroborated Lakshmi Narain.Rikhi Nath (P. W. 3), Earn Sanehi (P.W. 4), Puttu Singh (P. W. 5) and Khubi Singh (P.W. 6) were also produced on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case.On the basis of the above evidence, both the Courts below have believed the prosecution story and have convicted the accused applicants, as mentioned above.The learned counsel for the applicants has raised a legal point to the effect that Lakshmi Narain Naib Tahsildar was not discharging any official duty, when he was beaten and so the conviction under Section 332 cannot stand.I am, however, unable to agree with him on this point.As a consequence thereof he was beaten by Jageshwar Dayal and others.These cases appear to be eases where a person was alleged to have been assaulted in the actual discharge of his duty.Lastly he has argued that Rikhinath should not have been believed, as documentary evidence indicates that he was not present on the scene.The lower Court has given good reasons for believing Rikhinath and I am in agreement with it.I hold that Rikhinath was present and his evidence is worthy of credence.The sentences passed on the applicants are not severe at all.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,156,242 |
24/04/2020 On account of the prevailing conditions worldwide, brought about by the COVID 19 virus, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing, to maintain social distancing.The necessary parties have effectively been represented by their respective counsels through video conferencing.The appeal has been filed by the Appellant aggrieved by the order dated 18/02/2020, passed by the court of the Ld.VI Additional Sessions Judge, Reva, in Sessions Trial No. 600206/2006, whereby the Appellant was convicted for an offence under section 304B read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment.3. Heard on I.A No. 3969/2020 for suspension of sentence.The Appellant herself is stated to have been absconding for a while before she stood trial.The case against the Appellant is that she heaped indignities on the deceased and persistently harassed the deceased for not bringing a motorcycle in dowry, due to which the deceased committed suicide.There are no specific allegations against the Appellant.The witnesses have also stated that when they saw the body of the deceased it had blue marks here and there.The post-mortem report of the deceased 3 does not reveal any external injuries to the body.Neither does the post-mortem report reveal any injuries to the internal organs.The opinion of the doctors who carried out the post-mortem is inconclusive.PW6 is Ramakant Gautham, the scribe of the FIR.In his examination in chief, this witness states that he knew the deceased and her husband and also the father in law of the deceased.He further states that the deceased was very comfortable at her matrimonial home and there were no issues relating to the demand of dowry.This witness, though being a prosecution witness, has stated in favour of the Appellant in his cross examination.The prosecution has not declared him hostile and neither has it subjected the witness to further examination.Under the circumstances, the statement of this witness is binding upon the prosecution.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
331,631 |
JUDGMENT G.P. Singh, J.The appellants in these three appeals, Sarthi, Bhqklu and Nanhi, have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of one Noharsai.The incident resulting in the death of Noharsai happened at about 12 noon on 28th August, 1969, in village Godhi, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh.The first information report was lodged by Rabi (P.W. 3) son of the deceased at about 2.30 p.m. B. K. Singh (P.W. 12), Sab-Inspector, Police, went to the spot and found the dead body of Noharsai suspended from the ceiling of the house of Majhi with the help of a piece q cloth tied round the neck.The, postmortem examination of the dead body was carried out on 29th August by Dr. A. G. Shesh (P.W. 7).He found one abrasion on the lower part of the left side of the back and another abrasion over the lateral side of the left knee.These abrasions were antemortem but of little significance.The doctor further found an antemortem ligature mark 1" in thickness above the level of thyroid cartilege extending obliquely backwards and disappearing behind the left ear.In the opinion of the doctor death was due to asphyxia resulting from hanging.The doctor did not find any nail injuries on the neck of the deceased.The stomach contents of the deceased showed that he had consumed alcohol.The doctor did not accept the suggestion that the hanging was suicidal for, in his opinion, it is not possible for a person under intoxication to commit suicide by hanging.The doctor's evidence leads to the definite conclusion that the death was caused by hanging and that in all probability the hanging was homicidal and not suicidal.3. Majhi in whose house the dead body of Nohirsai was found was a cousin of the deceased.Majhi and Dasmat both had become invalid and were helped by the deceased and his son Babi for cultivating the lands.It is said that during his lifetime Majhi bad orally declared Rebi to be his successor.Dasmat being invalid had called Sukanti, daughter of accused Sarthi, for preparing her meals and looking after the household.It is suggested by the prosecution that Noharsai felt that Sukanti noay prove to be an obstacle in the way of his son Babi in ultimately getting the property of Dasmat and this had led to an ill feeling between him and Sarthi.The eye-witness account of the entire happening is furnished by Dujeram (P.W. 1).Dujeram is Kotwar of village Amaghat which is at a distance of about one and half mites from Gogh.Dujeram happened to come to Godhi on Mtth August, 19Wj in connection with some work.While returning to Amaghat he, passed to front of the bungee of Majhi.pogrom heard some noise and he found that accused Nanhi and Bhoklu were sitting in front of the house and the deceased and accused Sarthi were grappling with each other in the courtyard.Dujeram saw Sarthi slapping the deceased.This quarrel ended for a short while when Sarthi was dragged outside by Kirti who was also tried along with the accused-appellants but was acquitted by the trial Court.Thereafter the deceased shouted from inside Majhi's house challenging Sarthi that he will not allow Sarthi's daughter to live in the house and to take the property of Dasmat.On hearing this the accused-appellants entered the house of Majhi crying that they will kill the deceased.Sarthi felled the deceased.He then slapped and fisted the deceased and also pressed his neck with one hand.The deceased became unconscious.All the three accused then tied a piece of cloth around his neck and hanged him from the ceiling of the house.Dujeram's statement has been relied upon by the trial Court and we find no reason to take a different view of his evidence.Nothing has been brought out in his lengthy cross-examination to discredit his testimony.Govind (P.W. 2) reached the house of Majhi when Sarthi was beating the deceased with one hand and pressing his neck with the other hand.Govind also saw that Bhoklu had caught hold of the hands of the deceased and Nanhi had caught hold of his legs.Govind found1 that the accused were intoxicated having consumed liqupr, Govind further saw that the deceased had become unconscious.At this stage Govind became afraid and ran away from the place of occurrence.Govind was soon thereafter informed by Dujeram (P.W. 1) that the accused had hanged the deceased.The deceased's son Rabi (P.W. 3) also reached the place of occnrrence when Sarthi was pressing the neck of deceased with one' hand and was hitting him with the other hand.Rabi was chased away by the other two accused.Rabi then complained to Mandhar (P.W. 4) and some others.When Rabi again reached the place of occurrence he found the deceased's body hanging.Mandhar had reached somewhat earlier and he saw the accused running away from the place.We have no hesitation in accepting the story narrated by Dujeram (P.W. 1) and supported by these witnesses.The prosecution has thus been able to prove the following facts; The deceased and all the three accused had on the fateful day consumed liquor and they were prone to pick up a quarrel at tiie slightest provocation.To begin with, there was grappling between the deceased and Sarthi and the latter slapped the former.This quarrel ended for a short while as the deceased and Sarthi were separated by Kirti.The deceased then shouted from Majhi's house that he will not allow Sarthi's daughter to live in that house and to take the property of Dasmat.This provoked Sarthi who with the other two accused again came to Majhi's house and overpowered the deceased.Sarthi pressed the neck of the deceased and slapped him.When the deceased became unconscious, all the three hanged him from the ceil'ng by tying a rope round his neck.The deceased died as a result of hanging.However, the facts do not show that there was any strong motive for the accused to kill the deceased.Pressure on the neck by hand was not applied with great force.It only made the deceased unconscious and did not lead to his death.No finger marks on the neck were noticed in post mortem examination.Therefore, the act of the accused Sarthi in overpowering the deceased and in pressing his neck with one hand end slapping him with the other hand while the other two accused were holding his hands and feet cannot be said to have been done with the intention of causing his death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that the accused were likely to cause death.There is no material to hold that the accused believed the deceased to be already dead when they hanged him, They took no steps to ascertain whether he was alive or dead.No attempt was made to feel his pulse or to find out whether he was breathing or his heart was beating.On the facts of the instant case the accused, to begin with, had only the intention of causing grievous hurt, but when the deceased became unconscious they became panicky and, unmindful of whether the deceased was alive or dead, they hanged him causing his death.In hanging the deceased, the accused must be attributed the knowledge that they were likely to cause death.
|
['Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A 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.
|
33,168,510 |
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) Digitally signed by Diksha Diksha Rane Rane Date:2020.10.23 17:58:36 +0530 7/7(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.(ii) The petitioner be released on furlough for the permissible period under the rules or for a similar period as in the case of the co-accused Balchandra Baban Bhopi and Janardan Baban Bhopi, subject to such conditions as may be imposed on him.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,176,558 |
Shri Durgesh Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant.Prosecutrix and her father Santosh Kumar Nimole are present in person and they have been identified by Shri Durgesh Pandey , Advocate.Case diary perused.This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.353/2018 registered at Police Station Shahjahanawad Distt.Bhopal for the offence under Sections 376 (1) of IPC and Section 5 (j) (ii) and 6 of POCSO Act.As per the prosecution case, on 3.5.2018 at about 4.00 pm the prosecutrix aged about 13 years was taken by the applicant to his friend's house situated at Bajpayee Nagar and committed intercourse upon her and also threatened her.At that time the prosecutrix had not narrated the incident to anybody because of fear and shame, but later on she came to know that she has become pregnant.She informed the incident to her father and then she lodged the report accompanying her father.On that basis the aforementioned crime has been registered against the applicant.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.The prosecutrix and her father have filed affidavits before the trial Court regarding innocence of applicant and their no objection regarding bail to the applicant, but it was not considered by the trial Court.The complainant and her father are present before this Court and father of the complainant filed his affidavit regarding grant of bail to the applicant, but looking to the age of the prosecutrix and the allegation levelled against the applicant, which is a very serious in nature and considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that it is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,527,824 |
First application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12/5/2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.5028/2017 with liberty to file afresh after two months The applicant has been arrested on 16/2/2017 in connection with Crime No.258/2016 registered by Police Station Noorabad, District Morena for offence under Sections 307, 353, 333, 341, 336, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution case, the applicant had assaulted the complainant on his head by means of a Luhangi and although a lacerated wound was found on the head of the complainant, but no corresponding fracture was found.It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail from 16/2/2017 and the trial is likely to take substantially long time.The applicant is a young boy aged about 23 years and his detention in jail will spoil his career.Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/State opposed the application.It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/committal Court to appear before the Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.It is further directed that the applicant shall appear before the SHO Police Station Noorabad, District Morena on 1st and 15th of every month during the pendency of the trial.In case of bail jump or non-appearance of the applicant before the Police Station, as directed by this Court, this order shall loose its effect.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 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.
|
952,932 |
P.C. have not been complied with to take evidence in regard to the non compliance of section 281 and may if satisfied that such non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defense on the merits and that he made the statement regarded, admit it in evidence.But at the same time, the memorandum prepared by the Metropolitan Magistrates should not be so inadequate as to result in failure of justice."The evidence is that K.K. Sharma had given the pistol and the cartridges to Rajinder Singh for taking it for repairs to Moradabad and then to bring it back after repairs.Rajinder Singh was found in possession of the pistol loaded with bullets on the night of 8th, 9th December.The pistol was seized from the hand of Rajinder Singh in the circumstances mentioned by the prosecution and believed by us to be true.The circumstances in which Rajinder Singh was caught with the loaded pistol lead to the irresistable conclusion that he was carrying loaded pistol intending to use it should the need arise.Two canisters alleged to be containing charas were taken out of the car.Rajinder Singh was about to start the car when the car was surrounded by the police.The taking out of the pistol at that time, obviously, was for the purpose of using it.(3) Shri Mathur contended that the excise case has failed because it was found that the canisters did not contain charas.The prosecution witnesses have stated that the contents of the canisters have been tampered with.The witnesses have stated that the contents of the canisters are not the same which were there when the canisters were seized.There is no appeal before us against the acquittal in the excise case.The exam.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
952,944 |
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 28.7.2000 and 31.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly and the District Magistrate, Pilibhit respectively.The District Magistrate vide its order dated 12.9.1996 suspended the fire-arm licence of the petitioner and issued a show-cause notice to him as to why his fire-arm licence should not be cancelled.The petitioner submitted his objection on 29.11.1998 stating, inter alia, that he was acquitted of the offence in pursuance of the non-cognizance report No. 242/96 under 252 and 504 I.P.C. registered against him on 7.9.1996 at P.S. Neoria District Pilibhit.The order acquitting the petitioner from the charges under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act has been appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.The non-cognizance report No. 242/96 dated 7.9.1996 under Sections 252 and 504 I.P.C. was also not investigated.No order as to costs.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
952,947 |
JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.The appellant-Bernhard J. Framous alias Ortege Francis, a French national, who had come to India as a tourist, has been convicted vide judgment dated April 24, 1989, of an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, for an offence punishable under section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act) and vide order of the even date has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.Elaborate arguments have been advanced by Mr. D. N. Goburdhan, Advocate, on behalf of the appellant and Shri R. N. Kapur, Advocate, on behalf of the State.3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that during the intervening night of November 8 and November 9, 1988, the appellant was apprehended by Ms. Sonia, an Italian, who was leaving along with a group for Frankfurt in Lufthansa flight which was to depart at about 3.15 A.M. While the appellant was attempting to steal two hand bags belonging to one of the members of the said group.SI Munshi Ram, who was on duty in the Departure Hall of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, had arrived at the spot on hearing the commotion and ACP Zile Singh PW 1, PW 2 Rajesh Mahajan (a Travel Agent who was assisting the said group of foreigners in check-up proceedings).PW 7 SI Subhash Chand Bakshi then posted in the Police Station of the Airport, had arrived at the spot.A case under section 379 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') was registered against the appellant vide FIR No. 387 of the said date.It is the case of the prosecution that while the appellant was being personally searched on being arrested in that case, he was found to be having a black pouch strung across his neck checking of which revealed that it contained one polythene small packet which contained brown sugar (smack) which on weighment was found to be 30 gms.A sample of 5 gms was separated and both the sample and the remaining drug were converted into sealed parcels and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/A which was duly signed by Rajesh Mahajan, a public witness and ACP Zile Singh.The seal after use was handed over to Shri Rajesh Mahajan.This search took place at about 2.45 A.M. Rukka Ex. PW 5/A was prepared and was sent for registration at 2.55 A.M. The case property was handed over to Head Constable Satbir Singh PW 8 who produced the same before the SHO V. P. Sharma and SHO put his seals on the case property and also on the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'the CFSL').Form and the same were deposited with the Malkhana Moharrar PW 3 who made necessary entries in the Malkhana Register.The sample and the CFSL Form were handed over to Constable Mohinder Singh PW 6 who deposited the same intact with the CFSL and after the sample was examined and a report was given by the CFSL, he brought back the remnants of the sample duly sealed with the seal of the CFSL and deposited the same in the Malkhana.Report Ex. PW 7/C was given by the CFSL to the effect that the sample gave positive test for heroin.The prosecution case was sought to be proved through the statements of PW 1 ACP Zile Singh, public witness PW 2 Rajesh Mahajan and Investigating Officer PW 7 Subhash Chand Bakshi, the other witnesses being formal in nature.The appellant in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted the material facts of his being apprehended while he was attempting to take away two bags belonging to another passenger but he took the plea that at that time he was drunk and by mistake had taken those bags.He did not deny the suggestion put to him that he was apprehended by Sonia with the help of Rajesh Mahajan and ACP Zile Singh and SI Munshi Ram.He also admitted that he was arrested and his personal search was taken and he admitted all other items recovered from his personal search.He also admitted that ACP Zile Singh had disclosed his identity to him before he was searched.He admitted that a pouch was recovered from him but he denied that the said pouch contained any smack.He took the plea that in fact, smack was found in the two handbags which he had lifted by mistake and he had been falsely implicated in this case.At the outset it must be mentioned that no suggestion to witnesses of the prosecution in the cross-examination was given at any time that in fact that smack was recovered from the two bags which the appellant had lifted.The only suggestion given to ACP Zile Singh PW 1 is that the appellant had been falsely implicated and nothing was recovered from him and similar suggestion was given to PW 2 Rajesh Mahajan.However, to PW 7 Subhash Chand Bakshi, Investigating Officer, suggestion given was that the smack was recovered from some other person and had been planted on the appellant.The substratum of the prosecution version, the manner in which the appellant was apprehended and arrested remains unchallenged.It is not the police who had apprehended the appellant at the first instance.It was Sonia, who was part of a group of foreigners who was leaving on that night, and Rajesh Mahajan PW 2 who was the traveling Agent for the said foreign group and had come to the Airport for assisting the said foreign travellers, who had apprehended the appellant while he was attempting to steal the two handbags belonging to another member of the group.The police came into picture after Sonia and Rajesh Mahajan had caught hold of the appellant and recovered the handbags from him.Sonia admittedly had made a complaint in writing on the basis of which the case was registered against the appellant and police officials had arrived at the spot including ACP Zile Singh, who was patrolling the area in routine at that time.Nothing was suggested in cross-examination of all these witnesses as to why the appellant would have been falsely implicated in this case.It is true that a minor discrepancy has appeared in the statements of the witnesses with regard to the fact whether the two handbags belonging to the member of the group which appellant had attempted to steal were still there or not when ACP Zile Singh arrived along with other police officials.ACP Zile Singh deposed that he did not see those bags whereas Rajesh Mahajan stated that those bags were still there with the member of the group to whom those belonged and that person was also available when the police arrived but Rajesh Mahajan has also stated that Sonia as well as members of the said group were in great hurry inasmuch as they were to catch the flight which was to leave at 3.15 A.M. and after making a written complaint Sonia with the group left the airport for catching the flight.There appears to be nothing abnormal in the statements of the witnesses with regard to these facts.There is no enmity even alleged between the public witness and the appellant.The public witness has categorically deposed that he had for the first time in his life become a witness in a police case.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,295,123 |
The prosecution case in brief is that, on 20.7.2004, PW1-complainant-Arvind Chondake found that the boundary of his fieldwas damaged and few rows of the crop of 'mung' were alsodamaged.He therefore lodged the report against the accused no.1-Vishnu at Daryapur Police Station, stating that on 25.7.2004 atabout 12.30 noon, while PW1 along with his mother and two otherpersons was present in the field, accused persons came to his field; ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::REVN.157.19 3A1-Vishnu was armed with axe, whereas A2-Shankar and A3-Wasudeo were armed with iron pipes.A1-Vishnu assaulted thecomplainant on his head by means of axe due to which he sustainedbleeding injury.A2-Shankar and A3-Wasudeo too assaulted himwith iron pipes on his hands, legs and back.A2-Shankar and A3-Wasudeo assaulted PW1 by means of iron pipes onhis person.PW6 stated that PW4-Arvind Ingale, arrived at the placeof incident, along with two labourers who tried to rescue PW1.According to PW6 while rescuing her son, she also receivedinjuries on her person.The testimony of PW4-Arvind Ingle, indicates that on25.7.2004 he went to the field of the complainant in order toinstall electric motor which was with him.On reaching the field henoticed that the complainant was laying on the ground and theaccused were beating him.He stated that A1-Vishnu was holdingthe axe, whereas A2-Shankar and A3-Wasudeo were armed withiron pipes and they all assaulted PW1-Arvind, while PW 6-Shantabaiwho tried to intervene, she also received injuries.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::Thus, the testimony of all the three witnessescorroborates with each other on all material aspects.The medicalevidence also supports the case of the prosecution.DATED: 22nd January,2020ORAL JUDGMENT:1. Admit.Heard finally with the consent of learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of respective parties.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::The mother of thecomplainant-PW6-Shantabai also sustained injury during the saidincident.The complainant was taken in a bullock-cart to PoliceStation, Daryapur where the complaint came to be lodged.Formal investigation was carriedout.The police conducted the panchnama of the place of incident,recovered axe and two pipes from the possession of the accused.Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion ofthe investigation, charge-sheet was filed.The learned JudicialMagistrate F.C, Daryapur, recorded the evidence and upon hearingboth sides, convicted the accused.The Appeal preferred at theinstance of applicants against the said judgment came to be partlyallowed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge-1 Achalpur, vide judgmentand order dated 03.07.2019, as aforesaid. ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::5. Heard both sides at length.With their able assistance, Ihave gone through the relevant case papers.He further submitted thateven the witness PW4-Arvind Ingale is a chance witness and hispresence at the place of the incident is not probable one.He furthersubmitted that even the Investigating officer has not been examinedby the prosecution.As against this, Mr.Amit Chutke, learned APP supportedthe impugned judgments and submitted that the learned Judgeshave rightly convicted the applicants.He submitted that there is no ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 ::: REVN.157.19 5illegality or perversity as such noticed in both the judgments ofCourts below and evidence of both the injured witnesses i.e. PW 1-Arvind and PW6-Shantabai is corroborated and well- supported bymedical evidence.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::In order to appreciate the rival contentions of both sides,the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is to be examinedcarefully.The testimony of PW1-Arvind Chondake, the injuredwitness, shows that on the date of the incident i.e. on 25.7.2004when he visited his field along with his mother, the accused personscame to his field at about 12.30 noon and started assaulting him.PW1 stated that A1-Vishnu was armed with an axe whereas A2-Shankar and A3-Wasudeo were armed with iron pipes and due tothe said assault, PW1 sustained injury on the left side of his head,so also he sustained injuries of iron pipes on his legs, hands andback.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::The evidence of PW6-Shantabai shows that at the timeof incident, the accused persons came to their field holding weaponslike axe and iron pipes.There was an altercation between theaccused and her son PW1-Arvind.She stated that A1-Vishnu gave ablow of axe on the head of PW1 due to which he fell down.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::The testimonyof PW9-Dr.PW9 found the following injuries on the person of PW1-Arvind :-1) Lacerated superficial injury over head admeasuring 5 x ½ x ½cm.head left side frontal bone.2) Contusion over left forearm admeasuring 8 x 10 cm.3) Contusion over left side of back admeasuring 10 x 5 cm.4) Contusion over left leg below knee admeasuring 10 x 5 cm.5) Lacerated wound over right knee and left knee admeasuringof right arm left knee ½ x 2 cm and 1 x 1 cm.PW9 opined that all these injuries were possible by hardand blunt object and the age of the injuries was within 2 to 3 hours.PW9 also examined PW 6-Shantabai and found thefollowing injuries:::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::1) Lacerated superficial wound over left fore arm adm3easuring6 cm.2) Lacerated wound over left forearm admeasuring 2 x ½ cm.3) Lacerated wound over left forearm admeasuring 1 ½ x ½ cm.Thus, themedical evidence corroborates with the ocular testimony of thewitnesses.However it is to be noted that no injury by sharp edgeof the axe is noticed.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightlyconsidered that the incident had taken place way back in the year2004 and the matter is pending since last fifteen years, so alsoconsidering the age of the accused persons at the time of theincident, the conviction of the accused persons u/s. 324 read withsection 34 of IPC was maintained, however, the sentence wasreduced.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::Thus, the prosecution has proved its case against theapplicants.Both the Courts below have rightly considered theevidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective.No illegality or perversity is noticed in the impugned judgments.The learned Advocate for the applicants urged that theapplicants are the bread-earners in their family and now they havebecome senior citizens.He further submitted that there are noantecedents against them.Furthermore, the applicants haveundergone imprisonment for a period of eleven days and, as such,prayed for leniency.Considering the nature of the offence, allegationsagainst the applicants and also keeping in mind the age of theaccused and fact that the applicants are the bread earners in theirfamily, to my mind, the following order would meet the ends ofjustice.Hence the order :-::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::punishable u/s.324 r/ws.34 of the IPC.iii) The applicants are directed to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-(rupees three thousand) each, instead of Rs. 1,000/-each, indefault S.I. for fifteen days.iv) The amount of fine, if recovered, be paid to thecomplainant.v) The amount of fine be deposited within a period of threemonths before the trial Court.JUDGEsahare ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 20:53:22 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,529,627 |
(59)(ap) C.R.R. No. 3596 of 2013 Sipra Majumdar Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr.Re: An application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09.10.2013 Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Mr. Biplab Das, Ms. Anita Kundu. ...For the petitioner.Mr. Ayan Basu. ...For the State.Affidavit-of-service filed in Court be taken on record.This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the widow of the victim, namely, Asit Kumar Majumdar has assailed the Order No.1 dated 05.08.2013 before this Court as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta in S.C. No. 20 of 2013, whereby the learned Trial Court was pleased to direct that the accused be tried in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/427/304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code') and the learned Trial Court as per the impugned order, declined to pass an 1 2 order that the accused be tried in respect of the charge punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) of the Code even though the charge-sheet was submitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 279/304 (Part- II)/337/338/427 of the Code.The fact relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this criminal revision can be stated in brief, thus:That on 17.11.2010 at about 01:15 hours, the accused/opposite party no.2, being the driver of one Tata Indica vehicle bearing No. WB-02 R 6211 he was driving the said vehicle through Rani Rashmoni Avenue from West to East in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and safety of others with the knowledge that such driving may cause death of anybody and when he reached Dorina Crossing hit one Ambassador Car bearing No. WB 02 Q 8959, which was coming through Jaharlal Nehru Road from South to North and as a result of that collision, one passenger of that Tata Indica Car, namely, Asit Kumar Majumdar, got serious injuries and he was taken to N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital, where he was declared brought dead.On the basis of the complaint filed by one Santanu Mondal, Hare Street Police Station Case No. 657 dated 2 3 17.11.2010 was registered under Sections 279/337/308/427 of the Code.Another FIR was registered with the same Police Station being Case No. 658 dated 17.11.2010 under Sections 279/304 (Part-II)/337/338/427 of the Code as per the complaint filed by one Parvez Alam.Both the mattes were investigated and during investigation, it revealed that the driver, i.e. the present opposite party no.2, who was driving that Tata Indica vehicle, namely, Rajesh Roy, was responsible for the incident, who drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and safety and for his fault, this incident happened and that the driver of the other vehicle being Vehicle No. WB 02 Q 8959, Samir Hossain was given a clean chit and as such, charge-sheet was submitted against the opposite party no.2 under Sections 279/304(Part- II)/337/338/427 of the Code.When the matter is taken up for argument, it is submitted by Mr. Moitra, learned senior counsel that one Sanjib Mitra wrote a letter to the Advocate-on-record of this case, namely, Ms. Anita Kundu that he has received instruction to appear in this case.The said copy of the letter dated 10.02.2014 is taken on record and it is evident that the opposite party no.2 is in the know of the present 3 4 revisional application and none is appearing to represent the said opposite party no.2, driver and as such, this Court prefers to take up the hearing of this revisional application on merit.
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,297,746 |
12.11.13 Item No. 16 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 16And In the matter of: Mukul Bhasin.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. S. K. Kapoor Mr. Ajay Gaggar For the Petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Soumik Ganguly For the State Mr. Debasish Roy Mr. Rajdeep Majumder For the Complainant The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ekbalpore Police Station Case No. 228 dated 02.07.2013 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner has been married to the complainant for a little under seven years.They have two children.After perusing the case diary and other relevant material on record including the injury reports in our opinion there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner in this case.Mr. Kapoor appearing for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner will return all the articles and the "stridhan" of his wife forthwith through the Investigating Officer.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,303,408 |
This appeal filed against the order of dismissal, dismissing the Crl.M.P.No.2960 of 2018 in Crime No.83 of 2018, dated 21.02.2018, on the file of the learned Special Judge, Chennai under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Principal Sessions Court, Chennai.2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant has given a complaint to the respondent/police alleging that the complainant is belongs to Scheduled Caste and the appellant and the victim Sheela, who is the daughter of the de-facto complainant were studied together at Anna Institute of Management, Raja Annamalaipuram for Civil Services Examination and they were love affair and had physical relationship under the guise of marrying the victim girl Sheela, since the appellant, who is an accused assured to perform register marriage on 19.01.2018, but the appellant has not fulfill his promise and tried to marry his relative.3.The further case of the prosecution is that it is alleged that the appellant along with his parents came to the de-facto complainant's house and abused them by referring to their caste.Therefore, the victim girl tried to commit suicide by cutting herself using blade on her neck.4.Pursuant to the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, who is the father of the victim girl, the respondent/police has initially registered a case under Sections 306 IPC r/w 116 and 417 of IPC, later on the said F.I.R. was altered into Sections 376, 306 r/w 116, 417 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and thereafter, the appellant was arrested on 21.01.2018 and remanded into judicial custody by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.5.The case of the appellant is that the appellant is working as a Probation Officer at Vellore and as per the statement of victim girl which reveals that the victim girl is aged about 28 years and completed her M.Sc.In the year 2014, the victim girl know about the appellant during 2014 when both of them were attended a competitive classes coaching center in Chennai, while preparing for Group-I Examination and developed their friendship between them for the past 3 years.6.It is the case of the appellant is that there was no love affairs between the appellant and the victim girl and taking advantage of the friendship developed between the appellant and the victim girl for the past 3 years.The de-facto complainant and the victim girl family in order to grab the entire property from the appellant, this false complaint leveled against the appellant.7.The appellant further states that it is totally false case, since it is alleged that the appellant is raped the victim girl, who is aged about 28 years and completed her M.Sc.Advanced Bio-Chemistry course in the year 2011 itself and the appellant has given promise to marry her.8.Though the appellant moved the Special Court, Chennai, who is the Sessions Judge, Chennai and filed Crl.M.P.No.2960 of 2018 for bail, which was dismissed on 21.02.2018 on the ground that the investigation is still pending.9.It is the case of the prosecution and the de-facto complainant is that this appellant and his parents were abused the victim girl and her mother in abusive language and also referring their caste name which induced the victim girl to commit suicide.Therefore, he opposes the grant of bail.10.I heard Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramaniyam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and perused the entire records.11.Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2018 for the alleged offences under Section 306 IPC r/w 116 and 417 of IPC and he is in judicial custody for more than 70 days.12.It is the case of the prosecution is that this appellant has committed rape on the victim girl, who is alleged to be 28 years.It is also further alleged that both of them were loved each other for the past 3 years and falsely made promise to the victim girl and have the intercourse with the appellant.13.Originally the mother of the victim girl has given a complaint, later on the victim girl who is aged about 28 years has given a statement which was taken as complaint and it was alleged that there was no forcible rape on the victim girl, but on promising only it was alleged that the appellant was having physical relationship with the victim girl.14.It is my absolute view that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 21.01.2018 and the investigation is almost over and the victim girl also already sent for Medical test.Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail with the following condition:(a) this Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2960 of 2018, dated 21.02.2018, on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge i/c of Special Court/Principal Sessions Court, Chennai;(b) the appellant is ordered to be released on bail, on condition that the appellant shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties out of whom, one shall be blood related surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge i/c of Special Court/Principal Sessions Court, Chennai;(c) the appellant and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the appellant shall appear before the respondent/Police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;(e) the appellant shall not tamper with evidence or witnesses during the trial.(f) the appellant shall not abscond during the trial.(g) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge i/c of Special Court/Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, is entitled to take appropriate action against the appellant in accordance with law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].(h) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.27.03.2018Note:Issue order copy on 28.03.2018vsIndex :Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoToThe Principal Sessions Court,Chennai.M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.vsPre-Delivery Judgment made inCrl.A.No.134 of 201827.03.2018
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,303,902 |
Heard on IA No.8556/17, an application for condonation of delay.The revision is barred by 434 days.It is submitted by the learned counsel that at the time of delivery of judgment they were not present in the court.Later on they could not get any intimation about the judgment passed by the trial court.The punishment awarded is u/s 325 & 452 IPC for causing injury.Heard on IA No.8557/17, an application for suspension of sentence.the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 17.11.15 passed in Criminal Case No.1227/13 by JMFC,Biaora convicting the petitioner under section 452 & 325 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for one-one year with fine of Rs.500-500 with further default stipulation.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in appreciating the evidence and convicting the petitioner.The petitioner was on bail during trial as well as appeal and he never misused the liberty granted by the court.The hearing of this petition would likely to take long time, hence prayed for suspension of sentence and release of petitioner on bail.-3- CRR NO.1171/17 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the short sentence involved in the matter and the fact that petition is likely to take time for final hearing, the application is allowed and the jail sentence alone passed against the petitioner shall remain suspended and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 05.02.2018 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this petition.C.c as per rules.Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Nair 2.5.4.20=297e891894a3c0a72fe336151e453009 82d99410547d92f39d7bb69ecedcaf7c, cn=Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2017.11.22 13:44:12 +05'30'
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,305,734 |
With the consent of parties, this petition is disposed of finally.In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents/authorities to direct the police station Malanpur, District Bhind to add section 307 of IPC in crime No. 130/2017 and also direct for initiation of action under the Arms Act for cancellation of Arms License of the accused persons.It is further prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to initiate departmental as well as criminal action against the respondent No. 4 in not carrying out free, and fair investigation.The grievance of the petitioner is that on 27/08/2017 at about 10.30 the accused persons namely Rambaran Singh Tomar armed with .315 bore rifle, Shrikrishna armed with Lathi, Ramendra Singh armed with Lathi, Jitendra Singh armed with 315 bore rifle, Devendra Singh armed with Lathi & Girwar Singh armed with .315 bore rifle belonging to his brother assaulted the petitioner with an intention to kill him, due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted in the hospital.In this regard, the petitioner made complaint against the aforesaid accused persons, but 2 W.P. No. 5987/2017 Sangram Singh Tomar vs. State of M.P. & Ors.respondent No. 4, who is having hand in gloves with the accused persons did not noted the said aspect in an FIR bearing crime No. 130/2017 registered at police station Malanpur, Dist.Bhind for offence punishable under sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 147, 148, 149 of IPC which are bailable offences.In these circumstances, present petition has been preferred seeking direction to the police authorities to take appropriate action on the complaint submitted by the petitioner.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that in case the Police authorities are not taking any action, the petitioner is having remedy under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. to file a compliant before the Magistrate as well as to approach the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. It is further contended by learned counsel for the respondents that no doubt the complaint has to be resolved by the competent effective Investigating Agency.This issue is no more res integra and the issue has been decided by Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No.709/2016 vide order dated 13.10.2016 by which the appeal has been dismissed with liberty to the appellant to take recourse by approaching the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction by filing a private complaint.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,454,289 |
After the marriage, the complainant came to know that her husband is a habitual drinker and after consuming the same he used to beat up the complainant mercilessly.The parents-in-law of the complainant also used to use filthy language towards her and her family members.When the complainant was six months pregnant, her husband used to beat her with legs and blows.On 14.06.2013, the daughter of the complainant fell ill and when she asked the petitioner no.1 to take her to the doctor, he threatened her and gave her beatings.All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent.Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.Statement of the respondent No.2 has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has settled all the Crl.M.C. 129/2016 Page 3 of 9 disputes with them.The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Sh.Shailender Pratap Singh, Sh.Jaspal Singh, Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur and Ms. Gulshan Navraj Kaur for quashing of FIR No.352/2013 dated 17.09.2013, under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Amar Colony on the basis of the report of the Counseling Cell, in view of the settlement arrived at between petitioner no.1 and respondent No.2, namely, Smt.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been Crl.M.C. 129/2016 Page 1 of 9 identified to be the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question by her counsel.M.C. 129/2016 Page 1 of 9The petitioner no.1 even threw the complainant out the matrimonial home.The respondent no.2/complainant lodged a complaint which resulted into the registration of the FIR in question against the petitioners.Respondent No.2 affirmed the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of her affidavit dated 22.12.2015 supporting this petition.M.C. 129/2016 Page 8 of 9In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of statement made by the respondent No.2 and the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.352/2013 dated 17.09.2013, under Sections 498A/406 IPC registered at Police Station Amar Colony and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.This petition is accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,455,433 |
Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrest in Criminal Case No. 17693/10, arising out of Crime No.1055/2010 registered at Police Station Gwalior against them for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 324, 294, 323, 506 and 147 IPC, later added 365 IPC, and 11 and 13 of the MPDVPK Act, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class Gwalior (Shri Bhupesh Kumar Mishra).It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that the applicants have been facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 147, 294, 342, 325 and 506 of the IPC having been on bail.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
954,653 |
According to the doctor, both the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.When the appellant entered without obtaining permission in the chamber of the complainant, he (complainant) noticed that the appellant was appearing to be aggressive and when he asked the purpose of coming in his chamber, the appellant replied that he wants to discuss with him.Thereafter the complainant allowed him (accused/appellant) to put his grievance.Thereafter the appellant put a question why the complainant had transferred him from the post of Auditor to Budget Clerk.JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against his judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-11-1990 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1989 convicting the appellant under Section 332, IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount further rigorous imprisonment of two months.In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 28-3-1988 at 13.30 hours when complainant N.L. Shivhare (P.W. 1), Executive Engineer of P.W.D. was discharging his official duty at that juncture accused/appellant Rakesh Tiwari arrived in his office and showered filthy abuses of mother and sister as he (appellant) was transferred and a departmental enquiry was set up against him.Thereafter he uplifted a wooden rack and gave its blow on the person of the complainant, though he tried to escape but failed, as a result of which the said rack which was used as a weapon landed on his head and eventually he sustained injuries and blood came out.The incident was witnessed by Laxminarain Agrawal, Hardev Tiwari and Ramsurat Singh.After the incident took place, the complainant went to District Hospital, Shahdol where he was attended, treated and examined by Assistant Surgeon, Dr. Ashok Kumar Gautam (P.W. 3) at 13.45 hrs.and he found an injury 2" x 1/2" bone deep lacerated wound on his right fronto parietal region.The doctor further noticed another injury on his right forearm 1 1/2" x 1/4".The doctor also informed the matter to police, as a result of which P.P.S. Chouhan, who was serving as an Assistant Sub Inspector in Police Station, Shahdol came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant.On lodging of the FIR the criminal law was triggered off and set in motion.The Investigating Officer seized the wooden rack which was used as a weapon in the commission of offence; seized the other articles like table glass etc.; recorded the statements of the witnesses and seized certain papers.After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the Competent Court which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session where it was received by the Trial Court for trial.The Trial Court, on bare perusal of charge-sheet framed a charge under Section 333, IPC which the accused/appellant denied and requested for the trial.In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Exs. P-1 to P-10, the documents, on record.Hence this appeal.According to her, the appeal being sans merit, the same be dismissed.The complainant pacified him that the senior officers are not satisfied with his work and, therefore, they had transferred him (accused/appellant).Thereafter the accused again put a second question that why he had set up a departmental enquiry and submitted a charge-sheet against him.In reply to this querry, the complainant said that he (accused/appellant) was possessing certain important documents which are missed and, therefore, in compliance to the direction of Superintending Engineer he has prepared a charge-sheet and he is obeying and following the directions of his superior officers.Thereafter the appellant became annoyed and lost his tamper and showered filthy abuses of mother and sister and said that he (complainant) will not be saved.Thereafter the appellant uplifted a wooden rack and threw it, as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries on his forehead and hand.On account of the injuries sustained by him blood came out.Thereafter complainant came out from his chamber.The co-employees, on account of fear, were unable to rescue him.Later on his driver Shivlal came to him and he asked to carry him at District Hospital.He also sent the message of the incident by telephone to this superior officers.In the hospital police party arrived and his statement was recorded.This witness was cross-examined at length but he remained vivid in his testimony.(i) Lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" bone deep over fronto parietal region of scalp;(ii) Bruise 1 1/2" x 1/4" across the ulna aspect of right forearm.However, conviction was made under Section 323, IPC.Here in the present case the facts are entirely different.It is proved by cogent evidence of complainant N.L. Shivhare (P.W. 1) that he was in his office and performing official duty at 1.30 P.M. the appellant entered inside his chamber, he was annoyed and aggressive.I hereby affirm the finding and conviction accorded by the Trial Court.Now I shall deal the alternative submission putforth by the learned Counsel for the appellant.No doubt the incident took place on 28-3-1988, but the manner in which the appellant committed the said offence just to outrage the dignity and decorum of the office of Executive Engineer.He entered inside the chamber of complainant without obtaining any permission from him, he was annoyed and thereafter not only showered filthy abuses of mother and sister, but also uplifted a wooden rack and threw it on the complainant.Let balance amount of fine Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. Four thousand) be deposited within two months, failing which the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.The appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,467,055 |
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of LawThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, H.1 Washermanpet Police Station in Crime No.908/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case in respect of Crime No.908/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court, there is no cogent material to support the decision of the detaining authority and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.AND G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,473,800 |
Heard on admission.The applicant has challenged the order dated 1.5.2013 passed by the learned JMFC, Umariya in complaint case No.2657/2011, whereby the application of the applicant was dismissed to enhance the charges of offence punishable under Sections 193, 194 and 195 of IPC.Interim stay granted vide order dated 23.5.2013 is hereby vacated.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance and to proceed with the case.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,474,172 |
Applicants are facing criminal trial before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Tikamgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.A private complaint has been filed by one Umesh Sharan Tiwari alleging that the applicants along with other co- accused persons instead of purchasing the 2000 litres of water tank of Sintex Company amounting to Rs.18,300/- per tank, the Sunshine Enterprises supplied water tank of Reno Company at an amount which is more than three times than the market prize and thereby embezzled the Public Money and committed forgery.::3::(Delivered on this 18th day of June, 2018) PER SETH, J.This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Tikamgarh in Special Case No.01/2016 whereby application under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicants has been rejected.::2::Brief facts, which are not disputed and necessary for the disposal of the present petition are as under:-On a written complaint, an F.I.R. was registered and investigation was started.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the accused persons including the present applicants.After cognizance was taken, applicants filed an application under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that at the time of commission of offence, applicant No.1 was working as President in Nagar Panchayat, Taricharkala, District-Tikamgarh and applicant No.2 was working as Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Taricharkala, District-Tikamgarh.Hence, they filed an application under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. which has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge by the order impugned.Hence, this petition.::4::
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
954,742 |
The facts are very interesting and incricate.Despite a couple of adjournments thereafter and more opportunities, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar did not appear in the Court with the result that the respondent Smt. Geeta Rani Roy represented to the Court that Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar is not being produced deliberately and that he is actually residing in Calcutta and that he can be produced in the Court if proper steps were taken for procuring his attendance.Special Officer ultimately filed his report in this Court on 22nd August, 1996 Wherein he admitted that Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar was actually residing in Calcutta and that he had met his family members and that he had directed them to ensure the appearance of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar in the Court on 22nd August, 1996 at 2 P.M. On 22nd August, 1996 when the matter appeared for consideration, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar actually did appear into the Court personally.JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, J.In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the appeal Court dated 14th January, 1994 is set aside and we remand the case back to the appeal Court.The appeal court will direct an enquiry as to whether Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar was the person who was actually evicted from possession on the strength of the order passed on 30-8-1993 and, if so, restore Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar back into the possession of the disputed premises.The appeal Court will be at liberty to pass such order in the interest of justice as it thinks fit after ascertaining the facts and in accordance with law.The respondents, who were the writ petitioners in this case, will pay costs assessed at Rs. 1,000/- to the appellant.On 9-5-96, when the matter was taken for the first time after it was remanded by the Supreme Court, it was posted for 18-6-96 for directions.When the matter was taken up on 16th July, 1996 however Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar was not produced in the Court on the ground that he was lying ill at Patna and some more time was sought for his production.At that point of time it was pointed out to us that some one else had been allegedly impersonating as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and this name was stated to be Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar.It was also revealed that a shot-while age he was in the Court Room but after Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar appeared, the said Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar vanished.On 23-8-96 Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar was produced in the Court by the Officer-in-Charge, Muchipara Police Station under arrest.On that day itself the statements of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar were recorded by the Court.It shall be advantageous to recount a brief re'sume' of the statements, as recorded by the Court, of these two persons.In his statement, Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar stated and admitted that he had not filed the appeal in question, i.e., Appeal No. 785 of 1993 and that he was not even in possession of the disputed premises at any point of time after 1966 when he had left the premises.He also stated that for more than a year, he has been residing in Calcutta.He also stated that he has not filed the present application for the restoration of possession (G.A. No. 1381 of 1996) nor the affidavit supporting the said application.In short, the tone and tenor of his sworn testimony in this Court is that he was not even aware of the proceedings in this case till about one and a half years back, that he did not prefer Appeal No. 785 of 1993 nor signed any papers, pleadings, documents, affidavits, memos, petitions or powers of attorney with regard to any such application that he did not file Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court nor signed any papers there.He also stated that he was not a tenant in the disputed premises nor was in possession therein when the order was first passed by the learned single Judge.In (sic) and substance therefore he clearly stated that he was not appellant as was being made out and that some one else might have filed the appeal in his name and on his behalf, but without his consent, knowledge or permission.The statement of Purnendu Kumar Roy Karmakar was indeed very interesting.Even while he made some clear admissions, he also made some patent contradictions in his own statement.Whereas in the opening part of the statement he gave an impression that he had filed the appeal with the knowledge and consent of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, in the subsequent part of the statement he clearly came out with an admission that the act of filing the appeal in this Court as well as in the Supreme Court was his own.He stated that he knew Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, who was his blood relation.He also identified him in the Court.He stated that it was he who had engaged, briefed and instructed Shri Tridib Kumar Sarkar, advocate in this case and that he was doing it on his own and not on behalf of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar or at his instructions.He also stated that he used to hand over/pass over documents, pleadings, affidavits and powers of attorney etc to Shri Tridib Kumar Sarkar, which were all signed by him as and in the name of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and not in his own name.He also stated that along with the Memo of appeal, the accompanying application were also signed by him as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar.He had also signed the affidavit in support of the appeal and the said application as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and that he knew that he was signing all these documents as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar.He also admitted that the present application for Restoration of possession was also signed by him as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar, as well as the affidavit accompanying the said application.He also admitted that it was he who had filed the appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, even though in the name of Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar and that it was he who had signed the power of attorney in favour of the advocate on record in the Supreme Court as Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar.When she obtained the order dated 30th August, 1996 from the learned single Judge of this Court whereby writ-petition was finally disposed of.He forged the signatures on the power of attorney, affidavit accompanying and other documents filed in Supreme Court.(iv) He made declaration in the High Court of Calcutta and in the Supreme Court of India and made false statements in these declarations in the said Courts which he knew and believed to be false and which actually were false, the said statements and declarations touching upon points which were material to the objects for which the declarations and the statements were made and used.With the aforesaid directions, this Appeal is finally disposed of.V.N. Khare, C.J.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
954,757 |
Threats were held out and the petitioner having declined to furnish any information, he was severely assaulted with fist, blows and in diverse other ways.A further threat was held out that he would be beaten to death in the event of his refusal to supply the information which the opposite parties thought the petitioner had been withholding.The assaults and the threats took place on more than one occasion and the details of the assault need not further be set out in the context of the present Rule.On 1-12-1954, the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, charging the opposite parties with having committed offences under Sections 330/109 and 323, Penal Code.The allegations briefly were that the petitioner had been arrested on 29-11-1954 from a house at Wellesley Street in connection with an investigation relating to the seizure of a considerable quantity of opium in the Kiddierpore docks.The petitioner was thereafter taken to the Customs House where he was detained and the opposite party No. 1, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise along with opposite party No. 2, Superintendent, Customs Preventive Service, came and pressed the petitioner to make a statement which might lead to further disclosures relating to the contraband opium that had been seized.On the 30th of November the petitioner was produced before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, when he was released on bail and it was then that the petitioner gave the details of the torture on him to the Magistrate who was shown the injuries that were said to have been sustained by the petitioner as a result of the assaults.Those injuries were examined at the Medical College Hospital and on 1-12-1954, the complaint was instituted against the opposite parties.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,585,392 |
A1 to A3 in the instant case are the Financial Establishments, out of which, A1 and A3 are partnership firms; A2 is a company registered under the Companies Act; and A4 to A25 canvassed and collected deposits from general public on various dates, but they failed to return the deposit amounts with interest.In the above circumstances, one Mullaikodi, lodged a complaint against the accused before the Additional Director General of Police, EOW-II, Vellore and based on the above said complaint, EOW-II, Vellore registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 2007 for the offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and Section 420 IPC.During investigation, it was found that A4 to A25 collected deposits in the name of A1 company from 184 depositors to a total sum of Rs.8,03,19,400/-, but defaulted to satisfy with interest to a sum of Rs.1,92,19,898 and total defalcation comes to a sum of Rs.9,95,39,298/-.They have also collected deposits in the name of A2 company from 176 depositors, totalling a sum of Rs.2,69,17,000/- and failed to repay with interest accrued for a sum of Rs.1,68,21,099/- and they committed default to the tune of Rs.4,37,38,099/-.Apart from that, A4 to A25 also collected deposits in the name of A3 firm from 120 depositors , totalling to Rs.1,78,48,500/- and the interest accrued thereon would workout to Rs.43,34,385/- and that they failed to settle the dues to the depositors to a total sum of Rs.2,21,82,885/-.The present Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 20.02.2015 dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner under Section 239 Cr.P.C.The petitioner is an accused in a criminal case in C.C.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the Special Court under TNPID Act for the offences under Section 5 of the TNPID Act and Sections 420, 406 r/w.120(b) IPC.He filed an application before the Court below seeking to discharge him from the above criminal case and the Court below dismissed the said application.Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.In all, A4 to A25 collected deposits from various investors to the tune of Rs.12,50,84,900/- and the interest accrued thereon is worked to Rs.4,03,75,382/-.Thus, they cheated the depositors for Rs.16,54,60,282/-.After investigation, the respondent filed final report for the above said offence.Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking to discharge him from the above criminal case on the ground that he was not responsible for the day to day affairs of the company.5.The Court below while dismissing the application held that the deposits were collected from the general public and that there are prima facie materials available on record to show that the petitioner also canvassed and collected deposits from the depositors and that the petitioner was also involved in the collection of deposits.Challenging the above order, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the married sister of A4 and she is not a partner in any of the financial institution and the only allegation against her is that she has canvassed and collected deposits from the depositors and merely because, she is the sister of A4, she has been implicated.Now she is married and living elsewhere and she is no way connected with the affairs of the financial institution and she never involved in the collection of deposits.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that even though the petitioner is neither a partner nor an employee of the company, there are materials available on record to show that the petitioner also canvassed deposits for the financial institution.I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on records carefully.Admittedly, the petitioner is neither a partner nor an employee of the accused financial institution and she is only a married sister of A4 and she is living separately.The only allegation against her is that she had collected deposits for the institutions.In a similar situation, this Court had an occasion to deal with the same set of facts in 2010 (1) MLJ (Criminal) 742 (Prasannadevi /vs/ State of Tamilnadu), wherein this Court has held as follows:The canvassing agents, as such, cannot be held responsible for the management of the affairs of the firm.A canvassing agent may contribute his mite by mobilising funds for the financial firm on contract basis for payment of brokerage or service charges.But, by no stretch of imagination, we can say that such a person shoulders the responsibility of the management of the affairs of the firm.A canvassing agent gives a rosy picture about the firm to mobilise the deposit.It is only the depositors who shall verify the veracity of such embellished version regarding the performance of a firm and the financial soundness thereof with the person who is responsible for the management of the firm and offer his deposit."such a practice should be stopped forthwith as otherwise innocent victims just because they happened to be relatives of the mis-managed financial institution would be roped in and they have to undergo the ordeal of criminal trial."Merely because the petitioner is married sister of A4, she cannot be roped in without any material to show that she had intention to cheat the depositors.In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no primafacie material available on record against the petitioner to proceed further.Hence, the petitioner is entitled for discharge from the charges.But the Court below erred considering the materials available on record in a proper perspective and dismissed the application.In the light of the above discussion, the order of the Court below is liable to be interfered with.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside and the petitioner is discharged from all the charges.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.15.05.2017 (8/9)Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-speaking ordermrpToThe Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.R.C.No.481 of 201515.05.2017
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,586,978 |
This petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register the complaint dated 19.06.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.917 of 2015 duly taken u/s 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. for an offence u/s 447, 448, 294(b), 341, 354, 387, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 34 IPC on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and consequently to file final reports thereon.P.N.PRAKASH, J.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on the basis of the complaint dated 19.06.2015 given by the petitioner, FIR has been registered in Cr.No.990 of 2015 for the offences u/s 448, 294(b), 354 and 506(ii) IPC.In view of the above, this petition is closed.27.06.2016(1/2) gmsToV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.OP No.11728 of 2016
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,590,381 |
acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the deceased Pushpa Bai was wife of Bhagwan Das (P.W.3) and the respondents were the relatives to Bhagwan Das.Marriage of the deceased Pushpa Bai took place 12-13 years prior to the incident.The respondents were in habit to make allegations against the deceased that she had illicit relations with someone at village Girwari and therefore, on the date of the incident, a quarrel took place between the deceased and the respondents.The respondents told her that if she has such an ego then, she may commit suicide and therefore, she committed suicide.After considering the submissions made by the learned G.A. for the State and considering the prosecution's evidence, it would be apparent that no M.Cr.C.No.14563/2012 presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act was applicable in the present case.The deceased died due to burn injuries.She gave a dying declaration that the respondents were in habit to abuse the deceased and they tried to assault the husband of the deceased and therefore, she committed suicide.Looking to the allegations made in the dying declaration, it would be apparent that the respondents did not say the deceased to commit suicide.After death of the deceased, her husband and other witnesses alleged that the respondents told the deceased to commit suicide but, such allegation appears to be an afterthought allegation, which cannot be accepted.By allegations made by the deceased in her dying declaration Ex.P/10, no offence punishable under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants because, such allegations do not fall within the purview of sections 107 or 109 of IPC.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
915,931 |
The prosecution case against the appellant was as follows : The appellant and the deceased Chaitanya were co-villagers and neighbours, Between 8 and 8-30 P. M. on 26-5-1951, in the village called Makalgacha, Chaitanya went to the house of the accused to recover his cow which the accused had kept confined.While proceeding from his own house to that of the accused, along the village road, he was accosted by one Keshab Sana who was then sitting with another person on a 'Machan' in front of a shop, Chaitanya stated that he was proceeding to the accused's house to recover and fetch his cow which the accused had kept confined there.Shortly after Chaitanya had passed that way, Keshab and his two companions, named respectively Bhusan and Baharali Gazi, the latter having in the meantime Joined Keshab, heard Chaitanya cry out as follows:I am being killed by Satish Kala.Save me.On hearing this, Keshab flashed a torch light in the direction of the cry and saw the accused strike Chaitanya on the shoulder and then walk back to his house.After firsts aid had been rendered to Chaitanya, he was taken to Basirhat hospital at a distance of about 7 miles from the place of occurrence.The party reached the hospital at about 2-30 A.M. At 3-30 A.M. Chaitanya made a statement to a Deputy Magistrate, By reason of Chaitanya's death, which took place at 7-45 A.M., the statement became Chaitanya's dying declaration, Keshab and his companion Bhusan had accompanied Chaitanya to the hospital and from there they left for Hasnabad Police Station about 10 or 12 miles away from the hospital Keshab's departure was long before the death of Chaitnya.The first information report was lodged at about 7-45 A.M. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded the first information report then left for the place of occurrence and on arrival there seized certain articles including an axe from the house of the accsued.In addition, he took charge of a certain quantity of earth from underneath the banyan tree.The earth contained blood.Subsequently, a seizure list in respect of the-articles seized on that occasion was prepared indicating the different places from which they were recovered.These articles were in due course sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Imperial Serologist.These were found to have upon them marks of human blood.JUDGMENT Mitter, J.The appellant was tried by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Alipore, sitting with & jury, upon a charge under Section 304, Penal Code for causing the death of one Chaitanya Sana.The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty under Section 304, Part I, whereupon the appellant was convicted of the offence and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.This happened near the southem boundary fencing of the accused's house.Keshab and his two companions rushed to the spot and thereafter helped Chaitanya, who had been seriously injured, to walk a short distance upto a banyan tree.There underneath the tree Chaitanya was made to lie down, and shortly thereafter he was given first aid by a Doctor called Dr. Bahaman.In the meantime, many persons from the village had assembled on hearing the 'golmal'.Chaitanya's wife and daughter also turned up.Before the arrival of the Doctor, Chaitanya muttered in a feeble but' distinct voice that "Sate Kala', had wounded him.The defence of the accused, as it appeared from the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, was that he had been falsely implicated as a result of a conspiracy among some of the prosecution witnesses.It was also suggested on his behalf that another person of the name of Satish Chandra Saha, also a co-villager, might have committed the offence.The actual evidence of Keshab on the point was as follows:The accused could then have an opportunity to meet the situation.Evidence Act. The accused would then have an opportunity to meet the prosecution case on the point.The effect of this, in my view, was to affect the jury's assessment of the evidence of the 3 witnesses concerned.There were only three what should be called eye-witnesses, Bhusan, Keshab and Bahar Ali Gazi.The appellant will continue on the same bail.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,159,512 |
RC(MD)No.511 of 2007:-1.M.Rajagopalan (Died on 07.08.2017)7.Durairaj : Revision Petitioner/Accused/ A1, A5, A6, A7, A10, A12 and A14 Vs.For Revision Petitioner in Crl.2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 Rajagopal was working as Cashier in Cholan Roadways Corporation, Kumbakonam and 2nd accused Neethi Vilangan was the Junior Superintendent and the 3rd accused was the chief Accounts Officer and the 4th accused Ramanathan was the Chief Account and the 5th accused A.Kanickavasagan was the Junior Accounts Officer and the 6th accused R.Natarajan was the Senior Superintendent at the relevant point of time.During the period between 01.01.1982 and 31.12.1982, A1 in criminal conspiracy with A2 to A9 has committed misappropriation of Rs. 16,60,498.17/- from Cholan Roadways Corporation.http://www.judis.nic.in 43.The further case of the prosecution is that A11 and A13 are the participants of Tender-cum-auction of the unused scraps and metals of Cholan Transport Corporation conducted in the year 1983, without depositing the EMD amount, participated in the auction and received EMD amount from the Transport Corporation with the help of A1 to A4 and A1 conspired with the remaining accused created documents by forging the signature of A11 and A13 and misappropriated the large amount.4.In the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, 62 witnesses were examined and 3176 documents were marked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same.A1 to A5 are also the officials of Cholan Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam.http://www.judis.nic.in 1013.The case of the prosecution is that from 01.01.1983 to 02.11.1983, A1 received amount on different transactions on behalf of the Transport Corporation, but he has not properly paid the above amount into the account, but misappropriated Rs.16,60,498/- and used the misappropriated amount for his personal use and for that, all the other accused helped him.14.PW1 deposed that the Transport Corporation determined the duties and responsibilities of A1 to A6 and from 01.01.1983 to 02.11.1983 on behalf of the Cholan Transport Corporation, deposits were received by the Tamil Nadu Transport Development Corporation and A1 received the above deposit amount and further he received the amount from Branch Offices and batta amount of the employees, but he failed to remit the above amount into the Bank and misappropriated the above amount and for that, all the other accused helped him and further, he received complaint as against A1 and he received records from the office and perused it and he found that A1 misappropriated to the tune of Rs.54,83,920/- and in order to recover the above amount, suit was filed and decreed and for committing misappropriation, complaint was given as against all the accused.15.PW2 to PW4 are also the officials of the Cholan Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam who spoke about the details of duties and responsibilities of the officials of the Corporation and further stated that A1received amount towards several transactions, but he has not properly brought into the account and created false documents, thereby misappropriated huge amount and for that, all other accused helped him.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW56, it reveals that from 01.01.1983 to 02.11.1983 as per Exs.The conviction and sentence imposed on A5 to A7, A9, A10, A12 to A14 are modified and they are convicted and sentenced to suffer 6 months RI for each offence.The fine amount imposed by the trial court for the said offences are confirmed.The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by A5 to A7, A9, A10, A12 to A14 shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.RC(MD)No.497 of 2007:-Parthasarathy Babu : Revision Petitioner/ Appellant/A9 Vs.The State rep. by Inspector of Police, CBCID, Thanjavur.: Respondent/Respondent/ Complainanthttp://www.judis.nic.in 2On the side of the accused, 6 witnesses were examined and 219 documents were marked.RC(MD)No.472 of 2007:- The revision petitioners/A11 and A13 are convicted and sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment, each for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 468 read with 34 IPC and to undergo six months rigoroushttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment, each for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) IPC and sentences are ordered to run concurrently.The same was confirmed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.RC(MD)No.497 of 2007:- The revision petitioner/A9 is convicted and sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, each for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment, each for the offence punishable order Section 120(B) IPC and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.The same was confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.RC(MD)No.511 of 2007: The 1st petitioner/A1 convicted for the offences under Sections 409, 477-A, 420, 468 and 120-B of IPC and directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and yo pay a total fine of Rs.1,22,000/-, inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for each offence.The petitioners 2 to 7/A5, A6, A7, A10, A12 and A14 are convicted and sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment each for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC and Section 468 read with 34 IPC and to undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment each for the offence punishable under Section 120(B) IPC and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.The same was confirmed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the courts below, the revisions petitioners are before this court with these revisions.8.The Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.511 of 2007 argued that the courts below failed to see the fact that A1 to A6 are the officials of Cholan Roadways Corporation and their duty is to very and maintain the daily accounts on-day today basis and finalise the accounts and the duty of the Managing Director and General Manager of the Corporation to be under overall in charge of the administration;http://www.judis.nic.in 7 that the accounts of the Corporation were added on daily basis, weekly basis, monthly basis, quarterly basis and annually and at no point of time, any discrepancy or misappropriation was alleged as against A1 to A6; that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 did not advance the case of the prosecution and they were the Chairman and General Manager of the Corporation and had clearly spoken to the effect that the accounts were periodically seen by them and there was no flaw in the accounts at any point of time; that the courts below failed to see that PW1 had admitted that some anonymous letters have received and action initiated on the basis of the same and the said letter was also entrusted to the police, however, the said material evidence had been suppressed; that it is admitted by PW55 that he had not audited the accounts, but his juniors and partners, who had audited the accounts and given a report and as such, the evidence of PW55 is nothing but a hearsay and that the evidence of PW47 is only to the extent of friendship with A1, A2 and A7 and it does not prove the charges framed against them; that the evidence of PW49 is only to the effect of opening of bank account and the transactions in the said account and it is not a material value for implicating the accused and that the evidence of PW50 and PW51 are also no consequence as theyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 have not scrutinised the accounts and there is no materiel placed before the court to substantiate the charge of criminal conspiracy as against the accused.In view of the above circumstances, he prays for acquitting the accused by allowing the criminal revisions9.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/A11 and A13 in Crl.RC(MD)No.472 of 2007 submitted that according to the prosecution, the revision petitioners are participants of Tender-cum-Auction of the unused scraps and metals of Cholan Transport Corporation conducted in the year 1983 and without depositing the EMD amount, the revision petitioners participated in the auction and received EMD amount from the Transport Corporation with the help of A1 to A4 and A1 conspired with the remaining accused, created documents by forging the signature of the revision petitioners and misappropriated large amount; that both the courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence and records and deviated from the charges framed against the revision petitioners and erroneously convicted the revision petitioners; that the prosecution did not establish the fact that necessary ingredients for convicting the revision petitioners under Section 34 of IPC and 120(B) IPC and that for convicting thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 petitioners under Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish the fact that common intention as well as overtact in furtherance of common intention and in this case, there is no whisper regarding the common intention as well as the overtract in furtherance of the common intention seen from the prosecution witnesses.Hence, he prays that the criminal revision has to be allowed by acquitting the revision petitioners.P927 to P2758, A1 received amount towards several transactions and paid only lesser amount into the Bank account instead of paying the received amount, thereby committed misappropriation.The statement of A1, A5 and A8 were marked as Exs.P720 and P724 and the entries of the above amount were marked as Exs.17.On careful perusal of Exs.18.PW59 deposed that A1 received ticket receipts and falsely entered in the batta account and further, he made some corrections in the cash registers, thereby A1 committed misappropriation and caused loss to the Transport Corporation.To prove the above fact, Exs.P2862 to P2891 and P2893 to P3022 were produced on the side of the prosecution.19.On careful perusal of the above documents, it shows that in the batta collection, A1 made false entries and corrections.Further, PW59 deposed that he made corrections in the petrol, diesel and expenditure registers.To prove it Exs.P3023 to P3055 were produced on the side of the prosecution.http://www.judis.nic.in 1320.On careful perusal of Exs.P3023 to P3035, corrections were made in the registers kept for petrol, diesel expenditure.Further, on the side of the prosecution, it is stated that A1 received deposits in respect of the auction and whenever any person was not win in the auction, the amount deposited by the participants are returned to them and in the auction, A5, A9 to A14 have participated, but no deposit amount was paid by them and they are not winners in the auction, but the deposited amount was returned to them as if they have paid the advance amount before the auction.To prove it, PW35 was examined.21.PW35 categorically deposed that during the period 1982-1983, auctions were conducted in Kumbakonam and Thanjavur depots and in the auctions, A5, A8, A9 and A14 were participated, but they have not deposited any amount and they were not the winners in the above auction and after the auction, A1 returned the amount to A5, A8, A9 and A14 as if they participated in the above auctions and thereby, A1 committed misappropriation.http://www.judis.nic.in 1422.Further, it is seen from the records that to prove the misappropriation committed by A1 with the other accused, Exs.P13 to P293 were produced on the side of the prosecution.PW2 deposed with regard to the above fact.To prove the fact that amounts were received by A5, A8 to A14 and deposited in their bank account, PW53 was examined.From the evidence of PW53, it reveals that from 14.02.1983 to 10.11.1983, how the account was opened in the name of A5, A8 to A14 and from their account whom issued cheque.http://www.judis.nic.in 1525.PW47 deposed that A1, A5 and A14 are having accounts in the Canara Bank and from their account, amount was transferred to the Chit Company Account of PW47 and they are also the subscribers in the Chit Company.To prove the said fact, Ex.sP493 to P507 were marked on the prosecution side.26.From the evidence of PW47, Exs.Further it is proved that A1 constructed a house by using the misappropriated amount, PW48, PW50 and PW51 were examined and Exs.P493 to P703 were produced.27.On careful perusal of the evidence of PW56, PW59 and other witnesses, it is seen that A1 by using his official capacity made false entries in the registers maintained by him and misappropriated the amount and thereby, caused loss to the Transport Corporation.28.In this case, on the side of the accused, DW1 to DW6 were examined.DW1 to DW6 were already shown as PWS.http://www.judis.nic.in 1629.It is admitted fact that DW1 to DW6 are the officials of Cholan Transport Corporation.On the basis of the evidence of DW1 to DW6, this court is not come to the conclusion that A1 has not misappropriated the amount belonging to Cholan Transport Corporation.30.On careful perusal of the evidence and documents, A1 received amount in several transactions, but he has not properly entered in the records and he instead of entering the correct amount, A1 entered lesser amount and for that, the other accused helped him.31.The learned counsel appearing for the accused argued that already weekly, monthly, annual audit was done in Cholan Transport Corporation and if really any misappropriation has been done, it would fine out immediately, but no misappropriationhttp://www.judis.nic.in 17 against A1 was found during the above audit report.Hence, A1 has not committed any misappropriation and hence, all the accused are entitled to acquittal.Hence, from the evidence of PW53 and PW56, it reveals that only after detailed enquiry by PW52 and PW56, the misappropriation was found.Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the accused stating that at the time of annual audit, it was not found that no misappropriation was committed by A1 is not at all acceptable.33.Further, on the side of the accused, it is stated that already the Cholan Transport Corporation filed a suit for recovery of money against the accused and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.It is to be noted here that civil remedy and criminal remedy are entirely two different remedies and they cannot go by simultaneously.35.On careful perusal of Exs.P182 and P183, it is seen that A1 issued a receipt as if A1 remitted Rs.30,000/- and A5 was not the winner and the alleged amount of Rs.30,000/- was ordered to be returned to A5 and in that receipt, PW2 has signed and the bill was prepared by A15 and pass order was issued as per Ex.P185 and the amount was issued through Canara Bank cheque.36.Further, from Exs.Hence, it clearly shows that without depositing any amount towards advance, A1 issued cheque to A8 to A11 and A14 as if the above accused were participated in the auction and they are not winners and hence, they are entitled to the above amount andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 received the amount.Hence, it reveals that A8 to A11 and A14 also liable for the misappropriation done by A1, since they received the amount deposits by way of cheque and they en-cashed the cheque and they have not opposed the transactions done through their Banker.A5, A9 to A14 have not given any complaint stating that with their consent, A1 falsely created the deposit receipt and received the deposit amount as if they were not successful winners and falsely issued cheque from them.Hence, it is held that A4, A9 to A14 with a common intention joined with A1 and misappropriated the amount deposited amount.38.At this juncture, it is necessary to refer Sections 407 and 409 IPC, which would run thus:-property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-http://www.judis.nic.in 20 keeper, commits criminal breach of trust, in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.409.Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent-Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”39.Further the learned counsel for the accused argued that it is a case of misappropriation and all the accused are suffering from various ailments and if the court found guilty of the accused, they may be given lesser punishment.For that, the learned Senior counsel submitted the following rulings:-State (NCT of Delhi).40.The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court after considering all these aspects given a concurrent finding, which does not require any interference by this court.41.It is seen from the records that A1/M.Rajagopalan died on 7.08.2017 and A11/Palanivelu reported to be dead.Hence, the charges against A1/Rajagopalan and A11/Palanivelu are abated.42.This court, after going through the records, is of the considered view that the court below have not committed any mistake or error in rendering a finding hold guilty of the offence with which they stood charged.However, considering the fact that A5 to A7, A9, A10 and A12 to A14 are the senior citizens and pendency of the case for three decades, this court finds that the conviction and sentence imposed on the A5 to A7, A9, A10 and A12 to A14 by the courts below require modification.http://www.judis.nic.in 2243.In the result, these criminal revisions are partly allowed.P.C and they are, after adjusting the period of imprisonment already undergone, shall undergo imprisonment for the remaining period.30.10.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 23 To,1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Thanjavur.2.The Principal District-cum-Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 24 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.472, 479 and 511 of 2007 30.10.2018http://www.judis.nic.in 25http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,598,050 |
He has been falsely implicated.There is no recovery of any weapon from the applicant.It is further submitted that the victim is the sister of sister-in-law (bhabhi) of applicant.The applicant is in jail since 26.07.2019 and hence the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Let the applicant Jai Prakash, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,605,523 |
1 ANNEXURE-C High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore, Indore CONTINUATION ORDER SHEET Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.32503/2018 (Sohel Khan s/o Habib Khan Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 27.08.2018 Shri Anil Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.Perused the case diary.This third / repeat application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of bail has been filed by applicant Sohel Khan s/o Habib Khan, who is implicated in connection with Crime No.115/2018 registered at Police Station Khategaon, District Dewas (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-D, 294, 341/34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 11This repeat application has been filed after recording court statement of the victim (PW-2) and Riya (PW-3).Prosecutrix (PW-2) and sister of victim Riya (PW-3) have made specific allegation against the present applicant and other co-accused persons.This repeat bail application filed by the applicant has no merit.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.32503/2018 is dismissed.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2018.08.29 10:06:48 +05'30'
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,606,622 |
The facts of the case, as noticed by the learned trial court are as under:"On 16.01.2009 D.D. No. 7A was recorded at P.S. Alipur by Rajesh Kumar S/o Balijeet Singh that his cousin Sunil Kumar had left the house at 10 AM on 15.01.2009 on his Motorcycle No. HR 29 Q 6770 for going to Tihar Jail to meet his father, mother and brother who were in jail for Dowry Death case and on the other Motor Cycle his cousins Gaurav and Micky were going.When they reached at Lavanya farm house, one alto car met them and his cousin Sunil started talking with the occupants of that car and Sunil asked Gaurav to proceed and he will follow them.But thereafter he neither reached at Tihar Jail nor returned back home.The said DD was assigned to S.I. Bharat Bhushan for further investigation of the case.Thereafter on the same day, again DD No. 30A was recorded at P.S. Alipur at the instance of Rajesh Kumar that in the morning he had lodged DD No. 7A regarding missing of his cousin Sunil and he wanted to say that In-laws of Sandeep had threatened the family members of Sunil that they will kill them if they pursue the case of the persons (Mother, Father and Brother of Sunil) who were lodged in jail for the murder of their daughter and thus suspected that they might have kidnapped Sunil.The said DD No. was also assigned to S.I. Bharat Bhushan.On 17.01.2009, information was received that the dead body of Sunil is lying in district hospital Ghaziabad.PW3 Ashok Kumar, PW4 Gaurav and PW5 Mamta are the witnesses of last seen evidence.PW3 in his testimony deposed that on 15.01.2009 he was going to Tihar jail to meet his relatives and he left his house at about 10am.Hence, I do not find any reason if he has recovered the vakalatnams of Pradeep Rana advocate why would he not have stated the said fact in the inquest papers ExPW12/A prepared by him.Through : Mr. Firoz Khan Ghazi, APP for the State AND + CRL.A. 1210/2014 STATE ...Appellant Through: Mr. Firoz Khan Ghazi, APP for State Versus SATISH ...Respondent Through: Mr Naveen Gaur and Mr Abhijeet Bhagat, Advocates AND + CRL.A. 119/2015 MAHESH ...Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Chaudhary, Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Mr. Rohit Arora, Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 1 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 Mr. Ajay Kumar Pipaniya and Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocates Versus STATE ...Respondent Through: Mr. Firoz Khan Ghazi, APP for State CORAM:Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 1 of 28HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J CRL.A. 1236/2013 & CRL.A. 119/2015Present appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 18.07.2013 and order on sentence dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Session case No. 121/09 by virtue of which both the appellants have been convicted under section 364/302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.The appellants were also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 2 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC, and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.The appellants were further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 2 of 28On Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 3 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 the basis of aforesaid two DD's S.I. Bharat Bhushan prepared rukka and accordingly FIR u/S 365 of IPC was registered."Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 3 of 28Thereafter on the secret information received, appellant Mahesh Kumar was arrested who confessed that he kidnapped and murdered the deceased Sunil with the help of respondent Satish and the appellant Sat Prakash because he had an illicit relation with the wife of the deceased Sunil.Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant Mahesh, an Alto car bearing registration no. DL8CNB 2971 which was used in the commission of offence was seized and on 31.01.2009 appellant Mahesh got recovered the driving license and election identity card of the deceased Sunil.After completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 364/201/302 of IPC was filed against the appellant Mahesh.On 09.06.2009 appellant Sat Prakash @ Lala surrendered in the court and pursuant to his disclosure statement, one golden chain which belonged to the deceased was recovered.Supplementary charge sheet u/s 364/302/201 qua appellant Sat Prakash and respondent Satish was filed by the IO.In order to prove its case and to establish the guilt of the appellants and the respondent Satish, the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses.The appellants and respondent were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied all the incriminating evidences led by the prosecution.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 4 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/20159. Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment relied upon the eye witness account given by the ocular witnesses and other accompanying circumstances and found both the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302/364/201 of IPC and convicted them accordingly.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures and is against the settled proposition of law.Further there is no motive established which could have perpetrated the appellants to commit the crime.Counsel for the appellants also contends that the last seen evidence is unreliable.The statements made by PW-4 and PW-5 in their deposition shows that they have been tutored with a sole motive to frame the appellants.Hence the appellants have been made scape goats in this case which is prima facie visible from the averments and depositions made by the public witnesses.Regarding recovery of the Alto Car at the instance of appellant Mahesh, counsel for the appellant submits that there were contradictions in the testimony of PW 21 SI Bharat Bhushan and PW24 Ct.Ashok, hence their testimonies cannot be relied upon.The counsel for the appellants further submits that regarding the information about recovery of the dead body, PW-18 has contradicted the testimony of PW-13 who in his testimony deposed that the visiting cards and vakalatnama's were found with the dead body of the deceased and somebody from Ghaziabad police had made a call to Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 5 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.However PW-18 had categorically stated in his cross examination that no identity proof was recovered on search from the dead body through which identity of the deceased could be verified.Hence, the version of PW-13 not only casts a shadow of doubt but also dents the prosecution story.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 5 of 28Counsel for the appellant further contends that the prosecution has shown that the appellants were not present in their house when the police visited their house.It is a well settled law that even if the act of absconding is proved, it is normally considered as a weak link in the chain of circumstances relied upon for establishing the guilt of accused persons."...Even an innocent person may well try to keep out of the way if learns of his false implication in a serious crime reported to the police"In an another case of Matru vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1971, SC 1050 it was held that:"Mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind.Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly susceptive of a grave crime:Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 6 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 6 of 28Per Contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.The appellants had abducted the deceased Sunil on 15.01.2009 and thereafter they gave drugs mixed in tea after which deceased became unconscious and thereafter he was strangulated by the appellants and later his dead body was thrown in Ghaziabad.Counsel for the State further argued that the testimonies of the witnesses so examined and the circumstantial evidence produced on record prove the guilt of the appellants.Counsel further submits that the testimony of last seen witnesses PW3, PW4 and PW5 is reliable and corroborated by the call details of the mobile phone of both the appellants which proves the presence of the appellants at Lavanaya Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 7 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 Farm House at about 10/10:30AM on 15.01.2009 where deceased was last seen alive with them.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 7 of 28Learned Counsel for the State further submits that from the testimony of the wife of the deceased Sunil i.e PW11 (Suman) and father of Suman (PW8), the motive is also established.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also carefully perused the trial court record.For the purpose of decision of this appeal, it would be useful to analyze the testimony of some of the important witnesses.PW1 further deposed that after 5-10 minutes he reached opposite Lavanaya Farm House near GTK Road and saw his nephew Sunil (deceased) on his motorcycle, standing near one Alto car bearing no. DL8CNB 2971 and talking to the persons sitting in the car.PW1 next deposed that on the driving seat appellant Mahesh was sitting who is a friend of Sunil (deceased).PW1 also deposed that on 22.05.2009 he along with Rajesh, Gaurav and Mamta had gone to PS Alipur where he identified appellant Mahesh.PW1 further deposed that on 17.06.2009 he along with Gaurav and Mamata had gone to PS Alipur and identified appellant Sat Prakash as the same person who was Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 8 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 sitting in the car of Mahesh.In the cross examination PW1 stated that he knew appellant Mahesh by face prior to the incident but does not know the appellant Sat Prakash and respondent Satish.PW4 Gaurav in his testimony deposed that on 15.01.2009 he along with his sister Mamta (PW5) went to Tihar Jail to meet his sister in law and his brother Sunil (deceased) also went with them on his motorcycle and when they reached near Lavanaya Park, G.T Road, one Alto Car bearing no. DL8CNB 2971 was waiting there and appellant Mahesh was standing near the side of the said car and two persons were sitting in the car.PW4 further deposed that his brother Sunil (deceased) stopped his motorcycle on seeing the appellant Mahesh and started talking to him.PW4 next deposed that when Sunil (deceased) was asked to proceed, he said he will follow them and later when a call was made to Sunil (deceased), there was no reply.PW4 also stated that he was not aware of the registration number of the car before 15.01.2009 and that appellant Sat Prakash and Satish were not known to him prior to the incident but he knew appellant Mahesh.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 8 of 28Counsel for the appellant raised the contention that the testimonies of PW3, PW4 and PW5 are not reliable and are an afterthought because in DD No. 7A dated 16.01.2009 recorded at 9:00AM and DD No.30A Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 9 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 dated 16.01.2009 recorded at 7:20PM, neither the name of the appellants nor the registration number of car is mentioned.In our opinion with regard to the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants, we agree with the view taken by the learned trial court that on perusal of DD No. 7A ExPW6/A, it is evident that the DD entry has been recorded on the statement of PW6 Rajesh and it stands proved that one car was waiting at the Lavanaya Farm House and Sunil (deceased) started talking with the occupants of that car while PW4 and PW5 left and went to Tihar Jail.Further on perusal of DD no.30A it is evident that it was recorded by PW6 and this proves that both DD no.7A and DD no.30A were not recorded on the statements of PW3, PW4 and PW5 and their testimonies cannot be discarded merely because the name of appellant Mahesh is not mentioned in the DD.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 9 of 28From the aforestated versions it is borne out that on 15.01.2009 Sunil (deceased) had been last seen together with the appellant Mahesh and other two persons sitting in his Alto Car near Lavanaya Farm House.This had been witnessed by PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 at about 10:00am.On this score all the three witnesses have corroborated the statement of one another and they have no motive to falsely depose against the appellants.In the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thukran 2007 (3) SCC 755, Apex Court observed that there is no strait jacket formula applicable to cases of circumstantial evidence where the prosecution relies on the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased, to the following effect:Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 10 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 There can be no fixed or straitjacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author of the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons.Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence.For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case.In another case of Raghuvendra State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at 2015 (1) SCALE 61, the Apex Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for offence of murder based on circumstantial evidence.Since the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the dead body of the deceased was recovered soon thereafter, it left no room for doubt that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 11 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish, reported at 2005 CriLJ1428 it was noted as follows:The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists.In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the accused were seen together by witnesses PWs.In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P reported at, AIR2006SC1656 it was noted as follows: The last seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration."Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 12 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015PW8 in his testimony deposed that appellant Mahesh was residing in his neighbourhood before the marriage of his daughter i.e PW11 Suman.PW11 in her testimony deposed that the appellant Mahesh was residing in her neighbourhood 10 years back and the sister of appellant Mahesh was her friend.PW11 further deposed that she was on talking and visiting terms with the appellant Mahesh.In her cross examination PW11 stated that she had some idea that appellant Mahesh had an evil eye on her.In the case of State of U.P. v. Moti Ram and Ors.In our opinion, in a case when motive alleged against the accused is fully established, it provides a foundational material to connect the Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 13 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 13 of 28Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 14 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 14 of 28Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 15 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 16 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has referred to certain circumstances.When a case is totally hinges on the circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the Court to see that the circumstances which lead towards the guilt of the accused have been fully established and they must lead to a singular conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence and rule out the probabilities which are likely to allow the presumption of innocence of the accused.In these circumstances, the only crucial factor that falls for determination is to see whether satisfactory evidence was available on record for bringing home the guilt of the appellants.The prosecution apart from relying upon the evidence of last seen produced from the testimonies of PW3, PW4 and PW5, has also relied upon the evidence of call details of mobile phone of the appellants which proves that the appellant Mahesh and Satprakash were present at Lavanaya Farm House at about 10am on 15.01.2009 and also that appellant Mahesh had visited Ghaziabad on 15.01.2009, the area from where the body of the deceased Sunil was recovered.Also the appellant Mahesh gave no explanation in his statement u/s 313 CrPC as to why he was having a conversation with the appellant Sat Prakash so early in the morning on 15.01.2009 and also why he had gone to Muradnagar, Ghaziabad (the place where the body of the deceased was recovered).Further the appellants denied their presence at Lavanaya farm house at about 10:00-10:30am on 15.01.2009 where they were seen along with the deceased Sunil by PW3, PW4 and PW5 Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 17 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 and further also failed to give any explanation about their whereabouts as to where they were on 15.01.2009 if not at Lavanaya Farm house.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 17 of 28"We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw different inference."LJ 1943, the Apex Court reiterated the view that where the accused fails to give any explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him, the Court will be entitled to draw such adverse inference against the accused as may Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 18 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 18 of 28However, in such an event, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law."In Raj Kumar (supra), the Court also took a view that once the accused has not denied his presence in the house on the night when the incident had taken place, then he was bound to explain as to under what circumstances the victim had died.After placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prithpal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2012)1 SCC 10 and Mir Mohd. Omar, the Apex Court in the following para held as under:But the section would apply to cases where the Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 19 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 19 of 28Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 20 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015Keeping in view the law laid down above, it stands settled that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.Hence by virtue of section 106 of Evidence Act, the onus shifted on both the appellants to prove the facts which were especially within their knowledge but non explanation of the incriminating evidence against both the appellants completes the chain of circumstances.With respect to recovery of car bearing no. DL8CNB 2971, it will be useful to peruse the testimony of SI Bharat Bhushan PW21 and Ct.PW21 in his testimony deposed that on 17.01.2009, he along with PW24 went to the house of appellant Mahesh and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW21/D and pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ex.PW21/E) made by the appellant Mahesh, he got recovered the Alto car which was parked in front of his house and was seized vide memo Ex.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 21 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015From the testimonies of SI Bharat Bhushan PW21 and Ct.Ashok Kumar PW24 it stands established that appellant Mahesh used the Alto car bearing no. DL8CNB 2971 for commission of crime and the same was recovered at his instance.Trial court observed that there were some contradictions in the testimonies of PW21 and PW24 as PW21 in his testimony deposed that to make recovery of further articles he along with PW24 went to the house of appellant Mahesh on 31.01.2009 at 5:30pm, whereas PW24 deposed that they reached his house at 12 noon but their testimonies cannot be discarded as they were recorded after a long gap of almost three years.In a plethora of judgments, the Apex Court has taken a view that minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution, should not be made a ground for the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety.In case of Mritunjoy Biswas Vs.Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and anr., reported at (2013) 12 SCC 796, the Apex Court held as under:"As is evincible, the High Court has also taken note of certain omissions and discrepancies treating them to be material omissions and irreconcilable discrepancies.It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness.The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court.If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version.If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 22 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 advantage of such inconsistencies.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 22 of 28Ashok (PW24) cannot be discarded because of minor contradictions.Further the Court, after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and otherwise also, in all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of the witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, error of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence.Regarding the recovery of other articles from the dead body of the deceased Sunil and the contradiction in statements made by PW13 Pradeep Rana and PW18 SI Abhay Ram of PS Niwari Ghaziabad, as noticed by the counsel of the appellants, we agree with the view taken by the learned Trial Court which reads as under:PW-18 SI Abhay Ram of PS Niwati Ghaziabad has testified that he reached at the spot after receiving the information of recovery of one dead body.He has not stated that he had found any vakalatnama or visiting card of any advocate or Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 23 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 that he had made any call to any advocate.No suggestion has been given to him that any vakalatnama was recovered either from the search of dead body or at the spot of recovery of dead body.PW10 Lokesh photographer and PW12 Ct.Bhoop Singh and PW Ct.Mukesh Kr of PS Niwari UP in whose presence dead body was seized have also not stated that any vakalatnama were found at the spot of recovery of dead body.No suggestion in this regard has been given to him by Ld. Defence Counsel.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 23 of 28In these circumstances, I reject the testimony of PW-13 that somebody from Ghaziabad police himself made call to him on 15.1.09 and told him about his vakalatnamas.Hence, in view of above facts and circumstances, I held that prosecution has been able to prove that vakalatnamas ExPW13/1 to ExPW13/4, election I card ExPW21/1, driving license ExPW21/2 of deceased were recovered from the house of accused Mahesh, which is also an incriminating circumstance against accused Mahesh that he had taken these articles after committing the murder of Sunil probably to conceive the identity of deceased."Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 24 of 28Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015From the preceeding discussion, it stands established that recoveries of articles which belonged to the deceased were affected at the instance of appellants and non explanation of how the appellants came in possession of the articles belonging to the deceased is an incriminating circumstance in conjunction with other circumstances.It also needs to be noticed that appellant Sat Prakash absconded to avoid his arrest and no explanation has been offered by the appellant Sat Prakash as to why he remained absconding for so long which is also an incriminating circumstance against him.Further from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it stands established from the call details that appellant Sat Prakash was in constant touch with the deceased Sunil and on 15.01.2009 i.e the day of incident, both the appellants exchanged calls in morning and further from the call details it was established that both the appellants were present at Lavanaya farm House on 15.01.2009 at about 10/10:30am.Another important observation made by the trial court was that appellant Sat Prakash refused to participate in the TIP and therefore his first time identification in the court by PW3, PW4 and PW5 cannot be rejected.In our opinion, we agree with the observation made by the trial court as his presence at the Lavanaya farm House on 15.01.2009 at about 10/10:30am stands established from the evidence produced on record.Taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, which were proved on record, we find that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the case against the appellant Mahesh and Sat Prakash in committing the murder of the deceased Sunil.The Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 25 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 motive of the appellants was clearly proved on record.The testimonies of PW3, PW4 and PW5 as already stated above are inspiring and trustworthy.The admitted presence of appellant Mahesh and Sat Prakash on the morning of 15.01.2009 at about 10/10:30am as were last seen with the deceased by PW3, PW4 and PW5 and their presence at Ghaziabad, the place from where the body of the deceased was recovered, failure on the part of the appellants to give any explanation for the same and the recovery of car which was used in the commission of crime and recovery of other articles belonging to the deceased and most of the other circumstances discussed above and in the trial Court judgment, duly supported by evidence on record unerringly establishes the culpability of the appellants in committing the said crime.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 25 of 28For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 18.07.2013 and order on sentence dated 30.07.2013 does not call for any interference.Thus, in our view, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 364/302/201 of IPC.Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeals.The same are dismissed.The copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail.The lower court record be sent back.The State has preferred the present petition under Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to appeal against the judgment dated 18.07.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No. 121/09, whereby the Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 26 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 accused Satish was acquitted of the charges under Section 364/302/201 of Indian Penal Code.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 26 of 28Learned counsel for the state submits that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment on hypothetical presumptions, conjectures and surmises and the order of acquittal of respondent Satish is perverse and lacks legality and thus it is liable to be set aside.Learned counsel for the State contended that the respondent Satish pointed out the place from where motorcycle of the deceased was recovered and the fact that he absconded to avoid his arrest are an incriminating circumstance against him.We considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the State and in our opinion; nothing has been placed on record by the prosecution which connect the respondent Satish with the murder of the deceased Sunil.Relevant para of the impugned judgment is reproduced as under:"As far as accused Satish is concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that on 15.01.2009 at 10/10:30Am accused Satish was present at Lavanaya Farm House along with the accused Mahesh and Satprakash, as I did not find testimonies of PW3, PW4 and PW5 reliable to the extent that they saw accused Satish with accused Mahesh and Satprakash in the absence of any corroborative evidence.The prosecution has also failed to prove that he was using the mobile phone no. 9250542381 nor any recovery was proved against him which can connect him with the crime.As far as pointing out memo from where motorcycle was recovered is concerned same cannot be considered as incriminating circumstance as the Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 27 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015 recovery of motorcycle was already effected and similarly the pointing out of place of spot as well as recovery of dead body same are already known to the police.Hence in these circumstances', I hold that prosecution has failed to prove e beyond reasonable doubt that accused Satish was along with the accused Mahesh and Satprakash on the day of incident i.e 15.01.2009 and he participated in the abduction or murder of deceased Sunil.Therefore, I acquit accused Satish from all the charges i.e 364/302/201 of IPC.Accused Satish is in JC, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case."Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 27 of 28We agree with the view taken by the learned trial court.The counsel for the State has not been able to show that the findings of the Trial Court are unsustainable, illegal or perverse.This Court, on perusal of the evidence on record and the documents is of the opinion that there is no cogent evidence which point towards the guilt of the respondent Satish.There is no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned trial court and we, therefore uphold the acquittal of the respondent Satish.The appeal, is therefore, dismissed.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J G. S. SISTANI, J APRIL 30, 2015 gr Crl.Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 28 of 28 Crl.Appeal No. 1210/2014 Crl.Appeal No. 119/2015Appeal No. 1236/2013 Page 28 of 28
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
916,097 |
JUDGMENT G.C. Jain, J.(2) Jaipal Singh (appellant), Ishwar Singh (deceased) & Raj Pal (PW-1) were employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.Appellant was posted as L.D.C. in the office of the Delhi Terminal Tax Agency, Ishwar Singh and Raj Pal were posted at Terminal Tax Agency at Kapashera Border a(r) peon and gun man respectively.The prosecution case was that on June 15, 1983 they consumed liquor.While doing so Jaipal Singh told Ishwar Singh that he was a peon a fourth class employee and could not take liquor sitting with him.Because of this remark there was an altercation and Ishwar Singh gave beatings to Jaipal Singh.On June 17, 1983 Ishwar Singh went to Jaipal Singh to beg pardon.The latter however refused to pardon him and instead thr (3) On June 25, 1983 at aboutl0.15A.M. Ishwar Singh, Jorawar Singh, Charanjit Singh, some other employees of the Terminal Tax Post, and Ashok Kumar Malhotra, representative of Jaipur Golden Transport were present at the hotel of Jagdish Parshad and were talking.The appellant came there along with 8/9 companions.He and one of his companion were armed with daggers.The rest were armed with hockey sticks.Jaipal Singh staling that be was taking his revenge gave a dagger blow on the left side of the chest of Ishwar Singh and asked others to kill Ishwar Singh.His companion, who was armed with dagger, gave a blow on the left thigh.Others gave him beatings with hockey sticks.Thereafter they ran away in two cars towards Delhi.(4) Ishwar Singh was removed to Govt. Hospital, Gurgaon where he was declared dead.An intimation was lent to Police Station Najafgarh.Sub-Inspector Gurmail Singh reached the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Rajpal and got a case registered under Sections 302/147/148/149, Indian Penal Code on the basis of the laid statement.Sub-Inspector Radhey Sham reached the hospital at Gurgaon and prepared inquest report.He sent the dead body for post mortem examination.Autopsy was conducted by Dr. L.T, Ramani.(1) The appellant, Jaipal Singh, was charged for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of Ishwar Singh on June 25, 1983 at about 10.45 A. M. at or around Hotel of Jagdish Parshad at Kapashera Border within the jurisdiction of Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi.He was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 30.000.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Ri for four years.It was directed that out of the amount of fine, if realised a sum of Rs. 25.000.00 shall be paid to the heirs of the deceaged.Feeling aggrieved Jaipal Singh has filed this appeal.The appellant is stared to have made a disclosure statement but nothing was recovered pursuant thereto.After completing the investigation the appellant and the said co-accused were sent for trial.(6) Mahabir Singg, Davinder Singh, Ajit Singh and Ishwar Singh were discharged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on August 29, 1984, The appellant was however charged for offence under Section 302, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.(7) According to the prosecution the occurrence was witnessed by Rajpal, Jorawar Singh, Aihok Kumar Malhotra, Jagdish Parshad, Singh Ram, Ho Ram and Bhim Singh.However none of these witnesses supported the prosecution version.They were all allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution.Thus there was no ocular evidence to prove the guilt.It was so held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.(ii) The accused was present at the time and place of occurrence on 25-6-83 for unexplained reasons.(iii) He ran away and disappeared from the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence for unexplained reasons.(iv) He was unauthorisedly absent from him official duty on the day and time of occurrence and remained absconded till 8-7-83 when he was arrested, for unexplained reasons.(v) The crime was committed at the hotel of Jagdish Parshad at the campus of Terminal Tax Post Kapashera Border situated at a Highway in the presence of view of number of persons.(vi) Natural or possible witnesses of occurrence have turned hostile and have not come out with truth.(vii) The crime was pre-planned.(viii) There is no manifest defect in the investigation made by the police which appears to be honest and careful."(9) He further held "These circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness (r)nd leave no reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused".(10) The conviction can, no doubt, be based on circumstantial evidence.(11) The circumstances mentioned at No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 namely, that the occurrence took place at the hotel of Jagdish Parshad at the campus of Terminal Tax Post ; natural witnesses had turned hostile ; the crime was pre-planned and there was no defect in the investigation, independently or jointly, do not provide any evidence connecting the appellant with the offence.So far as circumstances No. 2 and 3 are concerned, there was no evidence, except the statement contained in the First Information Report, that the appellant wai present at the time and place of occurrence and had disappeared from that place, The statement in the Fir, as held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and rightly, was not substantive evidence.Thus there was no evidence that the appellant was present at the time and place of occurrence and soon after disappeared from that place.(12) From the evidence of Rajpal it has been proved that on June 15, 1983 there was some altercation between the appellant and the deceased.However this witness had further stated that Ishwar Singh went to Jaipal Singh for begging pardon and had informed him (the witness) that Jaipal Singh had pardoned him.Motive is, no doubt, relevant.This circumstance also cannot be considered sufficient evidence of the commission of the crime by the appellant.The circumstances found by the learned Addl Sessions Judge, individually or cumulatively, do not unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.There circumstances do not form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellant and none else.(14) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, it appears, was impressed by the statement contained in the First Information Report.The said statement, apparently, raised a strong suspicion in his mind.A conviction in a criminal case, however, can be based on legal evidence sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused without any reasonable doubt.Learned Addl Sessions Judge, was entirely wrong in convicting the appellant.The conviction was liable to be set aside.I, however, feel the need to express myself.This appeal has a number of painful aspects.The appellant is named in the First Information Report as one of the principal assailants Strangely all the eye witnesses including Public Witness 1 Raj Pal have gone hostile at the trial.There is.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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.
|
91,630,413 |
Mr. P. N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.*** CORAM: S. B. DESHMUKH J.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:55 :::and Registrar's orders.ORAL ORDER:On behalf of all the Respondents, except Respondent NO.4, Advocate Mr. Kulkarni presented reply, it is marked by letter "X"for identification and taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the Respective parties.Parties are referred to their status in the suit.Rule, made returnable forthwith.To decide this question, raised in this writ petition, I am listing down facts which are not disputed by the parties.(a) The petitioner is the original plaintiff ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:55 ::: 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:55 :::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.and Registrar's orders.(b) Suit filed by the Petitioner has been followed by an application seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code against the defendants.(c) The learned 15th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad passed an order on 9th September, 2008 allowing the application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their relatives, servants or any person on their behalf from making obstruction in the suit land, from digging pits, removing soil from the suit property etc. till the disposal of the suit.(d) Order passed below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit dated 9th September, 2008, by the learned 15th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad, was subjected to Misc.Civil Appeal No.105 of 2008 before the learned District Judge-1, Aurangabad by the defendants.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 :::FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.and Registrar's orders.(e) Misc.This order is passed by the learned District Judge-1, Aurangabad.(f) Order passed by the learned District Judge-1, Aurangabad in Misc.165 of 2008 was further challenged by filing Writ Petition NO.1171 of 2009 in this High Court.This writ petition was filed by nine defendants in the suit and indisputably has been withdrawn.(h) The successful litigant/ plaintiff unfortunately was not able to enjoy the fruits of temporary injunction granted by the competent civil Court and had attributed finality up till High Court.The original ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 ::: 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 :::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.plaintiff was therefore required to file execution petition, seeking execution of the order of temporary injunction granted by the competent Civil Court.This execution petition was presented to the office of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Aurangabad.This execution petition was registered as R.D. No.102 of 2007 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad.(i) In R.D. No.102 of 2009, original defendants filed application Exhibit-16 on 28th July, 2009 praying for dismissal of R.D.(k) It is admitted by the parties that application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code was filed by the plaintiff.Copy is on record ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 ::: 7 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 :::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders.and Registrar's orders.Annexure R-A (Page 47).In this application, filed by the plaintiff, prayer is made that contempt proceedings may be initiated against the defendants and they may be punished according to law.(l) The original plaintiff has also filed summary criminal case No.6925 of 2008 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad for the alleged offences under section 504, 506, 441, 447 of I.P.C.against around 12 persons.Out of these 12 persons, 10 persons are defendants in the suit.Learned counsel for the plaintiff points out the nature of the suit, the facts and proceedings noticed herein above.They have not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the defendants.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Regular Darkhast filed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 ::: 8 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 :::The suit filed by the petitioner is pending before the civil Court, copy is not on record.Counsel for the petitioner submits that suit is for perpetual injunction.From the facts, it is manifest that despite the grant of temporary injunction by the competent civil Court, the petitioner, who possess the order ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 ::: 9 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 :::Definition of "decree holder" takes in its ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 ::: 11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.The Civil Procedure Code primarily consists of two parts.The first part comprises of various sections right from ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 ::: 14 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.Order passed below Exhibits 16 and 17, impugned in this Writ Petition is quashed and set aside.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 :::Both the learned counsel have pointed out that writ petition No.2966 of 1994 in between the present petitioner and State of Maharasthra is pending in this High Court.ans/735 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 ::: 21 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.[G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:37:56 :::
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,635,033 |
SK Court No.26 CRM 504 of 2017 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17.01.2017 in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 510/2014 dated 26.12.2014 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 120B/354A/384/363/342/376D of the Indian Penal Code.So far as 7 charge- sheeted accused persons, 5 are on bail.We have gone through the statement of the victim lady, to which our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the State.We find that the allegation is one of molestation and he 2 has been identified in the T.I. Parade.We make it clear, if the petitioner is found to be absent on any date of hearing before the court concerned, without any justifiable reasons, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel his bail and take him into custody without any further reference to this court, in accordance with law.The instant application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) 3
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,637,337 |
25.07.13 Item No. 39 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 39And In the matter of: Kaba Sk. & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sudip Guha For the Petitioners Mr. Sanjay Bardhan For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Kaliganj Police Station Case No. 409 of 2013 dated 10.06.2013 under Sections 448/323/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record as well as the statements recorded.In our opinion, the Petitioner No. 1, Kaba Sk. does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.Hence, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected.d1 As regards the other two petitioners, i.e. Petitioner No. 2, Sarmon Mollick and Petitioner No. 3, Hasina Bibi, we think that there is no need for their custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.