id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
62,514,080 |
2/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 COMMON JUDGMENT B.PUGALENDHI, J., Crl.Since both the appeals are arising out of the very same sessions case, they are heard together and are disposed off by way of this common order.The Sessions Case in S.C.No.145 of 2015 pertains to the case in Crime No.38 of 2011, on the file of the Srivaikundam Police Station, Thoothukudi.The brief facts of the case, as projected by the prosecution, in nutshell are as follows:The deceased, namely, Mayandi and the accused are relatives and are residents of Velloor, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi District.There existed an enmity between the 1st accused and the deceased, since the deceased put up fencing preventing the 1st accused to access his plantain field.On 17.02.2011, at about 11.30 pm, when PWs 1 to 3 and the deceased were chatting in front of the house of PW1, the deceased received a 4/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 phone call from the 1st accused questioning his whereabouts.The deceased replied his location and a little later, the accused persons, armed with Aruval, came to the place of occurrence and on the instigation of the accused 2 to 5, the first accused cut the deceased on his head and neck.On witnessing this incident, PWs 1 to 3 raised hue and cry and the accused persons flew away from the scene of occurrence.The Doctor, who examined the deceased, informed PW1 that the deceased was already dead.Thereafter, PW1 went to the Srivaikundam Police Station and lodged the complaint [Ex.P1].The Sub Inspector of Police [PW15], on receipt of the complaint, has registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2011 at about 01.45 am, against accused 1 to 5, for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC.The printed First Information Report is marked as Ex.5/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The Inspector of Police [PW16], on receipt of the intimation, has proceeded to the place of occurrence and has prepared the observation mahazar [Ex.P2] and rough sketch [Ex.He has also recovered cement mortars with and without blood [MOs.2 & 3, respectively] from the place of occurrence and also a Cell Phone with bloodstains [MO4].The Inspector of Police has also conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatars, on 18.02.2011 at about 05.30 am and the inquest report is marked as Ex.A deep puncture wound size about 2 x 7 x 2 cm over right inner side of thigh.Internal Examination:Neck Hyoid bone intact larynx and Trachea.(Torn) Normal stomach empty, Heart empty & pale, Lung, Liver, Kidney, Spleen – pale.No injures to Rib.7/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.PW16, on 19.02.2011, arrested the accused in front of Isakiamman Temple, in the presence of Village Administrative Officer [PW10] and Village Assistant [PW11].He examined the first accused separately and the first accused gave a confession statement and the admissible portion of the confession statement is marked as Ex.Pursuant to the confession statement, PW16 recovered the weapons used for the crime [5 Aruvals – MO1] and a white colour shirt with bloodstains [MO9], from a bush.8/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 Crl.COMMON PRAYER: Appeals filed under Sections 378(1)(b) and 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively, to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.145 of 2015 on the file of the 1st Additional District Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, dated 10.03.2017 and set aside the order of acquittal.Originally, there were five accused and even before charges were framed, the fifth accused, namely, Muthusamy, 3/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 died.As against the other accused, the trial Court has framed charges as detailed below:After full fledged trial, the Trial Court, by order dated 10.03.2017, acquitted the accused from all the charges framed against them.As against the order of acquittal, both the State as well as PW4, who is the brother of the deceased, have preferred the present appeals.Thereafter, he made a request to the Doctor [PW9], Government Hospital, Srivaikundam, for postmortem, through the Constable [PW14].The Doctor [PW9] conducted the postmortem on 18.02.2011 at about 11.45 am and noted down the following injuries:“List of External Injuries:mandible to above C7 verbral (torn) minance wound 6/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 also extended to 6 cm below angle of mandible size 25 x 10 x 4 cm.Underlying all vital Blood vessel cut.Spinal cord cut.A deep cut injury size 23 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm over middle of scalp underlying parital bone fracture and Brain Haemorrhage underlying fracture.A cut injury 5 x 2 x 1 cm over left parital region.A small cut injury 3 x 2 x 1 cm over left parital region.The further investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police [PW17] from 11.03.2011 and he examined the remaining witnesses and the Doctor [PW9] who conducted the postmortem and made a request for chemical analysis on the material objects recovered in this case.Pending investigation, the fifth accused died and PW17, in conclusion of the investigation, filed the final report as against the accused 1 to 4, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC.On the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined and 18 exhibits were marked and 9 materials objects were produced.The available evidences from the prosecution side are as follows:i) PW1 is the author of the complaint [Ex.P1] and he was a friend of the deceased and in front of his house, the occurrence had taken place.He speaks about the occurrence as well as the examination of the deceased by the Doctor on 18.02.2011 at about 01.10 am and the lodging of the complaint [Ex.P1] before the Sub Inspector of Police [PW15].iii) PW4 is the brother of the deceased and he speaks about the motive part.According to him, he heard the noise and on coming out of the house, he witnessed the deceased with blood and the accused persons leaving with 9/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 weapons.iv) PW5 is the wife of PW1 and according to her, when she was inside her house, she heard the noise and on coming out of the house, she witnessed the deceased lying down in bloodstream and the accused persons leaving with weapons.vi) PW7 & PW8 are the witness to the observation mahazar [Ex.P2] as well as the recovery of material objects [MOs.2 & 3].vii) PW9 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased.viii) PW10 is the Village Administrative Officer and PW11 is the Village Assistant.They speak about the arrest of the accused as well as the confession statement given by them.ix) PW12 is the Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam and he speaks about the receipt of requisition letter from the investigating officer for chemical analysis of the material objects as well as the letter forwarded from the Judicial Magistrate Court for 10/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 chemical analysis.xi) PW14 is the Constable who handed over the body of the deceased along with requisition letter to the Medical Officer for postmortem and after postmortem, collected the material objects and handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased.xii) PW15 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint [Ex.P1] and lodged the first information report.xiii) PW16 is the investigation officer who conducted the preliminary investigation and arrested the accused.xiv) PW17 speaks about the further investigation and the filing of final report.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the same.On the 11/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 side of the accused, no witness was examined, but, four documents [Ex.D1 to Ex.D4] were marked on their behalf.In conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge, holding that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted the accused.Heard Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant in Crl.A. (MD)No.181 of 2017 / first respondent in Crl.A.(MD)No.199 of 2017; Mr.V.Angusamy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.199 of 2017; and Mr.AR.Jeyarhuthran, learned Counsel appearing for the accused persons.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State / appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.181 of 2017 and the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No.199 of 2017, in unison, have raised the following points for the consideration of this Court: 12/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The trial Court has held that motive has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, since none of the witnesses had deposed that they have knowledge about the motive at the time of occurrence.But, the fact remains it is a case of direct evidence and therefore, motive is insignificant.In the observation mahazar [Ex.P2] as well as rough sketch [Ex.P16], prepared by PW16, the existence of street light, near the place of occurrence, was proved.The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is clear and cogent that while they were having conversation in front of the house of PW1, all the accused came together and caused multiple injuries and thereby, caused death of the deceased.The accused, deceased and the eye witnesses are from the same village.Since the accused are known persons and direct evidence is available, failure to examine the Electricity Board officials as to the functioning of street light is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.13/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.There is no contradiction between the evidence of eye witnesses with regard to the persons committed the offence and the way in which it was committed.On a shock, they took the deceased to the Hospital.Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have given a finding that the number of assailants is doubtful, based on the Accident Register [Ex.D4], wherein it has been stated that seven persons were involved in the offence.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused has made his submissions supporting the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.A(MD)No.181/17 accused persons flew away from the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful.The learned Counsel further pointed out that PW3, in his evidence, has deposed that the police has arrived within half an hour after the occurrence and recorded the statements and thereafter, helped them to send the deceased in Ambulance to the Hospital.This statement is in contradictory to the evidence of PWs 1 &Though PWs 1 to 3 were said to have taken the deceased to the Hospital and their cloths were also stained with blood, no bloodstained cloths were recovered from them.The trial Court has rightly questioned the presence of light at the place of occurrence as well as the variation as to the number of assailants involved in the case.Moreover, the entire case of the prosecution starts from a phone call alleged to have made by the first accused to the deceased at the odd hours on the date of occurrence.But, no call details were collected to establish their case.Therefore, the learned Counsel prays for dismissal of the appeals.(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.”The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 on the ground that there are contradictions among their evidence as to the arrival of '108' Ambulance and that though the cloths of PWs 1 to 3, while taking the deceased to the Hospital, have got bloodstains, the same were not recovered from them.The occurrence took place at about 11.30 pm on 17.02.2011 in front of the PW1's house.PWs 1 & 2 took the deceased by availing the services of '108' Ambulance.The Doctor, who attended the deceased at Government Hospital, Srivaikundam, has recorded that the deceased was brought by PW2 on 18.02.2011 at about 01.10 am.Neither the Doctor, who attended the deceased, was examined by the prosecution nor the Accident Register issued by him was marked by them.However, the accused has marked the Accident Register issued by the Doctor as defence witness in Ex.A perusal of the Accident Register [Ex.D4] reveals that the deceased was referred with a police memo and it is recorded as follows:“Police Memo Details: Alleged H/o assault by seven known male persons by Aruval in front of Durai's house (Durai (A) Muthuraj) in Velloor on 17.02.11 at around 11.30 pm.”“The Madras Medical Code (Vol.I) Section 10 paragraph-622 gives guidelines or instructions to the doctor as to how the columns in wound certificate are to be filled up.Para-622 (vi) reads:“Medical officer should ascertain and incorporate in the certificate only the alleged cause as to the manner in which the injuries were inflicted, the weapon used and the time.” The Medical Officer should ascertain the cause of the injury, weapon used, time, etc. thereby showing no power is vested upon the Medical Officer, to ascertain from the injured or the person accompanied the injured, who is the cause for the assault, whether it is known or unknown even.The doctor is concerned, to 21/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 ascertain and incorporate in the certificate, how the injuries were inflicted and what is the weapon used, including the time, so as to find out, at later point of time, whether the injury would have been caused by the weapon produced on behalf of the prosecution said to have been used by the assailants on the basis of the recovery, if any.But the fact remains, according to PW1, immediately after the occurrence, he called '108' Ambulance service and took the deceased to the Hospital and only thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged the complaint.Whereas, the Accident Register [Ex.D4] reveals that the deceased was referred with a police memo.In fact, according to PW3, within half an hour after the occurrence, police came to the place of occurrence and they only arranged for sending the deceased to the Hospital.The Accident Register [Ex.D4] was recorded on 18.02.2011 at 01.10 am and the First Information Report was registered on 18.02.2011 at 22/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 01.45 am.This creates a serious doubt on the prosecution case.Curiously, the prosecution has also neither marked the Accident Register nor examined the Doctor, who attended the deceased.The investigation officer, though said to have visited the land, has not prepared any sketch or mahazar or examined any witness as to whether actually there was any fencing preventing the first accused from accessing his land.It is the case of the prosecution that all the five accused, armed with Aruval, went to the place of occurrence, but, the first accused alone caused the injury and the other accused instigated him to commit the offence.The accused have also marked the medical certificates of the first and third accused showing that they were disabled by 45% and it is argued that it is very difficult for them to walk and therefore, it may not be possible for them to fled away from the place of occurrence, as projected by the prosecution.Moreover, though PWs 1 to 3 were present in the place of occurrence, they neither attempted to prevent the occurrence nor attempted to nab them.Moreover, the PWs 1 to 3, who took the deceased to the Hospital, stated that their cloths also stained with blood, but, no bloodstained cloths were recovered from them.The occurrence was taken place at 11.30 pm.Though the presence of street light at the place of occurrence has been referred in the observation mahazar 24/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 and in the rough sketch, the prosecution has not established whether it was in a working condition.Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.1)The 1st Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi.2)The Inspector of Police, Srivaikundam Police Station, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi District.3)The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.25/26http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)No.181/17 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., and B.PUGALENDHI, J., gk
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,520,101 |
I. The anticipatory bail applications Nos. 790 of 2019, 822 of 2019 and 824 of 2019 are hereby allowed.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2019 02:41:02 :::aba790.19 -5- II.In the event of arrest, the applicant Gajendra s/o Kamajirao Gadekar in anticipatory bail application No. 790 of 2019, the applicant Sachin Mohanrao Morkhande in anticipatory bail application No. 822 of 2019 and the applicants (1) Ramkishan s/o Vyankat Chaudhary and (2) Ramjivan s/o Shivappa Telang, in anticipatory bail application No. 824 of 2019 in connection with crime No. 0235 of 2019 registered with Vivekanand Chowk police station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/.w. 34 of I.P.C. be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount on following conditions:-a) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 8.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till filing of charge sheet.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2019 02:41:02 :::
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,252,194 |
The application is hereby allowed.Surekha w/o Maruti Chobe,Dr. Kuldeep s/o Pandurang Bawale in connection with Crime No.82 of 2019 registered with Bhoom Police Station, District Osmanabad for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 327, 324, 336, 323, 504, 506 of aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 06:48:50 :::Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.( V. K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 06:48:50 :::
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,522,803 |
The prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate deposed that Pappu had caught hold her hand and another co- accused Ramavtar who is son of Pappu closed his mouth and both had taken her into his house and committed rape with her.Thereafter, Pappu had told her to marry with his son.Thereafter, she is taken to Jhansi when she was going to Jhansi she get down from the motorbike and reached the house of her sister and reported the matter to the husband of her sister.The report was lodged at Police Station Surkhi on 1.12.2015 after a period of nearabout 7 days.The mother of the present applicant and the prosecutrix was working in a self-help group of cooking food.There appears to be parity between the present applicant and another co- accused who has been enlarged on bail.The PL has opposed the bail application.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,528,875 |
And In the matter of : Azim Sk. & Anr Petitioners Mr. Jisan Iqbal Hossain.Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Daulatabad Police Station FIR No 106 of 2016 dated 28.06.2016 under Sections 148/149/341/353/323/224/216/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Dipankar Datta, J.) 2 (Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,535,495 |
Counsel for the parties state that with the intervention of common friends and community elders, the parties have arrived at an out-of-court settlement of all their outstanding disputes by way of a Compromise Deed dated 13th May, 2014 duly executed by the petitioners and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein and annexed as Annexure 'B- Colly' to the present writ petition.The salient terms and conditions as enshrined in the said Compromise Deed are as follows:-The offence alleged to have been committed in the subject FIR are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Jamal Akhtar and Mr. Shekha, Advocates SI Kulvir Singh, P.S Shahbad Dairy CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No. 632/2013, under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station- Shahbad Dairy, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.The subject FIR came to be registered as an offshoot of a dispute between the petitioners herein and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein qua a plot of land bearing no. 37/3 situated within revenue estate of Village Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 1 of 6 Barwala, Delhi and the area presently known as Nanesh Enclave, Jain Colony, F- Block, Gali No. 3, Delhi.Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 1 of 6That it is agreed between both the parties that the Second Party will pay the total amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- only (Rs. Ten Lacs only) to the first party in the name of Smt. Meena Gupta at the time of signing of this Compromise Deed/MOU.That after receiving the Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only), the first party shall not have any grievance or grudges against the second party with regard to the complaint case titles as Sangam Tripathi vs. Jitender Pandey & Ors., PS Shahbad Dairy CC No. 11/SC/13 and case FIR No. 632/13 dated 25/11/2013, U/s 420 IPC registered at P.S. Shahbad Dairy.2. That it is agreed between the parties that the first party will cooperate second party in their bail application in FIR No. 632/13 and shall not oppose same as all the issues and grievances mentioned in the FIR No. 632/13, with regard to land measuring two bighas bearing no. 37/3 situated within revenue estate of Village Barwala, Delhi and the area presently known as Nanesh Enclave, Jain Colony, Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 2 of 6 F- Block, Gali No. 3, Delhi, have already been settled against the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs only)Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 2 of 6That it is also agreed between the parties that no party will claim anything against each other or raise any dispute against each other with regard to the aforesaid litigation as the dispute concerning the aforesaid litigation have already been resolved/compromised amicably in presence of family members/friends of both the parties and first party undertake not to raise any issue with each other regard to land measuring two bighas bearing no. 37/3 situated within revenue estate of Village Barwala, Delhi and the area presently known as Nanesh Enclave, Jain Colony, F- Block, Gali No. 3, Delhi in future against the second party except that of any surplus land/untitled/unclaimed/encroached/vacant land if found within the part of Khasra No. 37/3 owned by others then the first party shall have right to occupy the same and second party shall not make any objection/oppose in any manner with regard to that piece of land and will rather cooperate in getting possession of same to 1st party.The second party has no objection of the same if original given to the 1st party.That both the parties do not want to proceed further against each other as all their disputes, grudges and differences have already been sorted out amicably out of court.That now with the intervention of family friends, well wishers and senior citizen of the locality, both the parties Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 3 of 6 have reached to an amicable settlement on their own accord, free will and consent without any pressure and coercion.Now there is no other disputes or grievances remained between the parties, as all the disputes have been sorted out.Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 3 of 6That if any party fails to comply the terms and conditions of this compromise deed then other party have right to take appropriate and necessary legal action against the party in fault as per law."Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that in pursuance to the said Compromise Deed dated 13th May, 2014, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs has already been paid to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein at the time of execution of the said Compromise Deed.The receipt thereof is annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure 'C'.The said position is not refuted by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein.Respondent No.3/complainant- Sangam Tripathi as well as respondent no. 2- Smt. Meena Gupta, who are present in Court today and has been identified by the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR namely SI Kulvir Singh, Police Station- Shahbad Dairy, Delhi as well as their respective counsel, state that in view of the amicable resolution of the dispute as afore- stated, they are no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom.Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 4 of 6Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 4 of 6[Ref.Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr.reported as (2012) 10 SCC 303].In view of the foregoing, since the dispute that led to the registration of the subject FIR has been settled between the parties amicably by way of a Compromise Deed dated 13th May, 2014, without any undue influence, pressure or coercion; and the settlement between the parties is lawful, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Resultantly, the FIR No. 632/2013, under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station- Shahbad Dairy, Delhi and the proceedings arising are hereby set aside and quashed qua the petitioners subject to their depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with the Victims' Compensation Fund within a period of two weeks from today.A copy of the receipt thereof shall be provided to the Investigating Officer in the subject FIR.Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 5 of 6Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 5 of 6With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J FEBRUARY 15, 2016 sd Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 6 of 6Writ Petition (Crl.) 2301/2014 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,538,170 |
Originally, in S.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the learned IAdditional District and Sessions Judge, there were eight accused.The 2ndaccused in the said case Mr.Diwakar is a juvenile and therefore, the caseagainst him was split up after the charges were framed.The 8th accusedMr.Paramasivan, S/o.Alagappa Thevar died during trial.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The first accused Mr.M.S.Ganesan was running wine shops in Thisayanvilai, benami in the name of Mr.P.L..Ganesan.He was also running adaily shandy in Thisayanvilai.The deceased in this case was one Mr.Sekar.He had taken one of the shops from the first accused and he started runningthe shop.Out of the said enmity, onone occasion, the deceased Sekar and one Kannan had attacked A3 ? Mr.This happened 2 days before thepresent occurrence.This is stated to be the immediate motive for thealleged occurrence.While so, it is alleged that on the night intervening 06.05.1999and 07.05.1999, the deceased Sekar was in his house.P.W.5 is his wife.Shewas also at her home.P.W.1 is the junior father-in-law of the deceased.According to him, on 06.05.1999, he had come to the house of the deceased.Since it became very late, he stayed back at the house of the deceased.Thus, during the said night, at the house of the deceased, the deceased, hiswife P.W.5 and P.W.1 alone were there.On the next day, i.e. on 07.05.1999,at 5.00 a.m., the deceased received a phone call.The caller told thedeceased that his vehicle had developed snag and therefore, the deceasedshould immediately come and attend on that.The phone conversation was informed to P.W.1 by the deceased himself, as soon the phone call was over.Immediately, the deceased wanted to go to the said place in response to thesaid phone call.His wife (P.W.5) requested him not to go.But the deceasedinsisted to go and accordingly, he went out.Since he was going alone, P.W.5wanted P.W.1 also to accompany him.So when the deceased was proceeding at a distance of about 15 to 20 feet, P.W.1 was following him.When the deceased was crossing the house of the first accused,which is situated in the same street, the main entrance of the house of thefirst accused was slightly kept open.On seeing the deceased going on theroad, suddenly, the first accused came out of the house and shouted at othersto kill the deceased.Immediately, the accused 2 to 5 emerged out of thehouse of the first accused.P.W.1 shouted at them to stop cutting.The deceased fell downsustaining serious injuries in a pool of blood.The occurrence wasincidently witnessed by P.Ws.2 and 3 also.P.W.2 is the brother-in-law ofthe deceased and P.W.3 was an employee under the deceased.P1 is the complaint.Then, he forwarded Exs.The same were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at6.30 p.m., i.e. in the evening on 07.05.1999 at Nanguneri.P.W.19 took upthe case for investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence and at9.00 a.m. he prepared an observation mahazar under Ex.P2 and a rough sketch under Ex.P22 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness.Then, heconducted inquest on the body of the deceased.He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died ofinjuries to major organs and shock and hemorrhage.From the place of occurrence, P.W.19 had recovered bloodstainedearth, sample earth and other bloodstained materials.Then, he handed over the material objects to the Court.On09.05.1999, he arrested the third accused Mr.Natarajan at 2.00 p.m. atMelapalayam in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed that he had hiddenMahindra Jeep bearing registration No.KLM 6740 near Kurichi Municipal Office.He also disclosed that he had hidden a Veech Aruval (Chopper) in the saidvehicle.Then, he forwarded the accused to Court forjudicial remand and also handed over the material objects to the Court.On 10.05.1999, the 4th accused surrendered before the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Nagercoil.In that, he disclosed that he had hidden aTractor bearing registration No.TN 72 B 8596 and an aruval.In pursuance ofthe said disclosure statement, he took P.W.19 and the witnesses to the saidplace and produced the Tractor and aruval.They were recovered under Ex.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused toCourt and handed over the material objects to Court.On 23.05.1999, at 02.30 p.m., he arrested the accusedRamachandran ? A5 in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.On such arrest, he also gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed theplace, where he had hidden a Veecharuval (Chopper) at Idinthakarai.Inpursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took P.W.19 and otherwitnesses to the said place and produced M.O.8 aruval.The same was recovered.On 25.05.1999 at 6.30 a.m., P.W.19 arrested the 7th accusedKottaisamy in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness at Thili Bus stop.On such arrest, he also gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosedthat he had hidden an aruval at Vijayapathy stone quarry.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants in C.A.No.418 of 2008 and 471 of 2008 are the accused 1to 5 in S.C.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli Division.The appellant in C.A.No.340 of 2014is the sole accused in S.C.No.14A of 2004 on the file of the learned IAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.The trial Court framed as many as 5 charges against them.They areas follows:Accused Penal provisions1A1 to A8 147 IPC 2A2 to A8 148 IPC 3A2 to A8 341 IPC 4A1 302 r/w 114 IPC5A2 to A8 302 IPCThe appellants in C.A.Nos.418 and 471 of 2008 have been convictedand sentenced as follows:S.No Accused Conviction u/sSentence 1A1 147, 302 r/w 114 IPCTo undergo rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 147 IPC and toundergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, toundergo simple imprisonment for two years for offences under sections 302 r/w114 IPC 2A2 to A5 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence underSection 147 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each foroffence under Section 148 IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for one montheach for the offence under Section 341 IPC; to undergo life imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonmentfor one year each for the offence under section 302 IPCTherefore, the trialCourt proceeded with the trial of S.C.No.14 of 2004 against the accused 1,3to 5, 6 and 7 (as per the charges framed against them).The appellant in C.A.No.340 of 2014 was the third accused inS.C.No.14 of 2004 before the case was split up.After all the accusedincluding Mr.Natarajan, the appellant in C.A.No.340 of 2014, were questionedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C., Mr.Natarajan, the appellant in C.A.No.340 of 2014,namely, the 3rd accused, as it stood originally in S.C.No.14 of 2004,absconded, when the case was listed for arguments.Therefore, the caseagainst the 3rd accused Mr.Natarajan in S.C.No.14 of 2004 was split up andthe same was numbered as S.C.No.14A of 2004 and kept for trial separately.The learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, convicted all the aboveaccused namely, A1 ? Mr.Ganesan, A4 ? Mr.Muthu @ Muthukrishnan, A5 ? Mr.Baskar, A6 - Mr.Ramachandran and A7 ? Mr.Kottaisamy as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.They were all re-arranged as accused 1 to5 in S.C.No.14 of 2004, after the case was split up.Byjudgment dated 27.11.2014, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him toundergo simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence underSection 148 IPC; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month forthe offence under Section 341 IPC and to undergo life imprisonment and to paya fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for oneyear.Since all these appellants have been convicted, on appreciating thesame evidence recorded commonly, the learned senior counsel for theappellants submitted that these three appeals may be heard and disposed oftogether by a common judgment.In fact, the learned senior counsel has fileda memo to that effect.In our considered view, since the evidence wasrecorded against all the appellants commonly and since the case was split uponly after the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., we haveagreed with the said suggestion made by the learned senior counsel as hearingall these appeals would not cause any prejudice to any of the accused.Accordingly, we have heard all these appeals together and dispose of the sameby means of this common judgment.In this judgment, the appellants in C.A.Nos.418 and 471 of 2008 arereferred to as accused Nos.1,4,5,6 and 7 as arrayed originally in S.C.No.14of 2004 and the appellant in C.A.No.340 of 2014 is referred to as the accusedNo.3 as originally arrayed in S.C.No.14 of 2004 before the case was split up.This resulted in enmity between the first accused and the deceasedSekar.Some time before the alleged occurrence, the first accused attemptedto purchase a Tractor bearing registration No.TN74 2133 belonging to oneMr.But the Registration Certificate and other documents relating tothe said vehicle were at the hands of the deceased Sekar.This transactionalso further aggravated the enmity between them.Along with them, the accused 6 to 8 also emerged.Immediately, the 2nd accused (juvenile accused), who is the son of the firstaccused, attacked the deceased on his right thigh with an aruval.The thirdaccused Natarajan, the 4th accused Mr.Muthu @ Muthukrishnan and the 5th accused Mr.Baskar also attacked him indiscriminately with aruvals.Theaccused 6 to 8, who belonged to different village also attacked him witharuvals.All the accused thereafter fled away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.1 returned to thehouse of the deceased and prepared a complaint in his own handwriting.P.W.19, the then Inspector of Police of Thisayanvilai PoliceStation, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.165/ 1999 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC against the accused 1 to 5 and fewothers.The accused 6 to 8 were not named in the FIR.He examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements.Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem.P.W.16 ? Dr.Christopher Dass conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 07.05.1999 at 4.00 p.m. He found the following injuries:1.Incised wound 20 x 8 x 8 cm in front of neck below the mandible.Allstructures in front of necks cut body of the 2nd cervical vertebra and spinalcord cut.2.Incised wound 10 x 6 x 4 cm in front of right side of mandible.Mandible cut on the medial aspect.Incised wound 7.5 x 1.5 x 8 cm over right infra-axillary region,present obliquely, exposing liver, part of liver weighing about + kg cut fromits upper part seen as separate pieceIncised wound 15 x 8 x 6 cm, 4 cm above umbilicus, part of smallintestine has come out through the opening.Incised wound 15 x 6 x 5 cm, 4 cm above 4th wound part of largeintestine has come out through the opening.Incised wound 10 x 6 x bone deep in front of left thigh 15 cm aboveleft bone.Incised wound 15 x 8 x 8 cm over lateral aspect of let side ofabdomen.Incised wound 15 x 8 x 6 cm over posterior part of right axillaIncised wound 10 x 3 x bone deep over front of scalp.Incised wound 8 x 3 x 3 cm over posterior aspect of left shoulder.Incised wound 10 x 3 x 2 cm over upper part of left scapula.Incised wound 15 x 2 x 2 cm over posterior aspect of left axilla.In the stomach, he found partially digested food material.P18 is thereport.In pursuance ofthe said disclosure statement, he took P.W.19 and other witnesses to the saidplace and produced produced M.O.9 aruval.That was recovered under mahazar.Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handedover the material objects to the Court.On 21.05.1999, the 4th accused Muthukrishnan had surrendered.While in custody, in the presence ofwitnesses, P.W.1 and another witness, he gave a voluntary confession, inwhich, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval.In pursuanceof the same, he took P.W.19 and another witness and produced M.O.10 aruval and the same was recovered.On 08.06.1999, he gave a request to the learned Judicial Magistratefor conducting identification parade for the accused Ramachandran, Kottaisamyand Paramasivan (A6, A7 and A8).On 04.06.1999, the first accusedsurrendered before the learned Magistrate at Tenkasi.While in custody, in the presence of twowitnesses, he gave a voluntary confession, but no discovery of any weapon wasrecovered out of the same.Oncompleting the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against all theaccused.Based on the same, the trial Court framed the charges as detailedin the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same asfalse.In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution as manyas 22 witnesses were examined, 41 documents were exhibited and 12 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses, who have elaborately spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.4has spoken about the observation mahazar and recovery of material objectsfrom the place of occurrence.P.W.5 is the wife of the deceased, who hasspoken about the motive as well as about the fact that the deceased left herhouse by around 5.00 a.m. on 07.05.1999 and that P.W.1 followed him.P.W.6 has spoken about the motive.P.Ws.7 to 11 have turned hostile and they havenot supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.12 theExecutive Officer of the Panchayat has spoken about the shandy let out to thefirst accused.P.W.13 the Foreman from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board hasstated that there was no electricity failure at the place of occurrence onthe crucial date.P.W.14 the Executive Engineer of TNEB, has also spokenabout the same.According to her report,P.Ws.1 to 3 identified the accused 6 and 7 in the parade held on 25.06.1999.The 8th accused was not put up for identification parade.P.W.16 ?Dr.Christopher Dass has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion.P.Ws.17 and 18 are the police constables, who carried the FIRto the Court and the dead body to the hospital for postmortem.According toP.W.17, the FIR was handed over by him to the Court at 6.30 p.m. P.W.19 theInspector of Police has spoken about the registration of the case and theinvestigation done by him.P.W.20 ? Dr.Thangaraj has spoken about theinjuries found on the 6th accused, when he was arrested.When the incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.On their side, they haveexamined two witnesses as D.Ws.1 and 2 by name Ganapathy and P.L.Ganesan. D.W.1 ? Mr.Ganapathy was the staff in the Thisayanvilai Town Panchayat.Hehas stated about the auction of the daily shandy belonging to the panchayat.According to him, the shandy was taken in the name of P.L.Ganesan. D.W.2 is Mr.P.L.Ganesan, who has stated that he was awarded the contract in the public auction held to run the shandy.On the side of the accused, 8documents were marked.Having considered all the abovematerials, in S.C.No.14 of 2004, the trial Court convicted all the accusedand similarly in S.C.No.14A of 2014, the trial Court convicted the accusedNatarajan as detailed herein above.That is how, they are before this Courtwith this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have alsoperused the records carefully.Hewould further submit that the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, has clearlystated that he found partially digested food material and that the deathwould have occurred one hour after the deceased taken his last meal.Thelearned senior counsel would point out that P.W.1 has admitted during crossexamination that the deceased had his last meal at 10.00 p.m. From this, thelearned senior counsel would submit that the occurrence would have takenplace somewhere around 11 p.m. and not at 5.30 a.m. on the next day.He would further submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 are closelyrelated to the deceased and they were inimical towards the accused and alsointerested in the case of the prosecution.He would further submit thattheir presence is highly doubtful.He would further submit that theirpresence at the place of occurrence has not been duly explained away to thesatisfaction of the Court.The learned counsel would further point out thatduring their evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken only about the presence andovert acts of the accused 1 to 5 and they have not stated anything about theaccused 6 to 8. P.W.3 has spoken only about the accused 1 to 3 and he has also not spoken anything about the rest of the accused.Thus, according tothe learned senior counsel, these three witnesses are not fully believable.For these reasons, according to the learned senior counsel, the trial Courtought to have acquitted all the accused.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, opposethis appeal.He would further submit that so far as the medical evidence isconcerned, since it is the opinion evidence, the eye witnesses account ofP.Ws.1 to 3 should be accepted and the opinion evidence should be rejected.Though according to him, P.Ws.1 to 3 had identified theaccused 6 and 7, in the identification parade, for their own reason, theyhave not identified them in the Court.On that score, according to thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor, their evidence against the accused 1 to5 cannot be doubted and rejected.Thus, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, the conviction and sentence imposed on these appellants deserveonly to be confirmed.We have considered the above submissions.The FIR is stated to have been registered at 6.30a.m.But, admittedly, the same had reached the hands of the learned JudicialMagistrate only at 6.30 p.m. i.e. on the evening.P.W.17 ? the Constable, who carried the FIR, had not explained the saiddelay.This unexplained delay creates doubt in the case of the prosecution,more particularly, because there are multiple number of accused and alsobecause, in the FIR, the names of the accused 6 to 8 had not been mentioned.According to the FIR, apart from A1 to A5, few more persons had alsoparticipated in the occurrence.In a case involving in multiple number ofaccused, the unexplained delay, which is enormous, creates strong doubtabout the truthfullness of the allegations made in the FIR.Next, comes the medical evidence.We may give some allowance.Assuming that the deceased had taken the food somewhere between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m., the occurrence should have taken place, at any rate, between 11 p.m. and 12 mid night.It is scientificallyimpossible to infer that the deceased would have died at 5.30 a.m. in themorning.This creates doubt in the case of the prosecution, regarding thetime of occurrence.This doubt based on the scientific evidence has not beenobviated by the prosecution at all.P.W.1 is the juniorfather-in-law of the deceased.According to him, he had come to the house ofthe deceased, then he followed the deceased and thus, he witnessed theoccurrence.He has stated thathe also incidentally came to the place of occurrence from his village.P.W.3is a servant under the deceased and he also stated that he incidentally cameto the place of occurrence.It is too difficult to believe that early in themorning that too at 5.30 a.m. before the sun rise, these three people wouldhave gone to the place of occurrence incidentally.In our considered view,in the absence of any explanation offered by these three witnesses for theirbeing present at the time of occurrence, it is doubtful to believe theirpresence at the time of occurrence.Assuming that these three witnesses were present, the nextimmediate question is whether they are telling the truth.Similarly, he hadnot identified the accused No.8, for whom, there was no identification paradeat all.Though he identified theaccused 6 and 7 during the identification parade, for his own reasons, he didnot identify them in the Court.He also did not identify the 8th accused inthe Court.There is no explanation offered by the prosecution as to why theyhave not identified the accused 6 to 8 while deposing before the Court.Butstrangely, P.W.3, who knew all these three accused, has spoken about the presence and participation of the accused 1 to 3 alone.Thus, these witnesses have not givenevidence in a cogent and convincing manner.There are lot of contradictionsand improbabilities.When their presence itself is doubtful and when themedical evidence completely falsify the case of the prosecution, regardingthe time of occurrence, these contradictions, which are major in character,also assume much importance.With these contractions, in our considered view, it is difficult to believe these witnesses.Lastly, though it is stated that some of the accused had givendisclosure statement and the weapons were recovered on their disclosurestatement, the witnesses, who were examined to speak about the same, have turned hostile.Thus, the prosecution has lost that piece of evidence alsoin their favour.Thereafter, after deliberations, theFIR would have come into being only in the evening and that is the reason whyit reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 6.30 p.m. This reasonableinference, which could be culled out from the facts and circumstances of thecase, cannot be ruled out by the prosecution.In view of all the above, we find that the prosecution has failedto prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.Though the prosecution has been able to create suspicion in respect of the alleged complicity of the accused1 to 5, on that suspicion, we cannot sustain the conviction.In view of allthe above, all the three appeals deserves to be allowed.In the result, the criminal appeals are allowed, the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted ofall the charges.Fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded tothem.Bail bonds shall stand terminated.1.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli2.The Inspector of Police Thisaiyanvilai Police Station Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
625,416 |
JUDGMENT S.K. Chawla, J.Accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava has in this appeal challenged his conviction under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1 )(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentence of 12 months' R. I. and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further R. I. for one month under the first count and R. I. for 48 months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further R. I. for one month under the second count, imposed on him by the judgment dated 26-4-1989 of Special Judge, Vidisha.One Pahalwansingh (PW-3) had been sanctioned a loan for digging of well and purchase of a pump by District Co-operative Land Development Bank, Shamshabad.He was to receive that loan in instalments.Having already received four instalments, he was to receive the last instalment of Rs. 1500/-.On 19-6-1985, he went to the Office of the Bank at Shamshabad and met accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava, who was manager of the Bank at that time.The prosecution story was that for payment of the last instalment of Rs. 1500/-, accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/- from Pahalwansingh.Pahalwansingh then approached Lokayukta office, Bhopal and made a written complaint, Ex. 1 /4-13, to ShriK. P. Sharma (PW-7), Dy.S. P. of that Office, on 18-6-1985, complaining that the accused was demanding Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification from him for paying last instalment of Rs. 1500/- and that he wanted the accused to be trapped.Pahalwansingh offered two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each to Shri K. P. Sharma to trap the accused.Those currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and kept in the hip-pocket of Pahalwansingh's full-pant worn by him.On 19-6-1985, the trap party reached Shamshabad from Bhopal.On way, a gazetted officer named Shri L. N. Soni, Tahsildar, Berasia (PW-2) was associated with the trap party.On reaching Shamshabad, Pahalwansingh went to the office of the accused at about 11.45 a.m. and gave him currency notes of Rs. 200/- by way of illegal gratification, which the accused accepted and kept in the pocket of his full-pant.Upon signal being given by Pahalwansingh, the trap party rushed to the accused and currency notes of Rs. 200/- were recovered from the possession of the accused.The hands of the accussed were got washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink, indicating that the accused had handled those notes.The pocket of the full pant of the accused, when dipped in sodium carbonate solution, turned pink.On these facts, accused was convicted and sentenced in the manner already indicated.The defence of the accused was that although Pahalwansingh (PW-3) had come to meet him in his office on 19-6-1985, the case was falsely foisted on him.He had never demanded not accepted any money.Shri J. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that there was absolute lack of substantive evidence in support of the prosecution story that Suresh Kumar Shrivastava had ever made a demand for bribe of Rs. 200/- or that he had subsequently voluntarily accepted that amount at the time of trap from Pahalwansingh (PW-3).It may at once be mentioned here that the alleged bribe-giver Pahalwansingh (PW-3) and his companion Kalyansingh (PW-4), who remained throughout with him and who, in the absence of any better term may be called "a shadow witness" - which was the phrase used by the Supreme Court in referring to such a witness in G. V. Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Admn.) in AIR 1987 SC 2402, had both turned hostile.Their version in Court was that one "Deep Sahab'' who was a valuer in the concerned Bank demanded bribe of Rs. 200/- and that at the time of the trap, Pahalwa- nsingh went in the company of Kalyansingh to pay the phenolphthalein treated currency notes of Rs. 200/- to the said "Deep Sahab".The latter was however found to be absent from the Bank at the crucial time and Shri K. P. Sharma, D.S.P. (PW-7) insisted that since much time and labour had been wasted, somebody in the Bank had to be trapped.Thereupon, Pahalwansingh again went into the Bank building in the company of Kalyansingh and thrusted the currency notes of Rs. 200/- into the pant's pocket 6f accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava, with whom Pahalwansingh also talked about "Deep Sahab".The learned trial Judge held on the basis of evidence of Shri K. P. Sharma (PW-7) that complaint, Ex.P-13, was a genuine document, which had been presented to him by Pahalwansingh in his Bhopal office a day previous to the trap.The learned trial Judge further held that the version given by the hostile witnesses that complaint, Ex.P-13, was got prepared from them by Shri K. P. sharma (PW-7), after the trap and that the same was also ante-dated to make it appear that it was written on the previous day, was false.A perusal of the complaint, Ex.P-13, would show that it contained a statement of Pahalwansingh that he had on a previous occasion gone to the Bank in the company of Kalyansingh to accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava and at that time the accused had demanded Rs. 200/- from Pahalwansingh for releasing payment of Rs. 1500/- on account of last instalment of loan.There was no reference at all in that complaint to any "Deep Sahab".The trial Court fell in error in treating the complaint, Ex.P-13, as substantive evidence.Assuming that it was a genuine document and presented to Shri K. P. Sharma on 18-6-1985, i.e. a day previous to the trap in his Bhopal Office by Pahalwansingh (PW-3) and Kalyansingh (PW-4), as held by the trial Court, it contained only a 'former statement' of Pahalwansingh that accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava had demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- from him for making payment of last instalment of the loan.That 'former statement' could either be used to corroborate under Section 157 of the Evidence Act the evidence of Pahalwansingh given in Court or to contradict that evidence under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court used the complaint, Ex.P-13, to disbelieve Pahalwansingh and thereby it may be said that former statement was used to contradict the evidence of Pahalwansingh given in Court.But where was substantive evidence or deposition of witness given in Court in support of the story that a demand was made by accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava for payment of the last instalment of Rs. 1500/-? It was wrong on the part of the trial Court to base a decision on what was merely a "former statement' of a witness contained in complaint, Ex.An illustration will bring home the point."We are not unmindful of the paramount social importance of convicting the guilty, but when certain rules of adjudication have been prescribed, it is not for us to doubt their wisdom and to substitute for them a different set of rules more calculated to uphold the conviction in our problematical efforts to reach the crimes."It was argued that in the absence of final report from the valuer and receipt of money for final payment from Vidisha, accused Suresh Kumar Shrivastava could have no motive to demand and Pahalwansingh could also have no motive to give any bribe.There appears to be some force in this argument.The truth of the prosecution story was rendered doubtful as there existed no motive on the part of the accused to demand nor any motive on the part of Pahalwansingh (PW-3) to pay any bribe.The accused in the circumstances deserved to be acquitted.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,254,534 |
Shri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant.This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 3/6/17 passed in S.T.No.236/98 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge Bhind whereby the appellant- Ramautar Sharma has been convicted as under with default stipulation:944/18, 1st application u/S. 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant- Ramautar Sharma is taken up and considered alongwith reply filed to the same by the State.Learned counsel for the appellant primarily submits that the appellant was alleged to be carrying a rifle whereas the injuries including fatal injury was caused by pellets which were shot by firearm held by other co-accused.Mere presence of the appellant has been proved with no overt act established.Both firearm injuries sustained by the deceased are in the pelvic area which were attributed to other co-convicted persons.The appellant has suffered 12 months of incarceration.Learned counsel for the State and the victim on the other hand submits that kick and fists blows were given by the appellant 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 947/2017 (Ramautar Sharma Vs.The State of M.P.) to the deceased and there is evidence on record that the deceased was fleeing to save his life when two gun shots were fired by the co-convicted person Kammod and Vinod, the other co-convicted person including appellant- Ramautar fired in indiscriminately and therefore Ramautar has actively participated in the incident.It is submitted that Jal Singh (PW-3) eye-witness (son of the deceased) has described the incident graphically in his testimony.It is seen from the record that chargesheet was originally filed against Kammod and Vinod only but during the trial by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., other co-convicted persons including Ramautar were added as accused.PW-2/8 Pritam and PW-3/9 Santosh have unanimously deposed that the deceased Bhogiram was shot by Kammod and Vinod while PW-3 Jal Singh (son of deceased) testified that deceased was first shot by Kammod and then by Vishwanath.Deceased fell down after sustaining injury by the second gun shot.PW-3 also states when the first two gun shots were fired by Kammon and Vishwanat, this witness ran home out of fear and while fleeing heard 4-5 more gun shots being fired which reflects that first gun shot fired by Kammod did not find its target while the second one fired by Vinod/Vishwanath found its target as it lead to deceased falling down on the ground.Since the deceased has suffered two gun shot injuries in the pelvic area and both by pellet firing gun, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the second gun shot injury which was the result of firing 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 947/2017 (Ramautar Sharma Vs.The State of M.P.) of pellet gun, was inflicted by any of the co-convicted persons who wielded a pellet gun.The deceased indisputably did not sustain any bullet injury.This prima facie indicates that the appellant Ramautar did not use his firearm to injure the deceased and was merely wielding it while being present at the spot with other co- convicted persons.The record does not indicate that any firearm was recovered from appellant Ramautar.Reply of the State reflects presence of criminal antecedent comprising of an offence of section 306 of IPC of year 1995 apart from the present case.Appellant Ramautar is presently aged about 63 years and looking to the fact that there is no likelihood of early disposal of the appeal in near future, this court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant-Ramautar, by way of suspension of sentence.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A.No.944/18 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant- Ramautar will remain under suspension subject to the verification that the amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM, for appearance of the appellant- Ramautar before the concerned CJM on 29/10/18 and on such further dates as may be fixed by him which shall be of frequency of not less than once a year.In case, the appellant-Ramautar found absent on any date fixed by the concerned C.J.M. then the said C.J.M. shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 947/2017 (Ramautar Sharma Vs.The State of M.P.) without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.In addition to above, the appellant is also directed to render community service for two(2) hours everyday of such nature as decided and allotted by the Chairman/Collector of the District Unit of Red Cross Society of the district within whose territorial jurisdiction the appellant resides.The work so allotted shall be in close vicinity to the residence of the appellant.Compliance report qua this condition be submitted by the Chairman/Collector of the District Unit of Red Cross Society of Bhind district with the Registry of this Court.On receipt of any such compliant the matter shall be put up before the Bench as PUD by the Registry.Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chairman/Collector of the District Unit of Red Cross Society of the district of Bhind for compliance.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information C.c.as per rules.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,548,003 |
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :-The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the trial;The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 15/10/2019 22:44:36This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 11/09/2019 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Burhanpur whereby the court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The appellant/accused is in custody since 3/09/2019 for the offence under Sections 354, 354-K(A) of IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) (K) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Crime No. 284/2019 registered at Police Station Ganpati Naka District Burhanpur.As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the appellant/accused is that he tried to outrage modesty of the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix is a major lady.The only allegation of caught holding the hand is made against the appellant.Trial is still pending.There is no likelihood of appellant's absconding and tempering with the evidence.Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 15/10/2019 22:44:36 3 CRA-8094-2019 Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,548,850 |
First of all, it is necessary to mention that despite the child being present and capable of narrating the incident himself, the I.O. preferred to record the FIR on the basis of statement of Baban Chauhan, her father, who was not even present in the vicinity when the incident has taken place.As per the statement of Ex.PW3/A, Baban Chauhan, he along with his entire family survive on begging at the Mandir and sleep on pavement near Shivaji Stadium.On 16.01.2013 his daughter 'S' (name withheld) aged about 10-11 years was playing near Shivaji Stadium, when at about 5.30 pm, Jongi, a vagabond on the pretext of giving back her bag/potli, took her to one side, held her hand and lifted her shirt and started touching/massaging her breast.When her daughter raised alarm, the public persons started beating him.PW-1 'S' is the child victim who was questioned to test her understanding and after recording about her capability to understand the questions and answer them, the Court examined her on oath.She has stated that:-'We live near Hanuman Mandir.It was winter when the accused called me for giving our potli about 2-3 months back.I was eating rice.Then I went to play near Shivaji Stadium, when the accused came to me.It was evening time.Sun had set.The accused asked to accompany him for getting our potli back.He took me to gali.He kissed me and he also hurt me on my cheek with small knife and asked to take off my underwear.The accused had taken off my blouse and had caressed my chest.I had cried and shouted.The accused ran away.The accused did not give our potli back.The accused was apprehended by public persons.Police had also come.Through : Mr.Neeraj Kumar Singh, APP for the State with SI Kuldeep Yadav, PS Connaught Place.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, JThe case of prosecution runs as under:-On 16.1.2013 at 5.40 pm vide DD entry 25A, an information was received at P.S. Connaught Place about a person being mercilessly beaten in front of Khadi Bhawan, Connaught Place.The DD entry was assigned to SI Ram Babu, who reached the spot along with Constable Satender Pal.Baban Chauhan, the complainant, is father of the child victim, who made statement Ex.PW3/A against the Appellant, accusing him of outraging the modesty of his daughter aged about 10-11 years.He also stated that when her daughter raised alarm, the public persons present there started beating him and that incident had been narrated to him by his daughter.On the basis of statement of Ex.PW3/A, Crl.A. No.1477/2013 Page 1 of 8The Appellant was charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO to which he pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined eight witnesses in all to prove its case against the Appellant, in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., while denying the case of prosecution, claimed himself to be innocent.Learned ASJ considered the testimony of child victim and her parents to be inspiring confidence, credit-worthy, sufficient to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.While rejecting the plea of the Appellant of having falsely implicated in this case, learned trial court observed that the case of prosecution stands on the testimony of the child victim alone and that accused has not brought on record anything to rebut the presumption of his culpable mental state.Thus, holding the Appellant guilty of committing the act of sexual assault with the child within the ambit of Section 7 of POCSO, which is punishable under Section 8 of POCSO, the Appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months.I have heard Ms.Inderjeet Sindhu, Adv.for the Appellant and Mr.He also Crl.A. No.1477/2013 Page 4 of 8 mentioned in the FIR that the incident was narrated to him when his daughter came to him.PW-2 Surja, mother of the victim also made statement on identical lines.I had narrated to the police what did accused do with me.I had identified the accused in the police station.I can identify the person.Witness has correctly identified the accused.'The child victim was never produced before the Magistrate for getting her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded.Thus, we have two versions before us i.e., one got recorded by her father, which formed basis of registration of an FIR and allegations levelled against him is only about rubbing her chest.It is specifically mentioned in the complaint by PW-3/A in presence of his daughter and as per the details of the incident given by her to him.However, when child victim herself appeared in the witness box, she stated that on the pretext of giving back her bag/potli, the accused took her to one side held her Crl.A. No.1477/2013 Page 5 of 8 hand, hurt her cheek with a small knife, lifted her shirt and started touching/massaging her breast.The MLC Ex.PW-5/A of the Appellant and his discharge summary show that he suffered multiple injuries for which he was hospitalized and remained admitted for two days.The MLC shows that Appellant was brought to Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital on 16.01.2013 at about 6.45 pm by Constable Amit and examined by Dr.Anil Kumar Chaudhary, PW-5; meaning thereby that the Appellant was very much present at the spot in an injured condition when the I.O. visited the spot.However, neither in the endorsement Ex.PW-5/A and PW-5/B, this fact is mentioned, nor in the arrest memo.Rather in the arrest memo, time of arrest has been given as 17.01.2013 at 10.20 am, but the place of arrest is not described.A. No.1477/2013 Page 5 of 8Though, the child victim in her statement has referred to the use of knife and the injuries being caused to her with knife, but neither such injury was noticed by the I.O. nor pointed out by her or her father at the time of reporting the matter to the Police.She was not subjected to medical examination for the purpose of treatment of so-called injuries.The only medical examination of child victim is to ascertain her bony age.She was estimated to be between 10-11 years.After considering the version given by PW-3 Baban Chauhan as narrated to him by the child victim PW-1 'S', at the most, ingredients of Section 11 of POCSO Act can be said to have been proved against the Appellant.A. No.1477/2013 Page 6 of 8It is further submitted by learned counsel for Appellant that as per the nominal roll and Jail Report, the medical condition of the Appellant is unfit even to the extent that he has not been assigned any work as he is suffering from orthopaedic/spine problem.Though it has been the testimony of child victim that she was hurt on her cheeks or knife was shown to her, her statement can only be proved to the extent that the Appellant lifted her shirt and rubbed it.Looking into the facts and circumstances and the material emerging on record, I find that, at the most, the act of the Appellant i.e. lifting shirt of the child victim, can be termed as a case of sexual harassment.Thus, I find that the offence proved against the Appellant is under Section 11 of POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 12 of the said Act and provides imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. .In the facts and circumstances of the and the submissions made by learned counsel for the Appellant, the conviction of the Appellant under Crl.A. No.1477/2013 Page 7 of 8 Section 7 of POCSO Act is converted to Section 11 of POCSO Act and the substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced from three years to two years.The fine of Rs.5000/- imposed on him is maintained, however, it is ordered that in default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall undergo S.I. for seven days.A. No.1477/2013 Page 7 of 8As per nominal roll of the Appellant, as on 28.09.2014, he has undergone one year, eight months and thirteen days and also earned remission of two months and twelve days.In the circumstances, on completion of sentence, the Appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.A copy of this order be also sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE OCTOBER 14, 2014 da Crl.A. No.1477/2013 Page 8 of 8A. No.1477/2013 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,551,025 |
4 MCrC. No.17642/2014On record there is no other material to establish or suggest that the petitioner was indulged with other accused persons in the aforesaid activity.Hence, the peti- tioner cannot be prosecuted for commission of any offence under Sec- tions 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC or any other offence on the basis of charge sheet.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,552,900 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest relating to Crime No.575/15 registered at Police Station Seoni for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 354-A, 451 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an old person of 60 years of age, who is suffering from heart disease.He is a government servant, and if he is arrested, then he may lose his job.He is working as Head Master and he had very good reputation.Some certificates have been filed to show his reputation.It was alleged by 2-3 girls that the applicant went in their house and outraged their modesty, however Dipak and Satish went to the school and assaulted the applicant in his office.Various officials of the school have stated that on the particular day, the applicant was present in the school for full day.He did not go anywhere.The girls who have alleged against the applicant could be tutored by their parents.It appears that a false case has been lodged against the applicant.In last 30 years, the applicant is working as a Teacher and Head Master in such schools and no such allegation was levelled against him.At the verge of his retirement, it was not possible for the applicant to indulge in such a crime.No alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant namely Jagannath Vaish shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who, shall consider his application under Section 437 or 439 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,559 |
JUDGMENT Belle, J.Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 have been filed by the accused K. V. Narasimhan and Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 have been filed by the Department.The learned Magistrate in each of the said 14 cases has convicted the appellant-accused under sections 193, Indian Penal Code (28 counts), 196, Indian Penal Code (28 counts), 420 Indian Penal Code (28 counts), 468, Indian Penal Code (28 counts), and section 471 read with section 468, Indian Penal Code (42 counts), and under section 277 of the Income-tax Act (56 Counts), and under all sections and on all counts sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions under all the sections and on all counts, but modified the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months awarded by the magistrate into imprisonment till the rising of the court.It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge, Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 1095 of 1989 (14 Nos.) have been filed by the accused and Criminal Revisions Cases Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 (14 Nos.) by the Department.The facts are :The accused filed seven false Income-tax returns for the year 1983-84 and another seven false Income-tax returns for the year 1984-85 as if he was representing seven different persons of the names N. Mani, A. Kannan, S. Kuppusamy, Govindaraj, R. Ganapati, K. M. Madasamy and Meghanatha Naicker, all non-existing Government contractors, mentioning that tax had been deducted from them at source by the Government Department, along with forged tax deduction certificates and obtained acknowldgements therefore and got refund orders of tax deducted at source, and then he opened seven different accounts in the names of seven fictitious persons in the Bank of Thanjavur, and he deposited the refund orders and got the refund amount.The learned Magistrate after preliminary enquiry framed charges under the sections stated above.The accused denied the charges.The learned Magistrate on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the Department has proved the offences charged with and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.In the appeals filed by the accused, the appellate court confirmed the conviction but however regarding the sentence it reduced the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months under each count into imprisonment till the rising of the court.Against this, the accused has filed 14 Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 aggrieved by the confirmation of conviction and sentence passed, and 14 Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 195 to 208 of 1990 were filed by the Department aggrieved by the reduction of the substantive sentence passed by the trial court.Now to take by Criminal Revisions Cases Nos. 182 to 195 of 1989 filed by the accused it is contended by learned counsel for the accused that there is no evidence that proves the guilt of the accused of the charges framed against him and the conviction by both the courts below is erroneous.But on perusal of the judgments of the courts below and also the evidence I find there is absolutely no substance in this contention.The prosecution has examined P.W.-1, Mrs. Kantha Sivasamy, an Income-tax Officer, who has clearly spoken that the accused filed the Income-tax returns with her along with tax deduction at source (T.D.S.) certificates.She has further testified that the accused also filed authorisation letters showing that he has been authorised by the said seven persons to represent them in filing the returns, and the accused got acknowledgments for filing the said returns.P.W.-4 Bashyam another Income-tax Officer, has spoken that the returns being below one lakh rupees, the returns were summarily assessed and refund orders were passed.It is the evidence of P.W.-21 zonal accounts officer of the Revenue Board, that on the basis of the refund orders issued by P.W.-4 pay orders were issued to be accused by him P.W.-5, Manager, Bank of Thanjavur, Mylapore Branch has testified that the accused opened seven accounts - one in the name of N. Mani who is a dead person and the other six in fictitious names, and submitting the pay orders he received the money.These witnesses have filed the relevant records relating to the transactions.There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of these responsible officers of the Income-tax Department and the bank.Further, it is in evidence that the accused has given three confession statements, exhibits P-123, P-148 and P-168, which have not been retracted earlier and only during his questioning under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, during the trial of the case has he just stated that these confession statements were obtained from him under coercion.A retraction only during questioning under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be relied upon.If it is true that the confession statements had been obtained under coercion, the accused would not have simply kept quite without immediately or at least within a reasonable time retracting them, and he would not have waited until the time he was questioned under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code.His retraction during questioning under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, is not a retraction at all because any accused would deny the offence against him to escape conviction and punishment.Thus, the three confession statements alleged to have been made by the accused must be taken as true and genuine.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,745,790 |
Appearing counsel for the appellants heard on the point of admission.Admitted for hearing.Record of the trial Court be requisitioned.Panel Lawyer for the respondent has appeared, thus no fresh notice is necessary to respondent.Present counsel for the parties also heard on IA.No.5398/2017 filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence of each appellant.From perusal of certified copies of the judgment of Special Court, Sehore, it appears that each appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge [SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], Sehore by judgment dated 28.02.2017 passed in Special Case No. 68/2014 under Section 147 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 323/149 (on five counts) of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.300/- on each count and under Section 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.300/- with default stipulations.It is further mentioned that fine amount has already been deposited by each appellant before the Trial Court.Looking to the provision of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it appears necessary to hear the victims/complainants in relation to suspension of custodial sentence, but looking to the facts and circumstances, as each appellant has been sentenced for a period less than three years and each appellant had remained released on bail during the trial and after recording his conviction their jail sentences have been suspended, the appellants are granted bail for a temporary period.It is ordered that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- by each of the appellant Mohsin Khan, Wasim Khan, Raja Miya, Mohd. Aman, Mohd. Amjad and Mohd. Aamir Khan with a surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, [SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act], the custodial sentence of each appellant shall remain suspended till next order to be passed on above- mentioned I.A. and appellants are directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 25.04.2017 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office.Present counsel for the appellants is also directed to file an appropriate application for incorporating amendment in appeal memo relating to the names of the injured prosecution witness as respondents.It is also ordered that on filing process fee by the appellants within 3 days from today and on filing copies of the IA.the notices of the above-mentioned IA be issued to each of the respondents/injured victims, separately for service by registered A/D as well as by ordinary mode.Notices be made returnable within three weeks.(ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI) JUDGE sp
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,747,612 |
The suit is filed for damages towards Malicious Prosecution and defamation suffered by the plaintiff.2.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows:The plaintiff is a famous Cine Artist and he had two wives and eight children.According to the plaintiff, the defendant who introduced herself as the plaintiff's admirer over telephonic conversation expressed her desire to meet him in person.The plaintiff also obliged the defendant's request to meet her in person as per customary practice.Taking advantage of this, the defendant secretly obtained information about the plaintiff's shooting locations and started to meet him under some pretext or other and also requested the plaintiff to render help to meet her livelihood.On humanitarian consideration, the plaintiff rendered help to the defendant.(ii) While so, the defendant lodged a complaint under Section 376, 417 and 506 (II) of the IPC claiming that the plaintiff had raped her when she lost consciousness after consuming the juice given by the plaintiff and she became pregnant and gave birth to a female child.Based on this complaint, the plaintiff was arrested and remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, he was also convicted.In appeal, this Court, while acquitting the plaintiff, directed him to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- apart from the fine amount of Rs.3,25,000/-.The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment was dismissed.According to the plaintiff, the defendant already married one Shiv Suresh Mishra and she also filed divorce petition against him.The defendant had instituted the above false complaint, that too, with malice in order to lower the plaintiff's reputation.Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the above suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution and defamation.The case of the defendant in nutshell is as follows:The suit itself is not maintainable as the same has been filed after full fledged trial in a Criminal case filed by the defendant.The present suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution is nothing but a harassment and an abuse the process of law.According to the defendant, the suit is bad by non joinder of parties since the plaintiff had failed to implead the State represented by Inspector of Police, Vadapalani, who only prosecuted the plaintiff.The plaintiff has also committed an act of Contempt of Court as he failed to deposit the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- as ordered by this Court in the appeal.The suit is barred by limitation.Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.On the above pleadings, this Court, vide order dated 30.08.2013 has framed the following issues:1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages against the defendant for prosecuting the plaintiff maliciously?3.Whether the State of Tamil Nadu represented by Inspector of Police R-2 Kodampakkam Police Station is necessary party in this suit?4.To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was marked.The details of the documents are hereunder:-Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff:S.NoExhibitsDate Description of documents1.P-129.04.2008Certified copy of police complaint lodged by the defendant2.P-2 23.07.2007Photocopy of the Judgment in C.A.No.284 of 2001, High Court, Chennai3.P-3 25.02.2008Certified copy of the order in SLP4.P-430.01.1995Certified copy of the petition in OP.No.99 of 1995, Family Court, Chennai5.P-528.03.2003 to13.12.2004Certified copy of defendant's deposition in OS.No.97 of 1999Photocopies of Appeal documents filed before High CourtLetter (Diary Page September 1997)8.P-817.10.1994Photocopy of the telegram written by Arun Sharma to Usha Misra9.P-920.10.1994Photocopy of the telegram written by Arun Sharma to Usha Misra10P-1020.10.1994Photocopy of the telegram written by Arun Sharma to Usha Misra11P-1122.05.1998Certified copy of notarised declaration of the defendant addressed to Commissioner of Police along with the covering letter12P-1207.02.2008 Original police notice to the plaintiff 13P-1321.07.2009Letter sent by Regional Passport Office to the plaintiff 14P-14Certified copy of marriage invitation15P-1516.08.2005Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.97/1999 Principal Family Court, Chennai.Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiffs:- Mansoor Alikhan Witnesses examined on the side of the defendants D.W.1 Sneha SharmaHeard, Mr. A.R.Nixon, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and Mr.G.Rajkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant and perused the records.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the famous Cine Artist and he has family and high reputation in the society.The defendant, who introduced herself as the plaintiff's admirer, had telephonic conversation and frequently started visiting his shooting location.The learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that taking advantage of such acquaintance, she started threatening the plaintiff to pay money to her.Thereafter, she lodged a false complaint under Section 376, 417 and 506(ii) of the IPC alleging that the plaintiff raped her and she became pregnant and that the plaintiff threatened her to abort the child.Based on the said complaint, the plaintiff was arrested on 11.12.1998 and remanded to judicial custody.Thereafter, the plaintiff was convicted by the trial Court and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 = years for the offence under Section 376 (1) IPC.Similarly, for the offence under Section 417 IPC, the plaintiff was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 = months.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in the appeal filed by the plaintiff in C.A.No.284 of 2001, this Court, while acquitting him has held that the allegation made by the defendant has not been established and that the evidence of the defendant in previous proceedings and the evidence before this Court, clearly show that she has initiated prosecution with malice.It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that due to the said malicious prosecution, the plaintiff, being the Cine Actor and having high reputation in the society, had suffered irreparable loss.It is the also the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the specific allegation made by the defendant that she was raped by the plaintiff is found to be false.Further, the allegation that at the time of alleged occurrence, she was unmarried is also found to be false.In fact, the defendant has already married one Shiv Suresh Mishra and she has also filed divorce petition against him.All these facts clearly indicate that the plaintiff was unnecessarily dragged into the prosecution.Hence, the learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed for damages.Since the suit has been filed by the plaintiff immediately after the dismissal of the SLP, it is well within the period of limitation.The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the judgment reported in 2016 (1) CTC 257 (S.VATSALA V. K.S.MOHAN AND OTHERS) to substantiate his contention.Hence, the learned counsel for the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.In the light of the above submissions, this Court recast the issues as follows:Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages against the defendant for prosecuting the plaintiff maliciously?Whether the suit is barred by Limitation?To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?Issue Nos.1 and 2:The suit has been laid for claiming damages for malicious prosecution said to have been launched by the defendant herein.The main averment in the plaint pleadings would got to show that the plaintiff had some intimacy with the defendant and used to render monetary help to her.Subsequently, the complaint has been lodged by the defendant for various offences under Sections 376, 417 and 506 (II) of IPC.It is also the admitted fact that the trial Court convicted the plaintiff herein for the offences under Section 376 (1) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1= years.The trial Court also found the plaintiff herein guilty under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 = months.Similarly, the plaintiff was acquitted by this Court in other charges also.It is also admitted fact that while acquitting the plaintiff herein, this Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the female child was born to the defendant herein and that the paternity of the plaintiff was clearly proved in the DNA Test conducted by the expert, has directed the plaintiff herein to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as damages, apart from the fine amount of Rs.3,25,000/- awarded by the trial Court.It is curious note that the plaintiff himself voluntarily agreed to pay the above amount.However, as against the said direction to pay the sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, the plaintiff herein filed SLP before the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Crl.MP.No.2929 of 2008 and the same was dismissed.P7 is filed to show that the defendant has written a letter expressing love towards the plaintiff.The above facts also clearly indicate that there was some illegal intimacy between the plaintiff and the defendant for some time.It is to be noted that the plaintiff in his own pleadings has stated that he has already married twice and he is having two children through his first wife and 6 children through his second wife.Whereas this Court while disposing the appeal, considered the above affidavit and held that offence has not been made out as alleged by the defendant but, however there was continuous illegal relationship between the parties.In the cross examination dated 02.07.2014, the defendant has admitted that what she has stated in Ex.Further, a direction was also given to the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-.The above facts clearly reveal that at the time of launching complaint, there was a reasonable ground for the defendant to launch such prosecution.Accordingly, the issues are answered.However, there shall be no order as to cost.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,758,362 |
The necessary facts, to be noticed for the disposal of the present appeal, are as under:CRL.A. No.6/2006 Page 1 of 4"One Jahir Ahmed aged 40 years lodged a complaint with the police on 22.5.04 stating that a day before at 8.15 p.m. he was going towards Nehru Nagar Jhuggi from his house located in DDA Flats, Inderlok, Delhi.He was going via Railway tracks.At about 8.30 p.m. he reached near the jhuggis at Rakhi market, Zakhira Two or three boys from the side of bushes came to him.Out of them a thin built boy gave a slap to him and told him to give everything he possessed.The complainant refused.The remaining two boys started searching his person.He resisted.Bail bond stands cancelled and surety stands discharged.CRL.A. No.6/2006 Page 3 of 4CRL.A. No.6/2006 Page 4 of 4Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.09.2005 and order on sentence dated 13.10.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the appellant has been directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for two months.The appellant has further been directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months.For the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1 years.It was directed that all the sentences would run concurrently.One of the boys aged 20- 22 years, heavy built, his mouth showing that he was a 'Pan (beetel) chewer' took out a 'chhuri' concealed on his person.The said boy gave a blow of 'chhuri' on the shoulder, back, face and hand.The remaining two boys started beating him with 'kicks and fists'.They took out cash of Rs.1,400/- Rs.1,500/-, phone diary and mobile phone.On raising alarm, all these boys ran away under the cover of darkness.The complainant further stated that with great difficulty and efforts he could reach his house from where his wife brought him to Hospital.The boy who was thin built was having six fingers on one of his hands.The heavy built boy was a 'Pan chewer'.The third boy was medium built with an average height.The complainant also stated that he was carrying a photo Identity Card alongwith the above said articles at that time.On completion of the formalities, the challan was filed U/S 392/394/397/411 I.P.C. in the court of Ld. M.M. Case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions.My Ld.Predecessor vide Orders dated 02.09.2004 framed charge against the accused Mohd. Kalam U/s 392/394 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and 397/411 IPC.The conduct of the appellant in jail has remained satisfactory.Counsel further submits that since the date of the incident till date the appellant has not been convicted in any other criminal matter; on the date of the incident the appellant was 19 years of age; and the appellant has also joined the main stream of the society after being released on bail.It is also pleaded that after his sentence was suspended he got married and has one child.He is the sole bread winner of the family.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.As per the nominal roll dated 14.11.2013, the appellant has already served 02 years, 02 months and 08 days besides earning a remission of 02 months and 10 days.The unexpired period is 01 year 01 month and 12 days and the conduct of the appellant in jail has remained satisfactory.Having regard to the fact that the appellant does not have any previous conviction; he has joined the main stream of the society; he has a wife, one minor child and a widowed mother to support; he is the sole bread winner of his family; and further taking into consideration that in CRL.A. No.6/2006 Page 3 of 4 case the appellant, at this stage, is directed to serve the sentence, not only would he lose his employment but his family would also suffer, the present appeal is partly allowed.The order on sentence awarded to the appellant is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,764,349 |
Notice to victim-Respondent No.2 has already been served.Heard on I.A.No.4227/2019, an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Surendra, Roopram and Basantram).Hence, I.A.No.Certified copy as per rules.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 16/04/2019 18:52:13
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
677,678 |
Accused Bhupe, Satto and Lokendra got three huts ablazed at 12-1 in the night.At that time he was sleeping in the hut.He was awoken by his wife Leelavati after hearing bleat of goat.JUDGMENT S. Samvatsar, J.This appeal is preferred by the appellants-accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10/5/1999 delivered by the 2nd Additional Session Judge, Dabra District Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 47/1998, whereby the Sessions Court has convicted the present appellants for commission of offence under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo further one year's rigorous imprisonment.The appellants are also convicted by the impugned judgment for commission of offence under Section 3(2)(4) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine they are directed to undergo further one year' R.I.During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No. 2 Santo alias Satish died, hence his appeal stood abated.As per the prosecution case, in the intervening night of 4 and 5th March, 1998 complainant Babulal Jatav was sleeping in his house with his family after taking food.He was awoken by his wife Leelavati.Both of them came out and saw accused Lakke Pandit and Satto Pandit ablazing their huts (Madaiya).Bhupendra Pandit was standing on the ground.They asked them as to what they are doing; whereupon the accused threatened them and after abusing they ran away.Complainant Babulal shouted, on which persons residing in nearby colony came to the spot.By that time three huts of the complainant were burnt.Three-four days prior to the present incident, at about 11:00 in the night accused Lakke Pandit had gone to the house of the complainant and pushed the door by leg.However, the door could not open.Next day, complainant and his wife went to the house of Lakke Pandit, where they met Lakke Pandit and his father Gauri Shankar.They made complaint to Gauri Shankar about the incident.On that Gauri Shankar abused them with reference to thier caste and threatened to set their huts ablaze.Complainant Babulal and his wife returned back to their house.Due to this enmity, Gauri Shankar got the house set at fire with the help of his sons Lakke, Satto and Bhupendra.Due to the fire, household goods, cereals, husk, table fan, oil and cash etc. had burnt.On the report lodged by the complainant Crime No. 21/98 was registered and the police after investigation filed challan against the accused.The Sessions Court after recording the evidence and appreciating the same convicted the accused as aforesaid, hence this appeal.It is further contended that appellant No. 3 Lakke alias Lokendra is in custody for more than 10 years, hence lenient view should be taken.On the other hand, Mohd. Irshad, Learned Counsel for the respondent/state supported the impugned judgment.He submits that the Sessions Court has not committed an illegality in convicting the present appellants.We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.He saw Lakke and Satto ablazing their huts (Madaiya).Bhupendra was standing on the ground.He asked them as to what they are doing; whereupon the accused threatened them and after abusing they ran away.Complainant Babulal shouted, on which persons residing in nearby colony came to the spot.By that time his four goats were injured.Due to the fire, household goods, cereals, husk, and cash amount of Rs. 12000/-had burnt.In para 2 this witness states that three days prior to the incident Lakke had come to his house and pushed the door by leg.Lakke abused her wife.He and his wife went to the house of father of Lakke, where Gauri Shankar father of Lakke abused them with reference to his caste and threatened to ablaze their huts.Thereafter this witness lodged report in the police station.A copy of the report is Ex.In para 5 of his cross examination, he admits that there was a conflict between his brother Gangaram and accused Lakke about the cycle.He states that he was not in his house when accused Lakke pushed the door of his house.He further states that he had not narrated this fact to any one.From perusal of para 6 of his statement, we find minor contradiction in his statement and nothing in his cross examination is brought to disbelieve his statement.She states that she knows the accused.They reside in the same colony.She states that her huts are temporary huts.She has five huts, out of which three huts are covered by tiles, while two huts are covered by straws.She states that she wake up after hearing goats' bleat, thereafter she awaked her husband, then they came out and saw that Lokendra was setting ablaze their huts.Bhupendra was standing on the ground.On asking about what they are doing, then they asked them to keep mum.They also abused them with reference to their caste.Goats were bleating and they took them out, and thereafter the accused ran away.She states that her statement was recorded by the police.Mahendra Dev Singh is PW-3, who had recorded the FIR (Ex.P-1).He is a witness to Ex.Ramesh is examined by the defence as DW-1 to show that wife of the complainant Babulal is not of a good character.From perusal of over all evidence, we find that statement of Babulal (PW-1) is fully corroborated by the statement of Leelavati (PW2).They have specifically stated that they had seen the accused Lokendra and Satto were ablazing their huts, while accused Bhupendra was standing on the ground, and there is nothing in their cross examination to disbelieve them to that extent.So far as accused Bhupendra is concerned, it is alleged that he was standing near the place of incident.He is impleaded as accused with the help of Section 34 of IPC.From perusal of evidence available on record, we find that there is absolutely no evidence to hold that he had also common intention with the other co-accused.As per the evidence , he is merely present on the spot.In such circumstance, his conviction deserves to be set aside.So far as accused Lakke alias Lokendra is concerned, there is definite evidence on record to show that he ablazed the huts of the complainant, due to which household goods, cereals, husk, oil and cash etc. had burnt.As already stated, we find that there is no evidence against the appellant No. 1 Bhupendra to involved in the offence or about his common intention.In such circumstances, we set aside the conviction of appellant No. 1 Bhupendra and maintain that against appellant No. 3 Lakke alias Lokendra.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,774,812 |
and No.2-Maltibai.State/respondent No.3 by Ms. Nutan Saxena, Public Prosecutor.Heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the parties.On behalf of the petitioner/complainant, this petition has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents No.1 and 2 /accused of the offence punishable section 498-A of I.P.C. vide impugned judgment dated 28/11/2007 recorded in Complaint Case No. 189/07 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachoda, district Guna.As per the facts borne out from the record, one private complaint was filed by the petitioner Smt. Kusum Bai asserting that her marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs and ritual rites with Mukesh, son of respondents No. 1 and 2/accused, prior to 5-6 years from the date of incident and from their wedlock, two children were born.She alleged that after her marriage the respondents/accused started raising demand of dowry and for non-fulfillment of their demands, she was off and on subjected to physical and mental torture.In these state of affairs, she filed an application under section 125 of the Code 2 Mcrc.412/08 Smt. Kusum Bai Vs.Babulal & another for grant of maintenance which was registered as Case No. 2/06 and was pending in the court.It is stated that during hearing of the case on 20/2/2007 at Chachoda, the respondents/accused also reached the court premises and asked her to bring money.She further alleged that on 21/2/20007, her husband with his parents also reached at the residence of the petitioner at Chachoda and threatened her to withdraw the criminal case.Nowhere it was mentioned that the respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. Babulal and Malatibai also reached Chachoda and quarrelled with the petitioner.Even in para 2 aforesaid, the name of respondent No.2-Malti does not find place and only the names of respondent No.1-Babulal and his 3 Mcrc.412/08 Smt. Kusum Bai Vs.Babulal & another son Mukesh have been mentioned.As regards respondent No.1- Babulal, his presence was also found doubtful on the relevant date in view of the certificate issued by Tehsildar of tehsil Manohar, Police station.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
677,756 |
Thereupon, the house of the applicant was searched in the presence of a magistrate of Allahabad, a deputy Superintendent of Police of these provinces and the Superintendent of Policeof Vindhya Pradesh and certain documents belongingto the applicant were seized and handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Rewa.These documents have been taken to Rewa.The contention, on behalf of the applicant, is that the search warrant issued by the District Magistrate of Rewa could not be served in Allahabad and the District Magistrate of Allahabad had no jurisdiction to endorse it, so that the search of his premises might be effected by theSuperintendent of Police, Rewa, with the help of a magistrate and a Deputy Superintendent of Police of Allahabad.
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,855,147 |
Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.The applicant has filed this repeat application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first one was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20/7/2018 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Shamsabad Vidisha (M.P.), in connection with Crime No.132/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 302, 294, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the IPC.Prosecution story in short is that deceased Sundar Lal lodged a report on 12/05/2018 at about 6.45 pm to the effect that he visited the house of Ramprasad.Thereafter, he started abusing him.Present applicant Smt. Mohar Bai, wife of Ramprasad armed with Danda HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No.32801/2020 ( Mohar Bai Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh ) (2) came on the spot and assaulted by Lathi due to which he sustained injuries on legs and other parts of the body.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,857,384 |
Sessions Judge, District Chhindwara whereby, confirming the conviction under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced till rising Court and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days SI against applicant vide judgment dated 30.04.2016 passed in Cr. Case No.1643/2015 by the Court of JMFC, Junnardev District Chhindwara.Case of the prosecution in short, is that, on 08.09.2015 at 7.00 in the morning, one Durgu(Co-accused) was constructing the house, then complainant/victim Lalita Bai objected on that construction and she -: 2:- along with Satwanti, Sunita and daughter-in-law Asha Bai came on the spot with Sabbal (iron rod) and started to dismantle the construction.Durgu came on the spot and tried to snatch the Sabbal from Asha and thereafter, appellant Jaipal ran to spot to snatch the iron rod from Asha Bai.In the scuffle, victim Lalita sustained injuries then applicant uttered filthy languages to the complainant and warned that if she try to dismantle the wall, they would kill her.(Delivered on 29 .03.2019)Applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.04.2018 passed in Cr.Appeal No.2500093/2016 by the Ist Addl.She lodged the report of the incident to Police Station Tamia Crime No.169/2015 was registered against the applicant along with co-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of IPC.After investigation, charge- sheet has been filed in the Court below.The trial Court framed the charge against the accused, he abjured his guilt and pleaded innocent.-: 2:-The prosecution examined (PW-1) Lalita Bai, (PW-2) Asha bai, (PW-3) Sunita, (PW-4) K.P. Yaduvanshi and (PW-5) Dr. Vijay Singh, who examined the injured Lalita.The applicant denied for incriminating ingredients comes in the prosecution evidence and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case.After hearing both the parties learned JMFC delivered a judgment on 30.04.2016, acquitted the applicant along with other co- accused for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506-II of IPC and convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced for till rising of Court with fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default stipulation.The applicant being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, filed an appeal.The learned appellate Court vide judgment dated -: 3:- 28.04.2018 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.-: 3:-The appellant has filed this revision on the ground that learned both the Courts below committed an error in convicting the applicant.The Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and on the basis of material available on record, the ingredients of alleged offence has not been proved.The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the applicant beyond reasonable doubt.The applicant is not a habitual criminal.He is the first offender, he should be given the benefit of probation of offenders Act and he should be released on admonition instead of fine and prayed to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the applicant.Counsel for the State vehemently opposes the aforesaid prayer and submitted that the looking to the evidence which has come on record, the both the Courts below have not committed any error and passed proper sentence and pray for dismissal of the revison.Heard counsel of both parties and perused the record of trial Court.(PW-1) Lalita Bai is the victim/complainant stated that applicant was constructing the house on her land, when she denied for that, the applicant uttered filthy words and started beating.The version of the (PW-1) have been supported by the (PW-2) Asha and (PW-3) Sunita.Both were present at the time of incident and eye witness of the incident.-: 4:-(PW-4) K.P. Yaduvanshi at the relevant time was posted as ASI, Police Station Tamia stated that (PW-1) Lalita Bai reported the matter to the Police Station and he lodged the FIR on the basis of information provided to him and thereafter Cr. No.169/2015 was registered against applicant.(PW-5) Dr. Vijay Singh, examined the victim and found one lacerated wound on the head and another lacerated wound on the right hand and one lacerated wound on the wrist of the right hand.The version of (PW-1) Lalita is corroborated by (PW-2) Asha and (PW-3) Sunita.FIR has been lodged without delay and (PW-5) Vijay Singh prepared MLC (Ex-P-5).Considering the evidence, it goes to show that there was sudden quarrel between the applicant and victim on the construction of house.There was scuffle between them as a result of which, victim sustained simple injuries.On basis of aforesaid evidence, it is found that the trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.Looking to the nature of offence and the fact that the applicant is not a habitual criminal and it is disputed that the house was constructed on the land of the applicant or on the land of the victim.The victim is aggressor party who tried to -: 5:- dismantle the constructed house.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pb PRASHANT Digitally signed by PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, ou=PERSONAL ASSISTANT, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=062bc13272373e2768c883468695ccafcb8f7bf9db7cbd37ad359bc82 BAGJILEWALE 069bcdf, serialNumber=a08ae25aceff18c7a0f94698e1bc6a3ccf1dc9654549200eb1bc8e 5ddf6349b0, cn=PRASHANT BAGJILEWALE Date: 2019.04.05 16:32:18 +05'30'
|
['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.
|
67,859,166 |
He has falsely been implicated.Prayer for grant of bail to the applicant is opposed by learned counsel for the State.Case-diary perused.Considering the allegations against the applicant coupled with the facts that charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is under custody for more than one month, conclusion of trial shall take time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the application is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy, as per rules.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,863,074 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.48415/2019 (Jahid @ Jed @ Bilal s/o Mehboob Mansoori Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 29.11.2019 Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.With the aforesaid liberty, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.48415/2019 is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,870,805 |
[Order of the Court was made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J] The petitioner is the uncle's daughter of the detenu.The detenu wasdetained by the second respondent by his order in Cr.M.P.No.18/2015 (GOONDA), dated 17.10.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in CrimeNo.408 of 2015 on the file of Virudhunagar Rural Police Station registeredfor alleged offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code andthe following two adverse cases:-(i) Crime No.100 of 2011 registered on the file of Thiruppuvanam PoliceStation, Sivagangai District for alleged offences punishable under Sections147, 148, 341, 342, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code r/w 149 of the IndianPenal Code; and(ii) Crime No.297 of 2015 registered on the file of Amathur PoliceStation, Virudhunagar District for alleged offences punishable under Sections147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 109 of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of TNPHW Act.The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfaction that thedetenu conformed to the definition of the "Goonda" and that his presence atlarge would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and publicpeace and also expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likelythat the detenu would come out on bail in the second adverse case and theground case, passed the impugned detention order.The said order ischallenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.Though the order of detention is assailed on several grounds, thelearned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that thesubjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority regarding the realpossibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case and thesecond adverse case is not based on cogent materials and the same may be termed as ipse dixit.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitionerrelies on the Judgment of a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtconsisting of three Hon'ble Judges in Rekha Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, reportedin (2011) 5 SCC 244, followed by and clarified in Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs.State of Manipur and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181, which has alsobeen followed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in H.C.P.No.1154of 2015, dated 11.08.2015 [Chandrakala Vs.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department and others].The submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor inreply to the above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioner are also heard.In paragraph No.7 of the grounds of detention, the DetainingAuthority, expressing his subjective satisfaction regarding the possibilityof the detenu coming out on bail, made the following observation:"I am aware that Muthuselvam @ Avva have been remanded to Judicial custody upto 20.10.2015 and lodged at the Borstal School, at Nanguneri,Tirunelveli District in connection with Cr.No.297/15 of Amathur PoliceStation and Crime No.408/15 of Virudhunagar Rural Police Station.The adversecase was registered against the accused in Cr.No.297/15 u/s 147, 148, 341,307, 302, 109 IPC and 4 of TNPHW Act. In this case, the accused did not filebail petition.But in a similar case in Crime No.33/14 u/s 147, 148, 341,323, 307 @ 147, 148, 341, 323, 302 IPC registered against the accusedKarathamalai at Kariapatty Police Station, the Madurai Bench of Madras HighCourt, Madurai has granted bail to the accused vide Crl.Similarly, in respect of the ground case,namely, Crime No.408 of 2015 registered on the file of Virudhunagar RuralPolice Station, the Detaining Authority made a reference to the non-filing ofa bail application.State of Manipur and others reported in (2012) 7 SCC 181 and a DivisionBench of the Madras High Court in H.C.P.No.1154 of 2015, dated 11.08.2015 [Chandrakala Vs.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department and others].Hence, as rightly contended by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, the Order of Detention vitiated on the saidground alone.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Courtsets aside the order of detention dated 17.10.2015, made in Cr.M.P.No.18/2015(GOONDA), by the second respondent, the District Magistrate and DistrictCollector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar and directs the release of the detenu, byname Muthuselvam @ Avva, S/o.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Borstal School, Pudhukottai, Pudhukottai District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,871,401 |
(421)C. R. M. 9056 of 2014 In the matter of : An Application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.08.2014 in connection with Kardah Police Station Case No. 566 of 2014 dated 27.06.2014 under Sections 420/120B/506 of the I.P.C.And In re : Tanima Roy. .Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousands Only) with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia-J.) 2
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,875,515 |
This petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C for correction of the order passed by this court in M.Cr.In the said order, due to typographical mistake, the `Crime No.261 of 2016 registered at PS Porsa, district Morena for the offence punishable under section 304B, 408A and 302/34 of IPC' has been typed instead of `Crime No.62 of 2016 registered at Police Station Baroda district Sheopur for the offence under section 307, 147, 148, 149, 341 of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act'.Hence, prayed that the same be corrected in the impugned order.Considering the aforesaid, this petition is allowed.C.No.11165 of 2016, ` Crime No.62 of 2016 registered at Police Station Baroda district Sheopur for the offence under section 307, 147, 148, 149, 341 of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act ' be read in stead of `Crime No.261 of 2016 registered at PS Porsa, district Morena for the offence punishable under section 304B, 408A and 302/34 of IPC'.This petition stands disposed of.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE Rks
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,875,819 |
In the event of arrest of applicants 1 to 3 in crime no, 3/12 u/s 306, 420, 34 of IPC of PS Jaulka, each applicant shall be released on ad interim anticipatory bail on executing P. B. of Rs .20000/- with surety in like amount each till return of notices.Issue notice to state as to why ad interim anticipatory bail should not be confirmed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 :::Appln15.2012 8 PSO concerned be informed.Dt. 12.01.2012 (M.R. Manthanwar) Addl.Sessions Judge, Washim"Perusal of this order would indicate that the learned Public Prosecutor concerned was not at all heard when the above order was passed.The order also does not incorporate any of the precautions and conditions which are to be imposed in view of the Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read along with State amendment in respect of said provisions.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim made the notice returnable on 21/1/2012, and on 23/01/2012 he proceeded to pass the following order."Ad interim anticipatory bail granted to applicant 1 to 3 vide order 12.1.2012 is confirmed subject to condition that they shall attend P.S. Jaulka on every Monday and Wednesday between 5 pm to 9 pm for a period of 3 months or till filing of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 ::: Appln15.2012 9 charge sheet, which ever occurs earlier.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 :::P.S.O. concerned be informed.Dt. 23.01.2012 (M.R. Manthanwar) Addl.Sessions Judge, Washim"This is how application was finally disposed of.It appears from the above order dated 23/01/2012, that the objections which were raised by the Investigating Agency were not considered at all.Learned APP appearing for respondent-State also submitted that the accusations were serious in nature and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were named in the FIR.The grant of bail was strongly objected by the learned APP on the ground that the applicants-accused applying for anticipatory bail were relatives of the deceased-Nitin and they were insisting upon the first informant (father of the deceased) to withdraw the complaint.It was also submitted on behalf of the Investigating Officer that there is a danger to the life of first informant and his family members from the accused and their relatives as also it is alleged that accused Sandhya ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 ::: Appln15.2012 10 had stolen gold ornaments of Rs. 2,50,000/- and her custodial interrogation by the police was very much necessary.Thus, despite these objections including on the ground of necessity of custodial interrogation, ad-interim anticipatory bail was confirmed subject to only condition as to attendance at Jaulka Police Station on every Monday and Wednesday between 5 pm to 9 pm for a period of 3 months or till filing of charge sheet, which ever occurs earlier.While concluding the order dated 23.01.2012, learned Additional Sessions Judge observed thus;::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 :::"therefore it is difficult to consider whether there was any involvement of applicant no. 1 and applicants no. 2 to 3 for said suicide of deceased.Of course the matter will be decided on merit during trial.But at this stage I do not find that any case is made out by prosecution to refuse relief of protection from arrest.No doubt, complainant had raised opposition that interested persons in applicants are threatening him.In my view if certain conditions are imposed that will overcome the aspect.Hence, proceed to pass following order." The observations made by learned ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 ::: Appln15.2012 11 Additional Sessions Judge, Washim were at the stage when investigation was at its threshold.For this one may refer to the ruling in the case of State Rep. By the C.B.I. Vs.Anil Sharma reported in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 ::: Appln15.2012 12 (1997) 7 SCC Page 187; hence the discretion in the matter of for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to be used judiciously with care and caution depending upon the facts and circumstances appearing prima facie in each case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 :::ig For all these reasons, I think that exercise of discretion to grant ad interim anticipatory bail without hearing Public Prosecutor and then to confirm it as has been done in the present case is per se, unjust, wrong and improper exercise of discretion particularly in view of the non-consideration of objections raised by the Investigating Agency for opposing the bail.The order is unsustainable and indefensible as it is based upon irrelevant consideration and perverse.The order dated 23/01/2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim granting anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is cancelled.The respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who were released on anticipatory bail, be arrested and committed to custody.It is open for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 ::: Appln15.2012 13 Investigating Officer concerned to apply for appropriate custodial remand of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the Magistrate concerned.Needless to state that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall, upon expiry of period of custodial interrogation as may be permissible, apply for bail on merits.Application is allowed accordingly.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 :::JUDGE Punde ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:21:46 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,876,640 |
A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 1 of 29 offences under Sections 120B, 364, 302 and 201 IPC read with Section 392 IPC.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 1 of 29These appeals are also directed against an order on sentence dated 26 th March 2003 whereby both Appellants was sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default to undergo 6 months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC; to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.60,000/- each and in default to undergo 6 months' imprisonment for the offence under Section 364 IPC.They were sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 120B IPC and to 7 years' imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC.For the offence under Section 392 IPC, both were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo 6 months' imprisonment.The trial Court also specified the amounts to be paid as compensation to the wife of the deceased out of the fine amounts required to be paid by the Appellants.At the outset, it requires to be noticed that the two Appellants, Prem Pal (Accused No.1: A-1 and the Appellant in Crl.A.568 of 2003) and Vijender Singh (A-2 and the Appellant in Crl.A.358 of 2003) were sent up for trial along with Bhagwan Singh (A-4) and Dhara Singh (A-3).By the same impugned judgment dated 20th March 2003, A-4 was held guilty of the offence under Section 411 IPC and A-4 of abetment in regard to the stolen property punishable under Section 411 read with Section 109 IPC.By the same impugned order on sentence dated 26 th March 2003, A-3 was Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 2 of 29 sentenced to the period already undergone whereas A-4 was sentenced to the period already undergone with the fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo one month's imprisonment.Version of PW-6The case of the prosecution, as spoken by his brother Raj Kumar (PW-6), is that the deceased was running a ration shop in Delhi at Prahladpur Chowk which was near his residence.The deceased had an Armada jeep and had employed a driver.According to PW-6, the deceased used the jeep some times for carrying passengers.According to PW-6, on 10th May 1998 he happened to visit the deceased at his ration shop along with one Sajan Bansal (PW-1), Gopal (not examined) and another Raj Kumar (also not examined).PW-6 stated that he Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 3 of 29 was in the business of export of clothes and that day he had come to the shop of the deceased because he had to get material from one Mr. Chadha (not examined) who had his shop in the vicinity of the ration shop.According to PW-6 between 11 and 11.30 am 3 persons came to the shop of the deceased and started talking to him about going to Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh (U.P.).PW-6, thereafter, left the shop and subsequently learnt that the deceased had taken his Armada jeep and gone with those persons.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 3 of 29When no call was received from the deceased on 11th or 12th May, 1998 PW-6 is supposed to have called up Suman Kumar (PW-12), the brother-in- law (behnoi) of the deceased who was at Soron.According to PW-6, PW- 12 told him had the deceased had come to Soron at 11 pm on the night of 10th May 1998 and had taken meals there.On 13th May 1998, PW-6 accompanied by PW-1, Gopal, Raj Kumar and one Mukesh (also not examined) went in a Tata sumo jeep to Soron.They reached there between 2 and 3 am and proceeded to search the deceased at around 7 am.They were accompanied by PW-12 and other local persons from Soron.According to PW-6, while searching for the deceased they first went to Sahaswan about 40 to 45 kms from Soron and contacted the police there.From there they went to Badayun and reached there at around 2 am.From there PW-6 made a call to Delhi and he was told that he should immediately reached Soron.PW-6 states that on reaching Soron they were told about a dead body Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 4 of 29 having been found near the railway track about 3 kms away from Soron.The post-mortem of the body was conducted by Dr. Narinder Babu (PW-3) on 15th May 1998 at 3 am.This was at the District Hospital, Etah (UP).The body was found to be in an advanced stage of decomposition with nails being easily detachable.Hairs and teeth were absent.Maggots were crawling all over the body.The interior body was also in an advanced stage of decomposition.The skull with lower jaw had separated from the trunk.The bone of skull and lower jaw were present and the ribs were exposed.There was no viscera as it had already been eaten up.Some muscles and ribs at some places with skin of the pelvic bone intact were found.The pelvic viscera was absent.Thigh, knee joint, legs and feet were intact with decomposed skin.There were muscles at the back of chest.Brain matter was absent.According to PW-3 the cause of death could not be ascertained as a result of the advanced stage of decomposition and the absence of viscera.On the body, there were no clothes that could be recovered.It may be mentioned that in his cross-examination, PW-6 clarified that in the missing report lodged by him on 13th May 1998 with the Delhi Police, he had not stated about the 3 persons having visited his brother at the ration shop and about their plan to go to Soron or Bareilly.He did not say specifically that 3 persons were seen by him nor did he give any description.He further clarified that he did not tell the UP Police on 14 th May 1998 that he had seen 3 persons sitting in the shop of his brother on 10th May 1998 at around 11 or 11.30 am.According to him, seeing the dead body of his brother lying before him he was "emotionally disturbed."How they came to come across the accused is described by PW-6 as follows.On 11th August 1998 i.e. more than 3 months after the deceased was last seen by PW-6, PW-6 received a telephone from PW-12 that one Armada jeep had been seized by the police of PS Narki in U.P. and was available in the said PS at Narki.PW-6 then went to the Nehru Place Crime Branch which was investigating the present case.Sub Inspector (SI) Jawahar Singh (PW-16) and 3 other police persons accompanied PW-6 to PS Narki.There they found the Armada jeep standing with the fake number plate.PW-6 identified the vehicle to be the jeep of the deceased.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 6 of 29By this time, A-3 had been apprehended by the police of PS Narki.According to PW-16, they met the Station Officer (SO) Hari Shankar Soni (PW-14) of PS Narki.PW-14 told them that a jeep was found standing opposite the house of Ved Pal (PW-10) in village Garhi Har Rai, District Firojabad (UP).In his deposition PW-14 stated that the said jeep was seized by SI Naimmuddin (not examined) attached to Police Post (PP) Nagla Beech which was part of PS Narki.The jeep was seized under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 on 3rd August 1998 in respect of which DD No.20 was recorded at PS Narki (Ex.PW-14/A).18. PW-16 reached PS Narki there along with PW-6 and identified the Armada jeep as belonging to the deceased.They checked the engine number, chassis number and it tallied to the registration documents of the vehicle and a fake number plate had been fitted to it.PW-14 then immediately went to the said village with the police.While A-3 could be arrested A-4 succeeded in running away.They reached the village at around 10 pm.Both A-1 and A-2 were apprehended by them.In his cross-examination, PW-14 stated that A-1 had been apprehended at around 10 or 11 pm "from tube-well outside the village and no village person had gathered there." A-2 was also with A-1 and apprehended from there.In his cross-examination PW-16 maintained that "Vijender (A-2) was arrested from Ram Nagar, the village of Prem Pal (A-1) from a field where there was a room.It was a kothara in the field made by bricks."It appears that much later on 1st September 1998 a seizure memo was drawn up (Ex.PW-6/B) about the wrist watch of the deceased having been recovered from a tin box of A-1 from his house at Ram Nagar Jaitoly, District Etah.In the personal search of both the accused (Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B) nothing was shown to have been recovered.The disclosure statement of A-3 was Ex.PW-1/C and this was dated 13th September 1998 i.e. more than one month thereafter.He purportedly disclosed that he had purchased the Armada jeep for Rs.25,000/-.The Armada jeep was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.The further proceedings in the TIP show that as far as A-1 is concerned he declined to take part as, according to him, the police already had his photographs (3 in number) taken in the PS.He was also photographed outside the Firozabad Court.Three witnesses and PW-16 remained outside the jail boundary during the proceedings.As far as the TIP of A-2 is concerned, he too stated that his photographs were taken by the police when he was kept in PS for about 4 - 5 days.The TIP of the wrist watch was also got done.Subsequently, A-4 was also arrested on 9th March 1999 and he gave a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-15/B).A panchayat was held to settle the quarrel but it could not be resolved.Chander Pal (DW-2) spoke of A-4 belonging to his village and about A- 3 having worked with A-4 and having had a dispute with the latter over wages."Unfortunately, on that day, driver was not with him and thinking that he would be able to make money, as jeep was required for a longer route, he himself accompanied accused persons to Soron.Accused person gave reference of his brother in law to befool him with malafide intention."(iii) If PW-6 had not been present at the time of the conversation with the deceased and the three persons who had come to take the jeep "there would have been no information with him that Satish had gone towards Soron.The fact that he had called PW-12 showed that PW- 6 was both credible and truthful."(iv) No doubt had been raised by the accused about the identity of the dead body.The dead body was correctly identified by PW-6 and this showed that the deceased had been taken by the three persons including A-1 and A-2 to Soron in order to rob him of his armada jeep which was worth of around Rs.3 lacs.(v) The deceased on the night of 10th May 1998 reached the hotel of one of his relative Bobby Gupta (PW-4) in Soron and took meals.The deceased did not stay at Soron and told PW-4 that he would be returning.But he was not allowed to go beyond Soron and was killed in Soron itself as was evident from the recovery of the dead body.It was around 8 or 9 am in the morning when he met me.He used to visit me.The other person who could have spoken about the deceased last seen being seen with the accused was his brother-in-law PW-12 who was at Soron and at whose instance the deceased is supposed to have taken his Armada jeep there accompanied by A-1, A-2 and one other person.However, according to PW-6 when he spoke to PW-12 on 12th May 1998 enquiring about the deceased PW-12 had told him that the deceased had eaten dinner at the house of PW-12 at 11 pm.PW-1 also speaks about this.In his cross-examination, he states as under:"The information about Satish having reached Soron was received from Suman Gupta brother in law of Satish when we made STD call to him because Satish had not come back.He informed that Satish had taken dinner on the night of 10th."48. PW-6, on the other hand, states that he made a call not on 12th May but on 13th May to PW-12 and further states:"Suman Gupta told me that my brother Satish Chand had come to Soron on the night of 10th May at about 11 p.m. and had taken meals there."What PW-12 himself states is quite something else.According to PW- 12, PW-6 had given him a call on 12th May 1998 enquiring if the deceased had come when the vehicle to which he replied in negative.PW-6 told him that the deceased had gone from Delhi with 3 persons in the Armada jeep on 10th May. He then states:In other words, PW-12 did not tell PW-6 about the deceased having had meals with PW-12 on 10th May 1998 at 11 pm.When one turns to the evidence of PW-4 whose tau ji was PW-12 and who ran the hotel in Soron, he states the deceased had come from Delhi in the Armada jeep on 10th May 1998 at about 11 pm.He states that there were three more persons with him "who were known to him." He confirmed:"They had come to take meals at my hotel.I told my Fufa to visit my house also but he refused and stated that he along with his known persons had to proceed to Bareli so he took meal and left Hotel.I had seen those three persons and I can identify them.When asked who else was with PW-4 when the deceased and the others had come to his hotel he mentioned "one pandit ji of Soron namely Harish Kumar was with him." PW-4 further stated that the house of PW-12 "is about 10 - 20 steps away from my hotel."The other witness who was a witness of last seen would be Harish Kumar (PW-11).He saw "a white colour Tata sumo coming and halting and there were four persons in that Tata sumo." When they got down he noticed that one of them was the deceased who related to PW-10 was known to him.The deceased Crl.Finding the Armada jeepThe next circumstance is the seizure of the Armada jeep of the deceased from outside the house of Ved Pal (PW-10).He did that by stating that there was a checking by the Road Transport Office (RTO) and that he would take away the jeep after 3 or 4 days.PW-10 confirms that the police officer of PS Narki came there and asked about the jeep and he told them that it belonged to A-4 and the SO took away the vehicle from his house.Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 20 th March 2003 passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.183 of 1999 arising out of FIR No.364 of 1998 registered at Police Station (PS) Okhla Industrial Area, convicting the Appellants for the Crl.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 2 of 29The charge against the two Appellants were that along with co-accused Vijender Yadav (not arrested) they entered into a criminal conspiracy on or before 10th May 1998 to abduct Satish Gupta (the deceased), to rob him, inflict injuries on him and commit his murder and destroy the evidence of commission of murder thereby committing the aforementioned offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 364, 394, 302 and 201 IPC.They found the body was without its head.Nevertheless, PW-6 could identify the body to be that of the deceased because the nail of one thumb of one foot was partly broken.According to PW-6 "the body was badly eaten up and hands and legs were there and there was underwear on the body and there was kalawa on a hand of my brother.The underwear was partly burnt.I could also identify my brother from kalawa and partly burnt underwear."Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 4 of 29Zeroing in on the accusedThereafter, A-3 was interrogated.A-3 disclosed that his brother-in-law A-2, his associate A-1 and Vijender Yadav (not arrested) who were residents of village Ram Nagar Jaitoly District Etah had brought the Armada jeep to A-3 and told him that the jeep had been booked by them Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 7 of 29 from Delhi for Bareilly on 10th May 1998 and that the deceased was owner and was also driving the jeep.They are supposed to have disclosed that they have killed the owner and now wanted the jeep to be disposed of.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 7 of 29At the pointing out of A-3, PW-14 went to village Jaitoly with the Inspector Preetam Singh (not examined) from Delhi.PW-1/D).Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 8 of 29Thereafter, A-1, A-2 and A-3 were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Narki and brought to Delhi in transit remand.An application for conducting the Test Identification Parade (Ex.PW- 7/A) was moved before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Patiala House Courts.The endorsement on the said application by the MM was that there was no time left on that date i.e. 27 th August 1998 and then the date for TIP was fixed for 28th August 1998 with specific direction that the accused should be kept in muffled face till the TIP is conducted.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 9 of 29Statements under Section 313 Cr PCFor the prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined.When the incriminating circumstances were put to the Appellants they denied them.Both Appellants claimed that they had been falsely implicated. A-1 and A-2 maintained that they had been arrested from their respective houses, A-1 from village Ram Nagar in Etah and A-2 from Sangam Vihar in Delhi.For the defence, three witnesses were examined.Taj Singh (DW-1) stated that he knew A-3 and A-4 but not the other two.He spoke about the quarrel between them. A-4 was the owner of a fruit park and A-3 had been employed there.There had been a quarrel between the two about wages.Rajinder (DW-3) was the owner of a hotel and a driver and transporter who resided at Lal Masjid near the water works on the bye-pass road in Agra.According to him on 24th May 1998 A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 had come to his hotel and taken food.According to him one Satish, a leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), also came to that hotel and they started discussing about selling the Armada jeep.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 10 of 29According to DW-3 the deal was finally stroke at 2.27 lakhs.Satish sought 8 more days' time for making the balance payment.On 1st June 1998 Satish's vehicle met with an accident near Hussaini village in Firozabad and his brother broke one of his feet.On 2nd June 1998, A-1, A-2 and A-3 are stated to have come to the water works crossing and demanded balance from Satish.He told them that his vehicle had met with an accident.When A-4 reached there, Satish told him he should pay Rs.50,000/- or Rs.60,000/- to the three accused. A-4 went to arrange for the money while Satish went to retrieve his vehicle.According to DW-3, A-4 gave A-2 Rs.62,000/- and then all of them left the village.In his cross-examination by the APP he stated that he did not know what had happened to the jeep.He knew that the Armada jeep had a Delhi number but did not remember the number.DW-3, therefore, confirmed that A-2 and A-4 were involved in the sale of the stolen Armada jeep to Satish.In the impugned judgment, the trial Court came to the following conclusions as regards the circumstantial evidence:(i) The attack on the credibility of the PW-6 was unwarranted.There was sufficient opportunity for PW-6 to have noticed the three persons who came to the shop of the deceased.His identification of A-1 and A-2 among the said three persons was believable.(ii) The case of PW-6 was that the three persons including A-1 and A-2 Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 11 of 29 had come to the deceased and told him that the jeep was requisitioned by PW-12 for going somewhere and to Bareilly.The trial Court held: "it seems from the evidence that Satish Kumar Gupta who was running a ration shop was simultaneously doing the business of driving jeep on hire." It was further held:Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 11 of 29(vi) DD No.20 recorded at PS Narki was a natural circumstance about the seizure of jeep by the UP Police without knowing that jeep was Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 12 of 29 involved in this case.There was no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW-14 and PW-16 in this regard.The involvement of A-1 and A-2 were revealed from the disclosure of A-3. DW-3 fortified the claim of the police by stating that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had come to his hotel and talked for the sale of jeep to Satish.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 12 of 29(vii) In his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, A-4 had stated that A-2, A-3 and some other person had come to his house on 24th May 1998 and asked about the sale of the armada jeep and he then referred them to Satish who used to ply jeep and it is Satish who purchased jeep from them and paid an advance of Rs.25,000/-.Thus from the statement of A-4 and the testimony of DW-3, the involvement of A-1 and A-2 in the crime stood established.(viii) The evidence of Harish Kumar (PW-11) was unreliable and his testimony had to be ignored.The other witnesses, however, appeared to be natural and trustworthy.(ix) Even though the recovery of the wrist watch was supposed to have happened on 13th August 1998 and the seizure memo was dated 1st September 1998, there was no reason for the UP Police to falsely arrest A-1 and A-2 and implicate them.A-3 was related to A-2 and there was no reason why he would have falsely got his own brother- in-law arrested.(x) Because of improper investigation, the accused could not be acquitted.Even if the testimony regarding recovery of wrist watch was ignored, the prosecution case stood proved.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 13 of 29(xi) According to the trial Court, the following circumstances stood proved against A-1 and A-2:"1. Accused Prem Pal and Vijender along with one more person came to the shop of Satish Gupta and told him that jeep was being requisitioned by his brother-in-law at Soron.Satish accompanied Prem Pal and Vijender Singh in Armada jeep from Delhi for Soron on 10.5.98 in the afternoon at 2 pm.Satish was seen by PW-4 Bobby Gupta at Soron in his hotel.He had taken meals there and accused Vijender and Prem Pal and one more person were with him at about 11 pm on 10.5.98 and left his hotel around 11 p.m.Dead body of Satish was recovered on 14.5.98 from a jungle in Soron, the post mortem report shows that time since death was around four days - plus-minus - one day, which shows that Satish Kumar Gupta had been murdered sometime on the night of 10/11.5.98, near Soron itself and his dead body was thrown in the jungle was looted.Jeep of Satish Kumar was found on 3.8.98 parked in abandoned condition opposite the house of PW Ved Pal.This jeep was sold by accused Prem Pal and Vijender Singh through accused Dhara to accused Bhagwan Singh, as per testimony of DW.3 as well as testimony of witness of PW Satish.Rs.25,000.00 was given in advance by accused Bhagwan Singh who mortgaged his property and paid Rs.62,000.00 more to accused Prem Pal and Vijender Singh.Jeep was given a fake registration no. and was plied by accused Bhagwan Singh between Agra and Etah as per testimony of PW Satish."(xii) Since the each of the above links was proved conclusively against A-1 and A-2, they were held guilty of the offences as aforementioned Crl.According to the trial Court, the prosecution had been able to conclusively show that A-1, A-2 along with one more person came to the shop of the deceased on 10th May 1998 and told him that the jeep was being requisitioned by his brother-in-law at Soron.According to PW-6, when he visited the shop of the deceased on 10 th May 1998 between 11 and 11.30 am, he was accompanied by PW-1 and two others namely Gopal and Raj Kumar (not examined).His narration begins by his stating that the deceased was living "just opposite my house"."On 13th May, 98 Raj Kumar and some more person from Delhi reached my home in the early hour of 13th May. My nephew Bobby had told us that Satish had come on his hotel on the Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 19 of 29 night of 10th May and told that he would be going towards Bareily so we started searching for him on road going towards Kachla."Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 19 of 29Out of the persons present in the court, one person in the white shirt and other behind in the Cream shirt were with him.The witness had pointed to accd.Bijender (white shirt) and accused Prem Pal (cream Shirt) as the persons who were with Satish Kumar on that day."A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 20 of 29 enquired from PW-4 that PW-12 was in town.PW-4 told him that PW-12 had gone out of Soron.PW-4 asked the deceased to take meals and come to his house but the deceased told him that he was in a hurry and with three passengers who were with him and he had to visit Bareilly.All of them then took meals at the hotel of PW-4 and then left in the Tata Sumo.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 20 of 29When the APP put a further question to this witness with the permission of Court he was unable to say if A-2 was a third person and he again said that it is possible that A-3 "was not among the three persons but as far as my memory goes he was one of them."All these witnesses confirmed that on 13th May 1998, in the early hours, PW-6 and the others came looking for the deceased and they also confirmed finding the dead body near the railway track and PW-6 identified the dead body to be that of the deceased.A collective reading of the above witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 4, 6, 11 and 12 reveals that the deceased was seen at Soron with his jeep (which PW-11 talks of being a Tata Sumo, but it could have been an Armada) with three persons.It does not appear that PW-12 saw these persons at all whereas PWs 4 and 11 did.The Court is not convinced about the evidence of PW-6 when he says that he saw A-1 and A-2 at the shop of the deceased in Delhi.Even we keep Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 21 of 29 this evidence out as far as last seen is concerned, closer to the date when the deceased was last seen i.e. the night of 10th May 1998, he was seen in the company of A-1 with their being uncertainty whether A-2 and A-3 were also there.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 21 of 29The law and relation to last seen is that time, place when the dead body is found next should not make the evidence of last seen remote.As far as the place where the dead body is found, since it is 3 kms from Soron when the deceased was last seen was at least one of the accused the evidence does appear reliable.In terms of time, since the body was highly decomposed and the post- mortem happened 5 days after the last seen i.e. 15th May 1998 the estimation of time of death could not be accurate.This happened on Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 22 of 29 around 23rd July.There was no cross- examination whatsoever of this witness.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 22 of 29There is corroboration of this part of the evidence of PW-10 by SI Hari Shankar Soni (PW-14).He also confirms about the arrest of A-3 at village Garhi Har Rai on receipt of information from an informer which was the same village where the house of PW-10 was.He stated that A-4 succeeded in running away.A-3 disclosed that A-1 and A-2 along with one Vijender Yadav had brought to him the Armada jeep for being sold.The entire evidence of the jeep being found outside the house of Ved Pal (PW-10) and his confirming that it was brought there by A-4 appears to be reliable and trustworthy with PW-10 not being subjected to any cross- examination whatsoever.The further evidence of PW-14 who is attached to PS Narki corroborates this totally.The arrest of A-3 from the village of PW-10 and the evidence that A-4 ran away at that point of time also points the culpability of both A-3 and A-There was no question of any false implication or fabrication of evidence as regards the discovery of the jeep.The connection of A-3 and A-4 to the jeep and in turn of A-3 with A-2 who was his own brother-in-law also gets further established.According to PW-14 the disclosure by A-3 was to the effect that A-1, A-2 and Vijender Yadav had brought the Armada jeep to him on 11th July 1998 i.e. more than Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 23 of 29 2 months after 10th May 1998 and asked him to sell the jeep.The evidence of PW-14 comes across as trustworthy and reliable.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 23 of 29In this context, it does appear to the Court that with A-2 also having come with A-1 to sell the jeep when he approached A-3 the evidence of PW-4 about his having seen A-1 and A-2 at his hotel on the night of 10th May 1998 with the deceased appears reliable and trustworthy.It would be recalled that they declined the TIP on the ground that their photographs were taken.However, the TIP proceedings make it clear that none of the witnesses or the police were present when both A-1 and A- 2 were produced in muffled faces.There was no occasion for A-1 and A-2 being shown to PW-4 or PW-11. A-1 and A-2, therefore, did undertake the risk of a negative inference being drawn against them for refusing the TIP.The Court is, therefore, satisfied that this circumstance of the discovery of the stolen jeep has been conclusively proved by the prosecution.It has been conclusively proved that both A-1 and A-2 stole the Armada jeep from the deceased who was himself driving it at that time.Recovery of wrist watch not provedThe evidence regarding the recovery of the wrist watch of the deceased is indeed a pointer to the lapses of the investigating agency.The trial Court Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 24 of 29 is right in its observation that the failure by PW-16 to properly explain how the seizure memo of that wrist watch is dated 1st September 1998 when A-1 was arrested on 13th August 1998 makes this part of the evidence unreliable and liable to be discarded.The disclosure statement of A-1 and A-2 being jointly signed by them would be relevant fully in so far as the recovery of wrist watch is concerned since by this time the jeep had already been recovered.This Court concurs with the trial Court that the recovery of the wrist watch is not a reliable piece of evidence.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 24 of 29At the same time, the Court also concurs with the trial Court that notwithstanding this, the evidence as the recovery of the jeep is convincing and is a circumstance against the accused.A submission was also made about there being no mention by the doctors of any clothes on the body or kalawa on the wrist of the dead body, whereas PW-6 says that he identified the dead body by those two objects.Given the highly decomposed state of the dead body where maggots were crawling and the dead body itself having been brought for the post-mortem examination in a bundle of cloth, it is quite possible that by the time the post-mortem was conducted, these two objects either fell off or could not be noticed.It seems highly unlikely that PW-6 could have wrongly identified the dead body to be that of his deceased brother.There are several witnesses including PW-4 and Crl.Consequently, the Court does not see much difficulty in accepting that the circumstance of the discovery of the dead body and its identification by PW-6 as being that of the deceased.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 25 of 29It was also submitted that the photographs of the vehicle were not shown to PW-10 and he was not asked to identify the vehicle.However, there was no cross-examination whatsoever of PW-10 to discredit his testimony.No such doubt appears to have been created by the defence counsel although they had full opportunity to ask PW-10 if indeed the jeep that was ultimately seized was the same that was parked outside his house.As regards the conduct of PWs-4 and 12 in not speaking to the police till about 3 months after the dead body was discovered, it appears that the entire process got triggered with the discovery of jeep and it is only thereafter that the police started piecing together the jigsaw puzzle.The non-execution of the daily diary entry regarding the recovery of the jeep is also not problematic since the evidence of PWs 14 and 17 about the seizure of the jeep outside the house of PW-10 is found to be trustworthy and truthful.Statements of A-3 and DW-3In his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, A-3 specifically mentions that A-2 and A-4 along with Ram Krishan and Ganpat had come to his house on 24th May 1998 asking to sell the Armada jeep and Crl.A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 26 of 29 then he referred them to Satish who had purchased it from them by paying Rs.25,000/- as advance.Satish also asked them to talk to A-4 regarding the balance payment to be made up after 15 days. A-4 confirmed having arranged Rs.62,000/- by mortgaging his land to a person in Allahabad.This too clinches the case as far as A-2 is concerned.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 26 of 29Chain of circumstances provedThe following circumstances stand proved:(i) Although there may not be any reliable evidence about A-1 and A-2 having come to Delhi to take the deceased away, the evidence of PW- 4 and PW-11 confirms that the deceased was accompanied by A- 1and A-2 in the jeep from Delhi and took meals at the hotel of PW-4 at around 11 pm.It, therefore, constitutes credible evidence of the deceased being last seen with the two accused.(ii) The discovery of the dead body of the deceased on 13 th May 1998 from near the railway track.(v) The sale of the jeep by A-1 and A-2 to Satish through A-4 as Crl.Crl. A. Nos. 568 & 358 of 2003 Page 27 of 29(vi) The fact that the jeep was given a fake registration number and was being plied between Agra and Etah by A-4 has been confirmed by Satish Chand (PW-5).The trial court rightly held them guilty for the offences with which they were charged.This Court also confirms the sentences, the fine amounts and default sentences awarded to A-1 and A-2 by the trial Court.It is clarified that the sentences will run concurrently.The bail bond and surety bond of both Appellants stand cancelled.They are directed to surrender immediately failing which they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of their sentences.The appeals are accordingly dismissed.The trial court record be returned forthwith together with a certified copy of this judgment.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
678,982 |
(2 ii) convicted u/s.302 r/w. 34 IPC.(2 counts) and 302 read with 34 IPC counts) and sentenced to undergo life (2 counts) imprisonment (2 counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months;- Totally 4 life sentences.Accused No.6 U/s.148, 326 and 120-B IPC.(4 i) Convicted u/s.120-B read with 302 counts) and 302 read with Sec. IPC.and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 months.- Totally 4 life sentencesAccused No.9 u/s.148 and 120B IPC.(2 counts) Convicted u/s.120-B read with 302 IPC.(2 and 149 read with Sec.302 IPC.He has stated that on 15.10.2006, after castingvote in the panchayat election, he came out from the School in the village alongwith his father D2 and PW-8 Velu and told that they would come out successful inthe election.When D2 said that every year they emerge victorious in theelections, A-9 commented 'only if D2 would be alive for the next period'.Sincethere were numerous persons with A-9, PW-1 and his father returned home withoutresponding to his comments.The election results turned out to be in favour ofone Chitra Devi, a candidate supported by the deceased group and subsequentthereto, on 25.10.2006 at 7.30 P.M., there was a quarrel between them andfollowing that, enmity continued between the accused group and that of thedeceased.On the date of occurrence, ie., on 25.01.2007, at about 7.45 P.M.,there was an incident at the Bus Stop and PW-1 and his brother D1 reached therefrom a place called Kuruvipottal and at that time, A-1 to A-8, each of themarmed with aruval, came from Velukottagai and by stating, "they have come now,cut them", rushed towards PW-1 and D1, whereupon, they started running and whenthey reached the field of one Vellimuthan, A1 to A-8 cut D1 indiscriminately andout of fear, PW-1 ran further and when he hardly covered some distance, hisfather D2 came there running and when he reached the field of one Singaran, A-1to A-8, cut him in a similar fashion.By that time, PW-2 came there and A-6 cuthim with aruval on his palm.When PW-1 shouted not to cut PW-2; PWs-3 to 5 andothers rushed to the occurrence place and on seeing them, the accused ran awaytowards western side.PW-1 noticed D1 with cut injuries on right and left elbowsand knees and found him speechless.D2 had cut injuries on the thigh, back,left shoulder and left ankle and he also could not speak.Thereafter, theinjured were taken to Paramakudi Government Hospital and on examination, theDuty Doctor found D1 already dead on the way to the Hospital.PW-2 was referredto the Government Hospital at Madurai and D2 was treated as in-patient in theGovernment Hospital at Paramakudi.b) PW-2 has deposed that on the occurrence day at about 7.45 P.M., whilehe was coming alongside the Bus-stand, he heard somebody yelling 'don't cut,don't cut', whereupon, he went towards the side from where the noise came andnoticed all the accused barring A-9 cutting D2 with aruval and when PW-2 toldthem not to cut, A-6 by stating 'cut whoever comes', aimed at his neck and inthe attempt to ward off the attack, he sustained injury on the palm.D1 died on the way to the Hospital, PW-2 was referred to Madurai Hospital,where, while undergoing treatment, he came to know about the death of D2 throughnewspapers.c) According to PW-3, on the occurrence day at 7.45 P.M., PW-1 and D1 werechased by A-1 to A-8, who were armed with aruval.PW-1 and D1 were running in a5 ft. difference and since PW-1 was ahead, D1 was captured by the accused (A1 toA8) and cut with aruval indiscriminately.D2, who came there to the rescue ofD1, was also dealt with in a similar fashion.When the brother of PW-3 ie., PW-2, questioned the act of the accused, A-6 cut him with aruval and inflicted agrievous injury on the right palm.d) PW-4 states that barring A-9, all other accused attacked D1 and D2 witharuval and also caused grievous injury to another person, not known to him byname.e) PW-5 is the wife of D1, who has stated that one day prior to theoccurrence, PW-7 came to D1 and told that A-9 is planning to murder him with theaid of his associates and cautioned him to be careful and that on the next day,her brother-in-law PW-1 came and informed that her husband was cut, whereupon,she rushed to the spot.f) PW-6 speaks about the presence of D2 at the scene vicinity prior to theoccurrence.Likewise, PW-16 states that on the date of occurrence, D1 and PW-1came to his tea shop and left that place by 6.30 P.M. and on the next day, heheard about the murders.g) PW-7 speaks about the conspiracy hatched by A-9 along with otheraccused to do away with the deceased.He states that on 24.01.2007 at 10.30A.M., he saw A-9 standing near the Rice Mill along with A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-7.A-9 did not notice PW-7 standing there and PW-7 heard A-9 stating the otheraccused present there 'the family of Central Karuppiah/D2 should be eliminated'.When A-9 noticed PW-7, he stopped speaking.PW-7 informed D1 of what he heardand cautioned him.On the next day, he came to know that the deceased weremurdered.h) PW-8 also speaks about the motive for the occurrence.He states thaton 15.10.2006, he came out from the booth after casting vote along with PW-1 andD-2 and at that time, PW-1 told 'we would get victory' for which D-2 said'victory is always ours', whereupon, A-9 commented 'you would win only when youare spared alive'.At 10 PM, he examined PW-2 Balusamy, found an incised wound on hisright palm and contusion on the right arm, gave first aid and referred him tothe Government Hospital at Madurai for further treatment.Based on thecertificate given at the Madurai Rajaji Hospital, he issued Ex.He opined that the first injury could have beensustained while attempting to ward off an attack with aruval.At 10.10 PM, heexamined D2 and found him unconscious and referred him for further treatment tothe Government Hospital at Madurai.Since the relatives declined to take him toMadurai, he admitted him as in-patient and in spite of treatment, D2 died at11.45 P.M. The accident register issued by him for D-2 is Ex.P11 is the medical reportissued by him and the Doctor deposed that PW-2 could have sustained the injuryin an attempt to ward off the attack with aruval.k) PW-24 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Paramakudi PoliceStation and on 25.01.2007 at 23.00 hours, PW-1 appeared before him and made astatement, which was reduced to writing.Based on the same, he registered acase in Crime No.19 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,324, 326 and 302 IPC.The statement has been marked as Ex.P1 and the F.I.R. asEx.P30 and the same were forwarded to the court of the Magistrate through PW-21,who handed over the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, at 11.45 P.M.,and copies were sent to the higher-ups in the Department.l) PW-26, the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station, on receiptof the information at 11.30 P.M., took up investigation.He visited the sceneof occurrence along with witnesses and prepared rough sketch Ex.By thattime, PW-19, the Village Administrative Officer, on the instructions of theRevenue Inspector, reached the scene place.PW-19 and one Sekar attested theobservation mahazar Ex.P-13 prepared by the Inspector of Police.At about 00.45hours on 26.01.2007, in the presence of witnesses, the Inspector of Policeseized bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place where D2 was done todeath and thereafter, from the place where D1 was murdered.He proceeded toParamakudi Government Hospital and, at the mortuary, in the presence ofwitnesses and panchayatdars, conducted inquest over the dead body of D1 between6 and 8 A.M. and Ex.P32 is the inquest report and thereafter, he sent the bodythrough PW-23 Head Constable along with his covering letter for the purpose ofconducting autopsy.In the presence of same panchayatdars and witnesses, heconducted inquest over the dead body of D2 between 8.30 and 10.30 A.M. and theinquest report is marked as Ex.The Inspector sent the dead body to theHospital along with a covering letter through PW-22/constable for the purposeof post-mortem.MO-1 series are the photographs taken inrespect of D1 and MO2 series are the negatives thereof.The photographs takenin respect of D2 are marked as MO3 series and the negatives thereof as MO-4series.m) PW-10 is the Doctor, who, on receipt of the requisition from theInspector of Police at 11.30 A.M. on 26.01.2007, conducted post mortem on thebody of D-1 and issued Ex.P5/post mortem certificate, wherein, he has noticed 15cut injuries and opined that the deceased is appeared to have died ofhaemorrhage due to injuries to large vessels viz., wound nos.1, 5 and 10 notedby him, associated with other injuries.At about 1.45 P.M., he conducted postmortem on the body of D2 and issued Ex.P6/Post mortem certificate, wherein, henoted 12 injuries and opined that the deceased would appear to have died ofshock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to vital organs.n) PW-18 is a writer in the Village Office at Karungulam and it is alsohis job to switch on the street lights at 6.30 P.M. and switch off the same at 7A.M. daily.He has deposed to the effect that on the occurrence day, there wasno fault in the street lights in Karungulam Village and he switched off thelights on the next day at 7 A.M.o) PW-26, the Inspector of Police proceeded to Madurai Rajaji GovernmentHospital, examined PW-2 and recorded his statement.He received the deathintimation memos, Exs.P34 and P35 from Paramakudi Government Hospital.On27.01.2007, the Inspector informed PW-19/VAO that some of the accused areavailable in the village and asked PW-19 to accompany him.Near the rice millat the northern side of the village, the Inspector arrested A-3 and A-8 andthey gave voluntary confession statements and the admissible portions thereofare Exs.P16 and P17 and the said accused, subsequent to the confession, producedaruvals from the place where they had hidden the same and the seizure mahazar ismarked as Ex.On 29.01.2007, at 5 A.M. A-1 and A-2 were arrested and theadmissible portions of their confession statement made after arrest are Exs.Two Aruvals used by them were seized at their instance under Ex.Net result, the appeals fail and they are dismissed.The Addl.A-9 in S.C. No.76 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, is the appellant in Cr.Appeal No.35 of 2008;A-3, A-5 and A-8 are the appellants in Cr.The nub of thecharges against the appellants/accused is that, subsequent to an electiondispute, the accused had enmity and strong motive to do away with the deceasedand their family and, in furtherance of such intention, on 25.01.2007 at about7.45 P.M., they caused the death of Dharmaraj (referred in this Judgment as D1)and his father Karuppiah (referred as D2) and in such transaction, A-6 causedgrievous injury to one Balusamy.The learned trial judge, by judgment dated18.12.2007, convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused and the detailsthereof are given below:-and 7 counts) and 302 read with 34 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo life (2 counts) imprisonment (2 counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months each; andAccused No.4 U/s.148 and 120-B IPC.(2 counts) and sentenced to undergo 34 IPC (2 counts) life imprisonment (2 counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default,to undergo R.I. for six months each; andii) convicted u/s.302 r/w. 34 IPC.(2 counts) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (2 counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months;counts) and sentenced to undergo life (2 counts) imprisonment (2 counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months each.Though A1 to A8 were also found guilty under Section 148 IPC.no separatesentence was awarded to them for the said offence and the sentences imposed wereordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved over the order of conviction andsentence passed by the trial court, the appellants have preferred the presentappeals.Inasmuch as the appeals arise from the same Judgment of the trial courtdated 18.12.2007, they are disposed of by this Common Judgment.For the sake ofconvenience, the appellants are referred to herein as per the ranking given tothem by the trial court.The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of theaccused, examined PWs-1 to 27, marked Exs.P1 to P37 and produced M.Os.1 to 25.Neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced on the side of thedefence.The case of the prosecution, as unfurled from the evidence of itswitnesses, is concisely narrated below.a) PW-1, a resident of K.Karunkulam village, is the son of D2 Karuppiahand brother of D1 Dharmaraj.The accused individually gave voluntary confession statements andsubsequent thereto, the weapons used viz., MOs-18 to 25 were produced by themfrom different places and seized under mahazars.On 05.02.2007, the seizedmaterial objects in the case were forwarded to court under Form-95 with arequisition under Ex.PW-13, working as Head Clerk in the court of theJudicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, despatched those items received under Form-95to the Forensic Laboratory along with Ex.P10, the letter of the court.P7and P8 are the Biological and Chemical Analysis reports received from PWs-11 and12/Scientific Officers.P12 is the Serologist report received from PW-15/Scientific Assistant.On 06.02.2007, PW-26 recorded the statement ofwitnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 18.02.2007, he altered the penalprovisions viz., Sec.147, 148, 324, 326 and 302 IPC.as one under Sections 147,148, 324, 326, 302 and 120B IPC.and sent a Report in that regard under Ex.P36to the court.On 22.03.2007, he examined PW-27 Velumani, working as AssistantEngineer in TNEB, and confirmed that there was no interruption in power supplyon the occurrence date and the certificate issued in that regard is Ex.P37.After receipt of medical and forensic reports and conclusion of theinvestigation, the Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused on23.04.2007 for the offences under Sections 147, 120B, 148, 336 and 302 (2counts) read with Sec.149 IPC.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. withreference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution againstthem, they denied their complicity in the commission of the offence and statedthat a false case has been foisted against them.The learned trial Judge, afterassessing the prosecution evidence and considering the submissions made oneither side, passed the order of conviction and sentence as referred to supra;hence, the present Appeals by the accused.Heard the submissions of Mr.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.82 and 162 of 2008 andMr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant inCriminal Appeal No.35 of 2008 as well as the learned Additional PublicProsecutor appearing for the State.Learned Senior Counsels attacked the testimony of PW-1 on the groundthat PW-1 is an interested witness.Further, according to them, PW-1 could nothave witnessed the occurrence at all, because, in the cross examination, he hasstated that the occurrence took place in the field belonging to one Dhanasekaranwhereas in the chief examination, he has stated that D1 was attacked at thefield of Vellimuthan and D2 at the field belonging to Singaran.It is commentedthat the act of PW-1 in not informing the police at the time when he was goingto the hospital to admit the injured particularly when the police station issituated on the way to the Hospital is quite strange and abnormal.With reference to the submission made, at the first instance, we deemit necessary to point out that time and again, the Hon'ble Apex court has heldthat the testimony of a witness, who is closely related to the deceased, cannotbe discarded on the mere categorisation that he is an interested witness.It isthe duty of the court to examine his/her evidence as to whether the same isnatural, cogent and veracious.If the court finds that the evidence of suchwitness is not artificial and apparently seems to be natural, then, there is nohurdle in relying on the same.The attack made to the evidence of PW-1 by referring to the descriptionof the occurrence field given by him does not merit acceptance, because, fromEx.P31, it is clear that the fields belonging to Vellimuthan, Singaran andDhanasekaran situate in a very close proximity and during the course of theoccurrence, the victims were not standing at on place rather they were runningfor a considerable distance to save their lives; further, it is not the case ofthe defence that the land belonging to Dhanasekaran is altogether a differentone situated in a different area other than the vicinity where the occurrencetook place.The fact that bloodstains collected from the place of occurrenceclearly established that the occurrence had taken place in that vicinity only.Coming to the aspect that PW-1 did not inform the police on his way to theHospital, we point out that the natural conduct of a person like PW-1, who hadjust then witnessed the brutal attack at the hands of 8 accused on his fatherand brother, would be to save their lives at any cost rather than keeping asidethe injured at a road-side and going to police station to inform about theincident.As expected from a normal human being, he first took the injured tothe Hospital and immediately after knowing that his father and brother died,without any delay, went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint by givingstatement.Further, courts would not expect the witnesses, who are rustic anduneducated, to depose in accurate terms with regard to each and every minutedetails, which is beyond human capability.If the core aspects involved arespoken to by them in a natural manner, contradictions, which are trivial andvenial, would in no way be cited as a reason to water down their evidence as awhole.Therefore, we do not find any difficulty in accepting the evidence ofPW-1 as truthful.Moreover, corroborating the motive part of the prosecutioncase as spoken to by PW-1; PW-8 has clearly stated that on 15.10.2006, A-9 toldD2 that he would not be spared alive to witness the next election.On ourcareful analysis, we find the evidence of PW-1 cogent, convincing and natural.In order to shake the edifice of the prosecution case as against A-9 inparticular, Mr.Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel strenuously endeavoured to impeachthe testimony of PW-7 through whom the conspiracy hatched by A-9 to finish offthe deceased has been spoken to.By stating that the deposition of PW-7 ishighly artificial and improbable, it is argued that a group of persons who weremaking plans to eliminate a family would not do in such a manner that their plancould be heard by or revealed to a third person; in such circumstances, aninference can be drawn that PW-7 would have either submitted himself to thepressure at the hands of the police or obliged for personal gains.The evidence regarding conspiracy is as weak as the evidence aboutthe dying declaration of Sohan Singh.Surat Singh (PW-27) speaks of a meetingbetween the co-conspirators in the house of accused 1, Darshan Singh aliasBhasuri.We cannot believe that in the presence of an utter stranger like SuratSingh, the conspirators would discuss their plans to commit these murders,throwing all caution to the winds.The answer of the High Court is that theconspirators were taking liquor while discussing the conspiracy and, When liquor is taken, then under its influence sometimes most secretthings are divulged in the presence of a person who is not so intimatelyconnected.It is often said, when liquor goes in, truth comes out.Liquor is no lie-detector and we cannot assume thataccused 1 and 2 were so drunk as to overlook the presence of a stranger in theirmidst and yet not so drunk so as to be unable to discuss the execution of theircriminal design.Besides, Surat Singh forgot all about the incident and wascontacted by the police a few days later.The learned Sessions Judge was rightin holding that Surat Singh's evidence suffers from certain infirmities, becauseof which one could not place implicit reliance upon him.The witnesseswithout any difficulty identified the accused as there was enough light whichaspect has been established beyond doubt from the testimonies of the Writer ofthe Village Office/person in-charge of the street lights and the AssistantEngineer, TNEB, examined as PW-18 and PW-27 respectively.As pointed outalready, PW-7 is none else than the brother of A-7 and in spite of such closerelationship, he deposed before court what he had witnessed.Thus, we holdthat the evidence of PWs-1 to 4 and that of PW-7 infuses the confidence of thisCourt and has well strengthened the edifice of the prosecution case.The trial court, after carefully and properly assessing the evidenceand materials available, rightly passed the order of conviction and sentencewhich does not call for any interference by this Court.Sessions Judge, FTC, Ramnad.The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,789,838 |
A DD entry No. 24A dated 28th September 2004 was received at Police Station (PS) New Usmanpur and assigned to Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Devi Charan (PW-16) who visited the above address along with Constable Dev Dutt (PW-4).There he found the deceased Sunita lying dead on a bed in a room built on the ground floor of the house.A noose of electric wire was lying near the bed.The Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Seelampur, Sameer C. Minz (PW-14) recorded the statements of Ram Chander (PW-2) and Dharam Singh (PW-3), both brothers of the deceased Sunita.According to PW-2, after 2-1/2 or 3 months of marriage, Sunita informed him that A-1 was demanding a motorcycle.Sunita further told PW-2 that she was scolded by A-1who had made it clear that in case she could not bring a motorcycle then she would not be allowed to stay in her matrimonial home.PW-2 further stated that thereupon he went to Sunitas matrimonial home and made it clear in the presence of A-1 as well as A-2 and their mother that PW-2 was not in a position to give a motorcycle.According to PW-2, the mother of A-1 and A-2 assured him that there would be no demand of any motorcycle in future.However after some time, the accused started behaving in the same fashion.On visiting her parental home, Sunita informed that A-1 and A-2 had started beating her.PW-2 stated that on 17th September 2004, Sunita made a telephone call to him and told him that she was being tortured by A-1 and A-2 and asked Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 2 of 11 him to take her to her parental home.On 19th September 2004, he along with PW-3 went to the matrimonial home of Sunita.A-1 was not in the house at that time.When A-2 was asked as to why they were treating Sunita with cruelty he is stated to have told PW-2 that "till their demand would not be fulfilled they would continue torture of Sunita." Since the mother of A-2 again assured PW-2 that Sunita would not be harassed in future, PW-2 did not take Sunita back to her parental home.Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 2 of 115. PW-3 also stated that 2-1/2 or 3 months after the marriage, Sunita told him that A-1 was demanding a motorcycle in dowry and further that A-1 and A-2 used to beat her.He stated that on 17th September 2004 a telephone call was received by his wife.PW-3 corroborated PW-2 stating that on 19th September 2004 both of them went to the matrimonial home of Sunita where A-2 had told him that "till a motorcycle would not be given, they would ill-treat Sunita."That the death of Sunita was by suicide was opined by Dr. Yogesh Tyagi (PW-12), Safdarjung Hospital who performed the post mortem.He confirmed that cause of death was asphyxia due to antemortem hanging.Mr. C.L. Bansal, Senior Scientific Officer (PW-11) confirmed that the viscera wasnot found to contain any poison.The Appellants were charged with the offences under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC.They were charged with causing a dowry death since it took place within seven years of marriage.Apart from PW-2 and PW-3, brothers of Sunita, the prosecution also examined Yashoda (PW-10), sister of Sunita.Interestingly, when PW-10 was first examined on 3rd February 2007, she made no mention of her Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 3 of 11 visiting the matrimonial home of Sunita on her wedding anniversary.She also did not mention anything about Sunita weeping at that time because the accused was repeatedly asking for a motorcycle.The trial Court also summoned Munni as CW-1 and Som Devi as CW-2, both being sisters of Sunita.She stated that when she visited Sunitas matrimonial home to attend the marriage anniversary, Sunita was weeping bitterly at that time.Sunita told CW-1 that "we should do something and fulfil dowry demand of accused Laxman @ Raju." CW-1 told that even two months prior to her death, during rakhi, Sunita met her at her parental home.In her cross-examination, CW-1 stated that when she had visited Sunitas matrimonial home, there was a tense situation, therefore she had not taken meal there.CW-2 stated that she had met Sunita for the last time about one month prior to her death when she had gone to the house of her brother and that all sisters talked to each other for about two or three hours.She further stated that "Sunita told me that she was beaten by accused Laxman @ Raju.She was unable to give birth to a child.She always used to tell me that you marry someone else and I used to console her.Due to miscarriage, she was suffering from depression and committed suicide, when no one of our family was present there.She was not getting any mental support from the side of her parents."The defence examined 13 witnesses with A-1 and A-2 being examined as DW-12 and DW-13 respectively.This witness proved that the deceased suffered miscarriage about one month prior to her death.The other witness who spoke about the deceased Sunita remaining sick and having two miscarriages wasSmt.Savitra Devi (DW-2), a 65 year old neighbour of the accused.This witness also stated that A-2 had gone to play cricket on the day of incident and he was called by the local persons when this incident happened.DW-2 spoke about A-1 and A-2 treating the deceased with great love and affection.This witness spoke about deceased Sunita having two miscarriages and being depressed for that Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 5 of 11 reason.Both DW-2 and DW-3 speak about Sunita asking A-1 to marry another girl as she was not able to bear any child.She also spoke about A-2 having gone to play cricket on the relevant date.Smt. Rajwati (DW-4), mother of A-1 and A-2, spoke about the deceased being depressed about her inability to bear child.She also stated that deceased was never harassed to bring any dowry.Mr. Richpal Singh (DW-5) aged 63 years and also a neighbour spoke about relations between the deceased and the accused being peaceful.He had never heard any kind of demand by the accused persons from Sunita or her parents.This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 1st March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Sessions Case No. 186 of 2006 convicting the two Appellants, i.e., Lachhman @ Raju and Kaushal Kumar @ Kallu, for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the order on sentence dated 7th March 2008 whereby each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each and in default to undergo RI for six months for the offence under Section 498A IPC.They were also sentenced to undergo RI for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each and in default of fine, to undergo RI for one year each for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Kaushal Kumar @ Kallu, Accused No. 2 (A-2) was the younger brother of A-1 and they were residing with the parents of A-1 in the matrimonial home, i.e., H-31/12, Street No. 23, Jai Prakash Nagar, near Village Gawadi, Delhi.Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 1 of 11On 3rd February 2007 when she was cross-examined by the accused PW-10 stated that she had attended the marriage anniversary of Sunita, along with her husband.Even at that stage she did not mention about having any conversation with Sunita.More than 10 months later, on 18th December 2007, when PW-10 was called for further examination, PW-10 stated that when A-1 celebrated his first wedding anniversary, she had gone to Sunitas matrimonial home, along with her husband and that Sunita was weeping at the time.Sunita told PW-10 that the accused was repeatedly asking for a motorcycle.Kiran (PW-9), sister-in-law of Sunita and PW-3s wife had also visited Sunitas matrimonial home to attend her wedding anniversary.Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 3 of 11I had seen injury marks on her legs and waist, which had Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 4 of 11 become blue by then.I had not gone anywhere along with Sunita that day."Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 4 of 11In their respective statements under Section 313 Cr PC both the accused denied that they had harassed Sunita or demanded any motorcycle.When asked why Sunita died A-2 stated that she died due to post abortion depression and that she had three-four miscarriages.He further stated that on 11th August 2004 before her death she was medically examined by Dr. Usha Mohan (DW-1) who advised for pregnancy test.When he was asked if he had anything else to say, A-1 stated:"Sunita lived with me in a very cordial atmosphere.DW-6, Vimal Kumar, who was the friend of A-2, was playing cricket.He asserted that A-2 used to respect the deceased and he had noticed this when he visited the matrimonial home of the deceased.Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 5 of 11After the written arguments were filed by the defence, the trial Court by an order dated 15th November 2007 re-summoned PW-10, Yashodha.By the same order CW-1, Munni Devi and CW-2 Som Devi were also summoned.PW-10 during her cross-examination, confirmed that she had gone to attend the wedding anniversary of Sunita, along with her husband and CW-1 and CW-2 had also attended.PW-10 also stated during her further cross examination by counsel for the accused that she had visited her brothers house at rakhi which was 25 days prior to the death of Sunita.She stated that all the sisters stayed in the house of brother i.e, PW-2 on the said night and that A-1 also stayed with Sunita there.Som Devi, CW-2 also spoke about meeting Sunita prior to the date of rakhi, i.e., one month prior to the date of death.Smt. Kamlesh (DW-7) the bua (paternal aunt) of the accusedconfirmed that the deceased had suffered miscarriage about seven days prior to rakhi.According to her, A-2 respected the deceased.Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 6 of 11The task of the trial Court was to balance the two sets of evidence, one by the prosecution witnesses speaking of harassment of the deceased by the accused and those of the defence witnesses who spoke the opposite.The trial Court analysed the defence evidence in paras 31 to 42of the impugned judgment.The trial Court disbelievedsome of the defence witnesses since they failed to explain "why Sunita took a decision to put an end to her life on 28th September 2004, long after her marriage anniversary." According to the trial Court, these witnesses had to explain why Sunita went into depression when her in-laws were treating to "soothe her sufferings."In the considered view of the Court, the above approach of the trial Court to the defence evidence appears to have overlooked the fact that the presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act (EA) read with Section 304 B IPC is a rebuttable one.Inappreciating such evidence the standard by which the defence evidence is to be evaluated is one of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond all reasonable doubt.The cross-examination of the defence witnesses did not yield anything to discredit their testimonies.The trial Court had discarded the defence evidence broadly on the ground that such evidence failed to explain why the deceased committed suicide and that they were speaking "only to help the accused."A number of defence witnesses were neighbours of the accused.There was no justification for the trial Court to simply characterise them as interested witnesses who were speaking only to help the accused.Such a conclusion cannot be based on surmises and conjectures.It will have to emerge from the cross-examination of the defence witnesses.A perusal of the evidence shows that the prosecution Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 7 of 11 failed to show that there was a deliberate attempt by the defence witnesses, i.e., neighbours of the accused, to somehow help the accused.Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 7 of 11The probability that on account of repeated miscarriages the deceased was under depression cannot be completely ruled out.The fact that the deceased Sunita had repeated miscarriages was too obvious to be overlooked by the investigating agency.None of the prosecution witnesses, in their chief examination, spoke about Sunita having suffered miscarriages;about their attending the rakhi festival at the house of PW-2 and Sunita's wedding anniversary at her matrimonial home.In light of the law explained in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the incident preceding the death of the deceased due to suicide must be the proximate cause of her death.(2) such death occurs within 7 years from the death of her Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 8 of 11 marriage;Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 8 of 11(3) that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband;Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 9 of 11The cruelty and harassment to which the deceased was subject should be shown to be "soon before her death".First, despite receiving a call on 17th September 2004 the brother of the deceased did not visit her matrimonial home until two days thereafter.Even then, he made no attempt to take her back.Secondly, twenty five days prior to her death, i.e., 30th August 2004 Sunita and A-1 visited her parental home to celebrate the rakhi festival.Three sisters of Sunita also visited their parental home with their respective families.A-1 also stayed at the deceaseds parental home and returned along with his wife on the next day.Many of them appeared as defence witnesses and spoke about Sunita suffering post- miscarriage depression.Importantly, the police did not choose to record the statement of DW-1 who treated Sunita.In their cross-examination, PW-2 and PW-3 stated that there was no such demand at the time of marriage.PW-3 went to the extent of saying that he was sure that his sister was murdered by the accused.The medical evidence however clearly showed that her death was on account of suicide.Criminal Appeal No. 726 of 2008 Page 10 of 11For the aforementioned reasons, this Court sets aside the impugned judgment dated 1st March 2008 and the order on sentence dated 7th March 2008 of the trial Court.The Appellants are hereby acquitted for the offence under Section 304B and 498A IPC.The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
678,985 |
JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.The prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court was that on 18-5-90 at 5.00 - 5.30 PM, Berisal (P.W. 9) was proceeding towards temple.At that time, his son (deceased) Mangusingh was at the Bus Stand, Chandersingh reached there and told Mangusingh as to why did he took meals on the eve of vow (MAAN) of Harisingh's son.On this point, some hot talks were exchanged between them and appellants Chandersingh and Phundasingh started beating Mangusingh by lathi.Chandersingh intlicted a lathi-blow which landed on the head of Mangusingh.On calling by Chandersingh and Phundasingh, remaining accused persons also came there armed with Lathi, Dharia, Bangadi, Haliya and stones and started beating Mangusingh and Berisal.Mangusingh after sustaining lathi-injury, fell down on the ground and became unconscious.Accused Lalsingh also had come on the spot with a gun and told that if anybody dared to come there, he would finish him.Juwarsingh hit Berisal by stone which struck below his eye-lid and fell down unconscious on the ground.Bancsingh (P.W. 7), Kamalsingh (P.W. 12), Kalusingh also witnessed the incident.They took Mangusingh and Berisal to the police station.The injured were sent to hospital for examination and treatment.On 19-5-90, Mangusingh breathed his last at Jaora Hospital.Above named appellants, eight in number have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 15-3-1994 rendered by First Addl.Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No. 7/91, thereby finding appellants Chandersingh, Phundasingh, Juwarsingh and Nathusingh guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 147, 302/149, 324 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced them each to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 147, imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R.I. for one year under Section 302/149, R.I. for two years under Section 324 and R.I. for six months under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code.He, finding appellants Madansingh, Shambhusingh and Ramsingh guilty for the offence under Sections 147, 302/149, 324 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced them each to suffer R.I. for two years under Section 147, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one year under Section 324/149, R.I. for six months under Section 323 and R.I. for one year under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code.He further finding the appellants Lalsingh guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 302/149, 323/149 and 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to two years' R.I., imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one year, six months R.I. and one year's R.I. respectively.All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.According to the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to haemorrhage and shock because of the injuries.After usual investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted.They abjured their guilt.After trial, the appellants were found guilty and were convicted accordingly and sentenced as stated hereinabove.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had acted in right of private defence of persons.It was the complainant party who came armed with deadly weapons in front of the house of the appcllatns and opened assault on them.At that juncture, they used force in their defence.Ex. D-7 (First Information Report) was lodged by appellant No. 1 Chandersingh.Appellant No. 1 Chandersingh, appellant No. 2 Phundasingh and appellant No. 6 Juwarsingh had received injuries in the same incident.Their injury reports are Ex. D-1, Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-3 duly proved by Dr. Chhaganlal (P.W. 5).Admittedly in the same incident, three appellants namely, Chandersingh, Phundasingh and Juwarsingh have been injured.Their injury reports have been duly proved by Dr. Chhaganlal (P.W. 5).Complainant party was also prosecuted in a counter-case vide Sessions Trial No. 60/92 for assaulting the appellants.Appellant Phundasingh has sustained incised wound on his skull measuring 5 x 1 x 1 cm.Appellant Juwarsingh received lacerated wound on left shoulder measuring 10 x 4 cm and another injury on left knee measuring 5 x 5 cm.Appellant Chandersingh received incised wound measuring 4 x 1 x 1 cm at 5th vertebrae and another incised wound at his left wrist.He also received two abrasions measuring 10 x 1/2 cm at his left shoulder.The number and nature of injuries on the persons of these appellants are clearly indicating that they were assaulted by hard and blunt and sharp-edged weapons.None of the prosecution witnesses has come forward to explain the injuries on the persons of these appellants.Only Devisingh (P.W. 4) tried to explain these injuries, but only half-heartedly.According to him, these appellants might have received injuries when the witnesses were trying to save the deceased.In the same breath, he has also stated in para 13 that positively he was not knowing as to how these appellants have sustained injuries.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
715,814 |
It is further alleged that when the complainant along withseveral other responsible teachers questioned the accused about theirregularity committed by him, the accused abused the complainant in thepresence of those teachers uttering that an FIR is pending against him andhence he was not eligible to claim the position of the Head of the Departmentof Economics (in-charge) thus putting the complainant to shock and surpriseand to shame in the presence of several of his colleagues; that from that dateonwards, the complainant is facing many suspicious situations in the collegecampus and outside and hence he issued a lawyer's notice dated 6.7.2002 to theaccused calling upon him to tender unconditional apology and to pay a sum ofRs.1 lakh to him as damages for having made false, defamatory and derogatoryallegations against him with no reply coming from the accused; that theaccused told several persons including Dr.This petition has been filed praying to call for the recordsin C. C.No.9600 of 2002 on the file of the Court of XIII MetropolitanMagistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.On a perusal of the materials placed on record, it comesto be known that the petitioner is the Principal of the Presidency College,Chennai while the respondent is the Lecturer in the Department of Economics ofthe same college and the respondent lodged a private complaint as against thepetitioner in C.C.No.9600 of 2002 on the file of the Court of XIIIMetropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the alleged offence punishableunder Section 500 IPC on allegation that even though he is the Senior in theDepartment of Economics of the College, when the Head of the Department oneMrs.T.Suganya Bai went on leave, the accused/Principal with ulterior andsinister motives, orally directed one L.Venkatasamy to be in-charge of theDepartment, who is junior to the complainant.At thisstage, the accused in the said complaint has come forward to file the abovecriminal original petition on averments such as that the petitioner ispresently absorbed on the payrolls of Tamil Nadu Educational Service asPrincipal of the premier institution, viz., the Presidency College, Chennaiand is discharging his duties as public servant from the date of hisemployment and more particularly on 19.6.2002 when the alleged occurrence issaid to have taken place; that the respondent/complainant is working asselection grade Lecturer in the Department of Economics in Presidency College,Chennai; that the respondent while preferring the private complaint for theallege offence punishable u/s.500 IPC had broadly alleged that he wasoverlooked by the petitioner in the case of seniority in the departments; thatthe respondent also refused that the petitioner had permitted oneDr.L.Venkatasamy in preference to the respondent in the matter of seniority;that the above factual situation prompted the respondent to question the samebefore the petitioner on the date of occurrence, while the petitioner wasdischarging his official duty as Principal and the respondent, as a matter offact, admits as having done so accompanied by friends, office bearers andfellow teachers.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,595,947 |
DATE : 08/11/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.The criminal writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:10:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:10:38 :::The respondent no.1 is the original complainant.He filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 503, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code.The said criminal complaint was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.171/2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner.The learned Magistrate after recording the verification statement of the complainant found that the complainant has made out a case for issuance of process and accordingly on 13/04/2012 issued process under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.The petitioner did appear before the learned Magistrate and was released on bail.On 29/06/2016 the complaint was listed before the learned Magistrate.On the said day, the complainant and his Advocate were absent.The learned Magistrate passed the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:10:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:10:38 :::wp731.19.odt 3 "Complainant and his Advocate absent though repeatedly called till 1:20 p.m. No steps are taken.It appears that the complainant lost interest to proceed further.So put up the case on next date for order."Be that as it may, ultimately the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner passed an order on 19/07/2019, which reads as under :-"1) Accused is hereby acquitted under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned Magistrate on 19/07/2019 in order to meet the ends of justice allowed the application and restored the complaint, against which the present criminal writ petition is filed.The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 very fairly states that the Magistrate is not empowered to restore the complaint,::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:10:38 ::: wp731.19.odt 4 especially when the accused is already acquitted by the learned Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:10:38 :::Even otherwise, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no power is available to the learned Magistrate to review the order.In that view of he matter, I pass the following order.The criminal writ petition is allowed.The impugned order dated 19/07/2019 passed below Exh.39 is hereby quashed and set aside.The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner on 19/07/2019 below Exh.1 is restored.The respondent no.1 shall have liberty to challenge the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saoner on 19/07/2019 below Exh.1, by filing appropriate proceedings and if such appropriate proceedings are filed within a period of fifteen days from today, the same shall be decided by the learned Judge in accordance with law.Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.JUDGE Wadkar, P.S.::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:10:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/04/2020 09:10:38 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,602,407 |
gmsIn these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to record this Joint Memo and dispose Crl.Op No. 29778 of 2014 and Crl.Op No. 6827 of 2017 and Crl.No: 12515 of 2018 in terms of this Joint Memo and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and just and thereby render justice." In view of the above, these petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.351 of 2014, C.C.No.1040 of 2014 and D.V.No.24 of 2014, all pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram are quashed against all the parties, including those who have not approached this Court.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.2.The Inspector of PoliceS15, Selaiyur Police StationKanchipuram District.The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.4 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.Nos.29778 of 2014, 6827 of 2017 and 12515 of 2018
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,602,580 |
Heard Sri M.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.During trial the angle of Section 376 IPC was again added by the victim as PW-1 and accordingly vide order dated 15.11.2017 the case was committed to Sessions in exercise of power under Section 323 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to court of Sessions to try the case under Section 376 IPC against the applicant.This fact itself shows that the police has found nothing incriminating to prosecute the applicant against Section 376 IPC and submitted final report.All these facts goes to show that only on the basis of sole testimony of the victim as PW-1, the applicant has been dragged to face the prosecution under Section 376 IPC.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.12.2018 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Pappu be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 4 of 2008, under Section 376 IPC, P.S. Dadaun, District Aligarh with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,085 |
The respondent admitted having committed the murder and stated that he had put the head of Bismilla and the knife with which it had been severed from the body in a cloth-bag which he had hid in an underground cell in the furniture shop of his father.The respondent was taken to that shop where he took out the articles in the presence of Panch-witnesses.He also took out a torch from the cash-box of the shop and handed it over to the police with the statement that the torch had been used by him on the occasion of the murder to locate the deceased in the darkness.The accused further stated the manner in which he managed to scale over the wall of the house of the deceased, how he gained entrance into the room, how he found her asleep on a cot and how he severed the head from the trunk and carried the former away and hid it at the place from which he took it out.JUDGMENT N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.This is an appeal by special leave by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the dismissal of an appeal preferred by it to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Gwalior Bench which declined to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge holding the respondent not guilty of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In order to appreciate the point raised for our decision it is necessary to refer to the findings of the Sessions Judge which were in terms approved by the learned Judges of the High Court.Before we do so, however, we shall narrate a few facts regarding which there is no dispute : The deceased Bismilla was related to the accused-respondent as the mother of his wife Jinnat whom he had divorced.The accused nurtured a grievance against his mother-in-law for matters it is unnecessary to set out.On the morning of the next day the body of Bismilla was bound by her husband lying in a pool of blood on the cot on which she was sleeping with the head missing.The First Information Report was immediately lodged by the son of the deceased.The police were informed that the respondent had borne ill-will towards Bismilla and thereafter the Sub-Inspector who was in-charge of the investigation sent for the respondent.The respondent was produced before the District Magistrate before whom he made a confessional statement reciting all the above facts.He was thereafter committed to stand his trial before the Court of Sessions Judge.Gwalior, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.On behalf of the defence, in support of the plea of unsoundness of mind three witnesses were examined, two of them being, medical men.The first witness-Mahavir Singh was the District Civil Surgeon and Superintendent of the Mental Hospital.He spoke of having treated the accused in August 1952 as a private patient.i.e., nearly two months after the occurrence.His deposition also was to the effect that the accused was suffering from epileptic insanity.The witness testified, that at the first stage of the attack of a fit the patient becomes spastic, that in the second stage the patient would have convulsions of hands and feet and in the tertiary stage becomes unconscious and at the last stage the patient might do acts like sleep walking.Obviously this was expert evidence about the nature of the disease which the doctor stated the accused was suffering from, and not any evidence relating to the mental condition of the accused at the time of the act.The other witness who spoke about the mental condition of the accused was his father.In his evidence he stated:He had not taken food for two days.When I went to the shop on the morning of September 29, 1954, at 7-30 or 7-45 I found the accused was unconscious and that his hands and feet were stiffened.Just then the police came there and took away the accused." On the basis of this evidence the learned Sessions Judge after correctly stating the law that under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code the crucial point of time at which un-soundness of mind should be established, is the time when the act constituting the offence is committed and that the burden of proving that an accused is entitled to the benefit of this exemption is upon him, summarised the evidence which had been led in the case in these terms:The next thing therefore to consider is whether the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act.The fact that the accused went at night to the house of his mother-in-law, deliberately cut her head and brought it to his house is too obvious to show that the accused was capable of knowing the nature of the act.To put it differently, the accused while killing Bismilla was not under the impression that he was breaking an earthen jar.Even the learned Counsel for the defence laid no stress on this aspect of insanity.He, however, contended that the accused was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.The learned Judge, however, rested his decision to acquit the accused on the following reasoning:There is the circumstance that soon after the crime the accused was admitted to the mental hospital and the Superintendent of the Hospital at least confirms that the accused suffers from epileptic fits.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,111,631 |
Supplementary affidavit filed today is kept on record.The learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct number of the criminal case in the application.Heard learned counsel for the applicants and A.G.A. appearing for the State.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing Charge Sheet No.01 of 2018 dated 12.04.2018 under Section 419, 420, 504, 506, I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No.0035 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.s.Maharajganj, district Azamgarh as well as further proceeding in Criminal Case No.2408 of 2018, under Section 419, 420, 504, 506, I.P.C., P.s.Maharajganj, district Azamgarh pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Azamgarh.The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment.Bhajan Lal, 1992, SCC(Cr) 426, State of Bihar Vs.P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC(Cr) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.In this view of the matter, the prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.However, it is provided that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs.It is made clear that in case the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.With the aforesaid directions, this application is disposed of.Order Date :- 7.1.2020 mt
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,173,264 |
The petitioner, as complainant, lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Lalgola Police Station alleging therein that two sons of his neighbor, Baharulla Sarkar, had been forcibly cultivating 1-acre 14 decimals of his land for a few years.He filed a civil suit in the year 1984, claiming to be the owner of the said land and praying for recovery of possession and the said civil suit is pending before the learned Court of Berhampore.This prompted his neighbors and their men to threaten him from time to time.On 5th August, 1990 those two persons, being accompanied by a few others, as named in the said complaint, being armed with weapons like Henso, Ballam, Lathi etc. trespassed into his land, destroyed various articles and looted some other articles.They also assaulted his family members and murdered his younger brother.The concerned police authority on receipt of such written complaint on 5th August, 1990 at about 12.05 hours started Lalgola Police Station Case No.143 of 1990 under Sections 147/148/149/448/427/325/380/302 of the Indian Penal Code.The police authority, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet.P.W.1 deposed that the victim, who was his younger brother, was murdered on 5th August, 1990 in their house at about 8-30/9 a.m. He claimed that such incident took place in his presence.His brothers, Osman, Moniruddin and Panjab went to the field for harvesting paddy.At about 8 a.m. Moniruddin returned for taking food.Osman followed him some time after.P.W.1 and his sister were there at that time and their sister-in-law (Boudi), Sarbanu Bibi, was serving food.He deposed that at the time all the accused persons being armed with Henso, Lathi and Ballam entered into their house.They threatened P.W.1 and his family members.The accused persons damaged the tiles of the roof of the house.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:The Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukdar C.R.R. No. 2547 of 2004 Khorsed Ali Vs.The learned Trial Court by order dated 17th November, 1994 framed charge under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. against the 9 (nine) accused persons.The said accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Learned Trial Court thereafter proceeded with the trial of the said case.The prosecution, in order to bring home the charge, examined as many as 13 witnesses.The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Thereafter the learned Trial Court by judgment dated 27th August, 2003 held the accused persons not guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and they were acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the defacto- complainant filed this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Mr. Safiullah, appearing as learned Counsel for the petitioner/defacto- complainant, submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and such misappreciation resulted in the said judgment and order of acquittal.P.W.1 then deposed that accused Azmal Haque fastened the neck of Osman with a napkin and the other accused persons namely Jabiur Rahaman, Jekerul Islam, Ajoy Singha and Jahangir Ali started pushing him from the back and assaulted him with fists, blows and kicks.Osman was dragged to the courtyard and on instruction of Azmal Haque, Golam Mustafa assaulted him with Henso on the right side of the waist.P.W.1's elder brother was also assaulted with Lathi.Osman was further assaulted with Ballam by Nezamuddin SK upon instruction of Rabiul Islam.He fell down on the ground.There was a hue and cry thereby drawing attention of the villagers.The accused persons then fled away.Osman was shifted to hospital for treatment.He, however, died on the spot.In his cross examination he categorically denied that accused Jekerul Islam, Azmal Haque and accused Jabiur Rahaman were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and they were at their respective places of work.On being recalled, P.W.1 deposed that he was so mentally upset that he could not give details in the written complaint, which had been treated as F.I.R.P.W.2 in his cross examination claimed to have stated to the police officer that Jabiur Rahaman and Azmal Haque gave instruction for killing Osman and that Osman was dragged out to the courtyard by accused Azmal Haque .P.W.3, who is the sister-in-law of the victim, in her evidence in chief stated that the accused persons entered into their house being armed with Henso, Ballam etc and started ransacking the household articles and abused them.P.W.3 also deposed that accused Azmal Haque dragged Osman by tying his neck with a napkin.He was taken to the outside courtyard and after being beaten up with fists, blows and kicks and despite hue and cry being raised, Golam Mustafa struck him on his waist with a Henso.Victim was further assaulted with Ballam and he died instantaneously on the spot.P.W.4, as a local witness, deposed that on hearing shouts, he reached the place of occurrence and found Osman being dragged out of the house by Azmal Haque, Jabiur Rahaman, Golam Mustafa, Nezamuddin SK and others.He like the other three (3) witnesses being P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, identified the accused persons.P.W.4 corroborated the earlier evidence that accused Golam Mustafa assaulted Osman with Henso and Nezamuddin SK struck him with a Ballam.P.W.5 is again brother of the victim, Osman.He also claimed that he was an eyewitness to the murder of Osman.He corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and others to a significant extent.Such evidence on behalf of the prosecution found further support in the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.7 also echoed the evidence of P.W.1 on all the material points.P.W.8 in his examination in chief stated that he was told that Osman had been murdered.He went to the house of Osman and found his dead body.P.W.9 is a Home guard.He is a formal witness.According to him, the Investigating Officer seized bloodstained earth, broken tiles and prepared a seizure list.P.W.10 virtually stated the same thing and identified his signature in the seizure list.P.W.11 being the doctor who examined the victim, Maniruddin SK, is a vital witness in this case.He referred to the injuries, he found on examining Maniruddin SK.He deposed that the nature of the injury was simple and these kinds of injury could be caused by any blunt weapon.P.W.12 is the Doctor who held Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Osman.On examination the victim was found having one deep penetrating injury 2" X 2" X 1" on the right side of the back of the chest.Plura was raptured.P.W.12 opined that the death was due to shock and heamhoearrage following the said injury, which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.P.W.13 is the police officer who after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet.Learned Trial Court appears to have considered that mere fact that some of the prosecution witnesses are related to the victim does not necessarily affect the credibility of their testimony nor their evidence become unacceptable on that score alone.Learned Trial Court appears to have taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 in his cross examination that he concealed his presence from the accused persons at the relevant time and that he heard about the occurrence subsequently.Referring to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.7 as well as that of P.W.2 and P.W.4, learned Trial Court was of the view that there was gross discrepancy in the evidence as regards the exact part/limb of the body where the victim was struck with a Henso and subsequently with a Ballam.Learned Trial Court further took into consideration the fact that the manner in which the victim was reportedly dragged out, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, would have caused noticeable injuries around his neck, apart from some laceration and swelling of various other parts.Learned Trial Court going into further details of the evidence on record assessed the credibility of the testimony.On scrutiny of such evidence, learned Trial Court did not find the same convincing enough.The evidence on record was also analyzed in the context of possibility and probability.No order as to costs.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,251,278 |
O.P.(MD)No.5723 of 2019:-M.Kalaiselvan ... Petitioner Vs.1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thanjavur District.(Crime No.417/2018)1.State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy [in all the Crl.2.The petitioners, who are working as Teachers in different Government Higher Secondary Schools, assembled in a public place and burnt/attempted to burn Government Orders and raised slogans against the Government, against which, the present FIRs.have been registered againsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 them for various offences viz., Sections 143 and 285 IPC, 151 I.P.C., 143, 188 and 285 IPC and 143, 188 and 285 IPC, respectively.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.Sivagangai Town Police Station, Sivagangai District.PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.714 of 2018, dated 28.11.2018, pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner alone.http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Crl.Subramanian, Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.417 of 2018, pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioner alone.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5725 of 2019:-1.J.Amali Jancy Rani3.T.Shakila [wrongly mentioned in the FIR as Sasikala]14.S.Ranganayagi [wrongly mentioned in the FIR as Renganayagi]17.D.Jhansimary [wrongly mentioned in the FIR as Johnsimary]23.P.Devaki [wrongly mentioned in the FIR as Devagi]28.A.Francis Daniel Raja40.V.Narasimman [wrongly mentioned in the FIR as Narasmhan]47.P.Arul Kulandai Devadoss [wrongly mentioned in the FIR as Arulkuzhanthai Devadass]54.V.Mohan ... Petitioners Vs.1.State Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.(Crime No.917/2018)M.Kalaiarasan, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.917 of 2018, dated 26.11.2018, pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.8.Considering the facts and circumstance of the cases and considering the fact that the issue involved in the present cases is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the proceedings in Crime Nos.714, 417, 917 and 208 of 2018, pending on the file of the respondent police, are hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners herein.Accordingly, thesehttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 M.DHANDAPANI, J.2.The Inspector of Police, Town East Police Station, Thanjavur District.3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.4.The Inspector of Police, Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Kanyakumari District.5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Common order in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.5722, 5723, 5725 and 5728 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,136,424 |
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Heard on IA No. 7007/2017, an application for grant of bail on behalf of appellant- Santosh@ Rahul.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 354, 354-A(iv) and 354(D) of IPC and U/ss. 7/8 and 11(i)/12 of POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court to the order passed on 07-04-2017 in Cr.A No. 572/17 which has been filed by the co-accused in this case.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow IA No. 7007/17 and suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence and direct that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellant shall now appear before the Registry of this Court on 29-11-2017 and on such other dates as may be directed by the office.List immediately thereafter for admission.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE PG
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,457,092 |
As per the prosecution case an F.I.R. was lodged by the victim herself to the S.P., Lalitpur stating that on 8.3.2015 at 5:00 p.m., the accused came to the residence of the informant and demanded Rs. 50,000/-.The informant refused to give him money, at which the appellant threatened the victim and said that if she would tell anybody about their relationship or about the appellant, he would kill her husband and her children with his witchcraft "Tantra Vidya" and would also show her clips to everybody.The informant was very much afraid from the threat of the appellant.The husband of the victim is working in the Fisheries Department, who was posted at Matateela.The son of the informant is studying at Bhopal and her daughter is doing the Beauty Parlor course.Six months prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., the informant was having ill-health.She was going to the hospital, on the way near Tuvan Temple, she met the appellant, who saw the condition of the informant and said that he would treat her with his witchcraft.The informant believed the appellant, who came to her house to treat her.She was alone in the house.The appellant sprinkled some water, which he had brought alongwith him, on the victim, due to which the victim became unconscious.At this, the appellant raped her and clipped her naked photographs by his mobile.When the informant gained consciousness the appellant said that whenever he would want, he would have intercourse with the victim and if she revealed anything to anybody or resisted his coming he would show her photographs to everybody and would defame her.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 19.10.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court), Lalitpur in S.T. No. 65 of 2015 (Sate Vs.Ganesh Sen) arising out of Crime No. 502 of 2015, under Section 452, 376 (1), 387 I.P.C., Police Station-Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur, whereby the learned lower court found the accused-appellant guilty under Sections 452, 376(1) and 387 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- under Section 452. 10 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376(1) and 4 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 4,000/- under Section 387 I.P.C. with default stipulation.The victim was medically examined by Dr. Ashu Bajaj, P.W.3 on 25.3.2015, she did not find any marks of injury on the body of the victim.The Doctor found swelling in uterus of the victim and a small cyst in the ovary.P.W. 4 is Inspector Mangla Prasad, who conducted the investigation.The statement of the victim was recorded by lady Sub-Inspector Awadhesh Rajpoor.Videogrpahy was got prepared, C.D. was also prepared.The Statement of Constable Mithlesh was recorded.The accused was arrested near the Temple.His statement was recorded.On 30.3.2015 this witness copied the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in the case diary.He copied the medical report and X-ray report in the C.D. On 11.4.2015 he recorded the statement of Km.The prosecution examined as many as four witnesses.P.W. 2 is the daughter of the victim namely Arti.P.W. 3 is Dr. Ashu Bajaj and P.W. 4 is Inspector Mangla Prasad, whose evidence has been discussed by me.After close of the evidence the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who stated that he is innocent and the informant was a lady of easy virtues.Many people used to come to her house, which was objected to by the accused, hence he was falsely implicated.No defence was adduced by the appellant.The learned lower court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, found the accused guilty and convicted him as specified in para 1 of the judgement.Feeling aggrieved, the accused-appellant has come in appeal.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court.It has been submitted by the prosecution that as per prosecution case itself the victim was being raped for six months prior to the occurrence and report was lodged after an inordinate delay of six months after the occurrence.Admittedly, the victim was a married lady with two children.In the statement the victim has admitted that she has two children.She herself stated her age to be 45 years.But in this case, the mother of two children the elder being 24 years of age is being raped continuously for six months.She is giving money to the appellant now and again and saying that she was forcibly raped against her wishes is neither palatable nor digestible nor probable to believe.Although the victim has stated that she was put to fear of death of her husband and her children by the accused-appellant, but it appears that this statement has been given by the victim just to save her skin from defamation and the questioning eyes of her husband and her children.The initial statement on behalf of the victim that when being known to the appellant, the appellant stated that he would treat her is also not very reliable.The informant has stated that she was sitting in the courtyard when the accused came.He sprinkled some water on her.She became unconscious and she was raped.She was naked inside the room when she gained consciousness, but she met the accused outside the door, on being questioned the accused-appellant told her that he had raped her.This is a very strange conduct of a married woman, questioning the rapist.Further this victim has stated that the accused kept on coming to her house and she was financially extorted and physically tortured by the accused for last six months.The accused took money from her many times, but she did not reveal all these fact to anybody.When she become much victimized, she got the report typed and gave it to the S.P., Lalitpur.As per the statement of the victim herself, she kept on tolerating the victimization and the rape, but when she got harassed more, then she lodged the report.She has nowhere stated why she tolerated these acts of the accused-appellant from six months is a million dollar question, which remained unanswered throughout the trial.She did not even report the matter to any of her neighbourer.The daughter of the victim Arti who is a major girl aged about 25 years has stated that she asked her mother, why she did not narrate the incident to her and why report was not lodged earlier, at which the victim said that she was frightened, when her father came home, report was lodged.This explanation for lodging the F.I.R. after inordinate delay of six months is very fatal for the prosecutrix and it gives a clear indication that the victim was a consenting party to the whole act and raises a shadow of doubt raising chances of false implication and embellishment.As far as medical aspect of the matter is concerned P.W. 3 Dr. Ashu Bajaj has stated that if a lady is forcefully raped, there would be tenderless and redness in the hymen, which was absent in the case of the victim.The presence of cyst in the ovary of the victim or the uterus being bulky with thickened endometreuns has nothing to do with the offence of rape.Thus, no injuries were found on the body of the victim.This does not mean that injuries on the person of the victim are must to prove charges of rape against the appellant, but in case of forced sex there are chances of abrasion on the thigh, breast, hands and neck of the victim, which are absent in the present case.It is trite law that generally, if the evidence of the victim is trustworthy, probable and reliable, on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, conviction can be based.But the statement of the prosecutrix in such a case should be free from embellishment and be probable.P.W. 1 victim has stated that she has passed class 8th.The name of the accused was told to her by the people of the locality.Contradicting her own statement, she has stated she met the accused a couple of months before lodging the report.Further, the statement of the victim which clearly points out to her consent in the matter, in which she has specifically stated that :"fnukad 5-3-2015 dks lka; 4&5 cts izFke ckj vfHk;qDr esjs ?kj vk;k FkkA ml le; eSa ?kj ds nkyku esa cSBh FkhA vfHk;qDr esjs ?kj esa fiNys njokts ls vk;k FkkA"The backdoor entry of the accused in the house of the victim is speaking volumes for itself.The victim has admitted that her daughter had seen the accused in her house a couple of times.The accused was sitting with the victim, but her daughter did not ask the victim anything about the appellant nor she told this fact to her father.The victim has admitted that she herself called the appellant, at that time she was alone in the house.The extent to which this witness has gone to state incorrect facts is that she bleeded, when she was raped for the first time.She tried to behave as if she was a virgin, when she was raped by the appellant.She has stated that she lodged the report three days after the occurrence.She has admitted that the accused continuously came to her house once daily, he committed sexual intercourse with her without using contraceptive.She had not being sterilized, but she did not retain pregnancy from the appellant.These statements clearly reflect that the victim was a consenting party.The statement of the daughter of the victim namely Arti P.W. 2 who has stated that since she was doing the course of beauty parlor, she remained out of the house from 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Her mother used to stay alone in the house.In 2015, she was cooking food on the festival of Holi, when the appellant came and abused the victim and demanded money.After the accused left, the daughter asked her mother, who revealed that she was raped continuously by the accused, who had clipped her vulgar photographs and extorted money from her.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that she is post-graduate and her brother is doing B.A.M.S. and her father does not live at Lalitpur.Near her house there is the building of State Bank of India, where Guard stayed for 24 hours and adjoining her house there is a police club, where police personnel are generally present.The appellant was known to this witness three months prior, she had also got herself treated by the accused-appellant two months prior, but the accused-appellant did not rape her.How a mother who was raped for six months continuously by the accused-appellant on the pretext of witchcraft would allow a rapist to do witchcraft on her daughter too, is not palatable.Thus, the whole prosecution story is nothing but a bundle of lies put forth by the prosecution.The accused in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while denying the occurrence has stated that he has been falsely implicated this suggestion was also put to the prosecution witnesses, who denyied the same.Be that as it may the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and the trial court has committed illegality in convicting the accused in a case, in which the F.I.R. is very delayed, and the prosecution evidence is wholly unreliable.Thus, the evidence of the victim is shaky, unreliable, not worthy of credence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant.Thus, on the basis what has been stated above, I find that the learned lower court has misled itself in reaching to the conclusion that the accused-appellant is guilty for the offence charged.Thus, the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Hence the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence dated 19.10.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court), Lalitpur in S.T. No. 65 of 2015 (Sate Vs.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,611,705 |
1 36 17.01.2018 Aloke Court 28 C.R.M. 12558 of 2017 In Re : An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12.12.2017 in connection with Malda Town G.R.P.S. Case No. 19 of 2015 dated 02.05.2015 under Sections 302/201/12B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of : Kalimuddin @ Kalu Momin ...Petitioner Mr. Himadri Kr.Mahata Rejected ... for the Petitioner Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury Mr. Mainak Gupta ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody for more than two years and that there is hardly any progress in the trial in the instant case.Report is filed on behalf of the State wherefrom it appears that the matter is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence and co-accused persons who were on bail had absconded.In view of the aforesaid facts and the prima facie materials collected against the petitioner implicating him in the alleged crime, we are not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.The application for bail is, accordingly, rejected.2 Trial court is directed to ensure the attendance of the absconding accused persons and in the event the same cannot be achieved in spite of exhaustion of all processes to declare them as proclaimed offenders and proceed with the trial against the petitioner and other appearing accused persons in accordance with law and conclude the same at an early date.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['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.
|
66,608,399 |
of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Kiron Bala Mondal & Others.... Petitioners Mr. Siladitya Sannyal Mr. Sujan Chatterjee .. for the Petitioners Mr. Mirza Firoz Ahamed Begg .. For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 466 of 2016 dated 25.7.2016 under Sections 447/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.They have been falsely implicated.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,614,614 |
In one of these, she stated that accused had enticed her, taken her to a temple and got married with her and then he had taken her to Tughlakabad.In the other statement, she stated that initially he took her to India Gate and from there, he took her to Tughlakabad.The victim was asked about this situation that at that time, she had an opportunity to seek help but why she did not seek any help? She stated that she did not seek help because no one was there.Here again, it is to be seen that in the earlier part of her cross examination, she admitted that at India Gate, police men were present.She then deposed that she did not try to run away because she was afraid.However, once the accused had removed himself from her presence, the fear, if any, would not have existed.Then there is the question about how the victim reached at Tughlakabad? In her examination in chief, the victim stated that at India Gate accused gave her something to eat which was laced with some stupefying substance and then she lost consciousness.When she regained consciousness, she found herself at CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 9 of 24 Tughlakabad.During her cross examination, she deposed that from India Gate to Tughlakabad, they had gone on a bike and she was pillion rider.She further stated that they reached there at around 3.00 p.m. It is to be seen that on the one hand, the victim states that she lost consciousness and on regaining consciousness, she found herself at Tughlakabad but on the other hand, she states that from India Gate to Tughlakabad, they had gone on a motorcycle and she was pillion rider.P.C also, she stated that they had come to Welcome to look for a room where the police caught and brought them to the police station.In her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, she does not state how she was recovered Therefore, in the first statement recorded of the victim, she had not stated that the accused had taken her to Janta Colony at the house of his friend and rather she had stated that they were looking for a room at Welcome where the police caught them.When she appeared as PW1, she deposed that after one week, accused said to her that it was not safe there as the police could arrive and therefore, he removed her to Shahdara at his friends house in Janta Colony.In the evening police reached there and they were apprehended.She denied that accused had never taken her to Shahdara.The other witness of the recovery of victim is her father.He deposed that after the victim was kidnapped, he had 2-3 telephonic conversations with the victim.During one such conversation, victim had told him that she was in Shahdara.Thereafter, he, his employer Neeraj Garg and brother of accused went to Shahdara at a house where the accused used to stay earlier.There they found accused and victim.They called the police and thereafter, they were taken to police station.So according to the father of the victim, victim informed him through telephone that they were at Shahdara.However, according to the victim, she was not even allowed to have any telephonic conversation with her father.Therefore, the first question which comes to my mind is, how the victims father could have known where the victim was.It is also to be noticed that according to the initial statement of victim, they had gone out to look for a room but later she stated that she was taken by accused to his friends house at Janta Colony.It is also to be noticed that according to the father of the victim, he alongwith his employer and brother of accused had gone to that house and found victim and accused and it is thereafter that the call was made to the police.Therefore, as per the testimonies of the police witnesses, it is only after the arrival of police that the victim was recovered and her location was found but as per the victims father, before arrival of the police, they had already located the victim.According to the victims father, his employer Neeraj Garg was with him.It is also to be noticed that according to the police witnesses, at the time of recovery of the victim from the alleged house, the victim, accused and one Sonu accuseds friend, were present there whereas according to the victim, wife of that friend was also present in that house.It is also to be noticed that according to the victim, they reached that house at around 6/7.00 p.m.. However, according to PW4 LCt.Deepika, in order to join the investigation, she was instructed to reach DCP Office where ASI Devender Kumar met her.During her cross examination, she deposed that she did not remember the exact time but it was around 4.00 p.m when she had received instructions to reach DCP Office.Meaning thereby, that by 4.00p.m., police had received information that victim was at Shahdara.After around 15-20 minutes, two policemen alongwith brother of accused came to his house and they took them to PS Karawal Nagar.He was cross examined by ld.During his cross examination by Ld. Addl.PP, he admitted that on 25.07.2017, accused had come to his house.He denied that on that day, accused had told him that accused had got married and after some time, he brought a girl to his house or that thereafter, the accused and the girl entered his house.He denied that he had stated these facts to the police.On the contrary, what he has stated is, that after the accused had come to his house, he had called the brother of accused, who then reached there with the police.The prosecutions version is completely silent about the presence of brother of the accused.The victim PW-1 testified that the accused would keep her locked in a room and would not allow her access to a mobile phone.It is further an admitted position that it is only as a consequence of those telephone conversations, according to the testimony of PW-2, that the father of the victim became aware of her presence at Janta Colony.She further testified that after a week of residing in Tughlakabad, the respondent told her that it was not a safe place as the Police could arrive at anytime and thereafter removed her to a friends house at Janta Colony in Shahdara, from where she was eventually recovered.During her cross-examination on this point, the victim deposed that she had not sought any help from the people who according to her had told her that she was in Tughlakabad.She also did not put forward any explanation for not doing so.It is further evident that she did not shout for help when the respondent allegedly forced himself upon her sexually, but now volunteered the testimony that it was because she was kept intoxicated by the latter, by repeatedly putting something in the milk.When the victim was confronted with her previous statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she had not deposed that the respondent would establish physical relations with her after intoxicating her, she baldly denied that she had made a deliberate improvement on this account in order to explain her conduct.Proceeding further, the recovery of the victim from the abode of PW-6 is itself in doubt for the reason that a minute examination of the latters testimony recorded, which is extracted hereinbelow, completely belies and contradicts the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, in toto:" I know accused Lala Ram @ Mukesh, who is present in Court today, as several years ago, he had resided in front of my house and he also used to visit my house.In the year 2017, on 25th day of a month, accused came to my house.I made a call to his brother.After around 15 to 20 minutes, two policemen came to my house alongwith brother of accused and took us to PS Karawal Nagar along with accused.At around 12.00 midnight, I was relieved by police."It would also be relevant to observe that DW-1, examined on behalf of the respondent clearly and unequivocally ascribed a reason for the latters false implication, by testifying as follows:" I have been residing at the above said address with my family members for about 15 years.Accused Lala Ram is my brother.He used to work as a salesman.On 25.07.17, I received a call from the Police Station and police called me at the Police Station.They inquired me about the accused Lala Ram.I told the police officials that he was at home and that at about 3.30 p.m, he had gone for some work from the house.He used to go for his work at about 8.30 a.m and used to return home at about 8.00 p.m. I made call to Lala Ram but he could not be contacted.Thereafter, I made call to Sonu, friend of Lala Ram, who informed me that Lala Ram was not present there.After some time, I received call of Sonu.He informed me that Lala Ram was coming to him.Thereafter, I alongwith two police officials reached at Janta Colony at the house of Sonu.Lala Ram met us there.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (OPEN COURT).CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 1 of 24On these allegations, the subject FIR under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC") came to be registered.Subsequently, on 25th July, 2017, PW-2, the father of the victim informed the Police, that the latter was currently at Janta Colony, Welcome, Delhi.Predicated on this information ASI Devender Singh and WCt.Deepika went to House No.E-49, -15, Mazdoor Janta Colony, Shahdara; from where the victim was recovered and the accused/respondent hereinafter "Respondent", was allegedly arrested.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 2 of 24The victim was medically examined and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent, under Sections 363/376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act).The learned Trial Court framed charges against the respondent under the aforesaid Sections on 11th October, 2017, to which, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed Trial.In order to establish its case against the respondent beyond doubt, the prosecution examined ten witnesses before the learned Trial Court.Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and having perused the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court vide the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2019, assailed by way of the present leave petition on behalf of the State, found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the latter of all charges framed against him.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 2nd May, 2019; the State has instituted the present leave petition under Section CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 3 of 24 378 (1) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal inter alia on the following grounds:CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 3 of 24That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the material fact that the prosecutrix examined as PW-1 had fully supported the case and hence the acquittal of respondent has caused grave miscarriage of justice.That the Ld. trial court erred in not appreciating the fact that as per Naresh Pal Singh, Principal, Alok Kunj Secondary School, Karawal Nagar, who was examined as PW-3 had deposed that on 9.4.2012, vide admission no. 14065, victim was admitted in class VI in their school.As per the records the date of birth of the victim was 10.1.2002 and the victim was admitted in their school on the basis of school leaving certificate of previous school.The Ld. trial court failed to appreciate that the prosecutrix of the sexual offence cannot be put at par with the accomplice.Evidence has to be weighed and not counted.Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if her evidence inspires confidence.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 4 of 24In the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C, the victim stated that accused took her to India Gate and then enticed her to Tughlakabad and also added that accused had given her some stupefying substance.When she appeared as PWI, she narrated a different fact and stated that accused had not enticed her to India Gate or Tughlakabad but had made her open the gate by knocking at her gate, forcibly pulled her from her house and then had taken her to India Gate.The victim was then asked as to why she opened the door at 11.00 pm at night rather than waking up her parents and she stated that she thought accused Mukesh might have come for some work with her father.However, as in her examination in chief she had stated that on hearing the knocks, she first went upstairs and saw that the accused standing outside her house, she was then asked that because she would not have known that it was CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 8 of 24 accused who was knocking at the door, why she did not inform her parents and victim did not answer this question.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 8 of 24Then comes the victims alleged journey from her house to India Gate.She stated that throughout the journey, she had shouted for help but nobody could hear her.However, she admitted that it was a season where the Kanwarias would be travelling on the road and there were kanwar camps and police men on the road.This clearly reflects that at that time, the road must be alive.So if the victim was being kidnapped on a motorcycle and she was shouting for help, someone must have heard it and therefore, this far the testimony of the victim regarding the accused knocking at the door, forcibly pulling her along and then taking her to India Gate is not credible.Coming onto what happened at India Gate.The victim states that at India Gate also, there were police men but she did not shout or cry out for help.When she was asked why she did not cry out for help, she stated that she did not shout for help because she had been threatened by the accused.This explanation was further tested during her cross examination when she was asked that whether the accused had threatened her when she shouted for help on her way to India Gate? She answered in negative.So first of all, there was no statement in the examination in chief of the victim that accused had ever threatened her.Secondly, it seems highly improbable that when the accused did not care for her shouts earlier, he would threaten her at India Gate and ask her not to shout.Therefore, it is an improvement made by the victim to explain why she did not shout for help at India Gate.It is further to be observed that according to the victim, at India Gate accused left her alone when he had gone to get something to eat.She also states about the time of their arrival at Tughlakabad.Therefore a specific question was asked to her that this meant that when she reached at Tughlakabad, she was conscious.She replied that she was semi-conscious and contradicting her stand, that they had gone on a bike and she was pillion rider, she stated that she did not know how the accused had taken her to Tughlakabad.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 9 of 24Coming onto the testimony of the victim regarding their stay at Tughlakabad.The victim deposed that at Tughlakabad, accused had kept her for a period of one week.She came to know that she was in Tughlakabad because it was informed to her by the people at that place that it was Tughlakabad.There the accused would keep her locked in a room and would not allow her to handle a mobile phone.After one week, accused told her that it was not a safe place as police could arrive and therefore, he removed her to Shahdara at his friends house at Janta Colony.During her cross examination on this point, she deposed that she had not sought any help from people, who according to her, had told her that it was Tughlakabad.She did not put forward any explanation for not doing so.Whenever accused would forcibly establish sexual relations with her, she did not shout for help and volunteered, that accused would keep her intoxicated by mixing something in milk.She as then confronted with her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C and she deposed that she had not stated either to the police to the MM that accused would establish physical relations with her after intoxicating her.She denied that she had made deliberate improvement on this account to explain her conduct.She denied that accused had never taken her to Tughlakabad and she had concocted a story.Here again, the victim made deliberate improvements in her cross examination in order to explain why she could not seek help at Tughlakabad because on one hand, she stated that she had an occasion to talk to the people there and on the other hand, she stated that she was kept intoxicated by accused.This fact of intoxicating the victim at Tughlakabad had come for the first time during the cross examination of the victim.Here another important fact to be noticed is, that according to the victim, accused did not allow her to handle a mobile phone whereas her father had stated CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 10 of 24 that during that period, the victim had 3-4 telephonic conversation with him.Therefore, the victims father had an opportunity to know where the victim was.On this point, it has to be observed that according to the victims father, victim had told him that she was in Shahdara.It is not only about the day when the victim was recovered that the father of the victim was speaking of.I say so because as per his testimony, on the day he came to know about the presence of victim at Shahdara, he went to Shahdara and victim was recovered.He stated that the next day, after the lodging of FIR, accused made him to talk to his daughter.Two or three more times, he had received calls from accused where accused made her to talk to his daughter but he and victim were not allowed to talk too much.During his cross examination, he deposed that he had inquired from the victim regarding the place she was and she stated that she did not know the place where she was but the place was near railway station, Shahdara.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 10 of 24It is to be noticed that the father of victim had enough time to inquire from the victim where she was but the victim did not state that the place was Tughlakabad.In view of my above discussion, it is very much clear that the victim had made many deliberate improvements.There are many contradictions which have appeared in the testimony of the victim and the improbabilities of the circumstances for kidnapping the victim has been established.The victim in her statement us 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that from Tughlakabad, they had gone to Welcome in order to look for a room.In her other statement u/s 161 Cr.At that time, friend of accused and his (friends) wife were also present.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 11 of 24During her cross examination, she deposed that when she was brought at Shahdara, accused had brought her on a bike and she was conscious.They had reached Shahdara at around 6/7.00 p.m.. She did not shout for help either on the way to Shahdara or on reaching Shahdara.She had not explanation for doing so.ASI Devender Kumar, who is the 1O of this case, deposed that on 25.07.2017, complainant provided him the mobile number of the accused and on the same day, the complainant had informed him that the victim and accused were seen by the complainant in Mazdoor Janta Colony Welcome.During his cross examination, he deposed that on 25.07.2017 at about 04.00 p.m., complainant had given the telephonic information regarding the whereabouts of the victim and accused.Therefore, on the one hand, according to the victim, she and accused reached Janta Colony, Shahdara at about 6/7.00 p.m. and on the other hand, the police witnesses have stated that the information regarding the victim and accused was given to them by the complainant at around 04.00 p.m.In the circumstances of the recovery discussed above, a corroboration of these testimonies through independent witness was required.As discussed earlier, according to the father of the victim, an independent witness in the form of Neeraj Garg was with them but for the reasons best known to the IO and the CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 13 of 24 prosecution, he has not been cited as a witness.IO has also failed to join any public witness despite it being a residential area.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 13 of 24The only public witness who has been joined, is the person from whose house the victim and accused were allegedly recovered.That person is PW6 Chander Prakash @ Sonu.He deposed that he knew accused.In the year 2017, on 25th day of a month, accused had come to his house.He made a call to the brother of accused.He was confronted with his statement mark PW6/A where these facts were recorded.He denied that after sometime, police and father of victim came to his house and father of victim identified the victim and accused.He denied that he had stated these facts to the police.He was confronted with his statement mark PW6/A where these facts were recorded.He denied that police had recorded his statement mark PW6/A and volunteered, that police had obtained his signatures on some blank papers.Now this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution at all.However, credence to this persons testimony, that brother of accused had accompanied the police, is given by the father of the victim, who had deposed that on receiving the information about the presence of victim at Janta Colony, he alongwith his employer Neeraj Garg and brother of accused went there and found accused and the victim.Therefore, the father of the victim and this person i.e. PW6 are confirming each other to the extent of the presence of the brother of the accused.If the father of the victim had received an information from the victim about her location, and had given it to the police then, where was the occasion to call the brother of the accused has not been explained.This again raises doubts about the story of the prosecution regarding the recovery of the victim.He deposed that on 25.07.2017, he received a call from the police CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 14 of 24 station and he was called at the police station.Police inquired about Lala Ram from him.He told the police officials that accused was at home and at around 03.30 p.m., accused had gone for some work from the house.He made a call to Lala Ram but Lala Ram could not be contacted.Thereafter, he called Sonu, a friend of Lala Ram who informed him that Lala Ram was not with him.After some time, he received a call from Sonu, who informed him that Lala Ram would be going to him.Then he, alongwith two police officials, went to Janta Colony at the house of Sonu where Lala Ram met them.Police officials apprehended Lala Ram and took him to police station.He and Sonu had also accompanied the police.In the police station, he came to know that Lala Ram had been falsely implicated.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 14 of 24During his cross examination, he deposed that after the arrest of accused, he had stated these facts to the police.He denied that he had not stated these facts to the police and he was stating it for the first time.He had not given these facts in writing to the police or to higher police officials.This witnesss presence at the time of apprehension of accused Lala Ram is established by the father of the victim and the prosecution witness PW6, who according to the prosecution, has turned hostile.This testimony cannot be discarded just on the ground that he was the brother of accused especially when it stands established that at the time of apprehension of accused, this witness was present and his presence has been concealed by the police.I accordingly find that this witnesss testimony finds corroboration from the prosecution witnesses testimonies and cannot be discarded completely.In view of my above discussion, I find that even regarding the recovery of victim, there are certain contradictions which have been emerged and have been discussed above.The prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt has failed to prove that victim was recovered from the custody of the accused when he was apprehended."We have examined the evidence on record including the critical testimony of the prosecutrix and find ourselves in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court.Broadly encapsulated the testimony of the prosecutrix is beset with major contradictions, which we highlight as follows:CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 15 of 24(a) Two statements of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were admittedly recorded on 26th July, 2017; whereas in one of these the victim PW-1 stated that the accused had enticed her, taken her to a temple and got married with her and then taken her to Tughlakabad, in the other she stated that initially he took her to India Gate and from there he took her to Tughlakabad.(b) It is evident from the above that a new place, namely, India Gate is added in the second contemporaneous statement and that the critical material fact, that the respondent had first married her, mentioned in the earlier statement is conspicuous by its absence, in the second one.In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim PW-1 went on to further embellish her testimony to state, that the accused had taken her to India Gate and then enticed her to Tughlakabad, after administering a stupefying substance.When the victim appeared as PW-1 she narrated an entirely new and different fact, by deposing that the accused had not enticed her to India Gate or Tughlakabad but had made her open the gate of her house by knocking thereon, and then forcibly taking her away to India Gate when she opened it.In response to a query as to why she had opened the door of the house at 11:00 PM at night rather than waking up her parents, she stated that she believed that the respondent must have come for some work with her father.However, as in her examination in chief she stated that on hearing the knocks she first went upstairs and saw the respondent standing outside her house; she was then cross- examined further and asked that, because she would not have known it CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 16 of 24 was the respondent who was knocking at the door, why did she not inform her parents, to which query she did not respond at all.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 16 of 24Insofar as the victims alleged journey from her house to India Gate is concerned, she testifies that although she shouted for help but nobody could hear her.However, she admitted that it was the season when kanwarias were travelling on the road and that there were camps and Policemen all along the route.This leads to but one inescapable conclusion that although the roads were crowded at the time of her alleged abduction, the victim did not raise an alarm, denting the truthfulness and credibility of her testimony, irreparably.Further her testimony with regard to what transpired at India Gate does not inspire any confidence at all.The victim categorically states that although there were Policemen at India Gate, she did not shout or try to cry out for help.However, she makes a further improvement in her earlier testimony by adding for the first time that, she did not raise an alarm because she had been threatened not to do so by the respondent.When this explanation was subjected to further cross-examination and she was asked whether the respondent had threatened her when she allegedly shouted for help on her way to India Gate, she answered in the negative.A perusal of this testimony clearly reflects that first of all there was no statement or testimony earlier that the accused had ever threatened her; and secondly, it is highly improbable that when the respondent did not care for her screaming earlier, he would threaten her only after they had reached India Gate.This improvement made by the victim PW-1 is irreconcilable.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 17 of 24It must furthermore be observed that the victims own testimony was that the respondent left her alone at India Gate in order to bring her something to eat and the former failed to utilize that opportunity to get away from the latter, or seek help from the Policemen, who were admittedly present at the location.This makes her testimony unworthy of acceptance.We go on to observe that, in relation to how the victim PW-1 reached Tughlakabad, it was her deposition that the accused administered the stupefying substance to her in the food he forced upon her at India Gate, after ingesting which she fell unconscious, and found herself in Tughlakabad when she regained consciousness.It is pertinent to point out that during her cross-examination the victim PW-1 deposed that from India Gate to Tughlakabad, they had gone on a motorcycle and that she was riding pillion.She further stated that they reached Tughlakabad at about 3:00 PM.In this regard it is relevant to note that on the one hand the victim PW-1 states that she lost consciousness and on regaining consciousness she found herself at Tughlakabad, but on the other she states that from India Gate to Tughlakabad they had gone on a motorcycle and she was the pillion rider.When victim was further cross examined on whether at the time of their arrival in Tughlakabad she was unconscious, she responded that she was semi-conscious, completely contradicting her earlier testimony.The testimony of the prosecutrix with regard to the forced stay at Tughlakabad also does not pass muster.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 18 of 24The victim then went on in the cross-examination to make deliberate improvements, in order to explain why she did not seek any CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 19 of 24 help at Tughlakabad by saying that it was because she was kept intoxicated.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 19 of 24Police officials apprehended him and took him to police station.I along with Sonu also accompanied them.CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 20 of 24In the Police Station, we came to know that accused Lala Ram was implicated in a case of kidnapping of the daughter of Mahender.Mahender was known to me as Mahender also used to go to Satsang, where my mother also used to go.Mahender and his wife also used to visit our house.Mahender had taken Rs. 25,000/- from my Mother in my presence.Accused Lala Ram was also present at that time.Mahender had not returned us the said money.Whenever, I and Lala Ram went to his house to demand the said money, he threatened us to implicate in a false case.Mahender falsely implicated the accused Lala Ram in this case."Lastly, it is observed that the medical examination of the victim, immediately pursuant to her recovery also does not support the case of the prosecution, as the victim admittedly refused the medical examination at the Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri Park, Delhi, as recorded in the MLC Ex.This is further corroborated by the testimony of PW-9, the examining doctor Dr. Neetu Singh to the following effect:-"On 26.07.2017, I was posted as above.On that day, victim d/o Mahender, female, aged 15 years was brought at the hospital by W Ct.Deepika for medical examination.It bears my signatures at point A. The MLC is now Ex.Vaginal examination could not be conducted as the victim refused for her international examination."It is trite to state that the settled legal position is that even when two views are possible, the appellate court should not reverse a judgment of acquittal, merely because another view was possible [Ref: K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, reported as (2008) 1 SCC 258].It was held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, the prosecution cannot said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt [Ref: T. Subramanian vs. State of CRL.L.P.508/2019 Page 21 of 24 Tamil Nadu reported as (2006) 1 SCC 401].
|
['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.
|
66,618,464 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 145 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376 of I.P.C. Police Sation-Pipiganj, District-Gorakhpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.The submissions made by counsel for the applicant and victim are at the dagger's drawn and inimical relationship was there between them.On earlier occasion on complaint by the victim, the applicant was sent to jail under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and when he came out of jail then as a second inning she has initiated the aforesaid proceedings by ravishing herself as married mother.There is no justification in the lodging of the FIR as the medical reports does not support the prosecution case.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 05.07.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant-Suryanarain Gupta @ Shiv Narain Gupta, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 145 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376 of I.P.C. Police Sation-Pipiganj, District-Gorakhpur, with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANTS ARE 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.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
666,198 |
The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:-A portion of the house of P.W.3 was leasedout to the accused and they were living there for about ten years.Thesister of the accused was eve-teased by the deceased on several occasions.On13.06.2006, at about 7.00 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding to the house ofP.W.1 for dinner, A.2 waylaid him and A.1 by stating "the one who teased mysister should not be left alive", stabbed the deceased with knife on the middleof the chest, left elbow, left rib and rear portion of the left thigh and thedeceased died on the way to the hospital.Initially, when the accused were questioned, they denied thecommission of the offence and pleaded innocence and therefore, the trialagainst them was taken up.The prosecution, to substantiate its case, examinedP.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.The learnedtrial Judge, after hearing both sides; convicted both the accused under Section302 r/w.34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay afine of Rs.5,000/-, each in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths.The case of the prosecution, as spoken to by its witnesses is brieflynarrated below:-P.W.1, in her evidence, stated that there were frequent quarrelsbetween the family of the deceased and the accused and on 13/6/2006, at about6.30 p.m., the deceased, who came to her residence for having dinner, wentout to wash the hands and, at that time, herself and P.Ws.2 to 4 heard noiseas if there was a quarrel.On coming out, they found A.2 holding the deceasedand A.1 with a knife stabbing him on the chest.Immediately, P.Ws.1 to 4 chasedthe accused, however, they ran away from the scene of occurrence.P.Ws.1 and 2carried the deceased in an auto rickshaw to the hospital where he was declareddead.Thereafter, they went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint underEx.P.W.2 has stated that at the relevant time, he was inside the houseand on hearing the noise, he came out and witnessed the occurrence.3and 4 father and brother of the deceased respectively, were also present at thattime in the residence of P.W.1 and, after hearing noise, they came out andwitnessed the occurrence.P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Sellur PoliceStation, on 13.6.2006, at 10.00 p.m., reduced the oral complaint made by P.W.1into writing and registered a case in Crime No.878 of 2006 for offencespunishable under Sections 341 and 302 IPC, prepared Ex.P4-FIR and despatchedcopies thereof to the Court as well as to the superior Officers in theDepartment.P.W.15 the Inspector of Police, onreceipt of copy of the FIR, reached the scene of occurrence at 10.45 p.m.,prepared rough sketch and Observation Mahazar Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 respectively,recovered blood stained earth and sample earth M.Os.5 and 6 under Ex.P12 andexamined the witnesses who were present there.On 14.06.2006 at 6.30.a.m., heconducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and examined the witnesses.P.13 is the inquest report.Thereafter, he sent the dead body of thedeceased through P.W.1 Grade I Constable along with Ex.P.5 requisition to theGovernment Rajaji Hospital for post-mortem.P.W.12 is the Doctor, who conductedautopsy on the dead body of the deceased at 10.15 a.m., on 14/6/2006 andissued Ex.P.6-Post mortem Certificate, wherein, he noted down the following:-By examining the entirematerials, the background and the circumstances in which the occurrence is saidto have taken place, we could see that in a spur of moment, the first accusedloosing his self control, stabbed the deceased and caused the stab injury on thechest.The Judicial Magistrate II, Madurai.2. - do - thro' the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Madurai.4. - do - thro' the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Madurai.The District Collector, Madurai.The Inspector of Police, B 14 Sellur (L & O) Police Station, Madurai District.Stab injury of 3/5 cmx3 cm present in the epigastric region.Ondisserction would the injury passes upwards laterally piercing the diaphragm,pericardium and right ventricle of heat both anterior and posterior walls.Thepericardium contain 1000 m. of fluid blood.Laceration injury of 6x3 cmx muscle depth over the left elbow regionposteriorly.3. Lacerated injury of 10 x 6 cm x muscle depth present in left loin.Lacerated injury of 10 x 8 cm x muscle depth present in left thighmiddle 1/3 posteriorly."Subsequent to such statement, in the presenceof witnesses, the Inspector recovered M.O.No.7 the blood stained shirt undermahazar Ex.P.W.15 took Police custody of A.1 after his surrender beforethe Court of the Magistrate.He recovered M.O.1 knife under Ex.Theweapon of offence and other recovered materials were forwarded to the Court.After receipt of medical and forensic reportsand examination of the witnesses, P.W.16 filed final report against theaccused on 17.08.2006 for offences under Sections 341, 342, 302 r/w. 34 IPC.When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied theircomplicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.On the side of the defence,Exs.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked, however, no oral evidence was let in.Thelearned Trial Judge on a perusal of the oral and documentary materials and afterhearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned;hence the present appeal.The learned counsel for the appellants points out that P.Ws.1 to P.W.4are closely related to the deceased and there was enmity between the family ofthe deceased and that of the accused for vacating the premises occupied by theaccused as tenants.The Doctor, who declared the deceased dead, has notbeen examined by the prosecution and the copy of the Accident Register also notproduced.Had the Accident Register been produced and the Medical Officer, whoinitially treated the deceased been examined, vital information which wouldweigh in favour of the defence would have been available before the Court.Evenbefore registration of the FIR, the deceased was taken to the hospital.A perusalof the complaint would go to show that the motive, overtact etc., have notbeen mentioned in detail, including availability of light to witness the allegedoccurrence.By stating that the FIR might not have come into existence in the manneras putforth by the prosecution, it is submitted that the occurrence took placeat 7.00 p.m., and though the Court of the learned Magistrate is just fourkilometres away from the police station, the First Information Report reachedthe Court only at 2.30 p.m. on the next day and therefore, the possibility offabrication and embellishment cannot be ruled out.P.W.2 is a chance witness.It was aworking day and in the light of the positive statement of P.W.2 that he used towork in the factory upto 10.00 p.m., his presence at 7.00 p.m. at theoccurrence place is quite doubtful.P.W.3 and his son P.W.4 were not living inP.W.1's residence i.e., near the scene of occurrence, and the reason assigned bythe prosecution for their presence at the relevant time is unbelievable for, itis quite strange that P.Ws.3 and 4, who are said to have been present at thescene of occurrence, did not accompany the deceased, but sent him in an auto-rickshaw with P.W.1 to the hospital.They did not even go to the Police Stationto lodge the complaint.It is the positive evidence of the InvestigatingOfficer P.W.15 that he did not see P.Ws.3 and 4 when he visited the scene ofoccurrence.The evidence of the Investigating Officer is quite contrastive tothat of P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.3 and 4 are chance witnesses and purposely, theywere introduced to support the version of the prosecution.By pointing out that it is the case of the prosecution that the secondaccused caught hold of the deceased to facilitate the first accused to stab thedeceased, learned counsel would submit that in Ex.P.1-complaint, it has beenstated that A2 waylaid the deceased and prevented him from proceeding furtherand the words "gpoj;Jf; bfhz;L""" i.e., caught hold, have been interpolated.The Investigating Officer has been questioned regarding the earlier statement ofP.Ws.2 to P.W.4 and it has been admitted by him that the second accused onlywaylaid the deceased and "catching hold of the deceased" was not mentioned atthe time when they were examined by the Police.It is submitted that because ofthe reason the second accused happens to be the brother of the first accusedand in view of the enmity between the families, he has been falsely implicatedin the case and that being so, the trial Court proceeded on a wrong footing toconvict him for an offence under Section 302 r/W 34 of IPC.In so far as thefirst accused is concerned, it is submitted that it is the admitted case of theprosecution that there was a wordy quarrel in front of the house of P.W.1 andthe accused and P.W.1 has admitted that the accused and the deceased werepushing down each other and the deceased received the stab injuries.It is alsothe case of the prosecution that the sister of the accused was eve-teased on anearlier occasion and there was a wordy quarrel on account of the same.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that thoughP.Ws.1 to 4 are interested witnesses, their presence at the scene of occurrenceis clearly mentioned in Ex.The occurrence had taken place at 7.00 p.m.,and the complaint was given to the Police at 10.00 p.m. The deceased was takento the hospital initially with the help of an auto rickshaw and after knowingthat the deceased was dead, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Police Station to lodge thecomplaint.Thus, Ex.P.1 came into existence without any loss of time.TheCourt of the Magistrate is situated four kilometres away and Ex.P.4/FIR reachedthe Court without any loss of time i.e., at 2.30 a.m. Hence, there was nopossibility for improving the version of the prosecution.P.Ws.3 and 4 are father and son respectively.Only because ofthe reason that they were all were present at that time, they could give agraphic picture of the sequence of events.P.W.5, an independent eyewitnessturned hostile.It is also unfortunate that P.W.6 to P.W.9, who are mahazarwitnesses, also turned hostile.But, in spite of that, the ocular testimony ofP.Ws.1 to 4 is consistent and corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.12.Though there is contradiction with regard to the motive part of the prosecution,namely, eve-teasing, it is also the case of the defence that one of thesisters of the accused was eve-teased by the deceased.Though there isinterpolation in the complaint, the presence of the second accused cannot bedisputed and it has been consistently spoken to by the eyewitness and theovertact has been clearly attributed to him in the complaint.Perused the materials available on record and heard the submissionsmade on either side.On the same reason, there used tohave frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased.The defence hasmarked Ex.D2 to substantiate such aspect.On a perusal of the evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 4, we could see that there was a wordy quarrel and subsequently therewas a "push and pull" (js;S Ks;S) between the accused and the deceased.The residence of the accused is very nearby to the scene of occurrence.The quarrel between the accused and the deceased has to be looked at in thebackground of the reason projected i.e., eve-teasing of the sister of theaccused by the deceased.The accused and the deceased were neighbours.P.W.1 also admitted aboutthe prior wordy quarrel as well as the "push and pull" between the accused andthe deceased.It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the immediatemotive for the occurrence is eve-teasing of the sister of the accused by thedeceased and under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that therewas no intention or premeditation on the part of the first accused to cause thedeath of the deceased.Hence, though the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34Section is not made out, looking at the act committed in the background of thecircumstances, Section 304 (1) is attracted.In the light of the above discussion, the conviction and sentenceordered by the trial Court as against the second appellant/second accused areset aside and he is acquitted of the charges under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC andin so far as the first appellant/A.1 is concerned, we set aside the convictionand sentence imposed against him under Sections 302 r/w.34 IPC, instead, heis convicted under Section 304 (1) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for five years.The period of imprisonment already undergone byhim will be set off.Bail bond if any executed by the second accused shallstand cancelled.The fine amount if any, paid by him, is also ordered to berefunded forthwith.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
|
66,628,912 |
(SB: SHEEL NAGU, J) *** (Misc.Case No. 4129/17) Omprakash Agrawal Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh & others ______________________________________________ Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri S.S.Dhakad, Public Prosecutor for the State.Shri Narrotam Sharma, Advocate for the victims._______________________________________________________ Connected with Misc.Case No. 4691/2017 Rupesh Jain Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh & othersShri D.S.Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner.Shri S.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor for the State.Shri Narrotam Sharma, Advocate for the victims.Order (Passed on the 11th Day of July, 2018) SHEEL NAGU, J. -Inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail the FIR dated 1/9/2016 bearing Crime No. 523/16 alleging offence punishable u/S 306 IPC registered by police station Dehat, District Vidisha (M.P.) against the present petitioners.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal.Bare facts reveal that on information received from Dr. Ashish Verma, inquest was registered in respect of the unnatural death of deceased Amit Bansal, aged 42 years caused by consuming 2 Mcrc 4129/17 & Mcrc.Based on the inquest report, FIR was lodged on 1/9/2016 bearing Crime No. 523/16 by Police Station Dehat, District Vidisha which disclosed on the basis of the said inquest report which in turn was founded upon the statements of Aman Bansal, brother of the deceased, Smt. Varsha Bansal, wife of the deceased, Ritesh Agrawal @ Pintu, Rahul Jain etc. inter alia disclosing that on the issue of return of money lent to the deceased, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused namely Amit Agrawal, Banti Agrawal, Jeetu Maharaj & Vishwajeet Sharma and Rakesh Gupta including the present petitioners Omprakash Agrawal and Antu @ Rupesh Jain used to subject the deceased to mental cruelty which impelled the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance (sulphas tablets).On completion of investigation which included recording of statements of the aforesaid witnesses and a few more and conduction of postmortem which opined cadio respiratory failure as a result of suspected poisoning to be the cause of death.3.1 Besides the statements of the PWs as mentioned above, an important aspect which came to light and is reflected from Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Aman Bansal (younger brother of the deceased) that while this witness was accompanying the deceased in an injured state from home to hospital, the deceased informed the said witness that the accused including the petitioner herein used to pressurize him a lot by demanding return of money lent to the deceased and for doing so, the petitioner and other co-accused induced the deceased to be addicted to gambling and that the accused continued to extract money from the deceased in large quantum than what was actually due to the accused.Specifically in regard to the petitioner Omprakash Agrawal, the said alleged oral dying declaration as disclosed from the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Aman Bansal reveals that in lieu of the loan of 5 lakhs taken by the deceased from the petitioner, the deceased was subjected to cruelty 3 Mcrc 4129/17 & Mcrc.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,629,356 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 19 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.As per allegations, it is alleged against the applicant that he outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix and he helped the prosecutrix and the co-accused in leaving the township.No alleged offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC is made out against the applicant, whereas remaining offences are not so grave.The applicant is in custody since 23.2.2015, without any substantial reason.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.It is directed that the present applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['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.
|
66,631,765 |
</span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">C.C. as per rules.mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:10.0pt;</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">This bail shall continue during the pendency of the trial.In the event of jumping the bail, this facility will be withdrawn from petitioner.</span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU"> </span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="text-indent:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU"><span style="mso-tab-count:4"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">(Tarun Kumar Kaushal)</b></span></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="line-height:normal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family: Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU"><span style="mso-tab-count:6"> </span>Judge</span></b></p> <p class="WW-BodyText2" style="margin-left:-1.25in"><span style="font-family:"Bookman Old Style";mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-ansi-language:HU" lang="HU">Irf</span></p> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:HU;mso-fareast-language:AR-SA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA" lang="HU"><br style="mso-special-character:line-break;page-break-before:always" clear="all"> </span></b><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;mso-style-noshow:yes;mso-style-parent:"";font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:#0400;mso-fareast-language:#0400;mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font>
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,632,249 |
(Delivered on 21st day of December, 2017) Per J.P. Gupta, J :Challenging the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and order of sentence to undergo life imprisonment, dated 9.3.1996 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T. No.68/1994, for committing murder of Daulat Singh, this appeal has been filed.In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 28.3.1994 near about 2:30 p.m. in village Patera, Police Station Patera, District Damoh, at the occasion of weekly Haat bazaar, deceased Daulat Singh while passing by in front of a egg cart of the appellant dashed that cart, upon which, the appellant took objection and an altercation took place between them and suddenly, the appellant took out a Kaincha (scissor) dealt with on the right side of abdomen of Daulat Singh, due to which, Daulat Singh fell down on the ground.The appellant also tried to make further assault which was stopped by Durag Singh (PW-2) who was witnessing the incident standing nearby a shop and snatched Kaincha and Durag Singh also received injury while snatching Kaincha from the appellant.Thereafter, Durag Singh (PW-2) and the appellant / accused ran away from the place of incident in different directions leaving the deceased in injured condition.Durag Singh (PW-2) informed his father Narayan (PW- 8) about the incident.Thereafter, Narayan (PW-8) reached the spot and found the deceased in injured condition and took him to the hospital and also informed the police.The incident was witnessed by Gariba (PW-1), Bhagwan Singh (PW-11), Parwat (PW-12), Pappu (PW-3) and other persons.G.P. Awasthi (PW-15), Executive Magistrate / Naib Tahsildar, recorded dying declaration Ex.P/15 in the presence of Dr. P.L. Bhagraiya (PW-7) on giving certification with regard to fitness of the deceased for giving the statement.Dr. A. K. Tiwari (PW-14) treated Daulat Singh and opined that the injury sustained by Daulat Singh was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature.On 1.4.1994 on account of the injury, Daulat Singh died.Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S. K. Khatri (PW-5) and prepared PM report Ex.P/6 and opined that the death was due to the aforesaid injury and toxemia.During the investigation Kaincha was also seized from Durag Singh (PW-2) and sent it to the FSL.After completing all due formalities, the police filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC against the appellant / accused before the Court of JMFC, Hatta who on its turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial.The learned trial Court framed charge for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC against the appellant.The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and stated that he is innocent and pleaded for trial.His defence is that at the time of incident he was not present on the spot and he has been falsely implicated.Durag Singh (PW-2) is near relative of the deceased and the presence of other eye witnesses have not been narrated in the Dehati Nalshi Ex.P/23 and the deceased was not in a position to give statement.Hence, his dying declaration is also not reliable and it is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injury was sufficient to cause his death in ordinary course of nature.It is further submitted that only single blow was dealt by the appellant / accused without any pre-meditation, without any intention to cause his death, suddenly on the heat of passion, without taking any undue advantage or acted in cruel manner.In such circumstances, the appellant / accused cannot be held guilty for committing offence of the murder.Considering the prosecution case as it is, the appellant can be convicted hardly for commission of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.Accordingly, the appeal be allowed and the appellant / accused be acquitted.Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent / State has argued in support of the impugned judgment and stated that the finding of the trial court is based on cogent evidence and after causing fatal injury on the abdomen of the deceased, the appellant / accused also tried to make further assault.Hence, the appeal be dismissed.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, in this case there is no controversy with regard to the fact that deceased Daulat Singh died on 1.4.1994 on account of the injury received by him on his abdomen and this fact has been found proved by the statement of Dr. P. L. Bhagraiya (PW-7) who initially examined the deceased on 28.3.1994 and as per MLC Report Ex.P/9, found incised wound on right side of the stomach of the deceased caused by sharp object and the statement of Dr. A.K.Tiwari (PW-14) who operated injury of the deceased and opined that the injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the statement of Dr. S.K. Khatri (PW-5) who conducted autp0sy on the dead body of the deceased on 1.4.1994 and prepared PM report Ex.P/6 and found that the cause of death of the deceased was the aforesaid injury and toxemia.Now, the crucial question for consideration is that the injury resultant to the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant / accused.The prosecution has relied on the statements of the eye witnesses; Durag Singh (PW-2), Gariba (PW-1), Parwat (PW-12), Bhagwan Singh (PW-11).These witnesses have categorically stated that at the time of incident they were present in the weekly village market and they saw the incident in which the appellant / accused assaulted with Kaincha and caused injury on the right side of abdomen of the deceased and Durag Singh (PW-2) came forward to rescue the deceased and snatched Kaincha while the appellant / accused was making further assault on the deceased.None of the aforesaid witnesses are relatives of the deceased.They all are the independent witnesses.They have no grudge with the appellant / accused.Their statements are having no other infirmity to see their statements with any suspicion.Apart from the aforesaid evidence, Bhujbal (PW-19) Head Constable, has stated that he went to the hospital and recorded Dehati Nalshi on the basis of the information given by the deceased which is Ex.P/.23 and signature of the deceased was also taken on it.This Dehati Nalshi is admissible as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act in which the deceased has stated that he was assaulted by the appellant /accused with Kaincha and caused injury on his stomach and he was saved by Durag Singh.G.P. Awasthi (PW-15) Naib Tahsildar / Executive Magistrate have also stated that on 28.3.1994 he recorded dying declaration of the deceased in the hospital.At that time, the deceased was fit to give his statement and in this regard he also got certificate of the doctor and recorded statement Ex.P/15, in which, it is stated by the deceased that he was assaulted by the appellant / accused with Kaincha and caused injury on his stomach.Dr. P. L. Bagharaiya (PW-7) has also stated that in his presence and on his certification about fitness for giving statement, Executive Magistrate recorded statement of the deceased.In this regard, he was made endorsement on Ex.The evidence with regard to prove the dying declaration Ex.P/15 has remained unimpeachable.During cross-examination there is no other facts and circumstances on record to see the aforesaid evidence with any doubt and to discard the same.All the witnesses are public servants.There is no reason to make false statement against the appellant / accused and the evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of eye witnesses and also corroborated by the medical evidence.In such circumstances, the evidence is found to be credential and trust worthy.During investigation, Kaincha was also seized as per seizure memo Ex.P/1 from Durag Singh who snatched it from the appellant / accused to prevent him from making another attempt on the deceased.Seizure memo Ex.P/1 has been proved by B. D. Tripathi (PW-18) In-charge, Police Station Patera, district Damoh, Durag Singh (PW-2) and Bhagwandas (PW-13).However, on Kaincha presence of human blood has not been determined on account of disintegration but recovery of Kaincha and presence of blood stains are corroborative circumstances and provides strengthening to the testimony of the eye witnesses and testimony with regard to dying declaration.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the injury resultant to the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant / accused with Kaincha and thus, the learned trial court has not committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the injury was caused by the appellant / accused.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.
|
66,632,555 |
(a) The accused is the son of the deceased by name Mathalai Mery.PW9 is the brother of the accused.The husband of the deceased died 15 yearsback.After the death of the husband, the deceased along with the accusedand PW9 went to her parental home at Eechampatti and lived together.Theaccused studied upto I.T.I and learned to drive cars.For the last oneyear, the accused was working in a private concern at Manapparai by stayingin the house of one Thiyagarajan.During that period, he was addicted toalcohol and other bad habits, and in order to spend money for his waywardlife, he borrowed loan from several persons and he had become a debtor.Thedeceased had an ancestral property.Hence, the accused was pressurizing the deceased/mother to sell the ancestral property and give money to him.The deceased has notaccepted the same.The accused, therefore, decided to murder his mother(deceased), under the impression that only if she dies, he could inherit theancestral property and sell the same.(b) On 27.12.2012 one Rangaraj had given the TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No.TN-46-E-7201 to the accused to go to Sabarimala.The accused went to Sabarimala, where he had purchased a knife and hidden the same in theTATA sumo vehicle.On 01.01.2013, in the morning, the accused called hismother (deceased) over phone and asked her to come to Manapparai stating that based on the loan given by his friends, he is going to purchase a propertynear the twin tamarind trees at Keelapoosaripatti and that after seeing theland, she could give the advance amount.Believing the words of the accused,on the same day, at 6.00 p.m., the deceased came to Manapparai from Eechampatti.As it was late night, the accused left the deceased in heraunt's house ? PW7 at Manjampatti and the accused returned back to Manapparai Taxi market in the TATA Sumo Car.(c) Next day, ie., on 02.01.2013 at 8.00 a.m. the accused went to PW7'shouse with the TATA Sumo car and took his mother, PW7 and another aunt's daughter ? PW8 in the TATA Sumo car and dropped PW7 and PW8 at the Litter Flower School at 8.30 a.m. and proceeded in the car along with his mother.Thereafter, the accused stopped the vehicle at the twin tamarind treesoutskirts and closed the glasses of the car.The accused came nearer to hismother, who was sitting in the backside of the driver seat.At that time, thedeceased asked where was the land that was going to be purchased by him.The accused has stated that he has mounting debts and therefore, she should givemoney after selling half of the ancestral property.The deceased replied thatshe will not sell her property.Enraged over the same and stating that untilshe was alive, she will not leave him to enjoy the fruits of the property andby saying so, the accused took a knife from the hide out, closed the mouth ofthe deceased with his left hand and stabbed the deceased on her left sidechest, on the right side neck and on the centre of the neck.The accusedalso cut the hands of the deceased.On receiving the injury, the deceaseddied instantaneously in the car.(d) On 03.01.2013 PW1 ? the then Village Administrative Officer at 1.00p.m.got an information that a female dead body aged about 50 years was lyingnear the land in Survey No.261, at Vannan Kalingu.On hearing the saidinformation, PW1 proceeded to the place where the body was lying and foundthe dead body of the woman with stab injury on the neck and left hip and onthe hand of the deceased.Hence, he immediately went to Mathur Police Stationand gave a complaint ? Ex.P1 in this regard.P13 is the FIR.Then, PW29 forwarded Ex.PW23 gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiplestab wounds.P12 is the postmortem certificate.(h) On 07.01.2013 at 11.00 a.m. the accused appeared before PW10 ? the then Village Administrative Officer of the Viralimalai and gave an extrajudicial confession Statement to the effect that he had mounting debts andhence, he plotted to kill his mother, since he was under the impression thatif his mother's life is taken away, her ancestral property would come to hishands and accordingly, killed his mother viz., deceased.The said Extra-judicial Confession Statement ? Ex.P3 was recorded by PW10 in the presence of Village Assistant.Then, at 12.30 p.m. PW10 took the accused to the PoliceStation and handed over the accused and Ex.PW30 arrested the accused.On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement, in which hedisclosed the place where he had hidden the knife and the accused has alsoproduced a pair of ear-stud - MO.1 and a pair nose-stud without screw -MO.2, which were worn by the deceased, before the Police.PW30 recovered the same under a mahazar.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he tookthe Police and witnesses to the place of occurrence and the place of hide outand produced knife (M.O.12), a sim card, cell phone, money purse,bloodstained water bottle, bloodstained polythene bag containing withtamarind, TATA Sumo Car, bloodstained shirt and pant, bloodstained sleevelessbanion.PW30 recovered the same under mahazar.(a) The accused himself admitted in Ex.P3 that he used to pester andget money from the deceased for his wayward life.PW14 has stated in his evidence that he knew the accused as he is working as a driver in theManapparai Car Stand.PW14 has further stated that on 27.12.2013 he handed over the car to the accused in order to go to Sabarimala and that on02.01.2013 the accused called him for giving the key of the car and as perhis direction, the accused handed over the key in the car stand.(c) It is stated by the accused that on 01.01.2013 the accused calledthe deceased to Manapparai and as such on the same day, at 6.00 p.m. the accused came there and as it was late at night, they stayed at the house ofthe deceased's aunt ? PW7 and on the next day, at 8.00 p.m. the deceased came out of the house of PW7 and boarded the car.(i) PW7 has categorically stated in her evidence that on 01.01.2013at 7.00 p.m. the deceased came to her house and stayed, and that on the nextday, at 8.00 a.m. since the accused called the deceased over phone, thedeceased left the house.PW7 has further stated that before leaving thehouse, the deceased asked her (PW7) to give some tamarind fruits to her andaccordingly, she gave some tamarind fruits to the deceased.(ii) PW8, who had lastly seen the deceased along with the accused,has stated in her evidence that on 02.01.2013 she along with the deceasedtravelled in the car and alighted at the school, where she is working andthereafter, the deceased and the accused alone travelled in the car.From the evidences of PW7 and PW8, the prosecution has clearly proved that the deceased was lastly seen alive with the accused.(d) The accused has further stated in Ex.P3 that nearby the twintamarind tree at Keela Poosaripatti Village, he stopped the vehicle and tookthe knife from the hide out and stabbed the deceased on her chest and on theneck of the deceased and then, he removed a pair of ear stud and nose studfrom the body of the deceased and then, he took the car.The accused hasfurther stated that he threw away (a) polythene bag in the hands of thedeceased which was containing bloodstained cell phone, Money purse, Tamarind fruits, water bottle, (b) the body of the deceased, (c) the bloodstainedsheet cover of the car, (d) the knife and (e) his bloodstained shirt, pant,banion at five different places.[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J.] This appeal has been filed by the appellant / sole accused as againstthe conviction and sentence, dated 24.11.2015, made in S.C.No.65 of 2013 bythe learned Sessions cum Mahila Court Judge, Pudukkottai.2.The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:Conviction U/s.Sentence Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment.364 IPC To undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment.201 IPC To undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently .(e) On receipt of Ex.P1, PW29 ? the then Sub Inspector of Policeregistered a case in Crime No.2 of 2013 under Section 302 and 201 IPC.Ex.P1 ? complaint and Ex.(f) PW30 took up the investigation on the same day at 5.00 p.m.,proceeded to the place where the dead body was lying, prepared an observationmahazar (Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P14) in the presence of witnesses and then, on 04.01.2013 he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased atTrichy Government Hospital in the presence of panchayatars.Then, PW30 arranged for a photographer and took photograph of the place of occurrence.As per the request of PW30, forensic experts and a sniffer dog squad visitedthe place where the dead body was found.Since the identity of the deceasedcould not be found, PW30 made a paper publication.Thereafter, he recordedthe statements of the people in and around the place where the dead body wasfound.After knowing the identity of the deceased from her relatives, PW30sent the dead body of the deceased to the hospital for postmortem throughPW27 ? Head Constable.(g) PW23 ? Dr.Renugadevi conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 04.01.2013 at 3.20 p.m. and she found the following injuries onthe body of the deceased:?1) A vertical stab wound, 8 cm x 5 cm x exposing the underlyingstructures on the front of right side of neck.O/E, the edges are regular.The muscles, blood vessels and nerves are cut.2) A vertical stab wound 5 cm x 3 cm x exposing the underlyingstructures on the front of centre of the neck.O/E, the edges are regular.The muscles, blood vessels, nerves, food pipe and wind pipe are cut.3) An oblique stab wound, 2 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on the front ofleft side of the chest.O/E, the edges are regular.The intercostalsmuscles , blood vessels and nerves are cut.A stab wound, 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the upper lobe of left lung present.4) Incised wounds: on the back left thumb 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep; back of left forearm 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep.5) An bite marks on the back of left side of the chest and abdomen,front of right elbow and forearm, back of right hand.O/E edges arirregular.Base is pale.6) Animal bite mark on the left side of chin.O/E, edges areirregular.The above mentioned wounds Nos.(1) to (4) are ante-mortem, Wound Nos.(5) and (6) are postmortem.No other external, internal or bony found.?On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand andhanded over the material objects under Form 95 to the Court.(i) PW30, during the course of investigation, recorded the statementsof PW10, PW11 and other witnesses.PW32 took up the investigation.Atthe request of PW32, the material objects were sent for chemical examinationsthrough Court.The chemical examination report (Ex.P18) and serologicalreport (Ex.P19) disclosed that there are human blood group of ?B? smeared onmost of the material objects, including the knife, etc. PW32 collected themedical documents and recorded the statement of medical witnesses and other witnesses.He altered the offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC andforwarded the alteration report to the Court.After completion ofinvestigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.4.Based on the above materials, the trial Court had framed threecharges under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC against the accused.When the accused was questioned in respect of the charges, he pleaded innocence.Inorder to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as32 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to PW32 and Exs.P1 to P21 were exhibited, besides 17 Material Objects (MOs.1 to 17).When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution, theaccused denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.However, onthe side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked.6.The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence,has found the accused guilty of all the charges and accordingly, convictedand sentenced the accused, as stated supra.Challenging the said convictionand sentence, the appellant/accused has come up with this appeal.P3 ? Extra Judicial ConfessionStatement, the Inspector of Police has first put his signature and below thesignature of the Inspector of Police, the VAO has affixed his signature,which would show that the said extra judicial confession statement was notprepared by PW10 and it was created in the Police Station.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that PW10is a stranger to the accused and PW10 himself admitted in his crossexamination that he did not know the accused before he came to his office.Hence, it is not safe to believe the case of the prosecution that the accusedgave a statement to PW10, who is alien to him.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that inthe recovery mahazars viz., in Ex.As there are lot ofcontradictions in the evidences of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt maybe extended in favour of the accused and this appeal may be allowed.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted thatin this case, the prosecution has clearly proved the chain of circumstancesby examining the evidences of PW8, who is the relative of the deceased andPW9, who is the brother of the deceased and PW10, who recorded the extra judicial confession statement of the accused, PW16 and PW17, who saw the car lastly nearby the place of occurrence.PW13 ? who was running water wash workshop has clearly stated in his evidence that before washing the car,there was bloodstain in the car and foul smell of the blood also emanatedfrom the car, which categorically proved that the occurrence had happened inthe car and the same has been done by the accused.(i) PW16 and PW17 have stated in their evidence that on 02.01.2013 at11.30 a.m. when they were riding in a motorcycle on Viralimalai ? KeeranoorRoad, the TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No.46-E-7201 came in a great speed and that the driver was a young man aged about 20 to 25 years.(ii) The investigating officer - PW30 has stated in his evidence thatthe above said material objects were recovered from different places asstated by the accused.PW10, who put his signature in the recovery mahazar,has also corroborated the same.More over, as per the forensic report, therewas bloodstain on all the material objects, including knife.The above recoveries made at different places on the basis of theconfession statement of the accused and the bloodstain found on all thematerial objects, especially on the knife, strengthened the case of theprosecution that this accused had committed the offence.(e) The next circumstance stated by the accused is that on the same dayof the occurrence, he gave the car for water wash at J.J. Water Service.(i) PW13 who is working in J.J. Water service has stated in hisevidence that on 02.01.2013 at 1.00 p.m. the car bearing registration No.TN-46-E-7201 came for water service and there was bloodstain in the car andthere was also foul smell of the blood in the car.PW13 has further statedthat when he asked the accused about the bloodstain and foul smell of theblood, the accused had stated that it was due to supply of meat in the car toone Muslim boy.(ii) PW23, who conducted postmortem has stated in his evidence that thedeceased would appear to have died of due to stab wounds.PW23 has further stated that the injuries could have been caused by the knife like MO.12.More over, as stated earlier, there was human bloodstain on the knife ?MO.12, which was recovered on the confession of the accused.The admission of the accused and the evidences of PW23 and PW13 would go to show that it was this accused, who had committed offences and in orderto screen the evidence, the accused has given the car to PW13 for water wash.In view of the above, we hold that the extra judicial confessionstatement of the accused and the circumstantial evidences go together and thecircumstantial evidences projected by the prosecution completely form a chainof circumstances and in all probabilities, it is proved by the prosecutionthat it was this accused who had committed the above offences.Now let us analyse the next submission of the learned counsel forthe appellant ie., there are corrections in Ex.But, no explanation wasoffered by the investigating officer, which would show that the correctionswere made to suit the convenience of the prosecution case.A bare perusal ofEx.P9 would go to show that there was only one single correction.PW10 hascategorically stated in his evidence that the said correction was made beforehim.Admittedly, it was only a minor correction and the same does not createany doubt on the creation of Ex.P9 as stated by the learned counsel for theappellant.The ear-stud and nose-studproduced by the accused have been recovered by the investigating officer onlythrough Ex.P5 ? mahazar, in which PW10 and one Village Assistant ? Mr.V.Durai samy have put their signatures as witnesses.Of-course, it is true that PW9, who is the brotherof the accused, has stated in the cross examination that a pair of ear-studand nose-stud of the deceased had already been handed over to his relatives.But, the defence has failed to prove as to when it was handed over to therelatives of the deceased ie.before the date of recovery of the jewels orlong after the recovery of the jewels from the accused.Further, it is alsonot clear that as to who received the jewels.However, it is seen that thetrial Court in its judgment has directed to return the MO.1 and MO.2 tothe legal heirs of the deceased after the appeal period, which would go toshow that MO.1 and MO.2 are still in the custody of the trial Court.Thus,the above statement of PW9 in the cross examination suffers from materialdiscrepancies and inherent improbabilities.Therefore, the said contentioncannot be accepted.Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial Court hasimposed only minimum punishment which also does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.1.The Sessions cum Mahila Court Judge, Pudukkottai.2.The Inspector of Police, Mathur Police Station, Pudukkottai District..3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
443,199 |
JUDGMENT D.P. Sengupta, J.In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of a proceeding being complaint case No. C/S85 of 1991 (T-460 of 1991) under Sections 493/494 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code.Present opposite party No. 1 filed a petition of complaint on 11.5.91 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. Barrackpore against the petitioner and others alleging commission of offences under the aforesaid section.Both the accused persons appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed an application under Section 245(1) Cr. PC praying for discharge on the ground of insufficient evidence.The said application was heard in presence of both the parties and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 18.6.97 rejected the said application and expressed his view that the complainant was able to make out a prima facie case against both the accused persons.Next date was fixed on 21.7.97 for framing charge.Aggrieved by the order dated 18.6.97 a revislonal application was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge.The said order dated 23.6.98 passed by the Revisional Court remained unchallenged.Thereafter by an order dated 16.11.98 the learned Judicial Magistrate.3rd Court, Barrackpore framed charge against the present petitioner under Sections 493/494 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code.I have heard the learned Advocate of the respective parties.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
443,303 |
JUDGMENT Jagjit Singh, J.(1) On November 1,1961, Shri M. L. Zutshi, Food Inspector, went to the shop of Shri Naval Kishore, petitioner and purchased a quantity of chillies powder for purpose of analysis.On one of the samples of that article of food being sent to the Public Analyst, for analysis, it was found to be adulterated with artificial coal tar dye.(2) Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain, Municipal Prosecutor, filed a complaint against the petitioner.On the petitioner being tried by Shri Jagmohan, Magistrate First Class, Delhi, he was convicted for an offence under section 7 read with section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was fined Rs. 400.00 only.Thereafter the present revision was filed in this Court.(3) The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the judgments of the courts below by contending that no independent witnesses were called by the Food Inspector to be present when samples of chillies-powder were taken, as was required by section 10 of the Act. It was also urged that the report of the Public Analyst did nto show the type of coal tar dye with which the sample was found adulterated and that there was ntohing to show that the seal on the btotle containing the sample tallied with the specimen seal impression.Antoher contention raised was that Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain, who filed the complaint, was nto an authorised person.Sub-Section (7), as it then stood, required as far as possible nto less than two persons to be called to be present at the time of taking samples of any article of food from any person selling such articles.Besides Shri Zutshi, there were present.Shri Sachdeva, also a Food Inspector, and Om Prakash peon.They fully supported the prosecution version.Shri Zutshi deposed that two customers were present at the shop but they did nto agree to become witnesses in the case.There is ntohing to show that this part of the statement of Shri Zutshi' is in any way incorrect.The two customers who were present at the shop.of the petitioner having refused to become witnesses the absence of any witnesses from the public cannto be regarded as non-compliance with the requirements of section 10 of the Act, as it stood on the relevant date.(5) It is true that the report of the Public Analyst did nto indicate the type of coal tar dye which was present in the sample.During the trial, the public Analyst was also examined as a court witness and stated that the coal tar dye found in the sample was nto classified though its colour was red.(6) It was hardly necessary to classify the coal tar dye as under rule A.05,10 of the rules in Appendix 'B' to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, chillies (capsicum) have to be free from extraneous coloring matter in order nto to be adulterated.Due to presence of extraneous coloring matter in the form of coal tar dye the sample was rightly considered to be adulterated.(7) On Form No. Vii, which was sent along with the sample of chillies-powder, was affixed a specimen impression of the seal used to seal the sample.The report of the Public Analyst mentioned that he found "the seal" intact and unbroken which obviously meant that the seal tallied with the specimen impression.On this ground, therefore, no objection can be validly taken on behalf of the petitioner.A copy of that resolution.Exhibit Pk, is on the record of the trial court.The resolution shows that the recommendations of the Medical Relief and Public Health committee for authorising Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain under section 20 of the Act, to institute and conduct all prosecutions arising under the Act, were approved.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,335,595 |
sh This Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner e being aggrieved by order dated 25.09.2017 passed by Additional ad Sessions Judge, Lahar, district Bhind in Sessions Case Pr No.144/2017 framing charges against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 285, 304 in the alternative Section 304-A a of IPC.hy It is petitioner's contention that on 08.10.2016, complainant ad Vijayram Rajak had lodged a F.I.R. to the effect that his sister M Leelawati's daughter aged about ten year had visited shop of the petitioner to purchase chocolate.When she was standing to buy of chocolate, Devendra Kushwah was selling petrol which caught rt fire taking in its sweep the minor girl named Anjali.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,336,467 |
The Deputy Superintendent of Police Commercial Crime Investigation Wing, Tirunelveli.Criminal Revision Petitions filed, seeking an order to call for therecords relating to the order, dated 25.09.2009 passed in Cr.M.P.No.439 of 2009in C.C.No.3 of 2009 and Cr.M.P.No.440 of 2009 in C.C.No.4 of 2009 respectivelyon the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli and set asidethe same.!For petitioner ... Ms.J.Nisha Banu in both the petitions^For respondent ... Mr. K.V.Rajarajan Government Advocate in both the petitions:COMMON ORDER Crl.R.C (MD).No.153 of 2010 has been preferred against the order, dated25.09.2009 made in Cr.M.P.No.439 of 20009 in C.C.No.3 of 2009 on the file of theJudicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunvelveli.The aforesaid criminal miscellaneouspetition was filed by the petitioner / A5 in the criminal case under Section 239Cr.P.C., seeking discharge.2. Crl.R.C (MD).No.153 of 2010 has been preferred against the order, dated25.09.2009 made in Cr.M.P.No.440 of 20009 in C.C.No.4 of 2009 on the file of theJudicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunvelveli.The aforesaid criminal miscellaneouspetition was filed by the petitioner / A6 in the criminal case under Section 239Cr.P.C., seeking discharge.It is seen by the impugned order, both the miscellaneous petitions weredismissed by the Court below.Aggrieved by the impugnedorders, both these criminal revision petitions have been preferred by him.According to him, the prosecution case isthat there was circular in the Central Co-operative Bank, whereby duties andresponsibilities are fixed on the petitioner, however, against the duties andresponsibilities, the petitioner had forwarded an estimated sanction file,whereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 408, 467, 468, 477(A) and120 (B) IPC.It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that 100% auditwas conducted in the year 2004 in the Naduvankurichi Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, where discrepancies were noted and enquiry under Section 81 wasordered and report of the enquiry officer was sent to Director of Prosecutionand the Director of Prosecution opined to take criminal action only against theaccused 1 to 3 and with regard to the other persons, departmental proceedingsmight be taken.Based on the same, FIR was registered against the accused 1 to 3and not against the petitioner herein.The petitioner has further stated that initially his name had not findplace in the FIR and he was stated only as a witness by the prosecution, butlater on, his name was included in the FIR as an accused.According to thelearned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not responsible for themaintenance of the book of accounts and other registers maintained by theRegistered society and on that ground alone, the petitioner is entitled to getdischarge from the criminal charges levelled against him.As per Section 80 ofthe Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the Registrar shall audit orcaused to be audited by a person authorised by him by a general or special orderin writing in this behalf, hence, the accounts of every Registered society isbeing audited at least once in every co-operative year, however, nothing waspointed out against the petitioner in audit.In the grounds, the petitioner has stated that had the Registrardischarged his mandatory duty, as contemplated under Section 80 of the Act, thealleged crime committed by accused 1 to 3 would have come to light.However, in the charge sheet submitted under Section 173 (2)Cr.As per the averments made in the charge sheet, the petitioner hereinas Circle Supervisor was also entrusted with the duty of verifying KCCpassports, sanctioning loans, the term of the loan and extent of the land inwhich various crops were being cultivated, however, without property verifyingthe details against the circular orders, the petitioner herein had forwarded thematerial papers in order to sanction the loans, thereby committed the offencealong with the other accused.J.Nisha Banu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew theattention of this Court to the common order, dated 28.04.2010 passed by thisCourt (M.M.Sundresh,J) in Crl.It is seen that the petitioner therein was one Manoharan JebarajJulian, who was arrayed as one of the accused / A4 under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.Cin the charge sheet.As contended by the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner, in the FIR, only the aforesaid S.Ramakrishnan, K.Sundarajan andC.Kombaiyah alone were stated as accused A1 to A3, subsequently, ManoharanJebaraj Julian and the petitioner herein were also arrayed as accused in thecharge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecutionpurposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate duringinvestigation;(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom theprosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.Since the petitioner herein was subsequently arrayed as one of theaccused under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., the Court below could not have passedmechanically any order to implead him as an accused, unless there is prima faciecase made out, based on the materials collected, subsequently, as contemplatedunder Section 173 of the Code.It is made clear that no person shall be arrayedas accused subsequently in a charge sheet, contrary to the averments in the FIR,without collecting further materials against such person, as per Section 173 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure.Having gone through the material papers available on record and thesubmissions made by both sides, I am of the view that there is no prima faciecase made out and no materials produced against the petitioner herein, ascontemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C., to implead the petitioner / accused asA5 and A6 subsequently in the charge sheets and therefore, following thedecisions rendered in favour of similarly placed accused, I am of the view thatthe revision petitions have to be allowed, since the orders passed by the Courtbelow are not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.In the result, both the criminal revision petitions are allowed andthe impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside and the petitioner /A5 and A6 in C.C.No.3 of 2009 and C.C.No.4 of 2009 respectively is dischargedfrom the criminal proceeding, as prayed for.Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed.The Judicial Magistrate No.II Tirunelveli.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,339,779 |
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has copy of charge-sheet and matter may be considered with the help of these papers.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 12-03-2015 relating to Crime No.31/15 registered at Police Station Gormi District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506-B, 353/34 and 332 of IPC.Presence of applicant is no more required for investigation because charge-sheet has already been filed.Sufficient time will be required for the disposal of the case.The applicant cannot be kept in the custody for an unlimited period.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the 2 M.Cr.C.No.2903/2015 view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.2 M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Anil
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
443,398 |
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Dhanasekar.She challenges an order of the second respondent made in No.31/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 7.3.2010, whereby her son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda.No.394/2009 under Sec.302 r/w 120(b) IPC; (3) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.64/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC; (4) M5 Ennore PS Cr.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,341,509 |
(Passed on this 12th day of August, 2014) Per Shantanu Kemkar, J.This is an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Code) for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.38/2014 and Crime No.539/2013 registered at Police Station Sanyogitaganj, Indore for commission of alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has been falsely implicated for the commission of the alleged offence.He submits that the applicant is in custody since 31.01.2014 and that as the trial will take time, the applicant be granted bail.The applicant's bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore vide order dated 03.03.2014 by observing thus: -MCRC No.1889/2014 "dsl Mk;jh vkSj izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;k A dsl Mk;jh vuqlkj la{ksi eas vfHk;kstu dk ekeyk ;g gS fd vkosnu }kjk ,e-th-,e- esfMdy dkWyst eas ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk ds jksy uacj 518106 ij ikl gksuk crkdj ,e-th-,e- esfMdy dkWyst bankSj eas v/;;u dj jgk Fkk tcfd mlds LFkku ij vU; O;fDr }kjk ijh{kk nh tkdj ijh{kk ikl dh xbZ vkSj izos'k dh izfdz;k mDr vU; O;fDr }kjk iwoZ dh xbZ Fkh] bl ij ,e- th-,e- esfMdy dkyst ds iz'kklfud ifj"kn }kjk ekeys dh tkWp dj iqfyl Fkkuk la;ksfxrkxat eas mDr vk'k; dh fjiksVZ fy[kk;h xbZ gS A vuqla/kku ds nkSjku bl rF; dh iqf"V gS fd tks O;fDr fo+|kFkhZ ds :i eas v/;;u dj jgk gS] mlds LFkku ij vU; O;fDr us mlds uke ls ih-,e-Vh- QkeZ Hkjk Fkk] ijh{kk nh vkSj ijh{kk ikl gksus ds ckn dkmalfyax eas Hkkx ysdj vkosnd ds uke ,Meh'ku djok Fkk vkSj ;g rF; vkosnd dks iwjh rkSj ij Kkr Fkk vkSj mlds }kjk ;g dk;Zokgh ,d vU; O;fDr dks /kujkf'k nsdj djok;h xbZ gS A bl rjg vkosnd ds fo:) ekeyk /kkjk& 420] 467] 468] 471] 201] 120&ch Hkk0na0fo0 ds v/khu vuqla/kkuk/khu gS] izdj.k esa vuqla/kku tkjh gS] izdj.k ds vU; lg vkjksfi;ksa dh fxjQ~rkjh gksuk 'ks"k gS A vr% vijk/k ds rF;] ifjfLFkfr;ksa vkSj ih-,e- Vh-ijh{kk rFkk izos'k izfdz;k eas gks jgs ?kksVkys dks ns[krs gq, vkosnd dks izfrHkwfr dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr ugha le>rk gwW A Qyr% vkosnd jfoUnz dqekj firk fot;flag dh vksj ls izLrqr izFke tekur vkosnu varxZr /kkjk 439 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dk fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A"On the other hand, Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State opposing the bail application has argued that the applicant is a habitual offender.The offence, which has been registered 3 MCRC No.1889/2014 against the applicant, is serious in nature.The process of on-line form submitted by using sign and thumb impression of the present applicant and using photograph of co-accused Vikrant (a proxy-man / scorer).After passing of the examination, the process of counselling and seat allotment was got done by this applicant through co-accused Vikrant.Thereafter, from September, 2013, the applicant started attending classes in MGM Medical College, Indore.However, he failed to replace the photograph of scorer Vikrant from the record and when asked, he confessed the guilt before Professor Smt. Rajni Soni.Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code deserves to be and is hereby rejected.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,348,884 |
The 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded after the recovery of the girl in which she has supported the version of the applicant.She clearly indicates that on her own volition and accord joined the company of the applicant and remain in the company of the applicant for six days.The applicant is in jail since 29.08.2019 and hence the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Let the applicant Vinshu Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,350,156 |
Brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:According to the petitioners, after the marriage, respondent No.2 resided with petitioner No.1 for about three months and thereafter she left the matrimonial house on her own accord.Petitioners requested respondent No.2 to come and resume company of petitioner No.1, however, there was 2/13 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 ::: wp443-17.odtno response.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With 1/13 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 ::: wp443-17.odtconsent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::Present writ petition is filed by the petitioners/original accused for following relief: "(B) By issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature, the order dated 18.02.2017, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed in Criminal Revision No. 21/2016 so also the order passed below Exh.27 in R.C.C. No. 26/2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangakhed, dated 19.09.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside."(2)On 07.08.2014, respondent No.2 lodged complaint with Women's Grievances Redressal Forum.Thereafter, on 16.11.2014, respondent No.2 again lodged complaint with the Police Station, Gangakhed alleging that the petitioners were ill-treating respondent No.2 on various counts and they were also demanding an amount of Rs.20 lakhs for higher education of petitioner no.1, who is Doctor by profession.It is alleged that due to ill-treatment given by the petitioners, respondent no.2 was required to be admitted in the Hospital.On the basis of complaint lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 offence came to be registered against petitioners at Crime No.291/2014 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 504, 506 read with section 34 IPC with the Police Station, Gangakhed Dist.Parbhani where the parents of respondent No.2 are residing.Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have preferred Criminal Revision Application No.21/2016 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani.Learned Additional sessions Judge rejected the revision application.Hence this writ petition.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::I have heard arguments of Mr. Jagiasi, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Mundhe, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned APP for the State.Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued on following points:(2) Inordinate delay in filing of complaint; and(3)Earlier complaint filed by respondent No.2 before the Women's Grievance Redressal Forum was closed.Looking to the entire contents of the 4/13 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 ::: wp443-17.odtcomplaint as well as supplementary statements and statements of other witnesses all the alleged ill-treatment given to the respondent No.2 was at her matrimonial place i.e. at Latur.Admittedly, the petitioners are resident of Latur whereas, parents of respondent No.2 are resident of Gangakhed, Dist.Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Criminal Court at Gangakhed has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence.Therefore, on this count itself, the first information report and the charge-sheet needs to be quashed.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::I have carefully gone through the First Information Report/complaint and statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.On perusal of the same, it appears that entire allegations are with reference to the ill-treatment given by petitioners to respondent No.2 at Matrimonial place i.e. at Latur.There is no allegation against the petitioners about ill-treatment to respondent no.2 when 6/13 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 ::: wp443-17.odtshe was residing at her parental house nor it is stated by any of the witnesses that the petitioners have demanded money when respondent No.2 was residing at her parental house.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::Although the Respondent No.2 is much more annoyed with her husband, with an obvious motive, has arrayed all the close relatives of her husband in the FIR.The Police also seems to have recorded stereo-type statements of the witnesses who are none other than the parents and other relatives of the respondent No.2 and has filed a charge-sheet.If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::thorough scrutiny to find out prima facie whether there is any grain or truth in the allegations or involving certain individuals in a criminal charge.To prevent abuse of process of the Court; and to save the innocent from false prosecutions at the hands of unscrupulous litigants, the criminal proceedings even if they are at the stage of framing of the charge, if they appear to be frivolous and false, should be quashed at the threshold.Aforesaid observations are inapplicable to the facts of the present case because, there are specific allegations against each of the accused/petitioners with reference to ill-treatment to respondent no.2 and an offence punishable under 498-A IPC is registered.As referred above, certainly none of the acts alleged by respondent No.2 had taken at the place 8/13 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 ::: wp443-17.odtwhere the offence is registered i.e. at Gangakhed, Dist.The entire series of instances, allegations took place at Latur.In such circumstances, it was for the investigating officer to register the office at Crime No.0 and then transfer it to the police station at Latur, where the petitioners are residing.That proceeding can be transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangakhed to criminal Court at Latur.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::The application is therefore allowed by directing the proceeding bearing CR No.126/2006 registered with Shahada Police Station and Charge-sheet No.09/2007 filed in RCC No.14/2007 pending before the learned J.M.F.C. Shahad to be transferred to the Court of learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Nashik, who shall allot the same to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Nashik.It is needless to stage that the proceedings shall stand transferred from the present stage along- with the evidence, if any, recorded."::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::Parbhani to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::While considering the writ petition, that aspect cannot be taken into consideration because the complaint may explain the detail as to why the first information report/complaint was lodged after about 18 months.I have carefully gone through the proceedings before the Women's Grievance Redressal Forum from which, it appears that the proceeding was closed as parties to the proceeding were not cooperating and not attending the proceedings and the complainant/respondent no.2 was intending to file complaint with the police.Therefore, the delay in filing the first information report and closing of the earlier complaint cannot the the ground to quash and set aside the proceedings.12/13 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::No costs.(K. L. WADANE, J.) JPC 13/13 ::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2018 02:17:17 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,354,115 |
Brief facts of this case are that, the applicants are the sister-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Amita Sharma.Amita, has committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and on the basis of the merg enquiry report, a case has been registered against the present applicants at Crime No. 285/2015 at Police Station Barotha District Dewas M.P. for the offence under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and of Dowry Prohibition Act.After investigation, final report has been filed against the applicants along with the co-accused Shyam @ Rajendra for offence under Section 304-B, 304-B/34, 306, 306/34,302, 498- A, 498-A/34 of IPC.After considering the material on record, learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Dewas, vide order dt. 16.12.2015 2 framed the charges against the applicants for the aforesaid offence.Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision.Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the present applicants for framing charge under Section 302 of IPC.In such circumstances, the revision be allowed and the applicants be discharged from the charges.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE 3 M.Jilla.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
440,592 |
Heard the parties.Case diary of Crime No.33 of 2007 registered at Police Station Umreth, District Chhindwara for offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 of I.P.C is perused.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest for the aforesaid crime.She has lodged an FIR five days late.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,059,202 |
Sunanda Purushottam Dandekar (P.W.2), the mother of the prosecutrix, lodged oral report dated 12-5-2006 (Exhibit 18) at the Yavatmal (Rural) Police Station alleging that the accused kidnapped her daughter by assuring marriage.The gist of the report is that the prosecutrix, then aged 15 years, left the house at 1.00 p.m. on 11-5-2006 on the pretext of purchasing lemon, she did not return till noon and the informant searched but failed to locate her.th ORAL JUDGMENT :The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14-9-2007 rendered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Sessions Trial 55/2006, by and under which the appellant-accused is convicted for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and is::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 ::: 2 apeal445.07 sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::Heard Shri M.P. Kariya, learned Counsel for the accused and Smt. S.V. Kolhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.The informant enquired with Shrikrushna Dukare, Kishor Murmure and Mayur Khatade about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix and was told that the prosecutrix and the accused had gone towards the Ichori Fata.The husband and son-in-law of the informant again searched for the prosecutrix at the said location, but in vain.On the basis of the said report, which was lodged at 10-30 a.m. on 12-5-2006 offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC was registered::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 ::: 3 apeal445.07 against the accused.Offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC is apparently registered at a later stage.Investigation ensued and upon completion thereof charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yavatmal, who committed the case to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exhibit 11) under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried.The defence is of total denial.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::Shri M.P. Kariya, learned Counsel for the accused, at the very outset, by taking me through the record, subjects the first information report to severe criticism.The first information report is shrouded in suspicious circumstances, is the submission.Shri M.P. Kariya would submit that even if the contents of the first information report are taken at face value, it is apparent that no allegation of forcible sexual intercourse was levelled when the report was lodged.The version of the prosecutrix is that she disclosed the incident to her mother at 9-00 a.m. or thereabout on 12-5-2006, and if this evidence is to be believed, the fact that the first information report merely states that the accused and the::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 ::: 4 apeal445.07 prosecutrix had eloped since the accused induced the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage, ipso facto falsifies the allegation of rape.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::The submission of Shri M.P. Kariya is well merited.The evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) is that she was present in the house of the accused in the morning of 12-5-2006 and her parents came to the house of the accused at 9-00 a.m., kicked the door open and thereafter the prosecutrix and her parents went to the Yavatmal (Rural) Police Station and lodged the report.Exhibit 23 corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix that she was present with her parents at the police station at 10-30 a.m. when the report was lodged.The deposition of the Investigating Officer (P.W.5) that the prosecutrix was brought from the house of the accused at 2.30 p.m. on 12-5-2006 is falsified by the evidence of the prosecutrix and property seizure form (Exhibit 23).The first information report merely alleges that the prosecutrix is kidnapped by the accused.The first information report suppresses the fact that the prosecutrix was with her parents at least from 9-00 a.m. on 12-5-2006 and further the first information report makes no reference whatsoever::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 ::: 5 apeal445.07 to the prosecutrix having been subjected to sexual intercourse.The suspicious circumstances surrounding the oral report (Exhibit 18) per se renders the version of the prosecution unworthy of credit.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::The mother of the prosecutrix Sunanda (P.W.2), in her evidence, has not spoken of the accused having established sexual relationship with the prosecutrix.The doctor who examined the prosecutrix is not examined since the medical certificate (Exhibit 43) is admitted by the defence.The medical certificate (Exhibit 43) records that no injury is detected either on the genitalia or on any other part of the body of the prosecutrix.The hymen is found torn.But then, the fact that the hymen of the prosecutrix was found torn does not take the case of the prosecution any further.The certificate (Exhibit 43) is silent on the age of the tear.It is not mentioned in Exhibit 43 whether the tear is old or fresh.Exhibit 44 is the medical certificate issued by the doctor who examined the accused, which certificate is admitted by the defence.No injury is detected on the person of the accused.The prosecutrix (P.W.1) has deposed that the accused used to meet her at Yavatmal Bus Stand and used to express his love for the prosecutrix.P.W.1 has deposed that the accused told her that he would::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 ::: 6 apeal445.07 marry her.She has further deposed that on 11-5-2006 between 12-00 to 12-30 noon when she was present in the house, she was called by the accused to his house by a gesture.She left home under the pretext of purchasing lemon, and went to the house of the accused.The prosecutrix and the accused engaged in conversation and the prosecutrix said that they would elope and marry.The accused established sexual relationship with the prosecutrix.At 10-00 p.m. the accused asked the prosecutrix to go home, the prosecutrix went home and found that the house was locked, she spent the night near the water tank at a distance of 1 km. from village and next day in the morning again went to the house of the accused where she remained till her parents arrived at 9-00 a.m. and kicked the door open and took the prosecutrix along with them to lodge the report at the Yavatmal (Rural) Police Station.In the cross-examination, it is elicited that there was friendship between the accused and the prosecutrix, of which her parents were not aware nor were the villagers.It is further elicited that the parents of the accused and his brother are residing with him in the house.It is elicited in the cross-examination that the date of birth i.e. 05-2-1991 mentioned by::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 ::: 7 apeal445.07 the prosecutrix is on the basis that the entry in the school register records the said date as the date of birth.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::The evidence of the prosecutrix is not at all confidence inspiring.It is already noted that the first information report is lodged at 10-30 a.m. on 12-5-2006 and it has come in the evidence that the prosecutrix was present at the police station when the said report was lodged.It is highly improbable that sexual contact could have been established by the accused at his house on 11-5-2006 since the evidence of the prosecutrix is that the accused resided alongwith his father and brother.The mother of the prosecutrix (P.W.2), to whom the prosecutrix is said to have been disclosed the incident at the house of the accused at 9-00 a.m. or thereabout on 12-5-2006, does not speak of sexual relationship, in the evidence.The father of the prosecutrix is not examined.The medical certificate (Exhibit 43) does not mention whether the tear of the hymen was relatively old or fresh or recent.The evidence on record is too shaky and fragile to satisfy the conscience of the Court to hold that the prosecution has established offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::The next submission of Shri M.P. Kariya is that the prosecution failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix.The date of birth disclosed by the prosecutrix in the evidence is based on the date of birth recorded in the school record.P.W.3 Madhuri Pandit who is the Headmistress of Matoshri Ramabai Ambedkar Kanya Shala is examined to prove the school record.Her evidence would show that the date of birth 05-2-1991 is entered in the admission register of the school on the basis of the transfer certificate of the earlier school.P.W.3 admits that except the transfer certificate she did not come across any other document evidencing the date of birth.The entry is recorded by the Clerk, who is still in employment, is the admission extracted in the cross-examination.The transfer certificate on the basis of which the entry is taken in the school record is not proved.No evidence is adduced to prove the authenticity and veracity of the entry in the transfer certificate.The entry in the admission register, which is based on the transfer certificate issued by the earlier school, is not sufficient to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix.The investigation is ex facie unfair and indeed dishonest.The evidence of the Investigating Officer that the prosecutrix was::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 ::: 9 apeal445.07 brought from the house of the accused at 2-30 p.m. on 12-5-2006 is belied by the evidence of the prosecutrix and the property seizure form (Exhibit 23).The evidence of the prosecutrix, unreliable and doubtful as the evidence is, is not corroborated by the evidence of her mother (P.W.2).It would be extremely unsafe and hazardous to base the conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.The judgment and order impugned is clearly unsustainable in law.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::The judgment and order impugned is set aside.Fine paid by the accused, if any, shall be refunded to him.The appeal is allowed and is disposed of.JUDGEadgokar ::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:20:02 :::
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,061,929 |
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.AND N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.“Man, when perfected, is best of animals, but when separated from the law and justice, he is worst of all - said Plato, an Athenian Philosopher The Appellant herein, who is the Sole Accused in S.C.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, stands convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under Section 302 IPC as follows:Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, the Appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.During pendency of the appeal, this Court, by its order dated 24.09.2018, had suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment and thereby, the Appellant is on bail now.The brief case of the prosecution is that the appellant / accused and the deceased are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 25.05.2009 and out of their marriage, they were blessed with a female child.It was alleged that on 20.07.2010 at about 05.30 p.m., when the accused was in his house, his wife / deceased insisted upon him to redeem her pledged jewels and annoyed by her repeated insistence, the accused had attacked on the left backside of the deceased with stick and thereafter, poured kerosene on the deceased.Immediately, the deceased was taken to the hospital, wherein she succumbed to death due to sustenance of severe injury.Though a case was initially registered for an offence under Section 307 IPC on the basis of the complaint given by the deceased herself before her death to P.W.14 (Special Sub Inspector of Police, Bodi,http://www.judis.nic.in 2/23 Crl.After investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur in P.R.C.No.41 of 2010 and was subsequently, made over to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial after furnishing requisite documents to the accused in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence against the appellant / accused, has examined 20 witnesses, marked 16 documents and exhibited 7 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor documents marked.The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him.The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him as stated supra.According to the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant / accused that the dying declaration allegedly given by the deceased was a tutored one, as a cumulative reading of the depositions of P.Ws.1 to 3 discloses the fact that the dying declaration was not true and voluntary on the simple reason that they were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence.Secondly, P.Ws.1, 6 and 16 had merely stated that there was a fire, which got spread over the body of the deceased and nowhere, they had stated that the Appellant had set fire on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/23 Crl.It was deposed by P.W.16 in her cross examination that prior to the death of her daughter-in-law, she had informed that for the purpose of causing fear in the minds of the accused, she had poured kerosene by herself.It was also pleaded that in the complaint given by the deceased, it was stated that her jewels were pledged with Kosamattam Finance Company by the accused, which was the main root cause for the entire problem.However, the deposition of P.Ws.2 and 3 is otherwise, as they had categorically admitted in their cross that all the articles including jewels were with them and though the Manager of Kosamattam Finance Company was examined, no documents in support thereof were seized by the Investigating Officer and thereby, the prosecution had failed to prove the motive beyond reasonable doubt.The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant / accused has submitted that the recovery of M.O.3 / Stick was spoken to by P.W.8, who is an interested witness and is the grandfather of the deceased and there are a lot of contradictions in his evidence and though he had stated in the chief examination that Police obtained his signature immediately after seizing the stick, in his cross, it was deposed that he had signed on the recovery mahazar at the Police Station.Thus, it is clear that the recovery itself is an artificial one and the Police hadhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/23 Crl.It was the case put forth by the learned counsel for the Appellant that P.W.6 / neighbour of the deceased had stated that when she enquired the deceased, her mother and the aunt of the deceased, as to what happened to the deceased, as she was covered with a cloth, it was informed by them that the deceased sustained injuries on account of fire and even at that point of time, there was no mention of the name of the accused for the cause of the fire on the deceased.Even as per the version of P.Ws.1 to 3, it was the accused, who brought the deceased downstairs and it is quite ironical that he, having set fire on the deceased, would not have taken steps to rescue her.Per contra, Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that there was a motive behind the murder of the deceased on account of strained relationship between the accused and the deceased, which was duly established by the prosecution through ocular testimony and the dying declaration that was recorded from the deceased, which forms the basis for registration of an FIR in this case and it clearly points out the fact that it was the appellant alone, who had poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire and there is no ground to suspect the dying declaration.He further submitted that the evidence of the postmortem Doctor (P.W.18) and the Postmortem Certificate,http://www.judis.nic.in 5/23 Crl.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018 (Bail Case) marked as (Ex.P.10) clearly indicate that the deceased had died only on account of burns and its complications.Since the prosecution had proved the offence committed by the appellant/accused beyond any reasonable doubt, he is not entitled to any leniency from this Court and thus, prays for dismissal of this appeal.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it could be seen that it was the accused, who poured kerosene on the accused after attacking her with stick, which was disclosed by the deceased to them, apart from stating so in the dying declaration given before the Magistrate.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018 (Bail Case) to see whether any burn injuries are found as stated by the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 on the body of the deceased.P.W.18 / Dr.Prabhusankar, who had commenced the post-mortem at about 01.10 a.m., on 20.07.2010, had noted the following features in his Post Mortem Certificate, dated 27.07.2010, which is marked as Ex.“Identification and caste mark:Could not be made out due to II, III burns with severe wound infections.******* Appearances found at the Post-mortem Well-nourished body of a female, aged 19 yrs, lying on her back, mouth & eyes closed.1) II, III burns with severe would infections all over the body involving head, both upper limbs, Front & back of chest, back of abdomen, right lower limb, Left thing, genitals & right foot, nearly 80% involvement.Hair Partially burns.Facial burns present.2) Contusion 3 x 5 cm (NC) the Occipital region underlying skull intact.***** Opinion as to cause of death:The deceased would appear to have died of Burns & its complications 3-5 hrs prior to autopsy.”http://www.judis.nic.in 15/23 Crl.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018 (Bail Case)From the above, it could be easily understood that the deceased had died on account of severe burns and its complications and thus, the deposition given by P.Ws.1 to 3 was duly proved / corroborated with the medical evidence.“7....The blood-stained clothes of the deceased and also blood stained 'katti' was recovered at the instance of the Appellant from his house in the presence of panchas under the memorandum panchnama which are marked as Exhibits 39 and 40, which was in the presence of Subhash Waghmare (PW-13).The same had been sent to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Aurangabad and a report had been obtained.In that circumstance, when the weapon used for committing the offence had been recovered in the manner known to law and the appropriate reports were also obtained, the contention on behalf of the Appellant that the recovery of the weapon is not believable cannot be accepted.http://www.judis.nic.in 16/23 Crl.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018 (Bail Case)Insofar as the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, Baburao (PW-1) and Rashtrapal (PW-8) the same indicates that the entire sequence of the events as contained in the complaint have been stated.It is no doubt true that PW-1 in his cross-examination had stated that the wooden cot in the map i.e., the spot panchnama is not visible unless one enters into the house of the Accused No. 3 Dilip.He has also stated that the victim Dhammanand was killed on the spot by the Kamlakar by inflicting blow with' katti'.Further, the said witness has also been chased with intention to attack.As rightly taken note by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court, that even if it is assumed that the Accused Nos. 5 and 6 were at the door and had prevented Baburao (PW-1) and Rashtrapal (PW-8) at entrance of the door of the house of Accused No. 3 - Dilip, it would only indicate that they were standing at the threshold of the entrance to the house and in such circumstance there was every possibility of witnessing the occurrence of the incident in the house of the Accused.Furthermore, all other aspects relating to the earlier sequence of events which had led to the incident having occurred in the house of Dilip is taken note and when the Appellant as also the deceased were inside the house and in the circumstance the death on the spot had occurred, the death in the manner as contended by the prosecution and spoken to by PW-1 and PW-8 is to be accepted.Further the said witnesses PW-1 and PW-8 were also chased by the Appellant from the very spot where the incident occurred.In the present case, the recovery was spoken to by P.W.8 and in his examination in chief, he had stated as follows:///// nkYk; vjphpia tprhhpj;J mth; brhd;dtw;iw vGjp bfhz;L vd;dplKk;. kjpaHfdplKk; ifbaGj;J bgw;W bfhz;lhh;fs;/ mg;nghJ vjphp gh';fhU rhkp fz;kha; Kl;g[jhpy;jhd; fk;g[ kiwj;J itj;jpUg;gjhft[k;.mij vLj;J jUtjhf brhd;dhh;/ vjphpa[ld; v';fis nghyPrhh; miHj;J brd;W g';fhU rhkp fz;kha; Kl;g[jhpy; ,Ue;j fk;ig vjphp vLj;J M$h; bra;a nghyPrhh; v';fs; Kd;dpiyapy; mj;jhl;rpapy; ifg;gw;wpdhh;fs;/ mjpy; ehDk;.KjpaHfDk; rhl;rp ifbaGj;J nghl;nlhk;/ fk;ig vLj;J M$h; bra;j nghJ kzp 11 ,Uf;Fk;/// In the cross examination, it was deposed by P.W.8 as under:tHf;fpy; ,we;J nghd uhn$!;thp vdJ ngj;jp/ 21/7/2010k; njjp ehDk;.KjpaHfDk; 9/30 kzpf;F thf;fp';http://www.judis.nic.in 17/23 Crl.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018 (Bail Case) nghndhk;/ eh';fs; thf;fp'; nkw;fpy; ,Ue;J fpHf;nf nghndd;/ fpHf;nf ,Ue;J vjphpa[k;.2 nghyPrhUk; te;jhh;fs;/ mizf;fiugl;o tpyf;fpy; nghyPrhh; vJt[k; vGjpf;bfhs;stpy;iy/ fk;g[ vLjJ bfhLj;j ,lj;jpYk; nghyPrhh; ve;j ifbaGj;Jk; nghltpy;iy/ mg;nghJ ehDk; vd; cld; te;jtUk; ve;j ifbaGj;Jk; nghltpy;iy/ fhty;epiyaj;jpw;F ngha; ehDk; vd; cld; te;jtUk; xU ifbaGj;J nghl;nlhk;/ xd;Wf;F nkw;gl;l ifbaGj;J nghltpy;iy/ fhty;epiyaj;jpw;F 11 kzpf;F nghndhk;/////Of course, it is true that there is a contradiction in the above depositions with regard to the manner, in which the signature was obtained and the same can be justified from the fact that the cross examination was conducted after a lapse of nearly three years from the date of chief examination.Leaving the said defect aside, it has to be ascertained as to whether the stick used for attacking the accused and the one recovered from the bushes are one and the same or not, for which it is apposite to have a glance at the Chemical Examination report marked as Ex.P11, in which it was affirmed that Item No.5, a stick was received for chemical examination and after its examination, it was found that there was no kerosene detected on the stick, even though kerosene was detected in other items.The deceased in her dying declaration had stated that the accused, after beating her with stick, had poured kerosene on her and therefore, it could be inferred that the accused would not have touched the stick after pouring kerosene on the deceased and as a result, there was no kerosene detected on it, but however the factum of attack with stick and its recovery cannot be denied on that ground.http://www.judis.nic.in 18/23 Crl.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018 (Bail Case)Moreover, it is not known as to why there is enormous delay between the examination of witnesses both in chief as well as cross examination on the part of the accused, as the date of chief examination of P.W.1 was 06.08.2013 and she was cross examined only on 13.02.2017 after filing an application for recalling P.W.The same is the position with P.W. 3, who was examined in chief on 06.08.2013 and cross examination was done on 13.02.2017, followed by an application for recall.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018 (Bail Case) accused, there was a mention about another person by name Ayyanar, who is said to be the brother-in-law of the said Govindaraja and this Court do not want to investigate as to whether the said Govindaraja is the accused himself or not and the prosecution must have got rid of stale and the musty smell in that regard, but failed to do so.However, the case cannot be decided only on the basis of the deposition of P.W.12, who conceded that he was unable to recognize the accused.On the other hand, a careful and thorough reading of the chief examination of P.W.1 unfolds the fact that the deceased was taken to her parental home on account of difference of opinion between the accused and the deceased, when she was six months pregnant along with certain articles, which could have been seedhana properties and there is no whisper about carrying jewels with them.We feel it appropriate to extract the relevant passage of the deposition of P.W.1 during her cross, which reads thus, //// vjphp kPJ FLk;g gpur;rid rk;ke;jkhf g[fhh;bra;njhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ me;j g[fhhpd; mog;gilapy; 6 khj fh;g;gkhf ,Ue;j nghJ jpUkzj;jpd; nghJ bfhLj;j bghUl;fis vLj;J bfhz;L vdJ kfis vdJ tPl;ow;F miHj;J brd;W tpl;nld;////In addition to the above, in the Accident Register marked as Ex.P.4, the Duty Doctor had indicated that the deceased was beaten by her husband with wooden rod over the head and she was conscious at the time of admission in the hospital and after ascertaining her consciousness, the Magistrate also obtained her dying declaration, wherein she had narrated as to what had happened exactly on the fateful day, by stating as follows:http://www.judis.nic.in 20/23 Crl.A.(MD)No.13 of 2018 (Bail Case) //// vdf;F jpUkzkhfp 1 1-2 tUl';fs; MfpwJ/ jpUkzj;jpd; nghJ vdf;F nghl;l fk;ky; kw;Wk; brapd;Mfpait vd; fzthplk; mlF itf;f bfhLj;J ,Ue;njd;/ mij ehd; vd; fzthplk; jpUg;gp nfl;nld;/ ,d;W kjpak; 02/30 kzpf;F vd; fzthplk; jpUg;gp nfl;nld;/ vd; fzth; jpUg;gp bfhLf;f KoahJ vd;W fl;ilia bfhz;L moj;jhh;/ gpwF vd; fzth; !;lt[f;fhf th';fp itj;jpUe;j kz;bzz;izia vLj;J vd; kPJ Cw;wp jP itj;Jtpl;lhh;/////When a person is on the verge of his / her death, no such false story can be penned down or concocted by that person.Hence, all the circumstantial and incriminating evidences reveal the fact that it was the accused, who had poured kerosene on the deceased and caused her death.
|
['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.
|
44,062,608 |
sh Heard.e This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants ad under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Pr Amendment Act, 2015 for grant of anticipatory bail, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2018, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) a hy Katni, District Katni, by which, bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of that appellants has been dismissed.ou The case of the prosecution is that the appellants are the resident of village Tilganwa and sanctioned the amount to the complainant C party for construction of house, as also a complaint was made against h the complainant by the resident of the village for indulging in sell of ig illegal liquor.H Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prior to the incident, an F.I.R. was also lodged by the appellants against the complainant on 14.03.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 of the I.P.C. and as such a counter case has been lodged against them.Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that appellants are rustic villagers and have not committed any offence and no other case has been registered against them.There is no material to establish the offence, hence this appeal be allowed by setting-aside the impugned order and appellants be enlarged on anticipatory bail.Per-contra, learned Dy.Government Advocate for the respondent No.1-State opposes the anticipatory bail application.I have gone through the case diary of this case as well as record.Looking to the whole facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellants seems to be acceptable, hence it is hereby allowed.It is directed that the appellants - Vinit @ Chotu, Suman @ Ramakant, Raja @ Vipin, Bhola @ Akash & Pramod Tiwari in the sh event of their arrest, they be released on bail on their furnishing a e personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand ad Only) each with separate surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting Authority.Pr It is further directed that the appellants shall make themselves a available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when required.hy Certified copy as per rules.ad M (SUBODH ABHYANKAR) of V. JUDGE rt ou C Us h ig H Digitally signed by USHA SHARMA Date: 2018.06.13 13:09:05 +05'30'
|
['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.
|
4,406,440 |
Succinctly stated, the factual matrix of the events giving rise to the instant LPAs is as follows:Mr. C. S. Aggarwal, director of M/S Rockman Projects Limited (referred to as RPL), made a representation, for the purpose of securing investment, to Mr. Sameer Kohli, director M/S Kohli Housing and Development Pvt. Ltd( in short KHPDL) that the RPL is intending to develop one SEZ on 250 acres land, which is owned by the RPL, situated on Delhi-Jaipur Highway at village Shidhrawali, Gurgaon, Haryana and for this project the petitioner has received in- principal approval dated 22.08.2006 from the Government of India.On the basis of this representation, after being got convinced by the petitioner that he has full authority, supported by the Board resolution dated 14.05.2007, to enter into commercial deals on behalf of RPL, respondent no. 3 agreed to buy 74% shares worth Rs. 185 crores in the Special purpose vehicle (SPL) formed for this purpose.Respondent No. 3 was told that when the final notification regarding SEZ will be received by the company, it will transfer the LPA 819 OF 2010& LPA 825 OF 2010 Page 2 of 18 land to the SPV.This amount was to be utilized for the purpose of consolidation and procurement of more land.However no notification could be received by RPL by 31th December 2008; instead on the same day, Mr. D. K. Jain, the other director of RPL, issued a public notice revoking all authority given to the petitioner to act on behalf of RPL.In September 2009, the petitioner published a counter public notice claiming thereby that RPL had 99 years lease agreement with D. K. Jains land owing company for 250 acres of land and also had an agreement to sell in his favour for the entire land.LPA 819 OF 2010& LPA 825 OF 2010 Page 2 of 18After the expiration of the deadline of 31st December 2008, respondent no. 3 demanded back his money but all of his efforts in this direction went into vain.During the investigation, carried on by the respondent on its own, he came to know that it was falsely represented to him that RPL had 250 acres land and instead only 170 acres of land was available.Even the authority, which issued approval letter, was provided with wrong information on this account that the applicant fulfills the criteria of having a minimum of 250 acres of land for the purpose of development of SEZ.The writ was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant C.S. Aggarwal for quashing of FIR No. 264/2009 dated 23.12.2009 lodged against the appellant by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime and Railways, Delhi under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Under these circumstances, the respondent no. 3 filed a complaint dated 12.10.2009 at Hauz Khas police station.He also lodged a similar complaint dated 14.10.2009 with Dy.Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing Crime and Railways, Delhi, in pursuant to which a FIR no.266/09 dated 23.12.2010 was registered against the appellant herein under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.LPA 819 OF 2010& LPA 825 OF 2010 Page 3 of 18The appellant Sh.Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant Sh.C.S. Aggarwal has preferred the Letter Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letter Patent Act of the Punjab and Lahore High Court which is applicable to the Delhi High Court.D.K. Jain has also filed LPA raising the grievance that even when he was not a party to the writ proceedings, the learned Single Judge had made observations prejudicial to his interest at his back.In addition to the appeals that can be filed under section 10 of the DHC Act, three more categories of appeals lie to this Court.Thus the following four categories constitute appellate jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:a. Firstly, appeals under Section 10 of the DHC Act but they are limited only to those judgments referable to Section 5(2) thereof.b. Secondly, appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure.c. Thirdly, appeals under different statutes, which itself provides for an appeal.d. Fourthly, appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.Here we are concerned only with the fourth category.Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, as applicable to the Delhi High Court read as follows:LPA 819 OF 2010& LPA 825 OF 2010 Page 6 of 18LPA 819 OF 2010& LPA 825 OF 2010 Page 6 of 18Appeals to the High Court from Judges of the Court - And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Lahore from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of Superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant of Section 108 of the Government of India Act, made on or after the first day of February, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to Us, Our heirs or Successors in our or their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided."Criminal Jurisdiction LPA 819 OF 2010& LPA 825 OF 2010 Page 7 of 18 Similarly, clause 18 of the same Letter Patent provides that no appeal would lie from any sentence or order passed or made by the courts of original jurisdiction.LPA 819 OF 2010& LPA 825 OF 2010 Page 7 of 18On the basis of aforesaid bar on the maintainability of LPA against a judgment or order passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, the respondents have raised the preliminary objection.Revision was preferred against the aforesaid order in the Sessions Court.The Additional Sessions Judge who heard the revision held that order for investigation under Section 156(3) was not illegal.Rest of the order was confirmed.The offences were, therefore, registered as CR.FIR was registered in accordance therewith.Since the appellant/accused apprehended arrest, he approached the High Court by filing special criminal application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which as dismissed.Against that LPA was filed and in this backdrop question of maintainability of LPA arose and the Court held that such LPA was not maintainable.Criminal trial was over and he was convicted.An appeal was pending in this Court.He filed writ petition challenging the said detention order which was given nomenclature Criminal Writ.This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,066,295 |
Shri Sourabh Shrivastav, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri G.S.Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer, for the State.Call for the records from the trial Court and thereafter list for admission.The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 27.04.2016 whereby the Court of 15th Additional Session Judge, Bhopal has convicted and sentenced the appellant No. 1 u/s 326 of IPC, RI for three years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; under Section 25(1-B) of Arms Act, RI for one year with a fine of Rs. 100/-.As regards appellants No. 2 and 3, they have been convicted for an offence under Section 326/34 of IPC, RI for three years each with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each.I.A. No.9723/2016 is an application filed for suspension of sentence on behalf of the appellant.The allegations against the appellants are that the appellants along with co-accused persons are said to have attacked and inflicted injuries on the body of the complainant by means of sword, rod and lathi on account of which the complainant has suffered several injuries.Thereafter, the FIR was registered in which the appellants have suffered aforementioned conviction.Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and that the sentence is only for three years rigorous imprisonment which have been imposed by the trial Court, I am inclined to allow I.A. No.9723/2016 and suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence and direct that the appellants be enlarged on bail upon their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with one surety of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellants are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 23.08.2016 and on such other dates as may be directed by the office.C.C., as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN)
|
['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.
|
44,071,483 |
arb Crl.O.P.No.1979 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.1233 of 2020 29.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.7 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 Crl.O.P.No.1979 of 2020Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition standshttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.O.P.No.1979 of 2020 dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.7 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.29.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order arb ToThe Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Bargur, Krishnagiri District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 Crl.O.P.No.1979 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,845,978 |
Petitioner by way of present petition seeks following relief:1. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no.2 to 5 to provide protection to petitioner and her relatives from illegal harrassment.When faced with such facts adverted to by learned Deputy Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the petition.Prayer allowed.Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE das
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,684,599 |
This is the First bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with crime No. 130/2014 registered at police station Myana, District Guna for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506-B, 34 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, Basant, Babloo, Devi Singh stopped the complainant and on account of previous enmity started giving abuses.When the complainant objected Basanta gave an Axe blow on the head of Pappu.Another blow was given by Pappu on the left wrist.Babloo gave a Lathi blow on the back of Pappu.When mother of the complainant tried to intervene, Devi Singh gave a Lathi blow on the shoulder of the complainant and Basant gave an Axe blow to the mother of the complainant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.He has not committed any offence.The applicant is in custody since 15/07/2014 and trial is likely to take time.Further according to the applicant, he is entitle for bail on the basis of parity on account of order passed in case of co-accused Devisingh and Bablu who were released on bail by this Court vide order dated 01/09/2014 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 7890/2014 M.Cr.C. No. 876 5/ 2 0 1 4 Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the bail application on the specific ground that the the applicant herein was one of the assailant and he caused injury with an Axe on the right parietal region to mid parietal region and left forearm.C. No. 876 5/ 2 0 1 4It appears from the records number of persons were there including Pappu.The learned Judge of this Court has taken into consideration the injuries sustained of Pappu while granted bail to Devisingh.The order is reproduced hereunder:-As per the medical report of Pappu it appears that he has sustained lacerated wound over the right parietal region to mid parietal region and left forearm.On x-ray fracture of middle of left radius, right tibia, tempo parietal and middle of left tibia and fibula.Kamlal has sustained one lacerated wound over left leg and a contusion.Arjun has sustained by Pappu has been reported to be grievous in nature.And the injury alleged to have been caused by Devid Singh no fracture has been found over shoulder of Arjun.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(M. C. Garg) Judge neetu
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,852,391 |
2 Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:The Respondent / original Complainant filed a private complaint bearing S.T.C. No.569 of 2007 against the Applicants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna, for having committed the offence punishable under Section 500 read with 34 of ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:56:23 ::: 3 909--CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1305 OF 2007.odt the Indian Penal Code.It has alleged in the complaint that at the instigation and active help of Applicant / Accused No.1, original Accused Nos.2 and 3 issued letters to Jalna Peoples Co-operative Bank, Branch Jalna and Accused No.8 issued letters to Jalna District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Jalna, Applicant / Accused No.6 issued notice dated 12th February, 2007 to the Complainant stating that the Complainant had obtained blank cheque No.94031 from him in respect of the personal loan.It has further alleged that on 17 th February, 2007, the Manager of the Respondent / Pat Sanstha handed over said letters to the Chairman / Complainant and thereafter, the Chairman of the said Pat Sanstha after due deliberation with other staff members of the said Pat Sanstha decided to file complaint against the Applicants.On the basis of these allegations, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna by its impugned order dated 17th March, 2007 issued the process against the Applicants / Accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, this criminal application.::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:56:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:56:23 :::909--CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1305 OF 2007.odt 3 The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants have communicated to their banker about certain blank cheques, which are in the custody of Respondent / original Complainant and further requested the banker to stop payment of those cheques.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna has issued the process mechanically without applying his mind.4 None present for the Respondent / original Complainant.5 On careful perusal of the said communication, it appears that this communication is between the customer and the bank, ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:56:23 ::: 5 909--CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1305 OF 2007.odt instructing the bank to stop the payment in respect of certain cheques, which are in the custody of Respondent / original Complainant.On reading those letters, I do not find that those letters have been sent to the banker with an intention to cause harm to the reputation of the Respondent / Complaint.The impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna therefore, does not stand.::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:56:23 :::Hence, the following order:O R D E R I. Criminal Application is hereby allowed in terms of prayer clause (B).::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:56:23 :::Criminal application is accordingly disposed of.[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ] ndm ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:56:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2016 00:56:23 :::
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,859,481 |
However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in the similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases the accused was granted bail, viz., [a] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.25154 of 2013 in respect of the case in Cr.No.1012/2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 321, 366, 307 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of F.2 Egmore Police Station; and [b]by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.No.238 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 353, 294(b), 427, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC on the file of F.2 Egmore Police Station.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,686,377 |
Case diary is available.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.204/2014, Police Station Cantt., District Guna, offences registered under Sections 294, 323, 327, 506, 302, 324, 307 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.Counsel further submits that earlier the case was registered under Sections 323, 294, 327, 506 of IPC and after the death of the deceased Savita Bai, offence under section 302 of IPC was added.Learned counsel further placing reliance upon the judgments in the case of Manjeet Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 673, Surajit Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 877 and B.N. Kavatakar and anr.vs. State of Karnataka, 1994 SCC (Cri) 579 contends that as per recorded evidence more or less offence under section 304 of IPC is made out against the applicant/accused as the deceased-Savita Bai was the wife of the applicant/accused.There was no intention or MCRC.7911.2014. 2 motive on the part of the applicant/accused to kill his wife Savita Bai.The dispute arose between them suddenly on the applicant/ accused's demanding some money from the deceased for liquor.The deceased refused to give money to the accused.Further, Savita Bai died after one and half months and the cause of death of the deceased has been reported to be cardio respiratory failure due to head injury and its complications.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.MCRC.7911.2014. 2Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.As per prosecution story, on 18.04.2014, an FIR was lodged by the complainant Gajra Bai, mother of the deceased alleging that she received information through telephone that her daughter Savita Bai was lying in her home in unconscious condition.On reaching Village Piproda, she saw that her daughter was lying in her home in unconscious condition, thereafter, her daughter's aunt in law told that her husband Khemchand demanded money for consuming liquor.On refusal by her daughter to give the same to him, the applicant/accused Khemchand @ Khema beat her up by means of fists and hit over with a stone on her head.On the basis of the aforesaid facts, offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 327, 506B of IPC were registered against the applicant/accused.After the death of the deceased Savita Bai, Section 302 of IPC was further added.The report was lodged by the mother of the deceased Gajri Bai stating that her daughter Savita was beaten MCRC.7911.2014. 3 by the applicant/accused who is her husband but she was not eye witness of the incident, however, Chandrakanta Bai is the eyewitness of the alleged incident.As per her statement, the applicant/accused beat Savita Bai and inflicted injury on her head with a stone.It is true that there was no motive or intention of the applicant/accused to kill her wife Savita and the dispute suddenly arose between them on demanding money by the applicant/accused from Savita for liquor and on her refusal, the applicant/accused assaulted her.MCRC.7911.2014. 3Therefore, the application is rejected with the direction that after recording the statement of the said witness the applicant may file again application.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,865,178 |
On 08.08.1990, at about 11.15 PM, an accident occurred on bridge over Yamuna river involving two motor vehicles, viz., scooter No.DAM-6983 ("the scooter") and Maruti van No.DHN-8757 ("the Maruti van").The scooter rider Sri Kishan suffered injuries as a result of fall upon collision between the two said vehicles.He was shifted to hospital by the van of Police Control Room ("PCR") where MLC bearing No.517/90 dated 08.08.1990 was recorded initially indicating him to be a person whose particulars were not known.On the observations of ASI Bhoop Singh of the local police station, who had been deputed to inquire into the accident, pursuant to the receipt of intimation about the accident vide DD No.25A, the FIR No.38/1990 was registered initially under Sections 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 FAO No.345/2000 Page 1 of 5 (IPC).According to the FIR there was no eye-witness found by the Investigating Officer on his arrival at the scene.FAO No.345/2000 Page 1 of 5R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):Upon notice, both the respondents appeared and contested the case.After inquiry, the Tribunal passed the judgment dated 17.05.2000 holding that the claimants had failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the Maruti van by its driver, thereby disbelieving the testimony of Suresh Kumar (PW-5), concededly the solitary witness produced by the claimants in support of contentions to such effect.The appeal at hand was presented in August, 2000 to challenge the said finding and result of the claim case.It has remained hanging fire for over 15 years in this Court for reasons wholly and solely of the appellants/claimants and their counsel.Effective steps were not taken for proper prosecution.Thereafter, on 08.08.2013 again none appeared for the appellants resulting in the appeal being dismissed in default and for non- prosecution.Once again, the appeal was restored by order dated 10.07.2014 and, yet, in the wake of the said order, the counsel for the appellants failed to appear on the very next date.FAO No.345/2000 Page 2 of 5Be that as it may, arguments have been finally heard today and in the course of the hearing, the learned counsel has presented the certified copy of the charge-sheet with accompanying documents including the certified copy of the site plan prepared by ASI Bhoop Singh, on 09.08.1990 at the scene of accident.It only needs to be observed that though the certified copy of this all important document had been available to the counsel for the appellant since 14.08.1996, he has retained it on his file and not shared it with the Tribunal or the Court for the last so many years.So much for the vigilant prosecution or assistance by an advocate at bar! This Court can only empathize with those who had relied upon the counsel for effective prosecution of their legitimate interests.The oral testimony of Suresh Kumar (PW-5) was disbelieved by the Tribunal for the reason his name was not mentioned in the MLC or in the FIR.From these two omissions, he was disbelieved on the reasoning that he could not possibly have been moving on his separate scooter alongside that of the deceased scooterist at the time of the accident.Even if the reasoning given by the Tribunal to disbelieve the oral evidence of PW-5 were to be upheld, it cannot be ignored that the FIR, as already presented before the Tribunal during the inquiry, and the charge-sheet certified copy of which has now been submitted before this Court clearly show the involvement of the Maruti van of the first respondent in the collision against the scooter of the deceased.The fact that the said collision took place on account of rash driving on the part FAO No.345/2000 Page 3 of 5 of the driver of the Maruti van is eventually brought out by the site plan prepared by ASI Bhoop Singh at the scene of accident.It shows, as was also stated by PW-5, that the scooterist was moving towards ISBT i.e. from the direction of east to west across Yamuna river.The evidence also shows that the Maruti van had approached the scene from the opposite side i.e. west to east.When ASI Bhoop Singh reached the spot he found the Maruti van extreme left side pavement of the carriage way from east to west.This, coupled with the skid marks of the tyres of the Maruti van, also noticed by the Investigating Officer, confirming the approach of the said vehicle from the opposite direction, leaves no room for doubt as to the fact that the collision occurred because the Maruti van had come in the wrong lane.Applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, the negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Maruti van is writ large on the facts and circumstances of the case.FAO No.345/2000 Page 3 of 5None the less, since the corroborating material has now been submitted before this Court, justice demands that the appeal be allowed and the finding against the claim that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving on the part of the respondent be upturned.7. Ordered accordingly.The learned counsel on both sides fairly agrees that since the Tribunal did not apply its mind to the computation of compensation, it is just and proper that the matter to that extent is remanded.Thus, the issue of computation of compensation is remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication.The counsel for the appellants (claimants) submits that evidence on this issue has already been adduced and no further evidence FAO No.345/2000 Page 4 of 5 is required to be furnished.The counsel for the insurance company submits that he would check if any evidence in rebuttal has to be adduced.The Tribunal shall inquire from both sides afresh as to whether any further evidence is to be brought on the above noted subject.FAO No.345/2000 Page 4 of 5The learned District and Sessions Judge, North-East is requested to assign this claim case for aforementioned short inquiry and fresh adjudication to the Tribunal with appropriate jurisdiction.Having regard to the very old pendency of this claim case, the Tribunal is requested to complete the proceedings and pass a final judgment (award) as early as possible, not later than four months from the date now fixed for first appearance.The neglect on the part of the claimants and counsel has been noted at length above.Needless to say that this shall have a bearing on the claim towards interest.For facilitating its proceedings, and completeness of its record, the certified copy of the charge-sheet presented before this Court, along with copy of the proceedings recorded in this appeal till date, shall be sent to the Tribunal with its record.A copy of the charge-sheet, however, shall be retained on the file of the appeal.The appeal is disposed of in above terms.R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 01, 2016 VLD FAO No.345/2000 Page 5 of 5FAO No.345/2000 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,869,102 |
DATE : 22nd JULY, 2019 P.C. :The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with CR No. 179/18 registered at Yeola Police Station under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506, 143, 148, 149 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 4 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act.The FIR in this case is lodged by Shahid Ansari.He had stated that there is previous enmity between the applicant's group and informant's group.On 18th November 2018 at around 4.15 p.m. he was informed by some boys from the locality that the informant's uncle Majid Ansari was assaulted near Shamshuddin Nikita Gadgil 1/4::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2019 00:59:13 ::: 1-ABA 1352-19.odt Garage.The informant and his mother Shabiya rushed there.There they saw that one Raju Pathan with sword, Pappu Langda with wooden stick, Ansar Pawel with wooden stick, Babbu with pipe, Wasim Shaikh with pipe, Bablu with sword and the present applicant were assaulting his uncle.All of them had encircled Majid and were saying that he should be finished.The informant and his mother intervened to save Majid.Even they were assaulted and threatened.The applicant was abusing and was telling others to finish the victim.In the assault, Majid suffered serious injuries and even the first informant had suffered injuries.Based on these, FIR was lodged.::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2019 00:59:13 :::I have heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Jadhav,learned APP for the State.The FIR itself mentioned that the applicant was not carrying any weapon.He further submitted that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2019 00:59:13 :::Learned APP produced before me the medical certificate of injured Shahid Ansari i.e. the first informant.He had suffered two simple injuries on his right hand and left leg.Those injuries were simple, though it established his presence at the spot at the time of incident.The injury certificate of Majid Ansari shows that he had suffered one CLW on the left leg, one abrasion on chest, one injury on his head of dimension 7x3x1cm.All these injuries were described as simple.Majid had also suffered one more injury with dimension 6x3x1cm on his left hand causing fracture on his middle and index fingers.This injury is described as grievous injury.Thus, he had suffered two major injuries.The head injury though is described as simple injury is of dimension 7x3x1cm.Thus, though they may not be life threatening injuries, the offence under Section 326 is definitely made out.The FIR does not mention that the applicant was carrying any weapon, but general statement that he was also one of the assailants and he was assaulting the deceased and the injured, is mentioned in the FIR.Apart from that, he was instigating others to cause serious assault on the victims as he was telling them to finish Nikita Gadgil 3/4::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2019 00:59:13 ::: 1-ABA 1352-19.odt those victims.Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that he is innocent and he had played no role.::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2019 00:59:13 :::Considering these facts and that the offence under Section 326 is made out against him, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.His custodial interrogation is necessary though others was released on regular bail.Hence, this application is rejected.::: Uploaded on - 23/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2019 00:59:13 :::
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,881,080 |
What is the effect of filing of closure report by the CBI after transfer of such investigation.A, 122, 123, 120-B IPC r/w Section 4/5 of the Explosives Substance Act & Section 25 of the Arms Act against the petitioners who were apprehended on the same day after Crl.M.C. 781/2009 & Crl.P. 107/2009 Page 2 of 13 receipt of an alleged secret information that the petitioners were likely to arrive near Mukarba Chowk after travelling in a SRTC bus of J&K No. JK020299 in the evening hours with huge quantity of arms, ammunitions and explosives.It is the case of the Special Cell that on that basis they recorded D.D. No. 14 and constituted a raiding party and then apprehended the petitioners.It is also their case that at about 7.30 PM the aforesaid bus arrived at Mukarba Chowk near Karnal Bypass.The informer pointed towards 2 boys, who were apprehended and their names were revealed to be Maurif Qamar & Irshad Ali & while from Muraif Qamar one Chinese pistol with 8 live cartridges, three non electric detonators, two timers were recovered, from Irshad Ali @ Deepak one Chinese pistol along with 8 live cartridges, 2 kg explosive material were recovered.M.C. 781/2009 & Crl.P. 107/2009 Page 2 of 13On that basis SI Vinay Tyagi of Special Cell Delhi Police is stated to have sent a rukka for registration of an FIR for the commission of offences under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 120-B IPC, Section 4&5 Explosive Substances Act, & Section 25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, a case was registered vide FIR No. 10/2006 at P.S. Special Cell, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.The petitioners were then arrested and from their personal search even the tickets of the aforesaid Bus was recovered.M.C. 781/2009 & Crl.P. 107/2009 Page 3 of 13 No. 501/2006 before this Court making allegations against the officials of Delhi Police, that the petitioner had been lifted from their houses for falsely implicating them in false cases.As per the report submitted by the CBI, on 04.07.2007 further directions were given to carry out investigations against the officials of Special Cell as it was reported, that allegations were made by the petitioners against the officials of Special Cell about having lifted them from their Crl.M.C. 781/2009 & Crl.P. 107/2009 Page 4 of 13 houses much before the date of their arrest in this case were correct.M.C. 781/2009 & Crl.P. 107/2009 Page 6 of 13 a closure report and also recommended action against the police officials of the Special Cell; the Special Cell despite pendency of the matter before this court, filed a report under section 173 Cr.P.C., against the petitioners alleging commission of the various offences by them, and on that basis, charges have been framed against them by the Special judge in complete ignorance of report of the CBI.M.C. 781/2009 & Crl.P. 107/2009 Page 6 of 13P. 16/2007 dt. 12.5.2008) Crl.These petitions raise the following substantial questions of law i.e.:-Does it supersede the investigation report submitted by the local Police (Special Cell of Delhi Police in this case) who filed the charge-sheet.Whether the Special Cell of Delhi Police was competent to have questioned the authenticity of the closure report filed by the CBI before the Ld. ASJ.Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the filing of the aforesaid two petitions are as under:i. An FIR was registered by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on 09.02.2006 being FIR No. 10/2006 under Section 121, 121-After investigating the case the Special Cell also filed a challan against the petitioners.On 25.02.2006 the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing Crl.This fact was very much in the knowledge of the police as on the same day i.e on 9.2.06 a newspaper insertion was made by the police about the whereabouts of one of the petitioners.It was stated that they had been lifted from their houses much before the time when the arrest has been shown and in this regard complaints were filed even with the local Police and other authorities but as no action was taken, they filed the writ petition before this Court to transfer the investigation of case to either CBI or any other investigating agency and further to take action against the erring Police officials.M.C. 781/2009 & Crl.P. 107/2009 Page 3 of 13Directions were given to the Special Cell on 28.02.2006 to file status report/ reply regarding the allegations made against them.The order dated 24.10.2007 is reproduced hereunder:24.10.2007 WP(Crl.) No.501/2006 Further investigation of this case was asked to be done by CBI since accused in this case had made certain allegations against the officials of Special Cell and IB officials.The CBI has yet to identify the place where accused alleged that he was kept for 2 months.The status report is ordered to be resealed.Vide order dated 9.5.2006, the investigation of this case was transferred to CBI with the direction to undertake an inquiry into the matter and submit a report to this Court within four weeks.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,688,234 |
The controversy in the present case started when the appellant married with Smt.Nivedita Dutta on 10.12.1982 in Kolkata.The High Court of Patna (Ranchi Bench) upheld the conviction of the appellant but reduced the sentence from 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment.The appellant then filed a SLP before the Honble Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court being SLP (Crl.) No.947/1990 which was disposed off on 01.11.1996 and the conviction of the appellant was upheld but the sentence was reduced to the period he had already undergone.RFA No.743/2016 Page 1 of 12On 23.07.1988, the High RFA No.743/2016 Page 2 of 12 Court of Calcutta without going into the merits of the case directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh after giving the appellant a fresh hearing.RFA No.743/2016 Page 2 of 12This Writ Petition came to be dismissed on 14.11.2002 due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.This order of the Single Judge was challenged by the appellant before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by way of MAT No.604/2003 (CAN 2294/2003) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2003 on the ground of limitation and lack of territorial jurisdiction.The appellant then allegedly filed several complaints and representations before the Appellate Authority and the Directorate of Public Grievances, New Delhi claiming that the original order of dismissal dated 10.05.1988 was never supplied to him.The appellant is also stated to have approached the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee with a request for starting conciliation proceedings with the Respondents.In RFA No.743/2016 Page 3 of 12 the conciliation proceedings, the appellant took the plea that he was never supplied with the copy of the order of dismissal dated 10.05.1988, which according to the respondent was provided.RFA No.743/2016 Page 3 of 12In response to the letter to the Directorate of Public Grievance, the Ministry of Steel (MoS) sent a letter dated 25.05.2004 to Respondent No.1, 3 & 5 asking for a clarification on the same.SAIL informed the Ministry of Steel (MoS) that Respondent no.1 had duly considered the appellants appeal after giving him an opportunity to represent himself and thereafter his order of dismissal was upheld.The appellant is alleged to have written letters to Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievance on 12.07.2005 and 26.07.2006 but to no avail.The appellant then filed a Suit for Declaration, Permanent Injunction and Mandatory Injunction on 12.01.2007 before the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Suit No.80/2007, which was returned on 30.04.2007 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) for filing the same before the appropriate Court i.e. District Courts at Tis Hazari.The present suit then came to be filed before Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.06.2016 as the Trial Court found that the suit was not within the limitation period of 3 years as prescribed by the Part III of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.RFA No.743/2016 Page 4 of 12He further contended that the suit was filed within the prescribed limitation period for filing a Suit for Declaration.He argued that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes for exclusion of the time during which the plaintiff has been proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdiction and therefore the time during which the appellant was pursuing conciliation before the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee has to be excluded while calculating the limitation period.He further argued that the order of dismissal dated 10.05.1988 was never supplied to him which is against the principles of natural justice and therefore deserves to be set aside.Per contra, Mr. Dig Vijay Rai, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned judgment was based on the correct proposition of law and therefore does not warrant any interference.He contended that the appellants suit was correctly dismissed being barred by time as the appellant waited for 9 years to file an appeal against the order of dismissal dated 10.05.1988 which shows that the appellant was not diligent in pursuing the remedy available to him.RFA No.743/2016 Page 5 of 12I have the learned counsel for the parties.This appeal raises two points for consideration which are:-Whether the order of dismissal dated 10.05.1988 was supplied to the appellant.Point No.1:2. 1998 W.P(C) 22263/98 filed against the order of the Appellate Authority.RFA No.743/2016 Page 6 of 1214.11.2002 W.P(C) 22263/98 dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.18.12.2003 Appellant wrote letters to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee requesting conciliation with the Respondents.Even if the appellant contention that the suit was filed within the prescribed limitation period is believed to be true, the contention of the appellant that the dismissal order dated 10.05.1988 was not supplied to him cannot be sustained because the appellant had indeed filed an appeal against the very order dated 10.05.1988 before the Appellate Authority/Chairman, Steel Authority of India Ltd. which he claims was never served upon him.A perusal of this appeal dated 11.01.1997 filed by the appellant clearly shows that he never took this plea of not receiving the dismissal order dated 10.05.1988 in the appeal but only challenged the said order on merits.Ground No.2(d) in the appeal brings out the falsity in the appellants contention that he was not communicated the order dated 10.05.1988 and is reproduced below:Hence the appellants plea of not being supplied with the order dated 10.05.1988 cannot be believed.In light of the above facts and circumstances, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court and the same is upheld and the present appeal as well as CM No.35138/2016 are dismissed with costs throughout.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,889,168 |
It is not disputed that both the parties are resident of the same village Bakpura and the appellants belong to schedule CRA No.776/2007 2 castes while the deceased and complainant belong to Rajput community.CRA No.776/2007 2Before the trial Court, the appellants have taken defence that on the date of the incident, complainant and his companions armed with swords, battle axes and sticks etc. assaulted their houses.They ransacked house of Deviram, pulled out Jamna from his house, Jagnarayan inflicted sword on him but as spontaneous effect; he (Jamna) bent down, the sword hit Arjun (deceased).Jagnarayan again inflicted sword; which hit younger brother of Jamna, Bapu.Frightened by this sudden attack, they all along with their families ran away towards forest.After sometime, they approached the police, but under influence of the complainant and their community, the police did not scribed their report, therefore, they sent copy of the report to the senior officers of the police and also filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate.Prosecution case in brief is that on 29/03/2005 at about quarter to 9 in the night, Kamalsingh saw that appellant Deviram and Jamna Prasad were dragging Arjun Singh.They took him to the house of Kailash, where Kailash and Deviram caught him and asked Jamna to bring sword and kill him.Suddenly, Surajbai also came out and threw red chilli powder in the eyes of Arjun Singh.Kamal Singh came forward to rescue Arjun; but Surajbai threw red chilli powder in his eyes also.At the same time Jamna brought sword and inflicted directly on the neck of Arjun Singh, who fell down on the floor and died on the spot.Kamal Singh tried to rescue him but Jamna gave a blow of sword, which hit his left cheek and CRA No.776/2007 3 blood started oozing out.Jagnarayan, Inder Singh, Kumer Singh and Santosh reached on the spot.Seeing them, all the appellants ran away from the spot.CRA No.776/2007 3For this reason they got annoyed and killed Arjun Singh.Intimation of the incident reached at the Police Station on the same day.Sub-Inspector Nathuram Sharma of Police Station-Kurawar reached on the spot at about 11 in the night, where injured Kamal Singh lodged dehati nalishi Ex.P/1, which was later registered at Crime No.83/2005 (Ex.P/15).S.I. Nathuram Sharma prepared spot map Ex.P/2 and seized a sword and sheath, stick, 3 leather, 3 plastic and 2 sponge slippers, one iron saroti (cutter) and one chimney from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.He observed an incised wound on the neck of the deceased, prepared memo of corpse Ex.P/4 and sent the dead body for post-mortem vide requisition Ex.He also sent Kamal Singh and Komal for medical examination.Post-mortem revealed that cause of death of Arjun was injury caused on his neck and that his death was homicidal.Later, Sub-Inspector Shrinivas Sharma investigated the case.(Delivered on 16th day of July, 2019) Per : Virender Singh, J.1. Disgruntled with their conviction under Section 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and 3-3 years RI and additional sentence of 1-1 year RI to Surajbai for causing injury to Kamal Singh and Arjun Singh awarded by Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh, District-Rajgarh vide judgment dated 27/06/2007 delivered in Sessions Trial No.103/05, all the appellants have preferred the present appeal.Jagnarayan, who is brother of Kamal Singh and deceased Arjun had accompanied him.He arrested the accused persons, recorded their memorandum statement, took impression of their feet and sent them for analysis and comparison with foot print found on the spot.After completing investigation, the police filed charge-sheet.CRA No.776/2007 4The appellants were charged under Sections 302/34, 307/34 of IPC.After the trial, they were held guilty and awarded punishment as per the following table:-The appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment and order of the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts of the case.The trial Court has also not considered the fact that at the time of preparation of memo of corpse and also at the time of post-mortem, names of the appellants were not revealed by the complainant or any other witness.The first intimation was received at Police Chowki- Kotra, therefore, dehati nalishi Ex.P/15 or FIR Ex.P/1 are ante dated documents and cannot be acted upon.The fact has also not been considered by the learned trial Court that blood was found spreading in the house of accused Kailash that clearly shows that the deceased party was aggressor and they have suffered loss on account of their assault and that the appellants acted in their self defence, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court and their conviction is liable to be set aside.CRA No.776/2007 5The prosecution has opposed the prayer of the appellants.The alleged incident, death of Arjun in the incident due to injury caused on his neck and that his death was homicidal are not disputed by the appellants, therefore, we need not to CRA No.776/2007 6 discuss these facts in detail.CRA No.776/2007 6Before the trial Court, eyewitnesses Kamal Singh (P.W.1), Komal Singh (P.W.2), Inder Singh (P.W.3), Jagnarayan (P.W.4) and Kumer Singh (P.W.5) have described the incident stating that due to malice towards brother of the deceased as to why he had supported Komal Singh (P.W.2), who lodged FIR against them, on the date of the incident appellants Jamna and Deviram dragged the deceased towards the house of Kailash, where Kailash and Deviram caught him and asked Jamna to bring sword and kill the deceased.Suraj Bai threw red chilli powder on him and Jamna inflicted sword directly on the neck of the deceased and slit his head resulting in his on spot death.When Kamal Singh tried to rescue his brother, Suraj Bai again threw chilli powder on him and Jamna gave a blow of sword which caused injury on his cheek.Statements of these witnesses are well supported by dehati nalishi Ex.P/1 lodged within hours of the incident on the spot itself, by the facts mentioned in the spot map Ex.P/2 sketched then and there, articles seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/3 on the spot at the same time and by memo of corpse Ex.P/5, injury report of Komal Ex.P/13 and post-mortem report Ex.P/14, which are proved by ASI Nathu Ram Sharma (P.W.19), Head Constable Ram Prasad (P.W.14), Dr. Dinesh Gupta (P.W.11), Dr. Mahendra Gupta (P.W.12), Chain Singh (P.W.6), Dashrath Singh (P.W.7), Munshilal (P.W.8) and S.H.O. Shyam Singh Yadav (P.W.18).Even after cross- examination at length, the witnesses remained intact to their statement deposed in the examination-in-chief.The trial Court CRA No.776/2007 7 has considered veracity of statement of these witnesses at length and after close scrutiny of all this evidence, we also find that the learned trial Court has arrived at a logical conclusion.CRA No.776/2007 7The prosecution case further finds support in the form of statement of Chain Singh -P.W.6 (witness of seizure of swords, slippers and sticks etc from the spot).Sub-Inspector Shriniwas Mishra (P.W.15), witness of arrest and recovery and also witness of taking foot print of appellants Jamna, Kailash and Deviram and sending them for forensic analysis.Constable Sanjay Jha (P.W.17), witness of memorandum statement and recovery made from the accused persons, which are well supported with the relevant documents prepared and proved by them.During investigation, finger prints were lifted from the sword and after arrest admitted finger prints of appellant Jamna were taken by the investigating officer Nathuram Sharma (P.W.19) and were sent to the FSL.After examination; Finger Print Expert of Police Headquarter (Fingerprint Branch), Bhopal, M.P. arrived at a definite opinion that both the chance and admitted finger prints found on the sword had same origin which means finger prints of Jamna were found on the sword used in commission of the crime.One more important point to be noticed here is that I.O. ASI Nathuram Sharma (P.W.19) found some chilli powder on the spot and collected and seized the same.On medical examination of Komal Singh S/o Jagannath, Dr. Dinesh Gupta CRA No.776/2007 8 (P.W.11) found some congestion and irritation in his eyes which was due to some chilli powder or any irritant chemical.At the time of post-mortem, Dr. Mahendra Gupta (P.W.12) had noticed presence of chilli powder on the face and shirt of the deceased.The appeal is bereft of merits, deserves to be and is dismissed hereby.CRA No.776/2007 10
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
126,892,969 |
Shri P. Bhagat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and2. Heard.Before the marriage, applicant no.1 came with mother-in-law and others on 04.02.2019 and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry.At the time of marriage, Rs.2,00,000/- and later on, Rs.1,00,000/- was given.After the marriage, non- applicant nos.1 and 2 (mother-in-law) started taunting her for demand of dowry.She lodged an FIR against the non-applicants and others on 26.06.2019 in the police Station Bhanwarkuan, Indore.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the complainant has filed the present petition for cancellation of bail.She appeared before the Sessions Court also in order to oppose the bail application.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/complainant submits that the complainant has made specific allegations against the non-applicant no.2 i.e. father-in-law that he used to touch her in improper manner and therefore, the offence under Section 354, 354-A and 354-D have been registered against him.The learned Sessions Court while granting the bail on 31.07.2019 did not consider the allegations made by the complainant against the non-applicant no.2, hence, the application is liable to be cancelled.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned trial Court has duly considered all the material available in the case diary.He has disclosed the same in para nos.4, 7 and 8 of the order.The investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed.No useful purpose would be served in sending the non- applicants in jail.While granting the bail, the learned sessions Judge has also considered the photographs filed by the non-applicants in which the complainant is looking happy attending the functions in the house of in-laws.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
126,894,473 |
Now, he is married and having two minor girl children aged about 8 years and 7 years.The appellant's mother-in- law aged about 70 years is residing with him.There is no source of income of the family and they are at the verge of poverty.The girl children are school going but due to financial stress, they are not getting proper education.The wife of appellant is managing the affairs of the family with great difficulty." Crl.A.611/2018 Page 7 of 10A.611/2018 Page 10 of 10A.611/2018 Page 10 of 10The present application has been filed by the applicant/appellant under section 427 read with section 482 Cr.P.C. to dispose of the present appeal bearing Crl.A.611/2018 by directing the sentence of 5 years under section 392/34 IPC awarded vide judgment and order on sentence dated 18.12.2017 and 22.12.2017 respectively passed by Sh.Deepak Garg, ASJ-02 (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in case bearing SC No.52085/16 titled as State vs. Pankaj Verma arising out of FIR Crl.A.611/2018 Page 1 of 10 No.74/2013 registered at Police Station North Rohini for the offences punishable under section 392/34 IPC and the substantive sentence of 7 years under section 392 IPC & 5 years under section 392 IPC awarded vide judgment and order on sentence dated 25.07.2016 and 28.07.2016 respectively passed by Sh.Naresh Kumar Malhotra, Ld.ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in SC No. 119/14 arising out of FIR No. 263/2014 u/s 392/397/34 of IPC at P.S. Miawali Nagar or in alternative to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.A.611/2018 Page 1 of 10The appellant has challenged his conviction u/s 392/34 of IPC recorded in terms of judgment dated 22.12.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2017 passed by Sh.Deepak Garg, Ld. ASJ-02, North-West, Rohini in SC No. 52085/2016 arising out of FIR No. 74/2013 U/s 392/34 of IPC at PS North Rohini, whereby the learned Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo RI for a period of 5 years with a fine of 5,000/- for the offence punishable under section 392 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo SI for 15 days.However, the appellant has already undergone about 1 year 5 months out of the total sentence of 5 years awarded by the Trial Court.The Appellant had also challenged his conviction by way of filing Crl.A.611/2018 Page 2 of 10 an appeal bearing Crl.A. No. 1018/2016 before this Court against the judgment and orders dated 25.07.2016 & 28.07.2016 respectively passed by Sh.Naresh Kumar Malhotra, Ld.ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in SC No. 119/14 arising out of FIR No. 263/2014 u/s 392/397/34 of IPC at P.S. Miawali Nagar and whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 392/397/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of 10,000/- for the offence committed under Sections 392/34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, to serve simple imprisonment for a further period of six months and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 397/34 of the IPC.However, the said appeal has already been dismissed in terms of judgment dated 13.05.2020 passed by this Court.A.611/2018 Page 2 of 10The present application is an application u/s 427 of Cr.P.C. whereby the appellant is praying that the sentences awarded in FIR No. 74/2013, PS North Rohini and FIR No. 263/14 PS Miawali Nagar may be directed to run concurrently.However, he does not dispute the conviction and order on sentence.Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submitted that the Crl.A.611/2018 Page 3 of 10 appellant is a young boy and felt into bad company which resulted into his involvements in number of cases.The police also found the appellant as easy play and implicated him in number of cases to solve those cases whereas the appellant has nothing to do with the said cases.The appellant belongs to a very poor strata of the society and his involvements were a result of mis-guidance, illiteracy and misery of poverty.The appellant has already reached to the age of maturity and the crimes were committed as an adolescent person.He has reformed himself and undertakes to behave properly in the society as and when he is released from the jail.A.611/2018 Page 3 of 10Further submitted that appellant was merely 24 years old at the time of alleged offence.To strengthen his arguments, learned APP has relied upon the case decided in CWP No.789/13 by High Court of Bombay in case titled as "Subhash Devidas Deshmukh vs. The State of Maharashtra" whereby dismissed the petition on 03.10.2013 on the same grounds.Thus, this discretion should be used by courts in cases where there is a genuine need, not in the cases where there is a person who is habitual offender and have no respect of law.Thus, present application deserves to be dismissed.The petitioner of said case was having previous involvements in as many as 12 cases (cases involving 392/457/205/379/414/120-B of IPC).In view of the order passed in Crl.M.A.40714/2019, present appeal is dismissed.In view of the order passed in Crl.M.A.40714/2019 & Crl.A.611/2018, present application has become infructuous and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE JUNE 12, 2020 ab Crl.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
884,035 |
ORDER N.K. Sen, J.This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show cause why the order of commitment of the petitioner to the Court of Sessions should not be quashed.By an order, dated 20-11-1957 Sri T.K. Mutsuddi, Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta committed the petitioner to take his trial in the court of Sessions on a charge under Sections 397/395 of the Indian Penal Code.It is not necessary for the present purpose to narrate the facts upon which the prosecution case was founded.
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,407,653 |
"Upon four-five months after marriage, the matrimonial life of her daughter was normal and after that period her daughter (Kranti) used to tell to her other daughter Seema who is younger to Kranti that her Nanad Savitri used to harass Kranti due to not CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 3 of 10 fulfil her demand of gold ring and gold chain.M. A. 8515/2015By the present application, the State seeks condonation of 127 days' delay in filing the present leave petition.For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned.Application stands disposed of.The present leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dated 20.10.2014 passed by the trial court by which the respondent being husband of the deceased was acquitted for the offences under Sections 498-A/304- B/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution was CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 1 of 10 that in furtherance of his common intention, the deceased was subjected to cruelty, illegal demands of dowry were made, she was harassed and beaten frequently.CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 1 of 10Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-12 being the mother of the deceased and PW-19 being the sister of the deceased who have categorically testified that the deceased was being harassed for dowry and the deceased had informed her mother after the incident that she was forced to drink Milk with Baygon Spray.Counsel further contends that PW-19 has proved the demands made by the respondent.Counsel further submits that admittedly the period of marriage between the parties was less than 7 years.The deceased died an unnatural death and thus a case under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code would be made out.Reliance is also placed on the scientific evidence wherein it was proved that the deceased consumed a poisonous substance (chlorpyrifos).CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 2 of 10Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has failed to point out the discrepancies in the view taken by the trial court and the judgment of the trial court is not perverse.It is based on clear understanding of law and further the trial court has taken into account the settled position of law and applied it correctly to the facts of the present case.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the judgment of the trial court.The parties have also taken us to the testimonies of various witnesses and the documents placed on record based on the trial court record.In this case, in order to prove their case, the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses.No evidence was led by the defence.On one day i.e. 20 th of day Kranti had made a telephone call to her daughter Seema that the accused Ravi his mother and Savitri were taunting her daughter that chain and ring was not given in the marriage.On 22.01.2013 in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital her daughter regain her conscious.According to the witness her daughter Kranti caught hold of her hand and she thought she wanted water and so she asked her if she wanted water i.e. pani chahiye on which she whispered to her in a very soft voice that she herself has not consumed the poison but it was forcibly administered to her. "Mummy mene nahi pee mujhe pilai gai hai."CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 3 of 10PW-12 further deposed that :The sister-in-law of Kranti used to taunt my daughter by not bringing the dowry and gifts.PW-19 Seema, sister of the deceased deposed that :"On 26.01.2013 my sister regained her consciousness.On 28.01.2013 at about 6 p.m. my sister died due to poison."PW-19 further deposed that :"My statement was recorded on 22.01.2013 by SI Azad Singh.I have stated in my statement Ex.PW19/DX-1 that my sister used to tell me on telephone that her sister-in-law used to harass her that my parents did not given gold ring, chain to Ravi in the marriage and used to taunt her that Ravi has married in the house of beggers."CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 4 of 10The trial court has also dealt with the claim of the PW-12 and PW-19 on the aspect of alleged dying declaration made by the deceased and observed that :"On the contrary the medical evidence on record does not show that the deceased Kranti had regained consciousness at any point of time after she became unconscious and throughout the period she remained admitted in the hospital she was unconscious till her death.Further, the husband of the deceased i.e. accused Ravi Kumar Verma was present in the Hospital throughout.I am sure if the deceased had regained consciousness the doctor on duty or some ward boy on duty would have been told about the same which is not the case."According to the testimony of PW-12, the deceased had regained consciousness for a very short while when she had whispered "mummy mene nahi pee mujhe pilai gayi hai".As per these two witnesses, after whispering the deceased never regained consciousness at any point of time and she remained unconscious till the time of her death.We find the testimonies of these two witnesses by itself to be highly unsafe to take a view different than the view taken by the trial court for the reason that there is no endorsement on any document which would corroborate the fact that at any point of time the deceased had regained consciousness.There is no evidence of any other person who was present in the ward who would corroborate the evidence of the CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 5 of 10 mother and sister of the deceased that the deceased who remained unconscious prior to the alleged statement and thereafter, ever regained consciousness.CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 5 of 10We may also notice as has correctly been noticed by the trial court that the deceased was in regular touch with her family which is borne out from the fact that she possessed a mobile phone and in case she was being harassed for dowry or being tortured, her husband may not have allowed her such freedom.The trial court has also highlighted the fact that the prosecution has failed to produce a single witness other than the mother and sister of the deceased either from the neighbourhood or the mediator to the marriage to show that the deceased was either being tortured or harassed in relation to dowry or as to whether any kind of complaint was made to them or whether any neighbour had ever heard the couple quarrelling.The record would also show that after the incident the deceased was rushed to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital by CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 9 of 10 the respondent.He arranged for money and ensured that the best treatment was possible from a private hospital.CRL.L.P. 488/2015 Page 9 of 10
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,417,446 |
The identity of the victim and family members is known.(vi) The right to fair trial will have to be kept in a balance alongwith the right to know.The weight used, will be the "ends of justice".This weight will determine the tilt of the balance.WP(C) 195/2013 Page 32 of 38One will have to assume that this request was not made in the pejorative sense (see Sahara case).32.4 The second direction issued was qua precautions to be taken while holding a trial in a child sex abuse or a rape case.The Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the issues raised in the present writ petition.The advisory dated 05.01.2013 and order dated 22.01.2013 passed by learned ASJ are set aside; order dated 07.01.2013 having lost its legal efficacy.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,421,653 |
The case of prosecution in nutshell is as under:a) On 29/08/2009, the deceased Ganesh Pudarkar had gone to attend his work.b) There was Ganesh Festival celebration at the house of the deceased Ganesh Pudarkar.The Complainant used to attend the said festival.The Complainant along with his ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 3 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc family was staying at the residence of the deceased.Since Ganesh Pudarkar was not seen in the house at the time of Aarti, the Complainant inquired with his wife about his whereabout and she told him that Ganesh will not come back as he was having work.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::c) On 30th August 2009 the Complainant was at home.Attempt was made to call Ganesh on his mobile phone, but the same was found switched off.Till the evening Ganesh did not contact anyone.The nephew of the Complainant contacted Chandmama and the Dattaram konde who were working with Ganesh.Since Ganesh did not come home even on the next day, complaint was lodged with Matunga Police Station.d) On 7th September 2009 Complainant was informed that news item has fleshed in daily newspaper "Pudhari" that one dead body was found at Kasara Ghat.The Complainant along with others approached Kasara Police Station.They were informed that the dead body of unknown person was found in ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 4 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc Kasara Ghat.The Police showed them articles such as belt, mobile pouch, key of motorcycle which were on the person of dead body and the same were identified as articles belonging to deceased.Since no one came forward to claim the dead body, they buried the same since it was decomposed.e) On 14th September 2009 the information was received by Crime Branch Unit No.3 that Accused No.1 along with his companion is likely to come near Pritam Hotel, Dadar for committing robbery with weapons.Accordingly, they were arrested.The Crime Branch lodged a complaint with Matunga Police Station which was registered as LAC No. 888/2009 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. During the interrogation, both Accused disclosed that they have committed murder of deceased.It is submitted that recovery of articles at the instances of both the Accused establishes prosecution case and nothing has been brought on record to show that the articles which were seized at the instance of the Accused do not belong to deceased.The witnesses have identified those articles and deposed that on the day of incident the same were on the person of the deceased.We have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution PW-1 Vijay Ramji Pudarkar is the brother of the deceased.He lodged the missing complaint.He stated that deceased Ganesh had gone to attend his work on 29th August 2009 and did not return home.The complaint was lodged with Matunga Police Station.He has described the clothes worn by deceased when he left the house.He also stated that the deceased was wearing two golden rings, one silver ring in ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 10 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc his fingers, golden bracelet, golden chain with pendent and carrying Rs. 20,000/- cash with him.In pursuant to the news item reported in daily newspaper "Pudhari" about finding of dead body in Kasara Ghat, the Complainant and others approached Kasara Police Station.He stated that he had identified the articles belonging to the deceased which were shown by the police.The dead body was buried.In the cross-examination he stated that he was unaware which clothes were worn by deceased while leaving home.He did not disclose that the police from Kasara had shown him photographs and therefore, he identified his deceased brother.He is conducting the business in the name of Hemant Jewellers at Vikroli, Mumbai.He used to purchase and sell gold and silver ornaments.He knows Pratibha kamble who is serving in his house as maid servant.On 11/09/2009 Pratibha and one person came to his shop, they told him that they want to sell golden ring and golden bracelet.He agreed to give Rs. 40,000/-.Pratibha telephoned someone and talked to him.The witness also spoke to PW-4 on phone.Pratibha did not take the receipt with her.She signed on the said receipt, ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 13 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc amount was handed over to her.The article was kept in the shop only.On 02/07/2009 police attached to Matunga Police Station came to shop with Pratibha to show the receipt which was signed by Pratibha to the police.Ganesh gave Rs. 100/- to purchase liquor.He was having Rs. 20,000/-.Accused No. 1 and 2 came there.They comsumed liquor with deceased.At about 9.00 p.m. Datta Konde came there.Ganesh asked him whether he is willing to consume liquor but he refused on account of Ganesh idol visarjan.Thereafter, Dattaram left the place.Ganesh told PW-6 to bring liquor.The Acused No. 1 disclosed that he is ready to show the places where rope and the money purse were thrown by him as well as place where body was thrown.The Accused then took the Qualis vehicle and they went towards Shahapur.The Accused pointed out that he had purchased Biryani parcel and two bear bottles from Sai Dhaba.Thereafter, proceeded towards Kasara Ghat.The Accused pointed out the place where he had thrown money purse.He went to Kasara Ghat.He noticed dead body which was decomposed.The dead body was brought to morgue.He stated that there is no over writing over the date.PW-11 Prakash Maglappa Rao is a photographer.He took photographs of dead body at Kasara Ghat.He also clicked photographs while exhuming the dead body.He also took photographs while the relatives of the deceased performed last rites.In the cross-examination he stated that he is acquainted with the police since last 30-35 years.In near about 1000-1200 cases he acted as pancha.He knows police officers Gaikwad, Kadam and Sawant since last 3-4 years.He is social worker and member of Police Committee.He is always available whenever police called him in the Police Station.He do not remember which documents were taken by the police from the Jewellers shop.He refers to arrest Accused No. 1 and 2 in connection with another case.He deposed that information was received that Accused No. 1 and his companion are likely to come near Pritam hotel, Dadar for committing robbery with weapons.The Accused No. 1 and 2 were apprehended.On search, Accused No. 1 was found in possession of pistol with magazin and five live rounds.On search of Accused No.2 money purse was found on his pocket, driving license and sim card were found.Accused No. 2 was found in possession of ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 24 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc break frame revolver having six chambers with five live cartridges.According to him during the investigation, Accused No. 1 disclosed that with the help of Accused No. 2 they committed murder of Ganesh Pudarkar.PW-15 Police Inspector Sitaram Ganpat Gaikwad is attached to Matunga Police Stataion.He conducted investigation.In the cross-examination he stated that on 30/08/2009 the complainant visited Matunga Police Station and lodged missing report.While lodging the missing cimplaint, he did not disclose that, while leaving home deceased worn 3 finger rings.Body of unknown person was found at Kasara Ghat by Kasara Police Station as no one came forward to claim body, the same was buried.On learning about the news item in the newspaper about finding of dead body in Kasara Ghat, the family members and friends of deceased approached Kasara Police Station.They were shown articles which were purportedly found on the person of the dead body.They had ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 26 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc identified the said articles.No document to show purchase.PW-4 is the Jeweller.PW-5 has rendered following omissions in his evidence.(i) Accused No.1 used to park car at same place where deceased used to park.(iii) On 29/08/2009 he saw gold ornaments viz. Gold chain, rings on person of deceased.(iv) When he had last seen deceased he was wearing light red coloured chex shirt.(v) Deepak Desai informed about news in "Pudhari" about recovery of dead body.identified photograph, clothes, ornaments of deceased.(vii) He met deceased near Pritam Hotel.The witness also stated that(a) After 5 to 6 days of incident he came to know that Accused No.1 has committed murder of deceased.He is father of Pratibha.The following omissions were brought through his cross examination:-(i) Initially owner of shop agreed to mortgage ornaments for Rs.30,000/-.Mrs. Tahera Qureshi (Legal Aid Advocate) for the Appellant in Appeal No. 1363/12 Mr. V. V. Gangurde, APP for Respondent-State.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::The Appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of rupees five thousand each.The Appellants were also convicted for the offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and they were sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of rupees two thousand each.They were also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and they were sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of rupees 2 thousand each.ADR No. 21/2009 was registered with Kasara Police Station which was subsequently registered as CR.No. 62/2009 with the same Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::The offence was registered against them with Matunga Police Station vide CR.No.345/2009 under Section 302, 392, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::Inquest Panchanama was prepared and postmortem was conducted.Statements of witnesses were recorded.On completing investigation charge-sheet was filed.Since the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.The charge was framed on 28 th July 2010 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.The prosecution has examined 18 witnesses in support of case.After recording evidence, statement of the Accused under Section 313 of the CR.P.C were recorded.It is the defense of the Accused that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.The Trial Court gave a finding that the prosecution has proved that the Accused in furtherance of common intention on 29th August 2009 committed murder by strangulating the deceased Ganesh Pudarkar by nylon rope causing his death and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC.The prosecution has proved that in furtherance of common intention the Accused had committed theft of golden chain, golden ring, golden bracelet, silver ring and Indica car after committing murder of deceased and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 6 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc IPC.It was further held that in furtherance of common intention knowing or having reason to believe that certain offence to wit Section 302 of the IPC punishable with death or imprisonment of life and offence under Section 392 of the IPC has been committed by causing certain evidence of said offence to disappear took body of deceased in Indica car and thrown it at the deserted place in Kasara Ghat and left the Indica Car at Daman after removing its number plate with an intention of screening them from legal punishment and thereby they committed offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::We have heard Learned Counsel Ms. Payoshi and Mrs. Tahera Kureshi representing Appellants/Accused and Learned APP for the State.Both the sides have taken us through the evidence on record.The prosecution had adduced ocular evidence of 18 witnesses and several documents in support of its case.The counsel for the Appellants submitted that there is no proof of homicidal death.Time, cause of death has not been proved.There is serious infirmity in the evidence of witnesses.The evidence suffers from contradictions and omissions.The case is based on circumstantial evidence.The chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the Accused has not been established.The evidence of last seen is weak and does not inspire confidence.The statement of PW-5 was recorded after the arrest of ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 7 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc the Accused.There are several discrepancies in the evidence of recovery.The prosecution has failed to prove that the dead body found by Kasara Police is that of Ganesh Pudarkar.It is not established beyond doubt that the deceased was killed by nylon rope.It is not proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal.The theory of last seen together with deceased has not been proved.There were serious lapses in the investigation.The evidence of the witnesses creates doubt whether the articles recovered during the course, of investigation belongs to the deceased.There is no eye witness to the incident.The Accused were arrested allegedly while they were taken into custody in another case wherein they had confessed the commission of murder.The dead body was totally decomposed which is evident from the evidence of the witnesses.It was not possible to identity the body.PW1 had denied DNA test.The inquest panchanama indicates that the hair of the deceased were greyish black.In the missing complaint there is no reference of grey hair.PW 1 had stated in the missing complaint that at the relevant time the deceased had worn sandle.However, in the evidence before the Court he stated that he was wearing shoes.PW-5 and PW-7 are interested witnesses being close friends of the ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 8 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc deceased.The Panchas had acted as panchas in several cases.They are stock witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::Learned APP submitted that there are strong circumstances which prove the commission of crime by the appellants.There is evidence of last seen together.There is recovery of weapon used in commission of crime.The ornaments which were stolen were recovered during the course, of the investigation.The same belonged to the deceased.It is established that the deceased was wearing gold ornaments at the relevant time on his person.The Medical evidence corroborates the fact that the deceased was killed by nylon rope.The defense has not been able to demolish the prosecution case.The evidence of PW-5 and PW-7 with regards to last seen inspires confidence.There is no reason to doubt the veracity of their evidence.The defense witness examined by the Accused has not given credible evidence to rebut the case of prosecution.It is vehemently urged that the prosecution has successfully proved, its case by leading oral and documentary evidence.The chain of circumstances has been completed so as not to leave doubt about complicity of the Accused in the crime.Learned APP stressed upon the evidence of PW-1 who is the brother of the deceased and Complainant.PW1, PW2 and PW5 identified the photographs, clothes, ornaments and articles seized by the Kasara Police Station from the person of deceased.The witnesses have identified the dead body of the deceased.Thus, the identity of the deceased was established.The clothes worn by the deceased were also identified.Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence the conviction of the Accused be confirmed by dismissing their appeals.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::He refused to give consent for DNA test.After the body was exhumed, he lifted it and he was knowing that the deceased was having sign of operation on his right leg which was identified by him.Therefore, he refused to give consent for DNA test.However, he also admitted that he did not inform the police that the deceased was having sign of operation on the right leg.Similar mobile pouch which was recovered by the police is available in the market.PW-2 Vrushali Pudarkar is the wife of the deceased.She has reiterated the version of PW-1 with regards to missing of her husband and lodging of complaint and recovery of ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 11 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc dead body by Kasara Police Station from Kasara Ghat.She deposed that police had shown her clothes and photographs of dead body which was identified by witness and others as that of her husband.She has further stated that on 10th September 2009 she along with others had gone to Kasara Police Station where photographs and clothes of dead body shown to them.She identified them as the same were belonging to her husband.She identified the clothes of her husband.After 2-3 days, her statement was recorded by Matunga Police Station.She identified the articles (gold ornaments) as the same which were belonging to her husband which were worn by him at the material time.In the cross-examination she stated that she did not disclose to the police that Chandmama informed her nephew that at about 10.30 p.m. he saw her husband sleeping in Indica car.While recording her statement she did not state the police that Chandmama had told her nephew Mayur that her husband might have gone along with the passenger.She had disclosed to the police on 11.09.2009, she along with her family had gone to kasara Police Station and identified the clothes of her husband.However, the said fact is not mentioned in the statement.PW3 Vijay Nagarkar is the shopkeeper.He deposed that he knows Accused No. 2 since last 4-5 years.On 05/09/2009 the Accused and one unknown person came to his shop.Accused No.2 told him that he is in need of money and ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 12 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc gave golden ring.The witness gave him Rs. 14,000/- in cash and kept golden ring in his shop.On 29/09/2009 Accused No. 2 was brought to his shop by the police.He told a police that the Accused has sold one golden ring before 15 days.He handed over the golden ring which was taken in possession by the police.Thereafter, the seizer panchanama was prepared.The witness did not refer to the fact that the article which was handed over to the police was sealed by them.In the cross-examination it is stated that he is not having any license for selling and purchasing gold and silver ornaments and he is not maintaining any register.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::The same was seized.In the cross- examination he has stated that he do not know with whom, he had talked on phone at the request of Pratibha.He is not having any license for purchasing old gold ornaments.He did not disclose to the police that since Pratibha wanted an amount for depositing in the hospital, she had sold the golden ornaments.He did not disclose to the police while recording his statement that Pratibha did not take receipt with her, though he handed over the same to her.He did not disclose the detail description of the ornaments in the receipt.The golden bracelet and golden rings are available in the market.PW 5 Dattaram Konde, is the travel agent.He stated that he knows Chand Shaikh and Ganesh Pudarkar who were working as travel agent with him at Dadar, T.T. Ganesh used to park his vehicle Indica car near bridge at Dadar T.T. Accused No. 1 is also having own vehicle and he used to park his vehicle at the same place.Accused No.2 is known to him as driver.He stated that he met deceased Ganesh lastly on 29/08/2009 at about 8.00 p.m. The deceased asked him whether he would give company for drinking liquor.At that time Anil Kharade (Accused No.1), Vijay Bahere (Accused No.2), Pradip Sonawane ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 14 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc were present.Ganesh gave Rs. 100/- to Pandurang Londhe to purchase liquor.The witness then left for home.On 28/08/2009 when he met the deceased, he was wearing golden chain and golden rings on his person.He do not remember which clothes were worn by the deceased but he might be wearing light red color chex shirt and jeans.He received call from daughter of Ganesh and told that Ganesh did not come back home.He informed her that deceased met him on 29/08/209 at about 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. On 07/09/2009 the witness along with others went to Kasara Police Station where police showed them photograph of the dead body and the clothes which were worn by the deceased.All of them identified the photographs and clothes of the deceased.In the cross-examination several omissions were brought on record.He stated that while recording his statement he informed the police that Accused No. 1 used to park his car where the deceased also used to park his car.However, the said fact is not reflected in his statement.He also informed the police that on 29/08/2009 he saw gold ornaments such as golden chain, golden rings on the person of deceased.However, ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 15 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc the same is not reflected in his statement.While recording his statement he did not inform the police that when he had last seen the deceased, he was wearing light red colored chex shirt and jeans.Although, he informed the police that Dipak Desai had informed him about the news appearing in newspaper "Pudhari" about recovery of dead body in Kasara Ghat.The said fact is not appearing in his statement.He did not inform the police that Nitin Nayar informed the above news to Vijay.The fact that the witness Nitin, Vijay and relatives of the deceased had gone to Kasara Police Station and they identified the photographs, clothes and ornaments of the deceased is not appearing in his statement.After 5-6 days of the incident he came to know that Accused No.1 has committed murder of deceased.He did not inform the police that Accused No. 1 might have committed the murder of the deceased.He also deposed that the face of the dead body was disfigured in the photograph shown by the police.From the disfigured face, one could not identify the dead body.However, he has stated that from the clothes they identified the dead body.He further stated that while recording his statement, he had informed the police that he met the deceased near Pritam Hotel, Dadar TT but the said fact is not appearing in his statement.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::PW 6 Gunaji Puna Yadav is the father of Pratibha Kamble.He knows Accused No.2, who is related to him.On 11/09/2009 when ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 16 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc he came to the house of his daughter Pratibha, the Accused came there.Accused No.2 told Pratibha that he is in need of money as his vehicle had met with an accident.He also stated that he is having some ornaments with him and if she has any acquaintance with goldsmith he can mortgange the same with him.Accused No. 2 handed over one golden ring and bracelet to Pratibha.The witness and his daughter Pratibha went to the shop of Hemant Jewellers which is situated at Vikroli.The owner of the shop showed his willingness to give Rs.40,000/- against the ornaments.He handed over the chit on which the mobile numbers of the Accused were mentioned.The owner thereafter, contacted Accused No. 2 on his mobile.Accused No. 2 told the shopkeeper that he wants to sell the ornaments.The owner of the shop told the police he had melted the ornaments.In the cross- examination, he stated that while recording statement, he had informed the police that initially the owner of the shop agreed to mortgage the golden ornaments for Rs. 30,000/-.The said fact is not mentioned in his statement.He also informed the police while recording the statement that he gave chit of phone numbers of Accused to owner of Hemant Jewellers.However, the said fact is not ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 17 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc mentioned in the statement.He also informed the police while recording the statement that the Accused No.2, in his presence handed over golden bracelet and one golden ring to Pratibha.He had also informed the police that Accused No.2 had informed the Jeweller that instead of mortgaging gold ornaments he wanted to sell it.He also informed the police that Jeweller had informed them that he had melted the ornaments.PW-7 Pandurang Londhe has been examined with regards to the circumstance of last seen together.He stated that on 29/08/2009 he consumed liquor with deceased Ganesh below Dadar T.T. bridge.He brought the same.Both consumed the liquor.In the mean time Accused No.1 and 2 again came there.Accused No.1 asked for liquor.Ganesh gave Rs. 100/- to bring the liquor.Accused No. 1 and Ganesh consumed the liquor.Ganesh told PW-6 that he would stay there and he will not go to his house.Thereafter, Accused ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 18 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc No. 1 asked deceased whether he is coming with him as he is going to Vashi but he refused.Deceased removed golden chain, bracelet and three rings from his person and kept it in his inner pant pocket.Thereafter, Ganesh sat he sit in his Indica car on the front seat by the side of driver seat.The witness identified golden bracelete, golden chains with pendent, two golden rings and silver ring.These were kept by Ganesh in his pocket.In the cross-examination, he stated that while recording his statement he had disclosed to the police that Ganesh was having Rs. 20,000/- with him.While recording the first statement dated 30/08/2009 he did not disclose to the police about alleged incident.The Accused were having cordial relation with the deceased.He came to know from brother of ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 19 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc deceased that amount of Rs. 20,000/- of the deceased was missing.He did not disclose to the police while recording statement about description of articles, currency notes.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::On search one piece of purse was recovered.The Accused identified the piece of purse.The same was seized.Thereafter, the police proceeded towards Kasara Ghat and the Accused No. 1 shown the place where dead body was thrown.The Accused then showed the place where he had thrown the rope by which he had throttled the deceased.The rope was recovered and seized which was blackish green color.Thereafter, the Accused disclosed places where he had left Indica vehicle which was towards Jawhar at Daman road.The vehicle was not there.In the cross-examination, he has stated that he has acted as pancha in 2-3 cases.Like piece of money purse and rope are easily available in the ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 20 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc market.The rope was shown to him.He stated that it is the same rope but it is not same as blackish green.He also stated that because of rainy day there was mud at the place from where articles were seized.PW-9 Dr. Mahadeo Waghmare was serving with Primary Health Center, Kasara.He was called by the police for conducting postmortem of dead body in Kasara Ghat.On 01/09/2009 he conducted postmortem.He noticed bruises on thigh bilateral, chest both sides and lateral wall.No injuries seen on whole body as it was decomposed.He noticed internal injuries such as both lungs were congested, few clots in left ventricle, right ventricle emtity.Viscera was preserved and sent to C.A. At that time opinion of cause of death was reserved.After receiving the C.A. report, he gave cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling.The death was unnatural.He stated that if anyone pressed by hard object on thighs, injuries shown in column no. 17 can be possible.He came to the conclusion that the death was due to throttling as his lungs were congested, face was swollen, compression of neck vessels due to which there was no supply of oxygen.In the cross-examination, he stated that face, neck and upper lung portions were decomposed.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::Laxmi 21 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc Except bruises there are no other injuries on the dead body.He referred to signs of asphyxia such as cyanosis, increased inpermability of capillaries region.He stated that the above symptoms were not found during the postmortem since the body was decomposed.Injuries on the front neck side hyoid bone should be fractured or not fractured can be a sign of throttling.Extra vassation of blood in inner side of neck can be a sign of throttling.No such sign was found while conducting postmortem.In the gross stage of decomposition, it is very difficult to give the opinion regarding cause of death.While conducting postmortem he did not notice that no sign of asphyxia ,no sign of throttling, no injuries around neck due to gross decomposition of dead body.There is difference between throttling and strangulation.Bruises of thighs can be possible if anyone comes into contact with hard rough surface.He did not give any opinion in col.no. 18(A).He did not mentioned in postmortem that injuries were dart.It is not mentioned in postmortem that neck vessels are compressed.If any person dies due to heart attack, symptom of congestion of lungs is seen as asphyxia.If there is suspicious death including poisoning, Vissera can be preserved PW- 10 Bhujan Hatmode is Police Sub Inspector attached to Kasara Police Station.He conducted further investigation.In the cross-examination it was deposed that ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 22 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc the dead body was having grey and black colored hair.Since the dead body was decomposed, the same was not in a position to identify.As the dead body was releasing fluid clothes became oily.Seizure panchanama Exhibit-47 was shown to him.PW-12 Issak Hanif Shaikh acted as panch witness in several panchanamas.On 06/10/2009 police opened seal of packet in which golden ornaments were kept.Witness identifies the same as belonging to deceased, which were on his person.Panchanama Exhibit-60 was recorded.Number plate was recovered ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 23 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc from bushes.On 02/12/2009 gold chain and silver ring shown to complainant.Complainant identified the same which was on person of deceased.The golden ornaments shown to him are available in the market.There are no specific identification marks on the ornaments.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::While recording statement of PW6 he did not disclosed that initially he agreed to mortgage the gold rings.The omissions appearing in the statement of witness were proved through him.PW-16 Baburao Mahadik was attached to Matunga Police Station as Police Sub Inspector.PW-17 Ratilal Solanki is Assistant Sub Inspector with Daman Police Sation.He seized abandoned unnumbered Indica car.PW-18 Vilas Sonde is API attached to Kasara Police Station.He conducted investigation.He recorded subject matter statement of complainant.He recorded statements of other witnesses.Certain omissions were proved through his cross-examination.The defense examined DW-1 Wasim Khan, he stated that he had received call from the phone of ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 25 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc the deceased on 30/08/2009 that his Indica car is stolen and whether he had seen it anywhere.In the cross-examination he stated that today the mobile number of deceased Ganesh is not available on his mobile.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::On the basis of he aforesaid evidence the Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offences.By analyzing the evidence as aforesaid, we have noticed that there are several infirmities in the evidence of witnesses.The said witnesses were examined to establish one of the circumstance that the deceased was last seen in the company of accused.However, on perusal of their evidence we do not find that their evidence inspire confidence to convict the appellants.There is no eye witness to the incident.The case is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence.Photographs of dead body were shown to the witnesses.The dead body was decomposed.Subsequently, the body was exhumed which was sent for postmortem.The opinion about cause of death was reserved.The vescera was preserved on receipt of vescera report, the medical officer who conducted postmortem gave opinion that the death was due to asphyxia.The Accused were arrested in another case.They have allegedly confessed commission of the crime.It is pertinent to note that till they were arrested in another case, none suspected their involvement in the present crime.PW-5 and PW-7 did not disclose to the police that the Accused were last seen together with the deceased.It is after the arrest of the Accused the statements of PW-5 and PW-7 were recorded.The circumstance that the deceased was last seen with Accused is weak.PW-5 and PW-7 do not state that the deceased left with Accused.The Accused continued to be in the company of deceased.They were not seen at the company of each other by any person.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::When the body was exhumed, it was in advance stage of decomposition.The evidence of the witnesses indicates that it was not possible to identify the dead body.PW-1 however, has stated that on account of operation mark on the leg of the deceased he could identify the dead body as that of Ganesh Pudarkar.However, ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 27 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc in the cross-examination, it is brought on record that there was no reference of the operation mark on the dead body in the statement of PW-1 recorded by the police.On perusal of cross-examination of medical officer who conducted the postmortem it can be seen that he was not certain about the cause of death.It is not established beyond doubt that the victim was killed by using rope.The medical officer PW-9, in his cross-examination, has stated that certain signs which are apparent in the body of the deceased to determine throttling were not existing in the present case.It is pertinent to note that the body was in a decomposed position.The Trial Court has held that PW 1 identified the dead body from photograph.From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW5 it can be seen that these witnesses have not identified the dead body of the deceased from photographs.PW-10 has admitted that wife of deceased (PW 2) did not come to Kasara Police Station but identified the clothes of dead body.PW-18 contradicted PW-5 has he did not identified clothes and photo of the dead body.PW-6 Dattaram Konde has stated that it was difficult to identify dead body.PW-1 claimed to have identified the dead body from the clothes worn by deceased.The evidence of PW-2 and PW-10 is contradicting to each other.PW5 has been examined to prove the last seen theory.He stated that deceased had worn light red color chex shirt when he lastly met him.In the cross-examination has stated material omission of identifying photo and clothes of the deceased at Kasara Police Station.PW-18 contradicted PW-5 has he admitted that PW5 did not identify clothes and photo of dead body.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::The prosecution has relied upon the recovery of the nylon rope and money purse of the victim.PW-8 failed to identify the color of nylon rope.He stated that rope was blackish green.PW-15 has stated nylon rope was blackish but in the cross-examination he admitted its color was light green.PW-8 has admitted that at the time of recovery of nylon rope and money purse, it was raining and they were recovered from mud but they were not having patches of mud.The Court considered authenticity of Disclosure and recovery panchnama of murder weapon (Nylon Rope Art-I), Money purse (Art-H) and number plates of Indica Car (Art-"M" Colly) belongs to the victim.As all these recoveries had been done from open place easily accessible to general people and that too after span of one month from the date of the incident The story of prosecution that ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 29 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc they recovered the number plates of Indica Car allegedly belongs to the deceased from the open place from bushes at Wadala is doubtful.According to prosecution the accused drove the car till Daman, removed the number plates, came back to Mumbai and threw the same at Wadala.PW-12 who is a driver and recovery panch admitted in cross that, number plates of front and backside of the car are same size but the number plates before the court were of different size and instead of having 4 nut holes Art "M" Colly have only two nut holes.PW-12 further admitted that he was acquainted with police for 30 to 35 years.He also admitted that, whenever police calls he is available for them and conducted 1000-1200 panchanamas for police.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::The prosecution totally failed to prove the cause of death because of the material contradiction in evidence of PW-9, Dr. Waghmare and his postmortem report.PW-9 admitted that the signs or symptoms of asphyxia such as cyanosis and increased impermeability of capillaries region were not found during conducting postmortem.He further admitted that injuries on the front neck side, fractured or non fractured of hyoid bone and extra vassation of blood in inner side of neck which are the signs of throttling were not found while conducting postmortem.He also admitted that he did not notice signs of asphyxia and throttling.He also admitted that he did not mention in postmortem report that ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 30 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc neck vessels were found to have compression.He further admitted that congestion of lungs is common in heart attack case and swollen face is common in decomposed dead bodies.He further admitted that in gross stage of decomposition it was very difficult to give opinion of cause of death.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::17. PW-5 stated that on 29/08/2009, he met Ganesh at about 8 to 8.30 p.m. and saw golden ornaments such as golden chain and golden ring on the person of Ganesh.It is material omission admitted by him in cross-examination.PW-7 stated that Datta Seth (PW-5) met him and Ganesh.He contradicted with PW-5 as PW-5 neither came at Dadar and nor met Ganesh and PW-7. PW-7 is not trustworthy and reliable as he admitted in cross that he never disclosed police before 09/09/2009 that the deceased Ganesh was wearing the golden ornaments.He admitted that the brother of the deceased and Complainant (PW-1) met him and told him to give statement before the police that the deceased removed his golden ornaments from his person and kept in his pant pocket.He also admitted that he came to know from PW-1 that Rs.20,000/- were with him and Accused No.1, Anand asked the deceased, whether he is ready to offer him a drink since he had no money with him and on 3rd time and the deceased gave Rs.100/- to him to purchase a liquor.He again admitted that on 30/08/2009, while recordng his first ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 31 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc statement, he did not disclose to the police about the alleged incident and also not disclosed the detail description of articles and currency notes.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::PW-1 while lodging the missing complaint mentioned two gold rings.PW-5 stated that on 29/08/2009, he met Ganesh at about 8 to 8.30 p.m. and saw golden ornaments such as golden chain and golden ring on the person of Ganesh.It is material omission admitted by him in cross examined.There is no corroboration when PW-7 stated that he met Ganesh on 30/08/2009 and not on 29/08/2009 and had drink with him along with accused persons.He further admitted in cross that it is his omission to mention that the deceased was having Rs.20,000/-. PW-7 admitted that before 09/09/2009, he never disclosed the police that the deceased was wearing the golden ornaments.19. PW-5 admitted in cross that he did not meet Ganesh on 29/08/2009 and seen him wearing gold ornaments.The Court held that the prosecution proved the circumstances against accused persons that on 05/09/2009 Accused No.2 Vijay Bahare led police to the shop of PW-3, Vijay Nagarkar and seized Art-E/2 golden ring by seizure panchnama.PW-3 claimed to run a ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 ::: Laxmi 32 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc Jeweller's shop at Ghatkopar but failed to produce any evidence of being a jeweller.He further admitted that he was not having a license of selling and purchasing golden and silver ornaments.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::To summarize the defective evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent that Pw-5 and Pw-7 were examined to establish the circumstance of last seen together.None had seen the deceased with accused beyond the place below the bridge at T.T. circle at Dadar.PW-3 is the shopkeeper with whom gold ring was mortgaged by accused No.2 PW-1 is brother of deceased who lodged complaint.In cross he stated that he was not aware which clothes were worn by deceased.There were omissions in his evidence such as (i) he was shown photographs and he identified body of his brother (ii) There was mark of operation on leg of his brother.He admitted that similar pouch is available in market.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::Laxmi 33 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.docPW-2 is wife of deceased.Following omissions were brought in her evidence.(i) Chandmama disclosed that he had informed nephew that he saw deceased sleeping in car.(ii) Chandmama stated that deceased must have gone with passengers.(iii) She went to Kasara Police Station to identify clothes of deceased.On 29/09/2009 Accused No.2 was brought by police to his shop.He did not refer to seal while seizure.He had no license for sale/purchase of gold.There was no register.The following infirmities brought in his cross examination.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::(b) He did not inform the police that Accused No.1 might have committed murder.(c) Face of deceased was disfigured in photograph.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::(ii) Chit was handed over to shop owner PW-4 containing phone number of Accused.(iii) Accused No.2 in his presence gave bracelet and golden ring to Pratibha.(iv) Accused No.2 told Jeweller that instead of mortgage he would sell the ornaments.(v) Jeweller had informed that he had melted ornaments.PW-7 is the witness for last seen with deceased.The evidence suffered from following discrepancies.(a) Ganesh (deceased) was having Rs.20,000/-(omission);(b) He did not disclose to police about incident took place on 30/08/2009;(c) Accused No.1 asked for drinks to deceased (omission);Before 09/09/2009 he never disclosed to police that deceased was wearing golden ornaments;::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::According to him no injuries seen on whole body as it was decomposed.It would be relevant to quote his evidence in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of his deposition."Para.6 Face, neck and upper limb portions were decomposed.Except bruises there is no other injuries on the dead body.Following are signs are asphyxia such as cyanosis, increased inpermability of capillaries region.It is true that above symptoms were not found during conducting postmortem report since the body was decomposed.Injuries on the front neck side, hyoid bone should be fractured or not fractured can be a sign of throttling.Extra vassation of blood into inner side of neck can be a sign of throttling.No such sign was found while conducting postmortem.In gross stage of decomposition, it is very difficult to give the opinion regarding cause of death.It is true that while conducting postmortem I did not notice that no sign of asphyxia, no sign of gross decomposition of dead body.There is difference between throttling and strangulation.It is not true that I issued cause of death certificate on the say of police.Bruises of thighs can be possible if anyone come in contact with hard rough surface.Injuries as shown in col.no.17 are antemortem, but I did not give any opinion in col. no.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::Laxmi 37 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.doc 18(a).As the edges were sharp and colour were dark and therefore I can say that injuries as shown in col no. 17 are antemortem.I have not mentioned in postmortem that injuries were dark.It is not mentioned in postmortem report that neck vessels are compressed.If any person died due to heart attack, symptoms of congestion of lungs is seen as in asphyxia.If there is suspicious death including poisoning, vescera can be preserved.Generally decomposed body is swollen.It is not true that I have issued a false postmortem report and opined at the instance of police."25. PW-10 has deposed that(i) It was difficult to identify dead body;(d) Do not remember which document was collected by police from shop.(e) Ornaments are available in market.(f) No specific identification mark on ornaments.::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::Laxmi 38 of 38 apeal-1363-12 with 1366-12.docIn light of the aforesaid circumstances we do not find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence the judgment of conviction is required to be set aside.Hence, we pass the following order:The Judgment and order dated 21/03/2012 in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2010 delivered by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay at Sewree is quashed and set aside.Muddemal property be dealt with as directed by Trial Court after appeal period is over.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 13:31:38 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
88,423,199 |
Earlier, the petitioner has been arrested and released on bail.When the said suspensionwas challenged in W.P.(MD)No.10617 of 2005, this Court in M.P.No.11337 of 2005,dated 25.11.2005 has granted interim stay.4.The petitioner has filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2845 of 2006 to quash the chargesheet.This Court vide order dated 26.07.2006, has quashed the charge sheet andbased on that, the petitioner has been discharged by the Sessions Court.It is the grievance of the petitioner that since then, the DistrictEducational Officer, Madurai has not taken any steps to regularise the servicesof the petitioner from 15.09.2005 to 27.02.2006, the period on which thepetitioner was under suspension.Even the management has not taken any stepsand therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 toimplead the Headmaster, Ayira Vysia Higher Secondary School, (Velliambalam),23B, Southchithirai Street, Madurai as a party respondent.Vide order, dated18.10.2011, the Headmaster has been impleaded as a party respondent to this writpetition.6.The petitioner has sought for a mandamus against both the respondents toregularise the period of suspension between 15.09.2005 and 27.05.2005 and to paysalary and increment.No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.7.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.8.While considering the prayer for quashing in Crl.O.P.No.2845 of 2006,this Court, after perusing the material available on record, has found that theprimary incriminating material available in the criminal case was the dyingdeclaration.This Court has after going through the dying declaration of thestudent aged 13 years studying 8th standard at the time of death who had takenan extreme step by committing suicide by self immolation by pouring kerosene onhis body has recorded the version in the dying declaration is as follows:"The deceased is admitted that the petitioner scolded and beat thedeceased only because of the reason that the deceased damaged the seat cover ofthe motor cycle of the petitioner apart from such action, nothing further hasbeen done by the petitioner".9.Following the registration of the criminal case in Crime No.1640 of2005, on the file of the Thilagar Thidal Police Station for the offence underSection 309 read with 511 IPC, the petitioner has been placed under suspensionretrospectively.Subsequently, after quashing of thecharge in Crime No.1640 of 2005, he has been discharged from the prosecution andthat the writ petition in W.P.No.10617 of 2005, challenging suspension has beendismissed as infructuous.Subsequently, videorder dated 18.10.2011, the petitioner has impleaded the Headmaster, Ayira VysiaHigher Secondary School, (Velliambalam), 23B, Southchithirai Street, MaduraiMadurai, the second respondent herein.11.There was no material to indicate that the petitioner has made anyrequest to the Headmaster of the school to send the proposal for disbursementof arrears of salary and other allowances during the period of suspension.12.Material on record shows that when the petitioner was placed undersuspension, the aided school was under direct payment and as a grant releasingand disbursing authority, the District Educational Officer, Madurai hassuspended the petitioner.Though the criminal case has been registered foralleged misconduct, of scolding and beating the student aged 13 years, who hascommitted suicide by self immolation, no materials have been produced beforethis Court to show any disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner.13.Reading of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.10617 of 2005 showsthat when the District Educational Officer, Madurai had the authority to takedisciplinary action against the petitioner, when suspension was resorted, thisCourt stayed the suspension.Pendency or even acquittal of a criminal case, isnot a bar for taking disciplinary proceeding under the relevant statutes and therules.Initially, the petitioner has filed the writpetition only against the District Educational Officer, Madurai, the firstrespondent herein and raised grounds stating that the said authority is bound toregularise the period of suspension and pay the salary for the suspensionperiod.16.The petitioner has not made any pleadings regarding the proposal to besent by the Ayira Vysiar Higher Secondary School, (Velliambalam), 23-B,South Chitrai Street, Madurai-1, the second respondent herein.smsToThe District Educational Officer, Office of the District Educational Officer, Tallakulam, Madurai-2.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
884,245 |
The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the sons of the deceased.P.W.3 is the daughter in law of the deceased .P.W.7 is the elder brother of the deceased.The father of the accused and the deceased are relatives and are adjacent land owners having common property in respect of which prior enmity was existing between the two families.On the day prior to the date of occurrence, P.W.1 was cleaning the disputed cattle ground and at that time A2 went and beat him with broomstick and threatened him with dire consequences.On the next day, i.e. on 12.1.2001 the deceased was standing in front of his house and at that time, the accused 1 and 2 at about 1.30 p.m. picked up wordy quarrel with the deceased.P.W.3 the daughter in law of the deceased also reached the scene of occurrence.In the course of such wordy quarrel A1 armed with velkambi attacked the deceased on his head and and A2 armed with crow bar attacked the deceased on his chest.When P.Ws.1 and 3 intervened they were also attacked and inflicted injuries.According to the prosecution, P.Ws.2,5,6 and 10 also on hearing the noise reached the scene of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence along with few more persons.On receiving the blows the deceased fell down with heavy bleeding on his head and due to the said injuries, he died.Thereafter, P.W.11 arranged for a car and took P.Ws.1 and 3 to Namakkal Government Hospital.P.W.8 is the Doctor who examined P.Ws.1 and 3 at 3.40 P.M. In the mean time P.W.17 the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Erumapatty Police Station from Namakkal Police Station at about 4 P.M. on receipt of information went to Namakkal Government Hospital and obtained Ex.P.1 complaint from P.W.1 and on that basis he registered the case in Cr.No.,25/2002 for the offence under Sections 324 and 302 IPC.He prepared Ex.P22 F.I.R and caused the same to be sent to concerned Judicial Magistrate and other higher officials through P.W.14, the Head Constable attached to Erumapatty Police Station.On receipt of the FIR P.W.18 the Inspector of Police attached to Namakkal Police Station in charge of Erumapatty Police Station commenced his investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at about 7 p.m. P.W.12 is the Village Administrative Officer of Muttanchetti Village P.W.13 is his menial.The Public ProsecutorHigh CourtMadrasThis Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.9.2004 made in S.C.No.132 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.The charges framed against the accused 1 and 2 are that on 12.1.2002 at about 1.30 p.m. they picked up wordy quarrel with Chinnathambikallan in front of his house at Vadakkumedu Muttanchetty Village and in the course of such wordy quarrel they assaulted him with Velkambi and Crow Bar on the head and chest resulting in his instantaneous death thereby they committed offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC.In the course of the same transaction, they attacked, P.Ws.1 and 3 who attempted to intervene and inflicted simple and grievous injuries and thereby committed offences under Sections 307 read with 109 and 323 IPC.By the said judgment the trial court acquitted the accused for the offences stated above against which the present revision has been filed by the complainant.P.W.18 prepared Ex.P8 observation mahazaar and Ex.P23 rough sketch in the presence of the witnesses.He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased.He examined witnesses.P24 is the inquest report.He recovered M.Os.3 and 4 blood stained earth and sample earth from the scene under Ex.Thereafter, he sent the body with P.W.15, the police constable for post mortem.The Doctor P.W.16 attached to Namakkal Government Hospital conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 13.1.2002 at 10.30 a.m. The Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died 18-24 hours prior to autopsy.P21 is the post-mortem certificate.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused under Sections 302 read with 34 and against A1 under Section 307 IPC read with 109 and against A2 under Section 307 and 323 IPC.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined; Exs.P-1 to P-31 were filed and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied their complicity.After due enquiry, the trial court having analysed the evidence adduced by the prosecution, disbelieved the case of prosecution and acquitted all the accused.The said acquittal is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this revision filed by the complainant.The trial court has acquitted the accused which can be in any manner assailed.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court has overlooked the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 without assigning any sound reasons.The trial court has acquitted the accused solely on the ground that P.W.1 has admitted that Ex.P1 complaint was not the one which contains his signature, even though he admitted twice in the cross examination that the signature belongs to him and only at the last instance he denied the signature.In view of the above conclusion arrived at by me, I am not inclined to go into the other grounds and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side as any opinion to be expressed on these grounds may tend to influence the mind of the trial court.Therefore, all these things are left open for the trial court to consider.In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed.The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,481,235 |
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A for the State and have perused the trial Court judgment, record and the written objections that have been filed by the learned A.G.A.The prosecution allegations as mentioned in the FIR lodged by Malkhan Singh, PW 1 father of the deceased Reena on 3.12.2011 at P.S. Sikandararau were that Reena was married to the appellant Umesh three years earlier.On 28.11.2011, the appellant Umesh and his elder brother Munesh had taken away Reena on a motorcycle after promising that they would not torture her in the future.However the informant learnt that Umesh and Munesh and his family members had murdered Reena and had thrown her corpse into the Nadrai Canal.When they again reached Reena's sasural on 2.12.2011, they found the house empty and that the appellant and his family members had absconded, with all their belongings.However the formal witnesses were not examined as the defence admitted the genuineness of the prosecution documents.The fact witnesses included, the informant Malkhan Singh, PW 1, father of Reena, who denied the allegations of dowry demand, or of Reena being driven out of her sasural after being beaten on 12.11.11, but he admitted that she had come to reside in her phupha PW 2 Swaraj's house on 13.11.11 at Sikandarpur (near Nagla Babool).He had not received any information that Umesh, Munesh and their family members had murdered Reena and cast her corpse in the Nadrai Canal in district Kanshiram Nagar.But he learnt that Reena's corpse had been found in the Nadrai Canal and had even gone to Reena's sasural in this connection on 28.11.11., but he did not see Reena there.He admitted lodging a written report scribed by Rajpal Singh at P.S Sikandrau, on which he had appended his signature.After that the informant and others searched for the corpse of Reena, which was found in the Nadrai canal, regarding which an information was given at P.S. Dolna.Dislike for Reena, demand of dowry, and illicit relations of Umesh, with his brother Munesh's wife have been mentioned as the motives for the crime in the FIR.13 witnesses of fact have been examined in this case.However he stated in his cross examination that he had lodged the report at the instance of the police and the opponents of Umesh who were present at the police station when he went to lodge the report.PW2 Swaraj and his wife, PW 3 Smt. Kamla, Reena's aunt (bua), admitted that Reena had been married to Umesh 4 years prior to their testimony in Court, which was recorded one year after the incident.No dowry was demanded, and Reena was not ill-treated in her sasural.One year earlier Malkhan and Rameshwar had left Reena at their house in Sikandarpur, where she stayed for 15 days.After that Reena left by herself for her maika in Katka.and she had not gone with them.PW 6 Ram Das, the marriage mediator, denied the allegations of dowry demand and claimed that Reena had committed suicide because she could not conceive, even after 3 years of marriage.PW 13, Jai Narain, (Malkhan, and Kamla's brother and Reena's uncle) has admitted that before her death Reena was residing at Kamla's place at Sikandarpur.Umesh had taken away Reena from there.After 3 days of her departure her corpse had been recovered from the canal.He denied the allegations of dowry demand.It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that all the witnesses of fact, PWs 1 to 13, except PW 4 Yogendra and PW 12 Dalvir Singh, the witnesses of inquest, have turned hostile and have denied the allegations of dowry demand, or the involvement of the appellant in this crime, and there was no legal evidence for connecting the appellant with this offence.Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant had disappeared from her maika after which her body was found in the Nadrai canal.The deceased had actually committed suicide.The trial Judge on finding that there was no evidence of dowry demand, had even acquitted the appellant under the charges under sections 304 B and 498 A IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.From this, it was submitted that the trial judge has properly inferred that Reena had been taken away by the appellant to his home immediately prior to the incident.The onus under section 106 of the Evidence Act then lay on the appellant to explain how the deceased had died after she had gone with him, which burden has not been discharged by the appellant.The theory that the deceased had committed suicide is falsified by the fact that the post mortem report indicates the cause of death to be strangulation.There was a ligature mark all round the neck of the deceased just below the thyroid cartilage and the left cornua of the hyoid bone was also fractured.The death was therefore clearly homicidal and not suicidal.Also after committing suicide the body could not be present in the Nadrai canal.The informant Malkhan has admitted that he had dictated the FIR to Rajpal and then lodged the written report at the police station which he had signed.Though Malkhan subsequently states in his cross examination that he nominated the appellant at the instance of the police and Umesh's opponents who were present at the police station, but it has not been clarified as to who were these opponents, and what was the enmity which would have caused these opponents to kill Reena and then to prevail upon the informant to falsely nominate the appellant Umesh, husband of the deceased for this crime.According to the learned AGA, the denial or false explanation on part of the appellant that the deceased had committed suicide, when her death was clearly homicidal was an additional circumstance for showing the complicity of the appellant in this offence.Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on merit, looking to the gravity of the allegations, the successful attempt by the accused to win over witnesses during trial, the reasons mentioned by the trial Court for recording a finding of guilt against the accused, we find that no good ground exists for granting bail to the appellant, who was not even allowed bail during trial.The prayer for bail of the appellant is therefore rejected.We would however like to express our appreciation of the effort made by the trial judge, Sri Subhash Chandra Kulshreshta, ADJ, Court No. 1, Hathras in not folding his hands in despair once the defence had succeeded in suborning the prosecution witnesses, by framing an alternative charge under section 302 on 24.4.13 and then in searching for dependable grounds in the evidence for establishing the guilt of the appellant.However we are of the opinion that at the outset when the informant Malkhan, PW 1, the father of the deceased Reena himself turned hostile, the trial Judge could have issued notice to PW 1 in exercise of his powers under section 340 Cr.P.C., asking him to explain why he should not make a complaint against him before the competent Ist Class Magistrate for trying him for an offence under section 182 IPC or other appropriate penal section.We may mention that in a case tried by the ADJ/ FTC 2 Kaushambi, the trial Judge Dr. Bal Mukund had done precisely this when the informant, who was the brother of the deceased had turned hostile.The witness had then appeared before the trial Court him and mentioned the threats held out by the accused Pintoo and others.Thereupon the trial Court after notice had cancelled the bail of the accused.The result was that the said witness as well as subsequent witnesses then deposed truthfully about the occurrence.P.C were initiated against the informant or other witnesses after witnesses turned hostile, the number and particulars of any case in which notice u/s 340 Cr.Copy of the order be forwarded/ placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, Director JTRI, Member Secretary UPSLSA, Director, National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, DGP, U.P., Director of Prosecutions U.P., Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., All District Judges though Registry Allahabad, Government Advocate and AGA, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi within two weeks.Order Date :- 3.9.2013 sfa/
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,482,189 |
The total fine amount was Rs.1,10,000/-, out of which, Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the victim girl.2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:(i)P.W.1-Vijila, P.W.3-Ambika, P.W.4-Gangadharan, P.W.5-Ramani and P.W.6-Kanaga were studying in Kuravapulam Seethalakshmi Middle School at the time of occurrence and the victim girl was studying in 7th Standard.The appellant/accused was working as a Teacher.On 26.12.2001, for making arrangement to conduct half-yearly examination, P.W.1/victim girl was cleaning the classroom along with other inmates (i.e.) P.W.3 to P.W.6 and others.When P.W.1/victim girl was brooming VIII B, the accused came inside and locked the door of the classroom.Then, the accused trampled her slipper and pulled her down, which resulted to fell down, at that time, the accused committed rape on her.He also made a criminal intimidation at knife point that if she intimated the matter to anybody, he would throw her into the well and he would set fire on her house, which would cause death of entire family.Thereafter, she attended examination.On 02.01.2002, at 8.30 a.m., again he committed rape on her in the same classroom.(ii)P.W.2-Tamilarasi, who is the mother of P.W.1, deposed that P.W.1 had missed her menstrual period for the past two months.When she questioned the same, P.W.1 revealed the fact that she was subjected to rape on 26.12.2001 and 02.01.2002 by the accused.Immediately, they went to the hospital on 26.03.2002, where P.W.9-Dr.Indira, treated her and accordingly, came to the conclusion that P.W.1 was pregnant.Then only, they gone to Police station and gave a complaint-Ex.(iii)P.W.13-Mr.Rajendran, Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.327 of 2002 under Sections 376(2)(b) and 506(ii) IPC and prepared an First Information Report-Ex.Then, he sent the victim girl to P.W.12-Dr.Thilagam, Government Hospital, Nagapattinam, to ascertain as to whether P.W.1 was subjected to sexual intercourse.P.W.12 examined the girl and gave an accident register Ex.Then, P.W.13 went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar and drew Ex.P9 rough sketch in the presence of the witness P.W.7-Mathizhalagan, VAO and one Nagarajan.Then, he examined the witnesses P.Ws.2 to 6 & 8 and recorded their statements.Thereafter, he also seized the dress of P.W.1 under Form-95 and sent the same to Forensic Department for examination.On 07.05.2002, he arrested the accused and recorded his confession and sent him to Judicial Custody.Thereafter, P.W.13 gave a requisition to P.W.11-Dr.Adhiyaman, to ascertain as to whether the accused is potent and the respective medical certificate was marked as Ex.P.W.11 also sent the semen of the accused for chemical examination.Since P.W.1 underwent the medical termination of pregnancy, which was performed by P.W.9-Dr.Indra and obtained a certificate Ex.Her daughter P.W.1 alone was going to school and was studying 7th standard.During the relevant period, her husband was doing cooly work at Malaysia.She along with her son and two daughters residing there.Since she is an illiterate lady, who was hailing from the rustic village, some leniency must be shown to her evidence.Since there was no male help for P.W.1 and her husband was also working as Cooly at Malaysiya.She has no other support, except his son, who was also younger, even though he was completed 18 years.P7 and certified that she was subjected to sexual intercourse.In her cross-examination, she stated as follows:The Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 09.09.2004, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, in S.C.No.214 of 2003, whereby the accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 376 (i) and 576(ii) I.P.C. and in respect of Section 376(i) I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigourous imprisonment for each count, which was ordered to be run consecutively and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for each count, in default in payment, to undergo six months' simple imprisonment.In respect of Section 506(ii) I.P.C., the accused was sentenced to undergo two years' rigourous imprisonment, which was ordered to be run concurrently and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default in payment, to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.P4 from P.W.9, P.W.13 sent the girl to P.W.10-Dr.Elavarasan to ascertain the age of the victim girl and he gave Ex.Thereafter, P.W.13 examined the doctors and other witnesses and recorded their statements.After completing investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 376 (2)(b) and 506 (ii) IPC.3.After committing the case, the learned Assistant Sessions cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, framed necessary charges.Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the Sessions Court, after examining the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.13, D.W.1 to D.W.3 and Exs.P1 to P9 & Exs.D1, D2 and M.O.1, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 376(i) and 506(ii) IPC and sentenced him as stated above, against which, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused.4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made his submissions on the following grounds:(i) There is a delay in preferring the complaint.(ii) There is a contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence.(iii) On 26.12.2001, the main gate of the school was opened only at 9.30 a.m., so there is no possibility for the alleged occurrence at 8.30 a.m. in the classroom on working days.(v) Since P.W.1's brother Ravikumar misbehaved with the wife of the accused, P.W.1's mother and brother have come out from the vengeance of the appellant/accused, foisted a false case against him.To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decisions of apex Court, various High Court and this Court.5.Refuting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the delay in preferring the complaint has been properly explained.The Court must take judicial notice that during the time of examination, the school and classrooms are opened at earlier hours.He further submitted that there is no concrete evidence that who is having school gate key.So the place of occurrence has been clearly proved by the prosecution.The evidence of P.W.11-Dr.Adhiyaman, has clearly proved that the appellant/accused is potent and for the same, he gave Ex.P6-medical certificate of appellant.So it is immaterial as to whether the appellant is able to give birth to a child.So the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is attempted to penetrate is not necessary.But, here, P.W.1 has conceived and the child has been aborted and that has been proved by the evidence of P.W.9-Dr.So there is no contradiction between the medical as well as ocular evidence.So the Assistant Sessions Court considered all the aspects in a proper and perspective manner and decided the matter on merits.So he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.6.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides as well as the materials available on record.The appellant/accused was working as a Teacher in Seethalakshmi Middle School, Kuravapulam, Shanmuga Kadu and P.W.1-victim girl was studying 7th standard therein.At the time of the incident, the victim girl was 14 years old.So she was minor.8.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2010-1-L.W. (crl.) 330 (Sekaran v. State by Inspector of Police, K.V.Kuppam Police Station, Vellore District), in that, it was decided that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully, as the child witness may be swayed by what others tell him and is an easy prey to tutoring.So this Court ought to have devoted great care on the evidence of P.W.1 and to consider as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and as to whether it is reliable.Admittedly, P.W.1 was a student and the appellant/accused was working as a teacher.Here, the relationship of victim and accused (i.e.) student and teacher, played vital role for deciding the matter.But P.W.1 gave Ex.Furthermore, since Ravikumar, who is brother of P.W.1 and son of P.W.2, has misbehaved with the wife of the accused, a panchayat has been convened and the matter was settled.So taking vengeance against this accused, a false case has been foisted against him due to previous enmity.Admittedly, Ex.P1 complaint has been given on 16.04.2002, after three months from the date of alleged occurrence.In her evidence, she stated that herself and her two daughters were having menstruation on the same day.The next month of alleged occurrence, her daughter P.W.1 has missed her menstruation period.On questioning the same, she has not taken care of her.Since P.W.1 has missed her menstruation after two months, P.W.2 questioned her.Immediately, P.W.2 mother was taken her daughter P.W.1 to P.W.9-Dr.Indra on 26.03.2002, who found that the girl was pregnant.Then, at the request of P.W.2, P.W.9 medically terminated the pregnancy.P.W.9 also opined that the growth of the foetus was 12 to 14 weeks.But, the said complaint was dropped by police and another complaint was given on 03.04.2002 before All Women Police Station, Nagapattinam and that has also been dropped by police.Then, only the present complaint Ex.P1 was given by her on 16.04.2002 at Vedaranyam, with the help of Communist Party and the same was taken on file and the case has been registered and investigation has been done.On 29.03.2002, she gave the first complaint.After the sexual act, the prosecutrix going to the dance performance rather than go to her parents and inform them of the crime.Considering the broad probabilities of the case, held, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.The appellant was a District Malaria Officer.During the relevant time, the victim was staying in a rental house owned by the local postmaster.It is true that on the side of the defence, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.To prove the same, he produced Ex.D1-a signature of Ravikumar, who is brother of P.W.1 and Ex.While considering these document Ex.D2, it is clearly proved that to escape from the clutches of law, the appellant herein has examined his wife as D.W.1 to depose that the brother of P.W.1 had misbehaved with her.In Ex.D1, signature of Ravikumar, who is the brother of P.W.1, was found, but both the Exs.D1 and D2 are only Xerox copies.In that it was specifically mentioned that Ravikumar had foisted a false case against the teacher/appellant and he had taken an undertaking that hereafter, he would not make such a false allegation against anybody.But in that document, the Panchayat has never mentioned that Ravikumar misbehaved with the wife of the accused.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of D.W.3-Saravanan.In his evidence, he stated that as Ravikumar approached him and gave a complaint against the accused to convene the panchayat, he made an enquiry.But the averment in Ex.There is no iota of evidence produced before the Court to show that brother of P.W.1-victim girl was misbehaved with the wife of the accused.18.Now it is appropriate to consider the medical evidence.As per the evidence of P.W.9-Dr.Indra, she did medical termination of pregnancy of P.W.1-victim girl and the growth of the foetus was 12 to 14 weeks.Then only there is a possibility for conceiving foetus aged about 12 to 14 weeks.So as per the evidence of P.W.9, the abortion has been done on 27.03.2002 at 1.30 p.m. and 12 to 14 weeks foetus (i.e.) three months foetus was discharged.Then only Ex.D2-Muchalika came into existence.19.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.12-Dr.Thilagam, who treated P.W.1 and gave accident register Ex.""fUKl;il rpidigapy; nUe;J btspna te;j ehspy; nUe;J fU jhpf;fhj epiyapy; 14 ehl;fs; fHpj;J fz;og;ghf khjtplha; Vw;gLk;.rhjhuzkhf 28 ehl;fSf;F xU Kiw khjtplha; Vw;gLk; bgz;fSf;F khjtplha; Vw;gl;L 9 ehs; Kjy; 18 ehs; tiu cly; cwt[ bfhz;lhy; fU jhpf;f tha;g;g[ cz;L. khjtplha; Vw;gl;l ehspy; nUe;J 14 ehs; fHpj;J fU Kl;il rpid igapy; nUe;J btspBa tUk;.xt;bthU bgz;Zf;Fk; 28 ehl;fSf;F xU Kiw khj tplha; Vw;gLk; vd;W fl;lhak; ny;iy.khjtplha; Vw;gl;L 14 ehl;fs; fHpj;J jhd; rpid Kl;il fUigapy; nUe;J btspBa tUk; vd;why; rhpay;y. khjtplha; Vw;gl;ljpy; nUe;J 5 ehl;fSf;F gpd; vg;BghJ Btz;Lk; vd;whYk; fUKl;il cUthfp rpid igapy; nUe;J btspBa tUk;.fUtpy; cs;s FHe;ijapd; taij mjd; msit itj;J jhd; eph;zak; bra;Bthk;.filrpahf khjtplha; Vw;gl;l ehspy; nUe;J FHe;ij gpwf;f Toa Bjjpia cj;Bjrpg;Bghk;.ehd; ghpBrhjid bra;j tp$pyh mof;fo cly; cwt[ bfhz;ltuhf nUf;f TLk;.""So considering her evidence, it is medically proved that the foetus may be formed on 26.12.2001, on the date of commission of offence.But, P.W.12 doctor examined her after three months.Then only P.W.12-Dr.Thilagam treated her and opined that she has not sustained any injury on her private parts.Since the evidence of P.W.1 is natural, cogent and trustworthy.In such circumstances, the above citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case.21.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is impossible for the commission of offence, since the school opened only at 9.00 a.m. everyday.Hence, there is no chance for the students to enter the school on 26.12.2001 at 8.00 a.m. for cleaning classrooms.22.Now it is appropriate to consider that to whom the school gate key was entrusted.There are three different versions in respect of who is having gate key of the school.P.W.1-victim girl, in her cross-examination, stated that only one gate to enter into the school.After the school was closed, the gate has been locked and key was handed over to Sasikala teacher.P.W.8, in her cross-examination, stated that there is only one way to enter into the school.After the school was closed, school key and outer gate key are kept under the custody of one Subramania pillai, as per the direction of school management.In his cross-examination, he stated as follows: " .. gs;sp rhtpa[k; btsp Bfl;L rhtpa[k; gs;sp Koe;j gpwF Rg;ukzpagps;is tPl;oy; vA;fs; gs;sp eph;thfj;jpdh; bfhLj;J itf;f brhd;djhy; bfhLj;J itj;JtpLBthk;".Per contra, P.W.13-investigating officer, stated that the school gate key was in the custody of one Malarkodi, who is a noon meal organiser.So there are three different versions in respect of custody school gate key, i.e. key was handed over to Sasikala teacher, Subramania pillai and Malarkodi.In such circumstances, the defence has not been proved that whom is responsible for school key and gate key.At this juncture, it is appropriate on the part of this Court to take judicial notice that during the time of examination, the school gate will be opened earlier.So it is not an unnatural that the school gate and classrooms are opened at 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. during the time of examination.On the date of occurrence, half yearly exams have been conducted.So the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that school will open only at 9.00 a.m., does not merit acceptance.23.Furthermore, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per the evidence of P.W.1, there was a bamboo plait in between the classrooms of 7th and 8th standard and the same were removed on the date of exams.So there is no possibility of raping P.W.1 at VIII B classroom as stated by her.But, P.W.1, in her cross-examination, stated that she was written her examination on the common hall of IV standard classroom, since the bamboo plaits were removed.Further, she stated in her cross-examination that VIII B classroom has been facing west side and there is a well in 10 feet away from VIII B classroom and adjacent to VIII B, the office room is situated there.So as per the evidence of P.W.1 as well as Ex.P3 observation mahazar and Ex.P9 rough sketch, they are clearly proved that VII A, VIII A, B and office room are situated consecutively under one roof and there was a wall in between the same.So the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was a bamboo plaits in between eighth standard classrooms and the same were removed and it was treated as common hall, where examination has been conducted, does not merit acceptance.24.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that as per the evidence of P.W.8-Headmaster, who deposed that on 24.12.2001 itself, he issued a circular and all the classrooms were cleaned and kept ready for conducting examinations.So there is no necessity for inviting the students to come on 26.12.2001 morning by 8.00 a.m. to clean the classrooms.But, the circular was not produced before the Court.There was a delay of 10 days in lodging complaint.The prosecutrix did not divulge incident to any body including her mother, who confronted her for coming late in the night of that incident.Hence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in this aspect, does not merit acceptance.Hence, the criminal appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.1.The Assistant Sessions cum Chief Judicial MagistrateNagapattinam.2.The Inspector of PoliceVedaranyam Police Station,Nagapattinam District.4.The Record KeeperCriminal Section, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,482,891 |
The second respondent/complainant, namely, Gangotri Kumari, along with her mother, Saniyaro Devi, are present in person.The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Anil Kumar, Police Crl.CRL.M.A. NO. 17819/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 60/2012 registered under Section 374/34 IPC and read with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, at Police Station Dwarka South, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State enters appearance and accepts notice.M.C. 5207/2014 Page 1 of 7 Station Dwarka South, also identifies the complainants.M.C. 5207/2014 Page 1 of 7A copy of the settlement arrived at between the parties has also been annexed to the petition.The petition stands disposed off.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,488,251 |
No.1/State.Heard on I.A.No.2857/2019, which is first application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant-Arun @ Annu.The appellant has been convicted by trial Court vide judgment dated 13.12.2018 passed in Special Case No.78/2018 for the offenes under sections 363, 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 7 & 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years, 20 years and 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.2,000/- and 1000/- respectively with default stipulations.Even then the First Information Report has been lodged on 09.7.2018 by giving an application in writing.No explanation to that effect is available on record.No defence suggestion has been put regarding false implication.Because, at a place where the incident took place, appellant used to perform 'Pooja', where the villagers and kids of the complainant party used to go for attending call of nature, which was the cause of dispute.I t is hereby directed that execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant-Arun @ Annu shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] with one solvent surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before Registry of this Court on 30.09.2019 and thereafter on each subsequent dates as may be directed by the Registry of this Court in this regard.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,492,887 |
/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Ratan Mandal @ Pakai Mandal ... ... petitioner Mr. Amit Singh ... ... for the petitioner Ms. Anasua Sinha ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Dhubulia P.S. Case No. 241 of 2018 dated 09.08.2018 under Sections 448/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and refers to the injury report.The charge-sheet has been filed.It is evident that the sharp cutting weapons were used for the assault.However, considering the incident and the extent of the injuries, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody.In addition, the petitioner will also attend the trial on a regular basis on the dates fixed.In default of the petitioner attending the trial, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the petitioner's bail without reference to this Court.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,496,117 |
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment made in S.C.No.326 of 2007, dated 12.06.2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.The Inspector of Police attached to Vickramasingapuram, Tirunelveli District, has fined a final report against the accused by examining the witnesses.http://www.judis.nic.in 33.In the trial court, 22 witnesses were examined and 18 Exhibits and 3 material objects were marked.When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same.On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was produced.The trial court convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 304(B) IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and also convicted under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial court, the appellants/accused are before this court.4.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that there was no complaint against the accused regarding demand of dowry when the deceased was alive; that the marriage between the deceased and the accused is not a valid one under law; that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW21) has accepted in his evidence that he did not enquire about the validity of the marriage of the deceased and he did not recover the marriage invitation or any other documents to speak about the marriage; that the casehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 was not referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned for enquiry under law considering the nature and circumstances of the case; that the deceased told to the Doctor (PW7) that she sustained burn injuries due to bust of stove and there was no evidence showing that there was harassment for dowry soon before the death of the deceased and on account of the said harassment only, she had committed suicide and in this case, the Investigating Officer has not recovered the gas stove and another stove, which material objects in this case and the deceased has stated in the dying declaration (Ex.P7) that there was a quarrel between the accused and herself with regard to rolling of Beedi by the deceased at 9.45 am on 06.12.2016 and she set fire herself by using the kerosene at 10 am, which clearly shows that there was no demand of dowry soon before the fateful incident.In view of the above circumstances, the appellant/accused is entitled to acquittal and prays that the criminal appeal has to be allowed.5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent/State submitted that trial court appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of the eye witnesses and having regard to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 nature of the offences, convicted the appellant and passed proper sentence, which do not require any interference by this court and the accused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal appeal may be dismissed.7.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.8.The main contention raised on the side of the appellant/accused is that the marriage between the deceased and the accused is not a valid one and the deceased did not like the marriage with the accused considering his old age and the accused will not be the husband of the deceased under law and a person not a husband or not a relative of the husband may not be punished for the offences under Section 304(B) IPC and there was no demand of dowry by the accused soon before the death of the deceased and the deceased did not set fire due to the alleged harassment by the accused demanding dowry as alleged by the prosecution and prays that the accused is entitled to acquittal.http://www.judis.nic.in 69.PW2 and PW3 are the parents of the deceased.PW1 and PW4 are the brothers of the deceased.The deceased gave Ex.P1 complaint.The deceased in Ex.P1 complaint and PW1 to PW4 during their evidence stated that during the year 2006, the marriage between the deceased and the accused was solemnised and for that marriage, they gave three sovereign of jewels and Rs. 10,000/- as cash towards dowry and the deceased is the second wife of the accused and after marriage, the accused demanded dowry from the deceased and the deceased told PW1 to PW4 that the accused subjected her to cruelty by compelling her to roll Beedi for Rs.50/- per day and further demanded Rs.2,000/- and they agreed to give Rs.2,000/- and sent the deceased to her matrimonial home and likewise, the accused demanded dowry for several occasions and due to the demand of dowry, on 06.12.2005 she poured kerosene on her and set fire and then they took the deceased to the Hospital and in-spite of treatment, she died.10.PW1 to PW4 have categorically stated that after the marriage, the accused demanded dowry.For the demand of dowry, no complaint given by the deceased.It is also admitted by PW1 during his cross examination.PW1 to PW4 are the close relativeshttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 of the deceased.PW5 and PW6 are the neighbours of the deceased.PW5 deposed that the deceased took her husband and compelled her to roll Beedi and demanded dowry and on the date of occurrence, she heard “fhg;ghj;Jq;f fhg;ghj;Jq;f” and then she and her husband went and saw that the deceased with fire and they gave first aid and asked the deceased, why she set fire and for that, the deceased reported that her husband compelled her to roll Beedi and due to it, she set fire.PW5 has not deposed that on the date of occurrence, the accused demanded dowry, but PW5 stated that the deceased told her that the accused compelled the deceased to roll Beedi.11.PW6 deposed that on the date of the occurrence, she went to the house of the deceased and the deceased asked her to take to the hospital and the deceased told him that her husband compelled her to earn money daily.12.PW6 has not stated during her evidence that on the date of the occurrence, the deceased told her that the deceased set fire only due to the demand of dowry by her husband.http://www.judis.nic.in 813.It is an admitted fact that the deceased was the second wife of the accused.Further, PW1 to PW4 during their cross examination admitted that at the time of second marriage, the first wife of the accused was alive.15.In this case, to prove the marriage, no document was filed.At the time of alleged marriage between the accused and the deceased the first wife is alive.It is not proved on the side of the prosecution that the marriage between the accused and the first wife was dissolved.But no document was filed on the side of the prosecution to prove that the marriage between the accused and the deceased is a valid one.For the offence under Section 304(B) IPC, it is to be proved that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in respect to dowry demand.On perusal of the cross examination of PW1 to PW4 and the Investigating Officer PW20, there was no direct eye witness on the prosecution side to prove that soon before the death of the deceased, there was a demand of dowry by the accused.Further, in the case is dowry demand, it has to be sent to the Revenue Authorities for enquiry.Hence, the offence under Section 304(B) IPC is not made out.18..Further, in this case, PW1 to PW4 categorically stated that the deceased subjected her to cruelty by way of compelling her to roll Beedi.After the occurrence, the deceased was taken at first to the Ambai Government Hospital and then, she was referred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital for further treatment and in the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, the deceased gave Dying Declaration and it was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and the Dying Declaration was marked as Ex.19.On perusal of the Ex.P7 Dying Declaration, it is stated as follows:-vd; fztUf;Fk; vdf;Fk; 6.12.06-k; jpajp 9.45 kzpf;F gPo Rw;wr; brhy;yp rz;il ele;jJ ehd; 10.00 kzpf;F kz;vz;bza; Cw;wp jP itj;Jf; bfhz;nld; bghk;gisfs; g{r;rhz;o fhl;Lthh;fs; rht[ vd;why; rht; kz;vz;bza; Cw;wp epy; ghh;f;fpnwd; vd;W Twfpwhd; mth; vd;id 2tjhf jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;lhh; mth; vdf;F Kjy; jhuk;MFk;.10>000/- ngrpdhh;fs; 8>000/- bfhLj;jjhh;fs; 2>000/-k; bghq;fy; go bfhz;L te;jhy; th vd;W Twpdhh; mof;fo tujl;rid rz;il elf;Fk; vd;id ,d;W brtpl;oy; moj;Jtpl;lhd;.20.On careful perusal of Ex.P7, it reveals that quarrel arose between the deceased and the accused only respect of rolling Beedi by the deceased.Further, she has stated that frequently quarrel arose between her and the accused in respect of the demand of dowry.The deceased has not stated that only due to it, she committed suicide.But she has categorically stated that her husband only asked to roll Beedi on 06.12.2006 and hence, she set fire.21.In view of the above, this court finds that there was no demand of dowry prior to the death of the deceased and the deceased set fire by pouring kerosene only by the accused asking her to roll Beedi.Hence, there was nexus between the accused and the death of the deceased.Hence, the offence under Sectionhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 304(B) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act were not made out and only the offence under Section 306 IPC alone is made out.For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the appellant/accused is found guilty under Section 306 IPC and he is liable to be punished for the said offence.22.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The punishment imposed on the appellant under Section 304(B) IPC is modified into 306 IPC and the appellant is directed to undergo 3 years of Rigorous imprisonment for the said offence and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment.The period of sentence, if any already undergone by the appellant/accused is set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The appellant, after adjusting the period of imprisonment already undergone, shall undergo imprisonment for the remaining period.04.06.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 To1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J.gns/er Pre-Delivery order made in Crl.A.(MD)No.227 of 2009 04.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,503,479 |
The prosecution case as emerged out in the course of trial is given below in brief:-(2.1) On 22.07.2003 complainant Ramesh (PW-4) submitted a written report Ex.P-9 at the Police Station Kotwali Sheopur stating that he is a resident of village Salapura.On the evening of 20.07.2003, he went to his Khet from his house to guard there his standing crop, leaving behind in the house his wife Saroj (PW-5), the prosecutrix (PW-2) aged about 14 years and other children.In the morning hours of 21.07.2003, he and his wife Saroj found the prosecutrix missing from their house.Thereupon, they, their family members and other relatives searched her.In the course of search, they found that appellant Mahaveer, who is their neighbour, is also 3 Cr.A. No.71/2005 missing from his house.Therefore, he doubts that he had taken away the prosecutrix from their guardianship by giving her allurements of marriage with her.On the basis of the written report, Sub-Inspector R.B. Sharma (PW-6) recorded First Information Report Ex.P-8, and he registered a case at Crime No.230/2003 against appellant Mahaveer under Section 363 and 366 IPC.(2.2) R.B. Sharma carried out the investigation.During the investigation, on 22.07.2003, he prepared spot map Ex.P-7 at the instance of complainant Ramesh, and on various dates he recorded the case diary statements of the prosecution witnesses.On 26.07.2003, he got a telephonic message from the police Kotwali Sabai Madhopur, Rajasthan that the police rounded up appellant Mahaveer and the prosecutrix.Thereupon, on 26.07.2003 R.B. Sharma recovered the prosecutrix vide recovery memo Ex.P-10 and arrested appellant Mahaveer vide arrest memo Ex.P- 11 therefrom.On the same day, Dr. R.S. Sikarwar (PW-7) medico legally examined appellant Mahaveer and gave his report Ex.On 30.07.2003, the Radiologist Dr. A.K. Dixit (PW-1) ascertained the age of the prosecutrix by means of radiological examination and gave his report Ex.(Pronounced on 27th day of February, 2018) Appellant-accused Mahaveer has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13.01.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Sheopur in Sessions Trial No.219/2003, whereby he has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer on first count rigorous imprisonment (for short "RI") for five years with a fine of Rs.250/- (two hundred fifty), second 2 Cr.A. No.71/2005 count RI for five years with a fine of Rs.250/- (two hundred fifty) and third and the last count RI for seven years with a fine of Rs.250/- (two hundred fifty) with default jail sentences.P-2 and X-ray plate Ex.(2.3) Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against appellant Mahaveer for being prosecuted under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) IPC in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sheopur which committed the case.Later, the case came to be registered as Sessions Trial No.219/2003 and was made over for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge Sheopur.The learned ASJ framed the charges against appellant Mahaveer under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) IPC.Appellant Mahaveer abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.In the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., appellant Mahaveer denied all the incriminating evidence 5 Cr.A. No.71/2005 and circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, and he claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case by the police.However, he did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence.The learned ASJ accepted the prosecution evidence after due appreciation, thereby convicting appellant Mahaveer under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) IPC and sentencing thereunder as stated in para 1 of this judgment.Feeling aggrieved by the verdict, appellant Mahaveer filed this appeal.The learned counsel for appellant Mahaveer submitted that the prosecutrix (PW-2) herself and her parents Ramesh (PW-4) and Saroj (PW-5) have stated in their evidence that at the time of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was about 14 years.He further submitted that as per the settled legal position, the margin of error ought to be taken by the Court on the higher side.The corollary is that the age of the prosecutrix on the date of incident is above 19 years.Consequently, the prosecutrix was major on the date of incident.She has also 7 Cr.A. No.71/2005 admitted in her evidence that she had visited in the company of appellant Mahaveer Jaipur, Agra and Madhopur.There, they stayed in the hotels.She has also admitted in her evidence that the police recovered her in the company of appellant Mahaveer at the time when she was staying in a hotel at Sabai Madhopur.He further submitted that Dr. Rekha Jain has given the evidence that she had found the prosecutrix habituated to sexual intercourse and her hymen old ruptured in the course of her medical examination.He further submitted from the aforesaid evidence, it is amply proved that the prosecutrix is a consenting party and her consent is material as she was major at the time of incident.Therefore, the learned ASJ has grossly erred in convicting and sentencing appellant Mahaveer in the aforesaid Sections of law whereas no offence is in fact made out against him.Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside with acquitting appellant Mahaveer of all the charges framed against him.On the other hand, Shri S.S. Dhakad, the learned Public Prosecutor, argued in support of the impugned judgment.I have earnestly considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment and entire material on record.However, she could not give her exact date of birth, although she had education up to the 5 th Class.Her father Ramesh (PW-4) has also deposed that at the time of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was 14 years.But, he could not disclose her exact date of birth and give cogent evidence to prove his said statement, whereas he had education up to the 7th Standard.The prosecutrix's mother Saroj (PW-5) has deposed that on the date of incident the age of the prosecutrix was 14 years.However, she was also unable to state her exact date of birth.She has admitted in her evidence that she is a totally illiterate woman.In the light of the aforestated evidence of these witnesses, it cannot be held on the basis of their statements conclusively that on the date of incident, the age of the prosecutrix was 14 years and she 9 Cr.A. No.71/2005 was minor.Investigating Officer R.B. Sharma (PW-6) has stated in para 3 that in the course of investigation, complainant Ramesh had produced the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix.Upon the search of the record thoroughly and perusal of his evidence, I find that he had not seized the school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix.Therefore, his oral evidence cannot be relied upon.The Radiologist, Dr. A.K. Dixit (PW-1) has testified that on 30.07.2003 he had determined the age of the prosecutrix by a radiological examination and found her age between 14 to 17 years approximately and gave his report Ex.P-2 with X-ray plate Ex.In the case of Jaya Mala (supra), the Supreme Court has held in para 9 of its decision that one can take judicial notice that the margin of error in age ascertained by the radiological examination is two years on the either side.It is well settled in law that in case of sexual offences, the age of the prosecutrix ascertained by the radiological test ought to be taken on the higher side.In this connection a reference may be made to the decisions rendered by this 10 Cr.A. No.71/2005 High Court in the cases of Narendra Vs.State of M.P.,1976, JLJ 257 MP and Pira Vs.State of M.P.,1976 JLJ 132 MP.If the age of the prosecutrix is taken on the higher side with a margin of two years, then it is manifested that the age of the prosecutrix on the date of incident was 19 years.Thus, she was major.For this reasoning based on material evidence, I hold that the learned ASJ has wrongly decided that the age of the prosecutrix on the date of incident was between 14 to 15 years and therefore she was minor.On the other hand, I hold that she was major being 19 years old at the time of incident.The next question for my consideration is whether the prosecutrix is a consenting party as argued by learned counsel for the appellant after referring to her evidence?The prosecutrix (PW-2) has deposed that on the night of the incident she was sleeping in the Aangan (veranda) of her house with her brother.Her mother was sleeping on the roof top of her house, and her father had gone to the Khet to guard the standing crop.At about mid-night, appellant Mahaveer came to the Aangan (veranda) of her house and forced her to go with him 11 Cr.A. No.71/2005 brandishing a knife.Thereupon, she went with him taking her clothes and Rs.20,000/- in cash.They travelled 5 km on foot up to village Soi, wherefrom they boarded a bus bound for Jaipur.There, they stayed in a hotel for two days.From Jaipur, they went to Agra, where they visited Taj Mahal.From Agra, they came to Sabai Madhopur by bus.There, they stayed in a hotel.At that time, the police Sheopur came to the hotel with her father and other relatives, and police took her and the appellant to the Police Station Sheopur.She has also deposed that when she was in the company of the appellant, he had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes and consent.In para 10 of the cross-examination, the prosecutrix could not give a satisfactory reply as to why she has not stated in her case diary statement Ex.D-1 that the appellant took her forcibly wielding a knife at her.Therefore, the evidence of the prosecutrix is not reliable on that point.The prosecutrix in her cross-examination has also failed to give satisfactory explanation when she and the appellant were travelling in public transports, and they were visiting public places why she could not raise the alarms to attract the attention of general public present there that the appellant was taking her forcibly with him.Cr.A. No.71/2005 The prosecutrix could not reply satisfactorily as to why she took with her, the wearing clothes and Rs.20,000/- in cash while she was going with the appellant.In view of the said reasons, her evidence is not reliable on the point that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her against her consent and wishes, and I, therefore, hold her consenting party.As I have already held that she was major at the time of incident, and that she is a consenting party.Combining both the findings, I hold that no offences whatsoever are made out by the prosecution against appellant Mahaveer.Dr. Rekha Jain (PW-3) has medico legally examined the prosecutrix.She has stated in her evidence that upon the clinical examination of her, she found her hymen was old ruptured and she is habituated to sexual intercourse.Therefore, she cannot say definitely that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.Thus, the medical evidence given by Dr. Rekha Jain does not corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix.Since I have held that at the time of the incident, the prosecutrix was major and she was a consenting party, consequently the evidence of her parents Ramesh (PW-4) and Saroj (PW-5) have no evidentiary value.Upon the perusal of the evidence of Investigating Officer R.B. Sharma (PW-6), I find that he has done very formal investigation in the case, and he had committed serious lapses in the investigation by not collecting documentary evidence of the date of birth of the prosecutrix especially from the school, where the prosecutrix had education up to the 5th Standard.From the preceding close and critical analysis of evidence on record, I come to the ultimate conclusion that the learned ASJ has convicted appellant Mahaveer for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) IPC upon totally misreading and misappreciation of evidence.Consequently, I allow this appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, acquitting appellant Mahaveer from all the charges framed against him.His bail-bond shall stand discharged.The fine amount be refunded to him subject to verification of depositing it.Accordingly, this appeal is finally disposed of.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge SS SATEESH KUMAR SEN 2018.03.07 14:52:49 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,506,329 |
Item No. 60And In the matter of: Biswanath Sen Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Minoti Gomes For the Petitioner Mr. Rananjoy Chatterjee For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ranaghat Police Station Case No. 175 of 2013 dated 01.05.2013 under sections 498A/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 and have considered the case diary.The Complainant will accept the amount without prejudice to her rights and contentions to file any proceedings for maintenance.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,508,722 |
Along with this application, another application-IA No.2676/2020 for dispensing with filing of Vakalatnama has also been submitted since the Jail Authority has not provided any Email where the aforesaid Vakalatnama could have been sent.The application-IA No.2676/2020 for dispensing with filing of Vakalatnama was considered and the same is being allowed.Accordingly IA No.2676/2020 stands disposed off.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after conviction dated 24.04.2019, the appellant-Amit was not eligible for parole as he has not completed two years of jail sentence and therefore he is constrained to file the present application.Learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State was also heard and he has referred to Hon'ble Apex Court order dated 23.03.2020 pronounced in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.01/2020 which provides for giving the benefit of parole/interim bail to such class of prisoners who have not been convicted for committing heinous offences and is not applicable to the present appellant.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4947 OF 2019 (Amit vs State of Madhya Pradesh) Considered.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment In - Re contagion of COVID-19 Virus in prison (Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.01/2020) dated 23.03.2020 has directed the High Powered Committees of States to examine the class/classes of prisoners who can be released on parole or on interim bail for such period as may be considered to be appropriate.An example has been given whereby the prisoners convicted for punishment up-to seven years or less can be considered for giving such benefit.The High Powered Committee of MPSLSA, Jabalpur, vide its Resolution dated 26.03.2020 has resolved that such prisoners who satisfy the general conditions of parole can be considered for temporary release from jail on account of Pandemic COVID-19 who are more than 55 years of age in case of male prisoner or who are afflicted with cancer or serious heart problems.Moreover, he does not come under the category of 'Senior Citizen' (more than 55 years of age) and he is also not suffering from any serious disease mentioned in the aforesaid circular.The appellant-Amit is convicted for a serious offence under Section 302 IPC.Hence, we are of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate to allow this application-IA No.2675/2020 for temporary suspension of jail sentence.Consequently, IA No.2675/2020 which is an application for temporary suspension of jail sentence stands rejected.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,508,934 |
Law Amendment Act, P.S. Hariyavan, District Hardoi.The further contention is that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case as they have not committed any offence as alleged.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
98,997,394 |
In the matter of : Adu Sk. @ Ataulla Sk. & Anr...... Petitioners..... For the Petitioners.However, so far as the prayer for anticipatory bail in respect of petitioner no. 2 Bappa Sk. @ Sk.Bappa is concerned the same is rejected as there are materials in the case diary against him.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, J. ) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.) 2
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
99,002,439 |
The Appellant No. 1 Babu Lal and Appellant No. 2 Arjun are the father and son, Appellant No.3 Rakesh is the son of the brother-in-law of Appellant No.1 Babu Lal.The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the Appellants and the Complainant PW1 Nanno Devi reside in the same locality.There was a raid Crl.On 22nd March, 1992 at about 10:30 pm, the Appellant Babu Lal in a drunken condition came in front of the house of Nanno Devi and started abusing that Nanno Devi makes complaints against him that he sells liquor.One Manoharlal also accompanied them and they all were armed with dandas.They forcibly entered the house of Nanno Devi and dragged out PW4 Raj Kumar, son of Nanno Devi and gave him beatings.On this, Nanno Devi, her husband Chhajju Ram PW3 and daughter Sushila Devi PW5 intervened to save Raj Kumar, when they too were assaulted by these persons.Thereafter, all were taken to the hospital.As per their MLCs Ex. PW2/1, PW2/2 & PW8/1 respectively, it was opined that PW5 Sushila Devi had laceration on her forehead, PW1 Nanno Devi had a laceration on the left side of her forehead, and PW3 Chhajju Ram had a contused lacerated wound on the left infra orbital and mastoid region.The injuries on the person of PW1 Nanno Devi were opined to be simple caused by a blunt object, by PW2 Dr. Sunil Chumber.After the registration of FIR, dandas were recovered at the instance of the Appellants and on completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed under Sections 308/452/34 IPC.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 1 of 7After examination of prosecution evidence and recording of the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the court acquitted accused Shyam Crl.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 2 of 7 Lal for paucity of evidence, however, convicted the Appellants Babu Lal, Arjun and Rakesh for offences under Section 323/452/34 IPC and awarded sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months on each count and fine of `1,000/- and `4,000/- for offences under Section 323/34 IPC and 452/34 IPC respectively and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 2 of 73. Learned counsel for the Appellants contends that though accused Shyam Lal was also involved in the offence, however, the witnesses have turned hostile qua him and have recognized only the Appellants herein and thus no reliance can be placed on the testimony of such hostile witnesses.It is contended that this is a case of business rivalry and the Complainants have deliberately and malafidely implicated the Appellants.It is contended by the learned counsel for the Appellants that in fact Chhajju Ram has a shop where he sells "sura" and a raid was conducted by the police and Chhajju Ram suspected that police has raided his shop on the information furnished by Babu Lal and thus they have a motive against the Appellant and hence Appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case.The Appellants are not named in the MLC and also the FIR has been registered belatedly at 3:30 p.m. on the 23rd March though the incident is of 22nd March, 1992 at about 10:30 pm.There is no allegation levelled against the Appellant No.3, Rakesh for inflicting any injury on the Complainant party or for Crl.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 3 of 7 committing any overt act.As per the testimony of the eye witnesses, the incident took place in the gali outside the house and thus no case for trespass is made out.Reliance is placed on Shafiquddin and Ors v State 132 (2006) DLT 122, to contend that if there is a doubt about place of occurrence then the accused cannot be held guilty for an offence of house trespass punishable under Section 452 IPC.Raj Kumar has not received any injury, thus falsifying the entire prosecution case that the witnesses PW1 Nanno Devi, PW3 Chhajju Ram and PW5 Sushila Devi intervened to save Raj Kumar.The injury to Babu Lal has not been explained by the prosecution and thus they are entitled to acquittal.It is stated that Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 at the time of alleged offence were aged 60 years, 18 years and 19 years respectively and are now of 78 years, 36 years and 37 years respectively.They have been convicted for imprisonment for six months and fine.The fine has already been paid and they have undergone 5 days' to 8 days' sentence and thus, if no probation is granted to the Appellants, they be released on period already undergone as they have faced the ordeal of trial and appeal for nearly 19 years.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 3 of 74. Learned APP on the other hand states that there is no delay in registration of the FIR.The incident is of 22nd March, 1992 at about 10:30 pm.After the receipt of information, they were taken to the hospital and the FIR was registered at 3:30 Crl.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 4 of 7 a.m. on the 23rd March and not 3:30 pm as stated by the learned counsel for the Appellants and thus, there is no delay.The injuries on the person of PW1, PW3 and PW5 have been duly proved by Dr. Sunil Chumber PW2 and PW8 Dr. Sedebi Angani vide MLCs Ex.PW2/2, PW8/1 and PW2/1 respectively.It is stated that as per the testimony of the witnesses, it is clear that the Appellants broke open the door and pulled out the son of the Complainant and thereafter a fight ensued in the gali.Thus, a case of offence of house trespass punishable under Section 452 IPC is made out.Learned trial court has already dealt with the Appellants leniently in so far as they have been awarded sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months only.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 4 of 7I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.From the testimony of PW1 Smt. Nanno Devi, PW3 Chhajju Ram and PW5 Sushila Devi, who are all injured witnesses, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellants were the aggressors and went to the house of the Complainant/injured.PW3, PW4 and PW5 have stated that all the accused came inside the house.They first pushed the main gate and after breaking open the kundi of the gate, came inside the house.In view of this consistent testimony of the three witnesses and that nothing material has been elicited from them in their Crl.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 5 of 7 cross examination, it cannot be said that no case for offence punishable under Section 452 IPC is made out.The witnesses have further stated that it was Appellant No.1 Babu Lal who hit PW3 Chhajju Ram with danda on his head.PW5 Sushila Devi was given beating by Appellant No.2 Arjun and Nanno Devi was given beating by the fourth man whom they could not identify.However, it is apparent that the three Appellants along with one more person, who could not be identified, with common intention armed with dandas, went to the house of the Complainants/injured and caused injuries to them.Having gone through the statement of the witnesses, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court convicting the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 323/34 IPC and 452/34 IPC.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 5 of 7On the quantum of sentence, it may be noted that incident took place about 19 years ago.The Appellant Nos. 2 Arjun and Appellant No. 3 Rakesh were of 18 and 19 years respectively at the time of commission of offence and Appellant No.1 was of 60 years and is now 78 years.As per learned counsel for the parties, Appellants have not been convicted for any other offence.Thus, keeping in view the age of the Appellants and other mitigating circumstances in this case, as they have undergone the agony of this litigation for about 19 years, sentence awarded by the trial court is modified.The Appellants are granted benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and are directed to furnish a bond in the sum of `10,000/- Crl.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 6 of 7 with one surety each for their good behavior for a period of one year before the learned trial court within four weeks from today.In addition, each Appellant shall pay `5,000/- as cost of the proceedings under Section 5(b) of the Act which shall also be deposited with the trial court, within four weeks.In case of non- compliance, the sentence awarded by the trial court shall remain in force.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 6 of 7The present appeal thus stands disposed of.Copy of this order be sent to the trial court.Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE FEBRUARY 01, 2011 'raj' Crl.Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 7 of 7Appeal No. 242/2001 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 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.