id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
124,654,639 |
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Daulat Singh Thakur in Crime No.1/2017 (Criminal Case No. 181/2017), registered by P.S. Chourai, District Chhindwara under Sections 182, 195, 211 and 120-B of the I.P.C.As per the prosecution case, co-accused Ram Kumari Rathore who was in love with petitioner Daulat, at his instance, lodged a false report against Krishana and Daulat Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 376 (2) (n), 506, 201 and 120-B of the I.P.C. On the basis of aforesaid report, Crime No.51/2017 was registered against Daulat Singh and Krishana.The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in Istgasa No.1/2017 (criminal case No.181/2017) registered under Sections 182, 195, 211 and 120-B of the I.P.C.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crime No.51/2017 registered under Sections 307, 376 (2) (n), 506, 201 and 120-B of the I.P.C. by order dated 24.4.2017 passed in M.Cr.It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there was no basis for registering Istgasa against the petitioner.It does not stand to reason that the petitioner would instigate his own lover to lodge a false report against himself; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the nature of allegations made in the Istgaha against the petitioner; in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves the benefit of anticipatory bail.Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Daulat Singh Thakur, is allowed.It is directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE ahd
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,422,679 |
Item No. 11And In the matter of: Md. Mustafa Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Faria Hossain For the Petitioner Mr. Rudradipta Nandy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Chakulia Police Station Case No. 83 of 2013 dated 16.04.2013 under sections 363/365/366A/372/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code, has come to this Court for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner as well as the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,422,827 |
At the time ofoccurrence, she was hardly 15 years old.She is a poor village girl, havingstudied upto 9th standard.The accused in this case was about 50 years of age atthe time of occurrence.He was also married and having three children.WhenPW3 was studying in the school, on her way to school, the accused used tointercept her and to speak to her.In such a way, PW3 also had spoken to theaccused on few occasions.(b)On 07.03.2004, PW3 alone was at her house.PW1 had gone out toa nearby village.PW2 had gone out to rear cattle.PW3's younger brother hadgone out for playing.When PW3 alone was at home, at about 11.00 a.m., theaccused came to her house.He told PW3 to heed to his words.He intimidatedPW3 that he would kidnap her to a different place.He also told her that ifshe did not accompany him, he would kill her and he would not allow herfamily members also to live.Out of fear, PW3 accompanied the accused.Shehad taken with her two sets of dress, as directed by the accused.(c)The accused took her to a nearby kanmoi (water body), wherenear a bush, at about 5.00 p.m., on the same day, the accused attempted tolure her to agree for sexual intercourse.PW3 raised hue and cry, but, sinceit was a distant lonely place, nobody came forward to her rescue.Then, bykeeping her under threat, the accused had sexual intercourse with her.PW3could not escape from the clutches of the accused.By then, it was about07.00 p.m. He took her in a bus to a different place.He took her into a coconut grove.There were no houses inthe same.There was only a lady working in the said farm.The accused keptPW3 in that place for about 15 days.PW1 & PW2 were not eyewitness to theoccurrence so as to rush to the Police Station immediately to give acomplaint.They are poor and illiterate villagers.The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.468 of 2005 on thefile of the learned Additional Sessions cum Mahila Court, Madurai.He stoodcharged for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC.The trialCourt convicted him under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC and sentenced him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-,in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offenceunder Section 366 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor six months for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.The trial Court hasalso found him guilty under Section 363 IPC and accordingly convicted him.The trial Court did not impose separate sentence for the said offence.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before thisCourt with this appeal.During that time, the accused hadfrequent sexual intercourse with her.One day, the accused had left PW3 inthe company of the woman and left for a different place.At that time, PW3narrated the entire occurrence to the said woman.She promised to help PW3.Accordingly, she allowed her to escape in a bus.PW3 returned to her nativeplace on 22.03.2004 at about 11.00 a.m.(d)In the meanwhile, on the day of the occurrence, PW2, who hadgone out for rearing cattle, returned to her house at about 06.00 p.m. To hershock, she found PW3 missing and her sons alone were there.Believing thewords by accident that the victim would have fallen in the nearby Well, PW2went nto the Well and searched for the deceased.When she in search of thedeceased, one Thangavelu told her that he had earlier seen PW3 going alongwith the accused.The said Thangavel further told that he could not catchhold of the accused.On hearing this message by about 07.00 p.m., on thatday, he informed her husband.(e)PW1, on hearing the message from PW2, returned to the villageon the next day at about 7.00 a.m. They went in search of PW3 but in vain.Thereafter, PW1 made a complaint to the Police.P1 is the complaint.PW11, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Melur Police Station,registered a case on the said complaint of PW1 in Crime No.200 of 2004 underSections 366(A) r/w 109 and 506(i) IPC.P7 is the FIR.He proceeded tothe place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketchshowing the place of occurrence.Then, he recorded the statements of PWs.1 &2 and few more witnesses, including Mr.Thangavel.(f)PW12, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case forinvestigation and examined few more witnesses.On 22.03.2004, he examined PW3and recorded her statement.Then, on the same day, at about 5.00 p.m., hearrested the accused and brought him to the Police Station.Then, heforwarded the accused as well as PW3 for medical examination.Chithra examined PW3 on 24.03.2004 and found that PW3 had been subjectedto frequent sexual intercourse.P4 is the certificate issued by her.Maiyalagan examined the accused and opined that he was not impotent.PW12,collected the medical records, examined the doctors and few more witnessesand recorded their statements and finally, laid the final report against theaccused.(g)Based on the above materials, the trial Court framedappropriate charges.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, as manyas 12 witnesses were examined and 12 documents were exhibited.As I havealready stated, PWs.1 & 2 have spoken about missing of PW3 and PW3 vividlynarrated about the entire occurrence.PW4 and PW5 have turned hostile.Maiyalagan and PW7 Dr.Chithra have spoken about the examination conductedon the accused and PW3 respectively.PW10 - Mr.PWs.11 & 12 have spoken about the investigation done.(h)When the above incriminating materials were put to theaccused, he denied the same as false.However, he did not examine anywitness on his side.The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that at the time of occurrence, PW3was fully competent to give full consent for sexual intercourse andtherefore, the offences said to have been committed by the accused are notmade out.6.I have considered the above submissions.7.Admittedly, at the time of occurrence, the accused was around50 years of age and he was also married and having three children.11.Now, turning to the delay in FIR, the learned counsel for theappellant has attempted to make a point, but I do not find anything in favourof the accused in this respect.Quite naturally, theywent in search of their daughter, PW3, for some time.Thereafter, accordingto PW1, after two days, he went to the Police Station and made the complaint.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,244,236 |
JUDGMENT J.N. Patel, J.It is the prosecution case that the appellant-accused was married to Mahananda about 8 years prior to the date of incident and that they had three sons and a daughter born out of the wedlock.Initially, the couple was residing at Latur.Then they came to Gadchandur for work.After four years, they again returned to Latur.Thereafter they again came back to Gadchandur alter about two years.They started living at village Shengaon.According to the prosecution, the mother of the appellant-accused insisted upon the appellant-accused to send his wife Mahananda to her father with a demand for money and as Mahananda refused to oblige, she was beaten by the accused and was sent to her parents' place.Once Mahananda visited her parents along with her mother-in-law and then returned to her husband.At this time, Mahananda had told her father Ram Bala Musale (P.W. 1) that she was not allowed to come back in the house for two days as she had not pressed for demand of money.It is in this background, the appellant-accused did not send Mahananda to her parents' place for a year or two and he used to beat Mahananda under influence of liquor as she did not put any demand for money.It is the prosecution case that a day prior to the incident, Mahananda had been to the Court in order to attend the case relating to her employment and from there she went to her parents' house at Gadchandur and stayed over night and returned to her husband's place on the next day, i.e. on 8.11.1994, in the morning, bacause of which her husband questioned her as to why she did not return on the day she had been to the Court, on which the deceased Mahananda told him that as it was getting dark she stayed at her parents' house because of which her husband attempted to assault her, and as she asked him not to beat her unnecessarily, he spared her and thereafter asked her to prepare tea.In order to prepare tea, she went out to get fuel, and when she came back in the house, appellant-accused poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.On this deceased Mahananda rushed out of the house shouting "Fire -Fire".Neighbours extinguished her fire by pouring water and she was taken to hospital.Ram Bala Musale (P.W. 1), father of Mahananda got the information about the incident on 8.11.1994 at about 9.30 a.m. that Mahananda had received burn injuries and she was taken to hospital at Gadchandur.On this, he went to Gadchandur and came to know that Mahananda had been shifted to Chandrapur General Hospital.On meeting his daughter, he was informed that the appellant-accused had set her on fire for money and stated that her father had married her to a butcher.According to the prosecution, on 11.11.1994, Head Constable Kumbhare (P.W. 5) visited the hospital and recorded statement of Mahananda after obtaining certificate from the Medical Officer that the patient was fit to give statement.In her statement, Mahananda told that her husband had poured kerosene on her person and had set her ablaze with the help of stick from hearth.After recording statement of Mahananda, Head Constable Kumbhare got an endorsement from the doctor that the patient was conscious.Thereafter he prepared his report and submitted it to the Police Station, Chandrapur City with Police Constable Shailesh.The Police Constable Shailesh lodgeci First Information Report on tyehalf of Sau.After registering the First Information Report, the police requisitioned Tahsildar, Chandrapur, to record dying declaration of Mahananda.After the dying declaration came to be recorded by the Tahsildar, Chandrapur, the case was transferred to Police Station, Gadchandur on 12.11.1994 at 11.10 a.m. and fresh Crime NO. 113 of 1994 came to be registered against the appellant-accused having committed offence under Section 498-A and Section 307, I.P.C. vide FIR.On 13.11.1994, PSI Vilas Narnavar (P.W. 11) who was attached to Police Station, Chandrapur City, received a Memo Exh. 33 to the effect that patient Mahananda has died.He then sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.According to her, her mother said that now she would not live there and shall go.Accused threw and poured Rockel (Rock oil) over the person of her mother and set her on fire with the help of lighted stick from 'Chul'.The person of her mother got ablaze and she started weeping.In her cross-examination, she has stated that during the quarrel, her father asked her to go out and so she went to mandav and started weeping, her brother came near her.Her father and mother only were inside the room and were quarreJling loudly.Her mother came out in burning condition.1. Heard Mr. Daga, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Loney, A.P.P. for the respondent-State.The appellant-Amrut Sadashio Hulgunde is challenging the judgment and order dated 15.12.1995, passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Chandrapur, in Session Trial No. 36 of 1995, under which the appellant-accused has been found guilty of having committed murder of his wife Mahananda by pouring kerosene and by setting her on fire by burning stick from hearth, and so also for Subjecting her to cruelty with a view to satisfy his illegal demand of money from her parents, and thereby came to be convicted under Section 302, I.PC.and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months.Mahananda Amrut Hulgunde, which came to be registered vide Crime No. 0/ 1994 at 20.20 hours, on 11.11.1994, an offence under Sections 498-A and 307,1.PC.by the police against the appellant-accused.He recorded the statements of Balika (P.W. 2), daughter of the appellant-accused, Ram Musale (P.W. 1), father of deceased Mahananda, and one Laxmibai.He sent the articles seized from the spot to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Nagpar.He arrested accused and after completing the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet.The case of the appellant-accused was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.The trial of the appellant-accused was taken up by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur and charge Ex. 2 was framed against the appellant-accused for having committed offences under Section 498-A and so also Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.According to the plea taken by the appellant-accused in his defence, after Mahananda returned from her parents' house, she was working inside the house and he was sitting outside.After sometime, he heard shouts and immediately Mahananda came out of her house and she fell on him.As he rushed to her, he received burn injuries to his hands and legs and tried to extinguish fire.On conclusion of the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that Mahananda died homicidal death and that the appellant-accused who had set her ablaze, committed her murder.Trial Court also found that the prosecution has proved that the appellant-accused subjected Mahananda to cruelty and, therefore, found him guilty of having committed offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 498-A of I.P.C., and that is how the appellant-accused came to be convicted and sentenced.Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused Submitted that the appellant-accused has been falsely implicated in the case by his father-in-law, taking advantage of the fact that his daughter suffered an accidental death due to burn injuries.Mr. Daga submitted that Mahananda on suffering burn injuries, was admitted to hospital on 8.11.1994 and it was for the first time that her statement came to be recorded on 11.11.1994 by the Head Constable Dadaji KumbHare (P.W. 5) and that too when father of the deceased Mahananda i.e. Ram Musale (P.W. 1) approached him on 11.11.1994 and asked him to record statement of Mahananda as she was ready to give her statement.This itself shows that till 11.11.1994, Mahananda was not ready to give statement against the appellant-accused.Mr. Daga submitted that the appellant-accused has been falsely implicated by his father-in-law Ram Bala Musale (P.W. 1), inspite of knowing the fact that Mahananda suffered burn injuries accidentally and not because of the appellant accused.Mr. Daga pointed out that once evidence of Ram Musale (P.W. 1) before the Court on this point has been discredited by confronting him with portion marked 'A' of his statement to the police wherein he has specifically stated that Mahananda told him about her statement before the police that her Padar' fell in oven and received fire, and further the various improvements made by him in his evidence before the Court, has been also brought on record by way of omissions in the cross-examination of the said witness, the evidence of Ram Musale (P.W. 1) cannot be relied upon as he is not only interested witness, but has tried to falsely implicate the appellant-accused as his relations with the appellant-accused i.e. his son-in-law were not cordial.Mr. Daga submitted that Balika (P.W. 2) who is the eldest daughter of the appellant-accused, was examnined as prosecution witness and her evidence clearly goes to show that she was tutored by her grandfather i.e. Ram Musale (P.W. 1), that she had not seen as to how her mother caught fire and it is only when her grand parents told her that her mother was burnt by her father, she deposed that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on the person of her mother and set her on fire with the help of lighted stick from the hearth, and, therefore, the evidence of this child witness cannot be accepted.There has been inordinate delay in recording statements and dying declaration of the victim and other material witnesses and, therefore, as the prosecution has failed to explain this inordinate delay in initiating the investigation, the plea taken by the appellant-accused that he was falsely implicated and that he was sitting out when his wife caught fire and came out shouting, is quite probable.Mr. Daga submitted that even the conduct of the appellant-accused in trying to extinguish the fire and in that process, suffered burn injuries on his person, clearly goes to show that the appellant-accused is not responsible for the burn injuries suffered by his wife Mahananda and he deserves to be acquitted.Mr. Daga submitted that insofar as the prosecution case that the appellant accused treated his wife with cruelty in order to extract money from her parents, is concerned, it is also an afterthought as no complaint of such ill-treatment has been made by the victim Mahananda or her relatives to any independent person or the police, and it is for the first time that such accusations were made by Ram Musale (P.W. 1), father-in-law of the appellant before the Court so as to falsely implicate him into the case and, therefore, in the absence of any independent evidence on this count, it will be most unsafe to convict the appellant-accused for having committed offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C.Mr. Loney, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt.It is submitted that the statement of victim Mahananda was recorded by Head Constable Kumbhare after obtaining certificate from the doctor that the patient was fit to give statement, in which she has clearly indicated that the appellant-accused having poured kerosene on her person, set her ablaze.The said statement has been treated as the First Information Report and as Mahananda died subsequently, it can be relied upon as the dying declaration.Mr. Loney submitted that after report of the victim Mahananda came to be registered at Police Station, the police immediately requisitioned Tahsildar and Special Executive Magistrate for recording dying declaration of Mahananda.Accordingly, Shri Vishwanath Bagde (P.W. 9) recorded dying declaration of Mahananda after obtaining the necessary certificate from the Medical Officer that the patient was fit to give statement and the said dying declaration is proved by the prosecution by not only examinating Shri Bagde (P.W. 9) but also the Medical Officer and the said dying declaration is Exh. 20 before the Court.Mr. Loney submitted that the statement recorded by the Head Constable Kumbhare (P.W. 5), which is at Exh. 17 and dying declaration Exh. 20 is consistent and clearly implicate the appellant-accused.It is submitted that in addition to these two dying declarations which are in writing, there is also oral dying declaration made by deceased Mahananda to her father Ram Bala Musale (P.W. 1), wherein she has clearly stated that it is the appellant-accused who had set her on fire for money and that he had married her to a butcher.Mr. Loney submitted that in addition to these three dying declarations, evidence of Balika, the eldest child of the deceased, who was present at the time of incident, also shows that the appellant-accused is responsible for pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her on fire.Mr. Loney submitted that the prosecution has examined the Medical Officers who had certified that the patient was in fit condition to give statement and so also Dr. Sadanand Gandhe (P.W. 3), who has conducted post-mortem examination of which report is Exh. 13 and in his opinion, the cause of death was septisemic shock due to 90% burn injuries.Mr. Loney submitted that the prosecution case further stands corroborated by the scene of offence Panchnama, from where articles like burn pieces of sari were seized and forwarded to Chemical Analyser for his report and the Chemical Analyser has given a positive report.Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant-accused.Mr. Loney, the learned A.P.P. has no answer to the contention raised by Mr. Daga, the learned Counsel for the appellant, as to what transpired between 8.11.1994 till 11.11.1994 and has no explanation to offer as to why the police did not take prompt action in the matter of investigation when they were informed on 8.11.1994 itself that Mahananda has been admitted in General Hospital at Chandrapur with burn injuries.The appellant-accused has been tried on two counts, firstly for having committed offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C., i.e. for treating his wife Mahananda with cruelty with a view to coercing her to bring money from her father, and secondly, for having committed her murder by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze on 8.11.1994 at 8 a.m. as a consequence of which, she succumbed to her burn injuries and died due to septisemic shock due to 90% burn injuries.Let us first examine whether the prosecution has proved its charge against the appellant-accused for having committed offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. The only witness examined by the prosecution in support of its case on this count is the father of deceased /'.('.Ram Musale (P.W. 1).According to him, his daughter was married to accused about 8 years before she was murdered and during this time, he had paid some amount to his daughter and the appellant-accused.It was his case that the mother of the appellant-accused rather asked the appellant-accused to send Mahananda to him with a demand for money.As Mahananda refused, she was beaten by the accused and sent back twice.On one occasion, her mother-in-law accompanied by Mahananda, came to his place, but went back without putting any demand and it is his case that Mahananda told him that she was beaten and was not allowed to enter the house for two days as she did not demand money from him.In addition to this accusation, he has also stated that the appellant-accused used to beat Mahananda under the influence of liquor as she did not get money from him.In his cross-examination, this witness is exposed by discrediting him on account of improving his case before the Court to the extent that mother-in-law of Mahananda accompanied her to his house to demand money and that she was beaten and was again sent to him as she did not put a demand and that he learnt all this from Mahananda, was not stated by him in his statement before the police.Even the allegations that the appellant-accused used to consume alcohol is also missing.This witness has, for the first time, tried to come up with a story that Mahananda was treated with cruelty by her husband in order to press his demand to bring money from her father.This fact of illegal demand for money has not only been brought before the Court for the first time in his evidence, but is also not spoken up by Mahananda herself in the so called F.I.R. Exh. 17, which is treated as dying declaration recorded by the Head Constable Kumbhare (P.W. 5) or by Shri Bagde, Tahsildar (P.W. 9).Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that this was an attempt on the part of Ram Musale (P.W. 1), father of the deceased, to falsely implicate the appellant-accused for having committed offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C.In respect of charge for having committed offence under Section 302 of I.P.C, the prosecution has led evidence of Ram Musale (P.W. 1) to whom oral statement was made by his daughter Mahananda that the appellant-accused had poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze, so also by leading evidence of Ku.Balika (P.W. 2), the eldest child of the appellant-accused and his wife Mahananda.In addition to these two witnesses, there is evidence of Head Constable Kumbhare (P.W. 5) and Shri Bagde, S.E.M. (P.W. 9), as regards the two dying declarations.If we examine the evidence of Ram Musale (P.W. 1) on this count, he states that on coming to know that Mahananda was admitted in the General Hospital, Chandrapur, he came to General Hospital, Chandrapur but on Tuesday, did not talk to her, and on Wednesday, Mahananda told him that her husband-accused set her on fire and that he married her to a butcher.This fact stated by the witness is nullified by bringing omission on record in his cross-examination where he stated that he did tell before the police that Mahananda told him that he married her to a butcher and that she was burnt for money, but accepted thaf he could not tell why it is not mentioned in his statement.Therefore, this evidence of the father also does not stand to the scrutiny of law and his claim of Mahananda having told him that it is the appellant-accused who set her on fire for money, will be unsafe to accept.Not only this, but it has come in the cross-examination of this witness when it was put to him that Mahananda told him that she informed the police that her 'Padar' fell in the 'Chul' and caught fire, and that he also told before the police that Mahananda told him about her statement before the police that her 'Padar' fell in oven and received fire, though the witness has denied to have stated so to the police, it has been contradicted by pointing out to him the portion 'A' in his statement and in answer to it he stated that he was unable to say why it was so recorded.Before we part with this witness, we may take note of the fact that in his cross-examination, this witness has categorically admitted that he called police and asked them to record the statement of Mahananda.This part of the evidence before the Court assumes importance So as to explain the delay on the part of the police in initiating investigation and it can be safely concluded that it is only after Ram Musale (P.W. 1) could make his daughter Mahananda agree to implicate the appellant-accused as the person who poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze, that he approached the Head Constable Dadaji Kumbhare (P.W. 5).The evidence of Head Constable Dadaji Kumbhare (P.W. 5) confirms this, as in his cross-examination he has admitted the fact that father of patient had come to him on 11.11.1994, her father asked him to record statement of Mahananda with the say that she is ready to give statement.He asked him to secure direction of P.I. City Police Station, Chandrapur, who informed him on phone to do so and that is how Head Constable Kumbhare visited General Hospital, Chandrapur on 11.11.1994 to record statement of Mahananda who was admitted in the hospital and that is how her statement came to be recorded by the Head Constable Kumbhare (P.W. 5), after getting the requisite certificate from Dr. Ajay Dudhalwar (P.W. 6) and the same is before the Covirt as Exhs.We may note here that though there is not a whisper in the statement of Sau.Mahananda Amrut Hulgunde recorded by the Head Constable Kumbhare about the cruel treatment by her husband in order to extract money, the police had registered offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. on the basis of that statement.Even in the dying declarations Exhs.20A to 20C recorded by Shri Bagde, there is no mention that the appellant-accused treated Mahananda with cruelty in order to extract money from her father.Taking into consideration the fact that though police has received a memo Exh. 18 on 8.11.1994 at 4 p.m. from the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Chandrapur, to arrange for her dying declaration, police did not take any steps till Mahananda's father Ram Musale (P.W. 1) approached Head Constable Kumbhare on 11.11.1994 and told him that she is ready to give her statement.Therefore, in our opinion, it would be most unsafe to rely upon the statement recorded by Head Constable Kumbhare and it has been treated as F.I.R. Exh. 48 and so also the dying declarations recorded by Shri Bagde (P.W. 9), which is Exhs.20-A to 20-C, as evidence of the fact that the appellant-accused poured kerosene on his wife Mahananda and set her ablaze.As these statements are procured from Mahananda at the behest of her father Ram Musale (P.W. 1) who tutored her to say so against her husband, it cannot be said that the dying declarations made to a Head Constable Dadaji Kumbhare and Shri Bagde, S.E.M. (P.W. 9) are true and voluntary.Another main piece of evidence which requires consideration is that of Ku.Balika (P.W. 2), the eldest child of Mahananda.It appears that at the time of the incident, she was less than 8 years old.In her evidence before the Court, she has stated that when her mother returned on the next day in the morning, the accused beat her on the pretext that she had stayed with her father.Balika was present in the house with her brother.She was called to the Police Station 3 to 4 days after the incident.Her grandfather was with her.She was informed about the death of her mother.Her grandparents told her that her mother was burnt by her father.We do not find that the evidence of Balika who was child witness, helps the prosecution in any manner as she had not seen her father pouring kerosene on her mother and setting her ablaze.If she has to be believed, she only noticed her mother coming out of the room in burning condition and before her statement came to be recorded, her grandparents told her that her mother was burnt by her father.We have already found that Ram Musale (P.W. 1), father of Mahananda, in all probabilities, prevailed upon his daughter to implicate the appellant-accused and, therefore, possibility of tutoring this child witness by him, cannot be rviled out, particularly when she admits being told by her grandparents that her mother was burnt by her father and it is in this state of mind that the witness implicated her father as the person who had poured kerosene on her mother and set her ablaze with the help of lighted stick from 'Chid' when, in fact, she had not seen such things happening.Therefore, even the evidence of this witness will have to be discarded.There is no dispute about the fact that Mahananda died unnatural death as can be seen from the evidence of Dr. Gandhe (P.W. 3), who conducted postmortem report.It is in this background that we find the plea taken by the appellant-accused appears to be probable when he stated in his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to last question put by the Trial Court that whether he wants to say anything more, that on return of Mahananda, she was working inside the house, he was sitting out side.After some time, he heard shouts and immediately^Mahananda came out in flames.Her person fell on his person as he rushed towards her and he received burn injuries to his hands and legs.He tried to extinguish the fire.The fact that the accused received burn injuries is not disputed by the prosecution.The Trial Court, while evaluating the evidence led by the prosecution, has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid glaring defects pointed out by us by analysing evidence of witnesses.The Trial Court went on to accept the prosecution case without even trying to find out the reason as to why there was a delay of three days in lodging report in such a serious case and overlooked the tampering of the investigation by police in connivance with Ram Musale (P.W. 1), father of victim Mahananda.The Trial Court even did not feel it necessary to examine the case diary in order to ascertain the truth which could have easily disclosed tampering of investigation by the police.If we take into account the scene of offence Panchnama Exh. 22, which has been proved by examining Uttam (P.W. 7), the Panch witness, we can see that it was planted by the Investigating Officer as the scene of offence which is nothing but a small hut of Kud (Wattle and daub) belonging to the accused, is not disturbed from 8.11.1994 in the morning when the incident occurred till 11.11.1994 when the Investigating Officer reached the scene of offence and recorded the spot Panchnama in the presence of Panchas.It is only the articles collected from the scene of offence, which were sent to the Chemical Analyser and the C.A.'s report Exh. 43 records partly burnt sari, blouse, piece of cloth and petticoat and one tin dubba were all put to test for the detection of kerosene residue which were found to be positive.The chances of sprinkling kerosene on these articles and despatching same to Forensic Laboratory, cannot be ruled out considering the delay in conducting scene of offence Panchnama, after the police were able to get statement of the deceased recorded implicating the appellant accused.In order to clear our conscience and with a view to understand as to why there was a delay of 3 days in taking cognizance of the offence and recording the statement of the victim inspite of the fact that the police were informed by the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Chandrapur on 8.11.1994 itself at 4 p.m. that a patient with burn injuries was admitted in the hospital and arrangement should be made to record her dying declaration, for the first time, Head Constable Kumbhare (P.W. 5) went to hospital on 11.11.1994 and recorded her statement at 1600 hours, we have examined the case diary which was fortunately available with the record and proceedings of the Trial Court and we found that on 8.11.1994 itself at 6 p.m. Head Constable Buckle No. 1016 who was on duty in the Police Booth in the Hospital, had recorded the dying declaration of Mahananda wherein she had clearly stated that on 8.11.1994 at about 1000 hours when she was trying to light hearth in her house by pouring kerosene in it, she got accidentally burnt as her sari caught fire.Similarly, on 9.11.1994 at about 8.20 a.m., Executive Magistrate, Chandrapur, also recorded her dying declaration in which she stated same thing.These two statements are duly attested by Medical Officer on duty and that is why as the victim did not give any statement implicating the appellant-accused, the police did not register any offence till 11.11.1994 when Ram Musale (P.W. 1), father of Mahananda, was able to prepare her to give statement implicating the appellant-accused and it is thereafter the investigating machinery came into motion and the investigation is directed in a manner so as to impMcate the appellant-accused not only for the offence under Section 302, I.PC, but also under Section 498-A, I.PC.We could also get the supplementary statemnet of Ku.Balika (P.W. 2) recorded by the police on 5.12.1994, exonerating her father.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,428,857 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.188 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17104 of 20192.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.188 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC.r/w 3 & 4 of Tamilnadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, as against the petitioners.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated.Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts.Further, it cannot be quashed in the threshold.O.P.(MD)No.17104 of 2019 investigation.The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipthttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17104 of 2019 of copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.22.11.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsd1.The Inspector of Police, Colachal Police Station, Kannyakumari District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17104 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10121 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17104 of 2019 22.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,429,239 |
Unfolding the prosecution case, we find that Jaibir (PW-12), complainant,who is the father of deceased Sunita, had made a complaint at PS Sadar,Hansi stating that he was an agriculturist and had two sons and onedaughter (Sunita).He had married his daughter, who was aged 24-25 years,to one Rajesh, s/o Chhanna, at Village Dhantan, Hisar.She had come to theparental house about 8-9 days prior to the incident and was staying withthe complainant.On 03.03.1999 at about 9/10 a.m., she went to the fieldto bring Barseem (green fodder) but did not return till 3/4 p.m. on thatday.Then, complainant's daughter-in-law Murti (PW-8) went to the field tolook for Sunita.When she reached there, she found Sunita lying dead inthe field of Barseem.There was a cut mark on the left side of the neck ofdeceased.Murti returned home and informed the complainant about the same.After hearing the news of the death of Sunita, the complainant and hisbrother Mahavir and one Chhajju, s/o Buta, went to the field and they founddead body of Sunita lying there with cut mark on her neck.The blood hadoozed out and there was one teeth bite mark on her right cheek, which wasan indication that some unknown person had tried to molest her.Complainant then lodged the complaint.FIR was registered on the basis of the said complaint and police startedinvestigation.The blood stained earth and a pair of chappels were takeninto possession from the spot.Rough site plan regarding the place ofoccurrence Ex. PO and inquest report were prepared.Thereafter, thestatement of certain witnesses in the case were recorded wherein name ofthe appellant surfaced as a suspect.The post mortem on the dead body ofSunita was conducted in the General Hospital, Hansi.The clothes of thedeceased and other parcels were handed over by the doctor after conductingpost mortem report.The appellant, Prem Singh, was arrested on 07.03.1999 who made a disclosurestatement Ex.After the disclosure statement, a pair ofearrings and one dhol (jewellery article of gold which is worn around theneck of the women) and sickle was recovered at the instance of theappellant.Site plan Ex.PR was prepared regarding place of recovery.Onthe same day, one Balraj was also arrested.With this exercise undertakenby the police, the investigation was completed.A challan under Section173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the concerned Area Magistrate.The AreaMagistrate sent the challan after observing the formalities and producedbefore the trial court.The charges under Sections 302, 404 and 354 of IPC were framed against theaccused Prem Singh.Charges were also framed against accused Balraj underSection 109 read with Section 302 of IPC.The trial court examined PW-1Jagdish Chander Assistant Sub Inspector, PW-2 Ramji Das Patwari, PW-3 Dr.O.P. Charaya, PW-4 Head Constable Subhash, PW-5 Kharati Lal Sub Inspector,PW-6 Krishan Kumar Assistant Sub Inspector, PW-7 Ramesh Kumar Constable, PW-8 Murti Devi, wife of Sushil Kumar, PW-9 Sushil Kumar son of Jaibir, PW-10Subhash son of Balbir Singh, PW-11 Shamsher Singh Constable, PW-12 JaibirSingh son of Chandgi Ram, PW-13 Mahabir son of Chandgi Ram, PW-14 ShivdanSingh Inspector.After completion of the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses, the statement of the appellant/accused was recorded underSection 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the appellant pleaded that he was innocent andfalsely framed in the case.AccusedBalraj was acquitted.Appellant was convicted for life imprisonment andfine was imposed of Rs.2,000/- for committing the offence under Section 302of IPC.In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.For committingthe offence punishable under Section 404 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorousimprisonment for a period of two years and was directed to pay a fine ofRs.500/-, in default to serve for one month.For committing the offenceunder Section 354 of IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor a period of one year.In appeal, the High Court has, vide impugned order dated judgment dated12.07.2010, affirmed the aforesaid conviction and sentence, therebydismissing the appeal.From the evidence of PW3, Dr. O.P. Charya, MedicalOfficer, General Hospital, Hansi who conducted the post mortem on the deadbody of Sunita, it becomes apparent that the cause of death was due tohemorrhage and shock and injury No.1 in the post mortem report i.e. incisedwound on the neck anteriorly 10” x 25” into muscle deep extending latterlyon both the sides and more towards the left side along with cutting oftrachea, oesophagas all the major vessels starno claido mastoid muscle onthe left side was sufficient to cause the death in due course of nature.According to PW-3, there was a possibility of subjecting the victim tosexual intercourse before murder.He admitted in his cross-examinationthat as per the report of chemical examiner Ex.PD semen was not detected onthe pubic hair and swabs.However, he opined that it is not necessary inevery case that semen must be detected on the swabs as it depends on thedischarge of semen.He also stated that in the present case, the semen wasdischarged and it was detected on the salwar of the deceased.Though, the appellant has questioned the opinion of PW-3 about thepossibility of sexual intercourse before murder, it is not disputed thatSunita had died unnatural death which was the result of murder.Therefore, the only question to be examined is as to whether the findingsof the courts below finding appellant guilty of murder are legallysustainable or not.The appellant became a suspect allegedly for the reason that Murti Deviwife of Sunil Kumar (daughter-in-law of the complainant) who had gone tothe fields in search of Sunita and saw her lying dead there, had made astatement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effectthat one day prior to Holi festival, when the deceased returned to thehouse after bringing fodder, she had told her that the appellant was a badperson and had winked at her on that day while she was lifting fodder.Thedeceased had also disclosed to her that even prior to this incident, theappellant was behaving like this everyday.Brother of the deceased (PW-9)had also mentioned about the appellant in his statement.It is because ofthis reason that when PW-8 and PW-9 named him in their statements, theappellant was arrested.Further, after his arrest, his disclosurestatement was recorded which led to recovery of sickel which was soiledwith some sand.Some gold ornaments were also recovered which wereidentified to be that of the deceased by PW-8 and PW-10 Subhash s/o BalbirSingh who had joined the investigation when appellant was in custody ofpolice and being taken to the fields for the recovery of the sickel andgold ornaments.The courts below have accepted the testimony of thesewitnesses and other witnesses as well as recovery of sickel and ornamentsat the instance of the appellant and named the appellant on the basis ofthis evidence holding that his charge stands proved beyond reasonabledoubts.Mr. Dhanda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted thatthere were inherent contradictions in the depositions of the materialwitnesses; the recoveries were not proved in accordance with law and couldnot be connected with the crime.He argued that these aspects have beenignored leading to wrong conviction.He submitted that from thetestimonies of PW-8 (sister-in-law of the deceased) and PW-9 (brother ofthe deceased), it would become clear that they have improved upon theirversion in the statements made in the Court which were not there when theirstatements were earlier recorded, during investigation, under Section 161of the Cr.P.C. He further submitted that it was a case of blind murderwherein there was no eye-witness and the appellant is found guilty on thebasis of circumstantial evidence.However, whatever circumstances have beenstated to be proved against the appellant are not sufficient to form acomplete chain of events leading to the guilt of the appellant.He,therefore, pleaded for the release of the appellant as according to him hewas innocent.Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, tookus to the analysis of the findings as done by the trial court and the HighCourt and submitted that there was no infirmity in the findings arrived atby the courts below.Within few hoursthereafter and without loss of any time, the complainant Jaibir (PW-12)lodged the report with the police at about 7.15 pm on the same day.Eventhe copy of the FIR was sent to the ilaka Magistrate on the same day at 9pm.As would be noticed later while discussing the testimonies of PW-8 andPW-9, suspicion about the involvement of the appellant was nurtured fromthe very beginning.He was arrested on 07.03.1999 i.e. within four days ofthe occurrence.On the very next day, i.e. on 08.03.1999, he made thedisclosure statement (Ex.PJ) before Shri Shivdan Singh, the investigatingofficer in presence of Head Constable Krishan Kumar and Constable MahenderSingh.Though, it is a confessional statement which records his admissionthat he had murdered Sunita, since this part of the statement is notadmissible in view of Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act, we arenot supposed to take the confessional part into account.He, however, alsostated that he removed the golden earrings and one dhol and after wrappingthe same into a wax paper, he concealed underneath the earth after diggingin a pit in the onion fields (Kayari) which was taken by him on sharebasis.He also stated that he threw the sickle in the field of Barseem andhe could get these things recovered after pointing out the same.Pursuantto the aforesaid disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered twoearrings and dhol made of gold as well as sickle in the presence of Subhash(PW-10) and Mahavir (PW-13).Parna, Shirt, Salwar, Dupatta, Brassier, Swabs from the body of thedeceased as well as blood stained earth were taken possession of and sentto Forensic Science Laboratory.The report (Ex.PD) was received on thesaid articles stating that they were found to be blood stained.It wasalso stated that human semen was detected on the salwar.Post-mortem on thebody of the deceased was conducted by Dr. O.P. Charya (PW-3) who opinedthat cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock and injury No.1 wassufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.All theseinjuries were ante-mortem in nature.This doctor was also of the opinionthat probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was variableand it happened within 24 hours.On the basis of report Ex.PD of chemicalexaminer and report (Ex.PD/1) of Serologist, this witness gave his opinionthat possibility of victim having been subjected to sexual intercoursebefore the murder could not be ruled out.The aforesaid evidence clearly proves that death of the deceased wasunnatural and she was murdered.It also proves that before the murdereither she was molested.Insofar as circumstances leading to connecting the appellant with the saidmurder are concerned, following evidence has come on record:(i) Brother of the deceased i.e. PW-9 had seen the appellant working inthe fields which are adjacent to the fields of victim's family where Sunitahad gone to collect Barseem.(ii) The appellant was keeping an evil eye on the deceased.(iii) The sickle, weapon used in the murder, was recovered on thedisclosure statement made by the appellant and at his instance.(iv) The deceased was wearing earrings and dhol which were also recoveredfrom the appellant.If the aforesaid aspects are treated to have been dulyproved, in our opinion, they form a complete chain of circumstantialevidence unequivocally pointing out accusing finger at the appellant.Thequestion is as to whether the evidence of the prosecution on the aforesaidaspects is trustworthy and reliable.Apart from the testimonies of Doctor, Investigating Officer and otherpolice officials etc., testimonies of various witnesses and, in particular,Murti Devi, sister-in-law of the deceased (PW-8), Sushil Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased (PW-9), complainant Jaibir, father of the deceased (PW-12) have been discussed in detail by the trial court as well as the HighCourt.Therecovery of the jewellery belonging to Sunita and sickle with which Sunitawas murdered at the instance of the appellant is also believed.Since Mr. Dhanda had argued that there are some contradictions in thedepositions of some of these witnesses, we are required to do a diagnosticof sorts, with limited purpose to examine as to whether High Court hasfaltered in the same very exercise done by it so seriously that itsfindings are rendered perverse.We may say at the outset that great painsare taken by the learned counsel for the appellant to show the lacuna andloopholes in the prosecution version, but regrettably, the record does notsubstantiate it.As it has come in the testimony of PW-8 that appellant was having an evileye on the deceased which deceased had told her, we would first look intothe deposition of PW-8 to find out as to whether the aforesaid fact standsestablished.She has stated in her examination in chief about this fact,accusing appellant as well as Balraj.It is stated that both appellant andBalraj had misbehaved with Sunita as well as this witness (PW-8).She hasalso stated that a day prior to the occurrence, both of them had teasedSunita and Sunita had informed her about this.However, they kept mum onaccount of the family pride and also feared that it may not lead to fightbetween the two families.In the cross-examination, she was confronted withher statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. She stated that though she hadtold the police that appellant and Balraj had teased Sunita as told by herearlier and these facts were not disclosed to anyone in the family as itwould result in fight between the two families.However, this was not sorecorded specifically in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. At thesame time, it is specifically recorded in the earlier statement as wellthat deceased had complained to her about the misbehaviour of theappellant.Thus, the only thing which is not recorded in the statementmade by her during investigation is that she and Sunita kept quiet and didnot inform the family members about the behaviour of Prem Singh in order tosave family pride or the possible fight.That by itself is not sufficientto discredit the version of PW-8 on the conduct of the appellant who washaving an evil eye on the deceased, inasmuch as, on this aspect thiswitness is consistent.It would be pertinent to mention here that even PW-9 Sushil Kumar had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. aswell as in his deposition in the Court that the appellant had teased Sunitaa day prior to occurrence and she has disclosed this fact to this witness.He also stated that he did not disclose these facts to anyone in the familyfearing that it would result in fight between the menfolk.When he wasconfronted with his earlier statement made during investigation (Ex.DA),the only thing which was not recorded in that statement was related toreason why he did not disclose.However, even in his earlier statement, itis specifically recorded that deceased had complained to Murti Devi (PW-8)about the appellant having teased Sunita a day prior to Holi.Thus, onthis aspect, both PW-8 and PW-9 are consistent and there is no reason todisbelieve.PW-9 has also specifically mentioned that he had gone to his fields in theearly morning, which are close to the fields of one Hoshiar Singh, and theappellant was cultivating the land.He also used to operate the tubewell ofHoshiar Singh.When he had gone to his fields on 03.03.1999 in themorning, he had seen the appellant and Balraj near his fields who wasoperating the tubewell.He further stated that when he was returning fromhis fields, he met his sister Sunita who was going towards their fields tobring Barseem.She was carrying sickle (darati) and a palli.She waswearing pair of earrings and dhol made of gold on her person.He furtherspecifically stated that when Sunita had gone to the fields, only Prem andBalraj were present there.He has, thus, deposed about the earrings anddhol which the deceased was wearing.When these articles were recovered onthe disclosure statement and at the instance of the appellant, these areidentified to be the same earrings and dhol which deceased was wearing.Onthis aspect, namely, Sunita was wearing the aforesaid articles, there is nocross-examination at all.We would like to point out here that when PW-8 and PW-9 were confrontedwith their statements recorded earlier under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by thecounsel who appeared for Balraj, what is found is that name of Balraj wasmissing which has surfaced later.It is for this reason insofar as Balrajis concerned, he was given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trialcourt itself.However, as far as appellant is concerned, there are nocontradictions by the witnesses on the aforesaid aspects.Even if thereare some contradictions, those are of minor nature and it would befoolhardy to discard the version of these witnesses on miniscule variationswhich have no bearing at all.Having regard to the above, we are of the considered view that there isclinching evidence against the appellant and he is rightly convicted underSections 354, 404 as well as 302 IPC.The High Court has summed up theanalysis of the evidence in the following words with which we are entirelyagree:“Thus, from the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that accused PremSingh had cast an evil eye upon deceased Sunita.He had teased her, a dayprior to the occurrence and had also winked at her on previous occasions.The report of post mortem as well as the Forensic Science Laboratory(Ex.PD/1) shows that there was a teeth bite mark on the right cheek of thedeceased and also human semen was detected on the salwar of the deceased.When the attempt to commit rape upon the deceased failed, the accusedcommitted the murder of Sunita with the sickle which she was having forcutting fodder (Barseem).As per the FSL Report, human blood was detectedon the sickle.As per the statement of PW-9 Sushil Kumar, he had seenaccused Prem Singh operating the tubewell of Hoshiar Singh which was nearhis fields.The deceased had gone to the fields of Hoshiar Singh to cutfodder.This witness had last seen the accused on the date of occurrence inthe same fields where Sunita had gone for cutting fodder.Thus, theprosecution has been able to prove last seen evidence.Apart from the above, the recoveries of sickle and goldearrings which the deceased was wearing were effected upon a disclosurestatement made by the accused.It was accused Prem Singh, who gotrecovered the earrings and dhol of gold by digging the earth from the fieldof Hoshiar Singh Master.Thus, the prosecution has been able to establishthat the recoveries were effected at the instance of accused Prem Singh, asper his disclosure statement and the same belonged to the deceased.Therecoveries were effected in the presence on PW-10 Subhash and Mahavir PW-The post mortem report also corroborates the case of prosecution asaccording to Dr. O.P. Charaya (PW-3), injury No.1 was sufficient to causedeath in the ordinary course of nature.The Doctor had also noticed a bitemark on the cheek of the deceased.All the aforementioned circumstancesclearly and unequivocally point towards the fact that it was Prem Singh whohad firstly intended to outrage the modesty of Sunita and thereafter hadcommitted her murder.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,244,306 |
The Superintendent Central Prison, PalayamkottaiThe Joint Secretary to Government of TamilNadu Public (Law & Order) Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 9(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent inH.S.(MD)Confdl.No.40/2008 dated 30.08.2008 whereby son of the petitioner wasordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention ofDangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas,Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act,1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a "Goonda".The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlooked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in four adversecases, which are as follows:-Sl Name of the Police station Crime No. and Section of lawNo.1 Kovilpatti West P.S. Cr.Pursuant to therecommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved infour adverse cases and one ground case, after scrutiny of the materialsavailable, the detaining authority recorded his subjective satisfaction that theactivities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order andthat he should be detained as a "Goonda" and accordingly, made the order ofdetention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.Learned counsel for the petitioner in his sincere attempt of assailingthe order brought to the notice of the Court, the following three grounds:-The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Further, the Bail applications filed before the Judicial MagistrateNo.2, Kovilpatti in Crl.M.P.No.3802/2008 and 3888/2008 in connection with thecase in Crime No.465/2008 and No.43/2008 came to be dismissed on 18.8.2008 and20.8.2008 respectively on the same ground that steps were being taken to detainthe detenu.Hence, the order under challenge would suffer.On these grounds referred to above, the order of detention has got tobe set aside.Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside.The detenu isdirected to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection withany other case.The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.2.District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['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.
|
124,431,347 |
Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) 47 23.02.2017 sm Rejected CRM No.1026 of 2017 2 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.02.2017 in connection with Md.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for about 199 days and considering his length of detention, the prayer for bail should be considered favourably by this court.Opposing the prayer for bail, the learned advocate for the State draws our attention to the statement of the victim-girl recorded under section 164 CrPC.Having heard the submissions of both the parties and going through the statement of the victim-girl recorded under section 164 CrPC, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for bail.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.Trial be expedited.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.) The petitioner is the husband.He is in custody for about one year and three (3) months.It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that on the prayer of the petitioner and in terms of section 232 CrPC, cross-examination of the 3 witnesses has been deferred and now, they are not examining them.In this regard, our attention has been drawn to the order annexed with this application.Opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner, the learned advocate for the State draws our attention to the statement of the daughter of the victim recorded under section 164 CrPC, which is at page 54 of the case diary.Accordingly, this application for bail stands rejected.The learned court below is directed to immediately conclude the trial and no further adjournment shall be granted to the defence.We find that earlier the defence took time on the plea that they are going to challenge the order of the Sessions Court before this High Court, but finally, that has not been done.The office is directed to immediately communicate this order to the court below and that too within one week from this date.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Debi Prosad Dey, J.)
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
124,437,353 |
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by V.Bharathidasan, J.) The appellant in this appeal is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.238 of 2013, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam.He stood charged as detailed below:-The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:(i) The deceased in this case one Sathiya was the wife of the accused.The marriage took place 12 years prior to the occurrence and out of the wedlock they have blessed with three children.Since the accused have illicit intimacy with one Suguna, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.Feeling that the deceased is a hindrance of the accused, on 05.03.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., when the deceased was alone in her house, the accused came with kerosene and locked the door inside, poured kerosene on the deceased and set fire on her. D.W.1, who is the cushion of the deceased took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Mundiampakkam, where, she was referred to GIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry.(ii) On receipt of the memo from the GIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, P.W.1, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, proceeded to the hospital at about 1.30 a.m., on 06.03.2013 and recorded the statement of the deceased(Ex.P1).Based on the said statement of the deceased, P.W.1 registered a case in Crime No.163 of 2013 under Section 294(b), 341, 506(ii) and 307 IPC and prepared first information report (Ex.P2), sent the first information report to the higher officials.(iii) P.W.7, Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police, on receipt of the first information report, on 06.03.2013 commenced the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P3) drew a rough sketch (Ex.P12) in the presence of witnesses.Then, he proceeded to the GIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry and recorded the statement of the deceased.I, Pondicherry, on 06.03.2013 at about 9.40 a.m., reached the GIPMER Hospital and after being satisfied that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and at that time the deceased told that her husband took the kerosene from the stove in a stainless steel vessel and poured it and set fire on her.Dying declaration was marked as Ex.(v) On 10.03.2013, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and hence P.W.7 altered the Section into one under Section 302 IPC and alteration report (Ex.P14).On 11.03.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.7 conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars in the hospital and prepared inquest report Ex.He sent the dead body for postmortem with requisition letter through Head Constable attached to the respondent police.All of the above mentioned burn wounds were covered with multiple greenish pus points on the base of wounds and variable degrees of granulation tissue developed along with the margins of wounds.Internal Examination: Head : Skull intact, minings congested.Brain congested and oedematous.Darings trachea congesed.In thorax Bronchi Glucosa congested, Both lungs congested and oedematous.In abdomen Mucous membrane is congested it contains 200 ml of greyish white coloured watery fluid with partly digested food particles with no peculiar smell.Kidney congested.She was of the opinion that the deceased appeared to have died of septicaemic burn injuries.She has given Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P8).(vii) In the mean time, P.W.7 was transferred and he handed over the investigation to P.W.8, his successor.In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited and 4 material objects was marked.Out of the above witnesses examined, P.W.1 was the Sub Inspector Police attached to the respondent police.Serial number of chargesCharge(s) framed againstCharge(s) framed under1.Sole AccusedU/s.294(b), 341, 498(A) and 302 IPCThe trial Court, by Judgment dated 07.01.2016, convicted the accused and sentenced him as detailed below:-Rank of the accusedPenal provision(s) under which convictedSentenceSole AccusedU/s.302 IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-.He sent a memo to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry for recording dying declaration of the deceased.On the same day at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.7 arrested the accused and on such arrest, he voluntarily gave confession and based on the disclosure statement (Ex.P5), P.W.7, seized M.O.4, Kerosene Tin in the presence of witnesses and then he sent the accused for judicial custody.(iv) On receipt of the memo from the respondent police, P.W.5, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.(vi) P.W.14 was working as Assistant Professor, Forensic Department, GIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry.He conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 11.03.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., and found the following injuries:-(a) Mixed pattern(both superficial and deep) of burns, involving following body parts.(b) Front of chest except axillary region on right side.(c) Back of chest except upper one third and adjacent neck area.(d) Back of abdomen and buttock region sparing lower one third of the back of the abdomen.(e) Front, back and inner aspect of right arm.Front and inner aspect of upper one third of right forearm and front and outer aspect of lower two third of right forearm.From and inner aspect of left arm and forearm.(f) Front and back of both highs and back of right leg.Soles of both legs spared.(g) A surgically sutured wound (venesection) of 5 cm length present over inner aspect of lower one third of right arm.Area of skin involved by burns was 63%.P.W.8, then Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police, continued the investigation, examined the Doctor, who conducted postmortem and recorded her statement and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet before the respondent police.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above but the accused denied the same as false.P.W.2 was the Village Administrative Officer, Nedimozhiyanur Village.According to him, he is the witness to the observation mahazar, rough sketch, arrest of the accused and recovery of material objects.P.W.3 was the Head Constable attached to the respondent police.According to him, he identified the dead body for postmortem and after completing the postmortem, he handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased.P.W.4-Assistant Professor, who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem certificate.P.W.5, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pondicherry, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.P.W.6 was the Doctor working in the GIPMER Hospital.According to him, he certified that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to give dying declaration and he gave certificate Ex.P.W.7-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the first information report, conducted investigation, arrested the accused and recovered the material objects and then he handed over the investigation to P.W.8, his successor.P.W.8, Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police, after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence were total denial.He examined two witnesses viz. D.W.1, the cushion and D.W.2, the mother of the accused and no document was marked on his side.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offences as stated in first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court.We have heard Mr.S.Anbalagan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.The prosecution mainly relied upon the dying declaration given by the deceased.There are two dying declarations in this case.The first dying declaration given by the deceased before P.W.1, Sub Inspector of Police in the GIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry.Wherein, the deceased has stated that on 05.03.2013 at about 7.40 p.m., while she was taking dinner, the accused came inside the house and locked the door inside, took the kerosene which was available in the Tin and poured it her and set fire on her.When she tried to escape, the accused prevented her and she dashed against him.The accused scolded her with filthy language and pushed her down, open the door and ran away.Then, she came out of the house, at that time, D.W.1, namely, Devaraj and others took her to the Government Hospital, Mundiampakkam.Subsequently, on 06.03.2013 at about 9.25 a.m., the deceased has given judicial dying declaration before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Pondicherry.At that time, the deceased told the learned Judicial Magistrate that at about 8.00 p.m., she was taking dinner, the accused came inside the house, the deceased questioned him about the ration card, the accused took the kerosene from the stove in a stainless steel vessel, then poured kerosene on her and set fire on.She further stated that the deceased does not know, who admitted her in the Hospital.Hence, we find some material contradiction in the two dying declaration given by the deceased.The first dying declaration given before the P.W.1, the deceased has categorically stated that at about 7.30 p.m, while she was taking dinner, the accused came inside the house and locked the door inside, then he took the Tin containing kerosene and poured it and set fire on her.D.W.1 and others took her to the Hospital.But, the Judicial dying declaration, the deceased simply stated that when she was questioned the deceased about the ration card, the accused took kerosene from the stove in a stainless steel vessel and poured it on her and set fire on her, but she does not know who admitted her in the hospital.Apart from that the prosecution did not examine the Doctor, who admitted the deceased in the Government Hospital, Mundiampakkam and the Accident Register issued by the Doctor was not marked by the prosecution.The first dying declaration given by the deceased before P.W.1 was not produced by the prosecution.The yet another important circumstance is that the accused has examined two witnesses as D.Ws.1 and 2 on his side.D.W.1, who is the cushion of the deceased.According to him, at the time of occurrence, the accused and D.W.1 were talking together in the front of his house.At that time, the deceased came out of the house with burns and immediately both the accused and D.W.1 douse the fire by putting bed sheet on her.He further stated that he took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Mundiampakkam and the deceased followed them after borrowing money for the medical expenses.D.W.2, who is the mother of the deceased.According to her, when she met the deceased in GIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, where, the deceased told her that due to depression, she herself poured kerosene and set fire on her.Hence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were closely related to the deceased, one is being a cushion and other one is mother and their evidence creates serious doubt of the dying declaration of the deceased.Even though, the dying declaration can be made a sole basis to convict the accused.But, the dying declaration should be voluntary, genuine and consistent.In the instant case, there is a lot of material contradiction in the dying declaration given by the deceased.Apart from that considering the testimony of D.Ws.1 and 2, it is also creates a doubt regarding the genuineness of the dying declaration given by the deceased.In the said circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is highly unsafe to convict the accused based on the dying declaration of the deceased in the absence of any other corroborating witnesses.Hence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt unerringly pointing the guilt of the accused.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant in S.C.No.238 of 2013 dated 07.01.2016 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam is set aside and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and bail bond, if any, executed by them shall stand cancelled and the fine amounts paid by him is ordered to be refunded forthwith.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,439,519 |
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 16.07.2019 in connection with Crime No.181/2019 registered at Police Station Khamaria, District- Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 323, 294, 324 and 506 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 03.07.2019 at about 09:30 O'clock in the night, when complainant-Ranu Swami was going to answer the call of nature, she saw that some dispute occurred in the house of Rajkumar Pasi.After that, co-accused Ravi Passi, present applicant, Rajkumar Pasi, Babu Pasi and Rinku armed with sticks, rod and bricks, they caught hold of her.On her shriek, her family members, namely, Kali Patel, Ashish Patel, Rajkumar Patel came there and tried to save her then present applicant and other co-accused inflicted injuries by sticks, rod and bricks to the Rajkumar Patel, who is her father, Ashish Patel, who is her brother, Kali @ Ankit Patel on various part of their body.Rajkumar Pasi has assaulted to Rajkumar Patel, who is father of the complainant by rod on his head, present applicant has assaulted her father by bricks on his head.Present applicant and other co-accused have also assaulted to her brother Ashish Patel and Kali Patel by rod and sticks on various parts of their body.Thereafter, injured persons were admitted to the hospital and thereafter her father has died.Thereafter, on the report of the complainant, a case has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons for the alleged offences.Present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity.He further submits that on the date of incident, complainant-Kanti Bai, who is mother of present applicant also 2 MCRC-5844-2020 lodged the FIR at Police Station Khamaria in which she alleged that the brother of Ranu Swami (complainant) along with Ranu Swami assaulted her son Rajkumar Pasi (co-accused) and Ramavatar @ Manja (present applicant) with iron rod and on her complaint, police has registered the FIR in Crime No.182/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 307, 324, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act against complainant and other complainant party.He also submits that injuries were sustained by Aashish Patel and Kali Patel are simple in nature.Allegedly, one lacerated wound is found on the body of deceased and such injury was caused by co-accused Rajkumar Patel as per prosecution case itself.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned P.L. opposes the bail application.After hearing arguments of the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that complainant parties have assaulted the present applicant and other co-accused person, present applicant is also injured person, both the parties have lodged the FIR's against each other.Complainant side of this case has lodged first the FIR in crime No.181/2019 for the offences of section 302, 147, 148, 294, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC whereas from the applicant side, mother of present applicant has lodged the FIR in Crime No. 182/2019 for the offences of Sections 294, 307, 324, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act. In the present case the allegation against the present applicant that he has assaulted the deceased by bricks.C.No.35819/2019, there is no probability of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence, there is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant, it would be appropriate to release the applicant on bail, therefore without commenting on merits of the case, application of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seems to be acceptable.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.02.29 11:09:06 +05'30'
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
124,440,308 |
that give rise to the session trial are that on 22.5.2016 at about 9:30 am Pannalal was driving the tractor UP295/6815 and was going to his field through the market, suddenly in front of Munna Pan Shop, the accused pushed an old man (Suka Kushwaha) into the road.The old man, aged about 65 to 70 years dashed on the bumpher of his tractor and before he could apply breaks, the old man came under the wheels of his tractor.He was taken to the hospital with the help of 108 Ambulance.He was later declared dead.The post mortem report reveals that the deceased Suka Kushwaha, aged about 70 years, died due to cardiac respiratory arrest as a result of head injury.After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned ASJ Bijawar framed charge under Section 304 (Part-II) in alternative 302 of IPC.The petitioner, aggrieved by framing of charges, has filed this revision on the ground that the matter pertains to offence under Section 304-A of IPC but later, on 23.5.2016, the police prepared case under Section 304 (Part-II) and subsequently, after investigation, offence under Section 302 of IPC has been added.The petitioner is suffering from mental decease and is under treatment.The charges framed are absolutely groundless.The facts reveal that deceased Suka had no enmity with the applicant.The incident took place suddenly, when there was a push to the applicant and in turn, he pushed the deceased Suka.At that time, the tractor was passing by and the incident took place.The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences.Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution, to guard against the injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
378,237 |
Thereafter he was carried to nearby place where again he was stabbed and beaten as a result of which he expired.It is further stated that after sometime both accused 1 and 2 exclaimed that Giri Gowda was dead and there, fore they should carry him away.JUDGMENT Govinda Menon, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 in S. C. No. 107 of 1949 on the file of the Court of Session, Coimbatore division, have been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one Giri Gowda just after dusk on 23rd October 1948 at the village of Doddinduvadi in Coimbatore district.They were also convicted under Section 201, Penal Code, for causing disappearance of the evidence of murder.There were two other charges, viz., that against accused 1 with having caused simple hurt to Siddha Chetty (P. W. 3) and accused 2 with having caused simple hurt to Siddha Gowda (P.W. 1).For these minor offences, accused 1 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months and accused 2 also to rigorous imprisonment for the same period.Accused 3 who is the appellant in C. A. No. 660 of 1949 was found guilty of an offence under Section 201, Penal Code along with accused 1 and 2 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years.As the facts and circumstances are so interconnected that it will be convenient to deal with the two appeals to gather, we do not intend to deliver separate judgments in each of the appeals.Shortly put, the prosecution case is that accused 1 and 2 were on inimical terms with the deceased Giri Gowda and therefore they, along with a number of other people, lay in wait on the evening of 23rd October 1948 when Giri Gowda was returning from Kollegal to his village, waylaid him, dragged him out of the jutka in which he was travelling and then accused 1 stabbed him and accused 2 beat him.The other convictions and sentences passed on accused 1 and 2 will be confirmed.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,834,714 |
(Passed on 01.02.2018) As per S.K. Gangele, J:Trial court convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and sentenced for imprisonment of life with fine of Rs.500/- in earlier count while RI five years with fine of Rs.500/- in later.Prosecution story in brief is that the appellants had killed the deceased on 29.8.2005 and thereafter dead body of the deceased was thrown in a well in order to conceal the real fact.Appellants lodged a false report that the deceased herself jumped in a well and committed suicide.Initially five persons were prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302, 498-A and 304 of IPC.The deceased was the wife of appellant No.2 Santosh Kumar Gupta.Marriage had taken place near about three years before from the date of incident.Dead body of the deceased was found in a Well.Information was given to the police on the same day that the deceased had gone outside of the house for treatment.She did not return back, thereafter, I find out the deceased and noticed some slippers of the deceased were lying near a Well.Thereafter, I had returned to my house and informed the same to other family members.We went at the Well along with thorn (Kanta).We noticed that dead body of the deceased was in the Well.On the basis of aforesaid information merg was registered, which is Ex.Police prepared Panchnama of dead body.It is mentioned in the said merg that the deceased was died after jumping in Well.Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 1.9.2005 by Dr. R. K. Saini, Medical Officer posted at District Hospital Sidhi.Her dead body was recovered from the Well by thorn (Kanta).She further deposed that demand of dowry was made from the deceased and she was ill-treated and tortured.She further deposed that I told the husband of the deceased not to torture the deceased.Banwari Lal Gupta P. W. 3 is the father of the deceased.Trial Court acquitted accused persons from the offence under Section 498- 2 A, 304-B of IPC.However, present appellants have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302/34 and 201 of IPC and awarded the sentence.The trial Court has held that as per the evidence of Doctor, who performed postmortem of the deceased, the deceased was died by strangulation because he noticed that 4 th to 6th cartilages of trachea were broken.The trial Court further observed that the deceased was living with the appellant No.1 and appellants conceal real facts of death of the deceased.Hence, appellants are held guilty for commission of offence of murder.Trial Court did not find sufficient evidence in regard to demand of dowry and cruelty against the appellants.Hence, trial Court acquitted the appellants from the charge of aforesaid offence.3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants on the basis of suspicion, the suspicion however grave could not take place proof of the evidence beyond reasonable doubt.It is further submitted that FIR was recorded after a period of near about one month and statements of witnesses have been recorded after a period of two months from the date of incident.Investigation officer does not offer sufficient explanation of delay in recording FIR and statements of witnesses.Hence, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.Contrary to this learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that looking to the conduct of the appellants and circumstantial evidence and the fact that 3 appellants try to mislead the police about real cause of death, the appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial Court for the offence of murder.He informed that deceased was died due to throttling because he noticed that 4th to 6th cartilage of trachea were broken.Subsequently on 28.9.2005 police registered offence against the accused persons after a period of 30 days from the date of incident.Police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet.Appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence.Trial Court acquitted three accused persons from the offence.However, present appellants have been convicted as mentioned above.Suryawati Gupta P. W. 1 is the mother of the deceased.She deposed that the deceased was killed and dead body was thrown in a Well.She further deposed that family members of the deceased made demand of dowry from the deceased and she was ill-treated.Son of my maternal father in-law Vashishath Muni informed me that my daughter was lying dead in a Well; thereafter we went to the house of the appellants.Buttan @ Malti P.W. 2 is aunt of the deceased.She deposed that I had seen the dead body of the deceased floating in a Well.He deposed that demand of dowry was made from the deceased and she was ill-treated and tortured.Information about death of the deceased was received by him, thereafter I went to the house of the deceased and noticed that dead body of the deceased was lying in the well.I asked Santosh Kumar Gupta, how the deceased was died, he told me that the deceased went to take treatment from the Doctor.Panchnama of dead body Ex. P.2 was prepared and I signed the same.Vanshraj P. W. 4 deposed the same facts that demand of dowry was made from the deceased and she was ill-treated and tortured.Lalarti Gupta, P. W.5 is also relative of the deceased.She was living in the same village.She deposed that I received information about death of the deceased, I went there and noticed that dead body of the deceased was lying in the well.Santosh abused me in filthy language.Nishchal Jharia P. W. 8 is investigation officer.He deposed that I recorded merg intimation on 29.8.2005 thereafter I recorded FIR Ex.On the basis of merg I recorded statements of witnesses and accused were arrested.I also prepared spot map Ex.P.10 and signed the same.I conducted investigation of the merg.I recorded FIR on 28.9.2005 on the basis of merg intimation.He further admitted the fact that I recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.He offer explanation regarding recording the statements of witnesses belatedly that at the time of death of the deceased family members were busy in performing last rites of the deceased.Hence, there statements were recorded belatedly.He further admitted that at the time of recording the merg it was informed by the witnesses that deceased was died by jumping in the well.The defence led evidence to the effect that the deceased committed suicide because she had ailment of leucorrhoea.From the evidence produced by the prosecution, it is clear that prosecution did not produce evidence in regard to fact of murder.6 Nobody has seen that appellants had killed the deceased and thereafter dead body of the deceased was thrown in the Well.There is no evidence that how the deceased was died.The conduct of the appellants is suspicious because they tried to conceal real fact of death of the deceased.In the aforesaid case Hon'ble Apex court has further held in regard to delay in recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. by the prosecution witnesses as under:As regards the incident of murder of the deceased, the prosecution has produced six eye-witnesses to the same.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,835,844 |
2) The factual aspect is stated below in short :3) On 13.12.2004, Jahanara Khatoon daughter of Sk.Jalal was found missing since 7 P.M. A missing diary being no. GDE no. 1431 darted 14.12.2004, was noted by the Panchla Police station to that effect.Jalal and others made thorough searching for Jahanara and on 14.12.2004 one Sk.Hara and Sk.Liakat of village Nabghara brought Jahanara and opposite party no. 2 Sk.Saheb Ali would be performed.Kutubuddin elder brother of Sk.Saheb Ali also agreed to the said decision.On that date, opposite party no. 1 Sk.Saheb Ali left his house.Thereafter, Sk.Saheb assured her of marriage and continued co-habitation.respectively, were found not guilty to the charge under Section 376 IPC by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. 1, Howrah in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 2006 and were acquitted therefrom.Jalal, father of the victim girl Jahanara Khatoon has challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the order of acquittal of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 in this revision application.Saheb Ali back to their village and disclosed that they were caught when moving in the village together.Over the issue, local people together had taken a decision that marriage between Jahanara and Sk.Jalal learnt from Jahanara that she had love affairs with Sk.Saheb Ali who on assurance to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her on 13.12.2004 in a hotel at Digha.Kutubuddin Ali was trying to give marriage of SK.Saheb Ali with another girl.So, on 16.3.2005 Sk.Jalal lodged a written FIR with Panchla Police Station on the basis of which Panchla police station case no. 46 of 2005 dated 16.3.2005, was registered against Sk.Kutubuddin and Sk.Saheb Ali under Sections 493/376/120B IPC.The case was investigated into and ended in charge-sheet against both the accused persons under Section 376 IPC.The opposite party no. 2 and 3 were arrayed to face the charge under Section 376 IPC in the Trial Court as they 3 pleaded not guilty to the charge.Accordingly the Trial commenced and they were found not guilty to the charge leveled against them and acquitted therefrom by the order which has been impugned in this revision application.4) Mr. Kallol Mondal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made manifold contention.The main thrust of his contention is that the learned Trial Court completely erred and was misconceived in coming to a conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the alleged sexual intercourse.He has taken me to the paragraph 2 at page 8 of the impugned judgement and contended that the learned Trial Court put unnecessary stress on the fact that the opposite party no. 1 had taken the prosecutrix to one Kazi for the purpose of marriage immediately after having sexual intercourse on 13.12.2004 at Digha.Mr. Mondal further contended that the fact alone does not necessarily imply that the prosecutrix had free consent to the sexual intercourse with the opposite party no. 1 and this will not come within the mischief of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code.5) Mr. Mondal submitted that the prosecutrix i.e. Jaharana Khatoon who has examined as P.W. 3 in the Trial has stated that Sk.Saheb the respondent no. 2 forced her to go inside the taxi on 13.12.2004 about 7 P.M. According to the P.W. 3, Sk.Saheb came to her house and promised to marry her and after giving assurance to marry forced her to go inside the taxi.They came to Digha at night by the same taxi and checked in a hotel.4 They resided there as husband and wife and co-habited.When Sk.Saheb co-habiting with her she raised resistance on the plea that their marriage was not solemnized.She further stated that on her protest, Sk.Saheb told her that he would marry her and after his assurance to marry he co- habited with her.Saheb to co-habit with her.Therefore, he submits, there was misconception on the part of the prosecutrix upon misrepresentation by Sk.Therefore, it can not be said that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.Learned Trial Court adjudged the matter from an erroneous angle and has come to a wrong findings that the prosecutrix was a consenting party.b) Bhupinder Singh Vs.c) Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs.d) Deelip Singh Vs.7) In Deelip Singh Vs.State of Bihar , the victim girl was aged above 16 years.The Hon'ble Court came to a finding that the consent by the victim 5 girl can not said to be given on misconception under Section 90 of the Indian Panel Code.The Hon'ble Apex Court was of view that the accused was entitled to acquitted.8) In Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs.State of A.P. (supra).The victim girl was of tender age obtained by the accused by making a false promise to marry her which he never intended to fulfil.By invoking of Section 90 IPC the Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that such fraudulent consent can not said to be a consent.The said consent was of no consequence.The fact of the case before Hon'ble Court was that the accused therein used to come to her place and asking the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse with her but was refused initially.The accused kept on persisting and persuading her.The prosecutrix resisted for about three months.But one day the accused came there, closed the door and committed a sexual intercourse with her forcibly without her consent and against her will.When the prosecutrix asked the accused as to why his spoiled her life he gave assurance that he would marry her and asked her not to cry.On the basis of the assurance given by the accused, the process of sexual intercourse continued when she became pregnant.The matter was came into light.9) The factual aspects in the case in Deelip Singh Vs.In this case the prosecutrix is a lady aged 23 years i.e. of considerable age who understands the implication of sexual intercourse.She was in love with accused Sk.If her statement made intercourse of trial as the P.W. 3 is read minutely it is to be accepted that she was forced to leave her house and to go to Digha.She checked in a hotel where she stayed for a night with Sk.Saheb as husband and wife and co-habited.In Course of Co-habitation she raised resistance on the plea that her marriage with Sk.Saheb was not solemnised yet.Saheb told her that he would marry her and after his assurance he co-habited with her.Firstly, she was forced to go out of her house at 7 P.M. on 13.12.2004 and to go to Digha by hired taxi.Subsequently they checked in a hotel and stayed there as husband and wife and co-habited.Thirdly in course of co-habitation, she alleged to have raised resistance only by saying that their marriage was not solemnised.She was a girl of tender age at that time.10) In Bhupindar Singh (Supra) the accused married her during subsistence of his first marriage and co-habiting with her for about 4 years.Saheb had no intention at all to marry the prosecutrix at the time of first co-habitation on 13.12.2004 at Digha or he seriously believed that he would marry her in future.15)On careful perusal of the evidence of the P.W. 3 the prosecutrix who is the best witness in this case, I find that her statement is not at all inspiring confidence to accept that she co-habited with Sk.Saheb only on promise to 11 marry her.Rather she allowed to have sexual intercourse with her and after having completed the course of sexual intercourse, without any real resistance came back to her village and were caught by co-villagers while roaming around the village on the next date.The exhibit 3 clearly indicates that she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse with Sk.She has stated that she had love affairs with Sk.Saheb for last 2/3 years and according to their plan, she left her house and came to Digha with Sk.In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has not stated that on 13.12.2004 she had any sexual intercourse with Sk.The statement of the prosecutrix as P.W. 3 is entirely contradictory to the statement made by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She stated further in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she went to the house of the elder sister of Sk.Saheb on the next date and the brother of Sk.Saheb took her back to her father's house and disclosed that her marriage would given with Sk.She stated that she was forced to go to her father house.Saheb made a false promise to marry her.In fact he had taken the 12 prosecutrix to the house of one Kazi at Munsirhat for the purpose of marriage which could not be materialised for want of witnesses.In the FIR which has been lodged by the P.W. 1 ,i.e., is Sk.Jalal it has been stated that matter was taken up by the local people as well as Gram Panchayat.It was decided unanimously that there would be marriage between Sk.Saheb nor his family members disagreed to that decision.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,839,780 |
Since both the appeals are arising out of a common judgment, they are being taken up together and are being decided by the present common judgment.In brief, the prosecution case is that on 13.10.2005 at about 7.00 A.M. all the appellants came to the house of the informant armed with gun, rifle and country made pistol and started abusing and saying that they were not to be spared alive, at that time Waris, Shadab, Rais Ahmad, Samad Khan, Smt. Munni, Mohid, Khursheed and Shabbo etc. were also present there.The appellants started firing upon the complainant side by which Waris (PW-2), Shadab (PW-3), Rais Ahmad, Samad Khan, Smt. Munni, Mohid, Khurhseed, Shabbo became seriously injured.Waris was taken to Meerut from Mawan in serious condition and thereafter he was referred to Delhi and Shadab was admitted in P.N. Sharma Hospital.Other injured were also being treated in hospital.These appellants had also caused injuries, in the previous evening of the occurrence, to the father of Waris (Munna) and Sakib, regarding which report was lodged in the night itself.There was enmity going on between two sides from before because of which the present fatal assault had been made.A written report (Exhibit Ka-1) with the above allegation was addressed to the SHO, P.S. Mawana by the informant Nadeem (PW-1) whereon crime no.372 of 2005 under section 307, 147, 148, 149, 504 IPC was registered on 13.10.2005 at 1730 hrs against all the appellants by constable Sampat Singh (PW-14) who prepared chick FIR (Exhibit Ka-28) and made entry of this case at report no. 17 time 0730 hrs.in the G.D. (Exhibit Ka-20).The investigation was assigned to S.I. Shyampal Singh (PW-13) who started investigation on 13.10.2005 who, after having taken police personnel along with him, went to PHC, Mawana and found out about the injured persons and came to know that injured Shadab and Waris had been referred to Meerut.Thereafter, he went to village Sathala where he recorded statement of informant Nadeem, injured Rais Ahmad @ Chhavi, Mohid, Khursheed, Smt. Munni and Shabbo and thereafter he came to know that injured Waris and Shadab were sent to Delhi and P.N. Sharma Hospital, Meerut respectively.Thereafter, at the instance of informant he prepared site plan (Exhibit Ka-26).When he tried to find out about the accused-appellants, they were found absconding from their respective houses.Four 12 bore empty cartridges and one bullet of 315 bore were also found on the spot which were sealed in the presence of witnesses Salim and Shahbej.The recovery memo (Exhibit Ka-2) was prepared by him.Again on 15.10.2005 and 22.10.2009, he made search of the accused-appellants but they could not be found and thereafter on 26.10.2005 he recorded statements of witnesses namely Shadab, Muche Khan and Nafees.On 27.10.2005 he went to Delhi in Sabir Nursing Home where he recorded statement of the injured Waris.On 21.11.2005 he recorded the statement of Samad Khan, Shahbej and Samlik.On Exhibits Ka-17 to Ka-19 it was not essential to write casualty number and also he could not tell as to where the patient was admitted in casualty or by whom but denied that he, in collusion with the informant, had prepared the medico legal case.Two months prior to this quarrel, these persons had beaten them because his brother Nadeem had stopped them from cutting eucalyptus trees, regarding which report was lodged by Sahabat against Salim and others, in which Aftab had gone to jail, a certified copy of the written report dated 11/08/2005 was filed.In cross-examination this witness has stated that Nadeem, Cheemo, Wasim were his real brothers.When Wasim etc. got injured on the spot, he along with him his uncle Sharif, Amir Ahmad were also present there.Neither he nor his uncle nor any of his family members had received any firearm injury, rather the firearm injury were received by the complainant side and there were marks of firearm shots on the gate.From 13th till his medical was done up to 15th he remained at home.Villagers had come there who had rescued him, as a result of which the accused had gone from there issuing threats to kill, because of which they had not gone to hospital also.He showed ignorance in respect of the police having found the place of occurrence to be inside his house, to be wrong or not.Further he stated that on 12th exchange of abuses had happened between him and Munna and Shakeb, report in respect of which was got written against him in which he alone was an accused.In cross-examination this witness has stated that he had not found involvement of Cheemu, Salim, Shahbej and Samad Khan.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-J, J.)1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta for appellant no.5 Bobby, Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey for rest of the appellants in Crl.Appeal No.1383 of 2014) (in connected appeal) and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Sri Kaustubh Srivastava, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State respectively in the aforesaid two appeals.This criminal appeal no. 1383 of 2014 has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 25.3.2014 passed in S.T. No. 278 of 2006 (State vs. Chheemo and others) and S.T. No.253 of 2007 (State vs. Wasim) arising out case crime no. 372 of 2005, P.S. Mawana, District Meerut passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut whereby thee appellants have been convicted and sentenced under section 147 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. One thousand and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment each, under section 148 IPC two years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. Two thousand and in default of payment of fine, two years additional imprisonment each, under section 307/149 IPC life imprisonment, fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three years additional imprisonment each, under section 504 IPC one year rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. One thousand and in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment each, under section 506 IPC three years rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. two thousand and in default of payment of fine, one year additional imprisonment each.He further tried to search the accused-appellants but their ladies showed him stay order of High Court.At the police station, X-Ray report of injured Smt. Munni, Khursheed and Rais Ahmad were received by him which were entered in the case diary and it was found that the injured Rais Ahmad sustained fracture and therefore, the offence under section 325 IPC was added.On 25.11.2005 the statements of Haroon Khan and Chand Khan were recorded at police station and thereafter he went to village Sathala where he recorded the statements of accused appellants Chheemo, Nadeem, Waseem, Nawab, Salim and Bobby, whose arrest was stayed by High Court and they could not be arrested and on the same day he filed charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-26) against them.On 4.12.2005 he had received injury reports of injured Shadab and Waris.Four empty cartridges of 12 bore and one bullet of 315 bore were material exhibits 1 to 4 and material exhibit 5 respectively.PW-13 had also investigated cross case being case crime no. 372-A of 2009 under section 147, 452, 324, 504, 506 IPC and he had submitted charge sheet against some of the accused persons who were found involved in commission of offence.After submission of charge-sheet against accused appellants Cheemo, Nadeem, Wasim, Nawab, Salim and Bobby under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 504, 506 IPC, the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 21/02/2007, thereafter co-accused appellant Farid was summoned to face trial under the aforesaid sections on an application under sections 319 Cr.P.C. and thereafter charges were framed under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 325/149, 504, 506 IPC against accused appellants on 19/01/2008 and 09/05/2007, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.From the side of prosecution as documentary evidence following documents have been filed: Exhibit Ka-1 written report, Exhibit Ka 2 recovery memo pertaining to 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore and a bullet of 315 bore, Exhibit Ka-3 injury memo of Shadab, Exhibit Ka 4 radiology report of Munni, Exhibit Ka-5 radiology report of Khurshid, Exhibit Ka-6, radiology report of Rais, Exhibit Ka-7, Exhibit Ka-8 injury report of Shadab, Exhibit Ka-9 injury report of Khurshid, Exhibit Ka-10 injury report of Sabbo, Exhibit Ka-11 injury memo of Mohid Khan, Exhibit Ka-12 injury memo of Munni, Exhibit Ka-13 injury memo of Rais, Exhibit Ka-14 the paper relating to admission of Waris Khan in All India Institute of Medical Sciences sl.no. 225-346, Exhibit Ka-15 Khaka Lash relating to Waris Khan, Exhibit Ka 16 X-Report of Waris Khan, Exhibit Ka-17 Parcha relating of neurosurgery clinic relating to Waris Khan, Exhibit Ka 19 Parcha neuroscience Centre relating to Waris Khan, Exhibit Ka 20 letter dispatched to Waris Khan by all India Inst Of Medical Sciences, Delhi, Exhibit Ka 21 permission letter relating to Rais Khan, Exhibit Ka 22/1 to 22/11 the case sheet issued by Chaurasiya Nursing Home pertaining to Rais, Exhibit Ka 23 injury memo Shadab, Exhibit Ka 24 supplementary injury memo Shadab, Exhibit Ka 25/1 to 25/8 BHT related to Shadab, Exhibit Ka 25/92 to Ka 25/22 pathology report of Shadab, Exhibit Ka 26 site plan, Exhibit Ka 27 charge- sheet, Exhibit Ka 28 chick FIR, Exhibit Ka 29 carbon copy of GD of initiation of case, material Exhibit 1 to 4 four empty cartridges, material Exhibit 5 one 315 bore bullet.On the basis of above evidence, the learned trial court has convicted the accused appellants under the afore-mentioned sections and has awarded the punishment as narrated above.The learned counsel for the appellants barring appellant no. 5 then has simply argued for reduction in sentence as according to him the life imprisonment awarded under sections 307 read with sections 149 IPC is on the higher side.It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant no. 5 Bobby that the time of incident is mentioned in the FIR to be 7.00 A.M. while the FIR has been lodged at 7.30 A.M. while Investigating Officer, PW-13 has stated that the FIR was sent to the Magistrate five days after the said occurrence which is considerable delay in violation of the mandatory provision.It is further argued that the injured who had visited Police Station and was given 'Majoobi Chitti', the same does not contain the crime number.It was further pointed out that the injured was admitted in P.N. Sharma Hospital at 10.45 A.M., all these facts indicate that the FIR was anti timed.Further, he argued that genesis of the case is under cloud in this case and there could be exaggeration in the statement made by injured witnesses.Moreover, no recovery of any fire arm weapon by which assault is said to have been made, has been recovered from any person.Further, it is argued that the statements of the injured witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Officer one month after incident and in all their statements they have made general statement that all the accused were armed with gun and country made pistol, rifle etc and did not specify as to which accused was carrying what weapon.Further, it is argued that PW-1 at page 91 of the paper book has stated in the last paragraph that Bhuri was also beaten at the same time when the present incident is alleged to have taken place, which would indicate that the FIR was anti timed.Further, it is argued that the injured Shadab had received injuries caused by blast of barrel of country made pistol which he had fired in his defence, as has been the case taken up by the accused side in defence, which has been erroneously disbelieved by the trial court.Further, it is argued that the place of incident has been shifted because in FIR it is stated to be house of PW-1, while in the statement he has stated that incident happened on Chabutra.It makes clear that the accused-appellant Bobby has been falsely implicated.No other argument was made.It has been argued by the learned counsel for the informant that PW-1 Nadeem Khan an eye witness supported the prosecution version and stated that the accused Nadeem, Cheemo were armed with gun, accused Wasim was armed with rifle and other accused persons were armed with country made pistols.The injured witness Waris has also supported the entire prosecution version and his statement must be taken to be trustworthy as he has sustained fire arm injury on head which was ultimately treated at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and his left side body stands paralyzed.It is further argued that second injured witness Shadab has also supported the entire prosecution version and he has also sustained fire arm injuries on chest and was given treatment in P.L. Sharma Hospital and later was admitted for nine days at Chaurasiya Nursing Home.The Medico Legal register of P.L. Saharma Hospital, Meerut has been proved by PW-5 Ram Veer Singh; Emergency Medical Officer, P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut Dr. Suresh Yadav (PW-6) has proved injuries of Shadab; Senior Consultant/Radiologist of P.L. Sharma, Meerut Dr. Jogendra Kumar (PW-7) has proved the injures/X-ray report of injured Munni, Khursheed, Rais and Shadab; Office Superintendent, Community Health Centre, Mawana, Jagat Singh (PW-8) has proved Meddico Legal Report of injured Shadab prepared by Dr. Anil Khanna and also reference slip by which Shadab was referred to PN.Sharma Hospital.The Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Mawana, Dr. Anil Khanna (PW-9) has proved medico legal reprt of injured Khurhseed, Shabbo, Mohid, Smt. Munni, Raies and Shadab; Senior Bone Specialist, AIIMS, Dr. Dinkar Jha (PW-10) has proved medico legal report of injured Waris; Assistant Professor, Neuro Surgery, AIIMS, Dr. Dipak Gupta (PW-11) had conducted operation of injured Waris and had found frontal bone fractured and it was also found that his eye sight of right had diminished eye and treatment of injured was still going on; the Visiting surgeon of Chaurasiya Nursing Home, Meerut, Dr.Niraj Goel (PW-12) had operated injuries of injured Rais and Shadab and had proved fire arm injury on the chest of injured Shadab.Further, it is argued that a day before the present incident an FIR was lodged from the side of the first informant of the present case against Cheemo, Nadeem, Bobby and three others, which was registered as Case Crime No.371 of 2005 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Stsation Mawana, District Meerut in which the accused persons including the present appellant nos. 1, 2 and 5 namely Cheemo, Nadeem, Bobby have been convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 8.9.2015 and after having pointed out this evidence on record, it has been vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the trial court must be upheld and appeal should be dismissed.Since it is bounden duty of this court to also ensure that there was no infirmity in holding the accused appellants guilty by the learned trial court and if we come to the conclusion that the appellants have been held guilty rightly then only it would be considered whether the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellants needs to be accepted or not, of reducing the punishment.We have to see as to what is the evidence on record on the basis of which the accused appellants have been held guilty.It may be mentioned here that informant Nadeem Khan's statement has been recorded twice in this case, once initially when trial had started and thereafter when the co-accused appellant Farid was made accused under sections 319 Cr.P.C., his statement was again recorded.In the 1st statement dated 10/1/2007 PW 1, Nadeem Khan has stated that the incident happened on 13/10/2005 at about 7 a.m. and at that time his brother Waris, Shadab, father, mother, uncle, Samad, Shabbu Bhai, Rais Bhai, brother-in-law of Khurshid Bhai were all present in the house, right then appellants Cheemo, Nadeem, Wasim, Bobby, Nawab, Salim, Farid came in the house of informant armed with weapons; Cheemo had gun, Wasim had a rifle and rest were armed with country made pistols and all of them started abusing stating that they would not be spared alive and together all these accused started raining bullets upon them and in this incident Waris, Shadab, Rais, Smt. Munni, Samad Khan, Mohid Khan, Khurshid and Shabbo received fire arm injuries and thereafter these accused fled from there, the entire persons living in the vicinity went inside their houses.Thereafter they all went to Mawana by car and the informant got a written report typed which is Exhibit Ka-1 and lodged the said report at police station.Subsequently he came to know that Waris was taken to Meerut for treatment.This incident had happened due to a dispute with regard to eucalyptus trees between them and the said dispute had arisen twice earlier also.The same statement was repeated by this witness again when it was recorded after making Farid also as a co-accused except that he added that he came out of house and saw the accused appellants making fire.Waris, Shadab, Rais, Smt. Munni, Samad Khan, Mohid Khan and Shabbo received serious injuries and the condition of Waris was very bad, all these Injured persons were taken to police station in his uncle's car where F.I.R. was lodged.The hospital was adjoining to the police station where the injured persons were taken for treatment and from there Waris and Shadab were sent to Pyare Lal Sharma hospital in Meerut for treatment.Further he stated that one day prior to this occurrence Cheemo, Bobby, Farid, Wasim, Nadeem had beaten by Lathi and Dandas, Munne Khan and Shakeb because there was earlier enmity going on between both the sides pertaining to eucalyptus trees.The present incident also happened because of this enmity.In cross-examination this witness has stated that the report was lodged at PS Mawana about 20 minutes after 7.00 AM and at the time when this report was registered Injured Waris, Shadab, Rais, Samad Khan, Smt. Munni, Mohid Khan, Khurshid, Shabbo where not present with him at PS concerned.He does not recollect as to whether the injured persons had left for hospital before lodging of report.He had not seen as to whether before lodging the report, the injuries of the injured persons were noted at the police station or not.He was present when these Injured were being taken to hospital.He was flabbergasted having seen Waris and Shadab in pool of blood because of which he had stated that he could not tell whether he had seen the injuries of the injured persons at the PS or not.The injured persons stayed at P.S. only for about five minutes and after they had gone, he had immediately lodged the report and it was wrong to say that he had not gone to the police station for lodging F.I.R.. Further stated that it was rightly mentioned in his report that Waris was referred from Mawana to Meerut and from Meerut to Delhi in serious condition and that Shadab was admitted in PL Sharma hospital and that it was wrong to say that the above fact was mentioned wrong by him in FIR.He has also denied that he mentioned it wrong in FIR that other injured persons were also being treated in hospital.A typist was available at 7.00 AM at P.S. Mawana on the day of incident but he could not tell his name nor could he tell the timings when he dictated his report to him and denied the suggestion that there was no private typist available there and that F.I.R. was anti-timed.He also has stated, at about 7.00 AM on 13/10/2005 accused Cheemo, Wasim, Nadeem had beaten Bhuri by lathis in which Bhuri had received light injuries, who was one of his relatives being Bhatija and when he tried to save him even he was beaten by these three accused by lathis but he had not got his head injuries examined as he had internal injuries but he had not mentioned about this incident in his written report but could not tell its reason why he did not mention.He admitted that he was examined in court twice for recording his examination in chief, once on 10/10/2007 and the other time on 20/02/2008 and in both the statements he had told that the occurrence had happened on 13/10/2005 at 7.00 AM but had not mentioned that the above-mentioned three accused had beaten Bhuri and when he went to save him he was also beaten by them by lathis.He denied that on 13/10/2005 at 7.00 AM he was not present on the spot because he was with his brother in Delhi and had not seen the incident.He also has stated that on 10/1/2007 in his statement he had not stated about his younger brother Sartaj to be at home, but in his statement recorded on 20/02/2008, in examination in chief, he has stated that sartaj was at his house and explained that because of not remembering, he could not tell about his presence in his earlier examination-in-chief and denied that he had made a false witness of the incident on the basis of legal advice.He again has stated that in his statement recorded on 10/01/2007, in examination-in-chief, he had stated that uncle Samad, Shabbo Bhai, Rais Bhai, brother-in-law of Khurshid Bhai were present in house but in his statement dated 20/02/2008 he did not disclose their names only because he could not remember their names then and denied that this happened because of legal advice.He further stated that Bhuri is not a witness in this case nor had he lodged any case in respect of accused having beaten Bhuri and him.He again reiterated that all the accused had fired and caused injuries to the injured persons and even denied it to be wrong that Mohid Khan had not received any firearm injury and Samad Khan, did not receive any kind of injuries.We do not find any inconsistency in the statement of this witness as regards lodging the written report at PS concerned because the same has been lodged promptly, occurrence being of 7.00 AM while the report has been got registered at 7:30 AM, the distance of police station from the place of incident being just 9 kilometres.A lot of cross-examination has been made on the point of earlier occurrence in which three accused are alleged to have beaten Bhuri and when PW 1 went to save him even he received injuries but he did not mention about this fact in his present FIR, we do not find that because of this, there can be any infirmity in the present FIR.There is slight difference in the version of his statement which was recorded second time due to an addition of an accused under sections 319 Cr.P.C., but whatever has been stated in the subsequent statement is nothing but a reiteration of the earlier statement plus some more facts have been added which were relevant, therefore there seems to be no improvement made in his statement which may be treated to be detrimental to the prosecution case.The PW-1 along with injured persons had gone to the police station but soon after, the injured had left the place for hospital for treatment, whereafter the report is alleged to have been written, therefore we do not find any lacuna in his statement and the same seems to be trustworthy.Waris, PW-2 who is injured witness has stated that he recognises all the seven accused who were present in court and named them correctly and stated that Cheemo, Nadeem and Wasim were real brothers and Bobby was son of their real uncle and Salim was son of their real Phuphi.Date and time of the occurrence have been narrated by him to be the same as mentioned in FIR and stated that he was sitting at the Baithak of his house and then all the appellants came there armed with weapons (gun, rifle and country made pistols) and started abusing Shadab and when PW-2 stated what was it, at this, all of them started firing which hit him as well as the other injured persons namely, Rais, Shabbo, Khurshid, Mohid Khan, Munni and Sammo alias Samad.Having received injuries he fell down and became unconscious as the shot hit his head on the right side and because of that his left leg and right-hand also became non-functional.The left-hand became totally paralysed; when he regained consciousness he found himself in hospital in Delhi where his statement was recorded by police; because of this incident vision of his right eye had also diminished and he was still not well.He stated that this incident happened due to a quarrel which had taken place between the two sides regarding cutting eucalyptus trees and for this, Munna and Shakeb had had a fight earlier, Munna was his father.In cross-examination this witness has stated that he remained admitted in Delhi Hospital for about 28-29 days in All India Institute of Medical Sciences and his statement had been recorded there only but he could not tell as to when his statement was recorded by the investigating officer nor does he recollect as to whether he gave any statement to the investigating officer stating that the vision of left eye had diminished and that he was not well till now.He denied suggestion that he was giving statement on legal advice for the first time.He denied that his left leg and hand and left eye were absolutely perfect and that he was making wrong statement in court regarding these limbs being badly affected.Further he stated that he had become unconscious on the place of occurrence and could regain his consciousness about 11-12 days after the incident when he found himself in a hospital in Delhi and he could not tell as to who had taken him there and he was in which hospital.He had not sought information from the person whom he found in hospital as to whether the report was lodged about the incident or not.He had not disclosed names of assailants when he regained consciousness to the person who was present in hospital.The person who was available in hospital, had apprised him that report had been lodged about this incident by Nadeem but he could not tell as to when he met Nadeem after regaining consciousness nor does he recollect as to whether Nadeem was near him when the investigating officer was recording his statement.He had never taken the investigating officer to the place of occurrence nor the investigating officer had taken him there.All the assailants/appellants were armed and had made fire but he could not tell as to whose shot had hit him nor could he distinguish as to which accused was having rifle and who was having country made pistol or gun and at what distance from each other they were standing but they were standing in a line.The assailants had made fire at him from 4-5 steps.He further stated that his house was situated in front of Shadab's house and in front of their houses was the place of occurrence.We find that the place of occurrence is being reported to be same which has been shown by the investigating officer in site plan (Exhibit Ka 26).In this site plan the accused are shown by an arrow coming from southern direction towards North; in front of Baithak of Waris by "BX" is shown the place where fire was made on Waris, Shadab and others from the place shown by "XA".By "XXXX" is shown the place where 4 empty cartridges of 12 bore and one bullet of 315 bore were found.This witness has further stated that he could not tell the width of the road situated between his house and the house of Shadab and he denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not telling about it and that it was wrong to say that no such firing was made by all the appellants.He further stated that no cross case of this incident was going on against him and showed his ignorance that cross case crime no. 372 A/2500 sections 324, 504 and 506 IPC, PS Mawana was pending in the court of ACJM, Mawana in which he was named accused or not or that whether he was on bail in that case or not and denied that he was making wrong statement in this regard deliberately.He further denied that the said case was in respect of Naseem alias Bhondu and Sharif having assaulted by lathis and "tabal" with an intention to kill and also showed ignorance that in the said case Rais @ Jhunga, Cheemo alias Bhura, Asif, Salim, Shahvez son of Samad Khan and Samad Khan son of Juggu, Shadab son of Jamir Ahmad, Waris son Rasid Ahmad had been nominated.He denied that on 13/10/2005 at 7.00 AM the aforesaid persons entered the house of Amir Ahmad son of Asifuddin in village Sathala and assaulted with an intention to kill by Lathi, gun and country made pistols, Naseem alias Bhondu and Sharif and to escape being punished in that case this false cross case, has been initiated against the accused appellants.He admitted that one day prior to the present occurrence a quarrel had happened between the accused persons and Munna and Shahvez pertaining to cutting of eucalyptus trees and in that case he was the informant and a witness of the case but it was wrong to say that because of being relative of Munna and Shahvez he was giving false statement in the present case.In the present case Samad had also received fire arm injuries but he could not tell whether he had been medically examined and also admitted that apart from the relatives, there was no other witness in this case.Shabbo was also caused injuries by the assailants and he had received fire arm injuries.He also denied to have any knowledge that on 11/08/2005 Shawahat Khan son of Iqbal resident of Sathala had got the case registered being crime no. 277 of 2005 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 323 IPC at PS Mawana naming therein Salim, Asif, Sakev, Sajev sons of Samad, Aftab son of Jamil Ahmad as accused who belonged to his family and because of enmity of this case he along with his other companions had attacked upon the house of Asifuddin on 13/10/2005 at 7.00 AM.He also denied that Rais and others had assaulted Amir Ahmad and in this attack the barrel of the country made pistol of Rais exploded because of which pallets hit his head and in this attack PW 2 was also involved.This witness himself is an injured witness who remained hospitalised in all India Institute of Medical Sciences for a long time due to having received serious injuries in this occurrence.Although he could not give satisfactory replies as to who had got him admitted and also as to when he met Nadeem after having regained consciousness etc. and also denied about the existence of a cross case, but it all appears to be there because of anxiety to see that the accused were punished in this case.Despite there being little exaggeration in his statement and several concealments as regards facts, his statement cannot be disbelieved with respect to the present occurrence having taken place and his having received injuries in the present incident which are alleged to have been caused by appellants.Therefore we find the statement of this witness to be trustworthy as regards proving the occurrence.Shadab, PW 3 who is also an injured witness has corroborated the version of the prosecution exactly as mentioned in the FIR in respect of all the accused having made indiscriminate fires upon the complainant side, in which he received a gunshot wound on his chest, whereafter he was taken to police station and from there he was taken to Mawana Government hospital by police and all the injured persons were sent to Pyare Lal hospital except Waris who was straightaway sent to Delhi in All India Institute of Medical Sciences.He further stated that after being admitted in Pyare Lal hospital, he also remained admitted in Chaurasia nursing home for about 9 days where he was operated also.He also has stated that one day prior to this occurrence his ''Taya', Munne Khan and Shakeb were beaten by these accused persons only but clarified that out of these accused only three had beaten them and that the incident of making fire was seen by Munne Khan and Rais who had come on the spot.In cross-examination he has stated that the occurrence had taken place in village Sathala where he was sitting outside at Baithak which was on the main road.He had stated about this to investigating officer, the occurrence was caused by accused appellants from the road at a distance of about 4-5 steps.The main road is about 25-30 feet wide and on this road, 4-5 steps away from Chabutara the accused were standing.All the accused had made fire simultaneously and all the injured persons had received injuries.He denied that the said occurrence was not that of his Baithak, rather the same had happened in front of the house of Waris and has denied that the said distance was stated by him to be 15-20 steps.He further stated that it was wrong to say that the incident had happened not in front of the Baithak of Waris rather had taken place inside the house of Wasim where he caused injuries to himself.He further stated that he could not tell as to who had fired by gun, country made pistol and rifle and which injured received injury caused by which weapon and denied that he was not in a position to tell about it because he had not seen the incident.He had not told the doctor at PS Mawana as to by which weapon the accused had caused injuries, but it was denied by him that he did not tell him about this because the said injury had been caused to him as a result of the explosion of the barrel of gun of Rais.He further stated that his house is separate from the house of Waris and between their houses there is a small lane and outside the house is a Baithak.Further he stated that he knew Bhuri.On the date of incident at about 7.00 AM Wasim, Nadeem, Cheemo did not beat Bhuri in respect of cutting trees and it was also wrong to say that Samad Khan and Aftab had objected in respect of Marpit with Bhuri and that he was also beaten by these three accused.He admitted that in cross case along with him Rais, Asif, Waris, Shadab only are accused and Chunnu, Salim, Satir, Samad Khan were not accused.The complainant of this cross case is Amir Ahmad.It was wrong to say that in the cross cases injured were Sharif Ahmad Khan and Wasim Khan.The witnesses of this cross case are Rabiul, Asif and Anis.He denied that on 13/10/2005 at 7.00 AM he came with Lathi along with Samad Khan and Waris armed with lathis, Salim and Satir armed with tabal and entered the house of Wasim and caused injuries by their respective weapons to Sharif Ahmad and Naseem Khan by their respective weapons.He had also denied that Rais, Chunnu and Asif made firing by their weapons which instead of hitting Sharif and Naseem, hit walls and doors of his house.He further denied that during this, the barrel of the country made pistol of Rais exploded, which resulted in pallets hitting him and Waris.Further denied that to save himself from cross case this false case has been filed.We find that this witness has also given trustworthy statement about the place of occurrence as well as the manner in which incident has happened except there being few minor contradictions and that too not in material aspect.Shahbez, PW-4 has stated that in his presence the Investigating Officer had recovered empty cartridges of 12 bore and a bullet of 315 bore on 13/10/2000 and had prepared its memo (Exhibit Ka-2), which was signed by him.In cross-examination this witness has stated that he has no knowledge whether he is an accused in cross case crime no. 372 A of 2005 under sections 147, 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC PS Mawana or not and denied that on 13/10/2005 around 7.00 AM he and Salim armed with tabal, Asif armed with gun and Chunnu and Rais armed with country made pistol, Samad Khan, Waris and Shadab armed with lathis entered the house of the accused of the present case and made murderous assault, in which Sharif Ahmad and Naseem Khan received injuries of tabal and lathis.and he also denied to be on bail in the said cross case.His signature on the recovery memo of cartridges and bullet was obtained by the Investigating Officer about 1 ¼ months after the occurrence.It is evident from the statement of this witness that the recovery of the empty cartridges and the bullet was made in front of him by the investigating officer, although he has denied to be an accused in crime number 372A/05 which appears to be deliberate concealment, however we find that recovery of the said cartridges and bullet may not be the disbelieved and concealment on his part regarding cross case may have been made under belief that his statement otherwise would be taken to be biased.Dr. Suresh Yadav (PW-6) had examined the injured Shadab and found one gun shot wound of entry 1 cm.x 1 cm.x depth not probed, on front of right side of chest, 4.5 cm.medial to right nipple at 1 O' Clock position, Margin inverted, which was kept under observation, X-Ray was advised.The patient was admitted in hospital in delicate condition.The said injury was possible to have been caused by fire arm on 13.10.2005 at about 7.00 A.M. according to him.Dr. Ganendra Kumar Vashisht (PW-7) had prepared X Ray report on 13.10.2005 at 8.20 A.M. on the basis of X-Ray plates of injured Smt. Munni wife of Mohid, Khurhseed son of Saleem, Rais son of Amir Ahmad on reference having been received from P.L. Sharma Hospital which were Exhibits Ka-4, Ka-5 and Ka-6 respectively.On the same date he also performed X-Ray of injured Shadab son of Jamir Ahmad and found that one radiopaque shadow existed in his X-Ray of his chest but no fracture was found and the said shadow of metal could have been an injury caused by fire arm or by a pallet, his report is Exhibit Ka-7 and his X-Ray Plate is material Exhibits 2 and 3 on the basis of which report, Exhibit Ka-7 was prepared by him.He did not find any injury to have been caused to injured Smt. Munni in X-Ray.Dr. Anil Khanna (PW-9) had conducted medical examination of injured Khursheed and found one gun shot wound on right side of chest in the area of 5 cm x 1 cm, 5 cm.below right clavical, its depth could not be probed.In the said injury singeing was present; X-Ray was advised; injury was fresh; it could have been caused by fire arm.The patient was sent to P.N. Sharma Hospital.On the same day at 9.10 A.M. he also examined injured Shakhu @ Shabbo and found red abrasion 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm on the tip of left elbow joint, which was found to be simple in nature and fresh and could have been caused by a blunt object or by friction.On the same day he examined the injured Mohid Khan at 9.00 A.M. and found on his person a lacerated wound of 1 cm x 0.5 cm.subcutaneous, on lateral aspect 6 cm below malleolus bone, blood was present.The said injury was of simple nature.Duration was fresh and was caused by hard blunt object.On the same day at 8.45 A.M. he conducted medical examination of Smt. Munni wife of Mohid and found one gun shot wound over front of right side chest in area of 1 cm x 1 cm, 6 cm below medial each of right clavical blackening present, bleeding present, depth could not be probed.Injury was caused by fire arm and it was advised to be kept under observation.On the same day at 8.15 A.M. he examined injured Rais son of Amir Ahmad and found on his person one gun shot wound of 10 cm x 8 cm around medial aspect on left hand with loss of soft tissue.Bleeding and blackening present, kept under observation, X-Ray advised.This injury could have been caused by fire arm.On the same day at 8.00 A.M. he examined injured Shadab son of Zamir Ahmad but examination was not done in respect of injuries because his condition was very critical as he had difficulty in breathing frequently and looking to his condition, the injured was referred to P.N. Sharma Hospital for X-Ray and further treatment.Injured was having injury but in his report he had not mentioned about the said injury.In cross-examination PW-9 has stated that he had found injury on the person of Shadab but he had not mentioned this injury in his report.He was seriously injured and because of that it was necessary to refer him to higher centre and in such circumstance it was not necessary according to medical jurisprudence to mention injuries in the report.Regarding his condition of breathing, he has mentioned dyspneic but he had not noted down the B.P. or pulse in his report and it could not be said that without mentioning pulse rate, the condition of the patient could not have been treated to be serious.He further stated that in a gun shot wound, the edge of the wound is not normally inverted and also it is wrong to say that in all situation in a gun shot wound, the edge would always be inverted.As regards injury of Khursheed, he had not mentioned whether margins were inverted or everted but due to not having mentioned about it, it could not be said that the said injury was not of gun shot and that the same could have been caused by some blunt object or pointed object.The said injury was definitely caused by fire arm.As regards injury caused to Shabbo, the same was not found on vital part of the body and the same was found to be simple in nature.As regards injury of Smt. Munni he has not mentioned about the margins but he could not tell whether the said injury was simple or grievous but the same could not have been caused by any blunt or sharp object.As regards injury caused to Rais which was in left hand he could not tell whether the said injury could have been caused by fire arm.However, he had found blackening all around the said wound caused to Rais but he could not tell whether the said blackening could have come if the shot was made from a distance of one feet or not.Further, he stated that he has not mentioned about margins of the injuries received by any of the injured nor has he given any specific identification on surrounding part of the injury and he denied that he stated about the injuries received by Shabbo and Mohid to be of a gun shot on the basis of legal advice.Dr. Ram Dinkar Jha, (PW-10) had brought the record relating to patient Waris Khan on 13.10.2005 who was admitted in AIIMS, New Delhi in emergency department regarding which original register was brought by him and there was an entry relating to this patient at Sl.The patient was admitted in Neurology Unit-II Department (Exhibit Ka-14) and report was submitted by him.He has stated that the said patient was examined by Dr. Upendra of AIIMS who has left the Institute but the said report was prepared by him as he recognizes his signatures and writings (Exhibit Ka-15).According to this report there were two gun shot entry wounds, out of which wound no.1 was over scalp fronto-parietal region and second wound was in supra clavicular region.The injured could have received the said injuries on 13.10.2005 at about 7.00 A.M. by fire arm and which could have proved dangerous to his life.Glosgow coma scale which ought to have been 15 was 8 (E-1, V-2, M-5).In totality, the condition of patient was extremely serious.His X-Ray was conducted and there were found hole in his scalp and number of metallic pieces were visible.Further, he stated that the patient was operated in AIIMS on 13.10.2005 by Dr. Deepak Gupta and he had prepared the said injury after having cleaned the wound and the wound was stitched.The patient was discharged on 25.10.2005 and at that time his left portion had become very week.The left eye had been damaged.Although he stated that he could not find bed-head-ticket of the injured on record therefore the same could not be produced.This witness in cross examination has stated that in Exhibit Ka-15 at the time of initial examination of injured Waris, his mark of identification and thumb impression are not present; who had identified him, has not been mentioned nor was it mentioned as to who had brought him nor as to what was his condition.Further, he stated that regarding all these medical terms that they meant that he was in half conscious condition.E-1 means that despite there being pain there was no movement of eyes; V-2 means that he was speaking but nothing could be understood; and M-5 means that he was moving his hand and legs.In all these conditions, the patient could not tell his own name.Initially medical examination was not done by him nor Exhibit Ka-15 bore his signature and Exhibit Ka-15 also does not indicate as to by which doctor or hospital he was referred.It also does not reflect from the said Exhibit as to from which ward he was shifted.He has also stated that whenever the patient was admitted in hospital, bed-head-ticket is given to him but in Exhibit Ka-15 it is not mentioned, thereafter he has stated that the said Exhibit Ka-15 bears registration no. 136099/05, photocopy of which is available on record and not original documents.He further stated that he had not seen the condition of injuries of the injured and that he was stating on the basis of Exhibit Ka-15 about the condition of patient, which is a carbon copy but it was correct to say that the said patient was given treatment in Neuro Surgery Department.He admitted that Exhibit Ka-17, Ka-18 and Ka-19 were not in his own writing and signatures.He also admitted that the police had not come with the injured although cases of gun shot do come there which are treated as medico legal.The history of the patient on Exhibit Ka-15 regarding receipt of gun shot injury is recorded on disclosure made by the patient but in the said exhibit it is not made clear as to who had brought him although the person who brings the patient on casualty seat, dates and his name should be entered but the same is not in front of him.In the said exhibit the period when the injury was suffered has not been indicated, hence its duration cannot be disclosed by him.Further, he has stated that he is not a Neuro Surgeon nor Neuro Physician rather has worked in casualty department, therefore, on the basis of his experience he can give expert opinion in this matter.He admitted that whatever he has stated before the court has been deposed on the basis of the contents of Exhibit Ka-16 to Exhibit Ka-19 and not on the basis of his personal knowledge.Dr. Deepak Gupta, PW-11 of AIIMS Delhi has stated that on 13.10.2005 he had performed operation upon Waris Khan as he had suffered fire arm injury on fronto parietal region and he was in unconscious condition whose level was 2x5 in place of 5x5 and pulse was 100 per minute.Because of his having suffered injury in left hand and feet he had become extremely weak.When his CT Scan was done, it was found that there was a contusion in his fronto parietal region and frontal bone was found fractured and heavy pressure was there on brain.Metallic foreign body was found embedded.At the time of operation, temporal lobe had to be removed while cleaning the wound.The said injury was dangerous to life, because of which he lost vision of his right eye and the said patient still visits him from time to time for follow up treatment and suffers from infirmity in left hand as the power of his left hand had emasculated.The discharge slip of the patient Exhibit Ka-19 was prepared at his dictation.During operation the internal damage was found to have been caused by external injury caused to him.This witness in cross-examination has stated that there is a register in Hospital maintained for entering discharge summaries and in the said register a copy of Exhibit Ka-19 would be there.The said register remains with Medical Officer, AIIMS and he has not brought the said register in court because it was not considered necessary.Further, he has stated that the signatures of Medical Officer on the discharge summary are not required because the treatment is not given under his supervision.He admitted that at the time of conducting medical examination of the injured, he was not head of the Neuro Surgery Department and the discharge summary also does not bear the signature of Head of the Department because they are not normally obtained on discharge summary and he also stated that the said summary does not have seal under his signature.He stated that the patient was admitted on 13.10.2005 till 20.10.2005 whereafter he was discharged.He could not tell whether the patient who has undergone treatment till 20 days would be treated to have suffered from grievous injury or whether a patient who remains admitted beyond that period would be treated to be suffering from grievous injuries.In this regard only forensic expert could give his opinion but it is wrong to say that the injury which was suffered by the injured was not of serious nature, besides his unit of the doctors had also seen the patient because the said patient did not remain under his treatment continuously for 24 hours, rather the whole team takes care of the patient.On the discharge slip there is no signature of other doctors except of his own and it is correct to say that the discharge slip is not forwarded by the Head of the Department.He refused to suggest that the discharge slip was prepared showing injuries to be on the higher side.Dr. Neeraj Gopal PW-12 stated that on 13.10.2005 injured Rais Khan son of Amir Khan was admitted by his brother Wasim in Chaurasia Nursing Home where he was visiting doctor.Before his admission he had already been treated in District Hospital, Meerut.At time of his admission, he had suffered from fire arm wound in left hand which had been received by him on the same day in the morning around 6.00-7.00 A.M. The patient was in nervous condition.Pulse rate was 88 per minute and B.P. was 98 MM HC on the higher side.His injury was of serious nature.The other injured Shadab Khan was also admitted in the said Nursing Home on the said date at 1.35 P.M. by Nadeem Khan and he suffered from two fire arm wounds.One metallic bullet was taken out after operation from his chest.His lungs were lacerated and the same were repaired and wound was stitched.The said injury was dangerous to his life.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that the name of the person who had brought this patient was not mentioned in the medical report.His initial medical examination was entered in injury register of Chaurasia Nursing Home.During investigation, the Investigating Officer has not taken his statement.Time of admitting the patient on 13.10.2005 is not recorded.He suo moto admitted that when a patient comes to hospital, the date of his admission is entered in admission register.The said register he has not brought in the Court.The injured had not placed any copy of the FIR before him nor had he asked about the FIR being lodged by any of them.He admitted that if the doctor of Govt. Hospital refers any patient, he would be referred to Govt. Hospital only.Injured was not referred to his Nursing Home by P.N. Sharma Hospital rather was referred by Meerut Medical College and he does not know whether initial treatment of the patient was done at PHC, Mawana or not.He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the report whether injury was dangerous to life although injury mentioned in Exhibit Ka-23 was not on the vital part nor any bullet or pallet was recovered from the injury and he stated that the injuries suffered by Rais were not dangerous to life but of serious nature.The metallic foreign body which was extracted during operation of Shadab was sealed by him but the same is not mentioned in his report Exhibit Ka-24 nor has he mentioned as to whom he had got the same received but he denied that he prepared the said report in collusion with informant.Further, he stated that on Exhibit Ka-25 and Exhibit Ka-25/22 there was no reference number of P.N. Sharma Hospital but he had made endorsement that all the formalities were completed by District Hospital, Meerut.He admitted that Shadab was not referred to his Nursing Home by P.N. Sharma Hospital.He admitted that the information relating to Shadab was available in admission register, M-L-C register and police information register although copy of the same was not before him nor had he brought the same and that the Exhibit Ka-25 and Exhibit Ka-25/22 were not forwarded by any authorized person from the Hospital to the Court and the thumb impression of Shadab on Exhibit Ka-25 was not certified.According to Exhibit Ka-23, Shadab was brought by his brother Nadeem Khan.He further stated that he did give treatment to Shadab as a private doctor although it is correct to say that in Exhibit Ka-23 he has not mentioned whether his injury was serious or dangerous to life and denied that he had not brought the original register from hospital with a view to giving benefit to the informant.Now we would like to see as to what has been stated by the accused persons under sections 313 Cr.All the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated only to escape conviction in cross case crime no. 278 A of 2007 and have denied the truthfulness of the entire evidence presented from the side of the prosecution.The following witnesses have also been examined in defence namely, DW-1 Amir Ahmad, DW-2 Naseem, DW-3 Sub Inspector Shyam Pal Singh, DW-4 constable Ramdhan and DW-5 Dr. Satendra.These persons were assaulted with gun and country made pistols, but the injury of fire arm hit Rais of the complainant side itself and he does not recollect as to who else had got injured because it was long time back.He had got Naseem and Sharif medically examined and at the time of occurrence Rabiul, Anees and Arif had come and other villagers had also arrived who had tried to save them and the accused fled from there issuing threats to kill.He had got a report lodged on 16th and had not written the report the same day because they were scared of fresh fight taking place and these injured were got medically examined later on because their condition had started deteriorating and due to fear they could not go to a doctor.Naushab had read out the report to him and after having written it he had signed it.The accused were harbouring animosity towards his nephews because they had cut eucalyptus trees of his nephew Nadeem regarding which quarrel had taken place between them and a report was lodged in this regard and Aftab had gone to jail.The certified copy of the said report was 192 Kha.In cross-examination, this witness stated that at the time of occurrence Naseem and Sharif were present in the house along with him and only he escaped being hurt; animosity was with his nephews and with him also.He does not recollect whether his nephews had received any injuries of gun and country made pistol or not.The persons who were made accused in this occurrence did not visit his home from 13th to 16th.Further he stated that both his nephew Monu and Sharif were living with him and thereafter on his own he stated that both the houses were one and the same although their food used to be cooked separate but they would have their food together.Sharif was not his real nephew, rather was cousin brother while Naseem was his real nephew.The house of Sharif was located at a distance of about 2 furlong from his own house.Sharif also used to live with him and his children live in his house.Sharif always lived with him and sometimes he used to go to his house and sometimes he used to sleep at his (DW-1's) house also.The threat was given on the day when incident happened that if report would be lodged they would be killed.The case which was filed was proceeding in the Mawana court.There was no F.I.R. in front of him which is alleged to have been lodged with respect to cutting of trees, nor was any complaint or report before him in that regard.His nephew's names are Namis, Wasim, Tasleem, Salim and Cheemo who are his real nephews.Against Nadeem, Wasim and Cheemo cases are pending in this court and against Naushad and his son Bobby also case is pending and Raffo is his real brother, against his three sons also case is pending.The house of his brother Naushad is separate from him.His house and house of Raffo are adjacent to each other and there is a wall between them.Naseem, DW 2 has also reiterated the same version as that of DW-1 and further added that he and his uncle were examined by doctor at 15.10 hours.Sabahat was son of his Phuphi.Further it is stated that he did not come out of house from 13th till 15th.. The doctors had told for getting admitted in P.L. Sharma hospital, but persons at home were not ready, because they were getting treated.For lodging report, his uncle Amir Ahmad had gone and even at the time of his medical examination Amir Ahmad was accompanying him.This witness has denied the suggestion that his brothers had made murderous assault on Waris because on 12th a case was registered against his brothers by Salim and Waris etc. and it was also denied that to save his brothers in the case pending in Mawana court, this false case was slapped and also denied to have got a false injuries prepared.Constable Ramdhan has been examined as DW-4 who stated that on 16/10/2005 written report was given by Amir Ahmad against Raisuddin etc. at the PS on the basis of which chick F.I.R. - 304/05 under sections 504, 506, 324, 452 and 147 IPC was registered and the case was entered in GD at report no. 21, time 17 hours.The certified copy of chick F.I.R. is paper no. 192 Kha.The informant had also brought medical report along with a written report.Dr. Satendra is examined as DW-5 who has stated that on 16/10/2005 he had conducted medical examination of Naseem Khan who was brought by Nausab around 12:45 AM and in all there were 7 injuries found on his person and the same day Sharif Ahmad was also medically examined at 1:00 a.m. and there were 6 injuries found on his person and these injuries were possible to have been received on 13/10/2005 at about 7 AM and the certified copies of both the injury memos were 194 kha and 195 kha respectively before him.In cross-examination this witness has stated that all the injuries of injured Naseem were found simple which were 2- 3 days old or could be 3 to 4 days old.When the injured had come, till then no F.I.R. was in existence and he had given information about this at P.S.In 194 kha, the injuries of Naseem Khan have been mentioned as below: -i) One incised wound 4 cm× 0.4 cm × bone deep left side head, 6.5 cm.above left ear kept under observation.ii) One contusion 11 cm ×1.5 cm over right scapula.iii) One contusion 10 cm × 3.5 cm, 9 cm below scapular angle over right side of back.iv) One contusion 8 cm ×1 cm, left side back of chest 5 cm.below left scapular region.v) One contusion 7 cm ×1.5 cm on left side front of chest, two cm below to left nipple.vi) One contusion over 6 cm ×1.5 cm outer aspect of left upper arm, 7 cm above left elbow.vii) One contusion 5 cm ×2 cm on left hip.Injury no. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and kept under observation, other injuries are simple and caused by hard and blunt object duration 2 to 3 days as stated by injured.No fracture was found in x-ray.In 195 kha the injuries of Sharif Ahmad Khan are recorded as follows: -i) One incised wound 3.5 cm ×0 .5 cm × bone deep, right side head, 6 cm above right ear, kept under observation.ii) One contusion 7 cm ×1 cm over right scapula.iii) One contusion 10 cm ×1.5 cm, left side back of chest, 6 cm below left scapular angle.iv) One contusion 6 cm ×2 cm, right side back of abdomen just lateral to mid-line.v) One contusion 5 cm × 1.5 cm, right side chest one cm above right nipple.vi) One traumatic swelling 2 x 2 cm front of left thigh, complaint of pain left side of chest.vii) Duration of all the injuries 2 to 3 days.Injury no. 1 is caused by sharp object and kept under observation.All other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.No X-ray report was annexed.Now we would like to see as to how the appreciation of above-mentioned evidence is made by the learned trial court and whether there is any error in the same in the light of the arguments made before it.The facts as revealed from the evidence on record would indicate that according to the informant side on 13/10/2005 at about 7 AM the appellants (1) Cheemo (2) Nadeem (3) Nawab (4) Salim (5) Bobby (6) Farid and (7) Wasim armed with gun, rifle and country made pistols invaded informant's house and abusing and giving threats to kill, opened firing upon them by their respective weapons with an intention to kill which caused injuries to (1) Waris, (2) Shadab, (3) Rais Ahmad, (4) Samad Khan, (5) Smt. Munni, (6) Mohid Khan, (7) Khurshid and (8) Shabbo in which Waris and Shadab had received serious injuries which necessitated hospitalising them.Regarding this incident F.I.R. was lodged the same day at 7:30 PM, the place of occurrence was located 9 kilometres away from the PS concerned, therefore the F.I.R. was promptly made without there being any scope of manipulation and appears to be trustworthy to us.All the arguments made against the same being anti-timed are not found to carry weight.A cross FIR being crime no. 372 A/05 under sections 147, 452, 324, 504, 506 IPC had been lodged by Amir Chand son of Amirulla against (1) Rais (2) Chunnu (3) Asif (4) Salim (5) Shahbej (6) Samad Khan (7) Shadab (8) Waris on 16/10/2005 at 17.00 hours stating therein that occurrence took place on 13/10/2005 at 7.00AM when Rais and Chunnu being armed with country made pistol, Asif armed with country made gun, Salim armed with tabal, Shahbej armed with tabal, Samad, Shadab and Waris armed with lathis abusingly entered the house of the informant threatening not to leave them alive, with common object to kill them and assaulted Naseem and Sharif by tabal and lathis and also made fire upon them which hit the doors of their house and also to Waris and Naseem and Sharif who received serious injuries and this incident took place because from the family of informant, Samad and his family members had enmity because Salim etc. had cut eucalyptus trees of the informant and when a complaint was made regarding this, then the accused side had assaulted by fire arm, the nephews of informant and others with an intention to kill, report regarding which was lodged at PS Mawana, and Aftab was sent to jail.After investigation in this case charge- sheet was submitted only against (1) Rais (2) Shadab (3) Asif (4) Waris and during argument it was apprised that accused had been acquitted, against which appeal was filed, but even appeal has been dismissed and it was also apprised that the earlier case which was filed with regard to occurrence which happened between the parties prior to the occurrence of 13/10/2005, even in that case the accused were acquitted.In the present case, that is, crime no. 372 of 2005 (1) Rais (2) Shadab (3) Waris who were accused in crime no. 372 A of 2005, are among the injured persons and Shadab and Waris had received very serious injuries and both of them had become unconscious.According to PW-1, at the time of occurrence he was inside the house and when the incident started happening, he came out of the house and saw the accused persons making fire, however he did not receive any injury; he made it clear as to which accused was wielding which weapon and also stated that all the accused had made fires from their respective weapons by which the injured persons had received injuries.During argument, it was pointed out before trial court that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident and had lodged false report, but the learned trial court was not in agreement with that argument and rightly so because he had clarified that in his statement he had not taken name of Sartaj as he could not recollect the same, which was quite natural, however in his second statement he made clear statement that at the time of incident his mother Sansar Fatma, father Jamir Ahmad, brother Sartaj and he himself were present and together with the injured persons, Samad Khan was also present and all of them had received injuries, therefore it was found that no ill effect would be borne upon the prosecution's case, of the said contradiction because excepting Samad Khan, all the remaining persons , that is, Waris, Shadab, Shabbo, Rais, Mohid, Khurshid and Smt. Munni had received injuries which proves their presence on the spot adequately.As regards place of occurrence, the same is shown in front Baithak of injured Waris in site plan while PW-1 stated that the place of incident was his house, but the house of the informant and Baithak of Waris are adjoining to each other, therefore it could not be said that the incident did not happen in front of the house of Waris.Therefore from the statement of PW-1 it was established that at the time of occurrence accused Cheemo and Nadeem assaulted by gun, accused Wasim by rifle and Bobby, Salim, Nawab and Farid by country made pistols upon the informant side and caused injuries to the injured of his side.52. PW-2 Waris who is an, injured witness has clearly stated that occurrence took place on 13/10/2005 at 7.00 AM in which all the appellants named above had made fire by gun, rifle and country made pistols upon Shadab, Rais, Shabbo, Mohid, Smt. Munni and Khurshid with an intention to kill, who were sitting at Baithak causing them injuries; Waris held fallen soon after getting hit on the right side of his head and because of that injury his left leg and left hand had become dysfunctional; when he regained consciousness, he found himself in a hospital in Delhi where police had taken his statement and because of the said injury his vision had diminished; he had remained admitted into hospitals there, that is, in All India Institute of Medical Sciences for 9 days and did not recollect the name of other hospital.In cross-examination he admitted that all the accused appellants had made fire upon him but he could not separately disclose as to the fire of which accused hit him nor could he tell separately as to which accused was holding rifle, country made pistol and gun separately, however he made it clear that the fire was made from a distance of 4 to 5 steps and also stated that in this incident Samad Khan had also received injuries but whether he had been treated or not, he could not say.He further stated that in this incident he had received gun shot injury and besides him Shadab, Rais, Smt. Munni, Khurshid and Mohid also had received injuries.He also stated that after having been treated in AIIMS he could not be cured fully and for further treatment he had undergone treatment in Sabir nursing home.Therefore his statement seems to be consistent and nothing could be elicited in cross-examination so as to falsify his statement with respect to the injured persons having been fired upon by the appellants and about his having received serious injuries.His statement further finds corroboration from medical report which shows that he had blackening in his wound, therefore as per his version the shot could have been made from 4-5 steps away which also stands in consonance with site plan.As regards his not being able to disclose the weapons in the hands of the accused and whose shot hit him, that is very natural statement and hence is found to be trustworthy by us.Similarly PW-3, Shadab who is also an injured witness and has also corroborated the version of informant as well as of PW-2, in respect of place of occurrence, time and the date and indiscriminate firing made by accused appellants upon informant side in which a gunshot wound was received in his chest which resulted in his getting unconscious and subsequently was taken to Mawana hospital and from there all the injured were sent to Pyare Lal Sharma hospital and thereafter he remained hospitalised in Chaurasiya Nursing Home and was operated .Thus he has proved the injuries caused to the informant side and to him in particular from the side of the accused in the manner alleged by the prosecution and has also proved that the incident happened in open place outside Baithak which was situated on the main road, the distance between Baithak and main road being 4 to 5 steps.The firing was stated by him to have been made from a distance of 4 to 5 steps which stands corroborated by other witnesses also.Though his statement also suffers from some minor contradictions but they are not in regard to material particulars, hence we find his statement also trustworthy in totality.Therefore we find from the statements of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 that they have clearly proved that the injured persons had been caused injuries particularly Waris and Shadab had received injuries dangerous to their lives while other injured had also sustained fire arm injuries.We are inclined to believe the statements of these witnesses though they are related witnesses because their testimony carries weight due to their being injured witnesses and it was not necessary for examining all the injured persons to prove the case of prosecution because it is not the quantity which matters rather the quality of statement is material.We would like to rely upon Madhavan and others vs the State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 582, in which the Hon'ble Apex court held that previous enmity in connection with land dispute between families of accused and deceased led to an altercation between them followed by assault leading to death of one due to injuries and the assault was made by five accused persons.The evidence of eye-witnesses including the injured witnesses was found to be credible.Nature of injuries caused to the deceased was corroborated by Doctor conducting post-mortem and the injuries suffered by accused side were found to be simple, incapable of making any difference to case established by prosecution, hence the finding of guilt recorded against each of the accused under sections 304 part II/149 was found to be in conformity with evidence produced by prosecution and the conviction was upheld.The injury caused to Waris by all the accused appellants in prosecution of common object to kill him only were sufficient to hold all the accused jointly guilty under sections 307 read with sections 149 IPC because it is unidentifiable as to by fire of which accused Waris was caused serious injuries which could have proved dangerous to his life and he could have died but for the treatment given to him.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
378,416 |
In 1949, he was Aerodrome Officer at the Indore Aerodrome.Mr. Bhargav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, raised both the contentions which he had raised in the Court below.The Central Government specified the following classes of offences, committed in connection with matters concerning Departments of the Central Government for the purposes of the aforesaid Section 3:(a) Offences punishable under Sections 161, 162, 165, 379 to 382, 406, 409, 411 to 414, 417 to 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(Act 45 of 1860) and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947;(b) Offences punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946;This enactment brought the Indian Penal Code into force but with certain adaptations and modifications.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,323,057 |
prosecutrix, who is a minor, was returning back to her home, she was taken to an old house where accused tried to remove her undergarments and at that point of time suddenly her grandfather Raju reached there and brought her back.It is submitted that medical evidence of Dr. Amrit Raje (P.W.6) was not important and no adverse finding could have been recorded on the ground that prosecutrix had refused to undergo internal examination.It is submitted that trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecutrix in right earnest, and therefore, the finding of acquittal is perverse and needs 2 M.Cr.C. 48540/2018 to be set aside.However, it is apparent from the cross-examination of the prosecutrix (P.W.3) that in para 3 she has admitted that she has an elder brother Shivam and she never travels alone from the school.Her brother comes and picks her and she is not knowing name of her grandfather.On the date of incident, she was returning back with her brother and she was not alone.Nobody had met her on the way and she and her brother both had reached home from the school.She admitted that while returning back from the school, she had not met either her grandfather or uncle.In fact, her grandfather met her at the home.In para 5, she admitted that while returning back from school she had not met accused Chandrabhan.She further deposed that name of Chandrabhan was given to her by her grandfather, but later on she improvised and submits that she was knowing Chandrabhan beforehand.She categorically deposed that she had given name of Chandrabhan in her police statement (Ex.D/1), but in reply to question no.5 she has categorically stated in Ex.D/1 that she is not knowing the name.She has also mentioned that Chandrabhan had beaten her but if such thing is not mentioned in her statement (Ex.D/1), then she cannot give reasons for such omission.She also stated that she had informed the Police that when Chandrabhan had beaten her, then he had not taken out her underwear or other clothes and if such things are not mentioned in her statement (Ex.D/1), then she cannot give reasons for such omission.She has admitted in para 3 M.Cr.C. 48540/2018 6 that Chandrabhan had only beaten her and had not done anything.She further admitted that it was in fact her aunt, who had asked her to give such narration that Chandrabhan had shown her a currency note of Rs. 10/- and taken her to his house and then undressed her.When she was asked to explain, she specifically explained that such thing was narrated to her by her aunt and not by her to her aunt, which is contrary to her statement (Ex.D/1).In view of such facts, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge cannot be faulted with and there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment and grant leave to appeal.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,301,249 |
Heard on I.A. No.436/2020, which is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1-Naval Chand Soni.First application being IA.No.12999/2019 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2019 as withdrawn.Appellant No.1 stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326-A of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months, Section 324 (in relation to injured-Ravichand) of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months and Section 324 (in relation to injured-Sushma) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 3 months.As per prosecution case, on 29.05.2016 at about 11:05 am, complainant-Ravichand Soni (PW-6) lodged the FIR (Ex.P/3) against the present appellant and other co-accused alleging that his children had thrown the rinds of mango near the house of present appellant and other co-accused due to which, some hot-talk started between them, who are neighbours of each other.It is alleged that after some hot talks and abuses; co-accused Smt. Kamla Bai @ Gudiya gave the bottle of acid to the present applicant and co-2 CRA-2584-2019 accused-Baldau, who thrown the said acid/tezab on his brother, namely, Kallu @ Ramchandra (PW-1) and when complainant (PW-6) and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Sushma (PW-2) tried to save him then they have also received burnt injuries on their bodies due to some acid drops.Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case.FIR was lodged by Ravichand Soni (PW-6).In the FIR it is mentioned that present appellant and co-accused Baldau thrown acid upon Ramchandra (PW-1).In the said incident, Sushma (PW-2) and Ravichand (PW-6) have got injured but Ramchandra (PW-1), Sushma (PW-2) and Sangan Lal Soni (PW-5) deposed before the trial Court that present appellant caught hold of injured-Ramchandra (PW-1) and co- accused-Baldau thrown acid upon Ramchandra, so there is material contradictions in this regard.Actually, both parties are neighbours of each other and fight started suddenly due to thrown of rinds of mango by childrens.complainant party was aggressor and had brought acid from their house as they kept acid for cleaning jewellery, they involved in the jewellery business.Ravichand (PW-6) did not depose before the trial Court that present appellant caught hold of Ramchandra (PW-1), whereas it appears from the evidence of Ravichand that co-accused-Baldau took the acid from his house and thrown the said acid upon Ramchandra (PW-1).Apart from this, present appellant is in jail since 30.05.2016, so he has served almost half sentence.He also submits that there are many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses.He further submits that there are fair chances to succeed in the case.Appeal is of the year 2019 and final hearing 3 CRA-2584-2019 of this appeal will take time for its final disposal.If the appellant is not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be futile.Appellant No.1-Naval Chand Soni be released from custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellant shall appear and mark his presence before the trail Court on 15.12.2020 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List this matter for final hearing in due course, as per listing policy.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.10.19 12:26:00 +05'30'
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,336,062 |
Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advcate assisted by Sri Manoj Nigam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for CBI, Sri Arvind Srivastava learned counsel for the opposite party no.2-Bank and perused the material placed on record.This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case No.2 of 2011 (State vs. Shiv Pratap Singh and others), FIR No./Crime No. RC0062009A0012 dated 22.04.2009, Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow under sections 120B read with 420, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988 and substantive offences of 468, 471 IPC, during the pendency of trial.As per FIR lodged by Sri P.G. Chawla, General Manager, Canara Bank, Opposite Party, Gyan Prakash Srivastava and his partner Shiv Pratap Singh of M/s. Raksha Enterprises had taken OCC limit of Rs.40.00 lacs sanctioned on 7.4.2007 under Cantrade Scheme for execution of the work orders purportedly issued by M/s. BSNL and M/s GTL Limited, Navi, Mumbai against the prime security of of stocks/book debts and collateral security of EMT of House property situated at 305/394, Mumfordganj, Allahabad in the name of the above partners.The investigation has revealed that the unit was not running.On enquiry with M/s BSNL and M/s GTL Ltd. in came to light that the work orders were not issued by them and were fake.The landed property taken as collateral security is in dispute and not easily marketable, thereby the borrower has availed the OCC limit by submitting fake work orders and the title deeds of a disputed property.In the counter affidavit filed by CBI it is mentioned that the investigation has revealed that firm Rakash Enterprises through its partners i.e. accused-applicant Gyan Prakash Srivastava, co-accused Shiv Pratap Singh and Atul Kumar Singh hatched a criminal conspiracy with C.K. Humane, the then Chief Manager and Sri R.N. Oima, the then Officer of the Canara Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad with a view to cheat the Bank and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, submitted an application on 7.4.2007 for sanction of OCC limit of Rs.40.00 lacs under Cantrade Scheme offering hypothecation of stock and EMT of house property showing their work as Civil and Engineer works along with documents i.e. promissory note, cash credit agreement, guarantee agreement partnership letter, guarantee covering letter, letter showing evidence of deposit of title deeds along with sale deeds of the house property situated at 305/394, Mumfordganj, Allahabad, project report, balance sheet, ITRs, sales tax papers, work order of M/s. GTL Ltd. and BSNL, Sultanpur etc. The said loan application and documents were processed on the same day by Ram Nath Oima, Officer and Dheerendra Kumar, Credit Manager, Canara Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad.On the same day, appraisal memorandum for sanction of the loan has been dishonestly prepared and signed by Ram Nath Oima, the then Officer and C.K. Humane, the then Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad by falsely mentioning that the party is experienced and having good order in hand; whereas the work orders submitted by the firm were found to be forged.On the basis of said false appraisal memorandum, the loan was sanctioned on the same day by C.K. Humane in the name of M/s. Rakash Enterprises.The GEQD has confirmed vide opinion NO. DX-197/2011 that the loan documents were signed by Gyan Prakash Srivastava, Atul Kumar Singh (co-accused) and Shiv Pratap Singh (co-accused), all partners of M/s. Rakash Enterprises.The opinion has also confirmed that the money was withdrawn from the said account by cheques signed by the accused persons.The investigation has revealed that the copy of the work orders of M/s. GTL Ltd. and BSNL, Sultanpur submitted by the party has been found to be forged.Income Tax Authorities vide letter dated 24.5.2010 has confirmed that the ITR for assessment year 2006-07 in the name of Shiv Pratap Singh (co-accused) and ITR for the year 2005-06 in the name of Atul Kumar Singh (co-accused) and for the year 2006-07 in the name of the accused-applicant had not been received in the register and hence were not genuine.The said loan account has been declared as NPA and the outstanding amount of this loan account as on 30.04.2010 was Rs.53,24,306/-.This accused for obtaining OCC limit in connivance with other co-accused not only conspired in submitting the forged work orders for which OCC limit was sought by him and his partners, he also submitted the forged ITR.The loan obtained was not repaid and bank suffered an undue loss to the tune of Rs.53,24,306/- as on 30.4.2006 including interest.Accordingly charge sheet has been submitted against the abovementioned section against the accused applicant and other co-accused.On the other hand from the side of the applicant it is argued that OCC limit was sanctioned against secured mortgage of valuable property deposited by the applicant.After sanction of the loan, the amount of loan sanctioned by the Bank was withdrawn from time to time and repayment of the interest was made to the Bank as given in paragraph no.15 of the affidavit on various dates.Thus, the applicant's firm has paid to the Bank a sum of Rs.2,746,000/- upto 31.3.2008 till the account became NPA without fear or pressure of FIR.After freezing of account by the Bank, the partners of the firm enquired about the freezing of the account and thus information was supplied by the Bank that the unit of the applicant?s firm was not functional which was shocking and surprising.In response to the request made by the firm, a letter dated 20.11.2008 was issued to the Executive Engineer U.P.Samaj Kalayan Nirman Nigam certifying the civil work being carried by the applicant?s firm.It is further mentioned that the applicant is being prosecuted on the basis of the Photostat copy of the work order as well as ITR.The said facts make it clear that the applicant was being prosecuted only on the basis of photocopied papers namely, work order and ITR available in the loan file of M/s. Raksha Enterprises which is not permissible.The applicant is a private persons who has not committed any offence in the eyes of law neither he was asked by Bank to furnish a copy of the work order nor any copy of work order was given by the applicant to the Bank.He has been falsely implicated.The payment due against the partners of the said firm has already been made and a no dues certificate dated 1.8.2013 was issued by the Bank.The applicant?s firm had taken loan for expanding its business on the basis of secured mortgage of valuable property.The complainant/Bank was having security in the form of mortgage of property worth more than Rs.1.5 crores and the Investigating Officer has found the document of the property mortgaged as genuine, therefore, loan amount could have been recovered by the Bank at any point of time.Therefore, accused applicant deserves to be granted bail.From the side of opposite party no. 2 Bank Sri Arvind Srivastava has put in appearance and has filed affidavit stating therein that the entire outstanding amount has been paid to the Bank, as a proof thereof, e-mail received by him from the Bank concerned has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the said affidavit.Let the applicant Gyan Prakash Srivastava involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal of Rs.one lac with two sureties(out of which one should be a family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 counsel.
|
['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.
|
33,464,155 |
The complainant is working as Compounder.According to the allegations, the present petitioner had introduced Dheeraj Shrivastava and Rakesh Singh with the complainant for the purpose of purchase of a house at Gwalior.The complainant was shown the house at Aamkho Gwalior by Dheeraj Shrivastava, which was liked by the complainant and for which the price was settled as Rs.17,15,000/-.Thereafter he had given a cheque of Rs.50,000/- as advance and thereafter he was informed that he being a government servant will be entitled to a loan of Rs.11,00,000/- from the bank and he had made HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC - 20303/2017 (Smt.Sangita Shrivastava VS.Thus, total Rs.7,00,000/- was paid.Despite receiving such cheques and submitting papers for bank loan when complainant asked for execution of sale deed, then the present petitioner had assured him that since she is a colleague of the complainant, his money is safe and by way of surety Dheeraj Shrivastava had given two cheques of total Rs.7,00,000/- but when such cheques were deposited, then they were dishonoured.Thereafter on 3.4.2012 when he had contacted Dheeraj Shrivastava on his mobile number in regard to registration of sale deed, he called him to Gwalior next day.When he reached there on 4.4.2012, then he found that house of Dheeraj Shrivastava at Deen Dayal Nagar Gwalior bearing No.B-489 was locked, then he contacted Dheeraj Shrivastava, who informed him that he was at Morena and asked him to go back.Thereafter he got suspicious and visited Aamkho, Gwalior.There on inquiry, it was revealed that the houses which were shown of Dheeraj Shrivastava were not of his own but their owner was one Vinod Tomar and he was only selling those houses.Thereafter when Dheeraj Shrivastava stopped taking calls he reported the matter to his wife Smt. Sangita Shrivastava on whose instructions Dheeraj Shrivastava had given Cheque No.005710 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- drawn at HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC - 20303/2017 (Smt.Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2/State.This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dt.23.09.2017 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Cr.R.No.105/2015, whereby the order dt.11.2.2015 passed by the learned C.J.M. Bhind in Criminal Case No.120/2015 issuing summons to the petitioner alongwith her husband after taking cognizance against her under the provisions of Section 420/34 of IPC has been upheld.It is the contention of the petitioner that the complainant Santram has filed a private complaint against Dheeraj Shrivastava, petitioner Sangita Shrivastava and one Rakesh Singh under the provisions of Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 294 and 506-B of IPC, in which it is mentioned that the present petitioner is working as Staff Nurse in District Hospital, Bhind alongwith the complainant.In view of such facts, he had made a report to the Police Station but since relative of Dheeraj Shrivastava is working as Steno in the office of S.P. Bhind, therefore, no action was taken.It is also mentioned in the complaint that thereafter he had undertaken proceedings under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter direction was issued for registration of case against the accused persons including the present petitioner.But under the pressure, police is not proceeding with the case and is trying to file ER as a result, complainant had filed a private complaint in which cognizance has been taken.Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the present petitioner has falsely been impleaded in the case.He has taken this court through statements given by the complainant Santram Sharma on 31.7.2012 before the police authorities to point out that the role of the petitioner was limited to introduce the complainant to her husband, who is a property dealer.He has pointed out specific contention to the effect that complainant in his statement admitted that on 14.12.2011 he had gone to Gwalior alongwith his child, wife and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC - 20303/2017 (Smt.Sangita Shrivastava VS.Santram and another) 3 Dheeraj Shrivastava, where he was shown three Duplex Houses constructed behind Aamkho Bus Stand and had informed him that one of the house was of his share (share of Dheerendra Shrivastava) and he will sale it.He had given cost of such house at Rs.17.5 lakhs and when complainant informed him that he can not give this much amount, then he had assured that he will get finance to the tune of Rs.11 lakhs.Then the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No.4312 from Account No.143501500087 jointly held by the complainant alongwith his wife at ICICI Bank.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,521,533 |
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record is perused.Learned panel lawyer on advance copy is put to notice.Also heard on I.A.No.3117/2016, which is an application for suspension of custodial sentence awarded to the appellant.The appellant stand convicted for an offence punishable under sections 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs.2,000/-, u/s 354(A)(1), 354-D of I.P.C. and section 11/12 of the POCSO Act, with default stipulations.After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the application for suspension of jail sentence deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, I.A. No.3117/2016 stands allowed and closed.The custodial sentence awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Appellant be released from custody subject to his furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry/Office of this Court on 13.07.2016 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf during the pendency of the appeal.Matter be processed to be listed for final hearing in due course of time on its own turn.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(S.K. SETH) JUDGE
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,581,800 |
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 3 from registering and releasing the sale deeds executed on 27.07.2009 vide document 2/5http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.18680 of 2009 Nos.P225 and P226/ 2009 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thiruporur by Ms.Aishwarya the seventh Respondent in favour of Mr.A.Radhakrishnan and S.K.Ramakrishnan the respondents 12 and 13 and to direct the second respondent to investigate thoroughly the sale deeds dated 27.07.2007 registered as document No.7737/2007 at SRO Thiruporur and 27.07.2009 registered as pending document Nos.P225 and 226/ 2009 at SRO Thiruporur and to take necessary action in accordance with law.2.Heard the arguments advanced on either side.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the registering Authority not registered the document, in respect of similar issue, criminal case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengalpattu in C.C.No.7 of 2015 (Crime No.13 of 2010 under Sections 120 (b), 465, 468, 471, 474 of IPC) and till the disposal of the criminal case, this Court may direct the registering Authority not to release the document.4.The learned Special Government Pleader pointing out to the 3/5http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.18680 of 2009 status report filed on behalf of the second respondent would submit that for the very same issue a case in EOW – Hqrs Cr.No.993 of 1999 for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 506(ii) r/w 120 (b) of IPC is pending before the Economic Offences Wing II, Guindy, Chennai and till the disposal of the same, the document will not be released.5.In view of the above, the prayer sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous.This writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.No costs.06.11.2019 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No To1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome High Road, Chennai.3.The Sub Registrar, Thiruporur, Kancheepuram District.4/5http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.18680 of 2009 M.DHANDAPANI,J.pri W.P.No.18680 of 2009 06.11.2019 5/5http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
336,626,912 |
P. Sathasivam, J.17.03.2000, which was a Bakrid day, a minor boy named Vicky Prasad Rajak (PW-2) was found missing.Later on, the boy's father received telephone calls from unknown persons demanding ransom of Rs.10 lakhs and Park Street P.S. Case No. 117 dated 20.03.2000 under Section 363A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") was amended to Section 364A IPC and a case was registered against unknown persons.(b) On 21.03.2000, again the complainant received a call where the caller told him that he had the money because of the sale of the shop, however, the ransom demanded was reduced to Rs. 7 lakhs.The caller also threatened him that if 2 the ransom is not paid, his son would not remain alive.There were further telephone calls on other dates and, ultimately, on 01.04.2000, the ransom was reduced by the caller to Rs. 3 lakhs.(c) Again on 04.04.2000, the Complainant received a telephonic message asking him to go to Jamalpur Railway Station with Rs.3 lakhs wearing a black coloured shirt.He informed the same to the Lalbazar Police Station.He along with his relative and the police in civil dress, went to Jamalpur Railway Station but none approached.On enquiry from his wife, he learnt that another call had been received whereby the caller asked him to go to Sahebgunj Station by Danapur Express.Then they proceeded to Sahebgunj Station by that train and during the journey one Afsal @ Fazo asked the Complainant to get down at the next station i.e. Ghoga, where he would have to hand over the ransom but he refused to get down and went to Sahebgunj but none approached, they came back.Again on 13.04.2000, the complainant received a message from the caller to come at Ghoga Railway Station.When they went there, none came.At night, a raid was 3 conducted by the Calcutta Police along with the help of Bihar Police and they arrested five accused persons, namely, Md.Kalim @ Kalu, Akram Khan, Afsal Khan @ Fazo, Md. Javed and Md. Mehtab from different places in Bhagalpur and the kidnapped boy was rescued from the house of Mehatab.He being a child witness, the Court has to satisfy that he is capable of understanding the events.In his evidence, the victim boy -PW-2 has stated that on 17.03.2000 which was Bakrid Day and the school was closed.According to him, when he along with his friend, Kaso, was offering leaves to the goats, a man came there and asked him to accompany him so that he could purchase some chocolates for him.He along with Kaso went with him.At first, they went to the shop of one Mintu in front of their house.The man was having 10 rupees note but the shopkeeper Mintu did not have change.Kaso went back and 9 thereafter they went to the other shop which was closed.They went a bit further and got into a taxi and he was taken to a house in Kalabagan.They stayed there for sometime.Thereafter, he was taken in a bus, route No. 71 to Tikiapara, Howrah and from there he was taken to a room of another person.That person was not in his house at that time but when he came back, he was offered some food.Thereafter, he was taken to Sealdah Station where Zakir was present.Zakir used to work at the tailoring shop of his father.Thereafter, they boarded a train and next morning they got down at a station named Ghoga.From there, they took a cycle rickshaw and went to a house.He further deposed that in that house two men were present inside the room and they were Akram, the appellant herein and Afzal Khan @ Fazo.PW-2 identified them in the Court along with the first person - Md. Kalim @ Kalu.He also deposed that two women were also present there.In his evidence, he stated that he along with his family members including PW-2 were residing at Premises No. 108A, Elliot Road, Calcutta.Apart from the victim (PW-2), he has two minor sons younger to him.He was engaged as a salesman at A.C. Market at the relevant time and was also owning a shop bearing No. B-3 in A.C. market.Besides this, he had a tailoring shop at 45 Gardner Lane, Calcutta, near Ripon Lane.He had two employees in the said tailoring shop by name Ashok Mondal and Zakir Khan.He informed further that three years prior to sale, Ashok Mondal had been 11 relieved from his employment and Zakir Khan had been continuing as an employee.After the sale of the tailoring shop, he paid Zakir Khan cash of Rs. 20,000/-, a sewing machine and a bicycle.On 17.03.2000, which was a Bakrid day, when he went to his shop at 10:00 a.m., at around 01:00 p.m., he received a telephone from his wife stating that their son was missing for the last one hour.After making search, he made a complaint to the police.Even after announcement in the locality, he could not get his son back.While so, on the evening of 19.03.2000, he received a telephone call demanding a ransom of Rs. 10 lakhs for his missing child Vicky Prasad Razak (PW-2).He was informed that his missing son was with him but he had not stated his name or place where his son was stationed.After half an hour, the very same person asked over telephone not to give information to local police about the same.PW-3 further explained that on 20.03.2000, he informed the local police about the two telephonic messages received on the previous day.The same was recorded by the police officer.On 21.03.2000, he received another telephonic message wherein the person on the other side had stated that 12 he had money because of the sale of tailoring shop, however, reduced the quantum of ransom to Rs. 7 lakhs to be paid to him otherwise his missing son would not remain alive.After his threat, the unknown person also arranged to make a call by his son to speak to him (PW-3) over telephone in order to act quickly.On 25.03.2000, he received another telephonic message enquiring whether he had arranged ransom.On 26.03.2000, he received another telephonic message stating that the ransom was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs and asked him to have a talk with his son Vicky who stated to take him back quickly.On 01.04.2000, he received another telephonic message by which the quantum of ransom was further reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs.PW-3 agreed to pay the said amount but the person on the other side informed that the place of exchange of ransom would be made known to him later.On 02.04.2000, when he was coming back from the temple after offering puja, he found that his inmates were crying on hearing that his missing son had been killed and they had received such information over phone.Again on 04.04.2000, he received a telephonic message from the same person stating 13 that his son was alive and had not been killed.The caller asked him to come to Jamalpur Railway Station with Rs. 3 lakhs wearing a black coloured shirt and accompanying one of his relatives.Later, one of the associates of the accused persons, namely, Md.Zakir Khan was arrested in Calcutta.It was revealed that Zakir Khan was an ex-employee of the father of the kidnapped boy in his tailoring shop which he had sold.Two more associates, Nazamul Khan and Md. Dilshad, who took part in the commission of offence, were also arrested.(d) The police filed charge sheet against all the eight accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 364A/120B read with 34 IPC.On 13.11.2000, the case was committed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta to the Court of Sessions.Vide judgment dated 17.02.2006, the Additional Sessions Judge sentenced seven accused persons to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each for commission of offence under Section 364A IPC and further 4 imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each for commission of offence under Section 120B IPC and both sentences were to run concurrently.However, Md. Nazamul Khan, one of the accused was acquitted as not found guilty.(e) Against the said judgment, all the seven accused persons including the appellant herein filed an appeal being C.R.A. No. 198 of 2006 before the High Court at Calcutta.By the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2010, the High Court acquitted Md. Javed, Md. Dilshad and Md. Mehtab giving them the benefit of doubt and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on Akram Khan-appellant herein, Afzal Khan @ Fazo, Md. Zakir Khan and Md. Kalim @ Kalu.(f) Being aggrieved by the said judgment, Akram Khan-appellant herein alone has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.4) Heard Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr. Chanchal Kr.Ganguli, learned counsel for the respondent-State.He further contended that the maximum punishment provided for kidnapping under Section 363 IPC is seven years and inasmuch as the appellant has served 11 years 7 months, the period already undergone would satisfy the prosecution case and he may be ordered to be released forthwith.6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-7) We have carefully perused all the relevant materials and considered the rival contentions.8) It is true that if it is a simple case of kidnapping in terms of Section 363 IPC, the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.The said provision reads as under:"364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other 7 person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."9) Now let us consider whether the prosecution has established its case for the offence punishable under Section 364A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?10) The appellant herein was one of the seven accused who were found guilty under Sections 364A and 120B IPC and they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for commission of offence under Section 364A IPC.They were also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- for commission of the offence under Section 120B IPC and sentences were to run concurrently.No doubt, three accused persons, namely, Md. Javed, Md. Dilshad and Md. Mehtab were acquitted of all the charges by the High Court.The appellant herein is one among the other accused convicted by the High Court.The other accused persons have not challenged the conviction before this Court except the appellant herein.11) The prosecution case, as stated earlier, relates to kidnapping of a minor boy, Vicky Prasad Rajak from his lawful guardian - Mahendra Prasad Rajak (PW-3) and then keeping him in detention.Thereafter, the appellant and other accused persons, started giving threat calls in order to extort huge amount of money from the father of the kidnapped boy and also threatened him that in the event of his failure to respond to such ransom calls, the boy in custody would be murdered.The victim boy was a student of Class IV at the relevant time.He was kept there for 5 to 6 days and the accused Md.Kalim @ Kalo was with him in the said house.He also explained that several times he was taken to the STD telephone booth.He also deposed that at the time of making 10 telephone calls, the appellant-accused threatened him.The trial Judge, after satisfying his capacity to depose, accepted his evidence to the extent that he was kidnapped and detained in a house and another person-the present appellant, made telephone calls demanding ransom and also threatened PW-2 on various occasions.12) The other witness heavily relied on by the prosecution is Mahendra Prasad Rajak (PW-3), the father of the victim boy (PW-2).On 13.04.2000, he received another telephonic message from the miscreants asking him to go to Ghoga Railway Station on 15.04.2000 with Rs. 3 lakhs and a relative wearing a black coloured shirt.He informed all the details to the police and started for Ghoga but when they reached there, none approached.At night, a raid was conducted by the Calcutta Police along with Bihar Police and the accused were arrested and the boy was rescued from the house of one Mehtab.During search, the police also recovered one pistol and two cartridges under the bed of one Afzal Khan @ Fazo.In the evidence, he further informed the Court that he received telephonic messages 8 or 9 times from the miscreants and every time they threatened him that unless the money is brought in, his son would be killed.In his cross-examination, PW-3 explained the statement made before the police officer on various dates i.e. on 17.03.2000, 20.03.2000, 04.04.2000, 11.04.2000 and 18.04.2000, when he got back his son.In his 14 evidence, PW-3 not only disclosed how his minor son was taken by the accused persons including the appellant herein and kept in a far away place in order to get ransom.PW-3 also explained the threat received from the accused and failing compliance of their demand they threatened that his son would be killed.Inasmuch as PW-3 was subjected to extensive cross-examination and he withstood his stand, the trial Judge as well as the High Court accepted his testimony in toto.PW-6 is a newspaper vendor.In his evidence, he accepted that PW-3 is his close relative.It was he who accompanied PW-3 in search of PW-2 pursuant to the threat call from the accused.He corroborated the statement of PW-3 in all aspects.14) The next witness relied on by the prosecution is PW-7, a resident of Ekchari Bazar, Kahelgaon, Bhagalpur, Bihar.He was working as an employee of public telephone booth owned by one Vikas Singh.He deposed that he came to know of 15 Akram-appellant herein from one Javed, who is a resident of the house situated contiguous to their telephone booth.He further deposed that Javed told him that Akram was his maternal uncle and he was a resident of Ghoga.PW-7 further informed the Court that the said Akram visited their booth on 8/10 occasions.On 2 or 3 occasions, he came to his booth along with one child.The other person Javed also visited the booth on 2/4 occasions with a view to make telephone calls.PW-7 also informed the Court that the child accompanied Akram also used to talk over phone as directed by him.To pay a ransom, as stated in the above referred Section, in the ordinary sense means to pay the price or demand for ransom.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,748,907 |
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent No.2/complainant made a written report on 12.7.2013 on the allegation that she was married to the applicant Mohit Kumar on 10.2.2012 as per Hindu rites and rituals and the applicants and her husband Mohit Kumar were demanding four wheeler vehicle, A.C. etc. and since her parents were not in a position to give the said articles, therefore, the applicants and her husband started harassing her mentally as well as physically.On 9.6.2013, she was turned out of 2 MCRC Nos.10636/2013 & 10708/2013 her matrimonial house and from thereafter she is residing in her parents home.The respondent No.3 is a married woman residing at Bangalore whereas the respondent No.4 who is unmarried is also residing at 3 MCRC Nos.10636/2013 & 10708/2013 Bagalore.It is further submitted that the respondent No.2/complainant had resided with her husband Mohit Kumar at Pune whereas the applicants No.1 and 2 are the resident of Gwalior and they have nothing to do with the family affairs of the applicant Mohit Kumar and his wife respondent No.2/complainant.It is further submitted that against the near and dear relatives of the husband, omnibus and vague allegations are not sufficient to compel them to face prosecution and unless and until any specific allegation is made, they may not be compelled to face the ordeal of trial.The FIR in Crime No.589/2013 registered by Police Station Kotwali, District Morena for offence under Sections 498-A, 506-B of IPC as well as the further proceedings in Criminal Case No.3108/2013 pending in the Court of CJM, Gwalior qua the applicant No.3 Smt. Nidhi as well as the applicant No.4 Ms. Navita @ Namita are hereby quashed.21 MCRC Nos.10636/2013 &The M.Cr.This order shall dispose of M.Cr.C. No. 10636/2013 filed by Smt. Malti Kushwaha & Ors.and M.Cr.C.No.10708/2013 filed by Mohit Kumar.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants and Mohit Kumar for quashing the FIR in Crime No.589/2013 registered by Police Station City Kotwali, District Morena in Criminal Case No.3108/2013 pending in the Court of CJM, Morena for offence under Sections 498-A, 506 Part-II of IPC.On 7.7.2013 the applicants came to her house and extended the threat to her life and accordingly the report was made.2 MCRC Nos.10636/2013 &It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the applicant Mohit Kumar has filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and in fact by way of counterblast the FIR was lodged.It is further submitted that in fact the applicant Mohit Kumar had transferred a handsome amount to the account of the respondent No.2/complainant from time to time and has also placed the copy of the bank statements on record.It is submitted that in fact the parents of the respondent No.2/complainant are poor and the applicant Mohit Kumar had financially helped them on various occasions.It is further submitted that the divorce petition was filed on 17.6.2013 and the applicant No.2-Virendra Kushwaha had already made a written complaint to the police on 6.7.2013 expressing his apprehension of false implication by the respondent No.2/complainant.It is further submitted that the respondent No.2/complainant has herself filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on 4.9.2013 which clearly shows that she was never harassed either mentally or physically nor there was any demand of dowry.So far as the applicant No.3- Smt. Nidhi and applicant No.4-Ms.However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed.The allegations are extremely general in nature.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,046,930 |
pk C.R.M. 9434 of 2016 In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.11.2016 in connection with Khejuri Police Station Case No. 226 of 2016 dated 04.09.2016 under Sections 341/323/325/354B/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Khokan Jana ... Petitioner Mr. Ramdulal Manna, Dr. Bishnu Pada Dutta ... for the petitioner Ms. Sanjida Sultana ... for the State.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,127,362 |
The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 10.7.2020 S.Chaurasia
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,160,700 |
Seized property being valueless may be destroyed.Amount of fine, if any, deposited by them may be refunded back to them.C.C.as per rules.15.09.2017 Per :ALOK VERMA, J.:This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.No.250/2004, dated 20.07.2005, where the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty of offence under Section 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to three years R.I. each and fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 2 498-A of IPC and life imprisonment each with fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 304-B/34 of IPC and also six months each R.I. by way of default stipulation.According to the prosecution story Nazma Bee, wife of appellant Nawab Khan, daughter-in-law of appellant Salim Khan and sister-in-law of appellant Azad Khan was brought to Civil Hospital Tarana, district Ujjain and she was examined by Dr. R.S.Prabhakar and found that she suffered 60% superficial burn injuries.Thereafter, she was referred to district Hospital, Ujjain where she succumbed to her injuries on 24.05.2004 at 11.55 P.M. While she was at Civil Hospital, Tarana, Dr. R.S.Prabhakar, PW-11 recorded her dying declaration which was Ex.After she was shifted to district Hospital, Ujjain, the Investigating Officer, Ravindra Yadav, (PW-9) recorded her dying declaration by way of supplementary dying declaration which was Ex.In her statement given to the doctor which was marked as Ex.D-1, during trial, she stated that she got burn injuries, as the stove on which she was cooking food suddenly caught fire and due to the flames her clothes also caught fire and she sustained injuries.When she raised alarm, the present appellants came there put off fire.After 4 days in district Hospital, Ujjain, she gave her supplementary dying declaration which was marked as Ex.P-9 and in that declaration she 3 stated that the present appellants put her on fire.Appellants Salim Khan, Azad Khan caught hold of her and husband Nawab Khan poured kerosene on her and put her on fire.The learned trial Court found that the dying declaration recorded by the doctor marked as Ex.D-1 was not reliable and it was doubtful and the supplementary dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer Ex.P-9 was reliable.The learned trial Court also found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death by the present appellants and therefore, the learned trial Court found the present appellants guilty under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid.The appellants were charged with offence under Sections 498-A or 498-A/34, 304-B, 304-B/34 of IPC and Section 302 or 302/34 of IPC.The charges were read over to the accused persons and they abjured their guilt.Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, this appeal is filed on the following grounds:-(i) that the trial Court heavily relied upon the dying declaration recorded by PW-9, Ravindra Yadav, who was the Investigating Officer.(ii) This statement was recorded after 4 days of the incident when the deceased remained in the company of her family 4 members and there was possibility of tutoring her before recording of her statement Ex.P-9 by the Investigating Officer and thereafter recorded the statements of parents of the deceased and build up a false case against the appellants.(iii) When the dying declaration Ex.P-9 was recorded, certificate was not obtained by the doctor whether she was in a fit condition to give the statement and consent of the doctor was not obtained.During the arguments it was argued that there was no reason to discard the dying declaration recorded by the doctor.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, if we rely on the documents which were produced by the prosecution alongwith the charge sheet, death of the deceased was accidental and as such, no charges under Sections 302 or 304-B were made out.If Ex.P-9 is relied upon the death of the deceased was homicidal and still the trial Court acquitted the accused persons from charge under Section 302 of IPC.Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the crime was registered after one month of the incident.The statements recorded during Merg enquiry were not produced by the prosecution and subsequent statements were apparently recorded falsely implicating the accused persons and the trial Court failed to 5 appreciate this aspect of the case.Learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions raised by the counsel for the appellants and prays that this appeal may be dismissed and conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court may be affirmed.To begin with it is to be seen whether the statement recorded by the doctor which was marked as Ex.D-1 is reliable.It is apparent that the document was filed by the prosecution alongwith the charge sheet.However, it was not proved by the prosecution while recording the statement of Dr.The public prosecutor sought permission from the Court to re-cross examine the witness and then when permitted to do so, the witness was cross examined in this matter.However, the witness was not declared hostile.Neither it was the case of the prosecution that the statement was given by the deceased under the threat and influence of the present appellants.The statement recorded by the Investigating Officer subsequently which is marked as Ex.P-9 does not contain this fact that earlier statement was given by her because she was threatened by the present appellants not to disclose the correct facts to the doctor.The doctor recorded the presence of the present appellants, 6 however, the doctor himself never said that the present appellants tried to intimidate the deceased in not disclosing the correct facts to the doctor.It was the duty of the prosecution to give cogent evidence to prove that the earlier statement given by the deceased was due to threat and intimidation on the part of the present appellants.However, such evidence is missing and therefore, there is no reason to believe the statement recorded by the doctor, who was an independent person.On this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Majid Vs.State of Gujarat (1976) 4 SCC 351 where it was held that the doctor was the best person to opine about the fitness of the deceased to make the statement, he did.When the doctor was in the emergency situation and records the statement of the deceased, he was infact duty bound to do so and it should be believed as the doctor was disinterested and respectable witness.As the statement recorded by the Investigating officer after four days of the incident was clouded in serious doubts, because deceased remained in the company of her family members, her parents and sister during this period, and therefore, there was a possibility that she was tutored to give such statement.Apart from this as earlier noted she did not state in her statement Ex.P-9 that she gave her 7 earlier statement to the doctor due to the threat given by the present appellants and in such a situation, between two dying declarations, the earlier in time recorded by the doctor should be relied upon.Believing the earlier statement recorded by the doctor, it is apparent that in that statement she stated that she got burn injuries accidentally as stove suddenly caught fire and her clothes also caught fire.She was shifted to the hospital by her husband and the present appellants.There were admittedly some burn injuries on the body of the present appellants and, therefore, if the statement is to be believed, then the death of the deceased was accidental death and no charge under Section 304 or 302 of IPC was made out.Coming to the point whether she was subjected to harassment and cruelty prior to her death, the prosecution recorded statements of three main witnesses.Sheikh Dilwawar, father of the deceased who stated that when he asked the deceased in the hospital why the appellants burnt her, she stated him that they were harassing her for dowry and they used to say that her father did not given anything to them.Her husband appellant Nawab Khan demanded Rs.25,000/- from her father.He stated that by that money he would start some business.He also stated that when the deceased died, the present appellants did not come to attend her funeral.Haseena Bi (PW-2) is another witness.She stated in her 8 statement in para 5 that from the first day only, the deceased was shouting that she want to give statement to the police.She admitted that no one called the police for recording her statement.She also admitted that before her sister died she did not tell anybody that the present appellants burned her.Shahjad Bi (PW-6) is mother of the deceased and she stated that the deceased told her that her father-in- law used to say that her father did not give them colour TV and Godrej Almirah that was given was not of good quality.As such, there were general allegations of demand of dowry.No complaint was made by them to the police or any person in the society.Both the families were closely related to each other and there were common relatives who could have sorted out the problem of demand of dowry by the appellants, but there is no such effort or complaint by the family members of the deceased.One more aspect which was important in this matter was the FIR Ex.P-13 which shows that the crime was only registered on 19.06.2004 almost one month after the incident.The deceased died on 24.05.2004, thereafter, a Merg No.07/2004 was registered.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.The conviction of the appellants under Section 498-A and 304-B/34 of IPC and sentence is hereby set aside.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,149,377 |
Heard finally.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 20.03.2014 in connection with Crime No.90/2014 registered at P.S.Bhalumada, District Anooppur for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506-B, 342, 354(c)(d) of the I.P.C. and Section 66 of the I.T. Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.Prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age, she was consenting party to the intercourse.As far as obscene photographs are concerned, nothing has been seized from the possession of the applicant.Charge sheet has already been filed.The trial would take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,151,868 |
(17/01/2019) As per B. K. Shrivastava, J:-In default of payment of fine amount to undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment has also been awarded.As per the prosecution case, the accused Dayal Singh Rajput himself lodged a marg intimation Ex. P-21 and First Information Report Ex. P-22 on 05.09.2007 at about 7: 00 a.m. Marg No. 35/2007 2 was registered by the police and the offence under Sections 302/34 of IPC was also registered by the Police.It is stated in the aforesaid, FIR that Gopal Singh Yadav was the younger brother of the complainant Dayal Singh.On 04.09.2007 at about 10:00 p.m. in the night Kripal Singh, his wife Vimla Bai and daughter Vineeta beated the Gopal Singh by the help of lathis.The complainant tried to intervene.Wife of Gopal Koushalya Bai and Kapoor Chand also tried to save the Gopal.After beating they left the Gopal in the house of his father Pratap.In the morning at about 6:00 a.m. Gopal was found dead.By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 302/24 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- each.The incident took place upon the dispute regarding partition of the lands.The Police after registration of the crime reached on the spot and issued the notice Ex. P-1 to the witnesses.Dr. Naresh Lachhwani PW-12 conducted the postmortem and gave the report Ex. P-23, in which the death was found homicidal and was the result of injuries.The police recorded the statements of various witnesses and after investigation come to the conclusion that the murder has been committed by complainant Dayal Singh himself, and Krapal, Vimla Bail and Veenita in furtherance of their common intention.Complainant was also found involved in the crime.The accused persons denied from the charges and demanded for trial.Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in support of its case.The accused persons also examined two witnesses in their defence.After concluding the trial, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that all four accused persons committed the murder of Gopal with a common intention.Therefore, the trial Court held them guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and after hearing upon the sentence, the trial Court awarded the life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, to all four accused.This appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid conviction and sentence.The trial Court did not 4 appreciate the evidence in proper way.The reasons of false implication was also available.The statements of so called eye witnesses were not reliable.Hence, it is prayed to set aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and to acquitted the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34 of IPC.On the other side, the State strongly opposed the appeal.The wife of deceased namely, Koushalya Bai is also an eye witness, Kapoor Chand PW-14 is also an eyewitness.The case is also supported by the evidence of other witnesses.The trial Court did not commit any mistake by holding guilty to the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34 of IPC.The accused Dayal Singh was also involved in the crime but he himself lodged the FIR with the intention to save himself.On the aforesaid grounds the state prayed for dismissal of the appeal.It is also an admitted position that the deceased and his wife Koushalya were residing in a separate house while the other accused persons were residing with the mother and father viz. Pratap and Sukhmaniya in a common house but the portions were separated.They all are the resident of village Chiranvani Chouki Khamarpani, P.S. Bichua, district Chhindwara.As per the opinion given by the doctor, he found the various injuries upon the person of deceased Gopal.External injuries found upon the body have been described in para-3 of the statement in which the following six injuries have been mentioned:-(1) Large diffusion contusion mark over the left upper part of back- 6''x 6''.(2) Blackish colour contusion mark over the left posterior chest wall- 4''x4''.(3) Abrasion over just below right nose - 1''x1''.(4) Abrasion over left forearm - 1/2''x1/2''.(5) Swelling (2''x 2'') over upper part of Tibia Fabula region of left lower infirmities on opening fracture of both bone (Tibia Fabular) at upper 1/3'' of region ( just 3'' below left knee).(6) Swelling (2''x 2'') over upper part of Tibia-Fibular region of right lower enormities on opening fracture of both bone (Tibia Fibula) at upper 1/3'' region (just 2'' below right knee).The injury found upon the head of the deceased are also described in the same para and the aforesaid injuries are as under:-(1) abrasion over right side of front of head 1''x 1''- (1/2''x 1'' above from right side of eyebrow).(2) L/w (transverse) over right parietal region -4''x2''x 2''.(3) Longitudinal l/w just 2'' in front of lateral to 2nd injury-3''x 1''x 2''.The doctor also said that semi digested food was found in the intestine and the alcoholic smell was also found.In para-3 of cross-examination he also admits that the alcoholic smell was present in the intestine.As per the opinion of the doctor all injuries were antemortem and the death was the result of excessive bleeding from the injuries resulting the failure of heart and respiratory system.The period of death was between 9 to 16 hours.Therefore, it is proved by the evidence of aforesaid doctor and his report Ex. P-23 that the deceased sustained various injuries and his death was homicidal because of the excessive bleeding from the injuries.Now, we see whether the all accused persons are involved in the crime or not? In para-9 of the impugned judgment the trial Court mentioned that Laxman PW-2, Annu Bai PW-3, Santram PW-4, Koushalya Bai PW-7, Sonelal PW-13 and Kapoor Chand PW-14 are the eye-witnesses in this case as per prosecution.In para-19 the trial 7 Court observed that the testimony of defence witnesses namely, Chamma DW-1 and Yashvant Rao DW-2 is not reliable.It is the duty of every Court that during appreciation of the evidence the same weightage should be given to the witnesses of both sides.When the incident took place between the closed family members in that case the possibility of false implication of some other family members cannot be ruled out.In this case, the deceased was the real brother of accused Kripal and Dayal Singh.It is an admitted position that the Dayal Singh himself lodged the FIR as well as marg intimation.In normal circumstances, it is not possible that an accused who committed the offence like murder with three other accused will have the courage to lodged the FIR against the remaining three accused persons.The statement of wife of the deceased Gopal namely, Koushalya Bai is the most important in this case.The reason behind the murder has been described by the witness in her statement.It is stated that previously some quarrel was took place between the Kripal Singh and Mahtab and Kailash.The Kripal Singh told the Gopal that he takes the responsibility of the crime, Kripal and Dayal will help him.A criminal case was registered and the Gopal was convicted for two years imprisonment.His appeal filed before the Sessions Court Chhindwara was also dismissed and thereafter, a case (may be revision) was pending before the High Court of the Jabalpur.It is stated that the accused persons Kripal and Dayal had promised to the Gopal that they 8 will spend the money in the trial of the Court case.But thereafter they refused to give any money.Gopal himself spend the money in the case and sold out his three acres of land.As per witness Koushalya Bail, on the date of incident at about 9.00 p.m., she went to the house of Kripal Singh with her husband Gopal for demanding the money because the case was listed in the Jabalpur on the next day of Janamashtmani.Therefore, as per the evidence of Koushalya Bai, the Gopal wants the money for criminal case which was against the Gopal Singh while the real culprits was Kripal Singh.After assurance to give the expense of criminal proceedings, the accused persons refused to fulfill their promise.The deceased was going to attend the case in the High Court of Jabalpur because the case was listed on the next day of Janamashtmi.The deceased was not having the money, therefore, he went to the accused person.It is also proper to mention here that Koushalya Bai PW-7 in para-9 denied the suggestion of defence that his husband was used to drink.This statement is not correct because in the postmortem report the smell of liquor was found in the intestine.Other witnesses in this case also admitted the fact that the Gopal was habitual drinker.Laxman PW-2 admitted in para-11 that the Gopal was heavy drinker.Annu Bai PW-3 also said in para-5 that the Gopal was habitual drinker and every time he was living in drunken position.Therefore, it can be said that the Koushalya Bai deliberately tried to suppress the fact that his husband was the habitual drinker.In para-11, Koushalya Bai also admitted that before one day 9 from the incident her father-in-law, Pratap Singh also lodged the report against the deceased Gopal regarding the threat given by the Gopal.In Para-12 the witness also admitted that the land of the family was divided between the family members.Gopal Singh get 7 acres of land out of which 3 acres land was sold out by him and the remaining 4 acres land was available with him.The defence witness Chamma DW-1, said that at the time of Janamashtmi at about 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. Gopal came in the drunken position and abusing his father Pratap, because the Pratap had lodged the report with the police against the Gopal.After hearing the noise of quarrel between Gopal and Pratap, the accused Kripal are also came there.The witness said that the Laxman, Koushalya, Sonelal and Kapoor Chand were not present there.The witness again said that the Gopal was asking to Pratap for furnishing his bail and when the Pratap refused then the Gopal start the quarrel.In Para-4 witness also said that Kripal tried to intervene then the Gopal also assaulted him and he himself fell down upon the stones.In Para-4, the witness said that the Laxman PW-2 is the bataidar of Koushalya and the Koushalya gave the money to Sonelal and Kapoor Chand for giving the false evidence against the accused persons.The defence witness Yashvant Rao Choudhary DW-2 said that the Gopal always used to abusing his father and mother.On the date of incident which occurred at the time of Janamasthmi, the accused Gopal came in a drunken position with a ladhi.The Gopal abusing and assaulted to his father Pratap Singh.When Pratap Singh cried, 10 then the witness called the Kripal by saying that Gopal is beating to Pratap Singh.The witness again said that upon his calling the Kripal came there and consoled to the Gopal thereafter, he took the Gopal in the house of the Pratap and lying him on the bed.Therefore, it is transpired from the evidence of both defence witnesses that the presence of Kripal is not disputed.The witness tried to establish that the Gopal sustained the injuries because he fell down on the earth bearing the stones.But looking to the number and nature of injuries, it cannot be accepted that the all injuries may be inflicted because of Gopal was fell down on the earth.Definitely the injuries found upon the person of the deceased are the result of assault.Koushalya Bai PW-7, said that she went with her husband to the house of Kripal for asking the money because the case was fixed in the High Court on the next day of Janamashtmi.The witness again said that Kripal and Dayal both denied to give the money then her husband told them that both of them have promised to give the money but now you are denied and he sold out his 3 acres of land for bearing the expenses of criminal case.The witness again said that all four accused took out the sticks/lathis from their house and assaulted to Gopal Singh.The Gopal Singh fell down and became unconscious.This incident took place in the Chapri thereafter all accused persons left the Gopal after lying him on the bed in the house of Pratap.No doubt it is mentioned in Ex. D-3 that she was on the spot.It may be possible that upon hearing of sound of quarrel she reached on the spot and not was with her husband from the beginning of the incident.Koushalya Bai PW-7 involved of all four accused in the incident.Now we see the other evidence.Laxman S/o Jairam PW-1 said in his statement that in the morning Dayal came in his house and said that Gopal has been expired.Thereafter, the witness reached to the house of Pratap Singh with accused Dayal and found that the dead body of Gopal was laying there.The witness again said that at that time Pratap and Sukhwati told that the Gopal has been killed by Kripal.In this case, the prosecution did not examine the mother and father of the deceased Gopal.As per this witness, he received the information from Pratap and Sukhwati that the Kripal killed the Gopal.Pratap and Sukhwati (Mother and Father) were the important witnesses in this case.Because the Pratap himself lodged a report against the deceased only before one day of the incident.But the prosecution neither examined them under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. nor produced them before the Court.The witness Laxman also said that he was with the Dayal at the time when Dayal lodged the First Information report.It is stated in the FIR that Dayal gave the information to the Kotwar and thereafter he went to lodged the report with the Kotwar.This witness has not been declared hostile by the prosecution.In the aforesaid condition, the 12 prosecution is also bound from the evidence of these witnesses.The substance of the evidence of this witness is that when in the morning the witness reached in the house of Pratap then Pratap and Sukhwati told him that the murder committed by the Kripal.Laxman, S/o Damu PW-2, said in para-2 that in the night at about 8:00 a.m. he was going to his shop at that time in front of house of the Kripal, all four accused were beating to Gopal Singh by lathis, several persons were present there.The aforesaid witness Laxman PW-2 also said that when he tried to intervene than accused persons told him to fled away otherwise they will beat him.But it appears from the cross- examination in para-15 that the witness himself admitted that the aforesaid statement was not given by him to the police.In para-2, he also said that after committing the marpeet the accused persons shifted the Gopal Singh in the house of Pratap Singh.( vkjksihx.k us ekjihV djus ds ckn xksikyflag dks mlds firk izrkiflag ds ?kj ij Mky fn;kA).But in para-16 he himself admits that the aforesaid fact was not disclosed by him to the police.Laxman PW-2 admits in para-8 of his statement that Gopal was having 4 acres of land and he was cultivating the land of Gopal with the agreement of batai up to last year.Therefore, it can be said that this witness is an interested witness because he was cultivating the land of the deceased.The defence witness DW-1 also said the aforesaid facts.The presence of the witness on the spot also created some doubt because he is telling that he was going towards the shop at 13 about 8:00 a.m. As per the police case the incident took place at about 9.45 p.m. in the night.Usually this time is not for going towards the shop in the village but in this time the shopkeepers are coming back from their shop.The suggestion also given in para-18 that the witness neither going towards the shop nor he seen any incident.This witness is also related to the arrest memo, memos under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and memos related to the seizure of lathis ( Ex. P-5 to Ex. P-16).The witness admitted his signature upon the aforesaid all documents but admitted in para-21 that he signed on the aforesaid documents upon the instigation of the police.No any information or the seizure was made before him.The Inspector asked him that he wrote the statement of accused person regarding the lathis and the witness has been called for signature.Looking to the aforesaid attitude of the witness it can be inferred that this witness is a interested against the accused persons and in favour of deceased Gopal.Therefore, it will not safe to rely upon the entire testimony of the witness.The comparison of the deposition of this witness with the other witnesses is also necessary.Annu |Bai PW-3 is also an eye witness.She said that in front of the house of Kripal there was a quarrel between Kripal and Gopal in the passage.Kripal was beating to Gopal by the lathi.The witness also seen the incident and she did not see anybody upon the spot.She also said that nobody intervened in the aforesaid quarrel and Kripal killed the Gopal in the passage.Thereafter, his dead body was kept in the house of the Pratap Singh.Therefore, it appears from the statement of this witness that only Kripal committed the murder of Gopal.Santram PW-4 said that his house is situated in front of the house of Dayal.In the courtyard of Kripal, the witness seen the Kripal and his wife and daughter.They all took the Gopal to inside the house from the courtyard.Thereafter, what happens the witness does not know.On the next day, he came to know that the Gopal has been expired and he saw the dead body of Gopal was lying in the house of the Pratap.This witness has also been declared hostile by the prosecution.But the witness said that the police did not recorded his any statement.The witness did not support his police statement.No any omission and contradiction has been pointed out in his cross examination.Therefore, as per the evidence of this witness he did not seen the incident.He only seen Kripal and his wife and his daughter on the courtyard with Gopal.The presence of all family members in the courtyard is natural and it is not the indication of common intention.Girdharilal Sahu PW-9 is running a STD booth in Devri.The witness said that at about 5:00 am, the wife of Gopal came in his booth and said that her husband has been beaten by Dayal 15 and Kripal, therefore, he connect the phone to 100 number, but the witness not connect the phone because he was going to answer the natural call.When he came back at that time, the wife of Gopal was went away.This witness also has not been declared hostile by the prosecution.It appears from the evidence of this witness, that Koushalya Bai disclosed only the names of Kripal and Dayal to the witnesses while the Koushalya Bai in her own statement involved all four accused persons.Therefore, the evidence of this witness is also created some doubt upon the testimony of the Kaushalya Bai.Sonelal PW-13 said at about 8:00 p.m. in the night he came back from her agriculture field after doing the work.When he reached in the house, he heard the sound of Gopal.As per witness the house of Kripal is situated in front of the house of the witness.Gopal was demanding Rs.10,000/- from Kripal, but the witness think that there is a dispute between the family members therefore, he did not take seriously.After some time, the sound of stick was came then Koushalya Bai was weeping and was asking to save her husband.Upon hearing the sound of Koushalya Bai the witness came out from the house and seen that in the courtyard of Kripal the all four accused were beating to the Gopal, who was fell down on the earth.The witness asked the Kripal why he is beating, if the beating will excessive he will die, then the Kripal said to keep mum.If we see the entire statement and cross-examination of 16 the Sonelal PW-13, then a doubt is created upon his presence on the spot.The witness says that the Gopal was demanding Rs.10,000/-.But this amount has not been disclosed by any of the witness of the case including the wife of the deceased.The witness said before the Court that he tried to intervene by asking Kripal that if he is beating then in case of excessive beating the Gopal may die.But as per his police statement he did not intervene in the incident.The presence of the aforesaid witness is also doubtful as per para-7 of the cross-examination.He admitted that usually he was living at his agriculture field.He used to came at home for taking the meal at about 7:00 p.m. on very day, thereafter, he slept on the agriculture field.In the aforesaid situation, the question arise that why upon the date of incident the witness was stay in his home.In Para-8 he said that he disclosed to police only regarding the incident which was took place in the night in which Gopal was beating.He is not stating that he disclosed to police the name of accused persons as assailant.In para-15 he said that the incident first took place in the house of Pratap and thereafter, they came out from the house and the Gopal fell down in the courtyard.This statement is opposite to the prosecution.Because as per the prosecution case the incident took place at the outside of the house, thereafter, the accused persons left the Gopal in the house of Pratap.Therefore, looking to the entire statement this witness is not 17 found trustworthy, suspicion is created upon the testimony of the aforesaid witness and it is doubtful that whether the witness has seen the incident or not? Whether the witness was present or not on the spot.Kapoorchand PW-14 said that at about 8:00 p.m. in the night he was going towards his agriculture filed, after taking the food for his father.Upon hearing the voice of Koushalya Bai who was crying, the witness seen that in the passage Kripal, Dayal, Vimla and Vineeta were beating to Gopal.But the witness again said that due to fear of Dayal he went to his filed and did not try to intervene.In Para-3 the witness said that he only seen the incident at about 2 to 4 minutes.In Para-4 he also admits that the facts disclosed before the Court where not disclosed him to the police at the time of recording his statement.In that report, he mentioned the name of Koushalya Bai as eye witness, who is the wife of the deceased.If Dayal would participated in the murder then he would not mentioned the name of Koushalya 18 Bai as eye witness in the FIR.They may be falsely implicated in this case because in the statements of some witnesses it has come that the Kripal assaulted to the Gopal.Previous incident was also took place between the Gopal and Kripal in which the Gopal admitted his responsibility upon the assurance of Kripal that he will bear the entire expenses of the criminal trial.But the position of other three appellants are different.But thereafter, he did not fulfill his promise.If the Gopal was abusing his father Pratap then the accused persons were in position to stop him without causing any injury but the Kripal causes various injuries to his brother Gopal.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,152,985 |
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed, seeking to set aside the judgment dated 08.01.2016 made in Crl.Appeal No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Sessions Judge, ( Fast Track Mahila Court), Nagapattinam, in modifying the judgment dated 21.01.2011 made in C.C.No.170 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkazhi.Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 14.01.2008 at around 09.30 a.m., while P.W.1 was going along the road in front of the house of the petitioner, he had in order to outrage her modesty hugged her and kissed her and when it was questioned by P.W.3 and P.W.4, Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 have assaulted them with the iron rod and also threatened them of dire consequences.The trial court acquitted the second and third accused however, after analysing the evidence found the petitioner guilty for the offences under section 323 of I.P.C and under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1988 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 323 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1988 and to pay a fine of 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.268 of 2016 Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.On appeal, the appellate court partly allowed the Appeal by acquitting the petitioner for the offence u/s.323 of IPC, however convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 1988 and modified the sentence to six months Simple Imprisonment.Against the conviction and sentence the present revision has been filed.The Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the petitioner was charged along with two other accused for the offences u/s. 294(b), 341, 342, 354, 323 and 506(Iii) of IPC and U/s. 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the trial court disbelieving the witnesses, acquitted the second and third accused in respect of the above charges and also acquitted the petitioner in respect of the charge u/s.294(b), 342, 354 an 506(ii) and found the petitioner guilty for the offence u/s.323 r/w section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. Further he would submit that on appeal, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner insofar as the offence u/s.323 of IPC and found the petitioner guilty under section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and reduced the sentence to six months Simple Imprisonment.He would submit that the entire case is a exaggerated one due to previous enmity.The trial court finding that the witnesses P.Ws. 5 to 8 have turned hostile had acquitted the second and third accused, whereas erred in convicting the petitioner based on the evidence of 3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.268 of 2016 interested witnesses and the appellate court also erred in believing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 who are interested witnesses and thereby would seek to set aside the order.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the appellate court while acquitting the petitioner for other offences rightly found that there are sufficient materials to convict the petitioner u/s.4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act had convicted him.There is no illegality or error in the judgment passed by the appellate Judge and that the petitioner cannot rely upon the acquittal order passed by the trial court in respect of the other accused, when the evidence of the victim inspires confidence in respect of the averments against the petitioner.5. Heard both sides.Perused the materials.PW.1 is the victim in this case and she was aged 19 years, studying XII Standard at the time of occurrence.Though the independent witnesses, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8 have not supported the case of the Prosecution, the Trial 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.268 of 2016 Court and the lower Appellate Court, placing reliance on the evidence of PW.1 found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and convicted him.Evidence of P.W.1 inspires confidence.This court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray that taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances that the occurrence had happened on 14.01.2008 and also that the petitioner is a physically challenged person, would seek that the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced.In the result, this criminal revision petition is partly allowed.The bail bond if any executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled.The Trial Court shall take necessary steps to secure the petitioner to commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.22.11.2019 Web : Yes/No mfa 5/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.268 of 2016 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.mfa To:1.The Sessions Judge, ( Fast Track Mahila Court), Nagapattinam.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Judicial Magistrate Court, Sirkazhi.3.The Inspector of Police (L & O), Sirkazhi Police Station, Nagapattinam District,The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.CRL.R.C.No.268 of 2016 and CRl.M.P.No.1852 of 2016 22.11.2019
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,157,460 |
He has helped them to make fake document with the help of one document pertaining to Mr.R.Mariappan has involved in a criminalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 conspiracy with the men belongs to the above company and other persons and also abetted with one V.Sundara Raman, who is residing at Door No.113/55, Ambikapuram, Rail Nagar East, Trichy for fabricated a false "Value Report" for the land which is situated on the Trichy-Chennai Bye-pass Road, which is in any way not connected with the above Bank Guarantee.Further he has prepared a fake sketch with the help of V.Sundarraman and S.Vincent Adaikalaraj.Further he had involved in a criminal conspiracy with one K.G. Sowrirajan, residing at Door No.74, in Srirangam Rayar Thope, and one Mr. V.C. Sivaprakasam residing at plot No.21, Sosiyagar Nagar, Karumandapam, Trichy, to obtain a bogus Attested copy of sketch and obtained the fake signature of the Tahsildar of Trichy.Charge 2:both W.Ps.PRAYER IN W.P(MD)No.22148 of 2018: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order passed by the third respondent in R.C.No.A3/17300/2009, dated 31.01.2012, in the light of the order of acquittal passed in C.C.No.33 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Special Judge (CBI), Trivandrum and the consequential impugned order passed by the second respondent in Na.A3/17300/2010, dated 28.08.2017 and to quash the same as illegal and pass such further or other orders.Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are interrelated and the petitioner in both the writ petitions being one and the same person, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents.The grievance of the writ petitioner herein is as below:Hence, his writ petition was dismissed.Further the appeal filed by him was also dismissed.(ii)Out of seven charges, the Enquiry Officer after considering the explanation given by him, has held two of the charges not proved and for the rest of the five charges, he has observed that they are all interconnected with the criminal proceedings pending against the writ petitioner in C.C.No.33 of 2011 on the file of C.B.I. Court, Trivandrum and therefore further action may be taken after disposal of the criminal trial.http://www.judis.nic.in 4(iii)While so, the writ petitioner herein was placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings and later when he was about to retire on 31.01.2012, he was not allowed to retire till the conclusion of the charges contemplated and final orders passed thereon by the competent authority.(iv)The C.B.I. Court, Trivandrum on completion of the trial where the writ petitioner was arrayed as A.5, acquitted him of all charges.Therefore, citing the acquittal by the Criminal Court, the writ petitioner herein has made a representation to the District Revenue Officer to drop the enquiry proceedings in the light of the acquittal.His representation dated 07.01.2016 and subsequent reminders sent to the respondents on various dates, did not evoke response.It is also admitted by the respondent that pending departmental proceedings, the writ petitioner reached the age of superannuation.However, he was not allowed to retire in view of pendency of enquiry.The specific case of the third respondent herein is that though the petitioner was not shown as an accused in the First Information Report registered by C.B.I., later from investigation prima facie material was available with the investigation agency to indict the writ petitioner herein for conspiring with the other accused to cheat SBT, Kaduthuruthi Branch and pursuant to the conspiracy, he has connived with other accused for creating false document and valuation certificates.Hence, filing the charge sheet against thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 petitioner was intimated to the Department by the CBI and pursuant to this, the petitioner herein was served with charge memo on 13.11.2011 and Enquiry Officer was appointed.Thereafter, on 30.01.2012, he was placed under suspension invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.Pendency of the appeal against acquittal cannot be a reason for perpetual suspension and denial of retirement benefits.In support of his argument, the learned counsel would rely upon the following two Judgments of Principal Bench of this Court as well as this Court:(ii)W.P(MD)No.21073 of 2015, dated 04.01.2016 [S.Sankaran v. The Commissioner of Labour, Chennai – 6 and Another].Mr.R.Mariappan, Assistant grade, who belongs to the Trichirapalli District Revenue Unit now serving as Revenue Inspector at the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue Court) has involved in a criminal conspriacy to get Rupees one crore loan for Target Overseas Export Limited which is functioning at "Mangalam Towers" in Kochin Bye-pass road, in Kerala State in an illegal manner from State Bank of Travancore of Kaduthuruthi in Kerala State.He has involved in a criminal conspiracy with the director and Manager of the above export company for providing valuable land as security to get a loan to the tune of Rs.One crore for the above export company.R.Mariappan has been the reason behind the loss occurred by Government Bank (State Bank of Trivancore, Kaduthuruthi, Kerala State) for a tune of Rupees one Crore, by way of involving a criminal conspiracy with individual persons for the sake of increasing the value of the land which was put in to bank guarantee for the loan issued by the bank by way of preparing bogus sketch and to abetted in the process of getting fake signature of the Tahsildar.Charge No.3:He has involved in a criminal conspiracy with Target Overseas Exports (Private) Limited Company for getting one crore Loan from a Government Bank in an illegal manner.http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Charge No.4:Being a Government servant the above person has not concentrated on the government service and involved in criminal conspiracy with an intention to earn money in illegal manners.Charge No.5:Charge No.6:R.Mariappan has prepared bogus sketch, put fake signatures of government officials, involve in a criminal conspiracy to get loan for incompetent land by way of cheating Government Bank in an illegal manner and thereby he has committed offences punishable under sections 120 B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.The above said individual is incompetent to hold a government post through his illegal activities.Charge No.7:From the above said mistakes, Mr.Similar defence has been taken for Charge No.7 also.The Enquiry Officer has accepted the defence taken by the delinquent/writ petitioner herein.14.Similarly, for Charge No.6, the delinquent/writ petitioner herein has contended that even according to the final report filed by the prosecution, it was Sri.S.Vincent Adiakalaraj who prepared the false sketch and affixed forged signature.While so, Charge No.6 cannot be mulcted against him.This explanation has also been accepted by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 his Enquiry Report dated 10.02.2012 has concluded as under:16.While the departmental proceedings stood at this stage, the criminal prosecution which the petitioner herein was facing along with nine others, has ended in acquittal.Therefore, this Court directs the third respondent to consider the Enquiry Report and if he deems fit that de hors of the criminal prosecution and its result, the writ petitioner has grossly violated the Government Servants Conduct Rules, as he has averred in his counter, then he shall proceed with the enquiry by remanding back to the Enquiry Officer to give adequatehttp://www.judis.nic.in 20 opportunity and examine witnesses and pass appropriate orders or in alternate take note of the acquittal of the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders without waiting for the outcome of the criminal appeal.While doing so, he can always reserve the right of taking necessary action against the writ petitioner subject to the outcome of the criminal appeal.If the third respondent could not pass any final order in the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months, he shall atleast consider the request of the petitioner herein made in W.M.P(MD)No.20079 of 2018 to disburse upto 50% of the terminal benefits to the petitioner pending disposal of the enquiry proceedings.26.With the above directions, W.P(MD)No.22148 of 2018 is disposed of.No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.2.The District Collector, Trichy District, Trichy.3.The District Revenue Officer, Trichy District, Trichy.http://www.judis.nic.in 22 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.smn COMMON ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)Nos.12989 of 2017 and 22148 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.20079 to 20081 of 2018
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
581,632 |
2. Let us notice the essential facts for the purposes of this appeal.The prosecutrix had gone to purchase vegetables in the afternoon and Jagdish/accused who used to live nearby accosted her.The prosecutrix was known to the accused and she used to address him as 'Bhaiya'.As per the prosecution version, Jagdish @ Tinku caught hold of her and took her inside the house, locked the door and raped her.After the act, he let her go and threatened her not to disclose about the incident to anyone else otherwise he would kill her.The prosecutrix Ms. Manju returned home and disclosed the incident to her mother in the presence of her father and her elder uncle.Report was lodged with the police and Jagdish/accused was arrested.The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital.JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.The learned Sessions Judge after analysing and appreciating the evidence as produced before him found appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and convicted him.Vide an order of sentence dated 25th November, 2002, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observing the heinous nature of the crime on a girl barely 11 years old, sentenced Jagdish to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and, in default, simple imprisonment of three years.The learned trial Court noted that the prosecutrix had bled profusely on account of rape and had remained admitted in the hospital for treatment for nearly a month.We shall advert to the MLC later in this regard.The blood stained bed sheet and the piece of cloth used to wipe blood flowing down the legs of the prosecutrix were also allegedly recovered at the instance on the disclosure of the accused.The underwear, mattress and cloth of the accused along with frock and underwear of the prosecutrix were sent to the FSL for examination.Prosecution examined the mother of the prosecutrix, her father and other witnesses to which we need not advert.The MLC Ex. PW11/B duly records the admission of the prosecutrix at the Hindu Rao Hospital with the history of alleged rape.As per the MLC :L/E hymen torn (fresh).There is 2 perenial tear (midline) blood clot seen coming through introitus, bleeding P/V ++Suffice it is to notice that the medical record duly confirms the factum of rape.Mr. Sumeet Verma in support of the appeal submits that firstly the prosecutrix and the family who claimed to have known Jagdish / accused have not named him in the MLC and the MLC does not carry his name.The judgment is also assailed on the point that the MLC had not been duly proved inasmuch as no doctor had been examined to prove the MLC.It is submitted that no semen was detected or traced on the bed sheet, mattress, cloth or on the underwear of Jagdish /accused or on the frock and underwear of the prosecutrix.He further submits that the blood samples had got putrefied and hence it could not be said that the blood found on the underwear was of the appellant or that of the prosecutrix.It is also urged that the appellant was beaten by members of the public and hence there could be blood oozing on account of the injuries sustained which could explain the presence of blood on his underwear.He said that there was no sign of resistance by the prosecutrix.Apart from the injuries on the vagina, no other injuries have been found on her person or on the private parts of appellant.It is urged in the grounds of appeal that the crucial and salient witnesses were not cross examined by the amices Curiae appointed by the State.PW-1, the Senior Scientific Officer, PW-2 Gainda Lal, PW-3 Prosecutrix and PW-4 Sooparta Roy were not cross examined.In view of this failure to cross examine by the counsel on behalf of Jagdish/ accused, it is urged that the appellant was denied a fair trial and it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.5. Let us firstly consider the submissions made on behalf of Jagdish /accused that on account of denial of an opportunity for cross examination of material witnesses, Jagdish/accused has been prejudiced in his defense.We have examined the trial Court record.We find that initially an amices Curiae had been appointed for the defense of Jagdish /accused.During the course of proceedings, the appellant engaged a counsel of his choice, one Mr. S. K. Bansal.The Trial Judge deferred the matter in the forenoon to afternoon to enable the counsel to have instructions from Jagdish/accused and to cross examine the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix, a young girl, had been waiting till about 3.45 p.m. and when the counsel for the accused did not cross examine her, the right to cross examine was closed.We may, at this stage, notice that although in the grounds of appeal reference is made that the amices Curiae did not cross examine PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, an opportunity had been given to the amices Curiae to cross examine them, but may be in the nature of things, he did not consider it appropriate to cross examine them.Be that as it may, even the regular counsel Mr. Bansal, when he moved the application for recalling of the order closing the right to cross examine, no prayer was made for recalling these witnesses.As such, no grievance can be made In this account.In the event, the District and Sessions Judge had allowed the application for recalling of the witness/prosecutrix PW-3 on imposition of cost of Rs. 5000/-.Coming to other submissions made on behalf of Jagdish/accused, at the outset, it is sufficient to notice that the prosecutrix has in a very clear and categorical manner narrated as to how the offence was committed on her.The statement inspires confidence and proceeds in a clear and cogent manner leaving no doubt or ambiguity.She has clearly identified the appellant as perpetrator of the offence and a person whom she used to address as 'Bhaiya'.The parents of the prosecutrix have also deposed as to how they found the prosecutrix immediately after the incident completely shaken.She was unable to stand and was bleeding from her private parts.The medical report confirms the factum of rape with hymen torn (fresh) resulting in her extended hospitalisation.It is well settled that the clear testimony of the prosecutrix by itself is sufficient for conviction.In the instant case, her statement stands corroborated by indisputable medical evidence as also the statement of her parents.It is of no consequence that the name of Jagdish/accused was not given in the MLC and omission of this nature cannot negate otherwise overwhelming evidence.Absence of semen stains alone in these circumstances, again cannot raise a presumption in favor of Jagdish /accused.The possibility of semen being washed away in the profuse bleeding and followed exits.Similarly the fact that the doctor who wrote the MLC was not available and the same had been proved through a record clerk is hardly of any consequence.Moreover, as noticed by the learned Trial Judge, there was blood on even the second underwear as found in the FSL report.It was the same blood group as found on the underwear of the prosecutrix supports prosecution version.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,163,513 |
12.However, this Court, on seeing the medical reports pertaining to 4 = years old child of the appellant, is of the view that, such a small child must necessarily be given a best medical treatment and since the child is to recover from the disease, for which, continuous medical attention should be given, the appellant, being the father of the child, necessarily has to play a role in protecting his child from the chronic neuro disease.13.Viewing from that angle only, on sympathetic ground towards the innocent child of 4 = years old and to save and protect his life, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge [under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989], II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in Crl.M.P.No.3 of 2018 in S.C.No.33 of 2017 dated 30.01.2018 and to enlarge the appellant on bail.He had been arrested for the involvement in the said case, where charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120B, 109, 449, 427 and 302 of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1909 and also, under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)3.The petitioner had been arrested on 25.04.2017 and since then he had been inside as a pre-trial prisoner.Hence, he moved a bail application before the Court below in Crl.As against which, the present appeal has been filed.4.I have heard Mr.5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, in this case, this Court, by order dated 12.12.2018 has granted bail by allowing the Appeal filed by A1 and A8 in Crl.He would further submit that the appellant is also innocent and has not involved in the crime.6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would also submit that, since his son one Master S.Sudhir aged 4 = years already suffered with some neuro disease, for which, he has to take continuous treatment at hospitals and for the past more than one year, such a treatment has been given to the son of the appellant.He has also produced certain medical documents to establish the fact that the son of the appellant has taken treatment for neuro disease and the latest medical reports dated 14.02.2018 also was filed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.7.However, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent/State, by relying upon the averments made in the counter filed by the respondent dated 21.02.2018, would submit that, the appellant has already involved in 23 cases and therefore, since he is a chronic offender in that locality, if he is let off on bail, it will create unnecessary problem in that area and he would be a root cause for the deterioration of law and order in that area.8.The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that on the ground of treatment to be given to the son of the appellant, he had already been permitted to go on parole for two days to take care of his son and that kind of arrangement can be made, if at all, any urgency is made out to see the son of the appellant on medical ground.9.I have considered the submissions made by both sides.10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant insofar as the past involvement in number of cases are concerned, would submit that, out of 23 cases, the appellant has already been acquitted in 20 cases and those cases are not pending.With regard to the remaining three cases i.e., in Crime No.70 of 2007, Crime No.86 of 2009 and Crime No.92 of 2016 are concerned, the offences punishable in that Crime Numbers are under Sections 294, 323 and 506(i) of IPC and 294B and 186 of IPC and in respect of Crime No.70 of 2017, it is for the offence under Section 107 of CrPC.11.In view of the continuous involvement in crime, whether it is a minor offence or major offence, on the part of the appellant, it would clearly establish that he is a chronic trouble maker in that locality and that is the reason why number of cases have been filed against him, of course, three of such cases are pending against him and therefore, on that score, this Court is actually not inclined to entertain this appeal by enlarging the appellant on bail.1.The appellant shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties, out of which, one shall be a Government surety, for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, within a period of two weeks.2.The appellant shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m. and 05.00 p.m., until further orders.14.It is made clear that during the bail period, if the appellant fails to comply with the conditions as mentioned above, or if he is involved in any other crime, the same can be brought to the notice of this Court and it would entail the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.With the above directions and conditions, this Criminal Appeal is allowed to the terms indicated above.21.02.2018Index :yes/noInternet :yes/nompsNote to office:Issue order copy on 21.02.2018Issue on 21.02.2018R. SURESH KUMAR, J,mpsTo1.The Special Judge, II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.2.The Inspector of Police, Thirubuvanai Police Station,Puducherry.3.The CBCID Police,Puducherry.Crl.A.No.105 of 201821.02.2018
|
['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,165,593 |
P. 407/2007 Page 1 of 36Briefly stating, the allegations made by the Complainant in his complaint dated 17.05.2007 can be enumerated as under:(i) Mukesh Kumar, a non-resident Indian, son of the Complainant after settling in Ireland took charge of the business of his grand father namely, Sh.Datt Sahai who was doing business in London since 1950 and was having bank accounts with large deposits.A decision was taken by the family to bring the deposits in the banks at London to India and to deposit the said amount in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts in Indian Banks as the rate of interest was better in India.He accordingly opened Bank account in Delhi with Federal Bank, New Delhi and funds were transferred.(ii) In the year 2000, Complainant came into contact with one Arun Jain who was an agent of AJK Fernandez, who had offered the complainant a deal to the effect, that if the deposits are made in South Indian Banks as suggested by AJK Fernandez, the complainant in addition to the higher rate of interest as prevailing in South Indian Banks would also get an incentive of 3.75% while 0.25% would come to Arun Jain.Accordingly on transfer of two deposits from Federal Bank Ltd. at New Delhi to Federal Bank of Nagercoil as suggested by accused AJK Fernandez in the month of August, 2000 to the tune of US $ 1729684.81 and US $ 97,141.24 respectively, the complainant got incentive of about 5 lakhs in advance by way of DD in the name of Mukesh Kumar.On that basis the transactions continued even subsequently.Various deposits were similarly transferred to SBI Nungambakkam Branch of Chennai belonging to Mukesh Kumar.The details of the said deposits are as follows:A. FDRs with Federal Bank, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu:P. 407/2007 Page 2 of 36(iii) It was further alleged, that for all these deposits the accounts, as per the instructions of the complainant, were to be opened only in the single name of Mukesh Kumar and for that purpose account opening forms were sent to the petitioner duly signed by Mukesh Kumar alongwith his forwarding letters and in those forms the column where second applicant and third applicant had to sign were either scored off or xxxx marks were put before sending the forms.However, the accounts were in fact opened by AJK Fernandez in the joint name by putting his own signatures on the aforesaid forms and in the third column and by forging the signatures of Mukesh Kumar.(iv) However, Shri AJK Ferndandez, the petitioner, with the help of his co-accused K. Kadaksham, the then Deputy Manager of SBI Nungambakkam branch in pursuance of conspiracy also opened a joint NRE SB account No.01192060511 based on forged letter dated 22.09.2000 purportedly to have been signed Crl.P. 407/2007 Page 3 of 36 by Sh.Mukesh Kumar and by stating to the bank officials that Mukesh Kumar and AJK Fernandez are business partners and that Mukesh Kumar had authorized AJK Fernandez to make deposits/withdrawal in joint account got the earlier mentioned two FDRs Number 43, 44 prematurely closed, and the amount of deposits which were to the tune of US $ 17,29,684 and 9,97,141 were transferred in the said bank to a joint NRE SB Account No.009206055, Nungambakkam Branch with a view to misappropiate the aforesaid amount.P. 407/2007 Page 3 of 36(v) In view of the arrangement further 14 remittance in foreign currency (13 in US $ and 1 Sterling) were sent from the account of Sh.Mukesh Kumar through wire transfer to the bank, but the same were also fraudulently got converted into STDRs in the joint name of Mukesh Kumar and AJK Fernandez on the basis of forged letter as aforesaid.Furthur those STDRs were also prematurely closed and proceeds were credited in another joint NRE account and money was siphoned off by AJK Fernandez and Mukesh Kumar subsequently.To keep the complainant misinformed the petitioner also supplied 18 fake STDRs to Sh.Anand Kumar showing deposits in the name of Mukesh Kumar but by keeping the original STDRs issued in the joint name with him, i.e, 16 original FDRs issued from SBI Nungambakkam Branch Chennai and two original FCNB FDRs issued from Federal Bank, Nagercoil.Out of these 18 fake STDRs, one STDR No.TA/1, 962273 was sent to SBI Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai by Anand Kumar for correction believing it to be genuine, when the said branch issued another genuine STDR number Crl.P. 407/2007 Page 4 of 36 962242 after correction in lieu of above mentioned forged STDR.The complainant then came to know about the aforesaid fraud vide letter dated 23.10.2002 received from SBI, Nungambakkam Branch at Chennai, who informed Mukesh Kumar, the details of 6 TDRs one in single name and 5 in joint names of Mukesh Kumar and accused AJK Fernandez (Petitioner) accused, though the instructions were for the single name of Mukesh Kumar.It also transpired that against one TDR even a loan of Rs.1.50 crores had been obtained by AJK Fernandez.This information was shared by Mukesh Kumar with Anand Kumar, who in turn communicated with Nungambakkam Branch and sent photocopies of deposit application forms and 6 TDRs mentioned in the letter dated 23.10.2002, which were in the single name of Mukesh Kumar requesting them to confirm the status/genuinity of the same.It is also submitted that the State Bank of India Nungambakkam Branch did not give any reply despite various reminders.The GEQD result which was procured after the specimen signatures of Mukesh Kumar were compared with the signatures present on the said STDRs and the above mentioned letters was conclusive that the said STDRs and the letters did not bear the signatures of Mukesh Kumar and that the signatures were forged though, positive opinion about Fernandez forging the same was not given.At this juncture it would not be out of place to refer to Bank of India Vs.Shankar Rao And Anr.1987 Crl.It is also his case:a) That a lot of amount had been paid by the Petitioner to Sh.Anand Kumar by preparing the Demand Drafts worth Rs. US$133472.68 and US $258009.96 in the name of Mukesh Kumar for the purpose of deposit in the India Millenium Deposit Scheme.He also claims to have further invested a sum of Rs.13 crores and having also paid Rs.26 crores to Mukesh Kumar, Anand Kumar and Arun Jain by way of drafts and cheques.Anand Kumar was not sent by the Petitioner but was sent by his son Mukesh Kumar.c) That CBI had no jurisdiction to investigate the matter and that nothing happened in Delhi which could confer jurisdiction to Delhi Courts.P. 407/2007 Page 8 of 36The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, also made following additional submissions by way of the written submissions:-i. That the petitioner, Anand Kumar (Complainant) as well as his son Mukesh Kumar were friends since 1991 and have jointly carried on business in India, Ireland US & Canada in joint names.A formal agreement dated 16.08.2000 was entered into between them according to which joint account was opened between the Petitioner and Mukesh Kumar with the State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch, Madras and accordingly, was operated as per the agreement.The deposits bearing NO.TA/A/1-962159, TA/A/1-962158, TA/A/1-508489, TA/A/1-508497, TA/A/1-962156, TA/A/1-962173, TA/A/1-962217, TA/A/1-962219, TA/A/1-9622237, TA/A/1-419872 were cancelled and credited into the joint account of the Petitioner and Mukesh Kumar as per their directions.P. 407/2007 Page 9 of 36This order shall dispose of the aforesaid Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order directing framing of charges and the charges framed pursuant thereto, against the Petitioner on 17.05.2007 under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 read with Sections 109 and 120B of Indian Penal Code by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in case RC No. 6(E)/2003/CBI/SPE/EOU.VII, P.S. New Delhi dated 27.10.2003 registered by CBI on the complaint of Shri Anand Kumar, who claims to be the constituted attorney of his son Mukesh Kumar, a resident of Ireland.The Charges were framed by the CMM after the charge sheet was filed by the prosecution under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Crl.P. 407/2007 Page 1 of 36 Procedure on 1.01.2004 after completing the investigation.In the charge sheet, besides the Petitioner, one K.Kadakasham, Deputy Manager of the State Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai, was also challanned as a co-conspirator.He also filed a separate revision but on account of his death, the same stands abated.However, vide letter dated 18.02.2003, the bank informed that loan amount had been cleared against the said TDR but the bank refrained from confirming the status/genuinity of these 6 TDRs despite many requests.P. 407/2007 Page 4 of 36(vi) Thereafter the complainant contacted Mr. Muralidharan, the New Branch Manager of the SBI on 26.07.2003 on the bais of photocopies of the documents which were the basis of the frauds committed by the Petitioner, the Chief Manager got suspicious about the transaction and reported the matter to the higher authorities.As a result thereof vigilance inquiry was initiated by SBI.As soon as inquiry started accused AJK Fernandez sensed trouble and filed civil suits in Nagercoil Court praying for declaring the STDRs held by the complainant as null and void.This pressure tactics worked and the complainant was approached by AJK Fernandez who offered for out of Court settlement.As a result, on 01.09.2003 AJK Fernandez fraudulently induced the complainant into handing over the 18 STDRs held by him in lieu of fake Demand Draft of US $ 19.72 million purportedly Crl.P. 407/2007 Page 5 of 36 issued by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Toronto and obtained two letters from Anand Kumar stating that his son would have no claim over the above mentioned 18 STDRs and that he would repay the excess amount of US $ 5 million after the encashment of the said DD which was when presented by Mukesh in HSBC Bank, New Delhi on 22.09.2003 were found to be forged as informed by the bank authorities as the said DD was never issued by the Imperial Bank of Toronto.In order to further pressurize the complainant, AJK Fernandez filed two more civil suits against Anand Kumar and his son Mukesh Kumar along with Arun Jain.Hence, he cheated the complainant and his son and misappropriated a sum of totaling approximately Rs.67.5 crores.P. 407/2007 Page 5 of 36The relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced hereunder:"From the statement of the witnesses and the documentary evidence collected by the prosecution, accused Fernandez was responsible for certain 18 fake STDR, i.e., two of Federal Bank and 16 of SBI Nungambakam Branch, Chennai to be sent to the complainant and caused pre-mature closure of 10 STDR in the SBI Nungambakam Branch and two STDRs of Federal Bank Nagarcoil by using forged signatures of Mukesh Kumar.Accused Fernandez also presented the authority letters purportedly signed by Mukesh Kumar dated 20.09.2000 for getting the NRE account open having full knowledge that the signature of Mukesh Kumar were Crl.P. 407/2007 Page 6 of 36 forged one and also with the intention that the same would be used for the purpose of cheating.L.J. 722 wherein the Honble Supreme Court observed that where money was withdrawn by an accused from an account by using forged signatures of the Account holder, and pocketed the same, an inference could safely be drawn that it was the accused who had got the signatures forged and hence convicted the accused for the offence under Section 467 r/w 109 IPC.Placing reliance of the said pronouncement, I am of the opinion that prima facie case under Section 467/468 IPC read with Section 109 IPC and Section 465 IPC read with Section 109 IPC is also made out against accused Fernandez.P. 407/2007 Page 6 of 36To conclude and for ready reference, it may be mentioned again that prima facie offences under Section 120B read with Section 465/467/468/471 IPC and 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and 471 IPC read with Section 120B are made out against both the accused Fernandez and K. Kadaksham.While offence under Sections 467/468 read with 109 IPC and 465 read with Section 109 IPC are made out against accused Fernandez alone.Both the accused persons are charged accordingly."The CMM also took note of the preliminary submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner that CBI had no jurisdiction to register FIR and to investigate the matter and made the following observations:4. "To tackle first thing first, the issue of CBI not having jurisdiction to investigate the matter in Chennai needs to be dealt with at the outset.Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 empowers the Central Government to pass any order extending the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment for investigation of offences or class of offences specified by a notification and as submitted by PP for CBI vide notification dated 25/12/62/VD-II of Govt. of India dated 18.2.1963, such powers were extended for investigation in certain States including that of Madras, for certain offences including 420/465/467/468/471 IPC.No doubt, Section 5 of the Act is subject to Section 6 of the Act and consent of the said Government is to be taken by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (which include CBI) for investigating the offence in the said State but if the said consent has not been taken the entire proceedings do not get vitiated so as to discharge the accused persons who have been arrayed as such, for the offence allegedly complained of.More so, in the instant case, it is and admitted fact that the accused Fernandez had moved a petition before Honble High Court for transferring the present matter from Delhi to Chennai Crl.P. 407/2007 Page 7 of 36 which petition was dismissed and more recently it was Honble Supreme Courts order that the matter be disposed of expeditiously by this Court.Therefore, on a procedural irregularity, discharging the accused persons, to my mind is a far fetched proposition which cannot be paid heed to."P. 407/2007 Page 7 of 36The Petitioner has assailed the order framing the charge and the charges, by raising hypothetical submissions that such transaction could not have taken place looking to the averments made in the complaint that his son was a multi billionaire.d) It is also stated that no charge could have been framed against the Petitioner either under Section 420 or under Section 467 read with Section 109 IPC Crl.Three other deposits bearing Nos. TA/A/1- 845711, TA/A/1-813200 and TA/A/1-845742 were pledged for obtaining loan which was also credited to the said bank account.All the original deposit receipts except the two receipts bearing No. TA/A/1- 962221 and TA/A/1-962264 were in custody of the bank.(However, no document to prove friendship or any formal agreement has been filed on record except the plaint of the suits though denied by the respondents).P. 407/2007 Page 9 of 36 complainant towards advance consultation for promoting the Petro Chemical project.By a letter dated 30.09.2003, Mukesh Kumar was informed that the draft was not issued by the issuing bank.(As per the prosecution the letter dated 14.09.2003 is a forged document and in fact the draft handed over by the petitioner was also not geneuie.) iii.It is also alleged that upon learning from HSBC that the demand draft was a forged document, despite the fact that the demand draft had been supplied to the complainant by his son-Mukesh Kumar vide letter dated 14.09.2003 which was deposited in the bank by the complainant himself, the Petitioner has been made a scapegoat .(The third suit stands as withdrawn even after the same was decreed which, according to the Respondents, was based upon a compromise which the Petitioner wanted to enter into with the Complainant by making some payment by way of a Demand Draft, which itself was found to be ingenuine.)It was also submitted that once the civil court decreed the suit of the Petitioner as aforesaid, the findings returned in those suits became binding even on the criminal court.It is also submitted that the CBI has not at all cared to either examine the contents of the plaint or the decree despite having come to know about it during the course Crl.P. 407/2007 Page 10 of 36 of Investigation.They have conveniently adopted the specious plea of the complainant that the suits have been filed only for pressurizing the complainant not to report the matter to the police.Neither the factual matrix of the suit nor the findings of the Civil Court have even remotely been referred to in the entire chargesheet.The Petitioner has also relied upon the following judgments:P. 407/2007 Page 10 of 36a) Sardool Singh Vs.Nasib Kaur, (1987) Supp.b) Tukaram Annaba Chavan Vs.Machindra Yeshwant, (2001) 3 SCC 33, Para 10,11c) Savita Vs.State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 338, Para 8d) Shanti Kumar Panda Vs.Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 488,Para 15e) P.S. Rajya Vs.State of Bihar (1996) 4 SCALE 344, Para17,20f) V.M. Shah Vs.State of Maharashtra (1995) 5 SCALE 191,Para11g) Sunil Gulati Vs.R.K. Vohra (2007) 1 JCC 220,Para 25h) D.K. Rastogi Vs.UOI, 2007 (217) ELT (Del)The onus of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case is not applicable in the civil proceedings which can be decided merely on the basis of probabilities with respect to the acts complained of while in criminal cases we have to proceed in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different Court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.Respondents also relied upon the following judgments:The questions which arise for Crl.The learned Special Judge in his order dated 16.12.2006 rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant herein, stating:I have gone through the record citation and considered the circumstances.The prayer for discharge of accd.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,816,784 |
Brief facts of the case as set up by the prosecution are that the accused persons and the complainant side are resident of the Village Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 1 of 24 Bakhtawarpur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Alipur.The accused persons and the complainant party are distantly related to each other.However, both the parties were having strained and inimical relations prior to the occurrence and were not on speaking terms.The accused Ramesh and accused Randhir Singh are brothers.On 29.05.1993 at about 8.40 p.m. complainant Subhash Chand and PW Satish were coming to Village Bakhtawarpur on a two wheeler scooter after meeting their sister at Village Jyonty.When they reached the bus stop, accused Sudesh asked Satish Kumar why they are not returning his money since several days.On this accused Mukesh started abusing in the name of sister and pushed him.Accused Sudesh challenged him to do whatever he could and that he would not return him the balance.Subhash tried to intervene to reconcile the dispute.Thereafter accused Sudesh picked up a brick lying nearby and tried to hit that brick to PW Subhash.Subhash dived and saved himself from the brick blow.Accused Sudesh then brought a danda from a nearby Ravi Tent House and attempted to hit Subhash with that danda.Subhash got hold of that danda.Meanwhile co-accused Randhir Singh and Naresh Kumar came running to that place.They were armed with lathi.On reaching the spot, accused Randhir hit complainant Subhash with Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 2 of 24 lathi on his head as a result of which Subhash fell down on the ground.When he tried to get up from the ground, Naresh gave him a lathi blow on his shoulder from the back side.During this period Satish got a chance to call Ajit, brother of the complainant Subhash Chand.Ajit reached at the spot and intervened in the matter to save Subhash from the hands of the accused persons.Accused Naresh caught hold of Ajit from his left side and accused Mukesh caught hold of Ajit from his right side and accused Ramesh grabbed Ajit from behind.Accused Randhir shouted and exhorted his son Sudesh by saying "MAAR SALE KO, JAAN SE KHATAM KAR DE." Thereafter, accused Sudesh took out a knife from the right side of his pant and stabbed Ajit on the left side of his chest, as a result of which Ajit fell down on the ground.Many persons of the village including one Sukhpal having his shop at Bakhtawarpur collected at the spot.The accused persons ran away from the spot after the occurrence.In the scuffle accused Mukesh, Naresh, Ramesh and one Asha who had reached at the spot also received injuries at the hands of Subhash and Satish when they tried to save themselves.Ajit was removed in a private Maruti Van to the Hospital at Azadpur.H.K.Khanna running in the name of Khanna Nursing Home at Sarai Peepal, Azadpur, Delhi Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 3 of 24 medically examined injured Ajit and found no pulse or heart beatings and referred the patient to Hindu Rao Hospital.The injured Ajit was thereafter brought by the complainant and other persons in the said Maruti Van at Police Station Alipur.After getting the information about such occurrence Dharam Singh father of injured Ajit Singh also reached at the Police Station from the spot.At 9.30 p.m. the police of PCR van was informed by someone about the occurrence at the spot.Head Constable H.C. Jain Singh of PCR Van reached along with Driver and Constable and removed two male and one female that is, Ramesh, Naresh and Asha to Hindu Rao Hospital and got them admitted there.The intimation regarding the occurrence was also received by the lady Constable Pista Sharma at about 9.20 p.m. She passed on this information to Police Station, Alipur where DD No. 18A was recorded at about 9.25 p.m. ASI Balbir Singh along with Constable Vinod reached at the spot on the basis of DD No.18A. On reaching at the spot he came to know that the injured person had already been removed to the hospital.From the spot he left for the hospital via Police Station Alipur.On reaching PS Alipur he found injured Ajit Singh in a Maruti Van to have been brought by Subhash, Satish and Rakesh.Ajit Singh shifted from Maruti Van to the Police vehicle and was brought at Hindu Rao Hospital where he was declared brought dead by the concerned Crl.p.m. SHO/Inspector Gurmeet Singh of PS Alipur on getting the receipt of the information at wireless at about 9.30 p.m. also reached at the spot and from there to Hindu Rao Hospital.At the Hospital ASI Balbir Singh handed over to him the MLCs of Naresh, Ramesh, Subhash and Asha and that of the deceased.Inspector Gurmeet Singh recorded the statement of complainant Subhash and made his endorsement over the same and got the present case registered by sending Rukka through Constable Ravinder Singh.Inspector Gurmeet Singh also recorded the statement of Rakesh and Satish at the Hospital.He arrested accused Naresh, Ramesh and Sudesh at the Hospital and conducted their personal searches and prepared their personal search memos.The dead body of the deceased Ajit was got sent through Devender Kumar of mortuary.From the hospital Inspector Gurmeet Singh along with his police staff reached at the spot and recorded the statement of one Sukhpal.He prepared the site plan at the pointing out of Sukhpal.On 30.05.1993 he conducted the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased and prepared his inquest reports and brief facts.Post mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr.Ashok Jaiswal on 30.05.1993 at about 12.30 p.m. Two injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased which were opined to be anti mortem in nature.Injury No.1 was opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Death in this case was opined to be due to haemorrhage shock consequent to injuries.Time since death was opined to be about 15 hours.The doctor who had conducted the post mortem preserved the blood sample and the clothes of the deceased and handed over the same to the police.The accused Sudesh was interrogated at the police station and his disclosure statement was recorded.He disclosed to get the weapon of offence recovered but despite efforts no weapon of offence could be recovered by the police.On 31.05.1993 accused Mukesh was arrested and his personal search was conducted.Thereafter, accused Randhir surrendered himself in the court and he was arrested there by the police.During the investigation of the case, IO collected the MLCs of Naresh, Ramesh and Subhash.Injuries on the person of Naresh and Ramesh were opined to be simple.Injuries on the person of Subhash were also opined to be simple.Injuries on the person of Mukesh are opined to be grievous by the concerned doctor.Learned counsel also pleaded for leniency to the accused persons who are in close relation with the deceased and his family and also the residents of the same village.Learned counsel submitted that appellant No.3 has already undergone a sentence for a period of 7 and 1/2 years.So far as appellant No.4 Sudesh Kumar is concerned, learned counsel submitted that he is aged about 43 years and he has to look after his wife and three minor children aged about 12 years, 9 years and 4 years respectively and he too remained in custody for a period of 7 and 1/2 years.Appellant No.5 Ramesh is aged about 56 years and also has to look after his wife and two children and he also remained in custody for a period Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 12 of 24 of 7 and 1/2 years.As per the prosecution case, on 29th May, 1993 at about 8.40 p.m. the complainant Subhash Chand and PW Satish Kumar were coming from the village Bakhtawarpur on a two wheeler scooter after meeting their sister at village Jyonty.Subhash somehow saved himself from the blow of the brick and then Sudesh brought a danda from a nearby Ravi Tent House and attempted to hit Subhash with that danda.Subhash got hold of that danda and in the meanwhile the other co-accused Randhir Singh and Naresh Kumar armed with lathi came running to the said place and on reaching at the spot, accused Randhir hit complainant Subhash with lathi on his head, as a result of which, Subhash fell down on the ground.When he tried to get up from the ground, accused Naresh gave him a lathi blow on his shoulder from the back side.It is during this period Satish had called Ajit, brother of the complainant Subhash Chand from the gher.Ajit reached at the spot and intervened in the matter to save Subhash from the hands of the accused persons but by that time, another co- accused Ramesh also had reached there at the spot.The appellants have preferred the present appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 22.10.1997 and order on sentence dated 24.10.1997 thereby convicting the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month each under Sections 323/34 IPC.The accused Ramesh also reached there at the spot.Then the accused Randhir gave a lathi blow on the waist of Ajit.Injury No.1 was opined to have been caused by Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 5 of 24 sharp edged weapon.During the investigation of this case, IO got sent the sealed pulandas of this case to CFSL, Lodhi Road and thereafter collected the CFSL reports.IO recorded the statement of concerned witnesses at the different stages of investigation and after completion of the investigation filed the challan against the accused persons for the commission of offence Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 6 of 24 punishable U/s 302/308/34 IPC in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.After complying with the provision of 207 Cr.P.C. the Ld.The charges were framed under Section 302/308 read with Section 34 IPC against all the accused persons.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. No. 403/1997 Page 1 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 2 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 3 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 4 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 5 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 6 of 24To prove the said charges against the accused persons the prosecution had examined 22 witnesses, which includes three eye witnesses.Learned Sessions Judge recorded the statement of all the accused persons under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and all the accused persons had denied the allegation of the prosecution in their respective statements.The accused Randhir Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. took a stand that the deceased Ajit had trespassed into their house and had caused injuries to the inmates.He also stated that neither he nor his son Sudesh were present in the house at the time when Ajit had criminally trespassed into their house.He also stated that the deceased Ajit had received injuries when he had trespassed in their house.Similar is the defence raised by the accused Naresh Kumar and other accused persons as well.However, no defence evidence was adduced by the accused persons.Learned Sessions Judge after having analysed the evidence adduced Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 7 of 24 by the prosecution witnesses, MLC reports on record, which includes the MLCs of the accused persons and the post-mortem report Exhibit PW 10/A concluded that homicidal death of Ajit was caused by the accused persons in the manner as deposed by the eye witnesses.The learned Judge also disbelieved the defence raised by the accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the incident had occurred at the residence of Randhir Singh when Ajit had trespassed in the said house.It is a matter of record that no evidence was led by the accused persons to show that the occurrence had taken place at the house of accused Randhir Singh.Learned Sessions Judge also observed that the nature of the injuries caused by the assailants was on the vital part of the body i.e. chest of the deceased with sharp edged weapon and that clearly showed that the intention of the accused persons was to murder Ajit.Learned Sessions Court also observed that the intention of committing murder of the deceased also stands proved from the fact that the deceased Ajit was caught hold by the accused Naresh and Mukesh from left and right side respectively and the accused Ramesh grabbed him from behind and then the accused Randhir exhorted accused Sudesh to kill Ajit.The learned Sessions Judge also observed that these facts have not been controverted in the cross-examination of any witnesses so it clearly stood established that the offence committed by the accused Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 8 of 24 persons was culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.So far as the charge under Section 308 IPC is concerned, learned Sessions Judge found that looking at the nature of injuries suffered by victim Subhash at the hands of the accused persons, no offence under Section 308 IPC stands proved against them but they were certainly liable for an offence under Section 323 IPC.On the point of sentence of the accused persons, the sentence to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500 each was imposed upon them and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.The accused persons were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for committing an offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.Both the said sentences were directed to run concurrently.A. No. 403/1997 Page 7 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 8 of 24Feeling aggrieved by the said order the appellants have approached this Court to challenge the said judgment on conviction and order on sentence.Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellants Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr.Advocate in all raised three principal contentions to assail the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.The first contention raised by counsel for the appellants was that the weapon of offence was not recovered from the spot and in the absence of the same the prosecution failed to Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 9 of 24 establish that the accused Sudesh had caused stab injuries on the chest of the deceased Ajit with a knife.The other contention raised by the counsel for the appellants was that even as per the case set up by the prosecution fight between the two parties had taken place at the spur of the moment and therefore, it could not even remotely be inferred that there was a prior meeting of minds or there was any kind of pre-planning amongst the accused persons to kill Ajit.Counsel also submitted that even as per the prosecution case the accused Sudesh had thrown a brick on the complainant Subhash and when Subhash had saved himself from the brick attack then the accused Sudesh lifted one danda from Ravi Tent house and wielded the same at the complainant.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellants was that admittedly the accused Sudesh was not carrying either the brick or lathi with him and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any premeditated plan of Sudesh or other accused persons to cause injury to the victim Satish and other victims including Ajit.Counsel also argued that even Randhir and Naresh were not armed with lathis and Randhir was not even aware of the fact that Naresh was carrying knife in his pocket.Counsel also argued that the accused Randhir exhorted the accused Sudesh to kill the Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 10 of 24 deceased in a fit of anger not even knowing the fact that Sudesh would bring out a knife from his pocket so as to stab the deceased on the left side of his abdomen.A. No. 403/1997 Page 9 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 10 of 24Based on these submissions, counsel argued that the fight between the parties was sudden and there was no premeditated plan or design to murder Ajit, who entered the scene of the crime later in time after the initial fight between Sudesh and Satish on account of return of the balance amount of Rs. 20/-.A. No. 403/1997 Page 11 of 24 seven children.Learned counsel also submitted that appellant No.1 was working as Baildar in the MCD and his services were terminated due to his involvement in the criminal case.Learned counsel also submitted that appellant No.1 had remained in the custody for a period of 7 years.Learned counsel further submitted that so far as appellant No.2 Naresh Kumar is concerned, he is aged about 46 years and he has to look after his wife and four children out of which two are married and other two are aged about 20 and 11 years respectively.As per counsel version, appellant no. 2 Naresh Kumar was also terminated from his job due to this case.Learned counsel submitted that appellant No.2 had also remained in custody for a period of 7 and 1/2 years.With regard to appellant No.3 Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel submitted that he is aged about 48 years and he has to look after his wife and one minor daughter who is aged about two years.Learned counsel submitted that the Jail conduct of these appellants always remained satisfactory and putting them behind bars again would disturb their mental equilibrium and will cause immense hardship to their family members who are solely dependent on them.Learned counsel also submitted that these appellants have never misused their liberty after they were released on bail.A. No. 403/1997 Page 11 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 12 of 24The present appeal has been strongly opposed by Mr.Sunil Sharma, learned APP for the State.Learned counsel submitted that there was a previous enmity between the appellants and the family members of the deceased due to which the deceased was killed by the appellants in a well designed premeditated plan.Learned counsel also submitted that for a premeditated plan it is not necessary that there has to be a prior meeting of minds as such a preconcert or preplanning may develop on the spot or during the course of commission of the offence.Learned counsel further submitted that all the appellants were involved in the commission of the said crime as the accused Naresh caught hold of deceased Ajit from his left side and accused Mukesh caught hold of deceased Ajit from his right side and accused Ramesh grabbed deceased Ajit from behind.Accused Randhir shouted and exhorted his son Sudesh by saying "MAAR SALE KO, JAAN SE KHATAM KAR DE." Thereafter, accused Sudesh took out a knife from Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 13 of 24 the right side of his pant and stabbed deceased Ajit on the left side of his chest.Learned counsel also submitted that every accused was personally involved and played his role in committing the murder of Ajit and therefore, common intention on the part of the appellants was writ large otherwise there could not have been any occasion for these persons to have snatched the precious life of a young man of about 25 years of age.A. No. 403/1997 Page 13 of 24We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them.We have also the advantage of going through the Trial Court record.The crucial question which arises in the facts and circumstances of the present case is whether the appellants have been rightly convicted for the capital offence as envisaged under Section 302 IPC or whether the conviction is warranted for a lesser offence that is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part-I or II of IPC.The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the case of the appellants fell squarely within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC which reads as under:-Exception 4- Culpable homicide is not murder, it if is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.A. No. 403/1997 Page 14 of 24It was contended that the incident in question had taken place at spur of the moment resulting in a sudden fight without any premeditation and in fact at the beginning of the fight neither Randhir Singh nor the deceased Ajit were present at the spot.After the complainant Subhash Chand and Satish Kumar had reached at bus stop (Bus stop of village Bakhtawarpur), the accused appellant No.4 Sudesh Kumar asked Satish Kumar why he was not returning his money since several days and on this, Satish had immediately paid Rs.250/- to the accused Sudesh.After receiving the sum of Rs.250/-the accused Sudesh Kumar demanded back the balance amount of Rs.20/- and when the said amount of Rs.20/- was not returned by Satish Kumar then accused Mukesh started abusing in the name of sister and pushed him aside.Sudesh, then challenged him to do whatever he could but he would not return him the balance amount of Rs.20/-.The complainant Subhash had tried to intervene to reconcile the dispute but without paying any heed to his intervention, the accused Sudesh Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 15 of 24 Kumar picked up a brick lying nearby and tried to hit that brick to PW Subhash.Further the case of the prosecution is that accused Randhir had given a lathi blow on the waist of Ajit and thereafter accused Naresh caught hold of Ajit from his left side and accused Mukesh caught hold of Ajit from his right side and accused Ramesh grabbed Ajit from behind and accused Randhir shouted and exhorted his son Sudesh by saying "MAAR SALE KO, JAAN SE KHATAM KAR DE" and thereafter, accused Sudesh took out a knife from the right side of his pant and stabbed Ajit on the left side of Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 16 of 24 his chest.A. No. 403/1997 Page 15 of 24A. No. 403/1997 Page 16 of 24The aforesaid narration, in our view, amply demonstrates that in the very beginning the fight had taken place between Subhash Chand and Satish Kumar on one hand and Sudesh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar on the other.Indisputably, Ajit who ultimately became victim of the said crime was nowhere available at the scene of crime as he had joined later after being called by Satish Kumar from the gher.Similarly, accused Randhir Singh, Naresh Kumar and Ramesh from the side of the accused persons had also joined later in the fight with the complainant party.In the background of such facts, it is unfathomable to comprehend that there was a premeditated plan or there was a common intention on the part of the accused persons to murder Ajit.It is an admitted fact that the accused Sudesh Kumar had lifted a brick so as to hit Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 17 of 24 Subhash and thereafter he had gone to bring a danda from a nearby Ravi Tent House.It is also an admitted fact that the deceased had received one stab injury on the left side of his chest below the nipple with a sharp edged weapon.The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention."A. No. 403/1997 Page 20 of 24In Sunder Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (6) SCALE 649, the two accused armed with Gandasi and a lathi respectively had inflicted one blow on the head of the deceased with a Gandasi and a lathi respectively and several injuries on the hands and the legs with the Gandasi and the stick; the circumstances were that the intention to kill the deceased was found wanting and in the background of this fact, the Supreme Court took a view that the attack being at a spur of the moment and indiscriminate, constituted an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part- I IPC.Here also the deceased Ajit entered into the scene of the crime later while the fight was going on between the complainant Subhash Chand and Satish on one hand and the accused persons Sudesh and Mukesh on the other hand.A. No. 403/1997 Page 22 of 24 years.Nominal roll do not evidence their involvement in any other offence and do not even raise any doubts on the conduct of the appellants during their period of incarceration.We have been informed that even after granting bail the appellants were not found involved in any criminal activity and they are leading their respective lives peacefully with their family members.A. No. 403/1997 Page 22 of 24Taking into consideration the individual profile of these appellants as stated above, we are of the view that the sentence already undergone by these appellants would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.We are also of the view that the appellants must be burdened to pay a reasonable amount of compensation in terms of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to compensate the parents and widow of the deceased and looking into the status of the appellants, we feel that these individuals shall pay a compensation amount of Rs 25, 000/- each to the parents and the widow of the deceased within a period of one month from the date of this order.Present appeal filed by the appellants is accordingly disposed of modifying the conviction of the appellants from that of punishable under Section 302 IPC to that of Part-I of Section 304 IPC.The order of conviction dated 22.10.1997 and order of sentence dated 24.10.1997 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants u/s Crl.A. No. 403/1997 Page 23 of 24 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life respectively are set aside.The appellants are convicted under Section 304 Part I instead and sentenced to the period already undergone by them.The order of conviction and sentence u/s 323/34 of IPC is upheld.A. No. 403/1997 Page 23 of 24
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,170,608 |
Applicant's first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 04.09.2017 passed in M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the applicant's first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on 04.09.2014 on merits, but thereafter the complainant, applicant and co-accused Lokendra Singh have resolved their disputes and have compromised the matter.C. No. 10903/2017, wherein the filed compromise by the complainant and accused persons has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Bench on 06.10.2017 and the alleged offences were not against the society at large.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the FIR, the applicant Vinod assaulted the complainant with fists and kicks and though the co-accused Lokendra fired by gun but no gunshot injury was caused to the complainant and 2 complainant's injuries were simple in nature.Per contra, learned appearing Public Prosecutor contends that the offence for attempting to commit culpable homicide punishable under Section 308 of IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions and for offences punishable under Section 307 or 308 of IPC, it is not necessary that injury capable of causing death of the person concerned should have been caused and the alleged compromise between the complainant and concerned accused could not provided any ground for anticipatory bail in relation to such serious offence.After perusing the concerned case diary and previous order dated 04.09.2017, it is clear that previous anticipatory bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits and looking to the seriousness of the alleged offence, it could not be accepted that due to compromise between the parties, applicant has become entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail, therefore, the repeat anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant is hereby dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge Abhi
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,179,863 |
According to prosecution on 12/04/2012 at about 8.00-9.00 am prosecutrix aged 20 years while was coming back after collecting Mahua fruits, on the way, met the petitioner.Petitioner threatened her of life and asked to accompany him.Petitioner proposed her for marriage saying that if she says no, he will commit suicide.In response to the phone call of the petitioner, one of his friend along with other persons reached to spot and took the petitioner and prosecutrix back to their houses.Present revision has been preferred against order dated 9/08/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rehali, District-Sagar in Criminal Case No. 354/2012 framing charge under section 342, 366, and 506(2) IPC against the petitioner.Next day morning prosecutrix lodged report against the petitioner at police station Rehali, District-Sagar and a case was registered at crime no. 244/2012 under section 342/506 IPC.After investigation police submitted a charge sheet under section 365 IPC also.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
714,713 |
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Since the only question involved in this appeal iswhether learned Single Judge was justified in reducing thesentence, as imposed by the High Court on the respondent,detailed reference to the factual aspects is unnecessary.The respondent faced trial for offences punishableunder Sections 376(1) read with Section 511 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') and Sections 324 and452 IPC.For the first offence, he was sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-with default stipulations.For the second offence, he wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year witha fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.Similarly, for thelast offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- withdefault stipulations.He preferred an appeal before the High Court and theHigh Court, by the impugned order, held that since therespondent had undergone imprisonment for about fivemonths and 25 days, the sentence should be reduced to theperiod already undergone in respect of the first offence.The law regulates social interests, arbitratesconflicting claims and demands.The respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,473,007 |
and District Yavatmal.It is stated that the applicant, at the relevant time, was working as a Medical Officer at Public Health Center, Manora, District Washim.Non-applicant No. 1 was working as a Medical Officer on temporary basis at Ayurvedic Hospital, Bangaon, Tah.DATED :- 01/10/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) :Rule is made returnable forthwith.Heard Shri Bargat, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Kariya, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.1 and Shri Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No. 2/State.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 09:52:18 :::This is an application for quashing of First Information Report No. 463/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 354(A) (1) of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Yavatmal City, Tah.Ner, District Yavatmal.In the impugned First Information Report, she alleges that the applicant being a District Medical Officer did not consider her representation for her increment and salary and when she sent a message through one Dr. Durge, applicant informed that she should meet him personally at his home, with the intention to have sexual favours from her.A perusal of the entire case diary and specially the report of District Women Redressal Committee do not support the case of the non-applicant No. 1 in the First Information Report.Furthermore, the allegations as set out in the First Information Report do not disclose commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.It would be a sheer abuse of process of law, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued against the applicant.In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow the::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 09:52:18 ::: 3 932apl672.16.odt application and the same is accordingly allowed.The First Information Report No. 463/2016 registered at Police Station Yavatmal City, Tah.& District Yavatmal is hereby quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 09:52:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 09:52:18 :::
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,476,149 |
Item no. 34 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.5951 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09.08.2018 in connection with Chanditala Police Station Case No. 246/18 dated 18.06.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.And In Re:-Amir Ali ... Petitioner Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Krishnendu De, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Tanmoy Khan, Advocate ..for the defacto complainant Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate Mr. Md. Kutubuddin, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Chanditala Police Station Case No. 246/18 dated 18.06.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The State and the defacto complainant are represented.The defacto complainant claims that some of the Stridhan articles have not yet been returned though several others have been returned.The principal concern of the defacto complainant is that the birth certificate of the son has been retained by the petitioner.The State corroborates the return of the substantial part of the Stridhan.The petitioner refers to a copy of the birth certificate of the son and says that same was issued by the Bandel Gram Panchayat.2 Bandel Gram Panchayat is where the defacto complainant now stays with her parents.Considering the material on record, there may not be any need to detain the petitioner in custody.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
714,807 |
Briefly narrated the facts are that the deceased Meena, daughter of PW 1 Mohandas was married to accused/appellant No. 1 Rajesh Kumar about 4 or 5 years prior to the occurrence.Matadin was her father-in-law.Both of them used to commit cruelty upon her and harass her.They demanded a sum of Rs. 1500/- as dowry.JUDGMENT T. Shankar, J.This appeal has been preferred by the appellants /accused against the order of conviction and sentence passed against them under Sections 306 and 498A of the I.P.C. Both the accused persons were convicted under Section 306, I.P.C. and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 500/- each.They were further convicted under Section 498A and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment.Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.Rajesh had also written letters in this regard to Mohandas and had also extended threats.The deceased, Meena, was burnt to death by the accused persons and no intimation was given to the father.He was informed after about 10 to 15 days by Smt. Gomti Devi.He thereafter went to Police Station Mehgaon and lodged a report.Usual investigation took place and a charge- sheet was submitted against the accused/appellants.The Trial Court considered the entire evidence produced before it and concluded that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused/appellants.It, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.Hence, this appeal.This dying declaration could not be relied upon because the circumstances brought on record go to show that she was not in a position to give a statement.There were extensive burns as stated by the doctor in his report as well.The learned Counsel for the appellant lastly argued that in any case as the accused Rajesh is a young person and was about 20 or 21 years of age at the time of occurrence, the benefit of probation be extended to him.He has also been in jail for about 15 days.The deceased was admittedly the wife of the accused /appellant Rajesh Kumar and the daughter-in-law of the deceased/accused Matadin.She died due to burn injuries.The prosecution examined PW 9 Lallobai, mother of the deceased and PW 13 Mohandas, father of the deceased.Both these witnesses have deposed that there was a demand of Rs. 1500/- by the accused persons.Accused/appellant Rajesh had also sent letters.There are several letters on record which go to show that there was a demand of Rs. 1,500/-.It corroborates the statement of the two witnesses.The most important material on record to show that the lady was being subjected to cruelty is the dying-declaration recorded by Dr. Virendra Prakash Sharma (PW 8).A perusal of the statement of PW 8 goes to show that he was Asstt.Surgeon in Primary Health Centre, Mehgaon, on 7.5.86 and on that dated at 11.55 a.m. Constable Keshavdayal of Police Station Mehgaon brought Meena before his for Medical examination.He had medically examined her and had found burn injuries.Her condition was precarious but she was in senses.He gave her first aid, on the request of the police be recorded dying declaration on the same day at 11.55 a.m. and at that time compounder O.P. Gupta and Nurse T. Munjal were present.The lady was in a fit state to give statement.He has narrated the statement made by the deceased.A perusal of this statement clearly shows that the lady stated that there had been regular quarrel for 15 days.Her husband used to say that she should die and if she did not agree, he will abscond and leave her.He was also performing a second marriage.In the morning a ten rupees note was lost by her.There was exchange of words with her Devar.Her husband said that he will die.She said that he should not.Her father-in-law threw tea over her.There was also a quarrel with the Devar.She, therefore, put herself to fire.This statement clearly goes to show the circumstances under which she burnt herself.The learned Trial Court considered the entire material on record and also took into consideration the provision of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. After considering the entire material in greater detail it held that the case against the accused Rajesh Kumar and Matadin under Section 306 as well as under Section 498A was proved.I have already mentioned the statement of the two witnesses as well as the dying declaration and have also gone through the entire material on record.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
714,867 |
Their case is, the appellant/A1, Forest Range Officer, while he was going in the jeep driven by one Chinnakolandai/A2, in the Kattampatti Road, near Dharmapuri-Pennagaram Road, opened fire from his DBBL gun on the driver Basha, who was driving the lorry bearing Registration No.ADA 4869, by intercepting the lorry, and then, he loaded 64 sandalwood logs weighing 276 kgs and kept a SPML country gun in order to make it appear that the driver of the lorry was smuggling the same without valid authority and also lodged a complaint at about 11 am in that regard.To prove their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 besides marking Exs.On 3.6.1988, when he went to get money from one Mahonaran, he was asked by the said Manoharan to go along with P.W.2 and the deceased to smuggle sandalwood logs.As such, at about 3 am, the deceased was driving the lorry bearing Registration No.ADA 4869 and he was sitting next to the deceased and P.W.2 and cleaner Jahir were sitting next to him.After filling petrol and taking rest, they reached Dharmapuri and from there, they proceeded to Pennagaram.While going near Athanoor, a green colour jeep bearing registration No.TNT 2296, was coming behind their lorry.When he asked the deceased to go slow, the deceased turned towards Kattampatti Road and the vehicle got stopped.All got down from the lorry and started running.The jeep was parked behind the lorry.Suddenly, he heard the noise of gun shooting.Immediately, he turned and saw A2 and two others and A2 shooting the deceased.The deceased was found dead near the lorry with wound on his head.The injuries were found on the back side of the body of the deceased.She was treated as hostile witness.(d) P.W.7, Watcher of Tamil Nadu Forest Department, deposed that he knew the accused, but he did not know about the occurrence.He was also treated as hostile witness.He deposed that he knew the deceased and he heard that the deceased was shot dead by the first accused.(f) P.W.10, the then Inspector of Police, on receipt a copy of the FIR at about 12 noon from the Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint on 5.6.1988 at about 11 am and registered the FIR, Ex.P8 in Crime No.108/88 under Section 302 IPC, commenced the investigation by reaching the crime scene.He prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P1 and rough sketch, Ex.He conducted inquest over the dead body.P11 is the inquest report.He recovered some material objects from the body of the deceased under mahazar Exs.He recovered the sandalwood logs from the lorry under Ex.P5 and the lorry under Ex.Thereafter, he recorded the statements.He sent the material objects for chemical examination with requisition, Ex.P15 to the Magistrate.That apart, even though it can be adduced from the available evidence that the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 boarded the empty lorry in the morning to load sandalwood, since the prosecution has not established that it is the appellant who loaded sandalwood logs as well as gun on the lorry after the occurrence, but before the complaint was lodged in order to make it appear that the deceased was smuggling sandalwood and in the attempt to apprehend him, the occurrence took place, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant on other charges.He was taken to the Forest Office, along with others.When they were enquired as to whether they came to smuggle sandalwood logs, they replied yes.He also stated that he could identify the gun used for shooting the deceased and that the gun shown in the Court was not used for shooting the deceased.However, he was treated as hostile witness.He was asked by one Mani to bring lorry from one Manoharan of Kallipatti to load woods.He, along with the deceased, P.W.1 and cleaner went to Hosur in the lorry.When they reached Kattampatti, they saw a green colour forest jeep with forest officials coming.On noticing the forest jeep, the driver drove the lorry fast, but the lorry stopped.Immediately, cleaner, followed by him and P.W.1, started running.While running nearly a furlong, he heard the noise of shooting in the gun and the forest officials caught them.He saw the driver lying dead with wound caused by the gun.He was taken to the forest office where he fainted.When he was enquired as to the occurrence, he stated that he did not know anything.Hence, he was treated as hostile witness.(c) P.W.3, an agricultural coolie, residing at Rangapuram Kattukottai, deposed that when she was sleeping, she heard a noise and since she delivered baby at that time, she did not go.But, when she went later, she saw a person lying dead with head injuries, near a lorry.P.W.11 is the Head Clerk who sent material objects for chemical examination and received the chemical analyst's reports Exs.P17 and P18 and Serologist report Ex.P.W.15 is the Scientific Assistant who issued Pellets report, Exs.(g) P.W.10 sent the body for postmortem, with requisition, Ex.P21 is the post mortem certificate wherein it was opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and internal haemorrhage due to the injuries to the vital organs of the body.(h) In the meanwhile, P.W.14 was appointed by the Government to conduct Magisterial enquiry and accordingly, he conducted enquiry and submitted his report, Ex.P.W.13, who was then working as P.A. to the Revenue Divisional Officer, deposed that on receipt of the report from P.W.14, he prepared a document and sent it to the Inspector of Police.(i) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, who succeeded P.W.10 on his retirement, continued the investigation and recorded the statements of the Doctor who conducted postmortem and the corpse constable.(j) P.W.16, Inspector of Police, who succeeded P.W.12, on completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet, Ex.P22 on 27.3.2003 against the appellant/A1 under Sections 302 read with 203, IPC, Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act read with Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act, and against A2 under Section 302 read with 109, IPC.The case was committed to Court of Sessions and charges were framed and since the accused denied their complicity in the offence, the case was taken up for trial.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts.The learned trial judge, on perusal of the materials, oral and documentary and after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the appellant/1st accused as aforementioned and acquitted the 2nd accused.Hence, the present appeal by the 1st accused.(b) when the second accused was acquitted disbelieving the evidence, the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the very same evidence is erroneous;(c) the contradictions in material particulars in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would make their evidence untrustworthy; andIn the light of the above, a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who were travelling with the deceased in the lorry at the time of occurrence, would make it clear that the appellant was implicated to the extent he was chasing the lorry driven by the deceased and that there was no one present at the scene except the appellant.Further, the appellant himself lodged the complaint Ex.P8 wherein he has stated that he opened fire on the deceased exercising the right of self-defence.It is the admitted version of the appellant in the FIR, Ex.P9 that he only shot the deceased with gun.The medical evidence also makes it crystal clear that the deceased died due to injuries found on his back.Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the deceased died only due to homicidal violence, that too at the hands of the appellant herein.The prosecution has not come forward with any specific motive, nor there is any material available on record to show some animosity between the appellant and the deceased.The fact remains that the appellant is a public servant working as Forest Range Officer and while discharging his official duty at the time of occurrence, he intercepted the lorry on suspicion of smuggling sandalwood and when the deceased got down from the lorry, the appellant is said to have shot the deceased with knowledge that it would cause the death of the deceased.Further, it is not the case of the appellant that he fired a shot or two in the air cautioning the inmates of the lorry.It is the case of the appellant that the deceased was involving in smuggling sandalwood and other contraband and when the appellant intercepted the lorry while discharging his duty, since the deceased attempted to attack the appellant and to flee away from the scene of occurrence, in order to exercise his right of self defence, the appellant was forced to shoot the deceased.But, the learned trial Judge rejected the said plea on the ground that same was not taken at the earliest stage during the examination of the prosecution witnesses and it was taken only at the time of deposition of the appellant.At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the medical evidence shows that the deceased sustained injuries on his back and if the deceased, as narrated by the appellant, had attempted to attack him, injuries would not have been inflicted on the back of the deceased.As already noticed, the medical evidence shows that the deceased sustained bullet injuries on his back which proves the case of prosecution that the deceased, chased by the appellant, got down from the lorry and started running from the scene and the appellant shot at him.As the case of the prosecution is corroborated by the medical evidence from the perusal of post mortem certificate Ex.P21, we do not see any substance in the defence plea of self defence.It is pertinent to note that even according to the appellant as D.W.1, he intercepted the lorry during the discharge of his official duty and stopped the lorry on information of smuggling.In the result,(i) the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead, the appellant is convicted under section 304, Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months;(ii) the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 36-A and E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act read with Section 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the above charges.The fine amount paid for the above offences shall be refunded to the appellant; and(iii) The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellant and to commit him to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
714,871 |
The accused 1 to 3 are brothers.The fourth accused who is friend of accused 1 to 3 is working as a driver.There was a land dispute between the accused 1 to 3 and P.W.1 Thippey Baby with regard to a land measuring about 4 acres and 30 cents and a Civil Suit is also pending.On 16.10.2003 at 1.30p.m.,, when P.W.1 went to the radish field, the accused 1 to 3 came there and the first accused tried to attack P.W.1 on her head with the wooden log and as she warded of with the hands, the attack fell on her left hand and also on her cheek.Then she lost her teeth and the second accused beat P.W.1 on her right elbow with pick axe(bfhj;J).The third and fourth accused kicked her with legs on her hips and thigh.As P.W.2, P.W.4 and others rushed to the scene, the accused dropping M.O.1 and M.O.2 ran away from the scene.P.W.2 and P.W.4 brought a jeep and took P.W.1 to the Government Hospital and P.W.3 Doctor examined her and noticed the following injuries:"i) Jaw Bone Fracture?ii) Swelling of upper and lower lipiii) Contusion on left upper arms 5 cms diaiv) Laceration 2 cms dia circular Rt.elbow.The Doctor issued Ex.P.2, accident register and also Ex.P.3 wound certificate.The Doctor also opined that the injuries 1 to 4 are grievous injuries.P.W.7 Sub Inspector of Police on receiving information from the Government Hospital went to the F.S.Ward ans seen P.W.1 who was admitted as inpatient and received the complaint Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No.152 of 2003 at 9.30p.m.for offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 325 and 307 IPC.P.8 is the FIR.He arrested the accused 3 and 4 on 17.10.2003 at 6.30a.m., near Kerada bus stand.P.W.8 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch and recovered M.Os.1 to 4, at the scene of occurrence under Ex.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that P.W.1 is a victim aged 65 years at the time of occurrence had given evidence about she being attacked by the accused.The occurrence also being witnessed by her son P.W.2 who was at the distance working in the upper portion of the field and also was witnessed by P.W.4 whose house is next to the field.The medical evidence shows that P.W.1 sustained injury due to violence and also sustained fracture and was also admitted in the hospital as inpatient.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 injured witness being corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses, has not been relied on by the learned Sessions Judge for some erroneous reasons.The appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses has not been done by the learned Sessions Judge with the Judicial approach.Ultimately the evidence of P.W.1 has been entirely ignored and it had resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the petitioner herein.The learned Senior Counsel Mr.As there was a civil dispute between the parties, there was a possibility of witnesses to depose falsely against the accused.(ii) In Ex.The inclusion of the fourth accused affects the prosecution case.(vi) According to P.W.1, the place of occurrence was only radish filed and according to P.W.2 it was on the pathway and according to the Investigating Officer, it was only the turnip field.The occurrence had taken place only in the date time, ie., at 1.30p.m., that too in the field.Admittedly there has been a land dispute between P.W.1 and the accused party.While so, when P.W.1 injured witness says that she was assaulted by the accused, there must be strong reasons to reject her evidence.The evidence of injured witness alone can be relied on without any corroboration from other witnesses, if it is corroborated by medical evidence.Further whether P.W.4 can be considered as an independent witness or not, his house being nearer to the scene of occurrence, his presence at the scene of occurrence is natural.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,447,950 |
The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused published in their Tamil Daily, Dinamalar dated 29.01.2012 misleading, false article titled "thH;thjhuj;ij cah;j;j ,g;goa[k; Ioah "ft[z;lh"fshf khwp tUk; td;dpah;fs;"According to the respondent/complainant the said article was published with an intention to defame the complainant and his community people and their social status.The learned Judicial Magitrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 153 A, 500, 501(ii), 502(ii), 503, 504 and 505 1(C) and 2 of IPC r/w. 109 IPC against the petitioners herein and issued summons to them.
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,453,190 |
Theprovisions of IPC for creation of false record of Cooperative Societyfor misappropriation of public money can also be used if there ismaterial of such nature.The crime is registered on the basis of ordermade by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Ahmednagar to ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 ::: Cri.Both the sides are heard.4) It appears that the Registrar of Cooperative Societiesgave direction to the society to take action on the basis of the auditreport.The Managing Committee made the Secretary a member ofsociety and gave loan of Rs. Two lakh to him.It appears that thesaid amount was adjusted as against the amount due to the societydue to aforesaid incident of misappropriation.As there wasinsistence for taking action, the Board of Directors then issued showcause notice to Secretary and made order of dismissal, but withoutholding any domestic inquiry.RESERVED ON : 24/09/2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 01/10/2018JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]1) Both the proceedings are filed under section 482 ofCriminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' forshort) for relief of quashing and setting aside the C.R. No. 6/2006registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar for offencespunishable under sections 406, 408, 420 r/w. 34 and 120-B ofIndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 :::2) Respondent No. 2, the original complainant is a memberof Cooperative Credit Society of the employees of AhmednagarDistrict Agricultural Department Vivid Karyakari Sahakari Patsanstha(hereinafter referred to as 'society' for short) which is involved in thematter.The applicants from Criminal Application No. 1935/2007 areelected Directors of this society and the applicants of otherproceeding were Directors of the society in the past.3) In the audit report of the society conducted in the year2004-05 the auditor reported that there were many irregularities inthe society.He pointed out difference in the account of societyopened in District Cooperative Bank and the record of the society.Byusing modus operandi like showing more amount as deposited in theDistrict Bank in the record of society and by depositing less amountin the District Bank, the amount was misappropriated.That amountwas more than Rs.1.32 lakh.There were other irregularitiesincluding the record which was created to show that on a single daythe amount of Rs. 10 lakh was disbursed as dividend amongst the ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 ::: Cri.No.1935/07 & Anr 8members.The report showed that if the amount was in the hand ofthe Secretary, accused No. 1, Board of Director ought to have takenaction against the Secretary, but no action was taken.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 :::Revision was filed by the Board of Directors inIndustrial Court, but the revision came to be dismissed.This decision ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 :::The Administrator noticedthat there was collusion between Managing Committee andSecretary.He then filed Writ Petition in this Court to challenge thedecision of Industrial Court and Labour Court.7) In the proceeding filed before the Labour Court andIndustrial Court, the Secretary had first contended that Directorswere responsible for the difference as the Directors were using themoney of the society.Thus, he made allegations against Directors ofmisappropriation of money.Therecord shows that when there were serious allegations against theSecretary, the Board of Directors made him Member and sanctionedloan.The Board of Directors avoided to challenge the decision given ::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 ::: Cri.Then the Secretary took other stand and submitted that he wasentitled to get back the amount deposited by him as the amount wasdeposited by him from his own pocket.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 :::8) In the present proceedings, the learned counsel for someapplicants submitted that they were not Directors when theirregularities were committed.There areallegations as against auditors also as they avoided to mention theirregularities in the audit reports.There are specific allegations madeby the Secretary against the Directors and there is the report ofauditor against both.In view of these circumstances, thoroughinvestigation of the matter is necessary.The record like admissiongiven by Secretary can be used against the Directors and auditreport is also available.::: Uploaded on - 06/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/10/2018 00:00:23 :::
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,534,565 |
JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J.The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Parvat .Singh was the maternal uncle of appellant Kirtan, Mole Singh (PW- 2), Adhar Singh (PW-10), Mukesh Kumar (PW-11) are his father, uncle and cousin respectively, whereas, Junki Bai (PW-3) is his another cousin (Mouseri Bahin).On 17-6-88 at about 6 pm at village Barapani, deceased Parvat Singh, Jani Bai (PW-3) and Mole Singh (PW-2) were sitting in the courtyard of Mole Singh and were chitchatting on family matters.Deceased Parvat Singh as per his habit was speaking in loud voice.Appellant Kirtan Prasad felt that the deceased is quarrelling with his father Mole Singh, therefore, he brought an axe from the inner side of the house and dealt an axe blow on his neck.The deceased Parvat.Singh who was sitting in a chair, fell on the ground.On hearing the sound of fall of chair, Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11) also reached the place of occurrence.Appellant tried to deal another blow on the deceased but his father Mole Singh with the help of his brother Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11.) caught hold of the appellant and snatched the axe from him and tied him with a rope.Mole Singh called Dheera Kotwar and informed him about the incident.Dheera Kotwar (PW-1) lodged the FIR, Ex. P-2 at Police Station, Mohgaon District Mandla, on 18-6-88 at 11.35 a.m. A marg was also registered.S.I., S.L. Surja reached the spot.On his arrival, the appellant, who was tied with the rope was set free.A lungi which the appellant was wearing at that time was seized from his person vide Ex.Plain earth and blood-stained earth was recovered from the spot as per Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11 respectively.A blood-stained axe which was lying at the spot was seized vide Ex.Inquest, Ex.P-8 was conducted on the body of Parvat Singh.The dead body was sent for post mortem examination.The autopsy was performed by Dr. R. K. Sharma (PW-4) on 19-6-88 at 11 a.m. who found the following injuries on the body of Parvat Singh:(1) Incised wound 4i" x 1" x bone deep on right occipital region of the skull, occipital bone fractured in pieces at lower end, wound then cutting neck muscles and blood vessels on right side neck up to the cervical vertebra and trachea, blood collection in the neck and the thorasic cavity.(2) Contusion 1" x 1" at tip of the nose, clotted blood from nostrils.According to the Post Mortem Report, Ex. P-6, the cause of death was syncope as a result of anaemia due to excessive haemorrhage from the wound on neck.A dhoti, a bandi and a gamchha were recovered from the body of the deceased by Dr. R. K. Sharma (PW- 4).These articles were sent to the police station in a sealed packet.Seized gamchha, axe, lungi, dhoti and bandi were sent to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, for chemical examination.After chemical examination, blood was found on stained earth, axe, dhoti and bandi.These articles were then sent to Serologist and Chemical Examiner of the Government of India, for determination of origin of blood.Assistant Serologist reported that dhoti and bandi, recovered from the body of the deceased were stained with human blood.The origin of the blood on stained earth and axe could not be determined as the stains were! disintegrated.The blood group on any of the items could not be determined either because of disintegration or because of the insufficient quantity.On completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the alleged commission of murder of Parvat Singh.After committal of the case to the Court of Session, a charge for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC was framed by Sessions Judge, Mandla against the appellant; He abjured the guilt and pleaded that he is innocent.He further pleaded that he has been falsely implicated because of the jealousy as he was a brilliant student.After concluding the trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and as such convicted and sentenced him as indicated above.It is against this conviction and sentence that the appellant has come up in this appeal.We have heard Smt. Archana Nagaria, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant and Shri S. K. Ravi, learned counsel for the State/respondent.We shall first consider whether the death of Parvat Singh was homicidal.Dr. R. K. Sharma (PW-4) who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased, Parvat Singh, found two injuries described hereinabove.He also opined that the injury on right occipital region was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Now, we come to the crucial question as to whether the appellant caused death of Parvat Singh.In this connection, the prosecution has relied on the occular statements of eye-witnesses, namely, Mole Singh (PW-2) and Janki Bai (PW-3) and on the evidence of Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11), who were present in the house at the time of incident and reached the spot immediately after the incident.Mole Singh (PW-2) has stated that at the relevant time, he was sitting in his court- yard along with Janki Bai and Singora Bai.Deceased Parvat Singh was also sitting with them.The appellant with his mouth open, protruded tongue and dilated eyes reached the spot.He was at that time armed with some weapon like axe or stick which he (witness) could not see properly.Previously also the appellant used to behave like a mad map, therefore, he felt that the appellant is under the effect of insanity.He caught hold of the appellant but the appellant pushed him and tried to run away.The witness has also stated that on hearing the cries of Janki Bai (PW-3), two persons, namely, Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11) rushed to the spot.With the help of Adhar Singh and Mukesh, he caught hold of the appellant and tied him with a pillar by means of a rope.After tying the appellant he saw Parvat Singh lying dead though he could not say how Parvat Singh died and who killed him.However, the witness expressed a firm belief that the accused must have killed him.Mole Singh has specifically stated that he does not know if the appellant Kirtan Prasad assaulted the deceased Parvat Singh with an axe.This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor extensively but nothing could come out from his statement to establish that he saw the appellant assaulting Parvat Singh with an axe.Sammo Bai (PW-6), Adhar Singh (PW10) and Mukesh (PW-11) are the witnesses who, according to the prosecution, reached the spot immediately after the incident.Sammo Bai (PW-6) has stated that on hearing the commotion she reached the spot.She found her husband lying dead in the court- yard of Mole Singh.She saw an injury on the neck, of her husband.Certain persons were tying the appellant with a rope.On enquiry, Mole Singh and Adhar Singh told her that appellant Kirtan Prasad has killed her husband Parvat Singh with an axe.However, she did not find the axe at the place of occurrence.Adhar Singh (PW-10) has stated that at the time of incident when he was brushing his teeth he heard Mole Singh shouting "what have you done", which he was asking to his son Kirtan Prasad.He reached the spot and found that Mole Singh was holding Kirtan Prasad and who was trying to run away.He and Mukesh helped Mole Singh in tying the appellant.Mukesh Kumar (PW-11) has also stated that he was going towards the well to fetch water.On hearing the commotion he rushed to the spot and saw that his father was trying to tie the appellant with a rope, who was trying to escape.He helped Mole Singh and Adhar Singh in trying the appellant.Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11) have stated that Mole Singh told them that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased Parvat Singh with an axe and caused his death.The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence of Mole Singh (PW-2), Janki Bai (PW-3), Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11) concluded that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased Parvat Singh with an axe.His finding is based on the reasoning that Mukesh Kumar and Adhar Singh have unequivocally stated that Mole Singh told them that it was the appellant who assaulted Parvat Singh but Mole Singh has not stated in his evidence that he saw the appellant causing injury to the deceased nor has he stated that it was he who informed Adhar Singh and Mukesh Kumar regarding the fact of causing injury to deceased by the appellant.When Mole Singh himself does not say that he informed Adhar Singh and Mukesh about the incident, it was improper on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to convict the appellant only on the ground that Adhar Singh and Mukesh have stated that Mole Singh told them that it was the appellant who caused death of Parvat Singh.Where the testimony of the witness is entirely hearsay and on some matters hearsay of hearsay, it cannot be admitted in evidence.Where a witness gives evidence that he received information from other person and that person does not say about it, such evidence would be inadmissible being hearsay evidence.Where Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11) have stated that Mole Singh (PW-2) told them that it was the appellant who caused death of Parvat Singh and they gave evidence of having received the information from Mole Singh but Mole Singh himself does not say that he made such a statement to these witnesses the evidence of Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11) is inadmissible and, therefore, becomes valueless.Adhar Singh (PW-10) and Mukesh (PW-11) simply say that they heard from Mole Singh (PW-2) that the appellant, had assaulted the deceased.The evidence of these witnesses cannot be used by the prosecution to any appreciable extent.Learned counsel for the State submitted that Mole Singh (PW-2) made the statement contemporaneously or immediately that the act which construed offence has been committed by the appellant, therefore, the same is admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.True it is that the rule embedded in Section 6 of the Evidence Act is roughly speaking an exception to a general rule that the hearsay evidence is not admissible and the rationale in making certain statement or fact admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and the immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue but when Adhar Singh and Mukesh have stated that they were told by Mole Singh that the appellant caused the death of Parvat Singh, but Mole Singh does not support the prosecution case, the statement made by Adhar Singh and Mukesh who claim to have come to know from Mole Singh is inadmissible and is not covered by Section 6 of the EvidenceIf Mole Singh would have supported the prosecution case, the evidence of Adhar Singh and Mukesh would have been admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, but where Mole Singh himself does not say that he saw the appellant causing injury to the deceased Parvat Singh and he told Adhar Singh and Mukesh regarding the same, the evidence of Adhar Singh and Mukesh is of no value, the same being hearsay evidence.Even if we accept for the sake of argument that Mole Singh informed Adhar Singh and Mukesh that appellant dealt axe blows on deceased, it cannot be ruled out that he conveyed so either because he himself was informed by somebody else, or because under the existing circumstances he gathered an impression that appellant might have caused the axe blow on the deceased.There is no material to suggest that Mole Singh saw the appellant assaulting the deceased.Learned counsel for the State/respondent next contended that from the evidence of Adhar Singh it is clear that he heard Mole Singh shouting "what have you done", which he was asking to his son, the appellant.This fact is also based on surmise because Adhar Singh was not present a the spot at the time of assault.Accepting that Mole Singh asked his son, the appellant, as to what has he done, it cannot be presumed that he meant causing the death of Parvat Singh.Jhanki Bai (PW-3) and Mukesh (PW-11) also do not say that Mole Singh shouted in so many words.Accepting that Mole Singh shouted like that, it.cannot be inferred that by the words he meant killing of Parvat Singh by the appellant.Mole Singh has clearly stated that he tried to tie the appellant who was trying to escape and in that context he might have asked what has he done.It cannot also be ruled out that when the appellant was seen by him with mouth wide open, tongue protrusted and eyes dialated, he might have asked as to what has he done.Learned counsel for the State further contended that appellant was tied by his father just at the moment when deceased Parwat Singh was wounded and fell down from the chair therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that the appellant has caused injuries to the deceased and only for that reason he was tied by his father.This contention cannot be accepted for two reasons; firstly because there was no evidence to the effect that appellant was tried by his father just at the moment when deceased was wounded and fell from the chair.Mole Singh (PW-1) and Janki Bai (PW- 3) do not say that appellant was tied after the fall of deceased Parvat Singh due to the injuries sustained by him and secondly because there could be another reason for tying the appellant by his father.As has been stated in the preceeding paragraphs, appellant came to the spot with mouth open, tongue protruded and eyes dilated.Previously also, appellant used to behave like a mad man and, therefore, Mole Singh felt that he was under the effect of insanity.Mole Singh caught hold of the appellant but appellant pushed him.This appears to be more probable cause of tying the appellant and the contention cannot be accepted that the appellant was tied only because of the reason that he caused injuries to the deceased.The evidence of Sammo Bai (PW-6) also does not help the prosecution.She has stated that on enquiry, Mole Singh and Adhar Singh told her that appellant Kirtan Prasad has killed her husband but Mole Singh and Adhar Singh do not say that it was the appellant who killed Parvat Singh and do not support the prosecution case.The evidence of Sammo Bai (PW-6) is not sufficient for fastening the appellant in the alleged offence.Thus, there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the death of Parvat Singh.The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the basis of inadmissible evidence only on suspicion but suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof.The Court has to be watchful to avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof, for some time unconsciously it may happen to be a rise of step between moral certainty and legal proof.(See Bhugdomal Gangaram v. The State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 906 and Jaharlal Das v. State of Orisssa, AIR 1981 SC 1388).The present one can be a case of 'may be true' but there is a long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true ' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusion.The least that can be said to this case is that, at least there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant and the benefit of the same should go to him.The view of the Sessions Judge cannot be countenanced in this appeal.In the result, the appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,462,720 |
1 CRM No.16665 of 2013 In Re: Rabiul Islam & Anr.Mr. Md. Younush Mondal...for the petitioners Mr. Prasun Dutta ..for the State Re: Application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed on 21.10.2013 in connection with Deganga P.S Case No.494 of 2013 dated 10.08..2013 under Sections 498A/406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apprehending arrest in connection with Deganga P.S Case No.494 of 2013 dated 10.08..2013 under Sections 498A/406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Within one month from the date of marriage the complainant left the matrimonial house and is residing with her parents.A complaint has been lodged under 498A of the Indian Penal Code alleging the commission of offence by the petitioners.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners would be admitted on bail upon furnishing of two sureties of Rs.5000/- each on the following conditions that:-(i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required.This order would remain valid for four weeks.The petitioners must submit to the jurisdiction of the Regular Court within such time and thereupon the latter shall consider the prayer for bail of the petitioners on the basis of the materials available against them as on that date and take an independent decision without being guided by the disposal of this application.2 The application for anticipatory bail is thus, disposed of.(Harish Tandon,J) (Debangsu Basak,J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,463,192 |
In default of payment of fine, three months' R.I. was directed.The prosecution's case in short is that, on 5.7.2008 the deceased Dashoda Bai was found dead in her house.An intimation was given to the Police Station, Udaipura.A Panchnama-lash was prepared and the dead body of the deceased Dashoda Bai alongwith the dead body of her child 2 Criminal Appeal No.971/2011 Jaya was sent for the postmortem.(Delivered on 21st day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30.3.2011 passed by the 1st Additional Judge to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T. No.20/09, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced for two years' R.I. with fine of `2,000/-.Dr. S.N. Singh (PW-3) did the postmortem upon the bodies of the deceased Dashoda Bai and Jaya @ Guddi.He found that both the deceased were died due to burn injuries.During investigation, the parents and relatives of the deceased had alleged against the appellant and his relatives about the cruelty and harassment done with the deceased Dashoda Bai.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Udaipura, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Raisen and ultimately, it was transferred to the 1st Additional Judge to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen.The appellant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea in the matter but he has submitted that since the deceased died due to an accident within seven years of her marriage, the parents and relatives of the deceased had made omnibus allegations against him about harassment and cruelty.However, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC, whereas remaining accused persons were acquitted from all the charges but the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3 Criminal Appeal No.971/2011The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was no demand of dowry from the side of the appellant and therefore, the trial Court has acquitted him from the charge of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.It could be established against the appellant that he assaulted the deceased for once or twice.Though, other accused persons were acquitted on the similar circumstances but the appellant was convicted.However, the overt act of the appellant was not so grave, so that he could be sentenced for two years R.I. At present, he remained in the custody for more than 18 months and therefore, looking at the overt act of the appellant, his sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody.On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that the conviction as well as sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be appropriate.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant does not challenge his conviction and therefore, there is no need to discuss the matter on the merits of the case.So far as the sentence is concerned, it is apparent that the allegations made by the witnesses about demand of money were not proved and therefore, the appellant was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 4 Criminal Appeal No.971/2011 304-B of IPC.It is established that the appellant had assaulted the victim by once or twice in his life time.Under such circumstances, the cruelty proved against the appellant was not grave so that he could be sentenced for two years' R.I. Looking to the overt act of the appellant, one year's imprisonment could be a sufficient sentence and, when he remained in the custody for more than 18 months, it would be proper that his sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby partly allowed.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 21.09.2012 pnkj
|
['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.
|
153,463,544 |
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party and Sri Azad Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Court No. 2, Ghazipur arising out of Case Crime No. 2125/2017, under section 354B, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(v)(a) SC/ST Act, Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur in which the bail application of the appellants has been rejected by the learned court below, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case.It is further submitted that the there is evidence on record regarding village party bandi and counter blast strike in the matter and the victim who has permanent resident in same village using as a weapon for false implication has not consider.It is also submitted that the material available on the record that the appellants did not commit the alleged offence but the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the same and illegally rejected the bail application of the appellants.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court.The circumstances, which according to the counsel led to false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length.It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.He is languishing in jail since 23.10.2019 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer.I have perused the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance hence this appeal as also the bail application are allowed and the order dated 16.12.2019 is hereby set aside.Let the appellants Vinod Singh and Ram Chandra Gupta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,469,932 |
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash theProceedings in S.T.C.No.502 of 2011, in which the petitioners herein are theaccused, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur.On 12.02.2011 at about 12.00 noon, the petitioners unlawfully assembledbefore the Thiruchendur Main Arch and made a demonstration to arrest themembers who had caused damages to Dr.Ambedkar digital board in Thiruchendur.Initially, the respondent registered FIR against the petitioners statingthat while the respondent was on patrol, he saw the petitioners, who haveassembled unlawfully near Thiruchendur Main Arch and without any priorpermission, they made demonstration and thereby caused hindrance to the public and traffic.In pursuance of the same, the respondent himselfregistered a case in Crim No.41 of 2011 under Sections 143, 331 and 188I.P.C. The Law Enforcing Agency after completing the investigation, filed thefinal report before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur against 245persons/petitioners herein for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 143,341 and 188 I.P.C. Thereafter, the said Court taken the final report on filein S.T.C.No.502 of 2011, implicating 245 persons/petitioners herein asaccused.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit thaton the day, when the demonstration was made by the petitioners, there was noban as referred to under Section 144 Cr.P.C and there is no promulgation bythe respondent police.The learned counsel for the petitioner would furthersubmit that since Dr.Ambedkar digital board was damaged by some people illegally, petitioners genuinely decided to make out demonstration in frontof the Thiruchendur Main Arch to arrest the people who had caused damages to Dr.Ambedkar digital Board in Thiruchendur.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would furthersubmit that the First Information Report registered by the respondent doesnot contain any definite acquisition which amounts to abuse of process oflaw.When there is no offence said to have been committed by thepetitioners, implicating them within the penal provision of Sections 147,143, 341 and 188 IPC does not arise.In the absence of any evidence ordocument for implicating the petitioners in the criminal case, it is an abuseof process of law.6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that the petitioners without any prior permission,unlawfully assembled in front of the Tiruchendur Main Arch and made ademonstration, demanding to arrest the people who had caused damages to Dr.Ambedkar digital board.Accordingly, the Law Enforcing Agency registereda case under Sections 147, 143, 341 and 188 IPC in Crime No.41 of 2011 and the challenge made against the complaint at the initial stage, is notmaintainable.The inherent jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked, onlyif any manifest error or error apparent on the face of record.Accordingly,he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counselfor the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate (CriminalSide) appearing for the respondent.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitionsare closed.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchendur Police Station, Thiruchendur.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,470,110 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.12 of 2016 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 420 & 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/7 CRL.O.P.No.4032 of 2016The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2016, the second respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.12 of 2016 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.11.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.4032 of 2016 lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.4032 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.1.The Inspector of Police, Tittakudi Taluk Police Station, Tittakudi, Cuddalore District2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.4032 of 2016 11.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,473,361 |
2 Facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused no.1 along with co-accused, who were acquitted, are thus :(a) Injured First Informant Maruti @ Babu (PW1) used to do business of supply of building material and he was also working as the contractor.The appellant/accused no.1 avk 2/17::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 ::: 204-APPEAL-1068-2012-J.doc Adinath Badekar was in the employment of PW1 Maruti @ Babu and used to reside in the house of PW1 Maruti @ Babu.However, suspecting misappropriation of money, PW1 Maruti @ Babu removed appellant/accused no.1 Adinath from the service.On that day, on the motorcycle of PW2 Dinanath Kolambe, PW1 Maruti @ Babu went to the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Karjat.When they were standing outside the gate of the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Karjat, appellant/accused no.1 Adinath accompanied by acquitted accused came on the motorcycle.He abused PW1 Maruti @ Babu in filthy language and took out the firearm from the bag carried by him.Frightened PW1 Maruti @ Babu ran for his life and took shelter in the nearby shop named Tip Top Shoe Mart.By chasing, appellant/accused no.1 Adinath also entered in that shop and fired a bullet at injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu, who sustained injuries to his left wrist and abdomen.Hospital, Karjat, where he was treated by PW7 Dr.Vibhavari Shiholkar, Medical Officer.Adinath Badekar is challenging the judgment and order dated 29 th August 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibaug, in Sessions Case No.11 of 2010, thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act. For the offence punishable under Section avk 1/17::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 ::: 204-APPEAL-1068-2012-J.doc 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- or in default to undergo default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.For the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, whereas, for the offence punishable under Sections 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, apart from payment of fine of Rs.2,000/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the impugned judgment and order.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::At the said hospital, statement of PW1 Maruti @ Babu came to be recorded and accordingly, FIR Exhibit 66 came to be registered against the appellant/accused no.1 Adinath and other accused persons.The injured was then shifted to Purohit Clinic for further medical treatment, where he was treated by PW8 Dr.Paresh Kulkarni.(c) Routine investigation followed.Statement of witnesses came to be recorded.Test Identification Parade was then conducted by PW9 Narendra Potkar, Nayab Tahsildar.Clothes of the victim came to be seized vide Seizure Panchnama Exhibit 87 in presence of panch witness PW4 Ganesh Ghare.On the basis of voluntary disclosure statement of the appellant/accused no.1 Adinath, in presence of PW5 Natha Dhule panch, PW11 Sheetal Raut, Assistant Police Inspector, seized the firearm involved in the avk 4/17::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 ::: 204-APPEAL-1068-2012-J.doc crime in question.On completion of investigation, the appellant/accused no.1 Adinath along with co-accused came to be charge-sheeted.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::(d) The learned trial court framed and explained Charge to appellant/accused no.1 Adinath, so also to the co-accused.They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.However, he did not enter in defence.(f) After hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to convict appellant/accused no.1 Adinath of offences punishable under Section 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act and he was accordingly sentenced, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::appearing for the appellant/accused no.1 Adinath.He argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged incident of assault on PW1 Maruti @ Babu as no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution in support of its case.Interested testimony of PW2 Dinanath Kolambe and that of PW3 Nana Bhagat is of no avail to the prosecution as PW2 Dinanath Kolambe was friend of the injured and PW3 Nana Bhagat is an employee of friend of the injured.Cross-examination of the injured shows that the incident in question took place in the populous area and was witnessed by several natural witnesses to the incident, who are not examined by the prosecution.The learned counsel further argued that forensic evidence as well as the medical evidence shows that the firearm used was a pellet gun, and therefore, it cannot be said that appellant/accused no.1 Adinath had harboured the intention to commit murder of injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu.None of the doctors examined by the prosecution has spoken about the fact that the injuries caused because of the avk 6/17::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 ::: 204-APPEAL-1068-2012-J.doc firearm were life threatening.On the contrary, medical evidence shows that the pellets did not enter in the abdomen of the injured.Therefore, in submission of the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::She further argued that, when available evidence is trustworthy, cogent and consistent, then non-examination of witnesses, though available, cannot cast shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.5 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings including oral and documentary evidence.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::prosecution, to a great extent, hinges on the testimony of injured First Informant Maruti @ Babu (PW1).Even according to the prosecution case, act of firing the bullet after chasing the victim is attributable only to appellant/accused no.1 Adinath.No overt act was attributed to acquitted co-accused.Therefore, the case in hand is that of a single victim and single accused, though other persons were arraigned as accused, for the reasons best known to the prosecution.It is well settled that evidence of injured witness carries great weight, as his presence on the scene of occurrence is established by the fact that he had sustained injuries in the incident in question.Similarly, in such cases with one accused and one injured, theory of false implication does not deserve a moment's consideration, because human nature generally does not permit substitution of an innocent person in place of the assailant.Hence, let us examine what injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu has deposed about the incident in question.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::2009, on the motorcycle of PW2 Dinanath Kolambe, who happens to be his friend, and accompanied by PW2 Dinanath Kolambe, he went to the office of the Panchayat Samiti, Karjat.The incident took place after 1.00 p.m. of that day.As stated by PW1 Maruti @ Babu, when he as well as PW2 Dinanath Kolambe were standing in the front of the gate of the office of Panchayat Samiti, Karjat, on a Pulsar motorcycle, appellant/accused no.1 Adinath accompanied by two others came on that spot.Appellant/accused no.1 Adinath rushed towards him, abused him in filthy language and then, took out a firearm from his bag.Fearing for his life, as stated by PW1 Maruti @ Babu, he took shelter in Tip Top Shoe Mart, but by chasing him, appellant/accused no.1 Adinath reached at that shop and fired a bullet at his person, causing bleeding injuries to his left hand and abdomen.PW1 Maruti @ Babu testified that after firing a bullet at him, appellant/accused no.1 Adinath ran away with that weapon.This witness has also spoken about recording of his First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit 66 avk 9/17::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 ::: 204-APPEAL-1068-2012-J.doc on the very same day, while he was taking treatment at the Government Hospital of Karjat.Injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu, while in dock, identified appellant/accused no.1 Adinath, as the perpetrator of the crime.He, similarly, identified his clothes as well as weapon of the offence.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::Evidence of this injured witness, to the effect that, appellant/accused no.1 Adinath was working with him and was residing at the house of injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu, is not at all challenged in the cross-examination.Thus, PW1 Maruti @ Babu was knowing appellant/accused no.1 Adinath since long and was well acquainted with him.The incident occurred in the broad daylight, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute or doubt in respect of identification of appellant/accused no.1 Adinath, as the author of the crime, by injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu.True it is that atleast three crimes are registered against this injured witness, but unless and until it is brought on record avk 10/17::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 ::: 204-APPEAL-1068-2012-J.doc that this witness has motive to implicate appellant/accused no.1 Adinath in a false case, his evidence cannot be jettisoned.Careful scrutiny of evidence of this injured witness does not reflect any reason for him to falsely implicate appellant/accused no.1 Adinath in the crime in question.His evidence is perfectly in tune with the FIR registered by the police, with due promptitude, on the very same day.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::9 Evidence of PW2 Dinanath Kolambe is perfectly consistent with the evidence of injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu.Evidence of this witness shows that when he was accompanying injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu, appellant/accused no.1 Adinath came there on motorcycle, accompanied by two others, and then chased injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu, while holding the firearm, and after hurling abuses at the injured.This witness heard sound of firing and has also witnessed the injured with bleeding injuries, soon after hearing the sound of firing of the bullet.PW2 Dinanath Kolambe has also spoken about identification of appellant/accused no.1 Adinath in the identification parade avk 11/17::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 ::: 204-APPEAL-1068-2012-J.doc conducted by PW9 Narendra Potkar, Nayab Tahsildar.In cross- examination of this witness, nothing is brought on record to dislodge his evidence regarding the incident, so also identification of appellant/accused no.1 Adinath, as the person who chased the victim at the time of commission of the offence, holding the firearm.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::10 The third witness examined by the prosecution to prove the incident of sustaining injuries by PW1 Maruti @ Babu is PW3 Nana Bhagat - an employee working in the Tip Top Shoe Mart.This witness has also supported the prosecution case by stating that while he was working at the Tip Top Shoe Mart on 29th July 2009, at about 1 - 1.30 p.m., PW1 Maruti @ Babu rushed into the shop and a person armed with firearm followed him and fired the bullet at PW1 Maruti @ Babu, causing injuries to PW1 Maruti @ Babu.PW3 Nana Bhagat has also spoken about identification of appellant/accused no.1 Adinath in the Test Identification Parade conducted by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::the prosecution has established the fact that in the afternoon of 29th July 2009, at Tip Top Shoe Mart, near Panchayat Samiti, Karjat, appellant/accused no.1 Adinath had fired a bullet at injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu, causing injuries to him.12 Evidence of PW7 Dr.Vibhavari Shiholkar and PW8 Dr.Paresh Kulkarni shows that on the day of the incident itself, i.e. on 29th July 2009, they had treated injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu.Evidence of both these Medical Officers is consistent and shows that injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu was having injuries in the nature of contused lacerated wound on his left forearm as well as multiple abrasions over his abdomen.13 In presence of PW5 Natha Dhule, voluntary disclosure statement of appellant/accused no.1 Adinath came to be recorded by PW11 Sheetal Raut, the Investigating Officer of the crime in question.Evidence of Investigating Officer PW11 Sheetal Raut shows that the said firearm with three deformed lead balls seized during the course of investigation vide Panchnama Exhibit 87, were sent for forensic examination.The report at Exhibit 38 sent by the Assistant Chemical Analyzer shows that deformed lead balls were fired from the gun, at the instance of appellant/accused no.1 Adinath.14 To my mind, this evidence is clinching.Evidence of Special Executive Magistrate - PW9 Narendra Potkar, to the effect that appellant/accused no.1 Adinath was identified by PW2 Dinanath Kolambe and PW3 Nana Bhagat in the Test Identification Parade, which is gaining corroboration from the contemporaneous Memorandum of the Test Identification Parade, is also not shaken in the cross-examination.With this trustworthy evidence, the prosecution has established the incident of injuring PW1 Maruti @ Babu by appellant/accused no.1 Adinath.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::Such intention is required to be coupled with some overt act.In the case in hand, the prosecution has established overt act in the form of chasing injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu and firing bullet at him by appellant/accused no.1 Adinath, causing bleeding injuries to PW1 Maruti @ Babu.Mere evidence of injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu coupled with that of PW2 Dinanath Kolambe and PW3 Nana Bhagat, it can be gathered that injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu was required to run for his life, being chased by appellant/accused no.1 Adinath, while holding the firearm, and that is how, the incident took place.The fact that appellant/accused no.1 Adinath had come at the office of Panchayat Samiti, Karjat, while armed with the firearm, hurling abuses by him to the injured, thereafter brandishing the firearm and chasing injured PW1 Maruti @ Babu, who was running for his life and ultimately, firing a shot, reflects intention of appellant/accused no.1 Adinath, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.Hence, it is not possible to avk 15/17::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 ::: 204-APPEAL-1068-2012-J.doc agree with the submission of the learned counsel, that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::16 The sequence of offence that took place and proved by the prosecution by its clear and cogent evidence establishes the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.17 Appellant/accused no.1 Adinath had used the firearm for commission of the crime in question.The firearm was used in commission of the crime in question, and therefore, I do not see any infirmity in conviction of appellant/accused no.1 Adinath for the offence punishable under Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The punishment imposed on him is also proportionate with the degree of criminality shown by appellant/accused no.1 Adinath.::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/07/2018 01:09:36 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,476,686 |
Now back to the story of Sunil Sachdeva check out his profile he is founder at Medanta Medcity 2004 and we know he is a great BA Pass which surely makes him very qualified but what we dont know is how after his college education he came to so much money as to invest in Medanta could be family money but we don't know what business he is into before 2004 would have been very helpful if we knew a little as to what he did before the founding of Medanta sure he must be some great business genius like Naresh Trehan.Now this great Sunil Sachdeva is MD of Ramsons a listed company http://www.ramsonsprojects.com/DIRECTORS no problem with that though not much data on this company but keep your eyes on the list of directors and then you know they are allegedly involved in very shady dealing in South Africa https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/mediosa- managemnet-mum-on-the-run-20180302 please read the articles to see the Ramsons connection and address mentioned and the directors in this case you will see the round about way things work and shows you shady nature of this Ramsons and Mr. Sunil Sachdeva and yet this should be major news and then corporate Office address is of Medanta isn't that strange and (clips are down below) which is enough to merit a serious investigation against this Mr. Sunil Sachdeva and Medanta did not know Medanta is a office complex the land was given as Medical space but then these dont give a shit about the law but surely if Ramsons are operating from Medanta there is not only a link but something far more.CS(OS) 385/2019 Page 4 of 14Board Members comprises of Mr. Sunil Sachdeva as Chairman cum Managing Director, Mr. Yogesh Sachdeva as promoter director, Mr. Sundeep Kalsi and Dr. Anita Roy as Independent Directors.Board members have rich experience and expertise in building and managing successful business.Sunil Sachdeva, Managing Director He is a science graduate from Delhi University.He is adynamic, idealistic and highly successful entrepreneur has a track record or outstanding achievements in setting up social enterprises.Yogesh Sachdeva, Promoter Director He is Science Graduate and has a vast knowledge and experience in the area of international as well as domestic marketing of the products.CS(OS) 385/2019 Page 6 of 14Sundeep Kalsi, Independent Director He is Master in Statistics and he brings a distinguished experience of twenty one Years in Marketing Developing & Execution of Projects.Dr. Anita Roy Ms. Anit Roy is an expert in housing projects in India and abroad, having several years of work experience in senior management team of Police on several roles such as Deputy Inspector General in Central Bureau of Investigation.Dr. Roy is well known for her team headship and people management skills."The plaintiff instituted this suit against (i) owner of Domain Name www.cjr7.com; (ii) Net4 Network Services Limited; and, (iii) Google India Private Limited, (i) for recovery of damages of Rs.2,10,00,000/- from defendant no.1 for defaming the plaintiff; (ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from hosting online on their website and online search engine respectively statements defamatory of the plaintiff; (iii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from posting or otherwise communicating to any person or public at large, by any means, the allegedly defamatory content; and, (iv) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to tender an apology and to permanently block and/or disable access of any person to the URL https://cjr7.com/part-1-medanta-and-its-CS(OS) 385/2019 Page 1 of 14shady-investor-sunil-sachdeva-and-these-people-are-being-given-a-free- pass-and-to-cash-out-with-1000-crores-while-madhu-trehan-has-the- audacity-to-judge-people-and-call-her/.The suit came up first before this Court on 2nd August, 2019, when the following order was passed:-The plaintiff has sued the defendant no.1, Owner of Domain Name www.cjr7.com, the Registrar of domain names, with which the defendant no.1 Domain Name www.cjr7.com is registered, and Google India Private Limited, for permanent injunction, to restrain them from hosting online defamatory statements on their website and for ancillary reliefs.The defendant no.1 be also served through domain name.The defendant no.2, stated to be the Registrar of the domain names with which the defendant no.1 Domain Name www.cjr7.com is registered, is also directed to, on the next date of hearing, disclose to this Court in a sealed envelop, the particulars of the identity of the defendant no.1 Domain Name www.cjr7.com."Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the plaintiff impleaded Google LLC, USA and amended the plaint to claim the last of the aforesaid reliefs and which amendment was allowed and summons of the suit and the notice of the application for interim relief were ordered to be issued to the newly impleaded defendants as well.The counsel for the defendant no.2, on 29th August, 2019 supplied the details of the person behind the domain name, impleaded as defendant no.1, as under:-"Customer Details: -CRN_ID-000541133 FIRST_NAME-nish LAST_NAME-nish ORGANIZATION_NAME-CJR7 ADDRESS-S-92 Greater Kailash CITY-Delhi STATE-Delhi POSTAL_CODE-110048 COUNTRY-India PHONE-+91.9818371797 [email protected] CS(OS) 385/2019 Page 3 of 14 [email protected]"CS(OS) 385/2019 Page 3 of 14The counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant no.1 has been served as per the details disclosed as aforesaid and an affidavit of service has been filed.Only the counsel for the defendant no.2 Net4 Network Services Limited, the counsel for the defendant no.3 Google India Private Limited and the counsel for the defendant no.4 Google LLC, USA appear.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,093,749 |
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.Vakalatnama filed by Shri Shishir Chandra, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.4 today is taken on record.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C. and anticipatory bail (Anticipatory Bail Application No.4642 of 2019) moved by him in the said section was rejected by order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the court below.The relevant portion of the same is herein below :-"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.The learned counsel for the accused/applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in apprehension that he will be arrested by the police in the said offence.Relevant provisions regarding grant of the anticipatory bail under section438(1) Cr.438(1)Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;The anticipatory bail application of the applicant/accused Akarsh Shukla is, accordingly, rejected."
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,093,787 |
This petition has been preferred by the petitioners assailing an order dated 10th November 2008 passed by learned MM summoning the petitioners herein as accused persons under Sections 346/468/471/474/120B/ 420 IPC observing that the complainant has shown prima facie that these offences were committed by the petitioners/ accused persons.Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent no.2 filed a complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of an FIR under Section 420/463//468/471/474 read with Section 120B alleging therein that the petitioners herein had fabricated a notice purported to have been Crl.MC 445/2009 Page 1 Of 4 issued by respondent no.2 whereunder it was shown that the respondent had offered petitioners to purchase the property of the company valued several crore of rupees for a meager amount of Rs.30 lac and this forged notice was filed by the petitioners in a pending suit along wit h a written statement in the court of learned ADJ.After coming to know of the forged notice, complainant engaged services of a handwriting expert and obtained his opinion who opined that the signatures on the notice had been fabricated with the help of a scanner and a computer.The learned MM did not consider it appropriate to get an FIR registered and instead asked the complainant to lead evidence in the court.The complainant led evidence by way of examining himself and the handwriting expert.The evidence of handwriting expert is to the extent that the alleged notice was a fabricated document since the signatures on the alleged notice were scanned with the help of a scanner and a computer and they were not the original signatures of respondent no.2 and the complainant in his testimony testified that this notice was fabricated in order to play fraud and fabricated notice was placed on the court record in the suit filed before Shri Lal Singh, ADJ along with written statement.The forged notice dated 16th November 2005 was not issued by him and was a document created by the accused persons/petitioners in collusion with some known computer professionals with a motive to grab the property of the company.3. Offence under Section 420 IPC essentially involves inducement to the deceived person to deliver a property to a person or to make or destroy a valuable security or something which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.It is obvious that none of the ingredients of Section 420 IPC could be made out from the testimony of complainant and handwriting expert.MC 445/2009 Page 2 Of 4 Section 463 IPC defines forgery and Section 468 prescribed punishment for forgery of a valuable security or a Will or an authority to adopt a son or a power of attorney entitling a person to transfer valuable security etc. The purported notice offering to sell the property cannot be considered as a valuable security.Since in the present case, the alleged forged documents had already been used, thus the offence under Section 474 IPC of intending to use could not arise and the only offence made out from the evidence of complainant and hand writing expert was under 471 IPC.Section 120B IPC is also not made out because the complainant had not disclosed ingredients of conspiracy.I consider that somebody cannot be summoned for conspiracy on such a statement.If summoning is done on such casual statement then a complainant can name any number of persons and get them summoned to the Court only on the basis of a bare statement that so and so are involved in a criminal conspiracy.The only offence disclosed from evidence is Section 471 IPC and the petitioners should have been summoned Crl.MC 445/2009 Page 3 Of 4 only under Section 471 IPC.The petition is allowed to that extent.In the result, the order dated 10th November 2008 of learned MM as against Sarvesh Mahajan, Mukul Mahajan, Ms. Kavita Mahajan and D.K. Gupta is hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,130,956 |
As setforth he was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month.It was also pleaded that the claimants had spent quite a sum for bringing their son from Chhatarpur to Gwalior and in administering treatment to him.ORDER Dipak Misra, J.The facts in a nut shell are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 initiated an action under Section 166 of the Act on the foundation that on 13-2-1999 their son, Jagdish, aged about 15 years was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. MP.15-D/5695 from Maharajganj to Chhatarpur.The young boy, Jagdish, was sitting on the roof of the bus and about 8.00 p.m. while he was on roof top of the bus it dashed against a Mango tree as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries.As the driver of the bus was driving in a rash and negligent manner, a Crime No. 24/99 was instituted against him for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').It was contended in the petition that the deceased was studying in VIIIth class and was also engaged in making baskets from bamboos.We have heard Mr. R.K. Samaiya and Mr. Shailendra Samaiya, learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant and Mr. R.S. Patel, B.S. Thakur and R.S. Lodhi for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the claimants before the Court below.He took this and, therefore, he definitely contributed to negligence.I find force in the aforesaid submissions.In my view, the deceased had also contributed at least to the extent of 25 per cent in the accident by travelling on the roof of the bus on his own accord....There shall be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,095,799 |
The prosecution case as unfolded in the course of trial, in brief, is given below:-(2.1) On 22.05.2008 at about 1:00 am complainant Bharosi Bai (PW-1) brought her husband Randhir Singh in a coma on a tractor owned by Jagdish (PW-4) with Mishrilal (PW-3), Padam Singh (PW-5) and Shrilal (PW-2) to the Police Station Kumbhraj district Guna and she made an oral FIR to K.S. Bhadoriya (PW-6), the SHO of Police Station, to the effect that she is a resident of village Bahukhedi.In the night of 21.05.2008 at about 11:00 pm, her husband Randhir Singh had gone to answer the call of nature in the open field.Her husband did not return after a long while.Thereafter, she went out of her house in search of him.During the search, she saw her husband and appellant Udham Singh 3 Cr.A. No.526/2010 sitting on the Chabutara (platform) of the house of one Ramsingh Kushwah (not examined) of her village.There, she also saw and heard that the appellant forcing her husband to give him money for consumption of liquor.Upon his refusal, the appellant told him angrily that today he would not leave him alive.Thereafter, he lifted a big stone lying there and struck it with force 2 to 3 times on his head.As a result, he fell down and blood started oozing out of the injuries on his head.Moments later, he went into a coma.Upon his loud shrieks, Padam Singh, Shivnaraya (not examined) and other persons of the village came to the place of occurrence.Noticing the arrival of many persons, the appellant fled away from the scene of crime.K.S. Bhadoriya reduced the oral FIR of the complainant into writing being Ex.P-1, and he registered a case at Crime No.1430/2008 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 307 IPC.(2.2) Thereafter, K.S. Bhadoriya sent Randhir 4 Cr.A. No.526/2010 Singh for medico-legal-examination and treatment to the Primary Health Centre Kumbhraj with an application Ex.The only doctor posted there was on leave.The Compounder present there gave a primary treatment to Randhir Singh and referred him for further treatment to the District Hospital Guna.Thereupon, Randhir Singh was taken in an ambulance from Kumbhraj to the District Hospital Guna in a state of unconsciousness.(2.3) On 22.05.2008 at about 3:35 am, the duty doctor P.M. Dhakad (PW-8) medico legally examined Randhir Singh and gave MLC report Ex.Later, he admitted Randhir Singh for treatment.(2.4) On 22.05.2008 at about 4:10 am, Randhir Singh succumbed to his injuries.(2.5) In the morning of 22.05.2008, K.S. Bhadoriya reached the hospital and issued safina form Ex.P-2, thereby inviting the witnesses for preparing Lash Panchnama of Randhir Singh.Thereafter, he prepared Lash Panchnama Ex.P-3 of him in the presence of Shrilal, 5 Cr.A. No.526/2010 Mishrilal, Jagdish and two others namely Purushottam and Roop Singh (who are not examined).They jointly gave post-mortem report Ex.According to them, deceased Randhir Singh succumbs to injuries because of multiple fractures in his skull.(2.6) K.S. Bhadoriya carried out the investigation in the case.On 22.05.2008 at about 3:00 pm he prepared spot map Ex.P-4 at the instance of Padam Singh and seized articles from the place occurrence as mentioned in seizure memo Ex.P-7 in the presence of Padam Singh and Shivnarayan (not examined).On 28.05.2008, he arrested the appellant.On various dates, he recorded the case diary statements of witnesses.(Pronounced on the 31st day of January, 2018) Per: RAJENDRA MAHAJAN, J.Appellant Udham Singh has, in this appeal, called in question the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 21.04.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Chachoda district Guna in Sessions Trial No.278/2008, 2 Cr.A. No.526/2010 whereby and whereunder he has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment (for short RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(one thousand) in default thereof to further undergo RI for one year.He also sent the articles collected in the course of investigation for forensic examinations to the Regional 6 Cr.A. No.526/2010 Forensic Laboratory Gwalior.The laboratory sent its report which is not exhibited in the course of trial of the case.Later, the case was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Chachoda for trial.The learned ASJ framed the charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty and opted to contest the trial.With this trial began, and the prosecution examined nine witnesses.On the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the appellant for eliciting explanation thereto as per the procedure mandated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He flatly denied them and took a defence of false implication on account of old enmity.However, he did not adduce any evidence either documentary or oral in support of his 7 Cr.A. No.526/2010 defence.4. Having analyzed and appreciated the evidence on record critically and meticulously in the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ has held the appellant guilty for having murdered the deceased and convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him thereunder as noted in para 1 of this judgment.Feeling aggrieved by the impugned verdict, the appellant approached this Court by way of this appeal under Section 374(2)We heard arguments for learned counsel for the parties at length.At the outset of the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the overwhelming ocular and medical evidence on record, he does not want to challenge the finding as recorded by learned ASJ that the appellant had caused injuries to the deceased by hitting him with a stone resulting into his death.However, he submitted that as per the FIR and evidence of the eye- witnesses the genesis of the offence was that the deceased refused to give the appellant money for consumption of liquor upon his demand.Feeling aggrieved thereby, he hit the deceased in his head with a stone lying at the place of occurrence.In this fact 8 Cr.A. No.526/2010 situation, the appellant had no intention to murder the deceased but he had certainly knowledge that the hitting of the stone in the head of the deceased might be caused his death.Consequently, the offence committed by the appellant falls under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC.Therefore, the learned ASJ has grossly erred in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.As such, the appellant has so far suffered custodial jail sentence of 11 years and near about 5 months till the date of final arguments, and the appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount.He submitted that the appellant has no criminal record.He submitted that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is sentenced under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC for the custodial period of sentence which he had already suffered.State of M.P., AIR 2011 SCC 1655, Sarman and others Vs.State of M.P., AIR 1993 SC 400 and a few 9 Cr.A. No.526/2010 unreported decisions of this High Court.In reply, learned counsel for the respondent/State after referring to the ocular and medical evidence on record extensively, he submitted that only fault of the deceased was that he refused to give the appellant money for consumption of the liquor.But, the said refusal does not amount to provocation on the part of the deceased.The appellant hit a stone with force on the head of the deceased, a vital part of the body, not once but 2 to 3 times, thereby causing multiple fractures in his skull.He submitted that if these factors are considered cumulatively, then it is crystal clear that the appellant hit the deceased with an intention to murder him.Consequently, this appeal being devoid of merits and substance is liable to be dismissed upholding the impugned judgment.While returning after the defecation, the appellant demanded money from the deceased for consumption of liquor.Upon his refusal, the appellant hit him 2 to 3 times with a big stone on his head.He has proved in his evidence MLC report Ex.Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW-7), who conducted the post- mortem examination with Dr. Manish Jain, on the dead body of the deceased, has corroborated the evidence of Dr. P.M. Dhakad.The learned ASJ has imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- (one thousand) upon the appellant and in default thereof RI for one year.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,131,039 |
2. Facts shorn of unnecessary details lie in a narrow compass, in brief the case of prosecution is that in the Village of Dangitola (Peeparwani) there is a field of Chittor Singh, near this field, at 12 in the noon the appellant Ram Singh @ Ramu was beating the deceased by lathi, at that time, Chittor Singh arrived there for warding off his cows, upon seeing that appellant is beating the deceased Chandulal, he asked not to beat and also tried to intervene, whereupon appellant pushed Chittor Singh and also gave threat to kill.The appellant gave repeated blows of lathi to Chandulal till he fell down.Chittor Singh informed the incident to Khuman Singh (P.W, 1) who is the son of the deceased Chandulal, thereafter Khuman Singh and his mother rushed to the spot and Chittor Singh came thereafter.After some time, the inhabitants of village also arrived on the spot, they found umpteen injuries on the body of Chandulal who was found to be dead.Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) lodged First Information Report at Police Station, Kurai narrating the incident seen by Chittor Singh.The dead-body of Chandulal was sent for post-mortem and Dr. S.S. Nafde (P.W. 7) conducted the post-mortem.The post-mortem report is Ex. P-7 in which the doctor found multiple fractures of third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh rib and many other external injuries as mentioned in the report.The doctor further noticed that whole back of deceased was blackish red.According to the post-mortem report, the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained by the deceased over back resulting into several fractures of the ribs causing injuries to lungs.The death was homicidal in nature.JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.The police after investigation filed challan and after committal the learned Trial Court framed charge punishable under Section 302, IPC against the appellant which he denied.The prosecution thereafter examined as many as nine witnesses.Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) is the author of First Information Report which is Ex. P-l.It be seen that incident is of 12 noon and FIR was lodged on the same day at 16.30 hours, meaning thereby it was lodged within a short duration of four and half hours.The distance of police station from the place of incident is 25 kms.The learned Trial Court after marshalling the entire evidence and other material placed on record found that prosecution succeeded in proving its case and consequently by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and passed the sentence of life imprisonment.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and sentence of Trial Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.H.L. Rai, learned Counsel for the appellant, raised following points:--After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and after perusing the record of the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.Before appreciating the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be relevant to mention certain important facts and the evidence of the witnesses.The prosecution has examined Chittor Singh (P.W. 2) as an eye-witness.The case of the prosecution is that when this witness went to ward off his cows, he saw that appellant was beating the deceased by lathi, when he tried to intervene he was threatened by the appellant, it was also said by him that today he will kill the deceased, further it has been stated by this witness that appellant has beaten the deceased Chan-dulal on the head, face, back and on the thigh region.Thereafter he went to inform Khuman (P.W. 1), the son of deceased at his house and after informing him this witness went to inform the inhabitants of the village and the villagers arrived on the spot.In the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that when he arrived for warding off his cows he saw appellant beating the deceased.In para 9 he has stated that firstly he saw the incident from a distance of near about 40 ft., upon seeing the incident he cried, however when he saw that nobody was there, he himself went to the spot at that time appellant was assaulting by a lathi having four inches diameter.It has also been stated by this witness that appellant was holding the lathi by both the hands.He asked not to give further blows, upon this appellant said he should not intervene otherwise he will also be killed.Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) who is the author of First Information Report (Ex. P-1) has stated that on the date of incident at about 12 in the noon Chittor Singh came and informed him that appellant has caused injuries by lathi to his father Chandulal, consequently he has died.He immediately went on the spot along with his mother and found that his father sustained umpteen injuries and he was dead.Another witness Shyamlal (P.W. 4) has been examined by the prosecution.He is the resident of the same village.He has stated that on the date of incident at 12.30 in the noon when he was inside his house, Guman Singh (another son of deceased) came weeping and staled that appellant has killed his father.He further asked this witness to accompany him to the place of occurrence.Thereafter this witness along with Dr. Sharma and one Sar-panch went to the spot on a motor-cycle and found that Chandulal was dead.Dr. S.S. Nafde has been examined as P.W. 7 and this witness has performed the post-mortem and noticed the multiple injuries.In cross-examination the doctor has stated that the injuries could be sustained by lathi article A which was sent to him along with query.The doctor found that the whole back of the deceased was blackish red colour.Now we shall consider the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.The first contention is that Khuman Singh (P.W. 1) is the son of the deceased and Chittor Singh (P.W, 2) is also related to the deceased, therefore their testimony should be dis-believed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,106,666 |
giving rise to the filing of this petition, briefly stated, are that on 27.9.2007 when the father of the petitioner was returning to his home, the respondent no.1 to 8 assaulted him.The petitioner hearing the noise, came out of the house and tried to intervene.Thereupon, he was also given a beating by the respondents.It is the case of the petitioner that on account of assault made on him, he suffered a fracture and other injuries.The father of the petitioner filed a complaint.Thereupon, the police authorities registered offences against respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 under sections 294,323,341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,110 |
After verification, Special Police registered the F.I.R. containing accusation that Dev Vrat Mishra, the then DSP Lokayukt, Jabalpur purchased house No.945 situated at Gulab Singh ward, Jabalpur from one N.Vijayan.In the sale deed, area of the house was shown as 1736 sq.ft.and the stamp duty of Rs.74,025/- was paid.On verification, it was revealed that the area of the house was in fact 2454 sq.ft.On the sale deed, stamp duty of Rs.1,03,459/- ought to have been paid whereas Dev Vrat Mishra in conspiracy with Sub- Registrar Surendra Kori paid the stamp duty only of Rs.74,025/-.On verification from the Public Works Department, Jabalpur, it was (3) W.P.2431/2010 M.Cr.C.848/2010 found that the constructed area of the three floors of the house was also mentioned less in the sale deed with a view to evade the requisite stamp duty payable on the sale deed.C.848/2010 sale deed was executed, he was not posted in Special Police Establishment Lokayukt; he was posted as Company Commander in P.T.S.Umaria, Shahdol.This fact is substantiated by letter dated 25.1.2010 addressed to Superintendent of Police, SPE from Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur.Thus, the allegation made in the first information report that Dev Vrat Mishra abused his position as DSP Lokayukt prima facie does not appear correct.Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.Since in both the cases petitioners have sought quashing of the first information report dated 6.1.2010 leading to the registration of Crime No.2/2010 and its investigation by Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Bhopal, this order shall govern the disposal of both the cases.Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal registered the aforesaid first information report on 6.1.2010 against the petitioners under sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.He had purchased a splendid house worth Rs.20 lacs by showing its price only Rs.7 lacs.This complaint of (4) W.P.2431/2010 M.Cr.(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, we have to evaluate only the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the material collected against them during investigation.Crux of the first information report and the evidence collected during investigation is that petitioner Dev Vrat Mishra in conspiracy with Sub Registrar Surendra Kori undervalued the house and paid only Rs. 74,025/- towards stamp duty and taxes etc. whereas on verification from the PWD Jabalpur, it was disclosed that constructed area of the house was not correctly shown in the map and sale deed.Dev Vrat Mishra was legally required to pay stamp duty etc. of Rs.1,03,459/-.However, the investigation with respect to offence under sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed.In the result, both the petitions (W.P.No.2431/2010 and M.Cr.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,311,215 |
VINOD GOEL, J.:Appellant Poonam (A2) was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months.It was further directed that out of payment of fine of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.15,000/- would be given to the father of the deceased.Both the appellants were further sentenced to undergo RI for four years for the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC r/w Section 120B. A1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo SI for four months.A2 was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months.The Ld.ASJ recommended the DLSA to award compensation to the legal heirs of deceased u/s 357A Cr.P.C.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 1 of 39On the same evening Jagan Lal (PW1) aged about 80 years visited the PS and recorded his statement (Ex.Further he stated that 2-3 days back, Sanjay had an altercation with A1 and his companion JCL Vicky who were working as Security Guards in the under construction flats of Supreme Company near their residence.He flagged his suspicion towards A1, JCL Vicky for kidnapping his son, and towards A2 for being involved with them in their act.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 2 of 39During investigation a secret informer conveyed to PW25 that Sanjay was murdered by A1 and JCL Vicky the previous night and both of them are hiding themselves near Vaishno Mata Mandir, near pond.On identification by the complainant, PW25 and HC Ashok Kumar (PW27) apprehended both of them.They revealed that they murdered Sanjay in the Guard Room of Supreme Construction Company at Tikri Kalan and dumped the body in the borewell pit situated on Tikri Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 3 of 39 Nizampur Road.Sanwar Mal (PW28) testified that on 5th September, 2013 at about 10:00 pm SI Beerpal Singh (PW25) informed the then SHO, PS Mundka that during the investigation of the case they apprehended A1 and Juvenile in Conflict with Law (JCL), Vicky and the apprehended persons disclosed that they had killed the deceased i.e. Sanjay and threw his body in a borewell at Tikri-Nizampur Road.On receiving this information, he along with SHO/Insp.Rajpal reached the Nizampur Road.The place was at a distance of about 1 km from the railway line on the Nizampur Road.They met SI Beerpal Singh (PW25) and HC Ashok (PW27) who had apprehended A1 and JCL Vicky.Both A1 and JCL stated that the dead body of Sanjay was in the borewell.On the direction of the SHO, PW28 took over the Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 7 of 39 investigation.He interrogated the apprehended persons, A1 and JCL wherein they conveyed that the dead body was in the borewell.He saw the dead body lying in the borewell.The SHO directed to call the fire brigade officials as well as the crime team.With the help of the available police staff and the fire brigade officials, the dead body was pulled out from the borewell.The body was identified at the spot by Jaganlal (PW1) to be that of his son.The dead body was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/B and through Ct.Santram (PW24), the body was taken in official hearse van for preservation in the mortuary to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 7 of 39SI Beerpal Singh (PW25) (since retired) deposed that in the evening of 5th September, 2013 while he was posted at PS Mundka, the complainant i.e. Jaganlal (PW1) came to the police station and made his statement regarding the abduction of his son Sanjay for which A2 had informed the police during noon time vide DD No.24A (Ex.PW7/A).He stated that Jaganlal (PW1) expressed his suspicion over A1 and Vicky, who were working as Security Guards in the Supreme Construction Company at Tikri Extension.He stated that PW1 expressed his suspicion over A2 as well.He recorded the statement of Jaganlal (Ex.PW1/A) and read over the same to him and Jaganlal (PW1) put his thumb impression.He recorded his endorsement Ex.PW25/A and sent the rukka to the duty officer at about 7:15 pm.An FIR was registered under Section 365 of the IPC.He along with the complainant (PW1) and HC Ashok (PW27) Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 8 of 39 proceeded with a copy of DD No.24A (Ex.PW7/A) for search of the suspected persons.They searched the cremation ground at Tikri Kalan when one informer passed on an information to him that A1 and JCL Vicky had murdered Sanjay on the night intervening 4/5th September, 2013 and they were hiding near Vaishno Mata Mandir Pond.They reached at the Vaishno Mata Mandir Pond.On interrogation, they disclosed that Sanjay was murdered by them in the guardroom of the Supreme Construction Company in Tikri Extension and his body was thrown by them in a borewell pit situated on the Tirki-Nizampur Road.Pursuant to this information, A1 and JCL led them to the borewell and with the help of a torch, PW25 could see a dead body lying in the borewell.He informed telephonically the facts to the SHO and conveyed the information to the duty officer at 10:10 pm and remained at the spot.He further testified that at about 10:35 pm, Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28), Insp.Raj Kumar SHO, SI Manoj Bhatia, HC Devender, Ct.Narender (PW17) and Ct.Rajpal reached at the spot.He conveyed to them the facts and on the direction of the SHO, investigation was taken over by Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28).He stated that the fire brigade and crime team officials were called and with the help of the fire brigade officials and beat staff, the dead body was taken out from the borewell, which was identified by the complainant Jaganlal (PW1) to be of his son Sanjay.He observed injury marks on the neck, chest, face and head.Parvinder (PW19), who was posted in the mobile crime team of the West District at the relevant time testified that the dead body was found in a well near the railway crossing and he took photographs of the dead body as well as of the two persons who were apprehended by the police.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 13 of 39It has come in the deposition of PW25 and PW28 that A1 was arrested by memo Ex.PW25/C and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW25/D. On interrogation, A-1 made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW25/E).In the meanwhile, SI Anu also reached at the spot and conducted separate proceedings in respect of JCL Vicky.Sanwar Mal (PW28) testified that A1 as well as JCL Vicky led them towards the fields situated along the Railway Line and got recovered blood stained shirt of JCL Vicky, which was seized by memo Ex.PW25/F. When they reached the premises of the Supreme Construction Company, A1 as well as JCL pointed out towards the Guard Room where they had committed the murder of Sanjay.The Pointing Out Memo Ex.PW25/G was prepared.He found that the Guard Room had since been washed but the blood stains were still visible on one of its walls.He had scratched out the portion of the blood stained wall from the Guard Room vide memo Ex.PW25/K. He had also scratched earth control from the wall of the Guard Room vide memo Ex.PW25/L. Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28) deposed that A1 and JCL further led them to the cremation ground at Village Tikri and pointed out the spot where they had kept the deceaseds body after Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 14 of 39 killing him.A pointing out memo Ex.PW25/H was prepared.He also noticed blood stains on the ground in the cremation ground at the spot pointed out by A1 and JCL and lifted blood stained earth control by memo Ex.PW25/N.PW17/C. A1 further led Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28) to his house in Village Tikri Kalan where he got recovered one mobile phone, which he would use to talk to A2 and it was seized by seizure memo Ex.The factum of the recovery of the knife, iron pipe, jeans pant of the JCL Vicky from the Guard Room, his mobile phone, clothes and said motorcycle in pursuance to the disclosure statement, made by A1 are admissible under Section 27 of the IEA.Role of A2 in the crime:It is noticeable that A2 did not inform her father-in-law i.e. Jaganlal (PW1) about the deceased being missing until 6:00 am of the next morning even though he was sleeping in the same house in a separate room." Deposition of PW7, who recorded DD No. 24A (Ex.PW7/A) at the instance of A2, wherein A2 submitted her own mobile number as 8510036520 and that of her husbands as 9899075827 and the time of her husband leaving the house on 4th September, 2013 to be 11.30 pm, went unrebutted and unchallenged during his cross-examination.Pursuant to the disclosure statement, A1 and JCL led the police party to the house of the deceased Sanjay and pointed it out to be the house from where the deceased was dragged to the Guard Room of the Supreme Construction Company.Sanwar Mal (PW28) testified that A2 was available in the house and lady Ct.Meena (PW18) interrogated her.She was arrested by arrest memo Ex.PW18/A. Her personal search was carried out by PW18 vide memo Ex.PW18/B. A mobile phone was recovered from the personal search of A2, which was seized by memo Ex.P18/C.The testimony of Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28) was corroborated by W/Ct.PW18 conducted the personal search of A2 on the direction of Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28) and the mobile phone recovered from her personal search Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 24 of 39 was seized and sealed vide memo Ex.PW-18/C. Noticeably, the seizure of the mobile phone and the personal search of the A2 was not disputed in the cross-examination of Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28), Ct.Meena (PW18) and SI Beerpal Singh (PW25).Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 24 of 39The CDR of the said mobile phone number 9811264013 is Ex.PW13 Pawan Singh has brought the Customer Application Form (CAF) for the prepaid connection Ex.A mobile number 8510036520 was allotted.The CDR of this mobile for the period from 1st June, 2013 to 5th September, 2013 is Ex.On 4th September, 2013, A1 & A2 had a conversation even at 23:21:17 hours and 23:18:46 hours for 44 and 57 seconds respectively.During the day, on 4th September, 2013, they talked to each other at 6:18:19 hours (17 seconds), 8:22:43 (428 seconds) 9:58:41 (112 seconds) and 12:28:12 (516 seconds).A2 has given the mobile number 9899075827 having been carried by deceased with him in her missing report (Ex.PW7/A) but the CDR of her mobile No.8510036520 (Ex.P13/3) for 4th September, 2013 does not indicate any attempt by her to call the deceased even once after 12:25:52 hours on that day.Further, the dubious conduct of A2 after the deceased went missing is also on record in the form of testimony Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 33 of 39 of PW1 (the father of the deceased) wherein he stated that on 5th September, 2013 at about 06:00 AM, A2 informed him that the deceased had gone to answer the call of nature and never returned whereas in DD No. 24A that she lodged at 12:00 noon on the same day (Ex.When her husband carrying the mobile number 9899075827 did not return after 11.30 pm on 4th September, 2013, A2 (using the mobile number 8510036520) did not even make an attempt to call and find out about the whereabouts of her husband.These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 9th December, 2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, West, Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 1 of 39 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (ASJ) in Case No.56384/2016 arising out of FIR No.190/2013, Police Station (PS) Mundka whereby the appellants were convicted for murdering Sanjay, for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 302 IPC r/w Section 120B and Section 201 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC.The appellants have also challenged the order on sentence dated 15th December, 2016 whereby they were sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment (RI) for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC.Appellant Rajiv @ Monu (A1) was directed to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for six months.On the statement of PW1 (Ex.PW1/A), SI Birpal Singh (PW25) recorded his endorsement (Ex.PW25/A) and FIR No.190/2013 under Section 365 IPC was registered on 5th September, 2013 and investigation was started.Thereafter, they led the police party to the borewell where PW25 with the help of a torch could see a body lying therein.After completion of the investigation charge-sheet u/s 365/302/201/120B/34 IPC was filed against both the appellants.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 3 of 39Charges were framed against both the appellants by the Ld. ASJ on 19th February, 2014 for the offences punishable u/s 120B IPC, Section 365 r/w Section 120B IPC, Section 302 r/w Section 120B IPC and Section 201 r/w Section 120B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined 28 witnesses.ASJ after examining the prosecution evidence, called upon both the appellants and put to them separately all the incriminatory evidence against them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.)By the impugned judgment dated 9th December, 2016, the Ld.ASJ found that it was a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances was so complete that it indicated the guilt of both the appellants without any hypothesis of their innocence.It is argued by Mr.Anil Dabas, learned counsel for A1 that the witnesses of the recovery of the dead body, weapon of offence i.e. the knife and blood stained clothes and the pointing out memo of the place Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 4 of 39 of occurrence do not inspire confidence since no public witness was associated.He argued that the site plan is not according to the topography of the place of occurrence and it does not reflect the side- wall of the guardroom from where the blood stains on the tiles were seized.He argued that the naksha mauka nazri (rough site plan) prepared by the IO of the place of the murder does not reflect the khunti (peg) on which the jeans pant of A1 was hanging.He argued that the contradictions between the statements of Constable Narender (PW17) and IO Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28) create doubt about the recovery.He argued that the Ld. ASJ failed to consider as to why A1 would make a second disclosure statement against himself.He argued that the blood group of the deceased could not be detected either on the jeans pant of A1 recovered from the guardroom, or on the knife and iron pipe recovered from a pit.He argued that Rajbir (PW8), Dhirender Kataria (PW10) and Bhagirath Sharma (PW11) who were employed as security guards with Supreme Construction Company did not support the case of the prosecution.He referred to the deposition of Munna Lal (PW15), the security supervisor who stated that on the crucial night Dhirender Kataria, Rajbir Randhawa, Amit Kumar, Mukesh, Naveen and Sanjay were on duty.He argued that this evidence clearly suggests that the appellant had no access to the room where the alleged incident took place.He further argued that Pankaj (PW4), who is the owner of the motorcycle No. DL 4S CA 6615 and his brother Deepak (PW5), did not support the case of the prosecution and thus the prosecution has failed to prove that the said motorcycle Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 5 of 39 was used by A1 in the crime.He argued that the recovery of the dead body vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/B is doubtful as the seizure memo did not bear the signature of any independent witness despite the complainant Jaganlal (PW1), the father of the deceased being present there.He argued that it is against the normal human conduct that a wife would have long conversations with another man during late hours when her husband is at home.He argued that even the family members of the deceased i.e. PW1 (father), PW2 (brother) and PW3 (brother) have not supported the case of the prosecution.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 4 of 39Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 5 of 39She argued that this phone in fact belonged to the deceased.She submitted that even for the sake of arguments if it is assumed that the mobile No.8510036520 was used by A2, it does not lead to the presumption that she was the only user of the said number in the family.She argued that the fact of A2 filing the Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 6 of 39 missing person report is inconsistent with the hypothesis of her guilt and the same has not been appreciated by the Ld. ASJ.She submitted that her endeavor was to get her husband traced rather than to confuse or mislead the police.She argued that the Trial Court has based its findings on conjectures and surmises.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 6 of 39Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 8 of 39Santram (PW24) also corroborated the statement of Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28) and SI Beerpal Singh (PW25) that the dead body of a male person was taken out by the fire brigade officials from a borewell pit at Tikri-Nizampur Road across the railway track near the electricity pole.The dead body had injuries on its face, head and neck.He took the dead body to the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital by an ambulance and got preserved the body in the mortuary.He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-CUT THROAT WOUND, 17x5 cm, deep upto vertebral column bone, lying over front and lateral sides of neck with complete transaction of trachea and neck muscles at lower border of thyroid cartilage along with underlying blood vessels.Bruise red coloured, 10x7 cm over back of left chest.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 10 of 39Lacerated wound, 5x1 cm x bone deep on right frontal region.Lacerated wound, 9x1 cm, bone deep on right frontal parietal region.Incised wound, 1.6 x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left middle finger.Incised wound, 1.4 x 0.3 cm x muscle deep on left index finger."In his opinion, the cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of neck and head injuries that were ante-mortem in nature.He found that the injury No.1 was caused by a sharp edged weapon.After the post mortem examination he handed over the dead body to the IO along with the post mortem report (PMR) Ex.PW23/A. On 23rd September, 2013 after looking at the weapon of the offence i.e. the knife and the iron pipe and injuries mentioned in the PMR, he opined that injuries No.1, 5 and 6 were possibly caused with the knife examined or a similar one and injuries No.2 to 4 were possibly caused with the iron pipe examined or a similar one.It is thus clear that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.A2 who is the wife of the deceased Sanjay approached the PS Mundka on 5th September, 2013 at about 12 noon and HC Ram Bhagat (PW7) recorded the missing report vide DD No.24A, which is Ex.A2 also mentioned her mobile number as 8510036520 in the missing Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 11 of 39 report.Despite opportunity, both the appellants did not cross-examine the witness.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 11 of 39It is noticeable that Jaganlal (PW1) testified that his son Sanjay was killed 5/6 months ago and he is not aware of the identity of the person who killed him.He stated that A2, who was present in the Court during his deposition, must be aware of who killed Sanjay.He further testified that after the murder of his son, his corpse was thrown into a well situated at Nizampur Road, which was taken out by the police and he identified the body.He confirmed that he lodged a missing report, Ex.PW1/A which bears his thumb impression and thus corroborated the testimony of PW25 SI Beerpal Singh.He further testified that on 5th September, 2013 at 6:00 am, A2 informed him that the deceased had gone to answer the call of nature but never returned.He further stated that A2 lied to him in the morning.He stated that A2 had left the house at 3:00 am when he was sleeping in the other room.Sanwar Mal (PW28) further testified that A1 and JCL Vicky led them to the house of the deceased Sanjay where A1 pointed out that it was the house from where they had dragged the deceased Sanjay to the Guard Room of the Supreme Construction Company and prepared a memo Ex.PW25/J.Upon further interrogation by Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28), A1 made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW17/A) disclosing some new facts.PW28 stated that pursuant to the supplementary disclosure statement, A1 took them to the Security Guard Room of the Construction Company site where he dug out a kitchen knife from the ground on the south side outside the guard room.It was a blood stained knife, approximately 18.5 cm in length with a blade of about 8.5 cm.The knife was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B. A1 further got recovered a blood stained iron pipe from a pit on the eastern side at about 15-20 steps from the guard room, which was seized by seizure memo Ex.A1 further led them to the house of his uncle, Virender, a resident of Village Tikri Kalan and got recovered a motorcycle DL 4S CA 6615, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/F (the Trial Court observed that witness could not tell the complete number of the motorcycle, however, the existence and identity of the motorcycle No. DL 4S CA 6615 was not disputed by the appellants).A1 also got recovered the clothes of JCL lying in the Guard Room of Supreme Construction Company, which were seized by seizure memo Ex.PW- 17/D.It is noticed from the deposition of Insp.Sanwar Mal (PW28), SI Beerpal (PW25), Ct.Even in their respective cross-examination they remained firm to their stand and the defence could not cause any dent in their respective testimonies.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 16 of 39Blood stained cemented pieces seized from the Guard Room of the Supreme Construction Company and a shirt belonging to JCL seized from the field were examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) by reports Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and human blood of B Group was found thereon.PW-14/3 for the period, from 2nd June, 2013 to 6th September, 2013 with a certificate Ex.PW-13/3 with a certificate Ex.This clearly established that both the appellants were in regular touch with each other.On 5th September, 2013, while lodging the missing report of her husband, A2 stated that her husband left the house at 11.30 pm on 4th September, 2013 whereas she informed her father-in- law i.e. Jagan Lal (PW1) that the deceased had gone to answer the call of the nature at 6 am, which clearly reflects her mens rea in her attempt to afford explanation of lodging the missing report of her husband.The cross-examination of Jagan Lal (PW1) by the defence does not dispute that she informed him about the deceased leaving the house at 6 am to answer the call of nature.The use of the mobile phone no.8510036520 by A2 is further proved from the fact that the calls were also made on 5th September, 2013 several times with the last call being made at 17.00.16 hours.Additionally, PW1 has also deposed that A2 left the house at about 03:00 am in the night.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 33 of 39Both the appellants failed to provide a reasonable explanation of their prolonged and multiple conversations over the mobile phone since 9th July, 2013 till the time the deceased went missing.The CDRs of the said mobile numbers of the appellants have been proved.The deposition of PW1 to the effect that at 6:00 am A2 told him about his son not returning after having gone to answer the call of nature, and that A2 had left the house at about 3:00 am in the night went un-rebutted and is relevant.There exists no reasonable explanation as to why A2 would lie about her missing husband to her husband's own father and why she would leave the house at 03:00 am.The incriminatory evidence was put to both the appellants separately u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., by the Ld. ASJ.While answering Q.No.92, 93 & 94, A1 stated its a matter of record regarding his CAF with ID proof Ex.P14/1 & Ex.PW14/2 and CDR (Ex.PW14/3) and added that the record was fabricated and false at the instance of the Investigation Officer.A2 admitted having gone to lodge the missing person report of her husband Sanjay (deceased).Subsequent conduct of A1 by pointing out the house from where the deceased was taken to the Guard Room of the Supreme Construction Company and killed, and the pointing out of the Shamshan Ghat where the body of the deceased was kept after the murder is also relevant u/s 8 of the IEA.Based on his disclosure statement, A1 got recovered the knife and the iron pipe used in the commission of crime and also the blood stained clothes of JCL.A2 in her missing report Ex.PW7/A lodged on 5th September, 2013 mentioned that the deceased left the house on 4th September, 2013 at 11:30 pm but at 6:00 am on 5th September, 2013 she lied to her father in law that the deceased had gone to answer the call of nature.Crl.A.192 & 284/2017 Page 37 of 39In view of the above discussion, we found that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants upto the hilt.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,059,921 |
The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:(a) The prosecution party and the appellants belong to Pillaiyar kuppam village of Puducherry.Both belong to two rival political groups.(b) According to the prosecution, on 27.10.2008, at about 6.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was proceeding towards his home at Pilliyar kuppam village, A.9, A.10, A.11 and A.15, who belong to the opposite group, waylaid and beat him near Angalamman temple with iron pipe and stick.He sustained injuries on his lips.P.W.1 went to his house and informed his father Subramaniam (deceased).Both, PW.1 and the deceased went to the house of the 1st appellant to complain about the incident.Since the 1st appellant was not in his house, they returned back.On the way, they met P.W.2, 3 and 5 who were friends of P.W.1 and they enquired about the attack.They were standing in front of the house of the deceased and were discussing.(c) P.W.4 the daughter-in-law of the deceased was in the house.At that time, the appellants A.1 to A.17 came as a mob carrying iron pipe,wooden logs, knife and sticks and thereby, formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons.(d) On seeing the mob, P.W.1,2,3 and 5 ran to a safe place and hide themselves behind a bamboo screen of the house of P.W.1's aunt.Stating, if the father is beaten the son will come, they started beating the deceased on his back and chest with iron pipe and stick.P.W.4 intervened and questioned them.1st appellant beat P.W.4 with iron pipe.The appellants 1 and 2 instigated the other appellants to attack the prosecuting party.(d) On such instructions, the appellants attacked the witnesses, some of whom sustained fractures and grievous injuries and houses were damaged and articles destroyed.(e) On receiving such information about the riot over phone, P.W.45, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kirumambakkam Police station, went to the scene of occurrence at 8.40 p.m with the police party and took control of the situation, forwarded the injured to the hospital for treatment and arranged bandobust in the locality.(f) P.W.1 to 5 and other injured witnesses including the fatally injured Subramanian were admitted in a private hospital and the said Subramanian was declared dead.(g) On 28.10.2008 at 1.00 a.m, P.W.1 went to the Kimambakkam police station and gave a complaint Ex.P.1 which was received by the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.280 of 2008 under sec.147,148, 452, 302, 324, 427 r/w 149 IPC against the appellants.(h) He prepared the printed First Information Report Ex.P.102 and forwarded the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Puducherry and also to the Inspector of Police.(i) P.W.42 was the Inspector of Police, Kirumambakkam.He received the First Information Report on 28.10.2008 at around 3.00 a.m, went to the hospital and enquired P.W.2 and other witnesses.(j) He forwarded the body of the deceased to the Puducherry Government General Hospital.He went to the scene of occurrence at 6.30 a.m, and prepared the observation mahazar and sketch and he also seized various articles as material objects at the scene of occurrence under mahazar in the presence of various witnesses.(k) He proceeded to the General Hospital and in the presence of witnesses, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.He gave a request for conducting postmortem of the dead body of the deceased.(l) P.W.39 was the Medical Officer in the Forensic department of Government Hospital, Puducherry.On 28.10.2008, around 2.00 p.m, he conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased.He found an abrasion on the front middle of the chest.On internal examination, he found fracture of the sternum between the 2nd and 3rd rib and fracture of 2,3 and 4th rib and on dissection he found a contusion over the right article and over the left ventricle of the heart.He opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to blunt injuries to the chest.(m) P.W.42 examined all the injured witnesses in the hospital and also P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements.He seized the blood stained clothes of the injured under mahazar.He examined the mahazar witnesses and recorded their statements.(n) On 30.10.2008 around 6.00 a.m., he arrested A.12 and A.13 at Narambai Arrack Shop.He recorded their confession statements in front of P.W.28 Village Administrative Officer.Pursuant to their confession, he proceeded to Cuddalore and at the Cuddalore Bus Stand, he arrested A.4 A.11, A.8, A.9, A.10, A.15, A.16 and brought them to the police station.He recorded their confession statements in the presence of the same witness .(o) In pursuance of confession given by A.11, he recovered a casuarina stick (M.O.50).In pursuant to the confession given by A.13 he recovered another stick (M.O.51).From A.4 iron pipe (M.O.52) A.12 iron pipe (M.O.53) A.10 knife (M.O.54); from A.15 casuarina stick (M.O.55) A.8 another stick (M.O.56), A.9 another stick (M.O.57), A.16 Iron pipe (M.O.58).He remanded all the accused for judicial custody.(p) On 1.11.2008, he showed the weapons to the doctor who conducted the post mortem and obtained his opinion.He also received the postmortem report.He also examined some more prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements.He recovered a casuarina stick from A.11 (M.O.59) from A5 a stick (M.O.60), A.7 a stick (M.O.61) A.14 another stick (M.O.62) in the presence of the same witnesses and remanded them for judicial custody.(r) On 13.11.2008, he arrested A.3 at Pachiankuppam around 1.00 p.m. He recorded the statement in the presence of the same witnesses and he recovered an iron suluki (M.O.63) and remanded the accused.P.W.1 would state that on 27.10.2008 at 6.00 p.m, he was proceeding to his house via Angalamman Koil street and at that time, the above said accused assaulted him with iron pipe and wooden log and he sustained injuries on the lip.He informed his father, (deceased) who took him to A.1's house to complain and since A.1 was not there, they returned back.P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 joined P.W.1 and they were discussing about the assault in front of the house of the deceased.According to the prosecution witnesses, all the accused came with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly and on seeing the accused, P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 moved out to hide themselves behind the bamboo screen in the house of one Lakshmi.21. P.W.4 the daughter-in-law of the deceased was present in her house.The deceased Subramani was standing on the road in front of his house.P.1 which implicates all the named accused.This piece of evidence has come in the chief examination without any prompting.He was the first to go in to box, but has anticipated what P.W.30 going to state.In his cross examination he would state that Ex.P1 was not written by him.Vii) Ex.I, PuducherryThe Inspector of Police Kirumampakkam Police Station PuducherryAppeals filed under Sec.374 Cr.For A.1 to A.15 & 17 : Mr.V. Gopinath Senior Counsel for Mr.C. Mahendran For A.16 : Mr.R. Sankarasubbu For respondent : Mr.A. Ramesh Senior Counsel Spl.against the following accused are detailed hereunder:(s) On 19.11.2008 he arrested A.6 and recorded his confession in the presence of the same witnesses and recovered a causrina stick (M.O.64) and remanded the accused.Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to CB CID.(t) P.W.44, further investigated the case.On 27.11.2008, P.W.43, on instructions from P.W.44 went in search of the remaining accused.(u) P.W.44 examined A.1 and A.2 recorded their confession in the presence of one Subramani and Jayaraman.He remanded the accused for judicial custody.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.(v) On 18.12.2008 he examined the doctors and obtained wound certificates.He completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet on 13.2.2009 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry.The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, who took the case in PRC 8 of 2009 and later committed to Principal Sessions Court and the same was transferred to III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry for trial.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 45 witnesses, marked 102 documents and produced 66 Material Objects .On the side of the Defence, 5 documents were marked.On analaysing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused as above.Aggrieved by which all the accused have filed the present appeal.He took control of the situation, forwarded the injured to the hospital and examined the witnesses on the spot.P.W.1 who gave the complaint was present in the scene of occurrence when the police arrived.He was in the hospital where the police enquired and only at 1.00 a.m, P.W.1 alleged to have gone to the police station and gave complaint Ex.P.1 to PW.45 who received the same and registered a case.However, P.W.30 would claim that as per the instructions of the police, a complaint was written four or five times and then a complaint was finalised and PW.1 was brought to the police station to sign.According to P.W.45, P.W.1 appeared before him on 28.10.2008 at 1.00 a.m and gave a written complaint.But according to P.W.1, he narrated the complaint and P.W.45 reduced it into writing.The presence of P.W.30 at the time of complaint is mentioned in the complaint itself.The contradictions would show that the complainant is not genuine.(d) There is an inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the Court.P.W.45 has prepared the FIR Ex.P.102 at 1.00 a.m on 28.10.2008 and he has forwarded the same through the Head Constable at 7.10 a.m but the FIR reached the court only at 12.30 p.m. There is almost a delay of 12 hours in the FIR reaching the Court.(e) the evidence of P.W.1 to 5 are unbelievable and their presence in the scene of occurrence while the deceased was attacked is doubtful.i) According to P.W.1, the first incident was that on the day of occurrence around 6.00 p.m, when he was proceeding to his house through Angalamman Koil, the appellants 9, 10, 11 and A.15 assaulted him with iron pipe and stick and he sustained injuries on his lip.He was not examined by a doctor, though he went to the hospital.ii) According to P.W.1,2,3 and 5, the appellants came in a mob with deadly weapons and therefore, they hide themselves behind the bamboo screen of one Lakshmi's house (P.W.1's aunt).However, in their statement before the Investigating Officer, they have mentioned about one Nithya's house and P.W.1 would admit that the said Nithya,s (P.W.1's elder sister) house is at Karaikadu.In any event none of these house are shown in the sketch.iii) P.W.3 would state that he was present along with P.W1, 2 and 5 when the deceased was attacked at 8.30 p.m. But in his cross examination, he would admit that at 8.30 p.m, he was in his house when his father and mother (P.W.10 and 11) were attacked.But at the same time, P.W.10 and 11 would state that PW3 was not in the village and he came to know about the attack on the next day.But he would also state he was present at his house when his mother (P.W.7) was attacked.v)P.W.7 would state that at 8.00 p.m P.W.5 was in her house and only by 8.30 p.m he went out and only after an half an hour, she was attacked.vi)P.W.4 would state that the deceased was attacked and she interfered and she was attacked by three named accused.But in her cross examination she would state the she has not sustained any injury and she would also state that P.W.1 to 3 and 5 hide themselves in the house of one Ambika.Therefore, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 5 in the scene of occurrence while the deceased sustained injury is doubtful.(f) The injury sustained by the deceased, the overt act attributed to the accused and the medical evidence are contradictory.i)According to P.W.1, A.1,A.2,A.10 and A.11 beat the deceased on his back and chest.He has not mentioned any weapon and no specific overtact is attributed.ii)According to P.W.2, the same accused enquired the deceased about PW.1 and when he replied that he did not know.They said that if you are beaten, your son will come and he had not specifically stated any overtact.iii)According to P.W.3, at 8.30 p.m, the mob came to his house first and assaulted his parents and thereafter, they went to the house of the deceased and enquired about P.W.1 and beat him and he has not mentioned any specific overt act.iv)According to P.W.4, the 4 accused assaulted the deceased with iron pipe and no specific overt act attributed.v) P.W.5, has not specifically implicated A.1,A2,A.10 and A.11, but would state that more than 10 accused came with deadly weapons and assaulted the deceased.vi) P.W.39, the post mortem doctor found one external injury on the chest and the corresponding internal injury.When there is no specific overact attributed to A.1, A.2, A.10 and A.11 as to who inflicted the fatal blow, the benefit has to be given to the accused.(g) The evidence of the injured witness is contradictory to entries made in the wound certificate and Accident Registers.According to the learned senior counsel, a close reading of the evidence of all the witnesses would clearly spell out the contradictions in respect of the time of giving the complaint, the delay in the First Information Report reaching the Court and glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of injured witnesses.Thus, as it is apparent that the trial court has grossly erred in accepting the prevaricating evidence of the prosecution witnesses and awarding the sentence as stated above, it is absolutely necessary for this Court to set aside its verdict and extend benefit of doubt to the accused.On the contrary, Mr.A. Ramesh, Senior counsel and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent pointed out that the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 5, corroborated by the medical evidence would go to show that the appellants A.1, A.2, A.10 and A.11 have voluntarily caused the death of the deceased and therefore, the conviction under Sec.302 r/w 34 is sustainable.He states that the injured witnesses have spoken to about their assailants and the manner in which they attacked and such version having been corroborated by medical evidence, the trial court is absolutely right in relying and acting upon the evidence of the injured witnesses.The learned senior counsel pointed out that though the deceased had sustained only one injury, the evidence of the eyewitnesses would go to show that the appellants 1, 2, 10 and 11 assaulted the deceased with iron pipe and stick.Though, the eyewitnesses failed to identify the accused persons who inflicted the fatal blow, the four appellants who assaulted must be held responsible for the offence under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC .He also pointed out that subsequent to the unfortunate incident that had taken place on 27.10.2008 at 8.30 p.m, P.W.45 the Sub Inspector of Police, who received the information regarding the riot, went to the scene of occurrence and his first duty was to take control of the situation and forward the injured to the Hospital for treatment.Therefore, whatever information he received either before proceeding to the scene of occurrence or at the place of occurrence cannot be treated as first information as he was engaged in basic bandobust duty and only subsequent to such course, he has received the complaint from PW1 at 1.00 a.m and registered the case.The First Information Report was immediately forwarded to the learned Magistrate who received the same in the court at 12.00 p.m. Therefore, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, there is no delay either in registering the case or forwarding the FIR to the Court.As regards lack of minute details from the version of injured eyewitnesses the learned Special Public Prosecutor explained that in a riot where the mob is unruly ever minute detail as to the role played by each of the several accused cannot be narrated exactly by the witnesses and therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is unassailable for upholding the conviction.The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on a decision reported in 1999 1 SCC 148 (Kishori vs State of Delhi), wherein the Apex court has held as follows:We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.For the convenience sake, the appellants are referred to as accused in their ranks.The only fact admitted is that the group of the prosecution party and that of the appellants are opposed to each other because of political rivalry between them.Since he did not answer them, they assaulted the said Subramaniam with iron pipe and wooden log on his chest as well as on his back.When P.W.4 interfered and questioned them A.10, A.11 and A.15 assaulted her .This was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5, who were hiding behind the bamboo screen at Lakshmi's house.This occurrence took place at around 8 to 8.30 p.m. At 8.40 p.m, P.W.45 Sub Inspector of Police, on receiving the information about the riot, went to the scene of occurrence with police party, took control of the situation and forwarded the injured to the private hospital.P.Ws.1 to 5 had also gone to the hospital where PW1's father was declared dead and around 1 a.m, P.W.1 appeared before P.W.45 and gave the complaint, narrating the incident and implicating all the accused.P.W.1, in his cross examination, would admit that there was a quarrel in respect of the temple festival and with reference to the same, a case has been registered against him and against P.W.2,3 and 5 and he was also arrested.27. P.W.7, the mother of P.W.5 would also admit in her cross examination that in the morning, there was a quarrel and fight between the two rival groups.She would specifically state that from 8.00 a.m, both the groups were fighting and assaulting each other in the street.According to her, by 8.30 p.m, she was in the house.At that time, A.1 assaulted her with a pipe on her hand and she sustained a fracture.A.2 inflicted cut injury on the thigh; A.3 inflicted cut injury on the head with suluki knife and A.4 assaulted her on the left hand and right leg with pipe.28. P.W.8 would state that, when he was in his house, he heard loud noise at the house of A.1 and at that time, a group of 10 to 15 persons passed by his house and behind them, the accused party came with weapons and subsequently, A.10 trespassed into his house and cut him on the head ; A.4 assaulted him with pipe on his waist while A.13 beat him on the chest.P.W.9 is the wife of PW.8 who would corroborate the version of her husband.30. P.W.12 another injured witness also state that from the noon, there was a fight going on between two groups.His version is also corroborated by P.W.13, another injured witness.From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that too, injured witnesses, it is evident that even prior to the alleged occurrence with reference to which Ex.P.1 came into existence, a group clash, fight, was going on between the two rival groups on the day of occurrence.It is well settled that when the prosecution seem to have suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence, courts have to examine the theory of the prosecution very cautiously to find out at the first instance as to whether the prosecution has come up with a true version.Though the entire evidence cannot be discarded in toto, the genesis of the occurrence and the fight between two rival groups should be kept in mind, as the prospects of implicating persons who did not even involve in the crime cannot be ruled out.It is noted that though P.W.1 states that he was assaulted by A.9, A.10, A.11 and A.15 at 6.00 p.m while proceeding via Angalamman Street, unfortunately, there is no eyewitness for such attack and he was also not examined by the doctor.Though, P.Ws.2, 3 and 5, the friends of P.W.1 would state as if they were present when P.W.1 was assaulted, P.W.1 did not state that they were present when he was assaulted.Further, according to P.W.1, after returning from A.1's house, they were standing in front of his house along with the deceased when the accused party came there with weapons.He would specifically state that at that time, first they went to P.W.8's house, assaulted him and thereafter only, they came towards his house and, by that time, they could hide themselves at Lakshmi's House.According to P.W.3, fight started at 8.30 p.m. Whereas P.W.12, another witness and P.W.s 4, 5 would state that such fight started even at 7.30 p.m. Conveniently P.Ws.1 and 2 did not mention about the time of occurrence.In the order of examination of witnesses, P.W.7, was the first injured witness to be examined.She would state that when she was in the house at 8.30 p.m, A.1 to A.4 assaulted her and she specified about the individual overtacts.The rough sketch of the scene of occurrence has been produced with the type set of papers.The house of the deceased and the injured witnesses 7 to 29 are scattered over the area which are dived in to main streets and cross streets.P.Ws.15 to 19 and 21 to 25 and 27 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.P.W.7 to 14 and 20 are the injured witnesses.P.Ws.10 and 11 are residing at Door No.12, as shown in the sketch at Pipdic Street.In the same street the house of deceased also situate.It is the categorical admission of P.Ws.10 and 11 that their son (P.W.3) went out for agricultural operations and he was not in the house at the time of the occurrence, when they were assaulted and that he came to know about the assault only on the next day.43. PW.3 would state that at 8.30 p.m, he was standing in front of the deceased's house along with P.Ws.1 to 5 and at that time, the accused persons came there.He moved away from the place and hide himself behind the screen at Lakshmi's house.44. P.Ws.1,2 and 5 would also state that they hide themselves behind a screen at Lakshmi's house.However it was elicited from P.W.1 and also from the investigating officer that in their statement under sec.161, they have stated that they hide themselves at one Nithya's house.But P.W.4 would state about one Ambika's house.Unfortunately, the above three houses are not shown in the sketch prepared by the investigating officer.P.W.7 would also state that her son was not present when she was assaulted.But she would admit that till 8.00 p.m, P.W.5 was in the house.The evidence of the mother and parents of P.Ws.3 and 5 would show that there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 regarding their presence in front of the house of the deceased when he was assaulted.The contradiction about the place where P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 were hiding would also go to show that their very presence at the scene of occurrence when the deceased was assaulted is quiet doubtful.It is pertinent to point out that on the fateful day, a day long fight ensued and continued between the two rival groups and in that occurrence, these four witnesses were alleged to have damaged the property of A.10 and a case has also been registered against them.As a result of backlash, the accused group came in search of these four accused and also P.W.14 one Sathyamoorthi who belongs to prosecuting party.Another crucial aspect to be adverted to is that P.W.1 had already sustained injuries in the earlier fight.That being so, the evidence of PW.1 to 3 and 5 that the rioting party directly came to the house of the deceased and on seeing them, the above said four witnesses moved out and hide themselves behind the screen at one Lakshmi's house and from there, they witnessed A.1, A.2, A.10 and A.11 assaulting the deceased appears very doubtful.It is also pertinent to point out that when the above said four accused were assaulting the deceased, P.W.1, the son of the deceased, did not intervene but P.W.4, the daughter-in-law, a woman claims that she intervened.In fact, P.W.3 would state that at the same time he was witnessing the attack on his parents.In the chief examination, he would state that at 8.30 p.m, he was standing in front of the house of the deceased and on seeing the accused, he hide himself without mentioning the place where he went to hide.But in the cross examination, he would state that at 8.30 p.m, when he was in his house, his parents were assaulted by the accused and that he did not interfere.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the following case laws and stated that different persons will react differently and failure to interfere should not discredit their version.It is also very important that P.W.1 is the complainant who had implicated all the accused.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 5 and more particularly, the evidence of P.W.1 should inspire confidence so that ocular testimony can be accepted without any hesitation to bring home the guilt of the accused so as to sustain the prosecution case in its entirety.In this case, when the defence has to an extent able to demolish the case of the prosecution, the evidence of the so called eye witnesses has to be approached much cautiously.We have already highlighted that the overall circumstances and the conduct of the witnesses do not inspire confidence as the very presence of these witnesses at the scene of occurrence when the deceased was attacked is doubtful.It is evident that because of group rivalry, the fight has been going on between the parties for the whole day.In that course only, the mother of P.W.5 and parents of P.W.3 seemed to have been assaulted and Door No.10 was also trespassed and damaged while looking for P.W.14 by the gang.Since it is already noted that the very presence of A.1 to A.3 and A.5 is doubtful, one has to look about the presence of P.W.4 one Radhika, the daughter in law of the deceased.According to P.W.4 she saw the above said accused assaulting the deceased and when she interfered, A.10, A.11,A.15 assaulted her and she fainted.But she would admit in her cross examination that she did not sustain any injury.Her wound certificate is also not produced.Interestingly, she would corroborate P.W.s 1 to 3 and 5 in all aspects including their presence at the scene of occurrence and these witnesses hiding themselves behind a thatti screen.Though she would state that the thatti screen is at one Ambiga's house, the said place is .not shown in the sketch.Thus, among the five ocular witnesses, if the evidence of four of them is held as doubtful since their presence at the scene of occurrence is unbelievable, in such circumstances the corroborative evidence of the remaining ocular witness is also to be weighed in the same scale and in the absence of any other corroborative evidence her solitary evidence cannot be accepted.i) according to all the witnesses including the injured witnesses, not only P.W.45, the Sub Inspector of Police and also P.W.42, the inspector of police Ranganathan was also present at the scene of occurrence by 8.40 p.m. They have dutifully arranged bandobust, forwarded the injured to private hospital for treatment.Though it is not possible and also expected from them to record a statement at that time they could have received a complaint at the hospital from any one of the injured and register a case against the perpetrators.Because all the injured can identify their assailants.ii) P.W.1 would state that he went to the Hospital by 11.30 p.m and was told that his father was declared dead and as instructed by P.W.45, he went to the police station by 1.00 a.m on 28.10.2008 and has given the complaint Ex.iv) In Ex.P.1 he would mention the name of P.W.30 and state that he came along with him to give the complaint.P.1 is a detailed complaint disclosing all the names of the accused more particularly implicating A.1,A.2,A.10 and A.11 for assaulting the deceased.v) Interestingly, P.W.30 who seemed to have assisted P.W.1 in giving the complaint turned hostile when he was examined as a prosecution witness.In chief examination itself, he would state he is also residing at Angalamman Koil Street and on hearing the noise, he went out and witnessed the occurrence and he went to police station around 12.00 (he did not state whether on the same night or the next day) and as dictated by the Inspector he wrote the complaint and after rewriting four or five complaints, one complaint was finalised and at that time, P.W.1 was not there and was brought from the village and made to sign in Ex.vi) According to P.W.1, Ex.P.1 was written by P.W.45, the Sub Inspector of Police.According to P.W.45, P.W.1 gave a written complaint at 1.00 a.m which he received and registered a case.P.102 is the printed First Information Report.It was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.When there is group rivalry and both parties throwing allegations each other even a small delay has to be seriously viewed as it tend to lead to omissions and inclusions to implicate the persons of their choice.If any witness attempts to do it, his veracity will be doubtful.But it is simpler to make an omnibus statement that all the accused assaulted with their weapons because that obviates close cross-examination.Therefore, the nature of the injuries inflicted on the victim assumes importance.According to PWS.1 to 5, A.1,A.2,A.10 ad A.11 have assaulted the deceased with iron pipe and wooden log.As extracted earlier, the postmortem report would reveal a single blow on the chest of the deceased with an external contusion and internal broken ribs at the sternum and corresponding internal injury in the heart which was the cause of the death.According to them the occurrence took place at 8.30 p.m. At the same time, P.W.7 to 11 would also state that A.1 and A.2 were in their house at the same time assaulting them.Moreover, the ocular witnesses have not stated who has inflicted the fatal injury.It is also not always possible for the ocular witnesses to spell out in definite terms , which of the assailants inflicted which of the injury, when there are number of assailants/accused.When there is a common object of committing an offence it is not necessary to record a definite finding of the fact as to which of the assailants caused fatal injury.The trial court seemed to have sought the aid of Sec.34 of IPC and convicted A.1,A.2,A.10 and A.11 for an offence under Sec.302 IPC.Though there were four assailants, there is only one blow.If there are several blows and one blow happened to be a fatal one, irrespective of a definite finding of the fact of which of the assailant had caused the fatal injury, the court can seek the aid of Sec.34 or Sec.149 of IPC for punishing all the appellants for the offence under Sec.302 IPC.It is very pertinent to point out that there are more than 15 injured witnesses.P.W.7 the mother of P.W.5 would state that when she was in the house A.1 to A.4 trespassed into her house with knife, iron pipe, wooden log and suluki knife.She would assert that when they came it was 8.30 p.m. P.W.8 would state that at 8.00 pm he was assaulted by A.10 on his head and A.4 assaulted him on his waist.Therefore, the injured witness would state A.,1, A.2 and A.10 were in their house at 8.30 p.m, but the ocular witnesses would state that A.1,A.2,A.10 and A.11 at 8.30 p.m were assaulting the deceased in a different place.On the defence side, the Accident Registers dated 27.10.2008 are marked as Ex.In the history of the case, it is stated that alleged to have been assaulted by unknown persons at 10.00 p.m on 27.10.2008 Mr.V.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel pointed out that the evidence of the injured can not be believed as they have stated that they have been assaulted by unknown persons.No doubt, in the Accident Register it is stated so and in the wound certificate it is stated as known persons.The Doctors were also cross examined on this aspect.It is pertinent to point out that the injured were taken to a private hospital thereafter shifted to government hospital.The private hospital A R shows an entry as ' assaulted by unknown persons .It can not be correct for the simple reason that both parties are known to each other and are residing in the same locality.83. P.W.7 is an injured witnesses.She would state that A.1 to A.4 trespassed into her house with knife, iron pipe, wooden log and suluki knife.She would state that A.1 assaulted her with iron pipe on her left hand which caused fracture.A.2 assaulted her with wooden log at her right thigh and caused contusions.A.3 stabbed on her head with suluki knife and caused incised injury.A.4 had assaulted her with iron pipe on her left hand and right thigh.P.W.35 Dr.He has found a contusion and a cut injury on the left elbow, a contusion and cut injury on the left hand, an abrasion and contusion on the left knee, a cut injury on the right side of the head and taking an x-ray it is found that there is a fracture on the left elbow which is a grievous injury and has issued Ex.P.38 wound Certificate.The injuries as spoken by her are corroborated by the medical evidence.The injury inflicted by A.1 is a grievous injury and the other injuries are simple.P.W.8 Madamsamy would state that A.10 assaulted on his head with a knife.A.4 assaulted him with iron pipe on his waist.A.13 assaulted him on his chest with iron pipe.P.W.34, Dr.He found a cut injury on the left elbow and there is no fracture.Therefore, he issued EX.P.35 stating the he has suffered simple injury.The evidence of PW.8 is not corroborted by the medical evidence.He has implicated A.4 for assaulting him with a pipe on his waist but there is no corresponding injury; he has implicated A.10 giving cut injury on the head, and there is no corresponding injury; he has implicated A.13 for beating him on the chest with iron pipe.There is no corresponding injury.Therefore the offenses against A4, A10 and A13 can not be sustained.According to P.W.9, A.9 assaulted her on the left hand with an iron pipe and she suffered fracture.A.16 assaulted her with iron pipe on her head.A.4 assaulted her on the right side of the stomach on the ribs.P.W.34 the doctor who had examined P.W.9 at 11.10 a.m, found the contusion on the left wrist, a contusion on the left cheek, contusion on the left side of the head.An ultra sound was taken on the abdomen and it was found that a laceration on the spleen and blood injuries on the inner side of the stomach.The doctor has opined that it is a grievous injury and issued Ex.The grievous injury caused by A4 and simple injury caused by A9 are established.The alleged assault by A16 on the head is not established.P.W.10 Mariappan would state that A.5 and A.17 inflicted cut injuries on the right leg with knife.A.2 and A.14 assaulted with iron pipe on the left leg and A.3 assaulted with suluki knife.However, the doctor who treated this witness was not examined and the wound certificate was also not produced.However, the defence has relied upon the accident register of Mariappan which is marked as Ex.It reads as follows;On examination, it is found;i) laceration over left vertex of scalp- bone deep no fractureii) puncture wound over left supra pateller regioniii) tenderness of swelling over left femuriv) laceration over left pre tibial region & tenderness over tibiav) tenderness and swelling over left para spinal region on left DL region and it is also stated that the scalp injury was sutured.There is no grievous injuries.However, from the description of the injury, it is evident that he has suffered simple injuries, caused by A2 and A14 on the left leg and A3 on the head.The injury caused by A.5 and A.17 not proved.P.W.11 would categorically state that A.1 assaulted her with iron pipe on her left hand.A.14 and A.17 assaulted her on her back.A.2 assaulted her on her head with iron pipe.The doctor who treated her was not examined and the wound certificate was not produced.However, on the side of the defence, the accident register, Ex.D1, relating to her is produced.On examination, it is found that a deep laceration on the scalp, a fracture on both the bones on the left forearm and a fracture on the right femur.Though the wound certificate is not produced she has suffered two fractures and thereby grievous injury and there is a sutured wound on the scalp.A1 has caused the grievous injury and A2 has caused the simple injury.P.W.12 would state that A.3 assaulted with suluki knife on the head.A.16 assaulted her with an iron pipe on the shoulder and also on the waist.She was examined by P.W.34 doctor.He has found a contusion on the left hand and a sutured wound on the right scalp with contusion.However, he has not opined about the nature of injury however, has given Ex.P.32 Wound Certificate.But the injuries would suggest that they are simple in nature.A.3 and A.16 has caused such injuries.P.W.13 would state that A.10 assaulted him with knife on the head and other accused damaged the property.He found a lacerated wound on the right scalp.He opined that the injuries are simple in nature and issued ExP.31 Wound Certificate.A.10 has caused the said injury.P.W.20 would state that A.8 assaulted her with wooden log on the left shoulder.P.W.35 found a contusion on the left shoulder which is a simple injury.The weapons have also been seized from the accused in pursuant to their statements under which is admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act. These witnesses had also stated that the above said accused trespassed into their house.P.W.14,23,26,28 and 29 had stated about the damage to the property.However, their evidence is not specific and their accusation is very general in nature against the accused.Though the investigating officer has produced the damaged material objects, in the absence of specific evidence against the accused the under section 427 r/w 149 has not been made out.From the evidence of the injured witnesses, we are of the considered view that only the above said accused/appellants have committed the offence under Sec.324 and 326 and sec.452 of IPC.And except the above offenses the other charges are not proved.The trial court has already held that A.3 to A.9 and A.12 to A.17 are not found guilty for offence under Sec.302 r/w 149 IPC and we are not inclined to interfere.In respect of other offences on analysing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence, it is found that the accused/appellants have inflicted simple and grievous injuries on the prosecution witnesses as detailed below.PROSECUTION WITNESSACCUSSED/APPELLANTNATURE OF INJURY INFLICTEDP.W.7A.1A2, A3, A4Grievous - provedSimple proved P.W.8Not identifiedSimple- not proved P.W.9A4A9Grievous - provedSimple proved P.W.10A2, A3, A14Simple -provedP.W.11A1 A2 Grievous - proved Simple proved P.W.12A3, A16Simple - provedP.W.13A10Simple proved P.W.20A8Simple provedhas caused grievous injury with deadly weapon to P.W.9 and thereby punishable for an offence under section 326 IPC.and has caused simple injury to P.W.7 and thereby punishable for an offence under section 324 IPC.A.8,9,10,14 and 16 have caused simple injuries to P.W.9,10,12,13 and 20 and thereby punishable for an offence under section 324 IPC.A.1 to A.4, A8 to A10, A14 and A16 are punishable for offence under section 452 IPC.A.5 to A.7, A.11 to A.13, A.15 and A.17 are acquitted.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the trial court S.C.No.34 of 2009 dated 30.11.2010.are set aside and;A.1. is convicted for an offence under section 326 IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial court is confirmed.In addition to the above sentence and fine, A.1 is directed to make a payment of Rs.10,000/-each as compensation to P.W.7 and P.W.11, under Sec.357(3)(4) of Cr.P.C., directly by way of Demand Draft within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, in default of such payment, he is further directed to undergo 3 months S.I.A.2 is convicted for an offence under section 324 IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial court is confirmed.A.3. is convicted for an offence under section 324 IPC (three counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial court is confirmed.A.4 is convicted for an offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial court is confirmed and also is convicted for an offence under section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial court is confirmed.In addition to the above sentence and fine, A4 is directed to make a payment of Rs.10,000/- to P.W.9, under Sec.357(3)(4) of Cr.P.C. directly by way of Demand Draft within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment in default of such payment, he is further directed to undergo 3 month R.I.A.8 to A.10, A.14 and A.16 are convicted for an offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial court is confirmed.A.1 to A.4, A.8 to A.10, A.14 and A.16 are convicted for an offence under section 452 IPC and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine Rs. 1000/- imposed by the trial court is confirmed.All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.A.5 to A.7, A.11 to A.13, A.15 and A.17 are acquitted and fine amount if paid, is ordered to be refunded.The period of imprisonment undergone by all the accused is directed to be set off against the sentence imposed above under Sec.428 Cr.P.C.Principal Sessions Court, PuducherryIII Additional Sessions Judge, PuducherryThe Judicial Magistrate No.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 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.
|
182,060,814 |
Heard on I.A. No.2445/2017, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the sole appellant Javed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.Vide the impugned judgment dated 27.12.2016 passed by the Fifteenth Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.719/2013 titled State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Khajuri Sadak, Bhopal Vs.Javed and two others, the appellant stands convicted under Section 326 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand) with default clause for causing grievous injuries in both the hands of complainant Dhruv Singh (PW-4) with a sharp- edged weapon.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant remained on bail during the trial of the case.However, he has been undergoing the jail sentence since 27.12.2016, the date of impugned judgment.He submits that the appellant had already deposited the fine amount, as imposed.He submits that this appeal is of the year 2017, therefore, there is no possibility of this appeal being heard on merits in recent future.He submits that on the same set of evidence, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted co- accused Lokesh alias Malik of the charge under Section 326 read with 34 of the IPC, and therefore, the evidence on record is debatable.He submits that the appellant has no previous conviction nor has he criminal antecedents.Furthermore, he is permanent resident of Bhopal city.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE S/
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,820,615 |
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 2.5.1983 passed by C.K. Banerjee, J. in C.R. No. 3878 (W) of 1983 whereby and where under the said learned Judge rejected the writ application filed by the petitioner without assigning any reasons whatsoever.The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.The appellant at the material time was a constable attached to DAP, Cooch Behar.The petitioner was directed to submit his defence to the Enquiry Officer and he submitted his written defence on 7.5.1980 although he pleaded not guilty of the charges but stated that he had married for the second time with the written consent of his first wife which amounts to an admission as regards the allegations made in the charge-sheet.Despite such admission, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and the Enquiry Officer although, held the appellant guilty of the misconduct observed as follows :The said report dated 15.6.1980 is contained in Annexure 'C' to the writ application.The appellant did not make any submission other than that what he had stated in the written defence.While doing so, he also obtained the opinion of the Government Pleader and the Public Prosecutor.He, therefore, directed him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service.There appears to be some dispute as to whether the said Rule, in-view of the proviso appended to Rule (2) the same applies to the Police Personnel or not.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,068,666 |
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.This application by the State of U.P. under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed with the prayer to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-Ist, in Sessions Trial No. 4/2007 which arose out of Case Crime No. 32/2006, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the respondent-accused-Jitendra Kumar Yadav has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the I.P.C.In brief, the facts of the case are that the informant-Ram Tej Verma lodged an First Information Report on 01.05.2006 at Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar with the assertion that his daughter (hereinafter referred to as the ''victim') was student of Class-11 in Jhinka Devi Balika Inter College, Fattepur, Belabagh, who at 06.30 a.m. on 21.04.2006 had gone to attend her school, however, she had not come back and accordingly the informant made all endeavours to trace her and further that his daughter had been enticed away by the accused-Jitendra Kumar Yadav son of Tribhuwan Yadav who is resident of his village.In the F.I.R., it was also stated that that Raja Ram Verma and Brij Lal Verma and others had seen the victim being taken away by the accused.On the basis of said F.I.R., Case Crime No. 32 of 2006, under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C., at Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar was registered and after investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-Jitendra Kumar Yadav, under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar took cognizance and summoned the accused.On appearance of the accused, the case was committed to the sessions court.Charges against the accused were framed under Sections 363, 366, 376, I.P.C. who pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.Accordingly, the trial commenced.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined seven prosecution witnesses, namely, the informant-Ram Tej Verma (P.W.1), the victim (P.W.2), Brij Lal Verma (P.W.3), Raja Ram (P.W.4), Ramesh Chandra, Investigating Officer (P.W.5), Rama Devi Verma, Principal of the School (P.W.6) and Dinesh Kumar Bhaskar, Chief Pharmacist, District Women Hospital, Ayodhya (P.W.7).The prosecution also placed certain documentary evidences including statement of the victim recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and her medical report.After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. who denied the allegations and stated that he had falsely been implicated.However, no evidence by the defence was led.Learned trial court considered the evidence available on record and finding material contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded before the court and the one recorded by her before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. and also finding various discrepancies in the statement of the other witnesses has given a finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused of the charges for which the accused was tried giving him benefit of doubt.Seeking leave to appeal in this case, learned Additional Government Advocate has argued that the prosecutrix herself in her deposition before the court has completely supported the case of the prosecution, however, learned trial court by not finding her evidence credible has committed manifest error and thus, it is a case where leave to appeal should be granted.Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope and ambit of this Court in an appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal, we now proceed to examine whether the prayer made by the State in this case for grant of leave to appeal can be granted.Such grant of leave will be permissible only if the judgment of acquittal in this case is found suffering from any manifest legal infirmity or is found based on erroneous appreciation of evidence.As observed above, the prosecution has examined seven prosecution witnesses.The statement of victim (P.W.2) is relevant to be discussed at this juncture.She before the court deposed that on 21.04.2006 at 06.30 a.m. she was going to attend her school, namely, Jhinka Devi Patel Balika Inter College, Fattepur, Belabagh, District Ambedkar Nagar.She further stated that when she reached Barwa Bazar, the accused forcibly got her seated on his motor-cycle and when the said attempt of accused was opposed, he threatened her that he will kill her if she resisted.She has further deposed that thereafter accused took her to Faizabad via Mahboobganj and parked his motor-cycle in the Agency and thereafter took her to Lucknow by Bolero(a motorized four wheeler).She further stated in her deposition before the court that the accused took her to railway station at Lucknow and thereafter he took her to Amratsar where he kept her in a rented room and committed rape on her without her consent and that the accused forcibly detained her at Amratsar for 5-6 months.In her deposition, she further stated that when the accused came to know that F.I.R has been lodged and attachment proceedings were also undertaken then the accused took her to Akbarpur at her aunt's house (Mausi).However, accused was apprehended by the police at Akbarpur Railway Station whereupon both of them were taken to Police Station where she had made her statement before the police.In her deposition, she further stated that she made the statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. as well.However, when the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was read over to her she stated that she had not given any such statement.It is on record that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. had stated that she had relationship with the accused-Jitendra Kumar Yadav for the last 3-4 years and when her father settled her marriage elsewhere then she went away with the accused with a plan and accordingly on 21.04.2006 (the date of alleged occurrence), she went to Barwa Bazar from her residence where the accused was waiting for her and thereupon she with the accused went to Ayodhya via Mahboobganj and they got married in a temple at Ayodhya.In the said statement, she further deposed that after getting married they came to Faizabad and left the motor-cycle at the Agency for servicing and thereafter they went to Lucknow by Marshell (a motorized four wheeler) and took train at Lucknow railway station for Amratsar and on reaching Amratsar they started living together in a room where the accused worked as labourer and from there both of them left for Gurgaon where the accused did some computer related work.In the said statement, the victim also stated that on coming to know about attachment proceedings both of them left for their residence and when they reached Akbarpur, both of them were apprehended.In her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. she also stated that the accused had not taken her away forcibly and that she had gone with him willingly and both of them had lived as husband and wife and that the accused did not commit any forcible act on her.She also stated that she is aged about 20 years, though her age was not recorded in the school correctly and in school her age recorded is less then her actual age.P.C. and the statement made before the court during trial and no sufficient believable explanation comes-forth from the victim for such material contradiction, the benefit should go to the accused.The learned trial court after noticing the statement made by the victim under Section 164, Cr.P.C. has stated that though in her examination-in-chief she stated that she did not give such a statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. however, in her cross-examination she admitted that she had gone to get her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. alone and that she had put her signatures on the said statement with her willingness.The trial was held when the new Code of Criminal Procedure had come into force.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,070,282 |
Form No.J (1) In the High Court at Calcutta ( Criminal Appellate/ Revisional Jurisdiction ) Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy CRR No.4088 of 2013 Bhola SarkarThe State of West Bengal & Anr.For the petitioner: Mr. Robiul Islam, Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra.Judgment on: 22.1.2014 Ashim Kumar Roy, J. :The petitioner, who has been charge-sheeted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code along with four others in connection with Nimta Police Station Case No.66 of 2013, has approached this Court for quashing of the said charge sheet on the sole ground that prior to that, two more First information Reports were lodged being Habra Police Station Case No.208 of 2012 and Habra Police Station Case No.77 of 2013, where he has been charge-sheeted under Sections 498A/323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of D.P.Act and 406 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and the allegations in those two cases are identical with the present one.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,070,579 |
L. P. 520/2017 Page 1 of 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter the 'PC Act').L. P. 520/2017 Page 1 of 14Thereafter, FIR No. RC SI8 2006 0008 under Sections 420/120B of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act was registered against Mr MP Gupta (hereafter 'MPG'), M/s Nestor Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (hereafter 'Nestor'), M/s Pure Pharma Ltd. (hereafter 'Pure'), unknown officials of HSCC India Ltd. (hereafter 'HSCC') and unknown members of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.In the aforementioned FIR, it was alleged that between the years 1999 and 2002, MPG entered into a criminal conspiracy and showed undue favour to Nestor and Pure in awarding supply contracts of pharmaceuticals and medical kits under the Child Survival and Safe Motherhood (CSSM) and Reproductive and Child Health (RCH-I) projects.It was, inter alia, alleged that the lowest bids (L1) were ignored on flimsy grounds on several occasions and orders were placed with the two aforesaid firms, resulting in the contracts being awarded at abnormally higher rates; single bids were accepted from the two aforesaid firms, in violation of tender norms; the aforesaid two firms had systematically evaded procurement controls by colluding with each other; substandard quality pharmaceuticals were provided by the said CRL.L. P. 520/2017 Page 2 of 14 firms and accepted by HSCC; and there was short supply of the requisite drugs by the two aforesaid firms.L. P. 520/2017 Page 2 of 14On 11.08.2015, the Trial Court framed the following charges against the accused:-MPG was charged of abusing his position as a public servant, between September 2000 to 2001, by allowing the supply of drugs from the Goa unit of Nestor, despite Nestor submitting documents regarding supply of the requisite drugs from its Faridabad unit.MPG did not use his discretion to terminate the contract and thereby, caused pecuniary gain to Nestor and pecuniary loss to the Ministry of Health, Government of India and thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.Nestor and Mr Pradeep Choudhary, Vice President (Institutional Sales) (hereafter 'PC') were charged with cheating the Ministry of Health, Government of India by dishonestly inducing the said department to grant a contract worth 23.69 crores to Nestor by using forged documents (COPPs bearing nos. 84/2000, 85/2000, 102/2000 and 103/2000) and by supplying the requisite drugs from its Goa unit while securing the contract on documents relating to its Faridabad unit and thus, committing an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.Nestor and PC were also charged with committing the offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC, on account of fraudulently and dishonestly using the aforesaid COPPs to secure a supply contract from the Ministry of Health/HSCC.L. P. 520/2017 Page 3 of 14It was alleged that Nestor had supplied documents regarding supply of drugs from its Faridabad unit, yet, MPG did not use his discretion to terminate the contract.He conducted pre- delivery inspection(s) at Nestor's Goa unit and accepted supplies from the said unit.It is alleged that he had caused a pecuniary advantage to Nestor and a corresponding loss to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.The Trial Court had examined the evidence obtaining in the present case and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the COPPs submitted by Nestor were forged.The COPPs bearing serial No. 84/2000 for the drug Irofol tablets (PW 5/H1); COPPS bearing serial no. 85/2000 for Nesfol Tablets (PW 5/H2); COPPs serial No. 102/2000 for drug CO-TRIMOXAZOLE TABLETS tablet (PW 5/H3); and COPPs bearing serial no. 103/2000 for METHYLERGOMETRINE MALEATE tablets (PW 5/H4) were alleged to be fabricated.He deposed that he had issued COPPs in respect of twenty items to Nestor in response to its applications (Ex. PW 5/E-1 and Ex. PW 5/E2).He deposed that the allegedly fabricated COPPs (COPPs nos. 84/2000, 85/2000, 102/2000, CRL.L. P. 520/2017 Page 4 of 14 103/2000 exhibited as Ex.PW5/H-1 to PW5/H-4) were not issued by him.However, he could not identify his signatures as the same were photocopies.He also stated that COPPs for the drugs mentioned in the said documents (Ex. PW 5/H-1 to PW 5/H-4) were not even applied for by Nestor.Thus, according to his testimony, such COPPs could not be issued to Nestor, as it had not even applied for the same.L. P. 520/2017 Page 4 of 14PW 5 deposed that he could not state whether the signatures appearing on COPPs serial Nos. 84/2000, 85/2000, 102/2000, 103/2000 (Marked as PW 5/H-1 to 5/H-4) were his or not without seeing the originals.PW 5 was cross-examined.In his cross-examination, he stated that he was not aware whether any Register/Log Book was maintained in the office with respect to the issuance of COPPs on a daily/regular basis.He stated that he could not recollect the number and specifications of COPPs issued by him in June, 2000 to various pharmaceutical companies.He clarified that he could recollect the facts regarding Nestor since he had examined the original record of the office, which was brought by Shyam Lal, an employee of the Drug Controller Authority of Haryana, to the CBI Office.It is apparent from the plain reading of PW 5's testimony that he had deposed on the basis of the record that was brought by one of the employees of the Drug Controller Authority, Haryana to the office of CBI.The file containing the record for issuance of COPPs (Marked as D-24) was shown to Sh Shyam Lal.VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, seeking leave to appeal against a judgment dated 10.03.2017 (hereafter 'the impugned judgment') passed by the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-6, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the accused therein of the offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) CRL.L. P. 520/2017 Page 5 of 14He affirmed that the signatures bearing on the said file were that of Sh Jai Bhagwan Rohilla, the then Superintendent of Directorate General Health Services of Haryana.He stated that the original record was kept with the record keeper and he had collected information from the office records and furnished the same to CBI.In his cross-examination, he testified that the records were voluminous and were pertaining to various pharmaceutical companies.He stated that the records were also kept in corridors/galleries of the premises.He also admitted that he had sent a letter, inter alia, stating that certain records were missing.He stated that he had no knowledge whether the record regarding grant of and rejection of COPPs were kept in the office.He affirmed that regular order sheets are written regarding grant and rejection of COPPs or any other certificate, which includes the reasons for such decision.Investigating Officer Inspector Satish Chand Jha deposed as PWHe could not recollect whether Shyam Lal (PW 11) had brought the record from the office of the State Drug Controller.He could not inform the Court as to the date when the file D-24 was seized by him.He CRL.L. P. 520/2017 Page 6 of 14 admitted that the page numbers 696 to 737 of the said file were missing.He affirmed that he did not make any inquiry from Shyam Lal regarding the missing pages.He neither visited the office of the Drug Controller nor recorded any statement of the Record Keeper from the office.The order sheets granting and rejecting COPPs were also not seized.He stated that he did not investigate as to whether any register was maintained with respect to the applications received from various pharmaceutical companies.He also affirmed that he had not checked the complete record regarding issuance of COPPs.L. P. 520/2017 Page 6 of 14In view of the aforesaid, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to produce strong and convincing evidence to establish that the COPPs in question, Ex. PW 5/H-1 to Ex. PW 5/H-4, were forged or fabricated or that they had not been issued by the State Drug Controller, Haryana.The Court noticed that the prosecution had relied upon the testimony of PW 5, however, he was unable to affirm whether the signatures appearing on those COPPs were his without examining the original record.He clarified that he was aware of the facts on the basis of the record brought by Shyam Lal (PW 11) from the office of the Drug Controller.It was, thus, apparent that he had not examined the entire record before his deposition and had based his testimony only on the records brought by Sh Shyam Lal from the office of the Drug Controller.It also appeared that the said record was not the complete record.The Trial Court had examined the file D-24 and noted that Nestor CRL.L. P. 520/2017 Page 7 of 14 had submitted applications seeking certificates of twenty different pharmaceutical products and all the said certificates were granted.The Court noted that Nestor's application was on page number 694 of the file D-24 and the pharmaceutical products were mentioned on page number 695, however, further pages of the file were missing.The Court also noted that Nestor had made another application on 25.09.2000 seeking certificates with respect to sixty-three pharmaceutical products.On the basis of that application, Certificates starting from serial no. 80/2000 to 142/2000 were granted.The COPPs, which are alleged to have been forged bear numbers falling within the said sequence.However, the prosecution did not place any information with regard to the said numbers.There was no evidence to establish that application bearing those numbers had been rejected or had been issued to any other company.L. P. 520/2017 Page 7 of 14He CRL.L. P. 520/2017 Page 8 of 14 submitted that Nestor's Goa unit was not granted the WHO GMP Certificate and therefore, was ineligible to supply any products.He submitted that MPG had abused his official position by accepting the products from the said Unit after inspection.He stated that this clearly established that MPG was guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Correspondingly, PC and Nestor were also guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.He submitted that the Trial Court had erred in not appreciating that PC, Nestor and MPG had conspired together to benefit Nestor and consequently, cause a loss to the Government.He referred to Clause 13.3 (c) of the Instructions to Bidders and submitted that a bidder would not be eligible for submitting a bid, unless the bidder had received a satisfactory GMP Inspection Certificate in line with WHO Certification Scheme on pharmaceuticals (WHO GMP Certificate).L. P. 520/2017 Page 8 of 14Nestor has two manufactures units - one at Faridabad and the other at Goa.Whilst the Faridabad Unit had been granted WHO GMP Certification, no such certification had been granted to the Goa Unit.Therefore, according to CBI, the supplies made from the said Unit were contrary to the contract.Mr Jain submitted that a lower bid of one of the pharmaceutical companies (M/s. Neon Antibiotics) was rejected on the ground that it did not have a WHO GMP Certificate.He submitted that thus, there was no doubt that supplies were required to be made from the unit possessing a WHO GMP Certificate.Before proceeding further, it is important to note that the total CRL.L. P. 520/2017 Page 9 of 14 value of the contract awarded to Nestor for RCH/Kit-A/2000 and RCH/Kit-B/2000 was 34,77,57,866/-.Out of the aforesaid, only products worth 3,84,73,769/- were supplied from the Goa Unit.Thus, approximately 89% of the products were supplied from the Faridabad unit which, admittedly, was compliant as it was granted the WHO GMP Certification.The Trial Court was of the view that in the aforesaid facts, it was difficult to impute that Nestor/PC had any dishonest intentions from the beginning.L. P. 520/2017 Page 9 of 14This Court had pointedly asked Mr Jain whether there was any clause in the agreement/contract entered into with Nestor that stipulated that Nestor required to supply the products only from its WHO GMP Certificate Unit, that is, the Faridabad Unit.L. P. 520/2017 Page 10 of 14 the quality standards during the past two years prior to bid submission".There is no dispute that Nestor complied with the said criteria, as it was awarded the WHO GMP Certificate, albeit, for its Faridabad Unit.Thus, admittedly, Nestor was eligible to bid for the contract.Its bid was evaluated along with other bids and Nestor was awarded the contract.L. P. 520/2017 Page 10 of 14As noticed above, the requirement for a bidder to be WHO GMP compliant was a CRL.L. P. 520/2017 Page 12 of 14 condition of eligibility to participate in the bids.In the present case, Nestor is a company and a WHO GMP Certificate had been issued to Nestor, albeit, with respect to its Faridabad Unit.L. P. 520/2017 Page 13 of 14 offences.The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.The pending application is also disposed of.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,070,971 |
Heard on the question of admission.sh Revision is admitted for hearing.e Record of the Courts below be called for.ad Also heard on I.A. No.9158/2018, an application for suspension Pr of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.Applicant stands convicted for offence punishable under Section a hy 354 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation and under Section 456 of the ad IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of M Rs.500/- with default stipulation and under Section 509 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo SI for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/-of with default stipulation and .He further submits that there is fair chance to succeed in the case.The final hearing of this revision will take time.If C the applicant is not released on bail, purpose of filing this application h will be frustrated.Appellant- Rajendra @ Rajan Lodhi be released from custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.He is directed to appear and mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 12.11.2018 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List the revision for final hearing in due course of time at its own turn.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,076,323 |
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 530 of 2017, under Sections 376D and 392 IPC, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.There was no recovery of any incriminating material.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 24.12.2017 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Arif be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 530 of 2017, under Sections 376D and 392 IPC, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,079,990 |
C.R.M. 4477 of 2018 sg Ct. No.28 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.07.2018 in connection with Jalangi P.S. Case No. 652/2017 dated (Allowed) 05.08.2017 under Sections 448/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.Firoj Mondal alias Firoj Ali Mondal Versus State of West Bengal Shabana Hasin, Adv....for the petitioner....for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is the brother-in-law of the victim housewife and a prior criminal case was registered by her against her husband and other in-laws including him.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for bail.We have considered the materials on record including the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Admittedly, a criminal case was pending at the behest of the victim against the petitioner.The petitioner shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date The application for anticipatory bail is allowed.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,081,023 |
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] The petitioner is the son of the detenu, who was arrayed as A4 in C.C.No.66 of 2014 on the file of the Court of 11 th Additional Judge for CBI cases, Chennai and vide judgment dated 19.05.2009, he was convicted for the commission of offences under Sections 120-B r/w 420 IPC and under Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of PC Act, 1947 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and also under Section 419 IPC.The Trial Court has imposed with a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and 3 years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months in respect of the commission of each of the offences and challenging the same, he filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.258 of 2018 and rest of the accused also filed appeals in Crl.A Single Bench of this Court vide impugned common judgment dated 23.01.2018 confirmed the conviction and however, reduced the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment in respect of the detenu and at present, he is lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and undergoing the said sentence.http://www.judis.nic.in 3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the property in Survey No.325/1B4A admeasuring 17 cents at Adhupakkam Village, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District stands in the name of his father and he want to dispose of the same to meet out the day to day expense of the petitioner's family and for that purpose, he want to dispose of the land and prays for 1 day parole to complete the registration process.The 3rd respondent has filed the counter affidavit and Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that in the light of Rule 20 read with Section 22 of the Suspension of Sentence Rules, he is not entitled for ordinary leave and taking into consideration the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court may pass appropriate orders.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent on instructions would submit that he has no serious objections in considering the plea made by the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 4This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and also perused the materials placed before it.In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the detenu is granted parole for a period of one day on 12.04.2019 between 11.00 A.M and 04.30 P.M so as to enable him to complete the registration formalities in respect of the said property and on compliance of the same, he shall surrender/return back to the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai on the same day before 5.00 p.m. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.Note:Issue order copy on 11.04.2019.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 To1.The Secretary, The Department of Prisons, Fort St.George, Rajaji Road, Chennai.3.The Superintendent of Prisons, The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.AND M.NIRMAL KUMAR.,J.Sk HCP.No.521 of 2019
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,926,541 |
Arguments heard upon the application filed on 3.5.2019 under section 439 of CrPC on behalf of applicant Suresh S/o Jairam.Case diary of Crime No.202/2018, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Balaghat under sections 294, 506, 324, 325 and 307/34 of IPC, also perused.At present the Sessions Trial No.117/2018 is pending before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in which 3 witnesses have been examined out of them, P.W.2 is Dr.Nitendra Rawatkar and P.W.3 is Dr.Geeta Bokade.Dr. Rawatkar proved the MLC report of Dinesh, Raiwanti and Rupesh.The trial court framed the charges against the applicant under sections 294, 307, 323/24 and 506-II of IPC.A s per FIR of Crime No.202/2018 complainant Rupesh Mohare had gone to attend the marriage of Rajesh Nagpure at Village Bhatera.On 10.4.2018 when the aforesaid complainant Rupesh Mohare was returning after the marriage along with his elder brother Dinesh Mohare and Santram Mohare and reached infront of house of Suraj Mohare at about 9:00 O'clock in the night, the accused Suresh, Ramesh alias Sushil, Savan and Tapesh obstructed their way and abused them.When the complainant party opposed, then he was beaten by Ramesh, Sawan and Tapesh by the help of sticks.Suresh assaulted him by the help of axe and caused injury in his head.The accused persons also caused injuries to Dinesh Mohare and Santram.When the mother Raiwanti and brother Ritesh reached there and tried to save the Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 21/06/2019 15:41:31 2 MCRC-19131-2019 complainant, then Suresh caused the injuries to mother Raiwanti by the help of axe.It is also stated in the FIR that Sarpanch Dilip and Kapoorchand also reached there and both caused the injuries to Ritesh by help of sticks.As per medical report of Dinesh, 2 lacerated wounds and 2 abrasions have been found.Raiwanti sustained only one lacerated wound.Rupesh also sustained one lacerated wound and 2 abrasions.As per CT Scan report dated 11.4.2018 of Ritesh it is reported that -"Fracture left squamous temporal bone, frontal bone (multiple sites) on left with minor depression with overlying scalp haematoma.Fracture posterolateral wall of right maxillary sinus, nasal process of frontal bone on either side, anterior posterior wall of frontal sinus on left."Therefore, as per FIR, Suresh was holding an axe.He caused the injuries to Rupesh by the help of Axe and he also caused the injury to mother of Rupesh named Raiwanti by the help of axe.It is also appeared from the evidence of P.W.2 that one lacerated wound and one abrasion have been found in the medical examination of Rupesh.One lacerated wound has also been found in the medical examination of Raiwanti.As per opinion of doctor, the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object; therefore, prima facie it appears that the injury caused by sharp-edged weapon is not found upon any of the injured persons.Cross Crime No.203/2018 was also registered under sections 294, 323, 324, 506 and 325/34 of IPC upon the basis of FIR lodged by Ramesh Bamhare.MLC reports of Suresh, and Ramesh Kapoorchand were available in the case diary of the cross-case and Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 21/06/2019 15:41:31 3 MCRC-19131-2019 this fact has been mentioned in the order dated 24.9.2018 passed in M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant shows the copy of challan of cross- case.It appears that one lacerated wound 2 X 1/2 cm has been found upon the parietal bone of Suresh.Co-accused Ramesh alias Sushil has been enlarged on bail by order dated 6.12.2018 passed in M.Cr.Co-accused Sawan and Tapesh were enlarged on bail by common order dated 24.9.2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.35547/2018 and M.Cr.C.No.34269/2018 respectively.Co- accused Dilip and Kapoorchand have also been enlarged on bail by common order dated 20.3.2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.1034/2019 and M.Cr.C.No.1033/2019 respectively.Therefore, looking to the aforesaid all circumstances and the custody period, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is ordered that applicant Suresh be released on bail upon his furnishing a bail bond worth Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE TG /-Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 21/06/2019 15:41:31
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,928 |
Mohan also assaulted his mother Fulkibai (P.W. 2) by arrow-shot at her abdomen, blade of which remained embaded in her stomach.She was also assaulted by lathis.The grand-mother of complainant Manglibai (P.W. 3) was assaulted by accused Bhagiya by means of Falia at her neck and hip.She was also assaulted by appellant Bhagiya (since dead) by Falia on her neck and buttock.She went to lodge the report.She has further stated that she was aged about 70-80 years and because of cataract in her eyes, she was having weak vision.In Para 10, she has stated that she disclosed before the police only the names of the appellant Bhagiya, Kailash and Mohan.She did not disclose the names of other appellants.In Para 12, she has given altogether a different story.According to her, first the appellants pelted stones on their house and the pelting of stones continued for a long duration.In Para 17, she has stated that they reached at the Police Station in the night at 10.00 P.M. Shankar (P.W. 1) did not reach at the police station in the night and she and one Sukhram had lodged the report at the Police Station and on this report she had also put her thumb-impression, but no such report has been filed by the prosecution alongwith the charge-sheet.So, in the light of the statement of Shankar (P.W. 1) and this witness, the genuineness of the First Information Report (Ex. P-1) and its sanctity is doubtful and it appears that on the next day, police came in the village then the witnesses concocted the story involving as many as ten persons in the alleged incident.The evidence of another witness considered by the learned Trial Court is that of Babu (P.W. 6).This witness Babu has also not given any specific overt act against any of the appellants and named only three appellants namely, Mohan, Kailash and Bhagiya.Alongwith these appellants other persons also came and he was not knowing all those persons.JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.The ten appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 3-12-94 passed by the learned Second Addl.Sessions Judge, Dhar in Sessions Trial No. 381/93, thereby convicting them under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them each to suffer R.I. for three years, imprisonment for life with fine Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional S.I. for three months and R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional S.I. for three months respectively.The substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Brief facts of the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court were that on 1-7-2003, the complainant Shankar (P.W. 1) was residing at Village Satsagania Gujri.His parents Pandu and Fulkibai had returned from Indore after doing labour work and stayed at Gujri.When he (the complainant) reached his house, his father informed that the appellant Bhagiya had some talks with him about the lands of grand-mother Manglibai.After their night-meals, the complainant, his mother and father were sitting outside their house.At that juncture at about 9.00 P.M. Kailash s/o Bhagiya armed with bow and arrow, Mohan armed with axe, Bhagiya armed with Falia, Nathiya armed with sword, Bajria, Tendya and Gendiya armed with lathis came there alongwith 2/3 other persons and began to assault his father Pandu.When his father tried to escape and run-away, his uncle Bholiya caught hold of Pandu and all of them assaulted him by means of axe, arrow-shot and lathis as a result of which, Pandu died then and there.The incident has also been witnessed by Molya, Rama, Sukhram, Nathiya and Rugnath.During investigation Panchnama of dead-body was prepared and spot map (Ex. P-2) was drawn.Dead-body of Pandu was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination.After due investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted.They denied the charges and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated on account of ill-will.They were, therefore, put to trial.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses whereas the accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.After trial, the learned Trial Court, finding the accused persons guilty of the offences charged, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.Therefore, their appeal stood abated by order dated 2-8-99 and 154-2004 respectively.We have heard Shri Sanjay Sharma and Shri Saleem, Advocates for the appellants and Shri G. Desai, learned Dy.Advocate General for the respondent/State and perused the entire record carefully.In the opinion of this Court, the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court in Para 53 is absurd because once the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved, their evidence would not be relied upon for the purpose of presence of the appellants on the spot with weapons and taking away of the deceased from his house to the field of Bholiya.We have gone through the statements of all the eye-witnesses namely Shankar (P.W. 1), Fulkibai (P.W. 2), Manglibai (P.W. 3) and Babu (P.W. 6).They have given the evidence about the entire incident and it is very difficult to bifurcate their statements only for the purposes of proving the arrival and presence of the appellants at their house and taking away of the deceased upto the field of Bholiya.Though Shankar (P.W. 1), Fulkibai (P.W. 2) and Manglibai (P.W. 3) are the injured witnesses, but looking to the finding of the learned Trial Court in Para 53 of its judgment and their statements independently they are not reliable witnesses.Shankar (P.W. 1) had lodged the FIR.He has deposed very specifically that he was knowing all the appellants by their names and faces.He has not named appellant Ramesh, Kishan and Nanuram in the First Information Report (Ex. P-1), though it is a very detailed one.Therefore, his explanation that because of uneasiness, he could not mention the name of these appellants, is not worth to be accepted.At that time, he himself, his mother Fulkibai (P.W. 2) and grand-mother Manglibai (P.W. 3) were chitchating in the court-yard of their house.This witness has stated that all the appellants came to his house with weapons including sharp-edged weapon and started assaulting his father Pandu.Thereafter, his father run-away towards the field of Bholiya.The appellants chased him and caught hold of him in the field of Bholiya and again started assaulting him by lathis.There he fell down on the ground.After return from the field of Bholiya, appellant Mohan caused injury on the abdomen of his mother Fulkibai (P.W. 2) by arrow-shot who also run-away from the house and fell down in the field of one Rugnath.Though this witness, in examination-in-chief, has stated that he lodged the report (Ex. P-1) at the Police Station, but in Para 22 of his deposition, he has stated that the First Information Report was written by the police after asking him as well as Bholiya and the details of the weapons possessed by the appellants were given by witness Bholia (P.W. 4).Again, in the same paragraph, he has stated that the facts mentioned in the First Information Report were fully informed to the police by witness Bholia.Again, in Para 26, his say is that he has not witnessed the incident of assault upon his father and the facts mentioned in Ex. P-1 regarding causing of injury to deceased by axe, Falia, arrow-shot were mentioned as per disclosure by witness Bholiya.In Para 27, this witness has stated that he run-away from the scene of occurrence towards Gujri because of which, he could not witness the incident of assault upon his mother and grand-mother.He has informed by Bholiya (P.W. 4).In the light of these admissions of star witness Shankar (P.W. 1), it is crystal clear that the case has been concocted against the ten appellants later on and he was made to sign the First Information Report.Fulkibai (P.W. 2) in Para 3 has deposed that just after arrival of the appellants, they started assaulting and appellant Mohan caused injury to her by arrow-shot.She became unconscious thereafter.The accused persons started assaulting her husband and she did not witness the same.She came to know that her husband was lying in the field of Bholiya.In Para 8, her say is that her husband was lying inside the house and he had also consumed liquor.She and her son Shankar (P.W. 1) and daughter-in-law Jhumki (P.W. 5) were sitting in the court-yard and mother-in-law Manglibai (P.W. 3) was sitting at the door.She has given just contradictory statements about the events and the place of presence of the deceased to the statement of Shankar (P.W. 1) as mentioned hereinabove.According to Shankar (P.W. 1) and Manglibai (P.W. 3), Fulkibai (P.W. 2) was assaulted by Mohan after he returned from the field of Bholiya after assaulting the deceased Pandu.Moreover, they have stated that all the appellants came together having axe, falia, bow and arrow and lathis and also all had assaulted the deceased at their house and thereafter dragged him and also assaulted the deceased in the field of Bholiya.But, in the medical evidence of Dr. Shankar Patidar (P. W. 8) and post-mortem report (Ex. P-4), the deceased sustained only three injuries out of which two were simple in nature and non-vital parts of the body and one injury on the head which has resulted into his death.The appellants entered inside the house and assault the deceased Pandu by lathi, Falia, axe and arrow-shot.Thereafter, he was taken outside the house and also was assaulted there.She was contradicted with her case-diary statement (Ex. D-2) wherein the fact of causing injury to Fulkibai by appellant Mohan by arrow-shot is not mentioned.The appellants Mohan, Kailash and Bhagiya were having bow and arrow, Faliya and axe respectively.Rest were having lathis.All started assaulting the deceased Pandu whereupon Pandu ran-away from his house and reached in the field of Bholiya.There also, he was assaulted by the appellants.After assaulting deceased Pandu, all the appellants assaulted Fulkibai (P.W. 2) and appellant Mohan caused injury by arrow-shot to Fulkibai at her abdomen.The statement of this witness regarding appellants Mohan, Kailash and Bhagiya (since dead) is not corroborated by the medical evidence since the deceased had not suffered even a single injury caused by sharp edged weapon.From inside the house of deceased Pandu and from his court-yard, blood stains or the earth soiled with blood were not seized.Y.S. Jhala (P.W. 11), Town Inspector has done the major investigation and he effected the seizure of blood stained earth through seizure memo (Ex. P- 21) from the field of Bholiya where the dead body of the deceased was lying.This field is situated about 55 paces away from the house of the deceased Pandu, which is clear from the spot map (Ex. P-2) prepared by this witness.In Para 29, this witness has stated that he did not find any sign of dragging between the house of the deceased and the place where the dead-body was lying.This witness has also nowhere stated in his statement about marking of any sign of violence, pelting of stones inside the house and on the roof.That shows that the deceased was not assaulted inside his house and there was no pelting of stones on his house by the appellants.Looking to the material and important contradictions, omissions and embelishment in the statements of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, we find it difficult to separate the grain from the chaff which is inextrically mixed up.We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Ramkishan and others (supra) and we are of the view that the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.Since, no reliance is placed on the evidence of the eye-witnesses.Therefore, the question of application of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code would not arise.But, at the same time, we find consistency in the statements of the eye-witnesses regarding causing injuries to Fulkibai (P. W. 2) by arrow-shot at her abdomen and their version is fully corroborated by the medical evidence.Thus, we uphold the conviction of the appellant Mohan for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.The conviction and sentences of all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (except appellant Mohan) is liable to be set aside.For the foregoing legal and factual discussion, this appeal stands allowed in part.The conviction and sentence of the appellant Mohan for the offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code is upheld.But he is acquitted from the offences under Sections 302 and 148, Indian Penal Code.The conviction and sentences of the remaining nine appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code are set aside.A copy of this judgment alongwith the record of the Trial Court be sent to that Court immediately for necessary compliance.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,931,435 |
The appellant before us is a multi-product company catering to applications in diverse sectors.From August, 2012, owing to labour problems, the appellant began to suffer losses.Since the appellantSignature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byR.NATARAJAN was not able to service the financial assistance given to it by 19Date: 2017.08.3116:32:01 ISTReason:banking entities, which had extended credit to the appellant, the appellant itself proposed corporate debt restructuring.(a) the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor shall vest in the interim resolution professional;”The 19 entities formed a consortium, led by the Central Bank of India, andby a joint meeting dated 22nd February, 2014, it was decided that aCDR resolution plan would be approved.The details of this plan arenot immediately relevant to the issues to be decided in the presentcase.The Joint Lenders Forum at a meeting of 24 th June,2014 finally approved the restructuring plan.In terms of the restructuring plan, a master restructuringagreement was entered into on 9 th September, 2014 (hereinafterreferred to as the MRA), by which funds were to be infused by thecreditors, and certain obligations were to be met by the debtors.Suffice it to say that both sides have copiously referred tovarious letters which passed between the parties and variousminutes of meetings.It may be addedthat this was the only point raised on behalf of the appellant in orderto stave off the admission of the ICICI Bank application made beforethe NCLT.On this date, a second application was filed by the appellant inwhich a different plea was taken.This time, the appellant pleadedthat owing to non-release of funds under the MRA, the appellant wasunable to pay back its debts as envisaged.Hence, the application was admitted and amoratorium was declared.This was because a limited timeframe of only 14 days was availableunder the Code from the date of filing of the creditors’ petition, todecide the application.From the aforesaid order, an appeal was carried to the NCLAT,which met with the same fate.Lenders have an emphasis on securedcredit.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,938,095 |
The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:-(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Sholinghur village in Vellore District.He was running a small Hotel near the Bus Stand at Sholinghur.On 05.01.2012, early morning at 6.30 a.m., he found the dead body of a woman, by name Vijaya (hereinafter referred to as deceased).There were injuries on the body.P.W.1 suspected that she would have been done to death by someone.The assailant was not then known.(b) P.W.15 Inspector of Police took up the investigation.He went to the place of occurrence; prepared Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the present of witnesses.He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a Mahazar.A body of a female, aged about 45 years, lied on back, moderately nourished symmetrical, scalp hair black and white.Mouth & lips crushed.Tongue crushed.All teeth broken out.Hyoid bone intact.On opening of abdomen Stomach pale and empty Liver pale Spleen pale Both kidneys pale Intestine pale, distended with gasOn opening of skull Both side temporal bones fractured.Frontol and parietal bones fractured.Brain covering membrane beneath the fracture ruptured.In the said confession, the accused told that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with the deceased and wanted her consent to have sexual intercourse.However when he made an attempt, since she resisted, the accused took a stone and hit the deceased and killed her.Thereafter, according to confession, he dragged the body to the Bus Stand and abandoned the same.He further told that he was wearing the same clothes, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, which were all very blood stained.(f) P.W.15 arrested the accused at 4.10 p.m. While in the police custody, the accused made voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed that he hit the deceased with stones and came forward to identify the two hidden small stones.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witness to the place of occurrence and produced the stones.[Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.86 of 2012 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet, Vellore District .He stood charged for the offences under Sections 376 read with 511 of IPC; 302 IPC and 302 read with 201 of IPC.By judgment dated 26.07.2013, the trial court convicted him under all the charges and sentenced him as detailed below:Penal provision(s) under which convicted SentenceSection 376 r/w 511 of IPCRigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Section 302 of IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one monthSection 302 r/w 201 IPC.Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to under rigorous imprisonment for one month.Therefore, he immediately proceeded to Sholinghur Police Station and made a complaint at 10.00 a.m. A case was registered on the said complaint in Cr.No.14 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC.Then, in the presence of some witnesses, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.(c) P.W.11 Doctor Rajmohan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.01.2012 at 4.00 p.m. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :Both ears crushed.General appearance tallied with that of police report.External Injuries:Face disfigured, left side face patterned crushed injuriesRight side shoulder joint.Multiple abrasions with swelling.Right side fore arm multiple puncture wound measuring 1 c.m x 0.5 c.m Opening of thorax:Both side ribs normal Heart pale.Chambers empty Both lungs pale.Base of skull fractured.(d) Ex.P.10 is the Postmortem Certificate.He further opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries found on the body of the deceased.(e) P.W.15 recovered blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased.When the investigation was in progress, the accused appeared before P.W.2, the then Village Administrative Officer and made a voluntary confession.P.W.2 ascertained that the accused was in a voluntary move to make confession.Therefore, he allowed him to make an oral confession.P.W2 reduced the said confession, orally made by the accused, into writing.P.W.15 recovered the same under a Mahazar.On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the stones along with the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence.At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.The report revealed that there were human blood stains on all the material objects, including the clothes, recovered from the accused and the stones.P.W.15 collected the medical records, examined few more witnesses and on completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 22 documents and 5 material objects were also marked.He has further spoken about the complaint made to the police.P.W 2 the Village Administrative Officer has spoken about the Extra Judicial Confession, allegedly given by the accused; P.W.3 yet another Village Administrative Officer has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch.He has spoken about the confession made by the accused to the police and the consequential recovery of the stones from the hide out in pursuance of the said confession.5. P.W.4 has also spoken about the observation mahazar and the rough sketch prepared.P.W.5 has stated that he found the dead body at the place of occurrence and he did not state anything incriminating.P.W.5 has stated that only one thing that he found incriminating about the accused was around 5.00 a.m on 04.12.2012 he was found with blood stained clothes.P.W.6 and P.W.7 have also not stated anything incriminating.6. P.W.8 has spoken about the recovery of the stones; P.W.9 has spoken about the fact that he examined the jewels recovered from the body of the deceased and certified that they were not gold.P.W.10, the Head clerk of the Judicial Magistrate's Court stated that he forwarded the Material Objects to Forensic Department for examination.P.W.11 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death; P.W.12, the police Constable has stated that he handed over the Material Objects to the Court as directed by the Investigating Officer; P.W.13 has spoken about the fact that he handed over the First Information Report to the Court; P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done by him and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.His defence was a total denial.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any document on his side.During the cross examination he has stated that the accused gave voluntary confession and he reduced the same into writing by his own hand and in the same, the accused signed.But the extra judicial confession, which was alleged to have been handwritten by P.W.2 is not before this court and the same has been suppressed.When P.W.2 was questioned about the discrepancy, he has told during the course of cross examination, that he went to the police station and the Inspector wanted him to type out the extra judicial confession.Thereafter, with the help of a friend, he typed out the extra judicial confession and got a computer generated copy of the same.He has further admitted that the accused signed in Ex.P.2 in the police station in the presence of Inspector of Police.In other words, the Court cannot afford to convict an individual on mere surmises or suspicion.In the instant case, the prosecution has not even succeeded in establishing a mere suspicion against these two accused.Thus, we hold that the trial Court had convicted the appellant / accused only on mere surmise and therefore the same should not be allowed to sustain.We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant / accused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore the appellant / accused is entitled for acquittal.In the result,
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,819,396 |
Judgment (Per: Dabholkar, J.)The two appellants were tried for a charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 ::: (2) of IPC.Hence, the original complainant is impleaded as Respondent No.2 in the appeal.(It appears that A-1 Sheshrao is in jail since his arrest and he was not enlarged either during pendency of trial, or during pendency of this appeal, on bail.As against this, A-2 Ankush appears to had been on bail during pendency of trial and even during pendency of this appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::This court has ordered suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail, of A-2, by order dated 19.9.2006 in Criminal Application No.2201 of 2006.)Prosecution story can be narrated in brief as under;The incident in question took place on 8.7.2005 between 12.30 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. at village Thigalkehda.Deceased Kautikrao was the husband of complainant Chandrakalabai.On the day of incident at about 11.00 a.m., the couple went to their field.It was noticed that a branch of neem ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 ::: (3) tree had broken (naturally). A-1 Sheshrao was found cutting that branch, which was lying on the ground; into pieces.Complainant and her husband reached near him.Deceased Kautikrao challenged A-1 about cutting of the branch of neem tree, by claiming that the said tree belongs to him (deceased).A-1 Sheshrao claimed the neem tree to be belonging to him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::(3)At this juncture, A-2 Ankush is said to have pushed and caused Kautikrao, fall down.He pinned Kautikrao down to the ground and A-1 Sheshrao dealt blows on the head of the deceased, by means of an axe. A-2 Ankush used a stone to deal blows on the head of deceased Kautikrao.The request of Chandrakalabai not to beat her husband fell on the deaf ears of accused.On the contrary, she was threatened that she also would be killed.Hearing her cries, Nandu Parchure (PW-2) and Bhausaheb Dhawale (PW-4) rushed to the location.Accused threatened them that they would also be killed, if they come within close distance.The accused were claiming that the deceased Kautikrao did black magic against their wives.Complainant Chandrakalabai went to the place of ex-police patil, where Rajkorbai Dhawale,, Sakharam Gadekar, Police Patil and others were ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 ::: (4) present.The complainant narrated incident to them.It appears that thereafter complainant went to Rajur out post, where her complaint was recorded by PSI Sheshrao Gayake (PW-13) of Hasnabad Police Station, who had come to out post, Rajur.FIR was registered at 14.55 hours.After investigation, charge sheet was filed and upon committal, the trial ended in conviction as described hereinabove.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses.appears to have reached the location soon after the incident and heard the story from A-1 Sheshsrao that there had been quarrel between deceased Kautikrao and accused.PW-6 Bhausaheb and PW-8 Syed Atiq are also panch witnesses and clothes of accused No. 1 and 2 were seized in their presence, by drawing panchanama (Exhs. 25 and 29 respectively).PW-9 Shaikh Taher and PW-11 Shaikh Aziz are the panch witnesses to the discovery of weapon at the instance of information given by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 ::: (5) accused persons.A-1 Sheshrao is said to have given out handle of axe hidden in shrub and A-2 is said to have given out blade thrown in the well (Exhs. 31 and 32).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::Padmaja Saraf (PW-10) had carried out post mortem of the dead body.Remaining three witnesses are police witnesses.Head Constable Bharat (PW-3) had registered a crime on the basis of complaint of Chandrakalabai (Exh.19).PSI Gayake (PW-13) has physically recorded complaint (Exh.19) while he was at Rajur out post.API Kalyan Supekar ig (PW-12) has carried out investigation.The accused have come out with a very bold defence.They have not disputed the occurrence of the incident.They have also not disputed cause for the incident being the dispute over neem tree and its branch.But, according to them, deceased Kautokrao had started fight, by hitting A-1 Sheshrao on his head, by mean of a stone.The accused are said to have retaliated in exercise of right of private defence of person.In fact, it is the claim of accused persons that they had been to police and the complaint lodged by A-1 Sheshrao is brought on record, at Exhibit 57, during the course of cross examination of Investigating Officer Shri Supekar (PW-12).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::We may record here itself that on reference to Exhibit 57, it is evident that Nandu Parchure (PW-2) and Bhausaheb Dhawale (PW-4) are said to have seen the incident, as per the complaint registered by A-1 Sheshrao.It appears that this complaint was registered as FIR on the same day by Hasnabad Police Station at 23.05 hours.By answering "It is true", it is admitted that on the day of incident, Nandlal was in the field of Bhausaheb, who was planting Apta plants.Affirmative replies to question Nos.34 and 39 are partial.It is admitted that accused were in the custody of police, but they pleaded ignorance of presence of PW-9 Shaikh Taher (panch witness under Section 27 of the Evidence Act).It is admitted that they were referred to Medical Officer for examination after registration of complaint by A-1 Sheshrao.Accused also admitted that their blood samples were collected.It must, therefore, be said that because of bold and express defence of the accused persons, neither occurrence of incident is in dispute, nor ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 ::: (7) presence of complainant Chandrakalabai and eye witnesses Nandlal and Bhausaheb can be doubted, especially so, in the light of contents in Exh.57 (complaint lodged by A-1 Sheshrao).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::Learned Judge has referred to the fact that the C.A.reports indicated that both the accused are the individuals with blood group O, whereas their clothes are stained with blood group A, which was the blood group of deceased Kautikrao.Thus, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 ::: (8) trial judge found that the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::However, they are acquitted, so far as charge under Section 506 IPC is concerned, because PWs 2 and 4 did not talk anything about threats accorded by accused persons.Heard learned counsel for respective parties.Since she admits that eye witnesses Nandlal and Bhausaheb arrived at the location, after the incident, it will have to be presumed that they have not witnessed anything.In order to pursuade us that Nandlal and Bhausaheb should be disbelieved, learned counsel has taken us through omissions and contradictions brought on record, in the cross examination of these two witnesses.Yet, to some extent; relying upon evidence of Bhausaheb, it was tried to be argued that A-2 Ankush was with him and Nandlal, at the location where Bhausaheb was working in his field and, therefore, according to learned counsel, A-2 is entitled to benefit of doubt.It was also pointed out that, actions attributed to A-2 are not possible.Complainant has claimed that A-2 caught the victim by one hand and dealt stone blows by another hand.It was submitted that A-2 is entitled to benefit of doubt and A-1 Sheshrao, if at all, is guilty of offence punishable under Section 304-II and not under Section 302 of IPC, because he had no intention to kill, the incident having commenced as a result of sudden quarrel.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::During the course of his submissions, learned APP was practically forced to concede that investigating machinery, to some extent; was tainted to support the defence.Portions from this statement are brought on record as contradictions (Exhs. 49, 50 and 51), during the course of her cross examination.It appears to have been recorded by API of Hasnabad Police Station, since the same is signed by API as "before me".::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::(11)What PSI Gayake has recorded, is the complaint at Exh. 19 and there is only one portion marked A in this Exh.19, subsequently exhibited as Exh.64 during cross examination of PSI Gayake and which Chandrakalabai denied to have narrated.That portion reads to the effect that "accused went away with the axe." (In fact, on reference to Exh.19, this portion can be seen to be subsequent addition in a cramped manner in which this portion is added as last sentence to penultimate paragraph.) Unfortunately, the prosecution could not challenge its own witness API Supekar and consequently, there is no explanation as to what motivated Supekar to record additional / supplementary statement of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 ::: (12) Chandrakalabai and it stands explained only by the portions from her statement, which are exhibited as Exhs.49,50 and 51 during the course of cross examination of API Supekar.These portions are continuous part from the statement and its free lance English translation reads thus;::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::(12)There was verbal exchange between my husband Kautik and Sheshrao, which converted into a fearsome quarrel.Ankush also took part in the quarrel.In this context, even the admission in cross examination (para 15) of API Supekar, is required to be looked with doubts, and doubt about ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 ::: (13) loyalty of Shri Supekar to the investigation.He has proved the complaint filed by A-1 Sheshrao on 8.7.2005, although he could not say that it was recorded by him.In fact, Exh.57 appears to have been recorded by some Police Officer with Surname "Daud", "Daud" which is legible in the simple signature.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:49 :::(13)Shri Supekar admitted that he had referred A-1 Sheshrao for medical examination, because he had sustained head injuries, as well as bodily injuries on other parts.Eventually, Supekar has not proved office copy of communication referring A-1 Sheshrao to Medical Officer, and A-1 has not brought on record, medical certificate, if any, issued to him, which might have been filed in the case papers of other matter (CR No.40/05, registered on the basis of his complaint).We may state here itself that, absence of any attempt on the part of defence to bring on record, medical evidence regarding nature and number of injuries suffered by Sheshrao leads to two possible inferences.One, the Medical Officer has not certified existence of any injury on the person of Sheshrao, or at least the injury recorded by Medical Officer, is so inferior that the defence preferred to keep the medical certificate away from the court, in spite of claiming right of self defence.In the context of supplementary statement of Chandrakalabai, we may refer to her cross ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (14) examination, because, as already stated above, she has contradicted with her complaint Exh.19 only on one aspect and even on that count, we felt her version to be truthful and the portions with which she was confronted, to be subsequent addition.Her character is tried to be impeached during cross examination, by relying upon contradictions A,B and C from her police statement dated 9.7.2005, the supplementary statement claimed to have been recorded by API Supekar.We intend to quote that portion from her evidence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(14)I did not state portion marked B to the police in the additional statement recorded by police.I did not state portion marked C in my statement dated 9.7.2005."Eventually, these admissions of the witness will have to be treated as of no value or assistance to the defence.The questions ought not to have been allowed by the trial court, in this form.This is because, no admission is obtained from Chandrakalabai that her supplementary statement was recorded.Had she so admitted, portions marked A,B and C (subsequently exhibited ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (15) as Exhibits 49, 50 and 51) were "contradictions"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::The manner in which cross examination is carried out indicates that the questions, were presumptive of the fact of recording of supplementary statement.In the absence of admission that her supplementary statement was recorded on 9.7.2005, she could not have been confronted with the said statement.her thumb impression was already registered as FIR.In view of the defence raised by the accused persons, following pieces of evidence, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (16) which are otherwise corroborative pieces of evidence, are left with only insignificant importance.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(16)(i).C.A. report to the effect that the clothes of both the accused persons are stained with human blood of group "A"(ii).The discovery of axe, handle and blade separately, at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively.We may not hesitate to say here itself that the evidence of discovery has a sense of artificiality.We are unable to appreciate action of the accused persons, of throwing blade and handle separately.If blade could be thrown in the well, even the handle could have been thrown in the well.Probably, this is one more region of dishonest investigation.We have already referred that the portion contradicted from complaint (Exh.19) by Chandrakalabai, regarding accused running away with the weapons, appears to be subsequent addition in the cramped manner, because of availability of space.We are, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (17) therefore, not inclined to place much reliance on the claim of the prosecution regarding discovery of one weapon in two separate parts, at the instance of information given by the two accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(17)((iii).That the axe does not bear blood stains.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(18)accused persons, whether they exceeded in exercise of the same ?In his attempt to pursuade us to disbelieve PWs 1,2,4 and 5, learned counsel for the appellants urged that Sominath (PW-5) is required to be disbelieved because he is not named as witness present, in the FIR.We are afraid, such an argument does not convince us about absence of Sominath.This is because, according to the prosecution, Sominath arrived on the scene after the incident was over and allegedly A-1 Sheshrao was wiping his injury.It is the claim of complainant Chandrakalabai that on arrival of Nandlal and Bhausaheb (PWs 2 and 4) on the scene, she had left for the place of police patil.Naturally, absence of reference to Sominath in the FIR by Chandrakalabai is not sufficient to disbelieve presence of Sominath.Learned counsel for the appellants, tried to argue for clean acquittal and in the alternative, to reduce conviction to one under Section 304 (II) of IPC as against A-1 Sheshrao, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (19) and acquittal for A-2 Ankush.In his attempt, he tried to demonstrate that all the star witnesses i.e. PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5, namely, Chandrakalabai, Nandlal, Bhausaheb and Sominath, are not worthy of credence.We are afraid, such a course may not be open, except for Sominath, for a simple reason that, by complaint (copy of which is filed at Exh.57), the appellants have admitted some altercation to have taken place between deceased Kautikrao on one side and the two accused on the other.They have also admitted that PWs 2 and 4 (Nandlal and Bhausaheb) had witnessed the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(19)They have also admitted that PWs 2 and 4above, have lost some significance and those cannot be utilised to claim absence of the witness, or his total ignorance about the manner in which the incident took place.So far as witness Sominath is concerned, even if we accept his version as it is, he has not claimed to have seen the incident, and the manner in which he deposed, indicates that he had reached the location after the incident was over and A-1 and A-2 were sitting at the location.We have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (20) already explained that, because of his late arrival at the location, there is no reference to Sominath in the FIR.We are not inclined to rely upon Sominath, for the purpose of finding out the manner in which the incident commenced and took place.On comparison of cross examination of Sominath with that of API Supekar, it is evident that Sominath did not narrate before police that he had stopped the bullock-cart and asked Sheshrao as to how there were blood stains on his shirt and that Sheshrao had told him regarding quarrel between himself and Kautikarao.We cannot avoid feeling that, the admissions obtained are equally damaging the defence of the accused.It is the case of the defence that, Kautikrao hurled first stone, as a result of which, A-1 Sheshrao had suffered head injury.As against this, an admission is obtained in the cross examination of Sominath, to the effect;::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(20)I did not observe the injury on the head of Sheshrao that time, nor I did notice blood stains. "We are, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (21) therefore, not inclined to draw any adverse inference about reliability of prosecution story due to omissions and contradictions brought on record during the cross examination of Sominath.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(21)So far as Chandrakalabai is concerned, she has narrated the story that, A-2 Ankush initially caused Kautikrao to fall down and then he sat on the person of Kautikrao.A-1 Sheshrao dealt axe blows on the head of the deceased, from the blunt side. A-2 Ankush also dealt the victim, blows with a stone, after catching him by one hand.Her evidence is criticised by learned counsel for the appellants, by couple of more propositions, apart from contradictions (Exhs.49,50 and 51) with her statement dated 9.7.2005, which aspect we have already dealt with in paragraph 7 ante.According to learned defence counsel, there is no reference to nallah, in the evidence of Chandrakalabai, whereas, it is the claim of witnesses Nandlal and Bhausaheb that the victim was lying in the nallah.not narrated (nallah) or improvement (blunt side of the axe) does not contradict with the story that the victim was caused to fall down and/or was dealt with an axe.Repeatedly, it must be said that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (22) admission of occurrence by the defence, has diluted the adverse effect upon the prosecution story, of omissions and contradictions, if any, in the depositions of prosecution witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(22)hereinabove, the deposition of Chandrakalabai is in harmony with her FIR, reduced to writing, when the incident was fresh in her memory.The incident has taken place at about 11.30 a.m. and FIR is registered at 14.55 hours.Depositions of PW-2 Nandlal and PW-4 Bhausaheb, indicate that A-2 Ankush was with them and for a while, we felt that involvement of A-2 may be doubtful.But, on close scrutiny of portions of depositions of PWs 2 and 4 referring to presence of A-2 Ankush, it is evident that the incident had followed after some time gap since the three were together.We quote the relevant portions from the depositions of the two witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(23)Nandlal states;I saw Ankush and Bhausaheb were talking.I along with my daughter were coming to village.I approached accd.Ankush and Bhausaheb who were talking.When I went, I heard shouts of a lady, "Dhaware Dhaware".I and Bhausaheb then rushed towards the noise of the lady. "Bhausaheb narrates;each other.At that time accused no. 2did not mark where Ankush has (had) gone.At that time PW-1 complainant called us i.e. me and Nandu, saying Dhava- Dhava."It is thus evident from the excerpts of depositions of Nandlal and Bhausaheb, as reproduced hereinabove, that the incident had taken place after the three had dispersed and, therefore, presence of A-2 Ankush at the place of occurrence need not be doubted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(24)In his chief examination, Bhausaheb has said that when they reached the location, Kautikrao was lying in the drain.(In fact, a water channel in the field) and A-1 Sheshrao was inflicting axe blows on his person.He has not deposed in any other manner about 'violence' part of the incident.Sheshrao suffered head injury."In fact, we are unable to appreciate propriety for bringing these contradictions with earlier statement on record, especially when witness had not stuck to that portion of earlier statement, during his chief examination.Even ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (25) after taking into account these contradictions, it is evident that Bhausaheb, during his chief examination, has deposed only that much, as much he had seen.Had he claimed that he had witnessed the verbal exchange, he could have contradicted himself with the complainant.That, he only saw A-1 Sheshrao dealing axe blows to the victim, is in perfect harmony with his claim that he reached the location only after hearing cries of complainant Chandrakalabai.And what we have discussed about supplementary statement of Chandrakalalbai, by API Shri Supekar, also applies to supplementary statements of Bhausaheb and Nandlal.When the witnesses had supported the prosecution, by their statements dated 8.7.2005, there was no business for API Supekar to record supplementary statements and he has recorded the supplementary statements, incorporating the theory of the defence, as is evident from second contradiction by Bhausaheb quoted hereinabove.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(25)Coming to the evidence of Nandlal, he has narrated in the chief examination that, when he reached the location, Kautikrao was lying in the ditch and A-1 and A-2 were also there.He claims ignorance as to how Kautikrao fell in the drain.He only narrated that Sheshrao had inflicted axe blows to Kautikrao, by the blunt side, when Kautikrao was about to rise.During the cross ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (26) examination of this witness, he is confronted with couple of portions from his statement dated 8.7.2005, marked as "A" and "B" and one portion from the statement dated 9.7.2005, is the same as has come in the deposition of Bhausaheb and which propounded defence theory.This should confirm our belief expressed earlier that, recording of supplementary statements of complainant Chandrakalabai and these two witnesses again on 9.7.2005, although in earlier statements dated 8.7.2005 all of them had supported the prosecution case; is an act on the part of Investigating Officer Shri Supekar, which makes us doubt his loyalty to the investigation of the case of Chandrakalabai.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(26)So far as contradictions A and B from the statement dated 8.7.2005, which are subsequently exhibited as Exhs.52 and 53 during cross examination of Shri Supekar, are concerned, witness Nandlal has refused to have narrated to the police that there was quarrel in loud tones and that he went to intervene.He also refused to have narrated to the police that;::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(27)If we consider the chief examination of this witness, in comparison with these contradictions, it is evident that the witness has claimed much less knowledge of the incident, than available in these contradicted portions.If at all, admission by Nandlal that he has not stated before police in either of his statements dated 8th and 9th July 2005 that while Kautikrao was rising, A-1 Sheshrao inflicted axe blow to him by blunt side, is the only valid contradiction or rather omission amounting to contradiction, that is brought on record by the defence.In fact, in the concluding paragraph of the cross examination, it was suggested to nandlal that he did not state before J.M.F.C., Bhokardan that A-1 and A-2 were standing in the drain and at that time Kautikrao was lying there or that, while Kautikrao was rising, A-1 Sheshrao inflicted axe blow, by blunt side.We are again surprised by these admissions obtained from the witness.The prosecution does not seem to have recorded statement of this witness before J.M.F.C., Bhokardan.Even on reference to deposition of API Supekar (para 6), he seems to have sent a request to J.M.F.C., Bhokardan, for recording statement of Sominath.Other Investigating Officer Shri Gayake has not claimed to have sent Nandlal for recording ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (28) his statement.Therefore, although admissions are obtained from witness Nandlal as to what he did not state before the J.M.F.C., Bhokardan, which are indicated as omission before the Magistrate and improvement before the Sessions Court, thus claimed to be omissions amounting to contradictions, those cannot be so treated.Neither attention of the witness is drawn to his statement recorded by J.M.F.C., Bhokardan, nor such a statement is brought on record through the deposition of the Investigating Officer.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(28)These statements, if touching the material aspect of the case, are required to be discarded as 'improvement' over and above police ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (29) statement, because this can be result of afterthought, tendency to embellish or tutoring, which is possible during time gap between recording of statement by police and recording of evidence by court.At the same time, while taking into account the contradictions and omissions amounting to contradictions, it must always be borne in mind that what is deposed to before the court on oath, is the evidence and the statement before the police does not carry the same sanctity.The use of such statement is limited as prescribed by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with proviso to Section 162 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::This can be result, due to loss of memory.It can also be result, because recording of police statement is not much faithful, which is possible and practical, because the Investigating Officer is not required to obtain signature of the witness on the statement and the statement can be "generated" for the purpose.Almost all contradictions or omissions amounting to contradictions brought on record in the cross examination of PWs Nandlal and Bhausaheb, are the portions from the police statements, which they did not depose before the court.Hence, these ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (30) are not contradictions in the strict sense as contemplated by Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(30)Those are simply brought on record, in order to demonstrate that in the police statements they claimed knowledge of some event, which is not possible, if we accept admission by Chandrakalabai to the effect that these two witnesses arrived only after she shouted, when major portion of the incident was already over and, therefore, they could not have had any personal knowledge about "violence" part of the incident.We are, therefore, of a considered view that the witnesses cannot be discredited for their omissions to depose something which was incorporated in their police statement.To sum up, we must say that taking into consideration the evidence of all three witnesses together, read in the light of claim of the defence, evidence of PWs Nandlal and Bhausaheb can safely be relied upon to believe that when they reached at the location after the incident was over, victim Kautikrao was already slain on the ground and the two accused were present there.For the purpose of considering the plea of right of private defence of person, we are required to pay attention to the following provisions from I.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::Thirdly, .......................Fourthly, .......................::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::reasonable cause to apprehend the death or grievous ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (35) hurt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(35)Taking the defence theory as it is, the accused persons claimed that after verbal exchange about ownership of neem tree, Kautikrao hurled stone, which hit A-1 Sheshrao, on back side of his head.Beyond this, no other violence or aggression on the part of Kautikrao is suggested.It is not the case of defence that Kautikrao was armed with any weapon or even a stick or that, he charged at either of the accused persons with such weapon.In fact, the statements, which are tried to be introduced through prosecution witnesses under the garb of supplementary statements, also plead, on behalf of defence; that both hurled stones at each other.We have our own doubts, if the victim and A-1 Sheshrao, both were hurling stones at each other, whether the accused will be able to claim that they had felt reasonable apprehension of suffering death or grivous hurt.The stones hurled can be avoided by moving away from the line of journey of the stones.If this hypothesis is taken into consideration, the defence would tumble at the first obstacle.We are conscious that defence has less stringent burden of proof.Preponderance of probability suffices the purpose, but such a probability ought to be brought on record.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(36)Chandrakala, Nandlal and Bhausaheb, all have denied possibility of Kautikrao having hurled first stone and opened the battle.The defence, by claiming that admission of Chandrakalabai would demonstrate arrival of Nandlal and Bhausaheb after the incident was over, has created second obstacle in its path of probabilizing the plea of right of private defence of person.In that case, Nandlal and Bhausaheb must not have witnessed hurling of first stone by Kautikrao.Chandrakalabai has stoutly denied such a story.It is claimed that A-1 Sheshrao suffered bleeding injury to his head.We have already exposed unreliability of admission by API Supekar, about A-1 Sheshrao having suffered head injury and improbability of his having been referred to the Medical Officer.At the cost of repetition, we must say that the defence has not dared to place the medical certificate regarding injuries sustained by A-1 Sheshrao, on record.In fact, the defence, by cross examining Sominath, has also challenged version of Sominath, that he had seen A-1 Sheshrao wiping his head injury.Although defence has obtained an admission from Chandrakalabai that when she reached out post, Rajur, accused were already present there, that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (37) admission was not further extended that accused were also referred to Medical Officer, along with the victim.We must say that the defence, by not producing medical certificate of injuries of A-1 Sheshrao, has improbabilized the defence theory.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(37)Last but not the least.The claim that Kautikrao started hurling stone first, is conspicuously absent in the statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of both the accused persons.We are, therefore, unable to swallow that right of self defence of person had accrued in favour of the accused persons or that, they retaliated under apprehension of danger to their life or fear of suffering grievous hurt.Having arrived at a conclusion that right of self defence of person had not accrued in favour of the accused persons, there is no question of considering the issue, whether the accused had exceeded right of self defence of person.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the finding of guilty, conviction and sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge, calls for no ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (38) interference.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(38)Appellant No.2 Ankush Nana Dhawale shall surrender to his bail, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this court who shall issue appropriate conviction warrant, by indicating the period of detention as under trial, either while the matter was pending before the Sessions Court, or while the appeal was pending before this court, and forward Appellant Ankush to prison authorities for undergoing sentence.Needless to say that, a certified copy of this judgment, free of cost, will have to be furnished to appellant No. 2, as well.(S.S.Shinde, J.) (N.V.Dabholkar,J.) //authentic copy// ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 ::: (39) (P.N.Deshpande) Private Secretary to Hon'ble Shri Justice N.V.Dabholkar uniplex/pnd criapl-539.06 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::(39)::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:50:50 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,819,404 |
Asidulla Shaikh.".......Though charge sheet mentions offence punishable under Sections 489(a), (b), (c) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in fact, since the only allegation is made about the possession, offence made out is for the offence punishable under Section 489(c) of the Indian Penal Code which is bailable."As per the prosecution case on 18th June, 2010 Shri Pramod Shamrao Shirke, Police Constable attached to D.C.B., C.I.D., Unit No.2, Mumbai received information at about 1.00 p.m., from the informant that some persons dealing in counterfeit notes were likely to come near the Cotton Exchange Building at Kalbadevi Road at 2.30 p.m., on the same day for distribution of counterfeit notes.He immediately passed on that information to his superior officer Shri Dinesh Ahir, Police Inspector, who arranged for the trap.The Police party headed by Shri Dinesh Ahir went near the concerned spot and the informant was also with them.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::same persons dealing in counterfeit notes and he left the spot.The police party noticed suspicious movements of these four persons and, therefore, it encircled them and caught hold of three of them.However, one of them, taking advantage of the heavy traffic, escaped and fled.Personal search of each of the three apprehended persons-the accused was taken and during the search of accused No.1-Assabul Masakalin Shaikh (resident of Kandivali East), 75 counterfeit notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each were found in a transparent packet stuck to his trouser near his abdomen.During the search of accused No.2-Kiran Kumar Kanhyalal Khadra (resident of Khar West) the applicant in Criminal Application No.5343 of 2010, 75 counterfeit notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each were recovered in the same manner.Similarly during the search of accused No.3- Mohammed Tonic Moh.Asidulla Shaikh, 50 counterfeit notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each were found in similar circumstances.Thus the counterfeit notes in the total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- were receovered from the three accused and seized under a panchanama and thereafter C.R.No.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::I.P.C. against 3 accused namely Assabul Masakalin Shaikh, Kiran Kumar Kanhyalal Khadra and Mohammed Tonic Moh.Accused No.2 also approached this Court for bail in Criminal Application No.5343 of 2010 and relied upon the order passed in Criminal Appication No.4744 of 2010 on 22nd October, 2010 thereby releasing the accused No.1 on bail and it was prayed that by following the principle of parity the accused No.2 was also required to be granted bail.The Single Bench hearing the Criminal Application No.5343 of 2010 on 2nd December, 2010 did not agree with the view taken in the earlier order dated 22nd October, 2010 passed in Criminal Application No.4744 of 2010 and, therefore, this application was directed to be placed before the Division Bench.Subsequently pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice this application has been assigned to us and we have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.P.P.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::In the order dated 22nd October, 2010 passed in Criminal Application No.4744 of 2010 the reason given for releasing the accused No.1 on bail reads as under:-176/ 2010 came to be registered.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::referred suspected notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination are "COUNTERFEIT NOTES" due to the above mentioned reasons and absence of other security features of relevant Rubber stamp of CNP is affixed on each note in token of examination and signed intermittently and on top and bottom note of each exhibit."Applications were filed for being released on bail under Section 439(1) of Cr.P.C., and they came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai.The reasonsing set out by the Single Bench in Criminal Appication No.5343 of 2010 while diferring with the earlier order passed in Criminal Application No.4744 of 2010 reads as under:-On perusal of the record as pointed out above, all the three accused persons were found at the place far away from their places of residence.Accused no.1 was resident of Kandivali, accused no.2 is resident of Khar (East) and accused no.3 is resident of Malad.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::In order to sustain the conviction of an accused, the prosecution has not only to prove that he had the possession of counterfeit note, having reason to believe it as such, but also to prove circumstances which lead clearly, indubitably and irresitably to his intention to use/circulate the notes in the public.Such intention can be proved by a collateral circumstance that he had palmed off such notes before, or that he was in possession of such notes in such large a number, that his possession for any other purpose was inexplicable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::for the offrences punishable under Section 489-A, 489-B and 489-C of the I.P.C., and the accused had already been committed to the Sessions Court.The above observations have resulted, though unwittingly, in the deletion of the offences punishable under Section 489A and 489B of the I.P.C., and, therefore, it is, as if, while deciding the bail application an application for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed, so far the charges under Sections 489-A and 489-B of the I.P.C. are concerned.Along with the charge sheet the report received from the Currency Note Press, Nashik Road is placed before the Sessions Court and there could be no doubt that the notes seized from the possession of all the accused were counterfeit notes.In all, there were 200 notes each of the denomination of Rs.1,000/-.Accused No.3 had 50 notes, accused Nos.1 and 2 had 75 each notes on their person when they were trapped by the special team.One accused managed to flee taking advantage of heavy traffic at the spot of the incient.Accused No.1 had concealed these notes beneth his shirt and the tummy and partly inside the trouser whereas accused No.2 had concealed these notes in a plastic bag concealed around his waste.But accused No.3 had these notes in his purse kept in the rear pocket of his trouser.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::The counterfeit notes were not found at the place of their residence or at the place of their work.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::without providing an opportunity to the prosecution to prove by leading evidence at the trial.The modus operandi of such crimes has different faces and some of them are veiled.It would be, therefore, imperative that the prosecution is allowed to lead evidence during the trial to lift such veil rather than truncketing it by the interpretatative mechanism before the trial commences.It will be only during the trial that the prosecution would be able to prove whether the possession of the notes was for trafficking.With great respect we hold that the view taken in the earlier order dated 22nd October, 2010 in Criminal Application No.4744 of 2010 is unstainable and such a view could not have been recorded, in our considered opinion, while deciding the bail application.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::Hence this application must fail.The application is rejected.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:02:28 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,945,212 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.125 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 498(A)(b) IPC r/w.34 IPC in Crime No.5 of 2018, as against this petitioner.2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner got married the second respondent on 08.05.2017 and lived happily.Thereafter, the petitioner harassed the second respondent and abused her in filthy language.Hence, the complaint.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 498(A)(b) IPC r/w.34 IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No. 125 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.Hence he prayed to quash the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 CRL.O.P.No. 13117 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case.Heard Mr.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India deals with in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs.Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows:After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable.In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition.The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 CRL.O.P.No.13117 of 2020Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.27.08.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order mpahttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 CRL.O.P.No.13117 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.13117 of 2020 27.08.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,947,362 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2962/2020 (Prabhadevi w/o Mahendra Singh Rathore Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 14.02.2020 Mr. Abhishek Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.After arguing for some time on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the bail application.Prayer allowed.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2962/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,948,685 |
List this matter on 15th April, 2015 before the Regular Court, not being linked matter.M.Cr.C. No.3848/2015 Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.This application has been filed by the prosecution for cancellation of bail order passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Indore releasing the respondent on bail in connection with Crime No.1203/2009 registered with Police Stationbehalf so that the regular bail application to be moved by the respondent can be disposed of preferably on the same day.Application disposed of accordingly.MCRC No.3896/2015 Wrongly listed.Ordered accordingly.MCRC No.4129/2015 Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Shri Priyank Awasthy, Advocate for the respondent.This application is filed for cancellation of bail granted to respondent in connection with Crime No.523/2011 registered with Police Station Tukoganj,--5--C.No.3848/2015 decided today, until 11:00 AM of 13th April, 2015 when the respondent will surrender before the designated Court taking up VYAPAM Examination Scam cases and in particular Crime No.523/2011 and apply for regular bail.--6--That application be considered on its own merits in accordance with law.Application disposed of accordingly.MCRC No.4382/2015 Wrongly listed today.Ordered accordingly.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,955,877 |
The Panchayat President responded by stating that if any available government land is pointed out, then he would take steps to construct the overhead water tank.It was suggested to him that besides Arokianathar Church, i.e. behind the house of A.3 and adjoining his house, certain Government lands in A.3's occupation and certain freehold lands are available and in that land, the overhead water tank can be constructed.He received the express records sent to him by P.W.11 and took up the investigation.He went to the crime scene and in the presence of P.W.7 and another, he prepared Ex. P.4, the Observation mahazar and Ex.P.11, the rough sketch.At 5.30 p.m. on 21.09.2002, he arrested A.1 to A.3 in the presence of P.W.7 and another.At that time, A.1 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.Pursuant to P.2, M.Os. 1 and 2 came to be recovered under a mahazar, Ex. P.3 attested by the same witnesses.JUDGMENT R. Balasubramanian, J.The appellants in this appeal were tried in S.C. No: 28 of 2004 on the file of Court of Sessions, Perambalur, for offences under Section 342 I.P.C. (A.1 to A.3); Section 302 I.P.C. (A.1 to A.3); Section 326 I.P.C. (A.3) and Section 326 read with 34 (A.1 and A.2).At the end of the trial, the trial Court found A.2 guilty under Section 342 I.P.C.; A.1 guilty under Section 302 I.P.C.; A.2 and A.3 guilty under Section 302 read with 34; A.3 guilty under Section 326 and A.1 and A.2 under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. For the capital offence each one stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- carrying a default sentence.For the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. each one stands sentenced to undergo three years R.I. together with a fine of Rs. 500/- carrying a default sentence.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.Heard Mr.T.Sudanthiram, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. C.T. Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at 7.00 p.m. on 20.09.2002 while the second accused wrongfully restrained Anthonisamy, since deceased, A.1 fatally stabbed him with suri knife and in the course of the same transaction, A.3 caused grievous hurt to P.W.2 and, therefore, punishable as referred to above.P.Ws. 1 to 5 are examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence.P.Ws. 1 to 5 are the residents of the same village where A.1 to A.3 are living.A need to construct an overhead water tank arose in the village.Therefore, the villagers were deliberating as to where the overhead water tank could be constructed.This was taken to the notice of the Panchayat President by the villagers.In that Panchayat P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the deceased were present.The accused were also there.They objected the location of the site for constructing the overhead water tank stating that there are alternate sites.But, however, the villagers, as a majority, suggested that the site already indicated by them should be the site where the overhead water tank should be constructed.The accused responded by stating that if the project is put through, then it would result in innumerable difficulties and cause hindrance to them.However, the villagers persisted that the project would go on only in that place.Immediately, A.1 commanded A.2 to catch hold of the deceased, who was playing a prominent role in putting through the project; ran to his house; came back with a suri knife and gave a stab injury on the left flank of Anthonisamy, since deceased.A.2 was holding Anthonisamy at that time.P.Ws. 1 and 2 (P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased) ran to save him.Then all the accused made good their escape.After giving first aid, the hospital authorities at Jayankondam, referred the injured to the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Tanjore.Both the injured were taken in the same car to the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Tanjore.P.W.9, the duty Doctor in the Government Head Quarters Hospital at Tanjore, by examining Anthonisamy pronounced him dead.P.W.2 was admitted as an inpatient.P.W.1 returned in the same car and went to the investigating police station and narrated the complaint to a person present there.After confirming the contents of the same, P.W.1 signed in it.P.1 is the said complaint.P.W.1 was examined by the police.M.O.1 is the knife and M.O.2 is the sharp edged iron rod which the accused had while attacking the injured.He examined the witnesses by recording their statements.From the crime scene P.W.13 recovered sample earth and blood stained earth under a mahazar attested by the same witnesses.P.W.7 witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.4 the Observation Mahazar and recovery of M.Os.3 and 4 from the crime scene under Ex.P.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tanjore in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses.Ex. P.12 is the inquest report.Then he sent a requisition to the hospital through a police constable for conducting post mortem on the dead body.P.W.10 is the police constable who carried the requisition to the hospital for post mortem.After post mortem, he removed M.Os.5 and 6 from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer.During post mortem, she found various symptoms as noted by her in Ex.P.10, the post mortem report.The symptoms noted therein are as here under:On removal of the sutures in the above said wound No: 1 and on exploration of the same - the stab wound was found to have entered through 7th intercostal space, entered the abdominal cavity and made corresponding stab wound over the greater omentum, middle of posterior wall of stomach, divided the middle of (N.C) of pancreas, injured the mesentery, root of mescentery, stomach bed, great vessels like aorta, mesenteric vessels, inferior venal cava and gastric vessels.Abdomen cavity contained about four litres of fluid blood.Multiple contusions over (Torn) coils of small intestines, Transverse colon, inferior surface of liver, left kidney, mesentery, root of mesentery and over Pancreas.Retroper (N.C) contusion noted over the whole of both sides of abdomen and whole of stomach bed.The direction of the stab wound was found to be anteriorly forwards and medially to the right side.The above mentioned stab injury was found to be antemortem in nature.Since the deceased was brought dead to TMCH casualty on 21.90.2002 at about 1.20 A.M. Death would have occurred before that period which is consistent with the history of the case.However, death would have occurred 12-24 hours prior to post mortem examination.According to the Doctor, a weapon like M.O.2 could have caused the injuries found on the dead body.P.W. 13 continued his investigation by examining witnesses and recording their statements.P.W.13 came back to the police station along with the arrested accused and the incriminating objects.The accused were sent for judicial remand.The incriminating objects were sent to Court with a requisition Ex. P.13 to subject the same for chemical examination.As an enclosure to Court's letter Ex. P.14, the case properties were sent to the laboratory.Ex. P.15 is the serologists report and Ex.P.16 is the biology report.P.W. 13 examined further witnesses by recording their statements.P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased.Her evidence is that after hearing a commotion near the temple in question she ran towards that place followed by other persons.At that time, she heard A.1 stating that for all the problems, the deceased is the route cause and, therefore, he must be cut.Accordingly, A.2 caught hold of her husband, A.1 with a knife stabbed her husband and he fell down.P.Ws. 1 and 2 ran to save her husband.A.3 stabbed on P.W.2's back.Then the accused made good their escape.At that time when her husband was attacked, the Panchayat President and 20 more persons were there.Her husband and P.W. 2 were taken to the hospital.She and her children were crying in the house.She came to know that her husband died in the hospital.M.Os. 1 and 2 are the weapons used by the accused for committing the crime.9. P.W.8 is working as a driver under the President of the Panchayat.He was driving his ambassador car.In that car, the deceased as well as P.W.2 and P.W.1 with two women travelled to the Government Hospital, Jayankondam.In the hospital a letter was given and with that letter, they went to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tanjore, where, on examination by the Doctors, Anthonisamy was pronounced dead.P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital.P.W.1 proceeded to give a complaint to the police.P.W.8 went to his house in that car.P.W.9 is the Casualty Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Jayakondam.At 8.55 p.m. on 20.09.2002, P.W.2 was brought before him for treatment for injuries shown to have been sustained by him at 6.00 p.m. on that day at the hands of three known persons inside the house of one Selvarayar (A.3 is Selvarayar).On him, he found the symptoms as noted by him under Ex.P.6, the Accident Register.1) A cut deep wound of 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the Right side back over the Scapula.2) Sub-cutaneous Emphyseme on the Right Hemothroax on the back side.P.W.9 also examined Anthonisamy, since deceased, at 8.50 p.m. on 20.09.2002 for injuries shown to have been sustained by him at 6.00p.m.on that day at the hands of three known persons inside the house of one Selvarayar.On him he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.7, the accident register.The symptoms are as here under:Alleged to have been assaulted by three known persons on 20.9.02 of 6.00 P.M. at Varatharajan Pettai, Mettukuppam at selvarayar house by Nature of injury and treatment:A cut lacerated wound on the lateral side of Left side chest of 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.Patient C/o Dysponic and abdomen pain.C/o.Difficulty in passing Urine and distension of Abdomen.P.W.9 at 00.55 a.m. on 21.09.2002, i.e. on the intervening night of 20.09.2002 and 21.09.2002, examined A.1 for injuries show to have been sustained by him at 8.00 p.m. on 20.09.2002 at the hands of 22 known persons in his house by the use of knife and stick.On him, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.D.1, the accident Register.The symptoms are as here under:1) A cut lacerated wound of the Right side head 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm.2) C/o Pain Swollen on the Right upper limb 6 cm x 3 cm3) Abrasion on the Right thigh.4) Abrasion on the Left side back.5) Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm just above the Left ankle Joint.6) Pain and Swelling on the Left side chest 7 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm.7) Abrasion on the back.8) Pain all over the body.The injuries are simple in nature.At the same time, he examined A.2 also for injuries shown to have been sustained by him at 8.00p.m.on 20.09.2002 at the hands of known persons.On him he found the symptoms as noted by him in Ex.The symptoms are as here under:1) A cut lacerated wound of 3 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the Right side head.2) Pain and swelling on the left lower limbs.3) Pain and swelling on the Right side chest.4) Abrasion on the Right superacalvicular Region.5) Pain all over the body.The injuries are simple in nature.P.W.9 also examined A.3 for injuries shown to have been sustained by him at 8.00 p.m. on 20.09.2002 by 22 known persons, in his house, by the use of knife and stick.On him, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.D.3, the accident register.The symptoms are as here under:1) C/o.Pain and swelling on the left upper limb.2) Multiple abrasion with bleeding from abdomen.3) Pain and giddiness on the head.4) Pain all over the body.The injuries are simple in nature.P.W.9 also examined Kolanthai Therasa, wife of A.3 at 01.10 a.m. on 21.09.2002 for injuries shown to have been sustained by her at 8.00 p.m. on 20.09.2002 at the hands of 22 known persons in her house.On her, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.D.4, the accident register.The symptoms are as here under:1) A linear cut injury on the Right side skull 2 cm x 5 cm.2) Pain and swelling on the Left upper limbs.3) Pain all over the body.The injuries are simple in nature.P.W. 13 examined further witnesses on 22.09.2002 by recording their statements.P.W.13 was succeeded by another Inspector of Police, who, after completing the investigation and after complying with all the other legal formalities, filed a final report against the accused.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts.As noted earlier except marking exhibits D.1 to D.4, they have not let in any oral evidence.Mr. T. Sudantiram, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that not only there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint but there is also an inordinate delay in sending the material records to the Court.Admittedly, the witnesses and the injured have to pass through the investigating police station to reach the Government hospital at Jayankondam.P.W.2 and Anthonisamy, since deceased, were first taken to the hospital at Jayankondam from where both of them were referred to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tanjore.Atleast immediately, thereafter, a complaint ought to have been lodged with the police.But that has not been done.P.W.1 had not written the complaint.On the other hand, he got it written by a scribe.The scribe had not been examined.In Ex.P.13, the letter sent by the investigating officer to the Court for subjecting the case properties for Chemical Examination, it is stated that at 7.00 p.m. on 20.09.2002, the prosecution party and the accused were involved in exchange of words leading to each party assaulting the other.There is enough motive for the prosecution party to give a false complaint against the accused.Besides the accused, A.3's wife also had sustained injury.In Ex.P.13 there is a disclosure that there was a quarrel and in that context, the non explanation of the injuries found on A.1 to A.3 and A.3's wife assumes considerable importance in this case.We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above points.In this case, A.1 to A.3 have sustained injuries.P.W.9 is the Doctor in the Government Hospital at Jayankondam, before whom A.1 to A.3 appeared for treatment for the injuries sustained by them on the same night.All the witnesses in this case had turned a total blind eye when questioned on the injuries found on the accused.P.W.9, the Doctor, who examined A.1 to A.3 and A.3's wife had stated in his evidence that A.3 and his wife had told him that they had come to receive the injuries while they were in their house.Likewise, is the statement of A.1 who had also stated that he came to receive the injuries in A.3's house.Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, the occurrence was just near the house of accused.We have also referred to the other sequence of events which took place prior to the attack.Leaving aside for the present as to how the occurrence took place, we applied our mind to the materials available on record to find out whether the complaint had come to be given without any waste of time and whether the complaint so given had been sent by the police officer to the Court at the earliest point of time.It is not as though at the occurrence site P.W.2, P.W.1 and Anthonisamy, since deceased, were alone there.P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased.She would state that at the occurrence site, besides the Panchayat President, 20 other persons were there.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 would also show that a number of persons were present at the crime scene.The occurrence is shown to have taken place when the villagers insisted that the overhead water tank should be constructed in the land appurtenant to the house of the accused.Therefore, it is clear that innumberable persons were available at the crime scene.P.W.1's evidence is that after the occurrence, he transported P.W.2 and the other injured in a car to the Government Hospital at Jayankondam.In more than one place, he had admitted that one has to pass through the investigating police station at Andimadam to reach Jayankondam.Andimadam is at a distance of 7 kms.from the crime scene and Jayankondam is at a distance of 20 kms.from the crime scene.Therefore, one has to travel 13 kms.from Andimadam to reach the hospital at Jayankondam.It may be true that P.W.1 might have been very anxious to get treatment for P.W.2 and the other injured at the earliest point of time and, therefore, he would not have been willing to waste time by going to the police station to lodge the complaint and then go to the hospital.P.W.1's evidence shows that he had a car at his disposal and he returned in the same car to give a complaint at the police station.Absolutely, there is no explanation as to why P.W.1 did not lodge a complaint in the police station immediately or within a reasonable time after the occurrence or atleast immediately after Anthonisamy was pronounced dead in the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tanjore.We have noted earlier that besides P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased there were a number of other people at the crime scene.It is not as though the occurrence had taken place at the dead of the night.The occurrence, even according to the prosecution, had taken place at about 7.00 p.m. There is no evidence that there was no transport facility at all from the crime scene to go to the police station at that time.Under these circumstances, even assuming that P.W.1 was justified in taking P.W.2 and the other injured to the hospital directly, we see no reason at all as to why none available at the crime scene went to the police station to give a complaint.Therefore, there is an inordinate unexplained delay in giving the complaint to the police.It must be noticed that while P.W.1 was returning from the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tanjore, he has to necessarily pass through Jayankondam, where the local hospital is situated, and Andimadam, where the police station is situated, before he reaches his house.Therefore, the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint to the police raises a serious doubt in our mind as to the whether the present version of the prosecution is a true one ?Our doubt gets strengthened, as we have already noted, from the contents of Ex.P.13, the requisition sent by the investigating officer to the Court to subject the case properties for chemical examination, wherein it is stated that there was exchange of words between the two groups regarding the construction of the overhead water tank resulting in exchange of blows between the two groups.P.W.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police before whom at 9.30 a.m. on 21.09.2002, P.W.1 appeared and gave a written complaint.The learned Magistrate had received Ex.P.8 only at his residence.The Court's seal bears the date as 23.09.2002, namely the following first working day.P.W.11 had admitted in his evidence in cross that Jayankondam, where the Court is situated, is at a distance of 14 kms.from the investigating police station and there are plenty of transport facilities.He is also categoric that from Andimadam, where the investigating police station is situated, one can reach the Court at Jayankondam within one hour for the purpose of handing over the material records.In this case, as noted earlier, there is a delay of more than 24 hours in sending the express records to the Magistrate.This Court, right from the judgment reported in 1974 Law Weekly Criminal 190 (Karunakaran Jabamani Nadar, In re.) emphasised the need to send all the material records in a case of murder to the Court without any delay so as to avoid any possible criticism.It is needless to state that the complaint is the launching pad for the prosecution.Therefore, the police officer is under a legal compulsion to send the express records to the Court at the earliest possible time.In this case, the express records had reached the Court 24 hours after it was registered in the police station.P.W.11's evidence is that immediately after registering the complaint at 9.30a.m., he handed over the records to the station writer for their onward journey to the Court.The station writer had not been examined.The person who carried the F.I.R. to the Court had not been examined.Therefore, there is not only delay in giving the complaint to the police, but there is also delay in sending the material records to the Court which delay remains unexplained.In the light of such inordinate delay committed at both stages and in the context of the non explanation of the injuries found on A.1 to A.3 and A.3's wife, we see no reason at all as to why we should not disbelieve the prosecution case projected by them now as a fabricated version.The fact remains that an incident had taken place in which P.W.2 came to be grievously hurt and another person was done to death.That A.1 to A.3 and A.3's wife should have also sustained the injuries in the same course of transaction cannot be totally ruled out in view of the contents of Ex.P.13 which is the request sent by the investigation officer to the Court.Therefore, having a overall view of the materials together we find that there should have been a free fight in an incident that took place on the night of 20.09.2002 over the dispute as to where exactly the overhead water tank should be constructed, namely whether just adjacent to the house of the accused or else where and only in that the prosecution party and the accused would have come to sustain the injuries.The materials noted by us also show that the prosecution party may be the aggressors since evidence has come on record that inside the house of A.3 the accused had come to receive the injuries.The land suggested for construction of the overhead water tank is in close proximity to the house of the accused.P.W.3 in his evidence did not even say that A.2 caught hold of Anthonisamy thereby facilitating A.1 to fatally stab hiM.P.W.1 admitted that the house of the accused is situated within a distance of 4 mtrs.from the temple.P.W.4 had admitted that from the crime scene it hardly takes one second to go to the house of the accused and come back.Therefore, from the materials available on record it is not possible for us to remove the suspicion from our mind that the prosecution case appears to be a fabricated version.The prosecution party appears to be the aggressors and during such aggression, not only the accused and A.3's wife, but also the prosecution party came to sustain the injuries.When we doubt the very origin of the prosecution case, then there is no point in saying that there are eye witnesses to the crime.In such cases, it is always possible to create a tailor made situation to suit to the prosecution case.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,958,712 |
The Appellant and others, who had approached this Court - Tariq Mehmood and Ishaq Ahmed (in Crl.A. 229/2011), Arshad Khan; Mufti Mohd. Asrar and Ghulam Mohd. Dar were tried together with several other Crl.Through : Sh.Dayan Krishnan, ASC, for the State.This will dispose of the appeal against an order of the Designated Court, under Prevention of Terrorism Act, by which Ghulam Qadir Bhat was convicted of various offences and sentenced to undergo RI for different terms.By a judgment and order dated 23.01.2012, this Court had disposed of connected appeals by co-accused, based on statements made by them and their counsel (in Crl.A. Nos. 229/2011, Crl. A. 281/2011, Crl. A. 307/2011 and Crl.A. 986/2011).A. 511/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 680/2011 Page 1 accused.By common judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 and 15.01.2011 of Ms. Pinki, learned ASJ/Designated Court, Saket, New Delhi (which have been challenged in the present appeals), these accused/appellants were convicted for committing various offences.All appeals were heard on several dates.During the course of hearing, the Appellant's counsel submitted that having regard to the nature of evidence and the fact that the principal accused Abdul Majeed was held guilty and awarded 10 years sentence for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, (which was the maximum punishment to him), was reduced to 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment by this Court, in a previous order and that the same was to run concurrently with the sentences for the other offences, it was urged that having regard to the allegations leveled against these appellants, Tariq Mehmood and Ishaq Ahmed (in Crl.A. 229/2011), Arshad Khan; Mufti Mohd. Asrar and Ghulam Mohd. Dar, and the findings of the Trial Court, they would not be contesting or pressing for setting-aside of the conviction.The appellants were also present; they were present pursuant to production warrants issued by the Court.They concurred with the statements made on their behalf by the counsel.The present appellant, Ghulam Qadir Bhat, made a similar statement today.His counsel was also present in Court.The prosecution case was that the principal accused Abdul Majeed, in conspiracy with several others, had plotted committing various subversive and terrorist acts in India.These included possibility of kidnapping several highly-placed individuals, and also getting some terrorists, who were lodged in Indian jails, released in bargain.The role attributed to Abdul Majeed was a prominent one; he is alleged to have purchased a plot with a view to stay in Crl.A. 511/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 680/2011 Page 2 India to provide hideout to the others, some of whom were from Pakistan and also to mastermind operations and provide logistic support.Although the present Appellant and the other accused, i.e. Abdul Majeed, Mohd. Amran and Mohd. Ashraf were named in the same First Information Report (FIR), and also arraigned (charged) along with these appellants, in view of the fact that some of them pleaded guilty, the order of conviction and sentence was passed much earlier.These orders were made by the learned Designated Judge (POTA).The relevant sentences awarded by the learned Designated Judge(POTA) on 15.10.2003 were noticed by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, in the form of a chart.C.8(c) Vide order dated 18.01.2010 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait, Judges, Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 775/03, the order on sentence in respect of accused Abdul Majeed was modified.C. 8(d) The sentences awarded vide order dated 15.10.2003 passed by Sh.S.N. Dhingra, learned Designated Judge POTA (as his lordship then was) which is on page 467 to 468 Part-IB has been modified only in respect of quantum of sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code as follows:Learned Counsel urges that keeping in view the magnitude of the offence for which the appellant was charged of, namely to enter into conspiracy to commit terrorist acts directed at the President of India and the noted cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, sentences imposed are adequate.A. 511/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 680/2011 Page 10 into the territory of the Union of India and attempts to over awe the very existence of the State.Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in so far the fines have been imposed and in default, further imprisonment for respective period has been directed to be undergone.But, we find a hiatus with respect to the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years imposed for the charge punishable under Section 120B IPC for the reason for the charge of conspiracy the relatable offences have resulted in a conviction for a maximum period of 8 years.We direct that for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The appeal stands disposed of as aforesaid.................Their sentences under POTA and IPC, however, were reduced to 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine.The sentence of fine in respect of all the Appellants, too, was modified; each of them was sentenced to pay ` 25,000/- in aggregate, failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.These were in the order dated 23.01.2012 in Crl.The allegations against Ghulam Qadir Bhat was of his assisting in the financing operations; the prosecution sought to prove the case against him by relying upon the bank transactions in the form of deposit of amounts in his bank accounts by Abdul Majeed.No other allegations were leveled or proved against him.The appeal is allowed to such extent.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,222,024 |
Ishwar No. 611/W went to Bikshu Govt. hospital, Moti Nagar and collected the MLC no. 2174 of Smt.Shabana @ Sheela W/o Tulsi Ram R/o WZ-46C, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi aged about 25 years, on which doctor has declared her "brought dead".In the hospital, statement ofmother of the deceased namely Naseema Khatoon was recorded to the effect that she is residing at WZ-46C, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi in room no. 54 alongwith her daughters Shabana Khatoon and Nazrana Khatoon on rent.She used to work as maid.She has further stated that prior to that, she was residing in the jhuggis in Furniture Market at Kirti Nagar alongwith her daughters.About 11 years ago, Tulsi Ram had married her daughter Shabana Khatoon deceivingly while claiming himself as Abdul Rehman.After marriage, she and her daughter Shabana Khatoon came to know that Abdul Rehman is Hindu and his name is Tulsi Ram.After the marriage, two children were born i.e.one boy and one girl to Shabana Khatoon.She has further stated that after the marriage, there used to be quarrel between accused Tulsi Ram and her daughter Shabana Khatoon and accused Tulsi Ram used to beat her daughter and used to ask her to accompany her.Neither she nor her daughter were in this favour as accused Tulsi Ram after consuming liquor use to be out of control.For the last many days, Tulsi Ram used to threaten her daughter to leave her mother otherwise, he will threw acid on her and kill her.Accused Tulsi Ram to fulfill his demand (Zid), took both the children from the school and left them at the house of his relative at Motia Khan.She has further stated that for the last 4/5 days, he used to come to the house daily and quarrel with her daughter.He also used to ask the deceased to leave her mother otherwise, he will not bring the children at the house.She has further stated in her statement to SI Ram Raj that on 12.08.2013, Tulsi Ram came during night in the house and gave beatings to her daughter and threatened to kill her.Thereafter, the matter was pacified by her and he went to sleep.At about 09:00 AM, she went for her work and her daughter Nazrana Khatoon has already gone to school.Accused Tulsi Ram did not permit her daughter Shabana to Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 2 of 31 go for work and both were present at the house.At about 04:00 PM, when she reached home alongwith her daughter Nazrana, she found the room locked.On her asking, her daughter Nazrana made a telephonic call from the STD booth to accused Tulsi Ram but he did not pick the phone.They got suspicious and she with the help of stone, broke the lock of the door and after entering in the room, she saw that her daughter Shabana was lying on the floor and she was covered with bed sheet and her mouth was opened.There was a purple colour chunni around her neck and her tongue was out from her mouth.Blood was scattered on the floor.In the meanwhile, her sister in law Munni Khatoon came there.Thereafter, she took her daughter Shabana to the hospital.During investigation, the scene of crime wasinspected.The bed sheet and purple colour chunni were taken into possession.An empty quarter glass of liquor and steel glass were also found on the slab in the corner of room.A lock was also found on the slab and the same was also taken into possession.The site plan of the room was prepared.Photographs of the spot were taken.Two chance prints were found on the empty glass quarter of whisky.During investigation, on the same night, secret informer identified the person Tulsi Ram and he was apprehended at the nearby road and he was under the state of intoxication.He was medically examined.Accused made disclosure statement and in his personal search, key of the lock alongwith key ring, a black colour purse containing Rs.200/- cash, some photographs & documents, one Voter I-Card of Tulsi Ram, one Voter I Card of Sheela, one card of National Health Insurance Scheme were recovered.On the next day, complainant Naseema Khatoon came and identified him in the lock up.At the time of marriage, the appellant had falsely stated that he was Abdul Rehman and subsequently, it was learnt that his name was Tulsi.The documents of the marriage had been stolen by the appellant.The deceased had two children out of the said wedlock i.e. one son aged about 6 years and a daughter aged about 9 years.The children were named as Kajal and Suraj by the appellant and Shabnam and Tamanay by her deceased daughter.PW2 had further deposed that the appellant used to quarrel and beat the deceased after consuming liquour.The appellant used to force the deceased to eat pork and when she used to refuse the same, she was thrown out from the house without clothes at 12:00 AM/02:00 AM by him.Once, the appellant had taken away the deceased on the pretext of visiting Mazar and to put a Chadar on it, to which she allowed.PW2 had testified that the two children of the deceased were born at the house of the appellant and after the birth of two children; the appellant started beating her as a consequence of which her daughter used to remain un-happy.PW2 had also testified that after her daughter was fed up with the treatment given to her by the appellant, the persons from the village of the appellant helped her and she had hidden herself in the village Bhaisa Chaube for three days.PW2 had deposed voluntarily and clarified that a person from the village of the appellant had kept the deceased in his house for three days because the appellant had badly beaten her.It was further deposed by PW2 that the deceased sold her anklet which she had given to her in the marriage and came to Delhi.The deceased sold the anklet for the journey and she came to her residence at Kirti Nagar furniture block.Thereafter, the appellant also came and pleaded that he would behave well and after which the deceased and the appellant started Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 11 of 31 living together but the appellant behaved well for only some days.She further testified that the deceased had left behind her two children in the village when she had come to her at Delhi after selling her anklet.She gave Rs. 3,000 to the appellant to bring the two children from the village as journey fare, so that two children could meet their mother i.e. her deceased daughter.Thereafter, the appellant brought the children to Delhi.A. No.1146/2016 Page 10 of 31A. No.1146/2016 Page 11 of 31It was further deposed by PW2 that she shifted from Kirti Nagar to Basai Darapur along with the deceased and the appellant.The appellant returned on the occasion of Eid after Ramzan.He did not bring the children with him.She and the deceased asked him as to where the children were as it was occasion of Eid and the deceased wanted to meet her children.The appellant abused the deceased and quarreled with the deceased whole night after consuming liquor.She had further deposed that after resolving the issue, the appellant and the deceased went to sleep.On 13.08.2013, when PW2 Naseema was going for her duty at 9.00 AM, she asked the deceased to accompany her for work but the appellant objected that she would not go for work that day as he was going to bring the two children from Motia Khan, where he had kept the children and the deceased would cook food for them.PW2 Naseema Khatoon next deposed that on the same day, at about 04:00 PM, she returned with PW12 Munni Khatoon (sister-in-law of PW2) and brought her daughter PW1 Nazrana from the school and came back to her room at Basai Darapur.There was a lock on the room.PW2 asked the neighbours whether her deceased daughter had given them the key and also enquired from them where her daughter had Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 12 of 31 gone.She was told by her neighbours that till 01:30 PM, the deceased and the appellant were there at the house and she had cooked food and the appellant had also brought an apple and had cut the same and had given the same to her daughter and her daughter had also cut cucumber salad.Thereafter, PW2 asked PW1 Nazrana to telephone the appellant on his mobile, so that they could get the key of her house.Her daughter Nazrana made a telephonic call through STD to the appellant but he did not pick up the same.She had further deposed that she suspected that the appellant might had done something to her deceased daughter.PW1 Nazrana broke the lock of the house with the help of a stone (SILBATTA) of a neighbor and when the lock of the house was broke open, she saw that her deceased daughter was sleeping on the floor and that she was covered with a sheet upto her neck and her tongue was out.She shouted and neighbours gathered.She put the tongue of the deceased back into her mouth and kept rubbing her to bring her back to consciousness.Thereafter, she went with PW12 Munni Khatoon to Bichua hospital with the deceased, where she was informed that her daughter was no more.A. No.1146/2016 Page 12 of 31PW2 Naseema Khatoon had further deposed in her examination-in-chief that the deceased was sleeping on the floor and there was a purple colour Chunni over her neck.There was blood scattered on the floor.The police picked up the glass, the sheet and the stone from the spot and took them into their custody.There was a bottle of liquor which had been consumed and was also lying in the house.One tablet of intoxication was also recovered from the pocket of the appellant on the same day of the incident.The police had taken the photographs of the room and all the articles lying in the room.The appellant had burnt the deceased's hand with Cigarette butts."OM" had been engraved on her Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 13 of 31 hand by the appellant.He also used to make her eat pig meat.The key of the room, where the incident took place was recovered from the appellant.The police had seized the glass, bed sheet, the stone, the tablet of intoxication and the lock and had prepared documents for the same on which she put her thumb impression.PW2 had also deposed that the appellant used to threaten the deceased that if she lived with her mother, he would beat her a lot and would destroy her face and would also throw acid on her so that the deceased would not be able to show her face to anyone.In her cross-examination, PW2 Naseema Khatoon had reiterated her statement and nothing contrary had emerged on record and supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects.PW1 Nazrana Khatoon (sister of the deceased) in her examination-in-chief deposed that Shabana Khatoon (since deceased) also known as Sheela was her sister.She knew Tulsi Ram, the appellant herein.She had voluntarily stated that earlier the appellant used to say that he was a Muslim and by deception he married her deceased sister and thereafter, they learnt that he was a Hindu.She further deposed that 2-4 days before the death of her sister, there was a quarrel between her deceased sister and the appellant and she had witnessed that quarrel.Her deceased sister had two children i.e. one daughter and one son.After 2-3 days of the quarrel, her sister's daughter Shabnam had gone with her to the school in which she also studied and on that day, when the school closed, she had gone to take Shabnam, but she did not find her and went to her teacher and learnt that the appellant had taken away Shabnam from the school.She had further deposed that the appellant Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 14 of 31 had also taken away Tamanay, son of her deceased sister, also called Suraj from the house informing her deceased sister that he was to get his name recorded in the school.A. No.1146/2016 Page 14 of 31PW1 had further deposed that she, her mother and her deceased sister used to work in houses.At about 01:15 PM, she went to the house where her deceased sister used to work and came to know that her deceased sister had not come for work.When she alongwith her mother went home, they found the door of their house locked.Thereafter, she asked her Bua whether her deceased sister or her brother-in-law had given the key of the house, to which her Bua answered that the same had not been given to her.Thereafter, she made enquiries from her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) living upstairs but it was learnt that the key had not been given to her also.Then on the asking of her mother, she made a telephonic call to her brother-in-law i.e. the appellant herein, but he did not pick up the phone.She got frightened and then with the help of stone, she broke the lock and saw her sister lying on the floor and there was a bed sheet up-till her neck.Her tongue was outside from the mouth and her eyes were looking upwards.She also deposed that there was a violet colour chunni around her neck.When she screamed, her mother and others came.Then they all put water on her deceased sister and tried to rub her hands but she did not open her eyes.She was taken to the hospital by their neighbours.She had further deposed that her Bua put her deceased sister on the rickshaw and with her mother, took her sister to the hospital.It was also deposed by PW1 that when her deceased sister was taken away, she found blood on the floor, which she cleaned.She did not know that at that time whether her deceased sister was alive or not.PW1 Nazrana Khatoon had categorically stated in her cross-examination that there was only one key of the lock of her house and the key of the same used to be with her or her Bhabhi in case her mother would visit the market.On the fateful day of 13.08.2013, when she left for the school in the morning, her deceased sister and the appellant were present at the house and it was not locked.She had admitted that the lock was broken on the same day by her with a stone.PW12 Munni Khatoon (sister-in-law of PW2) had deposed in her examination-in-chief that PW2 Naseema Khatoon is her Bhabhi and she alongwith her daughter PW1 Nazrana Khatoon lived in the accommodation above her accommodation at Basai Dara Pur.She had further deposed that the appellant used to quarrel with his wife and used to beat her and also used to abuse her and his mother-in-law.She had further deposed that the appellant used to drink daily and used to beat the deceased and quarrel with her and often told her that he would kill the deceased.PW12 had further deposed that she along with PW2 Naseema, the deceased and PW1 Nazrana used to go together for work.It was further deposed by PW12 that on the fateful day i.e. 13.08.2013 she alongwith the deceased, PW2 Naseema and PW1 Nazrana were going for work but the appellant asked the deceased not to go for work and did not let her go for work and said that she should cook the meals and that he was going to bring the child.They thought that accused had gone to bring the child and they had gone for their work.She had further deposed that she came back at 04:00 PM from work along with PW2 Naseema and PW1 Nazrana, who sat in her room after work.When both PW2 and PW1 went to their room after taking water, she heard a noise upstairs.A. No.1146/2016 Page 16 of 31People from the neighbourhood thought that her daughter i.e. daughter of this witness had expired, when they heard the noise.Thereafter, she asked some neighbours and came to know that the deceased had expired.She went upstairs and saw that the deceased was unconscious.She thought that Shabana was unconscious and was still alive and she ran to bring a rickshaw.Thereafter, she and PW2 Naseema took the deceased in the rickshaw to the hospital, where the doctor declared her as brought dead.In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the testimony of the neighbours PW3 Rajbir and PW14 Raj Sharma assume importance.PW14 in his examination-in-chief deposed that he resided in room No. 56 of WZ-46C, Basai Darapur.On the fateful day of 13.08.2013 till about 10/11 AM, he had seen the appellant and his wife in their room No. 54 of House No. WZ-46C and they were sitting together and were talking.PW14 had further deposed that he had seen them together till 01:30/02:00 PM but thereafter he left for his duty.He had further deposed that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and his wife.On similar lines, the testimony of PW3 Rajbir (neighbour) remained consistent that on the fateful day of 13.08.2013, he saw that the deceased and the appellant were in their room in the morning.He had further deposed that in the afternoon, he saw that both of them had gone out of the house.The testimony of PW3 also remained consistent as to the frequent quarrels between the appellant and his wife.PW6 Rajesh Tyagi (landlord of the rented premises where PW2 stayed with the deceased) deposed that he gave a room on the third floor, bearing No. 54 to PW2 Naseema Khatoon on rent.The deceased had Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 17 of 31 come to stay at her mother's house on the occasion of Eid.PW11/A. PW18 HC Bani Singh proved the seizure memo of stone and lock found at the spot, which is Ex.PW2/F. PW18 has also proved the arrest memo and the personal search memo, copies of which are Ex.PW18/3 and Ex.PW18/4 respectively.Ligature mark is in a form of band size being 30 cm x 2.5 cm - 3 cm.It was placed 7 cm below from the chin, and 11 cm from sternum and 6 cm from mastoid on either sides.Scientific Evidence:His detailed report is Ex.The initial version reported to the police was of PW2 Naseema Khatoon (mother of the deceased).Daily Diary (DD) entry No. 57A, which is Ex.PW21 testified that during the personal search of the appellant, the key of the lock of room No. 54, third floor, Basai Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 19 of 31 Darapur was recovered from his possession.The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 12.05.2016 by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).By virtue of the order on sentence dated 16.05.2016, the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The case of the prosecution as set out by the trial Court in the impugned judgment is as under:A. No.1146/2016 Page 1 of 31On receipt of DD no. 57A dt. 13.08.2013, SI Ram Raj alongwith Ct.Munni Khatoon and her daughter Nazrana started cleaning the room.In the hospital, doctor had declared Shabana dead and she has strong belief that her daughter had been murdered by accused Tulsi Ram.A. No.1146/2016 Page 2 of 31On the statement of the complainant Smt. Naseema Khatoon, the present FIR bearing no.289/13 U/s 302 IPC of PS Moti Nagar was registered against the accused and the investigation of this case was carried out.The postmortem on the Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 3 of 31 deadbody of deceased was conducted.The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the court."A. No.1146/2016 Page 3 of 31After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 IPC was filed.The prosecution in all has examined 21 witnesses.No evidence was led by the defence.Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant and the judgment passed by the trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises.The impugned judgment suffers from illegalities, and the trial Court ought to have rejected the version of the prosecution, which is improbable and false.Counsel for the appellant strongly urges that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence; there is no direct evidence available on record.Counsel also contends that the testimonies of the public witnesses i.e. neighbours also do not establish the last seen evidence against the appellant at the time of the alleged offence.The counsel for the appellant also submits that there are material contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the interested witnesses which cast Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 4 of 31 a serious doubt in the case projected by the prosecution.A. No.1146/2016 Page 4 of 31Mr. Saxena further contends that the witnesses in this case are tutored and their evidence is not reliable and trustworthy.The counsel for the appellant pointed out that the testimony of PW1 Nazrana Khatoon should not be relied upon as on the day of her evidence in Court, she was of 13 years only and it is in evidence that she was tutored before her testimony was being recorded in Court.It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no expert opinion adduced by the prosecution as to what kind of drug/tablet of intoxication was recovered from the pocket of the appellant by the police officials on the day of incident.There was no plausible evidence which could prove that the alleged incident was executed by the appellant and the case of the prosecution rests only on suspicion against him.The counsel for the appellant submits that in the cases based on circumstantial evidence, the motive assumes importance; the prosecution has failed to prove the motive to kill the deceased which makes the conviction bad in law.The marriage of the appellant and the deceased was an inter-religion love marriage and 13 years of marriage had passed without there being a single complaint about any marital discord filed against the appellant.In the light of the said averment, the counsel for the appellant submitted that after the deceased was found dead, the family members of the deceased had falsely implicated the appellant in the present case.There is no satisfactory explanation as to what had prompted the family members Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 5 of 31 to break open the lock, in the absence of police officials.The counsel further submits that the case against the appellant is merely a cooked up story and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.A. No.1146/2016 Page 5 of 31Mr. Saxena also submitted that it was consistently deposed by the mother of the deceased (PW2 Naseema Khatoon) and the sister of the deceased (PW1 Nazrana Khatoon) that they tried to contact the appellant on his telephone number, however, there was no mention of any telephone number on record to prove the said statement.The presence of the appellant near the spot was highly doubtful which had emerged from the testimony of PW21 Insp.Ramesh Kalsan and PW18 HC Bani Singh.Additionally, it is stated by counsel for the appellant that Section 106 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden to show that the appellant was present at the time of the incident.Counsel also contended that the appellant was happily married with the deceased for the last 13 years, and there was not a single complaint which could show that the appellant used to beat the deceased as stated by all the witnesses.It was also contended that in the MLC of the deceased there was no mention of injury marks to prove that she was beaten by the appellant or there was any scuffle soon before her death.Mr. Saxena canvassed before us that there was no injury on the either of the body of the appellant or the deceased which could prove that there was any scuffle between them which resulted in death of the deceased.A. No.1146/2016 Page 6 of 31The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported at AIR 1984 SC 1622, wherein it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that where two views are possible, one leading to the guilt of the accused and the other leading to his innocence, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused entitling his acquittal.The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence of the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the appellant.The case is further corroborated with the medical evidence available on record.The counsel for the State vehemently supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the appellant herein.Also, PW6 Rajesh Tyagi, who was landlord of the tenanted premises, deposed that the appellant had come on the occasion of Eid to meet the deceased at the spot.Learned counsel for the State submits that the medical evidence as well as the FSL report available on record strengthens the case of the prosecution and clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, hence the Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 7 of 31 impugned judgment does not call for any interference.A. No.1146/2016 Page 7 of 31Counsel for the State contends that the prosecution has been able to prove its case on the basis of oral evidence and also on scientific evidence.FSL report clearly shows that the marks present on Ex.1a (lock) could have been caused by using the Ex.1b (stone).Counsel also contends that the motive stands proved in view of the consistent stand of PW1 Nazrana Khatoon and PW2 Naseema Khatoon that the appellant used to beat the deceased.Counsel also contends that the motive is also proved by the fact that the appellant had stated before PW12 Munni as Bua iski maut mere hee hatho se hei.Counsel for the State also submitted that at the time of arrest of the appellant, he was found drunk near the spot and was also found in possession of some drug/intoxicating tablet.The MLC of the appellant Ex.PW15/A is relied upon to show that the appellant was examined by PW15 S. K. Kakran at 2.00 a.m. on 14.08.2013 and duly corroborated the case of prosecution.The counsel for the State has submitted that the present case is squarely covered either under category I or category II as enunciated in the judgment of this court in Mukesh vs. State reported in 2010 (2) JCC 1563 and has relied upon para 52 which reads as under:Having examined the decisions of the Supreme Court on the point of death of a wife in her matrimonial house, we deem it appropriate to classify the said judicial decisions into undernoted 4 broad categories for the reason we are finding considerable confusion in the minds of the subordinate Judges as to the correct position of law:A. No.1146/2016 Page 8 of 31In the second category are the decisions where the prosecution could not prove the presence of the husband in the house when the wife suffered a homicidal death but the circumstances were such that it could be reasonably inferred that the husband was in the house and the husband failed to render any satisfactory explanation as to how his wife suffered a homicidal death.The circumstances wherefrom it could be inferred that the husband was in the house would be proof that they lived in the house and used to cohabit there and the death took place in such hours of the night when a husband was expected to be in the house i.e. the hours between night time and early morning.In the third category would be proof of a very strong motive for the husband to murder his wife and proof of there being a reasonable probability of the husband being in the house and having an opportunity to commit the murder.A. No.1146/2016 Page 13 of 31The husband of the deceased used to come to the room and used to quarrel and used abusive language and he had informed PW1 Naseema Khatoon that the same should not happen and that the room be vacated if it could not be stopped.A. No.1146/2016 Page 17 of 31Besides the above public witnesses, PW11 SI Rameshwar had proved the copies of DD Nos. 57A, 63A and 64A, all have been recorded vide dated 13.08.2013 and were proved as Ex.PW11/C. PW11 also proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.Medical Evidence:PW16 Dr. Komal Singh, HOD, Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased on 14.08.2013 at 2.15 PM.His detailed report is Ex.PW16/A prepared by him, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:"i) A feeble ligature mark encircling the neck completely placed anteriorly at the level of thyroid cartilage and went horizontally towards posterior hair line.ii) One crescentic shaped nail abrasion on the left lateral side of neck reddish brown in colour.iii) One bruise of size of 2 cm x 1 cm present over left tip of the shoulder greenish in colour."PW16 Dr. Komal Singh had opined that the cause of death was due to Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 18 of 31 asphyxia caused by ligature strangulation and the manner of death was homicidal and time since death was approximately 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination.A. No.1146/2016 Page 18 of 31PW20/A. As per his report, he opined that the marks present on Ex.1a (metallic padlock) indicated that these could have been caused by using the Ex.1b (stone).Further, Ex.1a (metallic padlock) and Ex.2 (metallic key) were examined and after examination, he had found that the said Exhibits are in working condition.Admittedly, there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence.The investigation was assigned to SI Ram Raj who along with Constable Ishwar Singh reached the hospital and recorded the statement of PW2 Aneesa Khatoon which is Ex.PW2/A. Rukka (Ex.PW8/A) was received and the FIR (Ex.PW11/A) was registered by PW11 SI Rameshwar on 13.08.2013 at about 10.15 P.M. After the case was registered, further investigation was assigned to PW21 Insp.Ramesh Kalsan.A. No.1146/2016 Page 19 of 31It is on record that the appellant was named in the complaint made by PW2 Naseema Khatoon (mother of the deceased) to the police officials, which formed the basis of rukka (Ex.PW8/A) and FIR (Ex.PW11/A).Since the needle of suspicion was pointing towards the appellant, the police arrested him.The appellant was taken to Acharya Shree Bhikshu Government Hospital where PW15 Dr. S.K. Kaakran, conducted the medical examination of the appellant and prepared the MLC (Ex.PW15/A) recording therein that there was smell of alcohol detected from the mouth of the appellant and also opined that the injuries sustained by the appellant as simple.In the above backdrop, the question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the appellant is guilty of the murder of the deceased?The facts proved by the prosecution are being enumerated as under:the appellant and the deceased along with PW1 Nazrana Khatoon (sister of the deceased) and PW2 Naseema Khatoon (mother of the deceased).iii) On the fateful day of 13.08.2013, PW2 Naseema Khatoon and PW12 Munni had asked the deceased to accompany her for work, but the appellant restrained the deceased and told her that she would not go for work as he was going to bring children from Motia Khan and the deceased would cook food for them.A. No.1146/2016 Page 20 of 31Therefore, they had left the deceased in the company of the appellant.iv) The consistent testimony of the witnesses stating that the appellant used to beat the deceased after intoxication and the relations between the deceased and the appellant were strained.v) There were no signs of any forced entry or the presence of an intruder in the house where the deceased was found dead.As per the post-mortem report Ex.vii) The circumstance that the appellant admitted in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that from his personal search one key of the lock of room No.54 was recovered, when coupled with the last seen evidence of PW1 Nazrana Khatoon, PW2 Naseema Khatoon and the testimonies of the neighbours i.e. PW3 Rajbir and PW14 Raj Sharma establishes that the appellant was present in the house in question around the time of the death of the deceased.It has been proved by the prosecution that the deceased was found dead in the dwelling house where she was residing with the appellant and was also last seen together with him.It becomes incumbent on him to offer a plausible explanation for the death of his wife.In our view this becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.Furthermore, PW20 S. S. Badwal, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL has proved that there were marks on the lock recovered from the spot, which is Ex.1a, and these marks were caused by a stone, which is Ex.1b.The circumstances strongly indicate that the appellant is responsible for the commission of the crime.Reliance is being also placed on Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution reported at 1944 AC 315, wherein it has been observed that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished, but also to see that a guilty man does not escape.So far as the contention of the appellant with respect to motive to kill the deceased and the absence of complaints lodged by the deceased or her parents with the police at any time to support the allegations of beatings given to the deceased.Even PW-2 Naseema Khatoon has deposed that accused and Shabana were quarreling during the whole night of 12/13.08.2013 and she made the accused understand and both accused and Shabana slept together.PW-1 Nazrana Khatoon also stated that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and deceased in her Crl.A. No.1146/2016 Page 28 of 31 presence.No suggestion was given to PW-1 and PW-2 that there was no quarrel between him and the deceased.Moreover, in statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that there was a normal dispute between him and the deceased.Even PW-6 Sh.Rajesh Tyagi, landlord of the room no. 54 has deposed that there used to be quarrel between the accused and the deceased.I am of the view that from the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 and PW-12, it is proved that there used to be quarrel between the deceased and the accused and PW-2 Naseema Khatoon has specifically proved that on the night of 12/13.08.2013, there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased."The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,227,540 |
1) Petition of petitioners No.1, 2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.2) Petition of petitioners No. 4 and 5 is hereby allowed.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:21:58 :::(Judgment) 6 Cri WP 1409-20183) Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause "B" to the petitioners No. 4 and 5 only.4) Rule made absolute in the above terms.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:21:58 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,230,475 |
The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and to co-operate with the investigating agency.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE vkt
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 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.
|
67,931,623 |
Petitioner Manish Kori was her neighbour.He used to call the deceased on her mobile phone and used to express his love for her and used to proposition her for marriage and threatened that if she would not marry him, he would kill her, her husband and daughter.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent State has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that there was relentless harassment to deceased for marriage inspite of the fact that she was already married and had a daughter.Due to his persistent phone calls, she was under severe mental stress and was left with no option but to commit suicide.The case is posted on admission; however, since all documents necessary for disposal of this criminal revision are available and the parties are represented, the matter is admitted and heard finally by consent.This criminal revision filed on behalf of the accused/petitioner Manish Kori is directed against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Court of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 3900434/2016, whereby a charge under Section 306 of the IPC was framed against the accused/petitioner.As per the prosecution case, the deceased was a 19 years old married woman with a one and a half year old daughter.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,932,300 |
Recovery rights are also granted by learned Tribunal to appellant-Insurer against respondent No.4- owner of the vehicle in question.In this appeal, challenge is to impugned Award on the ground that instant case is not of typical road accident but is of murder and so, appellant-Insurer is not liable to pay the awarded amount.To appreciate the stand taken by appellant-Insurer, the brief facts need to be considered, which are reproduced from impugned Award hereunder: -"The brief facts as stated in the petition are that on 10- 02-2007 at about 6/6:30 a.m., Sadre Alam (since deceased) was MAC.APP.312/2009 Page 1 of 4 driving the TSR/autorickshaw bearing registration no.On the date of incident, the TSR was hired by a passenger namely Shahnawaz, s/o Nafees Khan from Zafarabad Madarasa Auto Stand.Soon thereafter, in order to steal the TSR, Shahnawaz shot dead the TSR driver Sadre Alam near Monestry Fly-over.A case bearing FIR no.38/07 was registered u/s 279/304-A IPC at P.S. Civil Lines.The deceased was removed to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where his post mortem was got conducted.During the course of investigation, section 302/397/201 IPC were added to the FIR already registered.It was stated that the death of the TSR driver Sadre Alam arose out of the use of the TSR bearing no.He was earning Rs.3,300/- per month.Hence, the present petition u/s 163-A of M.V. Act against the respondent no.1, the owner of the TSR and respondent no.2, the insurer of the TSR who were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.It was also stated that extra premium was also paid to cover the risk of driver.Hence, R-2 was liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.It was clarified that the respondent no.3 Firoz was the adopted son of the deceased and hence, had been made a proforma respondent by the petitioners, who were the other LRs of the deceased."312/2009 Page 1 of 4While relying upon evidence of wife of deceased and that of Alalluddin, owner of TSR/autorickshaw in question and the evidence of other formal witnesses, impugned Award has been rendered.While entertaining this appeal, appellant was directed to deposit the awarded amount and out of it, `50,000/- was to be released to respondents-Claimants.Learned counsel for appellant submits that interim order of 8th July, 2009 has been complied with.Vide order of 16 th MAC.APP.312/2009 Page 2 of 4 November, 2016, respondents have been set ex parte.312/2009 Page 2 of 4The precise submission of learned counsel for appellant is that Sadre Alam was murdered and in the criminal case, accused-Shahnawaz has been convicted and so, owner of the vehicle in question is not liable to pay and thus, vicariously appellant has no liability to pay compensation amount.It is pointed out by appellant's counsel that as per evidence of Alalluddin, owner of vehicle in question, deceased was not employee of Allalluddin and so, appellant has no liability to pay the awarded compensation.So, it is submitted that this appeal deserves to be allowed.Nothing else is urged on behalf of appellant.Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Award, the evidence on record and Supreme Court's decision in Rita Devi (supra) as well as trial court's judgment in the criminal case pertaining to FIR No.38/2007 registered regarding the accident in question, I find that deceased was a driver of autorickshaw in question and in the process of robbing him of the above-said autorickshaw, its driver was killed.It is so evident not only from the version of Claimant but also from the trial court's judgment in criminal case.No doubt, Alalluddin, owner of autorickshaw in question, had deposed before learned Tribunal that deceased was not his employee and that he had given this autorickshaw to the deceased for MAC.APP.312/2009 Page 3 of 4 plying it on hire basis.In the instant case, the dominant intention was not to murder the driver of autorickshaw in question, but was to steal the said autorickshaw and in this process, the driver of said autorickshaw was accidently killed and so, it cannot be said to be murder simplicitor.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,936,841 |
ddas/KS Allowed CRM 2101 of 2018 In the matter of: An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 26.02.2018 in connection with Serampore (Women) P.S. Case No.7 of 2018 dated 08.02.2018 under sections 376/506/376A of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Sayan Chatterjee ... ... petitioner Mr. Sourav Chatterjee Ms. Aditya Tewari ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya ... ... for the State Report is submitted and kept on record.The petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and shall not commit similar offences in future.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,940,909 |
1. Charge sheet was filed in the Court against six persons; namely, Mahender @ Lambu, Imran @ Pappu, Pahlad, Jitender, Vijender @ Lala and Man Singh.They were put up for trial for the offence punishable under Sections 302/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), pertaining to a stabbing incident which took place on a bus No. DL-1P-3370 enroute from Peeragarhi to Daya Basti on 25.03.1999 at around 10.00 PM.In the incident in question, Crl.698/2001 Page 1 of 7 the deceased Radhey Shyam was murdered and three others; namely, Kuldeep, Naresh and Laxman were injured.698/2001 Page 1 of 7PW-13/M; which knife, as per the FSL Report Ex.PY, was found to be contaminated with human blood, group whereof could not be ascertained.The other incriminating circumstance used against Imran of his refusing to participate in the test identification proceedings.Qua appellant Mahender, the recovery of the knife pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/A; as reflected in the memo Ex.PW-13/K, which knife was also found to be contaminated with human blood, group whereof could not be ascertained as per FSL Report Ex.The first is the recovery of the knife from Imran when he was Crl.698/2001 Page 5 of 7 apprehended after 29 days of the incident, and the recovery of the knife pursuant to the disclosure statement of Mahender.The two knives, being contaminated with human blood, group whereof could not be discovered.The second of the two not participating at the TIP.698/2001 Page 7 of 7698/2001 Page 7 of 7Thus, four remained at the trial to defend themselves.3. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 15.09.2001, Pahlad and Jitender have been acquitted in the absence of any incriminating evidence against them.Appellants Mahender and Imran have been convicted for the offence of murder relatable to the death of Radhey Shyam.They have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.Both have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959; substratum of which offence was the recovery of a button operated knife when appellant Imran was apprehended and a knife which was got recovered by appellant Mahender pursuant to his disclosure statement.We may note that all eye-witnesses including the three persons who received injuries on 25.03.1999 did not support the case of the prosecution as regards the identity of the persons who had inflicted injuries to Kuldeep, Naresh and Laxman as also who stabbed the deceased.698/2001 Page 2 of 7698/2001 Page 2 of 7From a perusal of the impugned decision, it is apparent that the learned trial Judge has convicted appellants Mahender and Imran for the reason from Imran a button actuated knife was recovered at the time of his arrest as recorded in the memo Ex.PY and Mahender's refusal to participate in the TIP has been used as incriminating evidence.We may note that the two knives, as per the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased, were opined to be the possible weapons of offence.Surprisingly enough, with respect to the recovery of the two knives, the entire confessional statement by the two appellants pertaining to their participation in the offence has been used by the learned trial Judge in returning a finding of Crl.698/2001 Page 3 of 7 guilt.698/2001 Page 3 of 7It is surprising that a knife in the pocket of appellant Imran which was recovered on 23.04.1999 i.e. after 29 days of the offence was still stained with human blood.Pertaining to the knife which was recovered Crl.698/2001 Page 4 of 7 pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/A by Mahender, we note that in the disclosure statement he has stated that the knife used by him in the commission of crime was handed over to him by one Rakesh to whom the knife belonged.Surprisingly enough, the recovery memo Ex.PW-13/K records that Mahender voluntarily and happily led the police to H.No.A- 4/237, Ground Floor, Sultanpuri and got recovered the knife from a lot.698/2001 Page 4 of 7We find that neither was Rakesh made an accused nor was any attempt made as to how the knife which was ostensibly handed over to Rakesh reached the place wherefrom Mahender got it recovered.Recoveries of common objects have been held to be a very weak piece of evidence.It was so held in the decisions reported as JT 2008 (1) SC 191 Mani Vs.State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 Cri.L.J. 265 Deva Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan, AIR 1994 SC 110 Surjit Singh Vs.State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1753, Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati Vs.Chhatrasinh & Ors., and AIR 1963 SC 1113 Prabhoo Vs.State of U.P.,As noted above, only two pieces of admissible incriminating evidence against the appellants exist.698/2001 Page 5 of 7The taint in the presence of the blood in the two knives as also the recovery of the knife at the instance of Mahender has been noted by us hereinabove.The second piece of incriminating evidence is the appellant's refusal to participate in the test identification proceedings.Treating the two to be incriminating evidence, the incriminating nature of the two being weak; noting that no eye- witness has identified the appellants as the boys who had assaulted the passengers in the bus, we are left with no option but to hold that the chain of incriminating circumstances established against the appellants is too weak to sustain their conviction.The appeal filed by the appellants pertaining to their conviction for the offence of murder is accordingly allowed.Pertaining to the offence under the Arms Act by appellant Mahender at whose instance a knife was got Crl.698/2001 Page 6 of 7 recovered, noting the taint in the manner in which the recovery has been effected, the appeal filed by him pertaining to his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is also allowed.698/2001 Page 6 of 7The appeal filed by appellant Imran pertaining to his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is rejected.Noting that for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Imran has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year, which period of imprisonment he has already undergone; noting further that both appellants are on bail, we dispose of the appeals discharging the bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the appellants.PRADEEP NANDRAJOG (JUDGE) SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 06, 2009 sb Crl.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,947,284 |
CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 2 of 18Vakila is present in person along with her son Shamshuddin (PW-8) and has stated that she does not want to press her revision petition.On the question of occurrence in question, we would begin with CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 3 of 18 the testimony of Shamshuddin (PW-8).PW-8 has deposed that at about 2.30 P.M., on 2nd November, 1998, he was present with his father Nek Shah at the patri on the Wazirabad Road.They had set up a shop on the footpath to sell masalas.Appellant Aas Mohd. had also set up a stall (thiya) to sell potatoes.The deceased Nek Shah had asked Aas Mohd. to shift his shop (thiya) and thereupon, the appellant Aas Mohd. had abused his father.Akhtar and Sher Mohd. joined him and had grappled with his father.Sher Mohd. and Akhtar had held the arms of his father from the back side.Thereafter, appellant Aas Mohd. had picked up a bag (theli) of weights and gave blows on the chest and abdomen of his father Nek Shah.Nek Shah fell down.In the meanwhile, one Babu Azimuddin (PW-1) came there.The three appellants ran away and Nek Shah was taken to GTB hospital by Babu Azimuddin (PW-1) and Shamshuddin (PW-8).Nek Shah had died at the spot itself.MLC Report of the deceased Nek Shah (Ex. PW-8/A) records that the patient was brought dead to the hospital.In his cross examination, PW-8 has stated that every shopkeeper had a platform or thiya on which they stored articles CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 4 of 18 for sale in the weekly market.Before the occurrence, his father had never quarreled with anyone.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 4 of 18Babu Azimuddin (PW-1) was the complainant on whose statement FIR No.812/1998 at Police Station, Gokulpuri was registered.PW-1 claims that he had gone to purchase vegetables at the weekly market and saw that a crowd had gathered.PW-1 saw three persons, namely, Aas Mohd., Akhtar and Sher Mohd. assaulting his nephew Nek Shah.They had quarrelled over the platform (thiya) in the bazaar.The deceased Nek Shah had fallen down.A police vehicle came and took Nek Shah with them.Aas Mohd. had beaten Nek Shah with a bag (theli) of weights and two others had caught hold CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 5 of 18 of Nek Shah.Blows were given on the back, chest, abdomen etc. In his cross -examination, PW-1 testified that he had gone a Masjid to offer Namaz and, thereafter, had reached the bazaar.Two to four blows were given to the deceased Nek Shah.Thereafter, Nek Shah fell down.Possibly, abuses were exchanged and, thereafter, the appellants had hand-to-hand fight with the deceased.It is also probable that the appellants may have used the bag (theli) of weights during the said quarrel to hit the deceased Nek Shah.However, whether the deceased Nek Shah was hit and injured on the chest, is debatable and has been examined below, when we refer to the medical evidence.Nek Shah fell down and was later taken to the hospital.He had died by the time he reached the hospital.PW-1 has deposed on similar lines but it is apparent that PW-1 had reached the place of CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 6 of 18 occurrence after the deceased Nek Shah was injured.PW-8's deposition does not support PW-1's presence at the spot when the quarrel and violence took place.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 6 of 18Dr. G.L. Arora of GTB hospital had appeared as PW-8/A and has testified that on 2nd November, 1998, at about 3.30 P.M., he had examined a patient named Nek Shah, who was brought to the casualty ward by Ct.Right circumflex block 90%.Left circumflex 80%.The disease was latent and unknown.The right- anterior decending coronary artery was blocked to the extent of 80 to 90 percent from middle to its terminal ends, with calcification.The right and left circumflex was similarly blocked to the extent of 80 to 90 percent.Even the left coronary artery was blocked to the extent of 90 percent.This common judgment will dispose of the aforesaid appeals and the revision petition.Appeal no. 34/2000 has been preferred by Aas Mohammad, Akhtar and Sher Mohammad against their conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1862 ('IPC') vide judgment dated 24th December, 1999 and the order of Sentence of the same date, sentencing them to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.State (Govt. of Delhi) has filed Criminal Appeal No. 119/2003 claiming that Aas Mohammad, Akhtar and Sher Mohammad should have been convicted for murder of the deceased Nek Shah under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and awarded a more severe sentence, and Vakila, wife of the deceased Nek Shah, has filed Criminal Revision Petition No.230/2000 praying that the impugned judgment dated 24th December,1999 should be set aside CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 2 of 18 and a harsher sentence should be awarded to Aas Mohammad, Akhtar and Sher Mohammad.We had then questioned them to ascertain whether they were under any pressure, compulsion or threat.This was one of the reasons why we had adjourned the above said appeals and the revision petition filed by Vakila and have taken them up for hearing today.3. Learned counsel for the appellants Aas Mohammad, Akhtar and Sher Mohammad has drawn our attention to the post-mortem report of the deceased Nek Shah marked Exhibit PW-4/A and testimony of Dr. Upender Kishore (PW-4).He denied the suggestion that several persons, including the appellant Aas Mohd. had called the police and PCR officer had come to the spot.Several other suggestions were also denied by him.We do not think that those are of relevance.However, as per the deposition of Shamshuddin (PW-8), Babu Azimuddin (PW-1) had come to the spot, post the occurrence.The appellants had, thereupon, fled away from the spot.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 3 of 18On the question of weights, PW-1 claimed that they could be of 5 kg, 2 kg.or of 1 kg.Nek Shah was about 30 to 35 years old, was not weak and was not suffering from any illness.Amar Singh with alleged history of assault.The patient was declared brought dead and the body was sent to mortuary for post- mortem examination.PW-8A proved the MLC Ex.PW-8/A. The said MLC does not refer to any external bodily injury except a scar on the left cheek and a scar on the lower portion of the right leg.Importantly, there was no scar or injury on the chest.The post mortem on the dead body of Nek Shah was conducted by Dr. Upender Kishore, (PW-4).PW-4 had estimated the age of Nek Shah as 42 years and on examination, only one external injury, namely a reddish abrasion of size 1.6 X 1.2 cm.present on the outer right ankle was noticed.The heart weighed 300 gm.and on exploration, the following medical condition emerged:-"On cut section old heeled subendocardial scar areas present over anterior wall of right ventricle with thinning of wall.Scarring also seen over myocardium and pericardial surface at places.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 7 of 18Coroneries-right anterior decending is block - 80 to 90% from the middle to its terminal ends with calcification.Left coronary block 90%.All arteries showed various atheromatocus changes and calcification.Death due to coronery artery disease and its sequel.In his cross examination, Dr. Upender Kishore (PW-4) opined that a coronary disease had caused the deceased to suffer the heart attack.On examination of the body, PW-4 did not notice any external injury except one abrasion found on the right ankle.There were no contusions or bruises on the body of the deceased including chest and abdomen.The arteries showed various atheromatocus changes and calcification.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 8 of 18CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 8 of 18The Trial court has recorded the following finding in the impugned judgment to invoke Section 304, Part II IPC :-However, we have to bear it in mind that giving chest blow with cloth pouch containing weights is like hurling stones on the chest.The person who hurls stones has to be presumed to have knowledge that death may be caused or likely to be caused as the chest and heart are very sensitive parts of the body and any blow on them is likely to cause death.We have to, therefore, presume that the accused Aas Mohd. principally and accused Sher Mohd. and Chhote @ Akhtar had the knowledge that the blows given on the chest of Nek Shah were likely to cause death.The blows must have accelerated the death by pumping more blood than the arteries etc. could carry.So, even if the medical evidence says that the death was due to heart attack, the impact had a role to play.The hurling of the pouch containing weights had the likelihood of causing death to a normal person also.All the three accused persons are, therefore, convicted accordingly."It was for this reason that they CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 9 of 18 gave fist blows and kick blows to him and Aas Mohd. gave blows with a cloth pouch containing weights on the chest of Nek Shah.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 15 of 18The criminal revision filed by Vakila, which she does not want to press, has to be dismissed.While partly allowing the present appeal, we modify their conviction from Section 304, Part II IPC to Section 323 IPC.The last part relates to the sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC.Akhtar and Sher Mohd., who are present in the Court state that they were in jail for a period of 2 to 3 months.CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 16 of 18However, they shall pay a fine as imposed of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of which they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.In addition, they shall also pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- CRL.A. 34/2000, 119/2003 & CRL.R.P 230/2000 Page 17 of 18 each under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The said compensation and fine will be paid within a period of one week from today.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,952,418 |
The prosecution story, in brief is that on 06/02/2007 Sushilabai in burnt condition reached Police Chowki, Boda falling under the Police Station Pachour, District Ragarh (Biaora) about 07.50 pm and lodged the report to the effect that about 06.00 pm when she was at her residence in village, Boda, the accused-appellant/Gyarasibai sister-in- law by relation came and abused by uttering filthy language as well as slapped without any just cause.The husband of the deceased, Narayana intervened and tried to explain the things to her but she has 2 Cr.Appeal No.54/2008 turned deaf ear.The accused poured kerosene from the gaslit cup (kuppi) and lit fire as a result she received burn injuries on various parts of her body.Thereafter, went away from the place of occurrence.The husband of Sushilabai extinguished the fire.Thereafter, Ramesh brother of the deceased, Biharilal and Gangabai reached the scene of occurrence.Based on the statement of Sushilabai, a case under section 307 IPC was registered at crime No.010/2007 and was sent for treatment to the hospital.Further, information was forwarded to the Police Station Pachour for registration of the FIR and the same was registered at crime No.54/2007 under section 307 IPC on 07/02/2007 at 02.15 pm.The preliminary treatment was given to her at Narsinghargh Hospital.Looking to the condition of the patient, the MLC Doctor had called the Executive Magistrate, Naib Tahsildar, Narendra Singh Chouhan (P.W.6) for recording the dying declaration.(13/08/2018) Per Rohit Arya, J., This appeal by an accused under section 374 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/11/2007 passed in sessions trial No.74/2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghgarh convicting the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year additional simple imprisonment.In fact, he has recorded her dying declaration.Thereafter, Marg intimation was sent to the police station and the dead body was sent for post mortem.Due to death of the deceased, the case was altered under section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant.2 Cr. Appeal No.54/2008During investigation, Investigating Officer, Balveer Singh (P.W.9) has prepared the spot map (exhibit P/15), seized various articles viz., pieces of burnt clothes, steel cup, one plastic can containing at least half liter kerosene, matchsticks, some unburnt pieces of cloth, broken bangles, simple earth and the soil soaked with kerosene, etc., and prepared the seizure memo in presence of the witnesses (exhibit P/1).The statements of witnesses, Rameshchandra, Biharilal etc., who were acquainted with the facts of the offence have been recorded and arrested the appellant/accused.After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused person before the concerned Court.Thereafter, cognizance of the matter was taken and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.The trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under Section 302 against the accused person.The accused has admitted the fact that the deceased was in a room at her house and she herself has tried to extinguish the fire by 3 Cr.Appeal No.54/2008 pouring water on her body.She has stated that Satyanarayana (P.W.3) was also present in the said room.However, the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.3 Cr. Appeal No.54/2008The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/16, the documents on record and the accused has examined defence witnesses; Kishore Patidar (D.W.1), Shabbir (D.W.2) and Vikram (D.W.3).The trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record; particularly, the statements of Narmadaprasad (P.W.5), Biharilal (P.W.1), Rameshchandra (P.W.2) and the medical evidence on record came to hold that charge under Section 302 of the IPC has been proved against the appellant as a result of which convicted her and passed the sentence referred above.This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.Hence, their statements cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant.By putting a deep dent on the dying declaration (Exhibit P/12) recorded by Narenda Singh Chouhan (P.W.6), it has been argued that there are contradictions with the other circumstantial evidence and statements inasmuch as, the deceased was not in a fit mental and 4 Cr.Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.For relying upon the dying declaration, the Court must be conscious that the dying declaration was voluntary and further it was recorded correctly and above all the maker was in a fit condition mentally and physically to make such statement.5 Cr.The deceased herself lodged the FIR (Exhibit P/9) immediately, after the incident at Police Chowki, Boda.** e-iz- vkj- ds in ij Fkkuk ipksj esa Hem ds in ij inLFk gS pksdh cksMk ls He He 589 xaxkjke ds vi-dz- 010@07 /kkjk 307 IPC dh FIR vly dk;eh gsrq Fkkuk ipksj dh udy nLrkost esa mDr irs ij jgrh gS uxj iapk;r cksMk esa lQkbZ dk dke djrh gS vkt 'kke 6 cts djhc dh ckr gS vius ?kj ij vdsyh Fkh rHkh esjh fj'rs dh ekeh X;kjlhckbZ iRuh dSyk'k ckyfed esjs ikl vkbZ vkSj vkrs gh eq>ls dgus yxh dh dy jkst rqus eq>s esjs lkjs fjLrsnkjks esa cnuke dj nh gS ;g dgdj eq>s FkIiM+ks ls ekjihV djus yxh rFkh esjk vkneh lR;ukjk;.k vk x;k ftlus eq>s o X;kjlhckbZ dks le>k;k rks X;kjlhckbZ ugha ekuh xkfy;ka nsdj esjs dejs esa j[kh ?kklysV ds rsy ls Hkjh dwIih mBkdj X;kjlhckbZ us eq>s tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls esjs cnu ij ?kklysV dk rsy Mkydj ekfpl ls vkx yxkdj pyh xbZ rks esjs vkneh lR;ukjk;.k us vkx cq>kbZ vkx yxus ls tyus ls esjk lhuk nksuks dqygs nksuks tka?k nkMh nksuks gkFk ty x, gS ckn esa esja k HkkbZ jes'k rFkk fcgkjhyky] xaxkckbZ ckyfed Hkh vk x, ftUgs lkFk ysdj fjiksVZ djus vkbZ gWw fjiksVZ djrh gwW dk;Zokgh dh tkosAThe dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by Narendra Singh Chouhan (P.W.6) upon certification "This is to certify that Smt. Sushilabai w/o Satyanarana is mentally sound for statement.Sd/xxx 08.00 AM 07/02/2007 8.10 A.M., uke & lq'khykckbZ iRuh lR;ukjk;.k vk;q 35 o"kZ fuoklh cksMk] /ka/kk uksdjh] eSa 'kiFk iwoZd lR; dFku djrh gWw fd fn- 6-2-07 dks 'kke 6%00 cts ds djhc eS lqikjh ysus xbZ Fkh fd eq>s jkLrs esa gh pqjk fy;k X;kjlhckbZ ifr dSyk'k mQZ esgrj us dgk fd eS bl edku esa ugha jgus nWx w h mlus ykr ?kwlksa ls ekjk fQj mlus feVVh dk rsy esjs mij Mky fn;k ;g ?kj dh ckr gS fQj vkx ekfpl ls yxk nh iqjk le; ogkW dksbZ ugha Fkk ;g dg jgh Fkh fd rq>s vc bl edku ds vUnj ugha jgus nwWaxhA esjs esjs firkth dk ?kj edku gS firkth us nkekn ?kj esa j[kk Fkk X;kjlhckbZ esjh HkkstkbZ gSA eSus dgk 6 Cr.Appeal No.54/2008 fd 8&15 fnu jgus nks fQj nqljk edku ysdj jgus yxsx a s fQj mlus esjs mij vkx yxkus ds ckn ikuh Mky fn;k fQj eSa Fkkus esjk HkkbZ jes'k ysdj x;k Fkk fjiksVZ MyokbZ Fkh X;kjlhckbZ us esjs flj eS uk tkus dkgh ls ekjh eq>s irk ugha eS csgks'k gks xbZ Fkh esjs flj ls [kwu fudy fudy jgk gSA edku es ls fudkyus dks ysdj gh X;kjlhckbZ us esjs lkFk yM+kbZ dh blds vykok vksj dksbZ ckr ugha gSA eS iqjh ty xbZ gwWA i<+k lquk lgh ik;kA AM 8:20 This is to certify that Smt. Sushilabai remained mentally sound during statement recorded.6 Cr. Appeal No.54/2008Narendra Singh Chouhan (P.W.6) proved the dying declaration.After death of the deceased, this document would become her dying declaration, as contemplated under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. It has been categorically stated by P.W.6, that on receiving the information, he immediately reached the hospital and found Sushilabai was admitted there in burnt condition.Thereafter, the injured was certified to be in fit mental condition by the doctor and the endorsement and thumb impression in that behalf has been appended on the dying declaration itself made by the deceased before the aforesaid executive officer.The trial Court after appreciating the evidence in detail found proved the statement of the deceased that the appellant poured kerosene on her (deceased) and lit the fire as a result she was burnt.On going through the reasonings assigned by the trial Court, we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the appellant has poured kerosene on the deceased, Sushilabai and lit the fire due to which she has received the burn injuries.The MLC report of the deceased was Exhibit P/14 which was proved by Dr. Mahendra Gupta.After perusal of the testimony of the MLC Doctor Mahendra Gupta (P.W.6), the Autopsy surgeon, Dr. B.K.Athawal (P.W.10) and the MLC report (Exhibit P/14) and the post mortem report (Exhibits P/16), we find the following injuries on the person of the deceased:MLC REPORT (exhibit P/14):"Deep burn injuries on the following areas:7 Cr.(1) Anterior chest and upper abdomen with extension to both infrascapula region;(2) Anterior part of the neck and chin; (3) Dorsal aspect of whole right upper limb including hand;(4) Front of the left shoulder and flexor aspect of left forearm and (5) both buttock with post part of both thighs and upper leg caused by dry heat, duration within 24 hours.Danger to life."POST MORTEM REPORT (exhibit P/16):"(1) Superficial infuriated burns present over chest and abdomen starting from neck anterior aspect flow of mount to chest all over and upto umbilicus region of abdomen all over and on right line region.(2) Superficial infuriated present over both upper limb on right side extending from auxillary line upto hand in patching form cubital on left side it extend from shoulder upto while region on antromedial aspect.(3) Superficial infuriated burn present over both lower limbs on right side anterior aspect it extend from iliac crest upto nearby mid of leg on anterio lateral aspect and at ankle on which anterior aspect, on posterior aspect it stretching from gluteal fold upto fist above the knee all over.On left side anterior aspect it extend from nearby mid of thigh upto just below knee as anteromedial aspect and in leg anterior aspect in patchy aspect from gluetial fold upto just above ankle all over.(4) Superficial infuriated burn present over back at left scapular region at lumber region all over and at buttock of both sides.The burn is infuriated with propocket filled with an emitting from smell at slum and floor grenish yellow colour.It was opined that death was due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of burns and its complications.Viscera and scalp hair preserved for chemical analysis.Duration of death was within 24 hrs.since the time post-mortem examination.Hospitalized case.8 Cr. Appeal No.54/2008The Registry is directed to send the copy of this judgment immediately along with the record to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,954,873 |
We reproduce the same as under:Brief facts of the prosecution case as per final report are that on 10.04.2012 complainant Asha along with her daughter aged two years (name is withheld as per law and she is being referred as victim hereinafter), her mother in law and one person Murari in drunken state came to police station and stated that Murari had raped her daughter.The statement of the complainant was recorded in which she stated that her daughter went to play out side at about 6.30 PM and she saw that Murari, who resides in neighbor, was playing with her by taking her in his lap.She stated that after some time one boy named Kamal came to her with victim and stated that he had taken her from the house of Murari.She was crying and her 'Kachi' was down.The complainant asked her about the reason and she pointed out towards house of Murari and told that Murari had hit her and pointed towards her private part.The complainant saw blood was coming out from her private part.She went to the house of Murari and took Murari to police station.On this statement of complainant, case was registered.Accused was sent for his medical examination.IO with the complainant, victim and other police officials visited the spot and inspected the same and also called Crime Team who also inspected the spot.Victim was also got medically examined from AIIMS Hospital and exhibits were taken into possession by CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 2 of 30 the police.Ms. Aasha Tiwari, learned APP has drawn our attention, firstly, to the Rukka Ex. PW-1/A & PW-13/A, wherein the mother of the prosecutrix/ complainant Asha contemporaneously complained that on the fateful day at about 6:30 P.M., the two-year daughter of the complainant, i.e. the prosecutrix went down to play; the complainant saw the accused- who is a neighbor residing in a jhuggi which is 4-5 jhuggis apart, took the prosecutrix in his lap; the accused was playing with the prosecutrix; after some time, Kamal - the boy who stays in a nearby jhuggi, brought the prosecutrix in his lap and informed the complainant that he has got the prosecutrix from Murari - the accused.The complainant stated that the prosecutrix was crying loudly and her underwear was pulled down.When the prosecutrix was crying, she asked the prosecutrix as to what the matter was? The prosecutrix pointed out towards the house of the accused.The complainant asked the prosecutrix whether the accused- Murari had hit her and if so, where? The prosecutrix pointed towards her private part and informed the complainant that the accused had hit her on her vagina (susu mein maara).The complainant stated that she saw that the prosecutrix was bleeding from CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 5 of 30 her vagina (pesaab karne ki jagah se khoon nikal raha thaa).She stated that she was stunned to observe the same, and she ran towards the jhuggi of Murari - the accused.She stated that the accused Murari was alone in the jhuggi and that two of his brothers had gone for work.She caught hold of Murari and brought him outside the jhuggi and took him to the Police Station.She also took the prosecutrix with her to the Police Station.She also stated that the police had also seen the blood oozing out.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 5 of 30The medical examination of the prosecutrix was got conducted on the same day, i.e., 10.04.2012 at 08:45 P.M. The medical history recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-5/A, as given by the complainant-Asha was that her daughter was playing outside when she was informed by a neighbor-Kamal, that the prosecutrix had been sexually assaulted by Murari, who is also a neighbor.The doctor noted:"No H/o any physical trauma CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 6 of 30 H/o bleeding pv her undergarments were stained with blood"." L/E erosion on (L) Labia major oozing from erosion seen Redness on Labia ...........Hymen-torn, No Foul smelling discharge.No other C/o external injury undergarments sealed by police Vaginal smear made (3) slides sent for examination"The medical examination of the accused was also got conducted vide Ex.The accused is not related to me.The mother of the prosecutrix is staying on the first floor of the adjacent jhuggi of my jhuggi.The jhuggi of the mother of the prosecutrix is fourth one from the Jhuggi of accused Murari.When accused Murari called me he was coming downstairs from his jhuggi.The jhuggi of accused Murari is constructed upto three storeys.I went to play after handing over "K" to her mother.The police inquired from me about the incident on the same day in the evening at about 07:00 P.M. and recorded my statement.The police had inquired from me in the police station."He denied the suggestion that no such incident, as alleged by him, ever took place, or that he was deposing at the instance of his father, or at CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 8 of 30 the instance of neighbors.He denied the suggestion that he did not make any statement to the police in the Police Station.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 8 of 30From the cross-examination of PW-2- Kamal, it is seen that there was no specific cross-examination on the incident narrated by him, i.e. of the accused Murari calling Kamal; of Kamal going to his jhuggi; the accused handing over the prosecutrix to Kamal, to hand her over to her mother; of the undergarment of the prosecutrix being lowered up to knee; of the prosecutrix crying; of Kamal handing over the prosecutrix to her mother; of the prosecutrix- upon being asked by her mother about the cause of her crying, pointing towards her private part and also pointing towards the jhuggi of the accused-Murari; and, of the complainant going to the jhuggi of the accused Murari and bringing him out of his jhuggi.She was consistent in her testimony with what was stated in her complaint/Rukka Ex.PW1/A. In her examination-in-chief, PW1, inter alia, stated:"On 10.04.2012 at about 06:30 P.M. my daughter "K" aged about 2 years had gone for the purpose of playing outside my house.I saw that accused Murari lifted my daughter in his lap.After sometime, our neighbour Kamal brought "K"in his lap.Kamal told me that he has brought my daughter "K"from the house of Murari and told that my daughter was weeping loudly.I asked my daughter as to why she is weeping.She pointed out towards the house of accused Murari and also told that Murari has beaten her at the place of Shu-Shu (the place from where the urine was passing).I checked her private part and saw that blood was oozing from her vagina.The underwear (Kachchi) CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 9 of 30 of yellow color was below her knees and same was blood stained.I immediately went to the house of the accused Murari and brought him out from his house and took him to the police station alongwith my daughter who was in my lap.I narrated the incident to the police.The police recorded my statement which is now Ex.PW1/A bearing my RTI at point A. The police took my daughter to AIIMS hospital where my daughter was medically examined.I had produced the blood stained Kachchi of my daughter to the police.The police took into possession the same vide seizure memo now Ex. PW1/B bearing my signature at point A."CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 9 of 30PW1-Asha identified the underwear of her daughter Ex. P-1. PW1- Asha was cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused.In her cross- examination she, inter alia, stated that Kamal-PW2 had himself disclosed the entire incident and the cause of the weeping of her daughter.She stated that Kamal had stated to her that he had witnessed the incident.She denied the suggestion that when Kamal had brought her daughter; he had stated to her that the accused Murari had handed over the child to him to be given to her mother.She stated that she straight away went to the Police Station after taking the accused-Murari with her.She had disclosed about the incident which happened with her daughter to her mother-in-law and 2-3 other ladies residing in the neighborhood.She stated that she must have reached the Police Station at around 07:00 P.M. along with the accused and several other persons from her neighborhood.Her mother-in-law accompanied her to the Police Station.Kamal had also reached the Police Station thereafter.She stated that she was inside her home when her daughter was playing outside at around 06:00 P.M. She further stated that her daughter was weeping a lot and pointing out towards her private part when she was handed over by CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 10 of 30 Kamal to her.She stated that she thought that the prosecutrix wanted to pass urine, and when she checked her panty, she was bleeding from her private part.She denied the suggestion that her daughter was not bleeding from her private part when Kamal had handed over the prosecutrix to her.She denied the suggestion that while she was inside the house, her daughter was playing outside with Kamal and that she had sustained injuries, or that thereafter she started crying, or that blood was oozing out due to the injury sustained by her.She denied the suggestion that no such incident had happened.It was suggested to her that Kamal had given his statement as parents of Kamal were having acrimonial terms with the parents of the accused-Murari.Pertinently, no such suggestion was given to Kamal.She exhibited the MLC as Ex.PW5/A bearing her signatures.The underwear worn by the prosecutrix i.e. Ex. P-1 had been removed at the police station and converted into a pulanda.This is not only evident from Ex. PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B but also from the MLC Ex. PW-5/A, which records that the undergarments were sealed by the police.The "oozing from erosion seen", coupled with "redness on labia" are observations which corroborate the statement of PW1 and PW2 that the prosecutrix did suffer bleeding from her private part due to the sexual CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 22 of 30 assault.Seema PW-10. PW-10 had, inter alia, stated that on 10.04.2012 at about 6:30/ 7:00 p.m., the complainant PW-1 had come along with her daughter/ prosecutrix to the police station and reported about the rape having been committed upon her daughter.Thereafter, she along with SI Kusum Dangi, PW-1 and the prosecutrix had gone to the spot where the child pointed out towards the jhuggi of the accused and told that at that place the accused had beaten her.The statement made by PW-10 to the effect that "the accused Murari was also present there" is relied upon by the accused, since, according to the case of the prosecution he was not present at the spot when PW-1 had gone with the prosecutrix and the aforesaid police officers to his jhuggi.On this aspect, we have carefully examined the testimonies of the other witnesses.PW-11 HC Ajit Singh has deposed that on 10.04.2012 he was posted as Head Constable of PS Kalkaji and joined the investigation in the case with the I.O. He stated that he along with SI Kusum Dangi had gone to Sudhar Camp and they had started from the police station.He, inter alia, stated in his cross examination that he was called in the police station when the I.O. had received the information of the incident.He along with SI CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 23 of 30 Kusum Dangi, mother of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix started from the police station to the place of the incident and arrived there after 15-20 minutes.Pertinently, he stated that the accused was not present when he reached the spot along with the I.O. The accused was not found present there.He also stated that the I.O. had not arrested the accused from the spot in his presence.The State has preferred the present appeal upon grant of leave, to assail the Judgment rendered by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 South East District, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 44/12 arising out of FIR No. 106/12 registered at Police Station Kalkaji under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, titled State Vs.By the impugned judgment the Learned ASJ has acquitted the respondent/ accused of the charge on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 1 of 30Accused was arrested.Exhibits were sent to FSL for examination and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC against the accused was filed in the court and the case was committed to the Sessions Court."CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 2 of 30The accused was charged with commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.Since the accused did not plead guilty to the charge, the matter went to trial.By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent/ accused.The impugned judgment is only a five-page order.We consider it appropriate to extract the relevant portion thereof before we proceed to discuss the submissions and examine the correctness of the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court.The IO or other police witnesses have not deposed that they examined the victim when was brought to the police station and they also observed blood stains on the body of the victim or that her clothes were having blood stains.As per witnesses, the IO with her team, complainant and victim went to the spot after registration of the case and from there the victim was sent for medical examination.The victim was medically examined by PW5 in the hospital and she prepared her MLC Ex. PW5/A. The witness deposed that upon examination, she opined that the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn and that she also collected the vaginal smear and undergarments of the prosecutrix and sealed the CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 3 of 30 same with the seal of hospital along with the sample seal and handed over the same to the police.But in the MLC it is written that undergarments sealed by police.The witness has also mentioned in the MLC erosion on Labia Major, oozing from erosion seen, redness on Labia but is is not mentioned that there was oozing of blood or there was evidence of oozing of blood from the genital parts of the victim as observed by her.The doctor has also not given her opinion to the torn of hymen whether it was fresh or old.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 3 of 30The samples and exhibits as collected during the investigations were sent for their examination to the FSL and PW14 examined them and as per her report no male profile could be generated from the samples of the victim due to degradation of samples.The witness has not reported about any semen or blood stains observed by her on the undergarment sent to her.As per PW10 Ct.Seema, she accompanied the IO, complainant and the victim to the spot and at that time accused Murari was also there.As per this witness IO prepared the site plan at the spot itself.This witness is cited as a witness on the seizure memo of undergarment of the victim which was handed over by the complainant to the IO but she has not deposed even a single word in this regard in her testimony.PW11 HC Ajit Singh deposed that he along with ASI Kusum Dangi had gone to Sudhar Camp on 10.04.2012 and as per this witness the accused was not at the spot.It appears from the testimonies of PW10 and PW11 that one of them has not visited the spot however the IO has named both of them.All the witnesses examined has not observed any blood stains in the room of the accused or on any object present there.It is possible that if a sexual act with a child of the age two years is committed blood will ooze out naturally and the stains must be found at the place of offence and if there is no blood CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 4 of 30 stain it weakens the possibility of occurrence of crime at that place.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 4 of 30She also recorded that the underwear of the prosecutrix - of yellow color, was taken into custody by the police and sealed.The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B. She complained that the accused - Murari had committed rape upon her two-year minor daughter.She demanded that medical examination of her daughter be got conducted and action be taken against the accused.On the basis of the Rukka, the FIR in question came to be registered under Section 376 IPC against the accused at 07:45 P.M. The accused was arrested at the Police Station itself vide arrest memo Ex. PW- 6/B.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 6 of 30Upon examination the doctor viewed:PW4/A. During examination, the doctor, inter alia, found smell of alcohol present from his mouth.However, there was no injury noticed on the private part of the accused.The statement of Kamal aged about 13 years was got recorded under Section 164Cr.P.C. on 11.4.2012, i.e. very next day of the incident vide Ex.PW-9/B. In his statement, Kamal stated that on 10.04.2012, when he was going in the lane, the accused handed over the prosecutrix to him and told him to hand her over to "Bhabhi" i.e., the complainant.He further stated that the prosecutrix was pointing towards her vagina (peshaab karne ki jagah) and she was stating that Murari has done something to her over there.The prosecutrix was crying a lot and her underwear was half lowered.He also stated that she was bleeding from her vagina.He handed over the prosecutrix to her mother.The testimony of Kamal was recorded as PW-2 before the Court.His testimony is consistent with his statement recorded CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 7 of 30 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In his testimony, i.e. examination-in-chief, he stated:CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 7 of 30"On 10.04.2012 about 06:45 P.M. I was going towards my house.Accused Murari called me.I went to his jhuggi.Accused Murari handed over to me baby "K"(name withheld).The Kachchi ( underwear) of Baby "K" was lowered upto knee and she was weeping.I took her home and handed over to her mother.On inquiry from "K" by her mother about the cause of her crying, she pointed out towards her private part and also pointed out towards the jhuggi of Murari accordingly, the mother of "K" went to the jhuggi of Murari and brought him from his jhuggi.I.O. recorded my statement to this effect.Accused Murari is present in the Court today and correctly identified by the witness."Kamal PW2 was cross examined on behalf of the accused.Insofar as it is relevant, Kamal stated in his cross-examination as follows:"The accused called me while I was coming back.The Jhuggi of accused Murari is at the distance of two jhuggi from my jhuggi.She denied that blood was not oozing out from the body and injured parts of the prosecutrix.During her cross examination, PW1-Asha was shown Ex.P-1 and questioned if it contains blood stains.The learned ASJ records:CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 10 of 30The doctor who examined the prosecutrix, namely, Dr. Unnati Shende, Senior Resident, Department of Obs.She stated that upon examination she had opined that the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn.She also collected the vaginal smear and undergarments of the prosecutrix and sealed the same with the seal of the hospital along with the sample seal and handed over the same to the police.She was cross-examined and opined that, in case of fall of a child of the age as in the present case, and if the injury is caused to her private part by something edged sharp, then in that circumstance the hymen can be torn.Pertinently no question was put to PW-5 as to whether, or not, she noticed any blood oozing out from the private part of the prosecutrix.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 11 of 30PW-14, Ms. L. Babyto Devi, Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini, New Delhi exhibited the FSL Report Ex.PW14/A, according to which no male profile could be generated from Ex.1 & Ex.2 (vaginal smear and underwear of victim) due to degradation of samples.Consequently, no comparison was possible with male profile generated from Ex.3 (blood in gauze of accused).The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the evidences put to him.He stated that he had been falsely implicated but he did not know why he had been falsely implicated in the present case.The submission of Ms. Tiwari, learned APP is that the impugned judgment is patently laconic and the learned ASJ, while acquitting the accused, has brushed aside the evidence led by the prosecution without any justification.She submits that PW2-Kamal consistently narrated the incident witnessed by him in his statement recorded under Section 164 CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 12 of 30 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW-9/B, as well as in his testimony recorded before the Court.Ms. Tiwari submits that the testimony of PW2 is consistent with that of PW1-Asha.She submits that the statements of PW2 and PW1 are also corroborated by the MLC of the victim Ex. PW5/A. The doctor PW-5 found erosion on the left labia major and there was oozing seen from the erosion.The doctor also noticed redness on the labia.The hymen of the prosecutrix- who was only two years old, was torn.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 12 of 30Ms. Tiwari submits that the prosecutrix was seen to be taken by the accused-Murari by PW1 and after some time, she was handed over by him to PW2-Kamal.During the time that the prosecutrix was with the accused- Murari, she suffered injury on her private part- which she herself narrated to the complainant.Thus, it was for Murari to explain as to how the prosecutrix had received injury on her private part.The other circumstances established were that Kamal (PW-2) had also stated that the undergarment of the prosecutrix was lowered upto her knee when she was handed over to him by the accused.He had exhibited his earlier statement recorded under Section 164 Cr PC, wherein he had stated that blood was oozing from her private part.The accused, however, offered no explanation when his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Ms. Tiwari submits that, in these circumstances, it stood conclusively proved that the accused had committed rape upon the prosecutrix.It is this act of the accused which led to the prosecutrix crying out loudly; suffering bleeding from her private parts; tear of hymen and erosion in the labia region with oozing and; redness on labia.Ms. Tiwari submits that the learned ASJ had completely ignored the said material evidence brought on record.Thus, she submits that the impugned CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 13 of 30 judgment cannot be sustained as it stands conclusively established from the evidence brought on record that the accused is guilty of rape of the prosecutrix.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 13 of 30On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has, firstly, argued that the conduct of the accused does not support the charge.PW1 in her cross examination had admitted that after the incident when the complainant PW1 came to the jhuggi of the accused to take him to the Police Station, he did not resist or run away.She admitted that "The accused did not try to run away from the way to Police Station".Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence of any bleeding or blood oozing out of blood from the private part of the prosecutrix in the present case.Apart from the statement of the complainant-PW1, there is no evidence brought on record in this regard and same is not mentioned in the MLC of the victim Ex.PW5/A; or in the statement of the examining doctor PW5; or by any of the police witnesses.He submits that if the prosecutrix - who is only two years old, were to be subjected to rape, there would have been heavy bleeding.No bleeding was found by the crime team at the place of occurrence.Learned counsel further submits that even the medical examination of the accused showed that he had not suffered any injury on his private part, which he would have suffered had he committed rape upon the two-year-old prosecutrix.Learned counsel further submits that PW1 had claimed that Kamal-PW2 had witnessed the incident and that he had narrated the same to her.However, CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 14 of 30 Kamal had not claimed that he had witnessed the accused raping the prosecutrix.He submits that PW1-Asha is, therefore, not credible.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 14 of 30He submits that the case of the prosecution is that PW1-Asha had taken the accused-Murari along with her, the prosecutrix, and her mother-in-law to the police station.However, PW10-Seema deposed that, when on 10.04.2012, at about 6:30 P.M./07:00 P.M., the complainant-Asha along with her daughter, i.e., the prosecutrix came to the Police Station and reported the rape committed upon her daughter, she along with SI Kusum Dangi (PW-13), the complainant-Asha and the prosecutrix went to the spot where the child pointed out towards the jhuggi of the accused, and at that place the accused-Murari had beaten her.She deposed that the accused-Murari was also present there.In her cross-examination, she stated that when she met the prosecutrix and her mother in the Police Station, the accused-Murari was not with them.According to learned counsel, this is a serious contradiction in the case of the prosecution.Learned counsel has further submitted that the I.O., S.I. Kusum Dangi-PW13 had claimed that the undergarment of the prosecutrix has been seized vide seizure memo-Ex.PW-1/B, and that the same was sealed.However, PW5-Dr. Unnati Shende had deposed that she had collected the vaginal smear and the undergarments of the prosecutrix and sealed the same with the seal of the hospital and handed over the same CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 15 of 30 to the police along with the sample seal.However, the undergarment of the prosecutrix was received in the FSL only with the seal of the I.O.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 15 of 30Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pappu vs. State of Delhi, CRL.A.267/2007 decided on 27.05.2009, to submit that the mere fact that the hymen was found ruptured upon medical examination, does not imply rape.He submits that if the hymen of the prosecutrix had been torn/ ruptured on the date of the incident, there would definitely have been bleeding, which would have been visible at the place of incident; on the private part of the accused and on his clothes, and; on the private part of the prosecutrix and her undergarment.However, no blood was seen at any of these places.We have heard learned counsels and carefully examined the evidence brought on record.We have also perused the impugned judgment and scrutinized the reasoning adopted by the learned ASJ while deciding the case before him.25. PW-1 Asha, the complainant and the mother of the prosecutrix had stated in her very first statement given to the police Ex. PW-1/A, that the prosecutrix had gone down to play at about 6:30 p.m. and she saw the accused - her neighbour who resides 4-5 jhuggis away, take the prosecutrix in his lap.This statement was recorded on the date of the incident itself.Pertinently, there is no specific challenge to this statement of CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 16 of 30 hers by the accused in her cross-examination.The suggestion given to PW- 1 in her cross-examination was that while PW-1 was insider her home, the prosecutrix was playing outside and while playing with Kamal PW-2, she had sustained injuries and that after sustaining such injuries she started crying as it was raining and that blood oozed out due to the injury sustained by her.There is no specific challenge to the statement of PW-1 that the accused had taken the prosecutrix in his lap.PW-1 is the eye witness to the factum of the accused lifting the prosecutrix in his lap.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 16 of 30The factum of the prosecutrix being taken by the accused is also established by the fact that she was returned by him to PW-2 Kamal.The statement of Kamal was initially recorded under Section 164 Cr PC and in the said statement (Ex. PW-9/B) he, inter alia, stated that on the previous day i.e. 10.04.2012, he was going through the galli.The accused Murari handed over the prosecutrix to him and told him to give the prosecutrix to the complainant - her mother.PW-2 in his testimony recorded before the Court was consistent on this aspect.He, inter alia, stated that on 10.04.2012 at about 6:45 p.m. he was going towards his house when the accused called him.He went to the jhuggi of the accused Murari and Murari handed over to him the prosecutrix.PW-1 Asha has also deposed that it was Kamal PW-2 who had brought the prosecutrix to her.In respect of PW-2, it was suggested to PW-1- during her cross-examination, that Kamal had given the statement CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 17 of 30 against the accused as the parents of Kamal were having acrimonial terms with the parents of the accused.However, during cross-examination of PW- 2 it was not suggested to him that he was deposing falsely on account of acrimony or animosity between his parents and the parents of the accused.While recording his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, the accused claimed that he had been falsely implicated, while also stating that he did not know why he had been falsely implicated in the present case.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 17 of 30Thus, in our view, it stood clearly established beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was taken by the accused to his jhuggi after she was taken in his lap by the accused at about 6:30 p.m. The recovery of the prosecutrix from the accused at his jhuggi by Kamal PW-2 is also clearly established.The duration/ time span between the time when PW-1 saw the accused take the prosecutrix in his lap, and the time when the prosecutrix was returned by the accused to PW-2 Kamal is only about 15 minutes.During this period, when the prosecutrix was with the accused, she was allegedly sexually assaulted.On this aspect we may examine the evidence brought on record.30. PW-2 in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr PC, inter alia, stated that the prosecutrix was pointing towards her private part and saying that the accused had done something to her over there.She was crying loudly and her underwear was half down.Pertinently, he also stated that blood was oozing out of the vagina of the prosecutrix.PW-2 deposed before the Court that the prosecutrix was handed over by the accused to PW-2 for CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 18 of 30 being returned to the complainant/ mother of the prosecutrix and at that time the prosecutrix was weeping loudly and was pointing towards her private parts.He, inter alia, stated that PW-1 enquired from the prosecutrix about the cause of her crying, and she pointed towards her private part and also towards the jhuggi of the accused Murari.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 18 of 3031. PW-1 stated in her initial statement given by her to the police i.e. in the rukka Ex. PW-1/A, that when Kamal brought the prosecutrix to her, he informed her that he had brought the prosecutrix from the residence of Murari.She had stated that the prosecutrix was crying very loudly and her underwear was down.She asked the prosecutrix as to what had happened.The prosecutrix pointed towards the house of the accused Murari and upon being asked whether she had been hit by Murari, she pointed out towards her private part and stated that she was hit on the vagina (su su mein mara).She also stated that she saw that the prosecutrix was bleeding from her private part.In her cross-examination conducted on 27.09.2013, PW-1, inter alia, stated that she thought that the prosecutrix wanted to pass urine and when she checked her panty/ underwear, she was found bleeding from her private part.From the testimony of PW-2, which was consistent with his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr PC, it is established that the accused did assault the prosecutrix on her private parts.This position is also corroborated by the statement of PW-1 narrated in the rukka; in her testimony, and by the MLC of the prosecutrix.The issue then is whether the said assault tantamounted to rape or not.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 19 of 30The submission of counsel for the respondent/ accused is that there was no evidence to show that the prosecutrix suffered any bleeding.The submission of learned counsel is that the MLC Ex. PW-5/A only mentions "H/o bleeding" from the vagina and her undergarments were stained with blood.The Doctor did not find any blood oozing from the vagina of the prosecutrix when she was examined sometime after the incident i.e. at 8:43 p.m. Even the FSL report Ex. PW-14/A does not make any mention of any blood of the prosecutrix being found either on the vaginal smear (Ex.1), or the underwear of the prosecutrix/ victim (Ex. 2).It is also submitted that no blood was found by the crime team at the jhuggi of the accused, and had the accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix, some blood would have also fallen on the ground in the said jhuggi.No blood was found upon medical examination of the accused on his private parts.Thus, it is argued that the tear in the hymen could have been an old one.On the aspect of blood oozing out from the private part of the prosecutrix, as noticed herein above, the mother of the prosecutrix disclosed the same in her very first statement (Ex. PW-1/A) recorded soon after the incident was discovered.Pertinently, the underwear of the victim was seized by the police, there and then vide Ex.PW-1/B and converted into a pulanda.The same was thereafter produced before the Doctor PW-5 at the time of examination of the prosecutrix in a sealed condition.This position is CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 20 of 30 recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-5/A. Not only did PW-1 state about the bleeding consistently in her initial complaint/ rukka and in her testimony, but even PW-2 stated so while recording his statement under Section 164 Cr PC (Ex. PW-9/B), that the prosecutrix was bleeding from her vagina.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 20 of 30On the said aspect of the blood oozing out of the private part of the prosecutrix, PW-1 was challenged in her testimony during her cross examination.Pertinently, during the cross examination of PW-1, counsel for the accused showed the underwear of the prosecutrix to the witness and questioned if it contained blood stains.PW-1 looked at the underwear and stated that around the cut mark (the piece cut by the Doctor) "there are still visible blood stains".Noticeably, the accused did not proceed with further cross-examination of PW-1 on the said aspect.However, that line of cross-examination was not taken, and on this aspect it was abandoned by the accused.On the other hand, it was suggested to the witness that the panty/ underwear Ex. P-1 produced in the court did not belong to the prosecutrix or that there is no blood stain on the same.There is no basis for the accused to claim that since the prosecutrix was only two years old, there would have been heavy bleeding if she had CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 21 of 30 been subjected to rape.It would depend, inter alia, on the force and intensity with which a child victim of this age is penetrated, as to how much bleeding would occur upon the hymen being torn.The prosecutrix was only two years of age at the time when the incident took place.However, there was no direct question put to her that the prosecutrix had suffered the injury from a sharp object in her private part.Pertinently, there was no cut or injury suffered by the prosecutrix on her private part, apart from L/E erosion on (L) Labia major.In any event, it was for the accused to explain as to who, and in what manner, had inserted anything into the vagina of the prosecutrix which resulted in the rupture of the hymen and the injuries which were noticed on her private parts.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 21 of 30No doubt, the FSL report Ex. PW-14/A is silent on this aspect, but the reason therefor clearly is that the FSL report only pertains to the DNA analysis, and not to the serological examination of the samples.Thus, it cannot be concluded upon perusal of Ex. PW-14/A that no blood was found on Ex.1 i.e. the vaginal smear, or Ex.2 i.e. the underwear of the victim.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 22 of 30Learned counsel for the respondent/ accused has raised a doubt on the case of the prosecution by placing reliance on the testimony of Const.He also stated that when he came back to the police station after visiting the place of occurrence, the accused was present in the police station and that he had not brought the accused from the place of the incident to the police station.Thus, the testimony of PW-11 HC Ajit Singh falsifies the testimony of PW-10 that the accused Murari was present at the spot when she along with SI Kusum Dangi, the complainant and her daughter had gone to the spot.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 23 of 30PW-12 SI Sanjay, who was posted as crime team in-charge in the Mobile Crime Team (South-East) stated that on 10.04.2012, he along with Const.Puneet and HC Kuldeep reached the spot i.e. Jhuggi no.346, Sudhar Camp, Kalkaji and remained present there from 8:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. He, inter alia, stated in his cross-examination that the accused Murari was not present there.He also stated that the complainant was present when he reached the spot.Thus, the testimony of PW-12 SI Sanjay corroborates the testimony of PW-11 HC Ajit Singh and falsifies the testimony of PW-10 Const.Seema on the aspect of the presence of the accused Murari at the spot when the police team along with the complainant and the prosecutrix went to the jhuggi of the accused.CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 24 of 30PW-13 SI Kusum Dangi stated that on 10.04.2012, she was posted as SI in PS Kalkaji.On that day, the complainant along with her daughter i.e. the prosecutrix and her mother- in- law visited the police station and also produced the accused Murari with the allegations that Murari had committed rape upon her daughter.Thus, PW-13 categorically stated that the accused Murari was produced in the police station by the complainant herself.She further stated that after registering the FIR on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, the accused "Murari was sent to hospital for his medical examination through constable Bhajan and I alongwith police staff and victim and her mother reached at the scene of crime where I prepared site plan".Thus, PW-13 SI Kusum Dangi brings out the picture clearly that after registration of FIR, the accused was sent for medical examination, whereas the complainant along with the prosecutrix and the police officials reached the spot of occurrence.There was no question of the accused Murari accompanying the police party, the complainant and the prosecutrix when they visited the spot, or the accused Murari being present at the spot during the said visit- as claimed by PW-10 Const.The statement of PW-13 corroborates the statements of PW-11 and PW-12 on the said aspect, and demolishes the testimony of PW-10 to that extent.It is interesting and pertinent to note that PW-10 not only tried to twist the fact with regard to the accused being present at the spot of occurrence when the police party visited the same along with the complainant and the prosecutrix, but also mislead the Court about the place of his arrest.It is also interesting and pertinent to note that she failed to identify the accused.The incident occurred on 10.04.2012 and the statement CRL.A. 70/2018 Page 25 of 30 of PW-10 Const.Seema was recorded on 07.11.2013 i.e. about one year and seven months later.Surprisingly, despite being a trained police officer- who is expected to have developed the skill of recognizing and recalling faces, she stated that " I do not remember the face of the accused now"- though she correctly identified the accused.
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
679,552 |
This is a revision petition against conviction and sentence.Two accused were arrayed in this case.The case of the prosecution is that A-1 accompanied by A-2 went to the office of P.W. 1, viz., the Revenue Inspector of Arasur, on 8-7-1981, at 5 p.m. and asked for an attestation of a fact which was not true, viz., that the land cultivated by A.2 belongs to A.2, whereas the land actually belongs to a temple.Upon refusal by P.W. 1, A.1 twisted his hand.P.Ws. 2 and 3, the other officers, took A-1 outside.Thereupon, P.W. 1 sent a report to the Collector, who in turn forwarded the same to the police.Charges were framed by the court accordingly.The exhibits were marked on the side of prosecution.No evidence was adduced on the defence side.Two grounds are urged in this revision petition.The first one is that there are vital discrepancies between the first information report and the oral evidence in two material aspects.The second discrepancy is that in the F.I.R. P.W. 1 stated that A-1, upon his refusal, insulted him in filthy language and attempted to beat him.But in the course of his depositions he would say that A-1 has caught his hand and twisted it.Therefore, doubts necessarily arise as to what exactly happened on that day in the office of P.W. 1, and what was the motive for such happening.The second ground urged is that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the whole quarrel arose on account of P.W. 1 having taken the amount of Rs. 50/- from the accused in order to oblige them and that he neither obliged them nor returned the money.This is on fact a very disturbing feature.If that illegal contract gives rise to any act of violence at any stage, such acts cannot constitute by any stretch of imagination acts contemplated and punished under Sections 353 and 189, I.P.C. Therefore, I find it impossible to accept the conviction of the accused under sections 353 and 189, I.P.C.In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the convictions and sentences are set aside.Revision allowed.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,034,021 |
Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for the alleged complainant.It appears that Shri Pratip Visoriya, learned counsel, was given a permission by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2017 with the presumption that he represents the complainant.In the present case, the application has been moved by the TVS Motors through Rahul Sharma and who is neither complainant nor witness in the case, therefore the order dated 28.02.2017 is hereby recalled.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.532/2016 registered at Police Station Bhonti, District Shivpuri M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 of IPC.It is alleged that he was the agent of TVS Services Limited and after getting two installments from the 2 Mcrc.563.2017 Upendra Bhargava Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh complainant Ramniwas, he did not deliver the tractor to the complainant and he took back the same, however, Ramniwas could not show any document that tractor was sold to him on installment.He could not produce the receipt of any installment whereas he has accepted that the receipt of third installment could not be given because computer was not operative.When the applicant was an agent of a particular company and tractor could not be sold to a consumer then it can be sold to another one.No ownership of the property was devolved to the complainant and hence prima facie no offence under Section 420 or 409 of IPC is made out against the applicant.Nothing is to be recovered from him.The police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.He assures that he will co-operate during investigation.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,040,006 |
In Re: Amit Jha .. Petitioner.Mr. Debasish Kar .. For the Petitioner.Mr. Prasun Kr.Dutta, Mr. Subrata Roy .. For the State.Since charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner shall appear before the concerned court within seven days of being released on bail.The application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
950,444 |
The name of theindustry was used only for obtaining concession from theGovernment and to obtain import license.Hence they have earnedhuge money.The Potentiality Certificate was issued onrecommendation of one N.S. Parihar the then Inspector ofIndustries and one Shri Agnihotri.When the matter was detectedin the year 1974, the case was handed over to C.I.D. (E.O.W.) andafter investigation about eight criminal cases were filed atBombay.Five cases in 1978 at Kanpur Nagar.List revised.None appeared except learned A.G.A.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filedfor quashing the Charge-sheet No. E.O.W. 110/78 dated07.12.1985, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C.and 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and further to quash theproceeding arising out of the aforesaid Charge-sheet.The prosecution case is that a complaint was made by a person tothe Home Minister of the Government of India with the allegationthat with the aid of one Vinod Sahgal and connivance with somesenior Officers some persons have set up small scale industry onlyon papers, which actually was not in existence.In the present case FirstInformation Report was lodged on 30.11.1979 under Sections 419,420, 465, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and 5(2) Prevention of CorruptionAct.Charge-sheet was filed on 07.12.1985 after investigation byC.I.D. (EOW).The allegation against the applicant was that whilehe was working as Inspector Industries on the relevant dateforwarded the case to the higher authorities which were fictitious.The charges were notframed.The applicant was attending the Court on the date fixed.However, only case was adjourned and the further date was fixed.No step was taken so far to bring original record from Bombaybefore Court at Kanpur.The prayer is to quash the Charge-sheetand proceeding.Learned A.G.A. opposed the aforesaid prayer on the ground thatmatter required to be considered on merits by the trial Court.Applicant himself get the proceeding stayed by filing the presentpetition.The allegations were serious.The alleged industries andpersons were not entitled for any concession from theGovernment.However, on the basis of false and fabricated recordthe matter was forwarded.Hence, rightly the charge-sheet wasfiled under the Prevention of Corruption Act including under theI.P.C.In view of the facts if the allegations are correct the matter isserious and whether the allegations are correct or not it shall bedecided by the trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by theparties because if bogus units and Industries were floated only onrecord just to obtain concession.Then it requires to be decided bythe trial Court on the basis of evidence.Hence, at this stage nointerference is required .Accordingly, present application is hereby rejected.The interimorder dated 15.10.1992 and 15.4.1993 are hereby discharged.Office to communicate this order to the Court concerned.Order Date :- 16.7.2010S.A.A.Rizvi
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
950,449 |
Accused 1 and 3 are residents of Pattalurani Village.The second accused was employed in the Police Department in Bhopal and had come down on leave.P.W. 1 is the father of P.W. 3 Andaperumalammal.Arunachalam Pillai (murdered person) and P.W. 3 were married about eleven years before.Arunachalam Pillai was employed in the Malaria Office in Tuticorin, about fifteen miles away and was residing there while his wife, P.W. 3 was residing in Pattalurani village in a house belonging to her father (P.W. 1).The house of the three accused is next east of that house.P.W. 1 was living in another house in the southern part of the village.About four and a half months before the occurrence, there was a quarrel between P.W. 3 on the one hand and accused 1 and 3, the wife of the first accused and the daughter of the first accused on the other on the allegation that sullage water ran from the house of P.W. 3 to the front of the house of the accused.The four persons averred that P.W. 3 had let out the water purposely and beat her.She gave a complaint to the Police at Pudukottai.P.W. 9, the then Sub-Inspector filed a charge-sheet (Exhibit P. 16) against the four person's in the Court of the Honorary First Class Magistrate, Tuticorin.They were convicted.Exhibit P-17 dated 22nd March, 1972 is the judgment.It shows that accused 1 and 3 were fined Rs. 20 each and the Wife and daughter of the first accused Were fined Rs. 15 each.P.W. 3 says that the four persons were creating trouble to her by uttering threats and inviting her to quarrel.She gave a notice Exhibit P-5 dated 15th April, 1972 through a lawyer (P.W. 5) to the said four persons claiming a sum of Rs. 250 as damages for the hurt and insult caused to her by the said four persons.P.W. 3 would say that thereafter the first accused was threatening that on the arrival of the second accused, he would exterminate her family.He came to her house and abused her.Out of fear she went to her father's residence.P.W. 1 tried to prevent it.At that juncture the second accused gave cuts to P.W. 1 with the aruval on his head and right palm.The first accused (who had been beaten on the head by Aruna-chalam) stabbed Arunachalam on the right chest and left chest, with the bichuva (M.O. 1).On receiving the stabs Arunachalam ran south crying, "He has stabbed".He ran about 8 yards and fell down, face downwards.P.W. 1 also ran south.His dhoti (M.O. 3) got stuck up in the thorns by the side of the foot path.Hence he discarded the dhoti and ran south clad only in his towel.At that juncture the third accused gave a stab with the penknife on the back of Arunachalam who had already fallen down.P.W. 2 was entreating the accused not to indulge in violence, but the accused did not heed him.The accused then ran away.The accused went near Arunachalam, but found that life Was extinct.On dissection there Was no fracture of the skull.Punctured wound 1"X 1/2" on the right side of back along the medial margin of right scapula.On dissection 1" deep echymosis in the underlying tissues was seen.Punctured wound 1* X 3/4" just below the right nipple 1" lateral to the right nipple.On dissection....There was a punctured wound in the fourth right intercostal space corresponding to the external wound.There Was a punctural penetrating wound on the right, middle lobe of lung 1" in diameter, depth 2".Punctured wound 1" X 1/2" in diameter, 3* above the left nipple.On dissection echymosis in the underlying tissues.There was a punctured wound in the third left intercostal space corresponding to the external wound.The evidence of P.W. 11 the Head Clerk of the Sub-Magistrate's Court shows that M.Os.Accused 2 and 3 Were not there.He was cutting thorns for fencing his garden.At that time Arunachalam came suddenly and gave a cut forcibly with an aruval on the first accused.He aimed a second cut which the first accused warded off with his lathi as a result of which the lathi broke.Arunachalam came to cut him a third time.The first accused became afraid that Arunachalam might kill him and in self-defence he stabbed Arunachalam with his pen-knife.He stated that he came to Pattulurani only about 9-15 p.m. on 28th July, 1972 and left the village at 8 a.m. the next day for Rajapalayam and other places to see his relatives.He had been on leave only for fourteen days and six days had to be spent in travel to and fro.The third accused completely denied the evidence.In the Court of Session the first accused adhered to his previous statement and added that at 4-30 p.m. on 29th July, 1972 he himself went to the house of the village Headman (P.W. 7) and complained that Arunachalam had cut him on the head.P.W. 7 immediately took him to the Police Station.The second accused while sticking to his statement in the Committal Court, admitted that Exhibit P-14 was written and signed by him but he denied that P.W. 8 knew his handwriting.P.W. 12 was going in front.Behind him P.W. 1 was going, and behind him Arunachalam was going.Accused 1, 2 and 3 were waiting about twenty feet north of them.JUDGMENT Venkataraman, J.This is an appeal by the three accused who were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelyeli, in connection with an occurrence in the course of which one Arunachalam pillai was murdered, and his father-in-law (P.W. 1) was injured.The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 3 p.m. on 29th July, 1972 (Saturday) within the limits of Pattalurani Village.Accused 2 and 3 are the sons of the first accused.When she was there, about 10-30 p.m. the three accused came to the house of P.W. 1 (and this is also spoken to by P.W. 1) and said:We shall not leave without cutting you.The neighbours, including P.W. 6, pacified them, and the accused went away.P.W. 6 merely says that accused 1 to 3 were talking loudly and he does not speak to the threat of the accused.In view of the above quarrel P.W. 1 went in the morning on 29th July, 1972 and brought in his son-in-law, Arunachalam Pillai from Tuticorin to the village.They came in a bus and got down at the bus stop near their village.They had to proceed in the northern direction; their village was about seven furlongs north of the bus stop.At the bus stop, Muthia Pillai (P.W. 2), one Perumal Pillai (not examined) and the third accused were there.P.W. 2 was a teacher in Anjaperunallur School about three miles away from the bus stop.Because it was Saturday the school had closed at 1 p.m. He came by walk to Pattulurani.He reached the bus stand about 2-15 p.m., and because it was hot, he stood there for a while under the shade of a tree.He found the third accused and Perumal Pillai (not examined) standing there already.He further says that within a few minutes of his reaching the bus stop, P.W. 1, and his son-in-law, Arunachalam Pillai, came there by bus from Tuticorin.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that, on seeing the third accused, Arunachalam questioned him why the previous night he had tried to attack his father-in-law and suggested to him that he could go over to the village where they could talk it over.P.W. 1 says that the third accused retorted : "You come to the village.We shall commit murder".So saying, the third accused went away northwards.P.W. 2, however, merely says that there was an exchange of words between the third accused and Arunachalam Pillai.After going some distance northwards, Perumal Pillai went straight north on the regular road (see also the sketch Exhibit P. 25), while P.W. 1, Arunachalam Pillai and P.W.2 took a short cut which branches off north-eastwards at a particular point.The short-cut Was a narrow path.After proceeding for about three-fourths furlong on that short-cut, they saw the three accused hiding themselves in the dry filed of Senthattia Pillai on the west.The first accused (who was a dismissed Police Constable) had a lathi in his right hand and a bichuva, (M.O. 1), on the right side of his waist The second accused had an aruval.The third accused had a pen knife.P.W. 2 was proceeding first; behind him there was P.W. 1, and behind him there was Arunachalam Pillai.Arunachalam intervened.The first accused gave a blow with the lathi on the head of Arunachalam.Arunachalam wrested the lathi from the first accused and gave a blow with it on the head of the first accused, as a result of which the lathi broke into two pieces.When Arunachalam dealt that blow on the head of the first accused, the second accused gave a cut with his aruval on the head of Arunachalam.Leaving P.W. 2 at the spot, P.W. 1 went to report the matter to P.W. 7 the Village Headman living in Naickenpatti abdut a mile away from the scene of occurrence.He saw the corpse.He recorded a statement (Exhibit P-l) from P.W, 1 at the spot, P.W. 2 attested it.Exhibit P-1 contains a full account of the present prosecution version.He sent Exhibits P-1 and P-6 to the Pudukottai Police Station and Exhibits P-7 and P-8 to the Sub-Magistrate at Tuticorin, through his Thalayari, Subbiah Naicker, P.W. 7 remained at the spot.P.W. 12, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pudukottai Police Station, says that the Thalayari brought Exhibits P-1 and P-6 at 8-30 p.m. P.W. 1 also had come with him.P.W. 1 had injuries.P.W. 12 registered a case of murder (Exhibit P-22) and sent express reports to his superiors.He sent P.W. 1 to the Government Hospital at Tuticorin with a memo (Exhibit P-23) for examination and treatment.P.W. 1 seems to have been examined by Dr. Balasubramaniam at 11-50 p.m. He was not available for examination in Court, because he had gone to the United Kingdom.The wound certificate issued : by him has been marked as Exhibit P-4 through another doctor, P.W. 4, who knows the handwriting of Dr. Balasubramaniam.The document can be admitted under Section 32 (2) of the Evidence Act, if it can be said that it was memorandum made by the doctor, in the discharge of his professional duty and since the injuries are noted even in the accident register maintained for the purpose, and Exhibit P-4 is only a copy thereof, it would be admissible.But even if it is not admitted, it does not matter, because the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 shows that P.W. 1 sustained Injuries.Actually, Exhibit P-4 mentions the following injuries.Incised wound 2" X i" scalp deep on the front Of forehead region.Incised wound 2 1/2 X 1/4 " scalp deep on the back of right side scalp.Incised wound on the ball of right thumb 2" X 1/4" muscle deep.Diffused contusion left chest.According to the prosecution, injuries Nos. l and 4 were caused by the first accused with the lathi, and injuries Nos. 2 and 3 by the second accused with his aruval.P.W. 12, after registering the case left the station at 10 p.m. and reached the scene of occurrence at about 11 p.m. P. W. 13 the Inspector of Police received the copy of the first information report at Pudukottai at 10-30 p.m. He reached the scene at 11-30 p.m. He took P.W. 7 and proceeded to Perumalnaicker, Oorani, north-west of Pattalurarii) and arrested the first accused.He questioned the first accused.The first accused made a statement in the course of which he stated that he had buried the knife on the tank bund of Pottal Kulam.Exhibit P.9 is the relevant portion.Item No. 2 therein refers to a small broken end of a lathi with a ferrule.It was by the right side of the corpse.Item No. 3 therein is the other broken lathi about twenty feet north of the corpse.Item No. 5 therein refers to drop of blood on the cart-track for that distance of seven feet.Item No. 6 therein refers to the eight-cubit dhoti (M.O. 3) in the thorns on the eastern side of the footpath.That has been identified by P.W. 1 as his dhoti.Item No. 7 was a pair of chappals (M.O. 5 series) belonging to the deceased.Exhibit P-1 further states that items 2 and 3 were placed together and found to be parts of the same stick which had recently broken.M.O. 2 is the larger piece and M.O. 7 is the broken end.He examined P.Ws. 2, 3, 6 and others and the first accused.He had sent the corpse for autopsy.Exhibit P-14 is a letter alleged to have been written by the second accused from Bhopal to his brother the third accused, and his mother, at PottalKulam.The prosecution relies on the last portion of the letter, wherein, he says:I am always prepared to sacrifice my life for the sake of you who brought me up.I shall come soon to wipe out your tears.Don't be anxious.I shall definitely come.This last portion is said to refer to P.W. 3 and may be translated thus:Tell the barren woman Andal (P.W. 3) that your son would be coming to give her the boon of a son.He found the following injuries:Incised wound 2 1/2" X 3/4th" in the left parietal region of a scalp close to midline bone deep.There was a punctural penetrating wound on the anterior surface of the left lung.Upper lobe 1 X 1/2" x 1 1/2 depth extending on to the anterior surface entering right ventricular cavity of the heart.Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were simple.Injury No. 2 was caused by the third accused with the pen knife; and the injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were caused by the first accused with the bichuva (M.O. 1).P.W. 4 examined the first accused about 9 a.m. on 31st July, 1972 and found on him a linear incised wound in the scalp in the ceutre 1 1/2 " X 1/2 X 1/4"-Exhibit P-3 is the wound certificate.In cross-examination the doctor says that the injury could also have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon.'1 and 8 to 11 were sent for eheraical examination and that human blood was found in each of these items.The Inspector says that accused 2 and 3 were absconding.Regarding the incident on 29th July, 1972 he stated that he alone was there.The third accused stuck to his denial in the Committal Court.The accused did not adduce any defence evidence.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence and convicted the first accused of the murder of Arunachalam on the first charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.He convicted accused 2 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for the murder of Arunachalam on the second charge and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.On the third charge he convicted the first accused under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to P.W. 1 (by beating him with a lathi) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year.On the fourth charge he convicted the second accused under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to P.W. 1 with an aruval and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years the sentences to run concurrently.Before us, Thiru N.T. Vanamamalai, learned Counsel for the appellants contended for the defence, in particular he contended that the injury on the head of the first accused was an incised injury and should have been caused only with an aruval and that we could not accept the prosecution case that it was caused by Arunachalam wresting the lathi from the first accused and giving a blow with it on his head.I may at once say that the defence cannot be accepted and that subject to the question whether accused 2 and 3 can be convicted on the second charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution evidence must be substantially accepted.P.Ws. 1 and 2 have given consistent evidence about the occurrence.P.W. 2 is a disinterested witness.The present prosecution version was put forth in Exhibit P-1 without any delay.P.W. 2 has attested it.There is no reason to doubt the evidence of P.W. 7 that P.W. 1 came and reported the matter to him at 4 p.m. and that he went to the scene and recorded Exhibit P-1 at 5 p.m. He had denied the suggestion of the first accused that the first accused came to his house and.took him to the scene of occurrence.P.W. 12 has also denied the suggestion that Exhibit P-1 was prepared at the Police Station.If the first accused alone was there and accused 2 and 3 Were not there, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy report like Exhibit P-1 was prepared in such a short time implicating accused 2 and 3 and concocting a story merely from imagination.The injuries found on the person of Arunachalam by the doctor and the injuries found on P.W. 1 by Dr. Balasubramaniam and on the first accused by P.W. 4 also fit in with the prosecution case.In particular, I am satisfied that the injury on the head of the first accused Was caused only by Arunachalam wresting the lathi (M.O.2) from the hands of the first accused and giving a blow with it on his head.Because it was on the head where the skin was taut the blow with the lathi might have caused an incised looking injury and the doctor might have described it as an incised Wound.It is note-Worthy that the doctor says that it could have been caused with a lathi.Thiru Vanamamalai, however, relies on the endorsement Exhibit D-2 of the Sub-Magistrate to whom the first accused was sent for remand on 1st July, 1972 at 11 a.m. The endorsement reads:Accused produced at 11 a.m. No complaint of ill-treatment by police.The accused having a bandage to his head.He states that he was cut with an aruval by Arunachalam Pillai.The learned Counsel argues that if at 11 a.m. on 31st July, 1972 the first accused had told the Magistrate that the injury on his head had been caused with an aruval it was unlikely that at 9 a.m. on 31st July, 1972 he told the doctor that the injury was caused by a blow with a leather belt.We cannot exclude the possibility of the first accused having given two inconsistent versions, one to the doctor and another to the Sub-Magistrate because neither of them was true and the truth Was that the injury had been caused by a blow With a lathi.Further if the deceased was armed! with an aruval and aimed it at the first accused the probabilities are that he would have succeeded in inflicting more serious injuries on the first accused than the single simple injury which Was found, on his head and he Would not have allowed himself to be worsted by the first accused.The first accused would clearly be liable for murder and under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on the first charge for the two stabs which he inflicted on Arunachalam (injuries Nos. 3 and 4 in the post-mortem certificate).Similarly on the third charge the first accused would clearly be guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for the simple hurt which he caused to P.W. 1 by beating with a lathi (injuries Nos. 1 and 4 in the wound certificate Exhibit P-4).Similarly on the fourth charge the second accused would be guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing simple hurt to P.W. 1 with an aruval (injuries Nos. 2 and 3 in the wound certificate Exhibit P-4).It reads:The first accused had a lathi in his right hand and a bichuva (M.O. 1) in the right side of his Waist.The second accused had an aruval, and the third accused had a pen-knife.First accused dealt two blows on P. W. 1 with the lathi, one on his head and the other on his left flank.Arunachalam intervened.Thereupon, the first accused.gave a blow on the head of Arunachalam with the lathi.Arunachalam wiested the lathi from the first accused and gave a blow with it on the head of the first accused.The second accused gave a cut on the head of Arunachalam with his aruval P.W. 1 prevented it.The second accused gave cuts to P.W. 1 on his head and' right palm.Upon receiving the stabs Arunachalam ran eight to ten yards; southwards, crying. ''He has stabbed," and then fell down face downwards.P.W. 1 also ran south.His dhoti (M.O.3) got stuck up in the thorns, discarding it, he ran south, clad in his towel.At that time, the third accused inflicted a stab on the back of Arunachalam with a penknife.The accused then ran away north-west with their weapons.The question for determination is whether on the above evidence it can be-said with certainly that accused 2 and 3-had the common intention to murder Arunachalam.It maybe noted that it was P.W. 1 who was attacked first and not Arunachalam and even then the first accused gave a blow only with a lathi, which was not comparatively a deadly weapon.It was only when Arunachalam intervened that the first accused, attacked Arunachalam, and even then, he only gave a blow with his lathi on the head of Arunachalam.He did not use the knife on Arunachalam immediately.Further, the second accused chose to attack Arunachalam only after Arunachalam had given a blow on the head of the first accused with the lathi which he had Wrested from the first accused.The second accused did not choose to attack Arunachalam earlier.Moreover, the second accused caused only a simple injury to Arunachalam.If he had any intention kill to Arunachalam.he could easily have caused more serious and deadly cuts himself even.at that stage.I was only after this that the first accused inflicted fatal stabs on.It is true that the third accused inflicted a stab even after Arunachalam had fallen -down, but that Was again a simple injury.If accused 2 and 3 had any common intention to murder Arunachalam, they could have inflicted more serious injuries on Arunachalam who was absolutely at their mercy.Further, there was no particular reason for murdering Arunachalam and allowing P.W 1 to escape.The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 shows that it was only with P.W. 1 that accused 1, 2 and 3 quarrelled on the preceding night 29th July, 1972 saying that he had issued a lawyer's notice claiming damages and that they would not leave without cutting him.Arunachalam himself was (sic) the man at the spot and was employed in Tuticorin.It is true that P.W. 5 says that he issued the notice (Exhibit P-5) on instructions from P.W. 3 and her husband, Arunachalam.But the notice was dated 15th April, 1972 and for over three months, the accused did not choose to cause any harm to Arunachalam.It is a fair inference in favour of the prosecution that after the second accused's visit to the village on short leave, the accused raised up the matter.P.W. 5 says that after his intervention the accused went ;away peacefully.If we were to assume that accused 1, 2 and 3 had a common intention to murder Arunachalam, we must further assume logically that they had a common intention to murder P.W. 1 as Well.yet they allowed P.W. 1 to escape.It should not have been a difficult matter for them to prevent P.W. 1 from escaping and to murder him.All these circumstances together suggest that they had been waiting there only to cause whatever hurt each could to P.W. 1, and to Arunachalam, if he intervened, and that the murder was unexpected.The evidence is quite consistent with this view.There is no evidence of any prior concert among the three accused that they should murder Arunachalam.We cannot exclude the possibility of there not having been any specific talk among themselves, and the common intention being only matter of inference from the evidence.In the result, I confirm the conviction of the first accused of the murder of Arunachalam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the first charge and the sentence of imprisonment for life.I also confirm the conviction of the first accused under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, on the third charge and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year, which will run concurrently with the other sentence.The learned Trial Judge believed the evidence of P.Ws. 1,3 and 6 regarding the motives for the occurrence.The learned Trial Judge acted on the admission of A-1 and A-3 in regard to the receipt of Exhibit P-5 sent by and testified by P.W. 5 on behalf of P.W. 3 and her husband deceased Arunachalam Pillai.The learned Trial Judge noticed that A-2 has admitted that he sent the inland letter Exhibit P-14 dated 17th July, 1972 to A-3 and his mother, and that in Exhibit P-14, A-2 has written to the effect that he would wipe out the tears of his mother and teach a proper lesson to P.W 3 after his arrival in the village [The discussions of facts and circumstances omitted.]The learned Trial Judge found in effect that P.W. 1 and the deceased were not the aggressors and that A-1 had no right of self-defence when he stabbed the deceased with a knife.The learned Trial Judge further found that A-1 to A-3 were lying in wait at the place marked A in Exhibit P-25 and that all the three accused were armed with lethal weapons.In paragraph 25 of his judgment the learned Trial Judge rejected the plea of A-1 regarding the right of self-defence.The learned Trial Judge further considered the pleas of A-1 and A-3 in particular and also the plea of A-1 and concluded that the deceased did not attack A-1 suddenly with an aruval.The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that there was no meeting or confrontation between P.W. 1 and his son-in-law Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) and A-3 and that the wordy altercation between them is a mere introduction of a false thing by P.W. 1 and that there was no need for them to stay on talking at the junction bus stop for about 45 minutes.Remembering the anterior history of enmity between P.Ws. 1 and 3 and P.W. 3's husband and the members of the family of A-1, A-2 and A-3 and the two incidents in which A-2 abused P.W. 3 with the result that she left for her father's home and the later incident in which A-1 to A-3 went to the house of P.W. 1 aggressively and started a quarrel at about 10-30 p.m. on the night of 28th July, 1972, there is little wonder that A-3 should have been out for watching the movements of P.W. 1 and his son-in-law, Arunachalam Pillai who were returning from Tuticorin.Probably A-3 wanted to make sure of their victim, for A-1 to A-3 must have arrived already and lying in wait at point 'A' in Exhibit P-25 for their quarry.There is nothing extraordinary for the rural people like P.Ws. 1, 2 and Perumal Pillai (not examined) and Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) to have hibernated at the bus stop for some time before they started walking to Pettaloorani, particularly in the wake of the unseemly reply probably given in a bellicose mood by A-3 on his being questioned by Arunachalam Pillai (deceased).The learned Counsel further argued that all the three accused would not be armed with the weapons which are now ascribed to them if they Were lying in wait for their victim.I am unable to see any force in this argument.The weapons with which all the three accused were armed are dangerous weapons which could be used with lethal and mortal effect on the victims.If only P.W. 2 did not run for safety even leaving behind his dhothi M.O. 3, he would have also been cut to death.After all, Arunachalam Pillai was living in Tuticorin.Therefore, there was a preconcert on the part of A-1 to A-3 in respect of the attack of P.W. 1 only, and not against Arunachalam Pillai (deceased).The sequence of the murderous assault Would not support the preconcert against Arunachalam Pillai (deceased).In Exhibit P-1, only threat by A-3 is averred and it may be that the common intention on the part of A-2 and A-3 is the cause of grievous injury.A perusal of the testimoney of P.W. 5 would show that on 15th April, 1972 on instructions from P.W. 3 and her Husband P.W. 5 (an Advocate) issued the notice to A-1, his wife Pechi Ammal, her son A-3, and his daughter Annalakshmi Ammal.P.W. 5 was not cross-examined at all.Therefore, the assumption that P.W. 1 was responsible for the issue of Exhibit P-5 falls to the ground.To my mind, A-1 and A-2 and A-3 were for the blood of Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) or even may be for the blood of his wife P.W. 3'.That only shews that they were always tracking her foot-steps or her husband's.Getting a scent of the move by P.W. 1 to get his son-in-law to the village of Pottaloorani from Tuticorin A-3 was making sure of their intended victim and he must have given.I have no doubt in my mind that undoubtedly the target was only the murdered victim Arunachalam Pillai (deceased).It is extracted here below for the purpose of gathering his murderous intention against P.W. 3 and her husband even as early as 17th February, 1972, barely within 12 days :--his simmering indignation would not die down immediately on his arrival in the village.[Discussion of facts omitted.]The author of Exhibit P-14 (A-2) must have been capable of uttering the most slanderous and unutterable language particularly when he saw P.W. 3 in the village next to his house.A-3 being a young and inflammable youth of ' 29' years must have seen his revengeful father armed with two weapons and certainly when he was armed with a pen knife his intention was to murder Arunachalam Pillai (deceased).Mr. Justice Shearman said to the jury "You will not convict her unless you are satisfied that she and he agreed that this man should be murdered when he could be, and she knew that he was going to do it, and directed him to do it, and by arrangement between them he was doing it.Applying these principles to the facts of the present, case, I now hold that the following facts : that A-1 to A-3 are the members of the same family, that A-1 is the father of A-2 and A-3, that all the three accused were inimical towards the deceased Arunachalam Pillai and his wife, P.W. 3, that there was a quarrel ending in P.W.3 being beaten by A-1, A-3 and the wife and daughter of A-1, that A-1, A-3 and the wife and daughter of A-1 were sentenced to pay fine, that P.W. 3 and her husband caused the issue of Exhibit P-5 notice as testified by P.W. 5 to A-1, A-3 and the wife and the daughter A-1, that enraged by the representations received from his home A-2 should have ventilated his outbursts of fury and indignation against P.W. 3 and her husband in Exhibit P-14 dated 7th July, 1972, that A-2 abused P.W. 3 during the day of 28th July, 1972 in such a filthy language that she got frightened and went away to her father's home for safety on the night of 28th July, 1972, that A-3 should have seen and encountered Arunachalam and his father-in-law P.W. 1 at the junction bus-stop at about 2-30 p.m. on 29th July, 1972, that A-1 to A-3 were lying in wait at point 'A' in Exhibit P-25 that in the course of the attack on Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) A-1 caused the two fatal injuries, that even after he fell down at point 'B' in Exhibit P-25, A-3 should have gone and stabbed the felled, prostrate, injured and dying Arunachalam Pillai (deceased), that A-2 armed with aruval should have cut the victim with the background of vindictive revenge against Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) and his wife, that all the three accused should have left the scene towards northwards at one and the same time, would impel me to hold that A-2 and A-3 were actuated by the common intention to murder Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) within the meaning of Section 34, Indian Penal Code read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code.The learned Trial Judge observed as follows:Inasmuchas A-2 caused injury No. 1 on the head of the deceased by cutting with an aruval and as A-3 caused injury No. 2 on the back of the deceased by stabbing with a penknife at the time of occurrence, as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2, it can be said that A-2 and A-3 had common intention along with A-1 to cause the death to the deceased and A-1 to-A-3 had prior concert to do away with the deceased.A-1 pleaded that he was cutting thorns for the purpose of putting up fence in his garden and that Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) suddenly gave a cut forcibly on his head with an aruval.If he Was really cutting thorns there roust have been found at the scene of crime some thorns cut and gathered by him.It was not even suggested to P.W. 13 (who prepared the observation mahazar Exhibit P-10) that there were thorns cut by A-1 either bundled or not bundled in or near about the scene of crime.It is impossible for me to imagine that just before he started cuttings single thorn, just at that crucial point of time Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) Was so aggressive as to cut A-l.The pica of A-1 does not account for.I repel the circumstances pleaded by A-1 for invoking his right under Section 100, Indian Penal Code.I accept the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in regard to the overt acts attributed against A-1 inflicting injury numbers 3 and 4 on Arunachalam Pillai (deceased) which are proved to be fatal individually.I confirm the conviction of A-1 for an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.I have already found that A-2 and A-2 Were actuated by common intention along with their own father A-1 to commit the murder of Arunachalam Pillai (deceased).Therefore, while I have no hesitation in affirming the reasoning and finding of the learned Trial Judge in regard to the guilt of A-2 and A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, I confirm their conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded against him.(Then the Full Bench heard the appeal on merits).P.S. Kailasam, J.Three accused, the father and his two sons were tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli for the offence of causing the death of one Arunachalam Pillai on the 29th of July, l972 at about 3 P.M. at Pattalooram village and found guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 323, Indian Penal Code (against A-l), Sections 302 read with Section 34, and Section 324, Indian Penal Code (against A-2) and Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code (against A-3) and sentenced to imprisonment for life.There were four charges framed against the accused.The first charge against the first accused was for an offence under Section 302, the second against A-2 and A-3 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, the third was against A-1 for an offence under Section 323, and the fourth was against A-2 for an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing simple hurt with dangerous Weapon.The case of the prosecution briefly is, that there was enmity between P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the deceased on the one side, and Accused 1 to 3 on the other, due to some trouble over the draining of sullage water.[His Lordship discussed the evidence and held.]On a careful consideration of the entire evidence, we are not satisfied that A-2 and A-3 shared a common intention to cause the death of the deceased.On the other hand, we agree that they took part in the attack and caused simple injuries with dangerous weapons to the deceased, as well as P.W. 1, and they would be guilty of an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code for the, injuries they caused to the deceased.A-1 will be guilty of an offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, for causing hurt to P.W. 1, and the sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment is confirmed.Regarding the injuries caused to the deceased, A-2 and A-3 will be sentenced under Section 324, Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for three years.So far as injury caused to P.W. 1 is concerned, the conviction of A-1 and A-2 under Sections 323 and 324 is confirmed.In the result, we confirm the conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on A-1 conviction under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is also confirmed, but the sentences to run concurrently.Regarding A-2 and A-3 they are acquitted of the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code but instead, found guilty under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.The sentences imposed on A-2 will run concurrently.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
950,508 |
Appellant No. 1 was married to Alka, daughter of P.W. 5 -Indutai about five years prior to the incident.Accused No. 4 is the mother-in-law of victim Alka.It was the prosecution case that about 8 to 10 months after marriage, the accused persons started ill-treating Alka.Interventions by relations did not yield any positive results.Accused No. 1 was dealing in illicit liquor.However, ill-treatment of the victim continued.Alka came to reside with her parents for about six months.Accused No. 1 issued a notice to Alka and then with the mediation of a Municipal Corporator, took Alka back assuring that he would treat her well.On 29/7/1997, the victim was heating water on a stove using fuel wood.When her daughter aged one and half years came near the stove, the victim slapped her.Angered thereby, the accused No. 1 slapped the victim and beat her with fists and kicks.The victim started for her parental house out of anger.Accused Nos. 2 to 4 who stay nearby came and held the victim.Accused No. 1 was, at that time, leaving the house.Accused No. 3 brought a kerosene Can and doused the victim with kerosene.She then struck a match stick and set the victim on fire.Alka came out of the house screaming and poured a bucket of water on herself.She fell unconscious.Accused No. 1 took her first to hospital at Kurundwad.She was shifted by him to Civil Hospital at Sangli.Police were informed and a statement of the victim was recorded.The victim met with her death on the next day.She also stated about demand of Rs 7,000/-for partitioning agricultural land and claimed that she had given him Rs 5,000/-on one occasion and Rs 3,000/-on another occasion about one year prior to death of Alka.The evidence of P.W. 6 -Sunil Sadare, victim's brother is in the same vein.It may be seen from the account of Indutai (P.W.5) that the demands were not related to dowry but, seemingly, instances of financial help to tide over crisis.According to both P.W.5 -Indutai and P.W. 6 Sunil, Alka had come to her parental house after a sum of Rs 8000/-was given to the accused.Thereafter, she stayed at her parental house for about six months.The accused is stated to have issued a notice calling upon Alka to return to her matrimonial home.With the mediation of some one, Alka returned to her matrimonial home.Thus, though independent evidence of prior marital discord could have been available to corroborate the word of P.Ws. 5 and 6, prosecution does not seem to have examined any independent witness for this purpose.The manner in which the declaration was recorded and other aspects would be considered little later.It may be seen that in this elaborate statement, running into almost two and half pages in the narrative form (and not in question and answer form), the victim had not made any reference to any demand of money or payment of any sums by her mother to her husband.On the other hand, the victim had stated that the accused persons used to quarrel with her for trifles and used to ill-treat her.She stated that when she informed her parents of her harassment, they had advised her not to return to the matrimonial home.JUDGMENT R.C. Chavan, J.By this appeal, appellants have challenged their conviction for offences punishable under sections and 498A read with section 34 of the Penal Code and the resultant sentences inflicted upon them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur.2. Facts which gave rise to prosecution of the appellants are as under:-An offence was registered and investigation commenced.In the course of investigation, after performing inquest, dead body of the victim was sent for post-mortem examination.Incriminating articles were seized and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.The statements of witnesses were recorded.Accused were arrested and charge-sheet was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurundwad, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned framed charge of offences punishable under sections 302, 498A read with section of the Penal Code against all the four accused persons.They pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial.The prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.After the accused were examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they tendered evidence of one Akaram Golandaj in their defence.Upon consideration of evidence tendered, in light of the rival contentions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held all the four accused guilty of offences punishable under section 498A and 302 of the Penal Code.He sentenced the appellants to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs 500/-each for offence punishable under section 498A and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs 1000/-each for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code.Aggrieved thereby, the convicts have appealed.We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that there was no dispute about the fact that the victim died of severe burns.But, there was no eye witness to state that any of the appellants had either ill-treated the victim or had set her on fire.He pointed out that the case rested solely on dying declaration of dubious value and, therefore, wanted the appeal to be allowed.As regards the first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants in respect of ill-treatment, it may be useful to observe that charge at Exhibit-14 recounts that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention demanded money from the victim or her parents and on failure to fulfil illegal demands, the accused persons harassed and ill-treated Alka and subjected her to cruelty.It may be seen that ill-treatment had nothing to do with demand of money.In paragraph 1, while speaking of ill-treatment, Indutai does not state any thing about demand of money.In paragraph 2 she states that accused No. 1 was dealing in illicit liquor and that the business had stopped.Therefore, she was required to provide money for meeting the household expenses.During that period, the accused had sent a notice to her to give her divorce.She claimed to have returned to matrimonial home.Thus, her version about ill-treatment is altogether different.It may be safe to conclude that the allegations of demand of money appearing in evidence of P.Ws.5 -Indutai Sadare and -Sunil Sadare could be an afterthought, may be at the advise of village barristers in order to invoke provisions of section 498A of the Penal code.Therefore, in the face of contents of Exhibit-35, the evidence of P.Ws. 5 -Indutai Sadare and 6 -Sunil Sadare about unlawful demands or ill-treatment flowing from failure to fulfil such demands cannot be believed.We, therefore, conclude that the learned trial judge erred in convicting the appellants of the charge of offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of the Penal Code as framed by him.This takes us to the question of involvement of the appellants in the incident which led to death of the victim.As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the cases rests solely on the account of incident given by the victim herself, since no independent witness has come forth or rather could have come forth, to state about the manner in which the incident took place.P.W. 1 -Kallappa Kambale was working as Home Guard, though he is basically a cultivator.He stated that on 29/7/1997, at about 11 to 11.45 a.m., he came from Kurunwad to Akiwat.At about 12.30 noon, he heard noise coming from the Southern side of his house and saw victim Alka in flames.He ran to the spot which was about 250 ft. away from his house.By then Alka had already poured a bucket of water on her person.He too poured once pitcher of water and extinguished the fire.He claimed to have asked Alka as to how she caught fire when she stated that while she was heating water for bath, fire wood was wet and there was some smoke and so she poured kerosene, resulting in flames engulfing her.She stated that there was none in the house.Expectedly, the witness (P.W.1 -Kallappa) was declared hostile.He admitted that whatever he stated in his examination-in-chief was not to be found in his police statement.He also contradicted several portions of his police statement which were later duly proved at Exhibit-46 and 47 by the Investigating Officer P.W. 9 -PSI Sudam Darekar casting serious doubts on the reliability of Kallappa.The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that Kallappa (P.W.1) was the first person to know of the incident from the victim and, therefore, the account of the incident conveyed by Kallappa ought to be believed.The defence wanted to show that, at that time, accused No. 2 was working in the Powerloom Factory of D.W. 1 -Akaram.But while so trying to twist the story, P.W 1 -Kallappa forgot that he was still mentioning that the victim was trying to heat water for bath.Stroking fire in a fire wood stove is common sight in village in mornings and not at noon time.By the noon time, the fire in these stoves burns off.Therefore unwittingly P.W. -Kallappa was speaking of a wrong event taking place at a wrong time.Therefore, evidence of Kallappa has to be discarded in its entirety.It does not dilute the effect of evidence of other witnesses.P.W. 3 -Dr.Yadav was working in Civil Hospital, Sangli.It may be recalled that the incident took place at Akiwat in Shirol Taluka.The victim was first taken to the hospital at Kurundwad and from there to Civil Hospital at Sangli.Dr. Yadav (P.W.3) stated that Alka was brought to the hospital at 5.15 p.m. This is not abnormal, considering that she was first taken to the hospital at Kurundwad where she was given some treatment and then shifted to Sangli.Dr. Yadav (P.W.3) stated that he had taken history of the patient from the patient herself and the patient had given history of alleged homicidal burns by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law, after quarrel and beating by husband.Dr. Yadav (P.W.3) then stated that the police had approached him for recording statement of the victim.Recording of this statement commenced at 8.15 p.m. when the patient was fully conscious and well oriented.He stated that he was present throughout the recording of statement and he made the requisite endorsement on the statement.This statement of the victim at Exhibit-35 was duly proved by P.W.-4 -PSI Kadam, who stated that he had requested Dr. Yadav (P.W.3) to examine the patient and certify whether the patient was in a condition to make statement.P.W.4 PSI Kadam clarified that as a Magistrate was not available, the statement was recorded by him.The fact that the Magistrate was not available has also been corroborated by P.W. 7 -PHC Vithal Surve, who stated that he had sent a Constable to call Executive Magistrate but could not find such Magistrate.PHC Surve (P.W.7) had also proved Station Diary Entry at Exhibit-41 which shows that search for Tahsildar was made but he was not found.It is obviously not expected of a Police Officer to avoid recording statement in the false hope that a Magistrate would come sooner or later.PSI Kadam (P.W.4) has done his duty properly in proceeding to record the statement of the victim without waiting for the Magistrate.In cases of injuries by burns, many times doctor had to administer pain killer and sedatives which may affect orientation of the patient.Thus, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement recorded by P.W. 4 -Kadam in the presence of P.W. 3 -Dr.In this statement, the victim stated that, at about 7.00 a.m. when she was heating water on wood stove, her daughter came near the stove and, therefore, she slapped her daughter.This led her husband to beat her up, followed by her starting for parental home.She then states that her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and brother-in-law's wife came to her house.She stated that her brother-in-law's wife Shobha brought a Can of kerosene, poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire by striking a match stick, while her mother-in-law and brother-in-law held her.She is categorical that her husband was, at that time, leaving the house.The cross-examination of P.W. 4 Kadam does not bring out any infirmities in recording of this dying declaration.This extract also shows that one Dr Vanjari from Civil Hospital, Sangli had informed the Police Station on phone that Alka had reported that at about 7.00 a.m., Alka's brother-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law's wife had set Alka on fire and that Alka's husband had admitted Alka to Civil Hospital.This extract at Exhibit-40 corroborates the version in the dying declaration as well as the one recorded in case-papers by P.W.3 -Dr.It may thus be seen that the account of the incident given by Alka to Dr. Yadav and police authorities implicate only accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the incident of burning.P.W. 5 -Indutai too states that, she learnt that at the time of incident, victim's husband was standing idle with his sister.Thus, Indutai (P.W.5) too does not convey to the Court that accused No. 1 actively participated in setting the victim on fire.P.W.6 -Sunil also recounts what his sister told him.In his account, however, he states that all the four accused restrained Alka and caught her but this must be read in the context of the victim's proceeding to parental house in a huff.Even this witness (P.W.6 -Sunil) does not attribute any setting the victim on fire.This is consistent with the fact that the accused No. 1 himself took his wife first to the hospital at Kurunwad and from there to Civil Hospital at Sangli.Passiveness of accused No. 1 at the time of incident may not be excusable, but cannot be equated to connivance or sharing of an intention to put an end to the life of the victim.One may visualise the incident occurring in such a short time that the accused No. 1 may have been out of his wits due to the altercation which just preceded the incident.Therefore, accused No. 1 must get the benefit of doubt that he may not be sharing the same intention as accused Nos. 2 to 4 had when they pinned down the victim, poured kerosene and set her on fire.To this extent, in our opinion, the learned trial judge erred.He ought to have acquitted the appellant No. 1 of the offence of murder of his wife.Even according to D.W. 1 -Akaram, duty hours of accused No. 2 were from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. with an interval from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. Thus, accused No. 2 could have easily participated in the incident at 7.00 a.m. at his house and reported for duties at 8.00 a.m. as stated by D.W. 1 -Akaram.We may also observe that even if the incident took place in the noon as stated by P.W. 1 -Kallappa, participation of accused No. 2 is not ruled out by evidence of D.W. 1 -Akaram, since Akaram states that accused No. 2 had a recess from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m. He (D.W.1) had also stated that it takes about 15 to 30 minutes for reaching Akiwat (place of incident) from Kurundwad where accused No. 2 was working.The foregoing discussion would show that the learned trial judge rightly convicted appellants Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code.Also he ought to have seen that the offence punishable under section 498A of the Penal Code was not proved in the terms in which the charge was framed.Therefore, he ought to have acquitted all the accused of the offence punishable under section 498A of the Penal Code.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,053,089 |
As per office report, notice is served personally on Opposite Party No.2, but none has put in appearance on her behalf, even when the case is taken up in the revised cause list.Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present criminal appeal under Section 14(A) (2) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes Act has been filed against bail rejection order dated 08.04.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2 Raebareli in Bail Application No.484/2019, arising out of Case Crime No.35/2019, Under Sections - 376, 450, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station - Harchandpur, District - Raebareli.As per version of the F.I.R. on 17.01.2019 at about 9.30 PM when the prosecutrix was sleeping inside the house, the applicant entered in the house and raped her.When she raised alarm her sons, namely, Shailendra and Satendra came there, then he ray away.It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that age of the victim is about 47 year and having two aged sons.The story appears to be improbable.The medical report does not support the prosecution version.It is also stated that in fact son of the complainant Shailendra had raped the wife of the applicant, regarding which the applicant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and in counter blast the present case has been 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 08.04.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2 Raebareli in Bail Application No.484/2019, arising out of Case Crime No.35/2019, Under Sections - 376, 450, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station - Harchandpur, District - Raebareli, 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.
|
95,057 |
2.The affidavit in support of the petition and the grounds of detention are looked into.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention.6.As could be seen from the available materials, the detaining authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to two adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases by filing a bail application before the Court of Sessions or Hon'ble High Court, since in similar cases bails are granted by the above courts after a lapse of time..."8.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.2.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Suburban Area St. Thomas Mount Chennai3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 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.