id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
99,006,719 |
In view of Corona Virus Epidemic, appearance of learned counsel for parties has been dispensed with owing to the lockdown and the bail is being decided on the basis of material available on record.2. Perused the contents of first information report, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits and material on recordBail application pertains to case crime No. 433 of 2019 under Sections 3/9/6/10 U.P. Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) 1998 & 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered in Police Station Maharajganj, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.As per the averments of first information report, applicant was caught by invigilator taking examination in place of one Mahesh Kumar.As per bail application, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges.It has been stated that applicant is a friend of one Mahesh and used to live together in a rented accommodation.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['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.
|
9,900,862 |
It is not alleged against the applicant that he had any firearm at the time of incident or he assaulted anyone and therefore, the applicant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 394 or 397 of I.P.C. At the most offence under Section 392 of I.P.C may constitute.However, the applicant is in custody since 3.9.2014 and the trial could not conclude.The co- accused Bachhu Lodhi has been released on bail and the applicant prays for bail on the ground of parity.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)
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
99,037,795 |
The petitioner is in custody for 63 days.The victim is a girl, aged about 16 years.After she was removed to the hospital with burn injuries, her statement was recorded by her attending Doctor, which is at page 15 of the case diary.Going through the same and considering the other materials collected during investigation, the application for bail stands rejected at this stage.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.) 2
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,638,817 |
The charge would reveal who was murdered, so also the FIR.Mr. Subir Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that in the aforesaid sessions case after conclusion of evidence and examination of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code and after hearing the arguments of both sides, it was pending for judgment.In the post-mortem report which was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit, the doctor mentioned Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 69/96 and the doctor in his evidence stated the same fact.If the prosecution prayer is allowed at this stage it would amount to fill in lacuna of prosecution evidence.If the prosecution filed the prayer for examination of doctor and production of records of Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 69/96 during stage of recording evidence matter would have been different but, when the case is posted for judgment at such a belated stage prosecution prayer under Section 311 of the Code cannot be allowed.The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge being bad in law should be set aside.Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, learned Advocate for the State submitted that there is no merit in the revisional application.After framing of charges prosecution examined 21 witnesses including the post-mortem surgeon.After conclusion of evidence and examination of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code, the argument were heard on 8.4.05 and the case was posted for judgment.The post-mortem surgeon either due to oversight or inadvertently mentioned in the post-mortem report in respect of deceased Adhanya Mondal as Dhupguri PS.The said prayer of prosecution cannot be regarded as filing in lacuna of prosecution case.If records of Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 63/96 and Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 69/96 are placed side by side the mistake would be detected.It may be that Dhupguri P.S. Case No. 69/96 is not at all a case of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.Even if, both the cases are under Section 302 of IPC the FIR, chargesheet would reveal that who was the person or persons murdered in the said two cases.The accused persons through their learned advocates have cross-examined the prosecution witnesses relating to murder of Adhanya Mondal and not relating to murder of any other person.Accordingly, the removal of the mistake concerning the post-mortem report in respect of deceased Adhanya Mondal should be the prime consideration before the learned Judge at such a stage.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,886,641 |
The present petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to register a case on the petitioner's complaint dated 04.02.2013, investigate the same and file a final report in accordance with law.Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:Petitioner is the husband of one Narayanee @ Krithika.A case in HMOP No.383 of 2007 is pending between the petitioner and his wife before the Family Court at Chennai.In the said petition, apart from other miscellaneous petitions, I.A.Nos.486, 1649 and 2429 of 2010 and 2035 of 2011are pending; of which, I.A.Nos.486 and 1649 of 2010 have been filed by the wife on behalf of the minor child Keerthana to enhance the maintenance and to pay the educational expenses respectively.I.A.No.2429 of 2010 has been filed by the wife to strike off the defence and I.A.No.2035 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner to revise the order of maintenance.Among which, Ex.P-16 is a document, which is claimed by the said Krithika to be a document issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India.It is the further case of the petitioner that the said document is a non-existent and a forged document.The petitioner was informed by the Ministry of External Affairs by a letter dated 10.06.2012 that it seems to be a fabricated/forged document.The petitioner made a complaint dated 04.02.2013 to the 1st respondent seeking to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings for forgery and perjury against Krithika and her power of attorney Viswanathan for having fabricated a document and producing the same before the Family Court as evidence, and the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent for taking action; but the 2nd respondent did not take any action.Hence, the present petition has been filed to register a case on his complaint.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.It is the case of the petitioner that in a case pending between him and his wife in HMOP No.383 of 2007 before the Family Court, Chennai, his wife marked a document purported to be issued by the Regional Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the same was marked as Ex.It is the case of the petitioner that the said document is a forged one and, hence, the petitioner had sent an application on 16.04.2012 to the Ministry of External Affairs under RTI Act to verify, whether Ex.P-16 is a genuine document or or not? But the Regional Passport Officer sent a reply dated 10.06.2012 that the document seems to be a fabricated/forged document.The questions raised by the petitioner in his letter dated 26.04.2012 with regard to Ex.P-13 and the answers given by the Regional Passport Officer by his letter dated 10.06.2012 are as follows:Questions raised by the petitionerReply given by the DepartmentIf it is issued by you, on what basis you have issued (as my passport comes under regional passport office at Chennai) and also on what basis you have mentioned various contents of the document?Not issued by this office.3.Whether you have issued any other document(s) relating to me to Narayanee ?No. No record is availableAfter getting these answers from the Regional Passport Officer, the petitioner has lodged a complaint with the 1st respondent police to initiate action against his wife and power agent for their involvement in producing a false document before the court, which is punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.The said complaint which was given to the 1st respondent was forwarded to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent, after recording the statement of power agent, has raised a doubt with regard to the jurisdiction of police investigating the offence.Therefore, they have not taken any further action in the matter.On 06.05.2013, the petitioner sent an application under the RTI Act to know about the status of the complaint.But the Inspector of Police, the 2nd respondent sent a reply dated 17.05.2013 to the queries raised by the petitioner.The questions raised by the petitioner and the answers given by the 2nd respondent are as follows:Questions raised by the petitionerReply given by the 2nd respondentWhether FIR has been filed on the said accused - if it is so, in what sections and the present stage of the proceedings on the FIR.No case registered against the petition dated 04.02.2013 preferred by the petitoner Thiru S.Karthick.If the FIR is not filed the specific reason for the same?4.Copy of the statement if received from the accused person ?By giving the above recorded answers, the 2nd respondent expressed doubts about the jurisdiction of the police to investigate the offence since already the document was marked in the Court.Aggrieved over the same, the present petition has been filed.P.C.before the concerned court.In view of the arguments advanced by both sides, the core question that has to be considered is, whether the police authorities can register a case for creating a forged document, which was allegedly marked in the course of evidence before the Court ?A reply to the said application was filed on 27.07.1994; but the said application was not disposed of.The appellants challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge by filing a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Delhi High Court, but the same was dismissed.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,389,050 |
sm Allowed CRM No. 6571 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.08.2016 in connection with Habibpur Police Station Case No.242 of 2013 dated 21.12.2013 under sections 341/326/307/354/34of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Chhotan Mondal & Anr... Petitioners.Amit Roy... for the petitioner Ms.Pushpita Saha ... for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.This is a case, where the petitioners are in custody for about 21 days.There are case and counter-case over the self-same incident.Admittedly, the FIR has been lodged six (6) months after the alleged occurrence.Let the petitioners be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/- each, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local.Accordingly, this application is disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,893,391 |
[Order of the Court made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C.M.P. No.53/Goonda/Salem City 2015 dated 08.06.2015, whereby the son of the petitioner, by name, Saravanan, aged 26 years, son of Dhanasekar, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda".2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.AND G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,638,938 |
Thus each of these accused No. 1 and 6 had to arrange substantial cash for the purchase of jewellery.Accused No. 1 on its part claimed to have borrowed different amounts from 11 persons totalling rupees 8.15 lacs.They were all from Bombay and are imp leaded as other accused in the complaint filed in the trial court.The amounts so obtained from those persons were entered in the account books of accused No. 1 as cash credits obtained from them.During the course of assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 (the previous year of which these cash credits were), the Income-tax Officer required accused No. 1 to substantiate that those cash credits were genuine loans obtained from the said third parties.(10) The allegations against M/s. Lalji & Co. accused No.6 and its partners, who are all the petitioners before this court, are contained in para 5 of the complaint.The same is to the following effect: "M/s. Lalji & Co. of Bombay no partners accused No. 7 to 10 had also claimed to have raised loans in respect of the amount of Rs. 13,25,000.00 and some of the parties from whom the loans were raised were common with accused No. 1 as a matter of fact, these loans were bogus and were merely 'Hawala unreiwa'.On its basis summons were issued to all the respondents for appearance and facing trial.M/s. Lalji & Co. and its three partners who are imp leaded as respondents No. 6 to 8 in that complaint, feeling aggrieved against the service of those summons on them have now moved this petition for setting aside and/or quashing the issue of process to them by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.(3) Notice to show cause why this petition be not adnutted, was issued to the respondents including the complainant Income- tax Officer.Some of them have been served.The petition is contested and opposed by the complainant Income-tax Officer.(4) After hearing the present petitioners and the said complaint, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for admission.The petition is accordingly admitted.(5) Since arguments have been heard on the merits of this petition.committed an offence under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act. The persons who had purported to lend their names in the creation of those fictitious cash credit entries in the account books of accused No. 1 are alleged to have abetted and induced accused No. 1 and its partners in the making and delivering of the said accounts statements and declarations.The trial has still to proceed against them.Reference has also been made to earlier dealings between accused No. 1 and 6 and passing, off some money or adjustment of the amounts in the course of those transactions.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,389,429 |
Bail Application Nos. 908/2014 & 1276/2014 are two bail applications moved by Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj and Shri Surender Bhardwaj respectively.In addition, Crl.M.C. 3473/2014 has been moved by Shri Ranveer Singh, who is the accused in FIR No. 154.2014 that was registered at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar on 19.03.2014 under Section 354 IPC at the instance of Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj.At the same time, Crl.M.C. No. 3469/2014 had been instituted by Smt. Poonam Bhardwaj and her husband, Shri Surender Bhardwaj, who are the accused in FIR No. 155/2014 registered at the instance of Shri Ranveer Singh under Sections 186/332/34/353 IPC on 19.03.2014 at Police Station Baba Hari Das Nagar.In substance, all the aforesaid parties concerned are stated to have settled the matter amicably amongst themselves and now they jointly pray for the said FIR Nos. 154/2014 and 155/2014, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed.Bail Appln.Nos. 1276 & 908/2014 Crl.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 2 of 8A photocopy of the said settlement deed has also been annexed to this petition.All the parties are also present in person.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 2 of 8The aforesaid Bail Application Nos. 908/2014 and 1276/2014 were also taken up on 17.07.2014 where also the statements of all counsel including counsel for the complainant, as well as the State, to the effect that both the matters have been settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and that the complainants in both the FIRs do not desire to press the matter any further or to continue with the prosecution, have been recorded.Today, counsel for the respondents in Crl.M.C. 3473/2014 and 3469/2014, enter appearance and accept notice.Counsel for all the parties involved are present today and have reiterated the position that the complainants in these matters have settled the matter to their satisfaction, and are no longer interested in pursuing the matter any further.When Bail Appln.Nos. 1276 & 908/2014 Crl.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 7 of 8 there is peace in State, there will be peace in country.....M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 7 of 8FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."I am also of the view that the matters deserve to be given a quietus since the parties have settled their disputes amicably and both the complainants are now not interested in supporting the prosecution, thereby diminishing the chances of prosecution succeeding in the matter.Under the circumstances, both the petitions, being Crl.All the matters stand disposed off accordingly.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge AUGUST 19, 2014 rd Bail Appln.Nos. 1276 & 908/2014 Crl.M.C. Nos. 3469 & 3473/2014 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,901,242 |
sdas rejected C.R.M. 4732 of 2018 In Re.: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.07.2018 in connection with Bizpur Police Station Case No. 256 of 2018 dated 02.05.2018 under Sections 498A/354C/376D/307/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code with adding Sections 309/109 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Mainak Ghosh ..... petitioner Mr. Koustav Bagchi ..... for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur, learned A.P.P., Mr. Manoranjan Mahata .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the co-accused persons are on bail and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,902,718 |
Record of the court below has been received.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.4088/2020, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.The appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 389(1) of the Cr.Appellants stand convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(g) of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for for 1 years, 7 years and 10 years respectively with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 2000 respectively with default stipulation Prosecution story in short is that on 15.01.2007, prosecutrix aged about 16 years was going, on the way co-accused Babu Patel stopped her, thereafter co-accused persons namely Awadhesh Patel, Mohan Lal, Raju Vishwakarma and Chote Patel reached there, thereafter co-accused Babu Patel tied her mouth from towel and they took her in the house of appellants at village Sadvakol.All the co-accused persons and present appellants/accused committed intercourse with her.After about 8 days, co- accused Jagprasad and Pappu took her at Satna.The prosecutrix was taken to a lawyer in Satna and signed her on the paper.Thereafter co-accused- Mohan told her that her marriage has been solemnized with co-accused Raju.The trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in perspective way.The learned trial Court has failed to see the statement of prosecutrix.In evidence of prosecutrix is several infirmity and her testimony was corroborated by independent witness.Prosecutrix remained silent for near about 14 days and thereafter only made allegation when police party reached.The Prosecutrix visited several places but she did not raise any alarm this conduct shows that no such incident had taken placed with her.Appellant/accused name are not mentioned in the written report vide Ex. P-1 which is submitted by her father.Prosecutrix (PW-1) admitted this fact that when other co-accused abducted her at that time present appellants/accused were not present there.It is alleged by the prosecutrix that other co-accused took her at the residence of appellants/accused and prosecutrix was kept in the house of appellants/accused.Therefore, no case is made out under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC against the appellants.It is admitted fact that earlier judgment passed on 20.02.2009 in the regards of co-accused Mohan Lal, Awadhesh Patel, Raju Vishwakarma and Chhote @ Ramesh.At that time learned trial Court found that rape was not committed with prosecutrix.So all the co-accused persons were acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 344, 376(2)(g), 506-II of IPC and also Section 3(2)(5) of Prevention of Atrocity Act. They convicted only under Section 366-A read with Section 34 and co-accused Babu Lal was acquitted from all the charges but learned trial Court subsequent stage, ignoring this fact and convicted and sentenced appellants/accused under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC whereas other co-accused 3 CRA-2046-2020 acquitted under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC.The story of rape in regards of appellants/accused is not reliable there is material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses.The evidence of prosecutrix is highly improvable.Appeal will take time to conclude due to COVID- 19 further proceeding of trial Court is withheld.There are fair chance to succeed in the appeal.Hence, prayer is made for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application and submits that the prosecution has proved is case beyond the reasonable doubt.The evidence of prosecutirix is reliable.There he prays for dismissal this application.The execution of custodial sentence awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Appellant No.1- Rajwa @ Rajaram and appellant No. 2-Ramesh be released from custody subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellants 4 CRA-2046-2020 shall appear and mark their presence before trial Court on 28.08.2020 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE L.R.Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2020.06.29 17:06:50 +05'30'
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,907,093 |
Heard finally.This is the second application filed by applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 866/2011 registered at police station Kotwali, District Sehore for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that previously applicant was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 9/04/2014 passed in M.Cr.It is further submitted that at that time only allegation was made for the offence u/s 363, 366 of IPC but now after recording the statement of prosecutrix u/s 161 and 164 of Cr.She went with the applicant on her free will and lived with him for long time, in these circumstances, there is no prima facie case u/s 376 of IPC against the applicant.It is submitted that once applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail in particular crime number then on addition of other charges he should not be arrested.Under such circumstances, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.(G.S. Solanki) Judge navin
|
['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.
|
77,805,928 |
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedent, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,806,466 |
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, Arokiya Raj, aged 28 years, son of Iruthaya Raj, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in BDFGISSV No.1356/2014 dated 23.09.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.K.Madhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications filed and bail order passed in similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.Per contra, Mr.C.Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications and bail order were not supplied to the detenu.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.It is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in a similar case registered at B2 Esplanade Police Station Cr.No.981/2013 under sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused by the order of the High Court, Chennai in Crl.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,807,199 |
Item No. 88Leave to amend the cause title of the petition.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Murutia Police Station Case No. 167 of 2013 dated 06.08.2013 under sections 448/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,812,673 |
The application is hereby allowed.The applicant LEELABAI W/O. CHHAGAN BAIRAGI in connection with Crime No.81 of 2018 (Sessions Case No.19 of 2019) registered with Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 354-A,::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 02:35:57 ::: 6 15-BA.857-20.odt 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC be released on temporary bail for a period of 45 days from the date of this order on furnishing P.B. of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount on the following condition :-::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 02:35:57 :::a] The applicant shall surrender herself after the expairy of the said period of 45 days before the Trial Court and on her surrender, the Trial Court may remand the applicant in jail in accordance with law.The application is accordingly disposed off.(V. K. JADHAV, J.) ...::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2020 02:35:57 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,815,045 |
It is also alleged that the petitioner has obtained pecuniaryhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 consideration to the tune of Rs.41,700/- from A2 and A3 in the form of air ticket for his visit to Singapore along with his wife.The allegation against him is to the extent that he accepted the CANCIGO Units though they stood in the name of the Andhra Bank and Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited.These CANCIGO Units were worth Rs.33 crores and they were accepted with the proper authorization by the higher authorities in the CANFINA.Accordingly, he prayed for allowing this petition.Thus, A-1 to A-3 committed offences punishable u/s.120-B r/w 420 IPC, 477-A IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act and substantive offences thereof.That A-1 Shri V.Gurumoorthi, retired from the MMTC Ltd., Chennai, on 30th November, 2010 and hence, sanction for prosecution is not required for him.”9.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would further submit that the petitioner has obtained pecuniary consideration to the tune of Rs.41,700/- from A2 and A3 in the form of air ticket for his visit to Singapore along with his wife.Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.14.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record.Aggrieved by the same, the appellant therein filed complaint as against the Police officer therein.It is for the Trial Court to decide the matter independently, based on the records and in accordance with law and without being influenced by any of the observations made in thishttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 order.The petitioner is granted liberty to raise all the grounds at the time of trial.26.This criminal original petition is accordingly dismissed.1.The Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai.M.DHANDAPANI,J.http://www.judis.nic.in 22 pri Crl.O.P.No.24472 of 2018 And Crl.M.P.No.13926 of 2018
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
778,169 |
According to the prosecution story, on 26-9-1995 at about 10-11 a.m. in the morning at village Bhelakala under Thana Bijoli District Gwalior one Tularam was construcing platform (Chabutara).At that time Gaya Prasad s/o Maniram came and stopped him and said that the land on which he is constructing platform belongs to him.On this, there was a quarrel between Gaya Prasad and Tularam.Layakram came on spot and tried to pacify the matter.After one hour Maniram came back from forest and started abusing.When he was abusing Ratiram came on spot carrying Lathi in his hand.He had also started abusing.Ladobai came in between.Ratiram inflicted two Lathi blows behind the neck of Ladobai and two Lathi blows on the back and she sustained injuries.Ratiram pushed Ladobai and she fell down.JUDGMENT Abhay Gohil, J.Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior vide judgment dated 21-9-1999 acquitted the three accused persons and convicted appellant Ratirarn for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine further one year rigorous imprisonment.Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.Layakram and Keshav both were present at the place of occurrence, who had seen the incident.Ladobai along with Layakram went to police station Bijori where she lodged FIR.On the basis of her report crime was registered under Sections 307, 341, 294 and 323/34 of IPC.In the incident Narayanibai also received injuries.She was also referred for medical examination and during treatment Ladobai died.Thereafter, Sections 302 of IPC was added in the crime.Matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed.During trial appellant abjured his guilt and his defence was that due to family dispute between the parties he has been falsely implicated and he is quite innocent.Witness Dr. Virendra Kumar (D.W. 1) was examined in defence.The trial Court after considering the evidence on record acquitted three accused persons and convicted the appellant Ratiram against which he has preferred this appeal.We have heard Shri A. K. Barua, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and Shri M.P.S. Bhadoriya, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State and perused the evidence and findings on record.Shri Barua submitted that it is not a case under Section 302 of IPC as there is no evidence on record to show that the case is made out within the purview of Section 300, thirdly IPC and at the most appellant can be convicted under Section 304, Part II of IPC.As the appellant has suffered jail sentence of more than seven years, therefore, his prayer was that the offence be converted and the appellant be released on undergone sentence.On the contrary Shri M.P.S. Bhadoriya supported the judgment and submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Layakram (P.W. 1) Initially supported the prosecution story and he has stated that it was Ratiram who inflicted Lathi blows to Ladobai.Layakram was also nephew of Maniram and Ladobai was mother of Talaiam.Pannalal who is father of Layakram is brother of Maniram and at that time they were residing in the same house.Initially the evidence of this witness was recorded on 28-11-1997 and he was cross-examined but later on he was again summoned for cross-examination on 10-11-1998 and at the time in cross-examination of para 20 he admitted that we belong to the same family and their relations before the incident were very cordial and the incident took place all of a sudden.Initially, on account of construction of platform, the scuffle took place between Bhuribai and Ladobai and in that scuffle Ladobai fell down on the stones and received injuries.He also denied that police has recorded the FIR.It is submitted that when Ladobai was being taken to hospital, police came in between and obtained the thumb impression of Ladobai whereas Ladobai has not stated anything to police.Tularam (P.W. 2), who is also nephew of Maniram has not supported the prosecution and was declared hostile.He took the defence that there was some scuffle between Bhuribai and Ladobai and in that scuffle Ladobai received injury in the head and she became unconscious and subsequently died.Keshav (P.W. 3) has also deposed in the same way and has not supported the prosecution and was declared hostile.Narayanibai (P.W. 4) and Basanti (P.W. 5) have also not supported the prosecution and they were also declared hostile.J. N. Soni (P.W. 6) had performed the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and according to the evidence of doctor four injuries were found on the body of the deceased:(i) Abrasion on left side of elbow in size 5 X 2 cm.(ii) Rail pattern contusion on right side of the neck in size 8x3.5 cm.(iii) Rail pattern contusion situated over right scapula in size 7 x 2.5 cm.(iv) Rail patern contusion situated 3 cm below injury number (iii) obliquely vertical intero laterally in size 15 x 2.5 cm to right side flank lower chest.As per J. N. Soni the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of abdominal injury.Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and nature of death was homicidal and duration of death was within 6 hrs.to 24 hrs.since post-mortem examination.Doctor has admitted that the weapon was not referred to him for examination.He has admitted in the cross-examination that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased and there was no sign about the oozing of the blood.The liver of the deceased was ruptured and blood was collected inside the stomach.Naryanibai injured witness was also examined by Dr. P.C. Mittal (P. W. 9) but Narayanibai has not supported the prosecution case and she was declared hostile.Dr. Virendra (D.W. 1) was examined in defence and his version was that initially he examined Ladobai and she had only received one abrasion.She was complaining pain in the shoulder of right hand and in the waist and her general condition was poor.Me had also medically examined Bhuribai who had also received three injuries.He had also examined Maniram who had also received three injuries.From this, it is clear that there was scuffle or free fight between the parties but it is also clear that they are all the members of the same family and the dispute suddenly took place between them on account of construction of some platform and all accused persons were bare handed and they were not having any lethal weapons in their hands.Considering the totality of the evidence on record, we found that in the absence of medical evidence on record to the effect that the injuries caused individually or collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature the case will not fall under Section 300, thirdly IPC.Though, the witnesses have not supported the prosecution evidence but the dying declaration and FIR lodged itself are available on record and the learned Counsel for the appellant has also not challenged that the incident had not taken place or the deceased had not received injuries in that incident.They were not carrying lethal weapons.They are the family members and dispute took place only on the construction of platform.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,819,188 |
This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment passed inC.A.No.60 of 2007, dated 14.05.2008 on the file of the Additional SessionsJudge (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai, confirming the judgment passed inC.C.No.123 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate No.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.1998 at about 9 am, onMadurai-Dindigul Main Road near Vadipatti Palani Andavar Kovil bus stop,while the VVR bus TN-58-B-2881 proceeding from east to west, the accused drove the bus TN-59-N-0645 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against VVR bus and as a result of which, four passengers died on the spot and twopassengers subsequently died at the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai andalso caused grievous and simple injuries to the passengers.The Inspector ofPolice attached to Vadipatti Police Station filed a final report underSections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC against the accused examining the witnesses.3.In the trial court, 8 witnesses were examined and 33 Exhibits weremarked.When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same.The trial court convicted the revisionpetitioner/sole accused and sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorousimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, in default to undergo one monthsimple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC; to suffer twoyears rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- as fine for each count, in defaultto undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section304(A) (6 counts) IPC; to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay afine of Rs.400/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for theoffence under Section 338 IPC and to suffer 4 months rigorous imprisonmentand to pay a fine of Rs.200/- for each count for the offence under Section337 IPC (16 counts), in default to undergo one month of simple imprisonment.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, therevision petitioner/sole accused filed an appeal in C.A.No.60 of 2007, whichwas heard by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai.The first appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentencepassed by the trial court.Hence, this criminal revision.By Inspector of Police, Pollachi West Police Station);11.(2016)4 MLJ (Crl)308 (Manjunatha Reddy vs. State, represented by theInspector of Police, Hudco Police Station, Krishnagiri District); and 12.2017 CRI.L.J.2614 (Mottammal Shaji alias Kakka Shaji Kunhikannan & others vs. State of Kerala.5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts belowappreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of theeye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offences, convicted therevision petitioner for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and passedproper sentence, which do not require any interference by this court and theaccused is not entitled for acquittal and prays that the criminal revisionhas to be dismissed.6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.7.In this case, PW1 is the complainant and he gave Ex.P1 complaint.PW1 in his complaint stated that on 05.10.98 at about 9.00 am, near VadipattyPalani Andavar Kovil, Vadipatty to Dindigul Main Road, the TransportCorporation Bus TN-59-N-0645 was proceeding from west to east towards Vadipatti and the Private bus VVR TN-58-B-2881 was proceeding from east to west towards Dindigul.When the driver of the Transport Corporation busattempted to over take an auto-rickshaw, he swerved the bus to the rightside extreme of the road, as a result of which, there was a head oncollision between the two buses, in which 6 passengers died travelled in theprivate bus and 16 passengers got injured travelled in both buses.PW1 stated in his cross examinationthat:-?ehd; ghh;j;J bfhz;oUf;Fk;nghJ lkhh; vd;W rj;jk; nfl;lJ. rk;gtj;jpd;nghJ ngUe;jpd; lah; btoj;J rk;gtk; Vw;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpay;y.12.PW2 is one of the passengers, who was travelling in the offendingvehicle.He deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle drove hisvehicle in a high speed and in order to overtake the auto, he dashed againstthe private bus.13.PW3 is the Conductor of the offending vehicle.PW3 deposed that thedriver of the offending vehicle attempted to overtake an auto, at that time,a private bus came in the opposite direction in a high speed and the privatebus dashed against the Government Bus.From the evidence of PW3, it reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle attempted to overtake the auto.14.PW4 and PW5 are the eye witnesses.Usuallybefore attempting to overtake a vehicle, the driver has to follow the trafficrules carefully.In this case, if at all, the accused followed the trafficrules carefully, the accident would not happen.The evidence of PW1 is thesolitary witness and it is only enough.Hence, it is held that due to therash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident took place and somepersons died and some persons sustained injuries.16.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused has mainlyargued that in this case, the Doctor, who gave treatment to the injured,Motor Vehicle Inspector and the photographer, who took the photographs werenot examined and they are the material witnesses and the non-examination ofmaterial witnesses is fatal to the prosecution.17.In this case, the Motor Vehicle Inspector report, postmortem reportof the deceased and Accident Register copies of the injuries were markedthrough the Investigation Officer, but at the time of marking the documents,the learned counsel for the accused has not raised any objection.Further, onperusal of the Motor Vehicle Inspection report, it is seen that the accidentwas not happened due to mechanical defects.Further, the photographs weretaken only after the occurrence.Hence, the non-examination of the Doctors,who gave treatment to the injured, Motor Vehicle Inspector and thephotographer will not affect the case.18.In this case, PW1 to PW5 have categorically stated that due to theaccident only, some persons died and some persons sustained injuries.Thealleged accident is not denied on the side of the accused.PW1 categoricallystated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving ofthe offending vehicle.Further, it is not denied on the side of the accusedthat the accused is not the driver of the offending vehicle at the time ofthe occurrence.19.On careful perusal of the evidence and documents available onrecord, this court is of the considered opinion that the accident occurredonly due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused.20.The trial court, on appreciation of evidence and the first appellatecourt on re-appreciation of evidence, rendered a concurrent finding assigningreasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by the said Courts that allthe offences with which the revision petitioner stood charged were provedbeyond reasonable doubt.21.This court, after going through the records, is of the consideredview that the Courts below have not committed any mistake or error inrendering a finding hold the revision petitioner/accused guilty of all theoffences with which he stood charged.However, considering the fact that therevision petitioner/accused is a poor-man and he is the breadwinner of thefamily, this court finds that the conviction and sentence imposed on therevision petitioner/accused require modification.22.In the result, this criminal revision is partly allowed.Theconviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is modified and heis directed to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, in default to undergo one month ofsimple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC; to pay a fine ofRs.200/- each, in default to undergo one month of simple imprisonment (eachcount) under Section 337 IPC (16 counts); to pay a fine of Rs.400/-, indefault to undergo one month of simple imprisonment for the offence underSection 338 IPC.The conviction and sentenced imposed on the revisionpetitioner under Section 304(A) IPC is also modified and he is directed tosuffer 6 months RI (for each count) for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC(6 counts) and the fine imposed by the trial court under Section 304(A) IPC(6 counts) is confirmed.2.The Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.I, Thanjavur.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,733,692 |
2. Facts of the case are that complainant-Rajan Mukund Patil is the resident of Chinchani, Bhandar Ali, Taluka Dahanu, District Palghar, Maharashtra.He is a practising Advocate at Dahanu Court.According to the prosecution, on 7th June 2003, complainant had gone to Dahanu Court.In the evening, he went to Vangaon by train and therefrom he was to go to his residence at Chinchani.For that purpose, he went to Dahanu Railway Station at about 6.00 p.m. and boarded Firozpur Janata Train.p.m. On platform No.2, he saw Deepa Gajanan Patil who was going to Mumbai.The complainant was knowing her.He, therefore, asked her as to where she was going.She told the complainant that she had come to receive her father.The accused also alleged that the complainant was flirting with ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 3 his wife.So saying, the accused assaulted the complainant with knife in his stomach, on right shoulder, below left armpit and on back-side.The complainant received bleeding injuries.He immediately went to Station Master's cabin.In the meanwhile, his sister Charushila and one Hitendra came there and took the complainant to the Vangaon Government Hospital.The State has preferred this Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th January 2007 passed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 2 by the IIIrd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, District, Thane, acquitting the Respondent of charge of offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::Meanwhile, accused Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar-respondent herein alighted from Virar-Surat shuttle.The accused came near the complainant and asked him why he was standing there and started abusing him.Later on, police went to the hospital and recorded statement of the complainant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::On the basis of the statement, initially C.R. No. 0/2003 was registered in Vangaon Police Station.The said complaint was then forwarded to Palghar Railway Police Station where C.R. No. I-9 of 2003 was registered at 23.00 hours vide Station Diary No.42 of 2003 for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).After usual investigation and recording of statement of witnesses, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railway, Virar.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 4Since the offence under Section 307 IPC was exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) by an order dated 27th November 2003 committed the case to Sessions Court, Palghar for trial.Necessary charge for offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 of the IPC was framed against the accused at Exh. 14 who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to establish the case against the accused, examined 15 witnesses.It mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1-Rajan (complainant) and PW2-Charushila (real sister of complainant).Deposition of PW12-Dr.D'Souza was recorded to prove injuries sustained by the complainant.Though pancha witnesses did not support prosecution case, the panchanama of spot and seizure of clothes were proved by the Investigating Officer-Dattatray Gaikwad (PW13).After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein he admitted his presence on the Railway Platform on the date of occurrence.He, however, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 5 denied to have committed any offence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 16th January 2007 acquitted the accused for the offences with which he was charged.The State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, filed an application, being Criminal Application No. 1390 of 2007 for leave to appeal in this Court.A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12th June 2007 rejected the application observing that the judgment of the trial Court could not be said to be perverse and no interference was called for.The said order reads as under :-"Heard the learned APP.The accused has been acquitted by the trial Court for offence under section 307 r/w 504 of the IPC for assaulting the advocate with a knife causing four injuries.Application rejected."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::This is how the present Appeal comes up for hearing before this Court.Keeping in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court, we had granted Leave to Appeal and the Appeal was admitted for hearing.The learned Counsel appearing for the State has referred to the evidence on record and has contended that the presence of the accused at the site of offence has been admitted by the accused and the learned trial Court has fallen in error of law as well as in appreciation of the evidence in acquitting the accused.To substantiate this argument, the learned Counsel has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 7 referred to the evidence of the Doctor, Melroy D'Souza (PW12), Railway Station Superintendent, Kumar Sharma (PW9) and the Investigating Officer, Dattatray Gaikwad (PW13).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::This came to be dismissed vide order dated 18th July, 2007 by the learned Single Judge.This order has attained finality.Of course, this by itself is not sufficient ground to acquit the accused, but it is a relevant piece of fact which needs to be kept in mind by the Court while dealing with the present Appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::P.W. 9 Nareshkumar Rupdev Sharma deposed that on 07.06.2003, he was on duty as Station Superintendent at Vangaon Railway Station since 2.00 p.m. to 10 p.m. He further deposed that at about 6.15 p.m you accused went running in his cabin and told him that one person is flirting with your wife and that person had also assaulted you.What you have to say ?::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 12 Whereas Dr.Melroy D'souza (PW12) has noticed following injuries on the person of the complainant :-"1) C.L.W. right shoulder 3 x 1 x 1 cm.2) C.L.W. on 1 x 3 x 1 x 6 cms.In opigastric (upper part of abdomen) caused by sharp object grievous injury.3) ig C.L.W. 1 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.Left axmilla i.e. arm-pit caused by sharp object, injury is simple.4) C.L.W. 5 x 1 x 1 cm.Left flank (left side of abdomen) caused by sharp object grievous.From the evidence aforementioned, it is clear that both the Complainant and the Accused were present on the railway platform.It is also clear that the scuffle took place between the parties and background to the scuffle was that the complainant advocate had been teasing and flirting with the wife of the accused even at the railway platform.According to the accused, injuries on his body as recorded in the medical evidence were inflicted by the Complainant and after suffering bleeding injuries, he had left the railway platform and gone to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 13 the room of the Station Superintendent.The Station Superintendent was examined as PW 9 who in his statement Exhibit-28 stated that one man had come to him running and informed him that another man was teasing his wife and was trying to outrage her modesty and when he went to save his wife, the said man also had beaten him and after saying this, the man went away.The Station Superintendent told him that he will inform the Police and ask the Police to come.After some time, another man came to this witness i.e. PW::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::He had bleeding injuries and the injured complainant told him that he should ring up to his house and he gave him the phone number.Two to three ladies came to him (PW-9) and one of them was the sister of the injured man.Thereafter, people took the injured to the hospital.This witness was not subjected to any cross-examination by any party and in his re-examination he identified the accused as the person who had come to him first.Nareshkumar (PW 9) was the first independent official person at the railway station to whom the complainant and even his sister had met after the incident.There is no explanation from the prosecution as to why the complainant or his sister did not intimate Nareshkumar (PW 9) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 14 that the accused was the person who had caused injuries on the person of the complainant.It is important to note that as per the prosecution case complainant was well acquainted with accused since prior to the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::The sister of the Complainant was examined as PW 2 and she has stated that at around 6.30 p.m. after alighting at the Vangaon Railway Station, she was going to the rickshaw stand and one person named Jitendra told her that her brother was at the Station Master's cabin and he was injured.So she came there and took her brother to the hospital.PW 2 does not state that she was even told by Jitendra that the accused had caused injuries to her brother.Gajanan Divekar (PW-3) is another important witness of the prosecution who is a Porter at Vangaon Railway Station and was there on duty at the relevant date and time.According to PW 3, there was a scuffle between the woman and the advocate Shri Rajan Patil and according to him nothing else happened in his presence.He also denied the suggestion that the advocate was assaulted by the accused in his presence.This ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 15 witness was thereupon declared hostile and cross-examined by the public prosecutor.He completely denied the statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Investigating Officer.In his cross-examination by the accused, he stated that one woman was lying down and advocate was sitting on her person and passengers were trying to rescue the said woman.As the advocate was not leaving the woman, the passengers had beaten the advocate.The cumulative effect of the statement of these witnesses definitely creates uncertainty and doubts in the story of the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::There is no explanation on behalf of the prosecution as to why a single witness much less an eye witness was not produced while admittedly the incident occurred at a platform which was busy with the passengers and where even construction work was going on.It is obligatory on the part of the prosecution, when it claims conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, to explain the missing links which, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed.It was obligatory upon the prosecution to prove that the injuries on the person of the complainant were actually caused by the accused and this fact has to be established beyond any reasonable doubt.According to PW 9, the first person who ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 16 approached him was the accused and thereafter came the injured complainant.If the accused was assaulting party, as a normal behaviour, he would have been caught hold of by the crowd and handed over to the authorities but nothing of this kind happened which is strange.On the contrary, the accused first complained to the Station Superintendent about the incident.Another piece of evidence and the occurrence which creates a doubt in the mind of the Court is that if the Complainant had suffered such serious injuries and was profusely bleeding, how could nobody carry him to cabin of the Station Master and in that serious condition how he could climb the staircases, cross the platform and then walk to the office of the Station Master.All this is further supported by the fact that neither the Complainant nor any of the prosecution witnesses either informed PW 9 or even the sister of the Complainant that the injuries were caused by any weapon or otherwise by the accused.It is too difficult for the Court to convict a person on the basis of mere inferences.The burden of proof to establish its case is strictly upon the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 17 prosecution and for failure of prosecution, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has summed up its conclusions as follows:-After taking into consideration the over all evidence of the prosecution and considering the defence of the accused, I am of the opinion that the defence counsel successfully established the enmity between the complainant and the accused and on the day of incident i.e. on 7.6.2003 around of 6.15 p.m. there was scuffle between the complainant and the accused on count of wife of accused.However the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused stabbed him by means of knife on his stomach as well as shoulder and below arm-pit etc.It is worthy to note here that though the spot is a crowded place and there were so many commuters as well as railway staff members and other vendors, the prosecution could not examine a single witness who stated on oath that he had seen the accused while stabbing the complainant by means of knife.On the other hand the testimony of PW-3 Gajanan Divekar reveals that there was scuffle between one woman and Advocate Rajan Patil which supports the defence case.Similarly the testimony of PW-9 Nareshkumar Sharma, the Station Master of Vangaon Railway Station supports the defence case.It came in his version that on 7.6.2003 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 18 around 6.15 p.m. one man came running to his cabin and said man told him that one man was teasing his wife and outraging her modesty and when he went to save his wife, the said man also bet him by means of briefcase.So also it reveals from the testimony of PW-11 Dr. Padmaja Doijode who examined accused Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar that on 8.6.2003 she had examined one Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar and she found three injuries as mentioned in Exh.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::Perusal of Exh.32 reveals that Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar was examined on 8.6.2003 around 1.00 a.m. by Medical Officer Rural Hospital, Palghar and the said Medical Officer observed three abrasion injuries on left shoulder and on right upper limb.It is further mentioned in the said injury certificate Exh.32 that the said injuries were within 24 hours and they were caused by hard and blunt object.The State of Maharashtra, in Criminal Appeal No.968 of 2006 decided on 12th February, 2009, observed as under: -It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution should establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and should prove the chain of events which undoubtedly leads towards only one ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 19 conclusion that is the guilt of the accused.While the Court has to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution and defence, if any, the circumstances alleged by the prosecution should be fully established.The presumption that accused is not guilty unless proved and the burden of proof to establish guilt of accused is on the prosecution, are principles of law which have remained unchanged in the criminal jurisprudence since times immemorable.( Shivaji Sahebrao Baobade & Anr.V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622)".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::As already noticed, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 ::: This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order 21 the accused truthfully admitted in an answer to Question No.18 that he was present at the time of occurrence and there was a scuffle where he got injured.He had referred to the misbehavior of the complainant with his wife on that occasion and even earlier.The prosecution has failed to render any explanation as to why the accused suffered injuries.It is also noteworthy that if the accused was carrying a weapon and had stabbed the Complainant where will be the occasion for him to suffer injuries noticed by PW-11, Dr. Padmaja Doijode.According to PW 3- Gajanan, as stated in his cross-examination, the Complainant was beaten by the public while people were trying to rescue the woman from clutches of complainant.The statement made by the Accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure thus is truthful description of the incident and partially is even supported by the case of the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::uday/judgment09/criapp633-09 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:45:46 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,738,284 |
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-9866-2017 (THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs SANJAY) Indore, Dated : 14-02-2018 Shri Vivek Patwa, learned Public Prosecutor for applicant/State.This is an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur, district Dhar by which the sh learned trial Court acquitted the non-applicant for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(m), 506-II of IPC.e ad As per the prosecution case, on 04.02.2015 when the prosecutrix was going alongwith her relatives Kesarbai, Jyoti and Nansingh, at Pr that relevant point of time, non-applicant came there and forcibly took a her and committed rape on her.hy Nansingh (PW-8) in his statement has stated that when she was ad taken by the non-applicant, he came to save her, but as non-applicant started pelting stones on him, therefore, he ran away from the place of M occurrence.It is not in dispute that at the time of occurrence, the of prosecutrix was major above 18 years of age.She in her examination- in-chief and cross examination has very categorically stated that the rt non-applicant was known to her and was having good relations with ou him, but she denied that she gave consent for physical relationship C with the non-applicant.Nansingh (PW-8) in his statement in para 5 of the cross examination very categorically stated that she never narrated h ig this fact to the family members that non-applicant forcibly took her.H As per record, Nansingh (PW-8) has not sustained any injury.He also admitted that the prosecutrix in her cross examination also admitted that when non-applicant was throwing stones on Nansingh, she was alone, but she never tried to run away from the place of occurrence.
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,773,889 |
M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 42 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 42Since all these thirteen petitions have arisen out of different charge sheets in respect of different first information reports registered pursuant to the complaints of investors, who have invested in the Housing Projects launched by M/s. A.J.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (herein after referred to as accused company) and involves identical question of law, they are being disposed of by this common order.3. Crl.M.C. 2877/2014 pertains to FIR No. 88/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2932/2014 pertains to FIR No. 25/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2938/2014 pertains to FIR No. 110/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 2977/2014 pertains to FIR No. 87/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2979/2014 pertains to FIR No. 86/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 2995/2014 pertains to FIR No. 24/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3002/2014 pertains to FIR No. 89/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3006/2014 pertains to FIR No. 75/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3015/2014 pertains to FIR No. 03/2010 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 3023/2014 pertains to FIR No. 50/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W, Crl.M.C. 3025/2014 pertains to FIR No. 109/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, Crl.M.C. 3031/2014 pertains to FIR No. 169/2009 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg and Crl.M.C. 3037/2014 pertains to FIR No. 74/2010 registered at P.S. E.O.W.The concise facts of the case as borne out from the charge-sheet are that a number of investors filed their complaints against accused Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 42 company which were clubbed under different First Information Reports.All the complainants came up with identical allegations of inducements, misrepresentations etc. by the Directors of the accused company.The accused company gave an advertisement on 18.03.2006 in the newspaper The Hindustan Times to induce the general public for investment in their project at Gannaur, Sonepat.However, the accused company and its Directors were found to be engaged in cheating innocent customers by way of misrepresentation of facts through their various advertisements in print as well as electronic media.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 42As per the charge sheets Ms. Madhu Singh (Managing Director of accused company) along with others induced innocent investors for investment in aforementioned residential project of the accused company, in defiance of rules and regulations embedded in their agreement.Further, the company and its Directors neither obtained necessary permissions / land use change/ approved building plans, nor acquired the project land for the proposed project, but collected investments from a large number of investors, running into hundreds of crores.Investigating agency claimed that accused company and its Directors amassed funds running in several crores of rupees by cheating innocent customers with misrepresentation of facts while advertising the project of Gannuar, District Sonepat, Haryana as a township of 300 acres with 60% of the land dedicated to greenery, whereas, till the charge sheet was filed, the accused company had executed sale deeds in respect of 83 acres of land only and that too without making full payments to the land Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 42 owners.Further, the accused company started collecting funds from the innocent investors for its aforesaid township, even when the accused company had only 2 acres of land in their possession.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 42During investigation, it was observed that the accused company and its Directors misused the funds between the years 2005-2008, ranging to hundreds of crores of rupees which have been collected from a large number of investors for various residential projects of the company and utilization of which could not be proved, thus investigating agency concluded that the same have been used for the lavish living of the Directors of the accused company.Investigation revealed that the accused company has a Board of Directors, comprising of three Directors namely Ms. Madhu Singh (CMD), Ms. Kailash Rani (mother of accused Madhu Singh) & Ms. Geeta Singh (Sister-in-Law of Madhu Singh).Initially Economic Offences Wing registered a case F.I.R. No. 56/09, under sections 406,420 read with section 120-B IPC, against the accused company and its Directors.Further, during the pendency of investigation various investors filed complaints against the accused company and its Directors.It was further revealed during investigation that the Corporate office of the accused company situated at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, First Floor, Gole Market, New Delhi was purchased by the accused company through its Director Smt. Madhu Singh from one Smt. Suman Lata Singla W/o Sh.S.K. Singla vide Sale Deed dated 21.07.2006, for a total consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 42 five lakhs only).Since the booking of projects started w.e.f. 2005 onwards, investigating agency suspected that the payments which were made to the vendor were done out of the cheated funds which were collected from investors.Investigation further revealed that the original title documents of the said property were mortgaged with Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi for seeking loan by the accused company, wherein overdraft limit of Rs.200 lakhs (Rupees Two hundred lakhs) and bank guarantee limit of Rs.3.91 crores (Rupees Three crores and ninety one lakhs) was sanctioned.As per the investigation, following properties were mortgaged against the loan A/c of the accused company:M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 42I. Office of the accused company i.e. Property no. 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi.Two Fixed Deposit Nos.124225 for Rs.18,60,375/- (Rupees Eighteen lakh sixty thousand three hundred and seventy five) dated 29.02.2008 and 124226 for Rs.79,07,250/- (Rupees Seventy nine lakh seven thousand two hundred and fifty) dated 29.02.2008 were also kept as security against Bank Guarantee.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 42By way of these thirteen petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 03.06.2013, passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, as well as quashing of charge sheets for the offences punishable under sections 406/ 409/ 420/ 201 read with section 120-B Crl.During investigation, it was also revealed that the said Corporate office of the accused company at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi was sold to the petitioner by accused company through its Director/Authorised Representative, Ms. Madhu Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009 against a total sale consideration of Rs.2.25 crore (Rupees Two crore and twenty five lakhs).Investigation further revealed that on 12.09.2010, petitioner, individually as well as through his Company M/s. Habitat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. purchased 50 % equity of the accused company by paying a sum of Rs.4,35,35,200/- (Rupees Four crores thirty five lakhs thirty five thousand and two hundred).Based upon its investigation, investigating agency concluded as under:-"From the investigation conducted so far, evidence collected (oral as well as documentary), it is crystal clear and proved that accused Madhu Singh, Director of M/s AJS Builders Pvt. Ltd. in collusion and connivance with other associates i.e. Smt. Geeta Singh (sister in law) and Smt. Kailash Rani (mother), hatched a criminal conspiracy, with the common intention and sole object to cheat the innocent public right from the very beginning.Accused Harvinder Singh had also joined the accused Ms. Madhu Singh & others during the alleged period for the commission of the offences."Investigating agency arrived at a conclusion that the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009, in respect of the property of the accused company at 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, is a sham transaction, purportedly executed by accused Ms. Madhu Singh to avoid its attachment.In order to sustain its conclusion, investigating agency has primarily relied upon following circumstances:-M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 42(a) The property has been purchased by the petitioner without due diligence and no bona fide purchaser would buy a property without originals of the previous chain, whereas stipulations 5 and 6 of the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2009, make it clear that original chain of the title documents was not furnished by the Vendor, which makes the Sale a sham transaction.(b) The property has been sold at a much cheaper price than its actual market price.To arrive at this conclusion, investigating agency is making reference of valuation of the said property at the time of seeking loan, when it was assessed as approximately Rs.7.57 Crore (Rupees Seven crore and fifty seven lakhs) in the year 2007 whereas, petitioner purchased the same in the year 2009 at a much less value of Rs.2.25 Crore (Rupees Two crore twenty five lakhs) only.(c) The payments which have been made to the Vendor by the Vendee have been reflected and corresponding debit / credit entries have been checked.After examination, Chartered Accountant (CA) stated that these transactions are sham transactions.(d) Statement of co-accused Ms. Madhu Singh, who subsequently claimed that the property in question was sold by her to the petitioner.The investigating agency is Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 42 of the opinion that the property in question has been transferred with the apprehension that the said property could be attached by the investigating agency in order to recover the cheated funds collected from the investors.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 42Further Investigating agency imputed the petitioner for witnessing the Agreement dated 05.02.2011, executed between M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and accused company, in respect of development of the project of accused company at Gurgaon, Haryana, which as per the investigating agency was detrimental to the interest of the investors.In order to sustain its claim that the petitioner was incharge for day to day functioning of the accused company, investigating agency has relied upon statement of one Mr. Harjit Singh, Director of M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. in addition to the statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C.During the course of proceedings before this Court, the complainants Mr. Keshav Sethi (in Crl.M.C.2977/2014), Ms. Kusum Jain (in Crl. M.C.2995/2014), Mr. Dev Raj (in Crl.M.C.3037/2014) and Mr. Vipul Kochar (in Crl.M.C.3023/2014) were impleaded as respondent No.2 on their respective applications.On 17.09.2014 learned counsel for the complainants Mr. Mohit Mathur, on instructions from Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate submitted before this Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 42 Court that he will move an appropriate application on behalf of the complainants for impleadement in all the respective petitions.However, on 23.09.2014 Mr. Akhil Mittal, Advocate submitted that all the remaining complainants were not interested in moving impleadement applications.Thereafter, respondent No.2/ complainant filed reply.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 42While impugning the conclusion of the investigating agency regarding culpability of the petitioner, Mr. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the influence of Ms. Madhu Singh and a few well connected investors, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the investigating agency.It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in order to sustain conjectural hypothesis about culpability of the petitioner, investigating officer has deliberately concealed vital facts and infact, has arbitrarily given deaf ears to the representations/ complaints of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has unfolded various illegal acts of Ms. Madhu Singh, Mr. Tejwant Singh, Mr. Harjit Singh, etc. and his victimization by accused Ms. Madhu Singh and others.It was argued that induced with the various projections of the accused company and its functionaries, petitioner and his family members also invested in Gurgaon Project of the accused company during the period 2007 to 2009, but despite specific complaints by the petitioner, none of his complaints have been considered by the investigating agency, whereas similarly circumstanced other investors have been arrayed as complainants / witnesses in the cases registered against the accused company.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 42It is case of the petitioner that like other investors, petitioner had visited the corporate office of the accused company for refund of his and his family members investments in the beginning of the year 2009, where he was trapped by accused Ms. Madhu Singh, Tejwant Singh and others to purchase property bearing no. 8, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, under the pretext that the accused company had invested its substantial liquidity towards purchase of major landholdings and thus is finding shortage of liquidity and the rumours about the bankruptcy of the accused company has caused damage to the extent that despite sound position, owing to the slump in realty sector, the Company was unable to fetch finances to meet out unprecedented demand of refund by investors.Per contra to the finding of the investigating agency that the petitioner did not conduct any due diligence before purchase of the property, it was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that before execution of the Sale Deed, petitioner had duly conducted due diligence of the property (both physical and title search) and had also obtained duly certified copies of the complete chain of title documents of the property which clearly reflected a clean title in favour of the accused company and since there was no encumbrance on the property, petitioner purchased the said property.To fortify his contentions, Mr. Daman Kohli has shown certified copies of the previous chain of title documents, copies of which have already placed on record.It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of the Sale Deed, petitioner took possession of the First Floor of the property whereas built up structure on the 2nd floor of the property was retained by the sister concern of the Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 42 accused company, from where even the accused company started operation of its business activities.It was also submitted that the delay in furnishing original title documents by the seller is clearly stipulated in the Sale Deed and it is with full caution that the petitioner got the complete chain of previous title documents duly stamped and signed by the seller on each and every page.Mr. Kohli also submitted that the nephew of Ms. Madhu Singh who is also a shareholder of the seller/ accused company is also a witness to the duly registered sale deed.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 42It was also submitted by Mr. Kohli that victimization of petitioner subsisted when petitioner was further lured to part with substantial sum of Rs.4,35,35,200/- (Rupees Four crore thirty five lakhs thirty five thousand and two hundred), towards 50% equity of the accused company in favour of the petitioner and his company M/s. Habitat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.It was further submitted that on 05.02.2011, being the 50% equity holder of the accused company, petitioner also became witness to the execution of the Agreement executed inter se accused company and M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd.. Mr. Kohli has drawn my attention towards relevant clauses of the said Agreement, whereby M/s. Best Realtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. undertook to bear all costs and expenses for developing Housing Project of the accused company in Gurgaon, on the same terms on which the accused company has invited investments from different investors, besides undertaking to refund, if any of the investor in the said project of the accused company so desired.However, when the perpetuating dishonest and fraudulent intent of accused Ms. Madhu Singh and her associates became apparent to the petitioner, he made various representations disclosing their illegal acts and also his victimization.Attention has been drawn to various complaints/representations, addressed at all levels ranging from S.H.O. Mandir Marg, New Delhi to Commissioner of Delhi Police, but despite complaints/ representations disclosing commission of cognizable offence, no action has been taken by the investigating agency.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 42It was further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that endeavour of the investigating agency to array the petitioner as a conspirator with accused Ms. Madhu Singh, against whom the petitioner is fighting in different courts and forums, is liable to be deprecated.On mention by the counsel for the petitioner this fact is also not disputed that there are multiple complaints filed by the petitioner Crl.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 42 against the threat to life extended to the petitioner by accused Ms. Madhu Singh and her men.M.C. No.2877/2014 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 42M.C. 3031/2014 Crl.M.A. No.10529/2014 in Crl.M.C. 3037/2014 The above applications are dismissed as infructuous.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,740,229 |
Heard with the aid of case diary.Also heard on IA No.3536/2018, an application for suspension of sentence under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C.Appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 363,366,376(1) IPC 376(2)(m) IPC,3/4 and 5/6 of the Prevention of the Children from Sexual Offence, Act 2012 and sentenced to undergo 2, 3, 10 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.500 and Rs.3000/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submit that during the trial appellant is on bail.Final hearing of the appeal is likely to take time.The appellant has a good case in appeal, hence jail sentence be suspended during pendency of the appeal.Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.After perusing the statement of the prosecutrix that she has not supported the case of the prosecution, I.A.No.3536/2018 stands allowed.Considering the evidence of the prosecution and other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.3536/2018) for suspension of sentence is allowed.It is directed that on deposition of fine HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE Cr.A No.1548/2018 (Javed Vs.State of MP) amount and also on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 31/7/2018 and on all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf, the execution of substantial jail sentence imposed on the appellants shall remain suspended, till final disposal of this appeal.A copy of this order be sent to Court concerned for compliance.List for final hearing in due course.(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) Judge das Digitally signed by REENA DAS Date: 2018.06.01 12:27:30 +05'30'
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
777,413 |
in the lonely hut of one Ramasami Goundar, an old man of seventy-six years.The other inmates of the house were his second wife, Elayammal, his twelve-years old grandson Rasan, through his first wife, and his younger brother, Chinnayan, From the evidence it appears that Chin-nayyan was practically an idiot.They were living in a house in a field called Kiluvankadu in Odapalayam limits.There were only fields around and there was no human habitation within three furlongs.(See the sketch, Ex. P-27).The appellant is related to Ramswami Goundar.Though he is a native of Odapalayam and seems to have some lands there, they were not productive and he was wandering about.He used to stay with the deceased, Ramaswami, Goundar, whenever he came to Odapalayam.In fact, he was staying with the deceased for about four days till the night of the murder.P.W. 1 speaks to this.He is a resident of Odapalayam and he is a cousin of the deceased Ramaswami Goundar (their mothers being sisters).He would leave his sheep in the sheep pen of his cousin, Ramaswami Goundar, and, in that connection, he used to go there morning and evening.p.m. and saw the guest in the house and the other inmates.The next morning (16-9-1972), about 5 a.m., according to the evidence of P.W. 2, who is the wife of P.W. 1, the accused came to their house and knocked at the door.P.W. 2 was in bed.She came out and questioned the accused.The accused replied that he was going to his village.(He must have meant Olaipalayam, where his brother-in-law was living).P.W. 2 says that the accused was in an agitated state then.The accused went away.P.W. 2 informed her husband of this when he got up, P.W. 1 says that his wife told him that the accused had come and asked her, "Are you still sleeping?" and went away without answering further question.At 7 a.m. he went to Kiluvankadu.On his way he peeped in and found to his horror Ramaswami Goundar, his second wife Elayammal and his grandson Rasan lying dead murdered with injuries.The articles in the adjoining room were found scattered on the floor.The gold chain which Elayammal used to be wearing on her neck was missing.The appellant was not there.P.W. l's suspicion fell on the appellant.He went to P.W. 3, the owner of the next northern field and informed him and gave information of it in the village.He then went to report the matter to the village Headman (P. W. 8) living about four miles away.He made a report (Ex. P-l) at 10.30 a.m., expressing his suspicion against the accused.P.W. 4 is the twenty-year old son of the deceased Ramaswami Goundar by his second wife.P.W. 5 is the twenty-seven year old daughter of the deceased Ramaswami Goundar by his second wife.P.W. 5 had been married about seven years before and was living with her husband in Kandapalayam, about fifty miles away from Odapalayam.Her younger brother, P.W. 4, was away from Odapalayam.Her younger brother, P.W. 4 was staying with her and was a B.Sc. student in the Government College in Coimbatore, about five miles away.One Palaniswami of Odapalayam came and informed P. Ws.They went to Kiluvankadu and saw their father, mother and nephew lying dead, murdered.They have further stated that the gold chain which their mother Elayam-mal used to be constantly wearing was missing and that the following articles were also missing: a four legged bronze Chembu (M. O. 7) another lotta Chembu (M. O. 8) two brass tumblers (M. O. 9) series) and a crow-bar (M. O. 10.).P.W. 6 is another resident of the village, who says that he saw the accused in the village for.four days prior to the murder.P.W. 8 the Village Headman, on recording Ex. P-l, prepared copies and his covering reports, Exs. P-7 and P-8, and sent one set to the police station at Kangayam (about eight miles away) and another set to the Sub-Magistrate, Dharapuram.P.W. 14 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kangayam, says that on receipt of the reports, he registered a case of murder, sent express reports to the superiors and went to the scene of occurrence reaching there at 1.15 p.m. P.W. 15 the Inspector of Police, Perun-durai received the first information report at 2 P.M. and went to Kiluvankadu at 3.30 p.m. He took over further investigation from the Sub Inspector.He held the inquest from 3.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. He examined P. Ws. 1, 4 and 5, Rajappan and Chinnayya Goundar, brother of the deceased, at the inquest.He says that Chinnayyan was in a mentally deranged condition.Chinnayyan actually died a few months later.On the person of Ramaswami Goundar there were four injuries on the head with multiple fractures of the skull.The young boy had an injury on the head, with fracture of the skull.[Original in Tamil omitted] Meaning If you take me now I shall show the place where I have hidden the crow-bar and I shall show and produce the two chembus and the two tumblers.In pursuance of the statement the accused took them to the field of Kaliappa Goundar in Odapalayam and took out the crow-bar (M. O. 10) from the kambu stalks where it had been concealed.It was found to have bloodstains, and it was recovered under a mahazar, Ex. P. 12 attested by P.W. 8 and Kaliappan (not examined).The vessels bore the initials.It was only the next morning that he left the village.The murders were committed in the house in between.P.W. 15 searched for the accused, but he was absconding.The accused actually surrendered on 20-11-1972 before the SutnMagistrate, Erode.With permission P.W. 15 took the accused into police custody at 3.45 p.m. on 27-11-1972 from the Sub-Jail at Kangayam.At 4.30 p.m. the accused made a voluntary statement a portion of which has been marked as Ex, P. 11 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, to the following effect:M. O. 10 was sent to the Chemical Examiner, by the Sub-Magistrate, Dharapuram.(See the evidence of P.W. 13, the Head Clerk of the Sub-Magistrate's Court).He found blood on it (Ex. P. 20).The Imperial Serologist found it to be human blood (Ex, P. 21).M. Os. 7, 8, 9 and 10 have been identified by P. Ws. 4 and 5 as belonging to their father, Ramasami Goundar.They say that the initials [Original in Tamil omitted] stand for Kiluvankadu Odapalayam Ramasawmi Goundar and that [Original in Tamil omitted] stand for Odapalayam Kiluvankadu Ramaswami Goundar.P.W. 9 is a resident of Pettalada.He was examine ed in order to prove that two months prior to 2.8-11-1972 the accused had come to him with the vessels and made an extra-judicial confession that he had murdered Ramaswami Goundar, Elayammal and Rasan with a crow-bar and had brought the tumblers and cssh of Rs. 100/- and that he wanted some work.P.W. 9 found a job for him and about a week prior to 26-H-1972 the accused left for the plains.The learned Sessions Judge has treated Ex, P. 28 as substantive evidence: he is clearly wrong.Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure itself clearly says that the statement could be used only to contradict the evidence of the witness in Court: it has only negative value.P.W. 10 is a cousin of the accused, their mothers being sisters.He is a lorry driver in Erode.The accused used to come to him once in about six months.Lastly he came on 18-9-1972, stayed with him and left the next morning.He says that there was nothing abnormal about the accused.He was contradicted by his statement to the Sub Inspector (P. W. 14) made during the investigation (Ex. P-23), briefly to the effect that, the accused came to him weeping on the evening of 18-9-1972, that pressed for the reason, the accused stated that he had been staying with Ramaswami Goundar.that on the night of 15-9-1972, at cock-crowing time, he entered the house with a crow-bar, that on hearing the noise Ramaswami Goundar woke up, that he murdered Ramaswami Goundar, Elayammal and the young boy by hitting them with the crow-bar and that he searched among the articles, took cash of Rs. 100/- and two chembus and two tumblers and had come away.Here again the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in using it as substantive evidence.He denied that he made any statement to the police or that he showed the crow-bar M. O. 10 or produced the vessels (M. Os. 7, 8 and 9).He, however, admitted that he was in Odapalayam on 15-9-1972 in connection with the cultivation of his lands, but stated that he left at 3 p.m. He surrendered because he learnt that the police were after him.He did not adduce any defence evidence.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused of murder and theft.But, since his opinion must have been influenced to a large extent by his reliance on the statements of P. Ws.9and 10 to the police as substantive evidence, we have examined the evidence ourselves leaving those statements out of account.We may say at once that, in our opinion, the remaining pieces of evidence are true and by themselves are sufficient to sustain the convictions.That Ramaswami Goundar, his second wife Elayammal and Rasan were murdered in their house on the night of 15-9-1972 admits of no doubt.P.W. 1 went there asusual to see his sheep which fie had penned with His cousin ,Ramaswami Goundar.The facts that; the accused stayed with Ramaswami Goundar for four or five days and that P.W. 1 saw him on the night of 15-9-1972 in the house have been mentioned in Ex.. P:.l itself which was given to the Village Headman shortly after the discovery of the murders.It has been suggested in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that he encroached on the adjacent land Of the accused and that there was 'dispute between them.He denies it: The suggestion is hollow and has hot been substantiated.It would be far-fetched to suggest that P.W. 1 is giving false evidence against the accused on any such account.Again there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W. 2 that at 5 a.m. on 16-&-72 the accused came to their house, knocked at the door and told her that he was oihg to his house.In cross-examination it has been elicited that the accused asked her, "Why are you still sleeping?" "Incidentally that would reconcile the evidence of P, W. 2 with that of P.W. 1 who says that his wife informed him that the accused asked her "Are you still sleeping?.It says that P.W. 2 informed P.W. 1 of that fact.Because the conversation between the accused and P.W. 2 is mentioned p Ex. P. 1 itself, we are inclined to take that tact also as true.P.W. 2 says that the accused was in an agitated state of mind: perhaps that was only an impression of hers, and we are prepared to leave that out of account.But it is undeniable that the accused knocked at the door of the house of P.W. 2 and left.It is possible that he wanted to create an appearance that he was innocent.He: wais too' near the event and might not have had the time and calmness to decide' that it would be wiser for him not to make his appearance at the house of P.W. 2 in the morning.Because suspicion was expressed in Ex. P. 1: itself that the accused was the murderer, the police must have naturally been after him.It was a tell-tale fact.Again we see no reason to reject the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 15 that the accused took them to Petta-lada in the Nilgiris and produced the vessels M. Os. 7, 8 and 9 series, which contained the inscriptions original in Tamil Omitted Ed.) P. Ws. 4 and 5 have identified M. Os. 7, 8 and 9 as belonging to their father.But we are satisfied that on that account the statement of the accused in Ex. P. 11 to P.W. 15 actually leading to the recovery of M. Os. 7, 8 and 9 cannot be said to be untrue.Chinnayyan also might have been sleeping in some portion of the house, but the Inspector has stated that he was of deranged mind and he actually died two or three months later.The half gold mohur and the two silver churas habitually worn by him were missing.The evidence in the case has thus been summarised.iBoth the accused and the deceased were seen together at about 2 p.m. on 25-7-1951 by the prosecution witnesses.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
793,000 |
The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was running a finance business and the accused received loans on several occasions by promising that loans will be settled in due time.A private complaint has been filed against three accused for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.The case has been dropped against A3, who is wife of the 1st accused.The present petition to quash the proceedings has been filed by A1 & A2 against whom, the process has been issued.When the matter has been taken up for enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioners made an endorsement that the petition against the 2nd petitioner may be withdrawn and made his submissions for the 1st petitioner / accused alone.It is alleged that the petitioners received such type of loans from 16 other persons and as against the defacto complainant, the liability of the 1st accused is Rs.10,50,000/-.It is further alleged that the petitioners, accepting the liability, issued cheques for payment of the same.However, the cheques were dishonoured and the defacto complainant preferred proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. Since the petitioners made false promise of payment of money and the cheque, issued by the petitioners got bounced, a private complaint has been initiated before the learned Judicial Magistrate.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the first instance, that the prosecution is of purely civil in nature.He, on disputing about liability alleged, submitted that for dishonour of the two cheques, two cases in C.C. Nos. 876 and 117 of 2008 have been preferred before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI by the defacto complainant, which is pending.The defacto complainant, subsequently, proceeded with a private complaint.Learned Magistrate, on perusal of the materials and statements of the witnesses recorded, has erroneously come to a conclusion that the 1st petitioner along with the 2nd petitioner is responsible for payment of money.The complaint has to be read as a whole.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.Under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the proceedings pending against the 1st petitioner are liable to be quashed.Hence, the case pending against the 1st petitioner / A1 in C.C. No. 566 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore is directed to be quashed and the case against the 2nd petitioner / A2 may be proceeded in accordance with law by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.Accordingly, the petition is ordered.arToJudicial Magistrate No. VII,Coimbatore
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,302,090 |
Kalicharan & others) and connected S.T. No. 271 of 2001 ( State Vs.Yad Prakash), convicting the appellants as under:Accused Conviction Sentence Bangali Section 302 IPC Section 148 IPC Sections 307/149 IPC Life Imprisonment + Rs. 2000/- Fine Two years R.I.Five years R.I. + 500/- Fine.Kalicharan Yad Prakash Diwan Singh Smt. Shakuntala Yad Prakash Sections 148 IPC Section 302/149 IPC Section 25 Arms Act Two years R.I.Life imprisonment + Rs. 500/- Fine.Two years R.I. + Rs. 200/- Fine 2- The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6.12.2000 at about 1.30 PM, informant-Atar Singh (P.W.1) was carrying soil for levelling the gali by his bullock cart; when he reached near the house of Shankar, accused- Kalicharan and his sons resisted to carry soil and got the bullock cart returned; due to this, altercations took place and thereafter, the accused went to their house, came back with common object, the accused Kalicharan armed with lathi, Yad Prakash with country made pistol of 315 bore, Bangali with (razor) Chura, Diwan Singh with knife and Smt. Shakuntala Devi having an axe in their hands ; on the noise, Harpal, Sri Ram, Rani Devi wife of Mahipal, Malkhan Singh, Ram Autar, Smt. Saroj, Smt. Rajni, Smt. Rani Devi wife of Atar Singh, Sri Ram, Ved Prakash, Satpal and Amar Singh arrived there; accused Kalicharan exhorted, upon which, accused Yad Prakash fired 4-5 shots from his country made pistol with intention to kill which hit his cousin brother Harpal who died on the spot; a rout started; in the meantime, accused Bangali armed with razor attacked on the sister of informant Rani with intention to kill her on chest; Rani after receiving injury fell down and died; when the informant's side tried to rescue Rani, accused Diwan Singh, Kalicharan, Shakuntala Devi attacked on them with intention to kill , due to which, Malkhan Singh, Ram Autar, Smt. Saroj, Smt. Rajni, Stm Rani Devi received grievous injuries.In the incident, accused Yad Prakash and Smt. Shakuntala Devi also received injuries caused by the accused themselves; the dead bodies of Harpal Singh and Rani Devi were lying on the spot.A written information was given by the informant-Atar Singh scribed by Mangal Singh at the police station.FIR (Ex.Ka.15) was lodged at 14.30 hours and disclosure of this written report was made in GD No. 30 dated 6.12.2000 at 14.30 hours.3- Thereafter, the police started investigation, visited the spot, prepared inquest report of deceased-Rani ( Ex.Ka-23) and other relevant police papers (Ex.Ka-24 to Ex.Ka-30).Subsequently, inquest report of deceased-Harpal Singh (Ex.Ka.31) and other relevant police papers ( Ex. Ka.32 to Ex. Ka.36) were prepared.Recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth (Ex. Ka.5 and Ex.Ka.6), recovery memo of empty cartridges (Ex. Ka.7) were prepared.During investigation, the I.O. recovered country made pistol, empty cartridges and axe ( Ex.Ka.8) on the pointing out of accused.Site plan of the incident ( Ex. Ka. 4), and other papers are Ex.Ka.9 to Ex.He also explained mode, manner and the nature of injuries caused by the accused-appellants.From a careful scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, we are of the opinion that he is trustworthy and reliable witness.18- P.W.3 is the doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of deceased-Rani and Harpal Singh.He proved post mortem report (Ex.Ka.2 and Ex.Ka.3).19- P.W.4, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, (Ex.Ka.4), collected blood stained and plain earth (Ex.Ka.5 and Ex.Ka.6).He also recovered one empty cartridge of 315 bore and recovery memo (Ex.Ka.7).He proved inquest prepared by S.I. K.P.Singh.This witness also recovered one country made pistol and an axe on the pointing of accused .He proved relevant police papers and supported the prosecution case.Ka.1), check FIR (Ex.He proved these police papers.Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.(Delivered by Umesh Kumar, J) 1- These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2003 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 279 of 2001 ( State Vs.After inquest, body was sent to hospital for the post mortem which was conducted by (P.W.3) Dr. R.K. He found following injuries on the bodies of deceased persons;Deceased-Rani:A stab wound 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep over left side of breast; at 11 O' clock position, 4 cm away from nipple.Probbing is done which communicates in the left chest cavity (pleural cavity).In the opinion of doctor, death has been caused by hemorrhage & shock as a result of anti mortem injury.Deceased-Harpal Singh:(1) A stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep.Present over supra clavicular fossa.(2) A stab wound 4.5 cms.X 1.5 cm x cavity deep.Present over left side in between and obliquely placed, towards left side.(3) A stab wound 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm x cavity deep over back of left side of chest, just below the inferior angle of left scapula and 5 cm away from mid line, towards left side, obliquely placed.(4) An incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep over left side of back of abdomen, 3 cm away from mid line and obliquely placed at level of 3rd lumber vertebrae.4- The other injured namely Malkhan Singh, Ram Autar, Smt. Saroj, Rani were examined by P.W.5 Dr. M.P. Singh, who found following injuries on the bodies of injured;ey[kku flag% 1& Hkksd dj ekjus dk ?kko 5-5 lseh- x 1-8 lseh- x xbjkbZ ugha ik;h x;h] ck;h rjQ ihB ij ckgjh Hkkx ds ok;h jhuy ,afxy ls 3 lseh- uhps o ckgj dh vksj rFkk ihB dh e/; js[kk ls 5-5 lseh- ckgj dh vksj Horizontally FkkA fdukjs lkQ dVs FksA ?kko dk ckgjh dksuk dks.kkdkj Fkk rFkk Hkhrjh dksuk FkksM+k QVk gqvk Fkk lkQ djus ls ?kko ls [kwu fudy jgk Fkk bl ?kko ds fy;s isV ds ,Dl js o vYVªk lkmUM dh lykg nh x;hA jkekSrkj% 1& ,d QVk gqvk ?kko 7 lseh- x 0-4 lseh- scalp deep flj ij ckbZ rjQ ck;s dku ls 13 lseh- ÅijA 2& ,d uhyxw fu'kku 8 lseh- x 1-5 lseh- nkbZ Åijh Hkqtk ds lkeus o ckgj dh vksj e/; Hkkx esaA 3& ,d uhyxw fu'kku 6 lseh- x 2 lseh- nkbZ vxz ckgw ds ihNs o Hkhrj dh vksj e/; Hkkx esa bl uhyxw uh'kku ds pkjks vksj 10 lseh- x 7 lseh- pksV dh lwtu FkhA 4& ,d uhyxw fu'kku 4-5 lseh- x 2 lseh- ok;h vxz ckgw ds Hkhrj o ihNs dh vksj e/; Hkkx esaA bl uhyxw uh'kku ds pkjks vksj 7 lseh- x 5 lseh- dh pksV dh lwtu FkhA Jherh ljkst% 1& ,d Hkksd dj ekjk gqvk ?kko 2-8 lseh- x 1-2 lseh- x xgjkbZ ugha ukih x;h ihB dh e/; js[kk ds vkj ikj Horizontally, Slight, Obliquely ls 2 lseh- Åij Fkk ?kko ds fdukjs lkQ dVs FksA ?kko dk ck;k fljk dks.kkdkj Fkk rFkk nk;ka fljk yslhysfVM FkkA ?kko dks lkQ djus ls [kwu fudy jgk FkkA Jherh jkuh% 1& ,d [kjklnkj uhyxw fu'kku e; pksV dh lwtu 3-5 lseh- x 2 lseh- flj ij ck;h vksj ck;s dku ls 11 lseh- Åij o FkksM+k ihNs dh vksjA 5- During investigation, the I.O. recorded statements of witnesses, collected evidence, obtained sanction from the District Magistrate (Ex.Ka.20) for initiating prosecution under Section 25 Arms Act. FIR under Section 25 of Arms Act and its G.D. entry are (Ex.Ka.21 and Ex.Ka.22).After completion of investigation, charge sheet (Ex.Ka.17) under Section 302 IPC and another charge sheet under Section 25 Arms Act (Ex.Ka.19) have been submitted;6- Learned Trial Judge framed following charges against the accused persons, which reads as under;न्यायालय अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश (त्वरित न्यायालय) न्याया कक्ष संख्या-16 बुलन्दशहर।सत्र वाद 270 सन् 2001 सरकार ------- बनाम ------ कालीचरन आदि धारा 147/148/149/307/302 भारतीय दण्ड संहिता थाना डिबाईआरोप मैं, एस०सी० गर्ग अपर सत्र न्यायाधीश (त्वरित न्यायालय) न्याय कक्ष संख्या-16 बुलन्दशहर आप अभियुक्तगण कालीचरन, याद प्रकाश, बंगाली, दीवान सिंह व श्रीमती शकुन्तला को निम्न आरोपो से आरोपित करता हूँ-प्रथमः- यह कि दिनांक 6.12.2000 को समय 1.30 बजे स्थान ग्राम सुमेरपुर अन्तर्गत थानाक्षेत्र डिबाई जिला बुलन्दशहर में आप मुल्जिमान ने परिवादी अतर सिंह एवं उसके परिवारजन की जान से मारने एवं हत्या कारित करने के उद्देश्य से नाजाईज विधि विरुद्ध मजमा बनाया। इस प्रकार आपने भारतीय दण्ड संहिता की धारा 147 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध कारित किया जो इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान है।द्वितीयः- यह कि उपरोक्त दिनांक समय व स्थान पर आपसे मुल्जिमान याद प्रकाश के हाथ में तमन्चा, मुल्जिम बंगाली के हाथ में छुरा, दीवान सिंह के हाथ में चाकू कालीचरन की पत्नी शकुन्तला देवी पर कुल्हाड़ी लेकर जो घातक हथियार है विधिक विरूद्ध जमाव किया इस प्रकार आपने अपराध कारित किया जो भारतीय दण्ड संहिता की धारा 148 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध है और इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान में है।तृतीयः- यह कि उपरोक्त दिनांक समय व स्थान पर आप मुल्जिम याद प्रकाश ने अपने हाथ में लिये हुए तमन्चे से परिवादी अतर सिंह व उसके परिवार जन को जान से मारने की उद्देश्य से 4-5 फायर किये जो परिवादी के चचरे भाई हरपाल सिंह की लगे इस प्रकार आप मुल्जिम यादराम ने हरपाल सिंह की मृत्यु कारित की इस प्रकार आपने भारतीय दण्ड संहिता की धारा 302 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध किया जो इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान में है।चतुर्थः- यह कि उपरोक्त दिनांक समय व स्थान पर आप मुल्जिमान में मुल्जिम याद प्रकाश ने अपने सामान्य उद्देश्य की पूर्ति हेतु हरपाल सिंह पर तमन्चे से फायर किया और हरपाल सिंह की मौके पर हत्या कारित की जो धारा-302/149 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध है और इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान में है।पंचमः- यह कि उपरोक्त दिनांक समय व स्थान पर आप मुल्जिम दीपक सिंह, कालीचरन व शकुन्तला देवी ने परिवादी अतर सिंह को जान से मारने की नीयत से वार किया तथा मलखान सिंह, रामौतार व श्रीमती सरोज, श्रीमती रजनी व श्रीमती रानी देवी को अपने सामान्य उद्देश्य की पूर्ति हेतु गम्भीर रूप से घायल किया इस प्रकार आपने भारतीय दण्ड संहिता की धारा 307/149 के अन्तर्गत दण्डनीय अपराध कारित किया जो इस न्यायालय के प्रसंज्ञान में है। एतद् द्वारा आपको निर्देश दिया जाता है कि उपरोक्त आरोपो का विचारण इस न्यायालय द्वारा किया जायेगाI, SC Garg, Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Court No. 16, Bulandshahr, charge you, the accused persons, Kalicharan, Yaad Prakash, Bangali, Deewan Singh and Smt. Shakuntala Devi with the following: -First: That on 6.12.2000 at 1.30 p.m. within the limits of village - Sumerpur, PS-Dibai, District - Bulandshahr, you accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with the intention to kill and to murder the complainant Atar Singh and his family members, thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 147 of the IPC, which is in the cognisance of this court.Second: That on the aforesaid date, time and place you, the accused Yaad Prakash bearing a country made pistol, the accused Bengali carrying a dagger in his hand, the accused Diwan Singh holding a knife in his hand and the accused Shakuntala Devi wife of Kalicharan carrying an axe, all of which are lethal arms, formed an unlawful assembly, thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 148 of the IPC, and which is in the cognizance of this court.Third: That on the aforesaid date, time and place, you, the accused Yaad Prakash, fired 4-5 shots with the country made pistol in your hand at the complainant Atar Singh and his family members with the intent to kill, which hit complainant's cousin Harpal Singh; in this way, you, the accused Yaadram, caused the death of Harpal Singh, thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC, which is in the cognizance of this court.Fourth: That on the aforesaid date, time and place, you, one of the accused persons, Yaad Prakash fired a shot at Harpal Singh with the country made pistol in furtherance of his common intention, and murdered Harpal Singh on the spot, which is an offence punishable under section 302/149 of the IPC, which is in the cognizance of this court.Fifth: That on the aforesaid date, time and place, you, the accused persons Deepak Singh, Kalicharan and Shakuntala Devi with the intention to kill committed assault on the complainant Atar Singh and seriously injured Malkhan Singh, Ram Autar and Smt. Saroj, Smt. Rajani and Smt. Rani Devi in furtherance of your common intention, thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 307/149 of the IPC, which is in the cognizance of this court.You are hereby directed that the trial of the aforesaid charges against you be conducted by this court.Sd/-(Yaad Prakash) 18.01.02 Sd/-(Shakuntala Devi) Thumb Impression (Diwan Singh) Thumb Impression (Bangali) Sd/-(illegible) SC Garg Date: 18.01.2002 Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No. 16 Bulandshahr The aforesaid charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial.7- Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey for the appellants and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A.for the State and perused the record.(3) The injuries of the injured accused have not been explained, hence genesis has been suppressed;(4) The witnesses examined are interested and related, hence not reliable and trustworthy;(5) The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective.9- Per contra, learned AGA opposed the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants and submitted that it is a double murder case and considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased, the learned Trial Judge was justified in recording conviction of accused as stated above.10- Before proceeding further, while perusing the charges framed by learned Trial Judge, we come across the fact that charge in respect to murder of deceased-Rani had not been framed, although in the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., a specific question has been put in this connection, which reads as under;प्रश्न6:- यह की अभियोजन पक्ष के साक्ष्य में यह भी आया है कि इसके बाद मौके पर भागदड़ मच गयी। जब परिवादी व उसके परिवार के लोग जान बचा कर भागे तो आप मुल्जिम बंगाली ने अपने हाथ में लिये हुए छूरे से परिवादी की बहिन श्रीमती रानी के ऊपर जान से मारने की नियत से सीने पर वार कर दिया और उक्त चोटे के फलस्वरूप रानी भी मौके पर घायल होकर गिर पड़ी और मौके पर ही उसकी मृत्यु हो गयी इस सम्बन्ध में आपको क्या कहना है?उत्तर- गलत है।English Translation:This witness proved his written report (Ex.Ka-1).In cross examination, he explained that one Rani Devi is his sister and another Rani is his wife.He supported the motive of the occurrence as asserted in the first information report.Contrary to the first information report, he stated that Yad Prakash fired 4-5 shots due to which routing took place at the place of occurrence, deceased-Harpal Singh fell down and he cannot say that whether Harpal Singh received any fire arm injury or not.He admitted that in the FIR, it is written that Yad Prakash fired 4-5 shots which hit his cousin Harpal Singh and he succumbed on the spot.He also disclosed this fact to the I.O. This admission of P.W.1 speaks about truthfulness of the witness who very fairly admitted that he cannot say whether Harpal Singh received any fire arm injury or not.He has properly explained mode and manner of the occurrence including specific role of the accused.From careful scrutiny of the testimony of this witness, nothing adverse has come out from his lengthy cross examination.Thus he is natural, truthful and trustworthy witness of the occurrence.17- Another injured witness (P.W.2) Malkhan Singh also supported the prosecution story .He stated that Kalicharan armed with lathi, Bangali with razor, Diwan Singh with knife, Smt. Shakuntala with an axe and Yad Prakash with country made pistol came and the accused-Yad Prakash fired 4-5 shots due to which routing took place.Harpal Singh fell down near chabutara of Shankar and thereafter, all the accused assaulted him by their weapons due to which Harpal Singh died on the spot.Accused Bangali stabbed his sister Rani on her chest near the house of Kanhai Singh.He tried to escape with Ram Autar, Smt. Saroj, Rajni and Smt. Rani, but all the accused armed with deadly weapons attacked them and they all received injuries, on the back near waist, accused Diwan stabbed Rani with knife who died on the spot, on the noise having been raised, Jagdish, Satyapal Babu and others arrived at the place of occurrence.In cross examination, this witness stated that during altercation, accused Yad Prakash fired and other accused murdered deceased-Harpal Singh.He cannot say that Harpal Singh fell down after receiving fire arm injuries.It is true that after altercations, accused went to their house and thereafter, accused Kalicharan armed with lathi, Yad Prakash armed with country made pistol, Beagali armed with razor, Diwan Singh armed with knife and Shakuntala armed with an axe came back.This witness also properly explained receiving of injuries by other injured witnesses in the occurrence and also stated that none of the injured received fire arm injuries.20- P.W.5, the doctor examined the injured persons and prepared injury reports (Ex.10, 11,12,13, and 14).He proved the injury reports as referred herein above.21- P.W.6 Murari Lal, Head Constable proved the written report (Ex.22- P.W.7 is another I.O of the occurrence.He recorded the statements of Malkhan Singh, Ram Autar, Smt. Saroj, Smt. Rajni, Smt. Rani, Ved Prakash, Shriram, Amar Singh, Satyapal and Rajaram and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka.17).Likewise, the presence of injured witnesses at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted as they had received injuries during the course of the incident and they should normally be not disbelieved.(see Maqsoodan Vs.27- Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that injuries of the injured persons from the side of defence are not explained by the prosecution.In this reference, the FIR itself clearly speaks that Yad Prakash and Shakuntala Devi received injuries during occurrence by aggressor party.(i.e.accused).The injury reports of the injured accused are already on record, but those injuries were never proved by the defence.29- The appeals have no substance and same are dismissed.Compliance report be submitted to this Court within a month.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,307,099 |
The 2nd respondent is the original complainant.The 2nd respondent alleged in this First Information Report (for short, "F.I.R.") that he is an ordinary resident of Pune.He is ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 4/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt serving in the Department of Technical Education.At the time of registration of F.I.R., he was posted at the Government Distance Education Institute, Shivaji Nagar, Pune.Prior to that, he was posted in the Government College of Pharmacy at Karad as a storekeeper.In the year 2007-2008, one Mr. Satish Bhise and Mr. Kishor Burade belonging to Brahmin and non scheduled caste respectively, were posted at this College at Karad.The complainant-2nd respondent belongs to Mahar community.This fact is known to both Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade.It is alleged that Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade colluded with each other and communicated some information which was false and mischievous with regard to the conduct of the complainant.They have, therefore, caused an injury to him.The information that was communicated by these persons in the form of remarks, was made known to the complainant.The 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' to the Act 33 of 1989 reads thus:"Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable.They are denied number of civil rights.They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment.1. Rule.By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally at the admission stage itself.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::vikrant 3/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odtThese two Applications were heard together and as common arguments were canvassed and common issues raised, we dispose of the same by this judgment.We take the facts from Criminal Application No. 1015 of 2016 for convenience.The applicant therein is an Indian citizen and was serving as Director of Technical Education when this Application was filed.He is the original accused in C.R. No.164 of 2016 registered at City Police Station, Karad for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi) and 3(2)(vii) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Atrocities Act"), as also Sections 182, 192, 193, 203 and 219 read with 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.").The confidential letter dated 26 th August, 2008 from the Joint Director of Technical Education, Divisional Office, Pune apprised the complainant of these remarks.Therefore, the complainant addressed a letter to Joint Director and simultaneously, on 19th September, 2009, approached the Karad Police Station.Then, he narrated the nature of the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 5/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt information communicated by Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade.He states that the annual confidential report of the complainant for the year 2007-2008 contained these remarks (information).These remarks, according to the complainant, are that he is in the habit of making false complaints, that he does not deserve any promotion, that he requires more and extensive training, that he is not fit to work at the regional level.These remarks, according to the complainant, are false and mischievous and entered in his annual confidential report so as to cause injury to him.As far as Mr. Kishor Burade is concerned, in the same year, he has reported that the complainant's integrity and character is not good.Rather, he is lacking on both counts.This is also a false and frivolous remark and entered in the annual confidential report so as to cause insult and injury to the complainant.It is alleged by the complainant that the said remarks were false has now been proved and established.It is alleged that both of them deliberately and in connivance and collusion with each other, entered and communicated these remarks so as to cause injury to the complainant.Both Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade are Government ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 6/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt Servants.That is how they are allegedly guilty of the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::The complainant then elaborates as to how, when such adverse remarks were communicated to him, he made a representation and which was accepted.The complainant has got his statement recorded pursuant to which the F.I.R. has been registered.He has submitted all the official documents in relation thereto.The present Application has been filed to quash another F.I.R. in C.R. No. 164 of 2016 dated 28th March, 2016 registered at that very Police Station.We referred to the earlier C.R. and its contents only with a view to appreciate the contentions raised before us by the applicant in Criminal Application No. 1015 of 2016, namely, Dr. Subhash Mahajan.As far as the subject F.I.R. is concerned, the complainant is the same.He refers to the earlier complaint against Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade.He says that after that complaint was registered, the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 7/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt prosecution was of the opinion that since the accused are Government servants, for prosecuting them, sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. would have to be obtained.This sanction will have to be obtained prior to the charge sheet being filed.That is why the prosecution applied for such sanction.The prosecution proceeded on the footing that the competent authority is the Director of Technical Education, Divisional Office, Pune.That is why, the papers were forwarded to the said office.At that time, the present applicant was the In-charge Director.The present applicant is also not belonging to Scheduled Caste, but is a member of Leva Patil community.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::The allegations are that despite being aware of the legal position that the accused Bhise and Burade are Class-I Officers and in the service of the State Government and a Sanction to prosecute them would have to be granted by the State Government, the applicant-accused proceeded as if he is the sanctioning or the competent authority.He has not provided the requisite information about the power to grant such sanction and deliberately.The power to grant such sanction is not vesting in ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 8/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt this Director In-charge.Yet he has addressed a communication so as to shield and protect Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade, acting in connivance and collusion with them.The intent on the part of the applicant was to save both Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade from criminal legal proceedings and the probable punishment.This resulted in a "C" Summary Report being filed against both accused in the competent Criminal Court.The complainant has alleged as to how systematically there was an attempt made to shield and protect Mr. Burade and Mr. Bhise from criminal prosecution and the present applicant, acting in connivance and collusion with them, committed the aforesaid acts.There is a further elaboration in that regard in the statement pursuant to which the said F.I.R. of ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 9/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt 2016 has been recorded.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::It is this F.I.R. which is sought to be quashed by means of this Application and invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. On 13th January, 2017, this Application was placed before a Division Bench of this Court.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions of the concerned Police Officer present on that date, made a statement that the charge sheet will not be filed against the applicant till the next date.However, the papers were again produced on 1st March, 2017 and the Division Bench passed the following order."Not on Board.Taken on Board.No order."However, subsequently, the date was preponed by consent of parties.A copy of this Application has been served on both, the State/prosecution and the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::vikrant 10/56 906APL-673-2016+In that affidavit, the complainant-respondent no.2 states that it is true that he made a complaint against Mr. Satish Bhise and Mr. Kishor Burade.That was for the purpose of prosecuting these officers for the offences with which they have been charged by him and referred by us hereinabove.The complainant states that for the purpose of prosecuting them, sanction under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. was required.That letter was written to the applicant Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan, who, at the relevant time, was working as In-charge Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, Mumbai.The complainant then refers to the Government Resolution dated 22nd December, 2006, issued by the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra.He also referred to a corrigendum dated 10 th January, 2007 to this Resolution.The allegation then is that in the light of this Resolution and the corrigendum, it was necessary for the applicant to refer the application seeking sanction to the State Government.However, ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 11/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt instead of referring this matter to the State Government, the applicant suo motu decided to reject the said application.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::Then, the complainant reiterates his allegations and with reference to the relevant statutory provisions and the documents which he had produced at the time of registration of the F.I.R.He denies that this F.I.R. registered on 28th March, 2016 and the earlier F.I.R. of 2009 can be said to be identical.The role and involvement of the applicant in this Application, which is elaborated in F.I.R. of 2016, may be registered at the same Police Station, is different and distinct.He has been accused of an offence and which is clearly spelt out by the Atrocities Act and the I.P.C. The attempt, therefore, to link these two F.I.Rs., and to contend that for the same act of omission or commission, two F.I.Rs. cannot be registered, is an erroneous and frivolous plea.That is how in this affidavit, he has endeavoured to point out this ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 12/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt distinction.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::These adverse remarks have been entered knowingly.Such false and frivolous remarks being deleted, there was no justification for the applicant Dr. Mahajan to protect and shield the other two accused, namely Bhise and Burade.With a view to shield and protect them from criminal prosecution and the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 13/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt probable punishment, he has committed the alleged acts which amount to an offence punishable under both statutes.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::It is, therefore, the complainant's contention that the application be dismissed.He has taken us through the present Application and all the annexures thereto.The complainant, according to Mr. Kumbhakoni, has indulged in acts which would demonstrate as to how he has been avoiding work and has made no endeavour to improve his performance.The remarks were entered in the annual confidential reports during the course of official duties.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::vikrant 15/56 906APL-673-2016+Mr. Kumbhakoni submits that the Section presupposes that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.In the present case, the applicant was performing an official duty.A request was made by the Police machinery to grant sanction to prosecute Mr. Bhise and Mr. Burade.That was the application which was forwarded to the office of the Joint Director (Divisional Office), Technical Education Department, Government of Maharashtra.The applicant, at the relevant time, was the Director In-charge of this Department of Technical Education.He, therefore, acting on the premise that he is the competent authority to grant or refuse sanction, passed an administrative order in exercise of his administrative powers and refused sanction.The complainant himself alleges that this was an order and passed by the applicant.Once, he alleges so, then, there is no offence which can be said to be committed within the ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 16/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt meaning of this provision.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::Even the applicant has a grudge against the complainant.However, we are called upon to go into a larger question and posed for our consideration by Dr. Mahajan.Before we proceed to analyze and interpret the relevant provisions, we must at once clarify that we were hesitant to enter into this issue and at this stage.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::Then, what is stated is that on 17th December, 2016, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad rejected the prayer for grant of "C" Summary in F.I.R. No. 3122 of 2009 and directed the Investigating Officer to re-investigate the case, apply for sanction under Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. and then submit a report.Annexure R-2 is the copy of this order dated 17 th December 2016 of the trial Court.The Act has now been extensively amended.The normal provisions of the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these atrocities.Under these circumstances, it was found necessary to enact a special legislation to check and deter crimes against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.To achieve this objective, a Bill was introduced in the Parliament, i.e. "The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Bill".::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property.Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them.When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty.Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests.Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes.A special Legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary.The term 'atrocity' has not been defined so far.It is considered necessary that not only the term 'atrocity' should be defined but stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishments for committing such atrocities.It is also proposed to enjoining on the States and the Union Territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from being victimised and where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them.The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::7. ......8. ......9. ......::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::Sections 3 to 7 of the said Act prescribed punishments for enforcing religious, social and any other kind of disabilities on the ground of untouchability.There were several complaints from various quarters of the society about the lacunae and loopholes in the said Act. Several amendments were made to the said Act which was rechristened as the 'Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955'.In spite of a major overhaul, it was noticed that the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were inadequate to check the atrocities committed on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.The fact that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes remained a vulnerable group in spite of the introduction of several measures to improve their socio- economic condition was a matter of deep concern to Parliament.Parliament acknowledged that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were subject to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassments perpetually.Numerous incidents of brutalities and atrocities depriving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of their life and property were a cause of concern for the Parliament.The Preamble to the Act reads as under:"An Act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for special courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::vikrant 36/56 906APL-673-2016+The Act also provides protection to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for various atrocities affecting social disabilities, properties, malicious prosecution, political rights and economic exploitation.Thus, the authorities ought to encourage the officials working under them and the superior officers have, therefore, been entrusted with a public duty so as not to discourage, unduly harass and completely demoralize those reporting to and working under them.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::Keeping this backdrop as well in mind, if we peruse what are essentially projected before us, namely, two clauses, Clause(vi) and Clause (vii) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3, then, it is ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 ::: vikrant 42/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt evident that they advance or carry forward the object of the legislation.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::The complainant has also relied upon several documents to support his allegations.That was in order to shield and protect these officers.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:43 :::As a result of the above ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:44 ::: vikrant 54/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt discussion, we dismiss both the Criminal Applications."1. Not on board.Taken on board.No.3122 of 2009 registered with Karad City Police Station and 'C' Summary Report submitted by the investigating officer.The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant on instructions ::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:44 ::: vikrant 55/56 906APL-673-2016+1.odt states that there is no final order passed on the said Report.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:44 :::It appears that 2nd Respondent/Complainant filed an objection in writing on 2nd April 2016 to the report claiming 'C' Summary.An order is passed by the learned Judge on the said objection recording that recently second FIR is registered in connection with the same crime.Prima facie it appears that the said F.I.R. is based on the same incident.In the circumstances, the request as made by Mr. Shetye is refused.::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:44 :::(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 01:37:44 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,307,633 |
2.1. A1 to A4 are friends.They hatched up a conspiracy just 10 daysprior to the date of occurrence i.e. On 07.12.2009, to murder one Mariammalof Puliyur Vengitachalapuram village, after robbing her jewels.A1 to A3went to the village on 07.12.2009 at about 9.30 p.m. in a motorcycle bearingRegistration No.TN 76 X 2242 and A1 went to the house of Mariammal, leavingA2 and A3 near the temple in the village.A1 trespassed into the house ofMariammal and after having intercourse with her, he committed murder bystabbing her with knife on sternum (near neck).He looted the gold sacredmangalya chain, ear ornaments and cell phone and left the house.The deceased Mariammal was staying alone in the house as her husband, P.W.4, had gone abroad for avocation.She used to visit herbrother's house daily.P.W.1, brother of the deceased went alongwith his wife and saw the deceased lying dead with injury on her neck andnoticed missing of jewels from her body.P.W.21, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaintat 08.30 a.m., registered a case in crime No.123 of 2009 under Sections 457,380 and 302 of I.P.C. in Panavadalichathiram police station.Theinvestigating officer, P.W.23, took up the case for investigation, went toscene of crime and prepared observation mahazer and rough sketch in thepresence of the witnesses.He also recovered bloodstained cement floor andsample mortar, bloodstained bedspread, nighties, cell phone cover undermahazer Ex.He also held inquest over the dead body in the present ofpanchayatdars and prepared inquest report.Then, he sent the dead body tothe Hospital for Postmortem.P.W.22, Dr.Velammal, conducted autopsy and found the following injuries:1) There was a stab injury measuring 31/2 x 2 x 4 c.m. depth foundvery near to the middle of sternum.The sternum was broken and penetratedinside.No fracture have beenfound.3) The lower part of the left earlobe was severed and a triangleshaped part was brought separately.4) The lower part of right earlobe was severed and a triangleshaped part was brought separately.5) There is no wound in the external part of vagina and no fluid ispresent.6) In the pervaginal examination, the uterus was seen in normalsize.The vaginal discharge taken from the vagina, was sent forexamination.Three fingers were able to be inserted into the vagina withoutany difficulty.When opened, the uterus was empty.7) The pubic hair in the vagina were found separately.They also weresent for examination.The internal organs viz., heart, lungs, brain, spleen, kidney (NC), partlydigested rice weighing 250 ml found in the stomach with no odour.Hyoid bone intact.She opined that the deceased would have died due to hemorrhage and shock because of the injuries sustained by her in sternum (near neck),between 8 to 16 hours before the autopsy.On 14.12.2009, at about 07.00 a.m., A2 Muthukumar appeared before P.W.12, the Village Administrative Officer at North Panavadalichathiram, andgave a confession statement, Ex.The Village Administrative Officer wentwith A2 to the police station and handed over him with the confessionstatement.The investigating officer arrested A2 at 09.30 a.m. and recordedhis confession statement in the presence of witnesses.Pursuant to hisconfession statement, A2 took the investigating officer and the witnesses tohis house and handed over the ear ornaments (M.O.3 series) and the same was recovered by the investigating officer under mahazer.The investigatingofficer arrested A1 at 01.00 p.m. on the same day and recovered sacredmangalya chain from him under the mahazer.He recorded the confession statement given by him.Pursuant to the confession statement, A1 took theinvestigating officer and the witnesses and identified the motor bikebelonging to Rajesh Kannan and the same was recovered.He, then, took them to his plantain grove and took out the bloodstained pant and shirt and handedover.The investigating officer recovered the same in the presence ofwitnesses under mahazers.PRAYER: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. tocall for the records from Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, TirunelveliDistrict and to duly set aside the judgment in S.C.No.42 of 2011 dated08.07.2015 passed by Mahalir Neethimandram, Tirunelveli, TirunelveliDistrict.!For Appellants : Mr.TV.Kathirvelu, senior counsel for Mr.T..Sekar^For Respondent : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor :COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.KALAIYARASAN, J.) These two criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of theSessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli, dated 08.07.2015, in S.C.No.42 of2011 convicting and sentencing A1 for the offence under Section 302, 457 and397 of I.P.C. and A2 for 397 read with 109 of I.P.C. Since both appealsarise out of the same judgment, a common judgment is passed.2.The case of prosecution as disclosed from the evidence is as follows:When the wound was opened for examination, the elbow, the areawhere the right collar bone joined with sternum and the upper part of thesternum were broken and the right collar bone was found separated.In theinternal part, trachea was found severed.The nearby pulmonary artery,veins, blood vessels, nerves are severed.The blood weighing 200 gms.wasclotted around the inside of the wound.2) In the back side of the left side head, there is a wound sized 5 c.m.X 4 c.m.and when it was opened, there is blood clot.The properties recovered were sent for chemicalexamination.The confession statement of A2 was also recorded by theJudicial Magistrate, The investigating officer examined the witnesses andrecorded their statements.His successor, P.W.22, after completing theinvestigation, laid charge sheet.The incriminating evidence found against the accused were put tothem by examining under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., by the trial Judge andthey denied the evidence as false.On the side of the accused, two witnesseswere examined.After analysing the evidence, the trial Judge found A1 guiltyfor the offences under Sections 302, 457 and 397 of I.P.C. and sentenced himto undergo life imprisonment, 5 year R.I and 7 years R.I. Respectively andfine of Rs.2,000/- for each offences with usual default sentence.The trialJudge convicted A2 for the offence under Section 397 read with 109 of I.P.Cand sentenced him to undergo 7 years R.I with Rs.2,000/- fine with usualdefault sentence.Aggrieved by thejudgment, A1 and A2 have preferred these two appeals separately.The learned senior counsel for the appellants in both appealsstrenuously argued that there is no last scene theory; that the extrajudicial confession given to a Village Administrative Officer, who has been aVillage Administrative Officer of a place at a distance of 30 Kms is notbelievable that too, when A2, who gave the confession is a stranger to theVillage Administrative Officer.He further contends that the confessionstatement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.,cannot be relied upon as the same was recorded without giving any reflectiontime to the accused.Even the report of the DNA test, cannot be accepted asthere is no evidence for collection of sample from the first accused for theDNA test.The evidence of P.W.13, who was a witness to the confessionstatement of A1 and A2 and seizure mahazers is not believable as the bridgestated by the witness is not in existence.Therefore, both the appellantsare to be acquitted, giving benefit of doubts.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, contends thatthe entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidenceand scientific evidence.There are documentary evidence for collection of sample andanalysis by the Forensic Sciences Department.He entered into the house, had intercourse with Mariammal andafterwards, he murdered her by stabbing on her sternum with a knife and leftthe house with the gold chain, ear ornaments and cell phone.It is also the case of prosecution that before going to the village,A1 stated to A2 and other accused that after intercourse, he would killMariammal and loot her jewels.There is no eye witness to the occurrence.The entire prosecution isbased only on circumstantial evidence.The available evidence to connect theaccused 1 and 2 with the crime are as follows:(i)extra judicial confession of A2 before P.W.13;(ii)confession statement of A2 before the investigating officer;(iii)confession statement of A2 before the Judicial Magistrate;(iv)recovery of ear studds from A2, pursuant to the confessionstatement given to the investigating officer;(v)confession statement of A1 before the investigating officer;(vi)recovery of gold chain from A1 and bloodstained pant and shirt fromA1 under mahazer, pursuant to his confession;(vii)serologist report depicting the blood group connecting the accusedthrough material objects, recovered from A1 and A2 with the blood group ofdeceased; andThe occurrence took place on 07.12.2009 night.On 14.12.2009, 07.00a.m., the second accused appeared before P.W.13, Village AdministrativeOfficer and gave confession statement, Ex.No doubt, A2 is a stranger toP.W.13 and he is not the Village Administrative Officer of the village, wherethe second accused resides and on the same day, he was handed over to the police and A2 gave confession statement to the investigating officer in thepresence of P.W.13, another Village Administrative Officer.He was remandedto Judicial custody.Thus, the second accused was produced before the JudicialMagistrate from the prison on 17.12.20009 and the Judicial Magistrate, aftergiving requisite waiting A2, asked him as to whether he wanted reflectiontime to give statement.For that, A2 answered that he did not want anyreflection time.The Judicial Magistrate, thus after explaining to thesecond accused that he is not bound to make a confession and if he does so,it may be used as evidence against him and after satisfying himself that A2came forward voluntarily to give confession statement, he recorded theconfession statement of A2 in the manner provide under Section 281 of Cr.P.C.In the confession statement, A2 signed.A2 admits before the Judicial Magistrate in his statement, Ex.P.W.13 says in his evidence thatpursuant to the confession statement, A2 took the investigating officer andthe witnesses, including P.W.13 to his house and took out the ear ornamentsfrom the roof of his house and handed over to the investigating officer.Hefurther says that he signed in the recovery mahazer, Ex.P9 prepared by theinvestigating officer.The learned senior counsel for the appellant mainly contends thatthe evidence of P.W.13 is unreliable on the ground that the place of arrestof A1 mentioned by A1 is not situate as he stated.From perusal of the wholeevidence, both chief as well as cross examination of P.W.13, it is clear thatA2 was arrested only at Solaiseri bridge and the same has been corroboratedby the investigating officer.Thus, therecovery through A2 has been proved through the evidence of P.W.13 and theinvestigating Officer.P.W.13 says that gold chain was recovered from A1 at the time ofarrest, and pursuant to his confession, motor bike was recovered from thehouse of Rajesh Kannan.He further states that pursuant to the confessionstatement, A1 took the investigating officer and the witnesses, to hisplantain grove and took out the pant and shirt and handed over to theinvestigating officer and the above properties were recovered under mahazers.Investigating Officer has also corroborated the same.As already pointedout, the evidence of P.W.13 is believable and trustworthy and the same couldnot be shattered during cross examination.P.W.22, Doctor, who conducted autopsy has deposed that vaginal discharge of the deceased was collected and preserved for examination.P.W.17, Assistant Director of Forensic Sciences has deposed about the DNA test and the reports are marked as Exs.From the evidence ofP.W.17 and the above documents, it is clear that along with the letter, bloodsample collected from A1 Vairamuthu and the vaginal discharge of the deceasedpreserved at the time of autopsy were sent for chemical examination.Aftercomparative examination of the same, P.W.17 concluded that from the DNA typing results of the samples, Vairamuthu is the source of DNA present in thewhitish smear collected from the vaginal of the deceased.Thus, the above scientific evidence establishes that A1 was withthe deceased just before her death.The gold chain recovered from A1, marked as M.O.2 has been identified by P.W.2, as that of her sister-in-law, the deceased Mariammal.As already discussed, recovery of gold chain, shirt and pant from A1,pursuant to his confession statement has been proved.The serologist report is marked as Ex.This depicts that thegold chain M.O.2, recovered from A1 contains group 'B' blood, which is thatof the deceased as detected from the material objects rec overed from thescene of crime.The shirt recovered from A1 is also found with human blood.From the above evidence, it is very clear that A1 trespassed intothe house of the deceased and murdered her, after having intercourse andcommitted robbery and the trial Court has also rightly convicted him for theoffence under Section 302, 457 and 397 of I.P.C.As far as A2 is concerned, he made confession that A1 stated hisplan to him and he accompanied A1 to the village of Mariammal and he was leftnear the temple.Pursuant to the confessionstatement before the investigating officer, ear ornaments viz., M.O.3 series,was recovered from him.As already discussed, the said recovery has beenestablished.P.W.2, sister-in-law of the deceased in her evidence alsoidentified M.O.3 as that of the deceased.The serologist report Ex.P22 alsodiscloses the detection of blood group 'B' in the above said ear ornaments,M.O.3 series, which tallies the blood group of the deceased.From theconfession as well as the above recovery, it is clear that A2 having knownthe plan of A1 went with him to the village of the deceased and after theoccurrence parted with the stolen jewels and therefore, the trial Court hasrightly convicted him for the offence under Section 397 read with 109For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any reason tointerfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in itsjudgment.Therefore, these criminal appeals are liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, these criminal appeals are dismissed.The trial Judge isdirected to secure the appellants/A1 and A2, to undergo the remaining periodof sentence.1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tirunelveli.2.The Inspector of Police, Panavadalichathiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,309,461 |
He was only instrumentally allegedly in helping the main accused to take the prosecutrix from present place to different places.Charge-sheet has been filed.His confinement amounts to pretrail detention.Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that he is ready to cooperate in the trial as well as in the investigation as and when required.Therefore, applicant prayed for grant of bail.Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also opposed the prayer.Considering the submissions advanced, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2018.12.18 17:38:05 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,310,660 |
The case of the prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 23/24.04.2018 a theft occurred in the residential house of complainant Lateef situated at Ekta Nagar Colony under the jurisdiction of Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in Crime No.297/2018 registered at Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal, under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code.On the morning of 24.04.2018, when the complainant and his family members have reached their house, they found that some jewelry items of gold and silver, cash Rs.15,000/- and one LCD of Videocon Company were stolen after breaking the doors of the house.Complainant Lateef had lodged the report against unknown person.Later on, during the course of investigation applicant and other co-accused persons have been arrested.The applicant has admitted the commission of theft.On his information some of the stolen articles have been recovered from the possession of the applicant.The recovered property has been identified during the course of identification proceedings.On that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant.The applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-14728-2019 (JAVED Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 in the application.He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon him.There is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 2019.04.16 17:59:03 +05'30'
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,311,919 |
A.391/2013 Page 4 of 4A.391/2013 Page 4 of 4It may be noted that the Appellant was arrested or had surrendered in the connected case on 03.09.2012, that is, more than two years after the publication of the proclamation under Section 82 of the Code.Thus, even if in pursuance of order dated 15.02.2010 for issuing proclamation against the Appellant, the proclamation was really published on 08.03.2010, the fact that he was required to appear on or Crl.A.391/2013 Page 2 of 4 before 27th March losses significance.In order to show his bonafide and escape prosecution under Section 174-A IPC he could have appeared within 30 days of the publication.Admittedly, the Appellant had surrendered in some other case on 03.09.2012; a request for interrogation and arrest of the Appellant was made by Head Constable Vijay Dutt to the learned ASJ on 03.10.2012 which permission was granted to him.The Appellant was consequently arrested under Section 41(1)(c) Cr.P.C. as he had been declared as a proclaimed offender.Thus, filing of the kalandra under Section 41(1)(c) was not a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. prepared by the officer in charge of the Police Station.Thus, on the basis of the earlier said Kalandra under Section 41(1)(c) Cr.P.C. the Appellant could not have been tried for the offence punishable under Section 174-A IPC.All the more, it was only a 'MM' who was entitled to take cognizance and to try the offence under Section 174-A IPC.A common judgment was passed by the learned ASJ whereby he was acquitted of the charges under Section 307/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act but was convicted under Section 174-A IPC.Since the trial was illegal the impugned judgment convicting the Appellant under Section 174-A IPC is hereby set aside.However, this order shall be without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to file a Crl.A.391/2013 Page 3 of 4 report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the Appellant before the learned 'MM' and to have a trial in accordance with law.A.391/2013 Page 3 of 4The Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE MAY 23, 2013 vk Crl.
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,931,268 |
Immediately the Sikligars called 4 to 5 more Sikligars and 3 to 4 tribals.THIS is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.306/2016 registered at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 147, 149, 332, 333, 186, 307 and 148 of IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.As per the prosecution case, on 07.05.2016 at 5.00 pm after receiving a secret information that Sikligars are illegally manufacturing and selling country made pistols at Village Lalbagh, District Dhar.After reaching there, police party called the informant and asked him to make contact with Sikligars regarding purchase of weapons.Then the informant went to Sikligars and he was bargaining for a pistol.At that time the police party reached there and they have tried to apprehend the -: 2 :- Sikligars.They have apprehended one Sikligar - Chandar.They started pelting stones.Hence Vishnu, Suresh and Manish have sustained injuries.Santosh Kumar Pandey has lodged the report at Police Station Dhamnod.On that basis, aforesaid offence has been registered.-: 2 :-
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,317,486 |
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Adv.for State.Mr. Amit Sharma, SPP (NIA) with Mr. Ahmad Ziad, Adv.and Ms. Ranchan, PP (NIA) for R-2/NIA.SI Prateek, P.S. Jaitpur, Delhi.Vinay Kumar, ATO/Khajuri Khas.SI Alok Kumar, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony.Pankaj Kumar, P.S. Malviya Nagar.SI Manmeet Singh, P.S. Nabi Karim.HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)This Public Interest Litigation has been instituted by this Court on its own motion on receiving letters from the accused persons who are in Jail since long.Learned counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that in the following 7 FIRs, out of total witnesses most of them have already been W.P.(CRL.) 773/2019 Page 1 of 3 examined.The details of those 7 cases are as under:-W.P.(CRL.) 773/2019 Page 1 of 3Similarly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/NIA submitted that for the remaining two accused, namely, Ujair Ahmed, charge sheet in RC Case No.6/2012/NIA/DLI has been filed before the Special Judge, NIA.In this case, there are total 16 accused.A charge sheet under Sections 17/18/19/38(2)/39(2)/40(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been filed.The case is at finalization of the charges stage.So far as second accused, namely, Imran Khan is concerned, W.P.(CRL.) 773/2019 Page 2 of 3 charge sheet in RC Case No.14/2015/NIA/DLI has already been filed before the Special Judge, NIA.In this case, there are in all 19 accused.A charge sheet under Sections 17/18/18B/23/38/39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 has been filed.This case is already at finalization of the charges stage and the prosecution has already concluded arguments on finalization of the charges.W.P.(CRL.) 773/2019 Page 2 of 3In view of the aforesaid submissions and also looking to the fact that the cases against the aforesaid accused persons are already going on in the Trial Court and in most cases several witnesses have already been examined, we see no reason to further monitor this petition.We expect from the Special Judge, NIA to finalize the charges and to proceed with the cases of NIA Act at the earliest.With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.All the pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.Copy of the order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the Special Judge, NIA where the aforesaid two cases i.e. RC Case No.6/2012/NIA/DLI and RC Case No.14/2015/NIA/DLI are going on.CHIEF JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR, J NOVEMBER 13, 2019 kks W.P.(CRL.) 773/2019 Page 3 of 3W.P.(CRL.) 773/2019 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
79,319,072 |
[Order of the Court was made byS.VIMALA,J.,] The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.114 of 1996 onthe file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.Bythe Judgment, dated 11.01.1999, the accused herein along with two others byname Lakshmanan and Venkatachalam, were found guilty under Sections 449, 506(ii) and 302 IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC and they were convicted andsentenced as follows:-Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed 449 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years506(ii) IPCTo undergo simple imprisonment for two years.302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Accordingly, the authorities concerned aredirected to calculate the period of incarceration for pre-mature relief, bytaking into account the period of 53 days, during which, the accused was incustody during investigation period, for calculation to find out the eligibleperiod for consideration for pre-mature release.8.With the above direction, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
260,096 |
JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.The present Revision Petition is preferred against an order dated 24.07.2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge, charging the petitioner accused of committing offences under Sections 307/34, Indian Penal Code ("IPC").The brief facts essential to decide this petition are that one Vishal Gupta complained to the Police Station, Sangam Vihar alleging that one Asad, the Petitioner along with Tarun Sharma went to his shop; he alleged that they had a prior animosity, with him.They started abusing him resulting in physical altercation.Asad allegedly put an iron punch in his fingers and started giving fist blows and Tarun caught hold of complainant's hair, on which the latter raised an alarm.At that stage, the complainant's father reached the spot, to rescue him, caught hold of Asad; the latter however, freed himself and took out a sword with which he allegedly attacked complainant's neck.Anand Gupta, the father of complainant caught hold of the sword; in the process his palm and right thumb were injured.On the basis of this complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered; the complainant, and his father were medically examined.The police filed a charge sheet after investigation, in court.By its order, dated 24.7.06, the court rejected the plea that offence under Section 307 was not made out against accused.Accordingly charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the petitioner.He relied upon the order dated 2-3-2005, enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail.The argument was that the petitioner, was restrained from using the iron punch; the intended victim did not receive any injury; therefore, the question of any attempted murder could not have arisen.The complainant raised an alarm; his father rushed to the spot, sought to restrain the petitioner, from the back.The petitioner freed himself, and allegedly took out a small sword from his bag, and started to assault the complainant; his father caught the sword with both hands; the petitioner pulled away the weapon.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,013,035 |
The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 104/2016 registered at Police Station Jaura, District Morena for the offence punishable under Section 353, 294, 506-B, 186, 34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.There is no allegation against the applicants that they used any criminal force against the public servant.Prima facie, no offence under section 353 of IPC is made out against the applicants.At the most offence punishable under Section 186 of IPC may constitute, which is bailable.Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicants.Under these circumstances, applicants pray for anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,024,760 |
Eventually, opposite party no. 1 was served with a summons in connection with this case and on receiving the same, he appeared in the court on 15-03-10 and brought the attention of the court to that fact.The ld. court considered the matter and noted down in that order clearly that the de facto complainant did not mention in her initial deposition the name of the opposite party no. 1, Pradyumna Sinha as an accused.Therefore, the order impugned and the order dated 15-03-10 together makes it abundantly clear that the ld. trial court did not find sufficient materials to proceed against the opposite party no. 1 and issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 4 connection with this case.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
260,258 |
ORDERJudgement pronounced by C. Shivappa, J.The detenues in both these cases since involved in the same adverse cases and in the ground incident, the date of representations and the procedure complied with, and the grounds urged assailing the orders of detention being the same, they are heard together and this common order is passed.The petitioner in HCP No.1207 of 1997 is the brother of the detenu and HCP No.1208 of 1997 is by the father of the detenu.Both the detenues came to the adverse notice of the respondents in as many as three cases registered in Crime No.412 of 1995 for offence under sections 147, 148, 326, 324, 307 and 302, IPC.Crime No.643 of 1997 for an offence under section 380 IPC and Crime No.681 of 1997 for an offence under section 395, IPC.The ground case relates to an incident which took place on 4.10.1997 at 8.30 hrs.when the detenues robbed one Selvem of Rs.100/- and also knifed him.The Advisory Board, after considering all the materials, sent its recommendation on 12.12.1997, within six weeks.The confirmation order was communicated to the detenues on 12.1.1998 under acknowledgement.The ground incident was on 4.10.1997 at 8.30 hrs.near G. K. Mandapam, Mamallapuram, which is a tourist center.The detenues and their associates committed day-light robbery of one Thiru Selvam, taking away his money and wrist watch, criminally intimidated the general public, who attempted to save the said Selvam and threw soda bottles from the bunk shop, showed knives and threatened to kill whoever tried to apprehend them.
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,026,316 |
In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. For grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 19.05.2020 by Police Station Fatehgarh district Guna, (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.120/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 307, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC.Applicant is permanent resident of district Guna and there is no chance of his absconding.Co-accused Bhagirath has already been released on bail and case of applicant is identical to that of co-accused.Applicant is ready to abide with all the conditions which may be imposed by 2 MCRC-26284-2020 this court while considering his bail application.On these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail.On the other hand, counsel for the State has opposed the application stating that the applicant has actively participated in the commission of offence along with other co-accused persons causing grievous hurt to the complainant Dinesh and injuries to other injured.Hence, prayed for rejection of this bail application.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant along with other co-accused has caused farsa blow on the head of injured Dinesh causing grievous hurt to complainant Dinesh which is found dangerous to life, this court is not inclined to extend benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
|
26,032,923 |
(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN,J) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Sathya, aged 32years, son of Palaniyandi, who has been detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14of 1982 by the order of the second respondent, in his proceedings inCr.M.P.No.44/2015, dated 31.12.2015, branding him as a 'Goonda', taking noteof the ground case in Crime No.321 of 2015 on the file of Thottiyam PoliceStation, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147,148, 341, 302 r/w 120(b) I.P.C. and also the following adverse cases:(i) Cr.No.149 of 2014 on the file of Thottiyam Police Station, for theoffence under Sections 147, 148, 324 I.P.C. altered into Sections 147, 148,341, 294(b), 323 and 324(ii) Cr.No.191 of 2015 on the file of Thottiyam Police Station, for theoffence under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C.Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this HabeasCorpus Petition.The Secretary to Government] and thus, the detention orderis liable to be set aside.This, according to the learned Senior Counselappearing for the petitioner is totally baseless and reflecting the totalnon-application of mind of the Detaining Authority.We have considered the above said submissions and perused the materials available on record.Regarding the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority asto the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case,the detaining authority made the following observation:Nos.149/2014 and 321/2015 and have not filed any bailapplications so far.In a similar case registered in Kumbakonam West PSCr.No.331/2014, bail was granted to Mathan @ Mathankumar @ Manikandan by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Cr.On that groundalone, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.In the result, the impugned detention order passed by the secondrespondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Sathya, son of Palaniyandi,aged 32 years, made in Cr.M.P.No.44/2015, dated 31.12.2015, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.District Magistrate, Trichirappalli District, Trichirappalli.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
260,403 |
(i) P.W.1 is the son of Selvanayagam, who had four daughters and three sons.Her daughter Shanmugapriya was given in marriage to first accused on 4.2.2001, during which 40 sovereigns of gold jewels and a cash of Rs.50,000/- were given as demanded by the accused.The first accused is working as a Police Constable attached to Reserve Force.The second accused is the brother; the third accused is the mother and accused 4 and 5 are sisters of first accused.After the marriage, Shanmugapriya was living with first accused as joint family, where she has been tortured then and there and also subjected to cruelty for extracting dowry.She wrote letters to her mother about the same and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home and stayed along with her mother.Her mother, after consoling her, sent back to the matrimonial home.(ii) In August, 2001, the first accused along with Shanmugapriya came to the house of Selvanayagam, who is the mother of the deceased and demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, but she paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- only.Thereafter, Shanmugapriya came to her mother's house to deliver a child.When the third accused made a visit, she told that they should pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-.Thereafter, a male child was born to the deceased and her mother spent the whole medical expenses.but, either first accused or his family members did not care about the same.Thereafter, when Shanmugapriya went to her husband's house, she was humiliated and she informed the same to her mother.Shanmugapriya told her mother that the accused were demanding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, but the same was not paid.(iii) While the matter stood thus, on the date of incident i.e. on 22.5.2005 at 10.00 p.m. Selvanayagam received a phone call from first accused that Shanmugapriya suffered mild burn injuries and she was hospitalised in Ramakrishna Hospital.Thereafter, they rushed to the Hospital where they found that Shanmugapriya sustained burn injuries.She explained her mother as to how such incident occurred.Since she could not bear the harassment, she set her ablaze by pouring kerosene on her.(iv) One Dr. Sekar, Casualty Medical Officer of Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore gave her treatment.P.W.13 is the accident register.On intimation given by the Duty Doctor, P.W.10, Inspector of All Women Police Station proceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement of the victim, which is marked as Ex.P14 at about 12.30 a.m. On the strength of the statement given by the victim, she registered the case in Crime No.11 of 2005 as fire accident.Further, she went to the scene of occurrence on 23.5.2005 and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P16 and Rough sketch Ex.Thereafter, she recovered the material objects under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P18 in the presence of witnesses.With this modification, Crl.A. No.237 of 2008 is dismissed.The Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.The Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore.The Superintendent, Central Prison, CoimbatoreThe Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore.The District Collector, Vellore.Appeals filed under section 378 Cr.P.C. praying for the relief as stated below.A. No.237 of 2008 has been filed by accused 1 and 4 and Crl.A. No.250 of 2008 has been filed by accused 2 and 5, challenging the judgment dated 11.3.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore in S.C. No.154 of 2006, whereby the appellants in both the appeals along with another accused, who is shown as third accused, stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offences under Sections 498A and 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. and the appellants in both the appeals are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 498-A read with 34 I.P.C. and they are sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months under Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:-(v) After receiving requisition letter Ex.D1 from Ramakrishna Hospital, learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore recorded Dying Declaration Ex.D2 on 23.5.2005 at 11.30 a.m. On 29.5.2005 at 9.45 p.m., the injured Shanmugapriya succumbed to the injuries.Since the death took place within seven years of marriage, the case was converted into Section 174 Cr.P.C. Then, the copy of First Information Report was sent to P.W.8 Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, who came to the spot and held an inquest and examined the witnesses and gave a report Ex.(vi) P.W.11 took up further investigation and examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and collected the materials.After enquiry, on the strength of the report given by the Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W.8, the case was converted into under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. On completion of investigation, final report was filed.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed against the accused.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and relied on the documents Exs.On the side of defence, only one witness viz Thiru S. Ravishankar, Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore was examined as D.W.1 and documents Ex.D1 and D2 were marked.On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied them as false.The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinised the materials available on record, found the accused guilty under Sections 498-A red with 34 and 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. and awarded the punishment referred to above Pending trial the third accused died.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel would submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place on 22.5.2005 at 7.15 p.m. Originally, the case was registered as Fire Accident.After the occurrence, she was immediately taken to the Hospital and the Doctor, who treated her, issued Ex.P13 accident register, which would clearly indicate that it was actually a fire accident.The Doctor, who has actually treated the victim, was not examined.According to P.W.3, who is the neighbor of first accused, already an attempt was made by the victim to commit suicide since there was dowry harassment and further on the date of occurrence, she saw the victim pouring kerosene on her and set fire.This statement given by P.W.3 is to be rejected for more reasons than one.Her house is situated on the other side of the road, whereas the occurrence took place inside the kitchen.A perusal of the rough sketch would clearly reveal that the occurrence took place inside the kitchen.Though P.W.3 deposed that she was standing in front of her house, she could not have seen what had taken place inside the kitchen of the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellants further added that though the occurrence took place on 22.5.2005, she has not whispered anything till 29.5.2005, the date of death of deceased.She gave statements only when the Deputy Superintendent of Police examined her.Likewise, she gave statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer.In her statement, she has stated that accused 1 to 4 went to attend the reception after pouring kerosene on the victim and set her ablaze and it was the fifth accused, who extinguished the fire.Since she kept mum for a period of one week, she would not have seen the incident at all.Hence her evidence has to be rejected.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submits that the prosecution has no evidence to prove its case.The earliest statement given by the victim to the Doctor when she was admitted in the Hospital, a copy of the Accident Register is marked as Ex.P13, would clearly indicate that it was an accidental fire.It was P.W.10, who immediately rushed to the Hospital and recorded the statement, which is marked as Ex.P14, where she has stated that at the time when she prepared milk for her child, the stove bursts, as a result of which she sustained burn injuries.This would clearly indicate that it was only an accidental fire.Learned counsel also submits that according to P.W.1, the victim informed him as if she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her, due to dowry harassment.This evidence cannot be believed since he has not stated anything about the same for a period of one week till her death.Hence, this statement was nothing but a subsequent development.Under these circumstances, that part of the prosecution should have been rejected.Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution had no evidence in respect of dowry demand.P1 is the letter alleged to have been written by the deceased to her mother.A perusal of the letter would clearly indicate that there is no whisper of demand of dowry.Further as far as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are concerned, though the incident had taken place on 22.5.2005, both of them have not whispered anything till the death of the deceased.Hence their evidence cannot be believed.There was nothing on record to indicate that there was demand of dowry.Hence, the Trial Court, without any evidence whatsoever, had found the accused guilty.Learned counsel concluded that the judgment of the Trial Court was erroneous and without any substance and hence the same has to be set aside and the appellants have got to be acquitted.This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.This Court paid its anxious considerations on the submissions made by either side.The Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem on the body of Shanmugapriya, gave evidence to the effect that she died out of burn injuries.The prosecution was successful enough to establish that she died out of burn injuries.Before the Trial Court, two charges were levelled against these appellants.One is that the victim committed suicide and all the accused persons were responsible for the same and further, there was a dowry demand, as a result of which, she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons.On a thorough scrutiny of the materials available on record, following circumstances are noticed by this Court:-(i) Insofar as first charge of abetment of commission of suicide is concerned, the occurrence took place on 22.5.2005 at 7.15 p.m. Admittedly, she was taken to the Hospital and she was given treatment by one Dr. Sekar, but the prosecution has not examined the said Doctor.A copy of the Accident register issued by him is marked as Ex.This document is the earliest document, which has come into existence.A perusal of the said document would clearly reveal that it was actually an accidental fire.Following the said document, Ex.P14 statement of the deceased has come into existence.P.W.10, the Inspector of All Women Police Station, on intimation, rushed to the Hospital and recorded the statement of victim.A reading of Ex.P14 would clearly indicate that it was actually an accidental fire, due to which she sustained burn injuries.A reading of the said statement would clearly indicate that it was not a case of suicide.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, P.W.3, a neighbor, whose house is situated on the other side of the road, could not have seen the occurrence, which took place inside the kitchen of the first accused, though P.W.3 was standing in front of the house.Apart from this, though the occurrence had taken place on 22.5.2005, she has not even whispered anything about the said act of self immolation for a period of one week.She gave her evidence only on 29.5.2005 that too at the time of enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, she has come forward with such version.It is further to be pointed out that she has given different version on the very day to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted enquiry.She has stated to the Revenue Divisional Officer that it was accused 1, 3 and 4, who poured kerosene on the decease and set her fire and they left the place and it was the fifth accused, who extinguished the fire.This would clearly indicate that the evidence of P.W.3 is liable to be rejected since she has not only kept mum for a period of one week but also she gave different version to the different Officials on the same day.The evidence given by her, pointing out the guilt of the accused, has to be rejected.All these circumstances would clearly indicate the fact that it was nothing but a fire accident.The prosecution has failed to prove the act of self immolation by the deceased and the accused are responsible for the same.Hence, insofar as the charge of Section 304-B I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution has miserable failed to prove the same.Hence the finding of the Trial Court in that regard has got to be set aside.(iii) Insofar as the other charge of cruelty under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case as against accused 1 and 4, who are appellants in Crl.The first accused is the husband and the fourth accused is the sister-in-law of the deceased.The prosecution has the direct evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are brother and sister of the deceased.(iv) When the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly indicate the fact that in the past, accused 1, 3 and 4 were demanding dowry, Ex.P1 letter written by the deceased would speak about the fact that she was tortured and harassed by the said accused.At this juncture, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants is that P.Ws.1 and 2 have not given any evidence about the dowry demand at all and Ex.P1 letter also does not speak about the same, that too, they gave statements only after a week i.e. on 29.5.2008 and hence, no credence would be attached to their evidence.The said contention cannot be accepted.Originally, the case was registered as fire accident and the same was converted into one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, on enquiry made by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the case was converted into under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. At the earliest point of time, when the case was registered as fire accident, either P.W.1 or P.W.2 had no occasion to speak about the dowry demand.When the enquiry was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, they had an occasion to come out with the truth as to what happened in the past.There is sufficient materials to hold that accused 1, 3 and 4 are guilty of cruel treatment and also demanded dowry, which is punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. Insofar as accused 2 and 5 are concerned, there is no material to point out the guilt of the accused.Insofar as accused 2 and 5 are concerned, Crl.A. No.250 of 2008 is allowed and conviction and sentence imposed on the said accused in S.C. No.154 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore is set aside.It is submitted that the appellants are on bail.Hence bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand terminated forthwith.Fine amount, if any, paid, shall be refunded to them.Insofar as accused 1 and 4 are concerned, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. is set aside and the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 498A read with 34 I.P.C. is confirmed.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, All Women Police Station, Pothanur Division, Coimbatore.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,040,321 |
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the detenu, namely, Ramesh, son of Nataraj, aged about 36 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in C.M.P.No.32/Goonda/Salem City/2014, dated 25.8.2014, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Salem, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications were not supplied to the detenu.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.It is seen from paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail in C.M.P.No.3749/2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in Cr.No.1792/2011 under Section 302 IPC; and Crl.O.P.No.25955/2012, on the file of the High Court, Madras, in Cr.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,042,965 |
C. C. as per rules.K. Gangele) JUDGE kkc
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
690,137 |
The said Rajinder Saini is apolitical leader of Congress (1).It is stated in thepetition that Rajinder Saini became an eyesore to thepresent Chief Minister of Punjab.2.Rajinder Saini was invited to a dinner by the thirdrespondent, Deputy Inspector General of Police, LudhianaRange, Ludhiana.At that time he was assaulted.Thereafterhe was asked to disappear from the scene as soon aspossible.Since then the police has been after RajinderSaini.Concerning this incident telegrams weresent to the President of India, Chief Justice of India,Chief Justices of the High Courts of Delhi at New Delhi andPunjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.But they were of no avail.The sister of the petitioner also sent a letter to the ChiefMinister of Punjab but it bore no fruit."On September 22, 1993 upon motion the petition was taken on board and notices were issued to the respondents.Today when the matter was called one of the persons viz., Daljit Saini appeared before us.He submitted that both the persons so detained had been released on October 2, 1993 at Pathankot.The statement of Daljit Saini was recorded.In his statement before us he submitted that he was beaten and tortured during his detention and complains of some degree of incapacitation of his limbs and stated that he could not walk and stand steadily.It is, therefore, necessary to have Daljit Saini examined and medically treated at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.We direct the Medical Superintendent, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, to medically examine Daljit Saini and afford him the requisite treatment as may be necessary.A report in this behalf shall be submitted to this Court within a week from today."3.In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents1 and 2, the allegations in the petition are stoutly denied.It proceeded to state that Rajinder Saini had planned toeliminate the Chief Minister of Punjab.If the ChiefMinister could not be eliminated then the son of Mr JatinderPrasad, Political Secretary of the Prime Minister was to beabducted and he would get them released by intervening andeffecting a bargain.The two persons, namely BhupinderSingh alias Bhinda and Surjit Singh alias Kala who werehired by Rajinder Saini committed robbery in the office ofChhedi Lal and robbed him of cash amounting to Rs 3 lakhsand his wrist-watch.Rajinder Saini was also an18accomplice.4.One Dr Jagdev Singh informed the police about theconspiracy hatched by Rajinder Saini and his accomplice toeliminate the Chief Minister.On the basis of thatinformation FIR No. 29 dated August 27, 1993 was registeredat Police Station No. 6, Ludhiana.The arrestwas made under FIR No.158 dated August 27, 1993 registered at Police StationDivision No. 6, Ludhiana.During the course ofinterrogation of Rajinder Saini in the above said case underSections 27/25 of the Arms Act, Sections 302/120-B, IndianPenal Code and Section 5 of the Terrorist and DisruptiveActivities (Prevention) Act registered at the above saidpolice station, he confessed his guilt regarding hisinvolvement in various nefarious activities.A videotape of the recording of the confession was also made.Theoriginal statement and the video tape have been sent to theChief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for forwarding the sameto the designated court.1.This writ petition is under Article 32 of theConstitution of India.The petitioner is a maternal uncleof one Rajinder Saini.As a result, politicalrivalry arose.Rajinder Sainimoved the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi for anticipatorybail in one of the cases in which he had been implicated asper disclosure of the offenders under arrest vide FIR No.311, Police Station Kalkaji, under Sections 392, 397, 284read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code in Delhi.He is oninterim bail granted in Criminal Misc.(M) No. 2190 of 1993.It is under these circumstances, the writ petition forhabeas corpus has been preferred to direct the respondent toproduce Daljeet Saini, son of the petitioner and Om Parkash,brother-in-law of the petitioner.On October 4, 1993 thisCourt passed inter alia an order which is extracted below:The said confessional statement clearly shows theinvolvement of Rajinder Saini and his accomplices BhupinderSingh alias Bhinda and Surjit Singh alias Kala in thenefarious activities clandestinely carried out by them.Besides, the said confessional statement also shows thatRajinder Saini accused had sent one person namely KultarSingh alias Kaka resident of Village Jawaddi, DistrictLudhiana to Hong Kong.It was through this Kultar Singhalias Kaka that two pistols were arranged for the accusedRajinder Saini.The above narration of facts clearly showthat Rajinder Saini and his accomplices had been indulgingin nefarious activities and the present petition has beenfiled solely for the purpose of pressurising the police fromnot pursuing the case registered against them and has beenfiled at their behest.6.The counter-affidavit further proceeds that neitherDaljit Saini nor Om Prakash had been arrested.The entirestory about the alleged detenus has been cooked up by thepetitioner with a view to malign the police.If really theywere arrested on August 9, 1993, as to why the petitionerhad kept quiet all these days is not explained.7.The telegram sent to the Chief Justice of Punjab andHaryana High Court was registered as Criminal Writ PetitionNo.This materialfact has been suppressed from this Court.It was pursuant tothe direction of this Court he was released.He and Om Prakash were beatenup in the night at around 11.30 to 12.08 o'clock.They weretaken from Pathankot to Ludhiana.They were kept in a cellkind of a room with a door having iron bars.There werefour other persons already locked up.Their names wereJamail Singh Bhati, Kewal Singh (sic) and Surender.Two orthree days later the four persons were shifted and sent toNabha Jail.The mother of Daljit Saini and the wife of thewrit petitioner also would swear that her son was notrelieved even after the arrest of Rajinder Saini.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,014,354 |
A suicide note, left by the deceased was also recovered.In the suicide note, it 2 CRR No.2847/2018 was mentioned that the applicant is her cousin brother [son of her mother's sister (Mausi)].It is mentioned that because of the said relationship, the applicant used to visit her house and had asked her to develop friendship but because she was only 20 years of age, therefore, she could not understand his intention.An information has been sent by the Secretary, the High Court Bar Association, Gwalior to the Principal Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior to the effect that the President, Vice President and some other members of the Bar were attacked by some miscreants as a result of which, the lawyers are abstaining from work.Shri Premnarayan Arya, who is an Advocate by profession is present in person.It is submitted by Shri Arya that he may be heard and he is ready to answer any query which may be raised by this Court.A copy of the charge sheet has already been filed along with this revision, therefore, case diary is not required.This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 6.6.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3 (Electricity Act), Gwalior in S.T.No.137/2018 by which a charge under Section 306 of IPC has been framed.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that initially the deceased had lodged a report against the applicant for an offence under Section 376 of IPC.The applicant was thereafter granted bail.Thereafter the deceased committed suicide on 1.2.2018 by consuming some poisonous substance.Thereafter he left the deceased in the house of grandmother.On one day, the applicant took the deceased to his house and offered a tea and after consuming the tea, the deceased became semi unconscious and thereafter the applicant without her consent committed rape on her.After the said incident, the deceased was threatened by the applicant that in case if she narrates the incident to anybody, then she would be defamed by the applicant and nobody would believe the allegations of the deceased and under this threat, he continued to have physical relations with her.On three to four occasions, she became pregnant also but the applicant got her aborted.In order to show his bonafides, the applicant also married her in a temple but she was never accepted/projected as wife.Since the deceased was being used by the applicant, therefore, she went in depression as she was afraid that her family may get defamed in the society.In the meanwhile, the applicant married another lady.However, she also left him after four years of marriage.Initially the applicant used to drive the auto but after sometime he passed LL.B. and LL.M. The deceased thereafter narrated the entire incident 3 CRR No.2847/2018 to her mother and her mother called the applicant to her house on various occasions but the applicant instead of going to the house of the mother of the deceased insisted that her mother should come to Gwalior and accordingly a room was booked by the applicant at Gwalior on 6.10.2017 in the name of the deceased and her mother.The copy of the receipt was also annexed with the suicide note.The applicant had a discussion with her mother and in order to maintain the family pride the mother of the deceased also agreed to keep quite and accepted the suggestion given by the applicant that this episode should not be narrated to anybody, and he would continuously help the deceased financially.Thereafter her mother went back to Delhi.On 27.10.2017, the applicant came to her house at about 8:00 PM and threatened the deceased may do whatever she wants but he would not spare her.Neither he would allow her to marry and even if she gets married, then she will have to give birth to the children of the applicant.It was also mentioned in the suicide note that still she is afraid of the applicant and, therefore, she committed suicide under the hope and belief that on one day, she would get justice.Heard the applicant.The High Court having affirmed that order, the matter was brought up to this Court.This Court partly allowed the appeal qua the parents-in-law while dismissing the same qua the husband.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
690,242 |
The accused-appellant Kallu @ Shivdhani is the father ofappellant Rajesh Pandey, Smt. Rama is daughter of Kallu @ Shivdhani andSmt.Shanti Devi is his wife, meaning thereby, Rajesh Pandey is husband,Kallua @ Shivdhani is father-in-law, Smt. Shanti Devi is mother-in-law andSmt.Rama is sister-in-law of deceased.The marriage had been performed according to the Hindu rites.In themarriage, dowry etc. was given by the complainant-informant according to 2 his capability but the accused-persons were not happy.They weredemanding Buffalo, golden chain and Rs.20,000/- in cash in dowry and forthat they were torturing the deceased, who used to make complaintsregarding her harassment and torture by her husband and in-laws to herparents.The complainant informant repeatedly made attempts to persuadethe appellants to not torture his daughter.He also told them that he was noin a position to fulfill their demands.On 07.07.2000 at about 1.00 P.M., the complainant informant wasinformed that in-laws of his daughter burnt her alive by pouring keroseneoil on her.It was also informed that before burning, she was beaten by them.When the complainant-informant with his associates went to the house of inlaws of his daughter, the village people told him about the incident.No onewas available at the house of accused-persons except the minor child ofdeceased Smt. Rekha.The village people told the complainant-informantthat the neighbors had taken Smt. Rekha to some hospital in Qasba Amauli,district Fatehpur on a Tractor, where she died.The dead body of thedeceased was lying at the house of accused-persons.3 Just before the day of occurrence i.e. on 06.06.2000, Vinay Kumar, theyoungest son of complainant-informant had gone to the house of accused-appellants and met his sister Smt. Rekha who had told him about harassmentand torture etc. made by the accused-appellants for dowry.The deceasedhad given a letter in which the entire facts were disclosed.The written F.I.R. isExt.Chik report is Ext.The matter wasinvestigated by the police concerned.The Investigating Officer visited thespot and prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-8, photo of dead body Ext. Ka-11,Challan Ext. Ka-12 and after that he sealed the dead body and wrote letterExt.Ka-9 and Ka-10 to the R.I. Police Lines and C.M.O. Fatehpurrespectively for post mortem examination of deceased.Dr. A.S. Khan andDr.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench ofthe Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.Hewas the appellant alongwith three others before the Allahabad High Court.The accused was found guilty of offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of theDowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the `Act').Background facts, as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are asfollows:The accused appellant is the resident of Village Budhanna, PoliceStation Chandpur, District Fatehpur.The complainant-informant, ShivBalak Tiwari is resident of village Garhi, Police Station Jafarganj, districtFatehpur.Smt. Rekha (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') wasdaughter of complainant, Shiv Balak Tewari, who was married with theaccused-appellant, Rajesh Pandey about five years back to the occurrence inquestion.The Investigating Officertook burnt clothes of deceased and the plastic container which wererecovered from the spot and prepared memo Ext.Ka-13 and Ka-14 4 respectively.He interrogated the prosecution witnesses and after concludinginvestigation, submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-7 against the accusedappellants.But theydenied the allegation regarding demand of dowry, torture and about causingdeath of deceased.They further stated that all the proceedings wereconducted by the police on false consideration.The accused-appellantRajesh Pandey further alleged that Smt. Rekha was desirous of partition ofancestral house and when she failed in her designs, she committed suicideby burning herself.He further stated that the prosecution witnesses havegiven evidence against him under undue pressure of one Ram BharoseyTiwari.Smt. Shanti Devi stated that she was residing separately in a templeand she did not know how the deceased died.She also stated about factumof partition of the house as alleged by her son, Rajesh Pandey.The accused-appellant, Shivdhani also took same defence as taken by his son RajeshPandey.Smt. Rama Devi stated that she was a married lady and had come to 5 the house of her parents and was living in a temple separately.The deceasedwas not even on talking terms with her.She did not know how she died.After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed.Trial courtconvicted the appellants under Section 498A and 304B IPC and Sections 3and 4 of the Act.Section 304 B IPC reads as follows:High Court allowed the appeal of the co-accused persons.But theappeal was dismissed so far as it relates to the present appellant.The victim died ofburns.They have referred to letter Ext.Ka-2 to conclude about the demandof dowry and the torture meted out to the deceased.In the instant case there ispractically no discussion of the evidence by the High Court.It simplyreiterated the analysis made by the trial court.Therefore, we have 7 considered the evidence on record.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
690,283 |
J U D G M E N TLokeshwar Singh Panta, J.Brief facts, which led to the trial of the appellants, are as follows:-On April 26, 1982 Arvind Kumar married Sadhna, daughter of Bhag Chand (P.W.9) and sister of Sudarshan Kumar Jain (P.W. 5).After the marriage of Sadhna, the accused started harassing and humiliating her for not bringing adequate dowry articles.Prosecution alleged that on 29th June, 1982 both the accused demanded one table fan, one automatic watch and one almirah from Sadhna.Sadhna was unable to satisfy the persistent demand of the accused.The incident of suicide had taken place after one month and seven days of the marriage of the deceased Sadhna with Arvind Kumaraccused.On 3rd July, 1982, the crime report (Ex. P-10) of the death of Sadhna was reported by Santosh Kumar (P.W. 7), brother of Arvind Kumar accused, to the Police at Check Post Barha, Police Station Banda.After receiving the report and preparing First Information Report, P.W. 12 Rameshwar Prasad, Head Constable went to the place of incident and held the necessary Panchnama like seizure of certain articles found near the scene of offence, got the spot map (Ex. P-11) prepared from Ram Sewak Khare, Patwari.The dead body of Sadhna was sent for post mortem to District Hospital, Khargaon.After recording the statements of the material witnesses and after receipt of post mortem report Ex. P-16 of Dr. J.C. Jain, Medical Officer, District Hospital Khargaon (P.W. 14) and letter (Ex. P-14) of the District Magistrate granting sanction of prosecution of the accused for an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its version.In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied their involvement in the crime.Arvind Kumar accused stated that Sadhna committed suicide on her own by pouring kerosene oil on her body because she was mentally disturbed.He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.Smt. Prem Baiaccused stated that she used to treat her daughter-in-law (Sadhna) very affectionately and she had never demanded any dowry article from the brother or the father of the deceased.The accused examined Mohanlal Pathak (D.W. 1) and Chandra Kumar (D.W. 2) in their defence.Both these witnesses stated that Sadhna was a simple girl but was mentally disturbed.Initially both the accused were acquitted on 27th September, 1983 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.The appeal filed by the State against the acquittal order came to be allowed by the High Court.The High Court directed the Trial Court to record further evidence in the case.The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, recorded conviction and awarded sentence as aforesaid.The High Court on reappraisal and re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused.Hence this appeal by the accused persons.He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused by leading satisfactory, believable and convincing evidence and the Trial Court as well as the High Court have recorded the findings of guilt of the accused on surmises and conjecture.Lastly, it was submitted that the deceased committed suicide on her own by pouring kerosene oil on her body due to her mental ailment.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused persons and no exceptions can be taken to the reasons indicated by the Trial Court in the well-reasoned judgment.The evidence has also been analysed in great detail by the High Court and, therefore, no question of any interference is called for with the conviction recorded in the impugned judgment of the High Court.Before we proceed to consider the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we, at this stage, may record that during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Smt. Prem Bai accused No.2 has died.We have analysed the entire evidence and other material on record and find that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution to prove the charges against deceased Smt. Prem Bai.The evidence brought on record against accused Smt. Prem Bai is not cogent and consistent to establish that Prem Bai had abetted the commission of the offence of suicide committed by deceased Sadhna or Prem Bai accused had tortured or harassed her daughter in law Sadhna for not bringing adequate dowry articles at the time of marriage or thereafter before Sadhna committed suicide.Therefore, the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed upon deceased Prem Bai by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained and, accordingly, the judgment of the High Court to that extent stands set aside.Deceased Smt. Prem Bai shall stand acquitted of the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Fine, if any, realised from deceased Smt. Prem Bai shall be refunded to her legal heirs.So far the conviction of Arvind Kumar is concerned, we find from scrutiny of the evidence placed on record that there is reliable, cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.Sudarshan Kumar Jain (P.W. 5) brother of the deceased Sadhna deposed that the marriage of his sister was settled with Arvind Kumar accused in the year 1982 and in all a sum of Rs. 18,000 19,000/- was spent at the time of marriage ceremony, but at the time of vidaai, Arvind Kumar accused raised additional demand of dowry articles, namely, one fan, one automatic watch and one iron almirah which they were not able to meet on that occasion.He stated that they assured the accused that after making some arrangement for money, they would later on give the demanded articles.However, one radio was given at the time of marriage.The father and grandfather of Arvind-accused were not satisfied with the dowry articles given to Sadhna at the time of her marriage and she was humiliated and harassed by the family members of Arvind and she was pressurized to bring additional dowry articles from her parents house.He also stated that considering the greed of the accused, her parents could arrange for one watch and one fan, but the accused refused to accept those articles and he demanded valuable watch and fan of bigger size.He deposed that his sister was not properly treated by the accused during her stay with him.He denied the suggestion of the defence that his sister was suffering from mental ailment.Bhag Chand (P.W. 9) father of the deceased corroborated the testimony of P.W. Sudershan Kumar and further stated that he had given sufficient dowry articles to his daughter Sadhna at the time of her marriage and additional articles demanded by the accused at the time of vidaai of his daughter were offered to him but the accused refused to accept those articles as they were not found to his liking and standard.Pritam (P.W. 10) is the landlord of P.W.He is an independent witness.He deposed that at the time of vidaai of Sadhna after marriage, her parents offered one watch and one fan to Arvind accused, who declined to accept the same as those were not of higher value and of good make.He stated that he came to know from P.W. 5 that the accused used to beat Sadhna.From the narration of the facts and evidence on record, it is not in dispute that Sadhna committed suicide and died due to injuries as certified by P.W. 14 Dr. J.C. Jain in his post mortem report (Ex. P-16).The testimony of P.Ws. 5, 9 and 10 are consistent, reliable and trustworthy to prove that it was Arvind-accused who constantly harassed, humiliated and tortured his wife Sadhna for bringing insufficient dowry articles.He persistently made demand of sophisticated watch, fan and iron almirah.Sadhna was forced to commit suicide because of the cruel behaviour of the accused.The defence of the accused that Sadhna was suffering from mental ailment is belied by P.W. 2 Sushila Bai, who was a teacher in Naveen School, Banda where Sadhna was studying.P.W. 2 Sushila Bai stated that the behaviour of Sadhna during her student life in the school was proper and normal.P.W. 14 Dr. J.C. Jain was examined by the Trial Court after remand of the case by the High Court.His deposition is that there were 100 per cent burn marks on the body of deceased Sadhna.Sadhna had already died before Dr. Shrivastav could reach at the house of the accused.The extent of burn injuries found on the body of the deceased would go to show that no effort whatsoever was made by the accused to save his wife from committing suicide though he was present in the house when such incident took place.He has not even bothered to call the doctor and it was his elder brother P.W. 7 Santosh Kumar, who came from another house and immediately contacted Dr. Shrivastav and informed him about the precarious condition of Sadhna.On scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, we are of the view that the conduct of the accused-husband was apathetic, which is an additional circumstance in the link of the ocular version of PWs.5, 9 and 10 who have supported the prosecution case in its entirety.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
690,327 |
An incident is said to have happened at about 10 p.m. on 21-8-1977 in the precincts of the Railway Station Maigalganj, District Shahjahanpur.Ram Kumar, P.W. 3, was employed in the said Railway Station and P.W. 2, Salgi Ram had come to see him.They were on a charpai.At the station platform, four other travellers were asleep, one of whom was sleeping on the cement bench.Three appellants reached there when appellant Pachrangi fired at the person who was sleeping on the Bench from his tamancha (country made pistol), appellant Sinder Singh delivered blows with a Hatta (Iron rod) and appellant Chandra Prakash beat him with his hands after catching hold of him.Alarm was raised by Salig Ram and Ram Kumar who also flashed their torches.Electric light was also available.The appellants were known to them from before.A chase was given.Constable Chhatrapal Singh and another constable were coming from opposite direction and all the three appellants were ultimately arrested then and there.Pachrangi was found in possession of a Katta from within which an empty cartridge was found.Sinder Singh was carrying the iron-rod.The appellants and the recovered articles were taken to the police station Maigalganj where Ram Karan Singh P.W. 7, prepared memos in respect of the recovered articles.The blood-stained Kurta of appellant pachrangi was also taken into possession.JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J.The case was sent to the police station G.R.P. Shahjahanpur where S.O. Bhim Singh, P.W. 5, took up the investigation as he was station officer G.R.P. then.Uma Shankar, P.W. 1, constable made the necessary entries in the general diary.Post mortem examination was performed by Dr. K.A. Abbas, P.W. 6 on 23-8-1977 who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:"Ante Mortem Injuries:Incised wound 6 cm x .5 cm x bone on the right side of face on the right external ear.The external ear was cut into two separate pieces, margins were clean cut.Direction was trans-ferase.The parietal bone was cut into pieces.Circular multiple lacerated fire arm wounds 3 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep on the right side of abdomen upper part.Margins were inverted and irregular.Blackening and singeing of hair was present.Single wound was 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep.Liver was perforated at multiple places below the injury."The deceased was, however an unknown Muslim man whose whereabouts could not be ascertained.After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants.The chemical Examiner opined in his reports Exts.Ka-15 and Ka-16 that human blood was found on the iron rod, the shirt and the earth.The accused appellants denied their participation in the occurrence and attributed false implication due to enmity.They, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence.The learned Trial Judge after placing implicit reliance on the theory propounded by the prosecution and on the testimony of Salig Ram Kumar, Chhatrpal Singh and Bhim Singh, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W. 5 respectively, held that the spot arrest is duly proved and there was no reason to doubt the prosecution case about the assassination of the unknown deceased at the railway station and, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellants as noted above.Hence this appeal.4A. Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Sri Ramesh Sinha has been heard at length in support of this appeal whereas Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. has appeared on behalf of the State prosecutor.Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. has vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has correctly appreciated eye-witness account inasmuch as he had the opportunity to examine the demeanour of P.W. 2, Salig Ram and P.W. 3, Ram Kumar and, therefore, reasons set out in his judgment may be accepted by this court and the witnesses testimony regarding of proving the arrest may be believed.It may be noted that none of the three witnesses namely, Salig Ram and Ram Kumar, who of course are public witnesses, as well as Chhatrapal Singh, who is a constable in the police, had any reason whatsoever to depose falsely against the appellants.They have been thoroughly cross-examined.From the statement of Salig Ram it appears that at one stage he has stated in his cross-examination that the Station Officer had arrived on a motor-cycle, he chased the accused on Motor cycle and returned after one or one and half hours and said that the accused and the weapons have been recovered.It was further, stated in the cross-examination that the Station Officer got the FIR written in the next morning on which he had put his thumb marks.On the strength of this statement Sri Chaturvedi argued that the theory of spot arrest should be discarded.The aforesaid statement of Salig Ram, however, does not merit discarding of his entire statement.It may be remembered that the incident had happened at 10.30 p.m. in the night.There is not an iota of evidence in the cross-examination as to why Salig Ram should be at all talking against the appellants.Similar is the position of Ram Kumar.There is another circumstance going much against the appellants.Appellant Pachrangi was medically examined the next after-noon after he was sent for medical examination.He was found to sustain several injuries, the timing of which squarely tallies with the time of their arrest.The shirt which he was wearing had blood stained marks.These circumstances remain wholly unchallenged by the defence.On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot certainly be believed for a moment that the prosecution has fabricated the entire case against the appellants for no rhyme or reason.It was sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the appellants that since the whereabouts of the deceased could not be ascertained by the prosecution the story propounded by it should be discarded.It may be remembered that if the prosecution starts with the theory of 'spot-arrest', it runs the risk of disproving the offence in the event of failing to prove the spot arrest after the incident.The Investigating Officer, therefore, did not go to find out as to who the deceased was, who was killed by the appellants.It may be remembered that it was railway station where the incident had happened and electric light was available.This fact has gone unchallenged, Apart from this, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have referred to using their torches at the relevant time and in view of this statement the testimony of the three eye-witnesses Salig Ram, Ram Kumar and Chhatrapal Singh in spite confidence and has to be relied upon.The post-mortem report corroborates the prosecution story in so far as use of iron rod and the country made pistol by the appellants Sindar Singh and Pachrangi are concerned, therefore, the participation of these two appellants is also fully established from the independent circumstances of finding injuries on the deceased attributed to the weapon used by these two appellants.This is the stage where the argument of learned counsel relating to participation of Chandra Prakash, or even if his participation is believed, offence for which he may be convicted, has to be examined.It is admitted to the prosecution that Chandra Prakash was unarmed.The passenger who was killed ultimately, was sleeping.It is rightly argued that under the circumstances there was absolutely no reason or justification for the appellant Chandra Prakash to catch hold of the sleeping man.It is further argued as to why should be catch hold of the object of murder when he was already asleep? It sounds too improbable to accept that appellant Chandra Prakash should risk his own life by embracing the deceased and permitting the other appellants to fire at the object.Simultaneously it is argued that why should Chandra Prakash presume that Pachrangi was having a country made pistol with him? The prosecution case is not that Pachrangi was openly exhibiting the said pistol.It is after he had removed Chadar covering the face that he is said to have fired at the deceased.Similarly, it is asked as to why should Chandra Prakash appellant expect that his companion Sindar Singh appellant will use the iron-rod which was a common appliance, hardly expected to be used as a weapon.The prosecution case against Chandra Prakash may have to be noted here all over again in order to see whether he can be said to have shared the common intention.It is nobody's case that Pachrangi had been openly exhibiting his fire arm or that the small iron rod in the hands of Sindar Singh was a weapon at all.No role of exhortation had been attributed to Chandra Prakash.No motive whatsoever existed.Chandra Prakash could not expect that he is going to a place where he will meet a target which he has to kill.As regards the appellant Pachrangi he has been rightly convicted Under Section 302/34, IPC.and sentenced to life imprisonment.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
690,345 |
The learned Additional District Judge, to the court of District Judge, vide the order impugned has disallowed the prayer of the applicant.Hence this revision.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,035,560 |
(07.04.2017 ) This revision application has been preferred by the applicants/accused under Section 397/401 of CrPC being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (MP), in Sessions Trial No. 236/2011, whereby the charge under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC) has been framed against the applicants.The agricultural land bearing survey No. 84/738/1 admeasuring 3.083 Hectare situated in village Todra, Tahsil Raghogarh, District Guna is the root for initiation of criminal prosecution.As per the prosecution case the allegation levelled against the applicants is that on 5.2.2009 they entered into the agricultural field belonging to the respondent No.1 Babulal and took away the crops amounting to Rs.35000/- and in that process certain injuries were also inflicted upon the complainant and his son-( 2 )- CRR No. 998/2011 Chandra Shekhar.The respondent No.1 made a complaint to the Police Station Jamner, District Guna regarding the alleged offence but the police did not act in furtherance to the complaint prompting the respondent No.1 to take recourse to the remedy of filing complaint under Section 200 of CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raghogarh.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, cognizance was taken by the learned JMFC and the case was committed to the Court of Session.The applicants filed an application under Section 227 of CrPC before the trial Court with the prayer that prima facie no offence under Section 395 of IPC is made out against them.This application has been rejected by the impugned order and the trial Court framed the charge against the applicants under Section 395 of IPC which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.The contentions which have been canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants are that they have been falsely implicated in the instant case on account of civil dispute, which is pending between the parties in the form of appeal filed by the applicant No.2- Daulatram before the Second Additional District Judge, Guna and the same is yet to be decided.Thus, in the civil dispute it would be decided that who is the owner of the suit property.It is further submitted that an FIR was registered against the applicants at Crime No.44/2009 with respect to the same offence, which is subject matter of present case.From perusal of FIR of Crime No.44/2009, it is crystal clear that no-( 3 )- CRR No. 998/2011 allegations were levelled against the lady applicants.They have been falsely implicated in the present case which is an after thought just to put pressure upon the applicants in civil dispute.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State contends that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, cannot be interfered.Hence, the impugned order be maintained.I have considered the rival contentions of all the parties to the case and perused the documents filed along with revision application.It is pertinent to highlight that the documents which have been brought by the applicants on record clearly show that Civil Judge Class-2 Raghogarh District Guna passed the decree in favour of the present respondent No.1 in Civil Suit No. 13A/2010 dated 17.5.2010 by declaring him as the owner and possession holder of the disputed land and the present applicants No.1,3 and 4 have been restrained from interfering in possession of the respondent No.1 by issuing permanent injunction.-( 4 )- CRR No. 998/2011 of the complainant over the disputed land.In spite of that order, the accused persons entered into the disputed land and took away crops by force.On that basis, the JMFC Raghogarh district Guna took cognizance against the present applicants for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.Although in the complaint the allegation against the applicants No.4 to 6 is also made regarding commission of aforesaid offence but in the statement of complainant Babulal recorded under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of witnesses Chandra Shekhar Sharma and Matru Mali recorded under Section 202 CrPC, it is not mentioned that the lady applicants were also involved in the present crime.From the statements of complainant and his witnesses, it is shown that on 5.2.2009 applicant No.1-Daulatram along with the labourers came on the field of the complainant and started cutting the crops and took the same amounting to Rs.35000/- and in that process they have inflicted the injuries upon the complainant and his son Chandra Shekhar.So, it cannot be said that there is no material available on record against the applicants No.1 to 3 for framing of charge under Section 395 of IPC.Now I may advert to the second contention of the applicant that with respect to the similar matter an FIR-( 5 )- CRR No. 998/2011 at Crime No.44/2009 was also registered against the applicants No.1 to 3, therefore, in such circumstances, the Magistrate should have stayed the further proceeding of the case and called for a report from police officer conducting the investigation.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,903,931 |
(A) The case in hand has a very peculiar circumstance that prosecutrix of this case is not examined because, she is deaf and dumb.The case of prosecution as stated in the F I R in short is that 2 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007 on 06.01.2006 at about 10:00 AM the prosecutrix went near to the fields of Babulal to ease herself, at that point of time accused caught hold and unrobed her on fields committed rape.Because, the prosecutrix was unable to speak and communicate the signs hence, her brother Manikrao reported the matter.The source of incident mentioned in the FIR is that Chandrakala who was grazing her cattle witnessed the incident and informed Hasantibai that the accused slept over the prosecutrix after unrobed her.Hasantibai informed this matter to Gendu and grandfather of the prosecutrix.In the night at above 8 PM Dondibai, mother of the prosecutrix informed the incident to Manikrao.Gendu also informed the matter to Janpad member Raj Kumar Uike.2 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007(B) Investigation officer managed to sent prosecutrix District hospital Betul where lady Doctor examined her.For age verification, she was referred to the Radiological examination.Smt. Nirmala Raikwar Advocate for the appellant.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate for the respondent /State.Judgment reserved on : 25.07.2013 Judgment delivered on : 25.09.2013 (J UD GM E NT ) Appellant Karu Suryawanshi has filed this appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.02.2007 passed by the learned Special (Sessions) Judge, District Betul in Special Case No.45 /2006 (State of M.P. Through P.S. AJAK Betul vs. Karu), whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC and awarded a punishment of rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.10,000 / - , in default of payment of fine, further to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment.In furtherance of investigation, Officer recorded statement of Chandrakala and other witnesses, arrested appellant and after completion of investigation, a challan was submitted by Police A.J.K., Betul as the prosecutrix belongs to schedule caste in the learned trial Court.The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record framed charge against the appellant punishable under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, who abjured his guilt, therefore, was put to trial.(A) The prosecution in furtherance of its case examined star witness Chandrakala (PW/2), follower of prosecutrix.3 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007 Other witnesses were examined Manikrao (PW/1), Hasantibai (PW/3 Cr.A. No.451 of 20076) and Dondibai (PW/7) and other 6 witnesses who participated in investigation as per their official duties.Documents were filed Ex.P-1 to Ex.(B) Medical Officer Shri Chandra Prakash Tiwari (CW/1).Dr. S.K. Pippal (CW /2), Dr. Keshav Singh (CW/3) also examined as court witnesses.Documents Ex.C- 1 to Ex.C- 4 exhibited during statements of these court witnesses.During statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the evidence put forth against him and pleaded his innocence on the ground that he was falsely implicated with conspiracy.Defence did not examine any witness.(A) The learned trial Court after detailed consideration of evidence of star witness Chandrakala (PW/2) found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376(i) of IPC and imposed 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of 10,000 / - and entire fine amount will be given to the prosecutrix.(B) Though, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant from the charges punishable under Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against which respondent /State does not prefer an appeal.Smt. Nirmala Raikwar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and appellant is convicted on the ground of conjecture and surmises.She further submitted that the learned trial Court did not look into the fact that FIR is delayed without any explanation 4 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007 on the instance of Janpad Member Rajkumar @ Kumma.The prosecution case is also not corroborated by the medical evidence.Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.4 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007Considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and entire record carefully.Before dealing with the prosecution evidence in this appeal it will be appropriate to state that the prosecutrix found deaf and dumb hence she was not examined before the learned trial Court.In this regard learned trial Court adopted positive approach and got examined Medical Officer Shri C.P. Tiwari (CW/1), Dr. S.K. Pippal (CW /2) and Dr. Keshav Singh (CW/3) as Court Witnesses but, all efforts became futile because, these experts finally opined that though the prosecutrix is not mentally retired person not insane but, she is deaf and dumb, therefore, her behavior is like a child.Dr. S.K. Pippal (CW /2) examined the prosecutrix on 19.08.1996 at Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal and found that:-(1) She is responding to loud sound only (no verbal response) (2) She understand the instructions.5 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007(3) She is not responding to question or Ishara She need psychotic evaluation She is not cooperating with test.Advise BERA This investigation is not available in GMC, Bhopal.The prosecution witness Shri Anugraham Alfuse (PW/3) also vide his report Ex.P-4 stated that prosecutrix is mentally handicapped she is not able to understand any voice or any gesture.Shri Gyanendra Purohit (PW/9) also stated the same facts.8 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007Chandrakala (PW/2) rightly explained the reason for her presence on the spot.She stated that she was following the prosecutrix as she was also going for grazing the goats.About main incident she narrated that under the tree of Mahua one person after unrobing the prosecutrix slept over the prosecutrix.[Fhir Mahua Ke Jhad Ke Neeche Ak Adami (name of prosecutrix) Ke Kapade Nikal Kar Usake Upar So Gaya].In the same fluence she also narrated after seeing her, the person run away.So this much is statement of Chandrakala (PW/2) about the sexual assault on the prosecutrix.Now, question arises whether above piece of statement is "rape" under the definition of Section 375 of the IPC?In interpreting the explanation to Section 375 of the IPC whether complete penetration is necessary to constitute an offence of rape, various High Courts have taken a consistent view that even the slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape and the depth of penetration is immaterial.In other simple words, she did not explain that the person was also naked.To answer the question of learned trial Court, though it was a leading question, she did not admit that the person was naked.9 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007It is difficult to presume that sleeping of one person, not naked, over one naked woman, will amount to sexual intercourse only.The situation is full of doubts.In the chain of these facts and circumstances when Smt. Nirmala Raikwar, learned counsel for the appellant argues that learned trial Court acted upon conjecture and surmises, finds substance.On this count alone, the appellant deserves to be acquitted, but the learned trial court ignored it.Now, scrutiny of remaining part of the evidence of Chandrakala (PW/2).She is not able to explain or give details regarding following material facts during her evidence:-But, during her evidence she specifically denied that she was not following the prosecutrix soon before the incident.She stated contradictory fact that after half an hour she saw the person over the prosecutrix.Distance between place of incident and where she was standing she stated it was 200 feets.10 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007It is pertinent to mention here that during examination- in- chief Chandrakala (PW/2) herself stated she does not know the name of the person, knows him by face only.She identified first time the appellant from witness box in the court room.In above mentioned facts and circumstances test identification was needed to fix the identification of the culprit, which is very much lacking.If the entire factual scenario tested in a proper perspective manner, it would reveal that 11 years aged child witness Chandrakala (PW/2) not appearing to be witness of sterling quality on whose sole testimony conviction of the appellant can be safely based, without corroboration of well founded satisfactory evidence.Hasantibai (PW/6) during examination- in- chief stated that Chandrakala informed her that appellant caught hold hands of prosecutrix.When she admitted that she does not know about the incident because Chandrakala did not told her any fact except above she was declared hostile.During leading questions she stated that she only complaint this fact to Gendubaba, grant- father of the prosecutrix that why he is not scolded appellant, who caught hold hands of the prosecutrix.She denied that she had given any statement during her police statement Ex.P-8 about sexual assault on the prosecutrix.She categorically refused the suggestion that 11 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007 she wants to save the appellant therefore, she is not narrating anything materially against the appellant.11 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007It is pertinent to mention here that the source of Dondibai's information was her father- in- law Gendubaba, who was an important witness, but he did not examined by the prosecution.The p rosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Nisha Badve (PW/4) who did not find any injury mark on the person or private part of the prosecutrix vide her MLC report (Ex.P-5).She opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape on the prosecutrix.13 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007Dr. O.P. Yadav (PW/5) examined prosecutrix for determination of her age and vide report (Ex.P-6) prosecutrix found to be age of 17 years.During cross examination, Dr. O.P. Yadav (PW/5) admitted that there may be 2 years (+) (-) difference in the age which is stated by him.Mere presence of sperm on private part of major prosecutrix, in above mentioned facts and circumstances, cannot be basis of conviction as accepted by the learned trial Court.The science of presence of spermatozoa has not yet developed into a positive science.There are various other factors which may negative that only presence of spermatozoa cannot be basis of conviction, i.e. faulty taking of the smear, its preservation, quality of semen, etc.Presence of semen on private part of the prosecutrix does not found by Dr. Nisha Badve (PW/4).The learned trial court again acted upon conjecture and surmises, which ruined very basis of our criminal justice delivery system.Incident took place on 06.01.2006 at 10:00 a.m. and written complaint (Ex.P-1) filed after more than 28 hours on 07.01.2006 at 20:30 p.m. Any plausible reason is not assigned in FIR (Ex.P-2) for this delay.Learned trial court ignored this important fact that FIR (Ex.P-2) was filed after delay and any reason for this delay is not explained.On the other hand, Standard 12 th passed Manikrao (PW/1) admitted that from his village to P.S. Saikheda and from village to Multai- Saikheda road are 12 kms and 2 km away, respectively.He also admits availability of truck and jeep throughout day and night for Multai to Saikheda.14 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was Rajkumar @ Kumma who tutored Chandrakala (PW/2) for give evidence against the appellant.It is also submitted that unfortunately learned trial judge did not give weight to admissions of prosecution witnesses available on record.It is part of written complaint (Ex.P-1), on basis of which H.C. Satya Prakash Bajpai (PW/10) written FIR (Ex.P-2), that prior to filing it Manikrao (PW/1) consulted with one Rajkumar.Shri Patel (PW/8) stated that he did not recorded statements of Rajkumar @ Kumma because he was hearsay witness and admitted that Kumma is Janpad member.When Chandrakala (PW/2) examined on 23.06.2006 in the trial Court she admitted that Kumma is also came with us up to the Court.In this sequence admissions of Chandrakala (PW/2) are very much important which were not taken into account by learned trial Court:-15 Cr.A. No.451 of 2007During examination- in- chief Chandrakala (PW/2) stated that next morning Kumma came to her residence with two other persons and asked her about incident, then she narrated incident to Kumma what happed with prosecutrix.In this sequence she did not narrated name of accused Karu.Manikrao (PW/1) stated that his grand father Gendubaba narrated incident to Rajkumar in the evening and next morning Rajkumar himself came to their residence.During her examination after one and half month on dated 15.08.2006 Hasantibai (PW/6) admitted that Kumma is present outside with this additional fact that he took them for the Court.In light of above facts and circumstances, child witness Chandrakala (PW/2) not appearing to be witness of sterling quality to convict the appellant on her sole evidence.In this situation, corroboration sought from outside but, that is also not available.The evidence of Hansantibai (PW/6), Dondibai (PW/7) and Manikrao (PW/Learned trial Court did not look into the evidence of Rajkumar @ Kumma, who is the person behind filing of the written complaint (Ex.P-1).The Medical evidence is also not supportive to the case of prosecution.Apart from it, the impugned judgment was passed by learned trial Court acting upon conjecture and surmises.Therefore, appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,313,112 |
Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP with Inps.Arun Dev PS Amar Colony CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. K. GAUBA R. K. GAUBA, J:Per contra, the respondent-State contests the appeal submitting that the evidence of PW-1 Munna Lal has been correctly believed since it finds corroboration from the attendant circumstances.On 26.02.2008, Police Control Room (PCR) staff noticed a person lying near Police Post Okhla, some time before 10.15 PM.This, when conveyed to the Police Station, was reduced into writing by Constable Kishan Singh (PW-8), the DD writer on duty vide DD No.22 (Ex.PW-8/A).The matter was entrusted to SI Rajender Singh (PW-14), who proceeded to the spot, stated to be close to the Police Post and found PW-1 Munna Lal lying in injured state.PW-14 took him to Trauma Centre of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as "the hospital") and got him admitted against Medico Legal Report (MLC) (Ex. PW-21/A) prepared by Dr. Abhishek Kumar, the Medical Officer on duty.The MLC of PW-1 indicates that he had come to the hospital at 11.02 P.M. with history of assault, having been beaten with sticks.PW-1 was smelling of alcohol and himself disclosed to the medical officer about intake of alcohol.He had a clean lacerated wound on the forehead of the size 3x2 cms, an abrasion on left cheek below the eye of size 3x3 cms, clean lacerated wound on the lower lip and also complained of tenderness of right lower chest.In the carbon copy of MLC (Ex.A.No.1505/2013 Page 2 of 12It is the version of PW-14 that on the next day (27.02.2008) he had enquired from the hospital but learnt that PW-1 had left the hospital.It is not clear from record as to when PW-1 had actually left the hospital.No formal report about the action taken on DD No.22 is shown to have been logged by PW-14 in any police records at any stage.On 27.2.2008, at noon time (12:00 hours), information was received in Police Post Srinivaspuri from PCR that a dead body was lying under the Modi Mill flyover with bleeding noticed in the head region.The said information was logged by Constable Sarika Kumari (PW-2), the DD writer of the concerned Police Post vide DD No.12 (Ex. PW-2/A) and the matter was marked to SI Gajraj Singh (PW-19) who, accompanied by Constable Satbir Singh (PW-18), set out for the place.It is stated that Inspector (later ACP) Mahavir Singh (PW-20), in-charge of Police Post Srinivaspuri of the Police Station also reached the place in due course.It is the version of PW-19, supported by PW-18, and endorsed by PW- 20 (the Investigating Officer) that on arrival at the place in question they had found dead body of a male person aged about 28 years lying under the Modi Flyover.It may be mentioned here that the dead body was identified in due course as that of Sanjeev @ Mota @ Padha Likha, son of Mool Chand (PW-3) and brother of Pramod Kumar (PW-12), the latter two witnesses residents of Village Madanpur Khader, a locality not very far from the place in question.In his narration, the appellant is projected as another similarly placed person.The material on record clearly shows that the first informant PW-1 Munna Lal, the appellant, as indeed the deceased, have been conducting Crl.A.No.1505/2013 Page 4 of 12 themselves as vagabonds moving around in the area and were addicted to liquor.The deceased, in particular, was passing his life as an alcoholic, sleeping in seclusion under a flyover.Though PW-1 claims to have a house, taken on rent, his habits were not dissimilar, as he would, almost in routine, give company to the deceased at the liquor vend and would even opt to sleep with him, disconnected from the society in isolation under the flyover.A.No.1505/2013 Page 4 of 12According to PW-1, in his version in the FIR, on 26.2.2008 at about 5.30 P.M. when all the three (the deceased, the appellant and PW-1) were at the liquor vend, a quarrel had erupted between appellant on one hand and both of them on the other.In the said quarrel, the deceased had caused an injury with blade on the left cheek of the appellant.The appellant had gone away giving implied threats.PW-1 and the deceased after consuming liquor, followed by dinner, had come to the place under Modi Flyover around 8 P.M. and had gone to sleep for the night, sharing the same bedding.It may be added here that from the scene of crime, the IO had seized, amongst others, mattress (Ex. P-2) and a quilt (Ex.P-1) with blood stains thereon.Noticeably, this bedding was lying at a little distance from the place where the dead body was found.In the FIR, PW-1 told the IO that at about 10 P.M. he had woken up upon being hit on his face suddenly with a stone only to find the appellant standing over as the assailant.PW-1 stated that while moving away from the place he had seen the appellant picking up another stone and hitting at Sanjeev @ Mota.He has stated that had rushed to the Police Post but had fallen down on the way and was taken to the hospital.He explained that he had returned to the scene of incident after medical treatment.During the course of investigation, no other eye-witness could be found.The appellant was arrested on 28.02.2008 at 3.15 P.M. from Paras Cinema compound in Nehru Place, New Delhi vide formal arrest memo (Ex.A.No.1505/2013 Page 5 of 12PW-1/C) after personal search (Ex.PW-1/D) in the presence of PW-1 Munna Lal, and others.He was taken for medical examination to the hospital on 29.2.2008 at 2.50 P.M. when MLC (Ex. PW-5/A) was recorded by Dr. Sunai M, as proved in his absence by Dr. Ashish Jain (PW-5).A.No.1505/2013 Page 7 of 12It has been the case of the prosecution that, after his arrest, at the instance of the appellant, his blood stained shirt (Ex.P-5) and trousers (Ex.4) had also been seized.By the impugned judgment passed on 01.05.2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, South-East-01 in sessions case No.51/2008, arising out of FIR No.67/08 of Police Station Amar Colony ("the police station", for short), the appellant was held guilty, as charged, for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the gravamen of he having committed the murder of Sanjeev @ Mota @ Padha Likha (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and having attempted to commit the murder of Munna Lal (the first informant of the case) on 26.02.2008 at about 10 PM beneath the Modi Flyover at Okhla.By subsequent order dated 15.5.2012, the learned trial court has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life with fine of 5,000/- for offence under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of 5,000/- for offence under Section Crl.A.No.1505/2013 Page 1 of 12 307 IPC, also directing that in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant is to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months each on the two counts.A.No.1505/2013 Page 1 of 12The finding of guilty has been returned by the learned trial court primarily believing the ocular evidence of the first informant Munna Lal (PW-1), presented as the solitary witness to the incident.Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal at hand pleading innocence and claiming false implication.PW-21/A), prepared in the hand of Abhishek Kumar and proved in his absence by Dr. Sanjeev Bhoi (PW-21), a Crl.A.No.1505/2013 Page 2 of 12 fifth injury has been added later to the effect that PW-1 had also suffered breakage of four front teeth.Presumably, on the basis of this last mentioned finding, the injuries suffered by PW-1 were later opined to be grievous in nature.The MLC indicates endorsement to the effect that PW-1 was not fit for statement, probably recorded around the time of his arrival in the hospital.They had come to the police for the purpose of joining the investigation, and identifying the dead body (before it was subjected to post-A.No.1505/2013 Page 3 of 12mortem examination on 01.3.2008), they having learnt about the death from the "hue and cry" notice that had been published by the IO, inasmuch as full particulars (parentage and address) of the deceased were not immediately ascertainable.It has been the case of the prosecution that while the Investigating Officer (IO) was conducting the investigation at the place where the dead body had been discovered (apparently, the scene of crime) in the afternoon of 27.08.2008, PW-1 Munna Lal had come there and identified the deceased person to be Sanjeev @ Mota.The second alias used by the deceased Sanjeev i.e. "Padha Likha" would surface in his subsequent statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).9. PW-1 Munna Lal had then claimed before the IO to be an eye witness to the incident stating, inter alia, that he had suffered the injuries (with which he had been taken to the hospital on the previous day) in the same occurrence.His statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded by the IO and, with endorsement (Ex. PW-20/C) thereupon, rukka is stated to have been sent at 2.45 P.M. on 27.2.2008 for registration of FIR for investigation into offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.According to the FIR, PW-1, the deceased and the appellant had been frequent visitors to a liquor vend in front of Okhla Station near Godrej Bhawan, close to the scene of crime.PW-1 described himself as a scavenger living on rent in Harkesh Nagar.He described Sanjeev @ Mota (the deceased) as an individual, who would sleep under the Modi Flyover and both of them being in the habit of consuming liquor after collecting money.The examining Medical Officer found an incised wound of 3.2 x 4.1 cm on left side of cheek of the appellant.The wound was curved shape with narrowing downwards, with pale yellowish to brown scabbing covering it.The injury was tender to touch and would bleed.In the opinion of the Medical Officer, this incised wound had been caused by a sharp weapon and was about three days old.Noticeably, the arrest memo prepared a day earlier does not mention this wound.After the identity of the deceased had been duly confirmed by his close relatives, the dead body which had been preserved temporarily was subjected to post-mortem examination on 01.03.2008 in the mortuary of AIIMS by Dr. Sushil Sharma (PW-6).The autopsy doctor found the following ante mortem injuries :(1) A lacerated wound 13x10 cm bone deep, associated with subscalp haematoma over right partial region of scalp situated 6 cm above from right mastoid tip, 5 cm right from midline and 8 cm above and out from right eye brow lateral end.(2) A laceration 3x1 cm and bone deep at midline at scalp situated 22 cm above and left from right mastoid tip, associated with haematoma.(3) A laceration 1x1 cm and bone deep 3 cm post to right mastoid tip and 20 cm below and right midline associated with haemotoma.(4) An abrasion 17x10 cm reddish brown in colour at right scapular region of back.(5) An abrasion 15x6 cm at right shoulder tip.A.No.1505/2013 Page 6 of 12(6) An abrasion 8x2 cm at outer aspect of upper third forearm and right side.(7) Multiple abrasion variable in size 4x2 cm at outer and front aspect of right leg.(8) Fracture of upper two inciser teeth associated with haemotoma.(9) A laceration 4x2 cm whole thickness of skin at middle aspect of lower lip.(10) A laceration 4x2 cm and bone deep at lateral end of left eye brow.(11) A laceration 1x1 cm and bone deep at middle of forehead.Skull : Fracture of middle cranial fossa 10 cm associated with haemotoma.Diffuse subdural haemorrahage and intrecerebral haemorrahage at right parietal area of brain.In the opinion of the autopsy doctor, the injury No.1 noted above was likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the death had occurred due to cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact.The viscera and blood sample were preserved during the autopsy and eventually passed on to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) with other exhibits for examination.The report dated 29.8.2008 of FSL shows viscera was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol to the extent of 59.6 mg/100 ml of blood.The IO had seized from the scene of crime, amongst others, two pieces of stones (Ex.P-6 and P-7), one weighing 8 kg and the other concrete slab weighing 15 kg.Both these articles noticeably had traces of blood stains and pieces of hair.These objects were examined by the autopsy doctor and, as per his opinion (Ex.PW-6/B), the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased could possibly have been caused with their use.The autopsy doctor was also called upon by the IO to give opinion as to the possible use of the two stones vis--vis the injuries suffered by PW-1, as noticed in his MLC (Ex. PW-21/A).He gave opinion (Ex. PW-6/C) Crl.A.No.1505/2013 Page 7 of 12 observing that the injuries of PW-1 Munna Lal could also have been inflicted with the said material objects having been used as weapons of offence.Earlier, the blood stained shirt of the deceased (Ex.3) lying at the scene of crime had also been taken in police possession.All these articles along with shirt of PW-1 Munna Lal (also Ex.P-3) were sent to FSL.On the basis of the sample of blood of the deceased, preserved during autopsy, the FSL, as per report dated 11.2.2010 of biology division found it to be of group O. Blood stains of human origin were found on the shirt of the appellant but the blood group could not be detected.Though the mattress and quilt also bore blood stains of human origin, they could not be matched with the blood group of any of the three individuals involved in the case, as the sample would evince no reaction.Against the above backdrop, the prosecution rested its case solely on the testimony of PW-1 Munna Lal.We set out our reasons for this hereinafter.But, this injury was inflicted concededly in an incident that had occurred earlier in the evening at about 6 P.M. at a liquor vend.The appellant has not made any attempt to conceal this injury.He admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that when he was arrested this injury was noticed and his shirt, stained with blood, was also seized.A.No.1505/2013 Page 8 of 12Going by the version of PW-1, he and the deceased only had come to rest for the night under the Flyover, which was usually the place where the deceased would sleep.Admittedly, both PW-1 and the deceased had consumed liquor.As noticed earlier, the FSL report indicates that the consumption of liquor by the deceased was of a large quantity.Going by the MLC of PW-1 and the admitted position of he being a habitual alcoholic.PW-1, however, was not truthful when he spoke that he and the deceased had taken food after consumption of liquor and before going to sleep.The post- mortem report does not talk of undigested or partially digested food having been found in the intestines of the dead body.Certainly, PW-1 and the deceased were together after drinks which they had consumed.It is primarily the conduct of PW-1, who could also have been the perpetrator, which renders him a witness not wholly reliable.When taken to the hospital he gave the history of having been beaten, he described the weapon of offence used as "sticks".Apparently, the injuries found suffered by him could not have been caused only with sticks.It is not understood why he was withholding the truth.He was unfit for statement at the time of his admission in the hospital but chose to go away on his own without waiting for the police to enquire.As per PW-1, after he had come out of the hospital on the next date, he had come back to the spot where police was already present and accordingly he had narrated the incident to the concerned officials.Going by this version, PW-1 was conscious throughout of the fact that his acquaintance (the deceased) had also been injured by the same assailant in the same incident.But there is no explanation forthcoming from his testimony as to why he had Crl.A.No.1505/2013 Page 9 of 12 not informed either the Medical Officer, who recorded his MLC, or PW-14, who had taken him to the hospital, that besides him there was another person, who had been at the receiving end in the assault and might need attention.A.No.1505/2013 Page 9 of 12The return to, or presence at, the scene of crime, of PW-1, till about 3.40 P.M. of 27.2.2008 is rendered highly suspect by the report (Ex. PW-4/A) of SI Nafe Singh (PW-4), in-charge of the crime team, South District which had reached the spot and inspected the crime scene at the instance of the IO, this at a stage when the latter with other staff of the local police were engaged in preliminary investigation pursuant to the discovery of the dead body in the wake of DD No.12 (Ex. PW-2/A).Crucially, in this report the crime team head (PW-4) described the dead body to be of an "unidentified" male aged about 30 years.He suggested the further course of action to the IO to the following effect :"(1) Body be sent for autopsy (2) Identity of the deceased be ascertained (3) Person with whom the deceased was last seen be traced and examined (4) Exhibits be sent to CFSL for expert's opinion."The document shows that the inspection had commenced at 3 P.M. and concluded at 3.40 P.M. If we take this report to be accurate, it renders the rukka (Ex. PW-20/C) sent by the IO from the spot to the Police Station at 2.45 P.M. untrue.If the name of the deceased had been identified by PW-1 by such time, there was no occasion for the crime team, also present there immediately after registration of FIR, to be describing the deceased as unidentified male.If PW-1 had come forward as witness to the occurrence, there was no occasion either for calling upon the IO to ascertain the identity, not only of the deceased but also of the person with whom he had been "last seen".Having regard to the chronology of events, the version of PW-1 Crl.A.No.1505/2013 Page 10 of 12 Munna Lal was already available and, according to it, the deceased was lastly in his company, both sleeping together under the same quilt.A.No.1505/2013 Page 10 of 12The fact remains that though PW-1 claims to have seen his acquaintance (the deceased) being assaulted with a heavy stone in the night of 26.2.008, and though he had come in contact with the police, albeit for the purpose of treatment of his own injuries, he did not reveal the incident to anyone till the afternoon of 27.2.2008 by when the dead body had been found.There is nothing to corroborate his story about the presence of the appellant at the scene of crime.The injury suffered by the appellant allegedly at the hands of the deceased pertains to an incident that had occurred earlier in the evening.This earlier incident would not affirm or reassure us about his presence at the time of fatal assault on the person of the deceased later in the night.It would not explain the first assault on PW-1 and then failure of PW-1 to state the said facts and name the culprit to PW-14 or the doctors.The opinion of the autopsy doctor as to the possible use of the two pieces of stones gathered as evidence from the scene of crime by the IO, by itself cannot incriminate the appellant for the simple reason, the blood stains, or for that matter the pieces of hair, found on the said material objects have not been connected in any manner with him.Though it was suggested to PW-1 during his cross-examination that he and the deceased had fought amongst themselves to inflict injuries to each other and which suggestion was denied, against the backdrop of above noted circumstances, we are not inclined to place our faith in his word.There has been delay in attributing the incident to the appellant.The reasons for delay have not been explained.We could have had better assurance as to the time of registration of the FIR if clear endorsement about the delivery of the special report under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate were available.As Crl.The latter denotes it was made "at residence".Presumably, the other copy was received in the Court.Unfortunately, however, both endorsements do not indicate the time at which the same were seen by the judicial officer.We are unable to even decipher the name of the Magistrate from his illegible initials.A.No.1505/2013 Page 11 of 12It would be appropriate that the Sessions Judges of all the eleven Sessions Divisions of Delhi should issue fresh instructions to the judicial officers on both the above aspects for strict compliance.Doubts as to the extent of truthfulness in the testimony of PW-1 Munna Lal persist.He being the sole witness to the prosecution case, benefit of doubt must deservedly be extended to the appellant.In the result, the appeal is allowed.The appellant stands acquitted.He be released forthwith from custody unless required to be detained in any other case, in accordance with law.(R. K. GAUBA) Judge (SANJIV KHANNA) Judge JULY 23, 2015/vld/mr Crl.A.No.1505/2013 Page 12 of 12A.No.1505/2013 Page 12 of 12
|
['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.
|
116,313,183 |
- maternal aunt of the PW3/victim female child.Appellant/accused no.2 Shankar Jadhav and appellant/accused no.6 Mangal are father and mother of Manisha Narsale.Appellant/accused no.4 is another brother of maternal aunt of the PW3/victim female child.Appellant /accused no.3 Urmila and appellant/accused no.5 Dhanaji are cousins of Manisha Narsale - maternal aunt of the PW3/victim female child.They all are residents of Village Jaloli in Pandharpur Taluka of Solapur District.(b) According to the prosecution case, at about 10.00 a.m. of 17th January 2012, the PW3/victim female child left her house for attending the school.When she was going avk 5/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc towards the school from the footway in the field of Vishnu Narsale, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul came from behind, pressed his hand on her mouth and dragged her in the sugarcane field which was 600 feet away.He then sat beside her and threatened her to kill her.Then, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul asked her to accompany him to his own sugarcane field.She went with him to that field.At about 2.30 a.m. of 18th January 2012, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul again pressed mouth of the PW3/victim female child and took her to yet another sugarcane field.Then, in the night intervening 18 th January 2012 and 19th January 2012, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul committed rape on her three times.At about 5.30 a.m. of 19th January 2012, he took her out of the field and made her to sit on the bandh of the field.PW3/victim female child with appellant/accused no.1 Rahul in the sugarcane fields in the night intervening 17 th January 2012 and 18th January 2012, appellant/accused no.4 Anand Jadhav and appellant/accused no.5 Dhanaji Jadhav, who are brother and cousin brother of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, came in the field, gave water and went away.At about 2.30 a.m. of the night intervening 17 th January 2012 and 18th January 2012 they both came again and appellant/accused no.1 Rahul asked them to show the place.Then, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul again pressed mouth of the PW3/victim female child and took her to another sugarcane field by following appellant/accused no.4 Anand Jadhav and appellant/accused no.5 Dhanaji Jadhav.At about 1.30 p.m. of 18th January 2012, appellant/accused no.6 Mangal (mother of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul) came in that sugarcane field and provided lunch.She then went away.At about 8.00 p.m. of 18th January 2012, appellant/accused no.3 Urmila and appellant/accused no.4 avk 7/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc Anand came in the field.Appellant/accused no.4 Anand informed appellant/accused no.1 Rahul that police would be coming in the morning.Appellant/accused no.3 Urmila told appellant/accused no.1 Rahul to transfer his agricultural land in the name of the PW3/victim female child and to do his work.At about 4.00 a.m. of 19th January 2012, appellant/accused no.2 Shankar Jadhav came in the field and threatened the PW3/victim female child not to tell anything to anyone.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::(d) According to prosecution case, in the morning hours of 19 th January 2012, Samadhan - maternal uncle of the PW3/victim female child came to the Police Station Karkamb and informed PW5 Ashok Jadhav, Police Head Constable, about the fact of missing of the PW3/victim female child.He further informed that she was seen in the field of appellants/accused persons.PW5 Ashok Jadhav, Police Head Constable, then sent PW7 Satish Yelpalle, Police Constable, with another Police Constable by a government avk 8/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc jeep to the agricultural field.That is how, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul and the PW3/victim female child were brought to Police Station Karkamb.(e) Routine investigation followed.The PW3/victim female child was sent for medical examination.She was examined by PW11 Dr.Supriya Hambire, Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital, Solapur.Accused persons were arrested.They were medically examined.Clothes of the PW3/victim female child as well as that of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul came to be seized.The spot was inspected and Spot panchnama was drawn.8 As per version of the PW3/victim female child, at 1.30 p.m. of 18th January 2012, appellant/accused no.6 Mangal came to the agricultural field, provided lunch to them and then went away.She claimed to have continued to be in company of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul thereafter.She never claimed that she protested her confinement in the open agricultural field by appellant/accused no.1 Rahul to his mother, his brother or to his cousin, though she is closely related to all of them.This aspect assumes importance considering the fact that the PW3/victim female child is not attributing any overt act to all of them.Natural conduct of a avk 18/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc human being in such situation is to make grievance regarding her sufferings to her close relatives, who, as per her claim, were visiting her in the open agricultural field, from time to time.9 The PW3/victim female child testified that at 8.00 p.m. of 18th January 2012, appellant/accused no.3 Urmila and appellant/ accused no.4 Anand came to the field.Appellant/accused no.4 Anand told that in the morning police would come to the spot.Appellant/accused no.3 Urmila told appellant/accused no.1 Rahul to transfer his agricultural land in the name of the PW3/victim female child and to do his work.10 The PW3/victim female child further stated that in the night intervening 18th January 2012 and 19th January 2012, in that sugarcane field, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul committed forcible sexual intercourse with her thrice.In the morning hours, avk 19/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc at about 4.00 a.m. of 19th January 2012, she claimed that appellant/accused no.2 Shankar Jadhav, who happens to be father of her maternal aunt Manisha, came in the field and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anybody.Thereafter, as per version of the PW3/victim female child, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul took her to the bandh of the agricultural field and they both sat on that bandh.The same is admissible in evidence by mere production thereof in view of provisions of Section 77 of the Evidence Act. Section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, provides for search of Birth Register and supply of extract thereof by certifying the same by the Registrar or other authorized Officer.Section 17 of the said Act provides that such extract shall be admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving birth or death to which the entry relates.The Birth Certificate Exhibit 48 is, infact, the extract of Birth Register in respect of entry of birth of the PW3/victim avk 25/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc female child, and as such, admissible in evidence.The PW3/victim female child was enticed by him to join his company and then he had committed rape on her.Version of the PW3/victim female child, in respect of the incidents of sexual intercourse with her by appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, is gaining corroboration from evidence of PW11 avk 26/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc Dr.The clothes of the PW3/victim female child were subjected to chemical analysis.Chemical Analyzer's Report at Exhibit 71 shows that blood of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul is of "B" group.Salwar and knicker of the PW3/victim female child were found to be stained with semen of "B" group.no.1 Rahul Jadhav whereas Criminal Appeal bearing no.381 of 2014 is filed by accused nos.2 to 6, who happen to be his father, cousin sister, brother, cousin brother and mother.Appellant/accused no.1 Rahul Jadhav, by this judgment and order is convicted of offences avk 2/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.For the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.For the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.For the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul Jadhav is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.20,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.For the offence punishable under Section 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.Appellants/accused nos.2 to 6 are convicted of offences punishable under Section 368 read with 34 avk 3/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 363 and 366A read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.On the first count, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment.On the second count, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.Apart from this, appellant/accused no.2 Shankar Jadhav is also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::2 Facts leading to the prosecution of appellants/accused can be summarized thus :(a) PW3 is the alleged victim of the crime in question.Her parents were residing at Village Khairav whereas she, at the relevant time, was staying in the house of her maternal avk 4/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc uncles Samadhan and Dhanaji Narsale at Village Jaloli in Pandharpur Taluka of Solapur District.The PW3/victim female child was taking education in 10 th Standard at Wamanrao School and Junior College, Jaloli.Manisha Narsale is the wife of her maternal uncle Dhanaji Narsale.Appellant/accused no.1 Rahul is brother of Manisha Narsale::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::Then the PW3/victim female child lodged report Exhibit 28 against the accused persons which resulted in registration of Crime No.3 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 376, 363, 366A, 109 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.On completion of routine investigation, appellants/accused persons were charge-sheeted.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::thirteen witnesses.PW2 Rajesh Konge is a panch witness to seizure of clothes of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.He had answered the queries raised by the Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::(h) The defence of appellants/accused persons was that of total denial.However, they did not enter in the defence.(i) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to convict appellants/accused and sentenced them as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.(j) The learned trial court while convicting appellants/ accused nos.2 to 6 was pleased to hold that they were well aware about kidnapping of the PW3/victim female child but none of them relieved her.They all had abetted appellant/accused no.1 Rahul to commit the offence.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::appointed to represent appellants/accused persons at the costs of the State.He vehemently argued that the Spot panchnama indicates that the PW3/victim female child had tons of opportunities to save herself.Spots where the PW3/victim female child was allegedly kept was surrounded by agricultural fields of other persons as well as by road.The PW3/victim female child could have very well ran away to rescue herself.She claimed that she was in company of only appellant /accused no.1 Rahul.However, instead of making any attempt to run away, she continued to be in company of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul for full two days, and that too, in the open agricultural field.This, according to the learned counsel, indicates consent on the part of the PW3/victim female child.He further argued that even if the case of prosecution is accepted, then also, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code.It is further argued that the alleged offence took place in January 2012 and viewed from this angle, sentence of 10 years for the offence punishable under avk 12/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is too harsh.Appellant/accused no.1 Rahul is a close relative of the PW3/victim female child and he, at the time of the alleged offence, was just 20 years old.Evidence on record indicates that they were in love with each other and that is how the incident in question took place.The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that so far as other accused persons are concerned, they all deserve acquittal, as evidence on record does not demonstrate commission of any offence by any of them.Even if it is accepted that appellants/accused nos.2 to 6 were visiting the couple in the field, then also it cannot be said that they all committed any offence, which is held to be proved against them by the learned trial court.The PW3/victim female child was closely related to them also.The entire case of the prosecution is inherently improbable.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::4 The learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence.According to the learned APP, the medical evidence is corroborating the version of the PW3/victim female child.According to the learned APP, other accused persons by visiting the couple from time to time had abetted the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A as well as 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings including the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.According to the prosecution case, by active assistance, incitement and provocation of rest of the accused persons, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul had kidnapped the PW3/victim female child from lawful custody of her guardians on 17th January 2012 and rest of the avk 14/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc accused persons thereby abetted procuring of the PW3/victim female child with intent that she will be forced or seduced for sexual intercourse with appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.They had wrongfully confined and concealed the PW3/victim female child.It is further alleged that appellant/accused no.1 Rahul and his father appellant/accused no.2 Shankar Jadhav indulged in criminal intimidation of the PW3/victim female child.Considering these averments, fate of the prosecution case to a large extent hinges on testimony of the PW3, who happens to be the victim of the crime in question.At the relevant time, undisputedly, she was residing with her maternal uncles namely Samadhan and Dhanaji Narsale, as seen from the testimony of her mother PW4 Jayashree.In the opening paragraph of this judgment, I have also narrated relationship between the prosecuting party and the appellants/accused persons.Suffice to state that accused persons are closely related to Manisha, who happens to be the wife of Dhanaji Narsale - maternal uncle of the PW3/victim female child.Her evidence will have to be appreciated by keeping in mind the fact that the PW3/victim avk 15/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc female child is, as such, closely related to the appellants/accused persons, who are parents, brothers and cousins of her maternal aunt.Undisputedly, the PW3/victim female child was residing with her maternal uncles at Village Jaloli for the purpose of education since long and her parents were residing at Village Khairav where facility of school education was not available.The PW3/victim female child, as per her evidence, was taking education in 10th Standard at the relevant time.As deposed by her, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul came from her back side when she was proceeding from the field of Vishnu Narsale, pressed his palm on her mouth, took her to the adjoining field situated at 600 feet away, made her to sit and he also sat near her.The PW3/victim female child deposed that appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, who happens to be real brother of her maternal aunt, threatened her not to shout.In this way, she claims to have stayed with him up to 10.00 p.m. of 17th January avk 16/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc 2012 in an open agricultural field where sugarcanes were grown.Her evidence does not show that she made any hue or cry to get herself freed from custody of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.Her evidence does not show that he was keeping surveillance on her throughout this period of twelve hours.It is not the claim of the PW3/victim female child that she was kept tied by appellant/accused no.1 Rahul in that open field.She claimed that in that night appellant/accused no.4 Anand and appellant/accused no.5 Dhanaji, who happen to be brother and cousin of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, came and gave water to them.They, then, went away.The PW3/victim female child is not attributing any overt act to both of them.She claimed that then avk 17/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc again at about 2.30 a.m., they both came in that agricultural field.She and appellant/accused no.1 Rahul then followed both of them to another agricultural field where sugarcane was grown.The PW3/victim female child claimed that on this occasion also appellant/accused no.1 Rahul pressed her mouth while undertaking journey to the other field.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::This evidence also does not reflect any overt act on the part of appellant/accused no.3 Urmila and appellant/accused no.4 Anand.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::Subsequently, police came and took them to the police station.Her cross-examination reveals that during her entire stay of about two full days with appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, she never attempted to flee from his custody.She candidly admitted that on 19th January 2012, she sat on the bandh of the agricultural field with appellant/accused no.1 Rahul for a period of half an hour, till arrival of the police on the spot.11 The PW3/victim female child was taking education in 10th Standard at the time of the incident in question.The Spot panchnama shows that she stayed with appellant/accused no.1 Rahul in the sugarcane field for those two days.At a distance of about 60 feet from the place where she was in the company of avk 20/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, there was a cart-way.For those two days, she had ample opportunity to extricate herself from the so called clutches of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, who was brother of her maternal aunt, in whose house she was staying.She never claimed that she was under constant surveillance by appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.She was not kept tied in that open agricultural field.She never claimed to have protested about act of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul to his mother, father, brother or cousin, who are arraigned as accused, particularly when no overt act is attributed to all of them, except father of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.In this view of the matter, it is hard to believe the version of the PW3/victim female child in respect of the incident in question, as it is not in tune with the probability factor.Evidence of the PW3/victim female child indicates that she was in company of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul on her own volition.It cannot be said that the PW3/victim female child was under the spell of threat of appellant/accused avk 21/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc no.1 Rahul, who is her near relative.She has not described what were the threats extended by him and how she felt that such threats would materialize, if she attempted to get herself freed from company of appellant/ accused no.1 Rahul.Omnibus statement is made by her in her evidence that even appellant/accused no.2 Shankar Jadhav had threatened her not to tell the incident to anyone.What was the threat is not specified by her in order to enable this court to assess the effect of such threat on her.To crown this all, as per own version of the PW3/victim female child, she sat with appellant/accused no.1 Rahul on the bandh in the morning hours of 19 th January 2012 for half an hour.At that time also, she did not attempt to rescue herself.12 How the couple was apprehended by police has come on record through evidence of PW5 Ashok Jadhav, Police Head Constable, and PW7 Satish Yelpalle, Police Constable, of Kurkamb Police station.Evidence of PW5 Ashok Jadhav, Police Head Constable, shows that at about 4.00 a.m. of 19 th January 2012, maternal uncle of the PW3/victim female child, namely Samadhan Narsale, came to the police station and disclosed whereabouts of avk 22/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc the PW3/victim female child.Therefore, he sent two constables with Samadhan by jeep to bring her to the police station.PW7 Satish Yelpalle, Police Constable, is one amongst those two Police constables.Version of PW7 Satish Yelpalle, Police Constable, shows that along with Samadhan, he went to the spot to find appellant/accused no.1 Rahul and the PW3/victim female child sitting closely to each other on bandh of the agricultural field.That is how they were brought to the police station.This conduct of the PW3/victim female child seen by PW7 Satish Yelpalle, Police Constable, speaks volumes.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::PW3/victim female child by placing on record her Birth certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, by the Registrar.Section 7 thereof deals with appointment of Registrars for each local area comprising the area within the jurisdiction of the municipality, panchayat or other local authority.It is the duty of the Registrar to register every birth and every death which takes place in his jurisdiction.This Act mandates that the Registrar should avk 24/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc discharge his duties carefully.Section 8 of this Act mandates each head of the house to report birth in the family to the Registrar.The Act provides for maintenance of register for recording birth and death within the local area.Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872, makes it clear that if entry is made by public servant in the official book in discharge of his official duty, then such entry becomes the relevant fact and admissible in evidence.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::Supriya Hambire, Medical Officer, who had examined her soon after the incident.This Medical Officer found hymen of the PW3/victim female child torn at 5 O'clock and 6 O'clock position.Those tears were found to be fresh with minimal bleeding.Sample of blood of appellant/ accused no.1 Rahul was also collected.This evidence corroborates the version of the PW3/victim female child regarding commission of rape on her by appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::have been committed by appellants/accused nos.2 to 6, who happen to be relatives of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.As stated in foregoing paragraphs, appreciation of evidence of the PW3/victim female child does not show that these accused persons or any of them have abetted, instigated, provoked or incited appellant/accused no.1 Rahul to kidnap the PW3/victim female child from custody of her lawful guardians.It is not seen from the evidence of the PW3/victim female child that these accused persons or any of them, by any means, induced her to leave company of her maternal uncles, with intent that she will be seduced or forced to sexual intercourse with appellant /accused no.1 Rahul.So far as appellant/accused no.1 Rahul is concerned, he is also not liable for conviction and resultant sentence for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code, as that penal provision deals with procuring a minor girl with intent that she will be forced or seduced to sexual intercourse with some other person.Version of the PW3/victim female child, even avk 28/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc if accepted, only reflects that other accused persons had visited the agricultural field, where she was in company of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, for supplying water or meals.This evidence cannot be construed to mean that these accused persons had wrongfully concealed or confined the PW3/victim female child after her kidnapping by appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.So far as offence of criminal intimidation is concerned, which is held to be proved against appellant/accused no.1 Rahul Jadhav and his father appellant/accused no.2 Shankar Jadhav, by the learned trial court, I am of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that both these accused persons are guilty of criminal intimidation of the PW3/victim female child.Her omnibus statement that these two accused persons threatened her is not of sufficient gravity to convict them on this count.This evidence is lacking details, and therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the threatening was of such a magnitude to create alarm in the mind of the PW3/victim female child.Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the offence punishable under Section 506 read with 34 avk 29/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc of the Indian Penal Code against appellants/accused nos.1 and 2, namely, Rahul Jadhav and Shankar Jadhav.The learned trial court erred in holding the offence, alleged against these accused persons, proved, with a reasoning that they were well aware of the kidnapping of the PW3/victim female child but none of them had relieved her.17 In the result, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove any offence against appellant/accused nos.2 to 6, deserving their acquittal of the offence held to be proved against them.So far as appellant/accused no.1 Rahul is concerned, offence of kidnapping the PW3/victim female child, so also, the offence of committing rape on her, is required to be held as proved, in the wake of cogent and trustworthy evidence in support of this Charge, which includes evidence regarding the age of the PW3/victim female child, forensic evidence and medical evidence.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::avk 30/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc However, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul is entitled for acquittal of the offence punishable under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::Sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, however, was prescribing the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may be for life, apart from imposition of fine.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::20 In the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Mange Ram1 the evidence on record was showing that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age.It is held thus in paragraph 16 by the Honourable Apex Court while sentencing the accused in 1 2000 CRI.L.J. 4027 avk 32/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc that case :::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::"16 In view of the foregoing conclusions, we reverse the findings of the learned Sessions Judge which was confirmed by learned Single Judge and find that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. As regards the sentence, we take a lenient view for the reason that the prosecutrix and accused are related.They were both teenagers with an age difference of about 2-3 years.Both were immature and young.After the acquittal by passage of time, the members of the two families must have buried their hatchet if any arisen on account of this incident.The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that a further order for custodial sentence at this distance of time may cause rapture to social harmony in the village life and may only help to rekindle the flames of anger which have been smouldering for so long between near relatives.Having regard to all these matters, we hold that sentence already undergone by the accused would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, and we do accordingly."::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::Bengal and Another2 there was no love affair between the prosecutrix and the accused but the accused was after the prosecutrix requesting her to marry him and ultimately committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.While dealing with quantum of sentence, following are the observations of the Honourable Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment :"15 This takes us to the last argument about the quantum of sentence.In our opinion, considering the fact that the incident took place about 6 years back and the fact that the accused is behind the bars for last about 5 years, as also poverty on the part of the accused, we feel that the sentence already suffered would be sufficient.The sentence of fine is however, confirmed.Fine, if recovered shall be paid to the Prosecutrix.She shall be intimated by sending notice to her.We, accordingly, modify the sentence.The appeal is disposed of with this modification."2 2009 CRI.L.J. 1324 avk 34/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc 22 In the matter of Phul Singh vs. State of Haryana3, the accused was aged about 22 years and was not a habitual offender.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::He was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code."7 He is a youth barely 22 with no criminal antecedents save this offence.He has a young wife and a farm to look after.Given correctional courses through meditational therapy and other measures, his erotic aberration may wither away.A man like the appellant has a reasonable prospect of shaping into a balanced person, given propitious social environs, curative and congenial work and techniques of internal stress release or of reformatory self expression.""8 In this background, we regard a four year term of rigorous imprisonment more hardening than habilitative, even though we deplore the sex violence the young appellant has inflicted on his cousin's wife snatching a tricky opportunity.Even 3 1980 CRI.L.J. 8 avk 35/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc so, the incriminating company of lifers and others for long may be counter-productive, and in this perspective, we blend deterrence with correction and reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for two years.We wish to emphasise that the special circumstances of this case constrain us to relent a little on principle because the restorative approach to sentencing has been jettisoned by the courts below."::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::23 Lastly, in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. N.K. (Accused)4 the Honourable Apex Court has observed thus while deciding the quantum of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code."19 Now remains the question of sentence.He was not allowed bail.During the trial as also during the hearing of the appeal by the High Court he remained in jail.It is only on 11.10.1995 when the High Court acquitted him of the charge that he was released from jail.Thus he had remained in jail for a little less than two years.Taking into consideration the 4 2000 CRI.L.J.2205 avk 36/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc period of remission for which he would have been entitled and the time which has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence, we are of the opinion that the accused-respondent need not now be sent to jail.It would meet the end of justice if he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and to a fine of Rs.2000/- with further simple imprisonment of one year and nine months in default of payment of fine as passed by the Trial Court.The appellant is allowed time till 1st May, 2000 for payment of fine.The accused- respondent is on bail.The bail bonds shall stand discharged on payment of fine as directed.Ordered accordingly."::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::24 In the case in hand, because of penury appellant/accused no.1 Rahul was required to be provided with legal aid to prosecute his appeal before this court.At the relevant time, the sentence procedure for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was ranging from 7 years to imprisonment for life.In the case in hand, appellant/accused no.1 Rahul at the time of commission of offence was barely 20 years old, as seen from the avk 37/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc charge-sheet itself.Evidence on record unerringly points out that the PW3/victim female child was residing at the maternal house of his sister Manisha.She was niece of Manisha - sister of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul.Evidence of the PW3/victim female child shows that the couple was in love with each other and that is how, she was found in company of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul, who enticed her and committed rape on her.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::Considering age of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul as well as the inter-se relations between the parties and the fact that appellant/accused no.1 Rahul had no criminal antecedents, sentenced imposed on him by the learned trial court appears to be too harsh.It needs to be scaled down to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Similarly, the default sentence imposed on appellant/accused no.1 Rahul of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is excessive and the same is also scaled down to six months.So far as the sentence of imprisonment as well as fine imposed for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the avk 38/40::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 ::: 205-APPEALS-380-2014-381-2014.doc same is maintained.In the result, the following order :::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::ORDER IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.380 OF 2014i) Criminal Appeal No.380 of 2014 is partly allowed.ii) Conviction and resultant sentence of appellant/accused no.1 Rahul Jadhav for the offence punishable under Section 366A and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.However, his sentence on this count is modified, and for this offence, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and in default of payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.v) Criminal Appeal No.380 of 2014 stand disposed off in accordance with this order.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Sessions Case No.28 of 2012, so far as it relates to conviction and resultant sentence imposed on appellant/accused nos.2 to 6 is quashed and set aside.iii) Appellant/accused nos.2 to 6 stand acquitted of offences with which they are charged and held to be proved by the learned trial court.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2018 00:33:10 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,314,760 |
pds/Lok To1.The Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry.O.P.No.5541 of 2019This petition has been filed to direct the Learned Judicial Magistrate II at Puducherry to split up the above said PRC.No.5 of 2018 in Crime No.1/2017 on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry as against the absconding accused and commit the case.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one, Jacques Antoine Prosper Desire was murdered over a property dispute and a case was registered in Crime No.209 of 2006, and the same was taken for trial in S.C.No.30 of 2011, the proceedings of which was quashed by this Court in Crl.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 there are 16 accused in the case, and A1, A9 and A10 are living in abroad and could not be traced.He further submits the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the property which originally belongs to the defacto complainant as such the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.It is seen that the petitioner involved in all the offences under Sections 420, 427, 120(B), 427, 448, 324, 395, 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w.149 of IPC and there are totally 16 accused in this case.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.06.03.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No pds/lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Learned Judicial Magistrate II, Puducherry3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, (Pondicherry) Crl.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,324,514 |
The I.A. No.11442/17 is allowed.as per rules.(V.K. Shukla) V.Judge ac.Cr.A. No.2200/2017 12.06.2017 Shri Udai Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, learned P.L. for the State.Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.11442/2017, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant upon his conviction under section 304 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.10000/- and under section 201 read with 304 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.It is stated at the Bar that the appellant was already on bail during course of trial; that there is no allegation of breach of conditions of bail; and that the fine amount has been deposited.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.Accordingly, I.A. No.11442/17 is allowed.The appellant - Lalla Patel is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellant shall appear before the Registry of this Court on a date to be fixed by the Office and on such other dates as may be directed by the Office in that behalf.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,327,809 |
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderpassed in C.M.P.No.23/2014, dated 18.11.2014 by the detaining authority, whohas been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name KaralMarx, Son of Ganesan and quash the same and thereby set him at libertyforthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Melur assponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority,wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adversecases:(i)Crime No.222 of 2012, Checkanoorani Police Station, registered underSection 4(1)(A) TNP Act @ 4(1)(a) TNP(ii)Crime No.317 of 2012, Usilampatti Prohibition Enforcement Wing,registered under Section 4(1)(K) TNP2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai District, Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,163,321 |
The copies of the said orders dated 30-11-1987 and 7-9-1987 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are annexed herewith and marked as Annexures R/1 and R/2 respectively."The order made by Supreme Court on 30th November 1987, however, shows that the petitioner has not made an accurate reference in aforesaid para 3 of the application.Certain objections were raised by the Registry and the application was returned.On 13th May it was found that notices had not been issued to the respondents as process-fee had not been filed.Oo 19th August, on request of counsel for the petitioner, it was adjourned to 8th September 1988 when the arguments were heard.It was, prima facie, clear to the Bench that the disputed signatures, initials and handwriting were that of the petitioner but to clear any possible doubt and with the consent of the parties the documents were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory for their expert opinion.As noticed in the order made on 13th August 1987 it was not the case of any of the parties that the Senior Scientific Officer (Documents) -cum- Assistant Chemical Examiner of Central Forensic Science laboratory, who had given the report, was interested in giving a wrong report.Review Application No. 32 of 1988 is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
770,422 |
Criminal Revision Nos. 423Jai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kohli and Deva Singh, with him) forthe appellants.Gopal Singh for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byBosE J.-Four persons appeal against sentences of deathpassed upon them in convictions for a double murder, thevictims being two brothers, Rattan Singh and Bawa Singh.The learned Sessions Judge convicted three others also butsentenced all, including the four appellants, totransportation for life.The High Court acquitted three ofthe seven but sustained the convictions of the fourappellants and enhanced their sentences in each case todeath.The prosecution story is simple.All seven accused belongto the same village and belong to the same faction or"party", as Mst.Punnan (P.W. 2) calls it.Of the seven,the appellants Dalip Singh and Battan Singh are brothers.Jarnail Singh who was acquitted is a son of Battan Singh.The remaining four, including the appellants Sadhu Singh andKundan Singh, are not related to the other three and, exceptfor the evidence that they belong to the same party, are notshown to have any common interest with the other three.The appellants Dalip Singh and Battan Singh are said to haveassaulted the two dead men Rattan and Bawa about twentyyears before the occurrence.They were prosecuted andconvicted and served short terms of imprisonment.DalipSingh and Battan Singh are also said to be dacoits and it issaid that they believed that the two dead men used tofurnish information against them to the police.This issaid to be the motive for the murders.Why the othersshould have joined in, except on the basis that they belongto the same "Party", is not disclosed.The prosecution case is as follows:-On 16th June, 1951,Rattan Singh was taking some food out to a well a shortdistance from his house for himself and his son.This wasabout 2 p.m. Just as he left the house, his wife Mst.Punnan (P.W. 2) heard cries of alarm and on rushing out withher daughter Mst.Charni (P.W. 11) saw all seven accusedassaulting her husband.They beat him up till he fell tothe ground.As soon as Rattan Singh fell down, they left him and rushedto his (Rattan Singh's) Haveli where the other brother BawaSingh was lying on a cot, shouting that they would also makeshort work of him.All seven belaboured him on the cot,then they dragged him out and beat him up some more.After this they returned to where Rattan Singh was stilllying on the ground and gave him some more blows.Then theyran away.Bawa Singh died very shortly after the assault.The otherbrother survived a little longer but he also died not longafter.According to Mst.Punnan (P.W. 2) the accused were armed asfollows: The appellants Dalip Singh and Sadhu Singh withbarchhas; the appellant Battan Singh and two of the accusedwho have been acquitted with lathis; the appellant KundanSingh had a takwa -a hatchet with along handle, and theaccused Kehar Singh, who has been acquitted, had a khunda-ahefty stick with a curved iron end.The medical evidence discloses that Rattan Singh hadnineteen injuries on his person.Of these, only two, on thehead, would have been fatal in themselves.The rest were onnon-vital parts like the foot, ankle, leg, knee, thigh,buttock, forearm and wrist, but of these six were grievous.The other brother Bawa had sixteen injuries but except fortwo the rest were on non-vital parts.One of the two was onthe head and the other ruptured the148spleen.The rest were on the ankle, leg, knee, thigh,elbow, thumb and wrist, but eleven of them were grievous.In his case the doctor put the death down to rupture of thespleen.In Rattan Singh's case, only one of the injuries wasinflicted by a sharp-edged pointed weapon and all the restby blunt weapons.The two on the head were inflicted byblunt weapons.In Bawa Singh's case, four wounds were caused by a sharp-edged or pointed sharp-edged weapon.The others were allinflicted by blunt weapons.Here again, the fatal injurywhich ruptured the spleen was caused by a blunt weapon.This analysis would appear to indicate that neither of theappellants Dalip Singh and Sadhu Singh, who carried spears,nor the appellant Kundan Singh, who carried a hatchet, aimedat any vital part; and of those who had blunt weapons, theappellant Battan Singh who had a lathi has alone beenconvicted while Indar Singh and Jarnail Singh, who also hadlathis, and kehar Singh, who had a khunda, have all beenacquitted; and yet Battan Singh alone could hardly have beenresponsible for eighteen injuries on Rattan Singh and nineon Bawa Singh.The appellant Dalip Singh was arrested on the 17th June andthe other three on the 18th.Each was wearing blood-stainedclothes.The learned Sessions Judge did not attach much importance tothe bloodstained clothes, nor did he regard the recovery ofcertain weapons, some of which were blood-stained, as ofmuch consequence.But he was impressed with the evidence ofthe two eyewitnesses Mst.All the assessors consideredall seven accused guilty.The learned High Court Judges did not attach any importanceto the recovery of the weapons because 149for one thing they were not recovered till the 30th, that isto say, not until fourteen days after the murders, and whenfound, one set pointed out by Jarnail Singh, who has beenacquitted, was found in Dalip Singh's field and another set,pointed out by Sadhu Singh, was found in Kehar Singh'sfield.But they considered the blood-stained clothes animportant factor.They were not prepared to believe the twoeye-witnesses all the way, partly because they were ofopinion that a part of their story was doubtful and seemedto have been introduced at the instance of the police andpartly because they considered that when the fate of sevenmen hangs on the testimony of two women "ordinary prudence"requires corroboration."As regards the three accused whom they acquitted the learnedJudges say-In the circumstances, wefind ourselves unable to allow the conviction to rest on theinsecure foundations laid by the High Court.We haveaccordingly reviewed the evidence for ourselves.Some of the accused have made general and sweepingstatements to the effect that the prosecution witnesses areinimical to them but no one has suggested why.In the longcross-examination of these witnesses not a single questionhas been addressed to them to indicate any cause of enmityagainst any of the accused other than the appellants DalipSingh and Battan Singh.Charni (P.W. 11).Next, the bloodstained clothes found on the persons of thefour appellants afford strong corroboration as against them,and as two courts have believed the witnesses to that extentall we need do is to concentrate on the other three accusedwho have been acquitted in order to see whether there wereseven persons as Mst.Except for that, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.Agent for the appellants: Naunit Lal.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,042,568 |
Mr. Moitra, further attacking prosecution case submitted that the entire prosecution case founded upon the assertion of the wife of opposite party no. 2, namely Chhanda Pattanayak, who remained unexamined, though cited in the charge-sheet, as dependable witness, but prosecution story would not stand reaching finality on her absence ultimately.The further attack incidental to the principal thrust was that the bank from which loan was obtained never claimed to have been cheated in this case for the alleged 3 conduct of petitioner, exposing the bank to go for recovery of loan amount issuing necessary notice and other incidental steps.As regards the charge framed under Section 406 I.P.C. against the petitioner, Mr. Moitra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that in the instant case there had been no entrustment of property to the petitioner, which he had ultimately converted to his own use for his personal gain, and as such the charge under Section 420 I.P.C. being consequential to 406 I.P.C. would automatically fail.Upon taking such grounds, Mr. Moitra proposed for quashing of the pending proceedings.Mr. Bapuli submitted that though the name of Chhanda Pattanayak had been shown, as one of the witnesses of prosecution in the charge-sheet, but her statement admittedly could not be recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It will amount to pre-judge the trial as to whether prosecution case would stand or not in the absence of statement of wife of the opposite party no. 2, ignoring the materials, referred above, already collected during investigation, and mentioned also in the memo of evidence.Therefore, ongoing trial should not be disturbed even on the ground of absence of the statement of wife of the opposite party no. 2 remaining unrecorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation.1 In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Subhasis Dasgupta.Mr. Bapuli countered the submissions of Mr. Moitra submitting that at this stage the prayer for quashing of proceedings would not be encouraging one on the simple score that there had been already commencement of trial 4 with the framing of charge and the next date being fixed on 19th January, 2021 for evidence.It was challenged by Mr. Baupli that mere liquidation of the loan amount, would not ipso facto exonerate the petitioner from the instant criminal prosecution, for the loan amount was unlawfully sanctioned with the active connivance of some people in the bank by showing opposite party no. 2, and his wife as co-borrower against their wishes, after procuring some documents, favourable to the purpose of sanctioning loan amount, behind the back of the wife of opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 himself.As regards the criminality on the part of the petitioner, contended to be missing in the instant case, Mr. Bapuli answered that the criminality could be found to exist at the very beginning, when a false sale of land agreement mentioning a fictitious description of land, proposed to be sold to the wife of opposite party no. 2 by petitioner himself, claiming therein petitioner to be the recorded owner of such land, which in course of investigation turned out to be untrue, and it was just sufficient for the present purpose not to frustrate the proposed quashment.Challenge was further shown by Mr. Bapuli for the State that investigation had already collected sufficient materials, and particularly some documents going against the petitioner, and those documents, if considered together, would revel that petitioner himself admitted his guilt executing a document that he had realised/obtained the loan amount to himself showing the opposite party no. 2 and his wife as co-borrowers, and accordingly 5 undertook to repay the same with interest accrued thereon, and thus proposed quashment, if allowed, would stifle the prosecution case.Learned advocate for the private opposite party no. 2 adopted the submission of Mr. Bapuli contending that for the advancement of trial, the proceedings should not be quashed even after liquidation of the bank money.Before addressing the points raised by the rival parties mentioning of relevant facts, in precise, would be of some relevance.The opposite party no. 2 is a headmaster of a school and his wife is an assistant teacher of a different school, while the petitioner is a teacher of another school.Both the opposite parties and petitioner had their previous acquaintance with each other, for they belong to same teachers' association.Previously the petitioner/accused helped the wife of the opposite party no. 2 in obtaining home loan from a co-operative bank to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) in 2002, wherein the petitioner voluntarily stood as a guarantor.Since, petitioner stood as a guarantor in the loan, sanctioned in the name of wife of the opposite party no. 2 with the collection of some signatures of wife of opposite party no. 2 in some of blank forms of the bank, the petitioner by reason of his previous acquaintance approached the wife of opposite party no. 2 to stand as a guarantor of a loan, to be sanctioned in the name of petitioner threreby requiring the wife of opposite party no. 2 to put her signature on some bank papers, produced by petitioner.The wife of opposite party no. 2 innocently put her signature, as a guarantor to the loan 6 transaction to be sanctioned from ICICI bank in favour of petitioner.One fine morning the wife of opposite party no. 2 received notice from bank requiring her to pay off the loan, sanctioned in her favour for failure of petitioner to liquidate the loan amount within the scheduled time.A salish was called in the locality, when petitioner admitted his guilt stating that he had realised the loan amount showing the name of the opposite party no. 2 and his wife as co-borrowers.The loan amount even thereafter not being liquidated, a further notice was issued by the bank, addressed to the wife of opposite party no. 2, to take over possession of mortgaged property with some land description, not belonging to the addressee of the notice.Having thus discovered the fraudulent and dishonest intention on the part of petitioner, a case came to be registered under the behest of Section 156(3)Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that though there had been liquidation of loan amount by the petitioner, but the manner in which the loan was sanctioned in the name of persons other than petitioner and getting thereafter the sanctioned amount disbursed in the name of petitioner, needs to be duly appreciated in the trial.The Case Diary be returned forthwith.Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the appearing parties as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all necessary formalities.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,060,839 |
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act has been filed against order impugned dated 12.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in bail application No.6235/2019, arising out of Case Crime No.448/2019, U/s 376D, 313, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. - P.G.I., District - Lucknow.F.I.R. in this case was lodged to the effect that the prosecutrix was working as a labour at NCC Samajwadi Ansal and was living in a thatch.The applicant was a contractor and on the pretext of marriage, he maintained physical relation with the prosecutrix for lat about 2 years, due to which she became pregnant, then she was administered some medicine and was admitted at Sunrise Hospital, where abortion was done, however, the applicant had given an assurance of marriage, but later on he refused and given filthy abuses and thrown from the house, then this F.I.R. was lodged.It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that age of the prosecutrix is around 19 years.She was a consenting party.The applicant had never made assurance of marriage.In the bail application, it is stated that in fact the prosecutrix and her mother were doing labour work and the applicant had given some advance for performing work, but after doing some work they stopped their work and when pressure was made either to refund money or to perform work, this false F.I.R. has been lodged.In the F.I.R. itself it is mentioned that the applicant had maintained physical relation for last about 2 years but no whisper was made and the F.I.R. was lodged.Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer.In view of above, the order impugned passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.Order dated 12.09.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in bail application No.6235/2019, arising out of Case Crime No.448/2019, U/s 376D, 313, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. - P.G.I., District - Lucknow, is set aside.
|
['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.
|
173,115 |
JUDGMENT S.K. Kapur, J.The case of the prosecution admits of statement in a very moderate compass, I proceed to state the same.He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (I) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act and three year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 161, Indian Penal Code.The two sentences were to run concurrently.He was to suffer a further six months' rigorous imprisonment for default in payment of fine.The substance of the charge against the appellant is that on March 24, 1966, while a public servant working in the capacity of Demolition Inspector (Building) under Municipal Corporation, Delhi, he obtained illegal gratification of Rs. 800 and of a cheque for Rs. 1,000 from Suresh Kanwar of Messrs. United Mtoor Agency, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, as a reward for having demolished on January 22, 1966 an unauthorised construction on the plto occupied by United Mtoor Agency.In the year 1962, four posts of Surveyors were lying vacant in the office of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and names of 51 persons were recommended by the Employment Exchange.On 2nd May 1962 the Deputy Commissioner directed the constitution of a board for interviewing the candidates, The said order is Exhibit P. W. 13/B. The board was accordingly constituted.The board interviewed the candidates and a panel of 29 persons (Exhibit P. W. 13/C) was prepared.On May 25, 1962, the Administrative Officer of the Corporation put up a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner that appointment letters be issued to six candidates (Exhibit P. W. 13/D).The name of the appellant was nto among the said six candidates.The Deputy Commissioner approved the proposal on June 2, 1962 and the endorsement by the Deputy Commissioner (Exhibit P. W. 13/D1) (as proved by T.N. Singal, P. W. 14) bears the initials of the Deputy Commissioner.On January 8, 1964, the Commissioner delegated all his powers vide Exhibit PH to Mr. Tandon, the Deputy Commissioner.It is appropriate to read the said document--In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 491 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, I hereby direct that all the powers conferred on me under the various provisions of the said Act, shall, subject to my supervision, control and revision, be also exercised by Shri N.N. Tandon, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner.The Administrative Officer issued letter, Exhibit P. W. 13/E, to the appellant on 22nd June, 1964 offering the post of a Surveyor.The various terms and conditions of appointment are set out in the letter.The time for joining duty was, at the instance of the appellant, extended up to 12th July, 1964 and on 16th July, 1964, the Administrative Officer issued order, Exhibit P. W. 13/J, posting the appellant as Surveyor in the Town Planning Department.By February 1965 the standing Committee of the Municipal Committee had decided to reduce the number of Surveyors from 42 to 25 necessitating retrenchment of 15 persons.One of them was, however, absorbed as a section Officer leaving fourteen employees to be retrenched.This ntoice was served on the appellant on March 4, 1965 and on March 5, 1965, the Administrative Officer, on the advice of Assistant Commissioner (West), put up a ntoe (Exhibit P. W. 13/Q) proposing that the 114 retrenched Surveyors might be absorbed in the post of draftsman grades I, if and III.The proposal was examined by the Chief Accountant and Planning and Municipal Engineer and was agreed to.That is how the appellant was appointed in the building department as Demolition Inspector.Letter (Exhibit P. W. 13/M) was issued to eight persons working as draftsman including the appellant in which it is inter alia stated--The Deputy Commissioner (E) vide his orders dated 22-9-1965 has approved the promtoion of the following retrenched 8 Surveyors now working as Draftsmen Grade III as Surveyors.... and shall work as Demolition Inspectors.From 1-10-1965 to 28-2-1966 the appellant worked as Demolition Inspector.1968, in the meantime, a retrenchment ntoice, under the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner, had been issued to the appellant saying that his services shall stand terminated on expiry of one calendar month from the date of service of the ntoice.On 28-2-1966 the order, Exhibit DH, was passed by the Zonal Engineer, in which it was stated that in pursuance of the Executive Engineer's office order "Shri M, L. bagsi, Demolition Inspector (Draftsman) is hereby relieved today i. e. 28-2-1966 (A. N.) He is directed to report himself to J. J. S. (Jhugi Jonpri Scheme) for duty." On March 1, 1966, the appellant was, by order Exhibit DJ which is signed by the Deputy Commissioner, placed under suspension.The Chief Accountant, however, introduced a condition that the maximum scale of pay will, in case of such employees, nto exceed that of a draftsman, grade III.The proposal was then put up before the Deputy Commissioner and he approved the same on March 6, 1965, vide Exhibit P. W. 13/S. The endorsement made by the Deputy Commissioner is "Seen." The signatures of the Deputy Commissioner (P. W. 13/S) have been proved by R.K. Dua (P. W. 13).In pursuance of this approval by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner issued to the appellant, on March 10, 1965, letter (Exhibit P. W. 13/ L) offering the post of draftsman, grade III.This appointment was accepted by the appellant but some Surveyors made representations that there were vacancies available in the building department and they should be posted as Surveyors in that department.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,125,238 |
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE tajThis is first application filed by the applicants / accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 269/2017, registered at Police Station Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad (MP), for the offence under sections 353, 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC.The allegation against the applicants is that when the complainant, being Government Servant, along with two other persons reached in front of the house of Halkebeer Gujar and enquired about the complaint made by the stake holders, the applicants assaulted and caused injuries to them with a view to prevent public servant to complete enquiry.It is contended on behalf of the applicants / accused that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case.Except Section 353, IPC, the other offences are bailable.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,126,676 |
The social status of the family was found to be usual, but financial conditions, a bit strugglesome.The present circumstances of life were found to be average; relationship between the mother and father was found to be average, amiable and peaceful; likewise, the relationship between the mother and father on the one hand and the children on the other was also found to be average and amiable; the habits and hobbies were found to be interest in watching TV, outdoor games and other kind of entertainment; the impact of friends and their influence over the juvenile was reported to be negative; there was no history of running away from home, and, likewise, no history of previous delinquency was found.The outlook of the juvenile towards school, which includes his teachers and classmates, was found to be average and normal.In the column as to report about neighbours of the juvenile, it is said that in relation to the juvenile there was resentment and indignation over the incident (giving rise to the present crime).The perspective of the parents towards discipline and responsibility of the child were found to be usual.This revision is directed against an order of Sri Malkhan Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.6, Allahabad dated 02.03.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2017 dismissing the said appeal and affirming an order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Allahabad refusing bail to the revisionist in Case Crime No.201 of 2016, under Sections 363, 364 IPC, Police Station Kydganj, District Allahabad.The case of the prosecution is that the first informant Lalji Sonkar lodged a First Information Report on 31.05.2016 at 1.30 AM with Police Station Kydganj, District Allahabad saying that he is a resident of House no.614, Krishna Nagar, Kydganj, Allahabad; that his grandson Priyanshu aged about 11 years had come a visiting him; that on 30.05.2016 at 9.00 AM his grandson had gone along with Ankit Kumar Mishra, Akash Chauhan and Sumit Kumar (revisionist), but had not returned ever since; that all efforts to privately trace out the missing did not lead to any result and the informant apprehended that some untoward incident might have befallen him; and, that accordingly he was lodging a report with the police for necessary action.On the basis of aforesaid information the First Information Report giving rise to the present crime was registered.He made an application seeking bail pending trial to the Juvenile Justice Board.It has been added that the Juvenile Justice Board has evaluated material on record in accordance with law to reach the sound conclusion to deny bail which does not call for interference in appeal.Hence, the present revision has been brought.Assessed on first of the two prescribed parameters, where bail can be denied, a copy of the social investigation report is on record as Annexure 7 to the affidavit filed in support of the affidavit.A perusal of the report says that the juvenile has a father at home aged about 50 years, whose occupation is agriculture; he has mother aged about 45 years, who is a homemaker; he also has a brother and a sister.It is indicated that he reposes general faith in religion and the family have a general and usual inclination towards religion.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,126,964 |
Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No. 15088/207, an application for condonation of delay.For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 274 days in filing of appeal is hereby condoned.This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed in special S.C. No. 40//2014 passed by Session Judge Singrauli, whereby the appellant has been convicted as under with default stipulation:Also heard on I.A. No. 15089/2017, first application for suspension of sentence.The appellant has suffered about 3 years and about 10 months as is against of 10 years conviction as awarded under the impugned judgment.In case, the appellant is 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 without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.Certified copy as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge VD Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY Date: 2018.05.09 23:36:11
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,127,134 |
The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that the appellants and other accused persons being armed with deadly weapons attacked Khudiram Dhara (PW1) and his brother namely, Badal Chandra Dhara (PW6) while they were cultivating the landed property of Menaka Barman (since deceased).Sushil Ch.Dhara, son of Badal and his wife namely, Radharani Dhara (PW5) were also cultivating the field.Chandan Kumar Barman and Rabindra Nath Barman @ Rabindra Nath Barman namely, appellant nos.6 & 7 respectively assaulted Sushil with a ballam.Badal was assaulted by Khokan Barman and Kanak Kanti Barman namely, appellant nos.4 & 5 respectively with shabal while Krishan Kumar Barman and Tapan Barman namely, appellant nos.2 & 3 respectively assaulted Radharani with a hasua.All the accused persons assaulted them with lathi.As a result of assault, the aforesaid persons suffered injuries.Injured persons were initially treated at Khejurberia BPHC.Therafter, Badal and Sushil were removed to Tamluk S.D. Hospital.Badal was admitted in the said hospital while Sushil was referred to Ekbalpore Nursing Home for treatment.Unfortunately, Sushil succumbed to his injuries on 2nd December, 1998 in the Nursing Home.In the meantime, FIR was lodged by Khudiram at the police station against the appellants and other accused persons.In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the appellants.In the course of trial, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present:The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi And The Hon'ble Justice Suvra Ghosh C.R.A. 142 of 2016 Jamini Barman & Ors.The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th January, 2016/1st February, 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Sessions Case No. 10 (August) 2007 [Sessions Trial No. 08(01) 2008] convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148/304 Part-I/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/ each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-I/149 IPC; both the sentences to run concurrently.The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.It was specifically contended that PW1 could not be a Bargadar of the land.On the other hand, one of the appellants namely, Tapan Barman (appellant no.3) had suffered injuries in the course of the incident.Defence examined two medical witnesses to prove the injuries on the appellant no.3 namely, Tapan Barman.Upon analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 30th January, 2016/1st February, 2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.PW1, 5 & 6 are the injured witnesses in the present case.PW1, Khudiram Dhara deposed he was a bargadar in respect of the plot in question.He along with his family members were tilling the land on 8th Agrahayan, 1405 B.S. at 2:00 P.M. At that time, appellants and other accused persons came in a body armed with deadly weapons like ballam, sabal, iron-rod and lathi etc. Chandan Kumar Barman and Rabindra Nath Barman hit on the head of Sushil with a ballam.Khokan Barman and Kanak Kanti Barman hit Badal with a shabal.Tapan Barman and Krishna Kumar Barman hit Radharani with a hasua.All accused persons also hit them with lathi.PW1 and others were treated at Khejurberia hospital.Badal Dhara and Sushil Dhara were referred to Tamluk hospital from Khejurberia BPHC.As the condition of Sushil was precarious, he was referred to Kolkata for better treatment.Eight days later Sushil died in a nursing home at Kolkata.P.W.1 lodged written complaint which was written by Murari Maity, an advocate.He proved the written complaint.In cross-examination, he admitted Menoka Barman, who had accompanied the appellants to the spot is the owner of the plot in question.PW6 (Badal Chandra Dhara) and his wife namely, Radharani Dhara (PW5) had corroborated the evidence of the de-facto complainant.PW2 (Kanan Dhara), wife of Khudiram Dhara and PW4 (Ramkrishna Dhara), son of Khudiram were also present and corroborated the evidence of the de-facto complainant.PW3, Minoti Dhara, a relation of PW1 and PW7, Birendra Nath Manna, an independent witness came to the spot after the occurrence and heard the incident from Khudiram.PW7 took the injured persons to hospital.Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants has criticised the evidence of these witnesses on the several grounds.No document of bargadarship of PW1 has been placed on record.Genesis of the incident as narrated by the prosecution witnesses is untrue as they failed to explain the injuries on one of the appellants namely, Tapan Barman (appellant no.3).It is further submitted that no punctured injury caused by ballam, a pointed weapon, was found in the body of Sushil (the deceased) by the post mortem doctor.I have tested the aforesaid submissions in the light of the evidence on record.PW1 stated that he was the bargadar of the land.No doubt document of bargadarship has not been placed.However, evidence on record clearly shows that PW1 and his brother Badal (PW6) were in settled position of the land and cultivating the same.Appellants along with the owner of the land, Menoka Barman being armed with deadly weapons attacked PW1 and PW6 and caused deadly injuries on them.Ocular version with regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the prosecution witnesses namely, PW1, 5 & 6 and the deceased Sushil Dhara finds corroboration from the medical evidence on record.PW13, Dr. Pranabesh Ch.De examined the injured witnesses at Khejurberia BPHC.He found a lacerated bleeding injury measuring 2" x " x 1/3" on occipital and parietal region of the head of Khudiram Dhara.He found similar lacerated injury measuring 2" X " X " on the left parietal region of the head of Radharani as well as lacerated bleeding injuries on her right temporal region of the head and right forearm.On Badal Dhara, the doctor found a lacerated bleeding injury on the right parietal region of the head.He suspected fracture of the left shoulder joint and left little finger.Badal was referred to Tamluk hospital for better treatment.Sushil Dhara was also examined by the doctor.He noted lacerated bleeding injury measuring 2" X " X " on the middle of the parietal region of his head.The patient was restless and vomiting and was also referred to Tamluk hospital.In cross-examination, he admitted he did not find incised or sharp cutting injuries on the victims.PW10, Tridibesh Banerjee treated Badal and Sushil at Tamluk S.D. Hospital.He found scalp injuries and injury on the left shoulder with fracture of femural head on Badal.He proved his treatment sheet and bed-head ticket.PW15, Dr. Goutam Das and PW16, Dr. Siddhartha Purakayestha are doctors attached to Ekbalpur nursing home.Post mortem report of Sudhil Dhara (Ext.18) was proved on admission.Medical evidence on record, therefore, leaves no doubt in one's mind that the injured eyewitnesses namely, PW1, 5 & 6 along with the deceased Sushil Dhara had suffered injuries on their head and other parts of the body.As a result of such assault, Badal suffered head injury and fracture of femoral head.He was admitted at Tamluk S. D. Hospital.It has been argued that no puncture or sharp cutting injury was found on the head of Sushil.I am unable to accept such contention.The appellants had come in a body armed with various weapons including ballam, sabal, hasua etc. and attacked Sushil.PW1, 5 & 6 were also assaulted in the course of the incident.From the evidence of PW13 and post mortem report (Ext.18), it appears that Sushil Dhara suffered injuries on the left fronto parietal region of his head.Post mortem doctor had opined that death was due to effect of such injuries.Assessing the evidence of the eye witnesses vis--vis the medical opinion, it appears that Sushil was assaulted on the head and suffered injuries.Consequentially, he died.There may be some confusion with regard to the nature of weapon used by the assailants which, in my opinion, is understandable as the witnesses themselves were being mercilessly beaten up and was unable to identify the exact nature of weapon or the manner in which such weapon was used.In the present case the witnesses unequivocally stated that Sushil was hit on the head by Chandan Kumar Barman and Rabindra Nath Barman.Medical evidence of PW13 and post- mortem report (Ext.18) categorically show injury on the head of Sushil which resulted in his death.Under such circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the ocular and medical evidence in the present case are substantially corroborative of one another and do not give rise to such an irreconcilable and contradictory state of affairs so that one would be inclined to discard the evidence of an injured witness relating to the incident.1 See Mallapa Siddappa Alakanur & Ors.However, as the prosecution has failed to prove documents of bargadarship of PW1 and the injuries suffered by one of the accused persons in the course of incident, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution case of the appellants of forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting the injured witnesses pursuant to the common object of killing them have not been proved beyond doubt.On the other hand, the narration of the injured witnesses when viewed against the injuries suffered by the accused persons give an impression of free a fight between two groups resulting in injuries on PW1, 5 & 6 and deceased Sushil on the one hand and Tapan Barman on the other hand.Accordingly, the appellants would be liable for their individual acts and not be constructively liable for the acts of others.Although I am convinced that the appellant nos. 6 and 7 had assaulted Sushil Dhara resulting in his death as depicted by PWs 1, 5 & 6, I am unwilling to foist constructive liability upon the appellant nos.1 to 5 with regard to the roles of the said appellants, namely, appellants 6 and 7, in the death of Sushil.Since the incident occurred in the course of a free fight in which one of the appellants namely, Tapan Barman had suffered injuries, I am unwilling to invoke the principle of culpable liability vis--vis other appellants namely, appellant nos. 1 to 5 herein.Hence, I am inclined to acquit them of the charges levelled against them.3 See State of Haryana v. Chandvir & Ors., (1996) 8 SCC 678, Pundalik Mahadu Bhane & Ors.However, appellant nos.1 to 5 herein are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.Lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the learned trial court for necessary action.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.I agree.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,130,822 |
The State comes in appeal.He sought and was granted permission for over-staying his leave onthe ground that his brother-in-law, Shankar Singh had died.On 15 August 2002, oneDaulat Singh lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Khamnaur in relation tothe death of his brother Bhanwar Singh, caused by an accident with an unknownvehicle.Itappeared during the course of the investigation that the death was homicidal.Theinvestigation by the police proceeded for an offence punishable under the provisionsof Section 302 of the IPC.The respondent was arrested on 9 September 2002.There were two co-accused, Lokesh Gurva and Iqbal Khan.After the investigationwas completed, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 201 and 120B.Sessions Case 3 of 2003 was committed for trial to the court of the AdditionalSessions Judge, Nathdwara.3 The case of the prosecution was that there was a dispute over land betweenthe respondent and Bhanwar Singh.TheAdditional Sessions Judge declined to believe the testimony of PW21 insofar as therespondent and co-accused Iqbal were concerned, finding that the witness wasinconsistent and untrustworthy.The respondent was given the benefit of doubt andwas acquitted.6 PART B6 The disciplinary enquiry on the charge of murder proceeded with much thesame evidence.Jodh Singh was the star witness during the disciplinaryproceedings.During the course of the disciplinary enquiry, the enquiry officerrecorded the statements of PW1 Jodh Singh, PW2 Devi Singh, PW3 Shankar Singhand PW4 Hamer Singh among several witnesses.The disciplinary enquiry led to thesubmission of the enquiry report.The Additional Sessions Judge found it unsafe to rely upon theevidence of the sole eye-witness, Jodh Singh (PW21 at the Sessions Trial) based onthe inconsistencies in his evidence.Similarly, witness Shri Hamer Singh PW-4 stated that there is prior enmity between charged constable and deceased Bhanwar Singh and prior to the death of father of charged constable, stating through witness to Bhanwar Singh that I will kill him by hitting with jeep or tractor and the incident of same kind is committed.21 Evidence of PW1 Jodh Singh – Quite apart from the excerpts from the crossexamination of PW1, which have been noticed by the High Court, his statementbefore the enquiry officer establishes that: (a) proximate to the incident, he did meetthe respondent (Heem Singh) along with Iqbal, which indicates a prior familiaritybetween them; (b) the respondent’s father died from a snake bite; and (c) JodhSingh met the respondent on the date of the incident at a spot which was 300 feet 25 PART Gaway from where he saw Iqbal murdering Bhanwar Singh.This is based on thefollowing evidence:Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis.They are:Proof of misconduct in disciplinary proceedingsDigitally signed byChetan Kumar EDate: 2020.10.2914:41:10 IST Findings of the disciplinary enquiryReason:High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.The respondent, who was apolice constable, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge hisdismissal from service after a disciplinary enquiry.A Single Judge of the High Court,by a judgment dated 1 February 2018, dismissed the petition.The Division Benchreversed the judgment and concluded that there is no evidence in the disciplinaryenquiry to sustain the finding that the respondent committed a murder while on leavefrom duty.Moreover, the respondent’s father had been1 “IPC”2 “CrPC” 3 PART Btreated for a snake bite by Bhanwar Singh but his witchcraft did not yield result,leading to the death of the father.According to the prosecution, the respondent borea grudge towards the deceased due to this incident and had proclaimed earlier thathe would kill him.The imputations against therespondent are extracted below, together with the familiar errors of grammar andtranslation:That you on 13.08.02 from Station House Officer, P.S. Devgarh got one casual leave and one gazette leave sanctioned and left for your home, as per which you have to attend duty on 16.08.02 at A.M. but you did not attend the duty on time and attended the duty on 19.08.02 after remaining absent for 3 days, which is proved from record.That even during the absence period you did not inform any officer about the reason of your absence and also not submitted any extension, which is proved from record.That you at your residence on 15.08.02 during leave Shri Bhanwar Singh S/o Chandan Singh Rajput R/o Ravo ki Gudli, who was working in PWD Department, Nathdwara and was going on his duty and because of dispute regarding land between you and Bhanwar Singh you with help of Lokesh, Iqbal to kill Bhanwar Singh hit him with jeep at Bheel Basti Kunthwa, due to which he fell down and while shouting your companion Iqbal brought iron rod from jeep and hit on forehead of Bhanwar Singh due to which he died on the spot.You are an employee of disciplined department and have knowledge of law, you have committed such a grievous3 “the Rules” 4 PART B offence, due to which image of police is blurred among public, which is proved from record.That you after committing murder of Bhanwar Singh, you and your companion ran away from the spot and having knowledge of law gave form of an accident to the murder, which is proved from records and initial inquiry.That you after the said incident by joining duty 19.08.02 at police station Devgarh while hiding reality and by telling reason of absence as accident of Bhanwar Singh you get sanctioned period 3 leaves from the SHO as casual leaves where you had committed murder.Thus, you have knowingly mislead your superior officer, which is proved from the initial inquiry and record .That you are an employee of disciplined department, has full knowledge of law and despite of having knowledge of law you committed a heinous crime, which seriously hurt the image of police department among general public and your said act has blurred the image of police among public.Your said act comes under category of 'savior only eater', which is proved from the initial inquiry and record.”5 By a judgment dated 8 October 2003, the Additional Sessions Judgeacquitted the respondent and the two co-accused, giving them the benefit of doubt.The Additional Sessions Judge observed that PW1 Meera and PW2 Poorna Devi,the daughters of the deceased, were not present at the scene of offence and theirevidence was hearsay.A succession of witnesses – PW3 Jai Singh, PW4 Babudas,PW5 Sundarlal, PW17 Jagat Singh, PW18 Kishan Singh, PW19 Banshi Lal, PW20Shankar Singh, PW22 Devi Singh, PW23 Kaisar Singh and PW34 Pratap Singh –were declared hostile during the course of the trial.The case turned on the evidenceof PW21 Jodh Singh, the alleged eye-witness.The Additional Sessions Judge foundthat on 7 September 2000, about 2 years prior to the incident, the deceased had 5 PART Bintimated the SHO at Khamnaur P.S. recording a threat to his life inter alia from therespondent.The SHO registered a report under Section 107 of the CrPC andconducted proceedings.While evaluating it in the context of the co-accused, Lokesh,the Additional Sessions Judge noted:Whether due to this enmity Heem Singh by conspiring with co-accused persons by telling accident by jeep with aid of co-accused Iqbal committed murder of Bhanwar Singh, on this point the observation of this Court is that accused Lokesh Gaurva who was told as jeep driver by the witness Jodh Singh at the time of incident, against that Lokesh Gaurva by involving with Heem Singh at the time of incident hitting Bhanwar Singh by jeep such evidence is not given by PW-21 Jodh Singh.Additional Public Prosecutor on this point during cross-examination has not taken on record by seeking any clarification or declaring PW-21 as hostile.Thus, there is no evidence on record for conviction of accused Lokesh Gaurva under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.” (emphasis supplied)The above extract indicates that the Public prosecutor did not have PW21 declaredhostile, though this should have been ordinarily, the correct course of action.The enquiry officer found the charges to beproved.The findings on each of the charges are extracted below:“CHARGE NO.1 Said constable on 13.08.02 from Station House Officer, P.S. Devgarh get on one casual leave and one gazette leave sanctioned and left for his home who has not attended the duty on time and attended the duty after 3 days, which is proved from the statements of Shri Bhanwar Singh, S.I. SHO Devgarh, Shri Bhanwar Singh Const. No.351, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Const.No. 563 & Shri Munishwar Mishra, Ka.and from copy of GD Report.Thus, I found the said charge as completely proved.CHARGE NO.2 The Constable during the absence period did not inform any officer about the reason of his absence and also not submitted any extension, which is proved from records and statements of Shri Muniswar Mishra, Ka.Force Branch, Shri Bhanwar Singh S.I. SHO Devgarh.Thus, I found the said charge as completely proved.CHARGE NO.3 The said constable at his residence on 15.08.02 during leave Shri Bhanwar Singh S/o Chandan Singh Rajput R/o Ravo ki Gudli, who was working in PWD Department, Nathdwara and was going on his duty and because of dispute regarding land between him and Bhanwar Singh, he with help of Lokesh, Iqbal to kill Bhanwar Singh hit him with jeep at Bheel Basti Kunthwa, due to which he fell down and while shouting his companion Iqbal brought iron rod from jeep and hit on 7 PART Bforehead of Bhanwar Singh due to which he died on the spot.Thus, being an employee of disciplined department andhaving knowledge of law, he has committed such a grievousoffence due to which image of police is blurred among public.In respect of said charge the prosecution has producedstatements of Jodh Singh PW-1, Devi Singh PW-2, ShankarSingh PW-3, Hamer Singh PW-4, out of which Jodh SinghPW-1 in his statement at the time of incident has provedpresence of himself, charged constable and tractor at theplace of incident.Similarly, witness Shankar Singh PW-3stated that he saw half an hour ago to the incident, thecharged constable roaming near place of incident and hisparked tractor.Similarly, witness Shri Hamer Singh PW-4stated that there is prior enmity between charged constableand deceased Bhanwar Singh and prior to the death of fatherof charged constable, stating through witness to BhanwarSingh that I will kill him by hitting with jeep or tractor and theincident of same kind is committed.Similarly, witness ShriNanalal SHO Khamnaur PW-9 also in his statement againstthe charged constable on finding offence verified arrestinghim and seizure of iron rod, jeep & tractor used in theincident.Thus, from the aforesaid analysis the said charge isfound as completely proved.The charged constable in defense of said charge hasproduced a copy of order passed by the Hon'ble AdditionalSessions Judge Nathdwara in case related to said incident,after perusal of which it is found that the Hon'ble Court hasnot completely acquitted the said constable rather acquittedby giving him the benefit of doubt.Thus, I found said charge as completely proved due towhich the image of police has blurred.CHARGE NO.4It is the charge against constable that he after committingmurder of Bhanwar Singh, along with his companions ranaway from the spot and having knowledge of law gave form ofan accident to the murder.PW-1 Jodh Singh, PVV-3 Shankar Singh, PW-4 HamerSingh, PW-9 Nanalal has confirmed the aforesaid charge.Thus, said charge is completely proved from the enquiry.8 PART B CHARGE NO.5 It is the charge against constable that he while joining duty on 19.08.02 at police station Devgarh by hiding reality and by telling reason of absence as accident of Bhanwar Singh he got sanctioned period of 3 leaves from the SHO as casual leaves.Said charge is proved from the statements of witnesses PW-7 Shri Rajesh Kumar, PW-6 Bhanwar Singh S.I. and aamad report Ext. P-8 written by charged constable.Thus, I found the said charge as completely proved.CHARGE NO.6 It is the charge against constable that he being an employee of disciplined department, has full knowledge of law and despite of having knowledge of law he has committed a heinous crime, which seriously hurt the image of police department among general public.Since, from the enquiry the Charge No. 1 to 5 are completely proved.Thus, the said charge automatically gets completely proved.On 11December 2003, the District Superintendent of Police came to the conclusion thatthough the respondent had been given the benefit of doubt in the criminal trial, thecharges against him stood established.He was dismissed from service.This led to the institution of writ proceedings before the High Court.A learnedSingle Judge of the High Court, by a judgment dated 1 February 2018, rejected theWrit Petition.By its judgment, the Division Bench directed re-instatement of the respondent in service with consequential benefits but withoutback-wages.(iv) The evidence in the disciplinary enquiry indicates that: 10 PART C(a) There was enmity between the deceased and the respondent arising out of a dispute over land;(b) The co-accused was found at the scene of offence;(c) The deceased had a couple of years prior to the incident, lodged a complaint with the police apprehending danger from the respondent;(d) The evidence of PW1 Jodh Singh and PW3 Shanker Singh showed the presence of the respondent in the vicinity; and(e) The judgment in the criminal trial, acquitting the respondent of the offence of murder, did not constitute a clean acquittal but was founded on the benefit of doubt.9 On the above grounds, it was urged that the High Court has transgressed thelimitations on its power of judicial review in allowing the appeal, setting aside thejudgment of the Single Judge and in interfering with the disciplinary penalty imposedby the appellants.All the orders in the disciplinary enquiry were based on the examination-in-chief of an alleged eye-witness, PW1 Jodh Singh, while ignoring that his deposition was completely demolished in the course of the cross-examination;11 PART C(ii) In the course of the cross-examination, PW1 Jodh Singh admitted that he had named the respondent only under the pressure of the Sarpanch.The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate and reviewing authorities ignored vital evidence, and consequently their findings were perverse;(iii) Since the alleged crime took place outside the scope of service, it was incumbent upon the department to place reliance on the entire record of the Sessions trial in which the respondent was acquitted.The departmental enquiry is based on a selective examination of the records of the Sessions Court;(iv) The entire evidence on record would demonstrate that the respondent was not even remotely connected with the murder of Bhanwar Singh; and(v) There is a “minor charge” against the respondent of availing of three days extra casual leave without informing the superior officer.On this charge, it has been submitted that:(a) The grant of additional casual leave was approved upon his joining duties by the superior officer and the charge was duly modified to state that the approval was taken by misrepresenting facts; the respondent was alleged to have concealed his involvement in the crime of murder;However, the disciplinary enquiry stood on abroader footing.The disciplinary proceedings related not merely to the involvementof the respondent in the murder, but to the violation of service rules and the impactof his conduct on the image of the police force.16 On the primary charge of the involvement of the respondent in the murder ofBhanwar Singh, Jodh Singh (PW1 in the Disciplinary Enquiry) was the primewitness, as in the criminal trial.Jodh Singh was an engine mechanic and stated inthe course of his examination on 18 July 2003 that two or three years earlier, therespondent came to him with an engine crane for repair together with Iqbal Khan(who was also a co-accused at the Sessions trial).The witness stated that IqbalKhan had assaulted Bhanwar Singh with an iron rod when he was proceeding on acycle near Bheel Basti Nala.Further, he stated that on the same day he had seenthe respondent about 300 feet away from the scene of offence going towardsNathdawara on a cycle.Also, about 300 feet away from the scene of offence, hefound the tractor of the respondent parked.Jodh Singh claims to be an eye-witnessto the murder of Bhanwar Singh by Iqbal.In quite the same vein as he did during thecriminal trial, during the course of his cross examination, Jodh Singh did not supporthis statements during the examination in chief.For the completeness of the record, itis necessary to extract the relevant part of the cross-examination which has beenrecorded in question and answer form in the enquiry proceedings:“Cross through Pairokar Heem Singh Const. No.642 17 PART EQuestion - After 20 days of this incident Sarpanch Shri Pratap Singh called at his house and told that you shall get written name of Heem Singh and Lokesh also along with Iqbal, I refused then Sarpanch Ji told that you have to get name of Heem Singh written therefore, I told name of them in the statements given to police.2. Is it correct that you saw Iqbal while killing Bhanwar Singh but at that time Heem Singh was not present there at the time of incident.Yes, It is true.3. Is it correct that you did not know about giving of threats to kill by Heem Singh to Bhanwar Singh.Is it correct that on that day you are going to Gudla from Kunthwa from road going from Nathdwara to Ghata Ghotiya and Heem Singh met you while going on motorcycle from Kunthwa to Nathdwara.The place where Heem Singh met, on moving 300 ft forward from there you saw Iqbal while killing Bhanwar Singh.Is it correct that from whom Heem Singh brought crane and for whom, you did not know about that.Yes, it is true that I am not aware about that.Is it correct that no person with name Ram Singh lives a Gudli? Yes, it is true, but in my statements about which Ram Singh I mentioned, he is resident of Chundavte ka Guda, Kunthwa, whose well is there where I repaired the crane.Is it correct that after killing of Bhanwar Singh by Iqbal the jeep which passed from there, which passed after crushing cycle and Bhanwar Singh? Yes, it is true but Iqbal went after sitting in that.Is it correct that you did not recognize the driver of jeep, neither saw number of jeep nor recognized jeep that it belongs to whom? Yes, it is true.”The disciplinary authority arrived at its findings on the charge of misconductobserving thus:18 PART F “In respect of said charge the prosecution has produced statements of Jodh Singh PW-1, Devi Singh WP-2, Shankar Singh PW-3, Hamer Singh PW-4, out of which Jodh Singh PW-1 in his statement at the time of incident has proved presence of himself, charged constable and tractor at the place of incident.Similarly, witness Shankar Singh PW-3 stated that he saw half an hour ago to the incident, the charged constable roaming near place of incident and his parked tractor.Similarly, witness Shri Nanalal SHO Khamnaur PW-9 also in his statement against the charged constable on finding offence verified arresting him and seizure of iron rod, jeep & tractor used in the incident.Thus, from the aforesaid analysis the said charge is found as completely proved.The charged constable in defense of said charge has produced a copy of order passed by the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge Nathdwara in case related to said incident, after perusal of which it is found that the Hon'ble Court has not completely acquitted the said constable rather acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.Thus, I found said charge as completely proved due to which the image of police has blurred.The imputation against the respondent was that he had collaborated with Iqbal andLokesh, and murdered Bhanwar Singh by running him over with a jeep.23 PART F(6)(B)(b).The Disciplinary Authority to which the records areso forwarded may act on the evidence on the record or may,if it is of the opinion that further examination of any witnessesis necessary in the interest of justice, recall the witnesses andexamine, cross-examine and re-examine the witness andmay impose on the Government Servant such penalty as itmay deem fit in accordance with rules.(vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and thereasons therefore.This court has to undertake the exercise, not in order to re-appreciate thefindings in the enquiry, but because the High Court in an intra-court appealconducted the exercise while setting aside the penalty.Apart from the somersault byJodh Singh in his cross examination, which has largely weighed with the High Court,there are other crucial aspects which emerge from the record in the disciplinaryenquiry.To them we now turn.To ensure brevity, we summarize the point beforeexcerpting from the deposition.“Two-three years ago Heem Singh came with an engine crane from Sardargarh, which I repaired at Ram Singh's well after visiting Ravo Ki Gudli, at that time one … Iqbal Khan stating to be of Sardargarh, he was also there.During fitting of crane I talked with him therefore, I know him.” “I also know Bhanwar Singh of Ravo ki Gudli, who was uncle of Heem Singh.On biting by snake he did witch work and doing service in PWD at Nathdwara.2 years prior to death of Bhanwar Singh; snake bit Nathu Singh the father of Heem Singh.I don't know whether Bhanwar Singh done any witch work on Nathu Singh or not.Nathu Singh was kept admitted in Udaipur for 15-20 days after biting of by snake.On getting discharged from hospital, after 2-3 days of coming back home Nathu Singh died.” “Is it correct that on that day you are going to Gudla from Kunthwa from road going from Nathdwara to Ghata Ghotiya and Heem Singh met you while going on motorcycle from Kunthwa to Nathdwara.The place where Heem Singh met, on moving 300 ft forward from there you saw Iqbal while killing Bhanwar Singh.Yes, it is true.”22 Evidence of PW2 Devi Singh – PW2 resiled from his statement in hisentirety, and stated that he knows nothing about the death of Bhanwar Singh andadmitted to whatever the police told him.23 Evidence of PW3 Shankar Singh – PW3’s evidence establishes that he metthe respondent on the date of the incident at the spot where his tractor was parked,along with another person whom he has not identified.Moreover, when he wascoming back after 30/45 minutes, he saw the dead body of Bhanwar Singh.However, he states that he is not aware of a prior enmity between the respondent 26 PART Gand Bhanwar Singh, and is not sure of Heem Singh’s involvement in the death ofBhanwar Singh.This is based on the following evidence:“On 15.08.02 at around 5-6 hours I after shutting down my tea shop going towards fields from Kunthwa on my cycle.After going through fields going to Kotela, from behind Heem Singh Singh of Ravo ki Gudli who is a constable came on motorcycle and moved ahead me.I reached at Nala Bheel Basti Valley where near wall saw parked tractor of Heem Singh.Heem Singh went back from there to Kunthwa who asked me that where you are going.I said that I am going to Kotela.One person is sitting at the steering of tractor, whom I don’t know, to whom I asked that what happened to tractor he replied that fuel ran out, owner went to bring fuel.At that time I did not see any other person.After around half an hour or 3/4th hour I came back from Kotela at that time on Bheel Basti Nala Road dead body of Bhanwar Singh who is uncle of Heem Singh was lying there.” “At that time I did not see tractor of Heem Singh, neither saw Heem Singh.Whether there is any enmity between Heem Singh and Bhanwar Singh, I do not know, I reside around 5 km away from them.” “If Heem Singh is involved in the murder of Bhanwar Singh, I am not aware about that.”24 Evidence of PW4 Hamer Singh – PW4’s evidence establishes that: (a) therewas a land dispute between the respondent and Bhanwar Singh, in relation to whichBhanwar Singh had lodged a police report; (b) The respondent’s father had been‘treated’ by Bhanwar Singh by performing witchcraft on him, but he died of the snakebite; (c) the respondent personally told him to inform Bhanwar Singh that he wouldkill him by for causing the death of his father; (d) Bhanwar Singh had lodged acomplaint with the police in regard to the death threat issued by the respondent to 27 PART Ghim; and (e) when he came to know of Bhanwar Singh’s death, he immediatelysuspected the respondent.This is based on the following evidence:“Bhanwar Singh is uncle of Heem Singh.There is land dispute between them from last 5-7 years.In this respect Bhanwar Singh also lodged a report at police station Khamnaur.I do not remember exact time.2-3 years ago snake also bite Nathu Singh the father of Heem Singh.On that Bhanwar Singh also performed witch work on him.Nathu Singh was also taken to hospital but he could not survive, died after 15-20 days.Nathu Singh died and next day I went to meet him, after meeting returning back to my house at that time outside the house of Nathu Singh, Nathu Singh's son Heem Singh was sitting on front tyre of his tractor, who stopped me and said that you should say to Bhanwar Singh that I will kill him by hitting either with tractor or motorcycle.I said Heem Singh that what he did, why are you asking to kill him.On this Heem Singh said to me that he is behind my house therefore, ..... illegible... after death of Nathu Sing on the same day Bhanwar Singh told me that Heem Singh has thrown me out of his house that you must not come in funeral of my father therefore, Bhanwar Singh did not come in funeral of Nathu Singh.On stating to Bhanwar Singh what Heem Singh said to me, Bhanwar Singh said that Heem Singh cannot kill me despite that I have lodged report in police.On the day when I heard about death of Bhanwar Singh in village at around 6-7 hours, at that time I guessed that Bhanwar Singh was killed by Heem Singh or through him.It is correct that doubt of murder of Bhanwar Singh by Heem Singh to me was due to land dispute between them and threat to kill Bhanwar Singh by Heem Singh through me and still have doubt.”25 Evidence of Bhanwar Singh (SHO, Devgarh) – His evidence shows that therespondent did initially take leave for the death of his brother in-law.This is basedon the following evidence:He also acknowledged thatJodh Singh changed his stance before the Court, however, did not offer anyjustification for it.This is based on the following evidence:“On the basis of preliminary investigation it was found that there was serious previous enmity between Heem Singh and deceased Bhanwar Singh.Due to this enmity Heem Singh S/o Nathu Singh Rajput for murder of his uncle Bhanwar Singh conspired in a well-planned manner with his companions Iqbal Khan and Lokesh Gaurva and killed him by hitting him with tractor and by causing injuries on head by hitting with iron rod.Fard information of accused persons under Section 27 of Evidence Act and jeep and tractor with trolley and iron rod are recovered.You have done investigation till 2 months under Sections 304A and 279 IPC, whether during said period nobody told you that Bhanwar Singh was murdered? Answer - During the period of one month witness Babudas on 11.09.02 told about presence of 2-3 persons at the spot of incident.Whether Babudas is an eye witness of the incident or not?Whether during this period of one month from 15.08.02 you have recorded statement of any eye witness that Bhanwar Singh is murdered?Under whose statement you altered the offence under Section 302 IPC?PART G Answer - Offence is altered due to the statement of Jodh Singh.Do you know that Jodh Singh has not stated before the Court that I have told police about murder.Rather he said that they took statement by beating me and the same is also recorded in the statement of Court?Answer - It also came in the statement of Jodh Singh that about murder he told to Pratap Singh and police and in argument witness Jodh Singh has stated that police threatened him beat him then took statement which is wrong.”27 Evidence of Sudhir Joshi (RPS Deputy Superintendent, Nathdwara) – Hehas stated in his evidence that the police’s image has become tarnished due to thesuspicions raised on Heem Singh’s involvement in the murder of Bhanwar Singh.This is based on the following evidence:“On preliminary investigation conducted by me absence of constable No. 642 Shri Heern Singh on .. illegible.. and by conspiring with his companions committing murder of his uncle, due to which this act of constable the image of police among public has been blurred and … by newspapers and belief on police became suspicious in public.”28 A complete review of the evidence indicates there was a pre-existing hostilitybetween the respondent and Bhanwar Singh.As regards the incidentleading to the death of Bhanwar Singh, the respondent and his parked tractor were 30 PART Gseen proximate in time and in terms of the location where Bhanwar Singh's deadbody was found by both PW1 Jodh Singh and PW3 Shanker Singh.The respondentwas found to be together with one of the co-accused proximate in time.Thesecircumstances are coupled with respondent’s movements at and around the time ofthe murder, commencing with but not confined to his being at the village on leave fortwo days coinciding with the murder.No order as to costs.38 Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,130,855 |
Rajam Match Works owned by A3-Rajavel and M/s.Jayam Match Works, owned byA-5-R.Paulraj Manuel and the said sister concerns of M/s.Royal ChloratesPrivate Limited Company, Kovilpatti(A-1) are involved in manufacturing ofcrackers and matches.Besides such supply to the sister concerns, a few othermanufacturers were also supplied with potassium chloride by M/s.RoyalChlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti.It should have imported orhave purchased potassium chloride from industrial dealers but there are noindustrial dealers of potassium chloride in the State of Tamil Nadu.Thesearches conducted on the premises of M/s.Royal Chlorates Private LimitedCompany, Kovilpatti resulted in the seizure of invoices showing purchase ofsubsidised fertilizer from 2006 to 2009 for which period they did not takepermission for purchasing potassium chloride from Indian Potash Limited(IPL).Only from 2010, M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company,Kovilpatti (A-1) had taken permission for such purchase from the above saidcompany.A heap of Potassium chloride weighing approximately 10 tonnes wasfound in the premises of M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company,Kovilpatti and it was claimed to have been purchased from Indian PotashLimited.But the same was not supported by invoices of Indian Potash Limitedor other physical evidentiary material like jute bags or package materials.The further investigation revealed thatA1-M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti, A7-S.Lakshmanan,A8-V.Karthikeyan, A9-K.M.Ravindran, A10-K.Rajapandian, A11-K.Ravichandran,A12-G.Murali and A15-Mohammad Omar were the traders who indulged indiversion of MOP which was meant for sale to farmers on subsidised rate withproper licence.7.The investigation further revealed that one K.Chandrasekar-A-13 wasindulged in supplying potassium chloride to M/s.Royal Chlorates PrivateLimited Company, Kovilpatti (A-1), C.N.Ramamurthy, and M.Srinivakumar whoturned approvers helped M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company,Kovilpatti(A-1) in procuring MOP from Kerala based firms and supplied thesame to Madurai based suppliers for supplying the same to M/s.K.S.R.Selvarajan, who has been arraigned as accused No.14 in C.C.No.3of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maduraiis the petitioner in the revision.On information that large quantity ofpotassium chloride was dealt with by various persons without licence andagainst licence conditions in and around Madurai and Pollachi in violation ofclause 25 (1) and (2) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, a case came tobe registered by the CBI, Essential Commodities Wing, in R.C.6/E/2011, basedon which the Inspector of Police attached to the said wing conducted theinvestigation.The investigation resulted in the submission of a final reportagainst 15 persons.The revision petitioner herein has been shown as 14thaccused as per the final report.The said final report was taken on file bythe learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai on his file as C.c.2.When the matter was under consideration for the framing of charges,the revision petitioner herein who figures as 14th accused in the said case,filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C praying for an order discharginghim from the said case.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took it onfile as Crl.3.The said petition was resisted by the prosecution and after enquiry,the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 31.12.2013, dismissedthe said petition holding that the case was not one in which the 14thaccused/revision petitioner could be discharged without making him to facetrial after framing the charges.Aggrieved by the same and challenging thesaid order, the revision petitioner (14th accused) has preferred the presentCriminal Revision Case on various grounds set out in the revision petition.4.The respondent is represented by the learned Special PublicProsecutor for CBI cases.The Criminal Revision Case is resisted by therespondent raising serious objections as to the desirability of dischargingthe revision petitioner without making him to stand for the trial.5.This Court heard the arguments made by Mr.N.Anandapadmanabhan,learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.G.R.Swaminathan,learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases on behalf of the respondent.The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers, additional typedset of papers and also the records sent for from the Court below were perusedand this Court paid its anxious consideration to the same.6.According to the final report, the investigation revealed thatM/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti (A1) is engaged inmanufacturing of Potassium Chloride and other chemical compounds with itsregistered office at Kovilpatti of which, A2- A.X.Xavier Jayapaul is theManaging Director, A-3-Rajavel, A4- P.M.T.Srinivasan, A5-R.Paulraj Manuel andA-6-R.Shenbagarajan are other Directors.Samples were drawn and on analysis in the Fertilizer Control Lab, it wasconfirmed to be 60% potassium chloride which confirms to the qualities of MOP(Muriate of Potash).The absence of invoices and the investigation revealedthat the same was purchased from unauthorised dealers.PC were not sufficient to implicate the revision petitioner.It is thefurther contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that,besides the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C being inadmissibleas primary evidence, a conjoint reading of the statements of the witnessesrecorded during investigation and the documents produced along with the finalreport and an evaluation of the same to find out whether a prima facie casehas been made out, will undoubtedly lead to the conclusion that no case forproceeding against the revision petitioner has been made out and that therevision petitioner is entitled to an order of discharge.11.Per contra, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Special Public Prosecutorfor the CBI cases would contend that there was large scale violation of theprovisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 in pursuance of a criminalconspiracy hatched out among the accused 2 to 15, as a result of which theGovernment of India was cheated of its funds to the tune of Rs.80,68,337/-;that the same was unearthed by the CBI in the investigation in this case andthat such economic offences should not be lightly dealt with by dischargingthe accused on minor technical defects.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,132,903 |
The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 5.5.1991 the complainant Kamal Mehta was the Manager of the Wallace Pit Mines, Chandameta.A strike was called by 2 Cri.The strike was being observed near that Wallace Pit Mines and the labourers were rioting there and various accused persons in the shape of a crowd went to the office of the complainant Kamal Mehta, who was in the adjacent room to his office.The accused persons including the appellants entered in the room having sticks, ballams, farsa etc. and assaulted the complainant Kamal Mehta and dragged him.The various staff members including Gurupal Singh Patiyalu (PW-2), Mahesh Datt Sakle (PW-3), Atri Bai (PW-6) and Kalawati Bai (PW-7) saved the victim Kamal Mehta.Thereafter Kamal Mehta was taken to Badkuhi Hospital and he also lodged an FIR at Police Station Chandameta.He was examined by Dr. R.K. Bansod (PW-8), who gave a report Ex.He found one lacerated wound on the left parieto region and three contusions at the left thigh, right palm and left palm.Out of them, Mahesh Datt Sakle and Ramvilas have turned hostile.Atri Bai (PW-6) has stated that when the crowd entered in the room, she came out and she did not know as to who assaulted the victim Kamal Mehta.The victim Kamal Mehta has accepted that he 7 Cri.A. No.205/1996 had sent a report Ex.D-1 to the higher authorities in which he gave names of three persons, who assaulted him.However, he had mentioned that the crowd entered in his room and assaulted him.Kalawati Bai (PW-7), who was the Peon in the office of the complainant has stated that so many persons entered in the room of the complainant and some of them assaulted the victim Kamal Mehta and thereafter some of them dragged him out of the room.In the report Ex.D-1, he had only mentioned the name of three persons, who were known to the witnesses.He had specifically mentioned that Chandrabali, Ramsevak and Sheikh Jamil @ Baba dragged him on the earth and thereafter some other persons assaulted him by sticks.(Delivered on the 5th day of April, 2014) Vide judgment dated 23.1.1996 the appellants are convicted and sentenced for the following offences in ST No.182/1992 by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara:All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The victim was admitted in the hospital.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara.2 Cri.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They took a plea that since they were the persons related to the strike, therefore they were falsely implicated in the matter.3 Cri.A. No.205/1996 They relied upon the report Ex.D-1 sent by the complainant to his higher authorities about the incident to show that the appellants were not involved in the crime.However, no defence evidence was adduced.3 Cri.The learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara after considering the prosecution evidence acquitted 20 accused persons out of 32 alleged accused persons, but convicted and sentenced the present appellants as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is a peculiar case in which the appeal was filed by as many as 12 appellants, but during the pendency of the case, out of 12 appellants, 8 appellants have expired and at present appellants No.1 Bharatsingh, No.4 Sheikh Jamil @ Baba, No.7 Ramsevak and No.11 Rajnu are present.Out of them, three injuries found on the left thigh 4 Cri.A. No.205/1996 and both the palms were simple in nature.One lacerated wound was found on the right parieto region of the victim Kamal Mehta.Dr. Bansod in the query report Ex.P-15 has opined that the injury of the head could be fatal in nature, but in para 3 of his cross examination he has accepted that all the injuries were simple in nature.No fracture was found by Dr. Bansod below the injury caused on the head of the victim Kamal Mehta.Initially it was mentioned that the victim Kamal Mehta was complaining about the vomiting and his pupils were dilated.The FIR was lodged at 12:40 PM whereas the incident took place at 12:05 PM i.e. within 35 minutes of the incident, and therefore it would be apparent that the victim Kamal Mehta was conscious after the incident.He was complaining about the vomiting but other symptoms of brain hemorrhage like hemorrhage in ears and nose were not found.Looking to his consciousness, it cannot be said that the injury caused on his head was fatal or grave in nature.4 Cri.So far as the intention of the accused persons is concerned, it is told by various witnesses that 20-30 persons went inside the room in which the victim Kamal 5 Cri.A. No.205/1996 Hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.All the injuries were found to be simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object, therefore no inferior offence under Section 326, 325 or 324 of IPC shall constitute against the appellants.At the most offence under Section 323 of IPC may constitute according to the contribution of the appellants in the alleged crime.The victim Kamal Mehta had sustained four injuries and he was dragged by some other persons, who brought him in the veranda of the office.Under such circumstances, though there is a confusion and contradiction in the names of assailants, it would be apparent that certainly more than five persons entered to assault the victim Kamal Mehta, and therefore an unlawful assembly was constituted.7 Cri.However, he has accepted that with the help of Gurupal Singh Patiyalu (PW-2) and Kalawati Bai (PW-7), he could know the names of the accused persons and thereafter he sent a report Ex.D-1 to his higher authorities.The complainant Kamal Mehta has accepted that he prepared a report Ex.D-1 and 8 Cri.A. No.205/1996 thereafter he had lodged an FIR at Police Station Chandemeta.At present Mahesh Datt Sakle (PW-3) turned hostile.He did not say the name of anyone who assaulted the victim Kamal Mehta whereas Gurupal Singh Patiyalu (PW-2) has accepted that initially he went to the Pit and when he came back, he found that accused persons were assaulting the victim Kamal Mehta.He has further admitted that he went to the spot due to call of Mahesh Datt Sakle (PW-3) and he saw three persons and a crowd, and out of them Chandrabali had stayed on the road and he did not participate in the crime.Chandrabali, Ramsevak and Sheikh Jamil @ Baba were the persons, who assaulted the victim Kamal Mehta.Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that with the help of Gurupal Singh Patiyalu (PW-2) and Mahesh Datt Sakle (PW-3), the victim Kamal Mehta identified these three persons.Out of them, Chandrabali was not made an accused in the case.8 Cri.9 Cri.Atri Bai (PW-6) has stated that when the crowd entered in the room, she came out and she did not see as to who assaulted the victim.Kalawati Bai has stated that initially she had closed the latches of the door of the room in which Kamal Mehta was present, but the crowd opened those latches and dragged Kamal Mehta out of the room.She did not claim that she entered inside the room whereas Gurupal Singh Patiyalu (PW-2) and Atri Bai (PW-6) did not support her version that the victim Kamal Mehta was dragged out of the room, and therefore when Kalawati Bai was also out of the room, she could not see as to who assaulted the victim.Under such circumstances, the FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by the victim Kamal Mehta depends upon the various whispers done by so many other persons about the name of the accused persons.If the accused persons were not known and their names were not known to the eye- witnesses, then it was for the police to arrange the test identification parade and not to get their names recorded in the statement of witnesses who did not see the incident actually.Under such circumstances, the names of the appellants in the FIR cannot be considered as culprits.From the evidence given by all the witnesses, it appears that except the appellants Sheikh Jamil @ Baba and Ramsevak nothing could be said against any of other appellants that they participated in the assault.By mere 10 Cri.A. No.205/1996 presence in the mob, it cannot be said that they had any common intention or object with the accused persons who assaulted the victim Kamal Mehta.Hence, it cannot be said that the appellants Bharatsingh and Ramsevak were the participants to the assault and were the members of the unlawful assembly.Where they could not be identified by the eye-witnesses at the spot, then the possibility cannot be ruled out that their attendance in the FIR were shown because they were the members of that particular Trade Union.Under such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants Bharatsingh and Ramsevak were the members of the unlawful assembly or they entered in the room to do the crime or they assaulted the victim by any weapon or otherwise.Hence the appellants Bharatsingh and Ramsevak could not be convicted for any offence.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in convicting these two persons.Hence, they were the members of unlawful assembly, however it is not mentioned that they had any deadly weapons with them.10 Cri.The next question which arises for consideration as to whether the appellants Ramsevak, Sheikh Jamil @ 11 Cri.A. No.205/1996 Baba could be convicted for the offence under Section 332 of IPC.It would be apparent that the victim Kamal Mehta was the Manager of the Colliery and it was nowhere established that the colliery was the office of the Central Government or the State Government.11 Cri.At the most it is said that they had sticks and the prosecution could not prove that they had heavy sticks.If the assault was caused by a heavy stick on the head of the victim Kamal Mehta, 12 Cri.A. No.205/1996 then he would have suffered with the fracture.Hence none of the appellants can be convicted for the offence under Section 148 of IPC.The appellants Sheikh Jamil @ Baba and Ramsevaka can be convicted for the offence under Section 147 of IPC only.12 Cri.So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellants Sheikh Jamil @ Baba and Ramsevak were the first offenders.It is established that the strike had continued for 3-4 days and the victim Kamal Mehta was using criminal force upon the persons observing the strike at the Wallace Pit with the help of Security Officer Chehal, and therefore it was possible that the appellants would have assaulted the victim Kamal Mehta to insult him.They were the first offenders and no criminal past against them is proved.They have faced the trial and appeal since last 22 years.It would be apparent that out of 12 appellants, eight appellants had expired during the pendency of this appeal.The appellant Sheikh Jamil @ Baba remained in the custody for three days during the trial and 13 days during the appeal, in all 16 days whereas the appellant Ramsevak remained in the custody for 11 days during the trial and 13 days during the appeal, in all 24 days.Under such circumstances, looking to their harassment for 22 years and the fact that they were the first offenders, it is a good case in which these two appellants may not be sent to the jail 13 Cri.A. No.205/1996 again.Their sentence may be reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody, however some enhanced fine may be imposed upon them.13 Cri.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellants Bharatsingh and Rajnu is hereby allowed.Their conviction and sentence directed for the offence under Sections 147/148, 452, 332/149 and 307/149 of IPC are hereby set aside.They are acquitted from all the charges appended against them.However, the appeal filed by the appellants Ramsevak and Sheikh Jamil @ Baba is hereby partly allowed.Their conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 307, 332 and 148 of IPC are hereby set aside.In place of such offences, they are convicted for the offence under Sections 147 and 323/149 of IPC, whereas their conviction for the offence under Section 452 of IPC is hereby maintained.Looking to their crime and reasons mentioned above their sentence is reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody, but a fine of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- is imposed on each of them for the offence under Section 323 and 147 of IPC respectively.No change in the fine amount and default sentence for the offence under Section 452 of IPC.The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which each of them shall undergo for a period 14 Cri.A. No.205/1996 of three months and one month rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine under Sections 323 and 147 of IPC.14 Cri.At present the appellants are on bail.(N.K.Gupta) Judge 05 /04/2014
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
173,146,338 |
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A appearing for the State.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Layak Singh lodged an FIR on 19.12.2001 at 21.05 p.m. to the effect that on the same day i.e. 19.12.2001 at 7.30 p.m., the abductee namely Surendra Singh, Arjun Singh and Uday Singh were coming back from Agra after delivery of the milk.When they arrived at the field of Nahar Singh nearby Indrami village, the aforesaid three boys aged about 20 to 22 years were kidnapped by the gang of Panjabi.In this regard, an FIR was lodged, but the name of the accused was not disclosed in the FIR.The abductee Surendra Singh, nephew of the informant namely Layak Singh and two boys Arjun Singh and Udai Singh returned back from the clutches of the assailants on 24.3.2002 after about three months.The family members of the abductee approached the Police Station and disclosed the name of the aforesaid accused persons namely Panjabi, Ram Saran, Amar Singh, Mahaveer @ Mulla, Chhatra Pal, Narsingh and Bahadur Singh and in their statement stated that the accused persons after taking ransom of Rs.7 lacs released the aforesaid abductee boys.The trial court has examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses, out of them PW-6 Surendra Singh has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile and this witness failed to identify the assailants in identification parade.The appellants made their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the charges levelled against them.Appellant no.1 Panjabi has stated in his statement that he has been implicated in the present case due to village partibandi.Neither the abducted three boys have been recovered from his possession or any demand of ransom has been made by him.So far as appellant no.2 Ram Saran is concerned, he has stated that he has been falsely implicated.He has neither participated in the alleged crime nor he has received a single penny of ransom.This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years.It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months.The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it.In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."Learned counsel for the appellants has placed further reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs.The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.On acceptance of bail and personal bonds, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.Since the paper book is ready, list in due course for final hearing.Order Date :- 2.9.2020 SP
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,418,337 |
Respondent no. 2 submits that she has settled the disputes with the petitioner and is agreeable to the settlement and does not wish to press the criminal charges against the petitioner any further.In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 have been settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.FIR No. 254 of CRL.M.C. 3740/2018 Page 2 of 3 2015 under Sections 354-A/506/509 of the IPC registered at Police Station Mansrovar Park, Delhi, subject to payment of cost in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Bar Association Advocates Welfare Trust, within a period of two weeks.The receipt of deposit of costs imposed by this order be furnished to the concerned I.O. within a period of three weeks from today.CRL.M.C. 3740/2018 Page 2 of 3SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JULY 30, 2018 'rs' CRL.M.C. 3740/2018 Page 3 of 3CRL.M.C. 3740/2018 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,716,030 |
But his letter is silent on this point.The only inference, therefore, which can be drawn from this letter is that the appointment was probably made by the Government of Bhopal.The other letter also leads me to a similar inference.In para 2 thereof it is mentioned that the Government had approved of the permanent absorption of the appellant with effect from 1-4-1952 and in para 3 it is mentioned that on permanent absorption he would draw the salary in the scale of Sub-Inspectors sanctioned for Sub-Inspectors of Bhopal State.Any doubt which may have existed in the interpretation of these two letters is in my opinion set at rest by the various notifications issued by the Chief Commissioner of Bhopal regarding the re-delegation of his powers for making appointments to the various posts.Rule 1 (b), Bhopal State Police (Powers of Officers) Rules, 1950, gave power to the Inspector General of Police to make appointments upto the rank of Inspectors.But this rule will be deemed to have been modified by the subsequent notifications issued from time to time.Notification No. 5 dated 27-9-1951, which supersedes all the previous orders on the subject, indicates the powers of the Chief Commissioner which were being re-delegated to certain Heads of Departments including the Police Commissioner, i.e., the Inspector General of Police.Notification No. 4 dated 16-2-1952, which was issued in continuation of Notification No. 5 dated 27-9-1951, provides for the re-delegation of powers to Heads of Departments for making appointments to sanctioned permanent posts.This Notification No. 4 clearly lays down the power of the Heads of Departments who were authorised to make appointments to posts carrying a scale of pay the maximum of which did not exceed Rs. 120/-.Paragraph 5 of this Office Memorandum is material on the point.The appellant was originally appointed as a Police constable in the Police Force of Uttar Pradesh and was in due course promoted as a Head Constable and for a certain period officiated as a Police Sub-Inspector prior to his being sent on deputation to the State of Bhopal for appointment as a Police Sub-Inspector.It was contended on behalf of the State that the appointment to his present office would be deemed to be at the time he was sent to Bhopal State on deputation and the appointment would be by the authority who posted him as such after) his deputation, and not when he was actually absorbed to the Police Force of Bhopal State.The two relevant papers subsequent to 1-4-1952 which can throw light on the question under consideration are a letter No. 2134-37/EST/A/59 / 16/8 dated 14-8-1953 addressed to the Superintendents of Police, Raisen and Sehore, and a letter No. 1239/I-Pol-(16)-1/51 dated 28-1-1954 from the Under-Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bhopal addressed to the Inspector General of Police.Further, even though such powers had been delegated to the Chief Commissioner on 24-8-1950 and the Police Act, 1861 had been extended to the State of Bhopal with effect from 1-1-1950, the Act could not immediately come into operation with effect from that date.Section 46, Police Act itself lays down that the Act shall not by its own operation take effect in any State, but the State Government may by an order to be published in the Official Gazette extend the whole or any part of the Act to the State.In other words, therefore, the Police Act, 1861 would be deemed to have taken effect in the State of Bhopal with effect from 12-6-1954 and any rules framed earlier purporting to be under Section 7, Police Act will not in the eye of law, be rules framed under this Act. They would be like ordinary rules published by the Chief Commissioner from time to time and they would be the rules which he could modify from time to time.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,716,763 |
JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, C.J.Mahmood-Ul-Hassan (40-45) was employed with M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, earning Rs. 1,400 per month, apart from allowances and other facilities.While he was going towards crossing from bus stand on 18.2.86, truck No. CPD 8250 driven by Dev Kumar rashly and negligently hit him resulting in his death.The matter was reported at Police Station, Hanumanganj and case under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code filed in the court after investigation.Autopsy of the dead body of Mahmood-Ul-Hassan was conducted on 19.2.1986 at Hamidia Hospital.Dinesh Kumar was owner of the truck while the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was insurer.The claimants preferred a claim for Rs. 4,00,000, since they were dependent on the deceased.Other side admitted taking place of accident, rest of the allegations were denied and the insurance company alleged that it was not responsible for making payment.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') found on evidence recorded in the case that the accident was committed on 18.2.1986 at 9.30 p.m. by truck No. CPD 8250 driven rashly and negligently by driver and the deceased was not responsible for it.It found that in this accident, deceased suffered serious injuries resulting in his death and that the claimants were entitled to claim compensation.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. assailed this award through civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the Tribunal acted illegally and in disregard of provisions of law in allowing the compensation with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum holding that the deceased was 40 years old and applied multiplier of 10, instead of holding that the deceased was 53 years old as reflected in the salary certificate and the case admitted multiplier of 6 (six) for determination of compensation, nor could interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application for a period of 12 years be allowed since delay in disposal of case was attributable to the claimants for which the insurance company could not be penalised.Initially, misc.appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed.However, it was converted into revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with permission of the court at a later stage, presumably on realisation that appeal at the instance of the insurer as to quantum of compensation, was not competent.In exercise of that power, the provisions of Section 129 of the Act were made applicable to appeals under the Excise Act. The section required an appellant to deposit, pending the appeal the duty or penalty imposed and empowered the appellate authority, in his discretion to dispense with such deposit pending the appeal in any particular case.The respondent therein filed an appeal against the duty imposed on him under the Excise Act and prayed for dispensation of the deposit.The Collector, who was the appellate authority, rejected the prayer and when no deposit was made within the time fixed, dismissed the appeal.However, parties are left to bear their own cost.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,717,324 |
JUDGMENT B.C. Chakrabarti, J.This is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 2 of Feb., 1975 acquitting the respondents 1 to 6 of charges under Section 120B read with Sections 467 and 420 of the Penal Code.2. Learned Advocates for the respondents took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal at the instance of the appellant.In para.It may at the best send the matter back for retrial.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,717,808 |
JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.One Nitish Katara has been murdered.FIR No. 192/2002 under Sections 302/201/364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered.Apart from the other accused persons, two main accused are Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav.The left over witness, whose testimony remains to be recorded, is Ms. Bharti Yadav, the petitioner in this petition.Due to her non-availability, the matter is hanging fire.She is in United Kingdom (UK) and pursuing higher studies there.In spite of summons sent to her, she did not respond initially.Prosecution even gave up this witness.However, the complainant challenged this move of the prosecution by filing Criminal Revision Petition in this Court.Therefore, this Court gave direction that Ms. Bharti Yadav may be examined in accordance with law.While holding so, the Court, inter alia, recorded as under:It appears to me that the trial court as also the High Court has repeatedly held in various orders that this witness, Ms. Bhati Yadav, is material and an essential witness for the prosecution.Her deposition will have an important bearing on the outcome of the trial.After the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, the learned ASJ again made attempts to ensure the presence of the petitioner.The petitioner has, however, eluded these attempts so far.When in spite of various orders passed by the learned trial court the petitioner's attendance could not be procured, the learned trial court passed order dated 29.7.2006 in which the Court gave detailed account of various hearings and the orders passed from time to time with an attempt to procure the attendance of the petitioner.When this petition came up for hearing on 27.9.2006, the following order was passed:Learned senior counsel states and assures that he shall seek instructions from the petitioner in this behalf.Thereafter, on an application filed by the petitioner, the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi as well as Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs were imp leaded as the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 respectively.This became necessary as Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was ready and willing to come to India and depose in the case, but due to revocation of her passport her passage to India would not be possible.The matter was then discussed to find an amicable solution to this problem, which was mentioned in the order dated 17.10.2006, and it would be apposite to reproduce the said order at this stage:Order passed by learned Trial Court on 16.10.2006 is produced by the Learned Counsel for the parties for the perusal of this Court.She shall inform the Indian Government about the date of her arrival.On her arrival in India, she shall deposit her passport, which has already been revoked, with the Ministry.The Government shall issue fresh passport on her arrival and get application for Visa also signed from her, which application shall be submitted to the UK High Commission on the same day.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,812,765 |
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2007 at around 12'O clock, deceased Gullu @ Ramswaroop was called by his neighbours Ravinder Singh and Amolak Singh to go to Village Chhanera and when the deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu did not return till the afternoon, his wife PW/2 Smt. Rekha Prajapati tried to call him on mobile phone but as the same was switched off, she also called accused Ravinder Singh Saluja on his mobile phone.It is further the story of the prosecution that one day prior to 16.08.2007, i.e. on 15.08.2007, accused Santosh Meena called PW/5 Rajendra Singh who used to drive Trax Gama bearing registration No.On 16.08.2007 Rajendra Singh met accused Ravinder Singh, Amolak Singh, Balwant Thakur and deceased Ramswaroop.All of them boarded PW-5-Rajendra Singh's vehicle and reached at Jaiswal Ka Dhaba from there they started for Village Chhanera and reached a country liquor shop near Sector No.5 at Naya Harsood where accused Sajid also sat in the vehicle and from there they started for Naya Harsood where they stopped at a Chawl and after around 10 minutes, accused Amolak Singh, Guddu Chauhan and Ravinder Singh came out from the Chawl, sat in a white Indica car which was already parked there and left from there whereas accused Balwant Singh and Sajid came out and sat in the vehicle of PW-5-Rajendra Singh.After ten minutes accused Santosh Meena came out from the Chawl and told PW-5 Rajendra Singh to reverse the vehicle and park it in front of the gate and when he did so, accused Santosh Meena opened the back door and pushed deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu on the back seat.This witness-PW-5 saw that Ramswaroop @ Gullu's both hands were tied behind his back/alongside his waist with a rope and accused Santosh brought something wrapped in a paper and kept it in the vehicle.Accused Anand Tiwari and Santosh Gupta also sat in the vehicle and when PW-5- Rajendra Singh, asked them as to what they are doing, he was told to drive the vehicle and mind his own business.Afterwards accused Gajanand @ Gajju who came on a motorcycle also joined them.In the vehicle, PW-5 Rajendra Singh overheard that accused persons were asking the deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu as to why their names had been mentioned in a shoot out case but the deceased kept silent.It is further the case of the prosecution that while driving the vehicle when they reached a dense forest, near a Pulia (Culvert), PW-5Rajendra Singh was asked to stop the vehicle and accused Santosh Meena asked him to get out of the vehicle and move a little away as they had to get some papers signed by deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu.At that time, accused Gajanand @ Gajju came there on a motorcycle and accused Anand Tiwari told PW-5 Rajendra Singh to fetch some Gutkha, cigarette etc. and then PW-5 Rajendra Singh and Gajanand @ Gajju left from that place on Gajju's motorcycle to Sheikhpura.After some time, Santosh Meena called and told him to come towards Khandwa road when this witness PW-5 reached near his vehicle, he did not find deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu and when he asked about his whereabouts, accused Santosh Meena informed him that they got him signed some documents and left him behind and that he would get home by evening.Thereafter, all the three accused persons got down from PW-5 Rajendra Singh's vehicle and when Rajendra Singh left for his home, Gajanand @ Gajju also accompanied him and when PW/5 asked about Ramswaroop @ Gullu, Gajanand @ Gajju informed that Anand Tiwari had told him that, Gullu @ Ramswaroop ko upper wali dharani me pahuncha diya hai.Meaning there by that he has been done away with.In the night of 16.08.2007 itself accused Ravinder Singh also lodged a written complaint, which was registered at Sr. No. 724 in the Daily Register (Roznamcha Sanha), which is Ex.This witness has also got recovered the letter (Ex.P-3) issued by the deceased Gullu @ Ramswaroop to the police wherein he had expressed his apprehension that Raj Kumar Chouhan and other persons of his gang may attack on him and has also stated in the said letter that Raj Kumar Chouhan accompanied with Guddu @ Umesh Chouhan, Santosh, Balwant Singh and Santosh @ Michael, who had also fired upon him on 11.6.2007 for which Crime No.17/2007 was registered under Sections 294, 307, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and they may again try to kill him.Another document got recovered by Rekha Prajapati (PW-2) is a letter along with phone number of various members of Raj Kumar Chouhans gang.Thereafter they went to a Chawl situated at Sector No.5 and after going into the said Chawl, Amolak Singh, Ravinder Singh and other person Guddu came out, sat in an Indica Car and drove away by saying that they have to come back.After these persons left the Chawl, Santosh Meena asked PW-5 to reverse his vehicle and park the same in front of the room where all of them were sitting.After he parked the vehicle, the back door of his vehicle was opened and Ramswaroop @ Gullu was pushed by the accused persons inside the vehicle, Gullus hands were tied with a rope, and other accused persons who also sat in the vehicle were one Pahalwan, Santosh Meena, Anand Tiwari and Santosh Gupta @ Michael.When this witness refused to drive the vehicle on the ground that the hands of Ramswaroop @ Gullu were tied, he was threatened by accused Anand Tiwari who told him to mind his own business and also abused him.Thereafter they also filled the diesel of Rs.500/- in the vehicle only to proceed to village Dharni.When this witness protested to go to Dharni, then accused Anand Tiwari, again abused him and told him that he should be concerned with fair only.(Delivered on this the 21st day of February, 2017) The following judgment of the Court was rendered by: Subodh Abhyankar,J:This judgment shall also govern the disposal of above mentioned criminal appeals, as all these appeals have arisen out of common judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2010 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, District Khandwa, in S.T.No.230/2007, whereby the appellants/accused persons have been convicted and sentences as under:All sentences were directed to run concurrently.An FIR Ex.P/32 was also lodged by accused Gajanand @ Gajju on 17.08.2007 regarding the kidnapping of Ramswaroop @ Gullu against Santosh Meena and Santosh Gupta under Sections 365 and 342 of the IPC.During the investigation, statement of PW/5-Rajendra Singh was recorded under s.161 as Ex.During the investigation, prosecution witness Rekha also submitted letters written by Gullu, which are exhibited as Ex.P-3, 4, 5 and 7 that his life is in danger and is under threat.During the course of investigation, Station House Officer N.S. Rawat (P.W.9) on 19.08.2007 recovered a dead body from beneath a culvert (Pulia), which was subsequently identified as of deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu vide Ex.Subsequently, accused Santosh Meena was also arrested, hence a supplementary charge-sheet was also filed against him before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, where the case was already pending against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and, thereafter, these cases were transferred to to Fourth Additional Sessions Judge.Against Ravinder Singh S/o Arjun Singh investigation was kept open under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and subsequently, the charge-sheet was also submitted against him and after committal the Session Judge, sent the case to the same judge, where the trial of other accused persons was already pending and this case was also merged into the case of the other accused persons in ST No.230/2007 but evidence was recorded de novo.The other accused persons namely Balwant Thakur, Raj Kumar Chouhan, Amolak Singh, Sajid and Umesh could not be arrested and are still absconding and the impugned judgment has been passed only against five accused persons.The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in ST No. 230/07 and ten witnesses in the case of Ravinder Singh.In defence, two witnesses have been examined and some documents have also been produced.All the accused persons have denied the allegations under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for all the appellants have submitted that there is no direct evidence on record against the present appellants to connect them with the alleged offence, therefore the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting them.Under such circumstances, the appellants are entitled to be acquittal.On the other hand, Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment mainly contending that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons/appellants beyond reasonable doubt, hence the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.According to this witness, the body of the deceased was tied with rope.The hands were tied behind his back and legs of the deceased were also tied and around his neck, rope was tied rolled over for five times.The cause of death is shown to be asphyxia by strangulation, which was homicidal in nature.The duration was between 24 to 84 hours.The post-mortem report is Ex.In the cross examination this witness has admitted that there was no blister on the body of the deceased.He also admitted that blister occurred after around 48 hours of the death.It is also admitted by this witness that the skin of the body was peeled off on account of blisters.An attempt has been made in his cross examination to suggest that the figure of 84 hours mentioned in the post-mortem report has been tampered with and it was actually 48 hours instead of 84 hours to which the doctor has categorically refused.The alleged incident can be said to have taken place in two phases, first phase is confined to the acts of Ravinder Singh and second phase starts when Ravinder Singh left deceased in the company of other accused persons viz. the present appellants Santosh Gupta @ Michael, Santosh Meena and Anand Tiwari, and Gajanand @ Gajju joined them afterwards.We will first discuss the second phase and then the first phase as it relates to Ravinder Singh who was arrested subsequently and was tried separately in the same trial by the same court.On consideration of the evidence of other witnesses, as stated by Rekha Prajapati (PW-2), the wife of deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu, he started from his house in the morning of 16.8.2007, he was called by accused Ravindra Singh (appellant in Cr.A.No.2184/2010), who had come to his house with Amolak Singh and took him away.She has stated that at around 2 Oclock Ravinder Singh called her and informed that he would come with Gullu @ Ramswaroop and there is nothing to worry about and thereafter he informed her that he was speaking from Chhanera and the deceased has been abducted by Raj Kumar Chouhan and his gang.Although this witness-PW-2 has stated in her statement u/s.161 of Cr.P.C. exhibited as Ex.D1 and D/8 that Ravinder Singh has given false assurances that he would come back with Gullu @ Ramswaroop, but there is no specific allegation made by her in her original complaint Ex.Rekha Prajapati (PW-2) in her statement (Ex.D-1& D/8) recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., has stated that Ravinder Singh had misled her regarding whereabouts of the deceased, and that Ravinder Singh informed her that the deceased had been taken by Raj Kumar Chouhan and other accused persons.The deposition of this witness would be dealt with in detail at a later stage while discussing the case of Ravinder Singh.So far as other accused persons are concerned, she is a hearsay witness and has named them only because it was so informed by accused Ravinder Singh and on the basis of the letters of her husband and also on account of the previous animosity between the deceased Gullu, Raj Kumar Chouhan and other accuse persons.Manish Kumar (PW-3) happens to be the nephew of the deceased.He also made similar allegation against appellant Ravinder Singh.This witness has also identified the body of the deceased Gullu vide Ex.According to this witness, Ravinder Singh had informed him that Raj Kumar and other accused persons namely Balwant, Santosh, Michael and Anand Tiwari had taken away the deceased, but this witness is not an eye-witness and has implicated the other co-accused persons only on the basis of his earlier knowledge of enmity between Gullu and Raj Kumar as both their families are living in the same house.Rajendra Singh (PW-5) is the star witness, who was there all along with the accused persons and the deceased.According to this witness, Santosh Meena called him on 15.8.2007 and then on 16.8.2007 to bring a vehicle near the railway station and thereafter four persons viz. Ravinder Singh Sardar, Amolak Singh Sardar, Balwant Thakur and Ramswaroop @ Gullu sat inside the vehicle and thereafter they went to Naya Harsood, Sector No.5, and another person to whom Ravinder Singh has referred to as Pahalwan also got into the vehicle.Thereafter they went to Malgaon road as directed by accused Santosh Meena and when they reached near Ashapur Mandir, accused Santosh Meena asked to drive the vehicle slowly because Gajanand @ Gajju is coming behind on his motorcycle and he was asked to stop the vehicle in the jungle near the culvert (Puliya) and all of them got down from the vehicle.He also heard accused persons saying to Gullu why their names have been mentioned in the shoot out (Goli Kand).Thereafter Gajanand @ Gajju came there on a motorcycle, and Anand Tiwari took him aside, had some conversation with him and then Gajanand @ Gajju asked this witness PW/5 to come with him on his motorcycle to Sheikhpura to buy Gutkha etc.. At this juncture, a question was also asked by the trial Court that whether he had apprehended that anything may happen to Gullu, whose hands were tied and in reply to the aforesaid question, this witness has clearly answered that Santosh Meena informed him that nothing would happen to Gullu and they have brought him only to teach a lesson.When this witness came back to the spot along with Gajanand @ Gajju from motorcycle after purchasing Gutka, his vehicle was not there and they proceed further.After one-two kms.he received a call from Santosh Meena and was asked to come towards Khandwa road.After reaching Khandwa road, he did not find Gullu @ Ramswaroop in the vehicle and when he enquired about him, then Santosh Meena informed him that they have already left him behind and he would get to his house at Khirkiya, and when this witness asked for fair of the vehicle, Santosh Meena told him to come to Indore Naka where the same would be paid and thereafter Santosh Meena, Santosh Gupta @ Michael and Anand Tiwari, the three accused persons got down from his vehicle, but they left Gajju behind and told him to bring this witness along with him.When this witness-PW-5 reached Indore Naka, Santosh Meena gave him Rs.500/- and told him that remaining sum of Rs.1500/- would be paid at his house only and also asked him to drop Gajanand @ Gajju at Chhanera.When this witness enquired about the whereabouts of Gullu @ Ramswaroop, Gajanand @ Gajju told him that vkuan us crk;k gS fd xqYyw mQZ jkeLo:i dks mij okyh /kkj.kh esa igqapk fn;k gSA and thereafter Gajju got down near Sarvoday Colony and he came back to Khirkiya.After coming back to his house, he narrated the entire story to his father and his father told him that he would lodge a report tomorrow morning.This witness in para 9 of his deposition, has identified the accused Santosh Meena, Anand Tiwari and Gajanand @ Gajju by name , although he could not name Santosh Gupta, but has identified him from amongst other accused persons who mentioned his name as Santosh S/o Kishanlal Gupta.This witness's vehicle (GAMA) bearing registration No.MP12 T-0347 and its documents were also seized vide Ex.In the lengthy cross examination of this witness, he has admitted that on 16th night, 17th and 18th August, 2007 he did not go to the house of Gullu @ Ramswaroop and he was so afraid that he did not tell this incident to anybody else.This witness has also admitted that no test identification parade took place of the accused persons and after the incident he identified the accused persons for the first time in the court only.A suggestion was also put to him that no such incident had taken place and that nobody called for his vehicle on 16.8.2007, he has been confronted with his statements given to the police Ex.D-3 and D/4 u/s.164 of Cr.P.C. The cross- examination of this witness started from 22.7.2008 and completed only on 3.6.2009 i.e. around one year and all the omissions and contradictions as pointed out in his cross- examination are minor in nature.Witness Rajendra Singh (PW-5) was in the company of the accused persons for a long time i.e. from the noon till the evening and had ample opportunities to identify them and to know about them by their names.Rajendra Singh (PW-5) in his examination-in- chief, has identified Santosh Meena, Anand Tiwari and Gajanand @ Gajju, but he could not identify one of the accused persons by his name but after he pointed out to one of the accused, he identified himself as Santosh Gupta.Thus the testimony of this witness is found trustworthy and credible.The primary object of the test identification parade is to enable the witnesses to identify the persons involved in the commission of offence(s) if the offenders are not personally known to the witnesses.P/2 lodged by Rekha Prajapati and also made by appellant Ravinder Singh, which is Ex.N.S.Rawat (PW-9) is the Station House Officer, Khaknar who had recovered the body of the deceased from beneth a Pulia (Culvert).A.S.I. Suresh Yadav (PW-10) is the investigation officer, who has proved that on 17.8.2007 accused Gajanand S/o Dayaram Mali also reported to the police regarding abduction of deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu by Santosh Meena and Michael @ Santosh Gupta.On the basis of which an FIREx.In their defence, accused persons have examined Shri D.R.Kanungo, retired DSP who has proved Ex.D/5A, D/6A and D/7A. These documents are an attempt to suggest that there was no grievance of deceased Gullu against the present appellants.For example Ex.D/5A is an application submitted by deceased Gullu to the SHO, P.S. Chipabad wherein Gullu has stated that Raj Kumar has nothing to do with an assault on him he has not lodged any report against Umesh, Balwant, Santosh and Michael and the FIR lodged in this behalf is false.Other documents are also of the same nature.But, the aforesaid documents are of no help to the appellants because there is an eyewitness account of their deeds in the present case.In this respect, it is also pertinent to mention here that appellant Gajanand @ Gajju, despite having lodged the FIR has not taken any specific plea regarding his defence.From the aforesaid discussion, the eyewitness account of PW/5 Rajendra Singh is more than sufficient to bring home the offence against the accused Santosh Meena, Santosh Gupta @ Michael, Anand Tiwari and Gajju @ Gajanand Mali.In the considered opinion of this court, the chain of circumstances leading to the death of deceased Gullu @ Ramswarup is complete by the following events:-(a) Deceased Ramswaroop @ Gullu, with his hands tied behind his back by a rope and was sitting inside the vehicle of PW-5 Rajendra Singh along with accused Santosh Meena, Santosh Gupta @ Michael, Anand Tiwari.(b) Accused Gajanand @ Gajju also accompanied these three accused persons for some time as their aide and was present at the time when deceased Gullu @ Ramswaroop was very much alive, with his hands tied behind his back by a rope was sitting inside the aforesaid vehicle, he also took PW/5 Rajendra Singh on his motorcycle away from the other accused persons leaving the deceased Gullu alone in the company of other accused persons in order to facilitate the crime.Otherwise there was no reason for Gajanand @ Gajju to take Rajendra Singh away from the spot.His lodging of FIR Ex.P/32 on 17.08.2007 against Santosh Meena and Santosh Gupta @ Michael also indicates his efforts to create a false evidence to show his innocence, which only leads credence to the story of conspiracy in which he was involved with other accused persons.The prosecution case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused.However, a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court where various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are complete in themselves.The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable or point to any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.After Ravinder Singhs case was merged into the present case, almost all the witnesses have been re-examined.In the statements given by the witnesses in the case of Ravinder Singh, who was subsequently arrested, the statement of Rekha Prajapati, examined as PW/3 in these proceedings is important wherein she has been declared hostile and has not supported her earlier version that Ravinder was trying to mislead her when she spoke to him on 16.8.2007 on phone.She has also stated that appellant Ravinder Singh did not mislead her, and on the contrary she has stated that he is the person who informed her about the incident of abduction of her husband Gullu.So far as PW-6 Rajendra Singh is concerned, who is examined as PW-5 in the connected trial, his testimony has remained intact that initially Ravinder Singh Sardar, Amolak Singh Sardar, Balwant Thakur, Gullu @ Ramswaroop sat in his vehicle and when they reached at Chhanera at Sector No.5, they went into a room and when Ravinder Singh, Amolak Singh and other person came out from the room, they sat in the Indica Car and left the spot by saying that they have to come back.In his cross examination he has admitted that this statement that Ravinder Singh also said that they have to come back is missing from his 161 statement although he had informed the police regarding the same.On the above mentioned depositions and the documents available on record, this court comes to the conclusions that:(a) The presence of the accused persons Santosh Meena, Santosh Gupta @ Michael, Anand Tiwari and Gajanand @ Gajju have been established beyond reasonable doubt.Under these circumstances, these appellants have failed to make out any case to warrant any interference by this Court in the findings recorded by the learned court below, hence their conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned Judge of the trial court is maintained and so far as the conviction of appellant Ravinder Singh is concerned, the same deserves to be set aside after giving him the benefit of doubt.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,069,961 |
Hence, he be released on bail.Learned PL has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is ordered that the applicant-accused Pawan Prajapati be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. Certified copy as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE ak
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,098,499 |
2. Prosecutrix (PW-1) on 07.12.2001 at about 17:40 hours lodged the report Ex.P-1 to the effect that on 04.12.2001 at about 07:00 p.m. when she was returning from the field respondents No.1 to 4 (Lal Singh, Gulab Chand, Suresh and Babulal) lifted her from the road and took her in the Khalihan of Soma, undressed her, tied her hands with Sari and committed gang rape, meanwhile respondent No.5 Hajari (father of respondent No.3) reached there, seeing him respondents No.1 to 4 ran away.Thereafter respondent No.5 also tried to commit 2 rape with her but she resisted, therefore, respondent No.5 could not commit rape, meanwhile Narayan (PW-5) came there and took her to village.Prosecutrix narrated whole incident to her sister-in-law.On that day her husband had gone to village Dhanera, when he came back next day FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged at police station Khalwa.23/04/2012 As per: S.C. Sinho, JOn the basis of report aforesaid prosecutrix was sent to hospital for medical examination.On being produced before Dr. Yogmaya (PW-9) no mark of external injury was found on the body of prosecutrix hymen was torn, it was old ruptured.Prosecutrix was a married lady and mother of four children therefore no opinion regarding alleged rape has been recorded in Ex.P-21 MLC report.Completing the investigation respondents No.1 to 4 prosecuted under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 506(Part 2) of I.P.C. and respondent No.5 for the charge punishable under section 376 read with section 511 of I.P.C. The respondents abjured the guilt.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.Prosecutrix has tried to explain delay in lodging the F.I.R. that her husband came from Dhanera on next day but no explanation was given that why the report was not lodged on 5.12.2001, further her brother and other family members were in the village, thus there is no proper explanation for two days delay in lodging the F.I.R., even after the husband of prosecutrix came back to village.She 3 was examined by Dr. Yogmaya (PW-9), prosecutrix is though a married lady but no external injury was found on her body or on private parts even after the alleged gang rape.These facts were not suggestive of forcible gang rape.There is no corroboration on medical side and also no proper explanation is given for lodging the F.I.R. after three days of the alleged incident.Prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that in the evening when she had been returning from the field, respondents No.1 to 4 (Lal Singh, Gulab Chand, Suresh and Babulal) forcibly took her in the Khalihan of Soma, completely undressed her, tied her hands with her Sari and thereafter all of them committed rape with her one by one, meanwhile respondent No.5 Hajari (father of respondent No.3 Suresh) reached there, seeing him respondents No.1 to 4 ran away.Thereafter respondent No.5 Hajari also tried to commit rape with her but when she resisted he demanded Rs.1000/- from her.It is unbelievable that father of respondent No.3 Suresh will demand Rs.1000/- from prosecutrix with whom his son had committed rape, meanwhile Narayan (PW-2) reached there, she was brought back to her house by him.On 07.12.2001 three days after this incident she went to police station Khalwa alongwith her husband and village Kotwar and lodged named F.I.R. She apprised the police that she was lifted by respondents No.1 to 4 and gang rape was committed with her.In para 12 of her cross examination prosecutrix has clearly stated that respondents Lal Singh, Suresh and Gulab Chand are cousin brothers and respondent No.3 Suresh is the real son of respondent No.5 Hajari.On the basis of statement 4 aforesaid the court below in para 22 to 26 of the impugned judgment rightly held that the statement of prosecutrix is not trustworthy.The story is not corroborated by the medical evidence and as such the court below recorded acquittal of the respondents.In the background of facts aforesaid, the testimony of prosecutrix was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court.The appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,128,682 |
This is the second application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant Mohan Bhargav.It is alleged that on 17.07.2015 at about 09.00 PM when complainant Rajaram, a member of Scheduled Caste was standing in-front of his house, accused/applicant No. 4 Anil Lodhi quarreled with him because of the cattle.He abused him by obscene words and also by his caste name.After some time, accused/applicant No. 3 Dharmendra Lodhi came there and he also pelted bricks, thereafter, Dharmendra and Anil inflicted injuries to Narveer by Lathi.At that time, accused/applicants No. 1 and 5; Jagannath Singh and Mohan 2 M.Cr.C. No. 8038/2015 Mohan Bhargav Vs.State of M.P.Bhargava respectively came there carrying with them tin.Then Jagannaththath Singh told Mohan Bhargava that let the Dahlan of the complainant be burnt.They poured oil of the lamp and set fire on his Dahlan, because of which his pesticide spray pump and other useful items were burnt.On behalf of the Mohan Bhargava, this fresh application has been filed on the ground that Mohan Bhargava had no fight with the complainant.The cross case report dated 22.07.2015 does not reflect the name of Mohan Bhargava.Therefore, the applicant has no motive to commit the crime.It is also argued that the place in which so called fire was set in Dahlan which is open place and entrance of the house where it is not suit any dwelling to keep things.Hence, the application 439 is not made out against the applicant.Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor for the state opposed the application stating that the FIR in Crime No. 317/2015 made.The applicant and the accused Jagannath Singh were responsible for set fire.It is also contended that the adjacent room where the complainant was keeping food materials including wheat etc. has been burnt and the loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- was caused as per the Panchnama.It is also stated that the dwelling house in which the 3 M.Cr.C. No. 8038/2015 Mohan Bhargav Vs.The applicant is alleged to have committed the crime with accused Jagannath Singh who with the help of applicant poured oil of the lamp and set fire on his Dahlan.At this stage, it would not be appropriate to grant of regular bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE Sateesh
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 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.
|
17,216,800 |
Notice of the petitioner was given to the State.Arguments heard.She has not even specified those articles.As far as mother-in-law Sheela is concerned it has been specifically stated that she has taken away the entire jewellery and has not returned the same on demand.She is Crl.P.216/2012 Page 3 of 4No doubt, in the cases like the present one where the family members of the husband are chargehseeted for committing the criminal breach of trust in respect of dowry articles, it does not contemplate entrustment with al technicalities of law of trust.P.216/2012 Page 4 of 4P.216/2012 Page 4 of 4This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Sheila Gupta, mother-in-law of the complainant Anshu Gupta impugning the order dated 17.09.2011 vide which learned MM ordered for framing of charge against her for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.On behalf of petitioner, it has been submitted that even as per the complainant, there was entrustment to the petitioner.Learned MM has discharged respondents No.3 to 5 but on the same allegations, which have been considered to be vague by learned MM, accused No.2 Smt.Sheila Gupta has been ordered to be charged for committing the offence punishable Crl.P.216/2012 Page 1 of 4 under Section 406 IPC.It has been further submitted that in the absence of any averment regarding the entrustment of the jewellery or any other dowry article with the petitioner i.e. accused No.2 Sheila Gupta, the revision petition may be allowed and the order dated 17.09.2011 for framing of the charge against the petitioner may be set aside.P.216/2012 Page 1 of 4The case FIR No.130/07, PS Sriniwaspuri was registered on the direction of learned MM on the application under Section 156(3) in Complaint Case No.138/2 of 2008 filed by Smt. Anshu Gupta before learned MM.The allegations against the present petitioner on the basis of which charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC has been framed are given in para 6 of the complaint, which are as under :When the complainant told this facts to the accused no.1, accused no.1 abused the complainant by taking favour of accused no.2 to 5.'In the impugned order, while ordering for framing of charge against accused No.2 Sheila Gupta, learned MM observed as under :'As far as offence u/s 406 IPC is concerned complainant has stated that on 15.03.2006 her entire articles given at the time of marriage were taken away by the other accused persons in the absence of husband.It is a vague allegation as she has not stated as to how they could have lifted the furniture and other household articles.P.216/2012 Page 2 of 4 charged for the offence u/s 406 IPC and other accused persons are discharged for the offence u/s 406 IPC.Formal charge be framed accordingly.'P.216/2012 Page 2 of 4On behalf of petitioner, it has been submitted that in the absence of any allegations regarding entrustment or dominion over the property, the learned MM could not have ordered for framing of charge against this accused for committing the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, while on the same allegations discharging the other accused persons for the same offence.On behalf of State, learned APP has submitted that Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust and Section 406 IPC provides punishment for criminal breach of trust.At the stage of framing of charge, the averments made in the complaint prima facie make out a case for framing of the charge against the present accused who in her capacity as mother-in-law was entrusted with the istridhan articles of the complainant which she refused to return on demand.The charge framed against the accused Sheila Gupta on 14.03.2012 reads as under :'That on or after 26.04.2001 you were entrusted with the stridhan articles of the complainant which you refused to return on demand and hereby committed offence under Section 406 IPC and within my cognizance.And I hereby direct you be tried by this Court for the above stated offence.'A bare reading of the complaint does not disclose either entrustment of the istridhan articles by the complainant to her mother-in-law i.e. accused Sheila Gupta nor there is any averment in the complaint as to when she asked for return of the dowry articles which was refused by her mother-in-law.It is further mentioned by her that when she raised objection, accused No.2 to 5 replied that they had the permission from accused No.1 i.e. her husband.Obviously, when the articles were allegedly taken out forcibly under objection of complainant who was owner of the said property claimed by her to be her dowry articles/istridhan, there could not be any entrustment by her.In these circumstances, learned MM committed grave error in framing charge against petitioner Sheila Gupta for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.The impugned order dated 17.09.2011 to the extent that petitioner Sheila Gupta was charged for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is set aside.Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and petitioner is discharged of the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.A copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court.PRATIBHA RANI, J AUGUST 14, 2012/'st' Crl.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,205,302 |
Present appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 03.12.1999 and order on sentence dated 08.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the appellant Parveen was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Other six appellants viz. Mukesh @ Bittoo, Ajay Singh, Sunil Sharma, Balbir @ Balli, Anil Rawat and Rohit Bansal were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine each of the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Appellant Parveen was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.Appellant Parveen, Bittoo, Anil Rawat and Sunil were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for an Crl.(ii) These officers reached at the said house.There they recorded the statements of prosecutrix.(iii) She stated that she was residing at the aforesaid address alongwith her parents and is doing a course of interior designing at South Delhi Polytechnique.As a routine she comes upto Laxmi Nagar in a rickshaw and from there she took U-Spl.for South Extension.She developed intimacy with one Parveen who was residing at premises No. A-137 Preet Vihar.One day said Parveen took her to Connaught Place on the house of his friend Bittoo.Then Parveen committed rape upon her after threatening her.Bittoo, friend of Parveen had also sexual intercourse with her against her consent.Parveen took her photograph while Bittoo was committing rape upon her.However, she came to know about it.Later on when Parveen showed her photograph to her on the same day, she became very much scared and asked Parveen to return photograph.Upon this, Parveen replied that only he knew about this secret and Bittoo was his friend.Parveen also Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 3 of 47 promised to marry her at the earliest.So, she did not disclosed this fact to anybody.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 3 of 47(iv) Thereafter accused Parveen had been blackmailing her.Parveen had been telephoning her and that is why she had been meeting him openly.In the first week of April, 94, Parveen took her to under-construction flats of a Society near Patparganj Depot after alluring and threatening her.There Sunil, Anil Rawat @ Anni, Bittoo and one more boy (whom she did not know but can identify him) met her and had sexual intercourse with her against her consent.Those boys placed the negative of thesaid photograph before her and told her that if she wants the said negative back, she had to succumb to their advances.Even after committing rape, these persons did not return the negative to the complainant.When she asked for it, they threatened to kill her brother.Hence, she did not disclose anything at her house.(v) On 17.7.94 Parveen called her, on the pretext of returning the negative to her, at Coffee House.Parveen took her on his motor cycle to Noida i.e. in an office in an under construction building.There Anil Rawat @ Anni, Bittoo and Sunil were already present.All these boys committed rape upon her.During the rape, two of the boys had caught her.She dis-engaged herself and started crying.Parveen became scared and made the other boys to stop this.She came to her house in a bus.She was threatened that her brother will be killed.Parveen had been threatening on telephone that he will get made the poster of her photograph and get the same sticked at South Extension and near her house.(vi) On 5.9.97 Parveen met her at Bengal Sweets, South Extension and compelled her to accompany him after showing her the said photograph.Parveen sweared Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 4 of 47 that this time he will return the photograph and negative to her and they will not do anything with her.So, she had to accompany Parveen.Parveen took her in an office at second floor of a building at Darya Ganj.There, Rohit and one more boy (whom she could identify and who was the owner of the office) were already present.Parveen told her that this was the last time and they shall not trouble her again and they would return her photograph and negative.Then all these three boys committed rape upon her turn by turn and told her that in the evening her photograph and negative will be returned.Parveen sweared that at that time he had no photograph and negative with him and shall return the same at 7.30 PM near Universal Public School.So, at the appointed time she reached there.There Parveen showed her photograph and negative and compelled her to have sex with him and one Balli @ Pappu (who was already there) Parveen also committed rape upon her.Still, Parveen did not return the photograph and negative to her.Both of them left the said place on motor cycle threatening that they will spoil her brother and sisters.She was so scared that she did not tell all this episode.As she was scared and weeping in the night, her mother asked her the reason for the same.As her mother asked repeatedly, she told everything to her.Her mother conveyed the same to her father.The prosecutrix was medically examined at SDN Hospital.Her vaginal swab was seized.The prosecutrix also produced her Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 5 of 47 salvar, shirt and underwear which were also sealed and seized.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 5 of 47(viii) I.O. recorded the statements of other witnesses.On the pointing out of complainant, accused persons Parveen, Mukesh @ Bittoo, Ajay Singh were arrested.Rest of the accused persons Sunil Sharma, Balbir, Anil Rawat were arrested on 10.9.94 from different places.All the accused persons were medically examined and their semen samples were taken.Their disclosure statements were also recorded.(ix) On the pointing out of accused persons, one photograph wherein Mukesh @ Bittoo was committing rape upon the prosecutrix, was recovered from the house of Parveen.The same was seized.On the pointing out of accused Parveen again, a camera, vide which the said photograph was taken was also recovered.The exhibits of the case were sent to FSL, Chandigarh.Report of CFSL was not received till the filing of the challan.(x) The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C. The accused persons also pointed out the places of committing rape.After completing necessary formalities, the challan was filed U/s 342/506/501/366/376/376 (2) (G)/120-B IPC."She was examined on oath in Court during trial where she deposed that respondent Parveen was residing in her neighbourhood with whom she developed friendship and the same was objected by her father but they kept on meeting.She deposed that in the month of January 1994 respondent Parveen called her to Preet Vihar Bus Stop and asked her to go on a pleasure stroll and took her to Janpath at the house of respondent Bittoo.According to her, Bittoo offered her cold drink and after consuming it she felt giddiness and when she regained consciousness she saw that Parveen was raping her.Further she deposed that when she asked for her jeans from Parveen, he forced her to allow his friend Bittoo to repeat a similar act and when she refused the same, both Parveen and Bitto used force against her and Bittoo pressed her mouth and committed rape on her.She deposed that when Bittoo was raping her, she was weeping and had covered her face with her hands at that point of time she realised that Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 22 of 47 Parveen had taken her photograph.She had a fight with Parveen, who promised to marry her and thereafter she returned home.In her testimony, she further deposed the second incident of rape by stating that after few months of the previous incident, Parveen came to meet her and asked her to Nirman Vihar Bus Stand where Parveen apologized.She further stated that she demanded the negatives of the photograph from him and he took her to the house of his friend Sunil at Patparganj and made her to sit and left for some work.She again asked for negatives when Parveen returned on which Parveen sought her permission to have sex with her to which she refused but Parveen forcibly had sex with her and also gave beatings to her.She deposed that when she asked for her clothes from Parveen, he told her that the clothes would be returned to her, if respondent Anil was allowed to have sex with her.According to her, Anil, Bittoo, Sunil and Manish were brought by Parveen inside the room one by one and forced themselves upon her, gave her beatings and bit on her body and raped her one after the other without her consent.She deposed that lastly, Parveen threatened her that her brother would be killed in case she disclosed the same to anyone in connection with what has happened.The prosecutrix PW1 while narrating the third instance deposed that on 17.07.1994, she received a phone call from Parveen who asked her to meet at the Nirman Vihar Bus Stop.She went there and Parveen again apologized to her and promised her to return her Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 23 of 47 negative and photographs and took her on his motorcycle to an office which was under construction at Noida.She deposed that Bitoo, Sunil and Anil were already present there and Parveen threatened her as he was carrying a knife and a revolver.She futher stated that his friends who were standing there were laughing and all of them including Parveen forcibly had sex with her and threatened her with dire consequences, like killing of her brother and spoiling the future of her sister in case she disclosed the incident to anybody.She also deposed that she returned to her house and did not meet them for few months.PW1 Billo @ Preeti disclosed that the last incident took place on 05.09.1994, she had gone to her college and as she had some free time she went to Bengali Restaurant to search for one of her friend.There, Parveen tried to talk to her but she did not respond and Parveen threatened her if she did listen to her, her photographs would be pasted outside her house and college.Parveen showed a knife to her and asked her to accompany him which she did and he took her to the house/office of his friend Ajay in Sita Ram Bazar.Ajay and one boy named Rohit with whom she was acquainted were also present there, she further deposed that she was taken to the second floor of office/house of Ajay and saw that two revolvers were lying on the table and glasses in which if water would be poured than obscene pictures would appear.According to her, Parveen, Ajay and Rohit raped her despite her resistance.She further deposed that she was Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 24 of 47 beaten and Parveen had also threatened to tear her clothes if she would create scene and consequently she would not be in a position to return home.PW1 deposed that she again asked for her photographs and negatives from Parveen and he told her to return the same at 7:30 P.M. in the Gali near Universal Public School near my house, so she returned to her home.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 24 of 47On the same day at about 7:30 P.M., when she reached there, she found Parveen with his friend Balli and Parveen Kumar.There Balli forcibly had sex with her and when she asked for her negatives and photographs, they refused and she had a quarrel with Parveen and returned home.On that night, she wept bitterly and narrated each and everything to her mother on her insistence, who further brought the facts to the notice of the father of the prosecutrix and he lodged a report with the police on next day.The prosecutrix was cross-examined at length.She admitted that she and Parveen were living in Preet Vihar since 1989 and the house of Parveen was at a distance of about 1/2 minutes walk from her house.They used to meet frequently and mostly at the bus stop.She deposed that she used to meet Parveen after school hours in Park.She stated that their school timings of return from the school were almost the same.She stated that she never told anything to her parents regarding the above meetings.She further deposed that they used to like and love each other and she saw Crl.She used to leave her house on the pretext of going to visit her friend Preeti, Sonia etc. as and when inquired by her mother.They used to see English movies between 11 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and used to bunk their school.They enjoyed tea, coffee and snacks in picture hall.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 2 of 47 offence punishable under Section 506 (II) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 2 of 47Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under:"(i) The case of the prosecution is that on 7.9.94 Inspector Prithvi Singh, Inspector Raj Mohinder Singh alongwith ACP were called at the office of DCP Crime Branch.There DCP Crime Branch instructed them to meet one Sh.Nand Kishore Taneja at premises No. 148 Preet Vihar and proceed with the case if the facts reveal the commission of a cognizable offence.There a revolver and an open knife were lying on the table.She could identify all those places where she was raped.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 4 of 47Appellant Parveen stated that since Preeti started loitering with some other boys, he refused to marry her and for this reason she falsely named him in this case.He also stated that FIR against them Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 6 of 47 was registered with the connivance Sh.Markandey Singh, Ex-LG, who was a friend of the grandfather of the prosecutrix.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 6 of 47Appellant Mukesh @ Bittoo claimed to be falsely implicated.He stated that he had not committed any crime and he was lifted from his house by the police.He further stated that he did not have any house in Connaught Place as alleged by the prosecution and he also denied his photograph.Moreover, he came to know the appellant Parveen in June, 1994, when he came to his workshop for getting his scooter repaired.Appellant Ajay Kumar also pleaded innocence and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix and her parents.Appellant Balbir Singh pleaded innocence.He stated that on 09.09.94 at about 5/6 a.m., he was going to Sanjay Lake along with his friend for a morning walk and a car came there in which four persons were seated.They enquired from him about Flat No. 561, Mayur Vihar and he showed his ignorance on which they started abusing him and some altercation took place.One person alighted from the car and caught him by his collar and forcibly push him inside the car.Thereafter, they went to the house of Parveen from where he was also lifted and ultimately brought to Police Station Adarsh Nagar and falsely implicated in this case.Appellant Anil Rawat stated that before the registration of this case, prosecutrix was residing in his neighbourhood at Mangal Bazar, Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 7 of 47 Laxmi Nagar and she had affairs with one Gagan and Kapil.He further stated that prosecutrix also had an affair with Parveen and she suspected Anil that he had informed Parveen about her affairs with Gagan and Kapil and had a grudge for this and also named him in this case and got him falsely implicated.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 7 of 47Appellant Sunil Sharma and Rohit Bansal stated that they had been falsely implicated at the behest of the prosecutrix.Two defence witnesses were got examined by the appellants.Appellant Ajay Singh expired during the pendency of the appeal therefore his appeal stands abated.Even when she was examined as a witness in the Court, no question Crl.The learned Sessions Judge, with whom the High Court has agreed, seems to have brushed aside this important circumstance on the ground that as the prosecutrix was examined by Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 14 of 47 the Doctor on April 20, 1972, at about 5 P. M about 17 hours after the occurrence injuries may have disappeared and has relied on an observation of Taylor at p. 66 of his book which runs as follows:Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 14 of 47Moreso, the prosecution in her deposition has given different versions about the first incident when she came to know about the alleged photograph for the first time.Further, the fact that the negative was available with the photograph the original is in doubt.It is alleged that in fact the negative was prepared from the photograph in question.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 15 of 47In view of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate prayed for an order of acquittal against the appellant Parveen Kumar.Mr. Rajeev Gaur Naseem, Advocate appearing for the appellants Rohit Bansal and Mukesh Kumar @ Bittoo adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate for the appellant Parveen Kumar.That sometimes they used to leave the picture hall and go outside for a stroll; that Parveen and his parents had shifted their house but she did not know if they had shifted to AGCR Complex, in Feb. 1990, in H. No. 278; that she used to write letters to Parveen in 1990 and 1991 and give them to Parveen when they used to meet me.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 25 of 47The prosecutrix had been confronted with her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on several issues /facts contrary to her deposition in court, wherein she admitted the following facts which have not been recorded in her statements under Section 161 and 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure.I told the police that I and accused Parveen used to meet in park near my house and once my father had seen us and asked me not to meet him and rebuked me but still we kept on meeting (Confronted to Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/DA not recorded.) Accused Parveen had called me at the bus stop of Preet Vihar and asked me to go on some pleasure stroll.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 26 of 47 I did not tell the police that the accused Parveen took me to Janpath, Connaught Place while we were talking to each other.(Confronted to Portion A to A of Ex.PW1/A so recorded) I told the police that I asked for my jeans but the same was not given to me and I was compelled to allow Bittoo to have intercourse with me; on my refusal both of them used force against me, the accused Bittoo pressed my mouth and made me lie forcibly on the ground.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) I do not remember if I had told the police about my second meeting with accused Parveen in May, 1994 in my FIR (Confronted to Ex.I do not remember if I had stated that the second instance/ incident took place in April, 1994 in Ex.PW1/A vide portion C to C.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 26 of 47I told the police that I was made to sit in the said room and Parveen told me to come after five minutes and I again demanded my negatives back from him and Parveen asked me to allow him to have sex once again and I refused for the same (Confronted with Ex.I told the police that the accused Parveen forcibly had sex with me and gave beatings to me.Thereafter the accused Parveen brought accused Anil inside the room and I demanded back my Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 27 of 47 clothes from Parveen but he kept the same in another room.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) I told the police that Parveen had told me that I would get my clothes only if I allow Anil to fuck me and when I refused, Anil used force on me and beat to me and bitten on my body and committed sex with me.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A wherein it is not so recorded) I told the police that thereafter accused Parveen brought the accused Bittoo inside the room and he also committed sex with me without my consent.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) I told the police that thereafter accused Parveen brought accused Sunil inside the room and Sunil forced me and committed sex without my consent.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) I told the police that Parveen called me to bus stop Nirman Vihar over telephone on 17.07.94 and I went there.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) I told the Police that one boy named Manish also had forcible sex with me without my consent and I did not know his name and when his father and he came to my house I knew his name as Manish.(Confronted with Ex.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 28 of 47 I told the police that the Parveen again threatened me and sought to have intercourse with me and was having a knife in his one hand and revolver in other hand and all the other persons were standing and laughing there.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 27 of 47Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 28 of 47I told the police and Metropolitan Magistrate that I was given much beatings.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A and Ex.I told the police that they had threatened me to spoil my sisters (Confronted with Ex.I told the police that on 05.09.1994 I had gone to my college and there was ample time for my class to be held and thus I went to Bengali Restaurant to look for my friend and where the accused Parveen tried to talk but I did not talk and further Parveen told me that if I did not talk to him he would made the posters of my photographs and would paste the same outside my house and college.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where the making of the posters and photographs and their affixation is not recorded on 5.9.94 but is recorded immediately before 5.9.94) I told the police that thereafter I talked to Parveen and he at the point of knife told me to go with him and I accompanied him.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) I do not remember having told the police and the Metropolitan Magistrate that accused Rohit and Ajay were already present in Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 29 of 47 the above office when I went there vide portion G to G of Ex.PW1/A (It is recorded in the above portion that two culprits were already present there).Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 29 of 47I told the Metropolitan Magistrate that two revolvers were lying there on a table.(Confronted with Ex.I told the police and Metropolitan Magistrate that there were some glasses in which if the water would pour, the obscene photographs could appear in the glasses.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A and Ex.I told the police that the accused Parveen had forced me and on my refusal he with his one hand caught hold of my hand from behind and with his other hand had opened my salwar.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) I told the police that the Parveen again had sex with me forcibly.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) I told the police and Metropolitan Magistrate that I was given much beatings.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/DA where it is not so recorded).I told the police that Parveen had threatened to torn my clothes and I could not be in a position to go to my house and after doing the above act the above accused persons would have no connection with me.(Confronted with Ex.PW1/A where it is not so recorded) Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 30 of 47Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 30 of 47Dr. Rajeev Grover examined the prosecturix on 07.09.1994, proved his report Ex.PW6/A and opined that she was not under the effect of any drug nor there was any external injury on her body and referred Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 31 of 47 the case to Gynecologist for detailed examination.Dr. Ashiko Sazerou, General Hospital, Gynecologist examined the prosecutrix and she opined on the MLC (Ex-PW-6/A) that there were no external injury mark seen anywhere on the body.She did not tell me that she had an abortion.I had not found any bitting marks on the breast of the patient, on my examination."Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that as per the prosecutrix last rape was committed on 05.09.1994 at 07:30 pm in a "Kachi Gali" for half an hour to which she resisted and also sustained injuries on her body.In the report Ex.No spermatozoa were detected, microscopically on Bio/A and eventually it was opined that no definite matching could be found out of Bio/A and Bio/3 (clothes of the prosecutrix) with Bio/C to Bio/I (Semen of the Accused).It is more than clear from MLC Ex.PW6/A and CFSL Report Ex.PX, it is clear that none of the appellants got connected with the alleged crime as their semen was not detected/matched.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 33 of 47In Lalliram and Anr.In daily routine, we can invariably recognize the persons (whom we know very well) by seeing their back or sometimes even by having a glimpse of the person." Learned Senior Counsel has emphasized that the negatives have been prepared from the photograph in question and planted on the appellant.As the learned Trial Court could not be a witness for identification of appellant Bittoo.The delay has to be considered in Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 37 of 47In fact the prosecutrix was known to the appellant Parveen since 1989 and was having friendly relation with him and they used to meet on their way to school and also in the park.The prosecutrix as per her own Statment kept on meeting the appellant Parveen despite the opposition of her father.The prosecutrix alleged that during their friendship Parveen first raped her in January 1994 when she was served a cold drink, after consuming it she became unconscious and thereafter Parveen allowed his friend Bittoo to rape her and she was Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 38 of 47 also photographed by Parveen on the basis of which he kept on blackmailing her.The inordinate delay in registering the FIR casts a cloud of suspicion regarding credibility of the prosecution story when read with the testimony of prosecutrix, medical evidence and all other evidence led by the prosecution.The inordinate delay in registration of FIR and the time and opportunities which the prosecutrix had, to report the matter to the police or any other person by raising an alarm when she was forced to undergo the trauma of rape is unexplainable.It is well settled law that the appellants can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable and for that no corroboration is required.The prosecution explained that the Investigating Officer had not been examined as he has sustained injuries in his backbone and there was no likelihood of his recovery Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 39 of 47 in the near future and the material documents pertaining to this case were tendered by PW-13 SI Mahak Singh of Crime Branch.Even otherwise, Investigating Officer is not a material witness for the purpose of establishing whether the appellants committed the offence for which they have been charged.Hence, non-examination of the Investigating Officer in the present case is inconsequential.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 39 of 47It has been strongly urged that the investigation in the present case is not fair but tainted as the same was under the direction of an very influential person who was a neighbour of the Grandfather of prosecutrix.From the material available on record, it is clear that the prosecutrix as well as Appellant Parveen were residents of same vicinity and the FIR was registered at Police Station, Preet Vihar.PW-3, ASI V.S. Nagar has testified that on 07.09.1994, Inspector Prithvi Singh gave him a Tehrir which was taken by him to the police station, Preet Vihar and thereafter FIR was registered in police station, Preet Vihar on the same day.PW7 HC Rakesh Kumar deposed in his statement that from 07.09.1994 he was a part of investigation team in the instant case.Though, there is nothing on record to suggest that the investigation was primarily conducted by Delhi Police and thereafter transferred to Crime Branch the same is evident from the testimonies of PW3 and PW7 that the FIR was registered in police station, Preet Vihar but from the inception i.e. from 07.09.1994, the case was formally in the hands of Investigating Crl.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 40 of 47 Officer Prithvi Singh, who was posted in Crime Branch, Adarsh Nagar.This fact has also been recorded by learned Trial Court that on 07.09.1994, DCP, Crime Branch called the ACP along with Inspector Prithvi Singh, Inspector Raj Mohinder Singh of the Crime Branch in his office and instructed them to act on the complaint made by father of the prosecutrix without delay.Appeal Nos. 660/1999, 661/1999, 677/1999, 678/1999 & 692/1999 Page 40 of 47The main thrust of argument as raised by Mr. Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for appellant Parveen along with counsel for other appellants is that it is a false case in which Parveen and his friends were falsely implicated by the prosecutrix as the relationship between her and Parveen had turned sour when he came to know that prosecutrix was of easy virtue and was friendly with many other boys and refused to marry her bringing to an end the five years long relationship.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,338,976 |
The original accused no.3 had expired during thependency of the trial.All the accused were also charged for commission ofoffences punishable under Section 307 and 504 read with 149 of theIPC but they were acquitted of these charges.The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows :-The accused no.1was suspecting that one Rahul Chavan (the deceased in this case) hadinstigated Ranjeet in this connection and therefore, the accused no.1was holding grudge against Rahul Chavan.On 14/03/2007 whenRahul Chavan had gone to a barber shop of one Vilas Kashid to have ashave; all the accused, including the original accused no.3, enteredthe shop carrying deadly weapons like sword, gupti, jambia, knife, etc.and assaulted Rahul Chavan with those weapons.Rahul's friendSandeep Gaikwad who tried to intervene, was stabbed under hisarmpit by the accused no.3 Anil Bhaskar.Rahul Chavan died on thespot.According to the prosecution case, the accused no.1 SureshShinde went to Rajarampuri Police Station with an injury to his handbut he was sent to the C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur, for treatment.Thepolice were informed about the incident.They were also informedURS 4 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 5 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docthat Rahul Chavan was lying dead in the shop of Vilas Kashid.Thepolice officer visited the spot of incident and then went to the C.P.R.Hospital, Kolhapur.The statement of injured Sandeep Gaikwad wasrecorded at around 2.50 p.m. which was treated as the FIR.Theoffence was registered at Rajarampuri Police Station vide C.R.No.36 of2007 under Sections 302, 307 read with 149 and under Sections 147,148, 504 and 506 of the IPC.The investigation commenced.PW 13 Dr. Harish Shivaji Patil was attached to C.P.R.Hospital, Kolhapur and had initially treated PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwad.He had suffered 4 incised wounds on leftside of chest, on left upper arm, on his left hand index finger and leftURS 9 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 10 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.dochand middle finger.PW 13 Dr. Harish Patil had given endorsementon the statement Exh.91 given by Sandeep Gaikwad, which wastreated as the FIR.According to PW 13 Dr. Harish Patil, SandeepGaikwad was in good condition to give statement.Sandeep Gaikwadhad left the hospital at 3.40 p.m. on the same day against the medicaladvice.The incident had occurred in his K. K. Saloon situated in JawaharNagar, Kolhapur.According to him, he knew the deceased, PW 9, PW11 and all the accused.According to him at about 11.45 a.m., RahulChavan and PW 9 Prakash Kamble came to his shop on a motorcycle.According to this witness, he had accompanied thedeceased to the shop of PW 10 Vilash Kashid.He had waited outside.The investigation in this case was carried out in the mostunsatisfactory manner and we find that it was deliberately conductedin only one direction to implicate the accused.No honest efforts weremade to find out the truth.PW 19 PHCPrakash Kamble has admitted in his cross-examination that theaccused no.1 had come to the police station in injured condition butthis witness did not take his complaint and instead sent him to C.P.R.DATE :- 05 JUNE, 2018JUDGMENT (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-Therefore, boththese Appeals are decided by this common Judgment.For the sake of convenience, the Appellants inboth these Appeals are referred to as the original accused in the trial.By the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned trialJudge had convicted all the Appellants for commission of offencesunder various sections of the IPC as under :-(i) Under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC :- All the accused were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year,URS 2 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 3 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.doc::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::(ii) Under Section 324 read with 149 of the IPC :- All the accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months,(iii) Under Section 506 (2) read with 149 of the IPC :- All the accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months,(iv) Under Section 148 of the IPC :- All the accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months,(v) All the accused were also convicted under Section 147 of the IPC but no separate sentence was imposed on that count.All the substantive sentences were directed to runconcurrently.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::The accused no.1 was taking treatment in the hospitalfor about 20 days and thereafter he was arrested on 03/04/2007 afterhis discharge.During investigation, statements of various witnesseswere recorded and different panchanamas were conducted.According to the prosecution case, some weapons were found on thespot and other weapons were recovered at the instance of differentaccused.Similarly, bloodstained clothes of the accused were alsoseized by the police.After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.As the case was exclusively triable by the Court ofSessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions at Kolhapur.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::During trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses.Theevidence of some of the witnesses was formal in nature viz. theevidence of panchas for spot panchanamas, inquest panchanama andcarriers of the muddemal articles to the C.A. The prosecution caseheavily relies on the evidence of three eye witnesses viz. PW 9 PrakashKuber Kamble, PW 10 Vilas Dattatraya Kashid and PW 11 SandeepMothiram Gaikwad.Apart from these eye witnesses, the prosecutionhad examined panchas in whose presence some incriminating articleslike the weapons and bloodstained clothes, were recovered.Theprosecution also examined Medical Officers who had treated theinjured accused nos.1, 2 and 3 as well as the Medical Officer who hadexamined the injured eye witness Sandeep Gaikwad.The process ofinvestigation was narrated by PW 19 Police Constable Prakash GovindKamble, PW 21 API Anandrao Tukaram Khobare and PW 22 PIMahadev Shankar Mane, who was the Investigating Officer.We have also heard Mrs. S. V. Sonawane, learnedURS 6 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 7 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docAPP for the State.With their assistance, we have read the entireevidence and have gone through the record and proceedings of thecase.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that theevidence of the eye witnesses is not reliable.The eye witnesses havenot only suppressed the material facts, but there is a clear attempt toimplicate the accused.It was submitted that the evidence of these eyewitnesses was unreliable and untrustworthy and therefore, could nothave formed the basis for conviction.They furthersubmitted that these two witnesses are highly interested witnesses andin fact, have a few serious criminal antecedents against their names.They were close associates of the deceased Rahul Chavan and thus,were on inimical terms with the accused and therefore their evidenceshould be examined with circumspection.Dr. Chaudhary emphasizedthat none of the eye witnesses has explained the serious injuriessuffered by the accused nos.1, 2 and 3 and this factor is sufficient toURS 7 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 8 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.doccreate doubt in respect of their evidence.He further submitted thatthe other circumstances in the nature of the recovery of weapons andclothes were not incriminating and could not form basis forconviction.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::On the other hand, Mrs. Sonawane, learned APP for theState, submitted that the versions of all the eye witnesses wereconsistent.She submitted that they were the natural witnesses andjust because the PW 9 Prakash Kamble and PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwadwere friends of the deceased, their evidence should not be overlooked.She further submitted that PW 10 Vilas Kashid was an independentwitness and there is no reason as to why his evidence should not beaccepted and she further submitted that there are circumstances in thenature of recovery of weapons and motive for commission of offence.Thus, according to her, the prosecution has successfully proved itscase beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, there was no cause forinterference with the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge.PW 14 Dr. Pravin Ganpatrao Naik conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Rahul Chavan.His evidence shows that the deceased had suffered 8 incised woundson the throat, shoulder, hand and chest.The Injury No.1 was 15 cm X4 cm and was muscle deep, above thyroid cartilage, causing injuries tothe big vessels passing through neck.Beside these incised wounds,there were 5 stab wounds on the anterior abdominal wall.All these 5injuries were cavity deep causing perforation of abdominal wallresulting in perforation of the intestine and the cause of death wasgiven as 'haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries'.From hisevidence, it is clear that the deceased has suffered injuries at thehands of more than one person and was assaulted with differentweapons.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::The medical certificate produced at Exh.99 does not describeas to whether the Injury Nos.1 and 3 were grievous because thepatient had left the hospital against the medical advice.Two of theremaining injuries were described as simple injuries.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::PW 15 Dr. Archana Veerendrasing Pawar was working inCity Hospital, Kolhapur.She has deposed about the injuries sufferedby the accused no.1 Suresh Shinde.This accused was initiallyadmitted in C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur at 1.00 p.m. and thereafter gothimself discharged against the medical advice and then was admittedin City Hospital at 3.50 p.m. Dr. Archana Pawar has described the 4injuries suffered by him which are follows :-(i) Incised wound just proximal to the first injury 1 cm X ½ cm, muscle deep,URS 10 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 11 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.doc::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::(ii) Incised wound over left thermo eminence 1 X ½ cm, muscle deep,(iii) Incised wound over left forearm on external aspect 3 X ½ cm, muscle deep,(iv) Small wound over tip of right thumb small piece of nail cut.The first injury mentioned in Injury No.(i) above is mentioned in themedical papers having length of 8 cms on left forearm.The accusedno.1 was in City Hospital from 14/03/2007 till 03/04/2007 and hadundergone surgery for his injury on the left hand.The injury on theleft forearm was 8 cm in length and had cut ends of muscles andtendons.There was active bleeding from the wound when he wasadmitted in the hospital.There was no sensation in the left forearm.On that day itself, all such tendons and muscles were repaired.PW 12 Dr. Mansing Shivaji Bhosale was having his clinicat Gokul Shirgaon.On 14/03/2007, the accused no.2 Pintu Bhaskarand the accused no.3 Anil Bhaskar had gone to his clinic in injuredcondition.They informed this witness that they had fallen from theURS 11 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 12 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docmotorcycle.The accused no.3 Anil Bhaskar had sustained incisedwound over right dorsal of hand measuring 10 cm X 2 cm muscledeep and the accused no.2 Pintu Bhaskar had suffered followinginjuries :-::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::(i) Incised wound over left side of the head measuring 3 X 1 X 1 cm,(ii) Incised wound over rt.wrist and forearm measuring 8 X 2 X muscle deep, and(iii) Incised wound over left forearm extensor aspect measuring 6 X 2 X muscle deep.According to this witness, the injuries were simple.This witness hadnot mentioned in the diary that it was a case of accident.He hasadmitted in the cross-examination that if the injuries suffered by theaccused no.2 were not treated promptly, they would have led tohaemorrhage.From the medical evidence, it is quite clear that thedeceased has died a homicidal death.The core question remains as towho were the authors of the injuries.To answer this question, theURS 12 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 13 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docprosecution has relied on the direct evidence of PW 9 Prakash Kamble,PW 10 Vilas Kashid and PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwad.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::PW 10 Vilas Kashid appears to be an independent witness.Rahul came in his shop to have a shave.PW 9 Prakash Kamble stoodoutside, as all the chairs and a bench in the shop were occupied.PW11 Sandeep Gaikwad, one Ravi Shinde and one Deepak Kamble weresitting on the bench in the saloon.While PW 10 Vilas was giving headmassage to Rahul, all the 5 accused entered the shop.According toVilas, the accused no.1 Suresh was carrying a sword, the accused no.2Pintu was having a Khanjeer, the accused no.3 was having a knife, theaccused no.4 Amol was having a swordstick and the accused no.5Mahadev was having a Jambia in his hand.PW 10 Vilas has furtherdeposed that the accused no.1 Suresh confronted Rahul, as accordingto the accused no.1 Suresh, Rahul had instigated one Ranjeet Kamblein abducting Suresh's daughter.All the accused started assaultingURS 13 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 14 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docRahul with their weapons.When the PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwadintervened, the accused no.3 Anil gave a knife blow below the leftarmpit of PW 11 Sandeep.The accused no.5 Mahadev forced theother persons out of the shop and the accused pulled down the shutterpartially.The accused continued assaulting Rahul and gave blows onthroat, chest, stomach and hands.His throat was slit and intestineswere seen protruding.According to PW 10 Vilas, he lostconsciousness because of the shock.After some time, police came tohis shop.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::This witness's statement was recorded under Section 164of the Cr.P.C. by the Special Judicial Magistrate.There are materialcontradictions and improvements in the deposition of this witness ascompared to his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.This witness was confronted with such improvements andcontradictions.The stand taken by thiswitness is hard to believe as the Special Judicial Magistrate could nothave had any personal interest in distorting his statement.In hisstatement recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, he had statedthat 4 accused came in his shop.he had specifically omitted toURS 14 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 15 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docmention that the accused no.2 Pintu @ Amit was one amongst them.He has further stated in his statement that even the deceased RahulChavan took out his own weapon and that the persons belonging toboth the parties wielded weapons against each other.He has furtherstated in the said statement that he himself had gone to theRajarampuri Police Station where he informed the police about thecommission of murder of the deceased.He had further stated in thatstatement that the police opened his shop on the next day.The learned trial Judge himself had treated hisevidence as not being trustworthy and not being sufficient to fix theguilt of the accused.The discussion in respect of his evidence can befound from paragraphs nos.30 to 35 of the Judgment of the trialCourt.For the same reason, we agree with the learned trial Judgeand it is our opinion also that this witness is not trustworthy and hisevidence cannot be used to reach the conclusion of guilt against theaccused.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::PW 9 Prakash Kamble is another eye witness examined bythe prosecution.He had seen PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwad, Ravi Shinde and DeepakKamble sitting inside the shop.Rahul Chavan was taking headmassage.Around 12.00 p.m to 12.15 p.m., all the 5 accused enteredthe shop with weapons.The accused no.1 was having a sword, theaccused no.2 was having a dagger (Khanjeer), the accused no.3 washaving a knife, the accused no.4 was having a swordstick (gupti) andthe accused no.5 was having a Jambia.They confronted RahulChavan and started assaulting him with their weapons.When PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwad tried to intervene, theaccused no.3 gave a blow with knife on his left armpit.Thereafter,the accused no.5 partially pulled down the shutter of the shop.In thecross-examination, he has stated that though the shutter was partiallypulled down, he had seen the incident in the shop.PW 9 PrakashKamble has further deposed that after the assault, the accused cameout of the shop.The accused no.1 was having injury on his left handand was having a sword.The accused nos.3 and 5 were carrying theirURS 16 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 17 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docweapons but there was no weapon in the hands of the accused no.2Pintu.After the accused left the spot, this witness, along with others,entered the shop to find the deceased lying dead and PW 11 SandeepGaikwad being in injured condition.This witness saw a swordstickand a dagger lying inside the shop.He has stated in his cross-examination that the accused were under the impression that RahulChavan had instigated Ranjeet Kamble to abduct the accused no.1'sdaughter.He had seen the Morcha taken out by the accuseddemanding Rahul's arrest.He has admitted in his cross-examinationthat he was one of the accused along with the aforementioned RanjeetKamble in a criminal case for an offence under Section 307 of the IPCin the past as well as in another case involving offence under Section326 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwad is another important eye witnesswho himself was injured in the incident.He has narrated the incidentin almost the same manner as narrated by the PW 9 Prakash Kamble.After the incident, his brother had come to the shop and had takenhim to C.P.R. Hospital.The police had gone to C.P.R. Hospital andhad recorded his statement which was treated as the FIR.In the cross-examination, he hasadmitted that he was a co-accused with the deceased Rahul Chavan ina case registered under Section 307 of the IPC.Both PW 9 and PW 11were also co-accused in a case pertaining to the murder of the accusedno.3 Anil in the present case.Thus, it can be seen that these twowitnesses PW 9 and PW 11 were close associates of the deceasedRahul Chavan.Though on this count alone, their evidence does notbecome doubtful, at the same time, their evidence needs to bescrutinized with greater care and circumspection.Since PW 11 wasinjured in the incident, his presence at the spot at the time of theincident is established.However, the presence at the spot at the timeof the incident, by itself, does not establish the truthfulness of hisversion.Undoubtedly, during the incident, the injured PW 11Sandeep Gaikwad and the deceased Rahul Chavan had sufferedinjuries with sharp weapons.At the same time, it cannot beoverlooked that the accused nos.1, 2 and 3 themselves had sufferedserious injuries at the time of the incident.From the medical evidencebrought on record by the prosecution, it is clear enough that theinjuries suffered by the accused were not minor injuries.The accusedno.1 had suffered a serious injury on his left hand causing cutting ofURS 18 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 19 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.dochis muscles, tendons and blood veins.He was in the hospital foralmost 20 days and had to undergo a procedure for repair of hismuscles, tendons and veins.The accused no.2 had suffered a headinjury besides two other injuries.The Medical Officer has opined thatif the injuries were not treated promptly, haemorrhage could havebeen caused.The injuries suffered by the accused shows that theseinjuries could not have been caused by the victim in his own defence.The injuries indicate that somebody had assaulted them with forceand with the intention to attack.If the evidence of the eye witnessesis taken into account, their versions nowhere explain the attack andassault on these accused.The nature ofthe injuries clearly indicates that they could not have been caused ifthe incident had taken place in the manner narrated by the eyewitnesses.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::In para 11 of the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has heldthus :-::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::......... "It seems to us that in a murder case, the non- explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences:(1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one." ......According to theURS 20 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 21 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docaccused no.1, at about 12.30 p.m. on 14/03/2007, he had gone to K.K. Hair Dressers.That time, Rahul Chavan was already sitting in oneof the chairs.Rahul Chavan confronted the accused no.1 and startedabusing.According to the accused no.1, Rahul Chavan picked up aKhanjeer kept on the table in front of him and gave a blow on his lefthand.PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwad pushed him inside and gave a blowwith a sharp weapon.At that time, crowd gathered in front of theshop and the accused no.1 rescued himself and went to the policestation.He gave his complaint to the police which was written down.According to the accused no.1, he had even signed on that complaint.Thereafter, he was sent to C.P.R. Hospital, Kolhapur.Insofar as thefact that the accused no.1 having approached the police station andhaving given his complaint is concerned, we shall discuss this aspectafterwards.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::Even the accused no.2 has given his own version.Heclaimed to have been present in the marriage ceremony near K. K.Hair Dressers.He heard noise of quarrel and he rushed there to findRahul and Sandeep assaulting the accused no.1 with sharp weapons.According to the accused no.2, he tried to intervene and at that time,Rahul and Sandeep assaulted him.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::Applying the ratio of the Judgment in the case of LakshiSingh (supra), we find that the prosecution witnesses have utterlyfailed to explain the serious injuries suffered by the accused persons.All the eye witness i.e. PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 claimed to have seenthe entire incident from beginning to end and yet, there is no whisperto explain as to how the accused had suffered these injuries.Going bythe versions of these three eye witnesses, the deceased and the PW 10were helpless victims and had no weapons with them.Going by theversions of all these eye witnesses, it is hard to understand as to howthe accused could have suffered these injuries with fierce blows.Therefore, we do not find it fit to rely on the evidence of these threeeye witnesses.We are of the considered opinion that the prosecutionhas suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has,thus, not presented the true version, particularly in the light of thefact that the PW 9 and the PW 11 were close associates of thedeceased and hence were on inimical terms with the accused.Therefore, in our opinion, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of Lakshmi Singh (supra) is clearly applicable infavour of the accused in the instant case.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::Besides this direct evidence of eye witnesses, theprosecution has relied on seizure and recovery of clothes, weaponsand motorcycle at the instance of the accused.According to this witness,after the memorandum statement of the accused no.1 was recorded bythe police, the accused took the panchas and the police to his houseand produced a sword and clothes from under a staircase.Thesearticles were seized by the police.Neither in his substantive evidencenor in the memorandum panchanama recorded under Section 27,there is a mention of the place where the accused no.1 is stated tohave concealed the clothes and the weapons.Therefore, it cannot besaid that the statement given by the accused led to the recovery ofthese articles.The cross-examination of this witness shows that thestaircase was outside of the house.Therefore, the place below thestaircase was accessible to all.Thereafter, he was arrested.Therefore, looking at thenature of his injuries, it is difficult to believe that after the incident, hefound time to go to his house and conceal the weapons and theclothes before reaching the police station.It is also important to notethat from the date of the incident till the alleged recovery, the policehad not taken search of his house.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::His evidence also shows that no specificplace was mentioned in the memorandum statement of these accused.The accused no.2 had produced the clothes and a Khanjeer from anopen place near Jawahar Nagar.These articles were kept below driedleaves.This place was open and accessible to all.As theaccused no.3 had expired and had not faced the trial, we are nottaking into consideration this piece of evidence against him.Moreover, the prosecution has not established that these clothes andthe said weapon were having blood of the deceased on them.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::PW 4 Kailas Pralhad Shinde was examined as a pancha inwhose presence clothes of the accused no.4 and a piece of seat coverof his Hero Honda motorcycle were seized.According to this witness,at the time of arrest on 14/03/2007, the accused no.4 Amol Bhaskarproduced his clothes and the motorcycle.The clothes and the seatcover of the motorcycle were stained with blood.PW 7 Bhanudas Dhondiram Salokhe was examined as apancha in whose presence the accused no.5 Mahadev had made astatement leading to seizure of his clothes.Again, in hismemorandum statement, the place where the articles were concealed,is not mentioned.The panchanama shows that the clothes wereseized from under a box kept in front of his own house.In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that this box was accessible toURS 25 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 26 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docall.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::Considering the above aspect, we do not find that theevidence on recovery of clothes and weapons are incriminating piecesof evidence against any accused.The prosecution has examined PW20 Ranjeet Maruti Kamble to establish the motive.This witness hadabducted the accused no.1's daughter and if at all, the accused no.1would have held grudge against this witness, more than against thedeceased Rahul Chavan.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::Hospital, Kolhapur.While it is understandable that this witness couldbe concerned for the accused no.1's health, it is hard to understand asto why no efforts were made to record his complaint even thereafterthough he was in a position to give a statement.On the contrary, hisFIR was recorded on 25/03/2007 and the offence was registered videC.R.No.42 of 2007 under Section 325 of the IPC.This FIR is full ofinculpatory statements in the nature of confession more than anycomplaint.Though this statement is inadmissible, it shows that thepolice dishonestly did not record his complaint immediately when hehad reached the police station at the first instance and instead, hisstatement was recorded on 25/03/2007 which was confessional innature.From the record, it does appear that the police were aware at12.30 p.m. itself that some serious incident involving murder hadtaken place.The evidence of PW 22 PI Mane shows that the policehad gone to the spot of incident at K. K. Hair Dressers in JawaharNagar and that many people had gathered there.Rahul Chavan waslying dead in the shop and yet police did not record statement of anyof the persons present at the spot.No spot panchanama wasconducted.Instead, the police waited till 2.50 p.m. to register theoffence after the PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwad gave his statement at 2.50URS 27 of 29 ::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 ::: 28 APEAL 216-10 @ APEAL 179-11 Judgment.docp.m.in the C.P.R. Hospital.The station diary entry of RajarampuriPolice Station of the relevant time i.e. at 2.50 p.m. on 14/07/2007mentioning registration of the FIR is produced on record at Exh.119.This entry at Sr.No.24 was made in connection with the FIR given bythe PW 11 Sandeep Gaikwad.Curiously, apart from these 5 accused,the entry mentions 2 more names of Vinod Sonawane and Anil Pol asthe accused.The FIR at Exh.91 makes no reference to these twoaccused.Thus, we find that there is manipulation of the record rightfrom the beginning and the investigation was not carried outimpartially.Therefore, taking into account all the aforementionedaspects, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has notproved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt andtherefore, the accused deserve to be acquitted.As a result, theseAppeals deserve to be allowed and the accused are entitled foracquittal.Hence, the following order :::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::The Appeals are allowed.The Judgment and Order dated 12/11/2009 of conviction and sentence are set aside.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::The accused are acquitted of all the charges, charged with.The Appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2018 00:00:46 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,724,305 |
A distraught daughter-in-law, battered and tortured in the hands of her in-laws, seeks to countermand the order No. 2 dated 24.7.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore in Criminal Misc.Next, he submitted that the respondent having obtained an order of regular bail from the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah after the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore has granted him the anticipatory bail, the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be interfered with.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,773,352 |
The gist of the report was as follows: 6.2.Podhumbu is a small village coming under the Madurai West Taluk.Itcomprises of around 3000 families, most of them were poor agricultural coolies.The village has got a co-education high school, in which around 500 children arestudying.The school has got 4 male teachers and 6 female teachers.The committeehad visited the village on 18.7.2011 and interviewed around 30 girl children andtheir parents.They also went to the dalit colony of the village.The girlchildren who passed out from the school were also enquired by them.Apart fromthat, political leaders, AIDWA representatives and woman self help groups werealso interviewed.6.3.The committee found that the said Arockiasamy was abusing the girlchildren for over three years.When some of the girl children were not keepingwell, they used to go to the rest room.The said Arockiasamy used to go insidethe room and used to press their breast as if putting a cross on them so as toget well soon.He used to call the girl children to his room for washing histiffin box and used to make them to sit on his lap after unzipping his pant'sply.He used to insert his hand inside the dress of the children in the name offorecasting their future.The girl children were made to clean his room.He usedto take pictures in his cell phone in different angles when they bend theirbodies while at work.Further, he used to bring the girl children to his roomand give a bear hug.Likewise, they suffered innumerable abuses at the hands ofthe said Headmaster.The committee noted the experiences faced by severalchildren.Due to the sensitivity of the issue, they did not name the children intheir report.The committee also found that when children made complaints toother teachers, they casually stated that these incidents were reported to thembefore and there was a long delay in making the complaints.They also added asteachers working under the headmaster, they could have hardly done anythingabout it.6.4.It was also found that when students complained to Amala Rose (who isnone other then the niece of the Headmaster Arockiasamy), she told then thatthey should adjust with the Headmaster.If they go and tell outside, theirfuture will be spoiled.The fact finding committee found that between 2009-2011,around 100 girl children were affected by the sexual abuses made by theheadmaster.He had also taken their pictures in wrong angles when the childrencleaning the floor and doing Yoga.He also touched the inner part of thechildren.Unmindful of their age, he had satisfied his lust by hugging them andby doing bizarre acts.Even in the presence of the other students, he hadcommitted such acts.The children who went to the rest room were also not sparedby him.He threatened them that he would fail them in the examination and writeadverse report in the transfer certificate.Even a girl child who came alongwith her blind grand mother for school admission was sexually abused.Some girlchildren unable to bear his abuses had left the school.Most of them werepsychologically affected by his conduct.Even some children were unable tounderstand the impact of his activities.The State Government should appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, who isa woman.The enquiry should be completed within six months.The identities ofthe victim children should not be revealed to outside world.If necessary, theinvestigation should be conducted through video conferencing.Departmentalactions should also be taken against the Headmaster Arockiasamy and teacherAmali Rose.The investigation must inspire the confidence of the local peopleand the girl children.All the teachers working in the school should beimmediately transferred out of the school and new female teachers should beappointed.It is campaigned and engineered by a memberof one political party.She has been falsely implicated.She had also statedthat she was transferred to an another school in M.Kallupatti which is 50 Kmsaway.In paragraph 8 she had stated that even if such incident had happened, shewas not aware of any such incident and that no victim girl has ever approachedher seeking for help.8.3.The 8th respondent Shanmuga Kumarasamy, an another teacher whose namewas also figured in the FIR and who was also transferred from the presentstation to Severakkottai Government High School, in his counter affidavit, dated14.12.2011, had stated that he has been falsely implicated.To his knowledge, nosuch incident had happened.Even assuming such incident had happened, he was notaware of the same.Therefore, it was for him to advise his client accordingly.Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner made oral submissions denying theincident and chose not to file any counter affidavit.8.5.In the counter affidavit filed by the Chief Educational Officer,Madurai, dated 09.12.2011 after admitting various incidents that took place inthe Podhumbu village, he had stated that out of 261 students studying in theschool, 107 are girl children and there was also local demonstration in front ofthe school.One Gnanagowri, who was the District Elementary Educational Officer,was deputed to enquire into the incident.During the enquiry made by her, shefound prima facie evidence of misbehaviour against the headmaster.Thereafter,she sent a report dated 13.7.2011 finding that sexual misbehaviour of theheadmaster was found true.The proceedings were forwarded to the Director ofSchool Education.The Director of School Education had placed the saidArockiasamy under suspension under the relevant Government Rules.Panju, W/oChinnaveeran (mother of student Irulayee @Aarthy).3.It is humbly submitted that whereas the allegation made in Paragraph VIof the affidavit that the petitioner and his associates met myself viz., 3rdrespondent, Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and explained about theissue and that the 3rd respondent was apathetic and simply instructed them tomeet the local DSP is not based on logic and is nothing but a creation of theirown mind.If any petitioner comes to meet me, after listening to the problem Iwill always tell them to meet the concerned jurisdiction officers.However inthis case since the issue seemed more serious to me I referred them to meet theDy.Of Police and not to the Police Station.It is also humbly statedthat Police bandobust was provided as per the request of the victims to instillconfidence among them.Moreover in this regard, Mrs.Maria Glory, Inspector ofPolice, AWPS Thirumangalam being a lady officer was specially designated by mefor investigating this case."9.1.The report submitted by the Child Welfare Committee, Madurai and TheniDistricts was produced to this court pursuant to the interim order passed bythis Court.The committee found that the children were psychologically affectedand they were tensed when they described the conduct of the headmasterArockiasamy.They were having the feeling of shame.Their self esteem was low.They were suffering from inferiority complex.They were crying in silence.The teachers were alsointerviewed by the committee.The committee found that there was long gapbetween the teachers and students.Some of the teachers have reacted militantlywhich showed that these teachers continuance in the said school is not good forthe mental health of the children.Even the Office Assistant should also beremoved and transferred to some other school.The teachers could not givesatisfactory reply to the long standing complaints of the students.Thecommittee also made other recommendations for improving the school and to takepreventive measures.This report of the Child Welfare Committee was supportedby the report submitted by the Psychologist attached to the Madurai SocialScience College.10.Tardy Investigation :10.1.In this context, the investigation file produced by the police showedthat already statements have been recorded from several girl children and theirparents under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Subsequent to take over of investigationby the new Investigating Officer, only attempt was made to secure Arockiasamywho moved this court for getting bail.His mobile phone was also seized and hasbeen sent for forensic studies.11.In the light of these backgrounds, it has to be seen whether thereliefs claimed by the petitioner can be granted by this Court?12.Change of investigation Agency :12.1.In this case, admittedly, number of school children belonged to SCcommunity were sexually exploited by the headmaster of the school.U.Nirmala Rani, Advocate for effective adjudication ofthe case.The excellent service rendered by Mr.Asra Garg, IPS, Superintendent ofPolice, Madurai for his readiness to comply with the directions and also tomonitor the case continuously until it reaches its conclusion, is highlyappreciated.1.State of Tamilnadu, represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.2.District Collector, Madurai District, Collectorate, Madurai.3.Superintendent of Police, O/o.Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.4.Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudhur Police Station, Koodal Pudhur, Madurai.5.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District.6.Director, Directorate of Social Welfare, Chepauk, Chennai.7.Investigating Officer/Inspector of Police, All women Police Station, Samayanallur, Madurai District.confirmed by the fact finding committee :6.1.On coming to know about the widespread sexual abuse perpetrated in theschool by the Headmaster, a fact finding team was constituted comprising of therepresentatives of the women's organization, certain Non GovernmentalOrganizations including a Medical Doctor, two Advocates of the Madurai Bench ofthe Madras High Court.The committed was headed by Ms.U.Nirmala Rani, presentcounsel for the petitioner.The teacher Amala Rose, who wasactively in connivance with Arockiasamy and the other teachers who were in theknow of things, were unable to protect the children from the harassment done bythe headmaster.The children have gone through untold miseries and theirexperiences were similar to that of a prison camp.One boy who was not good instudy was kept as a helper by the Headmaster.He had also inflicted corporalpunishments to the extent of breaking their hands.6.5.The committee also recommended the arrest of the headmaster and alsoto investigate the matter under the supervision of a Deputy Superintendent ofPolice (woman).The children should be examined at their own houses and shouldnot be brought to the police station.In order to know their trauma andconsidering the sensitivity, an enquiry should take place.It should not beconducted like a regular criminal investigation.When the investigation is on,one woman lawyer and a representative of a women's organization should bepresent.The children who were affected by sexual abuses, must be suitablycompensated and appropriate counseling should be given.Apart from these, thecommittee also made general recommendations for future guidance.On the basis ofthe report, the first writ petition was filed by a parent of a girl child asnoted already.7.Change of Investigation Agency sought :7.1.In the second writ petition, the same petitioner has further statedthat the Child Welfare Committee which is a statutory body has also probed thevery same incident and filed a report more or less supporting the findings ofthe fact finding team lead by U.Nirmala Rani.The investigation was given to oneInspector of Police Ms.Maria Glory.The officers of the All women Police Stationhave also tampered the investigation.The said Maria Glory was relieved of theinvestigation as she had insensitively handled the child witnesses.It has nowbeen entrusted to an another investigating officer.The victims and theirparents were unable to withstand the hazards they faced in bringing out theincident.Apartfrom grant of compensation to the girl children who were abused by theheadmaster, necessary constitutional safeguards should be made.8.Denial by defendants :8.1.In the counter affidavit, dated Nil (September, 2011) filed by thefirst respondent State, with reference to formation of Child Welfare Committeein terms of Commission for Protection of Child Right Act, 2005, it was averredin paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows:"2.It is submitted that regarding the direction of the Hon'ble High Courtthat is to file a report to Hon'ble High Court as to whether a State Commissionin terms of Commission for protection of Child Right Act 2005, has beenconstituted, it is humbly submitted that the subject matter for constitution ofState Commission in terms of Commission for Protection of Child Right Act 2005is dealt by the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department in theGovernment of Tamil Nadu and that department also has stated that the proposalto constitute State Commission for Protection of Child Rights is underconsideration of the Government in Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal ProgrammeDepartment.3.In the above circumstances, it is reported that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased t o not that the Government of Tamil Nadu is pursuing the matter toconstitute State Commission for protection of Child Rights under Child Right Act2005."8.2.In this case since serious allegations were made against theheadmaster of the school Arockiasamy and teachers Amalirose and ShanmugaKumarasamy, counter affidavits have been filed by those two teachers.The 7threspondent Amalirose in her counter affidavit, dated 14.12.2011, apart fromdenying the events, had stated that her parents, her husband, sister, brother,brother-in-law and sister-in-law are also working as teachers in variousschools.The problems faced by the students if they gave it in writing includingtheir problem at home, are being attended to by giving counselling to them.Theallegations were made with motive.He was notavailable in the village, but the order was pasted on his door with the help ofthe Village Administrative Officer.The other departmental action has also beentaken against the staff.The teachers Amali Rose and Shanmuga Kumararasamy werealso transferred on 02.09.2011 to far away places, so that victim girl childrenwill be assured that they will not be harassed.The school has got only newlyappointed teachers who are taking classes to 6th to 10th standards.The girlstudents who were studying in the school at that time were also givencounselling by the Doctors of the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.Now, thegirl students have come out of the bad incident and the newly appointed teachersare trying their best to bring the girl children to normal life.8.6.In the counter affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police,Madurai District Mr.Asra Garg, I.P.S., he had averred in paragraphs 2 and 3 asfollows:"2.I submit that on 13.07.2011 the petitioner and some other parents ofgirl students studying in Higher Secondary School of Pothumbu picketed the roaddemanding action against the Head Master of this School Tr.Arockiasamy foralleged sexual harassment of girl children at around 11.30 hours.It issubmitted that the neither the petitioner nor any other parent of affectedchildren had not given any complaint before resorting to road picketing.Subsequently, after the issue came to my notice I instructed the concernedStation House Officer, Koodalpudur PS to look into the issue immediately.No.331/2011 u/s 354, 506 IPC and 4 of Tamil NaduProhibition of Harassment of Women Act 1998 was registered on 13.07.2011 itselfon the complaint of Tmt.8.7.A copy of the order dated 28.08.2011 transferring the investigatingofficer and nominating one Suriyakala, Inspector of Police, AWPS, Samayanallur,as in-charge of the investigation was also produced.Manya time, in order to avoid others noticing, they were crying in the nights.Somechildren were suppressing their sorrow as they did not have either of theparents.When they start for the school, the anxiety about what was going tohappen to them that day is writ large on their faces.When Arockiasamy wasmisbehaving with them, they were also anxious as to any one else had noticedthem.Most of the time, they were found in self isolation not mixing up withother children.There was lack of concentration in their studies and fear ofsharing these events either in the school or in the house.They were also afraidthat even if the parents came to know, they may stop them from attending theschool.9.2.The committee also found that one girl who was suffering due topressing of her breasts by Arockiasamy unable to tell her aunt and went throughuntold sufferings.Even if they wereignorant due to tender age, it will affect them in their married life.It may belikely that in future the boys who had seen these acts may indulge in suchperverted acts.Some girl children belonged to poor SC community, either theyhad no parents or they were with single parent, they alone were picked up byArockiasamy to satisfy his lust.9.3.The girl children also gave it in writing by stating that suchincidents should not happen to any girl children.The Criminal Justice Act, 1982 made it possible for thefirst time to make a compensation order as the sole penalty.These developmentssignified a major shift in penological thinking, reflecting the growingimportance attached to restitution and reparation over the more narrowlyretributive aims of conventional punishment.The Criminal Justice Act, 1988furthered this shift.(i) the provision for adequate facilities, including legal aid, to the personssubjected to atrocities to enable them to avail themselves of justice;(ii) omitted(iii) the provision for the economic and social rehabilitation of the victims ofthe atrocities;"12.Measures to be taken by the District Administration.-(4)The District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any otherExecutive Magistrate shall make arrangements for providing immediate relief incash or in kind or both to the victims of atrocity, their family members anddependents according to the scale as in the Schedule annexed to these rules(Annexure I read with Annexure II).Such immediate relief shall also includefood, water, clothing, shelter, medical aid, transport facilities and otheressential items necessary for human beings.1 to 10 omitted11 Outraging the modesty of a woman } Rs.50,000/- to each victim of [section 3(1)(xi)] } the offence.17.2.Fortunately, the Commission for protection of Child Right Act, 2005anticipated such acts and Section 15(3) enables the Commission makesrecommendation for grant of interim relief to victims or their families as thecommission may consider.It is necessary to extract Sections 13 and 24 of theAct, 2005, which reads as follows :"13.Functions of Commission.- (1)The Commission shall perform all or any of thefollowing functions, namely:-(a) and (b) omitted(a)references to "Commission" shall be construed as references to "StateCommission";U.Nirmal Rani, Advocate of the Madurai Bench of MadrasHigh Court, Madurai, the report given by the Child Welfare Committee, Maduraiand Theni Districts and also Section 161(3) statements given by the children andtheir parents to the then Investigating Officer and prepare the initially reportof those names.There may be other children who have not come forward to make acomplaint.In such case, if any complaint is made directly to the DistrictCollector, even those complaints can be entertained by him and awardcompensation after finding the veracity of the complaints and if there is anyprima facie case, not only the District Collector should grant compensation, butalso refer those complaints for further investigation by the InvestigatingOfficer.Asra Garg, IPS to be present in the court.The saidOfficer had showed utmost sensitivity to the issue and had agreed that he willabide by directions issued by this court.Therefore, the Superintendent ofPolice Mr.Asra Garg, IPS is issued with the following directions.18.2.He must nominate an officer not below the rank of the DeputySuperintendent of Police (a woman officer) to take over the investigation andproceed to file a final report as early as possible.In any event within twomonths from the date of receipt of copy of this order.18.5.He should recommend to the State Government the name of the SpecialPublic Prosecutor to be appointed in this case as noted in para 15 of thisorder.19.Both writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.Themiscellaneous petition stands closed.The parties are allowed to bear their owncosts.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,697,762 |
(2) Facts of the case, in brief, are that Public Witness 2 Vidyawati, widow of deceased Ram Narain, was living in house No.T-5316, Block 8A, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, at the relevant time.Her deceased husband had three step brothers, namely, Gopal Krishan and the two appellants and those step brothers were living with their real mother Smt.Sheila Devi in the adjoining house.The deceased was a three wheeler scooter driver.It appears that the relations between Vidyawati and her husband on the one side and three step brothers of Ram Narain and their real mother on the other side were not happy.It is alleged that on August 13, 1986, at about 9 Am in the morning Smt.Sheila Devi had picked up a quarrel with Vidyawati Public Witness 2 on the question of water being poured in the drain from the roof/terrace of the house of Vidyawati but certain residents in the neighborhood intervened and pacified the parties.Nanak Chand Public Witness 7, who is cousin of Public Witness 2, is having a milk dairy business at premises No.T-5311 & 5335 on the main road while the houses of Public Witness 2 and of the appellants are located in a lane and those houses are not visible from the spot where allegedly the murder of Ram Narain had taken place and that is the spot near the premises of Nanak Chand.The story of prosecution proceeds that about 6 Pm on that very day the appellants had come out of their house after they were informed about the morning incident by Smt.Sheila Devi and they had started hurling abuses at Vidyawati and her husband Ram Narain.Nanak Chand and Smt.Vidhyawati had taken Ram Narain to Ganga Ram Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter of Janak Raj Public Witness 14, who is the real son of Nanak Chand.J.P.N.Gupta, who was working in Ganga Ram Hospital at that time, had prepared the Mlc Ex.PW13/A at 7.35 Pm and had mentioned that Ram Narain had been brought by Nanak Chand and others with alleged stabbing by a knife ten minutes back after a quarrel and on examination of Ram Narain he found him comatose and gasping and pulse not palpable, blood pressure not recordable and he found following two injuries:(1)incised wound 3" horizontal near 10th theraec vertibra over paravertibral area deep; (2) incised wound 1-1/2" over paravertibral region to the left near 12th theraec vertibra.Gopal Kishan is not named as an eye- witness in the Fir though the said Fir appears to have been ante timed and appears to have been not recorded at the time it purports to have been recorded.Gopal Kishan also contradicts his mother by stating that it was his mother who on return from the hospital informed that his father had died whereas Vidyawati has deposed that it was Nanak Chand who on return from the hospital informed her at the house that her husband had died.Gopal Kishan had also deposed that police had arrived at the place of occurrence within half an hour of the incident and at that time his mother was present in the house and not in the hospital.JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Shri Shyam Sunder and Shri Raj Kumar, the two real brothers, have been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, having caused the murder of their step brother Ram Narain vide judgment dated February 28, 1992, of an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and vide subsequent order of even date, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.50.00 each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one day.Shyam Sunder has been also convicted of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.50.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one day.Both these convicts have challenged their convictions and sentences by filing the present appeal.Nanak Chand and some other residents of the locality are stated to have intervened and persuaded the appellants to go back to their house.(3) It is then alleged that on the same day at about 7 P.M. the two appellants came out of their house while Shyam Sunder gave an exhortation uttering the words "Raju Pakar Ram Narain Ko, Aaj Iska Kam Tamam Kar Dein" meaning thereby asking Raju to catch hold of Ram Narain, whose life would be put to end then and there.Shyam Sunder is stated to have been armed with a dagger at that time.On Raj Kumar-appellant catching hold of Ram Narain from the front, Shyam Sunder-appellant is stated to have stabbed twice Ram Narain on his back.Ram Narain had fallen on the ground while bleeding from his wounds and the appellants had made their escape from the place of occurrence.He tried resuscitation for some minutes and then declared Ram Narain dead at about 7.50PM.(4) Si K.Lal Public Witness 8 on that day was posted in Police Control Room (for short 'PCR') and at 8.02 Pm he had received information from one Shri Malhotra that some persons have been injured in a dispute in house No.70, Block 8A in Western Extension Area which was recorded at D.D.No.180 of Pcr and he had forwarded the information to Police Station Karol Bagh.It was recorded at Daily Diary No.15A, copy of which is Ex.PW3/E in Police Station Karol Bagh.It has been mentioned that Shri Malhotra had given the information from his telephone No.5711372, copy of this report is stated to have been given to Constable Balbir Singh for handing over the same to Si Lakhmi Chand Public Witness 15, who is stated to have already proceeded to the spot as well as to the hospital.It appears that prior to this report at 7.50 Pm Dr.J.P.N.Gupta had rung up Police Station Karol Bagh and had given the information about Ram Narain being brought by Nanak Chand and who had already died in the hospital.This entry was made in Daily Diary No.14A, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A. Copy of this Daily Diary report was given to Si Lakhmi Chand, who is stated to have proceeded to the spot accompanied by Constable Babu Ram.(5) PW15 Lakhmi Chand had come to the hospital and after collecting the Mlc of Ram Narain he met Nanak Chand who was present in the hospital and proceeded to record his statement Ex.PW3/C on the basis of which the F.I.R. was recorded at the Police Station Karol Bagh at 9.10 PM.It was not mentioned in this statement that Vidyawati had also come to the hospital in the said scooter although it was recorded that Vidyawati and others have also witnessed the occurrence.Si Lakhmi Chand had not found Vidyawati at the hospital.(7) The names of Public Witness 9 Babu Lal and Gopal Public Witness 13 as an eye witnesses do not find mention in the F.I.R. The further case of the prosecution is that Si Mohinder Singh Public Witness 16 had arrested the appellant-Shyam Sunder on August 14, 1986, at about 9 P.M. when he was lying on a cot at Papa Ki Dairy, Ganda Nalla, Punjabi Bagh and he had made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept the weapon of offence under the pillow which was reduced into writing which is Ex.(8) Unfortunately for the prosecution the said knife is not linked with the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased.According to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased could be possible only by a double edged weapon and not by the weapon Ex.P4 which was single- edged weapon.(9) The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, contended that none of these persons were actually the eye-witnesses and in this case the recording of the F.I.R. has been delayed to concoct a false story to implicate the appellants inasmuch as the F.I.R. is purported to have been recorded on August 13, 1986 and at 9.10 Pm i.e. within two hours or so of the occurrence but the special report Along with copy of the F.I.R. Ex.PW3/D was received by the Metropolitan Magistrate on August 14, 1986, at about 7 A.M. and in the substance recorded in Daily Diary No.19A pertaining to the recording of the present F.I.R. neither the names of the eye-witnesses nor the names of the culprits have been incorporated which was the requirement of the law.(10) So, it is urged that there was ample time gained by the Investigating Officer to concoct this F.I.R. when it was in all probability not known to the Investigating Officer as to who had witnessed the occurrence and our attention has been also drawn to the sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer Ex.PW16/D and also to the sketch map prepared later on which show that the occurrence had not taken place just outside the house of the deceased but had taken place on the main road and from the place of occurrence the house of the deceased was not even visible and in sketch Ex.PW16/D Gopal is not shown as eye-witness.He has also pointed out various material discrepancies appearing in the statements of the eye-witnesses, which according to him, would lead to inference that in fact they were not the eye-witnses of the occurrence.(11) The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that it is true that eye witnesses are relations of the deceased but has urged that alone is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution version and if the statements of the said witnesses are examined closely and in detail it would be clear that they are most truthful witnesses and had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in this crime.He has urged that there is no reason for them to have allowed the real culprits to go scot free and unnecessarily falsely implicate the appellants.He has urged that Shyam Sunder-appellant appears to be a very clever person and in order to mislead the investigating agency he has substituted the weapon of offence and no blame can be attached to the prosecution for such substitution of the weapon of offence on the part of the culprit.He has urged that the Additional Sessions Judge was right in placing implicit reliance on the statements of the eye-witnesses and even if Babu Lal and Gopal are not believed to have witnessed the occurrence, there is no reason not to believe Nanak Chand and Vidyawati because they were the persons who had taken the deceased to the hospital.(12) We have gone through the statements of all the witnesses.There are certain very material discrepancies which have appeared in the statements of Vidyawati and Nanak Chand.Vidyawati was not present in the hospital at the time the Investigating Officer is stated to have reached the hospital.The Investigating Officer had not met Vidyawati at the hospital.According to him, he met only Nanak Chand and recorded his statement which is the basis of the F.I.R. Vidyawati has stated that she had gone to the hospital with Nanak Chand when her husband was taken to the hospital and after her husband had been admitted in the hospital she came back to her house and she did not know at that time whether her husband had succumbed to his injuries or not.It is only Nanak Chand who came to her house from the hospital who informed her that her husband had died and thereafter she again went to the hospital.Conduct of Public Witness 1 in this respect does not appear to be normal one.Her husband was in a very serious condition and was got admitted in hospital and he had died in the hospital soon after at 7.50 P.M.. It is not possible to believe that she would go back to her house without first knowing about the condition of her husband in the hospital.On the other hand, Nanak Chand had deposed that he alone had come back from the hospital after getting the deceased admitted and when he met Vidyawati at the house, it is Vidyawati who told him that Ram Narain had died.If that is the correct state of affairs, it is not understood how Nanak Chand could have given any statement to the police in the hospital which was the basis of the F.I.R. because according to him he had come back from the hospital and then he gave the statement to the police.(13) Both Nanak Chand and Vidyawati state that their clothes had become blood stained when they helped the deceased in taking him to the hospital in a three- wheeler scooter and they had shown their blood stained clothes to the police but the Investigating Officer had deposed that it had never come to his notice that clothes of Nanak Chand and Vidyavati had become blood stained.No such clothes had been admittedly taken into possession by the police.There are some discrepancies as to in what manner deceased was caught by Raj Kumar.Vidyawati deposed in court that Raj Kumar had caught the deceased from collar from the front side when Shyam Sunder stabbed the deceased twice on his back whereas Nanak Chand deposed that Raj Kumar grappled with the deceased and had caught hold of him by putting his right arm around the deceased and when he was parallel to the deceased that Shyam Sunder stabbed the deceased in the back.Nanak Chand had gone to the extent of deposing that Ex.P4 is the same knife with which Shyam Sunder had stabbed the deceased.(14) It is true that in the M.L.C. prepared at the hospital it is duly recorded that Nanak Chand had brought the deceased but the question is whether Nanak Chand was the eye-witness of the occurrence.The deceased had been brought to the hospital in a three- wheeler scooter of Nanak Chand's son.Nanak Chand's son had not witnessed the occurrence.(16) The doctor, who had prepared the M.L.C., had given a telephonic message to the police also.So, it cannot be said that he had inserted the name of Nanak Chand at any later point of time.Of course, he did not know Nanak Chand and Nanak Chand's son admittedly had brought the deceased to the hospital.It could be that the three-wheeler driver Nanak Chand's son in order to not being involved as a witness in the case supplied the name of his father as the person who got admitted the deceased in the hospital when obviously he did not know the name of the culprits who had stabbed the deceased.(17) Nanak Chand has deposed that Shyam Sunder- appellant was arrested at 1 A.M. whereas the Investigating Officer had stated that he was arrested at 5 P.M. It is evident that the knife which had been got recovered by the police was not the weapon with which the injuries had been inflicted on the deceased and that would lead to the only one inference that this knife had been planted by the Investigating Officer and this inference becomes stronger when we find material discrepancy appearing in the statement of Nanak Chand and the Investigating Officer with regard to the time of arrest of Shyam Sunder.(18) In the present case, as already narrated above, the police has not followed the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Delhi Police Rules in regard to prompt recording of the F.I.R. The substance of the F.I.R. which should include the names of the accused and the names of the eye-witnesses was admittedly not recorded in the Daily Diary at the time F.I.R. purported to have been recorded.The special report to the Metropolitan Magistrate was not sent promptly and reached him after much delay.The inquest proceedings were not carried out by the Investigating Officer promptly and were held over for the next day.No explanations have been given by the prosecution for all these lapses.(19) In Surinder Kumar & Others Vs State, , the recording of the F.I.R. was found to be deliberately delayed and there were no mention of the substance containing the names of the accused and the names of the eye-witnesses in the Daily Diary and there was also delay in sending the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and coupled with other facts appearing in that case the court doubted the prosecution case holding that in all probability the case has been brought in existence after due deliberation between the alleged eye-witnesses and the Investigating Officer.(20) In Bhimappa Jinnappa Naganur Vs State of Karnataka, 1993(3) Crimes 411, it was found that eye- witnesses were not named in the F.I.R. It was held that it was quite doubtful that said persons could have witnessed the occurrence when they belatedly become eye-witnesses.(23) Reference may be also given to Balwant Singh Vs State, 1976 C.L.R. (Delhi) 41, wherein again the emphasis was laid on compliance of the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which require the substance of the Fir to be recorded in Daily Diary and Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police Rules Volume Iii which require the sending of the special report promptly to the higher authorities including Illaqa Magistrate and to the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which require preparation of the inquest report promptly and for sending of the dead body Along with the inquest papers to the doctor for post-mortem without any delay.He rules out the possibility of Nanak Chand and Vidyawati accompanying him to the hospital.If that is so, the story built up by the prosecution that police had met Nanak Chand in the hospital and recorded his statement which is the basis of Fir, after the information was received from the hospital regarding Ram Narain being brought to the hospital and being declared dead, falls to the ground because according to Gopal Kishan police had arrived at the spot within half an hour of the incident meaning thereby that even before the statement of Nanak Chand was recorded in the hospital.(26) It is significant to mention that one Shri Malhotra had given a telephone call to Police Control Room at about 8 Pm that a number of persons had sustained injuries in a quarrel at house No.70, Block 8A, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh.This report was recorded in Daily Diary No.180 on August 13, 1986, copy of which is Ex.PW8/A and the Police Control Room had communicated this information to the Police Station Karol Bagh and the same was recorded in Daily Diary No.15A at 8.05 P.M., copy of which is Ex.Earlier to this report, a report had been received from the hospital recorded at 7.50 Pm in Daily Diary, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, Si Laxmi Chand had been deputed to inquire into the matter.The place of occurrence was known to the police from these two reports and it is inconceivable that the police would not have taken steps to immediately reached the place of occurrence besides taking steps at the hospital in order to find out about the presence of any eye-witnesses either at the hospital or at the place of occurrence.Nothing has come on the record to reveal as to whether the Investigating Officer had contacted the said Malhotra or not and whether the said Malhotra was an eye-witness of the occurrence or not.(27) As far as Babu Lal is concerned, his name does not figure as an eye-witness in the F.I.R. and he was not resident of the same area.He claims to have come to the spot at about 6 Pm and he stated that he had stayed over-night in the house of Ram Narain after the occurrence whereas Nanak Chand had stated that in fact this witness stayed over-night at his house.If we examine the statements of these eye-witnesses closely, there appears discrepancy as to the place where the occurrence took place.House of deceased has not been shown in the plan but it appears from the evidence that the house of deceased is located in a side lane and from the spot where deceased is shown to have been stabbed the said house of deceased is not visible.In the siteplan at point 'B' on the main road is shown a cot and the prosecution case is that Ram Narain and his wife were sitting on that cot at some point of time when the assailants had come earlier at about 6 Pm but Vidyawati in her testimony had referred to a cot just in front of her house and the cot at mark 'B' cannot be considered to be in front of the house of deceased.This cot marked 'B' has been shown as a convenient place from where Vidyawati is stated to have witnessed the stabbing of her husband.In all probabilities it was not possible that either Vidyawati or her husband would be sitting on a cot which is not in front of their house and was quite at a distance from the house of the deceased.In the sketch Ex.PW16/A which was prepared by the Investigating Officer soon after the recording of the Fir, no cot is shown at the point where position of Vidyawati as eye-witness has been indicated.In this siteplan Gopal Kishan has not been shown as an eye-witness.The deceased's house number was Block 8A/T-5316, Wester Extension Area, Karol Bagh.If we keep in view the said sketch Ex.PW16/A, the house of deceased could not be anywhere near the spot where allegedly Vidyawati was standing when occurrence took place in front of the house of Nanak Chand.So, Vidyawati could not have been an eye-witness to the occurrence and must have come to the spot soon after the occurrence.The place where the deceased was stabbed allegedly was quite at a distance from his house.(28) Neither Vidyawati nor Gopal Kishan deposed that when the assailants came in front of house of deceased, the deceased ran away and was pursued by the assailants.No blood admittedly was found in front of the house of the deceased.So, the occurrence obviously had not taken place in front of the house of the deceased so that Vidyawati and her son could be deemed to be natural witnesses.Nanak Chand who could be deemed to be natural witness because occurrence took place in front of his house and his name is mentioned as the person who brought the deceased to the hospital but unfortunately it becomes difficult to place reliance on his testimony which is not truthful on many counts.We have already noted material contradictions appearing in his testimony.He is instrumental in getting planted the weapon of offence on appellant- Shyam Sunder which was not linked with the murder of Ram Narain and he, according to his own version, had not known in the hospital about the demise of Ram Narain and had come back to his place and was informed about demise of Ram Narain by Vidyawati and claims to have again gone back to the hospital and had got inserted his name in the M.L.C. Prosecution case is doubtful in view of the material discrepancies appearing in the statements of the eye-witnesses coupled with the fact that all safeguards provided in the statute having been violated by the investigating agency and the Investigating Officer also having almost planted the weapon of offence which was not linked with the murder of Ram Narain as Investigating Officer was ignorant at that time as to whether a double-edged or single-edged weapon had been used till to his shock it came out in the evidence that in fact the injuries on the body of the deceased could not have been possible except with a double-edged weapon.All these circumstances would create ample doubts with regard to the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution that these two appellants were involved in the murder of Ram Narain.(29) There is conflict in the evidence of the prosecution as to the time of arrest of Shyam Sunder.An effort was also made to show that there was blood on the clothes of Shyam Sunder when he was arrested but the Cfsl reports Exs.PA & Pb clearly indicated that no blood was found on the clothes of appellant-Shyam Sunder.It is not disputed that there was enmity between the appellants on the one side and deceased Ram Narain and his family members on the other side on the question of some property.So, the possibility of Vidyawati and her close relations, namely, Nanak Chand, Babu Lal and son Gopal Kishan having strong suspicion against the appellants about the murder of their near and dear one cannot be over ruled and may be due to that strong suspicion they thought of and planned for involving the appellants in this case when in all probility they were not aware of the actual assailants of Ram Narain.(30) It is true that Vidyawati and her son Gopal Kishan would be the last person to allow the real culprits of Ram Narain to escape and falsely implicate only the appellants with whom they were having animosity but in the present case it appears that they were not aware of the actual assailants and in all probaility had not witnessed the occurrence and because of enmity with the appellants they might have strong suspicion that perhaps the appellants had perpetrated this ghastly murder of Ram Narain and thus, they might have become pliable instruments in the hands of the Investigating Officers for showing themselves as eye- witnesses to the murder of Ram Narain.(32) We allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge and acquit the appellants of the charges and direct that they be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,780,632 |
(i) The application is allowed.(ii) Provisional bail granted to the applicant on 25.09.2018 is confirmed.(iii) Applicant is directed to mark his presence with Police Station, Gondia (Rural) once in six months during the pendency of the present appeal.(iv) The applicant shall remain personally present at the time of final hearing of this appeal.(v) At the time of admission, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he will file private paper book.Hence, the applicant shall file the private paper book within eight weeks from today.The application is disposed of.JUDGEkahale ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2019 04:13:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2019 04:13:54 :::
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,785,232 |
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.The case of prosecution is that on 09.06.2016 at about 9.30 am, during emergency duty, ASI Anand Kumar was assigned DD No.9A, who along with Ct.Dinesh reached just ahead of Metro line at Yamuna Bank Railway Line, near Pole No. 1/28, Shakarpur, Delhi, and in the way, he met CRL.A.589/2018 Page 1 of 20 complainant Anil Kumar, and with him, they walked towards the said spot, and the ASI Anand Kumar recorded statement of complainant who stated that he was working in a Security Office, at S-559, School Block, Shakarpur and on 09.06.2016, he was coming from Hapur to Delhi by a train and at about 8.00 am when train reached ahead of Metro Line at Yamuna Bank, Shakarpur, it stopped as no signal was received.Since his office was near to the said place, he got down from the train and started walking.In the meantime, train also went away after receiving signal and till then he had walked a little distance.A boy came from behind and asked him as to where he hailed from, and thereafter that boy took out a knife and asked him to take out whatever he was having with him.The said boy took a sum of Rs.7,000/- from his 'Pithoo Bag' (the bag hanging on his back) and took out his mobile phone make Nokia Lumia 730 (from left pocket of his pant) forcibly, however, that boy returned him, (the complainant) two SIMs No. 9212412810 and 9410454970 after taking out from the said mobile.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 1 of 20On the basis of the said statement of the complainant Anil Kumar, the ASI got registered the FIR, and during investigation, the site plan of scene of occurrence was prepared.Thereafter, on 25.08.2016, on an information of the secret informer, ASI Anand Kumar along with Ct.Harender and informant reached at Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, where the appellant was pointed out by the secret informer and he was arrested in the case.Thereafter, a request was made for conducting his TIP, to which the appellant refused before the concerned MM.During police custody remand of the appellant, the mobile phone of the complainant and the knife used in the commission of the offence could not be recovered.On 27.08.2016, the complainant came to the Police Station to hand over the copy of his mobile CRL.A.589/2018 Page 2 of 20 bill where he identified the appellant at the Police Station.The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him as false and claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case.He opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.PW2/A, the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/B and proved DD No.9A dated 09.06.2015 as Ex.PW4/C.PW5 Sh.PW6 Sh.PW6/B whereby the appellant had refused to join the TIP.9. PW7 ASI Anand Kumar, the IO, has proved receiving of DD No.9A dated 09.06.2016; going to the spot of occurrence with Ct. Dinesh; meeting CRL.A.589/2018 Page 3 of 20 complainant there; recording the statement of the complainant; preparing rukka Ex.PW7/A; handing over the same to Ct.Dinesh for registration of the FIR; preparing of site plan of the spot as Ex.PW2/B; a secret information dated 25.08.2016 reaching gate No.2, Laxmi Nagar Metro Station and apprehending the appellant at the pointing out of secret informer; arresting the appellant; recording the disclosure statement Ex.PW7/B and arresting him vide memos Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B; on 26.08.2016 moving the application for TIP before the concerned MM; refusing to join the TIP by the appellant; obtaining police custody remand of the appellant; preparing pointing out memo of the place of occurrence by the appellant vide memo Ex.PW7/C; the complainant identifying the appellant at the Police Station on 27.08.2016 and the complainant providing mobile bill which is Ex.PW7/D.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 3 of 20He further deposed that the complainant met them on the way at a distance of km before the spot and he had contacted the complainant on his mobile phone.He admitted that no DD entry was recorded for the secret information and he left for the Laxmi Nagar Metro Station at 1.00 am where Ct.Harinder met him and the appellant arrived at the spot from where he was arrested around 1.25 am.It took five to ten minutes while interrogating the appellant and preparing the memos.He left the Laxmi Nagar Metro Station at about 1.40 am.He could not join any public person or any official of the Metro Station during the said proceedings.He further deposed that he returned to Police Station at 2.50 am, where DD entry was recorded to that effect but he neither remember the DD number nor he placed the copy of the same on the judicial CRL.A.589/2018 Page 4 of 20 record.He admitted that the complainant had come to the Police Station with copy of the bill of mobile of his own in the morning time, but he did not make any seizure memo of the same.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 4 of 20PW2 Sh.On that day, he had boarded train from Hapur Railway Station and reached Delhi at around 8.00 am.The train had not reached the destination, however, stopped just ahead of Metro Bridge, Yamuna Bank as there was no signal for the train.Sensing the situation, he got down from the train because his office premises was near to that place.Thereafter, when he was coming towards Yamuna Metro Bridge, one person came from behind and pointed the knife on his person aiming his chest.The said person questioned him as to from where he (the complainant) hailed and directed him to hand over whatever articles he had.That person was the appellant who took out Rs.7,000/- from his purse which he had kept in his bag.The appellant also removed his mobile phone, make Nokia Lumia 730 from his left side pant pocket.Appellant removed both the SIMs from the said mobile phone and handed over the same to him (the witness).After making the call, he reached under Yamuna Metro Bridge at about 9.00 am, and that at about 9.45 am, ASI Anand and Ct.Dinesh reached there, to whom he narrated the incident, and then, he went to CRL.A.589/2018 Page 5 of 20 the spot with the said police official and had shown the spot where incident had occurred.Again they came to a place under Yamuna Bridge where his statement was recorded, which bears his signature at point A, and the same is Ex.PW2/A. The IO had prepared the site plan of the spot at his instance, which is Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point A. On 27.08.2016, he went to Police Station Shakarpur with his ID and bill of mobile phone.But in the instant case, it is testified by Sub Inspector Raj Kumar that despite the fact that secret informer had given specific address where the trade of smack and charas was being carried out, the secret informer was made a part of the raiding party.After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 2 of 20Vide order dated 09.12.2016, the Trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 392/397 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in the case, whose depositions inter-alia would be discussed.PW4 ASI Vinod Kumar was the duty officer, who proved copy of the FIR as Ex.PW4/A on the basis of the rukka Ex.Subhash Kumar Mishra, Metropolitan Magistrate, proved application for conducting TIP of the appellant as Ex.PW6/A, besides the TIP proceedings as Ex.Thereafter, the appellant went away towards Yamuna Bank.PW 2 further deposed that at about 8.30 am, he reached his office and from there dialed at number 100 to the police from the mobile phone No. 9212412810 by inserting the said SIM in another instrument which was lying in the office.At that point of time, the appellant was found sitting in the Police Station, whom he had identified him (the appellant) before the IO.He gave his ID and bill of mobile to the IO, and the photocopy of the same are Mark PW2/A and PW2/B respectively.He admitted that none of his articles could be recovered by the police.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 5 of 20In his cross-examination, PW2 replied that he had not provided ticket/document of the train regarding his journey on 09.06.2016 from Hapur to Delhi to the police as it was MST Pass.Further admitted that he had not given the photocopy of the MST Pass to police.He stated to the police in his statement Ex.PW2/A that he had gone to his office and from there he dialed at number 100 from his mobile phone No. 9212412810 by inserting the SIM in another instrument, which was lying in the office.However, he was confronted with his statement Ex.Further admitted that he went to Police Station on 27.08.2016 on his own and was not called by the police on that day.The police had not prepared seizure memo of documents when CRL.A.589/2018 Page 6 of 20 he handed over the documents Mark PW2/A and PW2/B. During his further cross-examination, he deposed that he had stated to police in his statement that the appellant took out Rs.7,000/- kept in his purse which was lying in his bag and that the appellant had pointed knife at his chest.However, he was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW2/A, wherein factum of purse lying in Pithoo bag was not mentioned, but he volunteered that the said facts were not recorded in his statement by the IO.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 6 of 20Learned APP, while opposing the present appeal, has submitted that the appellant has not only been identified by the complainant/victim, but his role has been defined clearly in his deposition.The incident is dated 09.06.2016 at about 8.00 am.The Court can take judicial cognizance of the fact that in the month of June it is not only hot but sufficient shining sun light at 8.00 am and the place of occurrence was not a regular way but was a lonely place.The appellant as per deposition of PW2 (the complainant) came from behind and pointed the knife on his person aiming at chest, which means the appellant was face to face with the complainant, and thereafter, the appellant questioned about the native place of the complainant and directed him to hand over whatever articles the complainant was having with him.The said act of the appellant in the day light and that too he being face to face with the complainant, talking to him, asking him to hand over the articles at the point of the knife and thereafter taking out the purse from the bag of the complainant, removing Rs.7,000/- and mobile phone, thereafter removing both the SIMs from mobile phone and handed over the same to the complainant and certainly the appellant was not either in a muffled face or hide his identity.All this, must have taken a considerable time facilitating the complainant not only to see his (appellant's) face but his CRL.A.589/2018 Page 7 of 20 face must have been imprinted in the mind of the complainant.All the said facts narrated by the complainant as PW2 in his deposition have remained unrebutted on the record in his cross-examination on behalf of the appellant.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 7 of 20Learned APP further submitted that in the above said circumstances, even if the appellant was arrested on 25.08.2016, it cannot be inferred that the complainant may not have remembered his face in his memory.In such a situation, even there was no need of conducting a TIP of the appellant which would have been of the corroborative value only.On the other hand, he denied the suggestion as wrong that on 25.08.2016 police had shown him the appellant.He further denied the suggestion that he had identified the appellant in the Court at the instance of the IO or that the appellant had not committed any offence with him or that he was not present on 09.06.2016 at the time and place as deposed by him.He positively asserted in the cross- examination that he had gone to Police Station on 27.08.2016 of his own and he was not called by the police on that day.Merely the facts that he has not mentioned in his complaint to the police Ex.PW2/A that the knife was pointed out by the appellant at his chest or the purse lying in his bag are not so material improvements.The prosecution case cannot be thrown away on that account.Even in the complaint Ex.PW2/A, he got recorded that the appellant took out a knife and asked him to hand over whatever he had.It is further submitted that the contention that handing over the two SIMs to the complainant after taking out the same from the robbed mobile, was against the human course of conduct and as to why the appellant would return the same, if at all he has robbed the mobile itself.In a given circumstance, how a particular person shall act in which manner, depends upon the nature and circumstances of each case and no prediction can be CRL.A.589/2018 Page 8 of 20 given in this regard.If the knife would not have been there in the hands of the appellant, probably, the complainant might have fought with him or at least protested against robbing him.But in the said circumstances, he might have been so frightened that he could not dare to resist even against the conduct of the appellant.Similarly, the appellant might not have been requiring the SIMs or he might have been taking extra precaution not to be arrested or chased due to the location of the mobile phone if the SIMs had remained inserted in the mobile.Thus, the said arguments on behalf of the appellant do not come for his help.Also when he deposed that at about 8.30 am, he reached his office and from there, dialed at number 100 from mobile phone number 9212412810 by inserting the said SIM in another instrument which was lying in the office.Moreover, in answer to question put in cross- examination, he again repeated that he had stated to the police in his statement EX.PW2/A that he had gone to his office and from there, he dialed at number 100 by inserting the said SIM in the instrument lying in his office.Although PW2 was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW2/A, where it was not found so recorded, but PW2 volunteered that the same might not have been recorded in his statement by the police.The time gap CRL.A.589/2018 Page 9 of 20 between the incident and reporting to the police is so short that the possibility of manipulating or concocting a false story cannot be inferred.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 9 of 20Thus, during this period he was having sufficient time to dispose of the said two articles.Further argument that bill of the mobile phone not proved on the record may be a lapse on the part of the IO but certainly the complainant is not having any control over the way of investigation.He had done whatever he could do by producing the copy of retail invoice of the mobile phone, which is computer generated, to the IO and the same is mark PW2/A. It was for the IO to collect the evidence with regard to the said copy of retail invoice, which the IO has not done.But for the said lapse on the part of the IO, the deposition of PW2 cannot be thrown away and rejected.Learned APP further submitted that admittedly, the complainant PW2 and the appellant were unknown to each other and there was no previous any kind of dealing or enmity between them.The complainant was not having any axe to grind against the appellant nor he was having any motive to falsely implicate him.His deposition has been corroborated by DD No. 9A Ex.PW4/C which proves that the matter was promptly reported by the complainant to the PCR from the mobile phone number 9212412810 and it mentions the spot as under the Akshardham Bridge where there was a U- turn and while going towards Delhi, the complainant was looted, at the point of knife, of his Rs.7,000/- and a mobile phone.His deposition is further corroborated by the deposition of the IO PW7 ASI Anand Kumar, who on CRL.A.589/2018 Page 10 of 20 receipt of said DD No. 9A Ex.PW4/C along with Ct.Dinesh proceeded for the said spot and in the way he met the complainant Anil Kumar and from there they reached the said spot.No other reason has been assigned or pointed out to this Court for false implication of the appellant on behalf of the complainant.Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, there is mere denial of all the incriminating evidence put to him which was against him on the record.He did not lead any defence evidence to rebut or to create a dent in the story of the prosecution.Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 10 of 20Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.On perusal of the evidence on record, the facts discussed inter alia emerged that the rukka (Ex. PW-2/A) which is the first recorded information about the alleged offence does not contain any description about the appearance of the offender/thief.PW2 Anil Kumar (the complainant) admits in his cross-examination that he had not informed the police about the age, height and features of the offender.Even the fact that the knife was pointed at the chest is missing from the rukka, however, PW2 (the complainant) makes this improvement only during his examination-in-chief.The rukka records that the offender came from behind and the alleged incident is said to have happened in a jiffy.Thus, there is no doubt that the complainant got only a fleeting opportunity to see the offender.Moreover, the appellant is said to have been arrested pursuant to secret information received by the police.However, both PW7 (IO) and PW3 (accompanying Ct.) admit that the purported secret information was never recorded in writing.PW3 even states that he is not aware if the IO conveyed the purported secret CRL.A.589/2018 Page 11 of 20 information to senior police officials.Also PW7 (IO) admits that there was no record made about the secret information received.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 11 of 20PW7 states that before affecting arrest, PW3 Ct.Harender met him at the Metro Station at 1:10 am.PW3 Ct.Harender states that he had left the police station during the relevant night when arrest was made just prior to 12 midnight.He further admits that the IO never made any telephonic contact with him prior to meeting him.Thus, if admittedly the PW7 (IO) and PW3 were not present in the Police Station together, then there is no explanation forthcoming as to how PW3 was conveyed the purported secret information about the appellant's presence at the Metro Station.It is not the IO's case that the secret information was received while PW3 was still at the Police Station.PW3 Ct.Harender states that he was on duty from 12 midnight to 6 am on 25.08.2016, and it is during this time at about 1:30 am the appellant was arrested pursuant to receipt of secret information.Thus, PW3 speaks of the night intervening 24-25th August, 2016, whereas, PW7 ASI Anand Kumar (the IO) states that he was on emergency duty on 25.08.2016 from 8 pm to 8 am, when the arrest was made.The arrest memo records the date/time of arrest as 25.08.2016 at 1:30 am, supporting PW3 Harender's version, but the purported disclosure statement of the appellant (Ex. PW-7/B) indicates overwriting where date is written at the bottom of the page.The remand documents (@ pg 102 of LCR) also bears overwriting on the date.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 12 of 20It is pertinent to mention here that PW7 states that the appellant was taken for medical examination, however, his MLC has not been made part of the record.There are question-marks about purported secret information that the alleged incident is of 09.06.2016, but the purported secret information leading to the appellant's arrest is received 2.5 months later.This, by itself, does not inspire confidence.Admittedly, the alleged incident is said to have happened near the railway line.It is not the prosecution version that there was any eyewitness to the alleged incident.In such circumstances, who the secret informer was, how he got information about the appellant's involvement in the case, about his whereabouts etc. are all unexplained, and do not inspire confidence.Moreover, there is no reason as to why the appellant would go to Metro Station in midnight when the metro services are not even functional or any person present over there.Furthermore, the secret informer is said to have accompanied the police to the Laxmi Nagar Metro Station, where on the pointing out of the secret informer, the appellant is said to have been arrested.It appears that there was no attempt made to conceal the identity of the secret informer from the appellant herein.As such, non-examination of such person, whose identity the police itself did not attempt to conceal from the appellant, raises strong doubts about the reliability of the purported secret information.Thus the initial DD which was recorded by SI Raj Kumar talks of three things.One that he received information through an informer but before recording the same, he conveyed it to Inspector Ashok Tyagi and before CRL.A.589/2018 Page 13 of 20 the information was recorded, Inspector Ashok Tyagi conveyed it to senior officers and also sent it in writing to them.When Inspector Ashok Tyagi appeared as PW-14 in the court, he deposed that when he was present in his office along with other staff on 5th January, 2001 at around 11.30 am, SI Raj Kumar received a secret information on telephone and he conveyed the telephonic message to him.The information was that Peeraswmi and his wife Chambai, appellants, used to deal in smack and charas at their residence.He conveyed this information to his senior officials.In cross examination he admitted that he had not sent the information to his senior officers in writing and he only conveyed this information orally.He had not recorded the secret information on a paper.DD Ex.PW5/A recorded at 11.30 am, is not the information received by Sub Inspector Raj Kumar but is a detailed information recorded after deliberations giving who did what.Had SI Raj Kumar received the information and recorded it directly in DD, he could not have mentioned that he had informed about the information to his senior officials and his senior officials had in turn informed it to further senior officials and even sent a copy.When the information had not been recorded by Sub Inspector Raj Kumar, how it could have been sent to senior officials in writing.Section 42(1) of the Act casts a duty upon the police official to reduce the information in writing whenever commission of an offence in respect of narcotic drugs or narcotic substances comes to his knowledge.After he reduces down the information in writing, he has a duty to send a copy of the information to his superior officers within 72 hours.PW2, who appeared from office of DCP has specifically stated that only a report under Section 57 of the Act regarding this case, was received in the office of DCP from Special Staff.He proved this report as Ex.Pw2/A and stated that no other document in respect of this case was received.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 13 of 20CRL.A.589/2018 Page 14 of 20The manner in which DD Ex.PW5/A has been recorded, casts doubt on the receipt of information itself.This doubt is further fortified from the testimony of PW- 14, who stated that SI Raj Kumar had received telephonic information and communicated the same to him whereas Sub Inspector Raj Kumar stated that the information was received through a secret informer.He was taken to the spot and he also pointed out to the appellant Peeraswmi and at his pointing out the appellants were arrested.If the identity of the secret informer was not so secret and he could accompany police party up to the house and come face to face with the appellant, there is no reason why he could not have been produced in the court for deposition.The entire story of secret informer in fact is falsified from the testimony of PW14, who stated that the information was received on telephone....."CRL.A.589/2018 Page 15 of 20PW2 (the complainant) has deposed that on 27.08.20l6, he went to the Police Station to handover the bill of the stolen mobile phone to the police.At that time, the appellant was present in the Police Station and he identified him as the offender.It seems that this is not a coincidence, but was part of the prosecution plan so that the appellant could be identified by the complainant.From the above facts, it is established that the complainant, who had only got a fleeting glance of the offender during the incident, was informed and convinced by the police that the police had found the offender, and the complainant in his zeal to assist the police 'solve' the case, identified the appellant as the offender.It is pertinent to note that on 26.08.2016, the IO moved an application for conducting the TIP of the appellant, however, he refused it.In his statement u/s 313, Cr.P.C. at Q. no. 14, the appellant has answered that he refused TIP as he had been shown to the witness at the Police Station.The same was also suggested to the PW2 (complainant) during his cross- examination.As such, the magical appearance of PW2 on 27.08.2016 was meant only to overcome this refusal, since the appellant had already been shown to the complainant.Admittedly, the stolen phone has not been recovered from the appellant, or at all.As such, other than the weak identification by the appellant, which itself was based on a fleeting and momentary glance, there is nothing on record to connect the appellant to the crime in question.Further important to note that the complainant has nowhere disclosed about the kind of knife that was allegedly used by the offender.Moreover, CRL.A.589/2018 Page 16 of 20 no knife has been recovered.As such, the conviction u/s 397, IPC cannot be sustained since there is no proof that a 'deadly weapon' was used.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 16 of 20The State of NCT of Delhi.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 17 of 20"At the time of committing dacoity one of the offenders caused injury by knife on the hand of the victim but the said knife was not recovered.In order to bring home a charge under S.397 the prosecution must produce convincing evidence that the knife used by the accused was a deadly weapon.What would make knife deadly is its design or the method of its use such as is calculated to or is likely to produce death.It is, therefore, a question of fact to be proved by the prosecution that the knife used by the accused was a deadly weapon.The accused could be convicted under S.392."But in CRL.A.589/2018 Page 18 of 20 the cross-examination, he could not give the exact description or the length of the said knife.He has only stated that the length of the knife was more than 6".The prosecution in this case has not tried to find out and record the length or the description of the knife whether it was a spring operated knife (batandar) or a large knife which can be considered to be a deadly weapon within the meaning of the term used under Section 397 IPC.The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that even though the sentence of the appellant for the offences under Section 392 IPC is based on the material brought on record, the conviction of the appellant for the offences under Section 397 IPC cannot be upheld and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt on that count.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 18 of 20In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.Importantly, the police did not even prepare any seizure memo for taking into its possession the bill of the mobile phone.This gives further credence to the plea that the complainant's appearance at the Police Station on CRL.A.589/2018 Page 19 of 20 27.08.2016 was meant only to overcome the appellant's refusal of TIP since he had already been shown to the witness.CRL.A.589/2018 Page 19 of 20In addition to above, even the PCR call was not proved.PW4 proves the making of the DD no. 9A by him, but the PCR form has not been produced or proved.In view of above recorded facts and appellant herein was a vagabond, I have no hesitation to place on record that the appellant was easy to implicate for 'solving' the case.The Trial Court has overlooked all the evidence discussed herein.Thus, from the above discussion, it cannot be said that the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.The appellant ought to be given benefit thereof, however, Trial court failed to do so.Accordingly, I hereby set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 19.03.2018 passed by the Trial Court.Consequently, the appellant is acquitted and discharged from all the charges.The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,789,849 |
The petitioner also assured the complainant that unutilized amount out of Rs.10 lakhs being taken for obtaining Completion Certificate from HUDDA would be returned to her within three months.On the assurance of the petitioners to return the balance amount to the complainant and on their delivering post-dated cheque dated 27th September, 2009 for Rs.10 lakhs to her, the complainant made payment of Rs.13 lakhs to them and accepted the post-dated cheque of Rs.10 lakhs from them.Thereafter, the petitioners did not respond, despite the complainant trying to contact them.The complainant then presented the cheque to the bank, when it was dishonoured Crl.M.C.No.540/2010 Page 2 of 8 with remarks "drawer signatures differs".M.C.No.540/2010 Page 2 of 8This is not their case that the cheque alleged to have been delivered by them to the petitioners, when blank, was issued to them.The cheque in question purports to be signed by one Rajesh.If the petitioner(s) delivered a cheque issued from the account of Kailash Sharma with United Bank of India and either of them signed it or they got it signed from some other person before delivering it to the complainant, the intention to cheat the complainant cannot be disputed.Had the complainant known that the cheque, being delivered to her by the petitioners was issued from the account of Kailash Sharma and not from the account of petitioners, she would Crl.M.C.No.540/2010 Page 4 of 8 not have accepted the cheque from them.M.C.No.540/2010 Page 3 of 8M.C.No.540/2010 Page 4 of 8M.C.No.540/2010 Page 8 of 8This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 23rd February, 2008 in Complaint Case No.1680-A/1 titled as "Asha Ratra vs. Rajesh Yadav and Anr."A perusal of the summoning order dated 23rd February, 2008 would show that the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Sections 420/468/471 of IPC.Since the cheque in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Crl.Since the offence under Section 420 of IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioners, I am not going into the question as to whether offences under Section 468 and/or 471 of IPC are also made out against them or not.The petitioners will be entitled to claim before the Trial Court or before a Superior Court, in appropriate proceedings, that offence under Section Crl.M.C.No.540/2010 Page 7 of 8 468 and/or 471 of IPC are not made out against them.M.C.No.540/2010 Page 7 of 8For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE FEBRFUARY 23, 2010 BG/ Crl.M.C.No.540/2010 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
169,790,304 |
It is useful to refer at this stage to the history of the CBI.The Special Police Establishment was formed during the World War II when large sums of public money were being spent in connection with the War and there arose enormous potential for corruption amongst the officers dealing with the supplies.An executive order was made by the Government of India in 1941 setting up the Special Police Establishment (SPE) under a DIG in the then Department of War.Under this Act, the superintendence of the Special Police Establishment was transferred to the Home Department and its functions were enlarged to cover all departments of the Government of India.The jurisdiction of the SPE extended to all the Union Territories and could also be extended to the States with the consent of the State Governments concerned.Then the SPE was put under the charge of Director, Intelligence Bureau.Later in 1948, a post of Inspector General of Police, SPE was created and the organisation was placed under his charge.The Central Bureau of Investigation was established on 1-4-1963 vide Government of India's Resolution No. 4/31/61-T/MHA.This was done to meet the felt need of having a Central police agency at the disposal of the Central Government to investigate into cases not only of bribery and corruption but also those relating to the breach of Central fiscal laws, frauds in government departments and PSUs and other serious crimes.On enlargement of the role of CBI an Economic Offences Wing was added to the existing Divisions of the CBI.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,792,908 |
The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by Police Officer concerned as and when required and he will cooperate in the investigation.Certified copy as per rules.They are heard.Perused the Case Diary.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that co-accused Vijay @ Chiku Chhari has been enlarged on regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court [Hon'ble Shri Justice D. K. Paliwal] vide order dated 11-09-2014 passed in M.Cr.On the ground of parity, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer formally opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also considering the claim of parity with co-accused who has been enlarged on regular bail, the application is hereby allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a M. Cr. C. No. 9949/2014 surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,797,083 |
Heard on admission.The appellant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No.4897/2010 pending before the JMFC, Jabalpur for offence under Section 420 of I.P.C.Thereafter, the applicant got the house constructed of someone else on that plot and therefore, an FIR was lodged.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the applicant took two grounds, firstly that he was not responsible for the offence of cheating and according to the Provisions of Section 76 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, prosecution could not be initiated against him without the previous sanction in writing of the Registrar and when a penal provision is enacted in the Co-operative Societies Act, he could not prosecuted under Section 420, 467, 468 of I.P.C. either directly or with the help of Section 120-B of I.P.C. It is also submitted that looking to his documents, no offence is made out against the applicant.The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated 2.7.2010 remanded the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate with the pretext that no charge under Sections 467, 468 of I.P.C and Section 72 of the Co-operative Societies Act is made out against the applicant.Jai Govind Mishra and others [(2006) 9 SCC 206], K. Ashoka Vs.N. L. Chandrashekar & Ors.Copy of the order be sent to the concerned trial Court for information.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,799,408 |
State of Madhya Pradesh of Rs.500/-, imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.500/- respectively.(2) Prosecution's case, in short, is that Banti, brother of Gyan Singh (PW-20), was the student of Shilpi School, Pinto Park, Gwalior (M.P.) On 04.10.2002 Banti went to Pinto Park market in the evening and thereafter he did not come back to his house.Initially, complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and his family members thought that Banti would have gone to their another house.On 05.10.2002 when he was not found at another house then he was traced amongst his friends and others.On suspicion, Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) along with various persons went to the house of the appellant where the accused Afzal was present, however, appellant also came to the house after sometime.On asking, appellant Vinod Tyagi told the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) that the deceased Banti was kidnapped and he would receive a letter relating to demand of ransom, shortly.ASI Mr. R.S. Choudhary (PW-8) started enquiry but he could not get any clue of the deceased.P-6 in which he accepted that he along with other persons killed the deceased Banti by strangulation and dead body of the deceased was hidden in a field whereas pant and shirt of the deceased along with scarf of the 3 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh appellant had been thrown in the well of one Kushwah.He also gave information that the kidnapping of Banti was done by using a scooter and that was lying in his rented house at New Ram Vihar Colony, Gwalior (M.P.).Actually, the dead body was highly decomposed and a few bones were found at the spot.Thereafter, on showing the well by the appellant, one constable Munnalal (PW-19) dived into the well and recovered the clothes, scarf and a rope from it and the same were seized by seizure memo Ex.After perusal of the clothes etc. the dead body of the deceased Banti was identified and a memo Ex.P-9 was prepared.One scooter bearing registration number MP07 Y/0681 along with registration book was recovered from the appellant Vinod and a recovery memo Ex.P-13 was prepared.The dead body of deceased Banti was sent for post mortem.Dr. J.N.Soni (PW-15) conducted the post mortem and gave his report Ex.According to him, the dead body was of a very young child aged between 12-14 years.(10/01/2017) Per N.K. Gupta, J.DSP Mr. Rakesh Sinha (PW-14) started investigation after registration of the case.He could trace accused Vinod Tyagi on 09.10.2002 and he was asked about the deceased Banti.Appellant Vinod Tyagi gave a confessional statement memo Ex.Memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act relating to accused Afzal was also recorded.(3) Thereafter, on showing the dead body of the deceased by the appellant Vinod, the same was recovered by a seizure memo Ex.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution.(4) The appellant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea in the case, hence, no defence evidence was adduced.(5) The charge-sheet was filed against four persons out of 4 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh which the accused Afzal Khan and Lalla Jatav were shown to be absconding whereas the trial court acquitted the accused Nabi Khan, however, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.(6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.(7) In the present case, there is no eyewitness to the prosecution story.Entire case depends upon the circumstantial evidence and therefore the chain of circumstantial evidence is to be considered by discussing each and every piece of chain separately.The first piece in the chain of circumstantial evidence was the fact of last seen.In this connection, Amar Singh Rathore (PW-4), Ramniwas Rathore (PW-5), Pinto Rathore (PW-10) etc. were examined.Out of them, Pinto Rathore (PW-10) did not give any information about the deceased and the appellant before the trial court.Amar Singh Rathore (PW-4) has stated that on 06.10.2002, he had seen the appellant Vinod and accused Afzal with the deceased Banti.He was smoking at a Paan shop where appellant Vinod and co- accused Afzal visited there on a scooter for smoking and Banti was sitting in between Vinod and Afzal on the scooter.In the evidence of this witness, no material contradiction or omission could be obtained.Amar Singh Rathore (PW-4) accepted the suggestion that he knew the deceased Banti and his brother Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20), but he did not ask deceased Banti as to why he was roaming with the appellant.He gave an explanation that since Banti was known to the appellant and in the past he was found with the appellant on some occasions, hence, he did not interrupt in the company of the deceased and the 5 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh appellant.The evidence given by Amar Singh Rathore (PW-4) appears to be a natural evidence and the trial court has rightly believed this witness.Similarly, Ramniwas Rathore (PW-5) has stated that on 04.10.2002, he was taking snacks in a hotel of Chotiwala and appellant Vinod along with co-accused Afzal and the deceased Banti came there and they took Dosa and thereafter they went back.This witness has also explained that since Banti and the appellant Vinod were found in each other's company in the past, hence, neither he intimated Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) nor did he interrupt in the talks of the deceased Banti and appellant Vinod.No enmity of this witness could be proved against the appellant and therefore his evidence is acceptable.The trial court has rightly found that soon before the incident the deceased Banti was found with the appellant Vinod Tyagi.(8) The next circumstance is the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20), Mahesh Singh Yadav (PW-7) and Mukhiram (PW-22).These witnesses have stated that on the basis of suspicion they went to the room of the appellant in search of the deceased Banti.Initially, appellant was not found at the room but after sometime he came there by the scooter and on enquiry, first of all, he avoided the questions of Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) but thereafter he accepted that he kidnapped the deceased Banti and a note relating to demand of ransom would be received by complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) shortly.Testimony of 6 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh these witnesses relating to extra judicial confession of the appellant Vinod Tyagi is duly corroborated by the FIR Ex.1. Since the FIR was lodged on 05.10.02 and the appellant could be arrested on 09.10.2002, it cannot be said that a false FIR was lodged by complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) on the basis of suspicion.Description of FIR clearly indicates about the role of the appellant Vinod Tyagi and his companions.Such role could not be brought into the knowledge of Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and witnesses Mahesh Singh Yadav (PW-7) & Mukhiram (PW-22) unless information was given by appellant Vinod himself.It would be apparent that the FIR Ex.P-1 was lodged on 05.10.2002 whereas appellant Vinod Tyagi could be arrested on 09.10.2002 and therefore it would be also apparent that the appellant Vinod had absconded from his house on 05.10.2002 and his conduct clearly indicates that he confessed before the witnesses including Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and thereafter being guilty conscious he absconded.It was natural for the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20), other relatives and friends to search the deceased Banti first at various places where he could possibly be found and when he could not be traced and the appellant confessed about his kidnapping then only it could be possible for the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) to lodge the FIR.Looking to the evidence given by ASI R.S. Choudhary (PW-8), he started investigation soon after the lodging of FIR Ex.P-1 but he could not trace the appellant Vinod Tyagi.However, the conduct of ASI R.S. Choudhary (PW-8) clearly 7 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh indicates that the police machinery has started investigation soon after the lodging of FIR and therefore the FIR was lodged within reasonable time in which the fact of extra judicial confession has duly been mentioned.Hence, due to corroboration of FIR Ex.P-1, the evidence of Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20), Mahesh Singh Yadav (PW-7) and Mukhiram (PW-22) is acceptable that the appellant has confessed before them that he kidnapped the victim/deceased Banti.(9) The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of last seen and the extra judicial confession are weak type of circumstances.However, if conviction is to be recorded on the basis of only evidence of last seen or extra judicial confession then it is to be seen by the Court as to whether conviction can be recorded solely depending upon such single circumstance but where the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete then only by this reason that the evidence of last seen or extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, such evidence cannot be discarded.The trial court has discussed in detail by citing various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court while dealing with such arguments.(10) The third circumstance which goes against the appellant is the enmity proved between complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and appellant Vinod Tyagi.According to Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20), appellant Vinod Tyagi was his tenant and some illicit liquor had been found with the appellant Vinod Tyagi and therefore he had ousted him from his house as he was a criminal and at that time appellant Vinod Tyagi had threatened him that he would kidnap his son.In this connection, no challenge was 8 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh given to the witness Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20).It is an admitted fact that the appellant was the tenant in the house of Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and thereafter he had to vacate that premises.Though the prosecution did not file the documents pertaining to the excise case of the appellant but since no challenge has been given to the witness Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) thereby the allegation made by him is acceptable and it is proved beyond doubt that appellant Vinod Tyagi was ousted from the house of Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) as a tenant because a raid of offence pertaining to M.P. Excise Act was made by the police and illicit liquor was found in the rented house of Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) which was in possession of appellant Vinod Tyagi.Possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant would have thought that the liquor was seized on the information given by complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20).Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that there was enmity between appellant Vinod Tyagi and the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) to the extent that appellant could kidnap the deceased Banti to teach a lesson to the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore or to claim ransom from him.(11) Enmity is a double edged weapon.Due to enmity, a person can falsely implicate his enemy or such crime could be done by the enemy.In the present case, if there was no enmity of the appellant with the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and the deceased Banti was not in contact with the appellant Vinod Tyagi then there was no possibility for the complainant and the witnesses to visit the room of the appellant Vinod Tyagi in the search of deceased Banti.Before lodging of FIR, the complainant 9 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and the witnesses had visited the room of the appellant Vinod Tyagi which indicates that appellant Vinod Tyagi was in a position to take the deceased child Banti with him and it was possible that Banti could be found in the room of appellant Vinod Tyagi.Initially, complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) did not take the matter seriously regarding the threat that was given by appellant Vinod Tyagi when he had vacated the house of the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) but when appellant accepted about the kidnapping of the child deceased Banti then complainant Gyan Singh Rathore had no option except to lodge the FIR and thereafter appellant absconded from his room where he was regularly residing.Hence, it is not a case in which it can be said that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity.Actually, complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) was not following any enmity when his house was vacated by the appellant but it was the appellant who was feeling annoyance because he was ousted from the house of the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore.(12) Most important circumstance in the case is that the dead body of the deceased was found on the information given by the appellant.The Apex Court has opined in various cases that only by the fact that dead body was seized on the information given by the accused then only such circumstance is sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.In this connection, DSP Rakesh Sinha (PW-14), Subhash Rathore (PW-6) and Mukhiram (PW-22) have stated that on investigation, the appellant himself gave information about the dead body of the deceased, clothes of the deceased and scooter of 10 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh appellant.A memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, Ex.P-6, was recorded.Thereafter, the dead body which remained in bones was recovered from the field on information given by the appellant Vinod Tyagi and his companion Afzal Khan.One underwear and Hawai Chappal (footwear) were also found near the dead body.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Mukhiram and Subhash Rathore were the interested witnesses.Mukhiram (PW-22) was the person who had visited the house of the appellant Vinod Tyagi along with the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) when they were searching the deceased Banti and similarly Subhash Rathore (PW-6) was also Rathore by caste whereas the independent witnesses like Kotwar Darshan Singh (PW-12) etc. have turned hostile.He has also referred the statement of witness Jeetu Singh (PW-1) and Prahlad (PW-2) to show that they have turned hostile.People with little knowledge about the crime and investigation do turn hostile but that does not prove the innocence of accused.Mukhiram (PW-22) is not the close relative of complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20).Similarly, if Subhash Rathore (PW-6) was a caste fellow of the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) then only by that fact he cannot be said to be an interested witness.The factual position of memo under Section 27 of the Evidence Act should be considered before discarding the evidence of Subhash Rathore (PW-6) and Mukhiram (PW-22) that after lodging the FIR Ex.P-1 appellant Vinod Tyagi was found absconding and he could be traced by DSP Rakesh Sinha (PW-14) with difficulty.When the extra judicial confession was made by the appellant Vinod before complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) etc then it was 11 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh natural for the family members of deceased Banti to rush and to know the facts told by appellant Vinod Tyagi.The complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) has also accepted that he had also visited the spot along with police force when they had gone to get the dead body of the deceased on information given by appellant Vinod Tyagi.Hence, no interestedness of the witness Subhash Rathore (PW-6) could be established with the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and there was no enmity of the appellant Vinod Tyagi with the investigating officer DSP Rakesh Sinha (PW-14).From their statements, it is established that one skeleton dead body was recovered on the information given by appellant Vinod Tyagi.(13) Similarly, DSP Rakesh Sinha (PW-14), Subhash Rathore (PW-6) and Mukhiram (PW-22) have claimed that the clothes of the deceased were found in a well and one rope was also found in that well.In this connection, evidence of constable Munnalal (PW-19) is important.DSP Rakesh Sinha (PW-14) and Munnalal (PW-19) have categorically stated that on the directions of the investigating officer, constable Munnalal (PW-19) went to the well and dived into water in search of clothes of the deceased and ultimately in second dive, he could find the clothes of the deceased and a rope.With the help of such clothes, the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and other witnesses could identify the dead body which was found in the field, as the body of deceased Banti.In this connection, Dr. J.N. Soni (PW-15) has proved the post mortem report Ex.P-20 in which he has opined that on perusal of various bones it was the dead body of a very young male child aged 12-13 years.Various suggestions 12 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh were given to Dr. Soni but he is an expert who has been specially posted in the Forensic Science Department of Medical College and he has a vast experience to deal with such skeleton dead bodies.Hence, no doubt is created that it was the dead body of a male child aged 12-13 years.Since the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and others identified the dead body on the basis of clothes etc. recovered on the basis of information given by appellant Vinod Tyagi, identification memo Ex.P-9 cannot be discarded and it was proved beyond doubt that the appellant Vinod Tyati had shown the dead body of the deceased Banti and the same was recovered.(14) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the dead body could be noticed by various villagers and it cannot be said beyond doubt that the dead body was found on the information given by the appellant Vinod Tyagi.However, such submission cannot be accepted in the present case.The deceased Banti was kidnapped on 04.10.2002 whereas his dead body was found on 09.10.2002 in a skeleton form at a lonely place like field.If any of the villagers had noticed the dead body due to its foul smell of putrefaction then it would have been noticed before it could turn into a skeleton but looking to the position of the dead body which was recovered it is clear that it could not be noticed within time and it was noticed only on the information given by the appellant Vinod Tyagi.Hence, the trial court has rightly found that the dead body of the deceased and clothes of the deceased were recovered on the information given by the appellant.(15) So far as the recovery of scooter is concerned, the scooter was of the appellant and there was no eyewitness 13 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh to give the scooter number, for the same was used by the appellant in kidnapping the deceased Banti.The witnesses of last seen, namely, Amar Singh Rathore (PW-4) and Ramniwas Rathore have told that the appellant Vinod along with companion Afzal Khan and the deceased Banti were found on a scooter but the registration number of the scooter is possibly given by these witnesses after seizure of the scooter and therefore seizure of scooter is not an important fact in the present case.(16) If all the circumstances are considered simultaneously then it is proved beyond doubt that there is the evidence of last seen that the appellant was found with the deceased Banti soon before the incident.The appellant has confessed before the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and witnesses like Mukhiram (PW-22) and Mahesh Singh Yadav (PW-7) that he abducted the deceased Banti.Dead body of the deceased Banti and his clothes were recovered from various places on the information given by the appellant Vinod Tyagi.If he had not participated in the crime, he would not have known the exact place of dead body and clothes of the deceased Banti.If all the circumstances are considered simultaneously then in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered by it in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622] chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and only a conclusion can be drawn that the appellant Vinod Tyati had kidnapped the child Banti and killed him.The trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC read 14 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh with Section 13 of MPDVPK(17) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that to prove the offence under Section 364A of IPC it is necessary that the kidnapping must have been done for demand of ransom.However, in the case of offence under Section 364A of IPC it is not necessary to prove that ransom was paid or not.According to the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20), appellant Vinod had stated that a demand note of ransom would be received by the complainant Gyan Singh Rathore shortly.It is apparent that in the present case, the deceased Banti was kidnapped for getting ransom however, when the appellant Vinod Tyagi was located to be involved in the crime on 05.10.2002 it is possible that thereafter he absconded and killed the deceased Banti so that he might not be prosecuted for the offence.Under these circumstances, it is established beyond doubt that the deceased Banti was kidnapped for demand of ransom so that the appellant Vinod Tyagi could get revenge from complainant Gyan Singh Rathore (PW-20) and the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant Vinod Tyagi of offence under Section 364A of IPC read with Section 13 of the MPDVPK(18) It is apparent from the circumstantial evidence that the deceased was killed at any other place and his dead body was thrown in a field whereas the clothes of the deceased Banti were dumped into the well of one Kushwah and also that the dead body as well as the clothes of the deceased Banti were recovered on the information given by the appellant Vinod Tyagi, therefore, it would be 15 Criminal Appeal No.938/2006 Vinod Tyagi Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh presumed that he was involved in the destruction of evidence to save himself and companions so that they should not be punished for the offence either under Section 302 or 364A of IPC.Thus, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant of offence under Section 201 of IPC.(19) So far as the sentence is concerned, a minimum sentence is recorded by the trial court of offence under Section 302/34 and Section 364A of IPC and hence no further dilution is required on the question of sentence.Under these circumstances, there is no reason for any modification in the sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant Vinod Tyagi.(20) On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the appeal preferred by the appellant and hence, it cannot be accepted.
|
['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.
|
169,805,344 |
THIS is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.64/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 354-C, 509 of the IPC and sec.66- A of the I.T. Act, registered at Police Station- Bercha, District- Shajapur.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that police has registered the case against the applicant for the offence u/s 354 of the IPC and he had been released on bail, subsequently the police has filed the final report on other offences i.e. ofence u/s 354-C and 509 of the IPC and sec.66- A of the I.T. Act.It is submitted that applicant is aged about 18 years and student having no criminal antecedents.After granting the bail he has not misused the liberty.The main allegation is against the co-accused Sunil who is minor.The applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigation, hence he be granted anticipatory bail.On the other hand, learned G.A. for the Non-applicant/State opposes the prayer.The applicant shall ensure that he would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on him.It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN)
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
169,807,954 |
In view of such facts, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer on the grounds that there are six more cases registered against the present applicant:-A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 506 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.
|
1,246,286 |
The appellant is the mother of Kumar (Accused No.2) and Parshuram (accused No.3).The appellant married to Sagun Tatoba Malmanke ( the deceased husband).This was her second marriage.Above two accused, Laxmi (the deceased daughter) and P.W.10 Renuka and P.W. 9 Deepak borned of her first marriage.The appellant therefore, on the date of incident dated 27/1/1994, was the mother of 3 sons and 2 daughters.All were residing together with the deceased in the house situated at Miraj.The deceased daughter, Laxmi had illicit relations with the deceased husband, Sagun.Eight days prior to the date of incident, the deceased Sagun and the deceased Laxmi had left the house and they were roaming around in the village.On 26/1/1994 at about 9 p.m., P.W. 9 Deepak had noticed them.The appellant rushed there and noticed Mangalsutra around the neck of the deceased Laxmi and when enquired, they informed about their marriage.However, the appellant brought them to the house in Rickshaw, which was noticed by the neighbour, P.W. 4, Gopal.At about 1 a.m. on 27/1/1994, Gopal (P.W. 4) heard noise of quarrel from the house of the accused and the deceased.As such quarrels were routine and as it was also stopped, Gopal P.W. 4 alongwith other neighbourers returned back to their respective homes.The appellant after 2 hours, on the same day at about 3 a.m. knocked the door of Gopal, P.W. 4 and requested him to accompany her to the police station.The appellant had also asked one Narsu, another neighbour, to accompany her to the police station.The appellant picked up an blood stained axe, which was kept in the corner of her house.They went to the rickshaw stand by walking .The appellant informed that, she along with her son accused Nos. 2 and 3 had assaulted the deceased husband Sagun and deceased daughter Laxmi with an axe, gupti, knife, and wooden handle and killed them.The clothes of the appellant were stained with the blood.They went to the Miraj Police station by Rickshaw.P.W. 14 Madan, P.I. visited the spot and noticed both the dead bodies in the residential house of the accused.The dead body of Sagun was naked.There were several injuries on the head, as well as, vital parts of both the dead bodies.The photographs were taken Exh. 25 in presence of P.W. 1, Kadar Babu Sayyed.Several other articles including knife, gupti, wooden handle scattered and lying on the ground were also seized.Both the bodies were sent for post mortem examination to Civil Hospital, Sangli.Dr. Sanjay S. Bhave (P.W. 15) (M,.O.), conducted the post mortem examination on both these dead bodies.The report and letter Exh.47, 48 and death certificates and letter Exh.49 and 50 are on the record.The blood stained clothes, blouse, saree and petticoat were also seized in presence of PW.3 Bharat Gurav by P.W. 14, P.I. Chavan.The statements of the witnesses were recorded.The articles seized were sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination.The Chemical Analyser's report is filed on the record.JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J.Therefore, this appeal against the order of conviction and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life.P.W. 4 and Narsu returned back from the compound of Police station, whereas the appellant went inside the police station.Therefore, on 27/1/1994, offence was registered as charged.P.W. 16, Shri Jadhav, Special Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of P.W. Deepak Malmanke (Exh.55).The charge sheet against all the accused including the appellant was filed.The charges were framed against all the accused.All the accused have denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed for the trial.The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses.No defence witness was examined.The appellant-original accused No.1 was acquitted for the offence punishable under section 201 of IPC but convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.Heard Shri Prashant D. Patil, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri D.R. More, the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.The appellant's Counsel has relied on 1989 Supp.The learned A.P.P. has supported the Judgment and order on all counts and submitted to maintain the same.After considering the material, as well as, the evidence on the record, we are also of the view, that the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, under grave provocation, murdered her second husband, Sagun and her own daughter, Laxmi (from her first husband), as they had developed illicit relations and at the relevant time at midnight on 26/1/1994, the appellant had seen them in compromising position.There is no much dispute about the death of both the deceased on the spot, because of severe injuries on the vital parts of the bodies of the deceased, caused by, the duly seized blood stained axe, by the appellant.The original accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted and there is no counter appeal by the State against the order of acquittal.The acquittal order therefore, remained intact.The prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the appellant assaulted and killed the deceased Sagun and Laxmi.The post mortem report, certificate of Doctor and multiple injuries, as recorded and observed by the learned Judge also support the prosecution.The learned Judge has convicted appellant by holding that there was predetermination and design and based on that the said offence was committed.Therefore, discarded the defence of sudden and grave provocation.The spot panchanma Exh.10, Scene of offence Exh.12, A inquest panchanma Exhs. 9 shows that the dead body of the deceased Sagun was naked.The illicit relation of the deceased must be bothering the appellant.Both the deceased were away from home for some days.The appellant's son Deepak noticed them in the garden and they were brought back to the house in question.There was quarrel at about 1 a.m. between 26/1/1994 and 27/1/1994 and it was noticed by the by Gopal (P.W. 4).The Mangalsutra around the neck of the deceased Laxmi and open declaration about their marriage with the second husband was also troubling the appellant.Their such illicit relations cannot be said to be normal circumstance for the appellant at the relevant time.Above this, on the same night, when she saw her second husband Sagun in compromising position with the eldest daughter Laxmi, that must have provoked her to commit such crime.Merely because, some knife was purchased on the same date that itself cannot be the reason to hold that there was conspiracy or plan to commit the crime in question.One cannot over look, in this back ground, the mental condition of the appellant, specially, when the appellant has 2 unmarried daughters and 3 unmarried sons staying together at the relevant time.The appellant-accused before reaching to the Police Station, when enquired, informed to Gopal, P.W. 4, about the crime and as suggested by him she went to the police station, and informed the same also to the police.The possibility of disclosing this fact to P.W. 4, who was at the relevant time was neighbourer, cannot be discarded.Merely because, P.W. 9, Deepak son the appellant; P.W. 10, Renuka, daughter of the appellant were declared hostile, still, as both these witnesses, as observed rightly by the learned Sessions Judge, have deposed in their examination-in-chief, the facts prior to the incident, specially, the fact that Deepak ,P.W. 9 noticed both the deceased Sagun and Laxmi in Ambedkar Garden, Miraj, and they were absent from the house for more than 8 days.P.W. 4 (Gopal) noticed that the deceased Sagun and Laxmi and appellant alighted from the rickshaw on 26/1/1994 at about 3 p.m. This fact was corroborated by P.W. 9, Deepak and P.W. 10, Renuka, who were also residing along with the deceased and the appellant in the same house.This circumstantial evidence therefore, also linked the prosecution case.The presence of original accused Nos. 2 and 3 was not supported and or proved by any of the witnesses.On 27/1/1994 at about 3 a.m., as noted above, P.W. 4, Gopal on the request of appellant accompanied her upto the compound wall of the police station.P.W. 12 also gave drinking water to the appellant and asked her husband, Narsu to accompany her.The blood stained clothes, blood stained weapon i.e. axe which were seized from appellant.The Chemical Analyser's reports Exh.37 to 40 disclose that the blood group of the deceased was found on the seized blood stained clothes, apart from the clothes of the appellant and the axe.All these corroborative evidence, therefore, connect the appellant with the crime.P.W. 15, Dr. Sanjay, Medical Officer, who examined the dead bodies also in his post mortem notes Exh.47 and 48 supports 21 injuries on the person of deceased Sagun and 17 injuries on the person of deceased Laxmi.These injuries were caused by sharp and cutting object.The learned Judge, however, merely relied on the evidence of P.W. 7, Mohinuddin, who deposed that in the night on 26/1/1994 at about 9 p.m. the appellant had been to his house and wanted to purchase a knife.But as the shop was closed, he offered her a gupti and the appellant had purchased the same, for her own security, as she had to travel to Karnataka.The murder was committed at about 1 a.m. The basic injuries on the person of both the deceased, as per post- mortem reports Exh.47 and 48 were on the vital part i.e. head, chest and were with the axe.The gupti was also recovered from the spot, under the panchanma, which was identified by P.W.7, but the gupti was not blood stained.According to us purchase and recovery of Gupti from the spot that itself cannot be sufficient to accept the prosecution case and reasoning given by the learned Judge that the appellant had predetermined and designed to kill and or assaulted both the deceased.The learned Judge according to us, right in his reasoning in holding that the appellant had committed the crime in question and the prosecution has proved the same.The Apex Court in Raghavan Achari (Supra) acquitted the accused as that was the case of self defence, as the accused had caused grievous injuries to the appellant first and the appellant having seen the deceased in compromising position with his wife, and therefore, in this background the appellant had inflicted with the chopper, which resulted into the death of the deceased.In that circumstances, the Apex Court has acquitted the appellant by giving the benefit of section 100 of IPC.The facts are distinct in the present case.Therefore, after considering the material on the record, we are accepting the submissions made by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant based upon the Apex Court's decision (Ajit Singh) (Supra) that the appellant had acted under grave and sudden provocation, therefore, the offence committed by her falls within the ambit of Section 304(1) of I.P.C.The appeal is partly allowed. .We are therefore, quash and set aside the conviction for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 34 of IPC.The order is modified to this extent.The appellant is entitled for the set off, for the period, which she has already undergone.The appellant shall surrender to her bail bond forthwith.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,631,520 |
Challenging the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court I, Chidambaram, passed in C.A.No.72 of 2006 on 21.08.2007 confirming the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate, Portonova (Parangipettai), passed in C.C.No.153 of 2003 on 04.04.2006, the present revision has been filed.Upon the petitioner's father failure to return the same, PW-1 demanded return of him owing to which there was a quarrel between them.As a consequence thereof, on 15.01.2006 at about 20.30 hours, the petitioner along with A2, assaulted PW-1, using an iron rod, caused grievous injures as also threatened him that he would be done away with by them.The case was tried in C.C.No.153 of 2003 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Portonova (Parangipettai).Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and marked eight exhibits and three material objects.None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked.Hence, this revision.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).Given the attendant facts and circumstances, the conviction of the Courts below is justified.However, taking into consideration the nature of weapons used as also the injury caused, this Court would alter the conviction to one under section 324 IPC punishable under section 325 IPC.Offence under section 325 IPC is compoundable with the permission of Court.The memo signed both by the petitioner/accused as also the de facto complainant informs of amicability reached between them.Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Portonova (Parangipettai).3.The Station House Officer, Maruthur Police Station.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.R.C.No.839 of 200818.09.2014
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,634,419 |
(a)P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased.The deceased was onePavathal.They were residing at Kolanthapalayam village.The accused was knownto P.W.1 and other family members.On three different occasions, prior to theoccurrence, the accused pledged three cycles with P.W.1 and received a sum ofRs.200/- each for the same.But he did not redeem the cycles.The accused wastelling P.W.1 that he would earn money and redeem the cycles.(b)While so, on 27.12.2003, at about 4.30 p.m., P.W.4 foundthe accused entering into the house of the deceased.The deceased was alone athome at that time.P.W.4 is a resident in the house situated opposite to thehouse of the deceased.At about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m., P.W.4 noticed the accusedleaving the house of the deceased.His house is situated in front of the house of the deceased.He alsofound the accused entering into the house of the deceased at about 4.00 p.m.on 27.12.2003 and leaving the house at 5.30 p.m.To his shock, he found his wife lying unconscious in his house.P.W.3is a country doctor.Onexamining the deceased, P.W.3 found the deceased dead.P.W.1 noticed that thejewels worn by the deceased were missing.Immediately, he rushed to ThennilaiPolice Station.(d)P.W.17, was the then Special Sub-Inspector of Police,attached to Thennilai Police Station.At 9.00 p.m., on 27.12.2003, when he wason duty in the Police Station, he received Ex.P-1 Complaint from P.W.1 andregistered a case in Crime No.107/2003 under Sections 302 and 379 IPC.P-17is the First Information Report.He forwarded Exs.P-1 and P-17 to the Court.Hehanded over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police, for investigation.(e)P.W.18 was the then Inspector of Police, Paramathi Circle.Taking up the case for investigation, he proceeded to the place of occurrence,where he prepared Ex.P-2 Observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses andEx.P-18 Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence.Then he conductedinquest on the body of the deceased, during which he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 andfew more witnesses.Ex.P-19 is the Inquest Report.At about 11.15 p.m., fromthe place of occurrence, he recovered a portion of gold ear stud, weighing 150mgs.under Ex.P-4 Mahazar.According to the said report, no poison was detected in the aboveinternal organs of the deceased.P.W.11 finally gave opinion that the deceasedwould appear to have died of asphyxia due to throttling.(g)During the course of investigation, P.W.18 had arranged forphotographs being taken on the body of the deceased.M.Os.16 and 17 are thePhotographs.On 29.12.2003, P.W.18 examined few more witnesses.On 31.12.2003,at about 7.00 a.m., at Muthoor Bus-stop, in the presence of P.W.9 and anotherwitness, P.W.18 arrested the accused.On such arrest, the accused agave avoluntary confession in the presence of the said witnesses and the same wasreduced into writing.After completing confession, the accused took out goldthali chain (M.O.3), gold bangle (M.O.5), gold ear stud (M.O.6) and gold screw(M.O.8).P.W18 recovered the same under Ex.P-5 Mahazar in the presence of samewitnesses.At 9.15 a.m., P.W.18 recovered the under-garments of the accused(M.O.10) and Full Hand Shirt (M.O.9), under Ex.P-6 Mahazar.In pursuance of thedisclosure statement made, the accused took P.W.18 and the witnesses to thehouse of one Thangavel from where he produced M.Os.1 and 2 Cycles.(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.57/2004 on thefile of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur.By judgment, dated 04.01.2005, thetrial court convicted and sentenced the accused as under:Charge Finding SentenceU/s.450 IPC Guilty 7 Years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 1 year R.I.U/s.302 IPC Guilty Life Imprisonment, and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 1 year R.I.U/w.392 IPC Guilty 7 Years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default 1 year R.I.The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.Challenging the saidconviction, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.At about 11.45 p.m., he recovered a gold bangle,lying somewhere near the place of occurrence, under Ex.P-3 Mahazar.Then hesent the body for postmortem.(f)P.W. 11 Dr.Subramanaiam was an Assistant Civil Surgeon,attached to Government Hospital, Karur, during the relevant time.On28.12.2003, he commenced postmortem examination at 10.00 a.m. on the body of thedeceased.He found the following external injuries. "1)A lacerated wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm over back of lobule of right ear.2)A lacerated wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm over back of lobule of left ear.3)Abrasion 2cm x1/2 cm over left forearm.4)Nail marks 4 in number over left side 2 in number over right side arepresent at the level of thyroid & cricoid cartilages measuring 0.5 to 0.75 cm.On dissecting nail marks the subcutaneous tissue below nail marks areecchymosed."P-11 is the Postmortem Certificate.During postmortem, P.W.11 preservedstomach and its contents, intestine and its contents, liver and kidney for thepurpose of examination.All these organs were examined by the ScientificAssistant Grade-I, Forensic Science Laboratory, Tiruchirappalli.P.W.18recovered the same under Ex.P-7 Mahazar, in the presence of same witnesses.Then P.W.18 returned to police station, along with the accused and the materialobjects recovered.He sent the accused to the court for judicial remand and thematerial objects recovered to the court.On completing investigation, on30.01.2004, P.W.18 laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 450, 302and 392 IPC.3.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed chargesunder Sections 450, 302 and 392 IPC.The accused denied the charges.Thereforehe was put on trial.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution hasexamined as many as 18 witnesses and marked 19 documents, besides 17 materialobjects.4.P.W.1 has spoken to about the fact that he saw his wife deadaround 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. and he has also spoken to about the missing of materialobjects.He has identified M.Os.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as the jewels worn by thedeceased at the time of occurrence.P.W.2is the son of the deceased.He has also spoken to about the robbery.P.W.3 hasspoken to the fact that on 27.12.2003 at about 5.30 p.m. P.W.1 came to him andwanted him to examine his wife.He has further stated that he rushed to P.W.1'shouse and on examination, he declared that the deceased dead. P.W.4 and P.W.5are vital witnesses for the prosecution.They have spoken to about the factthat they found the accused entering into the house of the deceased at about4.30 to 5.00 p.m. and leaving the same around 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. P.W.6 is theone who accompanied P.W.1 to the police station for the purpose of preferringcomplaint.P.W.7 is the brother of the deceased.He has spoken to about thefact that M.Os.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were lastly worn by the deceased.P.W.11 has spoken to aboutthe postmortem and the opinion regarding the cause of the death.P.W.17 is thesub-inspector of police, who has spoken to about the registration of the caseand P.W.18 is the Inspector of Police, who has spoken to about theinvestigation done by him.5.When the above evidence were put to the accused underSection 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor to mark anydocument.Having considered the same, the trial court found the accused guiltyunder all the charges and convicted him thereunder and imposed punishments asstated earlier.The prosecution reliesonly on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye-witnesses to the occurrence.From the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it has been clearly proved that the deceasedwas found dead between 5.30 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. and at that time, some of thejewels, namely M.Os.3, 5, 6 and 8, worn by the deceased were found missing andsome of the jewles where found near the place of occurrence.But, we do not find any force in the saidargument, as, we have already stated, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 ithas been clearlyproved that the murder and robbery had taken place simultaneously, in the sametransaction.8.Now the question is who committed the murder and therobbery.P.W.4 and P.W.5 are vital witnesses, in this regard.They have statedthat around 4.00 to 4.30 p.m., on the crucial date, the accused was foundentering into the house of the deceased.But, during cross-examination, P.W.4has stated that the accused was not previously known to him.The learned counsel forthe accused would submit that since there was no test identification paradeconducted, identification of the accused in the Court, for the first time, byP.W.4 could not be believed.P.W.5 has clearly stated that atabout 4.00 p.m., he saw the accused entering into the house of the deceased andaround 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. he found the accused leavingthe house of the deceased.Thus, from the evidence ofP.W.5, the prosecution has clearly proved that the accused was found somewherenear the place of occurrence at or about the time when the occurrence had takenplace.9.Nextly, the prosecution mainly relies on recovery of M.Os.3,5, 6 and 8 from the possession of the accused.According to P.W.18, the accusedwas arrested on 31.12.2003 at about 7.00 a.m. at Muthoor bus-stop, in thepresence of P.W.9 and another witness by name Ganapathy.On such arrest, theaccused gave a voluntary confession and the same was reduced into writing.In respect of this evidence,the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that Ganapathy has not beenexamined and the same materially affects the case of the prosecution.In ourconsidered opinion, it is not so.In any criminal trial, it is not the numberof witnesses that counts but, it is only quality of evidence that counts.10.Here, to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.18, nomaterial has been brought on record, either during cross-examination or by wayof any other evidence.M.Os.3, 5,6 and 8 have been identified clearly by P.W.1 as the jewels lastly worn by thedeceased.But, the accused has got no plausible explanation, in respect of thepossession of these stolen goods.Under Section 114 of the Indian EvidenceAct, this Court is, therefore, inclined to raise a presumption that the accusedwas the one who committed robbery.For the purposeof committing murder and robbery, the accused had entered into the house of thedeceased, with criminal intention.This makes out an offence under Section 450IPC.Thus the prosecution has clearly proved the charges against the accusedunder Sections 450, 302 and 392 IPC.In respect of the quantum of sentence,the learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out any infirmity.Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal.The appeal fails.12.In the result, the appeal is dismissed.The conviction andsentence imposed by the trial court on the appellant/accused is herebyconfirmed.1.The learned Sessions Judge, Karur District.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Inspector of Police, K.Paramathi, Thennilai Police Station, Karur District.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,635,112 |
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated.It is further submitted that the victim herself has lodged the FIR on 18.06.2019 for the incident said to have taken place on 25.05.2019 after considerable delay through an application to the S.S.P., Muzaffarnagar against the applicant with the allegation that on 25.05.2019 around 11:00 p.m. the applicant has barged into her house and on the threat of knife, he has committed rape upon her.There is no plausible justification is coming forward for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR coupled with the fact that she has been medically examined on 24.06.2019 almost after one month of the incident.It is further submitted that on account of some business transaction, she has falsely implicated the applicant.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.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.Let the applicant Manavvar, 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 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,650,247 |
Notice be given to the C.B.I.let this matter appear under the same heading one week hence.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,650,295 |
Respondents 1/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOC WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1382 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra (Through Chatushrungi Police Station) ...Appellant VersusAnand Roopchand Gajbhiye, 23 yrs.Sandip Namdeo Nimhan, 26 yrs.Business Both residents of Pashangaon, Near Jay Bhavani Hotel, Pashangaon, Pune, Dist.As a traditionalpractice at about 8.00 pm.the frst informant came in front ofPrashant Genral Store, Pashan, to distribute bauhinia leavesi.e.(Apta - customary gold) to the citizens and well wishers.Suddenly a boy, who appeared to be around 24 year old, camein front of the frst informant.The said boy threw somesubstance in the eyes of the frst informant.As the frstinformant felt burning sensation in the eyes he started to rubthe eyes.In the meanwhile, two of the informant's associatesVilas Nimhan and Kailas Nimhan chased the said boy who fedaway by the adjoining lane.Within moments of the saidassault, few persons, who were hiding in another lane, camefrom behind and the frst informant was assaulted by means of 3/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCsharp object on the head.The frst informant turned behindand noticed that accused nos.2 to 8 were feeing away.Theassociates of the frst informant and the persons who werethen present at the scene of occurrence chased thoseassailants.As the frst informant sustained a bleeding injury,the frst informant's driver Hari and Chandrakant Nimhanshifted him to the Sancheti Hospital, Pune.(b) The boy, who threw the chilly powder, (accusedno.1 Anand) was apprehended by Vilas Nimhan and KailasNimhan after a chase.Accused no.1 was also brought atSancheti Hospital and handed over to the police, who hadreached the hospital on being apprised about the occurrence.At Sancheti Hospital, the police recorded the statement of thefrst informant.(c) The frst informant reported the police thataccused nos.1 to 8 were the members of the gang of RamNimhan - accused no.9, who was inimically disposed towardsthe frst informant on account of the latter's rise in politicalstature and popularity.In the past, accused no.1 hadthreatened to eliminate the frst informant.The frst informantwas thus assaulted with intent to commit murder.(d) During the course of investigation, theInvestigating Ofcer sent a requisition to the Magistrate torecord the statement of the frst informant.Accordingly, theSpecial Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the frstinformant.Accused no.1 came to be arrested and theincriminating article i.e. mobile-phone handset of Samsungmake came to be seized from the person of accused no.1.House search of the shop premises Jaybhavani Dry-cleaners,where the appellants were reported to be hiding, wasconducted and incriminating articles including a pouch ofchilly powder kept in a newspaper was seized under thepanchnama.The Investigating Ofcer interrogatedthe witnesses and recorded their statements.The rest of theaccused were arrested.Theinjury certifcate of the informant was obtained.Opinion ofthe Medical Ofcer as regards the possibility of the injury 5/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCsustained by the frst informant by the weapon of assault wasalso obtained.The seized articles were sent for forensicanalysis.The learned AdditionalSessions was, however, of the view that the prosecution couldnot succeed in establishing that the rest of the accused werethe members of the unlawful assembly, the object of whichwas to commit the murder of the frst informant and the frstinformant was assaulted in prosecution of the said commonobject.Nor the complicity of accused no.9 as an abettor couldbe established.It records that the inforamnt Vinayak (PW-10) hadblood and 'gulal' on the face and thus it was difcult tocomment about the presence of chilly powder in the eyes ofthe frst informant.Vilasini Balsubramaniam, h/f Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, for the Appellant in Appeal No.736/2003 and for the Respondents in Appeal Nos.1382/2003 & 1381/2003.Ms.P. P. Shinde, APP for the State.CORAM: SMT.JADHAV & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.RESERVED ON : 3rd September, 2020 PRONOUNCED 22nd September, 2020 ON:JUDGMENT : (Per: N.J. Jamadar, J.)These appeals are directed against the judgment andorder dated 31st May, 2003 in Sessions Case No.182 of 2000,whereby and whereunder accused no.1 Anand and accusedno.4 Sandeep (Appellants in Appeal No.736/2003 andRespondents in Appeal No.1381/2003) came to be convictedfor the ofences punishable under Section 307 read withSection 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") andsentenced to sufer rigorous imprisonment for fve years and 2/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCpay fne of Rs.1,000/- each, with default stipulation, and theaccused nos.2, 3 and 5 to 9 came to be acquitted of theofences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 307and 109 of the IPC.The background facts leading to these appeals can bestated in brief as under:After fnding the complicity of the accused for theofences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and109 of the IPC charge-sheet was lodged against the accused.Theaccused abjured their guilt and claimed for trial.(f) At the trial, to bring home the charge to theaccused the prosecution examined 11 witnesses includingVinayak Nimhan (PW-10) the frst informant, Kailas Nimhan(PW-6) and Jayant Nimhan (PW-8), as eye witnesses, Dr.Sandeep Patwardhan (PW-7), the Medical Ofcer who hadexamined and treated the frst informant at Sancheti Hospital,and Mallikarjun Apune (PW-11) the Investigating Ofcer.Thestatements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure were recorded.The accused did not leadany evidence in their defence which was of denial and falseimplication by taking undue advantage of the political clout ofthe frst informant when, in fact, the frst informant and hisassociates had assaulted Anand Gajbhiye (A1).CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOC(g) After appraisal of the evidence led and thedocuments tendered for perusal the learned AdditionalSessions Judge was persuaded to hold that the prosecutionsucceeded in establishing the guilt of accused nos.1 and 4only as accused nos.1 and 4 assaulted the frst informant withintent to commit the murder of the frst informant infurtherance of their common intention.Thus, accused nos.1 and 4 came to beconvicted and sentenced as indicated above.The rest of theaccused were acquitted.We have heard Ms. Vilasini Balsubramaniam, the learnedCounsel for the appellants in Appeal No.736 of 2003 and forthe respondents in Appeal No.1381 of 2003 and AppealNo.1382 of 2003 and Ms. P.P. Shinde, the learned APP for theState in all the appeals.With the assistance of the learnedCounsels for the parties we have perused the evidence andmaterial on record.Since all the appeals are directed against one and thesame judgment, we propose to determine the appeals by acommon reasoning.To start with, a brief resume of the evidence would beapposite.Mr. Vinayak Nimhan (PW-10), the frst informantinformed the Court the he was elected as a member of theLegislative Assembly from Shivaji Nagar Constituency, Pune.Accused no.9 Ram Nimhan had a grudge against him.Accusedno.9 and his hirelings had threatened him out of his life.Onthe core of occurrence Vinayak (PW-10) afrmed that on 19 thOctober, 1999 at about 8.00 pm.while he was distributingcustomary gold on account of Dasara in front of PrashantGeneral Stores, Pashan, Accused no.1 came from the oppositedirection and threw something in his eyes.He felt irritation in 8/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCthe eyes.Accused no.1 ran away.Kailas Nimhan (PW-6) andVilas Nimhan chased the accused.While he was rubbing eyesaccused nos.2 to 8 came from adjoining lane and inficted ablow on his head.He claimed to have sustained a bleedinginjury.Thereupon he was shifted to Sancheti Hospital.The aforesaid version of Vinayak (PW-1) was sought tobe corroborated by Mr. Kailas Sahadev Nimhan (PW-6), theinformant's cousin.Mr. Kailas claimed to have know Ram -accused no.9, Sandeep - accused no.4 and Pramod - accusedno.6 as they are his cousins and rest of the accused as themembers of Ram Nimhan's (accused no.9) gang.Kailasclaimed that at the time of occurrence while he, Vinayak - thefrst informant, and Vilas were standing on the road in front ofPrashant General Stores at Pashan, the accused no.1 camefrom the opposite direction and threw chilly powder in theeyes of Vinayak and started feeing away through the lane.Kailas wants the Court to believe that he and Vilas chased andcaught hold of Anand (A1).He further afrmed that he couldcatch accused no.1 as the latter fell down on the stoneswhile running away.By the time they brought accused no.1 atthe scene of occurrence where the frst informant wasassaulted, the latter was shifted to Sancheti Hospital. 9/37CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCThereupon accused no.1 was also taken to Sancheti Hospitaland handed over to the police.Jayant (PW-8) apprised the Court thatwhile Kailas and Vilas were chasing accused no.1, rest of theaccused came thereat and assaulted the frst informant.Accused no.4 Sandeep was armed with a sickle and infictedblow on the head of the frst informant.After assault theassailants started to run away.Jayant (PW-8) claimed to havechased the assailants.He saw accused no.9 Ram in front ofHotel Jaybhavani.Accused no.4 Sandeep told Ram (accusedno.9), "work is done start running".Accused no.9 Ram alsostarted running.Despite chase Jayant (PW-8) could notapprehend any of the accused.The claim of Vinayak (PW-10) of having sustained ableeding injury on head fnds support in the evidence of Dr.Sandeep Patwardhan (PW-7).Dr. Sandeep claimed to haveexamined Vinayak at Sancheti Hospital at about 8.30 pm.when he was admitted thereat with the history of assault bysome blunt object and throwing of chilly powder in the eyes.On examination Dr. Sandeep claimed to have found:(i) CLW on the right side of the head 10/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOC Approx.6 c.m. X 1 c.m. bone deep with bleeding.The injury was on occipto-parietal region of the skull.(ii) Abrasion on the back.Dr. Sandeep further informed that x-ray and C.T. scan revealedthat the informant had crack fracture on the occipto-parietalregion of the skull.According to Dr. Sandeep, the injury wasdangerous to life and, if the injury was not attended to, in theordinary course of nature, it might have caused death.In theopinion of Dr. Sandeep (PW-5) the said injury was possible bythe blunt side of the sickle (Article-5).It would be contextually relevant to note that there isevidence to indicate that on 19 th October, 1999, the FIR(Exhibit-55) came to be recorded at Sancheti Hospital and theblood stained clothes of the informant were seized under thepanchnama (Exhibit-35).The factum of injury to Vinayak (PW-10) was thus established beyond the pale of controversy.Theauthorship of the said injury was in contest.Appeal No. 1381 of 2003 The learned Sessions Judge, in the backdrop of theaforesaid ocular account, was of the view that the testimonyof Vinayak (PW-10), Kailas (PW-6) and Jayant (PW-8) wasrequired to be appreciated with care and caution as regardsthe identity of the assailants.Indisputably, the informant 11/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCparty and accused had inimical relations.There is evidence toindicate that the enmity had political and familial overtones.In the very elections in which the frst informant Vinayak (PW-10) was elected, the accused no.9 Ram and his associates hadcanvassed against the informant.In fact, the frst informantattributed the inimical disposition as the motive for theassault.In this view of the matter, in our view, the learnedSessions Judge was justifed in evaluating the testimony ofaforesaid witnesses on anvil of reliability and trustworthiness.Enmity is a double edged tool.On the one hand, it furnishes amotive for the crime.On the other hand, it drives theunwarranted implication of as many persons from theadversory as possible.When the relations between theparties are shown to be inimical, the ocular account isrequired to be taken with a pinch of salt.This does not implythat the evidence of the witnesses should be thrownoverboard.It warrants an exercise of sifting the grain fromchaf.The learned Sessions, on the aforesaid touchstone, foundthat the testimony of Kailas (PW-6) was limited to the assaultperpetrated by Anand (A1).The frst informantVinayak (PW-10), in the backdrop of the assault by throwing ofchilly powder in his eyes, could not have seen the assailantspost assault by means of a blunt object, held the learnedSessions Judge.The learned APP urged that the aforesaid approach ofthe learned Sessions Judge was totally erroneous.Thetestimony of frst informant Vinayak (PW-10) fnds unfinchingcorroboration in the evidence of Kailas and Jayant.The ocularaccount is supported by the medical evidence.The witnesseshad known the assailants from before and they all had theopportunity to see the assailants.In the backdrop of theconsistent evidence, the learned Sessions Judge could nothave returned the fnding of not guilty against accused nos.2,3 and 5 to 9, urged Ms. Shinde, the learned APP.Kailas (PW-6) does not profess to inform theCourt about the assault by the rest of the accused as he had 13/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCno opportunity.The claim of Jayant (PW-8) to have witnessedboth the occurrence was rightly discarded by the learnedSessions Judge.In the backdrop of the prosecution case that,accused nos.2 to 8, who were hiding in a diferent lane,pounced upon the informant after accused no.1 threw chillypowder on the face of the informant and started to ran away,the claim of Jayant (PW-8) of having witnessed both theoccurrence cannot be readily accepted.The learned Sessions Judge, was also justifed in notplacing reliance on the claim of frst informant Vinayak (PW-10) of having seen the assailants.Secondly, theassault was mounted after the accused no.1 had alreadythrown chilly powder on the face of the frst informant.Thirdly,the frst informant himself claimed that he felt irritation in hiseyes and was rubbing the eyes when he was assaulted bymeans of a blunt object on his head.Fourthly, after the saidattack the assailants immediately fed away.These factorscumulatively indicate that the time interval between the frstand second incident was very short.CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCIn the aforesaid scenario, the approach of the learnedSessions Judge in seeking corroboration to the ocular accountin respect of the identity of the accused nos.2 to 9 as theassailants appears to be justifable.It is imperative to notethat there was a single blow on the head of the frst informant.It is not the claim of the prosecution witnesses that apart fromSandeep (A4) rest of the assailants were armed with anyweapon or they inficted any blow on the frst informant bymeans of any weapon.No overt act is attributed to any of theaccused apart from Anand (A1) and Sandeep (A4).The endeavour on the part of the prosecution to rope inaccused no.9 Ram as an abettor, was also found to beabortive.Firstly, no nexus could be established betweenaccused no.9 and the premises of Jay Bhavani Dry-cleaners,where house search was conducted on the night intervening19th and 20th October, 1999, and from where the pouch ofchilly powder allegedly kept in a newspaper and a jacket wereseized under panchnama (Exhibit-33).Secondly, theendeavour to implicate Ram (A9)) by banking upon thetestimony of Jayant (PW-8) that he heard Sandeep (A4) callingRam (A9) to run as the work was accomplished, can not becountenanced.In the context of proved enmity, the testimonyof Jayant (PW-8) that he heard Sandeep exhorting Ram (A9) to 15/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCrun away while the assailants were being chased by him andother persons, does not allure confdence.Hence, the appeal preferred by the state againstthe acquittal of accused nos.2, 3 and 5 to 9 fails.Appeal No.736 of 2003 The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the actof throwing chilly powder by accused no.1 and that of assaultby accused no.4 were in furtherance of common intention.Since accused no.1 was apprehended by Kailas (PW-6) andwas indisputably handed over to the police at SanchetiHospital and it was the stand of the accused no.1 that, at thetime of occurrence, he was assaulted by the informant and his 16/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCassociates, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that theprosecution version had a ring of truth as the traces of chillypowder were found on the clothes of the frst informant, onanalysis by the chemical analyst and ocular account of thefrst informant found corroboration in the evidence of Kailas(PW-6).The guilt of Sandeep (A4) was sustained as the ocularaccount was found to be corroborated by the medicalevidence and the circumstantial evidence in the form ofrecovery of the blood stained sickle (Article 5) pursuant to thediscovery made by accused no.4 under Section 27 of theEvidence Act and the seizure of mobile phone from the personof Anand (A1) which belonged to Sandeep (A4).It was urged that the version ofthe prosecution witnesses that accused no.1 had thrown chillypowder on the face of the frst informant Vinayak (PW-10) isunworthy of credence as neither the traces of chilly powderwere found at the scene of occurrence nor a correspondinginjury was noticed by Dr. Sandeep Patwardhan (PW-7).In thebackdrop of positive case that the accused no.1 had thrownchilly powder, the frst informant felt irritation in the eyes and 17/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCwas rubbing the eyes, the total absence of correspondinginjury dismantles the very prosecution case, urged Ms.Moreover, the prosecution is guilty ofsuppression of the genesis of the occurrence.From the ownshowing of the prosecution witnesses, Anand (A1) hadsustained severe injuries and yet the Investigating Ofcerfeigned ignorance about the injuries on the person of theaccused no.1 and the latter's medical examination.This falseclaim of the prosecution witnesses erodes the credibility oftheir testimony, urged Ms. Balsubramaniam.As there is adiscrepancy in the ocular account and medical evidencerecording the weapon by which the frst informant allegedlysustained the injury and the necessary nexus between thesaid weapon and accused no.4 could not be established, thelearned Sessions Judge could not have convicted accused no.4Sandeep as well, submitted Ms. Balsubramaniam.Per contra, Ms. Shinde, the learned APP supported theimpugned judgment.The evidence on record, according to thelearned APP, establishes the guilt of accused nos.1 and 4 asthe prime assailants beyond shadow of doubt.The learnedAPP urged that the sentence of fve years imprisonment, in thebackdrop of murderous assault on a peoples' representative 18/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCin a public place errs on the side of leniency.Accused nos.1and 4 deserve condign punishment, urged Ms. Shinde.The frst informant Vinayak (PW-10) and Kailas haveafrmed that the accused no.1 threw chilly powder on the faceof the frst informant.Pertinently, Vinayak (PW-10) claimed tohave felt irritation in the eyes and started rubbing the eyes.Itis imperative to note that even in the history narrated to themedical ofcer at Sancheti Hospital, assault by means ofthrowing chilly powder was reported.However, Dr. Sandeep(PW-7) does not claim to have found any injury on account ofirritation which the chilly powder causes.The time-lagbetween the occurrence and admission at Sancheti Hospitalwas also not of more than 15 to 20 minutes.It is not the claimthat the fst informant had washed of his eyes beforeapproaching Sancheti Hospital.What accentuates the situation and corrodes theprosecution case is the report of Dr. Sandeep Patwardhan(Exhibit-42).It would be contextually relevant to notethat during the course of cross-examination Vinayak (PW-10)categorically declined that at the time of occurrence his face 19/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCwas fully covered by gulal.He went on to assert that therewas no gulal on his person when he was assaulted and thus nogulal was found on his forehead or in the eyes.The confusion is further confounded by the fact that theprosecution in its endeavour to rope in accused no.9 bankedupon the seizure of the pouch of chilly powder at Jay BhavaniDry-cleaners under house search panchanama (Exhibit-33).The clothes which the frst informant wore at the time of theoccurrence seized under the panchnama (Exhibit-35) allegedlyhad traces of chilly powder.CA report (Exhibit 74) was reliedupon by the prosecution to demonstrate that the traces of thechilly powder found on the clothes of the frst informant talliedwith the sample of chilly powder found in the said pouch inrespect of physicochemical characteristics.In the backdrop of this positive case of the prosecution,the version of Dr. Sandeep (PW-7) that no injury caused bychilly powder was found on the person of the frst informantnor any trace of chilly powder was found on the face, and, onthe contrary, the face of the frst informant was then found tobe smeared with blood and 'gulal' contradicts the claim of thewitnesses to the point of irreconciliation.Though the learned Sessions was justifed in observingthat non fnding of traces of chilly powder at the scene of 20/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCoccurrence, during the course of scene of occurrencepanchnama, which was drawn on the morning of 20 th October,1999, did not detract materially from the prosecution, yet theabsence of any sign of injury caused by the chilly powder andthe claim of Dr. Sandeep Patwardhan (PW-7) that gulal wasfound on the face of the frst informant, which wascategorically declined by the frst informant, could not havebeen lightly discarded.It is more so for the reason that thelearned Sessions Judge had rightly disbelieved the recovery ofthe pouch of chilly powder from the house search allegedlyconducted at Jay Bhavani Dry-cleaners.We are of the viewthat in its endeavour to connect accused no.9 Ram with thecrime the prosecution professed to establish the nexusbetween the seized chilly powder and residue allegedly foundon the clothes of the frst informant which, in fact, ran counterto the prosecution version.The aforesaid factor is of critical signifcance as that isthe only overt role attributed to Anand (A1).In this context,the submission on behalf of accused no.1 premised onsuppression of the genesis of the occurrence, in the light ofthe injuries on the person of accused no.1, requiresconsideration.CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCThe fact that there were injuries on the person ofaccused no.1 when he was apprehended by Kailas (PW-6) israther indisputable.Kailas (PW-6) afrmed that the accusedno.1 had sustained injury on his right eye and face as he felldown while running away.Mr. Mallikarjun Apune (PW-11) theInvestigating Ofcer was more candid.Mr. Apune (PW-11)informed that after accused no.1 was brought at SanchetiHospital he was referred to Sasoon Hospital as there wereinjuries on his person.Mr. Apune (PW-11) dithered in thecross-examination.He feigned ignorance as to whether Anand(A1) was in fact examined at Sasoon Hospital though he wasreferred to, along with police staf.He admitted not to havecollected the Medico-Legal Certifcate in respect of Anand(A1).He conceded that he had seen the injuries on the personof Anand (A1) when he was produced before him post arrest.Mr. Sandeep Kaduskar (PW-2) public witness to the arrestof Anand (A1) testifed to the fact that accused no.1 had aninjury below right eye.There was swelling.In the panchnamaevidencing the arrest of Anand (A1) an endeavour was madeto explain away the injury by recording that accused no.1claimed that he sustained the said injury to eye and otherinjuries on the head as he fell down while running away.CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCThe failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries onthe person of the accused in the same occurrence ipso factodoes not warrant jethisoning away the prosecution version.Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater signifcance when the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution.In the case at hand, the prosecution witnesses have notdenied the injuries on the person of the Anand (A1).The Investigating Ofcer did not collect the Medico-LegalCertifcate from Sasoon Hospital.In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Anand (A1)made a statement that he sustained injury as he wasassaulted by informant and his associates and the informantVinayak (PW-10) sustained the injuries as one of the blows fellon his head, and when he went to the police station to reportthe matter, the accused came to be falsely prosecuted.Aphotostat copy of the injury certifcate evidencing theexamination of accused no.1 at Sasoon General Hospital on19th October, 1999 at 10.40 pm.was annexed to thestatement.The learned Sessions Judge was of the view thatthis explanation was not adequate and accused no.1 couldhave established the said fact by leading evidence.We fnd that, in the peculiar fact of the case, where theinjuries on the person of the accused no.1 are not denied and, 24/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCon the contrary, an explanation was sought to be ofered bythe prosecution witnesses which suits the prosecution version,and the Investigating Ofcer claimed that he had giveninstruction to the staf to take Anand (A1) for medicalexamination, the failure of the prosecution to place on recordthe report of medical examination of accused no.1 or ofer anexplanation as to why the accused no.1 was not medicallyexamined despite such instructions, erodes the credibility ofthe prosecution.Moreover, if the claim of Kailas (PW-6) thatAnand (A1) fell down while feeing away is to be believed, thenthe accused no.1 would have sustained associated injuries onother parts of the body.The failure of the prosecution to placeon record the injury certifcate of Anand (A1), viewed throughthe aforesaid prism, can not be said to be inconsequential.It is true this factor may not probabalise the defenceversion as it wavered from one end to another.It wassuggested to Dr. Sandeep (PW-7) that the injuries of the kindsufered by the frst informant Vinayak (PW-10) were possibleif one falls on the road divider or stone.However, such agratuitous suggestion was not put to Vinayak (PW-10).Yet, inthe light of the absence of the material to show that the frstinformant had sustained injury on account of throwing of chillypowder, which was the only act attributed to Anand (A1), and 25/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCreluctance of the prosecution to place on record the injurycertifcate of Anand (A1) though the Investigating Ofcer gaveinstructions to get accused no.1 examined at Sasoon Hospital,impairs the veracity of the claim of Kailas (PW-6) and rendersthe authorship of the said act of throwing chilly powder in thecorridor uncertainty.The learned Sessions Judge fell in error inconstruing the injury sustained by accused no.1 as not only asthe guarantee of his presence at the scene of occurrence butalso as a proof of authorship of the said act.The conviction ofAnand (A1), thus, cannot be sustained.The learned Counsel for the appellant mounted athreefold challenge to the veracity of the claim of Jayant(PW-8).One, the presence of Jayant (PW-8) to witness theoccurrence is doubtful as the evidence of frst informantVinayak (PW-10) on the aspect of the presence of Jayant (PW-8) sufers from infrmity.Two, a contradiction in respect of 26/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCJayant (PW-8) chasing the assailants was duly proved in thecross-examination of Vinayak (PW-10).Three, there was aninordinate and unexplained delay in recording the statementof Jayant (PW-8) under Section 161 of the Code.Thisunexplained delay impairs the credibility of prosecution asJayant (PW-8) was the only witness who claimed to havewitnessed the assault by Sandeep (A4) by means of sickle.The submissions on behalf of the appellant on the pointof the testimony of Vinayak (PW-10) losing corroborativesignifcance as regards the presence of Jayant (PW-8) appearsto have some substance.The claim of Vianayak (PW-10) thathe had opportunity to see Jayant (PW-8) and others chasingthe assailants does not warrant implicit reliance.Acontradiction was brought out in the cross-examination ofVinayak (PW-10) that while lodging report he had informedthat he came to know about Jayant (PW-8) and others chasingthe assailants from Chandrakant, who rushed him to SanchetiHospital.The presence of Jayant (PW-8) atthe place and time of occurrence, if considered through theprism of the occasion (Dasara celebration) cannot be said tobe inconceivable.Moreover, Jayant's (PW-8) version abouthaving witnessed the assault by Sandeep (A4) and chased the 27/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCassailants to a considerable distance could not haveimpeached during the course of cross-examination.The argument based on the count of delay in recordingthe statement of Jayant (PW-8), on a frst blush, appearsattractive.There was at least one day's delay in recording the statementof Jayant (PW-8).It has to be seen whether there areconcomitant circumstances which indicate that theInvestigating Ofcer was marking his time so as to introducethe witness and give shape to the prosecution case.In order to derive mileage from the delay in recordingthe statements of the witnesses, the Investigating Ofcerought to be confronted with the factum of delay and the 28/37 CRI.APPEAL-736-2003+.DOCcause, if any.In the absence of such an exercise mere delay,without anything more, may not advance the cause of thedefence.Two circumstances were taken into account by thelearned Sessions Judge as corroborative to the testimony ofJayant(PW-8).First, a mobile phone handset was recoveredfrom the person of Anand (A1) and the sim card used in thesaid handset belonged to Sandeep (A4).Second, Sandeep(A4) made a disclosure statement pursuant to which the bloodstained sickle (Article-5) came to be recovered from the tin-shed behind the house of Sandeep (A4).On the aspect of punishment, the governing principle isits proportionality to the gravity of the ofence.In our view,having regard to the fact that a peoples' representative wasassaulted, in public view, on account of rivalry which had itsgenesis in political aspirations as well, and the situation in lifeof Sandeep (A4), at the time of the occurrence, a sentence ofrigorous imprisonment for three years and fne of Rs.1,000/-would meet the ends of justice.The upshot of the aforesaid consideration is that theappeal against conviction (Appeal No.736/2003) deserves tobe partly allowed and appeal for enhancement of sentence(Appeal No.1382/2003) is liable to be dismissed.Hence, thefollowing order::Order:(b) The appellant Anand Gajbhiye (A1) stands acquitted of the ofence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC.(c) The bail bond of the appellant Anand Gajbhiye (A1) stands cancelled and surety stands discharged.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,651,150 |
M.C. No.1656/2011 Page 1 of 19M.C. No.1656/2011 Page 1 of 19Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged by the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Vijaya Building, 17, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi with Connaught Place Police Station alleging that the SBI has a Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and a local head office at 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi.The Bank provides "Letter of Credit Advising Service" to the customers and non-customer exporters.The exporters enter into contracts with their Overseas Clients for exporting goods and the Overseas Clients arrange Letters of Credit (LC) through their banks.The foreign banks send to SBI, Letter of Credit by mail, telex, swift for further advising to the exporters.It was alleged that Mr. Chetwal was not authorized to collect the commission and even if he ought to have collected the same, then he should Crl.M.C. No.1656/2011 Page 3 of 19 have deposited it in the Bank.This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 692/99 registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi under Section 409/420 IPC.Upon receipt of such LCs, the SBI verifies the genuineness of the instruments and enter the details of each LC in its books.Then, it attaches a forwarding letter with the details of the LC and levy thereupon charges to the LC and hand it over to the courier for delivery to the exporters.From the customers, the bank recovers charges by debiting Crl.M.C. No.1656/2011 Page 2 of 19 their account with the Bank and the courier recovers charges from the non-customers before the delivery of the LC to the exporters.Similar procedure is adopted for advising any amendment to the LC.M.C. No.1656/2011 Page 2 of 19The complainant had also given the scale of quantum of charges which are levied in this regard for different services provided by the Bank.It was alleged that the present petitioner, Rajesh Chetwal, R/o B-1/149, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, who has worked on the desk of LC Advising as Deputy Manager from November 1992 to May 1996, while advising some LCs/amendments, executed transfers without entering in the books of the Bank and pocketed the commission collected in cash from some exporters.It was further alleged that in order to give it the shape of a genuine transaction and to gain the confidence of the exporters, he sometimes even issued receipts to them.It was also stated in the complaint that the petitioner had drawn an amount of approximately Rs.3.25 lakhs by collecting the commissions from different exporters, namely, M/s. Innovative Textiles Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd., Ludhiana and M/s. STI Ltd., Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi, but the same was not deposited with the Bank.It was also alleged that this fraud came to the notice of the Bank in September, 1996, thereafter, he was transferred immediately and a report was lodged by the Bank against the petitioner for committing fraud and on the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the local police of PS Connaught Place registered an FIR No. 692/99 under Section 409/420 IPC.After investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the competent court.After pro-longed delay, it is stated that the charges against the present petitioner have been framed on 06.05.2009 and the present petition has been filed on 05.04.2011 for quashing the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the Crl.In the present case, the FIR was admittedly registered in the year 1999 and a charge sheet had also been filed in the same year.Therefore, the petitioner was aware as to what are the accusations against him when he appeared before the Court for the first time in 1999 as a complete set of the charge sheet must have been supplied to him.If at all, the petitioner Crl.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.