id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,908,705 |
The prosecution case, in brief, was that the deceased Kailashkun-war, the sister of Jujharsingh (P.W. 6), resident of Village Tal, District Ratlam was married to the appellant who was resident of Village Chhotipatlasi, Distt.The appellant was in habit of consuming liquor and he used to beat Kailashkunwar, therefore, Kailashkunwar and her daughter Dhyankunwar (P.W. 16) were living in Village Tal with Jujharsingh, the brother of the deceased.On 13-7-92 the appellant sold his land survey No. 279, area 0.222 to Nabinoor (P.W. 4) Kailashkunwar and Dhyankunwar opposed and did not allow Nabinoor to cultivate this land and they filed Civil Suit No. 103-A/92 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Sitamau.This led quarrel between husband and wife.On 20-7-92 Kailashkunwar and Dhyankunwar came to Patlasi and stayed with the appellant in his house.Kailashkunwar obstructed Nabinoor to take the crop sown in the disputed land.On 8-10-92 Nabinoor lodged report Ex. P-13 against Kailashkunwar at Police Station, Sitamau.The appellant beat Kailashkunwar on the field.On 23-10-92, in the night, the appellant came armed with sword to kill Kailashkunwar and Dhyankunwar.He beat Kailashkunwar, therefore, they had to stay in the night in their neighbour's house and in the morning they again came in their house and thereafter Dhyankunwar went to her maternal uncle Jujharsingh's house.On 4-11-92, Prabhulal (P.W. 1), the neighbour of the deceased saw smoke coming out of the house of the appellant.The house was closed from inside.It was giving smell of burning of flesh.He informed Raghurajsingh (P.W. 13), the cousin brother of the deceased who also saw the same thing.They peeped through the slot of the door-leaf and saw a pyre burning in his 'Bada' (open land) in the house, quilt and 'Gadda 'were also burning.Raghurajsingh sent letter Ex. P-1 through Prabhulal to S.H.O., Sitamau.On this, the Incharge of P.S. Subodh Kumar Tomar (P.W. 17) and constable Bhartcndra Singh (P.W. 15) went to the house of appellant in Village Chhotipalasi.The door was closed from inside.When door was not opened, constable Bhartendra singh jumped into the house of the appellant and opened the door.They found that dead-body of a human being was burning.In one leg there was 'paijeb' and in one hand there were some bangles.The appellant was found drunk in the house.He was taken into custody and a panchnama Ex. P-29 was prepared.Subodh Kumar Tomar held inquest on the dead- body which had already burnt and prepared report Ex. P-On 4-11-92 Dhyankunwar (P.W. 13), the younger sister of the deceased Kailashkunwar was called from her village.Dehati Nalishi Ex. P-32 was written.The appellant was drunk.She deposed that the appellant had sold their field to Nabinoor, On this, she and her mother had come to the house of the appellant in the month of July and stayed there.In the night of 23-10-92 the appellant consumed liquor and came to them having sword in his hand and beat her mother.The evidence of Prabhulal (P.W. 1), Raghuraj (P.W. 13) is that on 4-11-92 they saw smoke coming out of the houseof the appellant and the house was closed from inside.They peeped through the slot of the door-leaf and saw a pyre burning there.On this, Raghuraj Singh sent letter Ex. P-1 to Police Station, Sitamau through Prabhulal, where upon the S.H.O., Subodh Kumar Singh Tomar and constable Bhartendra Singh came there.When the door was not opened, Bhartendra Singh jumped in the house and opened the door.Not only this, the deceased brought labourers and cut the crop sown by Nabinoor, about which Nabinoor lodged report Ex. P-13 on 8-10-92 against Kailashkunwar at Police Station, Sitamau.Ramlakshmansingh deposed that on a day, before 'Diwali' (25-10-1992) the appellant beat Kailashkunwar on the field as she objected the sale of the field and from there he took her to his house and probably on the same day killed her.The appellant had received sale price.JUDGMENT Shambhoo Singh, J.The appellant was sent for medical examination.On the next day 5-11-92 Investigating Officer S.K. Tomar prepared map of the house of the appellant.The appellant had two brothers Karansingh and Harirajsingh.Karansingh and Harirajsingh were in service, therefore, the whole house was in exclusive possession of the appellant.In the room situate on the first floor, a spot was seen where the dead-body was kept for some days.After completion of investigation, challan was filed.The appellant pleaded not guilty and false implication.The learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.Hence, this appeal.Shri Hardiya, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that eye-witness account is not available in this case.The appellant has been convicted on the basis of the circumstantial evidence which docs not lead to the inference that the appellant killed his wife Kailashkunwar, He contended -that it has not been proved that the bones allegedly found in the house of the appellant were of Kailashkunwar and cause of death has also not been proved.On the other hand, Shri Desai, learned Dy.A.G. supported the impugned judgment.It has come in the evidence of Dhyankunwar (P.W. 16), the daughter of the appellant and deceased Kailashkunwar that the appellant was in habit of consuming liquor and beating her mother, therefore, she and her mother were living with Jujharsingh (P.W. 6), the brother of Kailashkunwar in his house at Village Tal.On this, they left the house of the appellant and stayed in the house of neighbour in the night and came back in the morning, when the appellant had gone out.Dhyankunwar stated that thereafter she went to her maternal uncle Jujharsingh at Village Tal leaving Kailashkunwar there.Apart from the evidence of Dhyankunwar, Prabhulal (P.W. 1), Ramlakshman Singh (P.W. 2) and Raghuraj (P.W. 13) also stated that Kaiiash-kunwar was living with the appellant in his house at the relevant time.Ramlakshman Singh (P.W. 2) deposed that he saw the deceased Kailashkunwar and the appellant quarrelling in their field, a day before 'Diwali' about the sale of their field.The appellant beat Kailashkunwar and took her to his house.From this it becomes clear that Kailashkunwar was alive on 25-10-92 and she was taken by the appellant from his field to his house and after 25-10-92 Kailashkunwar was not seen and the appellant also did not state in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as to where the deceased had gone from his house.They entered the house of the appellant.They found that a human body was burning on pyre.The body had almost burnt.Only a leg and a hand remained half burnt.There were burnt bangles in the hand and 'paijeb' in the leg.Dhyankunwar (P.W. 3), the younger sister of Kailashkunwar was called for identification.She saw the leg and hand wearing paijeb and bangles and stated that this was the body of Kailashkunwar.Dhyankunwar identified the paijeb 'Art. 1', pieces of glass bangles 'Art. 3' in identification conducted by C.M.O. S.N. Bhati (P.W. 11).He supported her evidence.Dhyankunwar stated that her mother used to wear these articles.As Dhyankunwar was living with her mother, therefore, naturally, she had full opportunity of seeing them, therefore, she could identify them.Dhyankunwar (P.W. 3) also stated that when Kailashkunwar came to her house she was wearing these articles.The evidence of these witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that they are near relations of the deceased.Both of these witnesses were in a position to see the bangles and paijeb of Kailashkunwar, therefore, they could identify the same and they identified.9. Ex. P-39, the report of Dr. D.K. Satpathy, the Director of Medico Legal Institute also supports the prosecution case.He opined that the bones were of human being in origin and sex was female aged about 30 to 35 years.The hair which were stuck to the pieces of the rope discovered at the instance of the appellant from his house were examined by F.S.L. Sagar.But his both brothers were in service and were living in other places.The appellant also admitted in answer to Question No. 3 that he and his wife (Kailashkunwar) were living together in one house.It is, thus, proved beyond reasonable doubt that Kailashkunwar met her death in the house of the appellant and the skeletons seized from the pyre was of her.Now the question is whether the appellant killed Kailashkunwar.As stated earlier, there is no direct evidence available on record.The dead-body had been burnt, therefore, the cause of death could not be known.The death could be natural, homicidal or suicidal.Had Kailashkunwar met natural death, the appellant would have informed his family members, villagers, the relations of his wife and would have taken the dead-body to cremation ground and cremated her there.If she would have committed suicide or some other person would have killed her the appellant would have reported the matter to police and narrated the incident to the villagers.As the house was in exclusive possession of the appellant and he and his wife alone were in the house, therefore, it was for him to have explained as to how Kailashkunwar died, why her body was kept for about 7-8 days, why she was burnt in the house without informing anyone and closed the door from inside.Some hair were stuck with one piece of rope.The find of blood and other circumstances clearly establish that the author of this crime was the appellant.He killed Kailashkunwar.In this case, the prosecution also proved motive.Kailashkunwar opposed this sale.If opposition continued or the deceased won the case, he was required to return the money.The appellant was habitual drunkard.He was needing money every day for purchasing liquor and Kailashkunwar was creating obstruction in his way.Therefore, removing the obstacle, he killed her.It was vehemently argued, and the appellant also stated that he was not examined by the Doctor on 4-11-92, on the basis that on medical report Ex. P-17 '4-10-92' was written.This argument deserves to be rejected.It has come in the evidence of Dr. S.K. Mehta that he examined the appellant on 4-11-92 and found one abrasion on his right cheek.He was smelling liquor.Dr. Mehta explained that inadvertantly he wrote '4-10-92' instead of '4-11-92'.Dr. Mehta is right.In the request letter Ex. P-31 at two places 4-11-92 is written.In our opinion, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the circumstances which lead to the conclusion that it was the appellant and appellant alone who killed his wife Kailashkunwar.They are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and inconsistent to any other hypothesis.We, therefore, hold that the learned Trial Judge rightly found the appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and sentenced accordingly.We confirm the conviction and sentenced imposed on the appellant.In the result, the appeal is dismissed.The appellant is in jail.He shall suffer the remaining part of jail-sentence.Criminal Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
190,883,805 |
Therefore, he seeks the indulgence of this Court.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender and is indulging in rowdy activities, extortion and Katta Panchayats, etc., for which, the following cases have been registered against him.7 Kovilpatti East P.S. Cr.No.607/2017 u/s.279 & CON 338 IPC 8 Kovilpatti East P.S. Cr.No costs.After registration of the said cases, both the cases have been quashed by this Court based on the compromise memos dated 30.08.2018 and 30.09.2018, following an amicable settlement between the petitioner and the borrower.However, the third respondent police registered an F.I.R. against the petitioner in Crime No.524 of 2018 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C.Further taking vengeance against the petitioner on 02.12.2018, the third respondent police took the petitioner under the guise of enquiry and registered two theft cases in Crime Nos.485 of 2018 and 605 of 2018 on the file of the third respondent, as if the petitioner had involved in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/11 W.P.(MD)No.7488 of 2020 theft cases.Further, during the time of filing bail applications, the respondent police furnished two more cases in Crime No.141 of 2014 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and Crime No.262 of 2016 under Section 143 of I.P.C. @ Section 71(A)(1) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, but in those cases, no notice was served on the petitioner.In continuation, in order to harass the petitioner and to restrict his movements, at the instigation of the Superior Officers in the Police Department, History Sheet Book was opened against him at the fourth respondent Police Station and the petitioner was compelled to attend the Police Station under the pretext of enquiry in the routine manner.In this regard, the petitioner had made a representation dated 02.03.2020 to delete the entry made against him in the History Sheet, but the respondents have not yet considered the same till date.No.524/2018 u/s. Pending Trial 294(b), 323 & 506(i) IPC 9 Kayathar P.S. Cr.No.175/2019 u/s.379 Under IPC & 21(1) Mines & Investigation Minerals Act Therefore, History Sheet Rowdy Book was opened at the third respondent Police Station as against the petitioner and it is extended regularly as per the Police Standing Order.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition.On the basis of the above said Order, the Director General Of Police, Chennai, issued a Circular in Rc.66569/Crime 3(2)/2019, dated 24.04.2019, which reads as follows :-The name of the persons, who have been convicted for those offences can be retained for a period of two years after their release from jail.As per PSO No.748, the Superintendent of Police may order a closure of a history sheet at any time.h. As per PSO 748, where retention of the history sheet is considered to be necessary, even after two years of registration, orders of an Officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police must be taken for extension for the first instance upto the endhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/11 W.P.(MD)No.7488 of 2020 of next December.For further annual extension from January to December, separate orders must be passed every time by an Officer of and above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police / Deputy Superintendent of Police.This provision is made applicable even for rowdy sheeters.i. For the purpose of passing such orders, there must be valid materials available on record and it cannot be passed on the whims and fancies of the Police Officers.Therefore, the authority empowered to extend the period of retention of the names of the persons in the history sheet, should record his reasons based on both objective and subjective instructions.State represented by The District Collector, Coimbatore District and Others, reported in (2013) 7 MLJ 501, this Court felt that there is lack of understanding on the part of the Police in maintaining history sheet and therefore, directed the Director General of Police to issue necessary instructions / guidelines / circulars with regard to the manner in which it has to be maintained and the manner in which the orders will have to be passed for extension of the period to continue a person as a history sheeter.8.The above principles that has been culled out of various decisions of this Court will now be applied to each case in order to see if the Police officials have scrupulously followed all the Police Standing Orders and the judgments of this Court, while retaining the name of a person as a history sheeter, beyond the stipulated period.''6.In view of the above circular passed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, this Court is inclined to pass the following order :-The third respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 02.03.2020 and pass orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/11 W.P.(MD)No.7488 of 20207.This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above direction.Note :- In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.1.The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kovilpatti Division, Thoothukudi District.3.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Thoothukudi District.4.The Sub-Inspector, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Thoothukudi District.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 10/11 W.P.(MD)No.7488 of 2020 R.PONGIAPPAN.smn2 Pre-delivery order in W.P.(MD)No.7488 of 2020 29.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 11/11
|
['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
190,887,003 |
For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.Shri Amit Bajpai, Advocate for the objector.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 1.11.2020, in connection with Cr i me No.387/2020, registered at Police Station Shahgarh, District Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354-A, 506 of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.As per prosecution story, on 31.10.2020 at about 6:00 P.M., when the prosecutrix was going to call of nature, then accused/applicant met her on way, caught hold of her and tried to remove her cloths.At that time, father of prosecutrix reached there, then accused/applicant fled away from the spot.Thereafter, case has been registered against the accused/applicant for the aforesaid offence.There is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence.The accused/ applicant ready to furnish bail as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
190,888,014 |
2 Cr.A. No.852/1994The prosecution case, in a nutshell is that on 28.09.1993, at around 8 A.M. in the morning, the appellants with common intention and armed with lathi, assaulted Mangilal, who later-on succumbed to the injuries.According to prosecution, Gulab Singh (P.W.-1), lodged a report at 2.45 P.M. on 28.09.1993 to the effect that his son Mangilal had gone to see the field, where he was assaulted and beaten up by the appellants with lathi.Thereafter the appellants took his son Mangilal and locked him inside the house of appellant No.1 Narbada Prasad.As per prosecution, the incident was 3 Cr.A. No.852/1994 witnessed by Rajkuamr (P.W.-2), who came and informed P.W.-1 Gulab Singh, who informed Karan Singh ((P.W.-3), Patel of the village and they alongwith Chowkidar and other villagers went to the house of appellant No.1 Narbada and asked him to open the lock, which the appellant No.1 refused to do and went away.Deendayal (P.W.-4), thereafter broke the lock and found the injured Mangilal mouning with agony.According to P.W.-1 Gulab Singh, Mangilal, on being asked about the incident, disclosed that on account of taking corn kernel from the field, the appellants had abused him and thereafter with an intention to kill him, assaulted him with lathi.He has further stated that hearing his cry for help, Rajkumar (P.W.-2), came to the place of occurrence.Mangilal was taken to hospital by Chowkidar Gangaram, Munnalal and Deendayal, when enroute he succumbed to the injuries.According to P.W.-1 Gulab Singh, due to old enmity with regard to the land dispute with the appellants, they had murdered his son, the deceased.3 Cr.A. No.852/1994On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR was recorded and the criminal law was set into motion.Spot map was prepared.As per Nandita Dubey, J.:This appeal has been filed by the appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.07.1994, passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No.35/1994, whereby the appellants have been found guilty for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and have 2 Cr.A. No.852/1994 been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. with a stipulation for 2 years rigorous imprisonment in case of default and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 342 of the I.P.C.The appellants were arrested and on the basis of their disclosure statements, the 4 Cr.A. No.852/1994 lathies were seized.The body of deceased was sent for postmortem.4 Cr.A. No.852/1994The postmortem examination of the body of the deceased was performed by Dr. L.N. Namdeo (P.W.-The postmortem report was submitted vide Ex. P-7, which noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-(3) Large bluish contusion passing from right to left crossing injuries 1 and 2, 11" x 1 1/4", there are other 6 to 7 contusions linear varying in size from 11" to 5" in length, but same width 1 1/4", these contusions have nearly filled the whole of area of back of chest and back of abdomen.(4) There are similar contusions, multiple in number over the thighs, both sides on posterior aspect and whole of both hips back side, they are cutting each other.(5) There is linear bluish contusion on right forearm 7" x 1 1/4" with fracture of both bones.(6) Contusion over head right temporal region 6"x 1 1/2", contusion over head right temporal region, swelling 5 Cr.A. No.852/1994 present, bluish 6"x1 1/2".5 Cr.A. No.852/1994The cause of death has been recorded as Neurogenic shock and it is homicidal in nature.In order to establish its case, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.-1 Gulab Singh, P.W.-2 Rajkumar, P.W.-3 Karan Singh, P.W.- 4 Deendayal, and the evidence of Dr. L.N. Namdeo.The appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses and the oral dying declaration of deceased and the postmortem report, found the accused persons guilty of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 342 of the I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.7 Cr.A. No.852/1994In Laxman Vs.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 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.
|
1,908,919 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. andperused the record.Present criminal revision has been filed against order dated11.1.2001 passed in criminal case No. 3860 of 1996, Stateversus Rajman Sharma by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Gorakhpur rejecting the application of the informant-revisionist in case crime No. 1345 of 1995, under Section 307IPC, P.S. Cantt., District Gorakhpur.Counsel for the applicant contended that first informationreport was lodged under Section 307 IPC however, chargesheet was submitted under Section 304-A IPC.He furthersubmitted that during treatment son of the informant expired.He submitted that son of the applicant Ajeet Singh went at theshop of Rajesh Gun House, Golghar, Gorakhpur for repairingof the revolver where Rajman Sharma fired causing injury inhis abdomen.Subsequently the charge sheet was submittedunder Section 304A -IPC without considering dyingdeclaration of the deceased.Hence theimpugned order is liable to be set aside and to issue adirection for converting the case under Section 302 IPC andto commit the same to the court of Session.Learned A.G.A. submitted that the charge sheet was rightlysubmitted under Section 304-A IPC because in the firstinformation report itself it was not mentioned that deceasedAjeet informed to the revisionist that with the intention tokill, accused Rajman Sharma fired with revolver.It wasmentioned in the first information report that after repair ofthe revolver, he opened fire causing injury in his abdomen.The alleged dying declaration was not recorded properly inaccordance with law hence it was not reliable.However in dying declaration also, it was not mentioned that withintention to kill, the accused fired at son of the deceased.Even no motive was assigned.Other witnesses who werepresent at the shop stated that he was cleaning the revolverand there was a fire which was an accidental fire.Hence nointerference is required in the impugned order.From perusal of the record and the impugned order dated11.1.2001, it appears that there is no illegality in the order,because neither there was motive nor there was directevidence that the accused has fired with revolver withintention to kill deceased, Ajeet Singh.He himself went to theshop for repairing of his revolver.Even according tostatements of other witnesses , it appears that it was a case ofaccidedental fire while checking the revolver.But this is notthe stage to make any observation on merit because, the casehas to be decided on the basis of the evidence during trial.Atthis stage no interference is required in the impugned order.The present revision is hereby rejected.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
190,896,411 |
Heard on the present appeal, which has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Betul (M.P.) in bail application No.09/2018 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any crime and has been falsely implicated in the case.He prays for grant of bail to the appellant.Learned G.A. for the respondent/ State opposes the appeal.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the facts and circumstances of present case, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for grant of bail is made out by the appellant.However, looking to the fact that the appellant is in jail since 30.12.2017 and the submission of learned Senior Counsel that after April, 2018, no witness has been examined, learned Trial Judge of the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter.Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant Mahendra Pawar is hereby dismissed.(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE vkt Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2018.07.31 15:06:01 +05'30'
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
190,909,659 |
2 The facts leading to the filing of this criminal appeal, relevant and necessary, for the disposal, are as follows:-2.1 The defacto-complainant/P.W.1-Sakthivel, is a resident of Vellarukkanpalayam Village, Coimbatore Taluk and District and he washttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 employed in CRI Pumps.Ponnusamy is his brother-in-law.The appellants/accused had enmity with Ponnusamy over money transaction.2.2 On 07.07.2016 at about 7.30 p.m., the defacto- complainant/P.W.1, Ponnusamy, brother-in-law of P.W.1 and his cousin brother Pabbusamy were conversing with each other at Ration shop which was located in their village and at about 8.00 p.m., on the same day, both the accused came there and asked money from Ponnusamy-brother-in-law of P.W.1/defacto complainant and he refused to part with the amount.A-1 abused Ponnusamy and took an empty brandy bottle ; broken it by slamming it on the steps of the ration shop and stabbed Ponnusamy and his brother, viz., A-2/2nd appellant, went to the shop of one Palanisamy and took a 7UP bottle ; broke it and stabbed Ponnusamy.2.3 P.W.1/defacto complainant-brother-in-law of the injured Ponnusamy, went to Thondamuthur Police Station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 on 07.07.2016 at about 23.45 hours and the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station, registered FIR in Cr.No.221/2016 for the alleged commission of the offences u/s.294-B, 307 and 506[ii] IPC and the Printed FIR is marked as Ex.2.4 P.W.8-Mr.S.Saravanan, Inspector of Police attached to Thondamuthur Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P.10-FIR, registered by Mr.Arun, Sub-Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and went to the scene of crime at about 1.45 a.m. on 08.07.2016 and in the presence of P.W.6-Kumarasamy, and Samiraj, had prepared the Rough Sketch [Ex.P.11] and Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.12].P.W.8, on the same day, at about 2.45 p.m., in the presence of P.W.6 and Samiraj, has collected sample earth [M.O.3] and blood stained earth [M.O.4] ; broken brandy bottle [M.O.1] and broken 7UP bottle [M.O.2] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.13].At about 7.00 a.m., he went to Coimbatore Medical Collegehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 Hospital, wherein the injured Ponnusamy was admitted and recorded his statement and also seized the cloth worn by him, which are marked as M.Os.5 to 7 under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.14].Thereafter, P.W.8 examined P.W.1 and P.W.2, one Ramesh Babu @ Babuchamy ; P.W.5- Saraswathi [wife of the deceased Ponnusamy] ; P.W.4-Palanisamy ; Senthilkumaran and Manian and recorded their statements and after examining them, he became aware of the genuineness and truth of the said occurrence and thereafter, started searching for the accused along with P.W.1-Sakthivel.2.5 P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of secret information, went to Baniyan Tree Bus Stop at Pudhur and on identification, effected arrest of A-1 and A-2 at about 8.30 a.m., on 08.07.2016 and interrogated them.The 1st appellant/A-1 had told P.W.8 that he sustained self-inflicted injury on his forehead as well on the left forehand and thereafter, he was taken to Thondamuthur Government Hospital and was given treatment and subsequently, took both the accused along with the property to Thondamuthur Police Station at about 10.00 a.m. At 10.30 a.m, in the Police Station, P.W.8 had seized the cloth worn by A-1 and A-2 which are marked as M.Os.8 to 11 under the cover ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Mahazar [Ex.P.15] in the presence of P.W.6 and another.Thereafter, he sent the accused persons for judicial custody and also informed their relatives.2.6 P.W.8, after obtaining appropriate orders, forwarded the seized articles for chemical analysis through Form-95 and from 11.07.2016 onwards, continued with the investigation and he received the information that the injured Ponnusamy, who was admitted in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, died at about 1.45 a.m., without responding to the treatment.Thereafter, he altered the sections from 294[b], 307 and 506[ii] IPC to one u/s.294[b], 302 and 506[ii] IPC and forwarded the Alteration Report [Ex.P.16] to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.2.7 P.W.8, along with the Head Constable Chandramohan, went to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased between 6.00 a.m. and 10.00 a..m, in the presence of panchayatdars as well as the witnesses and also examined P.Ws.1, 5, 3, Manian and P.W.6 and recorded their statements and also prepared the Inquest Report [Ex.P.17].P.W.8 sent the body ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 the deceased Ponnusamy through Monika-Grade-I Constable for postmortem.2.8 P.W.7-Dr.Perranandham, was the District Police Surgeon and Assistant Professor in the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine attached to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital at the relevant point of time.Peritoneal cavity about 100 ml of straw colour fluid.Contusion seen over small intestine.– Hyoid bone – intact.– Heard: all chambers contain about few cc of fluid blood, Coronaries-patent.– Stomach contains about 300 ml of green colour fluid, no specific smell, mucosa pale.– Small intestine contains about 10 ml of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, mucosa pale.– Liver, spleen, kidneys, brain and lungs – cut section pale.– Urinary Bladder – empty.– Viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis.– Blood preserved for analysis.'' P.W.7, after the conclusion of the postmortem, has given the opinion that the “deceased would appear to have died of multiple penetrating injuries with corresponding internal injuries and its complications.” The Postmortem Certificate is marked as Ex.He has also given his final opinion under Ex.P.8 on 11.07.2016 stating that ''the cause of death is already given in the Postmortem Certificate and the Viscera does not contain any poison.[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,] The appellants are the accused in SC.No.181/2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.They stood charged and tried for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC.P.W.7, on receipt of the requisition along with the body at about 10.55 a.m. on 11.07.2016 from P.W.8, found that rigor mortis was present all over the body except both feet and commenced the postmortem at about 11.00 a.m. on the same day and noted the following features:-“The following ante mortem injuries noted over the body:-Dark brown colour abrasion 2x1 cm noted over right forehead, 5x3 cm noted over right cheek, 3x2 cm noted over dorsum of right side nose, 2x1 cm noted over right upper lip, 1x1 cm noted over back of left elbow and 1x1cm noted over outer aspect of right upper chest.Sutured star shaped penetrating wound with serrated edges 4x3 cm x bone deep noted over right side chest just lateral to right nipple corresponding to 6th rib.On dissection the wound passes inwards, backwards cutting the underlying muscle vessels and nerves.Sutured penetrating wound with serrated edges 5x2 cm x peritoneal cavity deep noted over right ileac region.On dissection, the wound passeshttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 inwards, backwards cutting the underlying muscle, vessels, nerves and enter into peritoneal cavity deep.Double layer sutured penetrating wound with serrated edges 3x1cmxperitoneal cavity deep noted over epigastric region.On dissection, the wound passes inwards, downwards, laterally cutting the underlying muscle, vessels and nerves enter into peritoneal cavity and piercing the liver which is found sutured measuring 4x1 cm with gel foam packed.Sutured penetrating wound with serrated edges 3x1cmxperitoneal cavity deep noted noted over left upper abdomen 4cm above and 5cm lateral to umbilicus.On dissection, the wound passes inwards, backwards cutting the underlying muscle, vessels, nerves and enter into the peritoneal cavity.Sutured penetrating wound with serrated edges 5x1 cm x peritoneal cavity deep noted over left lumbar region, 6 cm from left anterior superior ileac spine.On dissection, the wound passes inwards, upwards cutting the underlying muscle, vessels and nerves, enter into peritoneal cavity and piercing the mesentery which is found sutured measuring about 2x1 cm.Mesentery found contused.Sutured penetrating wound with serrated edges 5x1x4 cm noted over back of left side hip, 2 cm above left ileac crest.On dissection the wound passes inwards, backwards cutting the underlying muscle, vessles and nerves.Vertical surgical sutured stapled wound 24x1 cm x peritoneal cavity deep noted over front of abdomen.http://www.judis.nic.in 9 On dissection of Thorax and abdomen:Both side Pleural cavities each contain about 100ml of straw colour fluid.''http://www.judis.nic.in 10 2.9 P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, in continuation of his investigation, on 31.08.2016 had examined Mrs.Rajeswari-Chief Writer attached to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore, P.W.7- Doctor who conducted autopsy as well as Thiru Chandramohan, Head Constable and Thiru.Arun, Sub Inspector of Police, who registered FIR.The requisition for sending the seized articles for Chemical Analysis was marked as Ex.P.18 and the Biological Report was marked as Ex.P.19 and the Serology Report was marked as Ex.After completing the investigation, has filed the Final Report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore, charging both the accused for the commission of the offence u/s.302 read with 34 IPC.2.11 The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.2.12 The accused was questioned under section 313[1][b] Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidences rendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false.The accused did not file any documents nor let in any oral evidence.2.13 The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences and other materials, had convicted the appellants/accused for the commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine and default sentence.● The complaint-Ex.P.1 came to be lodged very belatedly and the material documents, which came into being, also despatched to the jurisdictional Court, after much delay and no explanation at all has been offered by the prosecution.Even according to the prosecution, the injured Ponnusamy was initially taken to Thondamuthur Government Hospital / Primary Health Centre and thereafter, he was taken to the Government Medical Collegehttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 Hospital, Coimbatore, and the Accident Register maintained in the Primary Health Centre has not been marked as well as the Casualty Medical Officer, who treated the injured at the first instance, has not been examined.Even in respect of the admission of the injured in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, the Accident Register has not been marked and the said documents are crucial documents as they reveal the real thing that had happened immediately after the alleged occurrence.● It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that A-1 sustained injuries and he was taken to the Government Hospital/Primary Health Centre at Thondamuthur.No documents relating to the said treatment, have been marked and in the absence of any plausible or probable explanation as to the sustainment of the injury by A-1, the entire case of the prosecution is to be thrown out.● Even assuming that the evidence tendered by the prosecution is trustworthy, still there is no iota of material to connect the 2nd appellant/A-2 with the commission of crime.● The prosecution did not make any attempt to examine anyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 independent witness and they had examined only the close relatives and except P.W.1, all of them have turned hostile.● The arrest and recovery is also highly doubtful in the light of the testimony of P.W.1 4 In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 that the infirmities pointed out go deep into the root of the matter and the Trial Court, without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidences and other materials, has erroneously reached the conclusion to convict and sentence the appellants/accused and in any event, the Trial Court, at least, ought to have ordered benefit of doubt and acquitted them and prays for interference.5 Per contra, Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the evidence of the sole eyewitness is believable and trustworthy and it is also supported by the scientific and other evidences and the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants/accused are minor and trivial in naturehttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 and since the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced both the appellants/accused and prays for dismissal of the appeal.6 This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made and also perused the oral and documentary evidences and other materials placed on record including the impugned Judgment as well as the original records.P.1 based on which, Ex.P.10-FIR came to be registered by one Mr.Arun, Sub Inspector of Police.It is to be noted at this juncture that the Sub Inspector of Policehttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 who registered FIR, was examined during investigation ; but he was not examined as a witness during the course of trial.A perusal of Ex.P.1- complaint and the contents of the same would disclose among other things that on account of previous enmity, Ponnusamy was attacked by A-1 and A-2 by use of brandy bottle and broken 7UP bottle respectively and in the process, A-1 had also sustained injuries and thereafter, services of 108 Ambulance was summoned and the injured Ponnusamy was taken in the Ambulance accompanied by P.W.1 and P.W.2 to Thondamuthur Government Hospital, where he was admitted.P.W.1/defacto complainant in his cross-examination would depose that the provision shop of Palanisamy is not located in the place of occurrence and that, it is located adjacent to the house of the said Palanisamy.It is also deposed by P.W.1 that the written complaint was received by the police at about 11.00 a.m on 08.07.2016 and one week thereafter, he was furnished with the copy of FIR and he also did not identify the place of occurrence to the said police and it was done by P.W.6 and Samiraj.10 P.W.5-wife of the deceased Ponnusamy and sister of P.W.1 would depose that she became aware of the stab injury inflicted upon her husband and thereafter, she along with another person and her daughter went to Thondamuthur Government Hospital and her husband had told her that the accused demanded money and as he refused to part with the same, he was stabbed and thereafter, Ambulance came and he was taken to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and on seeking the injury andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 blood, P.W.5 became unconscious and three days thereafter, her husband died on 11.07.2016 and till such time, he was conversing with her normally.In the cross-examination, P.W.5 would depose that when she went to Thondamuthur Government Hospital, it was 8.15 p.m. and treatment was given to her husband in the said hospital and for further treatment, he was referred to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, and nearby to Thondamuthur Government Hospital, there is also a Police Station and since she and others were concerned with the health of her husband, they did not thought fit to lodge a complaint.11 P.W.6-Kumarasamy, who was the witness to the arrest and recovery had turned hostile.P.W.7-Doctor who conducted the postmortem, would depose that after completion of the autopsy, the weapons used for commission of the offence, have not been shown to him.12 The testimony of P.W.1 would disclose among other things that he went to Thondamuthur Police Station on 07.07.2016 and lodged a complaint at about 8.15 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. and it was a written complaint.A perusal of Ex.P.10-FIR would disclose that the complaint- Ex.P.1 came to be registered only at about 23.45 hours on 07.07.2016 byhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 one Mr.Arun, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the said Police Station.Though the said official was examined as a witness during the course of investigation, he was not examined during the course of trial.It is also to be pointed out at this juncture that P.W.1 in his cross-examination, would admit that he did not write the complaint and the complaint was written in the Police Station whereas Ex.P.10-FIR would disclose as if a written complaint under Ex.It is also very pertinent to point out at this juncture that from the testimony of P.W.1, when he went to lodge the complaint, he saw both the accused in the Police Station where he was informed that on the previous night, i.e., on the date of occurrence [07.07.2016] itself, they were taken to the Police Station and whereas, according to the evidence of P.W.8-Investigating Officer, both the accused were arrested on 08.07.2016 at about 8.30 a.m. and that apart, the witness to arrest and recovery, viz., P.W.6, had turned hostile.13 This Court had also summoned the Case Diary and verifiedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 20 with the same and also taken into consideration the testimony of P.W.5- wife of the deceased who deposed that she met her husband in Thondamuthur Government Hospital and that he told her that he was stabbed by A-1 and A-2/appellants herein.It is also the evidence of P.W.8-Investigating Officer that he had also examined the injured Ponnusamy on 07.07.2016 and he told him that accused persons demanded money and since he refused to part with the same, he was stabbed.14 The testimony of P.W.5 would disclose that the injured Ponnusamy was initially taken to Thondamuthur Government Hospital and he was given treatment and thereafter, he was taken to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore for better and further treatment.The prosecution has failed to seize the Accident Register maintained by Thondamuthur Government Hospital pertains to the injured/deceasedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 Ponnusamy and not even the Casualty Medical Officer / Doctor attached to the said hospital and that apart, though the injured was admitted in the Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore and he survived for three days, the Accident Register at the time of his admission, has also not been marked and the prosecution has failed to come out with any tenable explanation as to the said lapse or infirmity.15 It is also the case of the prosecution that the 2nd appellant/A-2 took a 7UP Bottle [M.O.2] from the shop of one Palanisamy, broken it and thereafter, stabbed the deceased.As already pointed out, P.W.1 in the cross-examination, admit that near the scene of crime, the shop of Palanisamy is not located and that it is located adjacent to the house of the said Palanisamy. P.W.4 had also turned hostile.Therefore, the presence of the 2nd appellant/A-2 at the alleged scene of occurrence is also doubtful in the light of the said infirmity.It is also to be noted at this juncture that according to the prosecution, A-1/1st appellant during melee, sustained injuries and according to P.W.8, he was taken to Thondamuthur Government Hospital and was given treatment.But none of the records, pertain to the injuries and treatment, have been marked.It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution ishttp://www.judis.nic.in 22 bound to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and in the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to come out with any explanation as to how and in what manner, the 1st appellant/A-1 had sustained injuries.16 All the material documents had belatedly reached the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and it is also adding doubt to the case of the prosecution as to the exact time at which the FIR came to be registered and the investigation commenced.The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Serology report marked as Ex.P.20 would disclose that all the articles were tainted with human blood and some of the articles with ''A'' blood group and therefore, the prosecution had proved that it was the accused who attacked Ponnusamy and caused his death.17 A perusal and consideration of the materials would disclose that the blood group of the deceased have not been made known and and it is to be pointed out at this juncture that admittedly, A-1/1st appellant had also sustained injuries during the course of the event and as such, Ex.P.20-Serology Report is of no help to the prosecution case to sustain the guilt of the accused.As already pointed out, the arrest andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 23 recovery of the articles is also doubtful and it is also substantiated by the fact that the Seizure Report [Ex.P.14] contains lot of corrections and in fact, some words were also struck off and it is also adding doubt as to the arrest of the accused/appellants and recovery of incriminating articles and in Form-95, under which the articles were also despatched, also contains lot of corrections.18 In the considered opinion of the Court, the infirmities pointed out above, cannot said to be trivial in nature and further, the investigation in the present case has not been conducted properly in the light of the infirmities pointed out above and though faulty investigation per se would not lead to acquittal ; the infirmities pointed out, are grave in nature and it had shaken the very foundation laid down by the prosecution.This Court, on an independent application of mind and on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidences and other materials, is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt on the part of the appellants/accused beyond any reasonable doubt and as such, the appellants/A-1 and A-2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.19 In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 24 conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, in SC.No.181/2017 dated 17.11.2017, are hereby set aside.The appellants are acquitted of charges framed against them.Hence, the appellants are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence/custody is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge Coimbatore.2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge Coimbatore.3.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI Coimbatore.4.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Coimbatore.5.The Inspector of Police M-2 Thondamuthur Police Station Coimbatore District.6.The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore.8.The District Collector, Coimbatore District.9.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 26 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., AP Crl.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,187,707 |
Allowed md.Badal Mandal @ Badal haldar @ Badal Halder ... Petitioner Mr. Sagar Saha .. for the petitioner Mrs. Anasuya Sinha .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case No.498/2015 dated 07.08.2015 under Sections 341, 324, 326, 308, 304, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Corresponding to G.R. Case No.2747/2015).Pursuant to the order dated December 17, 2018, the statement of the injured victim has been obtained.Contrary to what is recorded in the order dated December 17, 2018, one person died following the incident and another suffered serious injurious.Considering the statement of the injured victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code, there is no impediment to this petitioner being granted anticipatory bail as long as he attends the trial without fail.In addition, the petitioner will attend the trial on every day fixed and any default on the petitioner's part will entitle the trial court to cancel the bail without further reference to this Court.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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.
|
92,193,594 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the CJM, Amroha in complaint Case No. 1720 of 2019 (Soniya @ Somwati Vs.Dilip and Others), under Sections- 323, 452, 354, 504, 506 of IPC in which applicant Nos. 2 to 6 was summoned u/s 323, 452, 504, 506 of IPC and applicant No. 1 was summoned u/s 323, 452, 354, 504, 506 of IPC P.S. Rajabpur District- Amroha.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
|
['Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,195,024 |
Intestines : Distended with gas.Liver/spleen/kidneys were intact.200ml of dark fluid blood was seen in the abdominal cavity.The Bladder was empty.The Pelvis was intact.The evidence of P.W.7 is unassailable.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants are the accused 1 and 3 in S.C.No.367 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai.The second accused was one Sivaguru.The case against him was split up and referred to the Juvenile Justice Board, as he was found to be a juvenile.These two accused stood charged for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.By judgment dated 17.12.2011, the trial Court convicted them under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellants are before this Court with this appeal.The deceased in this case was one Jegan.It was a tanker lorry supplying water to ships in the Port Trust.On 13.08.2011, he was supplying water to a ship known as 'M.V.Amet Majesty'.The first accused/Raji was engaged as a coolie to remove the garbage from the ship.He was removing the same and loading it in a Tata Van bearing Registration No.In order to move the said Tata Van, the first accused wanted the deceased to move the tanker lorry, but the deceased refused.This resulted in a wordy quarrel.Thereafter, on 14.08.2011 at about 6.30 p.m., near the 5th gate of the Port Trust, all the three accused gathered and intercepted the deceased and attacked him with hands.The deceased fell down.He was immediately taken to hospital.On his way, he died.Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of the deceased.These three witnesses have categorically stated about the entire occurrence.P.W.1 has stated that, the third accused attacked the deceased on the back of his head.The first accused attacked the deceased with hands on his stomach.The deceased lost his balance and fell down.P.W.2 has also stated that there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused and in that process, the second accused attacked the deceased on his forehead and the third accused attacked him on his neck.The first accused attacked him on his stomach.According to these witnesses also, the deceased fell down. P.W.3 has also stated so.From these witnesses, the prosecution has proved that there was a quarrel, in which the deceased was manhandled and pushed down by all the three accused.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, these three witnesses are interested witnesses and therefore, their evidence should not be believed.Their evidences are so cogent and convincing.They were also working in the Port Trust.After the occurrence was over, the deceased was taken to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital.P.W.1 had taken the deceased to the hospital.P.W.6- Dr.Kalpana examined him at 7.20 p.m. on 14.08.2011 and found him dead.On returning to the police station, he registered a case in Cr.No.44 of 2011 under Section 302 IPC.P11 is the FIR.The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.20- the Inspector of Police.After completion of inquest, the body was sent for post-mortem.M.N.Rajamani conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 15.08.2011 at 3.00 p.m. He found the following injuries:"No external injuries made out on the body.The Head: Scalp contusion was seen in the left frontal region of the head.Diffuse contusion of the left temporalis muscle was seen.Skull was intact.Dura was intact.Diffuse Reddish black.Sub dural haemorrhage was seen on the surface of left and right hemispheres of the brain.Diffuse sub arachnoid haemorrhage was also seen on the surface of the brain.Brain matter was oedematous.C/s Fluid blood was seen in right and left lateral ventricles of he brain.Intra cerebral haemorrhage was seen in the right parietal lobe of the brain, rest of the brain matter was pale.Base of skull was intact.The Neck : Hyoid bone and other structures in the front of neck were intact.There was diffuse reddish black contusion of the tissues and muscles of the back of the neck.There was fracture of the C5 vertebra of the spinal column in the neck region.The cord was oedematous and contused.The Thorax was well formed.Rib-cage was intact.Heart : Shape/size/structures appeared normal.Peticheal haemorrhage seen in the inter lobar fissure and also on the surface of both the lungs.C/s was congested.The Abdomen : Stomach contained 200gms of thick turbid fluid with partly digested food particles with fermented odours.C/s Mucosa was oedematous, sterny and hyperaemic.Mesentry was contused.C/s was congested.The spinal column : Refer "neck"Viscera was preserved for analysis."P4 is the post-mortem certificate.According to him, the death was due to the injury to the cervical bone.According to his opinion, due to fall, the deceased would have sustained the said injury.Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved that due to the fall of the deceased on the ground, he sustained injury to the cervical vertebra.As a result of the same, he died.At the same time, for said act, they are liable for punishment.Thus, it is crystal clear that, the accused had voluntarily caused grievous hurt by pushing down the deceased.Therefore, in our considered view, the accused are liable to be punished only under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, it is reported to this Court that, the accused have been in prison for more than 15 months.The accused are youngsters and they have got no bad antecedents.They are also very poor and they have to take care of their family.Having regard to the above, we are of the view that, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice.The accused have not even paid fine amount, as directed by the trial Court.The learned counsel submits that since they are very poor, they are not able to pay even the fine amount.Considering all the above, we do not propose to impose any fine on the accused.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
922,092 |
In my view, it is not necessary to reproduce all these details in this judgment except to refer to very briefly, the salient features of the prosecution came.The main charge against the accused in the trial Court was that he accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- on the morning of August 17, 1975 in his office at Bhokar, Taluka Shrirampur from one Nanasaheb Bajirao Chaudhari for entering his name in the Record of Right of two lands, viz., Gat Nos. 360 and 414 situated at Bhokar.He was further charged, as stated earlier, under section 5(2) read with section 51(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting the bribe of Rs. 200/- from the complainant by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a Talat.The total area of the lands is about 8 acres and the complainant had claimed 1/4 share in the lands.After getting a certified copy of the decree, Advocate Dokhe who had appeared for the complainant, prepared an application on behalf of the complainant for entering his name in the Record of Rights according to the decree and sent the application to the Talati along with the certified copy of the decree under registered post with A.D. The complainant also approached the Talati and enquired about his application.It is the prosecution case that at this time, the accused has told the complainant that he sold require Rs. 700/- for expenses.The complainant told him that the amount was excessive.The accused thereupon told the complainant to bring permission from the Tahsildar for entering his name since in his opinion as per the decree, the gets or the blocks were to be broken and this would be contrary to the scheme of Consideration Act and Tahsildar's permission was necessary under section 85 of the Land Revenue Code for making partition.Thereafter, the complainant and his Advocate Dokhe, approached the Tahsildar who informed them that the matter will be sent to the Circle Officer Thanekar (P.W. 6) thereafter held an enquiry and submitted his report (Exhiibt 22) to Tahsildar (P.W. 11) gave two copies of the order to the complainant on August 14, 1975, Advocate Dokhe prepared an application (Exhibit 35) and gave it to the complaint for giving the same to the accused along with the order of the Tahsildar.When the complainant approached the accused with the order of the Tahsildar, it is the case of the prosecution that the complain ant was told by the accused that he would require Rs. 200/- for making entire.Even though the complainant is alleged to have told the accused that whatever was necessary was done and there was no occasion for the accused to ask for money, the accused maintained that he would require the money for doing the work.On August 16, 1975, the complainant met his Advocate and again narrated the conversation he had with the accused.Advocate Dokhe seems to have advised the complainant that when the Tahsildar has passed an order there was no need to pay the accused and that he could go to the Anti Corruption Bureau at Ahmednagar.The complainant, therefore, went to the Enti-Corruption Bureau and Inspector Patil recorded his complaint.The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted permission to Inspector Patil to investigate into the complaint under section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Inspector Patil collected two panchas (one Jagannath Rau Patil and the other Bajirao Dadu Tholdkar) on the same day and took the complainant and the two Panchas along with three constables by a police van to the Dak Bungalow at Deolali Prevara.It is further the prosecution case that on that on the next day, i.e. on 17th Inspector Patil Gave necessary instructions to the complainant and the panchas.As per the instructions of Inspector Patil, the complainant and panch Jagannath Patil went to the office of the accused.After some conversion, as to why the complainant did not come on the earlier night, the accused enquired of the person accompanying the complainant.The accused also enquired whether he knew reading and writing.The accused asked panch Patil to read Mutation Entry No. 827 from the Mutation Register.The accused then told the complainant that his work was done and asked him to give his money.The complainant took out the notes of Rs. 200/- from his pocket and gave it to the accused.JUDGMENT R.S. Bhonsale, J.The appellant-accused was charged and tried for having committed offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was sentenced on each of the counts to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one you and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Immediately thereafter, the complainant kept the accused engaged in conversation with him and the panch Patil went out and informed the constable.The reading party, headed by Inspector Patil, rushed into the officer and asked the accused to produce the amount after disclosing his identity.The complainant told that the money was lying on the table under the register.Thereafter, a usual panchanama was drawn-up and certain documents including the complainant's application, certified copy of the decree, an application made by Advocate Dokhe which were found on the table were seized under a panchnama.The original Record of Rights registers were also seized and two extracts of Gat Nos. 360 and 414 were taken from the accused.Thereafter, Inspector Patil sought sanction to prosecute the accused and a charge-sheet came to be filed on 21-9-1976 in the Court of the Special Judge, Ahmednager.The prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses but the most important witnesses are the complainant himself (P.W. 1), Circle Officer Thanekar, panch Patil and the Investigating Officer Inspector Patil.As far as the defence of the accused is concerned, he flatly denied that he demanded Rs. 700/- to start with for doing the work of the complainant.He however, admitted that on the day in question i.e. August 17, 1975, he did accept the amount of Rs. 200/- but that amount was for investing in Small Saving Scheme by the complainant.The defence of the accused was that he never demanded any money from the complainant for making entry in the Record of Rights.Money which was given by the complainant on the day in question was for making investment in Small Saving and not for making entry in the Record of Rights.This evidence was carefully gone into and scrutinised and assessed by the learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar.The learned Special Judge had also discussed the evidence exhaustively after noting the special features of this case.His reasons for coming to this conclusion can be summarised as follows.Certain salient features of this case needs to preferred to again.As soon as the complainant came with an application, for entering his name in the Record of Rights, as per the compromise decree on an application preferred by Advocate Dokhe, though it is the prosecution case that accused demanded Rs. 700/- for expenses, admittedly, the accused has handed over a note (Exhibit 16) to the complainant asking him to bring permission from the Tahsildar under section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.Even at the time of the trap, there accused had made Pancha Patil to read the entries.The record shows that circulars were issued by the Revenue Department and there were targets fixed for Shrirampur Taluka, Ahmednagar District.All Circle Officers and Talatis were directed to intensify the drive for Small Savings during the period of emergency.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,221 |
The petitioner, who has been arrayed as A10, has come forward with this revision challenging the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, dated 12.10.2010 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2009 in S.C.No.290 of 2009 seeking for the relief of discharge.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has been arrayed as A10 and he is the lessee of the lodge, namely, "Devi Lodge", Gingee.The occurrence in this case is said to have taken place on the night of 27.06.2007 at room No.28 of the said lodge.On that day, a male and a female came to the said lodge and they have taken the room and ultimately the deceased was found lying dead in the said room of the above said lodge.After knowing the said incident, the petitioner/A10 has preferred a complaint to the police on 29.06.2007 and on his complaint a First Information Report was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC.The petitioner, being aggrieved against filing of the charge sheet implicating him as one of the accused, preferred a discharge petition before the learned trial Judge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. contending that the ingredients of Sections 201 r/w 302 IPC and 203 are not at all attracted and there is no material available on record to make out a prima facie case for the alleged offences against him.The learned trial Judge dismissed the said discharge petition and the said order is under challenge in this revision.It is further contended that soonafter knowing the unnatural death of the deceased, the revision petitioner has preferred a complaint on 29.06.2007 narrating the sequence of events, namely, the allotment of a room in the said lodge to one male and a female, the room was found locked till 29.06.2007 and on that ground, the said room was opened with a duplicate key and found that the deceased lying dead in the bath room and the bloodstains were found in the said room.This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge.A perusal of the materials available on record would disclose that the petitioner is the lessee of a lodge by name "Devi Lodge" situated at Gingee.A perusal of the First Information Report discloses that the said room was found locked throughout both the days, i.e., on 28.06.2007 and 29.06.2007 and as a result, the room was opened with the duplicate key on 29.06.2007 and the deceased was found lying dead and bloodstains were also found in the said room.At the stage of framing the charge, this Court cannot go deep into the matter as the same would amount to appreciation of evidence.It is suffice for this Court to find out whether the prosecution is able to make out a prima facie case on the basis of the materials available on record to attract the ingredients for the offences alleged against the petitioner.As far as the case on hand is concerned, even the objection filed by the prosecution before the trial Court makes it crystal clear that the prosecution has placed reliance solely on the confession said to have been recorded by the police from A1 and A2 and except that single piece of material, there is not an iota of material available on record to implicate the revision petitioner for the alleged offences levelled against him.The only contention put forward by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) is to the effect that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27.06.2007, but the report was given by the revision petitioner/lessee only on 29.06.2007 and there is no explanation from him for such delay.Merely because of such delay, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has been involved in the alleged offences of screening the evidence."The two indispensable ingredients for all the three tiers in section 201 are : (1) The accused should have had the knowledge that an offence has been committed or at least that he should have had reasons to believe it.(2) He should then have caused disappearance of evidence of commission of that offence.The prosecution cannot escape from establishing the aforesaid two basic ingredients for conviction of the accused under section 201."As already pointed out that there is not an iota of material available on record to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner or the materials on record are sufficient even to raise a very strong suspicion against the revision petitioner.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this revision is allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Judge, namely, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, dated 12.10.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.197 of 2009 in S.C.No.290 of 2009 is hereby set aside and the revision petitioner has been discharged from the charges for the offence under Section 203 IPC and under Sections 201 r/w 302 IPC.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam.The Station House Officer, Gingee Police Station, Gingee, Villupuram District.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,215,957 |
/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Seikh Abdul Rokib @ Lalu Sk. & Anr.... ... petitioners Mr. Manas Kr.Das ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Mr. Manaranjan Mahata ... ... for the State The petition is considered as one by the first petitioner, since the second petitioner has been arrested.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Burwan P.S. Case No. 143 of 2018 dated 06.05.2018 under sections 448/325/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.According to the petitioner, there was a dispute pertaining to the measurement of land that resulted in an altercation and it was the petitioner's group that was attacked by the rival group.However, the State relies on the statement of one of the persons who suffered injuries.The injury report has also been produced.In addition, the petitioners are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 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.
|
92,218,731 |
The case of the Prosecution is that two years prior to 04.07.2007, Soundappan's (PW.1's) daughter Suseela was given in marriage to the Appellant/Accused.As a result of wed lock, a female child was born to them and it was nine months old and 40 days.Before the occurrence, the deceased Suseela and the Appellant/Accused came to Gandhi Nagar at Maniyanoor, within the jurisdiction of Annathanapatty to have a separate residence.Subsequently, since Suseela was not turning out work properly, the Appellant/Accused frequently beat her.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked and two sari pieces were marked as M.O.1 (series).If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.The Respondent's/Prosecution's Contention:Summation of Evidence of Prosecution Witnesses:PW.1 (father of the deceased Suseela) in his evidence (before the trial Court) had deposed that his daughter Suseela was given in marriage two years before occurrence to the Appellant/Accused and his daughter Suseela gave birth to a female child Dharshini and on 04.07.2006 at 4.30 p.m. a phone call came to the nearby house and he was informed that his daughter had fallen down and when he went to the house of the Appellant, he found that his daughter Suseela was lying in Verandah and when he touched her, he found that there was no life on her body and when enquired the Appellant/Accused as to what had happened, he informed that nothing had happened.PW.1 in his evidence had also stated that his son Shankar came after attending the duty at Salem Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, where he was working as a trainee Doctor, and when he called and enquired with him, he informed him that the Appellant/Accused after returning from his work came to the house in the Afternoon and both the Appellant and his daughter took lunch and the child was given bath.19. PW.2 (PW.1's wife and mother of the deceased Suseela) in his evidence had stated that her son, herself and her husband asked the Appellant/Accused as to what had happened and for that, the Appellant/Accused informed that he came to the house for taking his food and at that time when he enquired his wife (Suseela) as to why she had not cleaned the house, she informed that she would clean the house after finishing her tailoring work and when she informed that the tailoring work would have to be done in an urgent manner for which, the Appellant/Accused had beaten her daughter (Suseela) and later, at the time of RDO enquiry, she informed that her daughter Suseela was frequently beat by the Appellant/Accused and her daughter had informed her that instead of living, it was better to die, for which she consoled her.PW.3 (brother of the deceased) in his evidence had stated that on 04.07.2006, when he was on duty at Government Hospital, his father (PW.1) informed him that his sister (Suseela) had died and brought him and he went along with his father to Maniyanoor to the house of his sister, where they went and saw the body of Suseela kept lying and when they asked for the reason, they were informed that she had committed suicide.Further, it is the evidence of PW.3 that subsequently, when they enquired the Appellant/Accused, the Appellant/Accused informed that when he came for the house for taking lunch, he asked his wife Suseela to clean the house, for which his sister replied that after finishing the tailoring work, she will do the work, for which the Appellant/Accused got angry and in anger, he beat his sister.Moreover, he along with his father (PW.1), mother (PW.2), went to police station and gave a police complaint.It is the evidence of PW.4 that his brother's wife name was Suseela and that she was residing near the house of her brother and three years before, she heard a noise during evening in her brother's house and came out and at that time, there was a group of people, who assembled there and she found that his brother's wife was found hanging in the kitchen.PW.5 (neighbour) in his evidence had stated that the Appellant/Accused was residing opposite to his house and three years before one evening on hearing the noise, he went and saw that the Appellant's wife was found hanging.23. PW.6 (witness in Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P4-Recovery Mahazar) was treated as ''Hostile witness'' and he had also stated in his cross examination that it was correct to state that on the day of occurrence he was not in the village.PW.7 (neighbour) in his evidence had deposed that the police had come to the place of occurrence and in Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar, he had signed and the police had seized one Sari in Ex.P4 (Recovery Mahazar) and that two sari pieces were marked as M.O.2 series.25. PW.8 (Doctor) in his evidence had stated that on 05.07.2006, when he was on duty at Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, he received requisition letter at 12.35 p.m., from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, to conduct postmortem on Suseela, aged about 20 years and he along with one Dr.Meera conducted postmortem and the requisition letter was Ex.P5, Postmortem Certificate was Ex.The bail bond, if any, executed by the Appellant/Accused shall stand cancelled.The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) paid by the Appellant.Further on 04.07.2006 at about 2.30 p.m in the Afternoon, because of Suseela not cleaning the house, an oral quarrel arose between them and because of that, the Appellant/Accused beat his wife Suseela.Since the Appellant/Accused beat and harassed his wife Suseela, she had committed suicide on 04.07.2006 at 4.00 p.m by placing the Sari on Appellant's House's fan hook.In this background, the Respondent/ Inspector of Police, Annathanapatty police station filed a charge sheet against the Appellant/Accused in respect of an offence under Section 306 of IPC before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem.On the basis of the accusation levelled against the Appellant/Accused, the trial Court on 19.01.2009 framed necessary charge in respect of offence under Section 306 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to him.The Appellant/Accused denied the charge framed against him.Before the trial Court, on the side of the Prosecution, witnesses PW.1 to PW.11 were examined and Ex.On the side of the Appellant/Accused, no one was examined as a witness and no document was marked.When the Appellant/Accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. relating to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.The Appellant's submissions:P6 and the final opinion with Forensic Science Report was Ex.26. PW.8 (Doctor) in Ex.P6-Postmortem Certificate had inter alia stated the following in respect of the injuries:-An incomplete oblique, ligature mark 3-4 cms width, 20 cms total length over upper part of front and sides of neck above the level of Thyroid Cartilage.On the Rt side of neck upper border of the ligature mark was found to be 6 cms below the Rt Mastoid process and on the Lt side of neck the same was found to be 4 cms below the Lt Mastoid Process.Multiple minute marginal abrasions and echymoses seen scattered over whole length of both upper and lower borders of ligature mark Salivery stain from Rt ankle of mouth.O/d Tissue beneath was pale dry and parchment like Hyoid bone was found intact.Thyroid Cartilage intact.No any neck contusion.All other neck structures intact.(Antemortem)and reserved his opinion pending Chemical Analysis Reports.Also PW.8 (Doctor) in Ex.Furthermore, it is to be noted in Ex.P7-Forensic Science Report it was stated that (1) Stomach and its contents (2) Intestine and its contents (3) Liver and Kidney (4) Preservative articles were examined.But poison was not deducted in any of them.PW.9 (Revenue Divisional Officer) in his evidence had deposed that on 05.07.2006, owing to the death of Suseela, wife of Appellant, he made enquiry with PW.1, PW.2, deceased's mother-in-law Menaka and her husband Obuliraj and Panchayatdars Rajamanickam, Chinnathambi, Vijayakumar and Mohanraj and came to the conclusion that jointly and independently there was no dowry harassment in regard to the death of the deceased and the Inquest Report submitted by him was Ex.P8 dated 05.07.2006 and the Sub-Divisional Administrative Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, Report was Ex.In Ex.P9 Report, it was mentioned that for the death of Suseela, dowry harassment was not the reason.PW.10 (then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Salem Town South) in his evidence had stated that when he was serving as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Salem City South, on 04.07.2006 at about 20 hours, he received the First Information Report in Crime No.1340 of 2006 of Annathanapatty Police Station and took up the investigation and at about 21.00 hours, he went to the scene of occurrence and after inspecting the place of occurrence, examined witnesses Balasubramani, and Sridhar and prepared Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P10-Rough Sketch and later at about 21.45 hours in the presence of Mahazar witnesses, he seized green colour white blue colour, brown colour designed two sari pieces and the same was marked as M.O.1 series and the Mahazar was also marked as Ex.P4 and later, he examined PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 and obtained their statements.He examined Sukumar, Jayalakshmi, Mani, Selvam, Balasubramani and Sridhar on 05.07.2006 and recorded their statements.It is significant to note that PW.10 in his evidence had crystal clearly stated that his investigation reveals that the deceased Suseela had not committed suicide because of dowry harassment and only because of the Appellant/Accused scolded, he came to know that she committed suicide and for conducting further investigation he sent the file to the Inspector of Police.Indeed witness Balasubramani had signed in regard to the seizure of two pieces of Sari, which was used by the deceased Suseela.PW.11 (then Inspector of Police) in his evidence had deposed that he had received the written complaint of PW.1 on 04.07.2006 at about 19.30 hours, while he was serving as Inspector of Police at Annathanapatty police station, and registered Ex.P11 - First Information Report in Crime No.1340 of 2006 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Later, he sent the First Information Report to the Assistant Commissioner and Revenue Divisional Officer and also he was assisting the Assistant Commissioner of Police aiding him in investigation.He took up further investigation of the case based on the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Police and on 06.07.2006, he altered the Section to 306 IPC (from Section 174 Cr.P.C) and sent Ex.P12 - Alteration Report to the Court.Furthermore, he arrested the Appellant/Accused on 06.07.2006 at 16.30 hours at Maniyanoor Gandhi Nagar and brought him to the Police Station at 17.00 hours and after conducting physical search on her body, he sent him to judicial custody.In fact, Ex.P9-Revenue Divisional Officer's Report was clearly in favour of the Appellant/Accused in regard to the fact that he had clearly mentioned that the deceased Suseela had not died due to dowry harassment.In fact a perusal of Ex.P9 Inquest Report of the Revenue Divisional Officer (under Section 174 Cr.P.C) dated 05.07.2006, unerringly points out that there was no dowry harassment for the death of Suseela and because of the Appellant/Accused on beating and because of his scolding the deceased Suseela had changed her mind and hanged herself and died.Inasmuch as the Appellant/Accused had only scolded the deceased Suseela on the day of occurrence on 04.07.2006 during lunch time, when he came to the house for taking lunch, as to why she had not cleaned the house, for which she replied that she would clean the house only after completing the tailoring work and later in the evening at 4.00 p.m, she had committed suicide by tying the Sari on the hook of the fan, this would show that actually the Appellant/Accused had scolded the deceased Suseela (wife) and beat her without intending the consequence to actually follow and the act of mere scolding etc., by no stretch of imagination, could not be termed to be instigation, in the considered opinion of this Court.27.08.2014Index :Yes/NoInternet :Yes/Nomra ToThe Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.Inspector of Police Annathanapatty Police Station Salem.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.M.VENUGOPAL,J mraCrl.A.No.412 of 2009 27.08.2014
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,221,529 |
Case diary is available.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is an application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 3.11.2016 in connection with Crime No. 286/2015 registered by Police Station Chanderi, District Ashoknagar for offences punishable under Sections 380, 457of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that he is a young boy aged about 20 years and according to the prosecution case, in the intervening night of 10/11.8.2015 a motorcycle was stolen from the house of Dr. Sudarshan Golia.It is further submitted that the applicant has been taken into custody in connection with one more crime and the police has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case also.Per contra, the counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the application.It is directed that the applicant namely Arvind Lodhi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with a 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.It is further directed that the applicant shall appear before the Police Station Chanderi, District Ashoknagar on 1st and 15th of every month till final disposal of the Trial.In case of bail jump or non-appearance of the applicant before the police station Chanderi District Ashok Nagar on the specified dates, this order shall loose its effect.With aforesaid observation, the application is allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Rks
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
35,834,492 |
This is the Second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellants.First application for suspension of sentence was dismissed for want of prosecution.The appellants have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation as mentioned in the impugned judgment.We have perused the objection and the record.It is transpired from the final report that on account of misbehaviour by the deceased with the wife of one of the accused the incident had taken place on 14/7/2015 and as per the prosecution story, being annoyed by the act of the deceased in making harassment to wife of one of the accused, all of them with common intention assaulted the deceased by lathi on his abdomen, which resulted in perforation of the intestine and ultimately due to septicemia the deceased died.It is further submitted that after submitting the final report, all the accused persons were on bail and they have undergone jail sentence for more than one year.The offence committed by the appellants attract only Section Digitally signed by REENA H SHARMA Date: 10/01/2019 18:07:15 2 CRA-3939-2017 325 of IPC and it cannot be treated to be an offence under Section 302 of IPC and at the most the offence would come within the purview of Section 325 of IPC.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, there is contradictory version of the doctor, who has given his opinion on the next day that the death was homicidal, but as per the other opinion the death occurred due to perforation of the intestine and as the deceased could not be taken to the hospital due to non-availability of proper conveyance in time.The contention of counsel for the accused is that all the accused were on bail and there is no grave offence whereas the deceased was attributed to the act of having harassed the wife of the one of the accused.According to the learned counsel, the accused were on bail during trial.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the appellants be released on bail with a further direction to mark appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28.02.2019 and on such other dates as may be notified by the office in this regard till final disposal of this appeal.After execution of such bonds and release of the appellants, the same may be intimated to this Court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,583,515 |
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 06, 2015 sa Crl.P.672/2014 Page 4 of 4P.672/2014 Page 4 of 4Present revision petition has been preferred to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 21.10.2014 of learned Spl.Judge CBI (PC Act)/East by which application dated 21.02.2014 filed under Section 265 B Cr.P.C. was dismissed.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the contents of charge-sheet where there were no specific allegations against the petitioner to have committed any offence Crl.P.672/2014 Page 1 of 4 punishable under Sections 467/468/471 IPC.The petitioner was charged only with the aid of Section 120-B IPC.The petitioner was not attributed commission of any act in the charge-sheet which could attract any offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years.Provisions of plea-bargaining are applicable even to offences which prescribe minimum sentence for any proved offences.P.672/2014 Page 1 of 4Apparently, the petitioner besides others has been sent for trial by CBI for committing various offences.Charge-sheet has been filed for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of P.C.Act.Cognizance has already been taken by the Trial Court.The accused persons have pleaded not guilty to the charges.The prosecution has examined nine witnesses so far.On 21.02.2014 an application under Section 265B Cr.P.C. for seeking 'plea-bargaining' was moved by the petitioner.The impugned order dismissing the application being not-maintainable under law cannot be faulted as the provisions of Chapter XXI-A can be invoked by the Crl.The petitioner did not opt to challenge the order on charge.The prosecution has examined nine witnesses so far to prove the charges.The matter is still pending before the Trial Court for recording statements of remaining witnesses of the prosecution.At this stage, evidence led or to be adduced at latter stage cannot be appreciated to prejudge the commission of exact offence.However, in that eventuality, the accused resorting to plea-bargaining would be liable to get half of such minimum sentence and possibly cannot ask for lesser punishment.In the light of the above discussion, I find no merit in the revision petition and it is dismissed.Trial Court record (if any) along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,586,801 |
Brief facts are that one Giriza Devi widow of late Kallu @ Ram Raj Singh moved an application to S.S.P., Mirzapur against three persons, namely, Mahendra Singh, Ashok Pathak and Badri Pathak alleging that they have got the sale deed executed in favour of Smt. Juvarati wife of Mahendra Singh of the property of Giriza Devi by personation.The S.S.P., Mirzapur directed to S.O. Jigna to enquire into the matter.The learned Trial Court passed an order allowing the protest petition and F.R. was returned for further investigation.Against this order, the criminal revision no. 79 of 1989 was preferred which was allowed and the order dated 8.9.1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur was set aside.Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist has come up in the present revision.I have heard counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of due service.
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
35,869,072 |
2.The brief facts leading to the prosecution case are as follows:P.W.1 Radhakrishnan and P.W.2 Kalavathi are husband and wife.P.W.3 Prasannakumari is their daughter and the deceased viz., Krishnamurthi istheir son.They were residing at 1398, Housing Board Colony at Villapuram,Madurai District.The appellant / sole accused was residing at Pudu Theru,Goripalayam, Madurai City and he was owning a grocery shop at Jaihindpuram.Whenever P.W.3 was going to school, the accused used to tease her.In respect of which, the deceased Krishnamurthi lodged a complaint (Ex.P.4) atJaihindpuram Police Station.Due to the same, on 09.04.2004, the accusedentered into the house of the deceased and threatened the family memberswhile P.W.1 was away.When the matter stood thus, on 11.04.2004 at 8.30 p.m. the accused entered into the house of P.W.1 with M.O.2 knife, and attackedthe family members with knife and also stabbed the deceased Krishnamurthi.All the injured were admitted in Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital.3.On receiving information, P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police recordedEx.Thereafter, came back to the police station and registered FirstInformation Report Ex.P.10 in Crime No.215 of 2004 under Sections 449, 307and 324 IPC and set a copy of Ex.P.10 and also M.O.1 to the JudicialMagistrate concerned.In respect of P.W.1, he issued accident register Ex.5.P.W.13 Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madurai Medical College, Maduraiconducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P.18 postmortem certificate and opined that the deceased died due to external stab injury andits corresponding internal injuries and complications.6.P.W.14, Inspector of Police took up the investigation and went to thescene of occurrence, prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and rough sketch Ex.P.19 in the presence of witnesses.He also recovered M.Os.2, 3 and 7 fromthe scene of occurrence under mahazor Ex.Thereafter, on 12.04.2004 at19.30 hours, he arrested the accused at Goripalayam and recorded hisstatement.Since the deceased viz., Krishnamurthi died on 14.04.2004 at14.15 hours, the case has been altered into 302 IPC and sent the alterationreport Ex.P.20 to the Court.On 15.04.2004, he prepared inquest reportEx.P.21 in the presence of witnesses.After investigation, on 14.07.2004 helaid a final report before the Court against the accused.7.Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and markedExs.P1 to P.25 and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked.On behalf of the defence D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.D.1 and Ex.D2 were marked.On questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant / accused denied charges.11.P.Ws.1 & 2, who are injured witnesses, have clearly spoken that theaccused used to tease P.W.3 when she was going to school and in respect of which, he has been warned.Trial Court foundappellant is guilty of offence under Section 304(ii) and 324 (2 counts) & 451IPC and under Section 304(ii) IPC the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I.for 5 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo R.I.for 3 months.For the offence under Section 324 IPC (2 counts) the accusedis convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months for each count.Forthe offence under Section 451 IPC the accused is convicted and sentenced toundergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default toundergo R.I. for 3 months.For the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC andSection 451 IPC are directed to run concurrently.The sentence underSections 304(ii) IPC and Section 324 IPC (2 counts) have to run concurrently.Aggrieved over the same, the Criminal Appeal is preferred.8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that thegenesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution and the injuries sustained by the accused has not been properly explained by theprosecution.9.The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent wouldsubmit that P.Ws.1 and 3 are injured witnesses and they have clearly spokenas to the nature of injuries sustained.He also would submit that theaccused entered into the house of the deceased on the date of occurrence andstabbed the family members of P.W.1 and due to which, the deceased succumbed to injury after three days and the motive to the occurrence is also clearlyestablished by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence, he submitted that this Criminal Appeal will have to be dismissed.10.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perusedthe entire materials on record.In spite of such warning, the accused continuedthe same, which resulted in lodging a complaint Ex.P.4 at Jaihindpuram PoliceStation and thereafter, the accused entered into the house of P.W.1 at 8.30p.m.armed with knife M.O.2, attacked P.Ws.1 to 3 and also stabbed thedeceased Krishnamurthi.The reports Ex.The Postmortem Doctor P.W.13 clearly opined that the deceased Krishnamurthi succumbed due to stab injury.Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.4 took P.Ws.1 to 3 to hospital in anAuto.12.It is the case of the appellant that he went to the house of theprosecution party in order to demand the outstanding amount in respect ofpurchase of groceries from his shop.13.P.W.6 has also admitted in his evidence that one month prior to theoccurrence, there was a complaint Ex.The said complaint was treated as apetition and the accused has been warned.This fact clearly substantiate theversion of P.Ws.1 to 3 about the motive.14.In any event, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the injured witnesses and theirevidence clearly prove the nature of attack caused by accused not only onP.Ws.1 to 3 but also the deceased Krishnamurthi, who unfortunately victim inthis case.The death of the victim was due to stab injury, which has beenclearly established by the prosecution.The learned Trial Judge taking intoconsideration of all these facts in entirety found that the act of theaccused would fall within the ambit of Section 304 IPC.On entire scanningof the evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved the casebeyond reasonable doubt.15.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.The convictionand sentence passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai dated 21.11.2005 in S.C.No.320 of 2005 are hereby confirmed.Consequently,connected Crl.M.P.is closed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, Avaniapuram Police Station, Madurai.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
358,720 |
The brief facts are as follows: In and about the year 1981, A.1was working as a Dispensing Chemist in Chennai Corporation; A.2 is his wife;A.3 is the brother of A.2; A.5 was the owner of a medical shop at Guntur,Andhra Pradesh; A.7 was a postal employee in Chennai; A.6 is the wife of A.7.A.8 was working as a pharmacist in Government Royapettah Hospital; A.11 wasthe owner of medical shop at Nellore, Andhra Pradesh; A.12 to A.15 wereworking as pharmacist in E.S.I. Hospital, Tiruvottiyur; A.16 and A.17 wereworking as male nurses and A.1 8 was working as a pharmacist in GovernmentRoyapettah Hospital, Chennai.Pursuant to criminal conspiracy between the accused-A.1, A.4 andA.8, A.12 to A.15, A.17, A.18 (who were employed as pharmacists, male nursesin Chennai corporation and Government Stanley Hospital, Government RoyapettahHospital and E.S.I. Hospital, Tiruvottiyur) during the period 1980-81,clandestinely removed the medicines supplied by the Government of Tamil Naduto the hospitals, run by governmental agencies, for the purpose of supplyingto the patients freely, and sold them to medical shops of A.5 and A.11 atGuntur and Nellore, and in turn, they received by way of exchange theDangerous Drugs, Pethidine and Morphine, supplied to those medical shops.P.1 to P.196 and M.Os.1 to 367were marked.All theappeals against acquittal and the revisions against convictions were heardtogether and the common judgment is delivered.On information that Accused-1 to 3 were selling medicinesincluding Pethidine and Morphine.P.W.34 laid a trap on 18.3.1981 and sentP.W.1 as a decoy, giving one 50 rupee note after recording the number of thesaid Rs.50/- rupee note in the Mahazar, Ex.Then, P.W.34 prepared a Mahazar, Ex.P.4 and seized the 10Pethidine and 10 Morphine injunctions.Immediately P.W.34 proceeded to thehouse of A.1 at Door No.18, Azad Street, Perambur along with the police party;A.2 and A.3 were in the house; A.3 was searched, the 50 rupee note given byP.W.34 to P.W.1 was found in the packet of A.3 and that was seized;Thereafter, the house was searched; large quantities of medicines and drugswere found and they were seized under the Mahazar Ex.P.W.34 took Ex.P.1,the thumb impression of A.2 in the seizure mahazar.During the search 16ampules of Morphin and 688 ampules of Pethidine were also seized.Besidesthese narcotic drugs, a lot of drugs supplied to Government hospitals (some ofthem bearing Government Hospital stamp marks and some of them bearing E.S.I.Dispensary stamp marks) were found in card-board boxes as well as strewn onthe floor; From the bed room of the house, another quantity of hospital goods,surgical instruments, (some of them had Government hospital logo/stamp marks)were also seized.A.2's thumb impression was also obtained in the seizuremahazar.P.144 is the F.I.R.On interrogation of A.3, it came to light to P.W.34, that therewas a big racket by which the narcotic drugs like Morphine and Pethidine wereregularly brought from Andhra Pradesh and sold in Tamil Nadu and that also thedrugs supplied to various Government Hospitals as well as E.S.I. Dispensarieswere illegally removed by the staff working in those Hospitals; they werepurchased by A.1 and sold to A,5 and A.11 in Andhra Pradesh at a cheaper rate.On 23.3.1981, A.1 was arrested in his house.A.1 produced five piece ofpapers, Exs.P.126 to 130, in which names of hospital drugs , Exs.P.126 to 130found written.A.1 also produced seven prescriptions, Ex.P.146 series forpurchase of Morphine injections at Vijayawada at various dates prior to theregistering of this case.On 1.4.1981, A.1 pointed out A.4 and his house wassearched in the presence of P.W.6; From the house of A.4, six items of drugsbearing hospital stamp marks, M.Os.253 to 258 were seized under Ex.P.13 searchlist attested by witnesses.The search list, Ex.P.13 was also signed by A.4.Thereafter, A.1 took P.W.34 to the house of A.8 and his house was alsosearched in the presence of P.W.6 and M.Os.259 to 261 and Hospital store notebook Ex. P.14 were recovered under search list Ex.Thereafter, on7.4.19 81, A.12 and A.13 pharmacists employed in E.S.I. Hospital,Tiruvottiyur were arrested and examined.Thereafter, P.W.34 went toVijayawada for investigation along with P.W.5 and a Drug Inspector and perusedthe records of the firm, "Siris" pertaining to manufacture and distribution ofPethidine injection.P.148 is the letter written by the InvestigatingOfficer to M/s. Siris and Company seeking certain particulars relating toPethidine injection manufactured in Batch No.011 14; Ex.P.149 is the reply by"Siris" giving the list of persons to whom the Pethidine manufactured in thatbatch No.01114 was sent; Ex.Thereafter, P.W.34 arrested A.14 and he pointed out the house ofA.7 at Jegannatha Nagar, Arumbakkam.The house of A.14 was searched in thepresence of A.6; 13 items of drugs and surgical items, M.Os.239 to 252belonged to various Government Hospital and some of them bearing theGovernment logo marks and they were seized under Search List, Ex.On1.8.1981, P.W.34 searched the house of A.9 on information at Door No.130,M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam; A.9 and A.10 were in the house.When the housewas searched in the presence of witnesses, two suit cases, M.Os.262 and 264and three card board boxes, M.Os.265 to 367 containing drugs bearing Hospitalstamp marks or logo marks were seized.A railway ticket in the name of A.10was also seized in Ex.But merelybecause the mahazar witness turned hostile, it cannot be held that the samewas not proved.Even P.W.16 has admitted his signature in the mahazar,Ex.P.W.34 has also stated A.9 and A.10 were in thehouse at M.M.D.A. Colony and when it was searched, and M.Os.263 to 367 wereseized from the house.Among the documents which were seized from that house,a railway ticket in the name of A.10 and a marriage invitation issued to A.10were also seized under the mahazar, Exs.The convictionA.3, A.4, and A.13, is confirmed.However, the sentence of imprisonmentimposed against them is modified to that of the period already undergone.Inso far as A.7 is concerned, considering the fact that he has committed theoffence under Section 411 I.P.C., he is released under Section (4)(1) of theProbation of Offenders Act, 1958 and he is entitled to the benefit of Section12 of the Act.Index: YesWeb Site: YesvsASSISTANT REGISTRAR.TRUE COPYSUB-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.1. XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras.V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras.IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.I Additional Sessions Judge of the Court of Sessionsof Madras Divisions at Madras.through the Sessions Judge, Madras.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras.The Judicial Magistrate, No.6, Coimbatore.C.A.No.461/1989T.Shanmugham (A.15) ... Respondent in C.A.No.462/1989V.Sathiamurthi(A.12)}S.Ramar (A.14) } ... Respondents in C.A.No.463/1989P.Ramakrishnan (A.1) }Subbammal (A.2) }Subbarayulu (A.3) } ... Respondents in C.A.464/1989S.N.Sukumar (A.17) }Balasubramanian @ Balan-A.18} ... Respondents in C.A.465/1989Sathiyanarayanan@ Sathiyan (A.19) } ... Respondent in C.A.466/1989S.Jayabalan (A.16) } ... Respondent in C.A.467/1989Crl.R.C.134 to 136,138 to 140 & 153 of 1986:These appeals are filed against the judgments of the First AdditionalSessions Judge, Madras, dated 20.2.1986, in C.A.Nos.166, 168, 170, 172, 179,180 and 184 of 1985 and the revisions are filed against the judgments of theFirst Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, dated 20.2.1986, in C.A.No.179, 173,182, 183, 172, 181 and 175 of 1985, as stated therein.Thus, A.1 to A.19 were parties to thecriminal conspiracy.The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai framed the followingcharges.A.1 was charged under Sections 120-B, 409, 411 I.P.C. read withSection 8(1)(a) read with Section 14(a) and Sections 20 and 21 of theDangerous Drugs Act. A.2 and A.3 were charged for the offences under Sections120-B, 411 I.P.C. read with Sections 8(1)(a) and 14(a) and 20 and 21 of theDangerous Drugs Act. A.4 to A.14 were charged under Section 120-B. A.4 wascharged under Section 411 read with Section 109 and 381 I.P.C. A.5, A.9, A.20were charged for the offences under Section 8(1)(a) read with Sections 14-A,20 and 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. A.6, A.7, A.9 and A.10, A.11,A.19 werecharged for the offence under Section 411 I.P.C. A.8 was charged for theoffence under Section 381 I.P.C. A.12 to A.15 were also charged for theoffence under Section 409 I.P.C. A.16 and A.17 were charged for the offenceunder Section 381 I.P.C. read with Section 109 I.P.C. To prove the charges,the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 34 and Exs.On the side of the accused, Ex.D.1 was marked.The trial Court acquitted A.6 of all the charges; it convicted allthe other accused of all the charges.The trial Court against A.1 and A.3imposed a sentence of one year R.I for each of the offences under Sections120-B and 411 I.P.C., and two years R.I. for the offence under Section 8(1)(a) read with Sections 14(a) and 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act and alsoimposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo six months R.I.; no separatesentence was imposed under Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The trialcourt imposed against A.2 a sentence of three months R.I. for the offencesunder Sections 8(1)(a) read with 14(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act; for theoffence under Section 120-B read with 411 I.P.C., Section 21 of the DangerousDrugs Act, a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court wasimposed; no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 20 ofthe Dangerous Drugs Act. Against A.4, a sentence of two years R.I. for theoffence under Section 120-B read with Section 381, and fine of Rs.500/- indefault to undergo 3 months was imposed.Against A.5, one year R.I. for theoffence under Section 8(1) read with Section 14(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Actand a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo three months R.I. and for theoffence under Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, one year R.I. wasimposed; under Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, no separate sentence wasimposed.Against A.7, sentence of one year R.I. for the offence underSection 120 -B read with Section 411 I.P.C. was imposed; A.8 was imposed asentence of two years R.I. for the offence under Section 120-B read withSection 381 I.P.C.; A.9 and A.10 were imposed a sentence of one year R.I. forthe offence under Section 120-B read with Section 411 and two years R.I. forthe offence under Section 8(1)(a) read with Section 1 4(a) of the DangerousDrugs Act and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo six months R.I.;Against A.11, a fine of Rs.1000/- was imposed and in default to undergo sixmonths R.I. A.12 and A.13 were imposed a sentence of two years R.I. for theoffence under Section 120 -B read with Section 409 and a fine of Rs.100/-, indefault to undergo one month R.I.; A.14, and A.15 were imposed two years R.I.the offence under Section 120-B read with 409 I.P.C. A.16 and A.17, wereimposed two years R.I. for the offence under Section 120-B read with Section382 I.P.C; A.18 was imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo threemonths R.I.; and A.19 was imposed a sentence of one year R.I. for the offenceunder Section 120-B read with 411 I.P.C.The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence imposed on A.4, A.7,A.8, A.9 A.10, A.13 and A.18; but, A.3 was acquitted of the offence underSection 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The sentence against A.11 was modifiedto that of fine of Rs.1,000/-; ( he has paid the fine and did not prefer anyrevision against conviction).Against the acquittal, the State has filed these appeal againstacquittal.R.C.138 of 1989 is filed by A.10, Crl.R.C.139 of1989 is filed by A.3, Crl.R.C.140 of 1989 is filed by A.7 and Crl.During the pendency of these cases, A.8 died; a certificate hasbeen filed to that effect.Hence, the revision filed by A.8 abated.Immediately, A.3 was arrested.Thereafter, the case was registered against A.1 to A.3 by P.W.34;Ex.P.31; Search Mahazar Ex.The drugs that were seized alsocontained 25 ampules of Morphine injection; a Railway ticket in the name ofA.10 for travelling from Chennai to kammam on 3.8.1981 along with reservationticket was also found.These drugs were marked as M.Os.67, 265, 269, 270,273, 276, 277, 278, 280, 282, 284, 286, 287, 288, 289; the seals were sent toForensic Department.P.W.31 examined them and gave the opinion that thespecimen seal of the hospital and the seals found in the drugs were found tobe similar; the injections were examined and certified by ScientificAssistant, P.W.31, as pethidine and Morphine.The lower Appellate Court found A.1 not guilty and acquitted A.1of all the charges.It was of the opinion that though the medicines with theseal of the Government were seized from his house, since there was nocomplaint by the Corporation of Madras that there was theft of medicines fromits medical stores/department.There is no evidence that the medicines seizedfrom his house were stolen from Corporation Medical Dispensary.Therefore,there is no evidence to prove that the medicines seized from A.1's house werethe medicines of the Corporation.Though the learned Sessions Judge hasstated that when such medicines with Government seals were seized, onus is onthat person to explain as to how it came to his possession, yet the learnedSessions Judge relied upon the confession statement of A.3, the brother-in-lawof A.1 in which he has stated that it was A.3 who kept those medicines withoutthe knowledge of A.1 and therefore held that A.1 cannot be found guilty.From the evidence of P.W.1, it is proved that on 18.3.1981, hewent along with P.W.34 and other witnesses to Perambur where P.W.34 gave him a50 rupee note and P.W.1 went to the house at No.18, Azad Street, Perambur; atthat time, A.1 was not present.This is corroborated by theMahazar, Ex.P.W.2, the house owner, P.W.2 has stated that A.1 was atenant in the house in the year 1981; he was living with A.2 his wife and A.3,the brother-in-law of A.1; A.2 has signed the seizure mahzar, Ex.Apart from that, A.1 was the Dispensing Chemist in the MadrasCorporation." This proves that the medicines wereoriginally supplied to Government hospitals and dispensaries.The DrugInspector, P.W.5 has stated that the seal GRH referred to GovernmentRoyapettah Hospital.When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the firstaccused has stated that A.3 was not residing with them and that only he andhis wife were living in that house.A.2 has stated in her statement underSection 313 Cr.P.C., that her house was not searched and she has not signed inthe mahazar for search and that nothing was seized from her house.In the confession, Ex.P.37, givenbefore the Magistrate by A.3 which was subsequently retracted, he has statedthat on 3.3.1981 when A.1 was not present in the house, he kept the medicinein her sister's house and when she enquired about that, he told that itcontains plastic materials.From this, the lower Appellate Court has come tothe conclusion that this conclusively proved that A.1 had no knowledge of themedicines found in his house and it was kept without his knowledge and thosemedicines were kept by A.3 alone.The confession has been retracted by A.3;Further, A.2 has also not stated when examined under Section 31 3 Cr.P.C.that A.3 brought those medicines and told her that it was plastic materials.From the evidence available on record, the offence against A.1 isproved beyond reasonable doubt.Therefore, the trial Court was right inconvicting A.1 and that it was erroneous on the part of the first AppellateCourt to set aside that conviction.Therefore, the acquittal against A.1 isset aside.In the result, the appeal against acquittal of A.1 is allowed intoto and the lower Court's judgment convicting A.1 is restored.A.2 is the wife of A.1 and shecannot also be held to be in exclusive possession of those medicines.The 50 rupee note sent through p.There is no reason to set asidethat conclusion of the lower Appellate Court.Hence, the appeal againstacquittal of A.2 is dismissed.Further, on the basis of theconfession statement, medicines were recovered from other accused.Hence, theconfession is true and can be relied upon.Hence the appeal against acquittal of A.3 is dismissed.Pethadine of the same batch hasbeen recovered from A.1's house.The counsel appearing for A.5 submitted that A.5 has written a letter,Ex.P.10 that he did not get the supply from the manufacturer.Further, thecounsel submitted that no incriminating materials were recovered from A.5 orat his instance.Hence, the acquittal of A.5is confirmed and hence, the appeal against acquittal filed against A.5 isdismissed.P.W.3, the witness who was examined to connectthese accused, has turned hostile.Further, the other witnesses, P.Ws.24 to30 were examined to prove that these witnesses were not supplied medicines bythese accused.They also turned hostile.Therefore, the appeals against acquittal againstA.12 , A.14 and 15 are dismissed.Accused-16 and 17 are male nurses working in RoyapettahGovernment Hospital.A.18 is the pharmacist working in Government RoyapettahHospital.Some of the medicines seized from A.1's house and at the instanceof A.9 and A.10 from the house of one Padma contained the seal of RoyapettahHospital; that alone is not sufficient to hold that these accused-16 to 18removed those medicines from Royapettah Government Hospital and gave it to A.1and to others.P.W.33 who wasexamined to prove the complicity of these accused, turned hostile.Therefore,the only evidence available against A.16 to A.18 is the confession of A.3 whohas stated in his confession, Ex.P.37 that these accused-16 to 18 used to takemedicines from the hospital and hand it over to him for consideration.Hence, the appeals against acquittal against A.16 to A.18 aredismissed.Accused No.4 was a Male Nurse working in Stanley Hospital.Hehas filed a revision against his conviction.Therefore, theconviction of A.7 is to be set aside.Further, A.14 who pointed out A.7 hasbeen acquitted.Therefore, the counsel argued that in the absence of anyevidence except the recovery, it cannot be said that A.7 was proved to be inexclusive possession of the medicines, nor that he was in possession of stolenproperties.From the house of A.7, M.Os.239 to 252 containing Government logomarks were seized.It is true that the mahazarwitness who was examined to prove the seizure turned hostile.The otherevidence of the witness P.W.34 and M.Os.253 to 258 and Ex.P.5 corroborates theseizure from A.7's house.Therefore, the counsel submitted, that, the convictionof the lower Appellate Court is not sustainable and hence they are entitled tobe acquitted.P.W.11 is a Medical Officer in Royapettah Government Hospital;the mere fact that he had not reported about any theft from his stores, itcannot be said that nothing was stolen from the Government Hospitals.Allthat he has stated is that no medicines were stolen from his stores.But thefact remains that medicines were found to be in possession of A.4 and A.7; andthey contain the Government logo marks.Such medicines can only be found inthe Government hospitals or with the patients to whom it was prescribed in theGovernment hospitals.There cannot be a third category of persons who areentitled to be in possession of the property.Therefore, once it is provedthat the medicines belonging to the government hospitals, the initial burdenof proof has been discharged by the prosecution; absolutely, there is noevidence on behalf of the accused to prove legal possession.It is impossiblefor the medicines supplied to the Government hospitals to be found in bulkquantities in any other place except the hospital stores.Therefore, the merefact that the medicines with the Government logos were possessed by theaccused read with the evidence of P.W.31, which is acceptable, is sufficientto prove mens rea and also the offence of theft.It is not necessary thatonly when a complaint of theft has been given, it can be presumed to be astolen property, the nature of possession is only illegal possession.Therefore, there is no other possibility except that it was stolen from theGovernment stores.This lethargic attitude of the persons responsible for the custody of themedicines cannot be taken advantage by the persons who were found to be inpossession of the medicines.Therefore, the conviction of A.4 and A.7 cannotbe said to be illegal.Hence, the revision petition filed by A.4 and A.7against the conviction is liable to be dismissed and hence, dismissed.The counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner filed by A.9and A.10 argued that P.W.34 has stated nothing was recovered from the house ofA.9; A.10 has no connection with the house from which these medicines wereseized; It was seized from one Padma; who has been examined only as a witness;A.9 and A.10 are not related to each other.In his evidence, P.W.8 has stated that the house at DoorNo.130, "J" Block, M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam was searched and at that time,A.9 and A.10 were present along with one Padma.From that house, two suitcases, M.Os.263 and 264 and three card board boxes were seized.It contained morphine injections.In thecross-examination by A.9 to A.11, P.W.34 has stated that A.9's usual residenceis at Nehru Nagar, Madras and the recovery of M.Os.was at his anotherresidence at Arumbakkam which he had taken for rent; he denied the suggestionthat A.9 and A.10 were not arrested from that house.were seized.P.W.12 who is the ownerof the house at No.J.130, M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam has stated in hisevidence that this house was rented to one Padma.After coming to know the fact thatcontraband medicines were seized from that house, he asked them to vacate thehouse.In the crossexamination, he has stated that the house was rented outonly to Padma.Further, he has stated that during his examination by thepolice, he did not say that A.10 accompanied Padma at the time of getting thehouse for rent.From this evidence of P.W.12, that A.9 was the tenant of thishouse has not been proved.Therefore, the conviction and sentence against A.9 and A.10cannot be sustained.The appellate Court convicted A.9 and A.10 only on theground that they were present in the house and the search list was signed.Therefore, A.9 and A.10 are liable to be acquitted on the basis of the benefitof doubt.The invitation given to A.10 and the railway ticket of A.10 wouldnot be the conclusive proof that A.9 and A.10 were residing in that house.Therefore, the conviction of A.9 and A.10 is liable to be set aside.This argumentis not acceptable.A.13 has given confession, Ex.P.41 before the Magistrate.He along with Balan, Sathiamoorthy used to sell thesemedicines to A.1 and out of the sale amount, 50% will be given to the ladydoctor working in the hospital.This confession of A.13, though retractedsubsequently, is sufficient to hold that he has committed theft of medicinesfrom the hospitals where he was working.Therefore, A.13 was guilty of thecharges.Hence, the revision againstconviction of A.13 is dismissed.The lower Appellate Court imposed a maximum sentence of two yearson all the convicted accused.All the accused were inside the jail for sometime.35. I. (i) In the result, Criminal Appeal No.464 of 1989 is partlyallowed; Appeal filed against the acquittal of A.1 is allowed.(ii) Criminal Appeal No.461 of 1989 filed against the acquittal of A.5is dismissed;(iii) Criminal Appeal No.462 of 1989 filed against the acquittal ofA.15 is dismissed;(iv) Criminal Appeal No.463 of 1989 filed against the acquittal ofA.12 and A.14 is dismissed.(v) Criminal Appeal No.465 of 1989 filed against the acquittal of A.17and A.18 is dismissed;(vi) Criminal Appeal No.466 of 1989 filed against the acquittal ofA.19 is dismissed;(vii) and Criminal Appeal No.467 of 1989 filed against the acquittalof A.16 is dismissed.The conviction and sentenceimposed on A.9 and A.10 are set aside.(i) Crl.R.C.139 of 1986 filed by A.3 is dismissed; (iii) Crl.(iv) Crl.through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.II Additional Assistant Sessionsl Judge, Coimbatore.through the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.through the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.A.K. RAJAN, J.Common JudgmentinCrl.Appeal 461 to 467/1989andCrl.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
35,876,179 |
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No.341/13 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Guna District Guna, for the offence punishable under Sections 498, 385, 354-D, 506 of I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.As per prosecution story, one FIR was lodged by complainant Rani Sharma on 9/6/14 that after engagement on 1/5/14, her marriage was to be solemnized on 4/6/14 but meanwhile demand of dowry was made by the present applicant and his family members and therefore her marriage could not be solemnized.Apart that during the period applicant had followed her and made contacts on mobile with a view to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest from the side of the complainant.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,776,479 |
( .10.2018) As per Anjuli Palo, J.-Both these petitions for grant of leave to appeal arise from judgment passed by learned ASJ, Jatar, district- Tikamgarh in S.T. No.251/2014 whereby the respondents 1 to 3 have been acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is husband of the deceased (Kalpana) and respondents 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, respectively.The deceased was residing with all the respondents.On 29.09.2014 at about 03:40 p.m., respondent No.2 (Ramlal) informed the police that at about 10:00 a.m. he along with his wife Lachchi Bai, son Ganesh and daughter-in-law Bharti had gone to the field for collecting the crops.At about 1 p.m. Ramlal came to his house and found that Kalpana was sitting in front of the house.However, at about 01:45 p.m. Rajua informed him that Kalpana committed suicide.Then he went to his house and saw from the window that Kalpana was hanging from the roof.After getting such information, police went to the spot and enquired the matter.The dead body was sent for postmortem.Crime No.240/2014 under Sections 304B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the respondents.The charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court.Case was committed to the trial Court.The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 304B, 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents.Accused abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.Learned trial Court held that there is no cogent and trustworthy evidence available against the respondents to convict them for committing offences under Sections 302, 304B, 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, the respondents were acquitted from the above charges.Learned counsel for the State and complainant challenged the judgment passed by learned trial Court on the grounds that there is no Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 31/10/2018 15:59:23 3 MCRC-22831-2018 material contradictions or omissions in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, their testimony ought to have been relied upon.It is also claimed that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in proper perspective.Heard learned counsel for the applicants.Perused the record.It is not in dispute that on 29.09.2014 body of the deceased was found in the house of the respondents.Respondent No.2 himself informed it to the police.From the evidence on record it appears that when the investigating agency (police) and executive magistrate reached on the spot, they found the room (where Kalpana committed suicide) was locked from inside.The door is made of iron.There is only one door and one window.Hence, wall of the room was broken.Then police entered in the room.It was found that the deceased was hanging from the roof.These conditions and postmortem report clearly showed that the deceased committed suicide.Postmortem report is Exhibit P-8 wherein Dr. A.S. Parihar (PW-7) has found that knot of the rope used by the deceased for hanging was on the left side of the neck and ligature mark of the rope was black in colour above thyroid cartilage.Hyoid bone of the neck was also found broken.It was opined by the doctor that cause of death of Kalpana was asphyxia due to respiratory arrest due to hanging within 12 to 24 hours.The cause of the death of Kalpana (since deceased) is not in dispute.There is no evidence against the respondents that they killed Kalpana (since deceased) because the dead body was found in the room which was locked from inside.With regard to Sections 304 B and 306 of the IPC, there is no evidence on record that just soon before her death, Kalpana (since deceased) was subjected to cruelty.Learned trial Court following the decisions in the cases of Shrikant v. State- ILR 2015 MP 1385, Sher Singh v. State of Haryana- 2015 Cr.L.J 1118 and Digitally signed by KOUSHALENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 31/10/2018 15:59:23 4 MCRC-22831-2018 Maya Devi and Another v. State of Haryana AIR 2016 SC 125 gave negative finding against the prosecution.Now again the question arises whether the respondents harassed the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.In this regard, three close relatives of the deceased, namely, Laadle -father (PW-1), Sudha - (PW-2) and cousin brother of the deceased - Prakash Ahirwar (PW-6) stated that the respondents demanded motorcycle from them and for non-fulfillment of their demand, they tortured the deceased.Learned trial Court held that no report was made by the deceased against the respondents at any police station.Further that the deceased frequently stayed at her maternal home.On one occasion, when the deceased stayed with her parents, respondent No.1 called her, therefore, the deceased expressed her willingness to go back to her matrimonial house.She further narrated to her mother Sudha (PW-2) that she was happy with her husband.Trial Court further held that there is no specific allegation against the respondents regarding their demand of dowry.Learned trial Court properly appreciated the entire evidence and passed the impugned judgment.We do not find any error in the findings recorded by learned trial Court.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,417,803 |
JUDGMENT1995 Supp.5 SCR 612The following Order of the Court was delivered :This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th March, 1993, passedby a single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1238/92.By the impugned order, the learned Judge of Calcutta High Court inter aliacame to the finding that in view of amendment of section 167 (5) of theCode of Criminal Procedure by the West Bengal Amendment Act (Act 24 of1988), the investigation of the entire case was required to be stopped bythe Trial Court after expiry of three years from the first date ofappearance of the accused and the Court had also a duty to discharge allthe accused after expiry of the said period of three years.For the purpose of appreciating the rival contentions of the learnedcounsel appearing for the parties, some of the events may be noted.On the15th March, 1984, a complaint was lodged by the appellant in Gaighta policestation.North 24 Paragana.West Bengal and on such complaint a police caseNo.11 of 15th March, 1984 was initiated.On 23rd ofJuly, 1988 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.On 2nd May, 1989.Section 167(5) Cr.Suchapplication however was dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge.The said order was challenged by making a revisional application before theCalcutta High Court and as aforesaid, the revisional application has beenallowed by the High Court.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,782,083 |
The petitioner was a freelance reporter in a monthly magazine known as 'Thuppariyum Visaranai'.The petitioner became a subscriber to two chit groups in the Pattukottai Branch of a non banking finance company by name Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu (Private) Limited, having head office at Chennai.He bagged the chit amount in the first auction.Apart from working out his statutory remedies against the action initiated by the Non-Banking Finance Company, the petitioner also wrote an article in November 2007 in the magazine for which he was a freelance reporter, criticising the action of the non banking financial company.The article was perceived by the non banking finance corporation as a malicious propaganda causing extensive damage to their reputation.V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J The petitioner, whose application for enrolment as an advocate was not entertained by the Bar Council, has come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Bar Council to enroll him.Heard Mr.M.Nedunchezian, petitioner appearing in person and Mr.S.Y. Masood, learned counsel for the respondent.It was dismissed by the Government and the petitioner appears to have filed a revision on the file of the Madurai Bench of this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution.Therefore, the said company filed a private complaint in C.C.No.59 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur against the writ petitioner herein as well as the editor and the publisher of the aforesaid monthly magazine.The private complaint was taken on file and processes were issued to the petitioner and other accused, for the alleged offences under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.The criminal complaint is pending trial.Perhaps, after tasting litigation first hand, the petitioner got interested in law and joined a law college in Bangalore and completed a three year degree in law from a college affiliated to Bangalore University.On the basis of the said degree, the petitioner applied to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu seeking enrolment.O.P.(MD).No.14573 of 2014, the Bar Council did not pass his application for enrolment.Hence, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.26216 of 2013 on the file of this Court.After the writ petition was heard and orders were reserved on 21.2.2014, the petitioner sought to withdraw the said writ petition without reserving any liberty.Therefore, the said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 17.7.2014 by the learned Judge without any liberty.But, it appears that after the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein on 17.7.2014, two orders came to be passed in M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2014 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14573 of 2014 on 1.8.2014 and 11.8.2014, permitting the enrolment of 658 candidates.In the order passed on 11.8.2014, the learned Judge observed that candidates, who have not declared their criminal background, should not be enrolled and that the right of enrolment of those candidates would be decided at the time of final disposal.Therefore, contending that there is change of circumstances, entitling him to come up with a fresh writ petition, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.The contention of the writ petitioner is two fold namely(a) that a person facing a private complaint for an alleged offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be taken to be of a criminal background, so as to make him ineligible for enrolment as an advocate; and(b) that since the petitioner joined the three year degree in law in the academic year 2008-09, Rule 28 of Schedule III of the Rules of Education, 2008 would not apply.Before considering the above contentions on merits, it is necessary to see if the present writ petition is maintainable, after the withdrawal of the first writ petition without reserving any liberty to the petitioner.Therefore, we shall examine the question of maintainability first.While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission."The order dated 17.7.2014 passed in the previous writ petition of the petitioner in W.P.No.26216 of 2013 reads as follows:-"Though the petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, gave a letter to the Registry on 10.10.2014, seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, this Court, indicated that liberty would not be granted.Thereafter, the petitioner made the following endorsement in the bundle:"I herewith withdraw the petition on 17.07.2014".In view of the endorsement made by the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty.No costs.But the moment his name was included at serial number 51 in the list of candidates to be enrolled on 2.8.2014, the cause of action with which he had approached the Court with W.P.No. 26216 of 2013 did not survive.In such circumstances, the withdrawal of his first writ petition, especially after orders were reserved and especially after the inclusion of his name in the list of candidates for enrolment on 2.8.2014, cannot operate as a bar for the present writ petition.This removal was actually a subsequent cause of action, on which the petitioner is certainly entitled to approach this Court.While the inclusion of his name in the list for enrolment on 2.8.2014, put an end to the original cause of action that led to the filing of the first writ petition, the eventual removal of his name from the list for enrolment on 2.8.2014, gave rise to a fresh cause of action.Moreover, there was yet another development.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,800,413 |
The prosecution case in a hy aforesaid sessions trial was that deceased Rajlallan Singh and accused Rajbhan Singh were real brothers.House No.3/353 situated in Ward ad No.3 Padhra, was ancestral property of deceased Rajlallan Singh and M accused Rajbhan Singh.(15-12-2017)This criminal revision is directed against order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No.382/2014; whereby, in suo-moto exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, the trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 120- B, 109, 113 and 119 of the IPC against petitioner Anand Singh Parihar, Assistant Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Rewa.The facts giving rise to this criminal revision are rather peculiar.sh Accused persons Rajbhan Singh and Ranbir Singh are facing trial in the e Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, for the offence ad punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC Pr for committing murder of deceased Rajlallan Singh and attempting commit murder of his son Neeraj Singh.A Civil Suit No.166-A/2012 for partition of aforesaid house, was pending between Rajlallan Singh and Rajbhan of Singh.At that time, three tenants lived in the front portion of the house rt and accused Rajbhan Singh along with his daughter and two ou grandsons, lived in the rear portion of the house.An application was given to Collector, Rewa in the name of one Ramkaran Vishwakarma on C 15.07.2013 to the effect that aforesaid house was in a dilapidated h condition and is required to be demolished.This application was ig marked to Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rewa for further H action.On 23.09.2013, it was received by petitioner Anand Singh Parihar, who was Assistant Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Rewa.After completing formalities, petitioner Anand Singh Parihar proceeded to the spot along with demolition squad of Municipal Corporation, Rewa and JCB Machine to house no. 3/353 to demolish the same.Deceased Rajlallan Singh had also reached the spot along with his son Neeraj Singh and other friends to witnessed the demolition.Rajbhan Singh and other tenants protested against demolition on the ground that they had never received any notice for demolition of the house and were never given any opportunity of being heard; therefore, the house be not demolish immediately; however, Demolition Squad did not relent and demolished the house.During demolition proceedings, an sh altercation took place between deceased Rajlallan Singh and accused Rajbhan Singh.The petitioner was taken into custody.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,809,540 |
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.)Accused-appellant stood for trial in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2009 (State v. Sewak, Case Crime No. 320 of 2008), under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi and came to be convicted by said Court, vide judgment and order dated 07.12.2011, sentencing him under Section 304 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo six months' additional imprisonment.Appellant sought interference of this Court by filing this Jail Appeal from Jail through Jail Superintendent concerned.2. Prosecution story, in brief, as came out from First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') and factual matrix of the case is that accused-appellant and victim-Raja Ram were detained in Central Jail, Varansi in respective cases.On 14/15.09.2008 at about 1:00 am (mid-night), prisoner-Sewak attacked victim-Rajaram with brick.Resultantly, victim sustained serious injuries on his nose and head.He was admitted in Jail Hospital but no improvement shown, hence, on 15.09.2008, he was referred to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for better treatment.On the same day, he was further referred to Shiv Prasad Gupt, Regional Hospital, Varanasi.During treatment, on 16-17.09.2008 at about 12:20 (midnight) victim-Rajaram succumbed to injuries.3. PW-1 submitted typed written report Ex.Ka-1 through Kundan Singh (not examined) to Station House Officer, Police Station Shivpur to lodge FIR against accused-appellant.Deceased was undergoing imprisonment under Section 302 IPC in Central Jail Varanasi.PW-1, on 17.09.2008, sent another typed communication Ex.Ka-2 to Additional City Magistrate, Varanasi requesting him to conduct inquest over the dead body deceased.Both communications were also sent to Senior Officers concerned.On the basis of written report Ex.PW-1 Suresh Chandra, Senior Superintendent of Central Jail, Varanasi deposed that in the mid-night of 14/15.09.2008, accused-appellant-Sewak assaulted Raja Ram with brick, due to which, he sustained injureis on his nose and head.Victim was admitted in Jail Hospital, where from, he was referred to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for better treatment.At about 1:00 am, in the intervening night, he went toilet, when he heard noise.He came from toilet and saw that victim-Raja Ram was injured and mouth was bleeding.Ka-1, chick FIR, Ex.Ka-4 was registered by Constable of Police Station concerned, as Case Crime No. 320 of 2008, under Section 304, IPC against accused-appellant.Entry of case was made in General Diary.5. PW-8, Indrasan Singh, Additional City Magistrate held inquest on the dead body of Raja Ram, got prepared inquest report Ex Ka-2 and other papers relating thereto, and sent body for postmortem.6. PW-10, Dr. Manoj Kumar Pathak along with Dr. S.D. Verma (not examined) conducted autopsy over dead body of prisoner Rajram and prepared postmortem report Ex. Ka-11, expressing his opinion that death was possible at about 27 hours prior to postmortem due to coma and brain hemorrhage on account of serious head injuries.Doctor found following ante-mortem injuries :-i. Lacerated wound 1cm x 3/4cm x scalp deep on the right side of forehead 2cm above right eyebrow and 4cm outer to midline.Stitch wound 3cm long on the right side of forehead 1cm above right eyebrow and 4cm outer to midline.Stitch wound 1cm in length present on left side of nose.Contusion 20cm x 11cm on the right side of face and forehead.7. PW-9, SI Chandra Kant Singh, commenced investigation, proceeded to spot, recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of incident, prepared site plan, Ex. Ka-9, and collected blood stained and simple earth from spot.Thereafter, he was transferred and further investigation was undertaken by SI R.N. Pandey who recorded statement of witnesses of inquest and statement of accused-appellant and after completing entire formalities of investigation, submitted charge-sheet, Ex.Ka-10, against the accused-appellant.Case, being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, was committed to Sessions Judge, wherefrom, it was transferred to Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi for disposal in accordance with law.Trial Court framed charge on 16.04.2011 against accused-appellant under Section 304 IPC, which reads as under :-That at 1.00 o'clock in the night of 14/15-9-2008, in Barrack No.-1, Chakra No.-4 of Central Jail, Varanasi under Police Station- Shivpur, District- Varanasi, you, in prosecution of your common object, attacked on the head of convicted prisoner Rajaram by brick with an intention to kill him and caused fatal injuries; in consequence whereof aforesaid Rajaram died during treatment.(English Translation by Court)Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, out of whom PW-1, 2, 8, 9, and 10 are formal in nature and PW-3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are witness of fact.No. Name of PWs Nature of witness Paper proved 1 Suresh Chandra Formal Ex. Ka-1 and 2 2 S.N. Dwivedi Formal Nil 3 Ramayan Giri Fact Nil 4 Shyam Deo Fact Nil 5 Putti Lal Fact Nil 6 Angad Dhobi Fact Nil 7 Sri Prakash Rai Fact Nil 8 Indrasan Singh Formal Ex.Ka-2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 9 SI Chandra Kant Singh Formal Ex.Ka-9 and 10 10 Dr. Manoj Kumar Pathak Formal Ex.Ka-11Accused -appellant denied prosecution story in toto.Entire story is said to be wrong, he claimed false implication in the case and produced DW-1 and DW-2 in defence evidence.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi, after hearing learned counsel for parties and analysing entire evidence (oral and documentary) led by prosecution, found accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him, as stated above.Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae assailed impugned order of conviction and sentence, advancing following submissions :-i. Evidently, incident took place in the mid-night in Central Jail Varnasi, where a number prisnors were detained but no one has come forward to support the prosecution case.PW-1 and 2 are not the witnesses of fact.As per prosecution story, they were not present on the spot at the time of incident.PW-3 to 6 are said to be witnesses of fact but they have not supported prosecution case and turned hostile.PW-8, 9 and 10 are formal witnesses.v. DW-1 and 2 have not been considered properly by Trial Court.It has convicted accused-appellant on the basis of surmises.Trial Court did not appreciate evidence on record in right perspective and without application of mind convicted the accused-appellant wrongly.Admittedly, accused and deceased were detained in the same Barack and quarrel started between them, which resulted in death of victim.Although time, date, place, nature of injuries found on the person of deceased and caused death, as stated by prosecution, could not be disputed from the side of accused but according to learned counsel for accused-appellant, he is not responsible for causing death of victim-Raja Ram.Even otherwise, from the evidence of prosecution, time, date place and death of victim stood established.On the same date, victim was further referred to Shiv Prasad Gupt, Regional Hospital, Varanasi, where he underwent treatment.He further deposed that on receiving information about death of victim, he submitted a written report Ex.Ka-1 through Kundan Singh, Deputy Jailer to Police Station concerned.He further deposed that deceased Raja Ram, a convict under Section 302 IPC was transferred from District Jail, Gonda.In cross examination, at page No. 23 of Paper-book, witness admitted that he had received telephonic information of incident, through Kundan Singh, Deputy Jailer at 1:45 am.When he received information, he visited spot and saw that there was injury on neck and forehead of victim and it was bleeding.Witness further deposed that after death of Raja Ram, during investigation, accused-appellant told him that Raja Ram used to abuse him continuously, therefore, he attacked him with brick.This statement of PW-1 appears to be a development because it has come into light about three years after incident and it finds no place in Ex.20. PW-2, S.N. Dwivedi, deposed that in 2008, he was posted as Jailer in Central Jail, Varanasi.He was on leave on the day of incident.When he returned from leave, he came to know about incident.21. PW-3, Ramayan Giri, deposed that on the fateful day, he was detained in Central Jail.He was sleeping on his bed No. 58 in the night of incident.At about 1:00 am, he woke up on hearing noise and saw that victim-Raja Ram was lying in injured position and many persons of Barack were present.He did not see accused-appellant-Sewak assaulting victim-Raja Ram.Witness was declared hostile on the request of prosecution and he has been cross-examined by State but nothing material could be brought so as to disbelieve his statement upon oath in examination-in-chief.In same Barack, accused-Sewak and victim-Raja Ram (both convict) were also present.At 1:00 am in night, he woke up on hearing noise and saw that there was a crowed in Barrack and victim-Raja Ram was injured.He did not see anybody attacking him.Witness was declared hostile on the request of prosecution and cross-examined by State but nothing material could be brought so as to disbelieve his statement upon oath in examination-in-chief.Accused-Sewak and victim-Raja Ram were detained in same Barrack.At about 1:00 pm, in intervening night of 14/15.09.2008, he was sleeping in Barrack.On hearing noise, he saw there were many persons in Barrack and victim-Raja Ram was lying in injured position.He did not see anybody attacking Raja Ram.He did not know how Raja Ram was injured.Witness was declared hostile on the request of prosecution and cross-examined by State but nothing material could be brought so as to disbelieve his statement upon oath in examination-in-chief.He was also a convict in Jail.Witness was declared hostile on the request of prosecution and cross-examined by State but nothing material could be brought so as to disbelieve his statement upon oath in examination-in-chief.25. PW-7, Prakash Rai, deposed that he was detained as convict in Central Jail, Varanasi in September 2008 and deputed as Chaukidar as convict.He did not see anybody assaulting victim-Raja Ram who has been injured in incident.Witness was declared hostile on the request of prosecution and cross-examined by State but nothing material could be brought so as to disbelieve his statement upon oath in examination-in-chief.26. PW-8, Indrasan Singh, Additional City Magistrate, is an officer who held inquest over dead body of deceased-Raja Ram.Witness prepared inquest report Ex.Ka-2 and relevant papers relating thereto.PW-9, SI Chandra Kant Singh, Investigating Officer of case conducted investigation and proved charge-sheet.PW-10, Dr. Manoj Kumar Pathak, conducted autopsy of dead body of deceased-Raja Ram and prepared postmortem report, Ex.28. DW-1, Loha Singh, and DW-2, Sahab Patel, both convict and detained in Central Jail, Varanasi, at the time of incident, established that victim-Raja Ram and accused-appellant-Sewak were good friends.They had good relations among them.They further deposed that, at about 1:00 am, in the intervening night, they woke up on hearing noise and saw that some bricks fell down from damaged roof, where Raja Ram slept and he sustained injuries on his nose, head and mouth.These witnesses withstood lengthy cross-examination but unblemished.29. PW-1 and PW-2, although, officers of Jail, did not speak anything against accused-appellant in their deposition.They were not present on the spot, at the time of incident.PW-8 to 10 are formal witnesses.PW-3 to 7, who were said to be present on the spot, as eye witnesses but none of them supported prosecution case.They did not say single word in their deposition against accused-appellant to implicate him.DW-1 and 2 disclosed a separate story that due to dilapidated condition of Barrack, incident happened.There is nothing on record so as to disbelieve their statements.There is no iota of evidence against accused-appellant to connect him with present crime or holding him guilty.We have deeply considered entire evidence available on file to connect accused-appellant with present crime but find no iota of evidence to hold accused-appellant guilty.We are surprised as to how without any incriminating circumstances and evidence, Trial Court has sentenced accused-appellant in a serious offence.Sentencing of accused-appellant in this manner erodes a public faith on judicial system.Considering the entire facts and circumstances and evidence led by the prosecution, in entirety, we do not find any cogent and convincing evidence against accused-appellant to connect him with present crime and, in our considered opinion, accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted.Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.Impugned judgment and order dated 07.12.2011 passed, in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2009 (State v. Sewak, Case Crime No. 320 of 2008), under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi, is hereby set aside.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,418,129 |
LUNGS were congested.Tracing the history of the above criminal appeal coming to bepreferred by the appellant, what comes to be known is that a case in SessionsCase No.302 of 2001 has been registered by the respondent against theappellant and his mother for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and498-A IPC on allegations such as that the marriage between the first accused,the appellant herein, and the deceased Parvathi was solemnized in the year1995; that thereafter both the appellant and his mother, the second accusedbefore the Court of Sessions, started harassing the said Parvathi demandingdowry and without being able to bear with the dowry harassment and torture,the said Parvathi, the wife of the appellant, committed suicide by hanging on9.4.1999 at 4.30 p.m. at D.No.2, Jeevanandan Street, K.K.Nagar, Chennai andhence the charge against both the accused under the provisions of the IPC,extracted supra.P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers ofthe deceased, P.W.3 is the sister-in-law of the appellant/first accused, P.W.4is the sister's son of the first accused, P.W.5 was the Tahsildar, Mambalam,P.Ws.6 and 7 are the mahazar witnesses, P.W.8 is the Post Mortem Doctor, P.W.9is the Grade-I Constable, who was in-charge of the body of the deceased forpost mortem, P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police who registered the complaintand FIR and P.W.11 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police and theInvestigating Officer.Besides the examination of the above witnesses for oral evidence,eight documents and one material object would also be marked as Exs.P.1 to P.8and M.O.1 respectively, Ex.P.1 being the complaint dated 1 1.12.2001, Ex.P.2dated 12.12.2001 is the statement of P.W.3 before the Tahsildar, Exs.P.3 andP.4 respectively dated 12.12.2001 and 19.12 .2001 being the post mortemcertificates, Exs.P.5 to P.8 all dated 19 .12.2001 being respectively the FIR,the sketch, the observation mahazar and the seizure mahazar.The solematerial object M.O.1 is the cream colour saree recovered from the body of thedeceased.With these evidence placed on record, the trial Judge, havingframed certain points which surfaced for consideration, such as (1) whetherthe deceased died within seven years of the marriage? (2) whether thedeceased died in an unnatural manner? and (3) whether the death of thedeceased had occurred on account of the dowry harassment and torture?, andhaving appreciated the evidence in the context of the facts and circumstancesof the case, has ultimately arrived at the conclusion to hold that theprosecution has proved the case against the first accused/the appellant hereinfor the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC therebyawarding a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine ofRs.5,000/=, in default to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths for the commission of the offence held proved under Section 304-B IPCand for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, inflicting a sentence of rigorousimprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/=, in default to undergo afurther rigorous imprisonment for three months and the sentences to runconcurrently and acquitting the second accused therein, holding that theprosecution has failed to prove its case against the second accused.It is only against this judgment of conviction and sentence passedby the Court of II Fast Track Sessions Judge, Chennai, the first accused haspreferred the above criminal appeal on grounds such as (i) that the learnedJudge has failed to note that P.Ws.1 and 2 have alleged that the accuseddemanded Rs.20,000/= as dowry and the same was given by P.W.1 by obtainingloan from a finance company without any documentary evidence produced in proofof the same; (ii) that the learned Judge failed to note that even after thedeath of the deceased, the relationship was cordial in between the twofamilies and the death was only a mere suicide and not a dowry death; (iii)that the prosecution has failed to prove as to what had happened in between4.4.1999 and 9.4.1999; (iv) that the presumption of the learned Judge underSection 113-B of the Evidence Act is wrong; (v)that the learned Sessions Judgehas failed to note that a case of suicide has been converted to that of adowry death; (vi) that no independent witnesses have been examined by theprosecution though they were available, which is fatal to the case of theprosecution.Assessing the case of the prosecution in evidence, P.W.1, theelder brother of the deceased would depose that he is married and has twofemale children; that his younger sister was married to the first accusedadorned with jewels weighing 20 sovereigns and with a cash of Rs.10,000/=;that after the marriage, the appellant had pledged all the jewels in the nameof the purchase of an autorickshaw but he spent all the money taking drinksand thereafter started pestering the deceased by demand of dowry to getRs.20,000/= lest she could not come and live with him; that his youngerbrother Vadivel obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/= from finance and gave it to hissister and even thereafter the appellant started torturing the deceased andunder the guise of intoxication, which she used to complain to the witness;that thereafter he demanded Rs.1 lakh for the purchase of a lorry and sincethe same was not given, he started torturing her; that the elder members ofthe family, on 4.4.1999 went and consoled them; that on a Friday, at about5.30 p.m., when he was at home, a boy came and informed him that his sisterdied of hanging; that himself, his step-mother and his wife rushed to hissister's house and saw the body of his sister; that the first accused hadillicit connection with another lady at M.G.R.Nagar; that the second accusedalso hearing the words of the first accused started harassing the deceased;that he lodged the complaint with the police.8. P.W.3, the sister-in-law of the first accused would depose thatthe marriage was an arranged one by elder members of both families; that afterthe marriage, the first accused had a separate residence of his own along withhis wife and they had a female child also now aged about 5 years; that thefirst accused is her brother-in-law and the second accused is his mother andshe knows nothing about the first accused since he was living separately; thatthe deceased Parvathi was also not in the habit of talking to anyone freely;that on the date of occurrence, her brother-in-law having knocked at the doorssince it was not open, she went and opened the door and saw the deceasedhanging; that they untied the knot and removed Parvathi to the Hospital whereshe was pronounced dead and that they sent information to her parental home.9. P.W.4 is the nephew of the first accused and this witness besidesgiving his relationship with parties, particularly the accused and his family,would also depose to the effect that the first accused was living as aseparate family running an auto; that he did not know his habits since he wasnot in the habit of paying visit to their house; that on 9.4.1999, at theplace of occurrence, his uncle Shankar was crying; that himself, the saidShankar and Valli joining together, opened the door and he saw inside thedeceased hanging; that the said Shankar lifted the deceased and untied theknot and she was taken to the Hospital where she was pronounced dead; that thedeceased hanged herself with the help of the saree.10. P.W.5 is Tahsildar of Mambalam having jurisdiction over the placeof occurrence and this witness would depose that from R.7 Police Station, thecase in Cr.No.665/1999 was brought up for his enquiry regarding the suicide byhanging of one Parvathi, w/o.Chandru on 9.4.1999 ; that having obtained theFIR on 10.4.1999, he referred the body for Post Mortem and conducted theinquest in the presence of the panchayatdars and prepared inquest report andforwarded the same to the District Collector; that the statements of thepanchayatdars and relatives of the deceased recorded are Ex.11. P.W.6 would depose that he was an auto driver and that he did notknow anything about the occurrence, but the police sent for him and asked himto put his signatures in some papers and that he did it and he did not knowwho were the accused and that the signatures found in the observation mahazarand recovery mahazar are not that of his and that he was not examined by thepolice, as a result of which this witness was treated hostile by theprosecution.P.W.7 in his deposition would also say that he was an autodriver; that he did not know who were the accused nor did he know about theoccurrence; that the police got his signature previously and the date and timehe did not know; that he was not shown any sketch or observation mahazar andwould deny the signatures found in the observation mahazar and the recoverymahazar resulting in this witness also being treated as hostile.P.W.8 is the Post Mortem Doctor attached to Royapettah Hospitaland this witness would depose that on 10.4.1999 when he was on duty, on therequest of the Tahsildar, the body of a female viz. Parvathi aged 25 yearswas referred through Grade-I Constable Varadan and on the same day at about2.00 p.m., he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and noted thefollowing injuries:On left side of the neck,the ligature mark was 5 cm.FINGER NAILS were deep blue in colour.HYOID BONE was intact.HEART was normal and its chambers contained fluid blood.STOMACH contained 150 gms.of brownish-yellow semi solid of partly digestedcooked rice particles.Mucosa was congested.BLADDER was empty.UTERUS was emptyBRAIN's surface vessels were congested.All other internal organs were found congested.VISCERA were preserved for chemical analysis.OPINION: The deceased would appear to have "DIED OF ASPHYXIA DUE TO HANGING"The certificate issued by this witness would be marked as Ex.P.W.9 is the Grade-I Constable who was in-charge of the body ofthe deceased and he would depose that he entrusted the dead body of thedeceased with P.W.8 along with the requisition at Royapettah GovernmentHospital and on the next date, i.e. on 10.4.1999, after the post mortem wasover, he entrusted the body with the elder brother of the deceased and gavethe report to the Sub Inspector of Police.P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police of R.7 K.K.Nagar Police Stationon 9.4.1999 serving as the Inspector of Police, Law and Order and this witnesswould depose that on 9.4.1999 one Sundaramurthy, aged 36, son of Ganesan cameand lodged Ex.P.1 complaint, on receipt of which, at 8.45 p.m. that day, heregistered the case in Cr.No.665/1999 under Section 304-B IPC and sent theoriginal FIR to the Court along with the complaint; that he went to the spotand in the presence of the mahazar witnesses, he prepared the observationmahazar and the rough sketch respectively in Exs.P.6 and P.7; that around11.00 p.m., he recovered M.O.1 saree under the cover of Ex.P.8 mahazar; thatthe deceased got married 5 years back and therefore for further investigation,he referred the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saidapet, L&Oalong with a tapal; that day, he examined witnesses Sundaramurthy, Vadivelu,Annamalai, Dhanalakshmi, Maragatham, Valli, Mariyamall, Karthik, Sankar,Rakesh and Sardar Khan and then on 10.4.1999, he arrested both the accused andproduced them before the Court of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,Chennai, who remanded the accused to judicial custody and that he assisted theAssistant Commissioner of Police, Saidapet in his investigation.This witnesswould also depose that he sent the body for post mortem along with theconstable.P.W.11, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saidapet, L&O andInvestigating Officer in the above case would depose that on 12.4.199 9, onreceipt of the FIR from the Inspector of Police R7 K.K.Nagar Police Station inCr.ADVANCE ORDERIn result,(i)the above Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
|
['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.
|
1,418,136 |
The facts giving rise to these two revision applications are: Orders admittedly amounting to orders of acquittal were passed in 16 cases under Section 30(2) of the Police Act in respect of more than 200 accused who had been prosecuted for directing or promoting a procession without a licence between 9 and 9.30 a.m., on 3-3-58 at Akola.8 or these persons (who are applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 471 of 1959) were prosecuted again along with others under Sections.147, 332, 34, 149 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed rioiing and for having voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, at 10.30 a.m., on 3-3-58 at Akola.12 of the 200 persons (who are applicants in Criminal Revision Application No. 469 of 1959) were subsequently prosecuted along with others for having committed ofrenccs under Sections 147, 332, 34, 149 of the Indian Penal Code at 1.30 p.m. on 3-3-58 at Akola.The contention of these applicants that the two prosecutions are barred in view of the provisions of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, was rejected by the trying Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Judge, and the same contention is now urged before the High Court in these two revisions.The Criminal Procedure Code will hereinafter be referred to as the Code.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,324,104 |
::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 :::Commissioner of Police and Ors.4] Shri Deshpande, learned APP for respondent nos. 1 to 4 supports the impugned order contending that application of mind is indeed seen on overall consideration of the impugned order and that there is sufficient material available on record to conclude that if no action of externment under Section 57 of the Act of 1951 is taken::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 ::: Judg CrWP 347.2020 .odt 3 against the petitioner, the petitioner may or would engage in commission of similar offence for which he has been convicted earlier.5] Shri Rai, learned Counsel for intervener - applicant adopts the argument of learned APP and thus he also supports the impugned order.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 :::8] In the present case, there are three offences on which reliance has been placed by the respondents and the intervener -::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 :::Judg CrWP 347.2020 .odt 4 applicant.First offence registered as Crime No. 3033/2015 related to two felonies punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the "I.P.C.").So, offence as registered vide Crime No. 3033/2015 against the petitioner is wholly irrelevant in the present case.The third crime on which reliance has been placed is Crime No. 78/2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294 and 506 of the I.P.C.. But, in this Crime,::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 ::: Judg CrWP 347.2020 .odt 5 criminal proceedings are still pending and no conviction has been recorded and, therefore, again we would say this crime would not be relevant for the purposes of Section 57 of the Act of 1951 as what is required is the conviction and not mere registration of any offence or pendency of any criminal proceeding.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 :::9] So, facts of the case indicate that the only offence for which the petitioner has been convicted and which is relevant for the purposes of Section 57 of the Act of 1951 is of Section 342 read with Section 341 of the I.P.C. Now, the next requirement would be, about which we have already mentioned earlier, of the apprehension nurtured by the empowered officer regarding possibility of the person committing the same offence for which he has been convicted earlier.For this purpose, presence of some material would be necessary so that one can say that such an apprehension is not without any reasonable foundation.On going through the impugned order, we find that there is not even a whisper made by respondent no. 2 regarding presence of such material.In fact, the impugned order nowhere makes any reference about the satisfaction and the belief of the empowered officer i.e. respondent no. 2 that if no action of externment under Section 57 of the Act of 1951 is taken against the petitioner, the petitioner may again repeat the same offence for which he has been convicted earlier.These apprehensions are about the possibility of the petitioner misusing the freedom of expression by getting published false news, the petitioner creating atmosphere of fear and terror, the petitioner giving false information to the Police Officers and instigating them to conduct unjustified raids under Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and so on and so forth.These reasons nowhere refer to the possibility of the petitioner committing similar offence for which he was convicted earlier.Then, there is also no material present on record that illegal activity of the petitioner can possibly extend to adjoining districts.It is obvious that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and also vice of consideration of wholly irrelevant material and, therefore, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 :::10] The petition is, therefore, allowed.The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside.Application (APPW) No. 90/2020 is disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2020 02:24:00 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,347,518 |
2) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::Accused no. 2 Gurunath Rathod was working as a Police Constable.They were attached to Akluj outpost police station, Shripur, Taluka Malshiras.Both the accused were public servants.4) It is the case of prosecution that on 09/10/1993 at about 6.00 p.m., both the accused informed P.W. 4 Shrimant Jorwar that a complaint had been filed against them and that they should come to Shripur police station.P.W. 4 and his father Baliram had been to the outpost police station.Shrimant was informed that State Farming Corporation (Hereinafter referred as "SFC") had lodged a report against him and had initiated proceedings for cultivating the land block no. 23 which was in possession of SFC.Balwant Jorwar was in possession of 2 Acres and 5 Gunthas land in Block No. 37 and the remaining land was in possession of SFC.Hence, there was a civil dispute between SFC and Balwant Jorwar.Suit was pending before Civil Judge Junior Division, Malshiras.In the intervening period i.e. on 29/05/1993, Tahsildar, Malshiras had decided the ROR (Record of Rights) proceedings in favour of SFC and had further given direction that the name of SFC be included in the Record of Rights (7/12 ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 4 26.570.97 apeal Extract) in the coloumn cultivation.5) It is the case of prosecution that on 16/09/1993, manager had filed an application to Akluj Police Station contending therein that Baliram Jorwar had devoid the orders passed by Tahsildar and was cultivating the land block no. 23 of village Mire.At the relevant time, both the accused were attached to Akluj outpost police station.On 09/10/1993 accused had been to village Mire and informed Baliram Jorwar about the report filed by SFC.They had taken Baliram Jorwar and his sons Shrimant, Kundalik and Pandurang to the police station.At that relevant time, Assistant Security Officer of SFC was also accompanying the accused as well as the members of Jorwar family.Accused had informed shrimant Jorwar that he would have to cause arrest of Balwant & Shrimant on the basis of report lodged by SFC.That Shrimant Jorwar had requested the accused not to take coercive steps.At that juncture, accused no. 1 had demanded a gratification of Rs. 5000/- in the eventuality that Jorwars do not wish to be arrested.That the amount was negotiated and reduced to Rs. 3000/-.It is also alleged that accused no. 1 had informed them that upon failure to pay Rs. 3000/- they would be taken into custody.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::On this condition Balwant and Shrimant were released from Police Station.6) That Shrimant Jorwar had no intention to pay illegal gratification and therefore, on 11/10/1993, he approached the office of Anti Corruption Bureau at Solapur and lodged a report.Report lodged by him was reduced into writing by Dy.S.P. Chavan.That Dy.S.P. of A.C.B.had decided to arrange for a trap and had taken effective steps for the same.The procedure for laying a trap and use of anthracene powder was explained to the complainant.S.P. had recorded the Pre-trap Panchanama and thereafter, raiding party had proceeded to lay the trap.Two Panchas were deputed, one was Shri.Khalase who was to act as shadow witness.Specific instructions were given to complainant Shri.Jorwar that he should part with the tainted notes in favour of the accused "Only on a specific demand made by the accused".::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::had noticed that police jeep parked on the road and accused no. 2 was seated in the jeep.Thereafter, accused no. 2 accompanied the complainant Shrimant and the shadow witness Panch no. 1 Khalase to the police station.Accused no. 1 was present in the police station.Initially there was a formal talk between the complainant and the accused and thereafter, accused no. 1 had specifically enquired with the complainant about the money and also enquired as to whether he had brought the amount as agreed.Complainant had answered in the affirmative.Thereafter, accused no. 1 had directed accused no. 2 to accept the said amount from the complainant.Thereafter, accused no. 2 had entered into the rear room.There he had accepted the amount from the complainant.Soon thereafter, complainant had given the pre-determined signal and raiding party had accosted the accused.It is the case of the prosecution that accused no. 2 had concealed the said tainted notes in a newspaper.The raiding party had thereafter taken stock of the tainted notes and examined the hands of accused no. 2 below ultra-violet lamp.The sparkling of blue light made it clear that ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 7 26.570.97 apeal he had accepted the tainted notes as anthracene powder had been applied to the said tainted notes.16) P. W. 2 Popat Indarkar was the owner of the jeep bearing no. MH-He has deposed before the court that on 11/10/1993 he was at Shripur at about 5.30 p.m. He had parked his jeep at Shivaji Chowk and was standing near the jeep.Accused no. 2 was standing near the Pan stall.Accused no. 2 boarded the jeep and asked P.W. 2 to drive to Umbare.P.W. 2 had informed accused no. 2 that Dynama of the said jeep was out of order.It was also decided that amount should be paid at Shripur outpost.Accused no. 1 had specifically told P.W. 4 that in the eventuality he failed to pay the agreed amount, he and his father would be arrested and produced before the court.It is in these circumstances that P.W. 4 had agreed to pay the demanded amount on Monday i.e. after 2 days.P.W. 4 was not willing to extend illegal gratification and therefore, approached office A.C.B. at Solapur.he was apprised of the use of anthracene powder.Pre-trap Panchanama was recorded.He was given specific instructions and it was decided that a trap would be laid.jeep, the raiding party went to Shripur via Mohol-Pandharpur-Tondale Bondale.When they came to Shivaji Chowk, they saw one jeep was parked there.22) P. W. 5 Mohan Ambodkar was working as Assistant Security Officer with SFC.One of his duty was to prevent encroachment and remove encroachment.He used to maintain a diary.P.W. 5 has deposed before the court that on 09/10/1993, he was called by S.D. Patil the ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 18 26.570.97 apeal then in-charge Manager.P.W. 5 was informed by Mr. Patil that Balwant Jorwar and his kins were attempted to sow Jawar in land Gat No. 37 owned by SFC and that he should remove the said encroachment.He had been to Gat No. 37 along with a surveyor Mr. Jangam.He had noticed that Jawar was scattered on the ground.An attempt was being made to cultivate the said land.(i) It is his case that he had not demanded the amount."On 11th I came at outpost from outside.Both persons were sitting in the outside room.I went to the inner room and I was drinking water.Somebody came from backside.I turned back but that person has disappeared while I was coming outside.I noticed bundle in the paper in the rack.Out of curiosity I picked up the same and opened.Accused/appellant no. 1 is convicted for offence punishable under section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of one and half years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.He is also convicted for offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of Six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months.Hence, these appeals.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::The denomination of the said notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the Pre-trap Panchanama.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::8) Dy.S.P. Chavan lodged a report at Shripur Police Station on the basis of which crime no. 159 of 1993 was registered against both the accused.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.9) P.W. 1 Narayan Nana Khalase has deposed before the court that in the year 1993 he was working as clerk in the office of Soil Conservation Officer, Solapur.On 11/10/1993, Superintendent of the office had deputed P.W. 1 to the office of A.C.B. on request.Another Panch Shri.Pyare had also been deputed to act as a Panch.That there was an unknown person at the police station.His report was reduced into writing.Pre-trap Panchanama was signed by him.Panchas were given ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 8 26.570.97 apeal instructions.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::10) As far as incident in question is concerned, he has deposed before the court that on 11/10/1993 he was a member of raiding party.They had reached Shivaji Chowk.They found that a jeep was parked there.It was about 6.00 p.m. One person was sitting in the jeep by the side of the driver.Complainant informed P.W. 1 that the said person seated next to the driver was constable Rathod.P.W. 1 has identified accused no. 2 before the court.he reciprocated the same.Thereafter accused no. 2 had questioned the complainant and complainant had replied that he had come as suggested by Nadgire Saheb.Complainant, upon enquiry by accused no. 2 had also stated that his father had not come and that he was being accompanied by a relative.members of the raiding party were following them.They went to Shripur outpost.Officer was sitting in the police station.They had exchanged greetings.Two other persons were sitting in front of the ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 9 26.570.97 apeal officer.Accused no. 1 had questioned the complainant about the identity of P.W. 1, upon which complainant had informed accused no. 1 that P.W. 1 is his paternal cousin.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::12) P.W. 1 has categorically stated in the examination-in-chief that accused no. 1 had asked the complainant as to whether he had brought money.Complainant answered in the affirmative.Then accused no. 1 gave signal to accused no. 2 to take the complainant to the rear room.Accused no. 2 went inside and gave a signal to the complainant to come in the rear room.13) P. W. 1 had attempted to follow the complainant but was directed by accused no. 1 to be seated.P.W. 1 observing the events happening in the inner room as there was clear visibility.Accused no. 2 counted the currency notes with both the hands.In the meanwhile, complainant had given the pre-determined signal.P.W. 1 has specifically stated that accused no. 2 had then picked up one waste newspaper lying in that room and concealed the currency ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 10 26.570.97 apeal notes in that piece of paper and kept the bundle in his left palm.Within no time the raiding party entered into the inner room.P.W. 1 had informed the raiding party that accused no. 2 had accepted the tainted notes.Hands of accused no. 2 were seen under ultra-violet lamp and it showed presence of anthracene powder by emitting blue colour shining.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::14) Dy.S.P. Anti Corruption had then inquired with accused no. 1 to disclose his identity.He produced certain papers which were seized.S.P. had then inquired with other two persons who were sitting in the police station.Accused no. 1 was sitting on the chair which was adjacent to the eastern side wall.P.W. 1 has denied the suggestion that events in the inner room could not be seen from the place where he was seated.He has admitted that he did not enter into the inner side room and therefore he could not give the topography of ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 11 26.570.97 apeal the inner room.It is pertinent to note that despite lengthy cross-::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::examination, defence has failed to make a dent in the substantive evidence of P.W. 1 as was narrated in his examination-in-chief, more particularly the aspect of demand and acceptance by accused no. 2 and the fact that accused no. 1 had given a signal to the accused no. 2 to accept the amount on his behalf.P.W. 1 has proved the Pre-trap Panchanama dated 11/10/1993 as well as Post-trap Panchanama.At that juncture, two persons had come near the jeep.They extended their ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 12 26.570.97 apeal greetings to accused no. 2 and thereafter, accused no. 2 along with the said two persons went to the police outpost.P.W. 2 was not acquainted with the two persons whom accused no. 2 had accompanied.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::17) P.W. 3 Bhagwan Shinde happens to be the person who was in the police station at the relevant time.He has deposed before the court that on 11/10/1993, accused no. 2 and one Datta had met him at Malewadi.They informed him that the matter between P.W. 3 and Mulumbkar was not settled and hence, he was called by the police officer at Akluj.Accused no. 2 had asked P.W. 3 to inform the said fact to Nadgire i.e. accused no. 1 at Shripur outpost.Thereafter, P.W. 3 along with Mulumbkar went to Akluj and contacted Aba Patil who had settled their dispute.Aba Patil had made efforts to contact at police outpost but there was no contact.As suggested by Aba Patil, P.W. 3 and Mulumbkar had been to Shripur outpost to inform accused no. 1 that dispute between them is settled.He then went to Shripur.On the way he had met Humbe who accompanied him to Shripur outpost.P.W. 3 informed accused no. 1 that the dispute with Pandhari was settled.In the meanwhile two persons had come to the police outpost.After 10 minutes accused no. 2 had come.He went to the inner room.One person followed accused no. 2 to the inner room and returned within a short while and then 5 - 6 persons came running to the outpost.He has further deposed that accused no. 1 had not asked that person whether he has brought money.There was no talk between them.At this juncture, prosecution had declared him hostile.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::18) P. W. 4 Shrimant Jorwar is the original complainant who had set the law in motion.He has deposed before the court that on 09/10/1993 at about 6.00 p.m., head constable Nadgire and Constable Rathod had been to his village in the jeep of SFC and told him that SFC had filed a complaint against him and therefore he should come to Shripur Police Station.Pursuant to the said call, P.W. 4 and his father accompanied both the accused in the same jeep to Shripur outpost.They were taken to Akluj Police Station.There, accused no. 1 had informed P.W. 4 that on the basis of the report filed by SFC he would have to arrest P.W. 4 and his father.P.W. 4 had requested accused no. 1 ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 14 26.570.97 apeal not to arrest him since his service and career was at stake.At that juncture, accused no. 1 had demanded Rs. 5,000/- for not arresting him and to close the matter.There was negotiation.P.W. 4 had informed accused no. 1 that he cannot give the amount for the following 2-3 days and therefore, accused no. 1 had granted him time up to Monday to pay the said amount.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::He was also instructed to pay the bribe amount to accused no. 1 only after a specific demand is made.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::Accused no. 2 was sitting in the jeep.P.W. 4 apprised the shadow witness P.W. 1 that the person seated in the jeep is accused no.At the outpost, accused no. 1 was seated in the chair and was facing West.P.W. 4 and Accused no. 1 had exchanged greetings.Two other persons were sitting on the bench.Thereafter, accused no. 1 gave a signal to accused no. 2 to go inside.To the court question, P.W. 4 has stated as follows:"A.No.1 had asked me whether I have brought money and I answered in the affirmative."20) P. W. 4 has further stated that accused no. 2 had called him by giving a signal by neck.He therefore followed accused no. 2 in the rear room.There, accused no. 2 demanded money.thereafter, P.W. 4 had given a pre-determined signal to the raiding party.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::The Dy.S.P. had informed accused no. 2 of his identity.P.W. 4 has reported that as soon as they entered into the police outpost, accused no. 1 had enquired with him as to whether he had brought money.It is admitted that on third day of arrest his brothers were released on jail.It is also admitted that accused no. 1 had sent charge-sheet against his brothers and the case is pending before the court.21) P. W. 4 has admitted that Tahsildar, Malshiras had recorded a finding that SFC is in possession of Gat No. 23, however, P.W. 4 has filed ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 17 26.570.97 apeal an appeal challenging the said order.That the name of SFC is recorded in coloumn of occupant in the 7/12 extract.It is also admitted that SFC had filed civil suit no. R.C.S. No. 33 of 1993 against his father in respect of Block no. 23 for the relief of injunction and that the court had ordered to maintain Status-quo.The tenor of cross-examination of P.W. 4 would lead to suggest that the complainant P.W. 4 has implicated accused no. 1 since he was annoyed with him and nurtured a grudge against him.At this stage, the court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the tainted currency notes were found concealed in a newspaper in the inner room of Shripur outpost.Irrespective of the motive of the complainant, the principal allegation that the amount was demanded and accepted has been established.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::He therefore, approached Shripur outpost and informed accused no. 1 about the said matter.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::1 assured him that they would visit the land in the evening.P.W. 5 had requested the manager to give him the jeep in order to take accused no.1 to the said land and accordingly Mr. Patil had provided the jeep.They had been to the house of Shrimant Jorwar.Accused no. 1 had talk with the father of Shrimant Jorwar and asked them to come to Akluj in connection with the encroachment over SFC land.Balwant Jorwar and others accompanied P.W. 5, accused no. 1 & 2 in the same jeep to Akluj Police Station.Accused, complainant and his father went to P.S.O. room.Shrimant Jorwar and his father had not accompanied P.W. 5 while returning from the police station.P.W. 5 has produced the entries in ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 19 26.570.97 apeal respect of the events that had taken place.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::23) In the cross-examination, P.W. 5 has admitted that at about 9.30 p.m. Advocate Prakash patil had been to the police station and P.W. 5 had informed him about the encroachment made by Balwant Jorwar.Prakash Patil had assured P.W. 5 and in view of the order of status-quo passed by the court, Balwant Jorwar should not indulge into such activities and that he would advise him accordingly.24) P.W. 5 was confronted with his previous statement and has denied to have made portion marked 'A' & 'B' in his statement to the effect that Prakash Patil had informed P.W. 5 that he would request accused no. 1 to settle the matter.P.W. 5 has stated that on 09/10/1993 he had not filed written application to the police station or outpost Shripur.P. W. 5 has admitted that Exhibit 31/1 is on the letter head of SFC and bears signature of Estate Manager Shri.25) P.W. 6 Suresh Kakkad was working as Superintendent of Police, Solapur, Rural.He was an Authority competent to appoint and remove the accused from their respective posts.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::26) In the cross-examination he has admitted that he had not verified whether the complaint application filed by SFC was received at Akluj Police Station.It is also admitted that draft of the sanction order was received along with papers.Sanction order was typed as per the draft.The date is not mentioned at the bottom of the sanction order and that P.W. 6 had signed the same and put the date.He has admitted in the cross-27) P. W. 7 Pandurang Bhosale was working as Maintenance Surveyor.It is suggested in the cross-examination that the map of scene of offence was not drawn as per the scale and that events in the inner room were not visible from the bench occupied by P.W. 1 at the time of incident.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::28) P. W. 8 Bhaurao Chavan was officiating as Dy.S.P. A.C.B. Solapur.He has deposed before the court about the steps taken by him in the course of investigation.(ii) He had not directed/signalled accused no. 2 to accept the amount in the inner room.(iii) He has been falsely implicated since he had arrested the brothers of the complainant Shrimant Jorwar.(iv) On 09/10/1993, he had arrested Pandurang and Pundalik Jorwar and Bharat Navgire and filed a chapter case against them.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::(vi) On 09/10/1993 when he arrested complainant's brother Pandurang Jorwar, he was abused and hence, had slapped Pandurang and therefore complainant has falsely implicated him.30) The defence of accused no. 2 is as follows.That time Anti Corruption Officers entered into inner room and they held me."31) In answer to question no. 98 in statement u/sec. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused no. 2 has stated that on 9 th he had been to village Mire along with accused no. 1 and talked to brothers of complainant and his father.32) Hence, one thing is clear that accused no. 2 has admitted that he had been to village Mire and had a conversation with Pundalik and Bharat Jorwar, brothers of complainant.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::"It has further come in his evidence that on 09/10/1993 around 6.00 p.m. you accompanied by accused no. 2 came to his village in the jeep and told him that there was complaint filed by SFC and he should come to Shripur.What have to say about this evidence.Accused no. 1 had agreed to visit the land.They had been to the house of the complainant and the complainant, his father and brothers had accompanied them to Akluj Police Station.That accused, complainant and his father had been to P.S.O. room.It can therefore, be safely inferred that prosecution has proved that on 09/10/1993, accused no. 1, accused no.2 accompanied by P.W. 5 had been to village Mire, more particularly to ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 24 26.570.97 apeal the house of Shrimant Jorwar and that Balwant Jorwar, Shrimant and other two brothers of Shrimant accompanied them to Akluj Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::35) That P.W. 4 had approached office of A.C.B. and set law into motion for laying a trap against accused no. 1 & accused no. 2 for demanding illegal gratification.36) P. W. 1 is an independent witness.He is a public servant whose services were solicited for acting as a shadow witness in the course of laying a trap.P.W. 1 has deposed before the court that on the way to Shripur outpost, they had met accused no. 2 seated in a jeep.P.W. 1 has deposed as follows:"One person was sitting in the jeep by the side of the driver of the jeep.Complainant pointed out to that person and told me that he was Rathod Constable.Complainant offered Namaskar to accused no. 2 and accused no. 2 reciprocated the same and asked the question whether they had come.Complainant replied with yes he has come as suggested by Nadgire Saheb."37) This part of the testimony of P.W. 1 has not been shaken in the cross-examination and therefore, an inference could be drawn that ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 25 26.570.97 apeal Nadgire had asked P.W. 4 to come to the outpost.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::38) P. W. 1 has further deposed that :"Accused no. 1 then asked the complainant whether he has brought the money.Complainant replied in the affirmative.Then accused no. 1 gave a signal to accused no. 2 asking him to go to inner room.Accused no. 2 went inside and by giving signal by neck, accused no. 2 called complainant inside.Then complainant went inside.I stood up and tried to go inside at that time, accused no. 1 asked me to stay there."39) This part of the testimony also has not been shaken in the cross-All that is suggested that events which had taken place in the inner room were not visible to P.W. 1 from the place where he was seated.That he had not heard the conversation between accused no. 2 and the complainant and therefore according to learned counsel for the appellants the fact of demand has not been proved.It is not the case of accused no. 2 that amount was thrusted with him or that he was forced to accept the amount.The defence of accused no. 2 is that the tainted currency notes were concealed in a bundle of newspaper by someone and out of curiosity he had opened the same and at that time, he had ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 26 26.570.97 apeal been trapped.The court cannot be oblivious of the fact that accused no.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::1 who was superior officer was seated in the outer area.The onus would lie upon the accused to rebut the said presumption or demonstrate the preponderance of probabilities to seek discharge/exoneration from the charges levelled against him.The evidence on record would clearly indicate that the tainted currency notes were found in the precinct of police station and more over accused no. 2 has specifically admitted that at the relevant time he was in the rear room and had opened the bundle out of the curiosity.It is strange that accused no. 1 who was ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 28 26.570.97 apeal sitting just outside the rear room had not noticed a stranger entering into the rear room as the police station was manned by the police personnels only.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::49) This would be a far fetched submission.Unless accused no. 2 had ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 34 26.570.97 apeal knowledge, he would not have accepted the tainted currency notes.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::W. 1 as well as P. W. 4 have categorically stated that after accepting the tainted currency notes, accused have concealed the notes in a bundle of newspaper.CBI, Coachin High ism ::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 ::: 35 26.570.97 apeal Court of Kerala [A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 2022] wherein it was held as follows :::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::That P. W. 1 and P. W. 4 have categorically described the gesture of accused no. 1 directing accused no. 2 to go in the inner room.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::59) Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Sanctioning Authority has not deposed before the court that he had accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellants upon there being a subjective satisfaction and on this count the charges levelled against the accused shall necessarily fail.It is true that there has to be a valid sanction for prosecution.Hence, it would not be proper to consider the submission that appellants deserve to be acquitted for want of valid sanction.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::63) In the present case, prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.Only in such situation, where two views are possible, court may take a view in favour of accused.Accused have failed to rebut the presumption drawn under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::criminal appeal no. 570 of 1997 due to change of Advocate.Hence, the said appeal stands dismissed.(iv) Upon failure to surrender before the Special Court Solapur, the Special Judge shall issue non-bailable warrant against the appellants, calling upon them to serve the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 01:27:17 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,358,568 |
Heard on the point of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.10014/16 which is first application under Section 397 r/w Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of applicant/ Harish S/o Suresh.The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during trial, the applicant was on bail and he never misused the liberty granted to him.Presently, he is reported to be under custody after the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.(Alok Verma) Judge sk
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,359 |
The senior officers are supposed to possess greater skill and expertise in conducting investigation.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.Appellants Kamlesh, Ram Milan and Laxmi Bai have been convicted under Sections 304B, 306 and 498A, IPC, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, seven years and two years respectively.It is not in dispute that deceased Anita committed suicide by hanging herself on 27-6-1997 in her matrimonial home in village Shivrajpur within three years of her marriage with accused Kamlesh.Accused Ram Milan is her Jeth and accused Laxmibai is her Jethani.The parents of the deceased were informed about her death by accused Ram Milan and they were present when the Panchnama Ex. P-5 of her dead body was prepared.The prosecution case is that the accused persons were demanding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a T. V. as dowry; Anita used to complain to her parents about this demand; she was being harassed by them on that count and an amount of Rs. 2,000/-was paid to them a month prior to her death.Panchamlal (P.W. 6) father of the deceased submitted a written report Ex. P-7 to the Police on 9-9-1997 stating therein that it was a case of dowry death.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and their defence is that they never demanded any dowry nor caused any harassment to Anita.The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the accused persons demanded dowry and harassed the deceased before her death and on these findings convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.It is an admitted fact that Panchamlal (P.W. 6), Batasiabai (P.W. 11) who are parents of the deceased and Naresh (P.W. 8) who is their son-in-law were present at the time of the inquest on 28-6-1997 in village Shivrajpur when the Panchnama Ex. P-5 of the dead body was prepared and also on the subsequent day and the inquiries were made from them by the police officer and their statements were recorded and in those statements not even a faint whisper was made regarding the demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased by the accused persons.The question naturally arises why they kept silent at a time when they ought to have spoken.Their silence when they had an opportunity to complain diminishes the value of their subsequent version.Panchamlal (P.W. 6) has deposed that he submitted written report Ex. P-7 on 9-9-1997 before the S.D.O. (Police), Katni.He has not given any plausible explanation in his evidence why he kept silent for nearly two and half months after the death of his daughter.He claims to have annexed this report with the charge-sheet.In the charge-sheet there is a list of documents which is annexed to it.The report dated 9-9-1997 Ex. P-7 does not find place in this list.As a matter of fact the report Ex. P-7 was produced in the Court on 20-4-2000 by Batasia Bai (P.W. 11) when her evidence was being recorded.This has been noted in para 19 of her deposition-sheet.There is a remark to this effect by the trial Court on Ex.Therefore, it is intriguing how this report went into hands of Batasiabai (P.W. 11) and she has produced it in the Court.This report was not on record when Panchamlal (P.W. 6) and Naresh (PW. 8) were examined and cross-examined.Naturally these two important witnesses of the prosecution could not be cross-examined by confronting to them the report Ex. P-7.when it: was not on record.In the report Ex. P-7 it is stated that Anita had come 2-3 times after1 her marriage from the house of her husband to her parents and then he had described that there was demand of Rs. 10,000/- and T. V. It is not specifically mentioned in this application when actually this was disclosed by Anita to her parents.According to statement of Batasia Bai (P.W. 11) in para 18 of her deposition Anita was in the house of her husband continuously for a period of eight months prior to her death.Therefore, any statement which is said to have been made by her to her parents must have been eight months before the date of her death.In this report Ex. P-7 the allegation is that Anita disclosed to her parents that she was being harassed by her husband, her Jeth and her Jethani.The details of the said harassment are not given.It is not said in this report that Anita made any complaint that she was subjected to any physical cruelty or torture.But in his evidence Panchamlal (PW. 6) has stated that Anita had disclosed that she was being beaten by all the three accused persons.It was never the prosecution case in the FIR or in the statements Under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that any physical cruelty was meted out to her by the accused persons.Naresh (P.W. 8) has stated that Anita had told him that the accused persons are saying that insufficient dowry has been given in the marriage and there is demand of Rs. 10,000/-and a T.V. This witness does not say that Anita had complained of any harassment or torture by the accused persons.In para 12 of his statement he has further clarified that he never stated before the Police that Anita told him of any physical cruelty towards her.According to him, Anita told him that she was not being treated properly.He has further stated that by ill-treatment he means that Anita was being asked to bring dowry and apart from the demand of dowry there was no other kind of harassment to her.In this report also it has been mentioned by the S.D.O. (Police) that in the earlier statements the parents of the deceased did not disclose that there was any demand of dowry or physical or mental cruelty towards the deceased by the accused persons.The source from which the amount of Rs. 2,000/- came was not investigated by the investigating officer.According to Naresh (P. 8) this amount was given to him by Panchamlal (PW. 6).On the other hand Batasia Bai (PW. 11) has stated that this amount of Rs. 2,000/- was borrowed from Naresh (PW.8) but, as already stated, Naresh (PW. 8) does not say that this amount was given by him as a loan to his father-in-law.But the statements of Panchamlal (PW. 6).Naresh (PW. 8) and Batasia Bai (P.W. 11) were recorded on 9-9-1997 in stereo type manner.These are in the handwritings of the person other than the Investigating Officer.In suitable cases the Investigating Officer can no doubt take assistance of his subordinates in dictating the statements of the witnesses to them but the examination of the witness must be made by the Investigating Officer himself so that the full information is elicited on the vague points in the FIR.The statements of the three prosecution witnesses, named-above, are on record.In recording these statements it should have been clarified when actually demand of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the T.V. was made and when the amount of Rs. 2000/- was paid.It is not in dispute that accused Ram Milan and his wife Laxmi Bai were living separately from accused Kamlesh in village Shivrajpur.The marriage of Kamlesh with Anita was the second marriage.It does not appear probable that Ram Milan and Laxmi Bai would demand the amount of Rs. 10,000/- and T.V. as dowry when they were living separately.Parmanand (P.W. 9) has deposed about the same demand even before the marriage of Anita with Kamlesh.But in cross-examination he says that he had heard about such demand and no such demand was made in his presence.Ramlal (PW. 10) has stated that two months before her death Anita had told him about the demand of dowry.As already stated Anita had not come to the house of her parents during the period of eight months before her death and, therefore, it is not understandable how she could disclose anything to this witness regarding the demand of dowry.Ramnath (D.W. 1) is also son-in-law of Panchamlal (P.W. 6).He has deposed that Anita never complained to him that there was any demand of dowry by the accused persons.He has further stated that a Panchayat had taken place in June, 2000 in the house of Lalla in village Kuthla in which it was expressed by the parents of Anita that an amount of Rs. 7,000/- should be paid to them by accused Kamlesh which was spent by them in the marriage of Anita.There is no valid reason to reject the testimony of this witness.He is closely related to Panchamlal (P.W. 6).In the present case the evidence on record is not of such a nature on which a finding can be recorded that the accused persons demanded dowry or treated the deceased with cruelty or abetted the commission of suicide by her.Therefore, the accused persons deserve the benefit of doubt.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,365 |
It is not in controversy that the petitioner's son by name S.Karthik,pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority and on scrutinyof the materials was ordered to be detained under the Act. The detainingauthority has recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of thedetenu were prejudicial to the Public Order and hence the detenu has got to bedetained as 'Goonda'.It is also not in controversy, that the detenu wasinvolved in nine adverse cases all of them are registered on the file ofKenikkarai Police Station namely;Cr.The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also lookedinto all the materials available in particular the order under challenge.No.561/2004 under Section 379 IPC; Cr.No.348/2005 under Sections 147, 148,324, 326, 307 r/w 149 IPC; Cr.No.469/2005 under Sections 387, 294(b) IPC andCr.No.443/2007 under Section 384 and he was also involved in one ground case inCr.No.604/2008 under Section 386 IPC on the file of Kenikkarai Police Station.The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order on twogrounds.On thatday when the order was passed there was no bail application filed or pendingbefore any Criminal Court.Itwas one of the documents relied on by the detaining authority.On that groundalso the order suffers.Hence, the order has got to be set aside.The orderunder challenge came to be passed on 01.09.2008, but on that day there was nobail application pending before any criminal forum.When this discrepancy was noted, thedetaining authority should have call for a clarification, but miserably failedto do so.On this ground also the order suffers.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,371,018 |
No external or internal injury was found on her person.According to the allegation, she remained with the applicant for more than 25 days without any resistance.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that either the prosecutrix was a consenting party or the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter.No alleged offence is made out against the applicant.Consequently, the applicant prays for bail.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,372,359 |
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.And In the matter of : Sukurulla @ Sukurulla Sk. & Ors.... ... petitioners Mr. Shibasis Chatterjee ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Samik Ganguli ... ... for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Rejinagar P.S. Case No. 114 of 2018 dated 18.05.2018 under Sections 286/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.In addition, the petitioners are directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,372,414 |
This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the private complaint preferred by the secondrespondent in C.C.No.207 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1,Nagercoil.It is averred in the petition that the second respondentmarried Sundaravel, son of the first petitioner on 09.12.1999 and he passedaway in a road accident.During his life time, the spouses lived separatelyfrom the petitioners' family in the place of avocation.The secondrespondent preferred a complaint before the concerned police alleging thatthe petitioners being in-laws received 25 sovereign of gold from her for themarriage of the 7th petitioner and thereafter, it was not returned to her andthat the petitioners did not allow her to claim the accident benefits of herlate husband.The earlier criminal complaint preferred by the defactocomplainant on 18.11.2005 was closed on the alleged undertaking given by thepetitioners.Since the petitioners did not return the property, she againpreferred complaint before the police and the same was referred as 'Mistakeof Fact' after due enquiry.Now, the second respondent filed protest petition and on thatbasis, the Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance of the offence under Section406 of I.P.C. The present complaint preferred by the second respondent isnothing but taking vengeance as against the petitioners.Since her marriageproposal with fourth petitioner, after the death of her husband, was refused,she filed the present complaint with a view to harass the petitioners.As per the promise, they did not return the same; the secondrespondent demanded them to return in 2008 and as they did not return, thepresent complaint in question has been filed and therefore, it is well withintime.Though the defacto complainant says that the complaint given by her in 2005 was closed on the promise made by thepetitioners, no material has been placed for such compromise.The Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offenceunder Section 406 of I.P.C. Section 406 of I.P.C. is punishable withimprisonment of three years.Section 468 of Cr.P.C. provides that no Courtshall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period oflimitation and the period of limitation shall be three years, if the offenceis punishable with imprisonment with a term exceeding one years, but notexceeding, three years.Therefore, the complaint with respect to the offenceunder Section 406 of I.P.C. is to be given within three years from the dateof cause of action.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed andthe proceeding in C.C.No.207 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial MagistrateNo.1, Nagarcoil is quashed.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil.2.The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,376,713 |
as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE as Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 17/02/2020 11:02:57P.C for grant of bail.Applicant Rajendra @ Bhola was arrested on 27/01/2020 in connection with Crime No.28/2020 registered at Police Station Lakhnadon, District Seoni for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354-A, 506 of the IPC.A s per prosecution case on 24/01/2020 at 02:00 P.M. applicant came to the prosecutrix's house situated at village Deorikala and molested her and also threatened to kill her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.The applicant has no criminal past.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,377,405 |
There is no allegation in the FIR that applicant Rahees gave any blow by iron rod on the head of Kapil and this fact was stated by Kapil on his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., after six days of the alleged incident.He has hospitalized only for two days.Investigation is over, charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take long time.Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.:2:
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,378,933 |
(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.2746 of 2019, is allowed;(ii) In the event of arrest of Applicant in connection with C.R.No.282 of 2019, registered with Mangalwedha Police Station, Solapur Rural, he::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:58:59 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 24/01/2020 rpa 3/3 922-aba-2746-19.doc be released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, with one or more sureties in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:58:59 :::(ii) Applicant shall report the concerned police station on 21st January, 2020, between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m., and, thereafter, as and when called for, till fling of the charge-sheet;(iii) Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:58:59 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 17:58:59 :::
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,387,229 |
Heard arguments.Perused the case-diary and material on record.Applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short "the Act"), for release of his son namely, Faizan Khan (juvenile), being aggrieved by the order dated 31/07/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Criminal Appeal No.281/2017, arising out of the order dated 05.07.2017, rejecting the bail application, passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Jabalpur(for short "the Board"), in case no.118/2017, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has affirmed the order.In nutshell, the facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of this revision are that on 15.12.2016, at about 17:15 hours, complainant Sumit Mehra had gone to Gurunanak Higher Secondary School for attending the Annual Function along with his friends as sister of one of his friends namely, Shubham Singh was studying in that School.At that place, juvenile Faizan Khan was also present with his friends namely, Mohsir Khan, Arman Khan and Pawan Vishwakarma.It is alleged that on certain issues juvenile, along with other co-accused, started assaulting Shubham, due to which some altercation took place between them and thereafter, Shubham ran away from the spot.It is further alleged that in the evening at about 04:45 p.m., juvenile Faizan khan along with other accused persons met with Shubham near Samdariya Mall and thereafter, they caught Shubham and further assaulted him and juvenile Faizan Khan, with intention to kill him, assaulted Shubham with knife and as a result thereof, he sustained various injuries on his head, chest, leg etc. Thereafter, injured Shubham was taken to J.K. Hospital and was further referred to Metro Hospital for treatment.During treatment, he died and because of this, offence under Section 302 of IPC along with Section 25 of Arms Act has been registered against juvenile Faizan Khan.The bail application filed on behalf of the juvenile under Section 12 of the Act has been dismissed by the Board.Feeling aggrieved by that order, an appeal was preferred under Section 53 of the Act. Vide the impugned order dated 31.07.2017, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal, affirming the order passed by the Board.Allegedly, the facts and circumstances of this case are that firstly, the juvenile assaulted deceased near Gurunanak Higher Secondary School and thereafter, juvenile and other co-accused met with deceased Shubham near Samdariya Mall and they caught hold of Shubham and further assaulted him and thereafter, juvenile Faizan Khan, with intention to kill him, gave number of blows by knife and by that, caused about 7 incised grievous injuries on his person.It shows that he assaulted him very brutally.His way of assaulting; such as firstly, he beaten him at different place and time and thereafter, he further attacked him at another place and at different time.Thus, looking to his attitude about committing crime, it appears reasonable ground for believing that his release is likely to bring him into association with hardened criminals and his release would defeat the ends of justice.No doubt four witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution against the juvenile but no. of witnesses are yet to be examined and only on the basis of above said examined witnesses, case of prosecution cannot be concluded.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,493,881 |
Mulla andothers connected with S.T. No.760 of 2001, State Vs.Arif,both relating to PS Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, videimpugned judgement and order dated 23.3.2006.Trial Judgehas further directed that both the sentences shall runconcurrently.It had further directed payment of Rs. Tenthousand as compensation to the injured Mahesh (PW3).Since in all these appeals impugned judgement is one and thesame hence it all are being decided by this commonjudgement.Briefly stated prosecution allegations were thatinformant Nand Kishore P.W.1 and all the appellants are covillagers being resident of village Mirzapur, P.S. Vijai Nagar,district Ghaziabad.A3 and A4 were eve teasers.Shakuntlaand Poonam both sisters of PW1 and students of SushilaSchool were victims of that eve teasing.To save their honourPW1 had taken them to his working place at Delhi were theyremained for six or seven months.During vacations all ofthem returned to their village to live with their parents.On 323.5.2000 when P.W.1, his brother Mahesh (PW3) were goingto see off their father Chatrapal Singh (PW4) and youngersister Poonam to railway station then A3 and A4 chased themon motor cycle and teasing they even dashed it with Poonamside ways.After seeing off their father and sister PW1 and 3came to the house of A2 to complain about misdemeanourconduct of A3 and A4 at 9 a.m. where they were threatened ,abused and at the instigation of A1 rest of appellants A2, A3and A4 started assaulting them who both sustained injuries.A3 caught hold of PW3 and A4 pierced knife in his chestcausing extensive internal damage to his organs.After gettingPW3 admitted in Ganesh Hospital that PW1 scribed a writtenreport Ext. Ka-1 about the incident and then lodged it at PSVijay Nagar,District Ghaziabad at 12.30 in the afternoon thesame day.Doctor had noted followinginternal and external injuries on his body:-Stab injury 3 inches X 1.5 inches X chest cavity deepon lower portion of right side chest having a cut of 2inchesthrough and through.Diaphragm between lung and abdomenwas cut about 2 inches.Right side Liver was also cut 2inchesx 1 ½ cm.Right side muscles in between the ribs were alsocut.Because of sustained injury blood had collected on rightside chest and stomach.According to the doctor sustained injury could have beencaused at or about date and time of the incident.In this complaintshe stated that her young one of the goat had gone in theAngana of Gulabkhan.The three persons named in thecomplaint were Gulabkhan, Bai-bibi, mother-in-law ofGulabkhan and Nannubibi, his wife.The two ladies caughthold of her Odhana and began to give her blows of kicks and 25fists.Gulabkhan gave stick blows on the right hand and soshe fell down on the ground and began to shout.The injuriesfound on the person of Fatima Bibi were 5 in number, threecontusions on the right forearm, one contusion on posterio-parietal part of right side of scalp and one contusion onscapular part of right side of back.Challenged in these appeals by a quadruple appellantsMulla @ Kalu @ Tahir (A1), Rahis @ Baboo(A2) Arif(A3), andSaleem @ Pappu(A4) are to the their convictions for offencesU/S 307/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC and imposed sentences often years R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- on each of the 2appellants and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2years further RI on the first count and one year R.I. on thesecond count recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, courtno.2, Ghaziabad in S.T. No.304 of 2001, State Vs.Dr. Sanjay Kumar Shanker, P.W.5, M.O., M.M.G.Hospital, Ghaziabad medically examined PW1 at 1.40p.m.same day, who was brought to him by Constable MaheshKumar of PS Vijay Nagar.Following injuries were noted by thedoctor on his body:-Lacerated wound 2 X 1 c.m.X muscle deep on rightforehead in V-shape with oozing of blood.2. contusion 4 c.m. X 2 c.m.on the right front of left 5shoulder.3. contusion 3 c.m. X 2 c.m.on back of left forearm.Abraded contusion 7 c.m. X 3 c.m.on back of rightforearm.Abrasion 1 c.m. X 1 c.m.on dorsal of right hand.Since that charge was abjured bythe accused trial proceeded to establish their guilt.Prosecution examined six witnesses in all to bring homethe charge, out of whom informant injured Nand KishoreP.W.1, injured Mahesh P.W.3 and their father ChatrapalSingh P.W.4 were fact witnesses.Dr. Umesh Madan P.W.2,Dr.Sanjay Kumar Shanker, P.W.5 and investigating officerS.I. Charan Singh Yadav P.W.6 were formal witnesses.In their depositions all the fact witnesses supportedprosecution version in it's entirety.PW1 testified that A3 and 6A4 used of tease his sisters on their way to school.Many atimes protest was made but in vain.A3 and A4 had alsothreatened PW1 with his life.Deterred by their activities PW1and 3 along with two sisters had shifted to Delhi where PW1was employed six or seven months prior to the date of theincident.P.W.1 further stated that assault was made outsidethe house of the appellants when they had gone to lodge aprotest about the morning incident when A3 and A4 haddashed their motorcycle with Poonam while they were goingto railway station.He had confirmed time, place, manner ofassault and weapons used by the assailants.A1 and A2 hadbelaboured him while PW3 was assaulted in his chest by A4when he was already encircled by A3 causing him lifethreatening injury.PW3 had fallen down sustaining that injuryand therefore assailants had escaped from the spot.PW1further testified that he had sustained lacerated wound on hishead and after the incident he had transported PW3 firstly tothe police station and then to Khatri Nursing Home, wherehis admission was declined and therefore was carried toGanesh Hospital where he was admitted.Subsequent to hishospitalisation that PW 1 had scribed and had lodged his FIRand there after police had got him medically examined.This witness had been subjected to searching cross-examination during which he had deposed that they hadstarted for railway station at a distance of two and a halfkilometres at 8.30 a.m. and A3 and A4 had chased them ontheir motor cycle from Samrat Chowk and it was near Devitemple that they had dashed it with his sister but they couldnot be apprehended because they speeded their motor cycleaway.His father had to join his duty, therefore, along with hissister had left for Delhi.From station it took ten or fifteenminutes to them to reach place of incident on a rickshaw.This witness had emphatically denied defence suggestion thatthey had assaulted appellants inside their house in an incidentof loot besides admitting that father of A2 had lodged a caseagainst them.He had also denied defence suggestion thathe had gone to the house of appellants to assault them.Another injured witness Mahesh Kumar P.W.3 fullysupported P.W.1 in all important aspects of the incident.Hewas also tested thoroughly by the defence counsel wherein hehad deposed that they had reached station at about 8.40 a.m.and they had reached place of incident at about 9 or 9.15 8a.m. He further disclosed that he was carried to the policestation on a scooter and from police station to Khatri NursingHome on the same scooter but from Nursing home he wascarried in an ambulance to the hospital.A3 had caught hold ofhim when A4 had pierced knife in his chest.He had refuteddefence case that there was illicit relationship betweenPoonam and A3 and A4 and therefore, they have falselyimplicated the appellants.He further refuted defencesuggestion that Poonam had cupid relationship with A3 andA4 and she used to write letters and the two appellants hadgot photo of Poonam as well.Third witness of fact father Chatrapal Singh P.W.4,testified before the court that while he was going to thestation along with his daughter Poonam accompanied with PW1 and 3 the two appellants A3 and A4 had dashed theirmotorcycle with Poonam and thereafter he had left for Delhiaccompanied with his daughter.He was informed about theincident in his bank office and thereafter he had returned toGhaziabad from Delhi.During his cross-examination he hadsupported P.W.1 and 3 entirely and had further deposed thatafter the motorcycle was dashed he had not said anything tothe appellants.He had further informed that earlier also there 9had been an altercation between his sons and the appellants.Information regarding the incident was conveyed to himbetween 10.30 and 11.00 a.m. by his Colleagues.Whileadmitting pendency of a case against them in the court ofACJM, Ghaziabad, he had refuted defence suggestion of givingfalse evidence.Formal witnesses in their depositions before the courtnarrated those very facts which are recorded herein aboveand hence are eschewed from being repeated.In their statements under Section 313 of the Code,appellants pleaded innocence and denial.A3 further statedthat because of the political leaders he had been implicatedfalsely.A1 and A4 stated that PW1,3 and 4along with four orfive of their associates had assaulted them with an intentionto murder but their report was not taken down and therefore,with the help of an application under Section 156(3) of theCode they got an F.I.R. registered against PWs as culprits.Accused did not examine any defence witness but filedcertified copy of their FIR of Cr.No. 3 of 2000, injury reportsof Mohd. Saleem and Mohd. Tahir, copy of site plan andcharge sheet against PWs 1,3 and 4 of cross case.Trail court after critically appreciating facts of the case 10and evidences led before it concluded that prosecution hassuccessfully established appellants guilt and thereforeconvicted and sentenced them as above hence these appealschallenging those convictions and sentences.I have heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey advocate onbehalf of all the appellants and learned AGA in opposition.Learned counsel for the appellants assailed impugnedjudgement by canvassing that the trial Judge wrongly reliedupon prosecution evidences, no complaint was maderegarding teasing because that was a false allegation.Hecanvassed that defence of the appellants is true narration ofincident and in a brawl that ensued at the house of theappellants that injured sustained injuries.Place of incident isthe house of the appellants and the prosecution has notexplained the injuries sustained from the side of theappellants.Learned counsel further submitted that there wasa cross version and therefore both the cases should havebeen tried simultaneously one after another by the samecourt, which procedure was not adopted by the trial Judgeand therefore conviction of the appellants is indefensible.Itwas further argued that but for A4 prosecution case inrespect of other accused is not established.All prosecution 11witnesses are related inimical partisan and no independentperson came forward to support their allegations and henceconviction of the appellants is not sustainable.It wassuggested that two accused had sustained injuries from theside of the appellants and prosecution has not offered anyexplanation for those injuries and therefore it's witnesses areeither not reliable or they are suppressing genesis of theincident and in either case appellants deserves acquittal.Atlast it was submitted that all the appeals deserves to beallowed and conviction and sentences imposed on theappellants be set aside.There was noenimous between them and the appellants to lay a falsecharge and therefore their depositions which is of anunimpeachable character must be accepted as correctnarration of the incident.Albeit all prosecution witnesses were 12subjected to lengthy and tiring cross-examinations but thedefence miserably failed to elicit any favourable circumstanceto it which can discredit their testimonies.Mere relationship isno ground to reject testimonies of reliable witnesses.It is thequality of evidence that matters and not the relationshipsubmitted learned AGA.Concludingly, it was submitted thatall the appeals lacks merit and hence be dismissed.I have considered rival contentions and have perused thetrial court record in the light of raised contentions.Admittedlythere are two cross versions regarding the same incident.Some of the facts in issue are common to both the versions.They are place and date of incident and presence of PW1,3and 4 and A1,2,3 and 4 at the spot.PW 1 and 3 from theprosecution side and A1 and 4 from the defence side hadsustained injuries in the incident.Weapon wielded by A4 hasalso not been disputed seriously.Albeit A3 pleaded alibi but tosupport his defence he had led no evidence.Alibi is subject toproof and in absence of any evidence supporting such a claimby A3 same can not be accepted.In such circumstances whatis to be judged is as to which side was the aggressor and outof the two which version is more credible.Judging from above angle I find that prosecution 13witnesses of fact are truthful cogent and clear in theirdepositions.They have supported prosecution version in allit's material aspects of the incident.They have not attemptedto shield names of their sisters at the cost of their familyprestige.It was because of eve teasing that incident hadoccurred.There was no reason for the prosecution witnessesto introduce a young damsel in the incident and that too theirsisters and daughters.They all narrated that on the date ofthe incident A3 and A4 had dashed their motorcycle withPoonam.This must have been immediate cause for PW 1 and3 to come to house of A2 to lodge their protest.This is a varynatural conduct.None of the prosecution witness had anyenimous against appellants to rope them falsely in afabricated version at the cost of their family reputation toanoint temerity.On the contrary, reasonhas to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to showthat the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit andfalsely implicate the accused.No evidence has been led inthis regard."In Dalip Singh and Ors.A3 suggested to PW1 that he was assaulted but henever pleaded that suggestion in his statement U/S 313 ofthe Code.Appellants even did not attempted to get their trialin which prosecution side is an accused committed to thecourt of Session's to be tried along with their trial in whichthey are accused.It is therefore too late in the day for themto cry foul.The accused personshave not got the original application proved.Further theinjury sustained by A4 indicates that he had sustained asuperficial injury.The injuries were all ofminor character.In her statement under Section 342 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 respondent no. 1 statedalmost the same story and added that Gulabkhan was drunkwhile he was abusing her.Neither in Ext. 44 nor in thestatement under Section 342 there was a wisper byrespondent no. 1 of her having squeezed the testicles and theprivate part of Gulabkhan.Nothing was stated to give anyinkling of her having squeezed the testicles of Gulabkhan inexercise of her right of private defence to protect her fromfurther assault.No foundationwas laid to enable the Court to acquit the respondentsgranting them a right of private defence.It did require a pureconjecture and imagination to hold the respondents not guiltyby extending to them the right of private defence.Accordingto PW4 he was at Delhi at his working place but was madean accused in the cross FIR by the appellants.When he wasin the witness box no question was put to him regarding hispresence at the scene of the incident as was claimed by thedefence.It was not even suggested to him that he waspresent at the spot during the incident.Fourthly, alibi of A3was suggested to PW 1 and 4 but the same was not stated byA3 in his statement U/S 313 of the Code.Fifthly,PW5 hadmedically examined A1 and A4 as is revealed from defencepapers but when the said witness was in the witness boxappellants could not muster courage to get those medicalreports duly proved.They intentionally eschewed it 27consciously because probably injuries suffered by them wereself inflicted.Defence also did not file deposition of the doctorin cross version to negate prosecution case.Merely filing ofinjury reports without getting them proved is of no help to theaccused.Sixthly no immediate motive had been suggested tothe prosecution witnesses for them to come to the house ofthe appellant's at such an early hour of morning and thereforedefence version can not be swallowed.Seventhly, oxymoronsuggestions to all the witnesses does not inspire anyconfidence in defence theory.I don't mean to say thataccused has to prove it's case beyond any shadow of doubtbut what is fathomed out is that defence version of exerciseof right of private defence is false and does not inspire anyconfidence.It is very queer that defence had not evensuggested exercise of right of private defence to PW3.On thecontrary suggestion to PW3 establish that A3 and A4 were eveteasers and a conclave was also convened for that purpose.This lend credence to motive part as was stated byprosecution witnesses.Now,coming to another important aspect of the appeal asto what offence was committed by each appellant, I am of theopinion that so far as A4 is concerned his guilt under Section 28307 IPC is established to the hilt without any second thought.Forcewith which that injury had been caused and damage whichPW3 had sustained because of that falls squarely within theambit of offence U/S 307 IPC.In this respect it is also pointed outthat trial Judge had charged A4 with the aid of section 34IPC, which obviously was a mistake.Trial Judge was notcareful in framing charges.He even omitted to chargeaccused A1 to 3 U/S 323/34 IPC.Injuries ofPW 1 does not indicate that he was belaboured with intentionto commit murder.Incident was preceded with a tiradicaltercation.In such a view it is very difficult to conclude thatA1 and 2 shared same common intention with A3 and A4and intended to commit murder.Resultantly I am of theopinion that though A1 and 2 did participate in the assaultand caused injuries to PW1 but there was no commonality ofpurpose between them and A3 and 4 and hence theirconviction U/S 307/34 IPC is unsustainable.Conviction of appellant Arif(A3) U/S 323/34 isset aside but his conviction and sentence U/S 307/34 IPC ishereby maintained and his appeal is dismissed on that score.He is directed to surrender forthwith to his bonds.Criminal Appeal No.1951 of 2006 Mulla@ Kalu@ Tahirand another versus State, is allowed in part.While convictionof appellants Mulla@ Kalu@ Tahir(A1) and Rahis @ Babu(A2)U/S 323/34 IPC are maintained but their sentence for thatoffence is reduced to the period already under gone by them.Since two of the appellants Mulla @ Kalu @ Tahir andRahis @ Babu have already served out their sentence they aredirected to be released from jail forthwith unless they areincarcerated there in connection with some other offence. 31Compensation of Rs. Ten thousand as was ordered bythe trial court to be given to PW 3 is also not interfered with.The above appeals are allowed in part as above.Copy of this judgement is directed to be transmitted to thetrial court for it's intimation.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,493,882 |
2. Prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R. is that in the night of 18-3-2000 complainant Chhotelal was sleeping in the Chapara out of his house and his brother's son was also sleeping nearby.While he was sleeping, he became aware that somebody has come; he saw that Lalsingh was having mouser gun and Guddu was with him.Lalsingh moved the mouser gun towards him and said that "you have not given evidence in our case, therefore, the accused persons could not be convicted, today we will not leave you alive".Complainant after seeing him wanted to run away but Lalsingh fired on his back and he fell down.After gun fire accused persons ran away.The family members of the complainant brought him to the Police Station for lodging the FIR.JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J.In Sessions Trial No. 272/2000 vide judgment dated 25th August, 2003 appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and appellant No. 2 has also been convicted under Section 307/34, IPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 5,000/-.Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence the appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Injured Chhotelal lodged FIR at Police Station, Gohad.On his report crime was registered.Complainant was referred for medical examination.Accused Lalsingh himself went to the police station and said to the I.O. that he is being falsely implicated.He has not committed any crime and on the direction of the I.O. he deposited the gun at the police station.After investigation charge-sheet was filed, the matter was committed to the Sessions Judge and after examining the prosecution witness and also evidence of one defence witness the Trial Court found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.Against which the appellants have filed this appeal.I have heard Shri J.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Shri V.G. Khot, learned Public Persecutor, for the respondent-State.The appellants have been implicated falsely.The incident took place in the dark night.There is no consistency in the evidence of eye-witnesses.Out of the statement of four witnesses, the statements of three witnesses, Jagatsingh (P.W. 4), Gyansingh (P.W. 5) and Hawaldar (P.W. 10) were recorded after gap of three months and statement of Geetabai (P.W. 12), who is the daughter of the injured, was recorded after a month.He has further submitted that all the remaining three witnesses have narrated three different stories of the incident and in the FIR different story has been mentioned.Only the evidence against appellant No. 2 Guddu is of exhortation, which is a weak type of evidence.The names of the eye-witnesses have not been mentioned in the site plan and no blood was found on spot.Therefore, his submission is that the prosecution story is totally false and prayed for the acquittal of the appellants.In reply, Shri V.G. Khot, learned Public Prosecutor, supported the judgment and the prosecution case and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.After hearing learned Counsel for the appellants, I have carefully examined the evidence on record.As per the prosecution story, the incident took place on 18-3-2000 at about 11.30 in the night.The FIR of the incident was recorded on 19-3-2000 at 4 o'clock but it is not clear whether it was written at 4 a.m. or 4 p.m. The FIR is Ex. P-6 lodged by Chhotelal (P.W. 11).Y.N.S. Bhadoriya (P.W. 16), Inspector, who had recorded the FIR in the cross-examination has clarified that the report was written at 4 o'clock in the morning.Though in the FIR morning or evening has not been written but it was written by him in the morning.This is clear from the medical examination report of the injured (Ex. P-4), on which the time of 5 a.m. has been mentioned.It is also not in dispute that as per the FIR, Hawaldar, Gabbar and Jagatsingh had also accompanied the injured to the police station and their names have been mentioned in the FIR.Name of Gyansingh has also been mentioned in the FIR.It is not in dispute that the I.O. recorded the statements of Gabbar (P.W. 2) on 19-4-2000, which is Ex. D-2; Jagatsingh (P.W. 4) on 28-6-2000, which is Ex. D-3; Gyansingh (P.W. 5) on 28-6-2000, Ex. D-4; Hawaldar (P.W. 10) Ex. D-5; and Geeta Devi (P.W. 12) on 19-4-2000 Ex. D-7 (date of 19-3-2000 has also been mentioned on these statements).Prosecution has also not examined the I.O. in the case, therefore, there is no explanation by the prosecution that why the statements of material witnesses, those who have been cited as eye witnesses and were also present on the spot at the time of incident, were not recorded in time and why they were recorded after a lapse of one month to three months.Keshav Singh (P.W. 1) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that at about 11 o'clock in the night he was sitting on the door of his house along with Gabbar, Mukesh, Gyansingh, Jagatsingh, Hawaldarsingh etc. Lalsingh and Guddu came on spot and gave abuses to Chhotelal that "you have not given evidence in our favour, therefore, the accused persons could not be convicted".Guddu exhorted to Lalsingh and said that "fire him" and thereafter Lalsingh fired from his gun.Chhotelal received injuries in his waist.At that time he was covered with quilt and thereafter accused persons ran away from the spot.In the cross- examination he has stated that he is the nephew of the injured.At the time of incident chhotelal was sitting on a cot and he was advising to the labourers on some agricultural topic.Sufficient natural light was available but no electric light was there on spot and the fire was made from the distance of 4-5 hands.When the shot was made, Chhotelal stood upon the cot, lateron he said-- not on the cot, but on the earth.The blood was available on the spot.Why the blood has not been shown in the spot map, he can not give any reason.9. Gabbar (P.W. 2), who is also the nephew of the injured, has stated that Chhotelal was sleeping in his Madhaiya and Gyansingh, Keshav, Hawaldar, Jagatsingh, Mukesh and he were also present nearby the place.Chhotelal received gunshot.They all came near Chhotelal and thereafter he was taken to Gohad Police Station.He is also the witness of spot map (Ex. P-l).In the cross-examination he has admitted that at the time of incident Chhotelal was sleeping and there was no light in the village.When both the persons came near the cot of Chhotelal, he could not see them but when they abused Chhotelal, he woke up.He has stated that why the police has not written in the case-diary statement Ex. D-2 that he along with Keshav, Gyansingh, Mukesh and Jagatsingh were sitting near the place of fire and after hearing wordy quarrel between Chhotelal and Lalsingh they came on spot, he can not give any reason.He has stated that Geeta Devi was not present at the place of fire.He has not given this statement to the police that Lalsingh fired on him from his mouser gun and blood came out from his back, he has not given this statement to the police in Ex. D-2 that Lalsingh fired on Chhotelal from his mouser gun but why the police has written the same, he can not give any reason.Therefore, it is clear that the statement of this witness is contrary to his case diary statement Ex. D-2, as before the police he gave a statement that he himself received firearm injury from the gun of Lalsingh and blood came out.Chhotelal (P.W. 11), who is injured, has narrated a different story.In the examination-in-chief he says that at about 11.30 he was sleeping in his Madhaiya and nobody else was sleeping nearby him.Lalsingh came on spot.He was abusing him and saying that "you have not given evidence, therefore, his enemies could not be convicted".Lalsingh was carrying mouser gun.Guddu was also with him.Guddu exhorted to fire gunshot.He tried to run away but Lalsingh fired and he received one gunshot on his back, he fell down and became unconscious.Thereafter, Gyansingh, Jagatsingh, Gabbar, Hawaldar and Mukesh came on spot.In the cross-examination he has stated that Gyansingh was sleeping on another Madhaiya in front of his house.In Para 7 of his cross-examination he states that in the FIR he has not stated that Guddu exhorted.Why the police has also not written about the abuses in the FIR, he can not give any reason.In his case-diary statement Ex. D-6 he had not told that his brother's son was sleeping nearby him but why the police has written, he can not give any reason.He has admitted that there is no person named Mukesh in the village.He has admitted that in the case of murder of Udaisingh, father of Lalsingh, he was not cited as witness nor he had received any summon nor he had given any evidence.From this evidence, it appears that there was no enmity between the parties and this can not be a reason to fire gunshot at the injured.Dr. A.K. Mudgal (P.W. 8) examined injured Chhotelal.The injured received gunshot injury.The doctor found that there is a oval shaped wound, 1-1/2 in diameter in middle of back at vertibral level L - L, bleeding slightly, the margins are inverted.No blackening or charring seen around the wound, depth can not be measured.As per the doctor, injured received a gunshot injury on his back and because of that the legs of the injured became weak and he is unable to walk.In the re-examination-in-chief the doctor has stated that the nature of injury was grievous.In the cross-examination he admits that in the medical report he has not written that the injury was dangerous to life.There are various other infirmities in the prosecution case, such as, in the spot map no blood has been shown and clothes and bed, which were seized were not referred for chemical examination; there is no chemical examination report on record; the gun was also not referred for chemical examination; it is also an important circumstance in favour of the appellants that after the incident he himself went to the police station and on the instruction of I.O. he deposited the rifle in the police station along with the licence, this has been confirmed by Ashok Singh (P.W. 14).After considering the entire evidence on record it is clear that Jagatsingh (P.W. 4), Gyansingh (P.W. 5) and Hawaldar (P.W. 10) were not the eye-witnesses.They had not seen the incident and their presence on spot is doubtful on the fact that their statements were recorded after three months though in the FIR their names have been mentioned.The statement of Geeta Devi (P.W. 12) was also recorded after a month.The police has not furnished any explanation for this delay.The name of Geeta Devi, daughter of the injured, has also not been mentioned in the FIR.So far as the evidence of Keshav Singh (P.W. 1) and Gabbar (P.W. 2) is concerned, they have given contradictory statement, therefore, their evidence can not be said to be reliable.There is also no proof on record whether any source of light was available on spot or not.From the evidence of Gabbar (P.W. 2) it is clear that he gave a different version of the incident, as he says in the statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC that he received gunshot injury in his back from the gun of the appellant Lalsingh.In his case diary statement he does not say that Lalsingh fired on Chhotelal but he says he fired on him.Therefore, from the evidence of these witnesses the story of the prosecution has become quite doubtful.The statement of Chhotelal (P.W. 11) also can not be held to be reliable, as when he was sleeping in the night at about 11.30 covered with quilt, it was not possible for him to see the assailants.When he was sleeping, how he heard the abuses, it is also not believable.There is no convincing evidence on record that any source of light was available there.In such a situation it can not be said that he had seen the assailant, who was carrying mouser gun.On the question of presence of Gyansingh nearby him, looking to the omission in his case diary statement about presence of Gyansingh his statement can not be said to be reliable.He himself has admitted that Mukesh, Gabbar, Geeta and Keshavsingh came lateron when he became unconscious and he himself says that there is no person named Mukesh in the village, therefore, his evidence is not trustworthy and it will not be proper to maintain conviction on his sole testimony.The evidence of exhortation is a weak type of evidence.In the cases of Jainul Haque v. State of Bihar ; and, Hem Raj v. Raja Ram ; it has been held that evidence of exhortation is, in the very nature of things, a weak piece of evidence.To that extent the conviction of appellant No. 2 Guddu can not be held to be proper.So far as the question of sufficient light on the place of occurrence is concerned, as per the statements of witnesses the incident took place in the dark night.No source of light was available at the place of occurrence.In the FIR also nothing has been mentioned about the source of light.Witnesses have also given contradictory evidence on the point of availability of light.So far as the question of mentioning of names of eye- witnesses in the site plan, it was argued that the same is fatal to the prosecution case and in the absence of such an evidence the prosecution story can not be considered as genuine but simply on the ground that the names of eye-witnesses have not been mentioned in the site plan, the accused persons can not be acquitted if other genuine and reliable ocular evidence is available on record.If the material evidence is doubtful in that case, this circumstance also can be considered as it relates to the investigation.Many a times, Investigating Officer may ommit to mention the names with a view to help the accused persons but that alone can not be a ground to create doubt in the prosecution story if other cogent and reliable evidence is available.No doubt, the site plan is an important document to be prepared and proved by the prosecution but its genuineness depends on so many other factors.In the light of the aforesaid discussion and evidence on record, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellants by producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubt.The evidence of Keshav Singh (P.W. 1) and Gabbar (P.W. 2) is contradictory to each other.Even their case-diary statements are contradictory to each other.Chhotelal (P.W. 11) has failed to show any motive against the appellant for his involvement in the crime.When complainant was not witness in the criminal case in which accused persons could not be convicted and which has been shown to be the reason of commission of crime against Lalsingh, there is no convincing evidence about the motive of the appellant about his involvement in the commission of crime.The evidence of complainant Chhotelal (P.W. 11) does not inspire confidence.His evidence is doubtful.Prosecution has also not examined the Investigating Officer, therefore, in totality the only conclusion after appreciating the prosecution evidence in this case is that the prosecution evidence is full of contradictions and there is no consistency in the evidence of the witnesses, which shows that the prosecution story is highly doubtful, therefore, the conviction of the appellants can not be maintained.As held above, the only evidence against another co-accused/appellant No. 2 Guddu was of exhortation and the same has not been found proved.It is also no doubt that the evidence of exhortation is a very weak type of evidence.Thus, conviction of both the appellants can not be maintained and they are entitled for benefit of doubt.Thus, this appeal is allowed.The conviction of the appellants is set aside.They are acquitted of the charges giving them benefit of doubt.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,493,891 |
" (i) Seven months prior to 04.04.2004 the deceased Manikandan expressed his love to one Rajeswari, the daughter of Krishnan @ Ramasamy (A.1) and Selvam (A.5).Thereupon, there was commotion, where upon there was enmity between the accused on the one side and the deceased Manikandan on the other side and therefore, the deceased was driven out of the Neyveli area.Subsequently, on 04.04.2004 at Velludaiyanpattu village, Panguni Uthiram Kaavadi Festival was celebrated.The deceased visited his native village Vadakkumelur nearby Velludaiyanpattu for that festival.On 04.04.2004 at 06.30 p.m. the deceased was talking with his friends behind the school at Vadakkumelur.At that time, A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.5 came there and took the deceased Manikandan to the place near Mariamman Temple where the accused attacked him.Later, he took him in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No: TN-31 Y 2376 and abducted him under the pretext that the deceased was being taken to the police station.On the way, accused purchased brandy and at 6.15 p.m. in the cashew thope belonging to one Vijeyendiran the deceased was taken out of the autorickshaw and the auto was sent.Vijeyendiran told the accused not to assemble there.Therefore, A.1, A.2 and A.3 took the deceased to the road leading to Vadakkumelur and under a margosa tree Manikandan was compelled to drink brandy and at 12.00 midnight A.1 and A.2 strangulated the deceased by putting his towel around his neck and done him to death and thereafter, all the three accused put the dead body into a borewell.The inquest report is Ex.The dead body was subjected to post mortem at the Panruti Government Hospital.V. Periyakaruppiah, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and conviction passed against the accused 1 to 3 finding them guilty of the offence under Sections 364 and 201 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and also convicting them for an offence under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.The appellants namely accused 1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.(ii) On 10.04.2004, based on the complaint given by the mother of the deceased Manikandan a complaint was registered for an offence under Section 365 I.P.C. On 13.04.2004, the police arrested A.3 Ramasamy, who gave a voluntary confession statement, in pursuance of which A.3 took the police to the borewell where they had hidden the dead body.A bad smell was emanating from the borewell.(iii) Upon the identification of the borewell by A.3, with the help of Kurinjipadi fire service personnel, police started the process of taking out the dead body from the borewell.The dead body, which was taken out from the borewell after the fire service personnel strived hard for about 15 hours, was identified by P.Ws. 1 to 5 to be that of Manikandan.The body was sent to Panruti Government Hospital where inquest was conducted by P.W.13 on 14.03.2004 at 6.00 a.m. in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars.P.9 is the post mortem certificate and P.10 is the opinion given by the Doctor who conducted post mortem.The investigating officer prepared the Observation Mahazar and other sketches.P.W.13 also took steps to send the viscera for chemical examination.The hyoid bone was also sent for chemical examination through the concerned Court and the expert's report was obtained.P.W.13 came to know that the other accused surrendered themselves before Court.After concluding the enquiry, P.W.13 laid charge sheet against the accused before Court on 26.05.2004 for the offence under Sections 364, 365, 302 and 201 I.P.C."When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts.Neither any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence was produced on their behalf.Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses, exhibited P.1 to P.22 and marked M.Os.1 to 4 to prove its case.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by taking us through the evidence of P.W.1, would submit that her evidence would show that A.1 had been giving evasive answers when she asked about the whereabouts of her son, after she had lastly seen her son with them.Relying on the decision reported in 1998 S.C.C. (Criminal) 391 (Sudama Roy @ Jadav and another vs. State of West Bengal) he would submit that the fact that A.1 had been giving evasive answers to P.W.1 is enough to prove his guilt.According to P.W.1 on one occasion when she asked A.1 about her son, he said that her son Manikandan would come in one or two days and on the other occasion, he informed P.W.1 that he had given a sum of Rs.100/- to Manikandan and that Manikandan had gone to Kerala.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further add that such evasive and contradictory answers given by A.1 to P.W.1 would go a long way to show that he had involved himself in the commission of the crime along with A.2 and A.3 and thus, he is liable to be convicted as per the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also brought to the notice of the Court the evidence of P.W.10, the Post Mortem Doctor who had corroborated the evidence of other witnesses when she stated in her evidence that the death of the person, whose decomposed body was produced before her, would have occurred 10 or 12 days prior to autopsy.In other words, her evidence would corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 who spoke about the fact that the deceased was seen lastly in the company of A.1 to A.4 ten days prior to the date when the body was recovered.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that the over all evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses would complete the chain of circumstances against the appellants and hence, the appeal preferred by A.1 to A.3 may be dismissed.We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by either side.The case of the prosecution was that on 04.04.2004, when the deceased Manikandan, son of P.W.1, came to his village from Kerala for attending the Panguni Uthiram Festival at their village, the 1st accused - who was enimically disposed of against him on account of the fact that Manikandan had offered flowers to his daughter - along with A.2 to A.4, had taken Manikandan to one Mariamman Temple where they had beat him and Manikandan became unconscious.When the act of the accused in beating Manikandan was questioned by P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others including the Village headman, under the guise of handing him over to Police station, the accused had taken Manikandan in an autorickshaw M.O.4 belonging to P.W.8, to some other place and caused his death.Thereafter, the accused had managed to dump the dead body of Manikandan in a borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters.The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that her son Manikandan was said to have given a flower to the daughter of A.1 and since, A.1 was very much annoyed with Manikandan, she sent her son to Kerala for employment in order to save him from the accused; after some time, Manikandan had come to his native village for celebrating Panguni Uthiram Festival and when he was talking to his friends on one evening, he was taken by A.1 to A.4 for questioning and on hearing the same P.W.1 went to the said place namely Mariamman Temple where A.1 to A.4 had been examining Manikandan.She saw her son being beaten up by the accused and at that time her son was in an unconscious state.She went and brought the Village Headman.Thereafter, Manikandan was taken from the said place in an autorickshaw by the accused.The contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants would be that the presence of P.W.2 was not mentioned in Ex.The complaint was given by P.W.1 on 10.04.2004, which is produced as Ex.Admittedly, the complaint is preferred six days after the date when P.W.1 had lastly seen her son near the Mariamman Temple.The explanation offered by P.W.1 would be that she had approached A.1 on the next day itself i.e. On 05.04.2004 and enquired about her son.For that A.1 had told her that her son would return in two days.After the lapse of two days, when she approached A.1 again he had told her that he had paid a sum of Rs.100/- to her son Manikandan and sent him to Kerala.Not satisfied with the answer given by A.1, when P.W.1 informed A.1 that she is going to give a complaint against him, A.1 told her that she may do so and thereafter only P.W.1 had given the complaint on 10.04.2004 and thus there was a gap of six days from the date when P.W.1 saw her son and the date on which she preferred the complaint Ex.P.1 before the police.There is no dispute that P.W.1 has given the complaint on 10.04.2004 for tracing her missing son Manikandan whom she saw in the company of the accused.It is settled law that the complaint, whenever it is registered as First Information Report, is the first step to launch the investigation to be set in motion.It may not be necessary that all the particulars should be furnished in the complaint itself since the F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia.It is pertinent to note here that P.Ws.3 and 4 are independent witnesses who had spoken about the fact that the deceased Manikandan was enquired by the accused near Mariamman temple and the village headman told the accused that, "Let the police examine Manikandan, if any case is pending against him".They had also spoken to the effect that they had seen the deceased Manikandan's body being recovered from the borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters.The said evidence of P.W.3 had also stood the test of cross examination as nothing was elicited in favour of the appellant in the cross examination of P.W.3. P.W.4 had spoken about the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused at Mariamman Temple on 04.04.2004; he saw the accused beating up the deceased; he tried to interfere and at that time A.1 had told him that it is not his business and he cannot interfere and thereafter, A.1 to A.3 did not heed to the words of the Village headman to hand over Manikandan to police; A.2 going to fetch an autorickshaw; A.1 to A.3 taking the deceased in the said autorickshaw and thereafter, he heard that Manikandan had died.This clear evidence of P.W.4 not only corroborated the evidence of P.W.3 but also supported the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 about the accused beating up Manikandan near Mariamman temple and then taking him in an autorickshaw.Therefore, it is not correct to say that the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and cannot be believed in respect of the last seen theory.It is also not necessary that the village headman namely Super Subburayan should have been examined for the purpose of proving the last seen theory when especially the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 are quite clear regarding the accused beating up Manikandan near the Mariamman temple.Thus, the prosecution had proved the last seen theory.The next point to be considered is about the identity of the dead body of the deceased as that of Manikandan, which was questioned by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants.It is seen from the records that A.3 was arrested on 13.04.2004 and pursuant to his arrest he had given a voluntary confession statement which lead to the discovery of the place where the accused had disposed of the body of Manikandan.The admissible portion of the confession statement of A.3 is marked as Ex.P.W.7 was examined to prove the confession and also the preparation of Observation Mahazar of the place where the borewell was located.The dead body of Manikandan was said to have been taken out from the borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters on 13.04.2004 with the help of 10 firemen under the leadership of the Station House Officer, Anbazhagan.The said fact was spoken to by P.W.11, who is one of the fireman.According to his evidence, the dead body was taken out from the borewell with much difficulties and they had obtained special apparatus from Neyveli Lignite Corporation and with the help of such special apparatus they had taken out the body of Manikandan from the depth of 200 feet from the borewell.His evidence would also go to show that for about 15 hours the fire service personnel fought to take out the body, after which the dead body was handed over to the police for further investigation.The relevant documents were also produced as Exs.His evidence would also show that Mr.Anbazhagan the Station House Officer was also dead and, therefore, he could not be examined.In other words, such a place cannot be identifed by any other person who did not commit the offence.In Ex.Apart from this, P.Ws. 1 to 4 had also spoken to the effect that they were taken by the police to identify the dead body and accordingly they found that the decomposed body recovered from the borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters was that of Manikandan.The argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel was to the effect that the evidence of P.W. 10 would show that the body was recovered in a highly decomposed stage and no cloth, except a white towel around the neck of the body, was found in the body whereas the prosecution witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 and 2 had spoken to the effect that a belt, a watch and a green towel around the neck was seized from the dead body of the deceased, thus there is contradiction in the version of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the dead body recovered from the borewell was that of Manikandan cannot be a true version.A belt, a green towel and a watch were said to be recovered from the body of the deceased Manikandan and were produced as M.Os.1 to 3 respectively.P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified those material objects as found in the said body.P.W. 10 is the post mortem Doctor who had obviously seen the body after the material objects stated above have been recovered from the dead body and hence, when P.W.10 saw the dead body no cloth or any other material object were available in the dead body.In fact, nothing was suggested to P.W. 10 as to the presence of M.Os.1 to 3 in the dead body at the time of autopsy by the defence.Taking all the above said circumstances into account, we are of the considered view that the identification of the borewell by A.3 through his confession, in the peculiar circumstance of the case and the subsequent recovery of the dead body from 200 feet deep borewell, the identification of the body by P.Ws. 1 to 4 to be that of Manikandan, are all amply sufficient to prove the guilt of A.3 in the commission of the crime.The discripencies, even if any available, regarding the presence of M.Os.1 to 3 in the dead body may not be fatal one as to the identity of the body to be that of Manikandan.No confession was given by A.1 and A.2 since they were not taken into police custody after they surrendered themselves to judicial custody.Can the confession given by A.3 referring to the names A.1 and A.2, who helped him to dispose of the body of the deceased Manikandan inside the iron borewell near Indira Nagar Alternate Quarters, be put against A.1 and A.2 based on the other links for completing the circumstancial evidence is a question to be considered now.It is settled law that the confession of the co-accused cannot be put against the other accused in order to decide their criminal liability.Therefore, we have to see whether any other link is available to connect A.2 and A.3 in the crime.According to the Additional Public Prosecutor, the evasive answers given by A.1 to the enquiries made by P.W.1 as to the whereabouts of her son would certainly incriminate A.1 in the kidnapping and the murder of Manikandan as per the dictum rendered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1998 S.C.C. (Crl.) 391 (Sudama Roy alias Jadav and another vs. State of West Bengal).The appellants gave false and evasive replies to PW 1, the mother of the deceased when she repeatedly inquired about the whereabouts of her daughter.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,392,157 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.The applicant shall mark his presence before the concerned trial Court in the first week of every month till conclusion of the investigation.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE AK/-ANAND KUMAR 2019.10.18 19:05:40 +05'30'
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,393,960 |
(ii) Applicant shall attend the investigating oficer on 12th to 14th February, 2020, between 11:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m.;(iii) Applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and hand over his cell phone to the investigating oficer;To be listed on Supplementary Board.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 20:23:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 20:23:47 :::
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,523,807 |
This appeal has been preferred by the Headmaster of Balijole High School in the district of Uttar Dinajpur, pursuant to leave granted by this Court, against the order dated 10.9.03 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9545(W) of 2002 filed by the respondent No. 1 in the appeal.As will appear from the materials on record, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 claims to have been appointed as an organiser assistant teacher in the Bio-Science Group in the Shankarpur H.M.U. Junior High Madrasa, also situated in the district of Uttar Dinajpur.It appears that the Madrasa which was an organised Madrasa, applied for grant of recognition to the West Bengal Madrasa Education Board and pursuant thereto an inspection team visited the Madrasa on 8th March, 2000, but the name of the writ petitioner, who was not present in the school was not recorded by the inspecting team.Subsequently, the West Bengal Madrasa Education Board granted recognition to the Madrasa with effect from 1st May, 2000 upto class VIII.After grant of such recognition, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.).Uttar Dinajpur, approved the appointment of the teachers who were found to be present at the time of inspection but since the petitioner's name did not appear in the inspection report, his service was not approved.The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation to the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur, for incorporating his name in the report of the inspection team so that his service could also be approved.Inasmuch as, no steps were taken on the basis of such representation, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 moved a writ petition, being W.P. No. 3673(W) of 2001, which was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court on 22nd March, 2001, with a direction upon the District Inspector of Schools to consider the matter by passing a reasoned order.Pursuant to such order, the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur, caused an enquiry into the petitioner's claim and came to a finding that although the petitioner was in fact an organiser teacher of the Madrasa in question he had been victimised and his name had not been included in the inspection report of the District Level Inspection Team.On the other hand, in violation of the existing rules, the service of two commerce graduates was approved, although it was necessary for the school to have a bio-science teacher after approval.In his report the District Inspector of Schools observed that a wrong had been perpetrated by the previous District Inspector of Schools who was the Member-Secretary of the District Level Inspection Team and that in connection with several matters, he had been prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to cheating and conspiracy.However, the District Inspector of Schools expressed his inability to accord approval to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 since according to the staff pattern the service of six teaching staff in the Madrasa had been approved.Aggrieved by the said order of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur, the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein filed another writ petition, being W. P. No. 12905 (W) of 2001, which was taken up for consideration on 13th March, 2002 in the presence of the learned counsel for the State and the District Inspector of Schools concerned.The learned Single Judge observed that the writ petitioner had been made the victim of circumstances and that he himself was not a party to any fraud or sharp practice.Accordingly, the matter was sent to the Director of School Education, West Bengal to decide the matter in the light of the judgment and order passed by the Court.While disposing of the matter, the learned Single Judge directed the Director of School Education, West Bengal to take appropriate steps for creation of an additional post to be filled up in the light of the report of the D.I. of Schools.However, in the event such an additional post was available in the district, in that case, priority should be given to the petitioner for appointment therein, since he was a victim of circumstances, by according approval to his service.Significantly, the said order of the learned Single Judge was not challenged by any of the parties in appeal.The Director of School Education, West Bengal considered the matter and while recording the injustice caused to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 observed that no relief could be given to him since in terms of the staff pattern of the Madrasa, no additional post of teacher could be sanctioned.The Director of School Education, West Bengal in his said order dated 18th June, 2002, further observed that he was not in a position to retrench one of the commerce teachers whose services had been approved but that a request would be made to the Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Madrasa Education to consider taking appropriate action against the earlier Managing Committee of the Madrasa.The matter was heard in the presence of the respective parties and on 10.9.2003 the learned Single Judge held that the order of the Director of School Education, West Bengal was not in conformity with the order passed in W. P. No. 12905(W) of 2001 on 13th March, 2002, and further observed that there was no reason why the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 should not be given accommodation in any of the schools where vacancies existed for appointment of assistant teachers with qualification in biological science.In fact, in his order dated 10.9.03, the learned Single Judge recorded the names of two schools where such post was available and where no requisition had been made to the School Service Commission (Northern Region), Malda, for filling up the vacancies.The learned Judge directed that the petitioner's service was to be regularised from the date of his joining in the school.The other incidental prayers relating to arrear salaries were to be considered thereafter.It may be mentioned that in the Memo No. 126-GA dated 20th January, 1997, referred to by the learned Single Judge, one Santosh Kr.Ghosh who was an approved staff of Joykrishnapur Netaji High School could not join his duties for some unavoidable reasons, and, accordingly, the Director of School Education, West Bengal directed that he should be treated as surplus staff and that arrangements should be made for absorbing him in a suitable vacancy of a neighbouring school on an undertaking from the teacher that he would not claim any arrears prior to the date of joining in the new school.As will appear from the records of the instant appeal, tresting the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 on a par with the said Santosh Kr.Ghosh, a direction was given by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur, to the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the Balijole High School on 11th March, 2004, directing him to issue appointment letter to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 in the vacant post in the junior high section.Thereafter, an application for stay was taken up for consideration and during hearing of the stay application, on consent of the parties, the appeal itself was taken up for consideration.Appearing in support of the appeal and the stay application, Mr. S. Ganguly, learned advocate, submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed a basic error in relying on the Memo No. 12G-GA dated 20th January, 1997, issued by the Director of School Education, West Bengal, inasmuch as, the teacher mentioned in the said Memo and the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 did not stand on the same footing.According to Mr. Ganguly, the petitioner's services had not been approved in the Madrasa where he had claimed to be functioning as an organiser teacher and that, as a result, by no stretch of imagination could it be said that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was an approved surplus staff who could be appointed in the school of the appellant.Mr. Ganguly urged that, in any event, the school where the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was directed to be appointed had not even been heard when the order on the basis of which such direction was issued had been passed by the learned Single Judge.According to Mr. Ganguly, had the school been made a party, it could have been pointed out that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 may have been victimised but that did not give him the right to be appointed in the school of the appellant.That an injustice had been caused to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 is apparent from the report submitted both by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Uttar Dinajpur, and the Director of School Education, West Bengal, but the manner in which such grievance has been sought to be addressed, appears to us to be erroneous.On consideration of the submissions made on behalf of all the parties, we are of the view that without due approval having been given to the services of the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1, a direction could not have been given to treat him as an approved surplus staff, and, thereafter, to place his services at the disposal of the school of the appellant Headmaster.There will be no order as to costs.Let xerox certified copy of the order be given to the learned advocates for the respective parties at an early date, if the same is applied for.Altamas Kabir and Asit Kumar Bisi, JJ.
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,384,434 |
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn .
|
['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.
|
152,388,901 |
PSI Munde (PW-10) tookover the investigation.Unfortunately, Vilas died in the Civil Hospital at Nanded.Aninquest panchnama was drawn and Dr. Kagne (PW-1) performed thepost-mortem examination, as per the Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-8).He certified the cause of death as shock due to stab injuries.RESERVED ON : 18.08.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.10.2017 ...JUDGMENT: (Per Mangesh S. Patil, J.).This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction by thelearned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2000,whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted him under Section ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: (2) cri.appeal 120.01302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonmentand fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, further R.I. for one month.For thesake of convenience the appellant is hereinafter referred to as the'Accused' and the witnesses are referred by their names and numbers inthe Trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::Shorn of details, the prosecution case is to the effect that thedeceased Vilas was resident of village Tembhurni.The accused is alsoresident of the same village.Since about a year before the incidentthere was dispute between both of them on the ground of control overlocal Devasthan.On 05.06.2000, Vilas had gone to Basmath.At about6.00 to 6.30 p.m. a quarrel ensued between him and the accused nearGolai Chowk situated in the vicinity of Nagar Parishad building ofBasmath.Sahadu (PW-2) and Kerba (PW-3) attempted to separate bothof them, but the scuffle continued in which, the accused, all of a suddentook out a button knife from his pocket and stabbed deceased Vilasnumber of times on the chest and abdomen region.The accused thenran away with the knife.Vilas collapsed on the spot in the pool of blood.He was shifted to the Rural Hospital at Basmath which was also nearbythe spot of incident.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::He foundfollowing injuries:Stab wound of 2 cm.x 1 cm.Their nature, position, dimensions Cavity deep (on dissection) (measured) and directions to be involving Rt.Upper lobe of lung.accurately stated - their probable age Located 4 cm above & lateral to and causes to be noted.nipple (Rt) betn.2Nd & 3rd rib (2nd ICS).Oblique & directed medially downwards.Elliptical in shape.If bruises be present what is the 2) Stab wound of 2 cm.x 2 cm.Directed medially downwards.Located betn 5th & 6th (N.B.)- When injuries are numerous ribs (5th ICS); 4.5 cm.meidally and can not be mentioned - within the below Rt.Nipple, oblique, elliptical space available they should be in shape, involving the liver after mentioned on a separate paper which cutting pleura and diaphgram.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::Dr. Tambhade (PW-12) recorded history by making inquirywith Vilas.With some difficulty Vilas stated that one Saheb MunjajiIngole - son of Pahilwan had caused the injuries by using KhatkyachaChaku (button knife).Dr. Tambhade (PW-12) recorded the statement inthe M.L.C. register (Exhibit-39).He then prepared case paper andwritten the history narrated by Vilas thereon.When the police solicitedopinion from Dr. Tambhade (PW-12), about condition of Vilas in writing,he certified that Vilas was not in a position to give statement.Tambhade (PW-12) then referred Vilas to Civil Hospital at Nanded.He also recorded that all these injuries were anti-mortem.Since the incident had occurred within the jurisdiction of Basmath PoliceStation, the inquest and the post-mortem report were forwarded to theBasmath Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::The Investigating Officer P.S.I. Munde (PW-10) went to thespot on the next day i.e. 06.06.2000, drew the spot panchnama(Exhibit-22).He then recorded the statement of Kerba (PW-3) and otherwitnesses, seized the clothes of the deceased Vilas and arrested theaccused on the same day.According to the prosecution, on 07.06.2000 the accusedproduced his blood stained clothes which he was wearing at the time ofincident which were seized from his house at Tembhurni under apanchnama.The accused then agreed to discover the knife used by himin the crime.Accordingly his statement was recorded in presence ofpanchas and he then discovered the knife from his hut in his field.Theknife was having blood-stains and it was also seized under panchnama.All the articles were forwarded for chemical analysis.Furtherinvestigation was carried out and the offence punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and in due course of timethe accused was charge-sheeted.Subsequently, the matter wascommitted to the Sessions Court.After conducting the trial the learnedsessions Judge by his impugned judgment and order convicted and ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: (6) cri.appeal 120.01sentenced the accused as mentioned herein-above.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::We have heard the learned Advocate for the accused, as wellas, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, at sufficient length.Before proceeding to discuss the evidence, it will not be outof place to mention here that neither during the course of trial nor beforeus any dispute has been raised as regards the cause of death, beinghomicidal one.The evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Kagne (PW-1) and hisopinion in the post-mortem report (Exhibit -8), make it abundantly clearthat there were multiple incise injuries sustained by deceased Vilas andhe had succumbed to those injuries, which were all ante-mortem.We,therefore, do not find it necessary to deal with this aspect of the matterany more.According to the learned Advocate for the accused Mr. Bora,there is no sufficient and clinching evidence, as regards the actualincident.The evidence as regards the spot of incident is alsoinconsistent.Inspite of the fact that the incident having occurred in abusy place, no independent witness was examined.The two eyewitnesses Sahadu (PW-2) and Kerba (PW-3) are related to the deceasedand Sahadu (PW-2) has turned hostile to the prosecution and except ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: (7) cri.appeal 120.01admitting his signature on the F.I.R., he has not supported it.Theconduct of Kerba (PW-3) in not approaching the police or informing hisown family members about the incident improbabalises his presence atthe spot.The C.A. report is inconclusive.The discovery under Section27 of the Indian Evidence Act has also not been duly established.Additionally, the learned Advocate vehemently objected to the procedurefollowed by the learned Sessions Judge in admitting the evidence in theform of M.L.C. register (Exhibit-39), without there being any explanationas to why such a clinching material was not gathered by theInvestigating Officer during the course of investigation.According to thelearned Advocate this circumstance needs to be totally discarded.Thusaccording to the learned Advocate, the prosecution has miserably failedto bring cogent and reliable evidence, to bring home the guilt beyondreasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submittedthat though the complainant Sahadu (PW-2) has turned hostile to theprosecution, he has admitted his presence at the spot as also hissignature on the F.I.R. (Exhibit-14).Besides Kerba (PW-3) has witnessedactual incident and his subsequent conduct is compatible with theconduct of a man of ordinary prudence.Except the fact that he is related ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: (8) cri.appeal 120.01to the deceased Vilas, nothing could be brought on record to discredit hisversion.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::As regards the statement of deceased Vilas recorded by Dr.Tambhade (PW-12) is considered, according to the learned A.P.P., no faultcan be found with the Medical Officer in bringing on record such materialin the form of history of the patient recorded by him during the ordinarycourse of his duties.Even if it can be said that the Investigating Officercould have conducted the investigation in more prudent manner, anylapses on his part cannot be taken aid of in dislodging this circumstance,wherein, deceased Vilas had narrated the incident, wherein he attributedauthorship of the injuries to the accused.The learned A.P.P. also pointedout that such evidence was allowed to be brought on record by theaccused without any objection.When the prosecution was leadingevidence and attempted to bring such documents on record, in the formof extract of M.L.C. register, no objection was taken by the defense and itis for the first time that the objection is being raised in this appeal.Thus, according to the learned A.P.P., though, there are some infirmitiesin the investigation and in the evidence brought on record, the evidencewhich is available is sufficient enough to justify conviction.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::(9) cri.As was done before the learned Sessions Judge, the learnedAdvocate for the accused submitted that Sahadu (PW-2) having turnedhostile to the prosecution, his evidence is of no avail.True it is thatSahadu (PW-2) has turned hostile to the prosecution and has notsupported it for proving the contents of the F.I.R. (Exhibit-14).But thenthere is an entry in respect of such lodging of F.I.R. taken in the stationdiary at the police station.The learned Sessions Judge has takennecessary precaution in directing the prosecution, to produce the stationdiary.After going through the extract of the station diary (Exhibit-47),we can safely conclude that in fact the F.I.R. (Exhibit-14) was registeredat the instance of none other than Sahadu (PW-2) at about 7.00 p.m. onthe very date of incident which occurred only about half an hour priorthereto.Therefore even though this witness has turned hostile to theprosecution, to the limited extent of lodging of the F.I.R. (Exhibit-14)under his signature on the above mentioned date and time stands dulyestablished.This takes us to the other eye witness Kerba (PW-3).Inconsonance to the prosecution case he has stated about havingwitnessed the incident.He has stated that he had gone to Basmath forpurchasing seeds and he saw that a quarrel was going on between the ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: ( 10 ) cri.appeal 120.01accused and deceased Vilas at about 6.00 p.m. In that scuffle theaccused gave two to four stabs of knife on the chest and hand of Vilas.He then stated about having accompanied Sahadu (PW-2) to the PoliceStation and thereafter police having reached the spot and Vilas havingbeen shifted to the Government Hospital at Basmath.True it is that hehas admitted his relationship with deceased Vilas.However, it is tritethat simply because a witness happens to be related to the deceased orvictim one cannot ipso facto discard his evidence.What is necessary is,his evidence has to be appreciated with circumspection and not withcynicism.In this respect following cases were cited before the learnedSessions Judge on the point of appreciation of evidence of an interestedwitness:::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::appeal 120.01manner in which the learned Sessions Judge has borne in mind theprinciples laid down in this decisions while appreciating the evidence ofKerba (PW-3).::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::Incidentally, Kerba (PW-3) is the only eye witness, thecomplainant Sahadu (PW-2) having turned hostile.Name of Kerba(PW-3) appears in the F.I.R. as an eye witness.As is observed abovethough Sahadu (PW-2) has disowned it, the station diary entryclinchingly proves about the F.I.R. having been lodged promptly withinshort span of time, within half an hour after occurrence of the incident.There could not have been any possibility of any concoction or fabricationhaving entered in lodging the F.I.R. Thus presence of Kerba (PW-3) onthe spot, at the time of incident has been established to be natural.Hisconduct in not disclosing the incident to his family members and insteadrushing to inform the incident to the father of deceased Vilas, Babarao(PW-4) is also quite natural.Some attempt was made on behalf of the accused to pointout that the evidence of Kerba (PW-3) as regards the spot of incident isnot compatible with the spot mentioned in the F.I.R. Even during thecourse of trial a request was made on behalf of the defense to the ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: ( 12 ) cri.appeal 120.01learned Sessions Judge to personally inspect the spot of the incident.The learned Judge conceded to the request and visited the spot, forappreciating the evidence.He duly recorded notes of inspection and hasprepared a sketch.On the basis of such visit, the learned Sessions Judgehas duly appreciated the fact that apparently Kerba (PW-3) has statedabout the incident having occurred in front of Nagar Parishad Basmathand the spot panchnama reads the place to be in front of Vaibhav MedicalStore.He has noticed that there is not much of distance between thetwo places.The learned Judge has correctly appreciated that villagerslike Kerba (PW-3) would refer to the spot with reference to a morerenowned place rather than the names of stores or shops.We thereforeare satisfied in the manner in which the learned Sessions Judge hasappreciated these facts and has concluded that no capital can be madeout of such discrepancy.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::We have independently scrutinized the evidence of Kerba(PW-3) in the light of submission made before us and find no reason butto concur with the observations and conclusions of the learned SessionsJudge in accepting the testimony of Kerba (PW-3) while concluding thathis evidence is sufficient to attribute all the fatal injuries on the person ofdeceased Vilas to the accused.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::( 13 ) cri.This takes us to the principal argument advanced by thelearned Advocate for the accused, assailing the manner in which M.L.C.register extract (Exhibit-39) was allowed to be brought on record by thelearned Sessions Judge and the alleged statement recorded by Dr.Tambhade (PW-12) wherein deceased Vilas allegedly made thedeclaration attributing the injuries to the accused and which the learnedSessions Judge has accepted as his dying declaration.Dr. Tambhade wasattached to the Rural Hospital Basmatnagar on 05.06.2000 .He hasdeposed that at about 7.05 p.m. injured Vilas was brought to the hospitaland when he made enquiry for recording the history Vilas had disclosedthat the injuries were caused using kahtakcha chaku (button knife) bySaheb Munjaji Ingole - son of Pahilwan.He has deposed about havingrecorded statement of Vilas in his own hand writing on the M.L.C. ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::register regularly.True it is that, such an important peace of evidencewas brought on record during the course of trial and therefore one needsto be very careful in scanning it.However, we find that during the courseof cross-examination of Dr. Tambhade (PW-12) nothing could be broughtso as to attribute some ulterior motive on his part, except the fact thatthere is some over writing in mentioning the surname of the assailantnamed by deceased Vilas.However, on the basis of such isolatedcircumstance one cannot discard the evidence of such independentwitness in the form of a Medical Officer.Certainly, there can be no justification and even no attempt wasmade by the Investigating Officer PSI Munde (PW-10) as to why he failedto collect such material evidence when it was available with the MedicalOfficer.Some capital was sought to be made out for inaction of Dr.Tambhade (PW-12) in not informing such history recorded by him to thepolice.However, once we have found that the M.L.C. register (Exhibit-39) was maintained in the ordinarily course of his duties and havingfound that he has no axe to grind in the matter, we cannot attribute anymotive on his part for the inefficiency of the Investigating Officer.On the ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: ( 15 ) cri.appeal 120.01contrary, the very same argument would demonstrate as to howindependent this witness has been.If really he had some ulterior motivein falsely implicating the accused, he would have obligated theInvestigating Officer by himself forwarding such clinching materialinstead of keeping it lying in his hospital.We are, therefore, satisfiedthat this piece of evidence has been brought on record at eleventh hourbut it was allowed to be brought on record without any demur and thereis no material to discredit it even otherwise.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::In ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: ( 16 ) cri.appeal 120.01paragraph 28 following observations have been made:::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::The case at hand is typical example of such lapse on the part of the Presiding Officer as well as ministerial staff of the Sessions Court.It is said, the prosecution is a 'handmaid' of justice.As is apparent from the facts in that case that though thedocuments were forwarded along with the charge-sheet and were ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: ( 17 ) cri.appeal 120.01available on the record those were not included in the list for recordingadmission or denial as contemplated under Section 294 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure.It appears that only during the course of evidence,documents purported to be papers to identify blood groups of the theaccused persons were got admitted from defense and those were notincluded in the list submitted for recording admission and denial underSection 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the evidence of theprosecution began.These documents were admitted by the learnedAdvocate for the accused and were thus exhibited.On the basis of suchpeculiar facts and circumstances, it was held that those documents whichhad not been part of the list furnished while recording admission ordenial under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not beexhibited by causally putting the documents for admission before theAdvocate for the accused.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::It nowhere prohibits any additionalmaterial / evidence to be brought on record except through/ by followingthe procedure prescribed under Section 294 of the Code of CriminalProcedure.Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the onlygateway for a document to come on the record during a trial.The ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: ( 18 ) cri.appeal 120.01prosecution can in a fit case seek to produce a document on record.Accordingly those were exhibited by the learned Sessions Judge, withoutthere being any objection raised by the defense.Therefore this decisiondoes not come to the rescue of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::Once we have concluded that the evidence of Dr. Tambhade(PW-12) is believable and even history recorded by him is quite naturaland believable, we see no reason not to accept the observations and theconclusions of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the accused onthe basis of such evidence.The learned Sessions Judge has correctlyappreciated the evidence available on record and has come to the rightconclusion in convicting the accused.It is true that there are certain lapses in the investigation anddeficiencies in the evidence.The Investigating Officer P.S.I. Munde(PW-10) has not collected the material which was available with Dr.Tambhade (PW-12) and has not promptly recorded the spot panchnama.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::( 19 ) cri.appeal 120.01The panch witnesses have turned hostile and discovery sought to beestablished under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has also notbeing duly proved.We have carefully gone through this decision wherein earlier ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 ::: ( 20 ) cri.appeal 120.01decisions of the Supreme Court on the point of extending the benefit ofException 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code has been laid down.appeal 120.01paragraph no.14 in Ravi Kumar's case (supra):::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::Thirdly, incident that occurred was due to sudden quarrel which ensued between the Appellant-accused and the deceased-Padma on the issue of going to village Mandya to see the ailing Appellant's father.The Appellant, on receiving this news, had become upset and, therefore, his insistence to see his ailing father immediately was natural and at the same time, Padma's refusal to leave could lead to heated exchange of words between them.Fourthly, no conclusive evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove any kind of constant quarrel ever ensued in the last 9 long years between the couple and that too for a cause known to others which could lead to killing Padma or whether any unsuccessful attempt was ever made by the Appellant to kill her in past and lastly, we have not able to see from the postmortem report that any stab injury on Padma's body was caused nor prosecution was able to prove that any blood stained knief from the place of occurrence was recovered at the instance of the Appellant or of any witness."::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::( 22 ) cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::In the result, we find no hesitation in subscribing to theconclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge in convicting andsentencing the accused for the offence of murder.The appeal fails and is dismissed.[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]KAKADE ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:39:04 :::
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
152,405,610 |
The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.30/2014 registered at Police Station Deepar, District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 327, 336, 294, 427, 506-B, 34 of IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.As per prosecution case, the complainant has gone along with Helper Jeetu with his Hitachi Machine for working in Jara Khadan near Sindh River, at that time from Beda, Indel Singh Rajput, Mahipal Singh Rajput, Harnam Gurjar and Hanumant Singh Rajput armed with gun came and they started firing, the complainant rushed to save him and came near his machine, thereafter they came to take away Hitachi Machine and thereafter they damaged the machine.It appears that earlier it was mentioned in the report that fire were made just to create fear, but by overwriting the same it is mentioned that firing was done with an intention to kill.Similarly earlier section 307 of IPC was mentioned and after overwriting on "0" it has been made "2" and the offence has been mentioned as "327" of IPC.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated in the case.On the report of the applicant Crime No.116/2014 under section 307/34 of IPC has been registered against the complainant party at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind.The applicant is Panchayat Secretary and there is no likelihood of his absconsion.Hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.C.No.6517/2014 (Mahipal Singh Vs.State of M.P.) 2 The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.Case diary perused.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,524,168 |
The MLC of the patient recorded at the DDU Hospital shows that she was brought to the hospital by Rawel Singh, husband.It is further recorded in the MLC - "alleged history of burns, history given by the patient herself.Patient says that in a domestic quarrel the kerosene was sprinkled by herself and fire was lit by her husband." The patient was having 65% burns over head, neck, face, anterior thorax, posterior thorax, both arms and right anterior thighs, patient was conscious, co-operative, complaining of pain, well oriented to space and time, smell of kerosene oil was coming from clothes and body.Pulse was 100 mt., regular good volume." The MLC is Ex.PW16/A.He went to the spot and collected burnt clothes, match box and a can which were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/C. He went to the hospital along with Shri H. C. Gaur, the SDM at about 11.10 a.m., where statement of Shanta was recorded by the SDM.The statement is Ex. 6/A. Accused Rawel Singh was present in the hospital.He was arrested.JUDGMENT Arun Kumar, J.The appellant was convicted by an Addl.As per the statement of SI Surinder Kumar, PW-9, on 12th January, 1991 at 9.10 p.m. a message was received from the Duty Officer (West) Distt.Control Room that one lady had been burnt in house No. 11/34, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi.A.D.D. entry No. 16 to this effect was recorded at Police Post MIG flats, Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi at 9.10 p.m. That D.D. was marked to ASI Bhim Singh, PW-14 who proceeded to the place of occurrence.SI Surinder Kumar also went to the spot and from there he proceeded to the Din Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) Hospital.At the hospital he learnt that the patient was referred to the RML Hospital so he proceeded to the RML Hospital.On reaching the hospital at about 11.10 p.m. he wanted to record the statement of the patient.p.m. But her statement could not be recorded because she was crying badly on account of burn injuries.His clothes which were allegedly smelling kerosene oil were taken possession of vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/E. The accused is stated to have made a disclosure statement which is Ex.The post mortem report is Ex.PW15/A. According to the report the cause of death was due to septicemia following 60% deep burns.Scalp hair were preserved and sealed.They were seized vide seizure memo Ex. 9/F. There was no external injury mark on the body.There was no mark of violence seen on the body.He stated that he reached the RML hospital in the morning at about 11.15 a.m. He found Shanta fit to make a statement and, therefore, proceeded to record the same.In fact there is an endorsement on the MLC by Dr. Sharif about fitness of the patient to make statement at 11.20 a.m. The dying declaration was recorded in Hindi, a language known to the patient.It is in question-answer form.The SDM stated that it was recorded in his hand and bore his signatures.He further stated that he had correctly recorded the statement of Shanta.In answer to a specific question as to how her clothes got fire, Shanta told him that -"On 12-1-1991, at about 6.15 to 6.30 p.m., her husband Rawal Singh in an angry mood asked her to prepare tea for him.She further deposed that there was no kerosene oil in the stove and she picked-up the kerosene oil can and was just pouring the kerosene in the stove, her husband Rawal Singh snatched the can from her hand in that scuffle, some of the kerosene oil fell on the clothes of the Rawal Singh.She further deposed that Rawal Singh took it as she wanted to put him to flames.But in fact, Rawal Singh poured kerosene oil from the can on her and set her ablaze by lighting a match stick.To my another specific question whether her husband Rawal Singh threats her in any way of beat her, she answered that right from the day, when she had love-married with him, her husband Rawal Singh had been harassing her, abusing her and also beating her."The said SDM had also conducted the inquest proceedings and the inquest report is Ex.PW-6/F. He had also sent the body for post mortem.In cross-examination he stated that he might have received telephonic request from police station Rajouri Garden at about 10.00 a.m. He went to the hospital in his official car.A portion of his cross-examination which is relevant is reproduced as under :-When I went to the bed-side of Shanta, none of her relative was there.Her father had come when I had finished the statement.During the course of my recording the statement, none else came to the bed-side of Shanta.I.O. of the case was also not on the bed-side.Hospital staff might be there at the time of recording the statement.I did not note-down the names of the hospital employee who were present at the site when I recorded the statement.I concluded the statement at about 11.35 a.m. I then left the hospital thereafter.The Rawal Singh named by Shanta was not present near the bed of Shanta because no person was actually there when I recorded the statement.After I concluded the statement I.O. had come to me.I.O. was not having in his custody any person at that time.It is wrong to suggest that I did not record the statement in question in the hospital at 11 or 11.35 a.m. or that I am deposing falsely."The other relevant oral evidence is that of PW-3, Malla Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-4, Devi Prasad, father of the deceased and PW-5, Gopi Nath, brother of the deceased.The version of the incident given by all these three witnesses is similar and consistent with each other.The three had gone to the hospital on receiving information about Shanta having been burnt.They also referred to the fact that Shanta had contracted a love marriage with the accused.She had earlier been married to one Dalip Goswami from whom she had two children.Dalip Goswami had deserted her.Malla Devi stated that the accused used to live in a house adjoining the house of Shanta which probably led to some relationship developing between the two.These three witnesses also stated that the accused did not like to keep the two children of Shanta from her previous marriage and this was the bone of contention between the two for which the accused used to beat Shanta.The version of the incident as given by these three witnesses which according to them was told to them by Shanta is as follows : that on the previous evening accused Rawel Singh had come home asked for tea.Thereupon she told him that there was no kerosene oil in the stove.Shanta started pouring kerosene oil in the stove whereupon the accused snatched the kerosene oil can from her hands.She tried to snatch back the can from the accused and in the process some kerosene oil fell on clothes of the accused.The accused alleged that Shanta wanted to burn him and that she would actually be burnt and saying so the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire by lighting a match stick.The accused thereafter tried to extinguish the fire and poured water on her.The entire prosecution case rests on the dying declarations of Shanta.There are three dying declarations in this case.First, the one contained in the MLC Ex.The third dying declaration is the one about which the three close relations of Shanta talked in their evidence recorded before the Court.These close relations are PW-3, Malla Devi, mother of Shanta, PW-4, Devi Prasad her father and PW-5, Gopi Nath her brother.All these three witnesses while appearing as prosecution witnesses narrated about the incident which we have already noted above.According to these witnesses this version of the incident was given to them by Shanta herself.This dying declaration does not deserve much attention for the reason that none of these witnesses referred to the same earlier, i.e., prior to their evidence recorded in the court.The statements of these witnesses were recorded by the police.They never mentioned about the dying declaration.The trial court disbelieved this dying declaration.We also do not attach much value to the same.We are of the view that the fate of the prosecution case hinges the other two dying declarations noted by us.Shri Sandeep Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary submission that both the dying declarations, i.e., one contained in the MLC and the other contained in the statement of Shanta recorded by the SDM should be rejected.In support of this contention, the learned counsel submitted that the version of the crime is at variance in both these dying declarations.He buttressed this argument by drawing our attention to another version of the crime which as per sequence of events is the earliest.This version is contained in the statement of Head Constable Rekha Gurang.This witness appearing as PW-10 stated that while she was on duty on 10th January, 1991 at the police control room, one Davinder Kumar gave a ring from telephone No. 5418838 at about 9 p.m. that a woman set herself to fire in 11/34, Subhash Nagar, Delhi.According to the learned counsel this is the first version of the crime which shows that Shanta had set herself on fire.The learned counsel submitted that when there are three versions of the same incident, all the three must be rejected and in any case the accused should get the benefit of doubt.We have considered this argument.The witness could not have answered any questions in relation to that version.Only Davinder Kumar who allegedly gave the version could throw light as to how he gave the information that a woman had set herself on fire.If he was produced he could have been asked as to whether he had seen the incident himself or else what was the basis of his saying so.In the absence of Davinder Kumar no importance can be attached to this version.This brings us to the remaining two versions of the crime, one contained in the MLC and the other in the dying declaration recorded by the SDM.In both these versions of the crime, so far as setting Shanta to fire is concerned, the two versions are consistent, clear and without any ambiguity.In both the versions it is stated that her husband had set her on fire.The variance is only about the sprinkling of kerosene on the victim.She was conscious as noted in the MLC.She had 65% burns.It is highly improbable that she would implicate the appellant falsely in the crime.After all she was living with him.There had been a love affair between the two.The only bone of contention between the two appeared to be the children from her previous marriage.The statement recorded by the SDM inspires confidence and appears to be natural and trustworthy.It satisfies the usual tests.About the fitness of the patient to make the statement there a certificate of the doctor.Of course the doctor has not been examined.It was so because the doctor had left the job by then.We have no reason to doubt the veracity of the two dying declarations contained in the MLC as also in the statement recorded by the SDM.Firstly, she had made a similar statement at the earliest in her MLC.At that time there could be no question of tutoring.They were not even on visiting terms as admitted by these witnesses in their statements.There was no likelihood of their tutoring Shanta for making such a statement.Now let us examine the defense raised by the appellant in his statement under S. 313, Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that he is not Rawel Singh and he has been falsely implicated in the case.He stated that his name was Lakhbir Singh.He admitted that he was a tenant in house No. 11/34, Subhash Nagar on the first floor whereas according to him deceased Shanta was residing on the second floor of that house.According to him he returned to the house at about 9.30 p.m. on the date of the incident from his work.In front of the house there was noise about the incident.He was apprehended by the police at that time.He further stated that he had no concern with Shanta.We have considered this plea carefully.We find that there is overwhelming evidence on record which establishes that the appellant is Rawel Singh, the accused.May be that he has another name or an alias as Lakhbir Singh, but the fact that he is Rawel Singh cannot be disputed.The parents and brother of Shanta who appeared as witnesses identified the accused as Rawel Singh present in court with whom their daughter/sister was residing on account of love marriage with him.In that way Rawel Singh was the son-in-law/brother-in-law of these witnesses and in case of such close relationship they could not be committing any mistake about identity of the person.Further it is in evidence of these witnesses that Rawel Singh was living in the same neighbourhood before marriage of Shanta with him.The person who took Shanta to the hospital and got her admitted in the hospital as per the MLC is again Rawel Singh.Rawel Singh was found present in the hospital and was arrested from the hospital as per the statement of the I.O. The accused had smell of kerosene oil on his clothes.His clothes were seized by the I.O. The personal search memo prepared at the time of arrest of Rawel Singh is signed by him as Rawel Singh.The same is Ex.PW9/G.14. PW-2, Ranjit Singh, son of Karnail Singh, who was the landlord of the house in which Rawel Singh was admittedly a tenant, identified him in court as Rawel Singh.He stated that accused Rawel Singh present in court was known to him because he was his tenant.He further stated that when after hearing the shrieks of a lady he went upstairs he found the accused holding his wife, whose name he did not remember, outside the room.The wife of the accused had burn marks but the fire had been extinguished after throwing water on her.Accused told him to bring a scooter.He also told him that his wife was preparing chapattis and food and had got burnt.Further in the evidence of both the investigating officers, i.e. PW-9 and PW-14, namely, Surinder Kumar and Bhim Singh respectively it is mentioned that the accused was present in the hospital.His clothes were smelling kerosene.His clothes were taken possession of.We have carefully considered this argument.(ii) in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a quarrel; andIt cannot be said to be a case of sudden quarrel in heat of passion and leading to a sudden fight.We have evidence of the fact that the relations between the two, i.e. Shanta and accused Rawel Singh were not cordial.Rawel Singh used to beat her often because he did not want to keep in his house her children from her previous marriage.Shanta's parents as well as brother have deposed about it.There is other evidence of it.This fact coupled with the fact that the incident started with Rawel Singh asking Shanta to make tea for him and Shanta reporting back that there was no kerosene oil in the stove.She brought the kerosene can to fill the stove.The accused tried to snatch it and in the process some kerosene oil fell on his clothes for which the accused got annoyed leading to the ultimate act.The quarrel between the two and beating of Shanta was a regular feature.Shanta was always at the receiving end.The accused tried to snatch the kerosene oil can from her hands.She was only taking steps to prepare tea for him.She was a mute target.Rather he continued to look after Shanta in the hospital till he was arrested.The question that arises for consideration is whether this conduct of the appellant points to his innocence.The guilt of the appellant is proved beyond any doubt.His conduct after the incident does not bring the case within the purview of any of the Exceptions to S. 300, I.P.C. Thus the conduct of the appellant after the incident is of no consequence in the facts of the present case.The result of the above discussion is that this appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.Appeals dismissed.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,952,691 |
(ii) If in future, during investigation, the investigating agency comes across any concrete material against the present Applicant, they are at liberty to make an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.(iii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2019 01:38:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2019 01:38:07 :::
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,955,981 |
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.He was a resident of West Avenue, Kamaraj Nagar, at Thiruvanmiyur.On 14.1.2010, the deceased was sitting casually on the platform near Hyundai Car Show Room, which was under construction.The accused was also a resident of that area.He came to that place by chance.On seeing the accused, the deceased requested him to give a 'beedi'.The accused refused to give 'beedi' and pushed the deceased.The deceased, in turn, pushed the accused.The accused lost his balance and fell down.Provoked by the said act of the deceased, it is alleged that the accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest and on the hip and also near the left eye.The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 4, who are all residents of that locality.P.W.1 took the deceased in a tricycle to a nearby private hospital.The Doctor, after having examined the deceased, wanted P.W.1 to rush him to the Government Hospital.Therefore, P.W.1 took the deceased in an auto and brought him to the Royapettah Government Hospital.The Doctor, who examined him, declared him dead.The body was sent to the mortuary.P.W.10 took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at 11.15 p.m., in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness.He also recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.(c) During the course of investigation, P.W.10 arrested the accused on 15.1.2010 at 1.00 p.m. near Velankanni Madha Koil at Thiruvanmiyur, in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.On such arrest, he made a disclosure statement about the place where he had hidden the knife.In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.10 and P.W.6 to the place of hide-out and produced M.O.1, the knife.(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu,J.) The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.19 of 2011, on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.By judgement dated 18.02.2013, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.P.W.7, the then Sub Inspector of Police registered a case on the said complaint, in Crime No.36 of 2010, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.On reaching the hospital, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.He also examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and few more witnesses.Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.P.W.11 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 15.1.2010 at 12.40 p.m.. He found the following injuries."1) Oblique cut injury 5X1X0.5 c.m over outer aspect of left orbit.Margins are clean angles are acute.2)Cut injury 2.5 X 1X1 cm over left side of lover jaw 0.5 to 1.5 cm away from lip.3)Cut injury 2X1X0.5 cm over left side of abdomen 3 cms away from mid line at the level 3 cms below umbilicus.4)Oblique stab injury 2X1 cm X Cavity deep over outer aspect of left side of chest along Mid axillary line 17 cms away from the nipple hdirected obliquely down wards and inwards.All the above injury are fresh and ante mortem in nature and show bruising of the margins."P11 is the postmortem certificate.The Doctor opined that the said injuries could have been caused by a weapon like knife and he further opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to the stab injuries.P.W.10 recovered the same under a mahazar.Then, P.W.10 recovered the blood stained half sleeve shirt worn by the accused at that time, under a mahazar.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the Court.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination by the Court.The report revealed that there were human blood on the material objects, except the knife.On completing the investigation, he laid a charge-sheet.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 12 witnesses were examined, 11 documents and 3 materials objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence.They have spoken about the entire occurrence in a vivid fashion.P.W.1 has further stated about the complaint made by him to the police.P.W.5 has spoken about the observation mahazar prepared, the rough sketch and the recovery of blood stained earth and sample earth, from the place of occurrence.P.W.6 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, the disclosure statement made by him and the consequential recovery of M.O.1, the knife, at his instance.P.W.8 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted by him.He has stated that there was no blood stain on the knife, but there were blood stains on the other material objects.He has stated that on examination, he found the deceased dead and therefore, he forwarded the body to the mortuary.P.W.11 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.Ws.10 and 12 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any one on his side nor mark any document.His defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as detailed in first paragraph of this judgement and that is how the accused is before this Court.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.Ws.1 to 4 would not have been present at the scene of occurrence at all.She would submit that their presence at the place of occurrence by chance cannot be believed.But, we do not find any force at all in the said argument.It has been narrated by P.Ws.1 to 4 that the deceased was sitting in a casual manner on the platform, near the Hyundai Car Show Room, which was under construction.P.Ws.1 to 4 are the residents of that area.They were also there at the place of occurrence at that time.There was nothing unnatural on their part in being present at the scene of occurrence, at the crucial time.Therefore, we believe the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4 at the place of occurrence.Further, in their evidence, they have vividly narrated the entire occurrence, which inspires the confidence of this Court.Though these witnesses have been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited from them, so as to disbelieve their presence and their veracity.From the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, the prosecution, in our considered view, has clearly established that it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased by stabbing him thrice.The evidence of P.W.11, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, would go to prove that the death was due to the injuries caused and as we have already pointed out, the prosecution has proved that the injuries were caused only by the accused.Having come to the above conclusion, now we have to examine as to what was the offence that the accused had committed by the above act? As we have already narrated, it is in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that the deceased, by chance, on seeing the accused, wanted only 'beedi' from the accused.The accused pushed him, thereby declining to give 'beedi'.The deceased in turn pushed the accused down and the accused lost balance and fell down.This resulted in a quarrel.In that fight, the accused had lost his balance.In the heat of passion, he had taken out the knife and stabbed the deceased.9.Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused is a poor man.He has got a family to take care of.The occurrence was not pre-meditated.It was out of a sudden quarrel, in the heat of passion, the accused had caused the injuries on the deceased.He has got no bad antecedents.After the occurrence also, he has not done any deviation from law.Having regard to all the above mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that convicting the appellant under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years, and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four weeks, would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:(i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and instead he is convicted under section 304 (1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four weeks.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,962,595 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for quashing the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 3400275 of 2017 (Smt. Chunni Begam vs. Riyajuddin and others) and order dated 10.12.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 62, District Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 264 of 2019 (Ikbal Ansari and others vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3400275 of 2017, (Chunni Begam vs. Riyajuddin and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Bareilly.3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits as under :-that initially an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant against the applicants before the concerned Magistrate whereupon order of registration of F.I.R. was passed.Matter was investigated by Investigating Officer, who submitted final report in the matter.that on submission of final report protest application was moved by the complainant which came to be registered as complaint case.Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the application and submitted that entire submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants is on fact of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Truthfulness of allegation and statement of witnesses can be adjudicated only after the evidence is produced in the trial court.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,965,018 |
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.1.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Fast Track Court, Sambhal at Chandausi dismissing Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019 (Computer Registration No.44 of 2019) Rohit versus State of U.P., filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ''the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Sambhal dated 5.10.2018 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.560 of 2017 (State vs. Rohit) under Section 376D, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Asmauli District Sambhal.Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Manish Dev Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that on 16.10.2017 at about 10 a.m. when the victim Km.Poonam was carrying the tiffin at the agriculture field, in the way accused persons namely Rohit (revisionist) and Abhishek caught the victim with bad intention to commit rape and dragged her in sugarcane field and Rohit committed rape with her with the help of Abhishek.When Abhishek was also trying to commit rape with the victim, she raised alarm whereupon Chhatrapal and some other persons rushed to the spot.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.There is contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC which makes the prosecution story doubtful.As per medical report, no external or internal injury was found on the person of the victim and her hymen was found as torn old and healed.In the supplementary medical report, the final opinion of the doctor is as such that sexual violence could not be ruled out.Further, as per medical report (ossification test), the age of the victim was found as 16 years.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.He further submits that except this the revisionist has no previous criminal history.The father of the revisionist is giving his undertaking that after release of the revisionist on bail, he will keep him under his custody and look after him properly.Further, the revisionist undertakes that he will not tamper the evidence and he will always cooperate the trial proceedings.There was no report regarding any previous antecedents of family or background of the revisionist.There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.The revisionist was a juvenile aged 15 years, 3 months and 14 days on the date of occurrence.He was, thus, clearly below 16 years of age.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Moradabad upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(i) That the bail application of the revisionist was rejected by the court below in a very cursory and arbitrary manner.(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.(vi) That the courts have erred in law in not considering the true import of Section 12 of the Act, 2015 and thus, the impugned orders passed by the courts below suffer from manifest error of law apparent on the face of record.(vii) That the courts below have acted quite illegally and with material irregularity in not properly considering the case of juvenile in proper and correct perspective which makes the impugned orders passed by the courts below non est and bad in law.(viii) That bare perusal of the impugned orders demonstrate that the same have been passed on flimsy grounds which have occasioned gross miscarriage of justice.The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."State of U.P. (supra)., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 13.1.2020 passed by Special Judge POCSO Act/Fast Track Court, Sambhal at Chandausi dismissing Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2019 (Computer Registration No.44 of 2019) Rohit versus State of U.P. and the order of Juvenile Justice Board, Sambhal dated 5.10.2018 passed in Case Crime No.560 of 2017 (State vs. Rohit) under Section 376D, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Asmauli District Sambhal, are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Rohit through his natural guardian/ father Devraj be released on bail in Case Crime No.560 of 2017 (State vs. Rohit) under Section 376D, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Asmauli District Sambhal upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Sambhal subject to the following conditions:(i) That the natural guardian of the revisionist will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.(ii) The revisionist and his natural guardian will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of November, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,971,155 |
The case before the trial court was based primarily on the evidence of Rajender (PW-5), the victim of the offence and the first informant.He had picked up cargo in the nature of 225 tins of Palmoline oil and 100 tins of refined Soyabean, all of Ambuja brand besides other Crl.A 635/2015 Page 2 of 4 articles from the godown of one Kulbhushan Gupta of Saraspur Gaon, which was to be delivered at the premises of Ram Lal Bhatia and Sons, Jheel Khuranja, Geeta Colony, Delhi.PW-5, while driving the said vehicle, had reached near Majnu Ka Tila at Outer Ring Road by 9.30 p.m. on 30.10.2009 when the said vehicle was intercepted by a car make Scorpio colour black.The evidence shows that the first informant was forced to get down from the vehicle and make to sit in the rear seat of the car whereupon he was rendered unconscious.His vehicle with Cargo was taken away.Upon regaining consciousness in a remote village, he returned and reported the incident to the police.A 635/2015 Page 4 of 4A 635/2015 Page 4 of 4Appellant Shiraj @ Sirajuddin stood trial in the court of sessions in Sessions Case No. 26/2010 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. 165/2009 of police station Civil Lines.Besides him, six other persons had been sought to be prosecuted out of which one Gulzar Albi (second accused), however, was discharged by order dated 21.07.2010 of the trial court.On conclusion of the trial, by judgment dated 09.04.2015, all the six persons including the appellant were held guilty and convicted.The appellant herein, shown in the array before the trial court as fifth accused, was found guilty and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 341/365/392 read Crl.A 635/2015 Page 1 of 4 with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC).By subsequent order dated 29.04.2015 he, besides similarly placed other convicted persons, was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month for offence under Sections 341/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Sections 365 read with Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC.The learned trial judge accorded benefit of set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C.A 635/2015 Page 1 of 4By the appeal at hand, challenge was brought to the judgment finding the appellant guilty and convicting him as also to the order on sentence.When the appeal has come up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not press the appeal on merits so as to challenge the finding of guilty or conviction for the above- mentioned offences, restricting his prayer, on instructions, only for reduction of sentence.This being the first appeal, and consequently this Court being the final forum on facts, the evidence has nonetheless been gone through with the assistance of the learned counsel to record satisfaction as to the correctness of the findings returned.During investigation, the role of four persons, including the appellant herein was revealed, they having participated in the waylaying of the vehicle and relieving PW-5 of the said vehicle and its cargo.Pursuant to the disclosures made, recoveries of part of the stolen goods were effected from co-accused persons namely Shan Mohammad, Riyazuddin and Anil.A 635/2015 Page 2 of 4Given the clear and cogent evidence to above effect, the conclusions reached by the trial court, holding the appellant guilty and convicting him as above, cannot be faulted.The appellant was arrested on 16.12.2009 and remained in custody during the period of trial for almost nine months.The nominal roll shows that he has suffered incarceration Crl.A 635/2015 Page 3 of 4 for two years nine months and sixteen days and on account of good conduct has earned remission to the extent of seven months and seven days.It is noted that the appellant does not have any past criminal record.He is married and has two children in the family who depend on him for sustenance.A 635/2015 Page 3 of 4Since the appellant has already undergone the sentence including on account of the period of remission, he need not surrender to custody.The appeal is disposed of in above terms.R.K.GAUBA, J.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,972,425 |
Let photostat plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the husband of the petitioner on usual undertaking.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,197,388 |
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Rajagopal.The deceased and the accused belong to the same village.They were all inimical terms.It isalleged that on 14.01.2012, around 05.30 p.m. at Seelanayakkanpatti Village,near a tea shop, the appellant/A1, along with two other accused, scolded thedeceased by ridiculing his community and in that process, it is alleged thatthe first accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and when PW2 intercepted,he stabbed him also with the knife and then, all the three accused ran awayfrom the scene of occurrence.(b) PW1 and PW3, who witnessed the occurrence, immediately took the deceased and PW2 in an auto-rickshaw to the Government Hospital, Usilampatti.The doctor, who was on duty, after examining him declared the deceased dead.He forwarded PW2 to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for furthertreatment.In the complaint, PW1 mentioned thatthe appellant/A1 herein, along with three others, came in drunken state,developed quarrel and scolded the deceased and that in the course of the sametransaction, the appellant/A1 stabbed the deceased and PW2 with the knife.On the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2012 underSections 341, 324 and 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.(c) The case was taken up for investigation by PW15, the then DeputySuperintendent of Police.He went to the place of occurrence, prepared anobservation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of witnesses.Then,he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrencein the presence of the same witnesses.At that time, he received intimationfrom the hospital that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries.?Antemortem injury:PW5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and rough sketch and also the recoveryof material objects at the place of occurrence.PW6 ? the Tahsildar hasspoken about the issuance of certificates indicating the community of theaccused and the deceased by him.According to him, the deceased belonged to scheduled caste and all the three accused belong to a community which isneither a scheduled caste nor a scheduled tribe.5.1. PW7 ? the Village Assistant has spoken about the arrest of theaccused and the recoveries made out of the disclosure statements.PW8 ? the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court has stated that he forwarded the materialobjects for chemical examination, as directed by the learned Magistrate.PW9? the Head Constable attached to the said Police Station has spoken about thefact that he handed over the dead body to the doctor for post-mortem.PW10 ?another Head Constable has spoken about handing over the material objects tothe forensic laboratory for chemical examination, as directed by the learnedMagistrate.PW12 ? Dr.Natarajan has spoken about the postmortem conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.PW13 ? Dr.Jeganmohan has stated that on 14.01.2012, when he was on duty at the Government Hospital, Usilampatti, at 7.45 p.m., PW2 - Balamuruganwas brought to the hospital for treatment and he was informed by him that hewas stabbed by a known person.(Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.30 of 2012 on thefile of the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge (PCR), Madurai.Therewere two other accused by name Chinnasamy and Ramar.The trial Court framed as many as five charges against them as detailed below:Charge Nos.AgainstOffence U/s.A1 3(1)(x) of SC/AT Act2A1 302 r/w 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act3A2 and A3 302 r/w 34 IPC r/w 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act4A1 307 IPC r/w 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act5A2 and A3 307 r/w 34 IPC r/w 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.2.By judgment dated 30.12.2013, the trial Court acquitted the accused 2and 3 from both the charges, however, convicted the appellant/A1 alone foroffence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorousimprisonment for two years for the said offence.The trial Court acquittedthe appellant/A1 also from the other charges.Therefore,he altered the case one under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the alterationreport under Ex.Then, he went to the hospital, conducted inquest on thebody of the deceased and forwarded the body for post-mortem.(d) PW12 ? Dr.Natarajan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 15.01.2012 at 11.15 a.m. and he found the following injuries:An oblique stab injury measuring 3 cm x 0.5 cm x pleural cavity deepnoted on the back of left side of chest 4 cm below the angle of scapula.On dissection:The wound passes obliquely downwards and forwards piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves in the 8th inter costal space, piercingthe underlying pleura and lower lobe of left lung measuring 2.5 c.m. X 0.5 cmx 1 cm and ends as a point.Left pleural cavity contains 350 ml of fluidblood with clots.Right pleural cavity empty.?He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock andhemorrhage due to the injury.P13 is the Postmortem Certificate.He gavefurther opinion that the said injury could have been caused by a knife.(e) PW15, during the course of investigation, arrested all the threeaccused on 15.01.2012 at 4.00 p.m. near Kallupatti Kaatralaimedu in thepresence of the witnesses.On such arrest, the appellant/A1 gave a voluntarydisclosure statement, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden abloodstained lungi, a shirt and also a motorcycle.Based on the same, PW15recovered all these material objects from him.On the disclosure statementmade by A2, yet another motorcycle was recovered.He obtained a certificatefrom the Thasildar about the community of the accused.Finally, on completingthe investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed five charges asdetailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied thesame.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as15 witnesses were examined and 20 documents and 11 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, PW1 and PW3, who claim to be the eyewitnesses, have spoken about the entire occurrence.PW1 has spoken about the fact that he took the deceased and PW2 to the hospital and also about the complaint made by him to the Police.PW2 ? the injured has turned hostile.He has not supported the case of theprosecution in any manner.PW4 has turned hostile and he has not statedanything incriminating against the accused.He found a stab injury on his chest.Then, heand forwarded him to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for furthertreatment.PW14 ? the Forensic Expert has stated that he examined the material objects and found human blood on all the material objects.PW15 hasspoken about the investigation done and final report filed by him.6.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did notchoose to examine any witness on their side.They marked five documents as Exs.D1 to D5 on their side.D1 is the signature of PW3 in Ex.P19; Ex.D2is the signature of Mayan in Ex.P19; Ex.D3 is the signature of one Nagaraj;Ex.D4 is a copy of the Accident Register of the deceased; and Ex.Their defence was a total denial.Considering all theabove, the trial Court has acquitted the accused 2 and 3 and convicted theappellant/A1 alone for the offence under Section 302 IPC and that is how, heis before this Court with this appeal.We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant/A1 andthe learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.We havealso perused the records carefully.Referring to Ex.D4, the learned senior counselappearing for the appellant would submit that the earliest information wasnot against the appellant/A1 herein, but against three unknown persons.The statement that thedeceased was attacked by three unknown persons as recorded in Ex.D4 was not made by the deceased so as to treat the same as a dying declaration.It wasmade by one Mr.Prabhu, who is stated to be a relative of the deceased.Thatbeing a former statement of Prabu, the same can be used either to contradictMr.He would further submit that the alleged occurrence in this case was at 05.30p.m.on 14.01.2012; the FIR was registered at 07.00 p.m. On 14.01.2012 andthe same reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 10.00 a.m. on15.01.2012 and absolutely, there is no explanation for the said inordinatedelay in the FIR reaching the hands of the learned Magistrate.He has stated that around 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence, he heard the hue and cry of the peoplethat ?Kaluthaipandi had stabbed and run away?.The said Kaluthaipandi isnone else than the appellant/A1 herein.The other contemporaneous records like, observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared at the place of occurrence would also duly corroboratethe same.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the learned seniorcounsel for the appellant/A1 would submit that the appellant/A1 is an youngman and he is poor and he has got the burden of maintaining the entirefamily.Having regard to the age, social background, financial status, familycircumstances, gravity of the offence and all other mitigating as well asaggravating circumstances, we are of the view that sentencing theappellant/A1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fineof Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304 (I) IPC would meet the endsof justice.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing terms:-The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the appellant/A1under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and instead, theappellant/A1 is convicted under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti Sub Division, Madurai District,.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,975,378 |
As per prosecution case, the complainant was going to Village Punawali for sweeping, in between the way when she reached near the field of Mohar Singh Yadav, one Chandan Singh met and caught hold of her and took her behind the bushes and committed rape on her.He also threatened that if she disclosed the incident, her husband would be killed.After three to four days he disclosed the incident to her husband and mother-in-law.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.He has not committed any offence.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.190/2014 registered at Police Station, Dinara, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506-B of IPC, section 3 (1) (xii) and section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)The report of the incident has been lodged after five days and there is no satisfactory explanation for delay.The victim has also not disclosed the incident to anybody for about three to four days.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.C.No.7095/2014 (Chandan Singh Vs.State of M.P.) 2 Case diary perused.As per the medical report of the victim no injury has been found.The reason for delay has been mentioned by the victim that due to fear she has not lodged the report.Considering that the victim is married lady aged 25 years and her husband and mother-in-law were in house, even then the report has not been lodged after the incident and it has been lodged after five days, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,977,153 |
And In the matter of : Saddam Sk. @ Obaidur Rahman & Others.... Petitioners Mr. Tapodip Gupta Mr. P.S. Mondal .. for the Petitioners Mrs.Sujata Ghosh For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Suti Police Station Case No. 202 of 2016 dated 27.03.2016 under Sections 354/379/323/34of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 770 of 2016, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.They have been falsely implicated.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,977,573 |
the deceased Tularam Murmu had gone to his ancestral residence and had demanded his share from agricultural produce from his brothers, the appellants herein.Over this issue a quarrel ensued between the deceased on the one hand and the appellants on the other hand.Appellants assaulted the deceased with fists, blows and kicks.He died at the spot.Initially, son of the deceased, Lakhindar Murmu (PW 14) informed local police that his father had died due to excess consumption of liquor.Accordingly, Shesh Kumar (PW 2), officer-in-charge of Onda Police Station started U.D. Case No.05/11 dated 01.04.2011 and an inquest over the body of the deceased was conducted by A.S.I. Biswajit Chakraborty.It was signed by Bablu Rahaman Choudhury (PW 1), Hekim Choudhury and Lakhindar Murmu (PW 14).Body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination.Dr. Prabir Chakraborty (PW 9) conducted post mortem over the dead body of the deceased.He found multiple injuries on the body of the deceased including fracture of ribs.He opined death was due to effect of injuries, ante mortem and homicidal in nature.On receipt of post mortem report Shesh Kumar (PW 2) lodged suo motu complaint being Onda Police Station Case No.24/2012 dated 17.03.2012 against the appellants.In conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants and charge was framed against the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, the learned Judge by the judgment and order dated 11.05.2015 and 12.05.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.Mr. Mallick appearing for the appellants submitted most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.PW 1 was a signatory to the inquest report and had not disclosed that he had seen the assault on the deceased to police at the earliest opportunity.PW 6 and 7 were also present at the spot when the police arrived but did not divulge the fact that they had witnessed the assault.One year later, upon registration of FIR the witnesses had come out with the story that they saw the assault by the appellants.Hence the prosecution case ought not to be believed.On the other hand, Mr. Ahmed argued the appellants had prevailed over the family members of the deceased including his son to not disclose the true circumstances leading to the homicidal death of the deceased.Accordingly, son of the deceased, Lakhindar Murmu (PW 14) gave a false explanation that his father had died due to excess consumption of alcohol.Such explanation relating to cause of death was falsified by the findings in the post mortem report and the prosecution case is well established against the appellants.I have considered the evidence on record.Apart from PW 1, PW 6 and PW 7 other prosecution witnesses have not supported the case.PW 1 deposed on 01.04.2011 Tularam Murmu had come to the house of his brothers for inviting them to attend the marriage ceremony of his daughter.He asked for his share in the agricultural produce from landed property to meet the marriage expenses.He further deposed that he was proceeding to the field and saw a commotion.Appellants were assaulting Tularam Murmu with bamboo stick.As a result he died.In cross-examination he stated Tularam Murmu had married twice.Sasanka Murmu, son of Tularam Murmu was born from his first wife and was residing at village Dhabani.Tularam was residing with his second wife at village Upersole.He further stated that the tribal village is situated at a distance of 500 ft. from the village where Muslims reside.In cross-examination, PW 6 admitted that he was present at the time when police came to the spot.He did not lodge any written complaint with the police.Evidence of the aforesaid witnesses has been strongly criticized by the appellants on the premises that they remained silent when the police arrived at the spot.After FIR was registered, one year after the incident, they claimed to be eyewitnesses.I am unable to accept such contention.Reason for silence of the said witnesses is not too far to seek.There was a quarrel amongst the brothers over share of landed property.Only when the police registered FIR upon receiving post mortem report, the said witnesses came out with the real facts relating to the death of the victim.Hence, I find no reason to discard the evidence of the aforesaid uninterested witnesses to the incident.However, analysis of their evidence show that the incident had occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel amongst brothers relating to their shares in agricultural produce.Appellants had acted on the spur of the moment and assaulted the deceased with fists, blows and lathis.Incident occurred without premeditation and it cannot be said that the appellants acted in a cruel or unusual manner.Accordingly, the act of the appellants would fall within the exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and I am inclined to convert the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section 304 Part I/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellants during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence, as aforesaid, in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be forthwith sent down to the trial court at once.Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be made available to the appellant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.I agree.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,239,430 |
No. 45 GB CRM 6031 of 2020 CRAN 4486 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Harishchandrapur P.S. Case No.673 of 2019 dated 19.09.2019 under Sections 143/342/186/332/353/323/324/307427/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act.And In the matter of: Joni @ Samsur Alam.....Petitioner.Ms. Sujata Das....for the Petitioner....for the State.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.The petitioner claims that the petitioner was a mere bystander and a victim of circumstances.According to the State, the petitioner was a part of a mob which attempted to take law in its own hands by meting out corporal punishment to certain persons perceived to be child-lifters.The State says that even the police personnel were not spared when they arrived at the scene and brickbats were hurled at them.Though assault on police personnel on duty ought not to be tolerated or condoned, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary.In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the 2 satisfaction of the arresting officer.CRM 6031 of 2020 and CRAN 4486 of 2020 are disposed of.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,245,163 |
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment dated 09.01.2012 made in C.A.No.133 of 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Court, Fast Tract Court No.II, Tirunelveli.2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.3.According to the complainant, the petitioners caused injuries to their goats and when they questioned the same, there was a wordy quarrel between the parties, followed by which, the revision petitioners/accused attacked P.W.1 to P.W.3 using Aruval and caused injuries to them.Therefore, they lodged a complaint.Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent / Police registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2007 and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 429, 324, 307 IPC.The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the case on file as P.R.C.No.57 of 2007 and the same was committed to the Sessions Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 34.On committal to the Sessions Court, charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 429, 324, 307, 294(b) 323 read with 149, 324 read with 149 and 307 r/w. 149 IPC and the revision petitioners and other accused pleaded they are not guilty.5.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during the trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.15 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.After completing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence culled out from the prosecution witnesses have been put forth before the revision petitioners and other accused and was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Though revision petitioners and other accused denied them as false evidence, no oral and documentary evidence were adduced on the side of the revision petitioners.6.After hearing the arguments on both sides and also considering the materials placed before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the trial Court found the revision petitioners and other accused guilty and convicted the revision petitioners and other Accused.Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Assistant Sessions Court, the convict has preferred the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.133 of 2011 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Court, Fast Tract Court No.II, Tirunelveli.7.After hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, found that the offence punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 324 r/w.149 and 307 r/w 149 against the accused Nos. 3 to 5 have not been proved.However, the Court found that the offence under Sections 294(b), 429 (2 counts) and 307 IPC as against the 1st revision petitioner / Accused No.1 has been proved and has convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of seven years and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of one year for having committed the offence under Section 307 IPC and a sentence of Rs.200/- fine for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC in default one week rigorous imprisonment and a sentence of Rs.500/- fine for the offence under Section 429 IPC, each count in default one month rigorous imprisonment.The offence under Sections 294(b), and 307 IPC as against the 2 nd revision petitioner / Accused No.2 has been proved and the Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-, in default tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for having committed the offence under Section 307 IPC and a sentence of Rs.200/- fine for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC in default one week rigorous imprisonment.Against which, the revision petitioners has preferred the present revision.Now the convicts alone has preferred the present revision case.According to P.W.1 to P.W.3, P.W.6 took the injured to the hospital.They have stated that before going to the hospital, they went to the police station, wherein they gave information which was reduced into writing by the police officials.Thereafter, they went to the hospital and this complaint was suppressed by the prosecution.They have taken the cognizance only based on the statement recorded in the hospital, therefore the original complaint said to have been filed by the complainant before the police has not been disclosed and the same was suppressedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 which was fatal to the case of the prosecution.Further, in this case the weapons have not been recovered.Therefore, under these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.When two views are possible, the views are favourable to the accused to be considered and benefits of doubt has to be extended.Therefore, both the Courts below failed to consider the aspects and convicted the revision petitioners.Though the trial Court convict the accused, the appellate Court acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 and partly confirmed the order of the Trial Court which warrants interference of this Court.9.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.In the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, they have clearly stated that the revision petitioners caused injuries to them.P.W.12 Doctor evidence has clearly shows that the victim P.W.1 and P.W.2 sustained incise injury.Therefore, they have given explanation for the delay in filing the complaint.Since, they sustained incise injury, they were brought to the hospital first.After receiving information from the hospital, the respondent police obtained statement from the victim and thereafter, registered ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 case.The delay in registering the complaint has also been properly explained by the prosecution and that is not fatal to the case of prosecution.The Accident Register reveals that they have been attacked with Aruval by two known persons.Therefore, the appellate Court considered this aspect and convicted the revision petitioners / A1 and A2 and the prosecution proved the case through the injured witnesses as well as independent witness also with medical evidence and wound certificate.Therefore, both the Courts rightly appreciated the case of prosecution witness and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and there is no merit in the revision.10.Heard and perused the records.11.The case of the prosecution is that due to motive with regard to causing injuries to the goats, there was a wordy quarrel between the parties and therefore, the revision petitioners took Aruval and assaulted P.W.1 to P.W.3 and caused injuries to them.P.W.2 Lingam sustained abrasion injury over the right side head top.P.W.3 Samuthiram sustained cut injury in right backside shoulder, cut injury in right side lower back hip and cut injury in the right side face from eyes to lips.P.W.1 to P.W.3 have clearly spoken about the occurrence.P.9 Accident Register shows that two persons on 26.05.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. attacked by Aruval and also they sustained the above said injuries.Therefore, it is not the case of the defence that unknown persons were attacked and since they are all residing in the same village and they are known to each other and due to motive, there was a wordy quarrel between them, subsequently, they have attacked with Aruval and therefore, there is no dispute with regard to identification of the person and also the weapons used.Under these circumstances, this Court found that the petitioners/ accused committed offence under Sections 294(b), 429 (2 counts) and 307 IPC.12.Though the learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the earlier complaint said to have been given to the police was suppressed and also there is a delay in registering the case and weaponshttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 have not been recovered, mere non-recovery of weapons is not fatal to the case.The eye witnesses clearly spoken about the accident.Mere suppression of earlier complaint is not fatal to the prosecution case.Though the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 have stated that immediately after the occurrence they went to hospital, since there was a over bleeding they were advised to go to the hospital.According to the complaint, immediately after the occurrence, they made a complaint.Mere non- production of the earlier complaint and delay in registering the case is not fatal to the case of prosecution.Mere defective investigation will not go to the route of the case.The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.12 Doctor and also the first available documents Accident Register Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 clearly shows that the petitioners attacked P.W.1 to P.W.3 with Aruval and caused injuries to them.Therefore, mere defect in investigation will not go the route of the case and the accused are not liable to be acquitted on the sole ground of defective investigation.Under these circumstances, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is not acceptable.13.From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and also the evidence of P.W.12 Doctor, Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.7 copies of wound certificate and Ex.P.9 to Ex.The injuries sustained by P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been proved through the evidence of P.W.12 Doctor.Therefore, the medical evidence is supporting the prosecution case.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,322,455 |
The prosecution case, in brief, is that in village Haldi, Ajmersingh (P.W. 1) was running flour mill.There was dispute of this land and the land adjacent to it between him and the appellant Mansingh.On the date of incident Le.26-2-92 at about 5 p.m. the appellants and acquitted accused Mahendra, Rajendra and Manohar, the sons of appellant Mansingh and Lakshman entered the flour-mill and caused injuries to Ajmersingh and asked him to remove the flour-mill and also demolish the house standing thereon.The appellant Mansingh and Shriram gave him Faliya -blows and other appellants caused him injuries with lathi and other weapons.Ranjeet, Lakshman (P.W. 4), Kailash and Beserbai came to rescue Ajmersingh.They were also beaten by the accused persons.Hearing commotion, Vikramsingh (P.W. 2), the brother of Ajmersingh, came there and asked his father Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh to go to P.S. Kukshi and lodge report against the accused persons who had already left for police station.When they reached near the field of Hattu Baba, the appellants surrounded them and felled them down from the motor-cycle in a pit and appellants gave them Faliya -blows and other accused persons inflicted injuries with lathi, bow and other weapons.Gajendrasingh (P.W. 6) and Ratnsingh (P.W. 7) witnessed the incident.They ran to village Haldi and informed Vikramsingh, Anarbai (P.W. 8), wife of deceased Dilip and Mohnibai, wife of Kunwarsingh that the appellants were assaulting the deceased persons.Kishan (P.W. 14) also saw the incident from other corner and he also gave information of this incident to the family members of the deceased.Immediately Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) went on the spot.He found both the deceased dead.They were having several injuries.He went to P.S. Haldi and lodged F.I.R. Ex. P-14 which was reduced to writing by Ajit Tiwari, Sub- Inspector (P.W. 15).Ajit Tiwari (P.W. 15) registered crime and started investigation.He reached the spot and prepared spot-map Ex. P-2 near the field of Hattu-Baba and Ex. P-3 where flour-mill was installed.He conducted inquest on the dead-body of Kunwarsingh and Dilip and prepared inquest report Ex. P-6 and P-7 respectively.JUDGMENT Shambhoo Singh, J.This appeal is directed by the accused Mansingh and Shriram against the judgment & order dated 25-9-93 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Kukshi, District Dhar, in S.T. No. 229/92 whereby the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment.He sent the dead-bodies for post-mortem examination and other injured persons for medical examination.The appellant Shriram gave information that he had concealed Faliya and would recover the same.The appellant Mansingh also gave information which was reduced to writing by him and has been marked Ex. P-20 and thereafter both these appellants gave Faliyas which were seized vide seizure memos Ex. P-9 and P-10 and some weapons were also seized at the instance of other acquitted co-accused.Dr. R.C. Patidar (P.W. 11) performed post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Kunwarsingh and found the following:Incised wound on right cheek which had gone up to right ear, which had lacerated brain, 1" x 1, 1/2'' x brain deep.Incised wound on the right forehead on frontal region 8" x 1/2''x bone deep.Incised wound on right chest 6" x 4, 1/2'' x bone deep cutting 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs.Penetrating wound on chest 1" x 1/2'' x lung deep.It had cut 1/4'' x 1/4'' area of the right lung.Penetrating wound 1" x 1/2'' x lung deep.It had also caused injury in 1/4'' x 1/4'' area of the right lung.Dr. Patidar opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal.Dr. C.K. Jain conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Dilip and found the following injuries:Incised wound on forehead which had gone from left eye- brow to last part of occipital bone lacerating brain 11" x 2" x brain deep.Incised wound on left ear which had gone up to middle part of the skull 6" x 1".Incised wound on chin 3" x 11" x bonedeep.Penetrating wound on scapular region 1" x 1".Incised wound on left knee-joint 12" x 6", cutting bone tissues and blood vessels.It was nearly amputated.Dr. Jain opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.The seized weapons, earth and clothes of the deceased were sent to F.S.L. Sagar for chemical examination.The chemical examiner found blood stains on the Faliyas seized from the appellants and on the clothes of the deceased.After completion of investigation, challan was filed.The appellants and acquitted accused were charged of the offences under Sections 147,148, 307/149,323 and 302 of the I.P.C. Lakshman was charged with offence under Section 120, IPC.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and false implication due to enmity.Their defence is that the complainant party attacked them and caused injuries.The appellant Shriram lodged F.I.R. Ex. D-l0 on the same day i.e. 26-2-92 at 6:00 p.m. On his report Crime No. 126/92 was registered for offences under Sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. against the members of the complainant party.The appellant Shriram was medically examined.Accused Manohar died during trial.The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of evidence convicted the appellants Shriram and Mansingh under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment and acquitted all the accused of the charges of offences under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 323, 302 and 120 of the I.P.C. Hence, this appeal.Shri A. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Trial Judge committed error in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302, IPC.The learned Trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses with regard to accused persons Mahendra and Rajendra but believed the same evidence with regard to the appellants.He further submitted that the witnesses Gajendra Singh and Ramsingh arc interested witnesses.The appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity.He argued that the complainant party had caused injuries to the appellants.He, therefore, prays that the appellants should be acquitted of the charge under Section 302, IPC.He further submitted that even otherwise it has not been proved which particular fatal injury was caused by which of the accused and there is no charge under Section 302/34, IPC, therefore, they could not be convicted under Section 302 IPC.On the other hand, Shri G. Desai, learned Dy.A.G. submitted that the Trial Judge discussed the evidence of these witnesses in detail and he rightly put reliance on their testimony.We considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides and went through the evidence on record.The fact of homicidal death of Kunwarji and Dilip on 26-2-92 has not been disputed before us and rightly so as it is amply proved from the inquest report Ex. P-6, P-7, post-mortem reports Ex. P-15 & P-16 and the medical evidence and other occular evidence.Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the appellants Shriram and Mansingh killed the deceased persons ?Admittedly, there was a dispute about the land on which Ajmersingh had established flour mill and the land adjacent to it between Ajmersingh and the appellants.The evidence of Ajmersingh (P.W. 1), Kailash (P.W. 3), Lakshman Singh (P.W. 4), Ranjeetsingh (P.W. 5) and Beserbai (P.W. 6) is that on the date of incident at about 5 - 5:30 p.m. the appellants and other co-accused persons came near the flour mill and assaulted Ajmersingh.When Lakshman, Kailash, Beserbai etc. came to save him, they were also assaulted.Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) who is a teacher in the school situate at Haldi where appellant No. 1 Shriram was Headmaster, called Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh and asked them to go to P.S. Kukslii and lodge report against the appellants.It has come in the evidence of Ajmersingh, Vikramsingh, Lakshman, Ranjeet-singh, Ramsingh that Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh left village Haldi on motorcycle for P.S. Kukshi.It has come in the evidence of Vikramsingh that after about 1/2 an hour Gajendrasingh (P.W. 6) and Ramsingh (P.W. 7) came to him and told that the appellants were assaulting Kunwarsingh and Dilip near the agricultural field of Hattu-Baba.Hearing this, he (Vikramsingh) went to the field of Hattu-Baba.He saw that in the side of the road in a pit Kunwarsingh and Dilip were lying dead with injuries on their bodies and their motor-cycle was also lying in a pit.Appellant Shriram also lodged F.I.R. Ex. D-10 at 6:20 p.m. on the same day.This evidence clearly proves that some 'Mar-peet' took place about 5 p.m. in village Haldi between the complainant party and the accused party, therefore, as Vikramsingh and Ajmersingh etc. stated, they sent Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh on motor-cycle to Police Station, Kukshi to lodge F.I.R., the appellants had already gone to police station to lodge report.It has come in the evidence of Gajendrasingh (P.W. 6) and Ramsingh (P.W. 7) that on the date of incident i.e., 26-2-92 they were going to Palasi from Haldi.At about 6 - 6:15 p.m. when they came near the field of Hattu-Baba they saw that the appellants Mansingh, Shriram, Manohar, Rajcndra, Mahendra and Lakshman were assaulting Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh.Mansingh and Shriram were armed with Faliyas, Manohar with bow & arrow and Rajendra with lathi and Mahendra with Pirani.Seeing this incident they ran to Haldi and narrated the incident to Vikramsingh, the son of Kunwarsingh.Gajendrasingh in cross- examination deposed that Kunwarsingh was being beaten by all the accused persons and Shriram was assaulting Dilipsingh.The same statement was made by Ramsingh in cross-examination.Of course Ramsingh stated that Dilipsingh sustained Faliya-blow on his leg while Kunwarsingh was caused Faliya-blovt on his head.But it does not make him unreliable witness.Police officer docs not cross-examine a witness.When in cross-examination, it was asked as to where Faliya-blows were given, the witness gave this answer.Gajendrasingh stated that they called Vikramsingh separately and narrated him the incident.Kishan (P.W. 14) deposed that on the date of incident he returned from Kukshi travelling in a truck.He got down on Plasi-Phata and started on foot for Haldi.When he reached near Sindhi-valley he saw the appellants assaulting Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh with Faliya, lathi and Pirani.Seeing this he ran towards Palasi.He stated that the accused persons stopped a passenger hus of Kanchan company and boarded it and took the bus back to Kukshi.Thereafter he returned to village Haldi.He saw Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh lying in a pit.They were injured.They had died.He stated in cross-examination that he also saw Ramsingh and Gajendrasingh witnessing this incident.They were standing 75-100 steps away from the place of occurrence.He witnessed this incident from distance of 75-100 steps.He stated that Manohar was having lathi in his hand while Gajendrasingh and Ramsingh told that he had a bow & arrow.He stated that he went to the house of Dilipsingh and narrated the incident lo his wife Anarbai (P.W. 8) and his mother.Anarbai corroborated his evidence.It is true that in police statement Ex. D-4 it is not mentioned that he narrated the incident to the wife and mother of Dilipsingh, but it is mentioned therein that he went lo the house of Dilipsingh and narrated the incident.Kishan's name does not find place in F.I.R. Ex. P-14 but it was natural, as Kishan did not narrate this incident to Vikramsingh when he lefl for Kukshi for lodging reporl.It is also true that Gajendrasingh and Ramsingh slated that they did not sec Kishan near the spot at the time of incident.It may be that the place from where Kishan wasstanding was not visible to these witnesses.The evidence of these witnesses has been corroborated by Vikramsingh.The name of Gajendrasingh and Ramsingh find place in F.I.R. Ex. P-14 which was lodged just after 45 minutes of the incident.The evidence of these eye-witnesses further stands corroboraled from the medical evidence.Dr. R.C. Patidar (P.W. 11) who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Kunwarsingh, found three incised wounds and two penetrated wounds and Dr. C.K. Jain (P.W. 10) four incised wounds and one penetrating wound on the dead-body of Dilipsingh.The incised wounds could be caused by Faliya.These witnesses had no animosity against the accused.Kishan and Gajendrasingh are not related in any way to the deceased.Ramsingh is not near relation of the deceased.Vikramsingh staled that Ramsingh was his father's uncle's son.It was also argued that the prosecution witnesses Beserbai (P.W. 9) and Ajmersingh (P.W. 1) staled that the first occurrence took place at 5:30 p.m. and after half hour of this incident Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh left for Kukshi, then how the deceased persons could murder them at 5:30 p.m. and reach police station and lodge F.I.R. Ex. D-10 at 6:20 - 6:30 p.m. Il was contended that this fact clearly proves that some other persons had killed the deceased persons and due to enmity they were falsely implicated.It is true that according to Ajmersingh (P.W. 1) and Kailash (P.W. 3) this incident took place at 5 - 5:30 p.m. and according to Beserbai (P.W. 9) and Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) it happened at 5:30 p.m. Except Vikramsingh, these witnesses are rustic villagers.They are members of Bhil-Bhilala tribe.It cannot be accepted from them that they will tell the correct lime.The evidence of these witnesses and the F.I.R. Ex. D-10 lodged by the appellant Shriram clearly prove that the first incident took place at about 5 p.m. and as Vikramsingh staled, the deceased were called and were asked to go to police station.Vikramsingh deposed that it had taken 15-20 minutes in bringing motor-cycle and after about half an hour at 5:30 p.m. Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh started for Kukshi on their Rajdoot motor-cycle.It must have taken not more than 5 minutes in reaching the place of occurrence which was not more than 1 - 1 1/2 kms.away from village Haldi.The accused persons who were also going to police station saw them coming there.They attacked them and felled them on the ground as stated by the eye-witnesses and just after this incident the appellants proceeded and found Kanchan bus coming from Kukshi.As Vikramsingh stated, after about half an hour i.e., at about 6p.m. Gajcndrasingh and Ramsingh informed him of the incident and immediately thereafter he reached the spot and saw the dead-body of his father Kunwarsingh and Dilipsingh and went to Police Station, Kukshi and lodged F.I.R. Ex. P-14 at 7:15 p.m. As stated earlier, Gajendrasingh, Ramsingh and Kishan deposed that the incident took place at about 6 - 6:15 p.m. and they reached village Haldi within 5 - 10 minutes and informed Vikramsingh.Thus, in view of the time mentioned in F.I.R. Ex. D-10 lodged by the appellant Shriram and F.I.R. Ex. P-14 made by Vikramsingh (P.W. 2) and the time stated by these witnesses, the argument of the defence that the appellants were not present on the spot, at that time they were in police station, is not acceptable.In F.I.R. Ex. P-14, the distance of place of occurrence from Police Station, Kukshi has been shown to be 15 kms.and this distance could be covered within 20 minutes by a bus.Recovery of weapons of offence and find of blood thereon also corroborates the evidence of the eye-witnesses.The appellant Mansingh made disclosure statement and gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had concealed the iron Faliya in his house, he will produce the same.This witness also stated that the appellant Shriram also gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had concealed iron Faliya in a field near straight valley.The statement of R. Verma has been corroborated by independent witness Narayan (P.W. 13) and from this evidence it is proved that the appellants recovered Faliyas.It has come in the evidence that these Faliyas, stained and unstained earth and other articles were sent to F.S.L. Sagar for chemical examination.As the Apex Count in case of Sohrab and another Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 SC 2020, observed the maximum 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice.Even contradictions and omissions occurred in the evidence of truthful witness due to weak memory and power of observation.The evidence of these witnesses was found contradictory to medical evidence with regard to the other accused, therefore, the learned Trial Judge acquitted them.The evidence of these witnesses with regard to the appellants is reliable.It has been corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses and medical evidence.The recovery of the weapons and find of blood thereon further gave strength to the prosecution story.This argument is, therefore, rejected.In our opinion, in view of above, the learned Trial Judge rightly put reliance on the testimony of Gajendrasingh, Ramsingh and Kisan and held that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants with intention to cause deaths of the deceased Dilipsingh and Kunwarsingh, caused injuries to them, as a result of which they died.It is true that a separate charge under Section 302/34, IPC was not framed against these appellants but there is no bar for convicting these appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC.No prejudice has been caused to the case of these appellants.In the result, this appeal is without substance and deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.The appellants are on bail.They shall surrender before the Trial Judge and the Trial Judge shall take necessary action to take them in custody for serving out the jail-sentence.Criminal Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 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 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,249,817 |
And In the matter of: Kurban Sk. @ Kurman Sk.Bhagwangola Police Station Case No. 351 of 2012 dated 22.10.2012 under sections 498A/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the brother in law of the victim.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,253,866 |
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to forbear the the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing S.No.18 part to the extent of 1.85 acres, S.No.18 part to the extent of 70.50 cents situate at Ammanambakkam Village, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District and S.No.306 to the extent of 2 acres situate at No.82, Varadarajapuram, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.2.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the residents at Chennai.They are in possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of 2 acres bearing Survey No.306, situated at No.82, Varadarajapuram, Sriperambudur, Kancheepuram and the petitioners 1 and 2 are enjoying the land property bearing Survey No.18 of the extent of 1.85 acres and 50 cents respectively situated at Ammanambakkam Village, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District for more than 30 years.http://www.judis.nic.in 3Muniasamy applied for issuance of Ryotwari patta.However, the petitioners were also applied for issuance of patta in their favour.The land was originally classified as “Odai” and the land was in the possession and enjoyment of the ancestors of the writ petitioner for a continuous period.4.The grievances of the writ petitioners are that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land described in the present writ petition for long years and patta / assignment was also granted in favour of the writ petitioners in respect of the land described in the present writ petition.16.For instance, a person, who is offering a corruption or gratification to a public servant, if his intention is to trap the public officials, then he cannot be construed as an abettor.A person, who commits an illegal act of abetment for providing gratification or corruption with an intention and such intention is falling within the ambit of Section 107 read with Section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, then those abettors are to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, a clear distinction is to be drawn between the categories and persons, who all are committing the offence with an intention to commit alone is to be prosecuted and not all the innocent persons, or the persons, who are arranging a trap or who are attempting to trap a public servant.17.There is a definite complaint from the public at large that Touts and brokers are engaged by some public officials for the purpose of demanding and receiving bribe.Such Touts and brokers are moving around the public offices and in certain public places.(i) The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition stands rejected.(iii) The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.Such water bodies and water resources can never be assigned and no patta can be granted by the revenue officials in favour of the individuals.http://www.judis.nic.in 46.The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, informed this Court that the revenue officials concerned had colluded with the writ petitioners and their relatives and, illegally issued patta / assignment in their favour without obtaining proper orders from the superior officials and without following the procedures as contemplated.Those officials, who issued such documents in favour of the writ petitioners/their ancestors were placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings also were initiated against all those officials, who committed such illegalities.Thus, the writ petitioners are not entitled for any relief as such sought for in the present writ petition.On account of such activities of the land mafias and other local persons, large extent of Government lands, water bodies and water resources are under encroachment and people living both inside the city and sub urban areas are facing frequent disasters and other ill consequences.The State though duty bound to maintain the water bodies and water resources and other public properties, are not effectively initiating actions to curb and to evict all such encroachers.On account of the omissions and commissions of these officials, the constitutional rights of the people residing are infringed.The law abiding citizen are affected on account of large scale illegalities and irregularities being committed by few greedy men.Thus, the executives are to be punished for their illegal and collusive activitieshttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 without any leniency or misplaced sympathy.These persons are also to be prosecuted for abetting the crime of corruption.(iv) The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, 293, MKN Road, Collectors Nagar, Alandur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 016 is directed to prosecute the abettors of the crime of corruption with reference to the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with immediate effect.http://www.judis.nic.in 11(v) If any enquiry is in progress in respect of the case of the writ petitioner, the same shall be proceeded with and a final order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.19.With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.However, there shall be no order as to costs.Post this matter after six weeks for reporting compliance.10.12.2018 kak Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking / Non-Speaking order To1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram.2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.3.The Tahsildar, Tambaram Taluk, Tambaram.4.The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram Head Qtrs.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram Head Qtrs.W.P.No.31412 of 2006 10.12.2018http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,259,134 |
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE pb Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 13/01/2020 04:16:06
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,262,451 |
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-(i)Prior to the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.On 15.11.2014, at about 8.30 p.m, due to the previous enmity between A1 and the deceased, when the deceased was consuming liquor in the TASMAC Shop, all the three accused with a common intention to murder the deceased, brought the deceased along with them to the turmeric garden situated 12 feet away from Sivasakthi Ware House godown.After reaching the said place, A1 pushed the deceased and made him to fall down in 6 feet pit.Then, A3 sit on the deceased and A1 caught hold of the legs of the deceased and A2 cut the right side of the neck by cutting the vein of the deceased with his knife and made him to succumb due to injury and left the deceased in the turmeric garden.(ii)The Sub Inspector of Police, on receiving such complaint, registered a case in Cr.No.245 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC on 16.11.2014 and handed over the First Information Report to P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station.http://www.judis.nic.in 4(iii)P.W.18, on receiving the said FIR, proceeded to the place of occurrence and started investigation.During investigation, he prepared Ex.P.12 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.24 Rough sketch.In the presence of panchayatars, he also prepared the inquest report Ex.Thereafter, he sent a requisition to Kodumudi Government Hospital Ex.P.5 to conduct post-mortem of the dead body.Thereafter, he collected the blood stained soil and earth soil for chemical analysis.He recorded the confession statement of A1 and seized the blood stained clothes.Before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and 31 documents were marked as Exs.Besides 15 Material Objects were exhibited.On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.4.(i)Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1/Boopathy is the uncle of the deceased and he lived with the deceased.According to him, he was working as electrician for the past two months.The deceased told him that due to the previous enmity, A1 Sathish, who is working in Rice Mill, often threatened the deceased by saying that he would cut and kill him.But, P.W.1 has not taken the matter seriously.While so, on 16.11.2014, at about 8.00 a.m., he received thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 message from Palanichamy, the owner of Sivasakthi Modern Rice Mill that his uncle died with blood injuries near the turmeric garden.Therefore, he went to the turmeric garden.At that time, one Dhandabani, who is working in the TASMAC shop and Murugesan told him that on 15.11.2014, at about 9.30 p.m, he saw that all the three accused viz., Sasikumar, Satheesh Kumar and Murali have taken away the deceased along with them from the TASMAC shop.Moreover P.W.3, Veluchamy also told him that while he was in tea shop, he saw all the three accused have taken away the deceased Natarajan at Thamaraipalayam - Sivagiri Road.P.W.4 Nagarajan and P.W.5 Rasu, who were working in Palaniandavar Rice Mill have told P.W.1 that all the three accused said to him that they have closed the deceased.Thereafter, he lodged a complaint Ex.P.1 before the Kodmudi Police Station.(ii)P.W.2, is the then supplier of the TASMAC shop at Thamaraipalayam has stated that he knew all the accused and one month prior to the occurrence, in the TASMAC shop, he saw the deceased Natarajan and Sathish/A1 quarrelled with each other.At that time, the owner of the shop told them not to make noise inside the shop and asked them to go out.While A1 going out of the shop, told the deceased that he would not leave without killing him by knife.On the next day, A1 asked him that whether Natarajan hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 come, for which, he replied that he has not come.After ten days, one day evening all the three accused asked him that whether Natarajan has come and for the same, he replied that he has not come.For which, A1 told him that, that dog was always escaping.On 15.11.2014, at about 8.30 p.m, while the deceased was consuming alcohol, accused A.1 to A.3 came to the Bar and shouted at Natarajan, for which, he told them not to make noise in the Bar.Then all the three accused brought the said Natarajan outside the TASMAC shop.On 16.11.2014, at about 8.00 or 8.15 a.m., while P.W.2 was going to drink tea at Thamaraipalayam, he heard the message that one male dead body was lying in the turmeric garden.P.W.2 and Thandayuthapani went there and saw the dead body of the deceased and also P.W.1, crying and who narrated the entire incident starting from consumption of alcohol by the deceased at about 8.45 p.m till all the accused have taken away the deceased Natarajan from the shop.(iii)P.W.3, who is the coconut vendor, has stated that he knew the deceased and the three accused.On 15.11.2014, at about 9.30 p.m, while he was drinking tea in Iyangar Bakery at Sivagiri Road, he saw all the accused have taken the deceased Natarajan, with them.On 16.11.2014, at about 8.00 a.m, while he was going for cutting the coconut, he heard the news that Natarajan died due to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 knife injury and according to the said information, he went to the turmeric garden.(iv)P.W.5, who is the Loadman working in Palaniandavar Rice Mill has stated that P.W.4 and A.1 to A.3 are his colleagues and they are living in the same house line.On 15.11.2014, at about 9.30 p.m, while he was coming to his house after purchasing the vegetables, he saw the three accused and the deceased Natarajan were going inside by parting the fence nearby the turmeric godown, which was locked.While seeing them, he thought that, they were going there for drinking alcohol and he went to his house.At about 10.30 p.m, while he was sleeping in his house, he saw all the three accused were running and he asked A3 about the blood stained dhoti of A1, A3 replied that they (A1 to A3) finished the deceased Natarajan, who has given trouble to them and he just left it as they have told that under the influence of alcohol.On 16.11.2014, Sunday, at about 6.30 a.m, when he called all the three accused to go for work, he did not find them in their house.Thereafter, at about 8.00 p.m, on receiving the information from the owner of the Rice Mill that one male dead body was found in the turmeric garden, he went there and saw the dead body with knife injury.(v)P.W.4, who is the Loadman, working in Palaniandavar Rice Mill has deposed that all the three accused were his colleagues.Onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 15.11.2014, at about 10.30 p.m, while he was lying in the cot before his house, he heard the sound and got up from the cot.At that time, A2, who was running speedily told that they finished Natarajan, who has given trouble to the uncle.He saw all the three accused were running.He also stated that his house was also in the very same line house.Thereafter, he slept.Next day morning, when he go to work, he had not found all the three accused in their house.(vi)P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased Natarajan.She told that P.W.1 is living with them."Injury wound of size 8 x 3 x 5 cms.(depth) over right side of the neck region extending from angle of mandible towards midhttp://www.judis.nic.in line of neck.Right common carotid artery punctured and clot."After finishing the post-mortem, he opined that the deceased would have died 24 hours to 48 hours prior to the time of conducting the post-mortem due to injury wound of size 8 x 3 x 5 cms.(depth) over right side of the neck region extending from angle of mandible towards mid line of neck and he issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.(viii)P.W.8, who is working in Forensic Science Department has stated that on 28.11.2014, he received the following material objects:"(i)Earth etc., on which were dark brown stains.(ii)Earth etc.(v)A white dhoti with green border, on which, were profuse dark brown stains.(vi)A blue, red and grey checked full sleeved shirt, on which, were dark brown stains.(vii)A green lungi with orange and black floral designs.http://www.judis.nic.in (viii)A red full sleeved shirt with black stripes 11 and cross stripes, on which, were dark brown stains.(ix)A stainless steel knife red synthetic handle and measuring about 23 cm.(x)P.W.10 is an agriculturist.He has stated that on 16.11.2014, the police, in his presence, prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.12 for the dead body lying in the turmeric garden and he also signed as 1st witness in the said mahazar.The Inspector of Police also collected blood stained soil and unblood stained soil under seizure magazar Ex.(xi)P.W.11, who is the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kodumudi, has stated that on 17.11.2014, at about 9.15 a.m, while he was working as Village Administrative Officer, the accused A.1 to A.3,http://www.judis.nic.in 12 have come to his office and A.1 has given statement before him and the same was recorded in the presence of his Assistant, Murugesan and he handed over the said statement to P.W.18 Inspector of Police, Kodumudi under his letter Ex.P.W.18 also enquired A.2 and A.3 and recorded their statements in the presence of him and his Assistant.(xii)P.W.12, who is owner of the Palaniandavar Rice Mill has stated that the accused A.1 to A.3 and the witnesses Nagarajan and Rasu @ Ramu are working in his Rice Mill and they are living in the houses, which are situated inside the Rice factory.On 16.11.2014, while he was going to turmeric garden, he saw the male body, prostrated.After identifying that the dead person is Natarajan, he informed P.W.1, Boopathy.the II Additional District Munsif, Erode recorded the statements of Murugesan, Thandayuthapani, Veluchamy, Nagarajan, Rasu @ Ramu and sent the same in sealed cover to the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.(xv)P.W.15, the Head Constable, Kodumudi Police Station, sent the printed F.I.R to the Special Sub Inspector of Police and also sent the original FIR to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate.(xvi)P.W.16, the then Head Constable of Kodumudi Police Station, has stated that after finishing the inquest, he handed over the dead body to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kodumudi to conduct post-mortem and he also handed over the blood stained vest, T Shirt, towel and waistband to the Inspector of Police, under Ex.P.22, the Special report.For that, A1 told him that, that dog is always escaping.(b)P.W.2 further stated that on 15.11.2014, at about 8.30 p.m, while the deceased was consuming alcohol, A.1 to A.3 came to the Bar and shouted at Natarajan, for which, he told them not to make noise in the Bar.Then all the three accused brought Natarajan, the deceased outside the TASMAC shop.On 16.11.2014, at about 8.00 or 8.15 a.m., while he was going to drink tea at Thamaraipalayam, he heard the message that one male dead body was lying in the turmeric garden.(iii)P.W.3, who is the coconut vendor, has stated in his evidence that he knew the deceased and the three accused.On 15.11.2014, at 9.30 p.m, while he was drinking tea in Iyangar Bakery at Sivagiri Road, he saw the accused have taken the deceased Natarajan, withhttp://www.judis.nic.in 20 them.On 16.11.2014, at about 8.00 a.m, while he was going for cutting the coconut, he heard the news that Natarajan died due to the knife injury and according to the said information, he went to the turmeric garden.(iv)(a)P.W.5 in his evidence has stated that P.W.4 and A.1 to A.3 are his colleagues and they are living in the same house line.On 15.11.2014, at about 9.30 p.m, while he was coming to his house after purchasing the vegetables, he saw the three accused and the deceased Natarajan were going inside by parting the fence nearby the turmeric godown, which was locked.At about 10.30 p.m, also he saw all the three accused were running and he asked A3 about the blood stained dhoti of A1, A3 replied that they (A1 to A3) finished the deceased Natarajan, who has given trouble to them and he just left it as they have told that in the influence of alcohol.(b)On the next day i.e. on 16.11.2014, Sunday, at about 6.30 a.m, when he called all the three accused to go for work, he has not found them in their house and on receiving the information from the owner of the Rice Mill that one male dead body was found in the turmeric garden, he went there and saw the dead body with knife injury.(v)P.W.4, also in his evidence stated that he knew all the three accused and they were colleagues of him.On 15.11.2014, at about 10.30 p.m, while he was lying in the bed before his house, he heard the sound and got up from the bed.The Criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment passed in in S.C.No.52 of 2015 dated 29.03.2016 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode District at Erode.2.(i)The accused/A1 in S.C.No.52 of 2015 on the file of the learned First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Erode District is the appellant herein.The appellant herein is 1st accused.A2 stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and A1 and A3 stood charged for the offence under Sections 342 and 302 r/w 34 IPC.When they were questioned as to the charges, they pleaded not guilty and therefore, they were put on trial.The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, after full-fledged trial, found guilty of the offence and convicted A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple imprisonment for 6 months each.After completing the investigation, he filed a final report under Sections 342 and 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi.(iv)The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi take cognizance of the case on file as P.R.C.No.3 of 2015 and after the appearance of the accused, furnished the copies of the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C.(vi)The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode took the case on file as Sessions Case No.52 of 2015 and after appearance of the parties, made over the same to the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode District at Erode, for trial.(vii)Based on the above materials, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, after following the procedures, framed the charges.When they were questioned as to the charges, all the accused have pleaded not guilty and therefore, they were put on trial.On 16.11.2014, after receiving the message, she went to the turmeric garden along with P.W.1, father- in-law and mother-in-law and saw the dead body of the husband of P.W.6, which is facing prostrating.Thereafter, P.W.1 gave complaint to the police station.(vii)P.W.7 is the Doctor, working in Government Hospital has stated in his evidence that on 16.11.2014, he conducted post- mortem of the dead body of the deceased Natarajan based on the requisition letter Ex.(iii)A ragged grey T-shirt with red and white co cross stripes, on which were profuse dark brown stains.(iv)A ragged brown jatti, on which were profuse dark brown stains.(x)A black trousers, on which were dark brown stains.(xi)A white full sleeved shit."Based on the requisition, Ex.P.5 given by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi, he sent the samples to chemical analysis.(ix)P.W.9 is the Doctor, who is having hospital and he has stated that on 16.11.2014, one Sasikumar/A2 got treatment from him for injury sustained in thumb and he gave a receipt Ex.(xvii)P.W.17, who is the Special Sub Inspector of Police, working in Malayampalayam Police Station, has stated that on 16.11.2014, after receiving the complaint from P.W.1, registered the same in Cr.No.245 of 2014 under Section 302 IPC.(xviii)P.W.18, Shanmugam, the then Inspector of Police, Kodumudi Police Station has stated that after receiving the First Information Report, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence on 16.11.2014 at about 10.00 a.m and prepared Observation mahazar, Ex.P.12 and Rough Sketch Ex.Thereafter, he called P.W.13, Thiyagarajan for taking photographs of the dead body and collected samples of blood stained earth and earth and he prepared the inquesthttp://www.judis.nic.in 14 report Ex.Thereafter, he sent the dead body for post-mortem.Thereafter, he recorded the confession statement of A3 and obtained his signature and the signature of witnesses.He also collected the material objects from the accused.Further, he recorded the statements of Murugesan, Thandayuthapani, Veluchamy, Nagarajan and Rasu @ Ramu and also recorded their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Moreover, he recorded the statement of Velmurugan, Inspector of Forensic Science Department and Venkateswaran, Junior Inspector of Forensic Science Department, Coimbatore.He also recorded the statements of P.W.7, Dr.Saravanakumar, and one Dr.After completing the investigation, he filed final report under Sections 342 and 302 r/w 34 IPC.5.When, the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witnesses nor did they mark any documents on their side.6.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, after full-http://www.judis.nic.in 15 fledged trial, found guilty of the offence and convicted A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple imprisonment for 6 months each.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, Sathish @ Sathishkumar, the appellant/A1 has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.Apart from that, Sasi @ Sasikumar/A2 filed Criminal Appeal No.582 of 2016 before this Court.Muarali/A3 has not filed any appeal.7.Heard Mr.P.Soundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State and perused the records carefully.Under the settled principles of law, when there is no eye witness, motive and last scene theory has to be clearly established without any break of the chain link.(ii)P.W.1, received the message about the death of the deceased at 8.00 a.m on 16.11.2014, but, the investigation officer came to the place of occurrence only at 10.30 a.m. So, in the meantime, any thing might have happened without the knowledge of P.W.18, the investigating officer.While P.W.18 came to the spot, the dead body was in the stage of prostrating.After turning the dead body, he saw the face of the deceased.Hence, there may be suspicious circumstances.(iii)Further, P.W.18 collected the material objects and sent the same for Forensic Science Department and he also sent the dead body for post-mortem.P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the deceased Natarajan, while consuming alcohol, all the three accused brought him outside the TASMAC shop.But, Ex.P.7, the viscera report shows that the intestine of the deceased does not contain alcohol contents and poison.Hence, according to the evidence of P.W.2, the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it creates suspicious circumstances.Earlier, P.W.12 has stated that hehttp://www.judis.nic.in 17 does not know the deceased and therefore, he could not identify the person.The phone number, by whom it was given to P.W.12, was also not known and the prosecution has not come forward to examine the said person.Therefore, the link is missing.Under such circumstances, the prosecution has not given sufficient reason for not examining the person, who has given phone number to P.W.1 and hence, they failed to link the case without any break.But, P.W.12 stated that when the deceased was consuming alcohol, all the three accused have taken away the deceased outside of the TASMAC shop.Though P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.4 have seen the accused along with the deceased, they have not seen the accused killed the deceased.P.12, the observation magazar and the Ex.24, rough sketch did not show any identification about the accused and the death of the deceased.(vii)The trial Court, failed to consider all these aspects and the motive has not been clearly established and the prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory and erroneously convicted the accused.Hence, the appeal has to be allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant has to be set aside.9.The submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) are as follows:At that time, the owner of the shop told them not to make noise inside the shop and asked them to go out.While A1 going out of the shop, he told the deceased that he would not leave him without killing him by knife.Next day also, A1 asked him that whether Natarajan has come, for which, he replied that he did not come.After ten days, one day evening all the three accused asked him that whether Natarajan has come and for which, he replied that he did not come.At that time, A2, who was running speedily told that they finished Natarajan, who has given trouble to the uncle.(vi)P.W.7, the Doctor, who is working in Government Hospital, has stated in his evidence that on 16.11.2014, he conducted post- mortem of the body of the deceased Natarajan and he found the external injury that there is a deep injury in the size of 8 x 3 x 5 c.m.on the right hand side of the neck and he also issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.(vii)With the above witnesses, the prosecution has proved the chain link theory without any break and also proved the case beyond any reasonable doubt.Hence, there is no merit in the appeal.The learned trial Judge, after conducting elaborate trial, has rightly convicted the accused.Therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed.10.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records carefully.http://www.judis.nic.in 22Accordingly, on 16.11.2014, at about 8.00 a.m., he received the message from Palanichamy, the owner of Sivasakthi Modern Rice Mill that his uncle died with blood injuries near the turmeric garden.12.It is seen from the evidence of P.W.2, the then supplier of the TASMAC shop at Thamaraipalayam that one month prior to the occurrence, in the TASMAC shop, the deceased Natarajan and Sathish/A1 quarrelled with each other.At that time, the owner of the shop told them not to make noise inside the shop and asked them to go out.While A1 was going out of the shop, Sathish/A1 told the deceased that he would not leave without killing him by knife.On the very next day and after ten days, A1 enquired about the deceased and he replied that the deceased did not come and he replied that, that dog was always escaping.On 15.11.2014, at about 8.30 p.m, he saw the deceased was consuming alcohol and at that time, A.1 to A.3 came to the Bar and shouted at deceased, for which, he told them not to make noise in the Bar.Then all the three accused have taken away the deceased Natarajan outside of the TASMAC shop.http://www.judis.nic.in 2313.It is seen from the evidence of P.W.3 that on 15.11.2014, at 9.30 p.m, while he was drinking tea in Iyangar Bakery at Sivagiri Road, he saw that all the accused have taken the deceased Natarajan, with them.14.It is seen from the evidence of P.W.5 that P.W.4 and A.1 to A.3 are his colleagues and they were living in the same line house.On 15.11.2014, at about 9.30 p.m, while he was coming to his house after purchasing the vegetables, he saw all the three accused and the deceased Natarajan were going inside by parting the fence nearby the turmeric godown, which was locked and at about 10.30 p.m, while he was sleeping in his house, he saw all the three accused were running and while he was asking A3 about the blood stained dhoti of A1, A3 replied that they (A1 to A3) finished the deceased Natarajan, who has given trouble to them.15.The evidence of P.W.4 reveals that all the three accused were his colleagues.On 15.11.2014, at about 10.30 p.m, while he was lying in the cot before his house, he heard the sound and got up from the cot.At that time, A2, who was running speedily, told that they finished Natarajan, who has given trouble to the uncle.He saw all the three accused were running.He also stated that his house was also in the same line house.Thereafter, he slept.Next day morning, whenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 24 he go to work, he had not found all the three accused in their house.16.On the next day morning, the body of the deceased Natarajan was found in the turmeric garden.The post-mortem report also clearly shows that the deceased sustained cut injury in the neck.P.W.1 clearly stated in his evidence about the previous enmity of A.1 and he was informed about the occurrence by P.W.12, who is the owner of the rice mill.P.W.2 also clearly narrated the earlier quarrel between the deceased and the accused and the motive of the accused.From this case, the eye witness of the occurrence is not possible.17.From the above evidence, it is known that according to P.W.2 on 15.11.2014 all the three accused brought the accused out side of the bar at 8.45 p.m. It it also known that on 15.11.2014 P.W.3 saw all the three accused brought the deceased at Sivagiri Road at about 9.30 p.m. According to P.W.5, who is the colleague of all the accused, he saw the deceased along with all the three accused, who crossed the turmeric garden gate through fence structure to the turmeric garden situated behind the said godown at about 9.30 p.m and at about 10.30 p.m, while he was sleeping, he saw all the three accused reached their house by running and he asked A3 about the blood stain found in A1's dhoti, A3 replied that all the three of themhttp://www.judis.nic.in 25 have finished Natarajan, who has given trouble.According to the evidence of P.W.4, one of the co-workers of the accused that, on 15.11.2014, at about 10.30 p.m, while sleeping in front of his house, A2 conveyed the message that they have finished who quarrelled with the uncle and on the next day morning he did not find all the accused in their house.18.Therefore, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and chain link theory has been clearly linked by the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.4.. Therefore, there is no missing link.19.Further the prosecution has proved the recovery theory from all the accused of M.O.1 to M.O.9 from the hidden places in furtherance of the disclosure statements of all the three accused to the investigation officer in the presence of P.W.11, Village Administrative Officer.20.Hence, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not proved the motive and last scene theory have been overcome by the prosecution and the prosecution clearly established the case without any break of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 26 chain link beyond the reasonable doubt.21.The learned trial Judge, convicted the accused A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years each and also liable to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and acquitted A1 and A3 for the offence under Section 342 IPC.22.The learned trial Judge has not given any specific reasons for not convicting the accused for the offences under Section 342 IPC.The prosecution has not filed any appeal for enhancement of sentence or for acquitting the accused under Section 342 IPC.Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enhance the sentence to the accused without filing any appeal by the complainant or prosecution.Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and there is no reason to interfere with judgment passed by the trial Court.In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed confirming the conviction and Sentence imposed by the Court below by judgment dated 29.03.2016 in S.C.No.52 of 20157 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode District, Erode.The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant/A1 shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The trial Court is directed to takehttp://www.judis.nic.in 27 steps to secure the custody of the appellant/A1 to undergo the remaining period of sentence if any.29.10.2018 cla Index:Yes Speaking Order:Yes/No To1.The learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode District at Erode.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,264,497 |
The reasons can be economic, social, behavioural difference, sexual incompatibility etc or otherwise some marriages suffer in silence but committing a crime and harming anyone to achieve one's motive of being with someone else is not a solution to legitimise an illicit relation.An illicit relation of one partner induces a sense of betrayal of trust and psychological distress in the other partner which may lead to aggressive consequences.No matter how tardy and cumbersome are the laws, but the ultimate recourse or solution for an unsuited relationship lies through legal means rather than putting an end to one's life to achieve some personal fulfilment.Such was the fate of Jaipal in the case at hand, who was killed by his wife and her boyfriend to gain their selfish means in order to spend their life together.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 1 of 37CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 2 of 37"On 15.09.1996, at about 6:05 a.m., Shiv Charan Singh informed the police of PS Shakarpur on telephone that his son, Jai Pal has committed suicide.On this information DD 6A was recorded and a copy of it was assigned to HC Puran Chand for an immediate action in the matter.HC Puran Chand along with constable Bhagwan Sahai reached the spot.Tika Ram, SHO, PS Shakarpur along with Ct Kuldeep Singh also reached there.They found the dead body of Jaipal Singh lying in the gallery in front of the kitchen of house no. S-352C, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi.There was a ligature mark on the neck of the dead body and a small abrasion over the right ankle joint.On questioning the brother and father of the deceased, they raised an accusing finger on the wife of the deceased, while Smt. Santosh, the wife of the deceased asserted that Jaipal Singh committed suicide owing to a property dispute.HC Puran Chand conducted the inquest proceedings and sent the body for Post Mortem examination.Doctor K. Goyal conducted the autopsy and opined that death was caused due to strangulation.After he was found asleep, he was strangulated by both of the appellants with the help of a saree and when both of them found him dead, they hanged him with an iron girder so as to give an impression that the victim had committed suicide.As per the plan of the said accused persons Santosh reached at the house of his father-in-law at 6 a.m. wailing in cry by saying that 'main Mar gayi, main lut gayi'.Shiv Charan immediately reached the residence of his son, where he found Jaipal CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 16 of 37 hanging on the roof with a dhoti.Other people also gathered and he alongwith PW-9 Mittar Singh brought the dead body down after cutting the saree with the help of a knife.Thereafter, the matter was reported by Shiv Charan to the police and the investigation by the police commenced.KAILASH GAMBHIR, JThe institution of marriage can truly be called one of the most dynamic social institutions.Challenge in these two appeals is to the impugned judgment dated 24.05.1999 and order on sentence dated 27.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi whereby both the appellants CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 2 of 37 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.On receipt of this report, rukka was recorded on 19.09.1996 and a case was got registered for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Investigation was taken up by Insp.Raj Kumar, additional SHO, PS Shakarpur. "CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 3 of 37To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses.Prior to the date of incident, the deceased even had an argument with his father over the property.The co-accused Gautam Goswami took a defence that he was a tenant under Shiv Charan before the incident and at the time of taking the possession of the tenanted premises there was an exchange of argument between them.He also alleged that during the exchange of scorching argument, Shiv Charan alleged that the accused Gautam was having an illicit relationship with Smt. Santosh.He further stated that due to enmity he was falsely implicated in the case and was lifted by the police from his office.In defence the accused persons got examined two witnesses.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 4 of 37CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 4 of 37Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Anshuman Sinha, Advocate vehemently contended that the appellants had been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecution on absolutely baseless and tenuous allegations of her having an illicit relationship with co- accused Gautam Goswami.Counsel also submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the complete chain of incriminating evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants in commission of the said crime.Counsel also submitted that none of the incriminating circumstances which were vital to the case of the prosecution were put to the accused at the time of recording of her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. These questions as per the counsel for the appellants which were not put to the accused inter-alia were regarding the purchase of Alprax by the accused persons and then to administer the same to the deceased; fact regarding manual strangulation of the deceased by the accused persons and thirdly, about the finger nail mark found on the neck of the deceased, was that of the accused persons.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 5 of 37CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 5 of 37Counsel also submitted that the prosecution has also failed to prove the alleged illicit relationship between the appellant with the other co- accused Gautam Goswami.Counsel also submitted that the prosecution sought to prove the alleged illicit relationship of the appellant with the other co-accused based on the hearsay evidence of PW3, PW5, PW9 and PW11 and as per the settled legal position no weightage or credence can be given to the hearsay evidence.Counsel also invited our attention to the deposition of PW5 who in his cross-examination stated that his brother had told him about the illicit relationship of Santosh and Gautam Goswami about 5-6 months back prior to the incident.He also deposed that he had not seen Gautam Goswami and Santosh in any such manner which could indicate an illicit relationship between them.Counsel had also drawn attention of the court to the deposition of PW9 who stated that he had no personal knowledge whether the accused Santosh was having any relationship with the tenant or that if it was a rumour.Similarly in the deposition of PW11, it was stated that Jai Pal had told him about the illicit relationship between Gautam Goswami and Santosh and it was known to all the persons of the 'Mohalla' and that is how he CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 6 of 37 came to know about it.Counsel also argued that the prosecution also failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of her own husband.Counsel also submitted that no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove that the appellant and her husband were having a strained relationship.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 6 of 37Counsel thus submitted that in the absence of strong motive attributed to the appellant, she could not have taken steps of annihilating her own husband.Counsel further argued that the prosecution also failed to prove that the appellant had purchased Alprax medicine from a chemist shop as the owner of the chemist shop was never produced in the witness box.P.C. stated that he gave CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 7 of 37 Alprax tablets himself to the deceased while in his court deposition the stand taken by him was that he gave the medicine to the owner and then the owner gave it to the deceased.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 7 of 379. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that during his cross-examination, PW-6 Munna failed to disclose the date when the said medicine was purchased by the accused persons.The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that this purchase of medicine from the chemist shop is the only evidence which can connect with both the accused persons and since the prosecution has failed to convincingly prove this fact that the said Alprax tablets were purchased by these accused persons, therefore the appellants are entitled to claim benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted.Based on the above arguments, learned counsel for the appellant - Santosh submitted that the case of the prosecution is an extremely weak case but yet the learned trial court has convicted both of them.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has also failed to prove the complete chain of circumstantial evidence which could prove CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 8 of 37 the guilt of these accused persons rather such circumstances are compatible to prove the innocence of these accused persons.Learned counsel for the appellant thus strongly urged for the acquittal of the accused persons and for setting aside the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 8 of 37Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant was a tenant under Shiv Charan, father of the deceased and since he was not vacating the tenanted premises therefore, due to his inimical relationship with Shiv Charan, he was falsely implicated in this case.Counsel for the appellant also argued that the wire was found at the spot of the crime and no investigation was conducted as to who brought the wire and how was it found at the spot of crime.Trial CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 10 of 37 court also, there is no whiff of presence of wire at the spot of the crime.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 9 of 37CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 10 of 37Based on the above submissions, counsel for the appellant - Gautam has pleaded for acquittal and setting aside the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.Per contra, Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently argued that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has succeeded in bringing the entire chain of circumstances, which unerringly points out the guilt of these accused persons in the commission of the said crime, totally incompatible with the plea of innocence raised by the appellants.Counsel for the state further argued that as per the post mortem report which was duly proved on record by PW-10 - Dr. K. Goel cause of death of the deceased was opined as a result of strangulation and therefore, possibility of the deceased to have committed suicide is totally CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 11 of 37 ruled out.Learned APP also argued that there were injury marks on the neck and ankle of the deceased and the presence of these injuries also suggests the involvement of both the appellants in committing the said murder.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 11 of 37Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that the prosecution has convincingly proved that both these Appellants had purchased two tablets of Alprax from a Chemist shop located in the same vicinity so that they could implement their nefarious design of killing the deceased, while he was in deep slumber after taking the dose of Alprax.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that presence of Alprax was found in the stomach/spleen/kidney of the deceased on chemical examination of his viscera as per the CFSL report proved on record as Ex.PW 15/D and this clinching evidence fully establishes the fact that these two Appellants had purchased Alprax from the chemist shop and then these tablets were administered to the deceased by the appellant - Santosh and thereafter, both the appellants had committed the CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 12 of 37 said crime of murder.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 12 of 37Learned APP also submitted that the presence of the appellant Gautam in the same house at least cannot be disputed as he was also a tenant residing in the same premises, where the deceased was also residing alongwith his family in the other portion of the property.Learned APP also submitted that the prosecution also proved on record that the accused used to come to meet Santosh even during the absence of her husband and it was accused - Santosh who was instrumental in bringing Gautam back to the tenanted premises when once he left the said premises.Learned APP also argued that there was not even an iota of evidence brought on record by the defence that there was any kind of dispute between the father and the deceased over some property issue and therefore, there is not even a nudge of truth in defence of the accused persons.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 13 of 37 appellant - Gautam had also absconded after committing the crime as he was arrested on 19.09.1996 from his work place.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also argued that there can be no reason to disbelieve the evidence of an independent witness - Munna PW-6 who was a salesman in a chemist shop and who in his deposition clearly named these two accused persons having purchased Alprax tablets from the shop before the date of commission of the crime.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 13 of 37Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also argued that there is no delay in the registration of the FIR as the police was galloping in the dark and it is only after the post mortem of the deceased the cause of death was opined 'due to strangulation', the police found the case to be of murder and not of suicide as earlier reported by Shiv Charan, father of the deceased.Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the impugned judgment and order on sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 14 of 37 illegality or perversity, therefore the same may be upheld.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 14 of 37We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at a considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them.We have also gone through the records of the learned trial court.Out of this wedlock, they had a daughter of four years at the time of this incident.The family was residing on the ground floor of premises no. S-352C, School Block, Shakar Pur, Delhi.On the first floor of the same property, appellant - Gautam Goswami was residing in a one room accommodation as a tenant under Shiv Charan, father of the victim - Jaipal and father in law of appellant - Santosh.The appellant - Gautam Goswami was also a CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 15 of 37 married person and as per the case of the prosecution, his wife - Saraswati had been mostly residing at her parental house.Appellants - Gautam Goswami and Santosh got attracted towards each other and had fallen in an illicit relationship, unmindfully betraying the sanctity of the relationship with their respective spouses.Victim - Jaipal had suspicion over the relationship of his wife, Santosh with the appellant Gautam and then their devious plan to eliminate Jaipal so as to continue with their relationship freely and without any kind of fear.To give a final shape to their sinister plan, both of them had purchased two tablets of Alprax from a nearby medical shop and the same was administered by Santosh to the victim on the intervening night of 14/15 September 1996 before he went to sleep.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 15 of 37These circumstances can be outlined as under:-Jaipal (deceased) in the house besides the presence of other accused on the intervening night of 14/15.09.1996 iii.These accused persons giving company to each other for buying a medicine from a chemist shop has to be considered in the light of the said incident and the other circumstances giving a clear hint of their illicit relationship.In the light of the clear, consistent and coherent deposition of these two witnesses, one can draw an easy conclusion that both these accused persons were having an extra marital relationship and the testimonies of some of the prosecution witnesses based on the hearsay evidence, on this aspect can be easily ignored.Dealing with the next contention raised by counsel for the appellant that none of the incriminating circumstances which were vital to the case of the prosecution were put to the accused at the time of recording their statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. As per counsel for the appellants the circumstances which were not put to the accused, inter alia, were regarding purchase of Alprax by the accused persons, regarding manual strangulation of the deceased by the accused persons and lastly, about finger nail marks found on the neck of the deceased.Both the accused CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 29 of 37 persons were confronted with the post mortem report of the deceased Jaipal, proved on record Ex.PW-10/A and the CFSL report Ex. PW-15/D and the evidence regarding purchase of Alprax tablets from Shivam Medical Store by these accused persons.Once any documentary evidence, whether in the nature of post mortem report, CFSL report or any other such incriminating evidence in the nature of any document is put to the accused at the time of recording of his/her statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused cannot be heard to say that the particular fact or finding in the documentary evidence was not specifically put to him/her.The other motive attributed to Shiv Charan was that he wanted to get the tenanted premises vacated from Gautam Goswami, therefore, he got him falsely implicated in the said case.The accused Santosh has referred to a property dispute between her and Shiv Charan and other brothers of the deceased in answer to the residual question No.53, of her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and also a similar question put to PW-3 Shiv Charan during his cross-examination.But no specific details with regard to the property or with regard to the alleged disputes were spelt out by the defence.It was just vaguely suggested that there was a property dispute between Shiv Charan and his son.In the absence of any clear defence with regard to alleged property dispute between Shiv Charan and his son, the argument raised by counsel for the appellant on this aspect cannot be appreciated and is thus rejected.The best witness to prove to the cordiality and happy married life of Gautam Goswami could be none else but the wife of Gautam Goswami alone.Appellant Gautam Goswami failed to produce his wife in the witness box and her non-production by the appellant Gautam Goswami is a vital circumstance which goes adverse against this appellant.For the prosecution, the onus was to establish the illicit relationship between appellant Gautam Goswami and co-accused Santosh and not to establish the cordiality in the relationship of Gautam Goswami with his own wife.Indisputably, the said chemist shop M/s Shiv Medical Store was located in the same vicinity where Gautam Goswami and Santosh were residing.The said chemist shop Shiv Medical Store was duly identified by accused Gautam Goswami in his pointing memo proved on record as Ex. PW-5/C and had there been any TIP, appellant Gautam could not have participated and even if he had then normal defence could have been that he being the resident of the same locality was a familiar face for PW-6 Munna Singh.Even otherwise no separate request was made by accused Gautam Goswami for the conduct of TIP proceeding for the identification by PW-6 Munna Singh.Dealing with the last contention raised by the counsel for the CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 33 of 37 appellant that the learned trial court has failed to deal with the presence of wire which was recovered from the spot.The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the wire was found at the spot of the crime and even the investigation officer failed to conduct any investigation as to who brought the said wire and what would be the role of the wire in the commission of the said crime.Undoubtedly, from the spot of the crime the wire was recovered from the taand of the kitchen of the house and the said wire was taken into possession by PW-15 Inspector Raj Kumar vide Memo Ex.(PW-5/B).This wire was recovered at the instance of appellantCRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 33 of 37- Gautam Goswami, pursuant to his disclosure statementBoth these accused persons in their respective disclosure statement stated that after Santosh had called Gautam Goswami to her room around 2 or 2 a. m. then Gautam Goswami first gave electric shock with the help of electric wire to Jaipal and that moment when Jaipal tried to get up with the effect of current he was manually strangulated with the help of a sari already lying there.This electric wire was again put to use by the accused persons as per their disclosure statement to give another electric shock to Jaipal to reassure themselves that Jaipal was no more alive.Both CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 34 of 37 these accused persons have denied the presence of electric wire at the spot of the crime and its use in electrocuting the deceased Jaipal, when a question to this effect was put to them at the time of recording their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the post mortem report of the deceased Ex. PW10/A, one does not find any reference to any injury which was sustained by the deceased on his body as a result of electric shock given to him prior to and after his death.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 34 of 37Considering the fact that in the post mortem report there is a categorical finding given by the autopsy doctor that the cause of death of the deceased was strangulation and injury Nos.2 and 3 were opined to be possible during the process of manual strangulation, no significance could be attached to the presence and recovery of the said electric wire from the spot of the crime.We are thus not persuaded to take any different view than the one taken by the learned trial court simply because the learned trial court failed to deal with the said aspect of the presence of the electric wire at the spot in the impugned judgment.Therefore, the said contention raised by the appellant is nothing but a fallacious attempt to confuse and deviate the mindset of the court and hence, deserves outright rejection.CRL.A. Nos.428/1999 & 602/1999 Page 35 of 37Taking a cumulative view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment vide which the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence committed by them under Section 302 IPC.Hence, the impugned judgment dated 24.05.1999 and order on sentence dated 27.05.1999, passed by the learned Sessions Judge are upheld.Finding no merit in the present appeal the same is dismissed.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.SUNITA GUPTA, J.
|
['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.
|
132,268,025 |
As per prosecution story on 17.7.2011, Yogesh ( 2) Criminal Appeal No.574/2015 @ Yogsingh along with co-accused Lokesh came to the complainant Vijay Kumar (PW- 10), who is the driver of Rajesh Bishwas and booked the Indica Car to travel for Narsingarh.The accused Yogesh gave Rs. 1000/- in advance.On the way, accused Yogesh stopped the vehicle and lift the appellant Nandu and co-accused Jeevan./ State.Heard on the question of admission.Heard on IA No.7407/2015, which is an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C filed on behalf of appellant for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail.The appellant has been convicted by the 1 st ASJ, Guna in ST No. 288/2011 vide judgment dated 24.6.2015 and appellant has been sentenced as follows:They reached Narsingarh.After sometimes, they proceeded towards Byavra.The vehicle was taken to one Bapu Gurjar.Bapu Gurjar was also allowed to sit in the vehicle.They further proceeded towards Guna.Near Ruthiyai they stopped and they had meal.After crossing Guna Toll Tax at near a lonely place with the pretext to attend the call of nature, accused Yogesh stopped the vehicle.The accused Jeevan and Bapu caught the complainant.The accused Lokesh tried to strangulate the complainant.The accused Yogesh removed his T-shirt and took out his mobile and Rs. 500/-, driving license and photo.At that time, 3-4 trucks came on the way, to see them the accused persons fled away in the car.The complainant Vijay with the help of the truck drivers reached to Vandana Hotel from there he was taken to hospital and lodged Dehati Nalishi Ex.It is directed that execution of jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the ( 4) Criminal Appeal No.574/2015 satisfaction of the Trial Court, for appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23.11.2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE dcs/-
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,269,125 |
14.3.2012 in Sessions Trial 55 of 2002 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur by and under which the appellant is convicted of offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2017 01:37:20 ::: crapeal246of12.odt 2 imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-.2] Four persons including the appellant were charge- sheeted for offence punishable under sections 307, 333 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).The chargesheet was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paratwada who committed the case to the Sessions Court.Before the Sessions Court, before the charge could be framed the appellant was declared as absconder and by order dated 25.2.2009 his trial was separated from the remaining three accused.The learned Sessions Judge who tried the other three accused namely, Bismillah Khan Ghotekhan, Sk.Jameel Nazir Khan and Sk.Salim Shaikh Chotu, was pleased to convict accused 3 Sk.Salim Shaikh Chotu and acquit Bismilla Khan Chotekhan and Sk.Jameel Nazir Khan for the offence punishable under section 333 and 307 read with section 34 of IPC.The appellant was apprehended and faced trial for offence punishable under section 307, 333 read with section 34 of IPC.The appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2017 01:37:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2017 01:37:20 ::: crapeal246of12.odt 3 3] The prosecution examined 9 witnesses, the defence of the appellant as is discernible from the statement recorded under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is total denial.::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2017 01:37:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2017 01:37:20 :::- accused was armed with a weapon.5] Shri.6] I have closely scrutinized the record.To attribute common intention to the other accused, would militate against the established position of law.Counsel's fees fixed at Rs. 5,000/-JUDGE Belkhede::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2017 01:37:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2017 01:37:20 :::
|
['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.
|
1,323,246 |
The Magistratehas observed in his order that he had been moved under theinstructions of the Government of India.256Reprieve being granted when a matter was before theCourt.The Judgment of Sinha, C. J.,Gajendragadkar, Subba Rao and Wanchoo, JJ., was delivered bySinha C. J. Kapur, J., delivered a separate Judgment.On April 27, 1959, the petitioner was arrestedin connection with a charge of murder under s. 302 of theIndian Penal Code.He was produced before the AdditionalChief Presidency Magistrate, Greater Bombay, in connectionwith that charge on April 28, 1959.. The Magistrate remandedhim to police custody on that day.On the following day(April 29, 1959) the Magistrate received a letter from theFlag Officer, Bombay, to the effect that he was ready andwilling to take the accused in naval custody as defined ins.The petitionercontinued to remain in naval custody all along.In duecourse, he was placed on trial before the Sessions Judge,Greater Bombay.The trial was by a jury.The jury returneda verdict of 'not guilty' by a majority of eight to one.The learned Sessions Judge made a reference to the HighCourt under s. 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code,disagreeing with the verdict of the jury.The reference,being Cr.Ref No. 159 of 1959, was heard by a Division Benchof the Bombay High Court.Onthe same day, the Governor of Bombay passed the followingorder:-22 of IVth Sessions of 1959 until the appeal intended to be filed by him in the Supreme Court against his conviction and sentence is disposed of and 508 subject meanwhile to the conditions that he shall be detained in the Naval Jail Custody in1. N. S. Kunjali".In pursuance of the judgment of the High Court, a writissued to the Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, communicatingthe order of the High Court convicting and sentencing thepetitioner as aforesaid.The Sessions Judge issued awarrant for the arrest of the accused and sent it to thepolice officer in charge of the City Sessions Court forGreater Bombay for execution.The warrant was returnedunnerved with the report that the warrant could not beserved in view of the order set out above passed by theGovernor of Bombay suspending the sentence upon thepetitioner.The Sessions Judge then returned the writ to-gether with the unexecuted warrant to the High Court.Notice was accordingly issued to the State of Bombay and tothe accused person.A Special Bench of five Judges of thatCourt heard the matter.The Special Bench permitted twoAdvocates, Mr. Kotwal and Mr. Pranjpe, to appear on behalfof the Western India Advocates' Association.Similarly, Mr.On April 25, 1960, the special leave petitionalong with the application for exemption aforesaid wasplaced before a Division Bench which passed the followingorder:Only awarrant had been issued against the accused and as the war-rant.On April 29, 1905, she presented a petition for a newtrial to the Supreme Court of the State.May 10, 1905, but was dismissed on May 30, 1905, and a newtrial was refused.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,326,336 |
2] The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:On 13.1.2016, Police Sub-Inspector - Smt. P.S. Lanjewar (PW-5) when on duty between 8.00 pm to 8.00 am at Police Station, Civil Lines, Akola, received the information that Sahidabee Mohd. Zakir, resident of Tajnagar, Shivni, Akola is burnt 35%.PSI PW-5 recorded the statement of the deceased wherein the deceased inter alia disclosed that she has three daughters and two sons and out of three daughters, two daughters are married.Her husband is habitual drunkard and frequently quarrels with her and abuses her.Therefore, her one daughter and two sons resided at the house of her brother namely Mohammad Harun Buraji Solanki residing adjacent to her house.On 13.1.2016 at 8.30 pm in the night, her husband Mohammad Jakir Mohammad Bashir demanded Rs.100/- from her for::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 3 drinking liquor and she gave him Rs.50/- only.Therefore, he quarreled with her, abused her for not fulfilling his demand of Rs.100/- and poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.As she was shouting, neighbours and her brother Mohd. Harun and nephew Mohd. Asman came and they extinguished the fire by pouring water on her person and took her to the hospital.On the basis of the said statement of the deceased, initially First Information Report bearing No.10/2016 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered with Civil Line, Police Station, Akola on 14.1.2016 at 3.30 am.By the said judgment and order, the appellant was found guilty of committing offence under Section 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and imprisonment for life respectively and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 2Thereafter, the deceased died at about 10.00 am on 14.1.2016 and, therefore, the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added.On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant and as offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed.The charge was framed against the appellant on 24.1.2017 under sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.3] During the trial, the prosecution examined total six::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 4 witnesses.PW-1 Shantaram Amrutrao Navkar is the panch witness of spot and seizure panchanama, PW-2 Mohd. Haru @ Kallu Bapuji Solanki is the brother of the deceased and PW-3 Akil Solanki Pir Mohammad is the son-in-law of the deceased and both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution and declared as hostile.PW-4 Sanjay Ramji Mishra, PSI is the investigating officer, who carried out further investigation after 16.1.2016 and filed the chargesheet.PW-5 P.S. Lanjewar, PSI has recorded the dying declaration (Exh.29) and also carried out part investigation.PW-6 Dr. T.O. Padole is the Medical Officer, who performed postmortem.The defence of the appellant is that on 13.1.2016 in the night at about 8.30 pm, he had gone to the house of his brother-in-law for dinner as the guests had come there and as his wife was not invited, she raised objection for his attendance for dinner at the house of his brother-in-law and in spite of the same, he went to the house of his brother-in-law and when he was having dinner in the house of his brother-in-law, at that time, he heard shouts of the neighbours and, therefore, they all came out and saw that his wife was burning in front of his house and, therefore, he along with his brother-in-law and the guests went running and extinguished the fire and during that::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 5 process, he also sustained some burn injuries.Thereafter, they took the deceased to the hospital in the auto-rickshaw.It is his further contention that he was also treated in the same hospital and on the next day he came to be apprehended.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 3::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 4::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::4] We have heard Shri Parvez Mirza, learned advocate for appellant and Shri S.A. Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.With their assistance, we have gone through the record of the case including the depositions of the witnesses, relevant exhibits, other documents and the impugned judgment and order.5] It is the contention of Shri Parvez Mirza, learned Advocate for the appellant, that the deceased expired on 14.1.2016 at 10.00 am and the incident had occurred on 13.1.2016 at 8.30 pm and in spite of that no efforts were made to see that the dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate.It is his further contention that letter dated 13.1.2016 (Exh.31) addressed to the Medical Officer seeking injury certificate (injury form) was recorded by PW-5::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 6 at the Police Station and the same was recorded prior to recording of dying declaration and in the said form itself it is stated that the husband of the deceased had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and, therefore, with this mind set, PW-5 has recorded the dying declaration and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same.It is his further contention that deceased narrated the incident in Hindi, however, the dying declaration was recorded in Marathi and the same was read over in Marathi.He further submitted that the doctor, who gave medical certificate of fitness, is not examined and, therefore, an opportunity of the defence and the court to put questions to the doctor, is denied.It is his further contention that although doctor's certificate regarding the health condition of the deceased while recording dying declaration is not mandatory, however, in this case PW-5 has not stated that she herself had ascertained about the health condition of the deceased before and after recording the dying declaration and it is not the case where PW-5 has satisfied herself about the health condition of the deceased and, therefore, non-examination of the doctor, who gave medical certificate that deceased was fit to give statement is very::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 7 crucial and the said evidence is not placed before the court.It is his further contention that what is stated by deceased to PW-5 is not at all mentioned in her evidence and, therefore, substantive evidence of what deceased has stated has not come before the court.There is no evidence of reading over the dying declaration in Hindi to the deceased.There is no second certificate certifying that deceased was fit during recording of her statement.There is no evidence at what time the recording of the dying declaration started and when it was completed.It is his further submission that the postmortem report clearly shows that both the upper limbs were completely affected by burning and, therefore, it was not possible for the deceased to put thumb impression on the dying declaration.It is his further contention that, in fact, the deceased committed suicide, as she was angry as her brother had not invited her for dinner and only invited the appellant for the dinner along with the guests and the appellant along with others extinguished the fire and took the deceased to the hospital and during that process, in fact, he was also injured and was treated in the said hospital.However, the evidence regarding this aspect is::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 8 purposely not placed before the court.It is his further contention that the contents of the dying declaration are not put to the appellant while recording his statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, his conviction based on the dying declaration is required to be quashed and set aside.The learned advocate of the appellant has relied on large number of authorities regarding various aspects of reliance on dying declaration as well as aspect regarding the mandatory requirement that all incriminating circumstances be brought to the notice of the accused while recording his statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. and also on some other aspects.The authorities cited by the advocate of the appellant which are necessary for the disposal of the present appeal will be referred at the appropriate place.7] Before analyzing the evidence on record we deem it appropriate to set out legal position regarding the manner in which evidence regarding dying declaration is required to be appreciated :-::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 6::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 7::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 8It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::"7. - - According to the evidence of Subhash Sangale (PW-4), the doctor examined Pranita and gave his opinion on Exh.28 itself.The Certificate that the patient is able to give statement, is not proved by the prosecution.- - The evidence evidence of PW-4 Subhash Sangale is completely silent that he himself was satisfied about the condition of Pranita to give statement.On::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 16 the contrary, his evidence shows that after doctor gave opinion that she is fit to give statement, he started recording of her statement.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 19In any case even PW-5 has also not independently stated that she had ascertained about the mental fitness of the deceased for recording the dying declaration and thus there is substance in the contention of the learned advocate of the appellant that it::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 20 has not been proved that the mental condition of the deceased was fit when the dying declaration was recorded.11] It is also significant to note that the dying declaration was recorded in the hospital between 11.20 pm and 11.35 pm, however, PW-5 has admitted that she has on her own written letter dated 13.1.2016 (Exh.31) which is a letter (Inquiry Form) addressed by her to the Medical Officer of the Hospital and the same was written at the Police Station.In the said letter, it is specifically mentioned that the husband of the deceased on 13.1.2016 at about 8.00 pm had poured kerosene on her and put her on fire and, therefore, burn injuries are on the entire body and, therefore, the request was made to issue injury certificate.Although said Exh.31 is dated 13.1.2016, no time is mentioned on the same.But a perusal of her evidence clearly shows that the same was prepared at the Police Station and the same was prepared before recording of the dying declaration.Thus, it is clear that before recording the dying declaration, PW-5 had already made up her mind that appellant had poured kerosene on the deceased and put her on fire.Thus with this mind set the PW-5 proceeded to record dying declaration of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 21 12] It is further significant to note that although the deceased was a Muslim lady and although she had answered in Hindi to the queries put up by the PW-5 and although PW-5 could write in Hindi, she had translated the narration of the deceased into Marathi and accordingly reduced in writing the oral dying declaration of the deceased in Marathi.The dying declaration i.e. Exh.29 at the fag end although mentions that the same was read over and explained to the deceased, however, it is not mentioned in the dying declaration that the contents of the dying declaration were read over and explained to the deceased by translating the same into Hindi.Even in the oral evidence of the PW-5 it is not stated that the contents of the dying declaration were translated in Hindi and read over and explained to the deceased in Hindi.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 20::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::L.J. (Cri.) 258 found that appearance of left hand thumb impression on dying declaration is a suspicious circumstance.The dying declaration at Exh.29 has been recorded between 11.20 pm to 11.35 pm on 13.1.2016 and the deceased died on 14.1.2016 at 10.00 am, however, no attempt is made to record the dying declaration of the deceased through the magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 22::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::16] However, several factors set out hereinabove::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 24 create doubt as regards the dying declaration.If all these factors are examined on the touchstone of the legal position regarding appreciation of the dying declaration as set out hereinabove, then it is clear that the same do not inspire full confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness.We have found that it is not proved that at the time of recording of dying declaration the deceased was in a fit state of mind.There is nothing on record to show that the dying declaration was read over to the deceased by translating the same into Hindi.It is also not proved that the thumb impression on the dying declaration is of the deceased.Thus, for all the above reasons we find that the dying declaration at Exh.29 is not at all reliable and the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of said evidence.Apart from these aspects the contents of the dying declaration are not put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore also the same cannot be considered.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 24Other evidence is of PW-2, who is the brother of the deceased and PW-3, who is the son-in-law of::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 25 the deceased and both of them have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared as hostile.Their evidence on record do not connect the accused to the crime.However, without appreciating evidence on record in proper perspective, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 25It is the duty of the prosecution to act fairly.In this particular case, it is the specific defence of the accused that the deceased committed suicide as she was angry as her brother had not invited her and only invited the appellant for the dinner and, therefore, she was insisting that the appellant should not also attend the said dinner and against her wish the appellant attended the dinner and, therefore, deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person.It is his further case that after shouts were heard, he, his brother-in-law and other relatives immediately rushed to his::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 26 house which is adjoining and extinguished the fire and in that process he was also injured.The certain documentary evidence on record supports this contention of the appellant.The seizure panchanama at Exh.15 dated 17.1.2016 shows that shirt and full pant were seized from the accused.The said full shirt was partly burnt and the said full pant was also partly burnt.In this background, if the arrest panchanama dated 14.1.2016 is perused, then it is clearly seen that the appellant was arrested on 14.1.2016 at 8.46 pm and in Column No.7 regarding the injuries found on the person of the accused, it is specifically mentioned that the same are as per medical certificate attached and in the said medical certificate issued by the Government Medical College and Hospital at Akola, it is specifically mentioned that "left hand was burnt yesterday 8.30 pm" and that blisters were found over left hand with burns." Thus, it is clear that not only the full shirt and full pant of the appellant was found to be partly burnt but there were burns found over his left hand.The said evidence although forming part of the investigation papers is not brought before the court while leading the evidence.Thus, it is clear that not only the clothes on the person of the appellant were partly burnt, but also his left hand was also partly burnt.It is not the case::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 27 of the prosecution that while putting the deceased on fire the accused sustained burn injuries and the clothes on his body were also caught fire.It is for the prosecution to explain this circumstance and the same is not explained in the evidence.Thus, the seizure panchanama at Exh.15 dated 17.1.2016 along with the report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory at Exh.26 clearly show that the clothes on the person of the appellant were burnt as well as the arrest panchanama along with medical certificate shows that his left hand was partly burnt.Apart from that, this evidence supports the case of the defence that the deceased had committed suicide and, in fact, appellant tried to save her by extinguishing the fire and he was also injured and he was also treated in the same hospital where the deceased was treated and ultimately died in the said hospital.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 26::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 2719] The evidence of PW-2, who is brother of the deceased as well as evidence of PW-3, who is son-in-law of the deceased, who turned hostile, show that when the incident took place, PW-2, PW-3 and the appellant were having dinner along with the guests at the place of PW-2::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 28 and at that time they heard the noise and shouts.It is also significant to note that the incident had taken place at 8.30 pm and several neighbours were present.However, the prosecution has failed to examine any of the neighbour.::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 2820] Thus, it is clear that the prosecution case stands only on the basis of the dying declaration and the same does not inspire confidence for convicting the appellant on the basis of said sole evidence.We have already set out hereinabove the reasons why the said dying declaration does not inspire confidence.Apart from that, the other evidence on record which is also stated hereinabove clearly supports the defence raised by the accused.Therefore, this is a case where at least the accused should get benefit of doubt and in any case the accused cannot be convicted on the sole evidence of the dying declaration as the same does::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 ::: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 29 not inspire confidence.In this case, there is no other reliable evidence to connect the appellant with the crime and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant u/s 307 as well as u/s 302 of the I.P.C. deserves to be set aside.Hence, the following order :::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765.19.odt 2921] The Criminal Appeal is allowed.(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) .........Gulande, PS::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 06:16:50 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,333,186 |
The sole ground of the petitioner is that they are not the manufacturer of the fertiliser.They had only supplied the same as received from the manufacturer in machine stitched condition.Instead of going to the police, they have come before this Court.Agreement between the manufacturer and the dealer/petitioner is their internal matter.Through this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have invoked extraordinary powers of this Court to quash FIR No. 552/2019 registered at Police Station Manvar, District Dhar (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1995 and Clause 7 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order 1985 for cheating by supplying less quantity per bag than the standard quantity promised to supply of Single Super Phosphate (SSP) fertilizer and thereby causing wrongful loss to the farmers for wrongful gain to self.Succinctly stated facts giving rise to the present petition are that on receiving complaints from the farmers complainant Fertiliser Inspector (FI), Development Block Manawar Hari Singh Dawar alongwith Sr.Development Officer Sukhlal Alwa conducted surprise inspection on 23.06.2019 of Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Manawar and checked weight of the bags of fertiliser manufactured by R.M. Phosphate and Chemicals Ltd. MIDC Industrial Area II, Dhule, Maharashtra and marketed by the petitioner company.On n average 1 kg weight per sack was found to be less than the declared weight of sacks of fertiliser supplied by the petitioner.Therefore, the FI lodged the FIR under challenge.2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.787/2020 Shriram Fertilizer and Another Vs.According to them, they have an agreement with the manufacturer that he will be responsible for any shortcoming in the material supplied through the petitioner.Therefore, the petitioners are not responsible for any deficit in declared quantity of sacks and are not liable to be prosecuted and, hence, the FIR qua them be quashed.The learned Public Prosecutor has asserted that shortage found in surprise inspection was about 1 Kg per bag of 50 kg.Thus, on every 50 sacks supplied by the petitioners, they have saved one sack of fertiliser.Total 4400 bags of fertilizer were supplied to the concerned Cooperative Societies, thus, if calculated on an average 1 Kg pilferage per sack, the total shortage will be 4400 Kg.This short quantity is related to only one sector of supply, if the total supply made by the petitioner is taken into consideration, then it will amount to lakhs of tons.This is a white collar crime, in which, the people in dominating position are cheating the poor farmers by supplying less than the declared quantity and hence are earning huge profits.The inspection carried out was only a sample inspection and it does not mean that this is a case of pilferage of just a few kilos; rather it is a fraud not only with the farmers, but also with the Society and with the Nation.It is a crime against public at large and against larger interest of the Society.There is prima facie sufficient evidence and the material available on record to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner along with the manufacturer.3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.787/2020 Shriram Fertilizer and Another Vs.It is argued that as per definition given in clause (f) of Section 2 of the Fertiliser Control order, 1985 "Dealer" means a person carrying on the business of selling fertilisers whether wholesale or retail and includes a manufacturer.Section 19 of the Control Order, 1985 prescribes that no person can sell for himself or for any other person any fertiliser with a fake claim.In the present case, the fertiliser was supplied with a claim that each sack contains 50 kg quantity and this claim was found false, therefore, the petitioners, who are dealer and had supplied less than declared quantity of fertiliser cannot shirk their responsibility by stating that they are not the manufacturer.It is emphasized that it is a disputed question of facts whether the pilferage was at the manufacturer's end or at the supplier's end, but it is a fact that on a surprise check, quantity of fertiliser supplied by the petitioners was found to be substantially less than the declared quantity.In case of the disputed question of facts, as per settled principles of law, investigation cannot be aborted prematurely.It is further averred that the present petition is premature as the investigation has not been completed so far.No such agreement was produced before the police.I have heard the rival parties at length and perused the documents.In the present case, the report of the Fertiliser Inspector prima facie sufficiently shows that on surprise check, quantity of the fertiliser was found short than the declared quantity.The Police have not collected the entire document so far.Let the investigation be completed by the Police.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,323,335 |
(a) P.W.1 is the cousin, and P.W.2 is the son of the first deceased (D1) Velusamy and the second deceased (D2) Rajalakshmi.The elderly couple in their 60's were residing in Door No.217, Ganapathy Sakthi Road, Coimbatore, within the jurisdiction of the respondent police.P.W.1 who used to make a casual visit to their house since they were under ailment, came to their house at about 6.30 P.M. on that day, and he found the door closed, but not locked.He opened the door and got inside, but either of the deceased was not found.Then he climbed the upstairs and there also they were not found.When he was descending, he found bloodstains which led him to the place where the dead body of D1 Velusamy was found.Then he went to the next room where he found the dead body of D2 Rajalakshmi.Immediately he phoned over to his brother P.W.4, and it was also informed to the relatives.Then, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered by P.W.18, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.150/2003 under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P41, was despatched to the Court.(b) P.W.20, 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.P3, and also a rough sketch, Ex.Then he conducted inquest on both the dead bodies in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared two inquest reports, Exs.P44 and P45 respectively.After the inquest was over, the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.P14, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to cut injury in the neck.The final opinion is marked as Exs.P16 and P17 respectively.(e) Following the same, P.W.2 who went to the house, found Ex.P3, a chit, and he handed over the same to the Investigator.P.W.2, the son, after making a search in the house and finding the bureau opened, gave a list of articles which were found missing including cash, namely M.Os.1 & 2, wrist watches, M.O.3, golden bangles, M.O.4, currency notes worth Rs.22200/- and M.O.22, ring.The Investigation was on.(f) On 22.4.2003, P.W.20 received Ex.The admissible part is marked as Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, FTC No.III, Coimbatore, made in S.C.No.241 of 2004 whereby the appellant herein who is shown as A-2, along with four others stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded the punishments as follows:ACCUSEDCHARGESFINDINGPUNISHMENTA-1 to A-4302 IPC (two counts)GuiltyDouble life imprisonment A-1 to A-4392 IPCGuilty7 years RI along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentenceA-1201 IPCGuilty7 years RI along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentenceA-5201 r/w 109 r/w 302 & 392 IPCGuilty under Sec.302 IPC392, 201 & 109 IPCDouble life imprisonment7 years RI along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence(c) P.W.11, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of D1 Velusamy and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P11, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to cut injury in the neck.(d) Equally P.W.11, the same Medical Person, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of D2 Rajalakshmi and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.Then he proceeded with the investigation in that line, entertaining suspicion.On 27.4.2003, P.W.20 arrested A-4, and he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, and the same was recorded.P7, following which M.O.3, golden bangles, were recovered from him.They came forward to give confessional statements, which were recorded.The admissible parts are marked as Exs.P18 and P19 respectively.Thereafter, A-3 was arrested on 1.5.2003, when he gave a confessional statement voluntarily.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P26, pursuant to which the material objects were recovered from him.(g) On 2.5.2003, the appellant/A-2 was arrested, and he gave a confessional statement.The admissible part is Ex.He also produced M.O.1, Titan wrist watch, M.O.22, golden ring, M.O.23, cash of Rs.8150/- (a portion of M.O.4 series), and M.O.24, bloodstained shirt, M.O.25, bloodstained pant, and also M.O.26, hacksaw blade.They were all recovered under a cover of mahazar.(h) Pending investigation, a requisition was put forth before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the identification of the accused.P.W.6 was taken for the test identification parade, and he also identified all the accused persons in the identification parade.The test identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.(i) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body were subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in Ex.P30, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P31, the serologist's report.On completion of the investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and also relied on 48 exhibits and 36 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of all the charges and hence found them guilty and awarded the punishments as referred to above.4.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant/ A-2, the learned Counsel Mr.T.K.Sampath would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 4.00 P.M. on 20.4.2003; that at that time, the inmates in the house were both the deceased Velusamy and Rajalakshmi; that the prosecution rested its case entirely on the circumstances; that the first circumstance was the evidence of P.W.6 who was carrying on a tea shop situate opposite to the house of the deceased; and that apart from that, the evidence of P.W.5 and also P.W.7 was also relied upon in order to strengthen the circumstantial evidence.5.Added further the learned Counsel that the second circumstance mainly relied on by the prosecution was the recovery of some of the material objects from A-2 pursuant to the alleged confessional statement.Attacking that part of the evidence put forth by the prosecution before the trial Court, the learned Counsel would submit that as far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned, the trial Court should have rejected the evidence for more reasons than one; that it is claimed by P.W.6 that he was actually carrying on a tea stall in front of the house of the deceased; but the occurrence has taken place at about 4.00 P.M. on 20.4.2003; that it is a matter of surprise to note that he has deposed before the trial Court that he came to know about the same in the next morning through newspaper, and he was also interrogated by the Police Officer only on 23.4.2003, and his statement has reached the Court only on 25.4.2003; that if really he was carrying on a tea stall just in front of the house of the deceased, one would expect that a reasonable conduct of a person would be to immediately inform the Investigator that he saw all the accused persons in the house of the deceased at or about the time; but, he has not done so, and hence the last seen theory that the deceased were in the company of the accused, therefore, could not be believed.6.The learned Counsel would further submit that as far as the evidence of P.W.5, a close relative, was concerned, according to him, originally A-1 and another accused one Karuppusamy, since deceased, who died pending investigation, were all doing painting work in the house of P.W.5 and afterwards P.W.5 asked them to go and do painting work in the house of the deceased, and accordingly, they did; that it is pertinent to point out that P.W.5 has not stated that there was any introduction of the accused persons and not even mentioned the name of A-2; that though it is in plural, it cannot be taken that A-2 was also asked to go over for painting work in the house of the deceased; that under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.5 could not be relied on; that as far as P.W.7 is concerned, his evidence could not be relied for any purpose at all because after five days he was examined, and he was not taken for the identification parade; that it is not his case that except A-1, he knew any one of the other accused, and under the circumstances, his evidence cannot be relied.7.Levelling much criticism on the evidence as to the recovery, the learned Counsel would submit that at the time of giving the complaint under Ex.P1, P.W.2 gave a list of articles on the next day which is marked as Ex.10.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.11.It is not in controversy that following the inquest made by P.W.20, the Investigator, on both the dead bodies of Velusamy and Rajalakshmi, the dead bodies were subjected to postmortem by P.W.11, the Doctor, who has given postmortem certificates, Exs.P11 and P14 respectively.The Medical Person has also deposed before the Court that the death was due to the haemorrhage and shock due to cut injury in the neck as found in the contents of the postmortem certificates.The cause of death namely homicidal violence, as put forth by the prosecution, was not a subject matter of controversy before the trial Court, and hence the trial Judge was perfectly correct in recording so.12.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant along with the other accused before the trial Court, it is true that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer since at the time of occurrence, nobody was available in the house except both the deceased D1 Velusamy and D2 Rajalakshmi.Now, the prosecution relied on the circumstantial evidence.13.Firstly, according to P.W.5, A-1 and one Karuppusamy were doing painting work in his house, and at that time, he asked them to go and do the painting work in the house of the deceased, and even thereafter, on verification P.W.5 found that A-1 and others were doing painting work.14.Secondly, P.W.6 was carrying on a tea stall just in front of the house of the deceased.According to him, on the day of occurrence namely 20.4.2003, he went to the house of the deceased to take a pot of water, and at that time, he found A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-5 chatting in front of the house of D1 and D2, and at that time, D2 was also standing nearby, and it was also questioned by D1 why he should come and take water there, and he could better take water in the public pipe, and P.W.6 made a further request, and then he was permitted to take, and he actually found the accused persons talking.Thus the evidence of P.W.6 would go to show that he actually went there for taking 4 or 5 pots of water, and he found the accused persons four in number including A-2, chatting in front of the house of the deceased.It is pertinent to point out that within a short interval, the occurrence has taken place at about 4.00 P.M. on the very day.Thereafter, he was taken for the identification parade where he identified the accused including the appellant herein without any doubt at all.The identification parade proceedings are also placed before the Court.16.Much comment was made on the evidence of P.W.6 stating that he was interrogated only after a few days and if it is really true, he would have given the statement immediately.Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that P.W.6 was actually carrying on the tea stall in the opposite direction, and he was examined on the third day when the investigation was on.The interrogation of P.W.6 who is not an eyewitness, but only a witness to the circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, by itself cannot be a reason to doubt the prosecution case.The involvement of the accused including A-2, the appellant herein, was first spoken to by A-4 when he was arrested on 27.4.2003, and his confessional statement was recorded.If the statement was recorded subsequent to the arrest of any one of the accused, it would cast a reasonable doubt whether it could have been a created document.Under the circumstances, merely because the statement of P.W.6 was recorded after a few days, it cannot be taken that he comes forward to take a falsehood.17.The learned Counsel made much comment on the recovery of jewels.It is true that at the time when the complaint was given, P.W.2 did not mention about the missing of the jewels.He has given a list of articles as found under Ex.P3 subsequently.P3 list.But, it should not be forgotten that P.W.2 was actually not a person with them.The jewels were actually found missing from the bureau, and so long as he did not have the knowledge about the same, one could not expect him to speak of all the items in the list.Merely because some of the jewels were actually found missing in the list, it did not mean that they did not belong to the deceased.He identified that they belonged to the deceased.At this juncture, it remains to be stated that merely because they were not mentioned in the list of articles, it did not mean that they did not belong to the deceased.The evidence adduced in respect of the confessional statement of A-2 and also the recovery of the material objects remained intact.18.Apart from the above, the learned Counsel also made a comment that it was not only a case of murder for gain, but also due to some enmity.(M.C.,J.) (M.S.N.,J.) 16-9-2010Index: yesInternet: yesnsvTo:1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge FTC No.2.The Inspector of Police B9 Saravanampatty Police Station Coimbatore3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.CRL.A.No.697 of 2009
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,336,616 |
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 3rd May, 2006, deceased Radhey Shyam was suffering from high fever and vomiting.He went to one Dr. Dhananjay Kumar.Dr. Kumar administered injection to Radhey Shyam.It is further urged that when the patient was brought to the hospital, he had already expired.It was Crl.Vinod Gupta had taken due care and attention while treating the patient and since his condition had already deteriorated, the petitioner instead of treating the patient referred him to DDU hospital.P. No.381/2009 Page 2 of 6As against this, the learned APP took this Court through the supplementary statement of Smt. Savitri Devi, the wife of the deceased, Surya Bhan, brother of the deceased and Tilakdhari, father of the deceased.All the three witnesses in their statements and supplementary statements recorded on different dates have specifically attributed the death of the deceased on account of medical negligence of Dr.Vinod Gupta in not providing him timely and correct medical aid.P. No.381/2009 Page 3 of 6The Medical Council in its report has opined that there was an anaphylactic reaction and there was medical negligence in the treatment and management of the case of the deceased which resulted in his death.This clearly established prima facie that there was medical negligence on the part of Dr.Vinod Gupta in treating and managing the patient which he was trying to cover up by simple denial of the fact of having administered any treatment to the patient.P. No.381/2009 Page 4 of 6This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25th March, 2009 passed by Sh.R.B.Singh learned ASJ in case titled State Vs.Dhananjay Kumar Etc. bearing FIR No.589/2008 P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi wherein the learned Magistrate has directed framing of charges against the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC r/w Section 27 of Delhi Medical Council Act.The Crl.P. No.381/2009 Page 1 of 6 condition of Radhey Shyam instead of improving started deteriorating and he developed rashes all over his body.Radhey Shyam was taken to Manthan hospital a nearby Nursing Home by his family members where he was administered injections by Dr.Vinod Gupta, the present petitioner.Since the condition of the patient did not improve he was referred to DDU Hospital.The deceased being taken to DDU hospital by his wife Smt. Savitri along with Ram Niwas who was the owner of the hospital and one more person Ram Niwas and that person got down midway under the pretext of getting some money and in the process by the time the deceased was brought to DDU hospital he had already expired.A case under 304A IPC was registered against Dr.Vinod Kumar and Dr.After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the learned Magistrate on 25th March, 2009 framed charges.P. No.381/2009 Page 1 of 6I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.It was also urged that even if it is assumed that the deceased was treated by Dr. Vinod Kumar even then no case of medical negligence could be made out because the petitioner tried his level best to save the deceased.2005 ACJ 1840 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has categorically laid down the guidelines for prosecuting the medical professionals for offences involving criminal negligence.It was urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner Dr.It may be pertinent here to mention that after the death of the deceased, Delhi Medical Council had conducted an enquiry with the help of experts.It had examined number of witnesses including the wife, the brother and the father of the deceased apart from Ram Niwas the owner of Manthan Hospital, Dr.Dhananjay Kumar and Dr.Vinod Crl.P. No.381/2009 Page 3 of 6 Gupta.A copy of the said report of the Medical Council clearly shows that the deceased who had suffered anaphylactic reaction was administered injection Atropine and injection Effcorlin by Dr.Vinod Gupta in Manthan Hospital.This has been testified by Ram Niwas who is the owner of Manthan hospital who has further stated that Dr.Vinod Gupta was rendering his services to Manthan Hospital as Consultant around the time when the incident took place.As against this, Dr.Vinod Gupta denied his association with Manthan hospital.He said that he visited the said hospital on receipt of a call purely on humanitarian ground and he also denied having administered any treatment to the deceased.On the contrary, he stated that at the time when the patient was brought to Manthan hospital he had already expired and that is why he was referred to the DDU Hospital.P. No.381/2009 Page 4 of 6At the stage of framing of charge, it is settled legal position that if there is strong suspicion against the accused, a charge has to be framed against him.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,337,655 |
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::The FIR shows the averments to theeffect that after five days of her married life, she was subjected toabuses and beating by the revision petitioner and other accusedpersons on account of non-payment of dowry in the marriage.Samarth Karmarkar i/b.Prasad Apte, Advocate for theApplicant.Mr.A.R.Kapadnis, APP for the Respondent/State.original accused/husband is challenging the Judgment and Orderdated 12/04/2016 passed by the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Sangli in Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2009 therebyconfirming his conviction of the offence punishable under SectionGaikwad RD 1/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017498-A of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for the sake of brevity), soalso the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three yearsimposed on him for this offence by the trial Magistrate.Initially,the present revision petitioner along with the co-accused namelyMrs.Jayashree Shinde and Dnyanoba Shinde were prosecuted foroffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 323 504 read withSection 34 of the IPC vide Regular Criminal Case No.249 of 1996and by the Judgment and Order dated 20/08/2009, the learnedJudicial Magistrate First Class, Tasgaon was pleased to convict thepresent revision petitioner along with accused No.2 Mrs.JayashreeShinde for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPCand they both were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment forthree years.Accused No.3 Dnyanoba came to be acquitted ofoffences alleged against him.The present revision petitioner aswell as co-accused Jayashree Shinde were convicted of offencespunishable under Section 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of theIPC, but no separate sentence was awarded for those offences.Inaddition, compensation of Rs.70,000/- was directed to be paid bythe revision petitioner/accused No.1 and in default he is directedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.Thisis how the revision petitioner is coming up before this Courtchallenging the appellate order of confirmation of his convictionfor the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC andsentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three yearsapart from payment of compensation and sentence in default.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::Allegations levelledagainst the revision petitioner/accused are to the effect that theinformant/wife stayed with him for a period of five days after themarriage and thereafter for a period of two months after07/11/1994 when there was compromise between the parties inmaintenance proceedings before the Lokadalat.He further arguedthat during this period of two months, there was no instance of ill-treatment to the first informant Suvarna.By taking me throughthe cross-examination of P.W.No.1 Suvarna, he argued that shestayed at the house of the revision petitioner only for a period offive days after the marriage and thereafter she was not stayingwith the revision petitioner till there was compromise in themaintenance proceedings.With this, he argued that averment inthe FIR dated 19/11/1996 to the effect that after five days, shewas subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry arepatently false.The learned Advocate further argued that entireevidence adduced by the prosecution is hear-say evidence andthere is no evidence about physical assault to the firstinformant/wife.No medical evidence is adduced by theprosecution in support of allegations that the first informant wasused to be subjected to cruelty by assaulting and beating her byGaikwad RD 3/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017the revision petitioner/husband.The learned Advocate furtherargued that after returning from her matrimonial house, it isaverred that the first informant/wife stayed with her aunt, but heraunt is not examined by the prosecution to prove ill-treatment tothe first informant/Suvarna.It is further argued that the FIR inquestion came to be lodged on 19/11/1996 whereas the marriagewas solemnized on 12/04/1993 and the first informant/wife leftthe matrimonial house after five days of marriage.With this, it isfurther argued that there is delay of about 22 months in lodgingthe FIR which demonstrate that false and concocted case is soughtto be made out by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::3 As against this, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor by taking me through the evidence of prosecutionwitnesses has argued that there is enough evidence to infercruelty, particularly when the prosecution witnesses have deposedabout second marriage of the revision petitioner with accusedNo.2 Jayashree and the resultant ill-treatment as reflected fromthe evidence on record.4 I have carefully considered the rival submissions andalso perused the Record and Proceedings.According to theprosecution case, first informant Suvarna Jadhav married thepresent revision petitioner/accused No.1 on 12/04/1993 andthereafter she started cohabiting with the revision petitioner atGaikwad RD 4/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017village Nimani in Tasgaon Taluka and Sangli District.After fivedays of her married life, she was subjected to cruelty by therevision petitioner and his relatives on account of demand ofdowry and thereafter she was taken by her father.According tothe prosecution case, then the first informant filed proceeding formaintenance which came to be compromised before the Lokadalaton 07/11/1994 and the first informant/wife was then taken forcohabitation to her matrimonial house by the revision petitioner/husband.She was at her matrimonial house for two months, butshe was subjected to cruelty by the revision petitioner and otheraccused persons.It is averred in the FIR that the first informantwas subjected to cruelty even by second wife of the revisionpetitioner.According to the prosecution case, after deserting firstinformant Suvarna, the revision petitioner/husband had marriedagain with accused No.2 Jayashree Shinde.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::The charge U/s.498-A of the IPC wasspecifically explaining the fact that the first informant was used tobe subjected to cruelty by accused persons which included accusedNo.2 Jayashree Shinde - second wife of the revision petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::prosecution has examined in all four witnesses.P.W.No.1 SuvarnaShinde is the first informant and undisputedly the wife of therevision petitioner.However, the revision petitioner/accused No.1 has categoricallyaccepted the fact that he married Suvarna in the year 1993 andafter marriage, Suvarna started residing with him at villageNimani.He has also accepted the fact that Suvarna had filedmaintenance application and it was compromised and Suvarnawas taken back by him for cohabitation.The revision petitioner/husband in answer to Question No.29 has candidly accepted thefact that he performed second marriage.The revision petitioner/husband has stated in his examination under Section 313 of theCr.P.C. has stated that he was deceived by the first informant andher parents.According to the revision petitioner/husband, hiswife Suvarna is deaf and this fact was suppressed from him at thetime of the marriage.It is thus clear from the record thatundisputedly the first informant Suvarna is first wife of therevision petitioner/husband and that he married again duringGaikwad RD 6/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017subsistence of his marriage with the first informant i.e. SuvarnaShinde.It isfurther stated in the FIR that thereafter father of the firstinformant had taken her to her parental house.It is well settledthat the FIR cannot be treated as substantive evidence, but it canGaikwad RD 8/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017be used to corroborate or contradict the first informant.The firstinformant Suvarna in her evidence before the Court has statedthat she resided at the house of revision petitioner for about fivedays after her marriage and thereafter her husband i.e. revisionpetitioner, father-in-law i.e. accused No.3 Dnyanoba Shinde andsister of her husband started harassing her.As per version of thefirst informant Suvarna when she was residing at the house of herhusband, her husband, father-in-law and second wife of herhusband were harassing her on the ground that sufficient dowrywas not given at the time of the marriage.Sufficient food was notprovided to her and there used to be beating to her.The firstinformant deposed that there was settlement between her and herhusband i.e. revision petitioner in the proceedings filed by her formaintenance and it was agreed that she would be taken back forcohabitation by the revision petitioner.She further deposed thataccused persons were not allowing her to enter inside the house,they used to beat her and lastly they told her to go to her parentalhouse.The first informant further deposed that the accused didnot come to take her for cohabitation and, therefore, she lodgedthe report.Cross-examination of this witness reveals that afterfive days of her married life with her husband, she went to villageManjarde.It was suggested to her that after compromise inmaintenance proceedings, she resided for a period of three monthswith the revision petitioner/accused and this fact is accepted bythe first informant/wife.However, she denied that she was notGaikwad RD 9/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017subjected to cruelty or that all accused persons behaved properlywith her.In her cross-examination, it has been brought on recordthat she thereafter stayed at her parental house itself.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::8 Evidence of P.W.No.1 Suvarna as such goes to showthat initially she was in company of the revisionpetitioner/husband for a period of five days and subsequently afterarriving at the settlement in the maintenance proceedings, sheagain stayed with him for a period of three months.9 How P.W.No.1 Suvarna came to her parental houseafter her marriage is explained by her father P.W.No.2 Namdev inhis evidence.He has stated that after marriage, he himself and hisbrother had been to the house of accused persons and at that timethey demanded dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- and Hero-Hondamotorcycle from him.As per version of this witness, then therevision petitioner had left P.W.No.1 Suvarna at his house.Thereafter, this witness accompanied by Dnyanu Vishnu Mohite,Yashwant Salunkhe, Rajaram Salunkhe (P.W.No.3) etc. went tothe house of the accused persons to convince them for settlementin the matrimonial dispute, but they did not pay any heed to hisrequest.P.W.No.2 Namdev had categorically deposed thatthereafter the revision petitioner/accused No.1 performed secondmarriage.Then there was settlement between the couple inLokadalat where the maintenance proceedings filed by P.W.No.1Gaikwad RD 10/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017Suvarna were under reference and at that time the revisionpetitioner/husband assured to behave properly with P.W.No.1Suvarna and accordingly he took her for cohabitation.However,as stated by this witness, then again there was ill-treatment toP.W.No.1 Suvarna.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::10 Evidence of P.W.No.2 Namdev as such goes to showthat P.W.No.1 Suvarna was reached to her parental house by therevision petitioner/husband and then she was again taken back forcohabitation on settlement arrived at before the Lokadalat.Shewas thereafter subjected to cruelty.11 P.W.No.4 Shankar Jadhav is uncle of P.W.No.1Suvarna.His evidence categorically shows that the revisionpetitioner had performed second marriage with accused No.2Jayashree.This witness has categorically stated that on two tofour occasions, he along with others had been to the matrimonialhouse of Suvarna for convincing accused persons to take backP.W.No.1 Suvarna for cohabitation.As per version of this witness,after P.W.No.1 Suvarna was taken back for cohabitation by therevision petitioner/husband, he had seen her kept separately indilapidated house by the revision petitioner/husband.Thiswitness has stated that he has seen ill-treatment to the Suvarna ashe had been to the residence of Suvarna.As per version of thiswitness, it was he who informed parents of Suvarna about ill-treatment to her and then she was brought back by her parents.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::As per evidence of this witness also after deserting Suvarna, therevision petitioner/husband had performed second marriage withaccused No.2 Jayashree.12 P.W.No.3 Rajaram - another uncle of informantP.W.No.1 Suvarna happens to have visited the matrimonial houseof P.W.No.1 Suvarna with Yashwant Salunkhe and thereafter hedid not visit her matrimonial house again.Evidence of thiswitness appears to be hear-say because as per his version, he cameto know about ill-treatment to Suvarna from P.W.No.4 ShankarJadhav.13 This is all what was before the Court below in order toinfer cruelty to a married woman.Undisputedly, the revisionpetitioner/accused No.1/husband, after marrying first informantSuvarna had subsequently married another woman namedJayashree (accused No.2).It is seen from the evidence ofP.W.No.4 Shankar Jadhav that despite compromise beforeLokadalat in the maintenance proceedings initiated by P.W.No.1Suvarna, though she was taken back for resumption ofcohabitation, she was kept separately in a dilapidated house by therevision petitioner/ accused No.1/husband.There, as seen fromevidence of P.W.No.1 Suvarna, she was subjected to beating.Evidence of P.W.No.1 Suvarna categorically goes to show that therevision petitioner/accused No.1 was not even allowing her toGaikwad RD 12/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017enter in their house.Marrying another woman during subsistenceof first marriage and keeping first wife separately in a dilapidatedhouse, not allowing her to enter inside the house of her husbandwhere he was residing with his another wife and subjecting her tobeating, in my considered opinion, amounts to intentional harshand harmful conduct of the revision petitioner/husband withrequisite intensity and persistence in order to drive a marriedwoman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to herlife, limb or health - mental as well as physical.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::It is well settled thatthe delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formulafor discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity.Such delay only puts the Court on guard to search for andconsider if any explanation has been offered for the delay.When there is possibility of embellishment orexaggeration in the version of the prosecution on the count of theGaikwad RD 13/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017delayed FIR, then it becomes a factor to suspect the case of theprosecution.In the case in hand, the FIR was against the husbandand in-laws by the wife.In the tradition-bound Indian society,wife is always reluctant to lodge the FIR against her husband orin-laws even if she is subjected to cruelty by them.There is alwaysan attempt on the part of the married women in Indian culture tosave their marriage at any cost.In the case in hand, though thefirst informant was knowing that after deserting her, the revisionpetitioner/husband married another woman, she agreed to cohabitwith him while settlement of her maintenance proceedings beforethe Lokadalat.It is further seen from the evidence on record thatthereafter she was also subjected to cruelty.Her FIR goes to showthat she was waiting with the hope that she will again be taken forcohabitation by the revision petitioner/husband.As her hopecould not be materialized, left with no alternative, she lodged theFIR.The informant/wife was trying to save her marriage insteadof prosecuting her husband and in-laws.Offence punishableunder Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence.Considering the nature of offence and the explanation found in theFIR lodged by informant P.W.No.1 Suvarna, it cannot be said thatthe FIR lodged by her is delayed making the prosecution casesuspect.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::15 The revision petitioner/ accused No.1/husband wasrightly convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A ofthe IPC and, therefore, accordingly sentenced as per law forGaikwad RD 14/15 ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 ::: (7)APPRNo.282017commission of the said offence.The revision petition is thusdevoid of merit and the same is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::16 Subsequently, pending Criminal Application bearingNo.28 of 2017 also stands disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2017 00:17:44 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,234,359 |
Reply filed by the respondent is taken on record.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned first Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge Vyapam Indore vide order dated 22.1.2021 passed in S.T.No.65/2019 which is as under:-At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the allegation against the present appellant is that he appeared in the PMT Examination in place of one Sant Kumar Trivedia.Counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for grant 3 of suspension of sentence to the appellant.Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record of the lower Court and taking note of the fact that the appellant is in jail since 22.1.2021 and earlier also he has already spent around two months in jail and the fact that the person Sant kumar for whom the present appellant had appeared in the PMT Examination has already been acquitted and the appeal is not likely to be heard at an early date, this Court finds it expedient to allow the suspension application.The prayer for suspension of sentence is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing bail bond to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26/4/2021 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry, the appellant be released on bail and the substantive sentence shall remain suspended pending this appeal.IA No.1015/2021 stands allowed and disposed off.c.c as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Digitally signed by REENA PARTHO das SARKAR Date: 2021.02.27 18:03:25 +05'30'
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,345,145 |
The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) (Shivakant Prasad, J. ) 3
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
|
21,227,301 |
At the oral request of learned APP for the State, the respondent no.2/Bijender @ Vijender s/o Kirpal is deleted from the array of parties as no charge was framed against him under Section 67-A of the IT Act.In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.08.2013, the prosecutrix (PW1) came to the Police Station Fatehpur Beri and stated that she was married on 22.04.1996 and has two children out of the Crl.L.P. 667/2016 Page 1 of 13 said marriage.She alleged that about fifteen days ago, at about 12 noon, her devrani Sonwati, who had been living in front of her house, asked her to shift her fridge.When she went to the house of Sonwati and was shifting the fridge, Sonwati went out of the room and bolted door from outside.At this stage, the respondent Mahesh (brother-in- law of the prosecutrix), who was hiding in that room, revealed himself.He put a knife on the neck of the prosecutrix and asked her to remove her clothes.Thereafter, the respondent Mahesh committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes.The respondent Mahesh also recorded the said incident in his mobile phone.It was further alleged by PW1 that the respondent Mahesh and Bijender threatened her to show the video to the public and also demanded Rs. 30,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- from her.PW1 specifically alleged that Bijender sold the said video in the village for Rs. 300 and Rs. 500/-.L.P. 667/2016 Page 1 of 13Pawan Kumar (PW 5), Mahender Singh (PW 6), Prasadi (PW 7), Sant Ram (PW 12), and SI Surekha (PW 13) as to the origin and circulation of the video clip (contained in CD- Ex. P3).Pawan Kumar (PW 5) has testified that on 07.08.2013, he along with the IO and Ct.Hazari had recovered one white mobile phone (Ex. P1) from the house of the respondent Mahesh at his instance.L.P. 667/2016 Page 6 of 13Thereafter, he immediately went to Police Station along with the prosecutrix and got the FIR registered.The present leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.05.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 234/13 by virtue of which the respondent Mahesh was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act).On the complaint, a case was registered under Section 376(D)/384/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).Subsequently, the accused Sonwati and Mahesh were arrested and Bijender surrendered in Court.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.On 05.10.2013, charge under Section 384/34 IPC was framed against the respondent Mahesh and Bijender; further charge under Section 376 (D) r/w Section 341/34 IPC and Section 67- A IT Act r/w Section 34 IPC was also framed against the respondent Mahesh and Sonwati.The statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.To bring home the guilt of the respondents the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses in all.The statement of all the accused were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where Crl.L.P. 667/2016 Page 2 of 13 they pleaded not guilty and denied all the incriminating evidence against them.No witness was produced by the respondents in their defence.Evaluating the evidence, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons, including the respondent Mahesh.L.P. 667/2016 Page 2 of 13Today, the State has approached this Court seeking leave to appeal from the order of acquittal in favour of respondent Mahesh, only under Section 67-A of the IT Act.Ms. Radhika Kolluru, learned APP for the State submits that the trial Court has erred in disbelieving the testimony of the prosecutrix/PW1 to the extent that the respondent Mahesh had made a video and recorded the incident of rape.The counsel pointed out the cross- examination of PW1 wherein she categorically stated that the respondent Mahesh made a video holding his mobile in his right hand.To substantiate the argument with respect to Section 67-A IT Act, the counsel for the State has relied upon the testimonies of PW5 Ct.Pawan Kumar, PW6 Mahender Singh and PW7 Prasadi.The counsel for the State has further relied on the testimony of PW12 Santram (husband of the prosecutrix), who had categorically identified the voice of the respondent Mahesh in the said video.Learned counsel for the State further submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of PW13 SI Surekha (Investigating Officer) who had tendered the FSL report with respect to the video clip, which is Ex.PW13/A and unequivocally points towards the guilt of the respondent Mahesh and cannot be brushed aside.The counsel further submits that the trial Court has overlooked the testimonies relied by the prosecution and ignored the oral and documentary evidence which surfaced during the course of trial.The Crl.L.P. 667/2016 Page 3 of 13 findings of the Trial Court run contrary to the factual matrix of the case and the Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent Mahesh and has even failed to record the reasons for acquittal under Section 67-A of the IT Act.L.P. 667/2016 Page 3 of 13We have heard learned counsel for the State and have carefully examined the judgment of the Trial Court.We may profit with the findings of the Trial Court, the relevant portion of which reads as under:The instant video was played before me.I found the prosecutrix behaving quite normal during the incident.No inference can be drawn from that video that she was under threat or she was forced to have such relations with the person.It appears to be a consented sex.The other person indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix is not visible in the video.It is noteworthy that the prosecutrix was quite old and matured.She would have reported the incident to her husband immediately after the incident.No plausible explanation came from the side of the prosecutrix as to why she kept quiet for about fifteen days when there was threat perception from the side of the accused persons.PW 12 has stated that one [sic: someone] of his native village had told him the incident and thereafter, he asked his nephew Mahender to procure the said video since he could not procure the same.He also gave his mobile to Mahender to get the said video transferred in it.Mahender then transferred the video in his mobile, from where he saw the obscene video.He stated that police had seized his mobile phone vide memo Rx.In this case, the prosecution did not examine Manoj, who had first informed PW 6 of the video.PW 6 could not answer Crl.L.P. 667/2016 Page 4 of 13 from where Manoj procured the video.In the absence of examination of Manoj, it remained a mystery as to who or how the video was circulated in the village.PW 8 has stated that he never saw the video.On being cross examined by Ld. Addl.PP, he denied that accused Virender [sic: Bijender] had shown him the video and asked Rs. 100 from him to see the video.He totally turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution in any manner.L.P. 667/2016 Page 4 of 13Unless either of the two is proved, the prosecution would have failed to discharge its burden.In view of the same, we proceed to analyse the case before us.There is no doubt to the fact that the video clip recovered from the mobile (Ex.P2) of Sant Ram (PW 12) (husband of the prosecutrix) contained sexually explicit material.Mahender Singh (PW 6) has deposed that the he had seen the video while sitting with his friends on the mobile phone of one Manoj.He had seen the video for a minute or two and after identifying the prosecutrix immediately informed Sant Ram (PW 12); who got the video transferred on his mobile from the mobile of Manoj.Prasadi (PW 7) in her statement has deposed that on 04.08.2013, she saw 3-4 children watching something on a mobile.She also watched the video and saw the prosecutrix having sex with someone.She, thereafter, immediately informed Sant Ram (PW 12).During her cross-examination, she stated that the mobile was of the son of one Parmal of the same mohalla.Sant Ram (PW 12) (husband of the prosecutrix/PW1) deposed in his testimony that on 04.08.2013, he was told by a native of the village that he had seen the blue film of his wife on someones mobile and it had already been circulated in the village.He immediately went to his house and inquired from his wife and then she narrated the complete incident which occurred 15 days ago.Thereafter, PW12 requested his nephew Mahender (PW6) to procure the said video and gave his mobile to him as he was unable to procure it himself.Then Mahender (PW 6) got the video transferred on the mobile (Ex. P2) of Sant Ram (PW 12).In his cross-examination, PW 12 further stated that his statement was recorded on 04.08.2013 wherein he told the police that he had given Crl.L.P. 667/2016 Page 7 of 13 his mobile to his nephew to procure the said video.However, when he was confronted with his statement which is Ex.PW12/DA this fact was not so recorded.On the contrary, it was mentioned in the statement that his nephew had brought the said video and shown to him.L.P. 667/2016 Page 7 of 13SI Surekha (PW 13) (IO of the case) has deposed that she collected the mobile (Ex. P2) of Sant Ram (husband of the prosecutrix) and recovered the mobile (Ex. P1) of respondent Mahesh from an almirah in his house.Both the mobiles (Ex. P1 and P2) were sent to the FSL, which has given its report (Ex. PW 13/D).The IO had also stated that she got a CD (Ex. P3) prepared of the video.Upon being cross- examined, she has deposed that the mobile of respondent Mahesh (Ex. P1) "did not contain any obscene scenes." She further deposed as under:"The scenes were deleted by the accused prior to seizing.I do not have scientific proof in this regard.What I have stated regarding deletion is the hearsay of the accused."The prosecutrix (PW1) deposed that respondent Mahesh while having sexual intercourse with her, had recorded the video on his mobile.She deposed that in the evening the respondent Mahesh demanded Rs. 50,000/- and started blackmailing her that he would make the video public in the village.He then sold the video to the village people for Rs. 500 or so.She further deposed that the respondent Bijender (her dever) distributed the video in the village for Rs. 300 to Rs. 500, which also reached to her husband Sant Ram (PW 12) and then she told him about the entire incident.L.P. 667/2016 Page 8 of 13In the present criminal leave petition, the only allegation against the respondent Mahesh is merely that he was responsible for the recording and circulating the video clip in which the prosecutrix was found having intercourse with him.In this regard, we concur with the view taken by the Trial Court that the identity of the respondent Mahesh was not established in the video clip.This is as the face of the second person in the video clip is not visible; only Sant Ram (PW 12) has identified the voice in the video clip as that of respondent Mahesh; the voice sample of respondent Mahesh was not collected to match the voice in the video; and SI Surekha (PW 13) has in her testimony stated that the mobile of respondent Mahesh (Ex. P1) did not contain the obscene material.Consequently, the prosecution could not establish conclusively that the video was initially recorded and transmitted by respondent Mahesh.So far as the circulation of the said video clip is concerned, there is no evidence to link it with the respondent Mahesh.The prosecution has neither proved that the video clip, at any point of time, was transmitted by the respondent Mahesh or that the respondent Mahesh had caused its circulation.Sant Ram (PW 12) got the video clip through Mahender (PW 6), who inturn has deposed that he got the same from one Manoj.Now the link breaks, Manoj was not examined as a witness nor is anything on record to show how the video reached Manoj.Even the other chain of circulation is inconclusive as it ends at Prasadi (PW 7) seeing the video on the mobile of the son of one Parmal.Now again, neither the son of Parmal has been examined or the origin of the video known.The circulation of the video can be represented by the following diagram:L.P. 667/2016 Page 9 of 13
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,228,226 |
The undertrials are not requiredto work in Jail.Classification of Labour Rule 43 of the Delhi Prisons (Transfer of Prisoners, Labour and JailIndustry, Food, Clothings and Sanitation) Rules, 1988 (in short ‘the DelhiPrisons Rules’) classifies labour into three classes, namely, Hard Labour,Medium Labour and Light Labour.Hard Labour is further divided into threecategories; skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled.The Inspector Generalmay, with the sanction of the Delhi Administration from time to time,prescribe the description of works to be carried out and the tasks to befixed for labour in respect of each class.It is brought to our noticethat since the Delhi Jail Manual does not give detailed description as towhat kind of work/task will fall under which category of labour, the JailAuthorities rely upon the Punjab Jail Manual framed under the Prisons Act,1894 for determining the same.Distinction between work given to male and female convicts:Sub-section (1) states that a criminal prisonerdesiring to be employed on labour, may be employed with the permission ofthe Superintendent, subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed inthe rules made under thisSub-section (2) states that no criminal prisoner sentenced to labouror employed on labour at his own desire shall, except on an emergency, withthe sanction in writing of the Superintendent be kept to labour for morethan 8 hours in a day.Sub-sections (3) and (4) deal with medical examination and check-upand the placement of criminal prisoners on work based on their health.The Office of the Director General (Prisons), Prison Headquarters,Tihar, New Delhi, released Standing Order 38 bearingNo.F.10(7832)/CJ/Legal/2012/2626 dated 24.05.2012 laying down rulesrelating to the employment of convicts for the guidance of the prison staffin accordance with the provisions mentioned in the Delhi Jail Manual.Determination of wages:The rate of wages provided to convicts in Tihar Jail is prepared by aWage Fixation Committee constituted by the Principal Secretary (Home),Government of NCT of Delhi.The said Committee comprises of: (i) DIG(Prisons) as Chairperson, (ii) Dy.Secretary (Finance expenditure) and(iii) Deputy Commissioner of Labour as Members.The Committee decides wages keeping in view the present economicscenario, minimum wages notified by the Govt. of Delhi for workers, theexpenses on the upkeep of a prisoner and deduction towards the WelfareFund.The scale of wages paid to prisoners in various States was alsotaken into consideration.The Committee also considers the criteria for wages as prescribed inModel Prison Manual for the superintendence and management of prisons inIndia formulated by the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D),Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.It also takes intoconsideration the rate of minimum wages notified by the Delhi Govt. in thenotification dated 18.03.2011 which is as under:-P.Sathasivam,J.passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc.Case No.2243 of 2010 whereby the High Court disposed of the petition filed by theappellant herein.of 1995 under Sections 323, 342, 307 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment(RI) for 10 years and, thereafter, the High Court, in an appeal filed bythe appellant, reduced the period of sentence to 5 years.The appellantremained in Tihar Central Jail, New Delhi from 24.03.2007 to 23.12.2010i.e., for a period of 3 years and 10 months after grant of remission.During this period, she was allotted work in Medical Inspection (MI) roomas ‘Sewadar’ (Assistant) for assisting the Doctors in OPD of Jail No. 6.Apart from that, she was also taking care of the cleanliness of the saidroom till her release.(ii) In the year 2009, the appellant, through her husband, filed anapplication before the Superintendent of Jail for the payment of wages forthe work done during her custody in prison but the same was rejected.Aggrieved by the same, he filed a complaint before the visiting Judge,Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) for the release of wages for the work doneby his wife.After perusing the documents on record, by order dated08.04.2010, the visiting Judge (ASJ) rejected the said complaint.(iii) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a petition underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’)before the High Court of Delhi for quashing the order dated 08.04.2010,passed by the visiting Judge (ASJ) and also prayed for the release of herwages.The High Court, by impugned order dated 19.05.2011, disposed of thepetition taking note of the fact that the appellant has already beenreleased from jail and relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of theDIG (Prisons) stating therein that the prisoners who perform hard labourare given the wages and the appellant performed soft labour work during herperiod in jail and whenever the appellant was given hard labour work, shehad drawn wages for that period.(iv) Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal byway of special leave before this Court.4) Heard Ms. Prachi Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.5) Ms. Prachi Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant, after takingus through the entire materials including the impugned order of the HighCourt, submitted that inasmuch as the convicts working in M.I. Room ofanother Jail were getting payments for the same work, the appellant wasdenied and paid wages only for few months which aspect has not beenconsidered by the High Court.According to the learned counsel, the JailAuthorities and the High Court failed to appreciate that the appellant wasthroughout engaged in M.I. room for assisting doctors in OPD and was takingcare of the cleanliness till her release, hence, she is entitled for wagesin terms of various Government Orders for the said period.6) On the other hand, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG after placingrelevant circulars/instructions/orders applicable to various types ofprisoners, their eligibility, entitlement of wages for their work anddetails about the work done and wages paid to the appellant submitted thatshe was paid as per the rules and she is not entitled to any furtheramount.7) We have considered the rival submissions and perused all therelevant materials.In order to understand the case better, it is usefulto refer certain relevant provisions applicable to the prisoners in Delhi.A person sentenced to simple imprisonment cannot be required to workunless he volunteers himself to do the work.But the Jail officer whorequires a prisoner sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to do hard labourwould be doing so as enjoined by law and mandated by the court.[Vide Stateof Gujarat & Anr.vs. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, (1998) 7 SCC 392].The office of the Director General (Prisons), Prison Headquarters,Tihar, New Delhi, released Standing Order – 10 bearing No.PS/DG(P)/2011/902-911 dated 27.07.2011 regarding the revision of wages tothe convicts.The following is the latest wage structure for theprisoners.Details of the appellant relating to her custody The appellant was convicted by the trial Court in case FIR No. 487 of1995 under Sections 323, 342, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced toRI for 10 years.Thereafter, the High Court of Delhi reduced the sentenceof the appellant to RI for 5 years.During this period, the appellant was assigned work in MI roomas Sewadar which includes assisting Doctors in OPD and ‘Mulhiza’ and foradditional labour allotted to her, she was paid wages at Rs. 44 for 8hours.11) The appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,228,594 |
C.R.M. 8369 of 2010 c/l In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on June 08, 2010 And In re.: Balai Biswas Ms. Sudakshina Dey ...For the petitioner Mr. S.K. Mahato ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Kumargram P.S. Case No. 217/2007 dated 21.11.2007 under Sections 363/366Aof the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on his surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
212,326 |
The prosecution case was that there were disputes going on about land in Killas Nos. 10 and 11 of rectangle No. 15 in the revenue estate of village Mangna, which formed part of Shamilat land belonging to the Panchayat.Bakshish Singh and Jagtar Singh had constructed a 'dera' in this land.The other party disputing the right to this land was that of the accused.The principal person fighting in the dispute was Labh Singh who had filed a civil suit with regard to this land against a number of persons who were co-accused of the appellant in the trial Court.Proceedings under Section 107 of the CrPC were also pending against both these parties.In this situation, on the 17th July, 1967, a party of 16 persons, including the appellant, came to this land at about 9 A.M. They were carrying various arms.The appellant was himself armed with a gun.There were others also who were carrying guns.These persons came to the land from three different directions.A group of five came from the eastern side.Another group of five came from the southern side.The appellant was in this group.A third group of six came from the northern side.Having thus surrounded the dera from various sides, they raised a shout that the dera should be burnt and its inmates killed.Bakshish Singh, who was looking after his cattle grazing in a field a shorty distance away, rushed to the dera and so did his brother Ajaib Singh who was ploughing his field a little farther away.Labh Singh and Jagtar Singh were inside the dera and came out.JUDGMENT V. Bhargava, J.The appellant has come up in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding his conviction by Sessions Judge of Karnal, with some modifications in the offences and the sentences.The Sessions Judge had convicted Antu appellant under Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced him to death, six years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively for the three offences.The High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 and the sentence of death.On the challenge made by his companions, Antu appellant fired the first shot which hit Bakshish Singh on the left side of the chest as a result of which he fell down on the ground and died.Tek Chand, one of the companions of the appellant, then fired his gun at Labh Singh who was hit in the back of the right shoulder.Labh Singh was then given further blows by other companions of the appellant with the weapons which they were carrying.The first person to arrive there to witness the incident was one Darshan Singh who happened to be going to a village Pehowa and he saw injuries being inflicted on Labh Singh.Thereafter, Pal Lachhman, Ram Sarup, Phula, Raunqi and Gian Singh amongst the party of the accused set fire to the hedge of the dera on its eastern side, whereas Santa Singh, Banta Singh.Jit Singh, Spattar and Ramji Lal similarly set the hedge on fire on the southern side.While this fire was being started by their companions, Antu, Tek Chand, Romesh Kumar.Sulakhan Singh and Dhara from amongst the assailants ran away.According to the prosecution, at this stage.Labh Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jagtar Singh armed themselves with a gandasa, a sua and a lathi respectively and wielded them so as to cause injuries to Santa Singh, Banta Singh, Jit Singh, Ramji Lal and Spattar.Thereafter, all the assailants ran away and the fire was put out.A report was lodged at the Police Station Pehowa and after the usual investigation, fourteen persons were sent up for trial.The Sessions Judge convicted all the 14 persons for various offences which do not require mention in dealing with the, case of this appellant alone.The High Court, on appeal, acquitted 11 of them and upheld the conviction of only 3, viz., Antu appellant.Tek Chand and Ramesh Kumar Bakshish Singh had died as a result of the shot fired at him by Antu so that Antu's conviction was upheld for the offence of murder under Section 302, I.P.C., in respect of Bakshish Singh, Tek Chand and Ramesh Kumar were convicted for the same murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C., was recorded in respect of Antu for the injuries inflicted on Labh Singh.Tek Chand was convicted under Section 307, I.P.C., simoliciter for the injuries caused to Labh Singh, while Ramesh Kumar for the same injuries was convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. Antu alone has appealed and, in this appeal, therefore, we are concerned with his case only.The first aspect, of which we have to take notice, is that, in this case, the prosecution examined only three eye-witnesses, Labh Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jagtar Singh, with Darshan Singh providing corroboration for part of their version.The High Court, in dealing with the evidence of these witnesses, pointed out why it was not possible to rely on their evidence at all.The features occurring in their evidence emphasised by the High Court are several.Sixteen assailants are supposed to have come, while only five of them are alleged to have used their weapons of whom two fired guns and the remaining inflicted one or two injuries each.This was considered very improbable.At the same time, according to these witnesses, the three persons Ajaib Singh, Labh Singh and Jagtar Singh were able to inflict as many as 57 blunt weapon injuries on five of the assailants, Santa Singh, Banta Singh, Jit Singh, Spattar and Ramji Lal.This, according to the High Court, was too much to believe.The High Court further proceeded to hold:If the party of the appellants consisted of 16 persons, armed as aforesaid, they would have made mincemeat of the three eye-witnesses, before any of the latter could cause even a scratch to the former.Again there is no reason why eleven of the appellants should have become suddenly scarce when their party was very effectively armed and had not only caused serious injuries to one of their adversaries but had actually killed another and thus had the upper hand.And then out of Santa Singh.Banta Singh and Jit Singh appellants and Spattar and Ramji Lal, one was armed with a gun and the other four with barchhas, none of which weapon was so much as moved when these five persons were being mercilessly beaten by the three eye-witnesses.The High Court commented that these improbabilities in the prosecution story related to its material aspects and could not be lightly ignored, especially when it was admitted on all hands that between the three eye-witnesses and the party of the appellants there was no love lost on account of the land dispute.After expressing these views, the High Court proceeded to examine the prosecution case by formulating three questions as follows:(1) Was the party of the appellants responsible for causing the death of Bakshish Singh and injuries to Labh Singh (P.W. 1)?(2) If the answer to question No. 1 be in the affirmative, was that party the aggressor?(3) If question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative which of the appellants were members of that party and what offences are brought home to them?On the first question, the High Court appears to have been right in recording a finding that the death of Bakshish Singh and injuries to Labh Singh were caused in an incident which did take place on 17th July, 1967 near the dera of Bakshish Singh, and in also holding that these injuries must have been caused by members of a party belonging to the group of the appellant.On the second question, the High Court held that the party of the accused was the aggressor solely on the ground that the dera and the land In dispute were in the possession of Bakshish Singh, so that the party of the accused must have come to disturb their possession or to oust them from possession and must, therefore, be the aggressOrs.In arriving at this finding, the High Court did not properly assess the material that was placed before it on the question of possession.The case for the prosecution itself was that Manna Singh got this land from the Panchayat in June or July, 1966 and Bakshish Singh and Labh Singh came into the picture in January, 1967 when Manna Singh joined them as partners in this land.On the other hand, the revenue records showed that, during the period of the Kharif crop in the last half of the year 1966, and the Rabi crop in the first half of the year 1967, the land was actually in possession of the party of the accused.They had sown the crop and they had reaped the crop.The High Court and the Sessions Judge both ignored these entries on the ground that, in the revenue records, their possession was shown as forcible possession and not under any legal right.It seems to us that the absence of a legal right was immaterial.Even if they were in possession without any legal right, they need not have come to disturb the possession and act as aggressors of others who were merely asserting their right to the land.There was further a document showing that in June, 1967, a report was lodged by one member of the accused party alleging that Labh Singh and others had come and forcibly tried to dispossess them from this land, which also indicates that the land was in possession of the accused party until that time.Labh Singh was confronted with a statement made by him before the police in which he had admitted that the Rabi crop growing in the first half of 1967 had been reaped by the accused party, even though Labh Singh came forward in this case with the story that he and Bakshish Singh actually obtained rights to this land from Manna Singh in January, 1967, and had constructed the dera even earlier in December.If Labh Singh and Bakshish Singh had been in possession from December, 1966, there could have been no question of the crop of Rabi 1967 being sown and reaped by the accused party which fact is established from the revenue records as well as from the admission made by Labh Singh before the Police.It is true that, subsequently, in the Kharif.Obviously, he 'came in possession when, after this incident, the accused party were confined in jail.Labh Singh admitted that he had filed a suit in respect of this land which was pending when this incident took place.Clearly, the suit must have been for possession of this land, so that the claim that they were already in possession at the time of the incident cannot be held to be established.disputes began between the two parties as to who should possess this land.In Rabi 1967, there are conflicting versions.At one stage, Labh Singh admitted that that crop was also reaped by the party of the accused, while at another stage, he claimed that he had come into possession from December, 1966 and had already constructed his dera.The record of the Patwari, however, shows that the accused party continued to be in possession, even though, according to the record, they had no legal right to it and the possession was forcible.Then, there is the fact that Labh Singh had already instituted a suit for this land.It was pending at the date of the incident.On all these facts, it is impossible to uphold the finding of the High Court that, on the date of the incident, Labh Singh and Bakshish Singh were in possession of this land.The High Court at one stage added that Labh Singh and his brothers were admittedly in actual possession of at least five marlas of land of Killa No. 11, the area having been covered by their dera.We examined the record and we find no such admission of possession of Labh Singh and his brothers on the part of any of the accused.The High Court seems to have been misled in thinking that this fact was admitted.It does appear that Labh Singh and his brothers, after the incident in June.1967, may have constructed some dera but all the time, dispute as to possession of the land was going on.Labh Singh and his brothers were at least as much aggressive, if not more aggressive, in the matter of taking possession of the land than the members of the accused party.From the mere fact of possession, therefore, no possible inference could have been drawn that, at the time of the incident, the accused party must have been the aggressors and not Labh Singh and others.On this question of finding out which of the party was the aggressor, the High Court did not rely on the oral evidence of the witnesses.As we have mentioned earlier, only seven injuries were received by Bakshish Singh and Labh Singh on the prosecution side, while as many as 57 injuries were received by five members of the accused party.Two of them received very severe beating.One of these two actually died a few days later as a result of the injuries.These injuries could not have been received by the accused party if the incident had taken place in the manner described by the prosecution witnesses.The High Court relied mainly on the evidence of Labh Singh to accept the prosecution version of the manner in which the incident took place.According to Labh Singh, Bakshish Singh was hit with a gun shot in the very beginning, whereupon he fell down and died.Labh Singh received a gun shot injury and five other injuries.It was after all these injuries had been inflicted that some of the assailants ran away leaving five behind.These five persons were setting fire to the hedge and, at this stage, they were beaten by the three prosecution witnesses, Labh Singh, Ajaib Singh and Jagtar Singh.If this version be correct, none of the three prosecution witnesses received a single scratch at this later stage, while they succeeded in inflicting 57 injuries on five assailants who had come well-armed.As remarked by the High Court, there is no reason why the 11 companions of those 5 persons should have run away when they were larger in number, better armed, and had the upper hand, leaving 5 to be badly injured by just 3 of the persons whom they had come to assault.In these circumstances, we can see no justification for the inference drawn by the High Court that Antu appellant must have fired the first shot and Labh Singh must have been injured in the very beginning as a result of aggression on the part of the accused party.It is much more likely that some members of the accused party, particularly the five, who received numerous injuries, were attacked and they used their weapons to inflict a small number of seven injuries to save themselves.It is true that one or two guns were used on the side of the accused; but that circumstance by itself cannot make them aggressors and guilty of the offence of murder or attempted murder.On these facts, no finding can be recorded that the appellant Antu has been proved to be guilty of the offence of murdering Bakshish Singh beyond reasonable doubt.The appeal is allowed and his conviction and sentences are set aside.He shall be released forthwith unless required in connection with some other charges.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
21,239,099 |
2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that respondent No. 2 got married with applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 is her father-in-law, applicant No. 3 is her mother-in-law and applicant No. 4 is her sister-in-law but during pendency of the petition, applicant No. 2 Ashok Sarkar, father-in-law of respondent No. 2 has died.After marriage, respondent No. 2 went to her matrimonial house.Applicant No. 1 was posted at Puna, then she went to Puna.Both lived happily there for four weeks.They insulted her and demanded Scorpio Car and pressurized her to bring the same from her parents, then respondent No. 2 made a complaint.Applicant No. 3 is suffering from Umbilical Hernia.Dispute arose at Banglore and respondent No. 2 has made omnibus allegations against all the applicants.She is residing with her parents without any reasons.She lodged an FIR in false and fabricated manner, therefore, prays to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings arises thereto.Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that all the applicants demanded money from the respondent and treated her cruelly and beat her.4 M.Cr.After investigation, charge- 2 M.Cr.C. No. 259662017 sheet has been filed before the Court of JMFC, Jabalpur2 M.Cr.C. No. 259662017After that all applicants short out the problem and compromise with respondent No. 2, but later on, again started for demanding money for construction of the house and started beating on non fulfilling of the demand.Thereafter, respondent No. 2 made 3 M.Cr.C. No. 259662017 a complaint in Mahila Police Station Raipur which was registered there and sent for further investigation to Lordganj Police Station.After recording the statement of respondent No. 2 and other relevant witnesses, Investigating Officer has prepared charge-sheet under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C.3 M.Cr.C. No. 259662017On the basis of petty matters, they started quarreling with her.There is a prima facie ingredients of 498 of the IPC is made out, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.C. No. 259662017Perused the both cases.In these cases, learned Apex Court found that it is growing tendency on the petty matters, wife left the matrimonial house and leveled the charges for the offence against the husband as well as other near relatives.In the case of Preeti Gupta and another (supra), the sister-in-law was living in abroad in spite of that the victim arrayed her as a party and made allegations of demand of dowry against her.In this pending case, respondent No. 2 lived with her husband at Puna, but applicant No. 1 husband as well as 5 M.Cr.C. No. 259662017 other relatives started harassing her for demanding money for purchase of four wheeler and construction of house.During investigation, the statement of witnesses Sambal Kumar Majumdar, Anupma @ Anupa Majumdar and Sameer Sen have been recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. this prima facie reflects that the applicant harassed respondent No. 2 and also reflects that they demanded money from respondent No. 2 and pressurized her to bring that money from her parents.There is a sufficient materials available on record against the applicants, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this initial stage.5 M.Cr.C. No. 259662017
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,239,453 |
The appellant shall not be released if he is suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Akm Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA Date: 04/06/2020 16:48:12None for the respondent No.2/complainant, though served.Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2020, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-a of SC/ST Act (prevention of Atrocities).As per the prosecution, on 01.01.2020 the appellant-accused took the prosecutrix in a room.He confined the prosecutrix in that room.Thereafter he told the prosecutrix that he loves her.When prosecutrix opposed then petitioner-accused left her.Prosecutrix told her story to her family members and lodged the report.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
212,437 |
These facts are not in dispute.Members of Neksai's camp claimed that they were in actual possession of the said land notwithstanding the grant of Pattas to others and that is why they had challenged the said grants.On 25-6-1990, at day break, i.e. 6.30 a.m., appellants and four absconding accused, namely, Ranmat Singh, Motilal, Kundan Singh and Chatur Khangar were cultivating the said pasture lands.Ranmat Singh, Ramsingh Vishal Singh, Kapoor Singh, Sitaram, Veeren alias Virendra Singh were armed with guns, Siyaram was armed with a farsa, Kishanlal was having an axe and the rest of them were armed with lathis.Neksai (P.W. 20) with his partymen Hardas (deceased), Muratsingh (deceased) his wife Shantibai (deceased), Chandrabhansingh (deceased), Devidas, Omprakash, Mahipat, Mayaram, Rambhagat (P. Ws.3 to 7), Bithallo alias Balwan (P.W. 11), Raghuvir (P.W. 22) and some others went there to protest which triggered the feud resulting in on the spot death of Murat Singh, his wife Shantibai, Chandrabhansingh and Hardas by fire-arm injuries.Rambagas, Devidas were also injured by fire-arm.The disputed pasture land is situated in Kathotiya Har and is adjacent to Choorawal field owned by Ram Lakhan where the dead bodies were found.JUDGMENT P.N.S. Chouhan, J.Residents of village Mendwara, Police Station Jatara, District Tikamgarh were sharply divided into two camps, one led by absconding accused Ranmat Singh and the other headed by Neksai (P.W. 20).The bone of contention which led to these quadruple murders was rival claims for possesion over the pasture land (Gochar) of the village.In the year 1984 Pattas were granted in favour of Moti, Kundan, Ranmat Singh, Ramsingh,, PhulSing, Siyaram, Kalloo Sore, Bhagwandas, Ramkali wife, of Kishan etc. of appellants' camp.The other side challenged these allotments and the matter was sub judice on the date of incident.20 persons were tried in this connection on charge under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307/149, I.P.C. Two others were charged for having hatched a criminal conspiracy for commission of these offences.The trial Judge vide judgment, dated 1-10-1993, passed in Sessions Trial No. 39/91 of Tikamgarh Sessions Division, acquitted those two who were charged of criminal conspiracy.She also acquitted Kishunlal Kalar, Gulab Singh, Raju alias Rajendra, Jagdish Yadav, Bhagwat Yadav, Thakur Das and Lochansingh whose involvement in the crime was not testified to by the eye-witnesses.She convicted appellants Vishalsingh and Ramsingh under, Section 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced them to death.Appellant Kapoorsingh, Sitaram, Veeren alias Virendra Singh, Siyaram, Phulsingh, Guillu alias Bhagwandas, Sunnnoo, Prakash alias Om Prakash, Kalloo, Pappoo alias Ramkishore, and Rajjoo alias Birendra Singh were convicted under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.All of them were also convicted under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R.I.. Lastly they were also convicted under Sections 147 and 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year and 2 years' R. I. respectively.Sitaram and six others have preferred Cr.A. No. 1010/93 against their aforesaid convictions and sentences.All these four cases are being disposed of by this common judgment.Appellants Vishal Singh, Gulab Singh and Jagdish are real brothers, appellants Rajoo alias Raju Yadav is son of Gulab Singh, appellants Bhagwat and Lochan are sons of Jadgish, appellant Ramsingh is the brother of absconding accused Ranmat Singh.Appellants Siyaram and Phoolsingh are real brothers.Deceased Hardas and Muratsingh both sons of Damroo Yadav were brothers of Neksai.Mayararn (P.W. 6) is brother of Neksai, Mahipat (P.W. 5) and Rambugas (P.W. 7) are sons of Neksai.Deceased Chandrabhan was nephew of Neksai.Om Prakash (P.W. 4) is the son of Mahipat Singh (P.W. 5).Kalloo (P.W. 13) is the son of Mayaram (P. W. 6).Bithalloo Singh alias Balwan (P.W. 11) is nephew of Neksai.All the material witnesses are resi- dents of Manindwara.In the course of the investigation a single barrel.12 bore gun along with its licence and two live cartridges of the same bore were seized from the possession of appellant Sitaram on 8-8- 1990 by Investigating Officer, D.D. Dube (P.W. 35).Another single barrel.these facts are not in dispute.The prosecution case is that on the night of 24-6-1990 a conspiracy was hatched to plough the disputed land at Kathotiya Har the next morning and in case of obstruction to kill those who came to offer resistance.Accordingly, on 25-6-1990, at about 6.30 a.m., Ranmat Singh, Ram Singh, Vishal Singh, Kapur Singh, Sitaram Viren alias Virendra Singh armed with guns, Siyaram armed with Farsa, Kisunlal armed with axe and the rest of the accused persons armed with lathis went to the said disputed field to plough it.On coming to know of this, Neksai (P.W. 20) along with four deceased persons proceeded to the said field.They were followed by Devidas (P.W. 3), Mayaram (P.W. 6), Rambugas (P.W. 7) Omprakash (P.W. 4), Mahipat (P.W. 5), Bithal alias Balwan (P.W. 11), Raghuvir (P.W. 22), Halkai (P.W. 26) and others.When this party reached the Churawala field of Ramlakhan Mahant adjoining the disputed filed accused Kundan Singh challenged them saying to Shanti Bai ^vkvks lkl rqEgs ns[krs gS* Shantibai replied that they were coming.Then Kundan Singh dealt a lathi blow on Shantwibai.Accused -Motilal, Kisunlal, Phul Singh, Chatur Kapur Singh, Guluva alias Bhagwandas, Sunnu, Prakash alias Omprakash, Siyaram and Kisunlal joined the assault with their weapons.Husband of Shantibai Murat Singh protested and was shot on the chest by Ranmat Singh with his firearm.Accused Ram Singh then shot the next fire on the chest of Chandrabhan Singh and Hardas was shot on the chest by Vishal Singh.Kapur Singh and Sitaram also shot their guns.Shantibai, Murat Singh and Chandrabhansingh and Hardas fell dead on the spot.Accused Ranmat Singh proclaimed.^^ekjks lkyksa dks dksbZ cpus u ik;s** Neksai and his supporters then took to their heels.Ram Singh and Ranmat Singh fired shots which hit Devidas (P.W. 3), on the hand and legs and Rambugas on his right leg.Town Inspector, G.D. Dube (P.W. 35) then proceeded to Maindwara with force.On way at Chandera he met Devidas (P.W. 3) and Ram Bugas (P.W. 7) coming on a bus on their way to Jatara.On instructions by Mr. Dube, Constable Dhaniram Tiwari escorted these injured persons to Jatara hospital where Dr. H.N. Naik (P.W. 8) examined Devidas and referred him to District Hospital, Tikamgarh.Ram Bugas was examined by Dr. U.K. Jain,(P.W. 9).He then proceeded to the scene of occurrence, the Churawala field and found the dead bodies lying there close to the disputed field.Inquest was held vide Exs.P.3 to P.6 and vide Ex. P.64 a cycle, empty case for keeping cartridges, three 'Dhibari Plastic' of .12 bore cartridge, ten 'Dhibari Putthe Ki' of the said cartridge, an iron pellet, a piece of brass cartridge, three bamboo sticks and a pair of Chappals were seized.Since the fact that the four deceased died homicidal death by fire arm injuries and their dead bodies were lying in the Churawala field are not in dispute details of seizure of blood stained earth samples and clothes belonging to the deceased from the scene of occurrence and details of autopsy reports need not be mentioned.The Investigating Officer seized lathis from Kallu, Pappu alias Ramkishore, Gulab Singh, Bhagwands, Lochan Singh, Thakur- das, Sunnu, Rajju alias Rajendara Singh, Jagdish, Phul Singh, Prakash alias Omprakash and fire arms and cartridges from Rajju alias Rajendra Singh, Siyaram, Kapur Singh, besides an axe from Kishan Kalar vide Ex, P. 17 and a Farsa (Article C) at the instance of appellant Siyaram.The defence is one of false implication due to enmity or in the alternative exercise of right of private defence of person and property.Pattas have been granted in their favour since 1984 as is evident from the revenue records (Ex. D.9 to D. 22 and D. 24 to D.32).In fact, this fact is admitted by the prosecution witnesses who assert that they have challenged such allotment and the matter is subjudice in the Revenue Court.The deceased party was aggrieved on this account as also due to the fact that the Government land in their unlawful possession was afforested and converted into tank during the reign of Vishal Singh as Sarpanch of the village.On the date of incident the deceased party numbering more than 20 armed with lethal weapons like guns invaded to take forcible possession of the disputed land from the absconding four accused persons.Rest of the appellants were not there.The invaders fired shots at the accused party who were cultivating the land at the pertinent time.This fact that shots were fired by deceased Ramsingh and Chandrabhan has been admitted by Mayaram and is also borne out from the Rojnamcha Sanha Ex. P.79, lodged by Bhajanlal (P.W. 2), who as admitted by Neksai (P.W. 20) had gone to the police station after meeting him.This fact is further borne out from recovery of lathis and inter alia empty cartridges from the place where the dead bodies were lying.The fact of recovery of empty cartridges from the spot where the dead bodies were found lying has been candidly admitted by the Investigating Officer Shri G.P. Dube (P.W. 35).In such a situation the party who was in peaceful possession of the land in question reasonably apprehended that death or grievous hurt might be caused to them and, therefore, they were justified in the exercise of their right of private defence of person and property to open fire.As such, their act is protected under Section 9, I.P.C. and the learned trial Judge was patently in error in holding, in paragraph 25 of the impugned judgment, that the entries in land records relied upon by the defence stood rebutted by the evidence of prosecution witnesses who are all inter related and, therefore, partisan.Dwarka Prasad Patwari (P.W. 23) was not asked any question by the prosecutor on the point of possession of the disputed lands even though he was examined after the defence contention was well known in the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.The argument proceeds that the alleged F.I.R. lodged by Neksai after reaching of the police pafty in the village has been rightly held by.the learned trial Judge as hit under Section 162, Cr.P.C. The theory of conspiracy hatched the previous night of the incident was rightly rejected as unacceptable by the learned trial Judge.The fact that Hardas and Murat Singh had fired shots at the accused party first has been admitted by Mayaram (P.W. 6).Therefore, the finding that the invading party of Neksai did not fire shots at the accused party is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record.The recording of the disputed land in the names of Ranmat Singh and his party men since 1984 is undisputed.It is also true that the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence to rebut the presumptive value of aforesaid land records which show the members of appellant side as in possession as recorded owners of the disputed lands.However, the fact remains that admittedly the grant of Pattas in this behalf to the members of the accused party is under challenge in a pending revenue case initiated by Neksai and his party men.Emphasis was laid on the fact that prosecution failed to put any question to Patwari of the village, Dwarka Prasad (P.W. 23) on the point of.actual possession over the disputed fields.This, in our opinion, is inconsequential as the Patwari could not have stated any facts contrary to the revenue records which show the members of the accused party in possession.Though contents of revenue records, i.e., Exs.D.9 to D.22 and D.24 to D.32, are to be presumed to be true unless the contrary is proved under Section 117 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the learned trial Court has held and rightly in our opinion, that this statutory presumption stood rebutted by the evidence of Neksai (P.W. 23) and others who claimed that disputed land was in their possession and notwithstanding the subsequent grant of Pattas to the members of appellant party actual possession over the disputed land was retained by them and that is why they had challenged the said grants in the admitted sub judice proceedings.Evidence is to be assessed in a criminal trial on the crucible of probabilities.It is significant that though the accused party claims to have been in peaceful possession of the disputed land for more than four years they had gone to plough the same on the fateful date armed to the teeth and then on the arrival of members of the deceased party they resorted to such violence which claimed four lives instantaneously by gun shots and though such violence is claimed to be pardonable being in exercise of right of private defence of person and property as the other side had initially opened fire on them as admitted by Mayaram, not a single member of the accused party received even a scratch.Learned senior counsel Shri Rajendra Singh tried to explain this awkward situation by saying that people in that region where the incident took place generally go armed in their daily pursuits.We find ourselves unable to accept this explanation.Men who were in peaceful possession of the disputed fields for years would not ha,ve normally gone on the date of the incident armed inter alia with so many guns as routine ploughing operation of the fields is an activity which cannot normally be undertaken with loaded guns on backs.The pending revenue case challenging the allotment of the said lands was going on for quite some time and, therefore, there was nothing special on the date of the incident which would have prompted the accused side to go for ploughing operations armed with numerous guns and cartridges.Then we come to the submission that the invasion was mounted by the deceased party which was armed inter alia with firearms which were first fired by the deceased party necessitating retaliation in the exercise of right of private defence of person and property.Great stress was laid on the evidence of Mayaram (P.W. 6) that Muratsingh and Chandrabhan had fired two to three shots each.Since these two dead persons too were armed with guns which they used the appellant side was forced to use force in self defence of person and propeprty.This explains relatively greater extent of damage on their bodies.This witness failed to support his case diary statement (Ex. P.24) alleging presence of Kishun Kalar with an axe amongst the rioters and on that basis he was crossexamined by the prosecution with Court's permission.On perusing his evidence as a whole we conclude that this stray mention of Muratsingh and Chandrabhan having fired shots is a mistake of some sort either typing or otherwise.As in he pertinent sentence ^ewjr flga pUnzHkku oxSjg us 2&2] 3&3 Qk;j fd;s* if ^us* is to be read ^ij* the incongruity of his sentence in relation to rest of the narration given by Mayaram disappears.Such typing slip appears most likely.This witness earlier stated that Ranmat Singh was the first to open fire which hit Muratsingh on the chest and the following shots fired by Ramsingh and Ranmat Singh hit Chandrabhan Singh.P27A and P.26A they must have died instantaneously and their firing on the other side is impossible.Then there is no mention that they were carrying guns in his testimony of Mayaram at all.In paragraph 16 he has denied the fact that any member of his side was carrying even a lathi and has replied evasively to the question that three lathis were seized from the spot where the dead bodies were found lying.His length cross-examination runs into about 10 full scape pages and all conceivable defence suggestions have been given but there is no suggestion that it was his party men who invaded the accused side and as admitted by him two of them, viz., Muratsing and Chandrabhan were armed with guns which they fired during the incident.It is significant that this defence version being canvassed at this stage is conspicuous by its omission at the stage of recording of evidence.Dispensation of justice is a serious business and, therefore, a mistake of this nature cannot be permitted to tilt the balance on either side We, accordingly, hold that there is no justification to conclude that the said two deceased were armed with guns which they fired at the appellants on the basis of aforesaid stray utterence of Mayaram.Ex. P. 79 which has been treated by the learned Judge as the F.I.R. is copy of Rojnamcha Sanha, lodged by Bhajanlal Ahirwar (P.W. 2) at 8.00 a.m. on the date of incident.The same inter alia reads thus:vkt lcsjs djhc 6&30 cts ;gka ds ckgj dVksfj;k gkj ds rjQ VV~Vh gksus x;k Fkk fd jkey[ku iafM+r ds [ksr ds ikl xkoa ds dkQh vkneh fo'kky] juer] Hkjr gjnkl] usdlk; oxSjg canwds ykBh fy, vk, A canwdksa ds Qk;jksa dh vkokt lqukbZ iM+h rFkk dqN vkneh vLi"V fn[ks lks ;g ns[kdj nqj ls gh vius ?kj Hkx dj vk;k diMs+ igus vkSj eksVj lk;dy ysdj trkjk pyk vk;k irk ugha dkSu ejk dkSu ?kk;y gqvk vkSj fdlus fdldks ekjk gS lks fjiksVZ gS A On its basis it was contended that this F.I.R. itself indicates that Neksai and his men were armed with guns which gets fortified from recovery of inter alia empty cartridges from the spot where the dead bodies were lying and the candid admission of Investigating Officer Shri G.D. Dube (P.W. 35) in para 26 that such empty cartridges were found lying near the dead bodies on the scene of occurrence.The above extract of F.I.R. Ex. P.79 shows that Bajanlal Ahirwar had given the names of some of the members of both the sides and told that they were armed with guns and lathis.From this, it cannot be inferred that he disclosed to the police that the members of the deceased side, namely, Hardas and Neksai were armed with guns.Undisputedly three lathis were also seized from the scene of occurrence lying near the dead bodies by the Investigating Officer.But, the appellant side had, it appears, complete control over the situation and the so-called inyaders must have been in panic and consternation in hastening their retreat after the volley of guns which claimed four of their men in just a wink.In such circumstances it is improbable that any of these fleeing men could have thought or retriveing the fire-arms which were allegedly wielded by deceased Ramsingh and Chandrabhan.Had any one done this the appellants who were then the nasters of all they surveyed would have cerainly informed the Court about it and if such fire-arms were not retrieved they would have been found lying there like the three lathis when the police arrived on the scene.But no gun was found lying there.Therefore, the proper construction of the above extract from Ex. P.79 will be that the term 'Banduke' relates not to any member of the deceased party but to the names from the accused side.It is pertinent to observe that though Bhajanlal Ahirwar was examined as P.W. 2 and was cross-examined at length no question was put to him to suggest that he had informed the police that Neksai and his men were also armed with fire-arms.Similarly in the cross-examination of Neksai (P.W. 20) no suggestion was given that he was himself armed with gun as per the report Ex. P. 79 lodged by Bhajanlal who was sent for this purpose by him.The fact that empty cartridges were recovered from the spot where the dead bodies were lying is also not correct.The aforesaid admission of the Investigating Officer in this behalf appears to be the outcome of his confusion as in Ex. P.64 relating to seizure of various articles from the scene of occurrence there is no mention, of any empty cartridges.Ex. P. 64 shows that besides lathis so many plastic tiklis were also recovered from the spot.During the course of arguments it was emphasized that these articles in fact, are the empty cartridges.The learned trial Court was, at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellants, directed to send the articles for perusal of the Court.In reply, the trial court has informed that articles seized vide Ex. P.64 were never produced during the course of the trial.Then, further probe in the whereabouts of the said articles though suggested was not insisted upon by the appellant side.In such circumstances, we are unable to hold that any empty cartridges were recovered from the scene of occurrence.The reference of six Tiklis of cartridges and plastic Tiklis cannot for obvious reasons be construed as synonym of so many empty cartridges.No question in this behalf was put to the Investigating Officer to clarify the confusion.In all probability it relates to wads in the cartridges which had scattered there from the fatal shots as some were fired from very close range as indicated by the charring found by Dr. H.N. Nayak (P.W. 8) in injury Nos. 1 and 3 of Muratsingh described in Ex. P.27A. In view of all this, the aforesaid statement of Shri Dube; I..O. that empty cartridges were also found lying near the dead bodies must be held to beunacceptable.Thus, the assertion that -Neksai and his fellow men had invaded the aqcused party armed inter alia with fire-arms and had first resorted to gun fire which forced , the other side to retaliate is devoid of substance.This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact, as observed earlier, that though four members of Neksai party were killed on the spot by gun shots and some others injured by similar violence not a single mernber of the accused party sustained any injury whatsoever.The suggestion that Ranmat Singh and three other accused persons who are: absconding might have sustained fire-arm injuries is a conjecture and need not be taken serious note of.Had the absconding accused persons received fire-arm injuries their defence of exercise of right of private defence of person and property would have stood on such firm ground that there would have been no reason for them to abscond.The stress is that the material witnesses, viz., Devidas (P.W. 3), Omprakash (P.W. 4), Mahipat (P.W. 5), Mayaram (P.W. 6), Rambagas (P.W. 7), Bithalloo alias Balwan (P.W. 11), Neksai (P.W. 20), Raghuvir (P.W. 22) and Halkai (P.W. 26) are inter related and inimical to the appellant side or otherwise interested in the prosecution.All of them have testified to the fact of assault with lathis on Shantibai by a far more number of appellants than the number of injuries found on her body by the autopsy surgeon will justify.In view of Muluwa v. State of M.P. AIR 1976 SC 989 : (1976 Cri LJ 717), it is contended that corroboration of one infirm witness could not be sought from evidence of similar other witness and it is not the number of witnesses that matters but the quality of their evidence.In Ram Ashrit's case (1981 Cri LJ 484) (SC) (supra), the appellants were convicted of committing during night armed dacoity and after assaulting the defenders decamping with a few quintals of wheat from a threshing floor.Though it was alleged that the miscreants were chased and apprehended in a near by house of their caste fellow the alleged looted grain was not recovered.There was a counter case inter alia under Section 307, I.P.C. alleging assault on the appellant party by members of the opposite group when they were obstructed from plucking mangoes from a grove belonging to and in the possession of the appellants' title whereof was being disputed by the otherside.On these facts the Supreme Court held that the core of the prosecution case was found to be improbabilised if not falsified by the surrounding circumstances particularly the non-recovery of the looted grain from the house in which the miscreants had entered while running away with the booty and wherefrom they were apprehended by their pursuers.In absence of any question put to the witness in cross-examination to challenge the correctness of his opinion in this behalf which would have afforded him opportunity to explain his view point, it appears too late in the day to challenge the veracity of his opinion at this stage.As we see not a single question relating to examination of Devidas was put to the said doctor in his crossexamination.Devidas was examined by the doctor on the date of the incident itself.The injuries found on him are impossible to have been self inflicted.His evidence is that after falling of Murat Singh and Chandrabhan, the third gun shot was fired by Ram Singh which hit the left arm of this witness.When this witness turned to run away he was shot by Ranmat Singh with a .315 bore rifle which hit him on the left leg.Then, he was shot by Ram Singh and he received injuries on his left leg.Thus, it is clear that this witness was injured during the present incident.The submission is that Devidas has testified that Shantibai was assaulted with a lathi by Kundan which landed on her leg.The second lathi blow dealt by Moti Khangar also fell on her legs.Then, both Kundan and Moti kept beating Shantibai with their lathies.Omprakash (P.W. 4) has stated that besides Kundan and Moti, Siyaram, Phool Singh, Rajju, Chatur, Kallu and Sunnu also assaulted Shantibai with lathies.P.28 A found besides the gun shot wounds, swelling over the middle part of both the arms, one measuring 6 cm x 8 cm and the other 7 cm x 6 cm with fracture of right ulna and radius and both humerus, one abrasion on back side of left elbow and two contusions on he chest region with fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs on the right side and 5th and 6th ribs on the left side.On this basis, it is argued with vehemence that there being only two contusions which could be caused by lathi the story of so many assailants having showered lathi blows on Shanti Bai is at variance with the medical evidence and, therefore, liable to be rejected.We find substance in this submission.If more than half a dozen-persons would have persistently showered lathi blows on Shantibai as deposed to by the eye-witnesses the autopsy surgeon would not have found ony two contusions.It is difficult to accept the explanation of learned Deputy Advocate General that though a number of assailants surrounded Shantibai all of them did not actually dealt blows and therefore, the eyewitnesses in their consternation have deposed that all those who surrounded the lady also assaulted her.It cannot be lost sight of that due to long standing enmity beween the parties the possibility of false implication of certain innocent persons cannot be ruled out.Since the evidence does not disclose as to who caused the two contusions the oral evidence touching assault on Shantibai is subject to doubt and appellants named by witnesses in this behalf, viz., Sunnu Prakash alias Omprakash, Kallu and Rajju (appellants 4 to 7 in Cr.A. No. 1010/93) and appellants Siyaram and Phoolsingh appellants 1 and 2 in Cr.A. No. 1033/93 are entitled to acquittal.Lengthy arguments were advanced by Shri S.L. Kochar that Ex. P. 50, the First Information Report is a fabricated document and if the court comes to this conclusion the entire prosecution case is liable to be thrown over board, in view of Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 SC 638 : (1980 Cri LJ 446).The basis for this submission is the discrepency in the evidence of Investigating Officer and Halkai who lodged Ex. P. 50 as to the place where the same was recorded.The former has claimed that it was recorded in the village whereas the later has stated that the same was recorded in police station.Ex. P.50 has been held inadmissible as F.l.The emphasis is that such a highly educated man like him could not have given the information, contained in Ex. P.79, had the deceased side not been the aggressor as he well knew all the facts relating to the incident as he had met Neksai before going to the police station.To support this argument, the admission of Neksai (P.W. 20) has been referred to that he had sent Bhajan and Halkai for reporting the matter.Perusal of the statements of Bhajan and Neksai shows that Bhajanlal Ahirwar did not disclose his going to the police station and making a report in his examination-in-Chief which is restricted to his evidence on the alleged criminal conspiracy but during cross-examination, in para 16 of his statement, he has stated that though he went to Jatara and reported the matter to the police he had not seen the incident himself.There is nothing in his statement to indicate that he was briefed by Neksai before going to the police station,' In such circumstances the assertion on the part of Neksai that he had sent Bhajanlal Ahirwar to the police station after due briefing does not.appear to be reliable.The evidence of Bhajanlal cannot be considered: infirm for something which Neksai has stated as the above assertion of Neksai appears to be the outcome of .confusion.Had Bhajanlal been aware of the incident in details there was.no reason for him to have given a sketchy information which we find in Ex. P.79 treated as F.l.Though the detailed F.I.R. (Ex. P.50) lodged by Halkai has rightly been held inadmissible, Ex.P.79 has been treated to be an F.I.R. which corroborates the basic prosecution case.It shows that the two 12 bore guns sent for examination were in working order.Out of the empty cartridges D1 of Rotex India marked by the expert EC-1 was fired from the gun marked by him Al.The pelletes examined by him were also fired from some smooth bore weapon and one of them was much bigger in size than the rest.The evidence of Devidas is assailed on the ground of inconsistency with his dying declaration portions A, B, C, D of Ex. Dl wherein he has stated that when he was going towards the fields in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. the incident had taken place and he was hit by a shot fired by Ranmat Singh with his gun in the hand and then more shots were fired on him by Ram Singh.One of which hit him on the legs and thus he was assutled even before he could reach the field.The evidenece of eye-witnesses was then assailed on the ground of late recording of their case-diary statements.From the said evidence, it is also proved that Ram Singh and Ranmat Singh fired shots which injured Devidas and Rambagas received injuries from gun shots fired by Viran.This evidence also finds corroboration in the medical reports of Devidas (Ex. P.30A) and Rambagas (Ex. P. 29A).The evidence also clearly shows that the rioters were more than five in number and were armed with deadly weapons.Where so many guns were used freely, it is idle to suggest that the rioters, in the circumstances of the case, did not share the common intention of those who fired fatal shots on the four deceased persons.Such members of the unlawful assembly who were armed with lathis and inflicted injuries on deceased Shantibai; as observed above, are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt, as the two lathi injuries found on her chest could not have been caused by 7-8 persons and it is not known as to who caused the said two injuries.The conviction of Ram Singh and Viran under Section 307, I.P.C. for gun shot injuries on Devidas and Rambagas is also liable to be maintained.Criminal Appeal No. 973/93 is partly allowed.Conviction of appellants Vishalsingh and Ram Singh under Section 302, I.P.C. is upheld.Both of them are sentenced to life imprisonment.Their conviction under Section 148, I.P.C. and R.I. for two years and conviction under Section 307/149, I.P.C. and sentence of 7 years each is also upheld.In view of their conviction under Section 148, I.P.C. they could not also have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and, therefore, their conviction under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentence of one year R.I. are hereby set aside.A. No. 1010/93 is partly allowed.Conviction of appellant Viran alias Virendra Singh under Section 148, 302/149 and 307/149, I.P.C. and sentence of 2 years R.I. life imprisonment, and 7 years R.I. respectively are hereby confirmed.His .conviction; under Section 147, I.P.C,.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,124,613 |
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/07/2016 Apeal93_2009.doc 4 Ravindra alias Ravi Kashinath Mhatre has expired during the pending of Appeal.It is the case of the prosecution that the incident of assault took place on 20th August, 2003 at around 3.30 to 4.30 a.m. at Santacruz, Chunabhatti.One Rakeshkumar Mishra was assaulted by the appellants/accused outside his house.On that day in the early morning, Rakesh's brother Brijesh Kumar and his wife wanted to go to railway station to catch a train, therefore, his other brother Akhilesh went out to bring autorickshaw.There were verbal altercations between Akhilesh and appellants/accused and then the appellants started assaulting Akhilesh with bamboo, stumps and fist blows.Rakeshkumar, elder brother of Akhilesh went to the spot to rescue Akhilesh and Brijesh Kumar.All the accused assaulted Rakesh with bamboo, stumps and fist blows and ran away.All the three brothers went to the police station, however, the police referred them to the hospital for treatment.So, they went to Cooper Hospital.Rakeshkumar required head surgery, so he was shifted to Nanavati Hospital.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 :::This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/07/2016 Apeal93_2009.doc Thereafter the police visited the spot, carried out spot panchnama, recorded statement of the witnesses.After the death of Rakeshkumar, Section 302 was added.This Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused nos. 1 to 4 challenging the judgment and order dated 13th January, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai thereby convicting all the four accused for the offences punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for one year; the accused were also convicted for the offences punishable under section 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal code thereby sentencing them to suffer R.I. for two years each and to pay fine of Rs.250/- each, in default to suffer R.I. for 6 months.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 :::Thereafter the accused were arrested.The police drew recovery panchnama of the weapons.After completion of the investigation, they filed charge sheet in the Court of Magistrate.The case was committed to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge.The accused pleaded not guilty.The learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence tendered by the prosecution and convicted the accused persons.Hence, this Appeal.In all the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Brijeshkumar Mishra, who is an eye-witness and a brother of the deceased;PW-2 Arvind Ramchandra Ugale, C.M.O.; PW-3 Dr. Manohar Pandurang Srivastava, who performed postmortem; PW-4 Kuppu Swami Mukan Harijan, panch on spot panchnama; PW-5 Dr. Rajeev Kamlakant Desai; PW-6 Dr. Harshad Chandrakant Parekh, who performed surgery on Rakesh Mishra; PW-7 Akhilesh Mishra, eye-witness; PW-8 Pushpa Anilkumar Mishra; PW-9 Raghunath Narayan Mahale, P.S.I. attached to Santacruz Police Station.The learned senior counsel Mr. Niteen Pradhan has submitted that 3/8 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/07/2016 Apeal93_2009.doc considering the evidence against the appellants, conviction for murder is illegal and is to be set aside.He assailed the evidence of PW-1 Brijesh Mishra, PW-7 Akhilesh Mishra and PW-8 Pushpa Mishra on the point of probabilities and challenged that whether the incident has taken place the manner in which it is narrated by these eye-witnesses.Considering the evidence of Brijesh, Akhilesh and Pushpa, the injuries were caused due to bamboo to the injured and deceased Rakesh Mishra.As per their evidence, accused no 3 Anil Mhatre and accused no. 4 Ravindra Mhatre assaulted Akhilesh and Brijesh with fist blows.There are discrepancies in the evidence of these eye-witnesses on the point of assault.However, the injured witness have been the independent witness and Ravindra Pandey, who claimed to be injured, was not examined by the prosecution.He further argued that as per the evidence of Akhilesh, the incident has taken place suddenly.As per his case, accused no. 1 was having wooden bamboo in his hand and accused no. 2 assaulted with stump.There is delay in recording of the FIR though all the three brothers went to Santacruz Police Station and they were sent to Cooper Hospital for medical treatment and thereafter FIR was registered.He further relied on CA report dated 10th February, 2004 (Exhibits 49, 50 & 51) and pointed that blood on bamboo stick and cricket stump is found inconclusive.He submitted that after 7 days from the incident, the deceased died due to head injury and septicemia.The learned senior counsel submitted that there was no intention of the accused to kill the deceased.It was a sudden fight.Thee factors were not taken into account by the learned trial Judge.The learned senior counsel pleaded for clear acquittal and alternatively he prayed for lesser sentence.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 :::5. Learned APP while opposing the Appeal has submitted that considering the medical report and the evidence of eye-witnesses, conviction under section 302 is justified.It is a short case of 7 witnesses.There are three eye-witnesses.We found evidence of these three eye-witnesses consistent.They corroborate each other.1 and 3 were holding bamboo and accused no. 2 was holding stump.After going through the evidence of Akhilesh, it is to be necessarily concluded that it was not premeditated attack but it was a sudden fight which took place out of verbal altercations in the early hours of morning.We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of these three eye-witnesses on 5/8 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/07/2016 Apeal93_2009.doc the point of actual assault and attributing role of assailants to the accused.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 :::The prosecution has tendered sufficient medical evidence to establish a fact of assault.PW-2 Arvind Ramchandra Ugale examined Brijesh Mishra and gave evidence in respect of injuries on the person of Brijesh, i.e., entry in casualty medical register (Exhibit 19).On the same day he also examined deceased Rakesh Mishra.He noted down history of assault by known persons.Rakesh Mishra was referred to surgical department.Dr. Manohar Shrivastav PW-3 has performed postmortem on 27th August, 2008 on the body of Rakesh Mishra and he has opined that due to extradural haemorrahage with fracture temporal bone and septicemia of brain.However, in the cross-examination he agreed that if craniotomy is not properly performed, it may result in haemorrhage.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 :::This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/07/2016As per the evidence of PW-6 Harshad Parekh, it was emergency surgery for removal of the clot and decompression.This shows that Rakeshkumar had unnatural death.witnesses were also injured on that day.This clearly establishes that accused have assaulted Rakesh and eye-witnesses.There is no reason to disbelieve these eye-witnesses, therefore, we confirm the conviction of the accused.However, the submissions of learned senior counsel on the point of lesser sentence in view of the circumstances and nature of attack are worth to consider.We take into account two important factors on the point of quantum.Emergency surgery of carniotomy was performed on him.Thus, we pass the following order:(i) Conviction under section 302 r/w. 34 against accused nos. 1 to 3 is set aside.(ii) Accused nos. 1 and 2 are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months.(iii) Accused no. 3 is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under 7/8 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/07/2016 Apeal93_2009.doc section 304 Part II for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer R.I. for 3 months.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 :::(iv) Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are also convicted for the offences punishable under section 324 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay of Rs.250/- each, in default, to suffer R.I for 1 month.Appeal is partly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:21:53 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,246,136 |
The petitioners are facing trial in C.C No.142 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Tirunelveli District for the offences under Sections 498 A, 494 and 506(i) IPC.The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant.Since the parties are MuslimS, obviously Section 494 of IPC will not be attracted against any of the accused.He therefore seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition as far as the petitioners 1, 3 and 5 are concerned.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn as far as they are concerned.2.Of course, the personal appearance of the petitioners 1, 3 and 5 herein is dispensed with before the court below.The trial court shall not insist on the personal appearance of the said petitioners except at the time of answering the charges, examination under Section 313 of Cr.Pc and again athttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 the time of pronouncement of judgment.On all other occasions, the petitioners 1, 3 and 5 herein shall be represented by their counsel.3.The learned counsel for the petitioners wants to press this O.P as regards the petitioners 2 and 4, the sisters in law of the defacto complainant.The petitioners 2 and 4 got married even prior thereto.They are having matrimonial homes elsewhere.When the defacto complainant got married to the first petitioner and set up their matrimonial home, the petitioners 2 and 4 herein were not part of it.In other words, the criminal case was registered after a gap of almost 19 years.It appears that the lodging of the criminal case was motivated by the act of bigamy committed by the first petitioner herein.One can see that out of spite, the defacto complainant had roped in not only her husband but also the parents in law and also sisters in law.4.I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners 2 and 4 herein is a clear abuse of legal process.Quashing the impugned proceedings as far as the petitioners 2 and 4 alonehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 would serve the ends of justice.This criminal original petition stands partly allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.30.09.2019 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Skm To1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli District.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,250,751 |
Item No. 06And In the matter of: Biswanath Banerjee.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Milon Mukherjee Mr. Usof Ali Dewan For the Petitioner Mr. Asraf Ali Mr. Suman Dey For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Bally Police Station Case No. 402 of 2013 dated 09.08.2013 under Sections 498A/323/307 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the D.P. Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and the injury report.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,259,480 |
Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.This is the first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 30/12/2019 by Police Station Govardhan District Shivpuri(M.P.) in connection with Crime No.87/2019 registered for offence under Sections 392, 506-B, 34 of IPC, Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.False case has been registered against the present applicant.Investigation and trial will take its own time.Hence, prayed for grant of bail.We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.It is made clear that we leave it open for the High 03 MCRC-17325-2020 Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail Authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if it is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if he hit test is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for his treatment as per medical norms.If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would send him to the same jail from where he was released.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andThe applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about him/his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.Application stands allowed and disposed of.05 MCRC-17325-2020 E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,059,122 |
Item No. 24And In the matter of: Delbar Hossain Mondal & Ors.- versus -Hogalberia Police Station Case No. 120 of 2013 dated 25.07.2013 under sections 148/341/354/326/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,066,724 |
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that an application was moved by informant Sarfaraj before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar alleging that accused Imran, son of informant's maternal uncle was living with him for last 5-6 years and two months before family members of informant saw accused Imran in an objectionable position with victim, the minor sister of informant.Then, on being driven out from the house of informant, accused Imran started living with one Kala at village Nyajupura where accused Saleem also lived.They used to come near the house of informant along with accused Sanjay.Sister of Kala, who told her name as Munni, also used to come to the victim.On 18.06.2005, preparations were being conducted in the village for the marriage of daughter of informant's uncle.Family members of informant had gone to the house of his uncle Islamuddin and informant's sister (victim) aged about 14 years was alone at the house.At that time, sister of Kala and accused Sanjay went to the informant's house and they had talk with victim and after some time went away.Thereafter, in the night at about 8:30 PM accused Imran, Saleem, Kala and Sanjay came at the informant's house and they enticed away and kidnapped the minor sister(victim) of informant in a car along with Rs.50,000/- which were kept in the house for the purpose of marriage of the daughter of informant's uncle.The incident was seen by Naushad, Ayyub and others.When family members returned, on not seeing the victim as well as the money, they searched enough, but could not trace out her.On 25.06.2005, one Mohsin resident of village Nyajupura told the informant that his sister is at the house of accused Kala resident of village Niyajupura along with other accused.Informant went there and found the victim in a fear-stricken state.She told that accused with the help of Kala's sister kept her at many places, they raped her and also took the money.The informant requested the SSP, Muzaffarnagar to lodge FIR against the accused persons and to get the victim medically examined.Investigation of the case was entrusted on the same day to SI Anil Kumar Singh.He proceeded to record the statement of informant.Thereafter, he also recorded the statement of victim.He also recorded the statements of scriber of chik FIR.Next day, on 08.07.2005, he inspected the spot of incident, site plan was prepared, he also prepared the site plan of the place from where the victim was recovered.The victim was sent for medical examination to Women Hospital, Muzaffarnagar.As per the medical examination report Ext. Ka-4, secondary sex character of the victim was found developed, axillary hair were present and there was no mark of injury on external surface of body.DW-1 Wareesa has stated that she belongs to the same family of the victim.The victim eloped with Imran, the accused.She was recovered from Nasik after a week.The telephonic call was received from some police station at Nasik at which Sarfaraj and others went to fetch her back.They returned seven days after along with the victim.This witness also stated that she was contesting Pradhani election and during that period neither there was any marriage in her house nor any work of painting was done in her house.Challenge in these two appeals is the judgment and order dated 14.04.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial No. 62 of 2006 (State Vs.Sanjay and another) and Session Trial No. 1147 of 2007 (State Vs.Imran), both arising out of Case Crime No. 701 of 2005 under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (g) IPC, Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar whereby each of the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 363 IPC; five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- each under Section 366 IPC and ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.6,000/- each under Section 376(2)(g) IPC with default stipulation.By the impugned judgment and order it has also been directed that Rs.20,000/- will be paid to the victim as compensation out of the amount of fine so deposited from the accused appellants.As per the said medical report, pubic hair were present, labia majora were found developed, hymen was old torn and healed and vagina was admitting two fingers easily.Vaginal smear was taken in two slides which were sent for pathological examination to detect the presence of spermatozoa.No mark of injury was present on private part of the victim.X-ray of right elbow joint, right wrist joint, right knee joint was advised for determination of her age.According to the supplementary report of medical examination dated 12.07.2005 marked as Ext. Ka-5, the age of victim was about 18 years and no definite opinion about rape was given.In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that initially Munni and Sanjay came to her house and when they came to know that there was nobody in the house they came in a car and pulled her into car.They further locked her in a room and Sanjay, Kala, Imran and Saleem raped her and compelled her to sign some papers.In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. there is no mention about the victim took away Rs.50,000/- from her house.If at all she as abruptly called out of her house and taken away, there was no occasion for her to carry away Rs.50,000/- with her.The statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C is a previous statement with which the victim could have been confronted and she was confronted.As per her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C when the victim was recovered with the accused, he was handed over to the police.This statement does not find support from the prosecution evidence.The victim has resiled from certain averments of her statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C and changing of statement by the victim again and again causes a deep dent in the prosecution case.Thereafter, the investigation ended into charge sheet against the accused Kala, Sanjay and Saleem in Crime No. 701 of 2005, charge sheet No. 195 was marked as Ext. Ka-11 and against the accused Imran, charge sheet No.195/1 was marked as Ext. Ka-12, were filed under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheets, charges were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 20.02.2006 against the accused persons for the offences punishable under aforesaid Sections.After close of evidence by the prosecution, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the incident and claimed trial.Accused appellant Imran in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded that he gave Rs.2.5 lakhs, which he obtained from selling the land after partition of his house, to the parents of victim and he also gave Rs.2.5 Lakhs to them, which he earned by doing labour work.On demanding the aforesaid money, he has been falsely implicated in this case.Accused Saleem has pleaded that he stayed with co-accused Kala, for this reason he has been falsely implicated in this case.He also stated that he did not know the victim as well as Imran, the accused.He never went to her house and he has nothing to do with her family.Similarly, accused appellant Sanjay in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that his father did not support the election of village Pradhan to the aunty of the informant and due to which he has been falsely implicated.Co-accused Kala had died during the trial proceedings, hence the criminal proceedings against him have been abated.After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellants as narrated in para-1 of the judgment.Feeling aggrieved, the accused appellants have preferred the present appeals.10. Heard the learned counsel for appellants, learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record of the case.The learned counsel for the accused appellants have contended that the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures, hence it is bad in the eyes of law and both the appeals deserve to be allowed.Per contra, the learned AGA has supported the impugned judgment and order of learned Trial Court and submitted that the accused appellants have been found guilty of committing gang rape and the appeals filed by them are liable to be dismissed.At the outset counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which is fatal for the prosecution case.He has further submitted that as per Ext. Ka-2 i.e. chik report the occurrence took place on 18.06.2005 whereas the report regarding the same was lodged on 07.07.2005 at 11:00 AM, the police station being six kilometers away from the place of occurrence.There is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR which is fatal for the prosecution case.Although, the written typed application by the informant is dated 06.07.2005, but it was actually presented before the authorities on 07.07.2005 as is evident from the endorsement of the police station.This report was lodged after the victim was recovered.However, if delay is explained, then, it would not be fatal for the prosecution.In his statement the informant Sarfaraj, PW-1, has stated that on 25.06.2005 Mohisin told him that he had seen Imran, the accused and sister of this witness at the house of Kala at Niyajupura.He went to the house of Kala and saw the victim siting in a fearful state and she was weeping.The recovery and other part of the statement shall be looked into later but from his statement as appeared it is clear that on 26.06.2005 the informant had come to know that the victim was at the house of Kala.This was even eight days after the incident.There is no reason why the informant or his parents hesitated to lodge the missing report about the girl since 18.06.2005 when he had come to know that the girl was missing.In (2015) 7 SCC 272: Mohd. Ali alias Guddu vs State of U.P., it has been held as under:"For the aforesaid purpose, first we shall advert to the issue of lodging of the First Information Report.As is demonstrated, the victim missed from the house on 22.11.1996 but the mother lodged the FIR on 3.12.1996 almost after expiry of eleven days alleging the factum of kidnapping by the accused persons, namely, Ali Waris and Md. Ali @ Guddu.It is interesting to note that the mother, had alleged that Ali Waris had left the girl at her door steps.In such a circumstance, if nothing else, the PW-2, the mother, who is expected to have necessitous concern, could have gone to the police station to lodge a missing report which could have prompted the investigation officer to act.It baffles the commonsense that the mother after searching in the neighbourhood as well as amongst the relatives still, for some unfathomable reason that defeats the basic human prudence approached the police station quite belatedly.It is apt to mention here that in rapes cases the delay in filing the FIR by the prosecutrix or by the parents in all circumstance is not of significance.The authorities of this Court have granted adequate protection/allowance in that aspect regard being had to the trauma suffered, the agony and anguish that creates the turbulence in the mind of the victim, to muster the courage to expose oneself in a conservative social milieu.Sometimes the fear of social stigma and on occasions the availability of medical treatment to gain normalcy and above all the psychological inner strength to undertake such a legal battle."PW-1 was confronted with the version of the first information report since the maker of FIR can be confronted with its contents.The informant stated that if one goes from Bilaspur first of all he would have to cross the police station, Nai Mandi.After that he would have to cross police station Kotwali Nagar.Abkari outpost would also fall in the way.After that Niyajupura would fall.But since they were in hurry the did not go the police station.The statement given by this witness before the Court was correct and he has tried to justify by saying that FIR was written in hot-haste but this explanation offered by the informant does not appeal because the first information report is typed and is not hand-written.In fact, annexures with the application were written by hand which show that there was absolutely no hurry in scribing the first information report.Every thing was thought-well and written in the first information report.The informant has not at all said that he did not lodge the report due to fear of ill-repute to his family or the obstructions in the marriage of victim.This school leaving certificate was exhibited as Ext. Ka-7 before the learned Trial Court.The counsel for appellants has submitted that reliance cannot be placed on this document.This witness Geeta Devi was subjected to the cross-examination in which she stated that she could not tell as to who admitted the victim in the school because it is not written in the record.The record does not indicate as to by whom the victim was admitted in the school.She has further stated that the Transfer Certificate was not issued by her.She being the In-charge Principal brought the Transfer Certificate when the Court summoned it and at the relevant point of time, she was not working in the School.It is trite law that the evidentiary value of the school leaving certificate would only be relevant if the person who admitted the child in the School and made entries in that regard in the School register, was produced before the Court.The prosecution failed to examine the person who made the entry.Besides, even the Investigating Officer Anil Kumar Singh, PW-7, has specifically stated that during the investigation, he did not verify the genuineness of the school leaving certificate.He also did not inquire as to who admitted the victim in the School and on what basis her date of birth was entered.Now coming to the age of the victim, the learned AGA has submitted that victim was minor on the date of occurrence.Hence, even if there was any consent from the side of the victim it would be of no consequence.As per the radiological report, the age of the victim at the time of occurrence was much above the age of consent.Reverting back to the statement of PW-1 Sarfaraj, he did not see the accused taking away the victim.He is said to be a witness of recovery.But he has stated that when he recovered the victim, she told him that Saleem, Imran, Sanjay and Kala with aid of Munni took her away, her money was also snatched and she was raped by Saleem, Imran, Sanjay and Kala.First of all, I would like to consider the manner in which the victim was said to have been kidnapped.The victim was not kidnapped in the presence of her brother.Her brother Sarfaraj, PW-1, has stated that Naushad and Ayyub had seen the accused persons kidnapping away the girl.He has stated that on 18.06.2005 he was working in Bilaspur in the house of Islamuddin.There was a marriage in the house of Islamuddin and he was doing work of painting and at the relevant point of time, he was painting the gate of house of Islamuddin.When between 8-9 PM, an ambassador car came in which Saleem, Sanjay, Imran, Kala and Munni were sitting.He also saw the victim sitting in the car.He thought the victim was going along with the accused to market to do some purchasing because Imran was the real maternal brother of the victim.This witness Naushad appears to be very well conversant of the relations of villagers.Thus, he could also state that accused Imran was the maternal brother of the victim.He has also stated that when girl returned late, her brother and other family members were trying to trace her.This witness was subjected to the test of cross-examination but he could not face the cross-examination and projected a very bad picture of the case.He has stated that the actual time must be about 8:00 PM.He was painting gate in the light of pole.He has stated that he could identify all the passengers in the car because it was not dark at that time and there was sufficient light.No doubt, the occurrence took place in June, but to say that at 8 PM in June, it would be sufficient daylight, cannot be pleaded and there could not have been any source of light in moving car to this witness to identify the passengers in the car.But this witness had already told the brother of victim about her going away with accused on the next day but nothing was done in the matter and no missing report was lodged.Further, this witness has stated that initially Imran, the accused used to reside in the house of victim.Once, he left the house, he came to know but how this witness came to know this fact, is not clear in as much as Sarfaraj, PW-1, has stated that initially the accused Imran used to live in the house of the victim and once he was caught misbehaving with the victim when he was turned out of the house.This witness also knew the relationship of Imran, the accused with the victim.I have thoroughly gone through cross-examination of this witness.He has narrated surname, caste of practically all the people asked by him although he does not belong to that village.DW-1 is Wareesa wife of Islamuddin.In cross-examination although she has stated that whatever accused persons told her she narrated in the Court but she denied that she stated before the Court on the instigation of accused.Here, I would like to refer the statement of Investigating Officer also.Investigating Officer Anil Kumar Singh, PW-7, has stated as follows:-^^;s ckr lgh gS fd bl iwjs jkLrs esa dksbZ fotyh dk [kEHkk Hkh ugh gSA jkLrs dh pkSM+kbZ , fcUnq ls lkeus djhc 15 fQV gksxhA^^Thus, according to the statement of this witness who inspected the spot there was no pole near the house of Islamuddin.Thus, the statement of this witness read with the statement of DW-1, Wareesa, completely falsified the version of Naushad and places him in the category of a totally unreliable witness.Hence, the statement of Naushad, PW-1, cannot be relied upon and it also falsifies the version of Naushad that he had seen the accused persons taking away the girl.As far as recovery is concerned, as per the prosecution case the victim was recovered at the house of Kala situated at Niyajupura.The informant Sarfaraj, PW-1, has stated that on 25.06.2008 Mohsin told him that the victim and the accused were present at Niyajupura at the house of Kala, this witness went to the house of Kala at Niyajupura and recovered the girl.He has stated that Mohsin was known to him from before.The room was not locked from the outside.The accused had fled away from the house.Only the victim was present there.He himself had not seen the accused fleeing away but his sister(the victim) told him that accused had fled away.Thus, Mohsin is the witness who told the witness Sarfaraj, brother of the victim whereabout of the girl.He stated that 8-10 years prior the sister(the victim) of Sarfaraj had eloped, at which Sarfaraj came to the house of this witness and told his father that the victim had eloped to Nasik from where he had received a telephonic call.He requested the father of this witness to accompany him to Nasik, at which his father went with PW-1 to Nasik from where she was brought back to home.He has further stated that the victim was never recovered from the house of Kala, nor she requested this witness to inform her family members.Thus, the source of information of whereabouts of the victim as per PW-1 Sarfaraj was Mohsin who has completely denied about having given any such information.In fact, he has stated otherwise.Arbaj @ Bhoora, DW-5, who has stated that Sarfaraj and Babu took him to Nasik, Maharashtra.This witness accompanied them to Maharashtra because his elder brother was residing at Maharashtra.The sister(victim) of this informant was recovered at Maharashtra from where she was brought back by the informant to home.Even DW-2, Ayyub, who is a witness named in the first information report has stated that there was no marriage at the house of Wareesa wife of Islamuddin and he did not see the victim going with anybody.No doubt, the prosecution discharged this witness but there was not bar for the defence to produce this witness in support of his defence.As per the recovery memo, the recovery of victim also becomes doubtful.Now, coming to the statement of the victim who is the star witness of this case, I would like to observe that the statement of the victim should be given weightage on the ground that the victim of a rape case should be placed on higher pedestal than an injured witness.If the evidence of the victim is fully reliable and has no dent, the accused can be convicted on her testimony.But if the testimony of the victim belies the story, then the Court would need corroboration from other evidence.Sanjay and Munni asked her about the whereabout of her family members, on which she told them that they had gone to attend the ceremony of marriage of her cousin.Thereafter, they came 5-10 minutes after that and enticed her away on the point of country made pistol and said that she accompanied them.They also forced her to take Rs.50,000/- which were kept for the marriage of her cousin.It is strange how the accused came to know that Rs.50,000/- were kept in the house for the marriage of cousin of the victim.She has further stated that she was forced to sit in the car along with Munni.Further, she has stated that she was kept 5-6 days at different places.She was forcible raped one by one by Imran, Kala, Sanjay and Saleem.Whereas, Munni was on the guard.It is also stated that Rs.50,000/- was snatched from the victim by Imran, the accused.The whole story has been shattered as I have discussed above.She has further stated that on the point of country made pistol the accused Imran forced her to sign some papers.Imran, the accused did this to save his life.As far as letters are concerned, the Investigating Officer, Anil Kumar Singh, PW-7 who also conducted the investigation, has stated in cross-examination that he did not interrogate the victim about her love letters.He has further stated that the girl was recovered by her brother.No one else was found at the time of alleged recovery.He had received a letter written by the father of the accused Sanjay that the victim was recovered from Nasik, Maharashtra.But neither this witness went to Nasik nor he did bother to talk Nasik Police telephonically.He has admitted that the date of the application written by the father of Sanjay was 18.05.2005 but he did not bother to verify the date.He also did not bother to verify its contents and did not even record supplementary statement of informant and the victim.When contradictions were pointed out to this witness, he stated that the victim did not state him that her Rs. 50,000/- were snatched by accused Imran.These contradictions and omissions are relevant which strike out the root of the case.She has stated that Mohsin came to the house of Kala and on her request, he called the brother of the victim, but Mohsin has denied of having called the brother of the victim.The victim has admitted that Imran, the accused was her real maternal brother.She has stated that when her brother came, Munni and Imran were present in the house.Munni fled away but her brother caught Imran, the accused.This is against the statement of Sarfaraj, PW-1 who has stated that he found his sister(the victim) alone in the room.She has admitted the love-letters written by her but she has tried to clarify that they were written under threat.A perusal of these letters though not accepted by the learned Trial Court, which have been exhibited, make it clear that they have been written leisurely taking one's own time and do not appear to have been written under any threat.The letters are in volume, hence this explanation of the victim that the love-letters were written under threat does not carry any weight.The victim has further stated that Imran, the accused pointed out the country made pistol at her and compelled her to sit in car with the jewellery and the cash.Taking away of the jewellery has been introduced by this witness for the first time in her statement before the Court.She has admitted that in the letters it was mentioned that some jewellery was in her possession.It is very strange how the accused could have known this victim and could have forcibly made the victim write all these things in the letter under threat.As regards the paper No. 10/1 to 10/4, she admitted that those papers were in her handwriting and she has stated that she was forced to write those papers.Another story has been introduced by the victim by stating that she was blindfolded when she was being taken in the car.There was absolutely no reason to blindfold this girl specially when she was being taken in car just from near her house as blindfolding her mouth from her house would cause suspicion, hence this witness being the victim is also totally unreliable.Contradicting herself she has stated that when her brother came, nobody was present and all had fled away.Now, another new story has been introduced by this witness by saying that all along she was kept unconscious.They used to make her smell something to keep her unconscious.When her brother reached, she was unconscious.What was the necessity to make the girl unconscious, specially when the accused were armed with country made pistol, they were large in number and the victim being alone was not at all in a position to resist or raise any alarm.Thus, the statement of this victim is just a bundle of lies.She has tried to mislead the Court also by stating absolutely an impossible and logic belying story.It appears that the witness forgot that she had denied her recovery from Nasik in as much as intentionally she has stated as follows before the Court:-^^esjh lcls cM+h cgu tks ej x;h gS mldk uke vklehu FkkA og esjs iSnk gksus ls igys gh ej x;h FkhA eSaus ukfld iqfyl dks ;g ugh crk;k Fkk fd tSls esjh cgu dks ekj nh Fkh mlh izdkj eq>s ekj nsaxsA vt[kqn dgk fd ukfldh dh lHkh ckrsa xyr gSaA^^The victim has stated that Imran, the accused came to her house to take her away in car.She has stated that Mohsin told her the names of Saleem and Sanjay, whereas Mohsin has denied the same.She has stated that the door was locked but she shouted to call Mohsin through a hole in the door.She has tried to intelligently explain that when anybody is compelled to smell something, will that person concentrate on the smell or will try to protect himself.Contradicting herself she has told that she kept on weeping and shouting in her defence.She has also stated that Sanjay blindfolded her and he caused her to inhale the intoxicant.Thus, as I have said earlier, the complete statement of the victim is wholly unreliable.Even medical evidence does not support the prosecution version in this case of alleged gang rape.Thus, the above discussions lead to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges framed against the accused appellants beyond all the reasonable doubt.Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed.The appellants are on bail.Order Date :- 31.05.2016 LBY
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,540,732 |
This is an unusual case and perhaps the first of its kind.What makes this case a rare one is not only the ghastly and brutal manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed but the complexities which this case presents on account of various factors viz the accused being an Indian, victim of the crime Namita, though of Indian origin but having acquired British citizenship by long stay with her parents in London and the offence having been committed yet in a third country i.e. Belgium; the investigation of the case having been conducted by the agencies of three countries -- to begin with in Belgium and UK and concluding in India.Most of the material witnesses being foreign witnesses (there being 28 Belgium witnesses and 24 UK witnesses), the investigation in Belgium and UK having been conducted according to the law and procedure of those countries and most of the material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution being citizens of those two countries, their depositions have been recorded on commission issued by the Indian trial court to its counter parts in those countries.Yet another fact is that based on the investigation conducted in Belgium, initially the Belgium authorities had intended to hold the trial in Belgium and made a request for extradition of the appellant but ultimately after the arrest of the accused on 09-05-1979, after about four years of commission of the crime, the Belgium authorities abandoned the said request for extradition.However, these factors have not dissuaded us in any way from examining the merits of the appeal.First the undisputed facts.The appellant hails from village Turkpur, District Sonepat, Haryana.He got himself registered with Punjab Medical Council and possessed an Indian Passport No. K005420 issued on 18-09-1974 by the Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh.Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) a native of Punjab had gone to London in 1962 and was settled there with his family viz. wife Smt. Chadermukhi (PWUK-1), three daughters namely, Namita, Amita Lochab (PWUK-2) and Shiela (PWUK 3) and two sons.Namita born in India in May 1956 and had acquired British citizenship.During 1978, Namita was working as accounts trainee with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), London.However, as per the understanding of the parents of Namita, the said marriage was to be deemed an engagement only and a legal marriage was to be effected only after the registration of the marriage in London subsequently.Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) purchased a terrace house No. 312, Horn Lane Act, London for a sum of 20,000 UK Pounds in the joint name of the appellant and Namita.A joint bank account No. 91053278 was also opened in the name of Namita and the appellant at Midland Bank, London and two cheque books, one each in the name of Namita and the appellant were issued by the bank.A marriage was registered between the appellant and Namita at the Office of the Registrar of Marriage, London on 26-05-1979 and a reception was held on the same evening at Phoenix Restaurant, London.A honeymoon trip of five days commencing from 27-05-1979 to certain European countries was arranged through Cosmos Tours, London.They carried two suits cases, one of red colour belonging to Namita and the other of brown colour belonging to the appellant having their clothes and other articles.The group of tourists including Namita and the appellant reached Brussels at about 6.30 P.M., the same evening and all the tourists of the group stayed at the fourth floor of hotel Arenberg, Brussels.The appellant and Namita checked in room No. 415 and after some time they went for a short sight seeing tour 'Brussels by night', returned to hotel at about 11.00 P.M. and retired to their room.A) On 7-04-1979 a birthday party of Sheila, the youngest sister of Namita was arranged at their house and the appellant resented the nature and behavior of Namita in her freely mixing with male persons especially with Philip David Abbey (PWUK-21) and after the party, the appellant created a scene and rudely complained that Namita was not a woman of good morals.Thereupon Namita was furious and threatened to withdraw from the marriage with the appellant and the appellant apologised and assured to mend his manners.B) Namita was last seen alive in the company of the appellant on the night of 27-05-1979 at about 11.00 P.M. when they retired in their room No. 415, hotel Arenberg, Brussels.C) The group was scheduled to leave hotel Arenberg, Brussels on the morning of 28-05-1979 and all the group members were expected to assemble in the hall by 7.30 A.M. All group members except Namita and the appellant assembled in the hall so the tour guide Richard Anthony Cushnie (PWUK-12) went up to room No.415 and knocked at the door of the room.The appellant opened the door half way and came into the corridor without allowing the guide to enter the room and told him that they (he and his wife) had decided to stay back.The guide suggested to the appellant that he had his wife could resume the group at Paris and wanted to give him the name of the hotel where the group was to stay in Paris but the appellant falsely told him that his wife knew the address.The tour resumed without the appellant and Namita.D) In the morning of 28-05-1979 the hotel maid Ms. Mujinga Maudi (PWBG-22) went to room 415 for cleaning and saw the appellant alone in the room in an excited condition and also found the room was quite dark, curtains having been closed and the room was full with smoke and thereafter the appellant having asked her to clean the bathroom and she found the bathroom full of water and towels lying soaked on its floor and a strong smell of soap in the bathroom.E) On the same morning the appellant did not permit Benselin Myriam (PWBG-24), the pantry clerk of the hotel, to enter his room for taking the reading of the mini bar and for replenishment of the consumed drinks in the refrigerator.L) On the morning of 29-05-1979, at about 6.45 A.M. parts of human body wrapped in cloth lying in a container at Rue De Loxum were noticed by a rag picker and he informed the police constable on duty who on further search of the said container found a human head wrapped in various clothes, its hair having been shaved of and face lacerated with vertical cuts; a pair of legs in a black packet and four pieces of clothes and two pair of arms tied together and kept in a carton were recovered from the said container.M) On 02-08-1979, a torso of a female human body was found floating in canal Vergote in Brussels and it was seized.N) The postmortem examination on the body parts and other forensic tests conducted established that the parts of the body recovered from the said container and torso found from the said canal were that of Namita Lochab.The clothes recovered along with the parts of the body were also identified as belonging to Namita.The palm prints lifted from the room of Namita also tallied with the palm prints of the palm prints of the body parts recovered from the container.He was hiding in a village in district Lalitpur U.P where he took up the practice of general medicine under the fake name of Dr. M. Singh.On the strength of these facts and circumstances, the prosecution concluded that they are sufficient to establish that the appellant had strangulated his wife Namita to death dismembered and mutilated parts of her body and disposed them of in the container and in a canal.The appellant did not divulge the fact of Namita having abandoned him on the morning of 28-05-1979 either to the tour guide, hotel management or staff, Belgium Police, Indian Embassy in UK or Belgium or to the parents of Namita for almost two days during his over stay at hotel Arenberg.Nor he took any action for searching Namita during this period for subsequently on his return to London on 30-05-1979 and after he having run away in a bus did not try to find out either from the parents of Namita or the Action police station if Namita had been traced out.Besides it is suggested that the appellant had a strong motive to commit the crime inasmuch as the appellant coming from a rural background having conservative outlook could not tolerate the liberal behavior of Namita in socialising with male persons as also her indifferent attitude towards him during his stay at her parents house and therefore appellant was murturing a grudge to deep as to take revenge by doing away with Namita at the first available opportunity.As against the above case of the prosecution, the defense plea put forth on behalf of the appellant is that Namita was not willing to marry him as she was carrying an affair with certain persons more particularly Phillip David Abbey and she had married to him (appellant) under the pressure of her parents.The appellant after having married Namita in the larger interest of his own career could not have even thought of murdering Namita because his stay in UK was dependent upon the continuance of his marriage with Namita at least for one year.(iv) The victim had a special feature at the teeth level i.e. the existence of a single upper central incisor tooth.Articular surfaces are complete-Hairs are shaven, No varices.Nails are recovered with a red enamel and are recently cut.On the sole plants, presence of horn indurations especially at the inner rim on the inner rim of the big toe.The length from the border to the feet is 43 cms.The right leg Is disjointed above the patella, with the presence of the patella.The chest is intact.The lungs are rotten.Also the ear but we can see that is shown no microscopic peculiarities.The stomach is empty.Visceral conditions are normal.The appendics is there.The kidneys are normal.(i) That the body belonged to a person having feminine sex.(ii) It was of a person between 20 and 30 years of age who was of African or Indian origin."Female individual, at least thirty years old and of North African type.It is pertinent to note that these identification marks were not given by him while lodging the missing report and rather he stated that he was not aware of any visible marks or scars or other peculiarities of Namita.According to him, colour of her hair was dark brown.The missing report is Exhibit CW-31 and though it is signed by him, it has no mention of any such mark.In this regard the prosecution case is that PWBG-7 Dodinval Pol, forensic pathologist, inspected room No. 415 under the orders of Examining Magistrate in order to collect samples and he collected some samples of skull hair which however later found not to be hari but synthetic textile.Besides he also took samples of red brown stains which were subjected to benzidine reaction of which some reacted in negative and some gave positive reaction.Further examination was carried out by Prof. Andre.The parents of Namita and purchased a terrace house in the joint name of the appellant and Namita for a sum of US Pounds 20,000 and paid for it.Appellant and Namita had opened a joint bank account in Midland Bank London and two cheque books- one each to them was issued.3) On 7.4.1979, a birthday party of the younger sister Namita was arranged and in the said party the appellant had complained/rebuked Namita about her nature and behavior of freely mixing with male persons more particularly with Phillip David Abbey (PWUK-21) which is followed by a threat by Namita to break away the marriage and two letters Ext. CW13 and CW14 were exchanged between them and thereafter the misunderstanding, if any, was sorted out.On 26- 05-1979 a marriage between Namita and appellant was registered at the office of the Registrar of Marriages, London and a marriage reception was held at Phoenix Restaurant, London was held.5) On the morning of 27-05-1979 Namita and appellant left for the tour along with their belonging in two suitcases.Namita having a red suitcase Ex.CW26 of Namita and brown suitcase Ext.CW 27 of appellant.They were seen off at Victoria Railway Station by the parents of Namita.6) The cosmos tour comprised of about 26 persons reached Brussels (Belgium) in the evening at about 6.30 P.M. and all the members of the group checked in different rooms on the 4th floor of hotel Arenberg and the appellant and Namita checked in room No. 415 of the said hotel.This was the last time when Namita was seen in the company of the appellant.7) The tours was to proceed to Paris on the morning of 28-05-1979 and all members of the group had instructions to re-assemble in the hall by 7.30 A.M. All the members of the group except the appellant and Namita had assembled in the hall by the appointed time and, therefore, the tour guide Richard Anthony Cushine (PWUK012) went up and knocked at the door of room No. 415 to whom the appellant told that he and his wife were happy in Brussel and decided to stay back there and they did not want to continue with the tour.The tour guide did not notice any abnormal/exceptional behavior of the appellant though he noticed that he was perspiring.8) After some time in the morning hotel maid (PWBG-22) went to room No. 415 for cleaning and found the appellant present alone in the room in an excited condition and thinking that the appellant might be sick offered to call a doctor but the appellant declined.She found the room dark and curtains having been closed and was not allowed to open the curtains/windows by the appellant when she wanted to do so.The appellant asked her to clean the attached bathroom which was soaked with water and wet towels but no trace of any blood etc. or any other incriminating article was notice by the witness.She found only one suitcase in the room which was having clothes.He did not inform the parents of Namita even over a period of 36 hours.The explanation of the appellant that he could not do so because of the language problem as he did not understand French is unacceptable.14) The appellant stayed at a hotel at Dover Port on the night of 29-05-1979 and reached London in the morning of 30-05-1979 and withdrew a sum of U.K.Pounds 200 from the joint bank account of Midland Bank, London.He stayed at Y.M.C.A. London over night and thereafter sneaked into Germany and returned to India on 6-6-1979 and since then he remained underground and was absconding till 9-05-1983 when he was arrested by the police.JUDGMENT R.C. Jain, J.The Appellant Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya, an Indian orthopaedic Surgeon stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of his wife Namita, a British National of Indian origin on the intervenining night of 27th and 28th May, 1979 (their honeymoon night itself) in room No. 415, hotel Arenberg, Brussels, Belgium for dismembering and extensively mutilating and disposing of her body parts at different places in the city of Brussels in order to cause disappearance of evidence relating to the commission of crime.He has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with the stipulation that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently.The case was registered and ultimately investigated by the Indian investigators of CBI and a charge sheet dated 30-07-1985 came to be filed by the CBI against the appellant after more than six years of the commission of crime.Then the trial by the Indian court was also a protracted one, on account of large number of witnesses produced at the trial and most of the witnesses being foreign citizens.The trial culminated into conviction and sentence of the appellant only on 01-03-1999 that is after about 14 years of the filing of the charge sheet and 20 years of the commission of the crime.Added to these factors is yet another important fact that there is no direct evidence to link the appellant as perpetrator of the crime and the case of the prosecution solely rests on circumstantial evidence along.These are the factors which in our opinion have made this case an unusual or of complex nature presenting arduous task not only for the investigators in the three countries, the prosecution, the trial court and now for this Court.We have noted these facts at the outset not with a view to express our dismay at the time taken and consideration involved in the matter but simply with a view to have a glimpse of the case which we wish to keep in view while examining the merits of this appeal.I) The appellant reached the home of his in-laws in the afternoon of 30-05-1979 along with two suit cases and could not give any satisfactory explanation to his in-laws about the whereabouts of his wife Namita and rather falsely stated to them that she had abandoned him at Brussels on the morning of 28.05.1979 carrying away her clothes and money.The appellant wanted to get away from the house as soon as possible without explaining as to what happened in Brussels and the family members had to physically restrain him with the assistance of a neighbour.J) Jagdish Singh Lochab (PW-48) took the appellant to Atcon police station to lodge a report about disappearance of Namita and the appellant having told constable Linfoot (PWUK-18) that his wife had abandoned him in Brussels as she did not want to keep any relation with him and both of them could go their way.Thereupon a missing report was recorded by constable Linfoot.O) Certain blood stains were detected in the bathroom of room No. 415 hotel Arenberg, Brussels around 12-06-1979 and on Chemical examination of the same and the sample taken from the sample of blood group of Namita, it was found that the said blood stains were of the same blood group as that of Namita.P) The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination opined that death was caused by strangulation and also concluded that the various cuts on the body parts were made after the death by an individual who apparently was experienced in disjointing and who knew the human anatomy.Q) Blood spot was also detected on red suitcase which on examination also found to be of the same group as that of Namita.It was vaguely suggested in the memorandum of appeal, though not pursued at the time of hearing, that in Belgium the victim was haunted by some suspicious persons who arrived separately and rented a room opposite to the room where the appellant and Namita had stayed and at about 11.30 P.M. after taking bath Namita dressed up and left the room and returned in the early morning hours of 28-05-1979 and requested the appellant to go with he tour along stating that she had already seen Europe and would joint him later towards the end of the tour.The appellant considering it to be a routine habit of the victim stayed back believing that she would be back soon.It is suggested that the only motive of the said two persons who were staying in the room opposite to room No. 415 could be to murder the victim out of anger and revenge of her having married the appellant on the previous day.It is also vaguely suggested that once the involvement of white in the murder of an Asian came to fore, the Belgium Police made the appellant a scapegoat without pinning down the said two persons or the real culpritThe witnesses from Belgium and UK were examined on commission.Besides this, expert witnesses and a large number of documents have been produced and relied upon.It is pertinent to note that most of the material exhibits seized/recovered during the course of investigation were not produced before the witnesses at the trial and an attempt was made to get the same identified by means of photographs of those material exhibits.The learned trial court in its wisdom deemed it proper to deal with various facts and circumstances and discuss the relevant evidence under the following heads:-"A. Native place of the accused and his educational qualifications;B. Marriage of the accused, his departure for U.K. his stay at the house of his in-laws and registration of the marriage there;C. Birthday party at the house of his in-laws; his conduct at the after the birthday party; his relation with Namita before and after the Birthday party, letters exchanged between the accused and Namita and the apology, if any, tendered by the accused with regard to his conduct;D. Arrangement of conducted tour to Brussels; departure from London on the morning of 27.5.79 and reaching Brussels in the evening; sight-seeing tour of Brussels by the accused and Namita on the evening of 27.5.79 and return to the Hotel;E. Visit to the tour guide in the morning of 28.5.79 when the accused told him about his decision to stay back; the manner in which the accused dealt with the pantry clerk who wanted to enter his room to check the refrigerator; visit to the maid servant for the purpose of cleaning the room and her observations about the condition of the accused at that time; the condition in which the room of the Hotel was found and request of the accused for his stay in the hotel for extra night; and what these point out to?F. The arrival of the accused in London without Namita; his explanation given to the parents of Namita regarding Namita's disappearance from Belgium; his conduct at the time of accompanying father of Namita to Atcon Police Station to report about Namita's disappearance and his alleged escape by jumping into a running bus; and of these circumstances are of any effect?G. Recovery of parts of human body on the morning of 29.5.79 and subsequent recovery of torso from the lake on 2.8.79;H. Collection of evidence pertaining to the crime from room No. 415 of Hotel Arenberg, Brussels and reports of the forensic tests connecting the recovery with the murder.I. Report of the postmortem in respect of the parts of the human body recovered on 29.5.79 and other evidence showing that the dismembered parts were that of Namita;J. Evidence connecting from the suitcase allegedly brought by the accused to London establishing that the blood in the suitcase was of Namita;K. Evidence collected from the suitcase allegedly brought by the accused to London establishing that the blood in the suitcase was of Namita;L. Other evidence in the form of recovery of clothes and shoes of Namita along with the dismembered human body;M. Absconding of the accused and the efforts made by the police in apprehending him vis-a-vis explanation given by the accused in that regard;N. Reference received from Belgium government for extradition of the accused and subsequent abandonment of the request and sanction granted by the Central Government for prosecution of the accused in India;O. Other facts referred to on behalf of the accused breaking the chain in circumstantial evidence.We have heard Shri Sidharth Aggarwal, learned counsel representing the appellant and Shri S.K. Saxena learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the State/CBI at great length.The general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution.PWBG-6 Verbeelen Marcel is a witness to the recovery of body parts and stated that he dug out a container to look out for some lead or copper and found a packet wrapped with a black pullover containing an arm in the shape of a hand without fingers, two arms cut into four pieces and on seeking them he became nervous and called the police and two policemen arrived.PWBG-13 Van Eesbeek Pierre, a police officer of Brussels on reaching the site looked into the waste container and found a pair of legs and the feet.These remnants were wrapped in a chiffon and inside a plastic bag.As against this, the testimony of PWBG-21 Vindevogel Rene is that he had accompanied PWBG-13 Van Eesbeek to Rue De Loxum and found in the container, inside a cardboard box, two pieces of arm and on further search found a red cloth wrapped packet with plastic and when he opened it, a head rolled down.According to him his colleague found one of the two legs and the feet in the other side of the container also packed in red fabric.The requirement of law is satisfied if similar articles are mixed which would only mean that if there are some prominent marks of dissimilarity they can be concealed.They are required to be similar in the same sense as similar persons are to be mixed up with the accused person in the test identification.There should not be such prominent marks on the articles about which an identifying witness could be informed and such witness might be able to identify that article even if it did not belong to him or her.The main evidence is of that witness.The court has only to be satisfied with the aid of evidence of identification that the article really belonged to that witness and he or she could identify simply because it belonged to her, without any outside aid."(v) An old Coutaneous triangular cicatriciec mark of three centimeters was there on the surface of right knee cap.(vi) There were burns on the chin at the left retro articular region and also on the limbs, on the left and right arms and left forearm.These burns appeared to be caused after death.(vii) The dislocation of the body was work of a doctor/surgeon or a butcher.(iv) The teeth were of a person who lived in an affluent social status.Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the evidence of these experts as also the finding of the learned trial court based thereon on a variety of grounds which we may discuss hereinafter.The report noticed as under:-"The hair has been close-cropped unequally, post mortem, for there are several superficial parcheminated abrasions, which do not show any life reactions.From the aspect of the roots of the remaining rest, one can infer that (at the back) the hair was black.Having a perimeter of 51 cms.The chin has an orthognate form.The appeals of the eyes are dark brown colored.We see blood spots in the right and left eye conjunctive.On the upper and under right and left eyelids there are cuttings showing no vital reactions.The eyebrows are missing, they are cut away but not epilated.The ear auricles are missing; they are cut away; near the external auditory mealti, there is not vita reaction.On the jaws, any deep cuts (opened), vertical and without vital reaction.Traces of bringing are found art the chin and in the retro-auricular region.Teach are white and have a good appearance.It is astonishing to see the existence of one upper centaur incisor.At this moment, we decide to ask for the assistance of a stomatologist to make a detailed description of each condition.We find no trade of traumatic wound that might have caused death.No peculiarities at the skull of the brain.The head has been cut at the articulation C3/C4 by careful dissection, without damage to the bones, after death, without life reaction.The cutting of the soft tissues is net, but shops several notices of "taking up"Arms We have a parcel consisting of two arms and two legs, around which is a cotton tape.The right arm At the proximal end the cutting inset, following a practically continuous line.At the upper end a few axillary hairs remain.The upper arm head and the capitulum extremity of the elbow are disjointed without smudges, without deteriorations of the articular surfaces, which kept heir "pole".At the inner front side that is superficially burned place.The left arm Is disjointed in the same way as the other arm, Also presence of a few axillary hairs.A broad surface of superficial brunting with epidermic exfoliation at the inner front - and after region, without vital reaction.The length of the humerus is 30 cms.Forearms Both are disjointed without smudges, without cuttings at the elbows.Traces of superficial burning on the left forearm.The hands are maintained, but the fingers are disjointed at the metacarpus-phalanxes on the back of the left hand near the writ fold a linear would near the metacarpo-carpian region.When examining the palms, we notice the absence of horn indurations or professional stigmats such as found on manual workers.We repeat that none of the described would shows a vital reaction.We also stress that the hand palms are rather rosy, contrasting with the evident pigmentation of the arms and legs, as can been seen on person who do not belong to the white race.Legs This include the legs, the feet and the toes Left leg It is disjointed at the femoral-tibial line, following a linear cut but presenting several indentations, which give a festooned aspect, especially in the popliteal region.On the patella face a small old scar from a triangular bruise, 3 cm X 0.5 Presence of horny planter indurations.Red enamel on the nails.The feet are 23 cms long.They have the dimensions of the leather sole found on site.With the agreement of the enquailring magistrate, we asked for the assistance of Dr. Wackens, who came on site at the Institute for Forensic Medicine and with whom we had a first interview.We handed him the useful samples.From all the findings we are entitled to admit that the consider human remains are of a young woman of about 160 cms, of coloured race.The cuts were made after death by an individual who is apparently experienced and disjointing and who respected the anatomic characteristics.The presence of bloodstains in the eyes makes us think a murder by construction.The remains were burned superficiallyThe torso/trunk portion recovered on 2nd August, 1979 was subjected to post-mortem examination on 3rd August, 1979 by Dr. R. Rillaert and Dr. G. Voordecker and their observations and conclusions are recorded as under:-"The remains are covered with rags of stuff in which we identify; garment rests, in embroidered stuff, with colored decorations representing leaves, flowers, a bit of bust and of a white stuff dress, with lathes, which resembles of bribe garments, a bit of velvet stuff, formed by two fragments knotted together;The trunk is directly, that means on the skin, warped in plastic.The under belly wears a slip which is partly lowered so that the black public hairs can be seen, but according to the impressions on the skin it was in normal position, that means it covered the whole public region.The slip is not torn and shows no apparent boll traces.Breasts are very small.The trunk has a height of about 69 cms.The width at the shoulders and at the iliac spine is 30 cms.The beheading was done by disjointing at the cervical spine, and the as three cervical vertebrae remained.The cut was made immediately at the upper limit of the thyro-hyoidian group.The shoulders were disjointed with observance of the glenoid cavities.The same applies to the hips, where the cycloid cavities are untouched.The cutting of the tissue is net, sometimes broad.The decay of the tissues is very advance, with saponification.The larynx is present, the thyroid and yo id horns are in pieces, but the delay allows not to din and signs of blood effusion; there.The uterus and the cervix uteri show no peculiarities; the ovaries are present.The advanced degree of decay and decomposition do not allow us, not withstanding carefully and through investigations, to say anything about the condition of the external genitals namely as to the maidenhood, idem for the anus region.Conclusion The comparison between the evidence gathered respectively on May 29, 1979 and August 3, 1979 enables us to say that the human remains examined at the later date do correspond to the same body namely to the cops of Namita Lochab."The learned trial court referred to the testimony of PWBG-20 Wackens George, Stomatologist and concluded that his opinion could establish:(iii) Left upper incisor was not there which might have been lost since long time.(iv) The teeth were of a person who lived in an affluent social status.The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the testimony of PWBG-20 Wackens George, Stomatologist.This witness in the first instance stated that on examination of the dental specificities of the body parts on 30-05-1979 he recorded his report "X".However, on being questioned by the defense counsel, the witness stated that he had given another report marked "A" but tried to explain that it was a provisional report and that the report "X" shown to him by the Examining Magistrate is the final report.Surprisingly the first dental report (marked "A" at page 361 of Additional Volume-II) and dental report (marked "X") appearing at page 1049 of Paper Book Volume-III) are wholly inconsistent.In the alleged provisional report on the basis of the stomatological examination the expert witness concluded as under:-Lived for a long time in a civilized, upper middle-class environment.Good education.Taking much care for her teeth.Regularly visited her dentist, who looks tidy, experienced and serious.The individual lacks one upper left central incisor and her left canine should have been rather conspicous.The individual had probably a tic, such as biting her fingernails.This, and the other mentioned facts, suggest that the individual should be between 29 and 30 years old."However, the final report contains the conclusions as under:-The individual did not have a left upper cental incisive and had a prominently visible left canine.On the other hand PWUK-1 stated that Namita had one front tooth missing, but there was no gap in between the incisors and she had a scar mark on her left knee and three inoculation marks on her left shoulder.When cross-examined, she could not give the identification marks of her other children.Even this document has not been proved through any witness and the defense had no opportunity to test the veracity of the person/radiologist who took the X-Ray and prepared the report.On the face of this position, no reliance can be placed on this part of the report which seems to be extraneous and not supported by any primary and cogent evidence.So far as the palm printing comparison report is concerned, it may observed that according to the prosecution the need for identification of the body parts arose because the fingers of both the hands and toes had been chopped off.On 7th June, 1979 he visited 22 Frias Way, London and took into possession documents, papers, note books, purported to have been handled by the deceased Namita and took them to his finger print laboratory at New Scotland Yard and developed the finger and palm marks from those articles and got them photographed.He received the original document.On a comparison of the palm print appearing on the photograph CW-44 with the photograph palm prints submitted by the Belgium Police, he came to the conclusion that they were similar and tallied with the palm print mark of Namita Lochab.When cross-examined, the witness could show that there were more than 16 similar characteristics which were sufficient to conclude that the palm prints developed by him from the papers, documents note books etc. taken from the house of Namita were of the same person.Having considered the matter and the reports of PWBG-4 and PWBG-20 as also of PWBG-5, we are of the considered opinion that no implicit reliance can be placed on these reports because of the infirmities and discrepancies existing therein.These reports cannot be accepted on its face value, merely because these witnesses were foreigner having no motive to make a false report and to depose falsely so as to implicate the appellant.There exist a great deal of discrepancies in these reports vis-a-vis identification marks given by the witnesses which compel us to discard these reports or at least not to place implicit reliance upon them for the purpose of establishing the identity of these body parts as that of Namita.The majority of the samples were taken from the bathroom door on the side of the room in presence PWBG-27 Pissoort Jean.PWBG-17 Andre Armand, Honorary Professor at the University of Liege analysed and compared the blood samples collected at the time of autopsy with the traces collected from the suitcase.The traces of the blood found on the door behind the biddet and on the switch were of group 'O'.On a consideration of report Ext. PWBG-17/TA and the testimony of PWBG-17, the learned trial court reached the conclusion that the blood group of the blood stains recovered from different places of the bathroom of room No. 415 favorably matched with the blood group of the body parts of Namita.Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the report of PWBG-17 and his testimony in regard to the above examination and comparison of blood spots, and urged that in the first place the very recovery of such alleged blood stains etc. from the said bathroom itself is highly doubtful.In this regard he has referred to the testimony of PWBG-19, the manager of the hotel Arenberg in whose presence the blood stains were allegedly lifted.When cross-examined, the witness admitted that many tourists had occupied room No. 415 between 29-5-1979 and 12-61979 and that rooms are cleaned immediately on vacation by the guest.However, no tourist/guest ever complained of any blood spot though according to him a blood spot was present on the door lining.The first ever discovery of blood was stated to be on 12/13-6-1979 i.e. after about 14 days of the alleged incident.If the blood stains discovered and lifted from the bathroom were of a person who was killed on or around 28-5-1979, the same could not be of red or dark brown colour as stated by the witness rather its colour would turn to blackish brown.It has also been pointed out that there is great deal of doubt in regard to the date and time of lifting of these blood samples.In this regard learned counsel for the appellant has invited out attention to the seizure memo Ext. PWBG-14/TA which find mention of seizure of only five samples though it is alleged that eleven samples had been lifted.The learned counsel for the appellant has also assailed the blood examination report and the opinion of Prof. A. Andree on the ground that different values/characteristics as are stated to have been found in those blood spots vis-a-vis the sample blood group do not reconcile.In this regard we may refer to the results which are given in the following table:-Checkings Presence of Human Blood Groups Samplings Blood Origin ABO MN GM Method (S. appendix II) II-2 II-3 II-4 II-6 II-6 door casing yes yes Nihil door yes yes O behind bidet yes yes O M Nihil at the foot of bidet yes yes Nihil Nihil 1.10 at the bidet base probable yes Nihil Nihil 1.10 siphon of the flush no switch yes yes O Red suitcase yes yes ?Nihil Brown suitcase no Reminder Namita LOCHAB O M 1.10 Comments to the table The blood stains on the red suitcase reacted with the anti-A, anti-B and anti-H serums.But the samples; without blood stains also reacted, which can be due to the stuff of the suitcase (cardboard) or to sweat contaminations e.g. Very often, hands are placed on the edge of the suitcase at that spot.The group PGM/I was also searched for in the blood stains, but without result, owing to the insufficient quantity of blood.Conclusion The human remains identified as being of Namita Lochab belong to the following blood groups:O anti-A, anti-B M S+s= Gm (1,-2,10) PGM 1 AK 1"The above report/observation and conclusion would show that the report uses the term "Nihil" or "No" and also the question marks, blank spaces at various places which clearly indicate that the blood report is merely a comparison of the favorable characteristics.No explanation has been provided in regard to these terms and use thereof.It is pertinent to note that the above blood group taken by ABO method, they by Gm method but the above report at places does not mention the ABO matching but mention the Gm group which is lacking in its details.This would show that the unfavorable characters/factors detected during the course of examination have been suppressed.Another important aspect is that the prosecution has failed to establish by means of cogent and reliable evidence as to what was the blood group of Namita.PW-48 undoubtedly stated that her blood group was 'O' but he could not say if it was 'O' positive or 'O' negative.If we accept the testimony of PW-48 in regard to the blood group of Namita being 'O', it may be observed that as per the examining experts more than 50% population of Belgiam has 'O' Blood group.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that even this limb of the prosecution case has not been established by means of cogent and reliable evidence and it cannot be said that any blood stains which might have been left in the bathroom on or around 28-5-1979 were in fact collected by the investigating agency of Belgium on those dates and the blood group of the said sample matched with the blood group of Namita.Merely because a detailed examination of the blood group of the samples was conducted by a certain expert by using different method do not lend credibility to its authenticity and correctness.The prosecution has also relied upon the discovery of certain blood stains inside and outside of the suitcase Ext. CW26 which had been allegedly used for the carriage and disposal of the body parts.According to the prosecution case the appellant had returned to the house of the parents of Namita on 30-5-1979 along with two suitcases one of red card board Ext. CW26 and the other of brown colour suitcase Ext. CW 27 belonging to the appellant.The two sons of PWUK-1 and PW-48 were the persons who could have deposed in this regard but none of them has been examined.Surprisingly no seizure memo was prepared when these suitcases were seized by the police and it is sought to be explained that the factum of recovery of suitcases was reflected in the statement of PWUK-1 and a receipt was given to her which has not been produced on record.Similarly PWUK-2 in her examination-in-chief stated that the suitcase was recovered in June 1979 but in the cross-examination she could not maintain and stated that the same had been taken from the house in November 1984 without preparation of any seizure memo or documentation.According to the Investigating Officer PW-56 the suitcases were collected by him in unsealed condition from Belgium Investigating Authorities without a recovery memo.To us also, it seems to be rather highly improbable that the appellant would carry back an incriminating article like a big empty suitcase which he had used for the disposal of the body parts.The prosecution is silent as to what were the contents of suit case Ext. CW26 because a number of garments of Namita are stated to have been recovered along with the body parts.Even if we believe the prosecution version about the seizure of this suitcase, the report of the Pathological expert in regard to the examination of blood cannot be relied and acted upon for the same reason as we have noted earlier.Yet another circumstance heavily relied upon by the prosecution is the subsequent conduct of the appellant in running away from London after PW-48 had lodged a report at Atcon Police Station and thereafter his clandestine entry into India through Germany around 6-6-1979 and he having gone and remained underground almost for a period of four years uptil 9-5-1983 when he was arrested by the CBI.This points out to the guilty conscience of the appellant else he would have come out of his hiding to tell the truth if he had not done anything.9) The appellant did not like Pantry clerk (PWUK-24) to enter his room for taking the reading of the mini bar and for refilling the same against the consumed drinks in the refrigerator.10).On the morning of 29-05-1979 one rag picker noticed parts of a human body in container placed at Rue De Loxum and later the body parts viz. Head of which hair have been shaved, nose and lips had been cut, eye bros trimmed and with numerous vertical scars on the face, upper limbs in four pieces and lower limbs below knee level in two pieces of a human body were recovered by the Brussels Police but the recovery of any clothing and shoe etc., along with the body parts is doubtful.The postmortem examination report and the report of the Stomatologist do not inspire confidence because of the infirmities therein as noted by us and rather wholly insufficient to connect that the body parts could only belong to Namita.12) Similarly the identification of clothing made by PW-48 and PWUK-2 also fails to cogently establish that the clothing and the shoe belong to Namita.13) Though the defense plea of the appellant is that Namita had left him at about 6.30 A.M. with her belongings yet the appellant did not divulge this fact either to the Tour guide Richard Anthony Cushine, hotel management or staff.No he made any report with the police.He made no efforts to search Namita.15) The appellant visited the house of his in-laws with a suitcase where he was confronted about the whereabouts of Namita and he informed them that Namita had abandoned him at Brussels on the morning of 28-05-1979 and he was taken to Action Police Station where a missing persons report Ext.Therefore the appellant left the company of Jagdish Singh Lochab PW-48 and boarded a running bus.Namita was undoubtedly last seen in the company of the appellant when they retired to their room around mid night on 27-05-1979 and after that she was not seen alive till day even by those who are generally expected to know her whereabouts and therefore a presumption can safely be drawn under the Indian Evidence Act that she is no more in this world.The onus therefore lies on the appellant to show as to what has happened to Namita.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,083,896 |
(a) The accused no.1-Respondent no.1 is the father of accused nos.2 and 3-Respondent nos.2 and 3;(b) The daughter of accused no.1 was married to Gundu Satvekar (deceased).The deceased was residing at village Arjunwada.He was looking after his agricultural lands.The wife of the deceased was cultivating the said land by bringing some persons from the village of her parents namely Kardyal.However, Gundu (deceased) had objected for such an arrangement;(c) The wife of the deceased had brought persons from her parental village for agricultural work two days prior to the incident in question.The said persons were driven away by Gundu and he was annoyed with his wife;(d) The first informant is the brother-in-law of the deceased.There were repeated quarrels between Gundu and his wife.Gundu ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 ::: 3 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 was also suspecting the character of his wife and was annoyed with the engagement of persons from village Kardyal for cultivation of land by his wife;::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::(e) On 21 July 1996, the complainant was informed by one Parsu Satvekar that his brother-in-law Gundu is being assaulted by the accused and they have carried him by tying his hands and legs with the help of stick towards the area of village Kardyal;(f) The complainant approached the Police Patil of the village and informed him about the incident.Both of them proceeded to Police outpost and gave information about the incident.Police then tried to search the injured.He was found lying at some distance from the border of river.He had found sustained injuries on his person.The injured was admitted to hospital at Chikhali.The incident was then intimated to Murgud Police Station.The injured succumbed to the injuries.On the basis of statement of Dinkar Patil, First Information Report (`FIR') was registered vide CR No.38 of 1996 for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC;The investigating officer conducted the investigation.Statements of witnesses were recorded.He is also required to look after his widow daughter and her son.Accused nos.2 and 3 were young boys who were bachelors and aged about 24 and 20 years respectively.Accused did not intend to put an end to the life of the deceased and it can be gathered that at most, they intended to teach him a lesson on account of ill-treatment being given to his wife.The accused belongs to shepherd community and their financial condition is very poor.Date of Reserving the Judgment : 23rd June 2016 Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 8th August 2016 JUDGMENT - (Per : Prakash D. Naik, J.) :-This appeal is preferred by the Appellant-State of Maharashtra under Section 378(1) and 377(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Code').The Appellant also seeks enhancement of the sentence awarded by the said Court in the aforesaid judgment.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::On completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court and the case was committed thereafter to the Court of Sessions;The Sessions Judge framed the charge vide order dated 22 January 1997 against the Respondents.The charge was framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::4 of 24The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in support of its case.the prosecution examined three eye witnesses to the incident, viz. PW No.3 Dadasaheb Patil, PW No.4 Tanaji Satvekar and PW No.7 Smt.Tarubai Satvekar.Investigation was conducted by PW No.13 who submitted a report under Section 173 of the Code.The Additional Sessions Judge recorded evidence of the witnesses, exhibited relevant documents in evidence and also recorded statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code.The said Court convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 304, Part-II, of IPC.Accused no.1 was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.Accused nos.2 and 3 were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for eight months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each.The Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.However, in paragraph 102 of the judgment, it is observed that offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out and the case falls within the purview of Section 299 i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the accused could be convicted under Section 304, Part-II, of IPC.It was opined that there was no intention to kill the deceased by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::5 of 24 APEAL.325.1998The Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 105 of the judgment has assigned reasons for taking a lenient view on the sentence to be imposed upon the accused, who were convicted for the said offence.It is observed that there were no antecedent against the accused.Accused no.1 was aged about 60 years and he was a senior member of family.Accused nos.2 and 3 were bachelors and young boys.Accused belongs to shepherd community and are financially poor.Taking into consideration the said circumstances, a lenient view is being shown while awarding sentence to the accused.In view of the aforesaid judgment and order, the State had preferred an appeal and challenged the acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC and alternatively it was prayed that sentence imposed on the accused may be enhanced, in the event the appeal against acquittal is not allowed.We have heard learned APP for Appellant-State and learned counsel for Respondents.Hence, appeal as against Respondent no.1/accused no.1 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 ::: 6 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 stands abated.It is pertinent to note that the Respondents/accused had not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order convicting them for offence under Section 304, Part-II of IPC.However, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that he has a right to plead for acquittal even in the appeal preferred by the State.Learned counsel for Respondents took recourse to Section 377(3) of Code, which reads as follows :::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::It is categorically stated that the Court of Sessions or the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for reduction of the sentence.Present appeal was preferred by the State challenging acquittal under Section 302 of IPC as well as seeking enhancement of sentence vide Section 377 of the Code.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::7 of 24We have gone through the evidence on record which includes notes of evidence as well as documents exhibited by the Court.We have perused the evidence of witnesses.PW No.1 Baburao Lugde is a panch witness to the panchanama of the house of the deceased.PW No.2 Baliram Lugde was also examined as a panch witness for the recovery of clothes of the accused.PW No.3 Dadaso Patil is a paan shop vendor who is supposedly an eye witness of the incident of assault.PW No.4 Tanaji Satvekar is another paan shop vendor who is an eye witness to the incident.PW No.5 Haribhau Bainade is panch for the inquest panchanama.PW No.6 Parsharam Satvekar who had witnessed the injured lying at one end of the river being surrounded by three persons.He also gave opinion about injured being assaulted to the complainant.PW No.7 Smt.Tarubai Satavkar is the step mother of deceased and an eye witness to the incident.PW No.8 Parshu Satvekar saw the accused near injured person who was lying near the river.PW No.9 Dinkar Morey is the first informant who is related to the deceased.PW No.10 Mahadev Patil is Police Patil of the village who had assisted PW No.9 in lodging the complaint with Police.PW No.11 Dr.Vishwas Shinde admitted the victim in the hospital and treated him.He also conducted post mortem.PW No.12 Krishna Patil is Head Police Constable attached to Murgud Police Station and PW No.13 Rajendra Maney is PSI attached to Murgud Police Station, who conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet.We have heard Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, learned APP, for Appellant-State and Mr.Tejas Hilage appearing for Respondents/ accused.We have perused the evidence on record.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::302 of IPC and the Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused for the said charge;(e) The reasons assigned for showing leniency while imposing sentence upon accused, are not cogent and since the accused have committed heinous crime, they deserve to be punished accordingly.Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents-accused has made following submissions :(a) Both the accused have not preferred an appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction under ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 ::: 9 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 Section 304, Part-II of IPC and they are entitled to plead for acquittal by invoking Section 377(3) of the Code;::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::(b) The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond doubt and the accused ought to have been acquitted;(c) The evidence of the witnesses is concocted and the fact that it is contradictory to each other, shows that the witnesses are not speaking the truth;(d) The evidence of eye witnesses does not inspire confidence and the said witnesses ought not to have been believed by the Trial Court;(e) Assuming that conviction under Section 304, Part-II of IPC is maintained, the sentence imposed upon the accused is adequate and the same should not be interfered with after a lapse of long period of time.The sentence is justifiable in the facts and circumstances of present case;(f) The prosecution has not put forth any evidence of any person from village Kardyal.The relation between persons from Kardyal including the complainant, near relatives of the deceased and his wife were strained.All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are from same village where the complainant and other witnesses are residing;::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::help the prosecution.The witness is not sure as to which injuries are ante mortem and post mortem;(h) The real FIR in the present case was not placed before the Court.The FIR relied upon by prosecution is the second one;(i) There are several infirmities in the prosecution case and the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused;The Trial Court had appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and has given the findings by assigning cogent reasons.We find that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses and the documents on record while convicting the accused for offence under Section 304, Part-II of IPC.The submissions made by defence counsel that the accused ought to have been acquitted, are devoid of any merits.It is true that the accused has a right to plead for acquittal in an appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of punishment vide amended Section 377(3) of the Code.The medical officer who is PW No.11 has deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased.It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court has believed the evidence of said witnesses, but instead of convicting the accused for the offence of murder under Section 302 of IPC, they were convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::On scanning the evidence it is apparent that PW No.3 Dadaso Patil is an eye witness to the incident.He has attributed overt acts to the accused.The defence has not been able to demolish his evidence in the cross examination.The witness, however, has not attributed specific overt act to the accused.According to him, the accused were beating the deceased.Accused no.1 was holding a stick and two other accused were holding a stick and iron bar respectively.PW No.4 Tanaji Satvekar is a paan shop vendor from the village and an eye witness to the incident.He deposed that accused have entered the house of Gundu (deceased).They started assaulting him and on hearing the shouts, he went to the house of the deceased.The evidence of PW No.7 Tarubai Satavkar also inspires confidence.She is step mother of the deceased.She is an eye witness of the incident.She referred to the assault by the accused, although no specific overt act has been attributed to them.She has referred to weapons used by the accused.PW No.8 had seen the accused near the injured person.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::12 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 PW No.9 is the brother-in-law of the deceased who lodged the FIR after intimating about the incident to PW No.10 who is Police Patil of the village.The evidence of PW No.10 clearly states that he along with PW No.9 had proceeded to police station and set law into motion.There is no reason to doubt the veracity of evidence of the said witness.From the nature of evidence brought on record, we are of the opinion that the accused are responsible for the death of deceased Gundu.We are posed with a question whether sentence imposed by the Trial Court is adequate in the event of confirming the conviction under Section 304, Part-II of IPC and whether after a long gap of time we should interfere with the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.The Trial Court in paragraph 102 of the judgment has dealt with the question as to whether the guilt of the accused attracts provisions of Section 302 of IPC or otherwise.Accused nos.2 and 3 were his brother-in-laws.Prior to occurrence of incident in question, there were quarrels between the deceased Gundu and his wife and the parents of wife of the deceased were annoyed.It is further observed that there is every possibility that immediately on the next day morning, the accused had come to the house of the deceased to teach him lesson.If at all there was any intention to commit murder of Gundu, the accused would not have left him in injured condition.There was no intention of the accused ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 ::: 13 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 to cause death of the deceased.There was no reason to commit murder of the son-in-law or brother-in-law by the accused.The Court further observed that there were injuries on the person of the deceased.However, no vital part of the body was damaged and the deceased died on account of severe bleeding from the injuries.It is further observed that injuries found on the person of the deceased show that accused had a knowledge that injuries may cause death of the deceased.The case, therefore, falls within the purview of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and particularly Section 304, Part-II of IPC, as there was no intention to kill the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::The Trial Court after giving finding of fact under Section 304, Part-II of IPC, has further taken into consideration the aspect of sentence to be imposed upon accused.On the basis of said observations, the Trial Court had imposed the sentence as appearing in the operative part of the order.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::14 of 24We do not find any infirmity in the findings given by the Trial Court that offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out but accused deserve to be convicted under Section 304, Part-II of IPC.The cause of quarrel is apparently deployment of workers from village of wife of the deceased by her for the purpose of cultivation of the agricultural land.It is also on record that the deceased was suspecting the character of his wife Taibai.The prosecution has not established strong motive for committing the murder of the deceased.However, the circumstances would show that the accused wanted to teach him a lesson.There is no evidence on record to show that accused had visited the village armed with weapons to commit murder of the deceased.No specific overt act is being attributed to the accused.Serious injuries are not inflicted on the vital parts of the body of deceased.From the evidence of PW No.11 Dr.Vishwas Shinde, it is apparent that he had examined the deceased while he was admitted in the hospital and then conducted the post mortem after his death.He has stated that the victim had succumbed to the injuries after he was admitted in the hospital.From his evidence it is brought on record that the deceased has sustained eleven injuries which included CLW over various parts of the body, which are not vital and one incised wound over the abdomen.It is deposed that injury nos.1 to 8 may be caused by hard and bounded object and injury no.9 can be caused by hard and long object.Similarly injury no.10 may be caused by hard and bounded object.The cause of death was mentioned as shock due to severe blood hemorrhage from wounds.The deceased has died because of severe bleeding through the injuries.He further deposed that injury ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 ::: 15 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 nos.1 to 8 are possible by stick used in th crime and injury no.9 is also possible with the stick used in the crime.He further opined that injuries are sufficient to cause death.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::Even no fracture was detected.There was no major vascular damage.All the important internal organs were intact and the injuries were skin deep.Injury no.10 was also superficial.It is pertinent to note that injury no.10 was an incised wound over abdomen.He further deposed that in the post mortem report, he has not mentioned presence of bleeding against the injuries.In case of forcible blow, there may be possibility of echimosseses.No such mention is there against any injury.He has not mentioned in the post mortem report as to whether injuries were ante mortem or post mortem.The incised wounds were caused by sharp and cutting instrument and in this case it may have been caused by sharp and cutting instrument.On perusal of the post mortem report it could be seen that opinion as to the cause of death is mentioned as shock due to cardio respiratory failure due to dypovolvemia due to severe blood hemorrhage due to wound.Taking into consideration the evidence of witnesses, the nature of overt act attributed to the accused, the nature of weapons used in the crime and circumstances under which the alleged incident had occurred, it cannot be said that there was any intention to commit offence of murder.The requisite ingredients to constitute offence of ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 ::: 16 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 murder as incorporated under Section 300 of IPC are absent.The motive for the incident is engaging labours from the village of accused by the daughter of accused no.1, who was wife of the deceased and also that the deceased was suspecting the character of his wife.From the facts it does not appear that the accused had arrived at the village of the deceased with an intention to commit murder.They would not have left the deceased in injured condition if they had intention to kill him.The purport appears to be to teach him a lesson.The cause of death primarily appears to be on account of severe bleeding through the wounds sustained by the deceased.It can be said that while inflicting injuries, they could have a knowledge that the act done by them is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death.The offence would, therefore, fall under Section 304, Part-II of IPC.We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the finding of Trial Court that offence under Section 302 of IPC is not made out and that accused could be convicted for offence under Section 304, Part-II of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::Learned APP submitted that even though conviction under Section 304, Part-II of IPC is confirmed, the sentence imposed on the accused is inadequate and they deserve severe punishment as their act has resulted into death of the deceased.The accused had mercilessly assaulted the deceased and therefore, the meager sentence imposed by the Trial Court is not compatible with the crime committed by them.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::17 of 24We have perused the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for taking a lenient view while imposing sentence in paragraph 105 of the impugned judgment.The learned counsel for Respondents submitted that the accused-Respondents had undergone the sentence imposed upon them.The accused nos.2 and 3 i.e. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were young boys at the time of incident.In the light of these circumstances, it could be appropriate to analyse whether there is necessity to interfere in the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.Learned counsel for Respondent nos.2 and 3 prayed for leniency in awarding sentence and submitted that sentence imposed by the Trial Court may not be disturbed at this stage.They have undergone the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.The Trial Court has assigned reasons for taking a lenient view while imposing the sentence.The accused are now settled in their life and sending them to jail now, would cause hardships to them and their families.In the said case the accused was convicted for offence under Section 304, Part-II of IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous 1 1994-AIR(SC)-113 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 ::: 18 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- by the Trial Court.The said decision was challenged in the High Court.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::However, the High Court found that there was no scope for interference with the conviction.However, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone and fine was enhanced from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.4,000/-.The State has challenged the sentence imposed to the accused by preferring an appeal before the Apex Court.The Court was pleased to maintain the sentence which was already undergone by the accused and imposed additional fine upon them.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::21 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 In other decisions referred to hereinabove also, in the facts of the said cases, a lenient view was taken by the Courts taking into consideration similar circumstances.The accused did not prefer an appeal against the said sentence which was undergone by them.Accused nos.2 and 3 were young boys at the time of incident.The accused have settled in life.No criminal history is reported against them other than this crime either prior to the commission of the subject offence or post conviction.The reasons given by the Trial Court are not happily worded but we have taken into consideration the fact that even after the Trial Court judgment is delivered, eighteen years have passed and it would be inappropriate to disturb the living of the Respondents-accused.The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs.State (Delhi Administration)2 has held that a long protracted litigation is some 2 (1980)2-SCC-282 ::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 ::: 22 of 24 APEAL.325.1998 deterrent for a young man in his twenties.The accused in the said case was about 19 years of age.The Apex Court further took into consideration the fact that he was married and has three children.On thoughtful consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused, we find some justification in the submission.The accused were young boys at the time of incident.The deceased was the husband of their sister and they had rallied to commit the alleged crime along with their father.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::However, ends of justice would meet by enhancing the fine.We propose to direct the Respondent nos.2 and 3 to pay additional fine amount.In view of the above discussion, we pass following order :(i) The appeal as against Respondent no.1 (Accused No.1) stands abated;and also challenging enhancement of sentence to the extent of imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court, stands dismissed;(iv) The judgment and order of conviction under Section 304 of IPC stands confirmed;::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::are directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- each towards sentence of fine for conviction under Section 304, Part-II of IPC (over and above whatever has been paid already by them).In default, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.The payment shall be made within three months from today;(vi) Fine, if recovered, may be paid to the children of the deceased and, if there be none, to the wife of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 09/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 10/08/2016 00:36:56 :::
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,252,013 |
(Subhash Kakade) Judge.None for the petitioner.Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.The facts in brief are that on 01.03.13 at about 6 PM while the prosecutrix was returning after completing her duty from Pitambar Budhwani Hospital where she was working as 2 Cri.Revision No.405 of 2014 a Nurse, near the station square, petitioner caught hold the hands of the prosecturix, asked her to marry with him, and used criminal force with an intention to outrage her modesty.FIR (Ex.P/1) was registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.132/13 under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC at PS-Kotwali, District-Damoh.2 Cri.Revision No.405 of 2014Learned trial Court framed charge punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner who abjured his guilt; therefore, he was put to trial.In order to bring home the charges against petitioner, the prosecution has examined five witnesses, namely, prosecutrix (PW.1), sister of the prosecutrix Rajni (PW.2), A.S.I. Ramlakhan Rajoriya (PW.3), Ravi Nema (PW.4), and A.S.I. M.L.Choudhary (PW.5), and exhibited five documents to prove its case.During the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied all the evidence put forth against him and pleaded innocence.The learned CJM found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC and in appeal, learned Appellate Court has maintained the conviction of petitioner under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.Aggrieved thereby, this revision has been filed by the petitioner.3 Cri.Revision No.405 of 2014Rajni (PW.2) and Ravi (PW.4) have not supported the version of the prosecution which fact is also mentioned in judgment during para 11 by the learned trial Court.It is also averred that prosecution has totally failed to prove the case against the petitioner.Finally, it is prayed that revision be allowed and the petitioner be acquitted.Learned PL appearing for respondent/State has submitted that after due appreciation of prosecution evidence, the learned Courts below have found the offence proved against the petitioner, hence no interference is required to be made in this revision.After hearing learned PL for the respondent/State, perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313 of the Code, and also perused the documents produced by the defence; and the impugned judgments.After reflecting over the matter, I am implicitly satisfied that on merits, the 4 Cri.Revision No.405 of 2014 conviction of the petitioner under Section 354 of the IPC, warrants interference.4 Cri.Revision No.405 of 2014Prior to discuss in details the prosecution evidence, it is apparent from perusal of record that petitioner was initially arrested on dated 3.3.13 and on next day i.e. on 4.3.13 he was enlarged on bail.In light of impugned judgment dated 18.02.14 of learned appellate Court, the petitioner was again brought under custody to serve out the remaining period of awarded jail sentence and his period of sentence was suspended after 48 days vide order dated 4.4.14 of the Court.Before discussing the depositions of the prosecutrix (PW.1) and other prosecution witnesses, following facts require no repetition :-(i) That, examination-in-chief of 20 years' old prosecutrix (PW.1) was recorded on dated 28.06.13, and for the reasons mentioned in the order sheet, her cross-examination was suspended.(ii) That, on dated 3.7.13, the prosecutrix (PW.1) appeared in the dock with a compromise application , and learned trial Court on the factum of compromise acquitted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 506-B of IPC.However, trial was directed to be continued with respect to offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.(iii) Thereafter on the same day during cross- examination, the prosecutrix does not stated any fact against the petitioner with regard to use of criminal force to outrage her modesty.5 Cri.Revision No.405 of 2014(iv) Learned trial Court, adopting some different procedure, allowed the prosecutor to ask leading questions from the prosecutrix, and during these, she again stated that the petitioner used criminal force to outrage her modesty.(vi) Before learned appellate Court, the appeal was agitated only on the ground that the awarded sentence period be reduced, but appeal was dismissed by learned appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 18.02.14."Learned trial Court in para 8 and onwards discussed the above mentioned facts and circumstances and found that hostility of the prosecutrix (PW.1) on dated 3.7.13 was the result of compromise.Whatever may be the reasons, but, it is crystal clear that the prosecutrix (PW.1) during her cross- examination does not supported the case of prosecution.In light of these contradictory statements, benefit of doubt certainly will go in favour of the petitioner, hence the conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Court and upheld by learned appellate Court cannot be maintained.Apart from above, it is pertinent to mention here that other prosecution witnesses Rajni (PW.2) sister of the prosecutrix, Ravi Nema (Pw.4) have also not supported the case of the prosecution even during leading questions.Statements of ASI Ramlakhan (PW.3) and ASI M.L.Choudhary (PW.5) are of formal in nature.6 Cri.Revision No.405 of 20146 Cri.Revision No.405 of 2014In view of aforesaid discussion, this revision is allowed.The impugned judgment dated 18.02.14 passed in Cri.Appeal No.179/13 and the judgment passed in Criminal Case No.354/13 by learned CJM, Damoh dated 27.09.13 are hereby set aside.Petitioner Neetesh is acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC.The petitioner is on bail.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,226,057 |
O RD E R (Order of the Court was made by T. RA J A , J. ) The petitioner is the detenu and challenging the legality of the impugned order of detention dated 27.06.2019, passed by the second respondent, under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) and branding him as 'Goonda' in No.7/BCDFGISSSV/2019, came forward to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 27.06.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu, viz.,Sinoth came to the adverse notice in the following three cases:-Station Cr.Sathankulam Police U/s 302 I.P.C. altered into 147, 148, 294(b), 302 Station Cr.No.131 of 2018 I.P.C. r/w 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 altered into 147, 148, 294(b), 302 I.P.C. altered into 294(b), 302 and 114 I.P.C.Palayamkottai Police U/s 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 506(ii) I.P.C. altered Station Cr.No.190 of 2019 into 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C.It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was involved in a case for the commission of offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387, 307, 506(ii) I.P.C. in Palayamkottai Police Station Crime No.296 of 2019 (ground case).The detenu was arrested on 22.06.2019 and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention and making a challenge to the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.3.We have heard Mr.B a s u v .Accordingly, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to fall.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 H.C.P(MD)No.605 of 2019Consequently, the detenu, namely, Sinoth, son of Chandrasekar, aged about 25 years, who is now detained at Palayamkottai Central Prison is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.3.The Superintendent, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 H.C.P(MD)No.605 of 2019 T. RA J A , J .A ND B .P U G A L E N DHI , J .4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.1 2. 2 0 1 9http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,274,489 |
Shri C.P.S Parmar, panel lawyer for the respondent no.2 State.In aforesaid circumstances, respondent no.1 shall be deemed to have been served.Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner Manoj Tiwari in Criminal Case No.15/2017 registered by JMFC, Jatara, District- Tikamgarh under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307, 323, 324, 324/34, 149 and 506-B of the IPC.Since no one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to oppose the application, for the reasons stated in the order dated 10.03.2017, this petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sh
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,284,940 |
Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 3.9.2020 S.Chaurasia
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,289,700 |
Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.554/2018 registered by Police Station Amarwada, District Chhindwara under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 07.11.2018 at about 08:00 am deceased Santram Verma, aged about 45 years was found dead in the field of co-accused persons at village Lehangdua, Goughat under the jurisdiction of Police Station Amarwada, District Chhindwara.On the information of Mahendra Verma, son of deceased marg intimation was registered.During the course of enquiry it was found that co-accused Shivkali Bai, wife of deceased and Mahendra Verma, (co-accused) have killed the deceased.Later on, they have called applicant Gajendra Verma, who is son-in- law of deceased to dispose of his dead body and with his help they have taken the dead body from the place of incidence to Goughat road, village Lehangdua and threw it on the way.On that basis, crime under aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted that the applicant has been made accused on the basis of his Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 04/02/2019 23:17:39 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-2535-2019 (GAJENDRA VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 memorandum.There are no direct or indirect evidence was found against the present applicant.There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the application.On perusal of the case diary, it seems that the applicant has been arrayed in the list of accused on the basis of memorandum.No direct evidence seems to be there against him.The only allegation against the applicant is to dispose off the dead body of the deceased after his murder by the co-accused.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, allegation made against the applicant and also looking to the period of detention of the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Gajendra Verma, is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 04/02/2019 23:17:39 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-2535-2019 (GAJENDRA VERMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 04/02/2019 23:17:39
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,291,269 |
3 Cr.R.No.614.2019Hence, the impugned order be set-aside and the applicant be discharged.Learned Government Advocate as well as learned coun- sel appearing on behalf of objector have contended that the applicant has got the licence renewed on the basis of submitting false statement or information thereby he is responsible for deceptive practice, on ac- count of which, the licensing authority renewed the licence.Therefore, the aforesaid document would come in the purview of forged docu- ment.Hence, the petition be dismissed.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,229,437 |
He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.This appeal under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed against the order dated 10/07/2017 passed by Special Judge [Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Gwalior by which the anticipatory bail of the appellant was rejected.The appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.260/2017 registered by Police Station Inderganj, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 323, 294 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)3(1)(Da)(Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that it is clear from the FIR that no specific words were mentioned in the FIR which may indicate that the complainant was humiliated or insulted by calling her by her caste name.So far as the other offences under IPC are concerned, they are bailable.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing 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 Arresting Authority (Investigating Officer).The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.