id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
95,058,888 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.It is true that she committed suicide under suspicious circumstances at the residence of the applicant but the fact remains that there is single ligature mark has been found.She hanged herself after bolting herself inside the house.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT 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 HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE 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 HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
95,069,455 |
Arguments heard on the bail application.This is second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The first anticipatory bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 29/9/2014 passed in M.Cr.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No. 371/14 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294 and 506B of the IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after dismissal of the first application, matter was inquired into by senior police officer viz. City Superintendent of Police and as per his report dated 18/10/2014, it was found that as per X-ray report and opinion of doctor, no case is made out under Section 307 of the IPC against the applicant.Prayer for anticipatory bail was opposed on the ground that this is second bail application, while the first 2 Mcrc 11710/14 Raghvendra Singh Sikarwar Vs.State of M.P.one has already been dismissed on merits.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the application and the documents annexed thereto.On perusal of the documents, it is evident that except for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC, all other offences are bailable.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,950,942 |
None for victim Shyam Lal Prajapati though served.Heard on I.A. No.2553/2019, t h is second application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant no.1 Uttam Singh Thakur.Learned counsel for appellant Uttam Singh Thakur stands convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and read with sections 3 (2) (v-d), 3 (1) (n) 3 (1) (/k) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and was sentenced to undergo effective R.I. for a period of one year and pay fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation.He was released on bail by the trial court under Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a period of one month.By order dated 17.09.2018, he was released on interim bail by this Court.However, in compliance with the order of this Court, the appellant Uttam Singh failed to appear before the trial Court and furnish the bail bond.Consequently, an arrest warrant was issued against him by order dated 25.10.2018 passed by this Court.In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for appellant Uttam Singh Thakur has filed certified copy of 18.12.2018 passed by the trial Court.Learned counsel for appellant Uttam Singh Thakur submits that appellant Uttam Singh Thakur has been in custody ever since; therefore, it has been prayed that the jail sentence of appellant Uttam Singh Thakur be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, I.A. No.2553/2019, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Uttam Singh Thakur, is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited; and 2 CRA-6661-2018 furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.03.2019 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon appellant Uttam Singh Thakur shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail.Since notice has been served upon the victim and no one has appeared on behalf of appellant Uttam Singh Thakur, the order of the interim order dated 25.10.2018 passed in favour of co-accused appellant Munna Jogi is hereby made absolute.Both of them shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 22.03.2019 and on such other dates as may be fixed in this regard.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date:2019.02.13 22:27:57 -08'00'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,953,009 |
Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 15.6.2012 passed by Additional Session Judge designated as Special Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No.69/2008, whereby respondent no.2 has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) .Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.6.2005, at about 10 pm, when the prosecutrix was making food and her children were sleeping, respondent no.2 Shivpati Pandey trespassed into her house and after putting off the Chimney, committed rape upon her by pressing her mouth.On hearing her shrieks, her children woke up and cried due to which, Villagers of the vicinity gathered at the spot and locked the door from outside and called her father.Thereafter, the villagers and her father called the police, who apprehended the respondent from inside her house and brought him to Police Stataion Semariya, where report was lodged at the instance of the prosecutrix, but due to pressure of nephew of the respondent, who is a police personnel, the report was not properly recorded and the copy thereof was also not provided to her.Besides this, trial Court also found the evidence of prosecutrix untrustworthy, in view of the statement given by the respondent as DW2 under Section 315 of the Code.V.N.Yogi (DW1), Assistant Sub-Inspector, has deposed that on 20/5/05, prosecutrix had lodged a report against Manju Gupta, Rakesh Gupta and Dinesh Gupta, who had objected when the respondent was sitting in her house and had quarreled with him.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
759,568 |
That since 1990, the complainant had been sanctioning credit facilities to accused No. 1 to enable said accused to meet its working capital requirements.That last sanction for the credit facilities was granted on 29.3.1997 with cash credit limit of Rs. 343 lacs and working capital loan of Rs. 1032 lacs.JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, J.I note that vide summoning order dated 31.10.2000, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has directed that the accused persons are being summoned for offences under Sections Page 1 of 5 406/418/420/34 IPC.That to avail of the cash credit facilities, accused No. 1 executed an agreement for cash credit on 29.3.1997 pertaining to hypothecation of its assets as also another similar agreement of even date pertaining to hypothecation of goods.It is further stated in the complaint that on execution of aforenoted agreements, accused No. 1 availed the credit facilities.It was stated that the said audit resulted in the knowledge gained by the complainant and the other banks that the stock of the company was being valued as per the weighted average cost method, contrary to the terms and conditions of the sanction.The above irregularities, commissions and ommissions and manipulations of the financial statements of the Accused No. 1 by Accused No. 2 would not have been possible without the knowledge and connivance of the Accused No. 3, the partner of the Chartered Accountant firm who had audited the annual-accounts of the Accused No. 1 company for the year ended 31.12.1996, based on which the complainant Bank Along with other Consortium Banks had last disbursed enhanced credit facilities to the Accused No. 1 Company.It has to be noted that accused No. 2 is a chartered accountant.It has further to be noted that no grievance has been made in the complaint that the methodology adopted to certify the stock value of accused No. 1 was contrary to the recognized norms of maintaining accounts.As far as the petitioner is concerned, if at all, liability could be fastened only by invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Thus, there have to be actionable averments that accused No. 3, i.e. the petitioner acted in concert with accused No. 1 and while so acting furthered a common intention.I find none.I, thus, dispose of the petition quashing the complaint against the petitioner as also the summoning order dated 31.10.2000 against the petitioner.No costs.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
75,963,982 |
Heard on IA.No.5764/2015, an application for condonation of delay in filing the leave application.Looking to the grounds mentioned in the application, delay of 27 days in filing the leave application is satisfactorily explained and therefore, application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed.Delay of 27 days in filing the leave application is hereby condoned.Heard on leave application.The State has preferred an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.11.2014 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Itarsi in Criminal Case No.979/2014 whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the charge of Section 324 (2 count), 294 and 506 (Part II) of I.P.C.After considering the submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer and evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court where there were two injured witnesses and their injury was duly proved by Dr. Subhash Jain (PW4) leave to appeal may be granted to the State for two count charge of offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. Consequently, leave is granted.The office is directed to register the matter as a criminal appeal.Let a warrant of arrest bailable in sum of Rs.20,000/- be issued against against the respondent to secure his presence before this Court on the next date of hearing.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
759,647 |
The facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased agricultural land measuring 5 bighas 8 biswas in Village Satbari, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi by a sale deed dated 7th January, 1981 and began cultivating the same.The Block Development Officer (South) on enquiry found that 16 biswas of land in khasra No.696 in Village Satbari belonging to the Gram Sabha has been trespassed upon by the petitioner.Consequently, he lodged an FIR No. 527/1997 at Police Station Mehrauli.On completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate.He submits that vide order dated 19th December, 2003 in Crl.
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
759,786 |
JUDGMENT J.N. Hore, J.The appellants were convicted under Sections 306 and 498A, Indian Penal Code by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kalna and for his conviction under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, appellant No. 1 Tapan Pal was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 71/2 years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default further simple imprisonment for 6 months and appellant No. 2 Lakshmirani Pal was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 6 months.The fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to P.W. 2 Subharani Kumar, mother of the deceased.No separate sentence was passed under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code.Swapan Pal and Puspita Pal younger brother and sister of appellant Tapan Pal respectively were found not guilty and acquitted of both the charges.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows:--Namita Pal, daughter of Late Abhoypada Kumar and P.W. 2 Sudharani Kumar of village Tildange, P.S. Balagarh, District Hooghly was married to appellant No. 1 Tapan Pal of village Gopalpur, P. S. Kalna, District Burdwan about 3 years before the occurrence.Since marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental tortures by the two appellants and Swapan and Pusparani.On 4-12-87, Namita committed suicide by hanging as she could no longer bear the habitual tortures meted out to her.P.W. 1 Apurba Kumar, cousin of Namita, lodged a written report on the basis of which, formal F.I.R. was drawn up and a case was registered against the appellants and others under Sections 498A/306, Indian Penal Code.PW 13, S.I. Narendra Nath Saha took up investigation in the case and on completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons Under Sections 498A/306, Indian Penal Code which in usual course ended in committal of the case to the Court of Session.In defence, the appellants pleaded innocence denying all the material allegations.In order to bring home the charges to the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses while the defence examined none.PW 12, Dr. B. K. Bose, M.O. Kalna Hospital who held autopsy on the dead body of Namita found ligature mark obliquely running non-continuous marks high on the neck-knot on the side below the line of jaw.On dissection, he found in the uterus a dead female footus about 32 weeks of gestation maturity.The hyoid bone was found intact.Death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to asphyxia caused by hanging which was ante-mortem.There is, therefore, no doubt that Namita committed suicide by hanging while she was carrying 7/8 months.There is no dispute that Namita committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage.Uhdef the newly inserted Section 113A of the Evidence Act, presumption as to commission of the offence under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) would be available only on the proof that Namita was subjected to cruelty by the appellants within the meaning of the newly inserted Section 498A, Indian Penal Code.So, it is necessary to consider first whether the charge under Section 498A has.been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Section 498A is as follows:Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation for the purposes of this Section, "cruelty" means -- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or damage to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand".On hearing the learned Advocates on both sides and upon a careful perusal of the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no cogent legal evidence in support of the charge under Section 498A and the prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove the same.The order of conviction as recorded by the court below is based mainly on conjectures, surmises and inadmissible evidence.The evidence adduced by the prosecution consists mainly of the alleged statements made by the deceased regarding her torture by the appellants when she visited her father's house on some occasions.PW 1 Apurba Kumar, cousin of the deceased lives at a different place.His testimony is that during his visit to PW 2's house Namita reported that since marriage she was subjected to mental and physical tortures by her husband and brother-in-law.Even true, this would not amount to mental cruelty inasmuch as there was no harassment or coercion.After refusal the accused persons did not proceed further.The evidence of this witness is vague to the extreme.He does not say as to when and under what circumstances the deceased made the alleged statement to him.PW 2 Sudharani Kumar, mother of the deceased and PW 3 Nidhiram Kumar, cousin of the deceased also state that Namita during her visit to her father's house reported that she was subjected to tortures by the accused.PW 2 has further stated that she was denied food for which she was compelled to come back alone.This is an embellishment she has not made such a statement in her examination under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and, therefore, her present statement that Namita stated that she was denied food and, therefore, she had to come alone must be discarded.PW 4 has stated that Namita time to time came to her mother and at that time she spoke of tortures by her husband Tapan and his family members.His evidence appears to be hearsay.He does not say that he was present when Namita made the alleged statement.It is clear from his cross-examination that he heard about the alleged torture from PW 2, mother of Namita.PW 5 states that Namita time to time came to the house of PW 2 and disclosed to PWs 2 and 3 that she was subjected to physical tortures by her husband, mother-in-law and others.He claims to have overheard this as a contiguous neighbour.It, however, appears from his cross-examination that his house on the west is intervened by three houses and it was impossible for him to hear Namita making the alleged statement to PWs 2 and 3 from his house.In her cross-examination PW 2 has stated that Namita was hot tempered and out spoken.She did not notice any sign of anger when she came to her house alone occasionally.She got no scent of grievance against the accused from her at that time.This demolishes the entire prosecution case and the testimony of the witnesses that Namita made the alleged statements regarding tortures by the accused.She has further stated that Namita used to come once or twice a month and none of the accused persons expressed dissatisfaction over Namita's coming to her father's house alone.She has further stated that she did not take it easily and tried to persuade her daughter not to come alone to her house and there was even altercation between her and Namita over this matter.She has further stated that the standard of living of their family is better than that of the accused and that her daughter expressed her dissatisfaction over the inferior standard of living of the accused.Her daughter lamented before her for not having been married with a suitable or better candidate and in a good family.Namita expressed her unhappiness over the economic disparity between the two families.It is clear, therefore, that the real cause of unhappiness of Namita was not the alleged tortures but her resentment over inequal match.She considered her husband who runs a Grocer's shop and the members of the family of low social and economic status and the high-strung and sensitive girl could not obviously adjust herself to the family of her husband.The prosecution comes with a story that on the complaint of PWs 1, 2 and 3 to some Anchal members and prominent villagers of Gopalpur village such as PW 6 Dinabandu Ghosh, PW 7 Ahed Ali, PW 8 Abdul Gani, PW 9 Harendra Nath Kumar and PW 10 Saktipada Paul about tortures of Namita by the accused they held Salish and cautioned the accused to behave properly but the accused did not pay heed to it.This seems to be a new story not found within the four corners of the First Information Report and in the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. PW 7 does not support the story.It appears that PW 7, Anchal Prodhan, on receipt of information from PW 6 Dinabandhu Ghosh and PW 8 Abdul Gani informed police over telephone about the commission of suicide by the deceased by hanging on the basis of which police made a G.D. Entry No. 146 dated 4-12-87 (Ext. 4).In fact, there was no allegation against the accused persons at all.PWs 6 and 8 who now come with the story that they received complaint from PW 1 about tortures on the deceased by the accused and accordingly they held a Salish and cautioned the accused did not make an such statements to PW 7 while reporting the incident about commission of suicide by the deceased as the evidence of PW 7 clearly discloses.It transpires from the evidence of PWs 8 and 13 that PW 8 handed over a written information to PW 13 when he met him at Bhatrigram on way to the police station.The prosecution has withheld this earlier written information lodged by PW 8 but the evidence of PW 13 clearly shows that in the written information there was no allegation against the accused persons.The entire story of Salish on the complaint of the de facto complainant about the alleged torture appears to be a myth.At any rate the evidence of these witnesses with regard to tortures, quarrels or ill-treatment is hearsay being reported by PWs 1 and 3 who had also no personal knowledge about the same.The evidence of PW 10 shows that at the so-called Salish only quarrel ensued between the deceased and her mother-in-law and the witnesses left the place.It appears from the cross-examination of this witness that it was the deceased who used to pick-up quarrel and her voice was so loud that it was audible from his shop.
|
['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.
|
75,981,263 |
During the 2 MCRC No.17964/2018 MCRC No.10888/2019 course of investigation, the prosecution received 22 com- plaints by other complainants who had the same grievance of being cheated in purchasing the plot in Kalindi Gold City.As per complaint, accused persons induced them to purchase the plots in Kalindi Gold City and cheated them by taking money from them and not giving them their plots or not get- ting the plots registered in their names.It is also alleged that the accused persons took money from them and did not give them any receipt of the same and also took unrecorded money from them in the name of development charges.In spite of taking entire plot value from them, the accused per- sons did not allot plots to the complainants and thereby cheated them.The allegations against some accused persons is that they forged general power of attorney of some farmers and sought permission from the concerned authorities to de- velop the colony.3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the allegations made in the FIR are taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, they do not consti- tute any offence against him.He did not execute any sale deed.As per charge sheet filed in Crime No.563/2016, a written compliant was filed by one Mrs. Alka Chittoda on 29.06.2016 against Chirag Shah and Nikul Kapasi regarding the act of cheating and fraud committed by them in selling a plot to the complainant in Kalindi Gold City Colony situated at Sanwer, Tahsil Sanwer, District Indore (MP).Moreover, there is no allegation that he ever acted in his personal capacity for the act of the company.The peti- tioner cannot be held personally liable, in the offences of le- gal fiction.The only averment in the FIR is, regarding the non-fulfillment of promise, which does not constitute for of- fence under Section 420, IPC.No mens rea is inducted on the part of the petitioner from the alleged allegations made in the FIR.Thus, no offence can be said to be committed under Sections 468 and 467, IPC nor any offences punishable under Section 3 MCRC No.17964/2018 MCRC No.10888/2019 431, 432, 201 and 120-B of IPC are made out from the allega- tions made in the FIR and the charge-sheet and prayed for quashment of the FIR No.563/2016 and charge-sheet dated 07.10.2016, filed against the petitioner.As per charge sheet filed in Crime No.563/2016, a written complaint was filed by one Mrs. Alka Chittoda on 29.06.2016, against Chirag Shah and Nikul Kapasi, regard- ing the act of cheating and fraud committed by them in sell- ing a plot to the complainant in Kalindi Gold City Colony sit- uated at Sanwer, Distt.During the course of investi- gation, the respondent received number of complaints by other complainants, who had the same grievance of being cheated in purchasing the plots in Kalindi Gold City.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the above said matter as he is neither associated nor interested in Kalindi Gold City and also not having any control or author- ity to sell or purchase lands in the above said colony.He is neither a partner nor an employee or nowhere associated with the partnership firm M/s. Gold City Developers, Indore who has developed the above mentioned colony.The present petitioner neither contacted nor induced either the complainants or any other person to purchase plots in the Kalindi Gold City, therefore, he cannot be said to have cheated any one and there is no ingredient for constituting 4 MCRC No.17964/2018 MCRC No.10888/2019 the offence of Section 420 of IPC.All the allegations of al- leged act of cheating and forgery are pertaining to other ac- cused persons and no specific allegation or averment is made against the petitioner.Apart from the present two cases, one more case of similar nature has been registered against the petitioner and he is not cooperating with the investiga- tion and prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.Mr. Ashok S. Garg and Mr. S.K. Vyas, learned Se- nior Counsel for the petitioner have drawn my attention to common order 26th November, 2018 passed in (1) Miscella- neous Criminal Case No.10207/2017 (Vikas Soni v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), (2) Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.17964/2018 (Nilesh Ajmera v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) and (3) Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10389/2017 (Nilesh Ajmera v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) and submitted that on the same facts, quashment of FIR and all consequential proceedings with regard to Crime No.13/2016 registered at Crime Branch, District In- dore and Crime No.563/2016 registered at Police Station Ban Ganga, Indore were prayed for and this Court by order dated 26th November, 2018 admitted all the above three peti- tions for final hearing and directed the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh not to take any coercive action against the petitioners and the case of the present petitioner is similar to 6 MCRC No.17964/2018 MCRC No.10888/2019 them.Therefore, they prayed that the petitions shall also be admitted for final hearing so that it may also be decided with the aforesaid petitions filed by the co-accused persons which have already been admitted for final hearing.Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and in the light of order dated order 26 th No- vember, 2018 passed in (1) Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10207/2017 (Vikas Soni v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), (2) Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.17964/2018 (Nilesh Ajmera v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) and (3) Miscella- neous Criminal Case No.10389/2017 (Nilesh Ajmera v. The State of Madhya Pradesh), I am of the view that it will be ap- propriate to list the matter for final hearing at motion stage.Consequently, IA No.2153/2019, an application for grant of interim relief filed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10888/2019 is allowed; and IA No.5865/2018, an application for analogous hearing the cases of identical na- ture filed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.17964/2018, is also allowed.Office is directed to list the matter for final hear- ing at motion stage in the week commencing 16 th September, 2019 along with Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No.4679, 10207, 10389, 21878, 21888, 26065 and 23581 of 2017 and 7 MCRC No.17964/2018 MCRC No.10888/2019 Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No. 1445, 2191 and 25986 of 2018 for analogous hearing.Original order be retained in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.17964/2018 and a copy thereof be retained in connected cases.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.07.17 16:48:15 +05'30'
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,407,953 |
Allthe above said sentences are to run concurrently.The facts, sans unnecessary details, require for the disposal of theappeal can be stated thus:-a) P.W.1 and P.W.2 are brothers of the deceased Muthaiyan.P.W.5 was a driver belonged to thevillage of the deceased.A1 and A2 are brothers, likewise A3 and A5 arebrothers.There was a long pending dispute between theprosecution party and the accused party over a pathway and certain criminalcases were registered by the respective police against the accused alleging thatthey were selling Madhu Kasayam and the proceedings in those were pending and itwas passing in the minds of the accused above that P.Ws are responsible for thesame and hence they were all in inimical terms.b)While the matter stood thus, on 09.03.2003 at about 7.30 p.m., A1 to A5,armed with deadly weapons, came with a common object of attacking and causingdeath of the deceased.P.Ws.1 to 5 were present along with the deceased at thebackyard of the house.At that time, A1 armed with Vettukathi, A2 and A3 withiron rod, A4 and A5 with sticks came over there and immediately on reaching theplace, A-3 uttered words "cut and kill them".A1 attacked the deceased withVettukathi on his head, while A2 attacked with iron rod on his head and A3 alsojoined with him to attack the deceased on the head.A1 and A2 attacked P.W.2causing grievous injuries.A4 attacked P.Ws.1 and 3 with sticks and causedsimple injuries.A5 attacked P.W.1 by rice pounder and caused injuries.Onhearing the distressing cry, all the accused fled away from the place ofoccurrence.He examined the saidMuthayyan, gave first aid and sent him to the Government Hospital, Kottar, wherehe died on 10.03.2003 at about 1.15 am.P.W.22 has given wound certificates Ex.P.27, Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.28 inrespect of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 respectively, where he noted the injuries found onthem.An intimation was given to the respondent police, where P.W.19 was the SubInspector of Police.On thestrength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered in the respondent Police Stationin Crime No.132 of 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 IPC.Express FIR Ex.P.17 was despatched to the Court.d)On receipt of copy of the FIR, P.W.21, the Inspector of Police, took upthe investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection inthe presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P.2, the Observation mahazar andEx.P.18, the rough sketch.Further, he enquired some witnesses and recordedtheir statements.He recovered sample earth, bloodstained earth and also othermaterial objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazer.(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The appellants five in number have challenged the judgment of the SessionsJudge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, made in S.C.No.224 of 2003, dated11.10.2007, whereby the accused/appellants stood charged, tried, found guiltyand awarded punishment as follows:a)A-1 and A-2 were found guilty under Sections 148,341,294(b),307 and 302IPC and Sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC;1 month simple imprisonment under Section 341 IPC; 3 months rigorousimprisonment under section 294(b) IPC; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also topay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default of 3 months rigorous imprisonment undersection 307 IPC and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with adefault sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under section 302 IPC.b).A3 was found guilty under Sections 148,341,294(b),307 read with 149 and302 IPC and Sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148IPC; 1 month simple imprisonment under 341 IPC; 3 months rigorous imprisonmentunder section 294(b) IPC; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fineof Rs.2,000/- with a default of 3 months rigorous imprisonment under section 307read with 149 IPC and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with adefault sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under section 302 IPC.c)A4 was found guilty under Sections 148,341,294(b),324(2 counts), 307read with 149 and 302 IPC and Sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonmentunder Section 148 IPC; 1 month simple imprisonment under 341 IPC; 3 monthsrigorous imprisonment under section 294(b) IPC; 1 year rigorous imprisonment foreach counts under Section 324(2 counts) IPC; 5 years rigorous imprisonment andalso to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default of 3 months rigorousimprisonment under section 307 read with 149 IPC and life imprisonment and topay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of 6 months rigorousimprisonment under section 302 IPC.d)A5 was found guilty under Sections 148,341,294(b),324, 307 read with 149and 302 IPC and Sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section148 IPC; 1 month simple imprisonment under 341 IPC; 3 months rigorousimprisonment under section 294(b) IPC; 1 year rigorous imprisonment underSection 324 IPC; 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- with a default of 3 months rigorous imprisonment under section 307read with 149 IPC and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with adefault sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment under section 302 IPC.Theentire place of occurrence was photographed through P.W.20, the photographer andall the photos and negatives are marked as M.O.9 series.e)Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to thegovernment hospital, for the purpose of autopsy.P.W.12, the Doctor, attachedto Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, on receipt of therequisition Ex.P.8, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased andissued Ex.P.9, the post-mortem certificate, an opining that the deceased wouldappear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage and also due to the headinjuries sustained.A3 gave a confessional statement voluntarilyand the admissible part of the said confession was marked as Ex.P.4, consequentupon the same he produced M.Os 4 and 6, which were recovered under a cover ofmahazar.A3 and A4 were sent for judicial remand.A5 surrendered before theJudicial Magistrate, Nagercoil and an application for taking him on policecustody was made.Accordingly he was taken in to police custody and on enquiryA5 came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily and the admissiblepart of the said confession was marked as Ex.P.6, consequent upon the same thematerial objects were recovered from him under a cover of mahazar.He was alsosent for judicial remand.g) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, fromthe dead body of the deceased and the Material Objects recovered from theaccused, were sent for chemical analysis pursuant to a requisition, Ex.P.23,given by the Investigating Officer to the concerned Judicial Magistrate.Tworeports were received.One is Ex.P.30, the Serologist's report and the other isEx.P.31,the Chemical analyst's report.On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer has filed the final report before the concerned court,which in turn committed the case to the court of sessions and necessary chargeswere framed, and the case was taken up for trial.h) In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, theprosecution examined 23 witnesses and relied on 32 exhibits and 10 M.Os.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused/appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.Hedenied them as false.No defence witness was examined.After hearing thearguments of the counsel and looking into the material available meticulously,the lower court, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyondreasonable doubt and found the accused guilty and awarded the punishment asreferred to above.Under these circumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen atthe instance of the accused/appellants.Out of those five witnesses, P.W.5 turned hostile.P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1 andthus they are closely related inter se and thus they are interested and partisanwitnesses.P.26to 28, the wound certificates which were issued by P.W.22 in respect of P.Ws.2,1and 3 respectively and a perusal of those documents would go to show that P.W.22Dr.Issac has stated that they were attacked by a known person.Therefore, itwas in singular and thus they were attacked by a number of persons who are theaccused, is highly improbable and only acceptable.In a situation like this, they have got to be dealt withindividually.As rightly pointed out by the counsel, so far as, A-4 and A5 areconcerned, they did not attack the deceased and hence the charges levelledagainst them have got to be dealt with accordingly.A4 attacked P.Ws.1 and 3and A5 attacked P.W.1 and they caused simple injuries on them and hence theyhave got to be dealt with under Section 324 of IPC and awarding punishment ofone year Rigorous Imprisonment would meet ends of justice.Sofar as A1 to 3 areconcerned, the contention put forth by the learned counsel that they were notthe members of the unlawful assembly nor they have got common object andtherefore they should be brought to 324 IPC cannot be accepted.a)A1 and A2 are convicted under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C instead of302 I.P.C and each of them are sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment thereunderand to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of 6 months rigorousimprisonment.They are also convicted under Section 326 I.P.C instead of 307I.P.C and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fineof Rs.2000/- with a default of 3 months rigorous imprisonment.b)A3 is convicted under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C instead of 302I.P.C and each of them are sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment thereunder andto pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of 6 months rigorousimprisonment.He is acquitted of the charge under Section 307 read with 149 ofI.P.C. In respect of other provisions of law, the conviction and sentencesimposed on him are confirmed.All the sentences are run concurrently.c)The conviction and sentenced imposed on A4 and A5 under Section 307 readwith 149 of I.P.C are set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge.While confirming the conviction of A4 under Section 324 I.P.C (2 counts), thesentence is modified to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and the otherconviction and sentences are all confirmed.While confirming the conviction ofA5 under Section 324 I.P.C, the sentence is modified to undergo one yearrigorous imprisonment and the other conviction and sentences are all confirmed.1.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division, at Nagercoil.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,796,530 |
aav CRL.O.P (MD) No.16394 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.9740 of 2019 12.11.2019 7/7http://www.judis.nic.inThis petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Cr No. 201/2017 on the file of the Pattukottai Town Police station as against the petitioners.2.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.201 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 403,406,420 and 120-B of IPC as against the petitioners.He further submitted that the petitioners were not present there at the time of occurrence.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage.He would also submit that the case has been transferred to the file of Inspector of Police, CBCID, Thanjavur and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16394 of 2019A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16394 of 20199. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the Inspector of Police, 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16394 of 2019 CBCID, Thanjavur is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.12.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no aav ToThe Inspector of Police, CBCID, ThanjavurThe Inspector of Police G-1, Pattukottai Town Police Station Pattukottai, Thanjavur Tamil Nadu3.The Superintendent of Police CBCID, Thanjavur district Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.16394 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,799,558 |
Both parties adduced evidence.application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleading Santosh Malviya as an additional accused.Learned trial court dismissed this application and held that complainant-respondent cannot be allowed to construct a new case on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner-accused during the course of trial.There is no evidence on record to give a conclusion that any document has been forged or fabricated.Thereafter, respondent-complainant filed a revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen.Complainant has exhaustively cross-examined the defence witnesses and at the fag end of trial when the matter was posted for final arguments, the applicant under Section 319 & 216 of Cr.P.C. have been filed to construct a new case.Thereafter petitioner accused appeared before the trial court.He adduced his evidence.The statement of accused was recorded.He also produced defence witness Mr. Devesh Nayani- Assistant Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Branch Raisen.He deposed before the trial court that disputed cheque No. 011733 and concerned cheque book was issued by the Bank in favour of one account holder Santosh Malviya.Disputed cheque was dishonoured on three grounds.(11)under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleading Santosh Malviya as an additional accused.Learned trial court dismissed this application and held that complainant-respondent cannot be allowed to construct a new case on the basis of the evidence adduced by the petitioner-accused during the course of trial.Thereafter, respondent- complainant filed a revision before Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen.Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen allowed the revision presented by the respondent-complainant and it was held that petitioner-accused cheated the complainant-respondent by giving a cheque from another person i.e. Santosh Malviya and Santosh Malviya also gave his cancelled cheque to the present petitioner- accused to cheat the respondent- complainant, so prima facie case is made out under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner and Section 120-B & 420 of IPC against one Santosh Malviya and trial court is directed to take cognizance against the present petitioner and Santosh Malviya according to law.The order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge reads as under:-(12)fo:} fof/k vuqlkj /kkjk 420 Hkk- n- l- dk laKku ysdj rnuqlkj vkjksi fojfpr dj vfxze dk;Zokgh djs A fo}ku vf/kjLFk U;k;ky; dks ;g Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd /kkjk 319 naM izfdz;k lafgrk esa izLrkfor vfHk;qDr larks"k ekyoh; ds fo:) 120&ch ,oa 420 Hkk- n- la- ds vijk/k dk laKku ysdj] mldh mifLFkfr lqfuf'pr dj fof/k vuqlkj vfxze dk;Zokgh djs A 'kk[kk izca/kd vkbZ- lh- vkbZ- lh- vkbZ- cSad 'kk[kk jk;lsu ds fo:) dk;Zokgh fd, tkus dk dksbZ mfpr vk/kkj ugha gS A vr% mlds laca/k esa iz'uxe vkns'k esa fudkys x;s fu"d"kZ dh iqf"V dh tkrh gS A"So it is evident that learned revisional court directed the trial court to take cognizance against the petitioner-accused and thereafter frame charges and also take cognizance against proposed accused Santosh Malviya.The trial court is very competent to take cognizance under Section 420 of IPC after inquiry which is prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The procedure proscribed of warrant trial instituted otherwise then to police report, in Cr.P.C. Section 244 and 245 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-Section 244 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973Evidence for prosecution.(1) When, in any warrant- case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,408,072 |
C.1 and C.2 came to be marked.P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased and sister of the accused.Her parents were working in the Government Hospital at Vaniyambadi as scavengers.Her father retired two years prior to her mother, who is the deceased in this case.P.W.1 was living with her parents.P.W.2 was also living with them.On her mother retiring, her retirement benefits were settled.Out of that retirement benefits, she spent a sum of Rs.65,500/- in purchasing a house in the name of P.W.1, in which house only, she was living with her parents.The accused was not married.However, he used to come to P.W.1's house often and take money from his mother for his day-to-day expenses, including for food.P.W.1 and her mother used to give money.However, whenever they don't give money, the accused used to pick up a quarrel with them.The accused was also quarrelling with his mother for not giving him any share in the retirement benefits, which she got.At about 4.00 p.m on 24.02.2002 (occurrence day), P.W.1 was inside the house along with her mother (since deceased).The accused called his mother and on being told by P.W.1, her mother went out.Immediately, P.W.1 heard her mother crying, which made her run out of the house.At that time, she noticed the accused stabbing her mother with a knife in her stomach and in the back.Her mother started bleeding and fell down.When P.W.1 attempted to prevent the accused from further onslaught, she received an injury on her left hand.P.W.1 shouted, which attracted the attention of the neighbours.The accused, dropping the knife, ran away.M.O.1 is the knife used by the accused.P.W.1 took her mother to the Government Hospital at Vaniyambadi, where, the Doctor, on examination, pronounced her dead.Then she went to the police station, where she gave the complaint, in which she had put her signature.P.1 is the said complaint.P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police in the Investigating Police Station, before whom, at about 5.30 p.m on the occurrence day, P.W.1 appeared and narrated the complaint, which he reduced into writing.After reading it over to her, he took her signature in it.P.10 is the printed first information report.He sent the express records to the court as well as to the higher officials.P.W.10 sent P.W.1 with a police medical memo to the hospital for treatment.He reached the scene and in the presence of P.W.5 and another, prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.11, the rough sketch.From the scene of occurrence, in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth.At 9.30 p.m on the same day, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.6 and another and examined him.At that time, the accused gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.Pursuant to Ex.P.4, M.O.1 came to be recovered at about 10.00 p.m in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar.From 8.00 a.m till 10.00 a.m on 25.02.2002, he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P.12, the inquest report.During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and others and recorded their statements.4. P.W.9 accordingly accompanied the dead body with the requisition for post mortem to the hospital.After post mortem, he removed M.Os.2, 4, 5 and 6 from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer along with his special report Ex.On the occurrence day, when she was in the house, she heard a distress cry of her mother in law, which made her come out of her house along with her husband.At that time, she saw the accused stabbing his mother on the stomach and hand and her mother-in-law fell down with bleeding injuries.However she would admit that she cannot identify the weapon used by the assailant at that time, since she failed to notice it in the commotion.Then his injured wife was taken to the hospital and the accused ran away from the scene.He also fairly admitted that he could not identify the weapon used by the assailant at that time.His evidence also, on the entire episode, is as spoken to by the witnesses referred to earlier.He had also witnessed the occurrence.He identified M.O.1 as the weapon of offence used by the accused.He witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.4, pursuant to which M.O.1 came to be recovered under Ex.P.W.7 is the Casualty Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Vaniyambadi.The definition is at page 941 of that dictionary, which reads as hereunder:"Psychometrics: The development, administration or interpretation of psychologic and intelligence tests.However the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. is sustained and the judgement under challenge to that extent is sustained."Tr/vslToThe Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.The District Collector, Vellore.The Director General of Police, Chennai.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.The State rep. by its Inspector of Police Vaniyambadi Police Station, Vellore District.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Balasubramanian, J) The appellant in this appeal stands convicted in S.C.No.355/2002 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Vellore, for offences under sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. For the former offence, he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the latter offence, he stands sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.Hence the present appeal.Heard Mr.G.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.The prosecution case is that, at about 4.00 p.m on 24.02.2002, the accused murdered his mother by stabbing her on her stomach with a knife indiscriminately, resulting in her death and in the course of the same transaction, he caused an injury on P.W.1 thereby punishable under sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. To substantiate their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 besides marking Exs.The defence marked Exs.Through the court witness, Exs.P.1 is the said complaint, which he registered in his police station crime No.138/2002 for offences under sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. Ex.Then the accused was sent for judicial remand.During post mortem, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.8, the post mortem report.The symptoms noted are as hereunder:"External Injuries:-Punctured wound seen over the epigastrium in anterior abdomen wall 3.5 cm.Length into 1 c.m. Breadth into 8 c.m. depth, entering into the abdomen cavity.The shape of wound at the point of the entry is eliptical.Punctured wound seen over the right hypochondrium area .Eliptical shape 3.0 c.m. X 1 c.m. X 4 c.m.Incised wound over the right thigh in the mid 1/3 about 2 c.m.Length 1 c.m. Breadth.Punctured wound seen over the medial aspect of right thigh about 1 x 1 x 1 c.m.(L x b x d).Incised wound length 2 c.m. X 1 c.m.Breadth seen over the right lower limb below the knee in lateral aspect.Incised wound seen over dorsum of hand over base of left thumb 2 x 1 x 0.5 c.m.Incised wound over base of left index finger 1 c.m. X 0.5 c.m.X 0.5 c.m.Punctured wound seen on the left side of trunk over the left scapula 3 x 1 x 1.5 c.m.(L x b x d)Punctured wound seen over the back of trunk in left inter-scapula area 3 c.m. x 1 c.m.x 6 c.m. length breadth, shape eliptical at point of entry.Punctured wound seen over the left loin area 3 c.m. x 1 c.m.x 10 c.m. wound enter into the abdomen cavity.Punctured wound seen over the left lion area 3 c.m. x 1 c.m.x 7 c.m.seen over the back of trunk over the right side lower chest wall.Punctured wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m.x 7 c.m.seen over the back of trunk over the right side lower chest wall.Abrasion seen over the left knee.Head and Skull : Intact, Brain and Meninges : Pale.Thorax Hyoid bone : Intact.Lungs : Right lungs lower lobe punctured wound seen.Left lung punctured wound seen in the posterior aspect of lung in lower lobe.Pleural cavity filled with blood.Abdomen Stomach empty.Liver, Right lower lobe : punctured wound seen, Kidneys : Normal, Spleen : Normal, Peritoneal cavity filled with blood."The Doctor opined that death is due to damages to vital organs.According to him, a weapon like M.O.1 could have caused the injuries found on the dead body.All the injuries noted by him in Ex.She had deposed that the deceased out of her retirement benefits spent a sum of Rs.65,500/- for purchasing a house in the name of P.W.1 and that the accused was pestering the deceased for a share in the retirement benefits which she got.The accused also used to ask the deceased to give her money to meet his day-to-day expenses including food.Sometimes P.W.1 used to give money and sometimes she won't.P.W.2 is residing 50 feet on the west of P.W.1's house.Then P.W.1 brought an Autorickshaw in which her injured mother-in-law was taken to the hospital.When P.W.1 intervened to save her mother from further onslaught by the accused, she also received an injury on her hand.P.1, the Observation Mahazar and recovery of M.Os.2 and 3 under Ex.P.W.6 witnessed the arrest of the accused; his examination and recording of his confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.On the occurrence day in the evening P.W.5 brought injured Kondammal, since deceased for treatment for injuries stated to have been sustained by her at about 4.00 p.m. on that evening at the hands of her son.When he examined her, he found her dead and accordingly pronounced her dead.P.6 is the report on her death.At about 7.05 p.m. on the same day P.W.1 appeared before him with a police head constable for treatment, for injuries stated to have been sustained by her at 4.00 p.m. on that evening in her house at the hands of a known person by the use of a knife.P.7 is the Accident Register issued by him for P.W.1, in which it is noted that the injured had suffered an incised wound on the left forearm 2 cm x = cm x = cm and the injury was found to be simple.P.W.10 continued his investigation further by examining witnesses and recording their statements.M.Os.4 to 6 removed from the dead body after post-mortem by P.W.9 and handed over to P.W.10 with his special report Ex.The case properties were sent to the Court with a requisition Ex.P.13 to subject the same for chemical examination.P.14 and P.15 are the Chemical Examiner's Report and Serologist's Report respectively.After completing all the other legal formalities P.W.10 filed the final report in Court against the accused under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him, he denied each and every circumstance put up against him as false and contrary to facts.He denied his involvement in toto.D.1 to D.3 came to be marked through him.His evidence is summarised as hereunder:-"I am now working in Government Hospital at Vellore; I am a post-graduate degree holder in Psychiatry; I examined Ramesh (the accused) sent to me pursuant to the court's order; Ramesh was admitted in the hospital on 18.6.2003 in the emergency ward and he was under observation till 7.7.2003; he was observed for any mental imbalance; his inpatient number is 22359; I found Ramesh having a mental sickness; he appeared to be suffering from schizophrenia; I found various symptoms on him; Ex.C.1 is the certificate issued by me and Ex.C.2 is the report given by me to the Dean of the Government Medical College Hospital. "We extract the contents of Ex.C.1 hereunder:"MEDICAL CERTIFICATE (See sections 18 and 19 Act IV of 1912) In the matter of Thiru S. Ramesh S/o.Samuel in the Town of Vaniyambadi (or the Sub-Division of Vellore) an alleged lunatic.I, the undersigned Dr.N. Thiyagarajan do hereby Certify as follows:Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would primarily contend that the evidence of C.W.1; Exs.C.1 and C.2 and Exs.D.1 to D.3 unerringly show that the appellant is suffering from split mind disorder namely, Schizophrenia and therefore when the occurrence is shown to have taken place, he was found to be suffering from the said mental disorder.If that is so, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code would come to the rescue of the appellant and if the benefit of that section is extended to the appellant, then he cannot be punished for having committed any offence, including the offence of murder.Learned counsel by taking us through the evidence of P.W.1 when she was further cross examined on 4.12.2003 on being recalled, would submit that P.W.1 had denied any knowledge about the crime and also admitted that the accused was suffering from a mental ailment even on the date of occurrence.He would also take us through the evidence of P.W.4, which according to him, proves Exs.D.1 to D.3, to contend that the appellant was suffering from a mental disorder.D.1 to D.3 cannot be taken to be proved, in the absence of the author of those three documents.In other words, formal proof before court is necessary before Exs.D.1 to D.3 could be admitted and evaluated in evidence.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor draws our attention to a statement made by the learned Sessions Judge in her judgement that the accused stated before her that he is mentally alright.Only in such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge after referring the accused for medical examination regarding his mental ailment proceeded to continue the trial.From the evidence of C.W.1 and Exs.C.1 and C.2 it cannot be conclusively said that on the date of the crime, the accused was having a mental disorder.Of course it is open to the accused to show that prior to the day on which the crime was committed and subsequent to that day also he was afflicted with such mental disorder, so that the court would be in a position to evaluate his mental capacity.In this case, there is total absence of any medical evidence to support the defence of the accused built on section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.Then referring to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, when they were recalled and further cross examined on 4.12.2003, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that those evidence have come on record after the examination of C.W.1 in court.Under these circumstances no credibility at all could be given to such evidence.In Exs.D.2 and D.3 we find the name of one Ramesh.The contents of Ex.D.2 are as hereunder:-"Your next appointment for E.C.T./Psychotherapy/Review Psychometry is on 1.3.2001 at 11.30 a.m./p.m."The words "Review" and "P.M." stand rounded off.Similar is the contents of Ex.D.3, except one change (i.e) the Psychometry test was fixed on 15.2.2001 at 11.45 a.m. P.W.4 is not a party to these three documents.He does not claim in his evidence that he took his son to the hospital when he was examined by the Doctor in the Christian Medical College Hospital and these three documents have come to be issued in his presence.In other words, from his evidence we do not find that he personally knows about it nor does he have any personal knowledge about the visit of the accused to the hospital.What all he states in his evidence at the end of the cross examination and further cross done on 4.12.2003 on being recalled respectively is as hereunder:-"It is true that my son was suffering from mental disorder since the last four years and taking treatment in the hospital at Baghayam; his O.P. ticket number is:- 090319.M"" My son was taking treatment for mental ailment in Baghyam Hospital for four years; the out patient ticket issued at that time is shown to me i.e Exs.D.1; Exs.D.2 and D.3 show the treatment taken by him prior to that; even during the occurrence time the accused was having mental imbalance and therefore he was taking treatment; he was kept in the house duly tied."From the above evidence, it is not possible to conclude that P.W.4 knows anything personally about the treatment shown to have been given to his son.If at all Exs.D.2 and D.3 can be looked into, it would only show that the accused has to report at the hospital for some tests.We find that Exs.D.2 and D.3 indicate that the accused has to appear for Psychomentry test on 15.2.2001 (Ex.D.3) and on 1.3.2001(Ex.D.2).We went through Mosby's Medical Dictionary 2004 edition to find out what is meant by "Psychometry".Also called psychometry."Therefore going by the definition of "Psychometrics" which is also called "Psychometry", it appears that the accused was asked to appear on the respective dates for an intelligence test.There is nothing on record to show that the accused appeared on the respective dates in the hospital for the psychometry test.If any body from the hospital, which issued Exs.D.1 to D.3 to conclude that the accused was having a mental disorder on the day when he committed the crime.Before proceeding to analyse the evidence, we went through the judgement to find out why the accused in the course of trial was sent for medical examination.From para 9 of the judgement under challenge, we find that after the examination of P.Ws.1 to 9, the defence counsel have filed a petition to recall P.W.4 and in that petition, it was stated that the accused is a mentally ill person.D.1 to D.3; Exs.C.1 and C.2 and the oral evidence of C.W.1, besides the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 when they were further cross examined as indicated earlier.The possibility of setting in of the ailment on the appellant after the commission of the crime do not stand totally ruled out.Therefore, from the medical evidence made available in this case, it is not possible for us to conclude emphatically that the accused had any such mental disorder on the day of the occurrence, which would have made him not to realise what he was doing is either wrong or opposed to law.P.Ws.1 to 4, when they were further cross examined on 4.12.2003 on they being recalled deposed that the accused was having a mental disorder.P.W.1's evidence shows that after committing the crime, the accused dropped the weapon and ran away from the crime scene.If really he was of such unsound mind, he could not have run away from that place.His conduct of running away from the place definitely shows that he was duly aware that what he has done was wrong and that it is contrary to law.It has also come out in the evidence of P.W.1 that whenever the accused asked for his day-to day expenses from his mother, sometimes she used to give, sometimes she would not and on all those occasions, when he could not get money from his mother as demanded, he would pick up a quarrel.Unfortunately we find that the State had not chosen to treat her as hostile and then cross examine her.P.W.4 also likewise, while he was further cross examined on being recalled on 4.12.2003, deposed that his son was mentally unsound.He did not go back on his evidence recorded earlier that he witnessed the crime namely, the accused perpetrating the crime on his wife.P.Ws.2 and 3 have supported the prosecution case.Since P.W.1 did not support the prosecution case by going to the extent of saying that she did not see the occurrence, we have no doubt at all that the conviction of the accused under Section 324 I.P.C. vis a vis causing an injury on P.W.1 cannot be legally sustained.Accordingly the accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. But that does not mean, as already stated, there is no evidence against the accused regarding the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The evidence in that regard is overwhelming in nature.We have already held that the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore we conclude saying that in the context of the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, which show the involvement of the accused in the crime, we have no hesitation at all to confirm the judgement under challenge so far as it relates to the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C.Under these circumstances and in the light of our discussion as referred to above, the appeal stands disposed of as hereunder:"The appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Fine amount, if any paid for the said offence is directed to be refunded to him.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,808,362 |
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.As per office report, notice has been served upon all the private respondents.Sri Anuj Pandey, learned Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, but when the case is taken up only Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 is present.None present on behalf of other private opposite parties.Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.By means of present criminal appeal, the appellant has prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set aside the order dated 28/08/2019 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.1886/2019 and appeal be allowed and appellant be released on bail in Case Crime No.328/2019, U/s - 452/323/392/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Gha) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station - Kadipur, District - Sultanpur.As per version of the F.I.R.on 01.7.2019 some dispute had taken place between complainant and the appellant/ applicant regarding supply of electricity, whereupon accused informed his nephew Shiv Mangal Singh, who came there alongwith other accused persons on four wheeler on 1.07.2019 itself at about 1 PM and entered in the house of the complainant and beaten him and his family members and while returning the accused snatched the chain of complainant, however, there is no recovered of the said chain.The injury sustained by the injured are simple in nature.Opposing the bail, Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.3 as well as learned A.G.A. has stated that the appellant is having a criminal history of five cases.At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that in most of the cases the appellant is on bail and in one case the appellant has moved bail application before this court, which is pending.Since in this case there is no recovery of looted article and the injury sustained by the injured is simple in nature, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant may be released on bail.Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by learned counsel for the accused-applicant.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 28/08/2019 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.1886/2019, Case Crime No.328/2019, U/s - 452/323/392/504/506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Gha) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station - Kadipur, District - Sultanpur, 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.
|
140,809,537 |
R. No.1559/2019 (Narayan Batham & Ors.It is pointed out that in that case there was no such situation and merely the death was unnatural, petitioners could not have been said to be responsible for causing any injury leading to death of the deceased and accordingly charge framed by the trial Court against the petitioners under Section 302 of 302/34 of IPC was set aside.Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sughar Singh Vs.State of M.P., 2012 (2) MPHT 506 (DB), wherein placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Satya Narayan Tiwari 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.It is submitted that as per the narration in the FIR, deceased Kanchan Batham was admitted in JAH with complaint of vomiting and loose motion.During investigation, it was reported that Kanchan was being harassed for want of dowry of Rs. 5 Lacs.It is further pointed out that most important factor in the present case is postmortem report in which doctor has clearly opined that death was caused due to consumption of poisonous substance.Several ante-mortem injuries were also found on the body of deceased.Besides this, it is opined that nature of death should be decided on the basis of circumstantial evidence collected.In such circumstances, the probability of giving deceased such poisonous substance cannot be ruled out.In the viscera report dated 23.08.2018 it has come that aluminum phosphide was found in the viscera of Kanchan Batham, therefore, framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC cannot be faulted with. 5THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,817,297 |
The respondent police registered a case against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 498(A) IPC, and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet against the revision petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai, the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken the case on file in C.C.No.136 of 2004, after trial the learned Judicial Magistrate found A1 to A3 guilty for the above said offence convicted them as follows:The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, made over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge, allowed the appeal in part 2http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A1 is the husband of the victim, he has not filed any appeal.However, the A2 is the mother of A1 and mother in law of the victim, she alone filed the revision case before this Court as against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in Crl.3 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that A1 is the husband of the victim.A2 alone filed the present criminal Revision Case before this Court.There is no allegations against A3 who was residing in Karnataka and he is living separately.Further, he has not living with A2, further there is no land for demanding money for putting bore well.A2 is aged about 70 years and there is no demand.P.W.1 has stated that she does not know to read and write in tamil and also with the help of P.W.4 she gave a complaint.P.W.7 has not been stated that P.W.4 accompanied with P.W.1 at the time of giving complaint.The complaint itself is suspicious, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.Though, the learned Judicial Magistrate found guilt of all the accused but the appellate Court found that the brother of A1 and the another son of A2 has not committed the offence, hence he was acquitted, when the appellate Court found that the benefit of doubt 3http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.898 of 2012 was given to A3, the same benefit should have been given to this revision petitioner.The prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefits of doubt should have been extended to the revision petitioner.Both the Courts failed to appreciate the entire evidence in a right manner, which warrants interference by this Court.4 The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent would submit that P.W.1 is the victim P.W.2 is the mother of the victim, P.W.3 is the sister of the victim.P.W.4 to 6 are the panchayatars who held the panchayat between the family of the victim and the family of the accused.They have categorically stated that P.W.1 who gave complaint to the panchayatars.P.W.1 has stated about the payment of borrowal made by the accused and even P.W.1 has stated before the panchayatars first she got money from P.W.2, which itself shows that they demanded money.Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.Though, the learned Judicial Magistrate, convicted all the accused and the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted A3, there is no reason to interfere with the judgments of both the Courts below.5 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and 4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.898 of 2012 perused the materials available on record.6 The prosecution case in brief is that P.W.1 is the wife of A1 and their marriage took place on 11.03.2004 and they were living with A2 and A3 as joint family and all the accused demanded a dowry of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1 for purchase of land and caused cruelty and dowry harassment and hence the accused are liable to be punished under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act.7 In order to prove the case of the prosecution on the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses were examined and 5 documents were marked, on the side of the defence one witness was examined and no documentary evidence was produced.8 P.W.1 is the victim, who is the wife of the first accused.P.W.2 is the mother of the victim, P.W.3 is the sister of the victim.A2 is the mother in law of P.W.1 and mother of A1, A3 is the brother of A1 and another son of A2 and brother in law of the victim.The victim has clearly spoken that all the accused have demanded money.At the time of occurrence, A1 did not allow his wife/P.W.1 to go the parental house and also continuously demanded money.Hence the victim left from the matrimonial home.Therefore, A1 also left the house and had illegal 5http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.898 of 2012 intimacy with another woman and living in Karnataka.Once in two years he comes to his house.P.W.2 is the mother of the victim she has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the independent witnesses they have spoken about the panchayats held between two families.At the time, P.W.1 has narrated the demand of dowry made by the accused family and also the panchayats held by them.P.W.1 and P.W.4 have clearly stated P.W.4 only written the complaint and P.W.1 narrated the incident.P.W.1 has clearly stated that she does not know to read and write in tamil.This was not challenged by the defence.10 Under these circumstances, on reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.6 both the Courts have rightly found that A2 also harrased the victim and demanded dowry.7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.898 of 2012 P.VELMURUGAN.J sbn 14 With the above modification, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous petition is closed.29.07.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking order sbn To1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikottai.2.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.3.Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District.4.Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.Crl.R.C.No.898 of 2012 M.P.No.1 of 2012 8http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,873,937 |
Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 1 of 11 purposes of she being forced into prostitution.The girl (PW-1) was found to be a native of a village in the State of Karnataka.She was sent for medical examination to Lak Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, where her medical examination vide medico legal certificate (Ex.PW- 3/A) brought out indication that she had been sexually exploited.Her statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded in which she levelled allegations against the first appellant Reshma (A-1) and second appellant Mohd. Azim (A-2), besides certain others.According to the said statement, she had been victim of offences punishable under Sections 363/365/368/376/342/323/109/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3,4,5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 (ITP Act, for short).The SHO, by his endorsement (PW-19/A), got first information report (FIR) no. 246/2004 (Ex.Amina Begum, the evidence would show, had died.The name of Mohd. Talib son of Amina Begum also figured in the evidence, particularly in the testimony of the victim, she attributing he to be the person who would collect the earnings of prostitution.Mohd. Talib, however, absconded and was declared proclaimed offender.The prosecution led evidence by examining Reshma (PW-1), the prosecutrix; HC Tanfa (PW-2), who was member of the raiding party led by the SHO; Dr. Tripati Arora (PW-3), who had medically examined the prosecutrix immediately after recovery; HC Ciciliya (PW-4), who had taken the prosecutrix for age determination test; Vikas (PW-5), a clerk of an advocate involved in the investigation; Ravi Malhotra (PW-6), the landlord of the premises in question; HC Jatesh Kr.(PW-7), duty officer who register the FIR; Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-8), who gave opinion about the age of the prosecutrix; Constable Anil (PW-9), member of the raiding party who took the rukka for registration of case; W Constable Teressa (PW-10), another member of the raiding party led by SHO; Ct.Resham (PW-11), who accompanied the prosecutrix for medical examination; Ct.Bhuri Crl.On 30.05.2004, on the basis of secret information, Inspector Ajit Singh (PW-19), the station house officer of police station Kamla Market, assisted by other police personnel, raided the premises of Kotha no. 59, second floor, left side, on GB Road, Delhi, where a girl aged about 17 years old was found wrongfully confined for the Crl.PW-7/A) registered and took up the case for investigation.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 1 of 11During the course of investigation, the victim (PW-1) was sent for age estimation to the Maulana Azad Medical College, the report (Ex. PW-8/A) issued by Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-8), professor of forensic medicine, opining that she was a girl aged between 17 and 18 years.Besides other steps, the statement of the victim (Ex. PW-1/J1) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was also recorded by a Magistrate.It may be mentioned here that according to the evidence which had been gathered, premises described as Kotha was run as brothel house, it being in the tenancy of one Amina Crl.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 2 of 11 Begum.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 2 of 11The case (Sessions Case No. 24/2005) against the appellants was brought before the court of Sessions, charges having been framed under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act and for offences under Sections 342,323,109 read with Section 376 IPC against both the appellants.Separate charges were also framed for offences under Sections 365 and 366 IPC against A-1, while A-2 was additionally charged under Sections 368 and 376 IPC.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 3 of 11 Singh (PW-12), who had joined the investigation at the time of interrogation of PW-6; Sant Ram (PW-13), an official of power distribution company whose evidence relates to the user of the premises by Amina Begum; ASI Balbir Singh (PW-14), duty officer who proved the departure entry made by the SHO before setting out for raid; SI Inder Pal Singh (PW-15), another member of the raiding party; A.K. Kohar (PW-16), the Metropolitan Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; Dr. Anil Aggarwal (PW-17), the forensic expert who gave opinion about the biological samples of the prosecutrix; Anil Kapoor (PW-18), who proved the notification under ITP Act; Inspector Ajit Singh (PW-19), the SHO who led the raid and ASI Devi Saran (PW-20), another member of the raiding party who took over investigation.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 3 of 11After the prosecution had concluded its evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded.Both of them denied the evidence of prosecution claiming to be innocent.While A-1 sought to explain in the said statement that she was a dancer at the said kotha and hence had no concern with the offences in question, A-2 simply pleaded innocence stating that he was a tailor by profession.Both declined to lead any evidence in defence.The trial judge, having appreciated the evidence, rendered his judgment on 04.10.2005, holding both the appellants guilty, as charged.Both the appellants were awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years each with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on charge for offences under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act and also separately under Sections 109 read with Section 376 IPC.Additionally, on the charge for offences Crl.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 4 of 11 under Section 3 ITP Act and section 342 IPC Act, the trial judge awarded one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/- each.As against A-1, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1,000/- was awarded for offence under Section 365 IPC with rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs, 1,000/- under Section 366 IPC.A-2 has been awarded the punishment for ten years with fine of Rs 2,000/- each under Section 368 IPC and Section 376 IPC.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 4 of 11Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal was filed challenging the judgment and order on sentence passed by the trial court.9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants at length and the learned additional public prosecutor for State in reply, and having gone through the record of the trial court carefully, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason why the findings returned by the trial court, based essentially on the testimony of the victim (PW-1), as to the role of both the appellants in commission of the afore- mentioned offences should be displaced, except to the extent discussed hereinafter.There is clear and consistent evidence available to show that A- 1, also a native of the same village, as from where the victim hails allured her to come to Delhi on the pretext of getting her a gainful employment, she having been assured that she would get a monthly salary of Rs. 1,500/-, possibly as a maid servant.Instead, when PW-1 with A-1 reached Delhi, she was taken to the above-mentioned premises where she was wrongfully confined.There is also clear Crl.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 5 of 11 evidence of PW-1 confirming that the premises were kept locked during the night and no one was allowed to go outside.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 5 of 11The fact that she had fallen into wrong hands dawned on the victim on the very first day of her arrival in Delhi immediately after she had been brought to the above-mentioned kotha.She questioned A-1 about this to which there was no satisfactory answer, the victim deposing that she was told that if real facts were known to her she would not have accompanied her (A-1) to Delhi.PW-1 has confirmed her statement affirming the contents of the FIR that, on the very first night, A-2 subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse, A-2 was not known to her before, nor she had any reason to agree to such physical intimacy with a total stranger.12. PW-1 was cross-examined at length, such cross-examination having continued over at least three days.The lengthy cross- examination, however, could not bring out any material contradiction.She stuck to her version in the examination-in-chief affirming that A-1 had brought her from her native place on the false assurance of getting her a gainful employment has met in Delhi, she instead having been taken to the afore-mentioned place for being eventually pushed into prostitution.She elaborately described the life at the said place including the role of Amina Begum, an elderly woman who was called "Appa", A-2 also being present throughout in the neighbourhood.She was questioned about the life, about the status of her parental family, the source of livelihood of her father, and the train journey from Karnataka to Delhi.There is nothing in her lengthy cross-examination which could render her version vis--vis the appellants incredible.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 6 of 11The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the evidence led by the prosecution showing that the victim was a minor is not worthy of reliance.According to his submission, benefit of doubts should have been granted to the appellants inasmuch as the radiological opinion (Ex.PW-8/A) indicates her age to be between 17 and 18 years.It is his argument that a margin of error should be added as a factor.This conclusion clinches the fact that the victim was actually a minor at the relevant point of time.The evidence shows that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years old at the relevant point of time and, therefore, her consent was inconsequential.The forcible sexual intercourse, as confirmed by the MLC (Ex.Since A-1 had brought the victim from her native village in State of Karnataka to Delhi on the false pretext of arranging a job for her and since she had been brought her to the premises where she was wrongfully confined and subjected to such offence of rape by A-2, he being with her all along, the abetment by A-1 of rape also stands established.These findings have been rightly returned by the trial court and are hereby affirmed.From the above facts and circumstances, the guilt of A-1 for offences under Sections 365 and 366 IPC, and of A-2 for offences under Sections 368 and 376 IPC, has also been rightly concluded by Crl.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 7 of 11 the trial court.Besides this, wrongful confinement of the victim at the afore-mentioned place constitutes offence under Section 342 IPC.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 7 of 11The counsel for the appellants argued that there is no evidence to show that the place where the victim was kept is a brothel as defined by Section 2(a) of ITP Act, for the reason that there is nothing in the evidence led to show that there was any other person functional as a prostitute.While his submission that the premises cannot be described as a brothel for the reason there is no evidence led about presence of any other prostitute in the premises is correct, it does not help the appellants in any manner in the appeal at hand.A-1, going by the evidence of PW-1, was assisting the owner of the premises in the management of the place.It was she who had brought the victim from her native place to Delhi and also had confined her with aid and assistance of A-2 at the said place.It was she who had instructed the victim as to how and on what terms the patrons to the place were to be entertained.These facts, by themselves, are sufficient to bring home the guilt against A-1 for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act.But, since the procurement of the victim from her native place for purposes of prostitution was essentially by A-1, there being no evidence showing any role played by A-2 in that regard, he cannot be held guilty under Section 5 ITP Act. In this view, his conviction for the said offence under Section 5 ITP Act and the sentence awarded against him on such count are set aside.However, his conviction for offences under Sections 3, 4, and 6 ITP Act is affirmed.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 8 of 11Further, he pointed out that, as per the nominal roll, A-2 had undergone incarceration for three years, eight months and seventeen days and had also earned remission for eleven months and twenty one days by the time he was released on bail pending hearing on the appeal.He submitted that long trial and the proceedings of over fifteen years have been faced by the appellants and that A-2, particularly, has had no other involvement in any crime.His submission was that these are special and adequate reasons why the punishment should be reduced to the period of detention already undergone.The counsel for A-2 also argued that he has been held guilty under Section 368 IPC which attracts punishment similar to the offence under Section 366 IPC.It is his submission that there has been disparity in the approach of the trial court inasmuch as A-1 has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine under Section 366 IPC, while A-2 for a similar offence has been awarded for higher punishment of ten years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- .He urged that the rigour of the punishment for offence under Section 376 IPC, in the given facts and circumstances, also may be reduced.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 9 of 11The submissions of the learned counsel for A-2 insofar as they concern the punishment for offence under Section 368 IPC have merit.On parity with A-1, punishment for the said offence qua A-2 deserves to be reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months.In the given facts and circumstances, the offence under Section 4 ITP Act being against a minor, offence of rape having been committed against the will of the victim after her procurement within the meaning of Section 5 ITP Act and given the possible sentence provided under Section 6 ITP Act, there is no escape from the punishment that has been awarded by the trial court for the said offences, the same being minimum prescribed by the law.It is noted that during the relevant period, the law prescribed imprisonment for seven years as the minimum sentence for offence under Section 376 IPC.Given the protracted proceedings, which have been faced by A-2, there is scope of reduction of the sentence on that account, from imprisonment for ten years to imprisonment for seven years.Ordered accordingly.With the above modifications in the conclusions in the judgment, while acquitting A-2, Mohd. Azim of the charge under Section 5 ITP Act, the judgment of conviction of both the appellants on other counts is hereby affirmed and maintained.The sentences awarded to A-2 Mohd. Azim for offences under Sections 368 and 376 IPC are reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each.Except for such modification, the punishment awarded to the two appellants for other offences is maintained.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 10 of 11The substantive sentences shall run concurrently and both the appellants shall be entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period of detention already undergone.The Station House officer of Police Station Kamla Market shall render all assistance.R.K.GAUBA, J.APRIL 24, 2019 nk Crl.Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 11 of 11Appeal Nos.928/2005 &250/2006 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,878,813 |
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderpassed in P.D.No.28/2014, dated 15.11.2014 by the detaining authority, whohas been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by nameSasikumar, Son of Sukumaran and quash the same and thereby set him at libertyforthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, Pudhukkadai Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein itis stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:(i)Crime No.161 of 2014, Pudhukkadai Police Station registered underSections 454 or 457 and 380 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code.(ii)Crime No.181 of 2014, Pudhukkadai Police Station registered underSections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.(iii)Crime No.228 of 2014, Pudhukkadai Police Station registered underSections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv)Crime No.315 of 2014, Pudhukkadai Police Station registered underSections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 01.11.2014, oneKotchuthampi, Son of Sooriyan as complainant has given a complaint to theInspector of Police, Pudhukkadai Police Station against the detenu and thesame has been registered in Crime No.448 of 2014 under Sections 341, 294(b),387, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested thedetaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.4.The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein afterconsidering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documentshas derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is ahabitual offender and ultimately branded him as 'Goonda' by way of passingthe impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the presentHabeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu himself as petitioner.5.On the side of the respondents a counter has been filed, wherein ithas been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petitionare false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District.A.SELVAM, J.
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 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', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,089,416 |
M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 2 of 19Accordingly, a raiding team was constituted and at the instance of the informer, the premises at Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi was raided.He further disclosed that one Bijender Chikara would be sending the answer key of morning shift examination through SMS.Thereafter, a SMS was received from the mobile of Bijender Chikara containing e-mail and password of the same.Another SMS from mobile No.9310441200 was received by Ajeet son of Devi Singh having email and password in respect of another key.The said mails were accessed on the laptop available in the room and the question paper uploaded on the email was printed out.The attachment consisted of 27 papers having code Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19 011kpo-Part-A on front page containing 200 multiple questions.The said question papers were counter checked and verified from Examination Centre at Govt. Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Sector 11, Rohini and the same question paper was found which was circulated to the candidates.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19The prosecution has taken the printout of the question papers from the printer installed at the spot.Mobile phones, two laptops and one printer of Canon alongwith slips containing names of candidates, etc. were also seized.Thereafter the case was registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi vide FIR No. 73/2013 under Section 120- B read with Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 201, 511, 34 of IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act. Nine persons found at the spot were arrested, when they were in the process of receiving question paper and answer keys for solving the paper.Subsequently, specific recoveries were affected from all the nine accused persons.Ashu Sharma, one of the arrested person disclosed about Bijender Chikara working as LDC in MCD Office at Sector 5, Rohini, who can arrange question paper of SSC Combined Graduate level examination to be held on 21.04.2013 for both the shifts and the same can be sent through email at the cost of Rs.3.5 lac.During investigation, it was revealed that Ajit was assigned to manage a place for execution of conspiracy and his friend Sushil was to arrange one house on rent.Ravinder was sent to Sushil for taking house on rent.Thereafter, the rent agreement was executed and all the Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19 accused persons assembled at the rented accommodation in Pooth Kalan, Delhi.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19The origin of the paper leak has to be ascertained from the accused.The examination centre, out of the various centres in Delhi, NCR, from where the paper was leaked has to be ascertained and identified.The involvement of the large number of students in the racket who have benefited from the leakage is also to be identified and ascertained at the instance of the accused/respondent.Electronic gadgets of the accused including cell phone, data cards or laptops, computer used etc., are to be recovered which are of utmost evidentiary value.P.S.TEJI, J.The aforesaid four petitions have been preferred by the State primarily for the purpose of cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the accused - Sushil Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar vide order dated 06.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.However, petitioner - Vikram Dahiya has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.11.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.Since the cause of action as well as facts of all the aforesaid four petitions are same and the accused persons have been granted Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 2 of 19 anticipatory bail on the ground of parity with the main accused, who has already been granted bail in the present case, therefore the same were heard together and are being disposed of together.During investigation, it was revealed that the URL logs, as provided by the franchisee Gaurav Bhardwaj were logged into the Gmail accounts at the time of uploading the SSC CGL 2013 question paper by the persons named - Pawan Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Sarvesh Saroha and Ashok Arya.During investigation, it was also revealed that the internet connection of world Phone Internet Connection was being used at his shop for customer complaints and subsequently used by Ashish Kumar, Pawan Kumar and their relative Vikram Dahiya on weekends.The said fact was confirmed on the basis of the frequent cell phone conversation which took place amongst them as detailed in the call detail records of the said accused.The suspect/accused in conspiracy with Vikram Dahiya had facilitated his premises and his internet connection knowingly as to circulate the leaked SSC CGL 2013 question paper for monetary gains.During further investigation, disclosure statement of accused Bijender Chikara, analysis of mobile phone call detail records of arrested accused and Vikram Dahiya, Sushil Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Ashish Kumar (respondents herein) were found to be having direct nexus in conspiracy.While arguing the present petitions, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the offences are not only serious but are targeted towards causing loss to Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19 the public at large as the case relates to the leakage of question paper of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2013, illegal solving of the paper and then supplying the answers through answer keys, to the candidates appearing in the exam.It is further contended that none of the accused have direct relation to exam governing agency i.e. SSC, still the question paper and respective keys came in hands of the accused persons and there is every possibility of such leak with different examination centres where the question papers were supplied by SSC.It is further submitted that the question paper was leaked only after the question paper reached the examination centres and before the actual time of the start of the examination i.e. about 1.5 hours before the examination.Therefore, there is every possibility of involvement of school authorities and their officials, i.e. Principals, teachers, etc. in the said offence.It is further contended that the conspiracy is hatched by a group of several persons divided into several groups acting as an organized gang for the said purpose.Some of them procured the question paper, some arranged the prospective competitors, and some arranged their meeting and some solved the question paper.The racket was well organised in the way that they had even obtained mobile phones on fake and fictious identities.The chain of circumstances in between are turning and are woven in such a manner that tampering at any stage will make the efforts to unearth the conspiracy, almost impossible.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that till the time of granting the bail by the learned Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19 Additional Sessions Judge, the respondents/accused persons were absconding and non-bailable warrants were also issued qua their arrest but it was not taken into consideration by the concerned Court.Apprehension of respondents in manipulating and tampering with the crucial and sensitive evidence has been raised, and it has been submitted that the respondents were members of a well organized racket involved in leakage of question paper, therefore, they are not entitled to have the benefit of anticipatory bail.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further drew attention of this Court to the impugned order in which the respondents were granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.In this regard, it is contended that the co-accused persons in the case were not granted anticipatory bail and rather they were given regular bail after remaining in custody for more than 60 days and that too, after filing of the initial charge sheet wherein the factum of the respondents absconding was clearly mentioned which resulted in issuance of NBWs against the respondents by the Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that one of the co-accused namely Vikram Dahiya having been denied anticipatory bail by the District Court had approached this Court for bail, but the same was also denied vide order dated 23.07.2013 passed in Bail Appl.No.1260/2013, wherein this Court had directed the accused to surrender before the concerned Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19 contended that the custodial interrogation of the respondents is necessary for providing the following vital and important information:-M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19The call detail records (CDR logs) have to be confronted with the accused for further identification of the person involved in the conspiracy.The IP logs also are required to be confronted with the accused.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 8 of 19Hide outs of the co-accused at Jind, Gannaur, Sonepat and other places are to be visited with the accused in custody.The sustained interrogation of the accused/ respondent is required to be conducted which is necessary to unearth and expose the entire conspiracy behind the racket of leaking the concerned question paper.It has specifically been mentioned in the order of learned Additional Session Judge that the respondent shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Saturday of English Calendar month.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Sushil Kumar that in view of the directions of learned Additional Session Judge, the respondent remained present at the office of the Investigating Officer on 10th August 2013 from 9AM to 7 PM, but no one in the office entertained the respondent.In this regard, the respondent had sent a written communication regarding his physical Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19 presence to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.It is further contended that the respondent remained physically present at the office of Investigating Officer on 17.8.2013 from 11 AM to 6 PM but he was not entertained and the written communication about his physical presence was conveyed to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.Similar was the position on 24th August 2013, when the respondent remained present in the office of Investigating Officer from 10 am to 5.30 pm.Respondent again visited the office of Investigating Officer on 3rd September 2013, 7th September 2013 and 14th September 2013, but he was not entertained.Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) CC Cases 66 (SC) in support of his submissions and submitted that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of the bail during trial.Counsel for the respondent further contended that there is no averment in the petition filed by the State that the respondent has not joined investigation and did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer; or has mentioned that the respondent had tampered with evidence or pressurised or intimidated any witnesses or that the bail order had been obtained fraudulently, therefore, the petition filed by the State deserves to be outrightly dismissal.Counsel for the respondent further contended that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled as the State failed to make out a Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19 case for interference in the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge under Section 438 of Cr.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19 respondent did not appear before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the directions passed by learned Additional Session Judge, rather it was the Investigating Officer who was not interested in investigation from the respondent and the interest of the State seems to be to somehow take the respondent into custody and to harass him and to ruin his entire life and for such ill motivated and malafide intentions, the petitioner is legally prohibited from seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19While arguing the case of the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, Mr. V. Madhokar, counsel for the respondents contended that in compliance of the directions given by learned Additional Session Judge, the respondents alongwith his surety and advocate visited the office of ACP, Crime Branch, Sector 16, Rohini on 10.08.2013, 17.08.2013 and 24.08.2013 and showed the order of learned Additional Session Judge to mark his presence and allow them to join the investigation, but they were not allowed to join the investigation and they were not even allowed to mark their presence.In support of his contention, counsel for the respondents relied upon the video clipping to show that the respondents had visited the office of the ACP, Crime Branch.Thereafter, the respondents reported the matter of Commissioner of Police and had also apprised the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi as well as to Sessions Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 12 of 19Counsel for the respondents further contended that it is not the seriousness/gravity of the offence only which is to be looked into by the learned Session Judge while entertaining the bail application but the specific role and the involvement of the accused is also to be considered and which the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly looked into and there is no infirmity in the order granting bail to the respondents.Counsel for the respondents further contended that mere issuance of NBWs or filing of charge sheet is no ground to refuse anticipatory bail to the accused.In support of his contention, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naturasu and other vs. The State, 1988 CriLJ 1762 and Bharat Choudhary and Anr vs. State of Bihar and Anr, AIR 2003 SC 4662 were relied upon by counsel for the respondents.Counsel for the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar further contended that the prosecution has given clean chits to the other two accused namely Ashok Arya and Sarvesh Saroha against whom there are almost similar allegations and the prosecution is bent upon to send the respondents in jail.The prosecution has already raided the shop and seized the modem and the computer of the Institute, therefore there is no need of any custodial interrogation to make any recoveries from the respondents.The respondents were granted bail Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19 on parity with the accused who were already granted bail in the case.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19On behalf of respondent- Vikram Dahiya, Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate, apart from the legal principles settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, contended that the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent does not call for interference as in compliance thereof, the respondent alongwith his surety and advocate visited the ACP Office, Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony Police Station on 23.11.2013 and the respondent was subjected to sustained and prolonged interrogation by a team consisting of ACP Raja Ram Yadav, Inspector Pawan Kumar, Inspector Surajbhan, one cyber expert and two other officials.The interrogation was conducted in writing and the replies were also given in writing and to a question whether respondent is ready for narco test, it was replied that since he is undergoing treatment for brain tumour, therefore he will consult his doctor.Thereafter the police official left the space blank and obtained the signature of the respondent on the statement.The mobile phone of the respondent was also thoroughly examined by the expert .It is further contended that during the prolonged and sustained interrogation nothing incriminating was Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19 found against the respondent.The learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - Vikram Dahiya contended that apart from the ground of parity the other main ground of the bail application of the respondent was that no offence under Section 420/468/671/34 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act are made out against the respondent even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as its face value and the State has failed to satisfy the learned Additional Session Judge that the offences are made out against the respondent.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Vikram Dahiya that the impugned order is not against proprietary and the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly interpreted and followed the order dated 01.11.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19I have heard the contentions raised by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the respective counsel representing the case of the respondents.I have also gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional Session Judge and also perused the documents placed on record.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 15 of 19The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Basit Vs.Abdul Kadir Choudhary, (2014)10SCC754 held as under:-Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.This Court observes that there is specific averment on behalf of the respondents in their replies to the present petitions that they had approached the Investigating Officer for performing their part of Crl.This Court is of the opinion that at best, the investigating officer should have started the investigation and during investigation, if he would have found any clue of respondents hiding any material information or found some concrete reason for not cooperating the investigation, then it was open for the Investigating Officer to approach the Court passing the order of anticipatory bail in favour of the respondents, for cancellation of the impugned order.The real position is that the State has preferred to take steps to file petition for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents, rather than to comply with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion and in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge.Finding no merit in the present petitions filed by the Crl.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 22, 2016 pkb Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 19 of 19
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,408,956 |
His testimony that the appellant assaulted his mother and twisted her neck gets complete corrobora-tion from the medical evidence on record.P.W. 4 Dr. Ghotekar who conducted post mortem on the dead body on 28-10-1992, found the following injuries on her person:Haematoma face Rt Side from Rt. eye to mouth.Depression of face Rt.and Lt. side seen.Haematoma fore head Lt. Side seen.Size 3" x 2".3. #Fracture and dislocation of cervical vertebrae 3rd to 5th present.Neck can easily displace to any direction due to #Frac-ture and dislocation of 3rd to 5th cervical vertebrae.#Fracture of Thyroid cartilage present.Congestion anteriorly seen.Haematoma below scalp frontoparietaly Lt. Side.Size 4" x 3".He fond fracture and dislocation of 3rd to 5th cervical vertebrae.The spinal cord injury was present on that level and the spinal cord was exposed posteriorly.The cause of death, according to him, was spinal shock caused by injury, fracture and dislocation of 3rd to 5th cervical vertebrae and spinal cord on that level.According to him, injury Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are possible if a person is assaulted with fist blows and kicks and injury Nos. 3 and 4 are possible by twisting of neck.JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J.The appellant along with four others was tried for the murder of his wife Lata Nandeshwar Khobragade under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. as also for causing disappearance of evidence of murder under Section 201 read with 34, I.P.C.The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses to prove the said charges.The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant had, by twisting the neck of his wife, caused injuries to her as also injuries by beating, which resulted in her death.The deceased was clandestinely buried at night in the forest and on the next early morning, the appellant along with his son Roshan P.W. 2 who was an eye witness of the incident, left the village.The incident in question is reported to have taken place on 24-10-1992 and the appellant was arrested on 8-11-1992 from the 'Hut' in the field of Kamal P.W. 7's grandfather.Learned Advocate Shri M.R. Daga argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial Court has not maintained any record of preliminary examination of child witness in order to satisfy regarding competency of child witness to depose; that there are material omissions in the statement of child witness vis-a-vis his police statement and that the evidence of the child witness is inherently unbelievable.He also urged that even though according to child witness Roshan P.W. 2, his aunt was present in the house, yet the prosecution has withheld the said witness and has not examined her in the Court.He pointed out that the child witness had made a material improvement in his testimony when he stated that the mouth of his mother was gagged by his father which was not the case of the child witness before the police.He further urged that the child witness has been tutored by his maternal uncle.It was also pointed that the deceased died on account of illness and apprehending that he would be falsely implicated, the appellant had gone to Chandrapur wherein he contacted an Advocate for getting anticipatory bail which was not granted and that he had not absconded.It was further urged that the motive in this case has not been proved and the evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. urged before us that there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the child witness who has not only stood the test of cross-examination, but no material omission or contradictions are there in his testimony.According to him, the evidence of the child witness is fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record.On this aspect, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mangoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh wherein the evidence of child witness was acted upon as the medical evidence was not in entire conflict with the ocular version of the child witness.According to him, the fact that the appellant absconded after the commission of the crime, that the dead body was buried at night in the forest and reports Exhibit 48 and Exhibit 19 are material incriminating circumstances pointing out to the involvement of the appellant in the crime.He, therefore, contends that no interference is called for in the matter.The principal evidence as pointed out by the trial Court against the appellant is that of his own son Roshan P.W. 2 who is a child witness.He was 12 years old when his deposition was recorded in the year 1994 which means that he was 10 years old at the time of the incident.It is no doubt true that the trial Court should have maintained a record regarding preliminary questions put to the child witness in order to determine the competency of the witness.Yet, the non-maintenance of the said record is not of much consequence since not only the trial Court was satisfied about the competency of the witness, but the evidence of the witness itself shows that P.W. 2 is a competent witness.P.W. 2 Roshan had stated that about 10.30 a.m. his father came from the shop and told his mother that he wanted to contract a marriage with one Kamla and so she should give him consent for that.Since she refused to give consent, his father assaulted her.He also beat her and twisted her neck after which she was kept on the cot.Subsequently, a doctor was called and later, his mother died.According to P.W. 2, the appellant along with the other co-accused put the dead body of his mother in a gunny bag, and went to bury his mother in the night and the appellant returned back to the house early in the morning and took him away.The child witness was cross-examined at length and except for some minor omissions, the testimony of the child witness on the material particulars on the main incident could not be shaken.According to him, his mother died at about 5.00 p.m. and alter during the night, she was put in a gunny bag and buried.The dead body of the deceased was found buried in the forest area.P.W. 2 Roshan had stated that his father had told his mother that he wanted to contract a marriage with one Kamla and she should give her consent.But she refused, as a result of which the appellant assaulted her and twisted her neck.Kamal P.W. 7 pleaded total ignorance about the appellant and deposed that she was not knowing the appellant Nandeshwar.She was declared hostile and she stated that she did not know whether her husband is brother-in-law of accused Nandeshwar.She has thus suppressed the information on this aspect from the Court and in case her husband was not related to the accused, she could have categorically stated so, but she gave evasive reply.She also stated that the accused was not visiting her house.However, her mother P.W. 8 Sundarabai has stated that the husband of Kamla P.W. 7 had deserted her and Kamla was residing with her at the time of the incident.She stated that she knew Nandeshwar and some time the said accused Nandeshwar used to visit her house.She further stated that she did not know regarding the relation of Nandeshwar and Kamla.She also gives an evasive reply on the fact of relationship between Nandeshwar and Kamla and in case there was no relationship between the two, she could have categorically denied the said fact as she was suppressing the truth.The witness was declared hostile and during her cross-examination, she was confronted with her statement before the police wherein she had stated that Kamla and Nandeshwar had love affair and they wanted to marry.Of course, she denied to have made such statement before the police.Eventhough this witness was declared hostile, her testimony does lend support to the prosecution case that the appellant wanted to marry Kamla.Size 6" x 4"/ Greenish and reddish discoloration present.Signs of inflammation seen.The external injuries coupled with internal injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary circumstances.Thus, medical evidence duly substantiates the ocular version of Roshan P.W. 2 who saw the appellant assaulting and beating the deceased as also twisting her neck.The evidence of Dr. Ghotekar namely twisting of neck disproves the defence version that the deceased had died on account of illness.The defence had put up a false defence of death due to illness through the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.This report has been proved through P.S.I.P.W. 11 Laxman Bhalvi.In this report, the said Purushottam had stated that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the accused and the appellant beat her.In this report, it was further stated that his brother might have taken this deceased somewhere as she was not found in the house.Simultaneously, the appellant had absconded and had taken along with him his son Roshan P.W. 2 who was an eye witness of the incident.Thus, there was a planned strategy to hoodwink the police that the deceased was taken away somewhere by her husband namely the appellant who absconded from the village.Filing of report Exhibit 48 by Purushottam was not challenged at all during the course of evidence of P.W. 11 and it is only subsequently that Purushottam in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C., put forth an imaginary explanation in respect of Exhibit 48 that his signatures were taken by the police on a blank paper.Exhibit 48 is admissible in evidence, the false defence has created an additional link against the appellant.Though the learned Advocate for the appellant tried to find fault with the delay in recording the statement of this witnesses, yet, in the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant.The appellant was arrested on 8-11-1992 and he came out with an explanation that he had gone to Chandrapur in order to obtain anticipatory bail.In case his wife had died on account of illness, then where was the question of seeking anticipatory bail or the appellant absconding from the village.Ultimately, the appellant was found hiding in a 'Hut' in the field of grandfather of Kamla as revealed by the Investigating Officer P.W. 11 which further strengthens the motive that the appellant wanted to marry Kamla and as such, he was being shielded by her family by permitting him to hide in their 'Hut'.The evidence on record unerringly points out to the guilt of the appellant and that he is solely responsible for the murder of his wife.The appellant tried to destroy the evidence by clandestinely burying the deceased in the forest against all canons of Hindu customs.For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the charge of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and the charge of destroying evidence under Section 201 I.P.C. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is hereby rejected.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
|
['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.
|
140,896,439 |
Mr. Amit Jain, learned counsel for the complainant/prosecutrix.This is the first appeal filed under Section 14-A of the S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), District Harda whereby the court below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The appellant is in custody since 09.08.2020 in connection with Crime No.03/2020 registered by Police Station AJK Harda, District-Harda for having committed offence under Sections 376, (2)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA)The Trial will take a long time to conclude.The appellant is permanent resident of the district and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.On these grounds prayer is made to enlarge the appellant on bail.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the appeal and prayed for it's rejection.Signature Not Verified SAN (5) The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 2020.11.27 14:52:20 IST 3 CRA-4981-2020 trial;(6) The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court;(7) The appellant shall inform the Investigating Officer/Court about his/her address and residence in case the applicant moves out from his/her permanent address for any point of time; and (8) The appellant shall not contact any of the other accused persons in this case in any manner whatsoever.This order shall remain effective till the end of the trial but in case of bail jump and breach of any of the pre-condition of bail, it shall become ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench.Certified copy as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE nd Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by NEETI TIWARI Date: 2020.11.27 14:52:20 IST
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,876,076 |
P.W.1 isthe grandfather and P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.3. P.W.3 wasworking as a maid servant at the residence of the appellanttemporarily.On 23.11.2000, the appellant proposed to go toHydrabad, where he was working as a Lift Operator.On therequest of the appellant, P.W.3 went to a nearby temple andthere, they have planned to go to Hyderabad.They haveproceeded to Kancheepuram and thereafter, reached Hyderabadby bus.The appellant and P.W.3 stayed at the residence ofhis friend.P.W.3 requested the friend of the appellant toperform her marriage with the appellant, for which, theappellant and his friend agreed.The appellant alleged to havepromised her that it is he who is going to marry her andtherefore, they can have such sex.Thereafter, theappellant compelled her, removed her dress and committed theoffence in spite of P.W.3 raising voice.(b) The victim has been examined as P.W.3 before thetrial Court.She has stated that she has completed 16years.She was working for six months at the residence ofthe appellant.For the past two years, both the appellantand P.W.3 were in love with each other.This was known tothe family members of the appellant.Under such circumstances, themarriage between the appellant with P.W.3 could not beperformed.On 23.11.2000, on the request of the appellant,P.W.3 met him near the temple and on invitation of theappellant, initially went to Kancheepuram and thereafter, toHyderabad on the next day.They have stayed at theresidence of the friend of the appellant.It is furtheralleged that P.W.3 requested the appellant as well as hisfriend to perform their marriage for which they have agreed.The appellant requested P.W.3 to have sex with him for whichP.W.3 refused.The appellant alleged to have persuadedP.W.3 by stating that it is he, who is going to marry herand compelled to have sex.Ex.P-11is the age certificate, wherein it is stated that P.W.3 isabove 16 and below 17, after radiological examination.(m) The appellant, after arrest, was sent for medicalexamination through Ex.Moreover, he has opinedthat the age of the appellant as 25 years.P-14 is thecertificate to this effect.The semen of the appellant wassent for examination and Exs.P-7 and P-8 are the reportsissued by the Forensic Science Laboratory.(n) P.W.13 is the witness for arrest of the appellant.and sent a copy of theFirst Information Report and other reports to the Inspectorof Police.On 02.12.2000, he has received M.Os.1 to 3 underForm-95 and sent the same for examination.(p) P.W.15 is the Inspector of Police, who conductedthe investigation.During the course of investigation, hearrested the appellant on 04.12.2000 and his statement wasrecorded.He has received the age certificate of the victimfrom the Headmaster.He visited Hyderabad and prepared anobservation mahazar, Ex.But, we cannot ignore the reprehensible conduct of the appellant, who by promising to marry the victim woman, persuaded her to have sexual relations and caused pregnancy.The act of the accused left behind her a trail of misery, ignominy and trauma.The only solace is that she married subsequently.It is reported that the petitioneris on bail.The bail bonds, if any, executed by theappellant shall stand cancelled.bs/jiToThe Addl.The appellant/accused was convicted for the offencespunishable U/s. 366 and 376 IPC.The appellantcontinued the said offence for the next one week.Thereafter, the appellant received a telephonic call fromthe native place stating that the relatives of P.W.3 arecoming to Hyderabad.On their arrival, P.W.3 was takenback and entrusted with the parents.In the meantime, afterknowing that P.W.3 is missing, P.W.1, grandfather of P.W.3,lodged a report with the police on 01.12.2000 stating thather granddaughter is missing.(a) The trial Court examined 15 witnesses andmarked 24 exhibits to substantiate the case of theprosecution.On the side of the defence, neither oral nordocumentary materials were produced.After removing her clothes, itis alleged that the appellant committed sex with her.This,they have continued for one week.It was informed by theappellant that the presence of P.W.3 at Hyderabad was knownto her parents and they are coming to Hyderabad to take herback.Accordingly, the relatives of P.W.3 took her back.By the time, a complaint has been given by P.W.1 with thepolice.On reaching Kancheepuram, P.W.3 was subjected tomedical examination.M.Os.1 to 3, the dress purchased forP.W.3 by the appellant, were sent for chemical analysis.(c) P.W.1, the grandfather of P.W.3, after coming toknow about the absence of P.W.3 at home, searched for herand ultimately, they came to know through the friend of theappellant that it is the appellant, who kidnapped P.W.3.Therefore, Ex.P-1, complaint, has been given to P.W.14, theSub Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station.P.W.1 made arrangements through his relatives to bring P.W.3back and accordingly, the she was brought back fromHyderabad.(e) P.W.4 is one of the Villager, who has seen theappellant in the company of P.W.3 at the bus stand andinformed the same to the family members of P.W.3.Thereafter, P.W.4 also accompanied P.W.1 for givingcomplaint to the police.(f) P.W.5 is also a neighbour in the village, whoalleged to have seen the appellant in the company of P.W.3at Kancheepuram bus stand.While corroborating theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, she has stated that when returningback from Hyderabad, P.W.3 stayed at her residence for twodays.She has studied up to 5th standardin that school.(j) P.W.9 is the Court Clerk, who, on the requisitionof the police, Ex.P-3, sent the clothes of P.W.3, M.Os.1 to3, for chemical analysis.On arrest, the appellant has given a statement and the samehas been reduced into writing.(o) P.W.14 is the Sub Inspector of Police, KancheepuramTaluk Police Station, who received the complaint, Ex.P-1,from P.W.1 on 01.12.2000 and registered a case in CrimeNo.1082 of 2000 for an offence punishable under Section 366IPC.P-16 is the First Information Report.During thecourse of investigation, he has altered the offence intoSections 366, 366-A and 376 IPC.On conclusion of the trial, the accused wasquestioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on theincriminating materials made available during the course ofthe trial.The appellant denied the complicity of thecommission of the offence and pleaded innocence.The learned trial Judge, relying on both the oraland documentary materials produced by the prosecution,convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.But theprosecution has made all attempts to substantiate that P.W.3is below 16 years.It is further stated that itis the customary practice that an approximate date at thetime of admission will be given and such date will beentered in the Registry.A birth certificate is notavailable in this regard.This has been corroborated byP.W.2, the mother of P.W.3, who confirmed that a birthcertificate was not given to the school at the time whenP.W.3 was admitted in the school.The date, which ismentioned in the birth certificate is only an approximatedate.Relying on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 8, it issubmitted that therefore, Ex.P-2, the age certificate of thevictim, is not a substantive proof of evidence and the samecannot be acted upon.On the contrary, the evidence ofP.Ws.1 to 3 are consistent and such oral testimony alonecould be taken into consideration.After reaching Hyderabad,while staying along with the appellant, though it is allegedthat the appellant compelled her for sex, the fact remainsthat such activities continued for the next one week.Neither at Hyderabad nor after reaching the native place,P.W.3 complained about such compulsion or harassment to therespondent police.Under such circumstances, it must bepresumed that P.W.3 is a willing partner for sex and theappellant cannot be alleged to have committed the offencepunishable under Section 376 IPC.The other witness, viz.,P.Ws.4 to 7, 11 and 13 are formal witnesses and thosewitnesses are not useful for the prosecution any more.Therefore, on the basis of the materials available, bothoral and documentary, both the offences under Sections 366and 376 IPC.Side) submits that the certificate issued by the Schoolmust be given preference than the ocular testimony of theevidence of prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence.This act of promise and compulsion will amount to anoffence punishable under Section 376 IPC.While relying onthe school certificate, P.W.3 must be construed as a minor,who is aged about 14 + years.Under such circumstances,even though there is a consent given by the victim girl, thesame cannot be construed as a consent in the eye of law andtherefore, as per the definition under Section 376 IPC.I have perused the materials available on recordand heard the submissions made.Such positive evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3and medical evidence cannot be brushed aside easily.However, positively stated that not only for P.W.3, it isthe practice for the school that such date of births areentered approximately.This evidence of P.W.8 has beenconfirmed by the mother of P.W.3, viz., P.W.2, who, in herevidence, has stated that such date of birth has been givenby approximate.Therefore, I am of the considered view thatthe ocular testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 corroborated by themedical officer could occupy a preferential position than aschool certificate issued on imaginary basis.When the ageof the victim has been concluded as 16, then as per Section376 IPC., the consent of the girl may be taken intoconsideration to substantiate an offence of rape.As per the evidence of P.W.3, she was in love withthe appellant and known each other for two years prior tothe date of occurrence.Moreover, both of them during thisperiod have decided to marry.However, it is only thefamily members of the appellant opposed for such suggestion.It is only on account of that resistance of the familymembers, it appears that P.W.3 decided to go along with theappellant.On perusal of her evidence, her voluntary act ofjoining with him to go to Hyderabad could be visible.Afterreaching Hyderabad, a discussion about the marriage has beendone with the appellant and his friend.They have promisedthat such a marriage will be performed.Under suchcircumstances, though it has been alleged that oncompulsion, the appellant had sex with her, her subsequentconduct in co-operating with him for the next one week wouldgo to show that even at the first incident, P.W.3 was awilling partner for such act.We are informed that the female child born out of the illicit relationship is now living with her married mother and she is about 14 years of old now.Though there is no evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant made a false or fraudulent promise to marry, there can be no denial of the fact that the appellant did commit breach of the promise to marry, for which the accused is prima facie accountable for damages under civil law."On perusal of the facts of the present case,though the case of the appellant is that he had never madeany promise to marry, it is the evidence of the prosecutrixthat she accompanied the appellant only believing thepromise made by the appellant to marry her.Such promisehas been betrayed by the appellant, for which, he is primafacie accountable for damages under Civil Law.When thisaspect was under discussion, the learned counsel for theappellant submits that the victim girl got married during2003 and settled with two children.The appellant also gotmarried.In the above circumstances, the counsel for theappellant, on instructions, made an offer of Rs.50,000/-.Since the victim is already settled in life, P.W.2, themother of the victim, was summoned before this Court todayand she has willingly received the said amount of Rs.50,000/-on behalf of the victim.The receipt of payment ofRs.50,000/- by the mother of the victim is recorded.In the result, the conviction and sentence passedby the trial Court as against the appellant is set aside andthe appeal is allowed.District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.II Kancheepuram Chingelpet District.The Inspector of Police Kanchi Taluk Police Station Kancheepuram District.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,610,193 |
Respondent no.1 instituted a complaint of defamation against the petitioners under Sections 500 and 501 read with Sections 34 and 120B of IPC in which, vide summoning order dated 24th July, 2013, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners.The petitioners have challenged the summoning order dated 24th July, 2013 on the ground that respondent no.1 is not the Crl.M.C.5245/2013 Page 1 of 25The petition was rejected by the High Court against which the accused filed the special leave petition.This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 14-5-2009 of the High Court of Delhi whereby the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by the petitioner herein has been dismissed.The appellant herein is an accused under Sections 415/420 IPC in which summons have been issued to him by a court at Delhi.He challenged the summoning order on the ground that it is only the court at Bombay which has jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint.His petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the summoning order Crl.M.C.5245/2013 Page 23 of 25 made out against them.This petition and the applications are disposed of on the above terms.M.C.5245/2013 Page 24 of 25Copy of this judgment be given dasti to counsel for the parties under signature of Court Master.Copy of this judgment be sent to all District and Sessions Judges.J.R. MIDHA, J JANUARY 16, 2014 aj Crl.M.C.5245/2013 Page 25 of 25M.C.5245/2013 Page 25 of 25
|
['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,761,097 |
JUDGMENT : (Per : KUM.By the said judgment and order, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147 read with 149, 148 read with 149, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced each of the accused as under :Conviction under Punishments Nos. sections147 r/w 149, IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/-::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 63] Prosecution case which emerges from chargesheet and connecting papers thereto may be stated in brief as under :(a) Accused nos.1 to 8 were residing in Rama Nagar, Kamptee.Accused no.9 was resident of Jaibhim Chowk, Kamptee.(b) Victim Chotu @ Akash Gopal Singh Yadao was resident of Yadao Nagar, Gavli Pura, Kamptee.He was aged about 24 years and dealing in business of Dairy Milk.Chotu had owned cattle and used to take the cattle to his::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 7 field for grazing through the road in Rama Nagar, Kamptee.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 7(c) It is the case of prosecution that many times, accused asked Chotu not to take cattle through the road in Rama Nagar, as the same was causing disturbance to them and their family members.Chotu did not pay heed to it and he continued taking his cattle through the road in Rama Nagar, Kamptee.(d) On 27.1.2011, Chotu had taken his cattle for grazing.He was asked by the accused not to take the cattle by the said road.At around 4-4.30 pm, Chotu was returning home from his field.Again accused scolded him saying that it was their area.Chotu did not listen and took his cattle to his house.He informed his brother Rohit about the same.(e) On the same day in the evening, Chotu at the time of milking the cattle, noticed that two buffaloes were less.He went by the said road in search of two buffaloes.He could find two buffaloes and while returning through the same road towards his house, at about 7-7.30 pm near statute of Ramabai, accused obstructed Chotu and uttered "Que Re Ek Bar Bolne Ke Bad Samazme Nahi Aya Kya".That time, accused Mohan, his sons and friends of his sons started assaulting Chotu by means of deadly weapons::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 8 in their hands.Chotu sustained multiple grievous injuries on his face, neck, hand and head.CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 8(f) On hearing shouts, people gathered there.Family members of victim were informed.They also rushed to the spot.Chotu was then shifted to hospital of Dr. Ratan Roy at Kamptee, who gave him some treatment and later declared Chotu as dead.Dr. Roy sent intimation to Police Station, Kamptee.In the meanwhile, Rohit informed about the incident to his cousin Abhishek, who in turn, lodged report with Police Station on the same day at 9.30 pm.PSI Mangesh Andhare (PW-17) was on duty.(g) PSI Andhare visited the hospital and recorded inquest panchanama on the dead body.The dead body was sent for postmortem.Dr. Subhash Titre (PW-14) was Medical Officer on duty.He performed postmortem and noticed the following external injuries on the dead body.Superficial abrasion over the forehead of size 5 cm.Doctor opined cause of death due to multiple deep stab incised injuries over the scalp, face with head injury with intra cerebral haemorrhage with severe haemorrhage with hypovolumic shock with cardio respiratory arrest.(h) On 27.1.2011, PI Suresh Bhoyar (PW-20) visited the spot of incident.As there was no sufficient light, spot panchanama could not be prepared on that day.Police officials were deputed on the spot to ensure that factual position of the place of occurrence is not altered.(i) On 28.1.2011, he prepared spot panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses.From the spot, simple earth, earth mixed with blood were seized.Accused Rajdeep Gedam was having injuries on his person.He was sent for medical examination.(j) On 28.1.2011, P.C. Imran, who had taken the dead body for postmortem, brought the clothes of deceased and produced before the Investigating Officer.Those clothes were seized under a seizure panchanama drawn in presence of panch witnesses.CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 12(k) On 30.1.2011, other accused, except accused no.10 Sandip @ Bunty, who was absconding, were arrested.Their clothes were seized and separate seizure panchanamas were accordingly recorded.The blood samples of the accused were collected.presence of panch witnesses to discover a sword concealed in his house and showed his readiness to produce the same.At the instance of accused no.4, sword was recovered from his house which was kept beneath diwan (cot) in his house.Discovery panchanama of sword was drawn before panch witnesses.(m) On the same day, accused no.5 Sudhir gave a statement to discover Farsa concealed near the temple of his house.His memorandum was drawn and Farsa concealed in the temple premises on the back side of his house was recovered in pursuance to information given by accused Sudhir.Recovery panchanama of Farsa was recorded.CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 13(o) On 4.2.2011, accused no.7 Siddharth had shown his readiness to produce a sword concealed in his house.His memorandum was drawn and sword was recovered at his instance under a discovery panchanama.4. 4 r/w 25 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 Indian Arms Act. years and fine of Rs.1000/- in-default Simple Imprisonment for 6 months.Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that all the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.2] For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellants in their original status as accused nos.1 to 10 as they were referred before the trial court.After assault, accused fled away from the spot along with the weapons.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::Deep stab incised wound/injury over occipital region of size 11 cm.x 1.5 cm.x 1.5 cm.deep, injury with sharp margin, extent to fronto temporal region to occipital region of::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 9 scalp with fracture of same size and same site vertically placed.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 9Deep stab incised injury over left side temporal region of scalp of size 3 cm.x 1 cm.with sharp margin obliquely placed.Deep stab incised wound present over left parietal region of scalp of size 4 cm.x 2 cm.(sharp margins) obliquely placed.Deep stab incised injury over left side of right and left occipital parietal region of scalp of size 7 cm.x 2 cm.each with sharp margin, with fracture at same site of size 2 cm.x 2 cm.each, bilaterally and obliquely placed.Stab incised wound over forehead, right side of size each 3 cm.x 2 cm.x 0.5 cm.with sharp margin horizontally placed.Deep stab incised wound over both side of eyebrow, horizontally placed with sharp margin of size 11 cm.x 1 cm.x 1.5 cm.Deep stab incised wound over nose horizontally placed with sharp margin of size 10 cm.x 2 cm.x 2 cm.Deep stab incised wound over the upper lip horizontally placed, sharp margin of size 10 cm.x 1.5 cm.x 1.5 cm.Deep lacerated wound over right and left index finger and middle finger of size 2 cm.x 1::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 10 cm.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 10Deep stab incised wound present anterior aspect of mandible (chin), obliquely placed, sharp margin of size 14 cm.x 2 cm.Deep stab incised wound over right chick obliquely placed with sharp margin of size 5 cm.x 3 cm.x 1.5 cm.Superficial multiple contusion over back.Buttock right forearm back, right shoulder, right shoulder joint and left knee joint.The Medical Officer also found the following internal injuries :Under scalp haemorrhage (haematoma) present over occipital region of scalp of size 10 cm x 5 cm.Multiple fracture base and vault of skull i.e. Right temporal region of size 2 x 1 cm.left temporal 2 cm.x 2 cm.occipital region of size 3 cm.x 1 cm.vertically placed.Intra cerebral haemorrhage and brain tissue congested.(i) Right pleura ruptured with oozing of blood and left pleura congested.(ii) Right lung found ruptured and with multiple deep laceration of upper lobe with oozing of blood with haematoma of size 4 cm.x 4 cm.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 11All the injuries were ante mortem.Statements of::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 12 several other witnesses were recorded.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::(n) On 3.2.2011 itself, accused no.6 Bhagwan gave a memorandum statement to discover a::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 13 sword concealed in the office of his father.Memorandum statement was recorded.Accused no.6 Bhagwan discovered a sword as per his memorandum statement and discovery panchanama of the same was drawn.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::(p) On that day, accused no.9 Swapnil also gave a statement to discover a stick concealed by him.Statement of accused no.9 Swapnil was recorded and at his instance, stick found hanging in the corner of third room of his house was recovered.(q) The seized weapons were referred to Medical Officer for examination and reports of examination of weapons were collected by the Investigating Officer.Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.On completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamptee, who in his own turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Their defence was of total denial and false implication.According to the accused, false and frivolous report came to be lodged against them due to previous enmity.Accused nos.4 and 5 also raised the defence of right of private defence and submitted that deceased used to take cattle through Ramabai Nagar road which was not a public road.Since it was causing disturbance to them, they and their family members used to ask the deceased not to take cattle through the said road.It is their defence that deceased was an aggressor as he was taking the cattle from the road from which he was not entitled and thereby himself invited the occurrence of incident.It is contended that deceased was responsible for the occurrence and not the accused.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 145] In support of its case, prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses.Accused nos.6 and 7 examined DW-1 Prabhakar Sirsat in support of their defence that location of spot was such which would make it clear that for all the eyewitnesses it was not possible to see the spot of incident and all eyewitnesses are the got up witnesses.Accused::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 15 no.3 Sandip Gedam examined himself to substantiate his plea of alibi which he raised as his defence and denied the presence at the time of incident.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 156] Considering the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused nos.1 to 9, as stated in paragraph 1 above.7] Accused No.10-Sandip @ Bunty s/o Ashok Dhamgaye was absconding.It appears that trial against him was separated.Trial Court directed to file supplementary chargesheet against absconding accused Sandip whenever he traced out.As directed, charge-sheet was filed against him and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Sessions Case No.484/2013 was registered against absconding accused.Charge came to be framed against him.His defence was of total::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 16 denial and false implication.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 168] To substantiate the guilt of accused Sandip, prosecution examined 12 witnesses.Accused did not examine himself or other witness in support of his defence.On going through the evidence of prosecution witnesses, trial court convicted and sentenced accused no.10, as stated herein-above.Being aggrieved thereof, appellants have preferred these appeals.9] We have heard at length the learned counsel for appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.10] At the threshold, we propose to consider the appeals in view of a crucial question raised regarding non- compliance of the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In this connection, submission of appellants is that in a joint trial, Sessions Court did not examine each accused separately and individually and a joint common questionnaire containing eighty questions for all the accused, without bothering to refer even name, age, occupation and address of each accused was prepared.It is::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 17 submitted that role attributed to each of the accused is individual, ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution indicates separate role to each of the accused and in such a situation, failure to follow the mandatory provisions of law which contemplates that accused must have ample opportunities of explaining circumstances occurring against him would vitiate the trial and accused would be entitled to acquittal.It is pointed out that a bare look at the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would show total non-application of mind in a serious case of murder and various questions, though not relevant, were asked to the accused thereby creating unnecessary confusion and causing great prejudice to them.11] On applicability and scope of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel for accused nos.4 and 5 placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Arvind Dayaram Choure and another .vs.The State of Maharashtra [2016 ALL MR (Cri) 1824].::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::He submits that joint common questionnaire was prepared but all questions were not put to all the accused and only relevant questions were asked to each of the accused by leaving blank the answers to the questions not put to a particular accused.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is for the accused to show that prejudice has been caused and since accused could not show any prejudice caused to them, it would not amount to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the trial would not get vitiated.Alternatively, the submission is that for not recording individual statement of the accused proper course available would be to remand the case to the trial court for re-decision from the stage of recording of statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In support of argument, learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed vehement reliance on the decisions of the Honble Apex Court in .-::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 19::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 18::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::The power to examine the accused is provided in Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus :Power to examine the accused.- (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court -(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;(b) shall after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence question him generally on the case;Provided that in a summons-case where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::Whenever a plea of omission to put a question to the accused on vital piece of evidence is raised in the appellate court, courses available to the appellate court can be briefly summarised as under :::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::15] In the case on hand, Sessions Trial was against ten accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 2317] So far as case against absconding accused Bunty is concerned, we have gone through statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. It can be seen from the statement at Exh.34 that instead of specifically putting the incriminating circumstances, the Trial Court has reproduced the evidence of witnesses in verbatim thereby creating unnecessary confusion.Such errors fall within the category of curable irregularities and question, whether trial is vitiated in each case, depends upon the degree of error and whether prejudice has been or is likely to have been caused to the accused.The ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused has been fairly examined under this Section is to see whether, having regard to the questions put to him, he did not get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of the prosecution case against him.Where the non-compliance with Section 313 holds the trial to be vitiated, ordinarily the proper course is to order a retrial from the stage at which the provisions of this section were not complied with.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::The trial court should have been more careful in framing the questions considering the incriminating circumstances brought on record against each of the accused.Since the Trial court has failed in it's imperative duty, we find it fit to direct the retrial from the stage of recording statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and proceed to pass the following order :::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 25(i) Conviction of appellants under Sections 147 r/w 149, 148 r/w 149 and 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 r/w 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced imposed on them is set aside.(ii) Matters are remanded back to the trial Court for proceeding afresh from the stage of recording statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(iii) The Trial court shall examine each of the accused afresh under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the above observations and in accordance::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 ::: CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 26 with the law.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::CRI.A. 439.13 + 5.odt 26(iv) The Trial court is directed to put specific, distinct and separate questions with regard to incriminating circumstance appearing against each of the accused.Hence, Trial court to expedite the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with the law preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.(vi) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matters.(vii) Criminal Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:03:05 :::
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,761,257 |
The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the trial;Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 28/5/2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Spl.As per prosecution case, on 24/4/2019 at about 10 p.m., when complainant Bhaiyaji Mehra was sitting at Sillu Patel's grocery shop situated at Dulha Dev Dada Maharaj Chauraha, appellant came there and abused him and also assaulted him by stick due to which he sustained injury.During investigation, on 13/5/2019 police arrested the appellant.Being aggrieved by Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 08/07/2019 10:57:26 2 CRA-4744-2019 the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
|
187,612,969 |
All the parties have now reconciled their differences and disputes.A copy of said compromise has also been annexed to this petition.In terms of said compromise, daughter Mariam shall remain with her mother i.e. Nida Naaz, respondent No.2/complainant.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been moved by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.65/2012 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Protection Act registered at Police Station Welcome Colony, Delhi, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Counsel for the State as well as counsel for second respondent Nida Naaz, who is complainant, accept notice.It is the case of the parties that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered by the complainant Nida Naaz, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to this petition with regard to certain marital Crl.M.C.3777/2014 Page 1 of 7 disputes and differences.The petition stands disposed off accordingly.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,615,436 |
2 The material averments made in this petition are as follows:-(a)The Petitioner/A-5 worked as a Manager of the 3rd accused M/s.Kothari Constructions Ltd., Chennai.The Respondent submitted a Charge Sheet in C.C.No.9 of 2006 as against Accused Nos. 1 to 16 for the offences u/s 120B r/w 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC r/w 13(2) and 13 (i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the allegation leveled against the Petitioner/A-5 is that A-1, who was the Regional Chief of HUDCO, Chennai, in criminal conspiracy with other Accused, sanctioned loan in excess of the eligibility as against the procedures knowing fully well that the documents processed are all based on forged documents, inflated valuation report, falsified and inflated sale agreements and invoices.The Specific allegations leveled against the Petitioner/A-5 is that the Petitioner being the Manager of the 3rd Accused Company signed some of the Sale Agreements forging the signature of A-4 who was the Managing Director of A-3, on which loan has been sanctioned by A-1 in the name of the Purchasers of house sites from the A-3 Company and thereby the defacto Complainant sustained a wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.21,07,546.70 p. and corresponding wrongful gain to the Accused persons excepting the Petitioner.(b) It is further stated that the Petitioner was not working as the Manager of A-3 company and he never held any Executive Post and is no way connected with the 3rd accused company.It is further alleged that the prosectuion has not submitted any documents to establish the fact that the petitioner was employed as Manager of the 3rd accused company.The prosecution has not produced any documents to prove the same along with final report.The allegation of the prosecution that the Petitioner/A-5 forged the signature of A-4 Managing Director of A-3 in some of the sale agreements entered into between A-3 company and the purchasers is not true and the prosecution did not produce any material to substantiate the same.It is further alleged that the signatures alleged to have been forged by the petitioner/A-5 was sent along with the specimen writing and the signature of A-5 marked as S.12 to S.15 and S.112 to S.114 to the Forensic Laboratory, requesting them to submit a report about the genuineness of the signature and the writing in the said documents.The petitioner states that the Central Forensic Laboratory, Chennai, has not sent any report in respect of specimen signature given markings as S.12 to S.15 and S.112 to S.114, even though report relating to other document has been forwarded by the Central Forensic Laboratory, Chennai.The petitioner further contends that the oral evidence of L.W.19 and 20 is not corroborated by any other documentary evidence.The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the trial is in part-heard stage and already number of witnesses have been examined and in such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to come forward with this petition seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the trial court.The learned Special Public Prosecutor also pointed out that already this petitioner along with co-accused filed Crl.O.P.No.7378 of 2009 before this court seeking similar relief and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn, by order dated 29.10.2011 with a direction to the trial court to complete the trial within six weeks from the date of receipt of the said order copy.Inspite of such direction, the trial is still not completed and the petitioner has now come forward with this petition at this belated stage only with an intention to drag on the proceedings.Hence, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI sought for dismissal of the petition.Admittedly, this petitioner/A-5 along with co-accused earlier filed Crl.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.O.P.No.26882 of 2016
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,618,948 |
And Re: Sukumar Bhunia, ... Petitioner Mr. Prabir Kumar Mitra, Ms. Subhanwita Ghosh, ... for the petitioner Mr. S. G. Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.The petitioner complains of repeated charges of defalcation or the like being brought against the petitioner out of political vendetta.The State completely dismisses the suggestion and refers to the Case Diary.The State points out the statements of some of the co-accused who apparently implicate the petitioner herein.The matter pertains to perceived defalcation of funds from a cooperative society.The principal allegation is that the petitioner 1 2 and the petitioner's wife had obtained a loan of Rs.12,60,000/- which was beyond the permissible limit.Considering the materials on record, if the petitioner participates in the investigation and cooperates therein, there does not appear to be any reason for him to be detained 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.) 2
|
['Section 34 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', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,622,427 |
learned counsel for the complainant-Brikhbhan.On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, as the applicant is in custody since 11/5/2015 in connection of Crime No.239/15, registered at Police Station Karera, district Shivpuri (M.P.), for offence under sections 326, 323, 324, 294 and 506 (Part-II)/34 of I.P.C.the date of his arrest till today, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the petition is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the applicant shall be released on bail with direction to appear on each and every date of the trial.His single non-appearance shall cancel his bail automatically without any further order of this court.as per rules.(U.C.Maheshwari) Vacation Judge (Bu)
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,630,166 |
ad Bereft of the unnecessary details the facts which are requisite for Pr disposal of this petition are that, Police Station Amlai lodged the FIR in Crime No. 250/2014 for the offence under Section 304-A read with a hy Section 34 of IPC and subsequently after investigation filed charge- sheet before JMFC Budhar for the offence under Section 304-A read ad with Section 34 of IPC against the accused persons/petitioners Akkala M Surendra Babu, General Manager (Operation), Prahlad Prasad Gupta, Chief General Manager (Mining), Amit Kumar Banerji Dy.General of Manager (Excavation), Anurag Shekhar Dubey, Senior Manager rt (Mining), Gitendra Deep, Senior Manager (Excavation) and Anil ou Kumar Singh Manager (Excavation) along with other accused persons which includes D.P. Tiwari, A.K. Mital, Upendra Kumar etc. C As per the prosecution story, the mining activities of Amlai h Open Cast Mines has been stopped in the year 2011 due to non- ig availability of Coal.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and to quash the FIR at sh Crime No. 250/2014 registered at Police Station Amlai and subsequent e Criminal Case No. 756/2015 pending before JMFC Budhar (Shahdol).On 21.06.2014 at about 05:00 pm.when H sand/muram was being filled in open area left after excavation of coal one Haulpak/ Dumper fell down into the water logged Old Amlai Open Cast Quarry because of the sliding of an embankment.The Driver came out of the cabin and saved his life however, the Dumber rolled down into the water.On 23.06.2014 the manager Dhanupuri OCM in his presence tried to take out the Dumper, while doing so all the four wheels were broken and came out.On 01.07.2014 knowing well that it will be a risk for the lives of the workers Manager Dhanpuri, OCM, Akkala Surendra Babu, Sub-Area Manager, Dhanpuri OCM, C.P. Gupta, Mines Manager, A.K. Banarjee, Chief Manager, Excavation, Anurag Shekhar Dubey, Senior Manager Mining (Safety Officer), Jitendra Dubey, Senior Manager, (Excavation) and Anil Kumar Singh, Manager (Excavation) with common intention planed to do the work and trusted contractor Saboor Khan to make the ceiling.After preparing the ceiling while taking out the Haulpak/Dumper, machine was pulled out, knowing very well that ground is filled with water and the embankment may slide, which may cause accident, the work was conducted.A large portion of earth gave in, due to which, Khajanti Gupta and sh Ramashankar Vishwakarma fell down into water and died.Due to the e accident Nanhku Ram and Khem Raj had also fallen into the water ad logged mines but somehow they came out.Rescue operation Pr conducted to recover Khajanti Gupta and Ramashanker, but their dead bodies could not be recovered.When the rescue operation was stopped the hy statement of witnesses were recorded.It was found that Nanku Ram ad Diver was working under the water, Operator Ramdular and M Jatashanker were trying to pull out the Dumber with the help of Dozer Machine.After investigation charge-sheet has been filed.D.P. Tiwari of was working as General Manager Sohagpur area, A.K. Mital was General Manager Sohagpur area and Upendra Kumar was working as rt Sub-Area Manager.Their application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was ou registered as M.Cr.The same was allowed on C 04.07.2016 by this Court.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,631,082 |
Appellant has been convicted under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- & under Section 323/34 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced to RI for three months with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* Digitally signed by SANJAY N.DURGEKAR Date: 2018.05.09 18:50:48 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,062,357 |
L.P.295 of 2016 Page 1 of 10The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Trial Court, is that the victim was about 16 years of age and was a student of 10th class at the time of the incident.On 11.05.2011, she received an SMS and calls from an unknown person (later on disclosed as respondent No.2- Krishan Kumar, aged 21 years).She did not tell her family member about him and stayed in touch with him through her father's, mother's, sister's and even friend's mobile phones.On 22.08.2011, the prosecutrix decided to meet the accused at around 12:30 PM, she went to Mahavir Park to meet him, where she found a small white colour small car parked.The accused pulled her inside the car, apart from one driver called Amit bhaiya was also present in the car.The accused did not stop the car even when the prosecutrix requested him, thereafter he drove the car to a guest house near the airport, then the accused locked her inside the car and went inside the guest house with the driver.After a short while, they came out and took the prosecutrix inside the guest house, where he forcefully raped her, thereafter, the prosecutrix followed him to the car and sat beside him.After the incident, the accused remained in contact over telephone with the prosecutrix and continued to threaten her.The accused was arrested on 21.03.2012 from Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.He was medically examined, his blood samples, semen samples were Crl.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 2 of 10 obtained and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed in the Court.Certain call details and guest house entry register were taken into possession by the police and the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 2 of 10The present leave to appeal has been filed by the Prosecutrix under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.PC') against the judgment dated 30.01.2016 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in SC No.75/12 titled State v. Krishan Kumar under Sections 363/376/506 Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), 1860, whereby the accused Krishan Kumar was acquitted of the charges framed against him.On 07.08.2012, charges for the offence under Sections 366/376/506 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty.To bring home the guilt of the accused herein, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC where he pleaded false implication.We have heard learned APP for the State and have carefully examined the judgment of the Trial Court.In this case, on consideration of the evidence, the material placed on record, and after considering the arguments advanced, we have found that the following circumstances were relied upon by the Trial Court to acquit the accused:-(a) There was a delay of 7 months in lodging the FIR after the alleged incident took place on 22.08.2011, as the prosecutrix had not told her parents about the incident earlier.(b) As per the statement made under Section 164 Cr. PC and the MLC (Ex. PW-13/A) of the prosecutrix, after she had apprised her mother about the incident, her mother had given the prosecutrix I-pill on the same day.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 3 of 10(c) The parents of the prosecutrix have not given any explanation regarding the delay in the lodging of the FIR.(e) The prosecutrix was continuously in touch with respondent No.2, prior to the date of the alleged incident through mobile phones of her mother, father and sister.(f) On the day of incident, the prosecutrix had made a telephonic call to respondent No.2 at 4:00 am in the morning, whereby they decided to meet at a particular place.When she did not see the accused at the decided place, she went to her friend's house and again made a telephonic call through her friend's mobile phone and again decided to meet at Mahavir Park.(g) The prosecutrix did not do anything to escape from the car when the respondent No.2 and the driver went inside the guest house nor did she apprise anyone that the respondent No.2 had forcefully brought her there.(h) The testimony of PW-12, i.e., the Front Office Manager of the guest house shows that no female had accompanied respondent No.2 on the date of the incident.We have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner Crl.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 20.3.2012, an FIR was lodged for the offence committed on 22.8.2011 by respondent No.2, who committed the unlawful act after putting the prosecutrix under threat.The prosecutrix was just 16 years of age and was studying in 10th class at that time.The family of the prosecutrix is from a lower middle class and because of the social stigma of being shamed in the society and being parents of three girl children, they were scared to report the said incident, with time they had gained courage to report the incident.One of the another reason stated for reluctancy of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police station and to make a complaint about the incident, was because they were concerned about the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of the entire family.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, even otherwise respondent No.2 had threatened of dire consequences in case the prosecutrix reports or discloses the offence.Mr. Katyal further stated that, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that there was consent of the prosecutrix to have sex with respondent No.2, even then the same cannot be treated as voluntarily, as such consent cannot Crl.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 5 of 10 condone the offence.Reliance in this regard is placed on Emperor v. Mussammat Soma, reported as (1917) Crl.LJR 18(18).Hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment dated 30.01.2016 of the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 4 of 10L.P.295 of 2016 Page 5 of 107. Learned APP for the State supports the case of the petitioner.However, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposes the leave to appeal.While relying on the judgment of the learned Trial Court, it is submitted that leave to appeal may be dismissed.We have gone through the evidence on record as well as documents placed on record.It is not in dispute that the prosecutrix was aged about 16 years of age and was studying in 10th Class at the time of incident.The prosecutrix was first called on 11.5.2011 by an unknown person (later disclosed as respondent No2-Krishan Kumar).However, the FIR was registered under Sections 363/376/506 IPC on 20.3.2012, i.e., after a lapse of almost 7 months.In the cross-examination, dated 30.5.2013, it has been stated by the prosecutrix that, on 22.8.2011, when she reached her house, her father was not present.However, he came after ten minutes of her arrival and she told all these facts to her father, who neither made a call to the police nor went to the police station.She also stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr. PC that she told her mother about the incident, who gave her an I-pill.The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.PC and the evidence in Court Crl.The learned Trial Court has taken this factor of delay into consideration and given a thoughtful deliberation and rejected the contention of the prosecutrix, explaining the delay.We have also gone through the evidence as well as the statement of the prosecutrix, there is nothing on record which may justify the same.Neither the father of the prosecutrix (PW-2) nor her mother (PW-3) uttered even a single word as to why they did not lodge the FIR promptly.The explanation given by the IO(PW-16) does not, in any way, appeal to our minds.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 6 of 10On the day of the incident, the prosecutrix herself made a telephonic call to the accused at 4:00 am in the morning and decided to meet him at a particular place.When she did not see the accused at the decided place, instead of going back to her own house, she went to her friend's house and again made a telephonic call, a conversation took place between the prosecutrix and the accused and then she decided to meet him at Mahavir Park.This proves that the prosecutrix herself was eager to see the accused, she never told her parents or family members that she was in touch with the accused, rather she used to delete the number as well as the SMS sent to the accused.She did not even try to escape from the car nor raised any alarm, when the accused and driver went inside the guest house for quite some time or to bring into someone's notice that the accused had forcefully brought her there.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 7 of 10The facts of the case, including the conduct and testimonies of the prosecutrix and her parents, do not inspire confidence.In a case of delay in lodging the FIR, there are chances of embellishment, coloured version, and/or false implication.Hence, we do agree with Crl.L.P.295 of 2016 Page 8 of 10"10.....the High Court did not follow the well established principle of law that in appeal against the conviction, the appellate court has the duty to appreciate the evidence on record and benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to the accused which has not been done by it."L.P.295 of 2016 Page 9 of 10Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere in the judgment of the Trial Court.The personal bonds and the sureties under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. are discharged.The leave to appeal is dismissed.All the pending applications are also dismissed.CHANDER SHEKHAR, J G.S.SISTANI, J AUGUST 21, 2017 /tp Crl.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,760,662 |
P.W.5 is the son of thesecond deceased Nagu.P.W.1 was running a Tea Stall and abutting that shop, thesecond deceased Nagu was running a petti shop.Three months prior to theoccurrence, one Bhaskaran, the son of P.W.1 was murdered by the first accusedand a loadman, by name Pandi.A case came to be registered against the firstaccused and the said Pandi, who were convicted.The first deceasedNavaneethakannan was the eyewitness in that case.Prior to the occurrence, oneMuruganandam, the son of the fifth accused and the brother of the 13th accused,was murdered.A-5 and A-13 entertained an impression that the firstdeceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 were responsible for the murder of Muruganandamand they were looking for an opportunity.b)On the date of occurrence, namely on 13.12.1985 at about 8.45 a.m., whenP.W.1 was in his tea stall along with the first deceased and P.W.4, the accusedarmed with knife and aruval came there.Immediately, A-4 and A-7 caught thetuft of the first deceased. A-1, A-2 and A-3 and one Rajaguru stabbed the firstdeceased repeatedly on his abdomen and neck.The second deceased Nagu, who wasin his petti shop and witnessed the occurrence, immediately intervened.A-1, A-2and A-3 and one Rajaguru also stabbed him.Adumbrating that P.W.2 must bemurdered, they were proceeding towards the plastic shop.c)The first deceased was taken to the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital,where the Doctor, who medically examined him, pronounced him dead.P.W.1 wasproceeding to the Thallakulam Police Station, where P.W.19, the Sub Inspector ofPolice, was on duty at about 9.35 a.m. and gave Ex.Inturn, P.W.19 registered a case in Crime No.2357 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148,341, 307 and 302 IPC.P.20, the printed F.I.R. was despatched to the court.d)P.W.20, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R.,took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in thepresence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.22, the rough sketch.He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earthunder a cover of mahazar.Then, he proceeded to the Madurai Rajaji GovernmentHospital and examined the second deceased and recorded his statement.Heconducted inquest on the dead body of the first deceased in the presence of thewitnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.24, the inquest report.Then, hesent the dead body of the first deceased for the purpose of post-mortem.e)P.W.20 examined P.W.2 and recorded his statement.He also recovered thebloodstained cloths from him under a cover of mahazar.He also examined theother witnesses and recorded their statements.He received an intimation fromthe hospital that the second deceased, who was under treatment, died.Then, heconducted inquest on the dead body of the second deceased in the presence of thewitnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.25, the inquest report.The deadbody of the second deceased was sent for the purpose of post-mortem.f)P.W.10, the Doctor attached to the Madurai Medical College, on receiptof the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the firstdeceased.He has noted the injuries found on the dead body of the firstdeceased in Ex.P.10, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that thefirst deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to theinjuries sustained.g)P.W.11, the Doctor attached to the Madurai Medical College, on receiptof the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the seconddeceased and he has noted the injuries found on him in Ex.P.12, the post-mortemcertificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have diedof shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.h)Pending investigation, P.W.20 arrested the first accused on 21.12.1985in the presence of the witnesses.He voluntarily came forward to give aconfessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, theadmissible part of which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, heproduced M.O.13, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.P.W.20also arrested A-7 in the presence of the witnesses.He voluntarily came forwardto give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of thewitnesses.Pursuant to his confessional statement, A-7 produced M.O.14, knife,which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.P.W.20 also arrested A-5 in thepresence of the witnesses and seized M.O.15, knife under a cover of mahazar.A-6was also arrested in the presence of the witnesses and M.O.16, knife was alsorecovered under a cover of mahazar.The accused were sent for judicial remand.i)P.W.20 also arrested A-8 on 26.12.1985 in the presence of the witnessesand recovered M.O.17, knife under a cover of mahazar. A-8 was also sent forjudicial remand.If to be so, an identification parade should have been conducted butnot done so.At the time of chief examination, he would say that he knew all theaccused.Had he been knew all the accused, there was no impediment to mentionthem in Ex.Further, PW.1 has identified A.12 as the father of oneMuruganantham, while he was actually A.5, according to the prosecution case.!For Appellants ... Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Amicus curiae in C.A.Nos.673 & 715 of 1999 Mr.V.Gopinath, SC, for MR.P.Andiraj in C.A.No.722 of 1999 Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, Amicus Curiae in C.A.No.787 of 1999^For Respondent ... Mr.V.Kasinathan, APP:COMMON JUDGMENT(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This judgment shall govern all these four criminal appeals.C.A.No.673 of1999 is filed by the second accused, C.A.No.715 of 1999 is filed by the thirdaccused, C.A.No.722 of 1999 is brought forth by the 6th accused and C.A.No.787of 1999 is preferred by the fourth respondent.These appellants along with 9others stood charged as follows:ACCUSEDCHARGESA-1 to A-13S.120-B IPCA-4 and A-9 to A-13S.147 IPCA-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-8S.148 IPCA-1 to A-3S.302 IPCA-4 to A-13S.302 r/w S.149 IPCA-3S.302 IPCA-1,A-2 and A-4 to A-13S.302 r/w S.149 IP`CA-5S.307 IPCA-1 to A-4 and A-6 to A-13S.307 r/w S.149 IPCA-2S.307 r/w S.109 IPCA-4 to A-6S.302 r/w S.109 IPCOn trial, A-1 to A-3 were found guilty under Section 148 IPC and they weresentenced to undergo two years R.I. each. A-4 and A-6 were found guilty underSection 147 IPC and they were sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. each. A-1 to A-4and A-6 were convicted under Section 302 r/w S.149 IPC and they were sentencedto undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default toundergo three months R.I. A-3 was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and he wassentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, indefault to undergo 3 months R.I. The appellants were acquitted of all othercharges and the accused Nos.5, 7 to 13 were acquitted of all the chargeslevelled against them.The first accused, who was found guilty by the lowercourt, died before filing an appeal.Hence, these appeals have been broughtforth by the appellants herein.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can bestated thus:The accused Jeyaraj was also arrested on 8.1.1986 and he wasalso sent for judicial remand.The further investigation was taken by P.W.21,the Inspector of Police.All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the dead bodies of the deceased and the M.Os recovered from theaccused were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department,which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P.18, the Chemical Analyst's report andEx.P.19, the Serologist's report.On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 21witnesses and relied on 40 exhibits and 21 M.Os.On completion of the evidenceon the side of the prosecution, all the accused were questioned under Section313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness wasexamined.Hence,these four appeals have arisen at the instance of A-2 to A-4 and A-6 before thiscourt.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, Mr.V.Gopinath, learnedSenior Counsel, made the following submissions:-According to the prosecution, theoccurrence has taken place on 13.12.1985 at about 8.45 a.m. In order tosubstantiate the murder of Navaneetha Kannan (D1) and also Nagu (D2), theprosecution rested its case on the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 as the occurrencewitnesses.Except PW.1, other witnesses have not supported the prosecution caseand to no extent, their evidence was available for the prosecution.(ii) The evidence of PW.1 remains uncorroborated and solitary evidence.According to PW.1,from the place of occurrence, he proceeded to Thallakulam Police Station, wherePW.19, the Sub-Inspector of Police, was on duty, to whom he gave Ex.P.1, thereport and the same was reduced into writing, in which he also signed.Contrarily, PW.19, when examined in the Court, has completely given up Ex.P.1.He has categorically deposed that Ex.P.1 was not recorded and signed by me andthus, he has given a go-bye to Ex.(iii) It is a matter of surprise that the lower Court has completelyeschewed Ex.P.1 report, but it has relied on Ex.P.20, the printed F.I.R.According to PW.1, when Ex.P.1 was shown to him, he was certain that thesignature found therein was put by him and that was the report given by him.Theevidence of PW.1 was found to be thoroughly infirm on all aspects.(v) Ex.P.1 report contains only six named persons and two others.The sixnamed persons are A-1 to A-5, A-13 and two others.Thus, it does not makemention of the names of the other accused persons.As per Ex.P.1 report, A.4caught hold of the tuft of the first deceased.When it came before the Court,it was developed as if the two accused persons viz., A.4 and another caught holdof the first deceased.As per Ex.P.1 report, A.2 cut him with aruval on theneck, A.1 cut with aruval on the left hand and leg of the first deceased.A.3and A.13 have also attacked him.But when it came before the Court, the evidenceis thoroughly contra.Insofar as D.2 was concerned, according to F.I.R., it wasA.3 who cut him.But when it came before the Court, PW.1 would depose as ifA.1, A.2, A.3 and one Rajaguru have attacked the 2nd deceased.(vi) Further, insofar as A.6 was concerned, his name was not mentioned inthe F.I.R. and no overt-act is also attributed to him.Further, PW.1 hascategorically deposed at one stage that he knew the accused.If to be so, therecould be no impediment to mention the names of all the accused, but he has notstated in Ex.At the time of cross-examination, he would say that A.5 andA.6 were previously unknown to him.If to be so, an identification paradeshould have been conducted, but not done so.Thus, it would be quite clear thatthe evidence given before the Court was nothing, but a subsequent development.(vii) According to the prosecution, Muruganantham was the son of A-5. WhenP.W.1 was questioned before the court, he identified A.12 as the father ofMuruganantham.Further, P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that he has mentionedall the names of the accused persons in the F.I.R., but except 6 names of theaccused persons, no other names were mentioned therein.He has further statedthat when he went to the respondent police station to give complaint, A.4, A.6and the deceased accused Ansari were kept in custody.Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.5.Advancing his argument, Mr. V.Kathirvelu, learned counsel, who has beenappointed as Amicus Curiae for A.2 and A.3, would submit that in the instantcase, the Judicial Magistrate PW.16 has recorded Dying Declaration of PW.2,which was marked as Ex.P.14 and also the Dying Declaration of the seconddeceased Nagu, which was marked as Ex.Insofar as the Dying DeclarationEx.P.14 was concerned, P.W.2 is alive and hence this document could not be giveneffect as one of Dying Declaration, but it could be taken as a statement made byPW.2, wherein he has clearly stated that 10 unknown persons have participatedin the occurrence.Insofar as the second deceased was concerned, he has statedin Ex.P.15 that all the persons, who have attacked him, were not known to him.Thus, these two dying declarations, namely Exs.P.14 and P.15, would indicatethat all the persons, who have participated in the occurrence, were not at allknown.6.The learned counsel would further add that in Ex.P.1, it was stated thatA.1 and A.2 were armed with aruval.But, in the evidence given by PW.1 beforethe Court, it was stated that A.1, A.2 and A.3 were armed with knives.Further,there is no mentioning about the injuries sustained by PW.2 in Ex.P.1 at all.A.Muthupandian, learned counsel, who has been appointed as AmicusCuriae for A.4, would submit that the name of A.4 is not mentioned in the F.I.R.and he was shown as the brother of A.1; that the Investigator has notinvestigated as to how many brothers A.1 had.Therefore, merely because it wasmentioned as the brother A.1, it cannot be stated that A.4 was the person whowas involved in the offence.Under these circumstances, A-4 should have beenacquitted and the judgment of the lower court has got to be set aside.8.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsoscrutinized the materials available.9.It is not a fact in controversy that in an incident that took place on13.12.1985 at about 8.45 a.m., at the place of occurrence, two persons oneNavaneetha Kannan and the other Nagu were done to death.Following the inquestmade by the Investigator, both the dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem bythe Doctors PW.10 and PW.11 respectively and they have given post-mortemCertificates Exs.P.10 and 12 respectively, wherein they have opined that boththe deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemarrhage due to injuriessustained and they have also deposed before the Court to that effect.This factwas never disputed by the appellants.Hence, the prosecution was successfulenough in establishing the fact that both the deceased died out of homicidalviolence.10.As could be seen from the available materials, originally, 15 personswere shown as accused.Out of 15, 2 accused persons one Rajaguru @ Jayaraj andalso Ansari died pending enquiry.Thus, out of 15, 13 persons faced trialbefore the trial Court.On trial A.1 to A.4 and A.6 were found guilty and theothers, namely A.5, A.7 to A.13 were acquitted of the charges levelled againstthem.11.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellantsand the others, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 as eyewitnesses.ExceptPW.1, all other eyewitnesses have turned hostile.It is a well settledproposition of law that when the case like this rests on the uncorroboratedevidence and solitary witness, before accepting the same, the Court mustexercise care and caution.12.The prosecution came with an accusation against the accused and theothers by making its origin under Ex.P.1 report.PW.1, when he was examinedbefore the trial Court, was certain that Ex.According to him, immediately, after the occurrence was over, he proceeded toThallakulam Police Station and gave a report to PW.19, the Sub-Inspector ofPolice and the same was reduced into writing by him and that was Ex.P.1, thereport and it bore his signature also.On the contrary, PW.19, the Sub-Inspector of Police has thoroughly given up the said document, stating thatneither the statement under Ex.P.1 was written by him nor it bore his signature.He would further add that when PW.1 appeared before him, he reduced hiscomplaint directly into the F.I.R. book and that is Ex.Now, at thisjuncture, naturally, the following doubts would arise.13.If the evidence of PW.1 that Ex.P.1 was the report given by him, itshould have formed the basis for Ex.But, when Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.20 werecompared on so many aspects, Ex.P.20, the printed F.I.R. seems to be a developedversion and thus, it cannot be stated as the replica in respect of the case asfound in Ex.If the evidence of PW.1 is true that he gave the complaint toPW.19 and if Ex.P.1 is not the complaint as claimed by PW.19, then what happenedto the original complaint given by PW.1 remains unknown.14.If the evidence of PW.1 has got to be believed that Ex.P.1 was thereport, why deviation was found in the F.I.R., Ex.P.20, but there was noexplanation by the prosecution.On the contrary, PW.19 would say that Ex.P.1was not the report, but he directly entered the complaint in the F.I.R. book,which is not expected to do.At the first instance, the complaint must bereduced into writing and then only, it should be entered into the F.I.R. book.At this juncture, it would be quite clear that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.19,when looked into, casts a doubt in the prosecution case, but the lower Court hasconveniently omitted Ex.P.1 report and proceeded on the footing of Ex.P.20, theprinted F.I.R. The lower court has forgotten that Ex.Under suchcircumstances, the case became shaky.15.So far as the evidence of P.W.1 was concerned, a reading of Ex.P.1 andEx.P.20 would clearly indicate that the names of A.1 to A.5, A.13 and two otherswere mentioned therein, but at the time of trial, PW.1 would claim that he knewall the accused.Had it been true, there was no impediment for PW.1 to makemention of all those names.16.Insofar as the overt-acts were concerned, in Ex.P.1, he has stated thatthe first deceased was attacked by A.1 and A.2 with aruvals and A-3 and A-13attacked him with knives and the crime was facilitated by A-4 by caught hold ofhis tuft.At the time of evidence, he has stated that not only A.4, but alsoA.7 caught hold of him.Further, in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated that A.1 and A.2have wielded aruval.But, at the time of evidence, PW.1 has deposed that A.1 toA.3 had knives and hence the weapon of the crime would also differ.Further, so far as the overtacts are concerned, P.W.1 came with the specific overt acts to those accused asmentioned in Ex.Hehas further added that when he went to Thallakulam police station, A-4, A-6 andAnsari, the deceased accused were kept in custody.Had it been true that when hewent to the police station immediately after the occurrence, i.e. within a shortspan of time, it is highly surprising as to how these three accused were kept incustody.But, the Investigator would come forward to say that all of them werearrested on subsequent dates.18.Further, in the instant case, two dying declarations were recorded byPW.16, Judicial Magistrate, one from PW.2, which was marked as Ex.P.14 and theother from the second deceased Nagu, which was marked as Ex.It is truethat since PW.2 is alive, his statement cannot be considered as DyingDeclaration but, the prosecution has marked the same and it would be binding onthe prosecution to the extent that it was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate.The statement of P.W.2 was to the effect that 10 unknown persons have attackedhim.So far as the dying declaration of the second deceased is concerned, he hasstated that the persons, who have attacked him, were not known to him.Thus,either of these two documents was not serving the prosecution case.19.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for A.4, his name was notshown in the F.I.R. and it is merely mentioned as younger brother of A.1 andfurther, investigation has not been done as to how many brothers A-1 had.Underthese circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 and the origin of Ex.P.1 complaint ishighly doubtful, if viewed from F.I.R. and there are so many discrepancies foundand further, the evidence of PW.1 remains uncorroborated and hence in view ofthe infirmities found, it would be highly unsafe to sustain the conviction.20.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellantsherein by the trial Court are set aside.The appellants herein are acquitted ofall the charges levelled against them.The bail bonds executed by them shallstand canceled.The fine amounts, if any, paid by them shall be refunded tothem.Accordingly, these criminal appeals are allowed.V.Kathirvelu and Mr.A.P.Muthupandian, Amicus curiae counsel areentitled to get remuneration from the Legal Services Committee, Madurai.1.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, B-5, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,069,932 |
DATE : 20th April 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT - (Per : A.S.Oka, J.) :1. Rule.Learned APP waives service for the Respondent.Forthwith taken up for final disposal.In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Code'), it is disclosed that on 30th November 2005 itself, the Applicant was arrested and was released on bail ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:59:42 ::: 2 of 9 APL.536.2015 on the same day.He made an application for employment to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (`BARC'), at Mumbai.It is claimed that the Applicant was selected by BARC.By the said letter, the Applicant was called upon to submit a copy of the charge sheet and other relevant documents to enable BARC to take appropriate decision.::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:59:42 :::He stated that after examination of the record, it was found that there is no material on record to show whether the said charge sheet was filed in the Court.The Applicant made a miscellaneous application before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai praying for discharge/acquittal as the cognizance of ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:59:42 ::: 3 of 9 APL.536.2015 the offence complained of was barred by law.On 24th December 2014, the Senior Inspector of Police of R.A.K.Marg Police Station submitted a report to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.In the said report it is stated that though charge sheet against the Applicant was prepared on 27th December 2005, there was no record available with the Police whether the charge sheet was filed.It is pointed out that even the record of the Court was examined but it was not revealed whether the charge sheet is filed.The letter records that Police Constable Sangle is already retired and no information could be obtained from the retired Police Constable.By order dated 12th February 2015, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the said miscellaneous application of the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:59:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:59:42 :::There is an affidavit dated 16th April 2016 filed by Mr.Siddharth Krushnarao Kasabe, Senior Inspector of Police attached to R.A.K.Marg Police Station, Mumbai.In the said affidavit, the affiant has stated that the record pertaining to the said crime is not available with the Police Station as well as in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Dadar, Mumbai.He has stated that the affidavit is being filed only on the basis of the Crime Register.The prayer made by the Applicant in the present application under Section 482 of the Code is for quashing the FIR on the ground of gross delay which violates his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.The prosecution should not be allowed to become a persecution.::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:59:42 :::All that the Police have stated is that there is an entry in record to show that on 27th November 2005, the charge sheet was prepared.Moreover, the Police Constable who carried out the investigation, has since retired.Therefore, in the facts of the present case, it is apparent from the letters dated 6th July 2013 and 24th December 2014, Exhibits-C and F to the application, that Police officials of R.A.K.Marg Police Station ::: Uploaded on - 12/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:59:42 ::: 8 of 9 APL.536.2015 have tried their best to search the record of the case, but the same could not be traced.The same are the statements made in the affidavit of Mr.The letter dated 19th June 2013 at Exhibit-B shows that due to the delay, the Applicant could not secure employment with BARC.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,078,410 |
September 24, 2009 AJIT BHARIHOKE, J. gm Crl.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,760,826 |
On the 14th May 1965 in the issue of the "Darpan" a Bengali weekly published In Calcutta, an editorial article was published containing an alleged defamatory imputation against the complainant firm, viz., R. Akoji Jadwet and Company This weekly used to be printed at a press owned by a Limited company, viz., the Metropolitan Printing and Publishing House(P) Ltd. and at the relevant time, the present petitioner, Sunilakhya Chowdhury, was one of the Directors of the Company.The accused petitioner was neither the maker, that is the author nor the printer nor the publisher of the impugned publication and has been prosecuted as he is a director of the Company which owns the Press and which did the job of printing the said journal.The opposite party No. 2, Hiren Basu, is the Editor Publisher, Printer and the owner of the said Bengali journal as per the declaration under Rule 3 of the Press and Registration Act.The complainant opposite party No. 1 filed a petition of complaint on the 22nd March, 1966 in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate.Port Blair.This Rule must be made absolute.The present revisionsal application is for quashing, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, a criminal case being C. R. Case No. 638 of 1966, pending in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate at Port Blair.The facts leading on to the present revisional application may be put in a short compass.Andaman and Nicobar Islands against the present petitioner and the accused opposite party No. 3 inter alia on the allegations that the accused persons made, printed and published for public consumption, certain false and highly tendentious remarks in the publication called the "Darpan", which is a Bengali Weekly.In its 16th issue dated Friday the 14th May 1965 alleging insinuating and impugning complicity of the complainant and his partners with the alleged loss of 25 trategic from the office of the Chief Commissioner at Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.The present revisional application was moved before this Court on the 8th August, 1966 and the Rule was issued, staying all further proceedings in the meantime.The learned Advocate-General.In this particular case, it would appear from the ordersheet that the case was adjourned for the examination of the complainant and on the next date as the learned counsel did not appear, the petition of complaint was dismissed for default.It would appear from the order-sheet that the petition of complaint originally filed by the complainant opposite party No. 1 was dismissed for default on 28-3-66 and therefore the chapter including the purported non-conformance to Section 200 Cr. P. C., if any was closed.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,085,979 |
It has been contended that thereafter some dispute had arisen between the partners and both the parties i.e. petitioner no.1 and respondent no.4 agreed to settle their dispute through Arbitrator, due to which five persons were nominated on 3.8.2014 to settle their dispute.Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J) These are two writ petitions being Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 31343 of 2018 and Criminal Misc.The writ petitioners in the first writ petition are Pankaj Rastogi, Mohit Rastogi and Ketan Kumar Shah whereas the writ petitioners in the second writ petition are Smt. Tanya Rastogi and Ambuj Rastogi.The record shows that both the writ petitions have been filed being aggrieved against the lodging of the FIR dated 22.10.2018 by one Ruchir Rastogi (respondent no.4 in the first writ petition and respondent no.3 in the second writ petition).The FIR was registered as Case Crime No.0128 of 2018 under Sections 457, 380 and 506 IPC PS Pheelkhana District Kanpur Nagar.As the relief sought in both the writ petitions is absolutely identical i.e. quashing of the aforesaid FIR dated 22.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0128 of 2018 and in both the writ petitions the FIR has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, therefore with the consent of all the parties concerned, both the writ petitions were taken up for hearing together and both the writ petitions are being decided by means of the present common order while treating Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.31343 of 2018 as the leading case.We have heard Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners in the first writ petition i.e. Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 31343 of 2018, Shri Dileep Kumar and Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners in the second writ petition i.e. Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 31370 of 2018, Shri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the complainant Ruchir Rastogi in both the writ petitions and Shri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State in both the writ petitions.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the contentions as have been raised at the Bar of this Court, the factual position as it emerges can be crystallized herein as under:-The impugned FIR has been lodged by Ruchir Rastogi in his capacity as a partner of H.U.F. M/s Lala Jugal Kishore & Sons having a business showroom at 26/59 Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar.It is also made clear that any delay or deliberate avoidance on the part of the plaintiff in taking possession when handed over by the defendant would be taken against the spirit of the present order".This order has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition.On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the same still holds the field till date.Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 11.11.2013 by means of which the District Judge had allowed Application 4Kha, the property could not have been taken away.Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has not been able to dispute the fact and the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that possession has been handed over in compliance of the direction of a court of competent jurisdiction and thus, no illegality or ulterior motive can be attributed to the petitioners in this regard.As far as Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 31370 of 2018 is concerned, we have heard Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners at great length.However, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as they have nothing to do whatsoever in the controversy in issue.They have nothing to do with the partnership or property of the partnership.The company M/s Sushma Construction Pvt. Ltd. had purchased the property in dispute by means of sale deed dated 12.12.2013 from Mrs. Urmila Gupta.Pankaj Gupta was already a tenant in the aforesaid property since the year 1986 and was doing his business therein.Copy of the order dated 19.7.2018 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.It has been further contended that the petitioners merely inherited Pankaj Rastogi as a tenant on the purchase of the aforesaid property done in the year 2013 and they have absolutely no concern with the business of Pankaj Rastogi or his partnership with Ruchir Rastogi nor in any way Ruchir Rastogi was party to the civil dispute between the petitioner's company and Pankaj Rastogi.The petitioners are the owners of the property in question and they have taken possession in pursuance of the order of a court of competent jurisdiction and at the time of possession an affidavit was duly entered between the petitioners' company and Pankaj Rastogi which categorically mentions that the property in question was handed over with only some furnitures and other fittings like Air-conditioner, Generator Set for which the petitioners company paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to Pankaj Rastogi.Contention is that no offence as mentioned in the FIR under Sections 457, 380 and 506 IPC is made out against the petitioners.It has been further informed to the Court that keeping in view the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that the suit was filed with dishonest intention that a recall application was filed in the revision and the same is pending, however that is not the subject matter of the present writ petition and the recall application will be considered and decided by the appropriate court.The recall application was filed only after filing of the present writ petition.The said suit was filed against only Pankaj Rastogi.The suit was not filed against the partnership firm.The partnership firm was not a tenant in the said shop.The said shop under the tenancy of Pankaj Rastogi since the year 1986 and thus, it was only Pankaj Rastogi who was a necessary party in the suit for eviction and thus, no ulterior motive can be attributed to the petitioners in this regard.We have examined the allegations as contained in the impugned FIR and we are clearly of the opinion that no offence under various Sections mentioned therein has been made out, since in our view the allegations contained in the impugned FIR taking on its face value do not satisfy the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 506 IPC, continuance to proceedings in furtherance thereof will be an apparent misuse of the Court and same cannot be allowed.Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the consistent legal position, a case for grant of indulgence has been made out.Accordingly, the impugned FIR dated 22.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0128 of 2018 under Sections 457, 380 and 506 IPC PS Pheelkhana District Kanpur Nagar is quashed.Accordingly, both the writ petitions being Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 31343 of 2018 and Criminal Misc.
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,760,892 |
The brief facts of the case are that there was dispute between the accused persons and Basodi in relation to the land comprising in Khasra No. 21/3, measuring 8.607 Hectare, situated in village Kachhari, P. S. Keolari, Tehsil and District Seoni.Basodi Lal claims to have received this land from the maternal grand mother late Batto Bai, whereas on the basis of sale deed (Ex. D/5) Jeevanlal, the father of Deepa @ Deepchand and his mother Bego Bai wanted to have possession over this land.On 18-9-1986, in the morning accused Deepa @ Deepchand and his mother Bego Bai reached the field which is called Talab Bali Jheel.On getting information about it from Sunita Bai (PW/10), deceased Jambati accompanied with her daughter Sona Bai (PW/8) went to the field for stopping the accused persons from cultivating the land and sowing the seeds.Jambati Bai on reaching the field stopped Deepa @ Deepchand from ploughing and sowing the field wherein an altercation took place between Jambati Bai and the accused persons.Bego Bai caught hold of the hands of deceased Jambati Bai and accused Deepa @ Deepchand stabbed her twice on the chest, as a result of which she died at the spot.Sona Bai (PW/8) gave the information of the incident to her father Shekhan Lal (PW/7), who was working in another field.JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J.The appeal is at the behest of Deepa @ Deepchand and Bego Bai @ Faggo Bai, who were convicted in S. T No. 18/87, vide judgment and order dated 12-2-1988, whereby appellant No. 1 Deepa @ Deepchand was convicted for commission of the offence punishable under section 302, of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life, whereas appellant No. 2 Bego Bai @ Faggo Bai was convicted under section 302 with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.Shekhanlal came to the spot and found his wife Jambati Bai dead.Shekhanlal (PW/7), husband of deceased Jambati Bai, lodged First Information Report (Ex. P/13) at Police Station Keolari giving rise to the registration of an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Dr. D. K. Shrivastava (PW/15), vide Post-Mortem report (Ex. P/11-A), opined that the cause of death of Tambati Bai was shock due to excessive haemorrhage, as a result of injury to vital organ (Heart) of the body.The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses.Out of which Sona Bai (PW/8) and Vimalvati Bai (PW/9) are the eye-witnesses of the incident.The defence was that of denial and in the alternative of right of private defence of property.Heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the State.The learned counsel for the appellants made two submissions :-(i) That, so far as appellant No. 2 Bego Bai @ Faggo Bai is concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the material on record creates a doubt about her complicity in the crime and she deserves to be acquitted.(ii) That, so far as appellant No. 1 Deepa @ Deepchand is concerned, his case is on a little different footing.Even if his guilt and complicity in the crime is established, at the most he can be held guilty under section 304I, of the Indian Penal Code.So far as the first submission is concerned, the evidence of the eye-witnesses was read before the Court.Vimalvati (PW/9), in her statement under section 164, of the Criminal Procedure Code (Ex. D/3), has not attributed the role of catching hold of the hands of deceased Jambati Bai by Bego Bai, though, this fact finds place in the F.I.R. (Ex. P/13).The question for consideration is regarding the involvement of Bego Bai in the manner alleged by the prosecution.At the first place the manner in which appellant Bego Bai is alleged to have caught hold of the hands of the deceased from front, during the period appellant Deepa @ Deepchand dealt knife blows on her chest, sounds not only unnatural but improbable also.Secondly, even appellant Bego Bai would have run the risk of sustaining injuries at the hands of her son, appellant Deepa @ Deepchand.It can well be a case of over implication, as appellant Bego Bai happens to be the mother of main accused Deepa @ Deepchand.The above circumstances create a doubt regarding the participation of Smt. Bego Bai in the crime and as such she deserves to be given the benefit of doubt.In respect to appellant No. 1 Deepa @ Deepchand, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in alternative the right of private defence of the property was taken before the trial Court, but the trial Court has erroneously discarded the same by holding that he could not prove the fact that he was in possession of the land over which the incident took place.The learned State counsel submitted that the submission has no foundation in view of the statement of Makhanlal (PW/2), as in para 1 of the examination in chief, he clearly stated that since last 10-12 years, Basodi is continuing in the possession and in view of this statement it was for the accused persons to have established their possession.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the fact was that Basodi was taken in adoption by his maternal grand mother Batto Bai, and Batto Bai during her life time sold the land, over which the incident took place, in favour of appellant's father Jeevanlal through a registered sale deed (Ex. D/5), which contains the following recital :-^^fch ds fnukad ls mijks [kjhnnkj dh fch dh xbZ lEifk gLrkarfjr dj muds dCtk nk[ky djk fn;s gSaA** This document was executed by Batto Bai, who at that time was the owner of the property and Basodi had no right so far as property was concerned.The transfer of the land was by the right owner in favour of Jeevanlal.There is no material on record to establish that during the life time of Batto Bai the possession was with Basodi.The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of Makhkhan (PW/2), as contained in para 10, where he has admitted that even after taking Basodi in adoption by Batto Bai, Basodi was not cultivating this land and the cultivation was done by Jeevanlal.The prosecution did not clarify this statement from the witness.The trial Court though has considered the matter but has omitted to take into consideration the sale deed (Ex. D/5) and also the quoted recital.The learned counsel also submitted that there is on record the khasra entry relating to the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 wherein the name of Jeevanlal is recorded in the main column as well as column of possession.The learned counsel for the State raised objection to this document that this document was not certified by competent authority.As on the basis of the said, the mutation was effected the mutation should have been done by the competent authority and should have been ordered by the competent authority, the Tehsildar.The Patwari only carried out the order of the competent authority and he can issue the extract of khasra and khatoni.It is not necessary in the present case to dilate on the question of proper or improper maintenance of this document (Ex. D/4), as the matter is on the sale deed (Ex. D/5) which establishes the transfer of the possession in favour of the appellant's father and in such situation the burden was not on the accused persons to establish that their possession remained undisturbed subsequently, but such burden was on the prosecution to establish that the such possession was disturbed subsequently and as a result of which Basodi came into possession.It is not disputed that the complainant party was unarmed.The origin of the incident was that an altercation took place over the tilling and sowing in the field.Two injuries were caused by Deepa @ Deepchand in the chest of the deceased and that too in quick succession.The above circumstances clearly establish that appellant No. 1 Deepa @ Deepchand exceeded the right of private defence and as such he cannot be exonerated altogether.Since appellant Deepa @ Deepchand has exceeded the right of private defence, he is liable to be convicted.Therefore, his liability under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained.Instead, he is liable to be convicted under section 304I of the Indian Penal Code.It may be noted that the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court, AIR 1979 SC 44, Ghanshyam Das v. State (Delhi Administration).In view of above, we hold appellant No. 1 Deepa @ Deepchand guilty under section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.Since the appellant has already undergone sentence of imprisonment of little more than 5 years and looking to the fact that he was aged about 22 years at the time of incident and the fact of long lapse of period of 11 years, sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment coupled with sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) would be the sufficient punishment and would meet the ends of justice.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on appellant No. 2 Bego Bai @ Faggo Bai are set aside.She is acquitted of the charge under sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The conviction of appellant No. 1 Deepa @ Deepchand under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside but he is convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code, and is sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.Appellant No. 1 Deepa @ Deepchand is required to deposit the fine within a period of 3 months in the trial Court.In default of payment of fine, he will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.Both appellants are on bail.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,855,641 |
(23/10/2018) Per: Subodh Abhyankar,J :This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 3.11.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.166/2013 by the 6 t h Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa whereby the learned Revisionary Court has reversed the order dated 22.4.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirmour wherein the complaint filed by respondent No.1-Tulsi Prajapati has been dismissed.CRR No.563-2018 2In the aforesaid complaint it is alleged that on 2.4.2011 an incident took place when complainant Tulsi Prajapati was going at around 10 O'clock to the Civil Court, Sirmour, at that time one Pintu Nat stopped his motorcycle and snatched his mobile and ran away from the spot.A complaint was made to this effect at Police Station Sirmour and the SHO of the Police Station R.K.Riccharia, present applicant herein sent police force and summoned accused Pintu Nat to the Police Station from whose possession the complainant's mobile was recovered and was handed over to the complainant, but without any reason SHO R.K.Riccharia started abusing him and also put him behind the bars in the Police Station.He also made aspersions against his caste, assaulted him and demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from him.After the incident, the respondent No.1/complainant also tried to lodge an FIR against the applicant, and as CRR No.563-2018 3 no action was taken against him being the policeman, a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. was filed by him in the Court of JMFC, Sirmour.After recording the statements of the complainant and another witness and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned JMFC Sirmour vide its order dated 22.4.2013 has refused to take cognizance of the offence and dismissed the said complaint.The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent No.1 by filing Criminal Revision No.166/2013, which was decided by learned lower Revisionary Court vide its order dated 3.11.2017, whereby the order of rejection of complaint was reversed and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to take cognizance under Section 323 of IPC against the present applicant and under Section 294 of IPC against the respondent No.2 herein.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,860,940 |
None for the complainant / victim.This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge under S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in bail application no. UR/16 whereby the court-below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant is in custody since 8.11.2016 for the offences under Sections 354, 354A, 323, 294, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 7, 8 of POCSO Act and Section 3 (1) (w) (I), 3 (1) (w)(ii) of S.C./ S.T. Act in Crime No. 410/2016 registered by Police Station Barela, District-Jabalpur (M.P.).According to the prosecution story, the allegation against the appellant is that he caught hold the prosecutrix with bad intention.She was minor and belonging to S.C. Community.Hence, the impugned order is set aside and it is ordered that the appellant/accused Suneel Kushwaha be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub- section (3) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. CC as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE ahd
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,861,268 |
hy ad (H.P. SINGH) JUDGE M of rt sp ou Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL C Date: 2018.06.23 11:15:48 +05'30' h ig HNone appears for respondent No.2/complainant, though intimated.sh Heard.This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant e ad under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of anticipatory bail, being aggrieved by the order dated Pr 30.05.2018, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Katni, District a Katni, by which, bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed on hy behalf of that appellant has been dismissed.rt Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ou innocent person.He also submits that except Sections 3-1(r), 3-1(s) C and 3-2-5(a) of SC/ST Act, all other offences registered under IPC are bailable in nature.There is no criminal antecedent against the h ig appellant.After retirement, the appellant went to his native place in Bihar and he was not present in the spot.He further submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated only due to enmity.There is no ingredient of abusing the complainant on the basis of his caste therefore, no case is made out against the appellant under SC/ST Act. He further submits that other co-accused Dhananjay has already been released on regular bail and custodial interrogation is not necessary.On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant.Per-contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent- State oppose the anticipatory bail application.Looking to the whole facts and circumstances of the case and contents of the FIR, without commenting anything on merits of the case, in spite of bar under Section 18 of SC/ST Act, this appeal for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant seems to be acceptable.It is directed that appellant-Sacchidanand Singh Bhumihar (Brahman) will surrender himself before Investigating Officer within 10 days' from the date of receipt of Certified Copy of this order then in the event of arrest, he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal sh bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) e with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting ad Authority.Pr It is further directed that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Police Officer as and when required.a Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,861,470 |
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Chuttan @ Dharmamchand Barman in Crime No.156/2011, registered by Police Station Rithi, District-Katni under Sections 363, 366-ka and 343, 506, 376(2)(chha) of the Indian Penal Code.She had attained the age of knowledge and understanding and she was a consenting party.However, it will have to be ensured that he does flee from justice and faces trial.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Chhuttan @ Dharmchand Barman, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.80,000/- with two local solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C.V. SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Sha
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,863,934 |
The background facts of the case are that the Appellant was employed as a domestic help of the deceased, who lived alone in the ground floor of her house at Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.The Appellant was employed with the deceased by the daughter of the deceased, who lived abroad, and who owned the ground floor.The Appellant lived in a separate servant quarter, which was situated in the parking area of the building.The first floor was owned by another daughter of the deceased, who herself lived with her husband (PW-2) and family at Press Enclave, Saket, New Delhi.The front portion of the third floor, owned by the deceased, had been given on rent to a company which employed a security guard at the gate of the building.The duty hours of the security guard were from 8 pm to 8 am.The second floor of the building was given to the builder.A.694/2017 Page 2 of 834. PW-2, the son-in-law of the deceased, deposed that on 6th July, 2014, he had employed a carpenter to polish the furniture in the flat at first floor.That work continued up to 7th July, 2014 as well.At around 10 am on 7th July, 2014, PW-2 went to the house to supervise the work of the carpenter.According to PW-2, the carpenter finished his job at 4 pm, after which PW- 2 paid him and left the premises at 4.15 pm for his official duties.He returned to his residence at Press Enclave at around 7.30 pm.The deceased used to go for a daily walk at around 5.30/6 pm and would return around 7/7.30 pm.The deceased was 82 years old at the time of her death.Events on the fateful dayAt around 9.15 pm on 7th July, 2014, the Appellant went to the neighbour (PW-3) of the deceased, informing her that the deceased had not returned from her evening walk.PW-3 apparently scolded the Appellant for informing her so late and asked her own daughter to accompany the Appellant to the nearby park in search of the deceased.One other common friend informed PW-3 that she had met the deceased at around 7 pm and the deceased had informed her that she was returning home.PW-3 telephoned the daughter of the deceased (not examined), i.e. the wife of PW-2, and informed her of her mother having gone missing.PW-3 also called the police from her mobile number, which fact is confirmed by the Police Control Room (PCR) report (Ex.PW12/A).The call was made at 9.21 pm and the precise message was "Ek lady park mein ghoomne gai thi jo abhi tak nahi ayi".The further message recorded on the PCR past Crl.A.694/2017 Page 3 of 83 midnight on 8th July, 2014 at 0033 hours notes that the dead body of the deceased was found on the second floor in a burnt condition.It notes "jo AC mein short-circuit se aag lagi lagta hai, aag bujhi hui hai body par chot ka koi nisan nahi hai - inki ladi doctor bhi moka par hai - SHO or ATO with staff moka par."A.694/2017 Page 3 of 83ACP Rajender Pathania (PW-26) was the Station House Officer (SHO) of PS CR Park.He received DD No.36-A (Ex.PW26/A) about the deceased having gone missing.The first person to reach the place was Sub-Inspector (SI) Virender Singh.In the meanwhile, having been informed by PW-3, the daughter of the deceased and her husband i.e. PW-2 also reached the place.She went upstairs to open the flat on the first floor with the key she had brought and found it full of smoke.On entering, they found the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot in a burnt condition.Her neck was found tied with a chunni.She was naked from the bottom.Her salwar and panty were lying by the side of the bed.PW-26 was informed and he along with his staff rushed to the spot.PW-26 recorded the statement of PW-2 (Ex.PW-2/A), converted that into a rukka and sent it for registration of the FIR on 12.10 am on 8 th July, 2014 to the PS where FIR No.214/14 was registered at 12.20 am.In this statement, PW-2 talked about the carpenter having been engaged for work on the first floor flat which had been gifted to his wife by the deceased and about PW-2 reaching back to his residence from his official work at around 7.30 pm after having seen the carpenter off.He also adverted to the fact that Crl.A.694/2017 Page 4 of 83 at around 9 pm, his wife got a call from PW-3, the neighbour of the deceased who informed her that the deceased had not returned home after her evening walk.He mentioned how he and his wife reached the spot and started looking for the deceased.While doing so, when his wife opened the flat on the first floor, they found that the flat was full of smoke.10. PW-26 called the crime team to the spot and the fire-brigade was also called.A team from the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL), CBI was also called.He also got the spot photographed and video-graphed by a private videographer Raj Kumar (PW-5).However, when later PW-5 was examined in the trial, he said he was called to the mortuary of Safdarjung Hospital on 10th July 2014, to photograph and video-graph the post-mortem of the deceased, which was then handed over by him in a CD (Ex.PW-5/A) with the photographs being marked as Ex.The crime team visit report (Ex.It noted that the dead body of the deceased was found on the bed in a burnt condition.The details of the exhibits lifted were (i) burnt material of the bed and room; (ii) burnt AC Unit in the room on the wall.It was further noted by SI Sanjay Kumar (PW-13) "the dead body of the Crl.A.694/2017 Page 5 of 83 deceased may please be sent to the hospital for post-mortem to ascertain the cause of death." It is not clear here that the crime team lifted any chance prints/finger prints from anywhere in the room or from the door or knob of the door.The crime team was also called again on 11 th July, 2014 by PW- 26, but that will be adverted to shortly.The dead body of the deceased was then shifted to the hospital.The MLC (Ex.PW-25/A) shows that she was brought to the hospital on 8 th July, 2014 at 2.45 am with the name of the relative/friend column left blank.However, the MLC contained a noting which simply stated Constable Rajesh Kumar i.e. PW-9 who had accompanied the dead body to hospital Crl.A.694/2017 Page 6 of 83 to get it preserved for the post mortem as per the directions of the SHO.The deceased was brought there in a dead condition.It was noted that there were 95% deep thermal and superficial burns on the body.What is apparent is that the Appellant was very much present throughout and made no attempt to run away or resist the arrest.According to PW-26, he conducted the personal search of the Appellant; interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW- 2/K).PW-26 further states that on the pointing out of the accused he recovered "the match box, a knife and kerosene oil from the room of the accused." He prepared pulandas, sealed them with the seal of RR and prepared the seizure memos i.e. Ex.PW-2/L and PW-2/M respectively.A perusal of the personal search memo (Ex.PW-2/J) of the Appellant shows that two mobile phones having IMEI numbers ending with the digits 1941 and 5994 respectively, apart from Rs.250/- in cash were recovered from him.This personal search memo is also attested by the daughter of the Crl.The disclosure statement (Ex.PW- 2/K) again is attested by these three persons as is Ex.At this stage, it must be noted that PW-26 again called the crime team which took photographs of these recoveries (Ex.PW-8/1 to PW-8/7) and they gave a separate report in that regard (Ex.PW-17/A).ASI Sajjan Kumar (PW-17) was the person in charge of the District Crime Team.He along with HC Kirti (Finger Print Expert) and Constable Ashwani Kumar (PW-8) went to the spot.They carried out inspection of the servant quarters on the ground floor.Importantly, PW-17 stated "our finger print expert HC Kirti could not find any chance prints on the said articles."The crime team's report (Ex.PW-17/A) notes that the match box, knife and plastic bottle were lifted.The recommendation therein was to send the exhibits for FSL examination "as early as possible".Seizure of clothes of AppellantThe police custody remand of the Appellant was taken and he was further interrogated.21. PW-26 again called the crime team which took photographs (Ex. PW-A.694/2017 Page 8 of 8313/12-15) and negatives (Ex. PW-19/12-15).Dr Mohd. Shadab Raheel (PW-24), who was Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine at Safdarjung Hospital conducted the post-mortem assisted by Dr Mohit Gupta.On the dead body was found a white kurta and white bra that were partially burnt, wrist watch on the left forearm and a black hair clip.Ligature material in the form of chunni was present wrapped around the neck.It was wound in three turns around the neck with knot lying in front of the neck.He opined that there was nothing to suggest that the Appellant was incapable of performing sexual intercourse in normal circumstances.There was no fresh external ante mortem injury present on the body.The absence of smegma was noted.No external injury was present over the genitalia.The samples seized were as under:"Blood in gauze, underwear, pubic hairs, penile swab and control swab have been preserved, sealed, signed and handed over to the police along with the sample of seal."It refers to 16 such exhibits.Under the subtitle nature of examination required, Question 1 asks whether any human semen is present on exhibits D to I and if yes to prepare a DNA profile.Question 2 is to prepare a DNA profile of exhibits L, M', B and R. These are the exhibits constituting the pulanda containing the underwear of the deceased (L), pubic hair of the accused (M), swab of the accused (N), blood of the accused (P), clothes of the accused (R), salwar of the deceased (D), penile swab of the deceased (E), perineal swab of the deceased (F), high vaginal swab of the deceased (G), low vaginal swab of the deceased (H) and vaginal mop of the deceased (I).Question 3 was whether any foreign material was present in Ex.Ex. B was the pair of chappals, bunch of hairs of the deceased and the foam of the mattress of the bed.Ex. C was the bed sheet, two pillows with cover and the cover of the mattress.Ex. D was the plastic bottle with some oil, Ex. E the scalp hair of the deceased, Ex. F the ligature material, Ex. G the clothes of the deceased, Ex. H the scalp mop of the deceased and Ex. I the body mop of the deceased.A.694/2017 Page 12 of 83As regards these exhibits, the FSL report (Ex. PW-27/A) dated 7th November, 2014 prepared by Dr. B.K. Mohapatra (PW-27) described all the above exhibits.The procedure adopted and result of the examination, as set out in the FSL report is as under:Laboratory Procedure: Biological examination of the exhibits was carried out as per the procedures laid down in the Working Procedure Manual, Biology Division, CFSL (CBI), New Delhi.8.1 Blood was detected on the exhibits: D-1, E, F, G, H, I, K and P.A.694/2017 Page 13 of 838.4. DNA profile generated from the female fraction DNA obtained from the source of exhiblts-D-1 (Bed Sheet), F (Perl- anal Swab), G (High Vaginal Swab), H (Low Vaginal Swab) and I (Vaginal Mop) was found to be consistent with the DNA profile of the deceased (Source of exhibit-K: Blood Stained Gauze).8.5 Source of exhibits: D-1, F, G, H & I did not yield male fraction DNA for analysis.There is a report titled crime team inspection report which is dated 8 th August, 2014 (Ex. PW-6/A).The signatories to the report are Ms Deepti Bhargava (PW-6) Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II, of the Chemistry Division of the CFSL, CBI and Dr S.K. Chaudhary who was SSO-Physics (not examined).The important aspects of these reports are that:"Electrical points were checked and no shot circuiting detected in the electrical fittings.All the doors/windows were checked.Report of Chemistry Division of CFSLIt refers to the testing done of Ex. B (the pair of partially burnt slippers), bunch of hairs, burnt foam pieces, Ex. C (partially burnt bed sheet, burnt pillows with cover, partially burnt foam mattress), Ex. D (plastic bottle with live bluish brown liquid, Ex. E (whitish black colour bunch of hairs, stated to be the scalp hair of the deceased), Ex. F (light brown colour cloth piece with blood thread (the ligature material), Ex. G (partially burnt embroider from colour kurta, Ex. H (scalp mop of the deceased) and Ex. I (body mop of the deceased).The result of the examination was as under:"8.1 The exhibits 8, C, F and G gave positive test for the presence of residues of Kerosene.8.2 The exhibit D gave positive tests for the presence of Kerosene.8.3 The exhibits E, H and I gave negative tests for the presence of residues of petroleum products."Chemical Examination reportThen we have the chemical examination report (Ex. PW-6/C) which tested four exhibits.Ex.1 was the visceral material (stomach with contents with pieces of small intestine), Ex.2 was the visceral material containing liver section, spleen and half of each kidney, Ex. 3 was the sample of preservative used with saturated solution of common salt and Ex. 4 was the Crl.A.694/2017 Page 15 of 83 blood sample of the deceased.While Ex. 4 gave positive tests for presence of carbon monoxide, Ex.1, 2 and 3 gave negative tests for the presence of common poison.A.694/2017 Page 15 of 83The key conclusion drawn by PW-26 in the said charge-sheet was that after the deceased returned from her walk, the Appellant first raped her in the outer room on the first floor of the house and then strangulated her with a chunni.He then got scared and wanted to change the entire scenario having watched what happened in films and TV serials and, therefore, set the room on fire and then quietly came back into his own room.When he noticed that his own clothes were soiled, he took all of them and on the pretext of searching for the deceased, went to the S-Block and threw them into the dustbin there.Basically, the entire disclosure statement of the Appellant was made the very basis for the above conclusion.The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The deceased used to have duplicate key of the main door of our first floor with her which was given to her by my wife right from the time when the building was constructed.It is wrong to suggest that deceased did not have any such key nor it was given to her by my wife."PW-2 then spoke of the carpenter engaged by him and stated as under:"The carpenter had left the house at about 6.30 PM on Crl.On that day she had also cleaned our flat after carpenter left the house after taking the duplicate key from the deceased.This fact was told to me by my wife.She was not present at that time at the fiat."44. PW-2 further stated that "on 7th July 2014 when he left the flat at around 4.15 pm, he did not meet the deceased."On 27th May 2015, for the first time in his cross examination, which he did not speak about in his examination-in-chief, PW-2 introduced yet another character into the scenario namely Security Guard Santosh.The other PWs examined included Raman Anand (PW-4), the brother of the deceased, who identified her body at the Safdarjung hospital mortuary.He confirmed that on 7th July, 2014 at around 9/9.30 pm Indian Standard Time (IST), he received a call from the Appellant, who informed him that the deceased had not returned from the park where she used to go for her evening walk.He then asked the Appellant why he was informing him so late, to which the Appellant stated that he had tried to locate the deceased first but was unable to do so.Thereafter, the wife of Crl.A.694/2017 Page 19 of 83 PW-14 (the daughter of the deceased) also got confirmation of the same from the neighbour of the deceased.PW-14 confirmed that the Appellant had been employed by him through his friend to take care of the deceased.A.694/2017 Page 19 of 83Security Guard summonedIn his cross-examination on 17th September 2016, PW-28 claimed that the company that employed him, did not issue any I-card to him.He further stated:"I do not have any documentary proof as to my employment with that company.The company did not get my police verification done when the company employed me as Security Guard.I left the job as I wanted to earn more.I was earlier in the profession of driver.One of the reason of leaving the job was that such incident had happened."He also stated that the company had provided him with the uniform but had deducted the amount for it and so, he did not return it to the company.He received Rs.8,000/- in cash from the company.According to him, during the time from 8 pm to 11 pm when he was on duty, no one talked to him.(iii) About 2/3 years ago, she had got the property reconstructed from a builder on collaboration.who was, at the time, living in America with her family.(vi) The first floor was gifted by the deceased to the wife of PW-2, her other daughter.(vii) The second floor was owned by the builder.(viii) The third floor was also owned by the deceased and she had rented the front portion of that flat to a company based in Gurgaon and the rear portion was in her possession.In response to the second question whether the deceased had employed a carpenter on 6th July, 2014 and that work continued till 7th July, 2014, the Appellant denied it and stated, "she did not employ any carpenter".He also admitted as correct that PW-2 had come to the premises at around 10 am. .However, he did not know the time when PW-2 had left.He admitted as correct that PW-3 was a neighbour and a close friend of the deceased and that at 9.15 pm, he had gone to PW-3 and told her that the deceased had not come back from her walk.The whole set of circumstances was put to him as far as Question No.6 Crl.A.694/2017 Page 24 of 83The Appellant stated that all the above were correct except the fact that Mrs. Jolly, the common friend had informed PW-3 that she had met the deceased at around 7 pm, and that the deceased had informed her that she was going home.The Appellant admitted as correct about PW-2 and the daughter of the deceased rushing with their son to the premises; that it usually happened that the deceased used to leave for her evening walk by 6 pm and return by 7/7.30 pm.He also admitted as a matter of record that the PCR motorcycle reached the premises at 9.45 pm and the Beat Officer HC Sube Singh (PW-22) also reached there and then the Duty Officer at PS CR Park was informed and then the SHO came."Q 17 It is further in evidence against you that PW2 then asked his wife to check the first floor as PW2 had thought that the deceased might have gone there to check water tap / switches which she was habit of checking and further at around 5 p.m., the first floor was clean by a part time domestic help.What have you to say?It is correct that PW 2 asked his wife to check the first floor but it is incorrect that deceased was in the habit to check the water tap/switches of first floor.I do not know whether the first floor was cleaned at about 5.00 p.m."He admitted as correct that the minute the wife of PW-2 entered the flat on the first floor, she came rushing out stating that it was on fire.He denied that one key of the said flat used to remain with the deceased.Incidentally, it must be pointed out that this key, which according to the prosecution was with the deceased was never recovered and no attempts were made to even find out where it was.The Appellant denied having told Crl.A.694/2017 Page 26 of 83 PW-2 that the deceased was lying on the bed.On how the deceased was found in the room, he stated that PW-26 reaching the spot, being informed by SI Virender that there was a dead body on the first floor, finding the body in burnt condition were all a matter of record.What have you to say?It is incorrect.The said fact is concocted by PW-2."Ans: The police officials could not investigate the case.They were under heavy pressure of their higher authorities and media to solve the case in time.The deceased was an old lady aged about 81 years.She used to live alone at the ground floor of the house No. __, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi.The accused was the full time servant of the deceased to take care of her.He was employed by her daughter namely ___who used to live in USA.The accused used to live in the servant quarter at the parking of the building.A.694/2017 Page 33 of 83The first floor was in the occupation of the younger daughter of the deceased namely ___ who lives with her family at Press Enclave, Saket.The front portion of the third floor was on rent to a company which had employed a Security Guard at the gate of the building and his duty hours were from 8.00 p.m to 8.00 a.m.The deceased used to go for evening walk in the park near her house at about 5.30/6.00 p.m and come back at about 7/7.30 p.m.On 07.07.2014 at about 5.30 p.m, the deceased as usual went for the evening walk in the park near her house but went missing.The accused informed the daughter of the deceased namely ___in USA and PW3 ___, her neighbour about the missing of the deceased at about 9.00/9.15 p.m and PW3 informed the another daughter of the deceased namely __, wife of PW2 about her missing, (information qua fictitious missing of the deceased to PW3 ___that too at about 9.00 p.m though the deceased used to return from the park at about 7.30 p.m to thwart the detection of crime at an early stage and to create confusion.)The dead body of the deceased was found in burnt condition in the bedroom on the first floor of the house No. S-93, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi at about 10.00 p.m.(ii) The Appellant was her full time servant.(iii) The Appellant used to live in the servants quarter which was in the parking area of the building.(v) The flat on the ground floor of the building, which had actually been gifted to the daughter who lived in the USA, was occupied by the deceased.The deceased herself retained the flat on the third floor, the front portion of which was given on lease to a company Crl.(vi) On 6th and 7th July 2014 a carpenter had been engaged by PW-2 to work in the flat on the first floor.PW-2 was also present supervising his work, and had paid the carpenter before leaving, without meeting the deceased that evening.(vii) The deceased left for her walk as usual at around 5.30 p.m. but after that was not seen alive.(viii) At around 9.15 pm, the Appellant went to the house of the neighbour PW-3 informing her of the fact that the deceased had not returned from her walk.He was the son-in-law of the deceased and his conduct requires to be commented upon.The Court has already referred to the fact that in his statement under Section 161 Cr PC, he does not seem to have had suspicions against the Appellant.In his examination-in-chief, on the first date i.e. 10th November 2014, he made no mention of having talked to any security guard.After his statement was recorded by the police and after the crime team, CFSL experts and the fire brigade reached the spot and carried out their investigation, PW-2 stated that he had remained present at the premises throughout the night.He also states "accused also remained present there." He further states as under:(ii) The Appellant was her full time servant.(iii) The Appellant used to live in the servants quarter which was in the parking area of the building.(iv) The flat on the first floor of the building had been gifted by the deceased to her other daughter who lived in Delhi whose husband was PW-2(v) The flat on the ground floor of the building, which had actually Crl.A.694/2017 Page 76 of 83 been gifted to the daughter who lived in the USA, was occupied by the deceased.(B) It stands clearly established from the medical evidence that the deceased died a homicidal death but not due to the burn injuries.Injury 5 (the burns) and Injury 6 "ligature strangulation were post-mortem.Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31 st January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge , South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.200/14 (renumbered as 1204/16) arising out of FIR No.214/14 registered at Police Station (PS) CR Park, New Delhi convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The appeal is also directed Crl.A.694/2017 Page 1 of 83 against the order on sentence dated 21st February, 2017, whereby for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one year; for the offence under Section 376 IPC, to undergo RI for ten years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months; and for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, to undergo RI for three years along with fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months.A.694/2017 Page 1 of 83During this entire time, the Appellant was present.Statement of PW-2They found in the outer room inside that the bed and mattress were smouldering and on that bed, the deceased was lying in more or less the same condition.He also mentioned that the Appellant was at the time engaged as a full-time servant with the deceased at the house.A.694/2017 Page 4 of 83Crime Team's first visitA.694/2017 Page 5 of 83The exhibits recovered from the spot (Ex.PW-2/B to G) were the clothes of the deceased, the bed-sheet, pieces of foam from the mattress etc. The seizure memo Ex.PW-2/B was for the following exhibits:(i) Mobile phone, black colour Nokia make in a burnt condition, behind which the mobile number ending with the digit 9183 was written.(ii) The brown white ladys purse in a burnt condition.PW-2/C was the seizure memo for seizure of a pair of chappals in a half-burnt condition, a clump of hair and pieces of mattress-foam.PW- 2/D was for the seizure of a white and yellow bed-sheet, two pillows and a bedcover.PW-2/E was for the seizure of a blanket, a panty and salwar.PW-2/F was for the seizure of the mattress on which the dead body lay and Ex.PW-2/G was for the bed.PW-2/L regarding recovery of the box of matches and the knife and Ex.PW-2/M regarding recovery of the plastic bottle with kerosene.A.694/2017 Page 7 of 83Crime Team's second visitThe crime team gave a second report (Ex. PW-13/B).The seizure memo of the clothes of the accused was prepared (Ex. PW-21/F).It was not attested by any independent witness but only by SI Rajeev Ranjan (PW-21) and SI Birender Singh (not examined).As far as the injuries on the external examination are concerned, four multiple reddish pressure abrasions were found present on left side of front of neck.There was a reddish pressure abrasion present on the right side of the front of the neck.There was a lacerated wound present on the under surface of the upper lip as well as under surface of the lower lip across Crl.A.694/2017 Page 9 of 83 midline.The following injury, which was of some significance in the context of the present case, reads as under:A.694/2017 Page 9 of 83Lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 0.5 cm, mucosal deep present over 6'o clock position at the vaginal orifice along with extravasation of blood and reddish coloured bruise of size 3 cm x 2 cm present on lateral wall of vagina on right side."The external post-mortem injuries were basically the burn injuries with the approximate area of the burn being 75% of the total body surface area.Ligature mark in the form of a reddish colour pressure abrasion was present around the neck "completing encircling the neck".As far as the internal examination was concerned, soot particles were absent in the trachea.There was a fracture of the fifth rib present in the midclavicular line on the left side along with extravasation of blood in the surrounding areas.Both lungs were congested.Petechial haemorrhage was present at interlobar surface of the lungs.Petechial haemorrhage was present over the pericardial surface.As far as the vagina was concerned, it was noted "collapse of posterior vaginal wall present.Rest as in injury No.3".The specimens preserved were:"Vaginal swab (high vaginal swab and low vaginal swab)Nail Clippings of both handsLigature material Crl.A.694/2017 Page 10 of 83A.694/2017 Page 10 of 839. ClothesBlood on gauze piece 11 .Scalp hairViscera to rule out poisoning."The time since death was noted as "about 2-3 days".As far as the opinion as to the cause of death, it was noted as under:"Death is due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem manual strangulation.Injury No 3 is suggestive of attempted smothering.Medical examination of AppellantIt must also be noted that on 9th July, 2014 itself at 11.30 am the medical examination of the Appellant took place.That MLC (Ex. PW-1/A) shows that his medical examination was undertaken by Dr M.S. Bakshi (PW-1).At this juncture, it must be noted that an un-scaled site plan was prepared by PW-26 on 8th July, 2014 (Ex. PW-26/C to Ex. PW-26/F).What is relevant is Ex. PW-26/D which depicts the room where the dead body was found, which was shown as being point A. Point B and D are places where the panty and salwar respectively of the deceased were Crl.A.694/2017 Page 11 of 83 located.The split AC on the wall in a burnt condition was shown as point C. A view of the same room from another angle in the un-scaled plan was Ex. PW-26/E.This refers inter alia to the purported confession of the Appellant to the crime about having forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the deceased and while she was unconscious, of having killed her by strangulating her with her own chunni.This report referred to the list of exhibits sent for examination in five columns - column one being the serial number, column two being the description of the exhibits, column three titled how, when and by whom found, column four being source of exhibits and column five being the remarks.J1 (nail clipping right side of the deceased) and J2 (nail clipping left side of the Crl.A.694/2017 Page 12 of 83 deceased).Another set of exhibits was forwarded by the CFSL.Further DNA isolation from the exhibits-D-1, D-2, D-3, E, F, G, H, I, J-1, J-2, K, L, M, N, 0, P, R-1, R-2 and R-3 was carried out via organic extraction method and was subjected to multiplex PCR amplification for fifteen STR loci & amelogenin using AmpFISTR Identifiler Plus Kit.Genotyping of the amplified products was carried out using automated DNA Analyzer.Results of Examination:8.6 Source of exhibits: D-2, D-3, E, J-1, J-2, L, M, N, 0, R-1, R-2 & R-3 did not yield DNA for analysis.8.7 Burnt debris materials was detected on the exhibits: J-1 & J-2."Crime Team's Inspection ReportTwo other forensic reports required to be referred at this stage."Fire could have caused in this case due to application of accelerant/fuel as smell of the same was detected in the foam pieces lying on the double bed.There was no electrical short Crl.A.694/2017 Page 14 of 83 circuiting and hence fire due to electrical short circuiting is ruled out."A.694/2017 Page 14 of 83The prosecution examined 28 witnesses.The Court has already adverted to the deposition of PW-1, the doctor who examined the Appellant.A.694/2017 Page 16 of 83PW-2 was the son-in-law of the deceased.He was first examined-in- chief on 10th November 2014, but the further examination-in-chief was deferred for want of case property.For the next six months, nothing happened.The significant statements made by him now were that no CCTV camera was installed at the first floor, but there was one installed at the ground floor where the deceased used to live.He also stated that "police did not seize any footage of CCTV from the ground floor in my presence".He mentioned that his family used to visit the first floor twice in a week to get it cleaned and maintained.PW-2 stated that the deceased also had a driver Man Singh and a cook Bhuvan, who used to cook food for her and remained at the premises from 8 am to 5 pm.When they reached the spot on the night of 7 th July 2014, the driver and cook were not present.It is significant that neither the driver Man Singh nor the cook Bhuvan were examined by the prosecution as PWs.PW-2 claimed to have made three or four calls on the mobile number of the deceased before leaving his house that night, but it was switched off.The other important facet of his cross-examination was his statement that:On 07.07.2014 the carpenter had finished the work.The carpenter had done polishing work of the table in the rear bedroom at the first floor.Before leaving the flat carpenter had cleaned the house."A.694/2017 Page 17 of 8343. PW-2 also introduced another character into the scenario being a girl engaged for cleaning the house twice a week.This girl incidentally was not examined as PW."More so, a girl was also engaged for cleaning the house twice a week.This security guard would later be examined as PW-28 after PW-2 filed an application before the trial Court under Section 311 Cr PC at a stage when the final arguments had concluded.PW-2 stated on 27th May 2015 in his cross-examination as under:"Security Guard Santosh had told me the facts which I have narrated in my examination In chief after about 40-45 minutes when we settled at the place of incident and after discovery of the body.I had also personally enquired from the Security Guard about the said facts.I had told the said facts to the police in the same night at about 1.00 AM.I do not know if police had made enquiry from the said guard."A.694/2017 Page 18 of 83PW-2 stated in his cross- examination on 27th May, 2015 that "police had not recorded my statement with regard to the facts narrated to me by the security guard".The arguments were then again heard on 24th May, 2016 and concluded.The proceedings of 19th July, 2016 read thus:"19.07.2016 Present: Mohd. Iqrar, Ld.PP for the State Accused in JC.Written submissions filed on behalf of the complainant.Copy be supplied to the State and the accused.The case is listed for orders on 06.08.2016."It is at that stage on 27th July, 2016 that the complainant appeared in person before the trial Court with the handwritten application, and this was in the absence of the APP or the counsel for the accused.The order passed on that date reads as under:"27.07.2016 Present: Sh._____(PW-2), complainant.File taken up on an application moved on behalf of the complainant for summoning Santosh, Night Guard stationed at the property at the time of offence.It is stated that the IO had examined him during the investigation but did not cite them as witness though he is a material witness in this case.He can throw light on the circumstances of the present case.It is stated Crl.A.694/2017 Page 20 of 83 that the complainant is a senior citizen made all our efforts to trace Santosh and now he has been located.A.694/2017 Page 20 of 83Issue notice of this application to the counsel for the accused.Put up on 06.08.2016, the date already fixed."Therefore, at a stage when the matter had already been reserved for orders on the conclusion of the arguments, the above application of PW-2 was entertained by the trial Court and notice was issued in the absence of the Special PP and the Appellant.At this stage, the learned Special PP, Mr Ansari, supported the application.The learned counsel for the Appellant stated that she had no objection and accordingly the application was allowed and PW-28 was summoned as a PW.On 1st September, 2016, PW-28 was examined.He stated in his examination-in-chief that he was deputed by Pratiksha Securities, in Gurgaon, to work as a security guard at the premises and that he had worked there for about one month between June and July, 2014 and that on 7th July, 2014, he was working as such and his duty hours were from 8 pm to 8 am.According to him, whenever he would reach the premises for duty at around 8 pm, he used to ring the bell of the ground floor, where the deceased was residing and she would come out to the balcony.Sometimes, Crl.A.694/2017 Page 21 of 83 she used to come downstairs and would ask him whether he wanted water, tea, bread, etc. The deceased used to mark his attendance for duty.A.694/2017 Page 21 of 83According to PW-28, on 7th July 2014 at around 7.50 pm, when he came for duty, he rang the bell of the deceased on the ground floor, but she did not come out and did not respond to the bell.While he was waiting and wondering what to do, PW-28 saw the Appellant coming downstairs hurriedly who told him:""santosh tum aa gaye ho, jahan baithe ho baith jao, mataji abhi aram kar rahi, mai unhe bata dunga ki tum duty pe aa gaye ho"54. PW-28 then said:"Thereafter, the accused went upstairs.At that time, accused was looking strange and appeared to be scared and nervous.I did not see mataji on that day at all."According to PW-28, after about an hour, the Appellant came downstairs from the premises but PW-28 could not state from which floor he came.The Appellant came to PW-28 and sat next to him.PW-28 stated that at the time, he looked quite nervous and started murmuring stating that the deceased had gone for her evening walk but had not returned.PW-28 then confronted the Appellant and said when he had first reached for duty, the Appellant had told him that the deceased was taking rest upstairs and now he was saying that she had not returned from her evening walk.The Appellant then got up and told PW-28 that he was going to inform the neighbour of the deceased.A.694/2017 Page 22 of 8356. PW-28 then spoke about the neighbour subsequently calling the police and four police officials reaching the premises, as well as the daughter and the son-in-law i.e. PW-2 also coming there.He then stated, "police did not make any enquiry nor recorded my statement." He also stated that during the time when the Appellant was upstairs after he had reached for duty, he saw no one else neither did he talk to anyone up till the time the Appellant came back downstairs and sat next to him as mentioned above.He claimed not to have met PW-2 before coming to the Court and denied that he had come to the Court on the asking of PW-2 or that he was deposing falsely at his instance.Statement of Appellant under Section 313 Cr PCThe statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr PC was first Crl.A.694/2017 Page 23 of 83 recorded on 25th February, 2016 i.e. much before the examination of PW-A.694/2017 Page 23 of 83He admitted as correct the following facts:The Appellant admitted that it was a matter of record that PW-2 found the two police officers on motorcycle when he reached there and that PW-2 asked his wife to check the ground floor to see if the deceased had fallen down since she was a patient of asthma.The Appellant denied that the wife of PW-2 gave photographs of the deceased to the police.He admitted as correct that he was working as a domestic help with the deceased and that Bhuvan, another servant, would Crl.A.694/2017 Page 25 of 83 cook food for her and would also remain from 10 am to 5 pm.He also admitted as correct that PW-2 asked his wife as well as the Appellant to check the roof of the house; that PW-2 had found the Appellant standing outside the house and PW-3 told PW-2 that it was the Appellant who informed her that the deceased had not returned from the evening walk; that the other daughter of the deceased had employed him to look after the deceased.A.694/2017 Page 25 of 83Q. No.17 and the answer given by him read as under:However, he added that "No chunni or cloth like material was tied on the neck of the deceased.Neither the deceased was naked from bottom nor her salwar or panty were lying by the side of the bed."A.694/2017 Page 26 of 83As for his disclosure statement (Ex. PW-2/K), the Appellant denied having made any such disclosure.He admitted that police interrogated him when they met him first on 7th July, 2014, and stated, "my signatures were obtained on some blank papers by the police." On the recovery of the match box, knife and plastic bottle from his quarters, he denied such a recovery.He stated, "nothing was recovered at my instance." He answered that the factum of the crime team coming there as well as his own medical examination and the taking of the exhibits in the course of such medical examination were all matters of record.He admitted that the wife of PW-2 was present during all this, but according to him, she did not sign any document in his presence.The Appellant admitted as a matter of record the subsequent proceedings, including the shifting of the dead body to the hospital, then to the mortuary as well as the post-mortem.He admitted as correct that police remand was obtained but he was never interrogated and did not make the further disclosure statement (Ex.PW-28/E).He denied the recovery of T- shirt, pant and underwear from the dustbin in front of S-Block.He further stated:A.694/2017 Page 27 of 83"The recovery is planted upon me by the police officials as they have already taken the said clothes from my room before taking me into custody in the morning of 08.07.2014."Question Nos.43 to 46 concerning the security guard and the answers thereto read as under:"43 It is in evidence against you that the security guard namely Santosh was also there when PW2 reached the spot.He was engaged by the third floor tenants of the deceased for the security of the building.What have you to say?It is correct.Q 44 It is in evidence against you that PW2 had also asked from the security guard Santosh if he had seen the mother-in-law PW2 returning to her place when he joined duty at about 8 p.m. as she used to return from the park at around 7:30 p.m. as Santosh also used to ring the bell of the first floor flat when he used to come to his duty and the deceased used to ask from her after coming out from the balcony if he needs anything that is tea / water etc. What have you to say?It is correct that PW2 had also asked from the security guard Santosh if he had seen the mother-in-law PW2 returning to her place when he joined duty at about 8 p.m. It is incorrect that Santosh also used to ring the bell of the first floor flat when he used to come to his duty and the deceased used to ask from her, after coming out from the balcony if he needs anything that is tea / water etc. Q 45 It is in evidence against you that Santosh told PW2 that when he came on duty at 8 p.m., he as usual ran the bell but she did not respond and that he had seen you coming down through stairs to the parking area where Santosh used to sit for duty.What have you to say?It is incorrect.A.694/2017 Page 28 of 83Q 46 It is in evidence against you that Santosh also told PW2 "tum duty pai aaye ho, jahan baithe ho baith jao, mataji uppar hain, main unko bata doonga ki tum duty par aa gaye ho".What have you to say?It is incorrect.I never told above said facts to Santosh."According to the Appellant, he along with other domestic help was interrogated by the police during the period of investigation.Question No.51 and the answer thereto are also significant and read as under:"Q 51 It is in evidence against you that when PW2 asked from you as to what you had done as the deceased was her grandmother's age, you then told without any remorse on your face "rape kiya hai".On hearing, PW2 was shocked.In response to Q. No.61, he again denied having made any disclosure statement to the police or having got recovered the match box or plastic bottle containing kerosene or the T-shirt, pant and underwear.His answers to Q. Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 66, as given by him on 25 th February, 2016 read as under:I was living alone in the same building and was working in the house of the deceased for whole day.The police in order to dose the investigation of the case, in connivance with PW-2, falsely implicated me in this case.I have not committed any crime as alleged by the police.A.694/2017 Page 29 of 83Q.64 Why PWs deposed against you?They are interested witnesses and have deposed under the influence of the IO.Q. 65 Do you want to lead evidence in defence?No. Q. 66 Do you want to say anything else?I am innocent.I have been falsely implicated by the police.I came around 7 pm on the ground floor from my servant quarter and when I could not find the deceased in the house, I informed the same to the neighbour and made search for the deceased In the meanwhile, I informed the daughter of the deceased who is living in USA.Therein, he denied having seen PW-28 at the premises as a security guard on duty.According to him, PW-28 never worked as a security guard there.He denied that he had had any conversation with PW-28 and claimed that he was in his room and sleeping.Question Nos. 12 and 13 in the supplementary statement and the answers thereto read as under:"Q.12 Why PW28 has deposed against you?He has been deposing at the instance of ____(PW-2).He is an introduced witness.A.694/2017 Page 30 of 83Q.13 What else do you want to say in this case.Ans: I am innocent.PW28 never remained posted as Security Guard at the aforesaid premises.He is an introduced witness and has deposed falsely at the instance of ____(PW-2) to falsely implicate me in this case.Q.14 Do you want to lead evidence in defence.Ans: Yes."The Appellant's deposition in examination-in-chief was virtually his version of the incident about the deceased not returning from her walk till 8 pm, about his going to the ground floor to search for her, about his calling her on her mobile thereafter which was switched off, about his going to the third floor to search for her since he had a key of that flat, then going to the lady neighbour and informing her, then going to the park to search for the deceased, thereafter calling the deceaseds daughter in USA, about the lady neighbour telephoning the wife of PW-2 and then the police officials coming there, about them going to the terrace to search for her, the police enquiring from PW-2 and his wife once they arrived about the flat on the first floor and then all of them going there and the wife of PW-2 opening the flat, which when opened was dark and there was smoke coming out.In his cross-examination by the Special PP, the Appellant stated that he Crl.A.694/2017 Page 31 of 83 did not know if the key of the first floor used to be with the deceased or that he was deliberately concealing this fact.He denied the suggestion that the deceased used to go to the first floor after it was cleaned up by the maid to see if some light was left switched on or the water tap was left on.On the aspect of the security guard, he stated as under:A.694/2017 Page 31 of 83"It is correct that I used to interact with that guard.He was working there as security guard when I had started working as a servant of mataji.It is wrong to suggest that when that guard came on duty, he asked me about mataji and I told him that "Santosh tum aa gaye ho jahan baith te ho baith jao, mataji abhi aram kar rahi, main unhe bata dunga ki tum duty par aa gaye ho".I cannot at what time the said guard came on duty on that day.He further stated about the security guard as under:"It is wrong to suggest that I told that guard that mataji was not present on either of the aforesaid flats.I do not know the name of that guard.It is wrong to suggest that the name of that guard is Santosh who had appeared in the Court and identified me being the servant of mataji or that I am deliberately concealing this fact.It is correct that in between time 8 to 9 p.m. that guard had also not gone to either of the flat nor any person from outside came in the building."On being asked specifically about the kerosene oil bottle, the Appellant stated "the police handed over me that bottle and asked me to keep the same in the kitchen." According to him, there was a common kitchen for the four servant quarters in the parking area.He denied the suggestion that the deceased used to call for the kerosene oil to clean the machine or that it used to kept in the servant quarters or that he had used it to burn the body.He stated that there was no pipeline gas connection in his quarters and that Crl.A.694/2017 Page 32 of 83 he was given a cylinder to cook food.A.694/2017 Page 32 of 83On 8th November, 2016, an application under Section 311 Cr PC was filed for recalling the Appellant (DW-1).This was allowed.The Appellant added that on the day of the incident, Bhuvan came to cook food at the ground floor flat and he Appellant himself went to sleep in servant quarters.The deceased used to call him to serve food to her, but on that date, she did not call him.He tried calling her on her telephone but as it did not connect, he went upstairs and found that at the time, the deceased was not there.The Appellant denied that he was improving his defence or concocting a false story about the presence of Bhuvan.He admitted as correct that Bhuvan used to come to cook food at 10 am but claimed that he did not know if he used to go back at 5 pm.The deceased was raped before her death.The death was homicidal not the natural one.The deceased was set on fire after her death by the offender with the intention to cause the evidence to disappear to screen himself from legal punishment.The exclusive presence of the accused at the place of occurrence in the said building between 8.00 p.m to 9.00 p.m when the death had taken place.(no one except the accused Crl.A.694/2017 Page 34 of 83 entered and came out from the ground floor and first floor of the building between 8.00 p.m to 9.00 p.m, the time when the death had taken place).A.694/2017 Page 34 of 83The conversation held between PW28 Security Guard Santosh and the accused coupled with his abnormal/unusual conduct of going upstairs at about 8.00 p.m and coming back downstairs at about 9.00 p.m after an hour which was the time when the offence took place.(Meeting of the accused with the Security Guard PW28 when he came on duty at 8.00 p.m and rang the bell and his telling to the Security Guard not to disturb the deceased and stating that she was sleeping, he would inform the deceased about his coming.At about 9.00 p.m, he told the Security Guard that the deceased has yet not returned from the evening walk.)Continuous presence of the accused at the scene of crime to give an appearance that he was not involved in the crime.The disclosure statements of the accused and the recovery of the incriminating material from the possession and at the instance of the accused.The trial Court held circumstances 1 to 3 as proved.Even circumstances 4 and 5 were held to be proved on account of the testimonies of PWs.2, 3 and 21 notwithstanding the failure of the IO to collect the CDRs of the mobile phone of the deceased despite the fact that the deceased had had a conversation with her relative at around 7.55 pm and the same could have confirmed if she had gone for her walk to the nearby park at around 5.30 Crl.A.694/2017 Page 35 of 83 pm, which was her usual time.The trial Court held that circumstance No.6 stood proved conclusively.According to the trial Court, in view of the testimony of PW-2 and with one key of the first floor remaining with the deceased:A.694/2017 Page 35 of 83"there was every possibility for the deceased going to the first floor to check the taps and the switches on the day of alleged incident after coming from the park."As regards circumstances No.7 and 8, the trial Court referred to the medical evidence and came to the conclusion that in view of the testimony of PW-24 and the testimonies of the scientific officers i.e. PWs-6 and 27:"it is crystal clear that the deceased was first raped and then strangulated to death.The trial Court further observed in para 47 that after the deceased was strangulated to death, the assailant cut pieces of the mattress and used kerosene oil to show that the death resulted due to fire on account of short- circuit but the CFSL report and the report of the fire officer ruled out that possibility.This showed that the body was set on fire after death.The prosecution had examined all witnesses to rule out possibility of tampering with the body or the material seized during investigation.The prolapse of the vaginal wall, the lacerated wound present over 6 oclock position at the vaginal orifice along with extravasation of blood and reddish coloured bruise on the lateral wall of vagina on the right side was "suggestive of forcible sexual penetration." PW-24 had stated that those injuries "could be due to penetration or penetrative attempt." It was noted that "it is not necessary that every penetration would always result into discharge or emission of semen.Simple penetration would amount to rape as defined Crl.A.694/2017 Page 36 of 83 under Section 375 IPC." There were external post-mortem injuries which were not ante mortem and suggested that they were caused after the death of the deceased.The absence of soot particles in the trachea of the deceased was clearly suggestive of the fact that the burn injuries were caused after the death of the deceased.These facts showed that:A.694/2017 Page 36 of 83"the assailant after committing the rape and strangulating the deceased to death, in order to disappear the evidence, burnt the body using the kerosene oil.The presence of kerosene oil is also proved from the CFSL report Ex. PW 6/B."The trial Court noted that the testimony of PW-3 about Mrs. Jolly having met the deceased in the park at around 7 pm and the discovery of the body at about 10 pm clearly showed that the death had resulted after 7 pm and before 10 pm.It was thus proved that the deceased was raped before her death and the death was homicidal.The deceased was set on fire with the intention to cause evidence to disappear.The assailant wanted to screen himself from legal punishment.Consequently, circumstances 7 and 8 stood proved.As regards circumstances 9 to 13, the trial Court came to the conclusion that:(i) The evidence showed that no one except the accused entered and came out of the ground floor and first floor of the building between 8 and 9 pm, the time the death had taken place.(ii) The conversation between the Appellant and PW-28 coupled with his abnormal conduct of going upstairs at 8 pm and coming downstairs at 9 pm, the continuous presence of the accused at the scene of crime to Crl.A.694/2017 Page 37 of 83 give an appearance that he was not involved, the disclosure statements and recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused, the contradictory and inconsistent statements by the accused with regard to the presence of PW-28 all led to the conclusion that it was the Appellant who was guilty of the crime and that these circumstance stood proved by the prosecution.According to the trial Court, since the prosecution had established the exclusive presence of the Appellant during the period when the incident took place, the burden was on the Appellant to explain the circumstances.A.694/2017 Page 37 of 83(ix) Around the same time the Appellant also called the daughter of the deceased and her husband (PW-14) in the USA informing them of the same fact.(x) PW-3 called the police and they arrived there soon thereafter.What also stands clearly established from the evidence is that the deceased died a homicidal death but not due to the burn injuries.The evidence of PW-24 is categorical that of all the six injuries noticed by him, the injury at Sl.no.6 was suggestive of "ligature strangulation post death" and that injuries 5 and 6 were post-mortem in nature.Injuries 1 to 3 (the injuries on the neck and lip) were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, collectively.A.694/2017 Page 43 of 83Circumstance of last seenReconstructing the events of the evening of 7th July 2014, one question that arises is whether there is unimpeachable evidence to show, as concluded by the trial Court, that it is the Appellant who was last seen with the deceased? In other words does the evidence show that there was "exclusive presence" of the accused at the place of occurrence in the building between 8 pm to 10 pm when the death took place?If one were to carefully reconstruct the sequence of events on the evening of 7th July 2014 and in particular, with reference to the place where the dead body was found, it is not in dispute that the body was found in the flat on the first floor of the building.What emerges from the evidence is that the deceased was not otherwise residing on first floor flat.She was residing on the ground floor flat.The key to the first floor flat was available with the owner of that flat i.e. the daughter of the deceased, the wife of PW-Although the prosecution has repeatedly stressed that there was a duplicate key of the flat available with the deceased, the police failed to investigate where this duplicate key was.Nothing was said by the Appellant about this duplicate key of the flat being available with the deceased or with him in the two disclosure statements made by him i.e. Ex.2/K and Ex.21/E. There were no finger prints or even chance prints on the door lock or anything to do with the door of the flat on the first floor.Why this was not examined is not known but the Court considers this to be a serious lapse in the investigation.The evidence also shows that the wife of PW-2 opened the door of that Crl.A.694/2017 Page 44 of 83 flat with the key that she had brought along with her.There was no forced entry into the room at all.A.694/2017 Page 44 of 83The last person to enter the flat earlier to the deceased was PW-2, who had engaged a carpenter to carry out some work there.That carpenter worked in the flat on the first floor till about 4.15 pm.PW-2 paid him, locked the door of the flat, left for the Parliament House library and thereafter returned home at about 7.30 pm.The carpenter was not examined as a PW.With the dead body of the deceased having been found inside the flat, in order to get to the first step in the chain of circumstances, the prosecution had to show that not only had the Appellant entered the flat earlier but most importantly that the deceased had also entered the flat along with the Appellant.Here the narrative of the prosecution is that by giving some excuse (which is not clear), the Appellant took the deceased to the first floor flat after she returned from her walk.The prosecution is, therefore, unable to explain how the deceased reached the locked flat of the first floor without the flat actually being opened by anyone.The Court would like to stress on this point because it has not emerged even in the disclosure statements of the Appellant that he took the duplicate key of the flat when it was purportedly returned by a domestic help engaged by the deceased to clean the flat.This has emerged only in the evidence of Crl.A.694/2017 Page 45 of 83 PW-2 but the domestic help has not been examined.PW-2 himself stated "no key were seized by the police in my presence nor any search was made by the police." He simply stated that the deceased "used to have a duplicate key which was given to her by the wife of PW-2", of which there is no evidence.Significantly, the wife of PW-2 who used her own key to open the flat and to find the deceased in a burnt condition was not examined as a prosecution witness.A.694/2017 Page 56 of 83In Charandas Swami v. State of Gujarat (supra), the disclosure made by accused was about the location where the dead body of the deceased was dumped by him which was within his exclusive personal knowledge.It had to be conclusively shown that it was the Appellant and the Appellant alone who committed the crime.The medical and forensic evidence fails on this test.According to Mr. Mahajan, because the Appellant ejaculated on the Crl.The witnesses to the above recovery were PW-2 and his wife (who was not examined).PW-2 for reasons to be disclosed hereafter is neither a truthful nor a reliable witness.He seems to be interested in the outcome of the case.Many of his statements have not been corroborated either by the Crl.There was no burnt match stick found.A plastic bottle of kerosene and a match box are very common objects.Again, the knife which was purportedly used to slash the mattress at various points, when tested by the FSL, did not show any traces which suggested that it was the same knife that could have been used to cut the mattress or that those slashes could have been caused by it.Without the prosecution conclusively proving that it was only the Appellant who was exclusively present in the building and that it was him alone who was present in the room on the first floor with the deceased at Crl.A.694/2017 Page 61 of 83 the relevant time, this discovery of the plastic bottle with some kerosene and a match box from the room of the Appellant is really not convincing as a clinching circumstance at all.A.694/2017 Page 61 of 83It is from this circumstance that the other circumstance about the Appellant trying to destroy the evidence and, therefore, the post crime conduct pointing further to his guilt, is sought to be drawn.It is to be noted that the Appellant certainly did not confirm that he was the same security guard.His subsequent statements under Section 313 Cr PC make it apparent that the security guard at the building was not the security guard who was examined in Court.The trial Court has unfortunately read the evidence of the Appellant as showing him to be inconsistent in his replies and therefore, shifting stands which led the trial court to conclude that his conduct was strange." On the other hand, this raised serious doubts on the quality of investigation.A.694/2017 Page 64 of 83 building where the deceased was ultimately found.(i) That it was the Appellant who was exclusively found in and around the place where the dead body was found or even at the time of occurrence.(ii) That it was the Appellant who took the deceased to the first floor and once the deceased led herself into the flat using the duplicate key."The accused when interrogated on 08.07.2014 did not disclose that he had thrown the clothes in the dustbin of the park.He later disclosed about throwing of clothes in the park.Further, the clothes of the accused were sent to CFSL but nothing Crl.A.694/2017 Page 66 of 83 incriminating was found from the clothes to inculpate the accused."A.694/2017 Page 66 of 83And yet the trial Court concludes that "even then, this itself does not proof fatal to the case of the prosecution", since according to the trial Court, "the testimonies of PW2, PW28, PW21 and PW26, medical and CFSL reports prove the exclusive presence of the accused at the scene of crime." Having discussed in detail the evidence of PWs 21, 28 and 26 and the medical and CFSL reports, the Court is unable to come to such conclusion."We had also supplied the information qua other domestic helps who also used to do some work in the premises in question.The police also interrogated the accused, present in the court today, and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW Crl.A.694/2017 Page 67 of 83 2/H bearing my signature at point A."A.694/2017 Page 67 of 83There was no mention on this date of a security guard or of PW-2 having talked to any security guard at all.Now for the first time he begins his examination-in-chief with the following statement:"When I reached the place of incident, Sh.Santosh, Security guard hired by third floor tenants of my mother in law/deceased, to look after the security of the building, was found present.I asked him If he had seen my mother in law returning to her place when he had joined duty at about 8.00 pm as my mother in law used to return from park at about 7.30 pm, Santosh also used to ring the bell of the first floor flat of my mother in law at the time when he used to come to his duty and my mother in law used to come out in her balcony and ask him if he need anything including tea/water etc. Santosh told to me that on that day, when he came at 8.00 pm, he had rang the bell of first floor as usual but she did not respond, instead he saw accused Neeraj coming down through stairs to the parking area, where he used to sit for duty.Santosh also told me that accused told him that tum duty pe aaye ho, Jahan bethie ho beth jao.Mataji uper hai, me unko bata dunga ki turn duty par aa gaye ho'. "This is what makes this entire insertion of the security guard into the scenario highly suspicious.This aspect only emerged in the testimony of PW-2 after a gap of six months, no other witness deposing about the presence of PW-28 at the spot and with the prosecution itself not choosing to even record the statement of PW-28 under Section 161 Cr PC, the circumstances of his ultimately being allowed to be brought on as a Crl.A.694/2017 Page 68 of 83 prosecution witness become extremely suspicious.One such character was the domestic help who according to him on the day of the incident had used the duplicate key, after taking it from the deceased, to open the first floor flat and clean it.There is no such domestic help who was even spoken to by the police.This was an important link in the chain of circumstances which should have been examined further.It is also only on 7th May 2015 i.e. six months after his examination-in- chief on 10th November 2014 that he adverted to a conversation he purportedly had with the Appellant as under:"Thereafter, when I asked the accused as to what he had done as the deceased was of her grandmother age, then accused without any remorse on his face told me that rape kiya hai'.We were shocked Crl.The fact that PW-2 could omit to mention to the police or even in his examination-in-chief six months earlier this utterance by the Appellant makes PW-2 highly suspect as a truthful or reliable witness.PW-2 is a witness related to the deceased as her son-in-law.In the facts and circumstances of the present case, which will be discussed hereafter, he is also an interested witness.The law concerning related witnesses and interested witnesses is well settled.In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab 1954 SCR 145, the Supreme Court explained:"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely.Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.In para 8 of that application, PW-2 says that he happened to meet an old friend, who works in an NGO, who volunteered to search for the said Santosh.The deceased herself retained the flat on the third floor, the front portion of which was given on lease to a company and the rear portion of which was in the possession of the deceased.A.694/2017 Page 76 of 83(vi) On 6th and 7th July 2014 a carpenter had been engaged by PW-2 to work in the flat on the first floor.PW-2 was also present supervising his work, and had paid the carpenter before leaving, without meeting the deceased that evening.(vii) The deceased left for her walk as usual at around 5.30 p.m. but after that was not seen alive.(viii) At around 9.15 pm, the Appellant went to the house of the neighbour PW-3 informing her of the fact that the deceased had not returned from her walk.(ix) Around the same time the Appellant also called the daughter of the deceased and her husband (PW-14) in the USA informing them of the same fact.PW-3 called the police and they arrived there soon thereafter.Injuries Crl.A.694/2017 Page 77 of 83 1 to 3 (to the neck) were ante mortem and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.A.694/2017 Page 77 of 83(C) There is no evidence that prior to the death of the deceased, the Appellant entered the flat earlier and the deceased also entered the flat with him.Significantly, the wife of PW-2 who used her own key to open the flat and to find the deceased in a burnt condition was not examined as a prosecution witness.(D) The injuries suffered by the deceased around her vagina were noticed by PW-24 when he undertook the post-mortem on 10th July 2014 at 12 noon.This fact that she suffered a lacerated wound at the vaginal orifice was not something that would not have been discovered but for the disclosure made by the Appellant.The conviction of the Appellant cannot be based on the evidence of such witness.(K) With the medical and forensic evidence ruling out the possibility of the Appellant having committed the physical sexual assault on the deceased, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for a crime.The case against the Appellant had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.The prosecution has failed to do that in the present case.A.694/2017 Page 81 of 83 on the basis of circumstantial evidence:A.694/2017 Page 81 of 83A.694/2017 Page 82 of 83Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense.It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted."
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,758,655 |
The prosecution case runs as follows :---Appellant Tippanna Kalasappa Koli is the father of the remaining four appellants.The five appellants on the one hand and the two deceased person viz. Shivappa Bhagappa Koli and Bhimu Bhagappa Koli on the other are said to be relations.It is said that the ridge between the field of the appellants and that of the deceased persons was a common one.On account of it, there was a dispute between the parties.On 25th June, 1991, at about 3.00 to 3.30 p.m., Nagappa, the real brother of the deceased persons, followed by the deceased persons, came to the shop of P.W. 1 Chandsaheb Dastagir Faras in village Utagi.They complained that on the ridge appellant Tippanna had planted some trees and asked him to resolve the dispute.At that time, appellant Ramchandra also came in the shop.Chandsaheb assured both the sides that he would visit the village next morning and settle the dispute between them.On 25th June, 1991, at about 7.00 p.m. when the informant Mallappa Satyappa Tungal P.W. 6 was about to switch on the radio inside his house, he heard some commotion from the side of the house of the appellant Tippanna.Understandably, on that he came out and found that appellants Tippanna, Shrimant and Ramchandra with sticks and appellants Irappa and Devendra with axes were assaulting the deceased persons Shivappa Bhagappa Koli and Bhimu Bhagappa Koli.Both the informant and one Hanmant Vasappa Koli who had also come along with him to the place of the incident, implored the appellants not to beat them.However, they did not pay any heed to them.As a consequence of the assault, Shivappa fell down on the ground.It is alleged that Bhimu ran towards the house of the informant, but the appellants chased him with axes and sticks.The informant and Hanmant implored them not to assault them, but they paid no heed.They assaulted the deceased Bhima.Thereafter the appellants are alleged to have run away from the place of the incident.It is further alleged that the same day at about 8.00 p.m., one Tukaram Sidharaya Koli P.W. 9, a resident of the village wherein the incident took place (Utagi), saw them going in a bullock-cart in front of his house.At that time, Irappa was having an axe and the remaining persons were having sticks.After the appellants had run away from the place of the incident, the informant asked Hanmant to go into the village and inform Nagappa the brother of the deceased persons, about the incident and also to inform the villagers about the same.The informant stayed at his house.When for half an hour no one turned up, he on his cycle went towards the village Utagi and found that villagers including the Police Patil Basvantrai Birajdar had gathered near the Gram Panchayat.The informant told the Police Patil about the incident, but the latter said that he would accompany him for lodging F.I.R. only after confirming the facts himself.Thereafter the Police Patil along with the informant and some others went to the place of the incident.The distance between the place of the incident and Police Station Umadi is 10 kms.This has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 Chandsaheb Dastagir Faras.After the lodging of the F.I.R., P.S.I. Vithal Shinde along with some police personnel left for the place of the incident.In torch light he saw the dead bodies at the place of the incident.He kept a guard near the dead bodies and thereafter went to trace the appellants in the village.He found appellants Tippanna, Irappa, Devendra and Shrimant in the village and sent them to police station along with police personnel.He went to the place of the incident and prepared the inquest panchanamas of both the bodies.He attached the articles found on the place of the incident under a panchanama.They were earth mixed with blood, two plastic white buttons, one pair of leather chappals having blood on left chappal, one babul stick broken into two pieces and one pair of chappal.Thereafter, he sent the dead bodies for autopsy.From the place of the incident, he also recovered a blood stained axe and three sticks.The same day he interrogated the informant Mallappa, Goudappa P.W. 7 and some other witnesses.The same day, he recorded statements of four witnesses including P.W. 1 Chandsaheb.On 28th June, 1991, from the house of appellant Tippanna, under a panchanama, he recovered one axe and three sticks all of which were blood stained.On 29th June, 1991, he arrested the three ladies Sou.Mahadevi Tippanna Koli, Sou.Gourava Irappa Koli and Sou.Bharati Ramchandra Koli, who are the wives of appellants Tippanna, Irappa and Ramchandra respectively.During the course of investigation, he sent the recovered articles to the Chemical Analyst.Finally on 14th September, 1991, after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants.Going backwards, the autopsy of the dead bodies of the deceased persons was conducted on 26th June, 1991 by P.W. 11 Dr. Prakash Akaram Kamble.On the corpse of Shivappa Bhagappa Koli, Dr. Kamble in all found 20 ante-mortem injuries, their break-up being thus : 15 incised wounds, 3 contused wounds and 2 abrasions.Beneath the incised wounds, the doctor found extensive internal damage including fracture of skull, fracture of scapula, fracture of right tibia and fibula and fracture of left tibia.According to Dr. Kamble, the deceased died on account of cerebral laceration and multiple injuries all over his body.His F.I.R. further reads that on 25th June, 1991 at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. he, his brothers Devendra, Ramchandra, Shrimant, father Tippanna his mother, his wife and the wife of Ramchandra were present at the farm house.At that time the deceased persons Shivappa Bhagappa Koli and Bhimu Bhagappa Koli came and started abusing him.At that his mother, his brother's wife and his wife went towards them and asked them not to quarrel and abuse, but they did not relent.When Irappa's father Tippanna went towards them, they pushed him.The injuries of appellant Irappa and others were medically examined by P.W. 12 Dr. Sachin Walchand Shaha.Appellant Irappa was examined by him on 26th June, 1991 at 7.30 p.m. and was found to have sustained the following three injuries :---1. C.L.W. over left side on back at vertebra 1/2 x 1/4 c.m.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.The appellants aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 26th February, 1993 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 232 of 1991 convicting and sentencing them to imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. have come up in appeal before us.Along with the appellants Sou.Mahadevi Tippanna Koli, Sou, Gourava Irappa Koli and Sou.Bharati Ramchandra Koli the wives of appellants Tippanna, Irappa and Ramchandra respectively were also tried, but they have been acquitted by the impugned judgment.Their acquittal has not been challenged by the State of Maharashtra.After satisfying himself about the deaths of the deceased persons, the Police Patil along with the informant, at about midnight, proceeded in a jeep for Police Station Umadi.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by P.S.I. Vithal Ambadas Shinde on 26th June, 1991 at 1.55 a.m. on the basis of a complaint lodged by the informant Mallappa.On the basis of the F.I.R., C.R. No. 21 of 1991 under section 302 I.P.C. was registered.On the corpse of Bhimu Bhagappa Koli, the doctor in all found 13 injuries, out of which 5 were incised wounds, 3 were contused wounds and 5 were abrasions.The doctor also found severe internal damage beneath the incised wounds involving fracture of skull and fracture of 8th and 9th ribs on the right side.According to the doctor, the deceased died on account of cerebral laceration and multiple injuries all over his body.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where charges on a large number of counts including sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. were framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In their statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., their defence was that of denial.In the trial Court, apart from tendering documentary evidence, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses out of which two viz. Mallappa Satyappa Tungal P.W. 6 and Goudappa Bhauraya Karajagi P.W. 7 gave ocular account of the incident.The remaining witnesses included P.W. 9 Tukaram Sidharaya Koli who gave evidence admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act, viz. that falling under the caption of "res gestae", P.W. 11 Dr. Kamble who performed the autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased, P.W. 14 P.S.I. Vithal Shinde who did the investigation in the case, a large number of public panchas, P.W. 1 Chandsaheb Dastagir who in addition to being a pancha deposed about the motive of the incident and P.W. 2 Circle Inspector Suresh Venkatesh Khasnis who prepared the site plan.In defence, no witness was examined although the counter F.I.R. with respect to the same incident lodged by appellant Irappa Tippanna Koli on 26th June, 1991 at 8.00 a.m. at Police Station Umadi which was registered by P.W. 13 Police Constable Sidhram Narsing Shinde was proved.The learned trial Judge acquitted the three ladies Sou.Mahadevi Tippanna Koli, Sou.Gourava Irappa Koli and Sou.Bharati Ramchandra Koli, but convicted and sentenced the appellants only on one count viz. section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. He however to our dismay acquitted the appellants under sections 147 I.P.C., 148 I.P.C. and 302 read with 149 I.P.C. However, the acquittal of the appellants on those counts has become final inasmuch as the State of Maharashtra has not filed an appeal challenging it.At this stage, we cannot restrain ourselves from expressing our indignation at the lamentable ignorance displayed by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the appellants under sections 147 I.P.C., 148 I.P.C. and 302 read with 149 I.P.C. Sections 147 I.P.C., 148 I.P.C. and 149 I.P.C. deal with offences committed by members of an unlawful assembly.Unlawful assembly has been defined in section 141 I.P.C. Section 141 I.P.C. provides that an assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if the common object of the assembly is to commit an offence.Since the assembly was of five persons and its common object was to commit the murders of the deceased persons it was undoubtedly an unlawful assembly.Section 147 I.P.C. and 148 I.P.C. only provide for punishment of members of an unlawful assembly for the offence of rioting; section 147 I.P.C. for simple rioting and section 148 I.P.C. for rioting committed by a member armed with a deadly weapon.We are at a complete loss to understand as to how the learned trial Judge could have acquitted the appellant under section 147 I.P.C. and 148 I.P.C. section 149 I.P.C. provides that:It appears that the learned trial Judge has got fallacious and erroneous notions about the concept of common object.In his Judgment in paragraphs 74 and 75, he has observed that had the murders been committed in furtherance of common object, then the appellants would have waited in ambush.We can only express our astonishment on this lamentable ignorance displayed by the learned trial Judge.In our view there could not have been a more glaring case of two murders being committed in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly than the present one.Through this appeal the appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.We have heard Mr. A.P. Mundargi along with Mr. R.V. More for the appellants and Mr. S.R. Borulkar for the State of Maharashtra.The perusal shows that both the deceased persons sustained a substantial number of incised wounds, contusions and abrasions.Dr. Prakash Kamble P.W. 11 who performed the autopsies on the dead bodies of the deceased persons stated in his deposition in the trial Court that incised wounds could have been attributable to axe, the contusions and abrasions to sticks.This witness lives near the house of the appellants and on the date of the incident at about 8.00 p.m. saw the appellants in a bullock cart passing in front of his house.He stated that at that time appellant Irappa Tippanna Koli was armed with an axe and the remaining appellants with sticks.The evidence of this witness would fall under the caption of res gestae and would be admissible under section 6 of the Evidence Act. Like the eye witnesses, P.W. 9 Tukaram Sidharaya Koli is a wholly independent witness and had no axe to grind against the appellants.His evidence definitely incriminates the appellants.We now propose taking up each of these circumstances.We firstly find that the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged within seven hours of the incident taking place.As said earlier, the incident took place on 25th June, 1991 at about 7.00 p.m. and the F.I.R. was lodged on 26th June, 1991 at 1.55 a.m. Police Station Umadi where the F.I.R. was lodged is situated at a distance of 10 kms.from the place of the incident.The F.I.R. viewed in the peculiar features of this case can be described as a prompt one.The evidence of the informant P.W. 6 Mallappa Tungal is that after the assault was over, he sent Hanmant to go into the village and inform Nagappa, the brother of the deceased persons and the villagers, about the incident.This in our view was a very natural conduct on his part.His further evidence is that when no one came from the village for half an hour he proceeded for village Utagi himself and there near the Gram Panchayat he found the Police Patil and some other persons.He informed the Police Patil Basavantrai Birajdar P.W. 8 about the incident, but the latter said that he would proceed for lodging the F.I.R. only after ascertaining the facts himself.Then the Police Patil along with the informant went to the place of the incident.Thereafter a jeep was arranged for.Understandably sometime must have been taken in arranging for the jeep and then on it the informant alongwith the Police Patil and some others at about the midnight proceeded for Police Station Umadi for lodging the F.I.R. In these circumstances bearing in mind the fact that Police Station Umadi where the F.I.R. was lodged was situated at a distance of about 10 km from the place of the incident the F.I.R. in the instant case was certainly lodged very promptly.Criminal Courts attach great significance to the lodging of a prompt F.I.R. The same largely eliminates the possibility of false implication of accused persons named therein and of embellishments in the prosecution story.The second corroboration is in the form of a strong motive on the part of the appellants to have murdered the deceased persons.There was a ridge in between the fields of the appellants and the deceased persons and on account of planting of trees on the same there was a dispute between the parties.It is alleged by the prosecution that on the day of the incident at about 3.00 to 3.30 p.m. the deceased persons, their brother Nagappa and appellant Ramchandra came at the cloth shop of Chandsaheb Dastagir Faras P.W. 1 and there each side blamed the other for its unreasonable stand on the question of planting trees on the ridge.Chandsaheb Faras pacified them and assured them that the next morning he would visit the place and settle the dispute.In our view, Chandsaheb Dastagir Faras P.W. 1 who has deposed about this motive is a wholly independent witness and we see no reason for not believing his evidence on the point of motive.A third corroboration is forthcoming by the circumstance that the clothes of the appellants were found to be stained with blood when they were arrested by the police.As mentioned earlier on 26th June, 1991, i.e. the next day, appellants Tippanna, Irappa, Devendra and Shrimant were arrested at the police station and in the presence of public panch Amin Jakate P.W. 10 the clothes worn by them which were recovered under a panchanama were found stained with blood.We have also mentioned earlier that on 27th June, 1991 appellant Ramchandra was arrested and in the presence of a public pancha Sadashiv Madgonda Teli P.W. 4 blood stained shirt which he was wearing and blood-stained chappal were seized under a panchanama.We have gone through the evidence of public panchas Amin Jakate P.W. 10 and Sadashiv Madgonda P.W. 4 and we find that it inspires implicit confidence.We also find that both these witnesses were independent witnesses and had no axe to grind against the appellants.Their evidence corroborated by that of P.S.I. Vithal Shinde P.W. 14 who was also a witness of the aforesaid recoveries, furnishes a very strong corroboration to the prosecution case.In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. the circumstance that blood stained clothes worn by them were recovered from them was put to them, but apart from pleading ignorance about it no explanation was offered by them.The aforesaid witness appears to be a man of status.The evidence is that he was a Director of an Education Society.He however, has a different version to which we shall shortly refer.8-D. For the reasons enumerated above, we are of the view that the prosecution has discharged the initial burden of proving its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.The version as contained in the F.I.R. lodged by appellant Irappa Tipanna Koli is that there was a dispute on account of ridge between the appellants on the one hand and he and his family members on the other.Then his brother Devendra, Shrimant and Ramchandra came out.At that time, Shivappa pelted a stone which hit him on his left eye.He sat down after receiving injuries resulting from it.Thereafter, Shivappa dealt an axe-stick blow on his neck and back.At that time, the deceased Bhimu was also assaulting him and his brother Devendra by his hands.Then his brothers Ramchandra and Shrimant came there and they requested them not to assault them.At that point of time he snatched the axe from the hands of Shivappa and gave blows with that on the person of Shivappa and Bhimu.2. C.L.W. over and above left eyebrow 1 x 1 cm.3. Abrasion over left chest.Appellants Tippanna, Devendra, Shrimant and Ramchandra were medically examined by Dr. Sachin Walchand Shaha on 27th June, 1991, but Dr. Shaha noticed no external injury on their person.He found that they only complained of tenderness on some parts of their body.We may straightaway mention that the version as contained in the F.I.R. lodged by appellant Irappa appears to us to be a tissue of lies.Firstly, the aforesaid version does not explain the substantial blunt weapon injuries sustained by each of the deceased persons.Secondly, that version appears to us to be inherently improbable.We are not prepared to accept that inspite of the fact that Irappa and the other appellants were unarmed, Irappa could snatch the axe from the hands of the deceased Shivappa and inflict single handed as many as 20 incised wounds on the body of both the deceased persons.There is a third reason as to why we are not prepared to accept this defence case and that being it has neither been put in cross-examination to any of the prosecution witnesses nor pleaded by any of the appellants, including Irappa, in their statements under section 313 Cr.We now take up the injuries which are alleged to have been suffered by appellant Irappa and others.In the earlier part of our judgment we have noted that excepting Irappa, the other four appellants had no visible injury.They only complained to tenderness on some parts of their body.Regarding Irappa we find that he had sustained two contused lacerated wounds, one of them being on back 1/2 cm.x 1/4 cm.the other being 1 x 1 cm.above the left eye.The third injury sustained by him is said to be an abrasion over left chest, but the dimensions of the said injury have not been given by the doctor.In our view, the aforesaid ladies have been acquitted for two reasons viz. they not being named in the F.I.R. and the absence of over act being attributed to them.Both the witnesses in their statements in the trial Court have deposed about the presence of the other.P.W. 7 Goudappa Karajagi in his statement frankly admitted that as soon as the appellants launched the assault on the deceased Shivappa, he ran away.Apart from the fact that different people behave differently in different situations, we find on a careful reading of the statement of Goudappa that there were plausible reasons for his running away.The reason disclosed in his evidence is that he was worried that Nagappa, the third brother of the deceased persons, may not be murdered by them.Therefore, he went to the house of Nagappa where he found Nagappa's wife and the wife of deceased Bhimu.Not only did he tell them about the incident but he also took Bhimu's wife and Nagappa to his own house.All this has been stated by him in paragraph 5 of his statement in the trial Court.There may be more than one reason for such a conduct.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,867,547 |
"That you Sajjan Kumar, on 1st day of November, 1984, and thereafter, in and around the area of Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 3 of 97 & Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 3 of 97Secondly, that you Sajjan Kumar on the aforesaid date and place, delivered fiery / provocative speeches, that is, "Sare sardaron ko maro, ye sardar ka ghar hai, inhe bhi maro, sardaron ne meri maa maar di hai, inko maar do-kaat do" etc. to the mob gathered in that area and instigated and promoted violent enmity against Sikh community and disturbed harmony between the two religious groups / communities of the locality, in retaliation to the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 4 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 Minister of India and you promoted the feeling of enmity between the members of Non-Sikh and members of Sikh community, which was an act prejudicial to the act of maintenance of harmony and to create feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will between different groups and communities and which disturbed public tranquillity and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and within the cognizance of this court."P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 4 of 97Brahmanand Gupta @ Gupta Telwala s/o Mool Chand as follows:That you all on 1st day of November, 1984, and thereafter, in and around the area of Sultan Puri, that is, Block no. A, B, C, E and F, and within the jurisdiction of PS Sultan Puri, agreed among yourself namely Ved Prakash Pial @ Veedu Prardhan, Peeru @ Periya Sansi @ Peera Ram @ Peeriya Gujrati, Khushal Singh @ Munna and Brahmand Gupta @ Gupta Telwala, along with your co-accused Sajjan Kumar and other known and unknown persons including police personnels and agreed to do or cause to be done illegal acts, to wit to be the member of an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, in prosecution of common object of every member of such Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 5 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 assembly, to use force or violence, to loot, damage, burn, the properties of Sikhs, to kill the members of Sikhs communities, residing in that area, in the wake of assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, and these acts were committed in consequence of abetment and conspiracy by your co- accused namely Sajjan Kumar thereby you all committed an offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 295, 302 & 436 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 5 of 97Secondly, on the aforesaid date and place, you all namely Ved Prakash Pial @ Veedu Pradhan, Peeru @ Periya Sansi @ Peera Ram @ Peeriya Gujrati, Khushal Singh @ Munna and Brahmand Gupta @ Gupta Telwala, along with other known and unknown persons, including police personnels, being members of unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, that is, guns, iron rods, dandas, swords, kerosene oil, etc., with a common object of looting, damaging, burning the properties of Sikhs, to kill the members of Sikh community residing in that area, in retaliation to the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, and in prosecution of aforesaid common object, you all committed the offence of rioting and that you all thereby committed offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC and within cognizance of this court.Thirdly, on the aforesaid date and place, you all namely Ved Prakash Pial @ Veedu Pradhan, Peeru @ Periya Sansi @ Peera Ram @ Peeriya Gujrati, Khushal Singh @ Munna and Brahmand Gupta @ Gupta Telwala, along with other known and unknown persons, including police personnels, were members of an unlawful assembly and did, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, namely looting, damaging, burning the properties of Sikhs, to kill the members of Sikh community residing in that area, in Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 6 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 retaliation to the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, committed the offence of rioting with deadly weapons, that is, guns, iron rods, dandas, swords, kerosene oil, etc. likely to cause death and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC and within cognizance of this court.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 6 of 97Fourthly, on the aforesaid date and place, you all namely Ved Prakash Pial @ Veedu Pradhan, Peeru @ Periya Sansi @ Peera Ram @ Peeriya Gujrati, Khushal Singh @ Munna and Brahmand Gupta @ Gupta Telwala, along with other known and unknown persons including police personnels, were members of unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, that is, guns, iron rods, dandas, swords, kerosene oil, etc. with a common object to loot, damage, burn the properties of Sikhs, to kill the members of Sikh community residing in that area in retaliation to the assassination of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, used criminal force and violence and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 149 of the IPC and within cognizance of this court.Fifthly, on the aforesaid date and place, you all namely Ved Prakash Pial @ Veedu Pradhan, Peeru @ Periya Sansi @ Peera Ram @ Peeriya Gujrati, Khushal Singh @ Munna and Brahmand Gupta @ Gupta Telwala, alongwith other known and unknown persons including police personnels in prosecutions of common object, you all being the members of unlawful assembly, committed mischief by setting on fire a place of worship, that is the Gurudwara of Budh Vihar and houses of Sikhs communities used as human dwelling or as a place for custody of property and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 149 of IPC and within cognizance of this court.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 7 of 97& Crl.P.113/2011 Sixthly, on the aforesaid date and place, you all namely Ved Prakash Pial @ Veedu Pradhan, Peeru @ Periya Sansi @ Peera Ram @ Peeriya Gujrati, Khushal Singh @ Munna and Brahmand Gupta @ Gupta Telwala, alongwith other known and unknown persons including police personnels, in furtherance of your common object destroyed/damaged/defiled a place of worship to wit Gurudwara of Budh Vihar in Block-C Sultanpuri, Delhi held sacred by Sikh Community, with the intention of destruction and thereby insulting their religion and that you all thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 295 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and within cognizance of this court.Seventhly, on the aforesaid date and place, you all namely Ved Prakash Pial @ Veedu Pradhan, Peeru @ Periyal Sansi @ Peera Ram @ Peeriya Gujrati, Khushal Singh @ Munna and Brahmand Gupta @ Gupta Telwala, alongwith other known and unknown persons, including police personnels, were members of unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, that is, guns, iron rods, dandas, swords, kerosene oil, etc. and you all in furtherance of your common object committed the murder of Surjeet Singh s/o Iqbal and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and within cognizance of this court."Vide W.P.(Crl.) 205/2010, the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 01.02.2010 passed by ld. ACMM, Karkardooma Court, Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 8 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 Delhi whereby issued summons for appearance in RC7(S)/05/SCB- II/N.D., RC8(S)/05/SCB-II/ND and RC 25(S)/05/SCU-I. Issue raised in this petition is same as in above petitions, therefore, this petition is also being decided along with other petitions mentioned above.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 8 of 97Therefore, this petition is being decided along with the petitions mentioned above.The case in hand has a painful history that on 31.10.1984, Late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her bodyguards at her residence in New Delhi, which led to riots in various parts of Delhi involving looting, arson and murders of persons belonging to particular religion (Sikh).On the basis of DD No.14A dated 01.11.1984, case FIR No. 250/84 was registered with Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi on 01.11.1984 for the riots which took place in Sultan Puri area, Delhi.The police filed four charge-sheets including one supplementary charge-sheet for trial.Result of all the charge-sheets are as under:-P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 9 of 979. Charges of killing in RC 7 (S)/2005/SCB-II/DLI (FIR No. 250/84) is as under:"i. Basant Singh, S/o Shri Gulshan Singh, R/o A-1/178, Sultan Puri, Delhi.Balbir Singh , S/o, Shri Basant Singh, R/o A-4/176-177, Sultan Puri, Delhi iii.Balihar Singh, S/o, Shri Basant Singh, R/o A-4/176, Sultan Puri, Delhi Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 10 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 iv.Hoshiar Singh, S/o, Shri Sewa Singh, R/o C-3/245, Sultan Puri, Delhi v. Mohan Singh, S/o, Shri Sewa Singh, R/o C-3/245, Sultan Puri, Delhi vi.Ranjit Singh, S/i, Shri Tota Singh, R/o, C-4/31, Sultan Puri,Delhi".P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 10 of 97Mr. Amerinder Saran, Ld.The Commission, therefore, recommend to the Govt. of India to examine Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 14 of 97 & Crl.However, in pursuance of discussion held in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on 10.08.2005 to 11.08.2005, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India entrusted the case to CBI on 24.10.2005 vide DO Letter Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 15 of 97 & Crl.In earlier depositions these witnesses had not named the petitioner Sajjan Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 16 of 97 & Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 18 of 97She was blatantly lying to CBI with respect to earlier statement that she named the petitioner, however, no attempt was made by CBI to collect the record of the earlier deposition of the said witness.The unfair investigation of CBI is also revealed from the fact that when three FIRs were registered, the CBI has filed a joint charge- sheet in all three FIRs without any rhyme and reason.The said Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 25 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 for the same offence nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub section (2) thereof.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 27 of 97Even if the entire statement is taken to be true, no prosecution could be launched and can be continued on the basis of the said Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 30 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 statement in as much as the said statement does not in any manner implicate any of the petitioners in any of the matter.P. 438/2010, Crl.The case was earlier investigated by the police authorities and filed a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. which was also accepted by the ld.Trial Courts after examining the complainant Smt. Anek Kaur as a court witness.She, in her statement, had disowned her earlier affidavit.Earlier, death of Surjeet Singh was investigated under FIR No. Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.A glance at the Crl.PW6 Joginder Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has named all the accused including Sajjan Kumar and attributed to him the role of instigating the mob to kill Sardars.He has also spoken about the presence of Police persons in the mob which killed Surjeet Singh.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 53 of 97He is a leader of the Congress Party and she used to cast votes in his favour.The same has been repeatedly noticed by various Commissions and Committees set up by the Government from time to time.The National Police Commission was appointed by the Government of India in 1997 with wide terms of reference covering the police organization, its role, functions, accountability, relations with the public, political interference in its work, misuse of powers, evaluation of its performance etc. This was the first Commission appointed at the national level after Independence.The Commission produced eight reports between 1979 to 1981, suggesting wide ranging reforms in the Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 74 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 existing police set-up.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 75 of 97After taking note of the development that the investigation of the case stand transferred to the CBI, the learned MM merely consigned the case file to records as the CBI was investigating the case and granted liberty to the State to move appropriate motion in respect of the untraced report as and when required.P. 438/2010, Crl.Moreover, the investigation was not complete as, even according to the untraced report submitted by Delhi Police, the Complainant Jagdish Kaur had not joined the investigation.The endeavour of Delhi Police to rush with the filing of the untraced report despite the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, prima facie, appears to be clandestine and calls for a high level enquiry.The enquiry should be made into the issue as to whether there was justification for the concerned police officers to file the untraced report even after the investigation stood transferred to the CBI, and if no satisfactory explanation is found, to enquire into the conduct of the concerned officer of Delhi Police, who Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 78 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 proceeded to file the untraced report, despite having no authority to do so."P. 438/2010, Crl.It is emerged that on the basis of DD No. 14-A dated 01.11.1984, case FIR No.250/1987 was registered at P.S. Sultanpuri, Delhi on 01.11.1984 for the riots which took place in Sultanpuri area, Delhi.The police had filed four charge-sheets including one supplementary charge-sheet.After trial, accused therein were acquitted in the first charge-sheet vide judgment dated 23.12.2002 passed by Smt. Manju Goel, the then ld. Addl.Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.In the second charge-sheet accused therein were also acquitted vide judgment dated 30.09.1993 passed by Shri S.S. Bal, the then ld. Addl.was qua the killing of 49 persons whereas second charge-sheet, i.e., State vs. Gopi & ors.related to the killing of 7 persons in C-Block, Sultanpuri area.In the present case, the CBI has picked up names of Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 79 of 97 & Crl.Thus, the CBI has made killing of above six persons as the subject matter of the RC-7(S)/2005/SCB-II-Delhi(FIR No.250/84).P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 79 of 97However, death of Surjeet Singh is the subject matter of the present RC 25(S)/05/SCR-1/DLI.FIR No.307/1994 was registered at PS.Sultanpuri, Delhi on the basis of an affidavit filed by Smt. Anek Kaur before Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission constituted on 09.09.1985 regarding the killing of her husband Vakil Singh.This affidavit was accepted by Lt. Governor and consequently on 14.06.1994, aforesaid FIR was registered.The complainant Smt. Anek Kaur did not support the contents of her affidavit filed before the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission on the basis of which the above said case was registered.Rather, she disowned her affidavit.Smt. Anek Kaur was examined during investigation of FIR No. 268/1984, which covers the offences alleged in her affidavit and there too she did not support the version of the prosecution.Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India while exercising its power conferred under section 3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, vide Notification No. 441(E) dated 08.05.2000 appointed Justice Nanavati Commission of Enquiry (1984 Anti Sikh Riots) to enquire into 1984 Anti sikh riots incident.The aforesaid Commission recommended to the Government of India to examine only those cases, where the witnesses stated against accused Sajjan Kumar specifically, yet no charge-sheet was filed against him.The Commission further recommended to examine the cases which were closed as untraced and still deserve to be re- examined including FIR No. 250/1984, FIR No. 347/1991 and FIR No. 307/1994 registered at Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi.Accordingly, the Commission recommended to the Govt. of India to examine only those cases wherein the complainants have specifically accused Sajjan Kumar.Further directed that in those two charge-sheets filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced and if there is justification for the same, to take action as permitted under the law.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 82 of 97Metropolitan Magistrates and Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.Vide the petitions being Crl.Rev. P. 438/2010 and 439/2010, petitioners have challenged the Order on Charge dated 01.07.2010 whereby the ld.Trial Court was of the opinion that in view of the statement of witnesses and documents relied upon by the prosecution, there are sufficient grounds for presuming that incident dated 01.11.1984 resulted on account of provocative speeches made by petitioner Sajjan Kumar to the mob gathered in Sultanpuri area and he instigated the mob and other accused persons, who were members of unlawful assembly, resulting into robbery, burning properties and killing members of Sikh community including Surjeet Singh.Accordingly, the trial court opined that there are sufficient grounds for framing charge against petitioner / accused Sajjan Kumar for offences punishable under Section 109, read with Sections 147,148,149,153A,302,436 and 295 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and substantive offences thereof.Consequently, charges were framed against the petitioner Sajjan Kumar vide order dated 07.07.2010 as under:The charge framed against the other accused persons/petitioner vide order dated 07.07.2010 is as under:-" I, Ms. Sunita Gupta, District Judge-VII/NE-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, do hereby charge you:-Ved Prakash Pial @ Veedu Pradhan s/o Mange RamPeeru @ Peeriya Sansi @ Peera Ram @ Peeriya Gujrati s/o Bela RamKhushal Singh @ Munna s/o Lal ChandThus, both the orders, i.e., dated 01.07.2010 and 07.07.2010 are under challenge in both the petitions mentioned above.Since the challenge in both the petitions is the same impugned orders, therefore, this Court has decided to dispose of both these petitions by way of common judgment.Complainant Sheela Kaur has also filed separate Crl.Rev. P. 113/2011 seeking direction for trial court to frame charges against the accused persons under Section 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 in addition to charges framed as mentioned above.Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused Sajjan Kumar submitted that first charge- sheet, i.e., State vs. Suresh Chand etc. was qua the killing of 49 persons whereas second chargesheet was relating to the killing of 7 persons in C-Block, Sultanpuri area.What the CBI had done is that it has picked up 3 killed persons namely Vasant Singh, Balbir Singh and Balihar Singh from the list of 49 deceased persons in chargesheet no. 1 and further those 3 deceased persons namely Mohan Singh, Hoshiar Singh and Ranjeet Singh from the chargesheet no. 2 and has made the killing of above said six persons as the subject matter of the present RC.CBI has not assigned any reason, why it has chosen the killing of six persons only, from the two chargesheets decided by the concerned competent courts of Smt. Manju Goel and Sh.S.S. Bal, the then ld.Additional Sessions Judges, Delhi, for retrial with the same witnesses, which were earlier examined before the trial court.Joginder Singh filed an affidavit before Sh.L.N. Jain and A.K. Banerjee Committee constituted on 23.07.1987 alleging the killing of his cousin Surjeet Singh by some assailants named in that Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 11 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 affidavit.On the basis of the said affidavit FIR no. 347/1991 dated 13.12.1991 was registered.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 11 of 97Basis of FIR no. 307/1994, PS-Sultanpuri, Delhi was the affidavit of one Smt. Anek Kaur filed before Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission constituted on 09.09.1985 regarding the killing of her husband Vakil Singh.This affidavit was accepted by Lt. Governor and consequently on 14.06.1994, above-said FIR no. 307/1994 was registered.CBI had clubbed two cases bearing FIR no. 347/1991 and 307/1994, registered at Police Station Sultanpuri dated 13.12.1991 and 14.06.1994 respectively.Aforesaid two cases were sent for closure before the concerned competent court and the closure report was accepted.Accordingly, the cases were consigned to the record room as Untraced vide order dated 28.02.2004 and 15.01.1999 respectively.The aforesaid orders were passed by the ld.Trial Court because the complainant Smt. Anek Kaur did not support the contents of the affidavit filed by her before the Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission, on the basis of which above said case was registered.Rather, she disowned the affidavit.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 12 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 alleged in the affidavit of Smt. Anek Kaur and there too she did not support the version of the prosecution.The said Commission recommended to the Government to examine only those cases, where the witnesses have said against accused Sajjan Kumar specifically, yet no chargesheets were filed against him.The Commission further recommended that the cases which were closed as untraced and still deserved to be re-examined including FIR no. 250/1984, FIR no. 347/1991 and FIR no. 307/1994 registered at Police Station-Sultan Puri, Delhi.Accordingly, after considering the findings, the Ministry of Home Affairs, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate and re-investigate the above said cases, thus, CBI registered the cases mentioned above.Advocate further submitted, ld.concerned Trial Court had accepted the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C in case FIR no. 347/1991 which was registered on the basis of the affidavit filed by Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 13 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 one Sh.Joginder Singh before Jain-Banerjee Committee.The Joint Secretary (Ministry of Home), Delhi Administration had recommended for registration of said case because Sh.Joginder Singh and Smt. Rajwant Kaur, brother and wife respectively of deceased Surjeet Singh appeared before the Committee.However, during the course of investigation, statement of Sh.Joginder Singh was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Sh.Om Prakash, the then ld. MM on 22.08.1992, whereby he totally disowned the affidavit and denied having seen any incident of killing of his brother.Both the complainants, namely Sh.Joginder Singh and Smt. Rajwant Kaur, brother and wife of deceased Surjeet Singh were also summoned and examined by the Court on 15.03.1995 and 31.05.2003 respectively.Both of them denied any such incident as alleged in the affidavit having taken place.P.113/2011 only those cases wherein the complainants have specifically accused Sajjan Kumar.Further recommended, those two charge-sheets were filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced and if there is justification for the same, action may be taken as is permitted by the law.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 14 of 97In the month of August, 2005, the Government filed Memorandum of Action Taken Report of Justice G.T. Nanavati Commission, wherein it was categorically stated that the petitioner Sajjan Kumar was not named as accused in this case nor any fresh material / evidence was produced before Justice Nanavati Commission against petitioner / accused Sajjan Kumar in connection with the incident of riots covered under FIR no. 250/1984, PS-Sultanpuri, FIR no. 347/1991, PS-Sultanpuri and FIR No. 307/1994, PS-Sultanpuri, Delhi.It was also categorically stated before the Parliament that no fresh affidavit was filed before Justice Nanavati Commission in connection with this incident against Sajjan Kumar nor any new or additional evidence was there against him nor there was any justification to re-open this case.P.113/2011 No. U.13018/5/2005/Delhi-I for conducting further investigation / re- investigation as per the recommendation of Justice Nanavati Commission.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 15 of 97In pursuance thereof, CBI re-registered the case FIR no. 250/1984, PS-Sultanpuri as RC-7(S)/2005/SCB-II-Delhi.Thereafter on 22.11.2005, in pursuance of aforesaid letter, CBI re-registered the case FIR No. 347/1991, PS-Sultanpuri as RC No. 25(S)/2005/SCU-I/CBI/SCR-I/New Delhi and also registered case FIR No. 307/1994 at PS-Sultanpuri as RC-8(S)/2005/SCB-II/Delhi.Counsel has pointed out that in the instant case, CBI approached the court for permission for re-investigation in FIR No. 307/1994 and FIR No. 250/1984, PS-Sultanpuri and vide order dated 15.12.2005, ld.Trial Court rejected the application and refused to give any specific permission to CBI to re-investigate the matter.In earlier deposition these witnesses have not named the petitioners, therefore, rendering their present deposition is suspicious and unreliable.While refusing to discharge the petitioners, the trial court failed to appreciate that RC 7 dated 07.11.2005 relates to the deaths of Hoshiyaar Singh, Mohan Singh, Ranjit Singh, Basant Singh, Balbir Singh and Balihar Singh.Counsel has further pointed out that the statement of PW1 Bhagwani Bai, has in her own statement stated that the death of her sons has already been enquired by the court of competent jurisdiction, wherein she chooses not to appear as witness and in fact her husband appeared as eye witness in the trial of offence relating to murder of her sons.Her husband never named the petitioners herein.As far as Brahmanand Gupta and Peeriya Sansi are concerned, who are the subject matter of W.P.(Crl.) 205/2010, they have already been tried for the acts of rioting and murder of persons in respect of whom, present charge-sheet being RC No. 7/2005 has been filed.The said persons cannot be tried again for the same offence.In this regard Provisions of Section 300 Cr.P.C and Article 20 of Constitution are relevant.The same are as under:-"Section 300 of Cr.P.C. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence.(1) A person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again Crl.After the acquittal in 1974 nothing happened in the matter for three years and suddenly 97 on the same old allegations in the hands Crl.We have grave doubts whether the High Court in whose hands there has been a reversal of the acquittal would have found the remaining evidence to be good basis for the conviction."P. 438/2010, Crl.Trial Court has held that a consolidated charge-sheet have been filed and statements of other witnesses also have been recorded.In the impugned order it is recorded as under:-"Although, FIR no. 307/1994 registered on the statement of Smt. Anek Kaur and FIR no. 347/1991 on the statement of Joginder Singh were sent untraced and Smt. Anek Kaur has since expired and at that time Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.164 of the Cr.P.C. have also been recorded, therefore, even if some of the witnesses have deposed, in earlier proceedings, the alleged deviation will have to be explained by the witnesses in the court during trial."P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 28 of 97Mr. Sharma further submitted that on accepting the categorical statement of CBI that it is only pressing the charge qua murder of Surjeet Singh, there is only one witness that is Joginder Singh who earlier had deposed twice in this regard.He had specifically disowned his affidavit and further stated that the same was signed under a false pretext.In his earlier statement, he had categorically denied even seeing any such incident.The above named witnesses do not name the petitioners in Crl.Rev. P. 439/2010 and in their statements also they do not, in any manner, name the petitioners in Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl."On being asked, I stated that I have not seen Sajjan Kumar and Jai Kishan leading the rioters on 01.11.1984 nor Sajjan Kumar was heard while ordering mobsters.When we were in E-6, neither I saw Sajjan Kumar and Jai Kishan coming in a Jeep nor I accompanied my Bhabhi to Police Station Sultanpuri.Whatever, I had told you today has been stated after recollecting it thoroughly, I had heard from the people that Sajjan Kumar had hand in the riots.I do not know the whereabouts of Sheela Jatni as to where she lives.She has left the House No. F-4 Block several years earlier."P.C. The ld.Trial Court vide its order dated 15.01.1999 accepted the said report and recorded as under:-"On the basis of submissions made by Inspr.Crime C.S. Rathi, I also perused the material placed on record, statement of executants of affidavit (Anek Kaur)and satisfied that she has not supported the contents of affidavit filed by her on the basis of which this case was registered.Moreover, she has also been examined by the court wherein she has clearly and superficially mentioned that she had never seen Sajjan Kumar with the mob and she had never seen him with her own eyes but she has disclosed his name after hearing from other persons.Except Sajjan Kumar she has not disclosed of any person who name she has disclosed in on affidavit filed by her.Accordingly, the file be consigned untraced."Further submitted that recording of statement of the same persons again and again amounts to re-investigation which is prohibited by law under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. This provision only permits further investigation and not re-investigation, re-recording Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 31 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 the statement of the witnesses whose statement has been recorded earlier and accepted by the court.P. 438/2010, Crl.Accordingly, ld.Trial Court passed its order dated 15.01.1999 filing the said case (FIR No. 307/1994) as untraced after considering the entire material including earlier statements of the same witnesses who are witnesses in the present case.As far as RC25(S)/05/SCR-1/DLI is concerned, same has been registered for investigation and trial for the death of Surjeet Singh.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 32 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 347/1991 and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the investigating agencies.After perusing the report and after recording the statement of the complainant therein, i.e., Joginder Singh as a court witness, the concerned court vide its order dated 28.02.2004 had filed the case as untraced.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 32 of 97Ld. counsel for petitioners submitted that on the basis of complaint of Joginder Singh, the aforesaid FIR was registered, who had made a statement dated 22.08.1992 which was recorded by the ld.Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He stated therein that the affidavit on the basis of which FIR was registered was got singed from him on a false pretext and he had not seen anything.After the filing of the report by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the said witness on being summoned by the Court, before the acceptance of the report filed by the police, was examined on 31.05.2003 as a Court Witness.While being examined as a court witness, Joginder Singh reiterated his earlier statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.On both the occasions, he had stated and reiterated that he was not aware of any incident and disowned his affidavit on the basis of which the earlier FIR 347/1991 was registered.Joginder Singh, on whose statement the present RC has been registered is purportedly the brother of the deceased Surjeet Singh and therefore, he cannot be treated as ordinary witness who had earlier given a version while exonerating the petitioners.He being Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 33 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 brother of the deceased would not have maintained silence for such a long period.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 33 of 97Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as per the prosecution case, present RCs were registered on the recommendation of the Nanavati Commission.The recommendations of the Nanavati Commission were as under:-"No useful purpose can now be served by directing registration of those cases where the witnesses complaining about the same were examined before the Courts and yet other accused were acquitted by the Courts.The Commission, therefore, recommends to the Government to examine only those cases, where the witnesses have accused Sajjan Kumar specifically and yet no charge-sheet was filed against him and the cases were terminated as untraced and if there is justification for the same then take further action as is permitted by law."Therefore even as per the recommendations of the Nanavati Commission, the said RC could not have been registered.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 34 of 97& Crl.The statement of Joginder Singh was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as a court witness.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 48 of 97 & Crl.S.S. Bal, ld.ASJ, order dated 15.01.1999 passed by Sh.B.S. Chumbak, ld.MM, order dated 28.02.2004 passed by Sh.Mob entered our house and dragged my two sons Hoshiar Singh and Mohan Singh out of the house and killed them with lathies, saria and ballam.Police persons Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 52 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 came to me and they threatened not to make any statement against Sajjan Kumar."P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 52 of 97PW2 Cham Kaur in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that Sajjan Kumar was giving inciting speech against Sikh community; he was provoking people and telling them to kill the Sikhs and burn their houses.Therefore, under the influence of his provocative speech that the mob got agitated and attacked their block.PW3 Popri Kaur in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that it was in her presence that a mob led by Sajjan Kumar killed the sons of Bhagwani Bai.She has further stated that Sajjan Kumar instigated the mob to kill a Sikh child whom they were going to leave.In the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by ld.On riot jurisprudence, ld.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 72 of 97She further stated that Police persons came to her and they threatened her not to make any statement against him.She was called in an office at Mehrauli.She went with Atam Singh Lubhana in the year 1993 and she wanted to make statement, but the police did not record her statement.He used to come for votes in their area.He has not faced the trial for over two and a half decades and has enjoyed his freedoms.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 78 of 97He further submitted that influence of the accused did not end only with the Delhi Police, they also influenced Delhi Government for not filing the appeals against acquittal.I have heard ld. counsel for the parties.Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.In third charge-sheet accused therein were convicted vide judgment dated 30.03.1991 passed by Shri J.B. Goel, the then ld. Addl.Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.In the fourth charge-sheet accused therein were acquitted vide judgment dated 24.04.1997 passed by Shri S.S. Bal, the then ld. Addl.Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.The first charge-sheet, i.e., State vs. Suresh Chand & Ors.Joginder Singh had filed an affidavit before Sh.L.N. Jain and A.K. Banerjee Committee constituted on 23.07.1987 alleging the killing of his cousin Surjeet Singh by some assailants named in that affidavit.The same was investigated.Police filed report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. Complainant Joginder Singh was examined by the concerned court and vide order dated 28.02.2004 filed the case as untraced.The CBI had clubbed two cases bearing FIR No. 347/1991 and 307/1994 registered at Police Station Sultanpuri on 13.12.1991 and 14.06.1994 respectively.The aforesaid two cases were sent for closure Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 80 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 before the concerned competent court and the closure report was accepted vide order dated 28.02.2004 and 15.01.1999 respectively.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 80 of 97P.C whereby he totally disowned the affidavit and denied having seen the incident of killing of his brother, i.e., Surjeet Singh.During the course of hearing before the ld.Rev. P. No.438/2010 and Crl.Even otherwise, no material is available on record to infer even meeting of mind of the accused persons so as to draw inference of their Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 96 of 97 & Crl.P.113/2011 having entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the offences complained of.Senior Advocate could not point out any material from the charge-sheet on the basis of which the petitioners could be charged for conspiracy.Accordingly, Crl.SURESH KAIT, J JULY 16, 2013 Jg/sb/RS Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 97 of 97 & Crl.P. 438/2010, Crl.P. 439/2010, W.P.(Crl.)205/2010 Page 97 of 97
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,758,716 |
The appellants are four in number.The appellant Badal Sardar is the father of the other three appellants Mongal, Budhu, and Goutam.It is the prosecution case that the deceased Shyam Sardar and the accused persons all belong to the same village, Gramsimulia under P.S. Nakashlpara in the district of Nadia.He further says that they found injury on his throat but Shyam could not speak.His evidence is that they arranged to remove him to hospital but in the meantime he expired.He further says that the wife of Shasan told that the accused Badal, Mongat, Budhu and Goutam murdered Shyam and Shyam fell down in the courtyard of Bhakta and the assailants left the place.The accused persons, he says, were not present in the meeting.The deceased Shyam Sardar was her husband's sister's son (Bhagne).She says that Shyam Sardar was murdered in the winter about five years ago and the time of murder was 8 p.m. At that time she was in the varandah of her house and, as she says, Badal Sardar, Mongal Sardar, Goutam Sardar and Budhu Sardar brought Shyam Sardar in her courtyard and were assaulting Shyam by means of Bakhari (split Bamboo).She further says that the accused Budhu Sardar hit by means of a Kirich in the throat of Shyam.This assaulting, she says, took place in her courtyard and she came down to the courtyard from the varandah and the accused persons left the place after assaulting and stabbing Shyam Sardar.. Injured Shyam Sardar, she says, fell down in the courtyard of Bhakta Sardar.She next says that the courtyard is commonly used by them and Bhakta Sardar.According to her evidence she shouted at the top of her voice and on hearing her shouting Niranjan Sardar, Netai Sardar, Debi Sardar, Bhakta Sardar and many villagers came to the spot and arrangements were made to remove Shyam Sardar to hospital but in the meantime he expired.Puspa says that Haritala is to the south of her house intervened by 20/22 nouses and the house of Shyam Sardar was to the east of Haritala.She further says that people came to the house of Bhakta from Haritala.She also says that Bhakari and Lathi are separate things.She stated to the.I.O. that Shyam Sardar was hit on his head by means of lathi.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that although no Bhakari is mentioned in the FIR the same has been introduced in the evidence of Puspa inspite of the fact that in the FIR lathi, and not Bhakari, was mentioned.In her cross-examination P.W. 4 Puspa says that her house would be 100/150 cubits from the road.P.W. 6 Debi Sardar says that when she went to the house of Puspa no other person was present there and Puspa was alone, but other persons assembled in the house of Bhakta.She says that she did not see the husband of Puspa in that night.She also says that she saw blood-stain in the courtyard of Puspa and she was present at the P.O. till arrival of the police officer and police collected blood stained earth from the courtyard of Puspa.The learned Advocate for the appellants argues that the evidence of I.O. would show that blood stained earth was seized from the courtyard of Bhakta where the dead body was lying but no blood stained earth was seen by the.I.O. In the courtyard of Puspa.P.W. 5 Dr. Niharandu Deb is the autopsy surgeon who held postmortem examination on the dead body of Shyam Sardar.He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased viz. (1) one cut injury over mid-occipital region transversely placed measuring 3"x 1/2" bone deep and (2) one cut injury over left side of the neck measuring 3"x 1' muscle deep.On dissection he found clotted blood in both cerebral hemispheres.The doctor opines that the death was due to injuries which were antemortem and homicidal in natural.He further says that the cut injury in the neck was caused by means of sharp cutting weapon and head injury might have been caused by sharp side of the split bamboo.. In his cross-examination he says that injury (1), meaning the head injury, was a clear cut injury and there was no side injury near that injury and he did not notice any laceration at the edge of the injury.He further says in cross-examination that if the injury was caused by means of Bhakari then some sort of laceration was expected.Both the injuries, he says, were not possible by pointed weapons.It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants that there is apparent anomaly between the evidence of the doctor and the evidence of the other witnesses regarding the nature and the position of the injuries.6. P.W.8, S.I. Madhab Chandra Ghosh is the investigating Officer of this case.JUDGMENT G. R. Bhattacharjee, J.This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court.Nadia in Sessions Trial No.II of March 1993/Sessions Case No.1 of September.IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and also to a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to R.1 for six months more.The learned Additional Sessions Judge on trial found them guilty of the charge and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the appellants/accused persons have preferred the present appeal.The informant Niranjan Sardar and the deceased Shyam Sardar are uterine brothers having the same mother but their fathers were different as their mother married twice.The case as stated in the first information report which was lodged by P.W. 1 Niranjan Sardar is that a dispute about cutting of earth over a land adjacent to the house of the informant Niranjan Sardar was going on between them and the accused persons who are their neighbours and over that matter a meeting was going on at Haritala of their village in the evening of the date of occurrence, but neither the informant Niranjan nor his elder brother deceased Shyam was present in that meeting and they were represented by their cousin brothers (the sons of maternal uncle) Sagar Sardar and Nagar Sardar and at that time at about 8/8.30 p.m. when Shyam Sardar was returning after working as a labour in the brick kiln of Sankar Babu near Kathalbere and was proceeding to his house after crossing Haritala he was suddenly chased from behind by the four accused persons with lathi and Kirich in their hands and they caught hold of him on the courtyard of Shasan Sardar (near Shyam's house) and there Shyam was hit near his threat with Kirich by someone of the accused persons and then the accused persons fied away across the field and the injured Shyam ran and came to the house of Bhakta Sardar and fell down on the courtyard.It is also stated in the FIR that on receiving the news of the said incident the villagers who were attending the meeting came to the spot and nursed the injured Shyam and were making arrangement for sending him to hospital but after sometime Shyam expired.It is also stated by the informant in the FIR that on being informed of the incident by Ajit Sardar at the field the informant Niranjan came to the spot.It is further stated in the FIR by the informant that there he learnt from Srimati Puspa Sardar, wife of Shasan Sardar that an altercation and scuffle took place between his elder brother and the accused persons and as there was no other male person there the incident could not be stopped and she raised shouts calling people and in the meantime the incident took place and the accused persons then fled away.Now let us look to the evidence on record.P.W. 1 Niranjan Sardar is the informant who lodged FIR.He is the younger brother of the deceased Shyam Sardar.According to his evidence the murder took place at 8 p.m. and at that time he was in his house and was busy in calling people for meeting.The place of meeting, he says, was at Haritala in their village.From him we got that Haritala is intervened by 10/12 residential houses from their residence and that meeting was called for a salish in respect of a piece of land adjacent to his house and that of accused Badal Sardar.He says that from his house he heard a row and went to the house of Puspa Sardar and saw that the dead body of his brother Shyam Sardar was lying in the courtyard of Bhakta Sardar.The deceased, he says had injury on its throat.His evidence is that the house of Puspa was attached to the house of Bhakta and both Puspa and Bhakta had common courtyard.He further says that Puspa told that Badal.Mongal, Coutam and Budhu murdered Shyam Sardar and left the place.According to his evidence the murder was committed in the courtyard of Puspa, but he did not see the accused persons at the spot.He further says that like him many persons such as Netal, Tarak, Bebt and Bhakta went to the spot and Puspa told about the incident to many persons including himself.This Puspa who has been examined as P.W.4 is the wife of the maternal uncle of P.W. 1 Niranjan Sardar.The name of the husband of Puspa is Shasan Sardar.P.W. 1 Niranjan says that his brother Shyam Sardar used to work in the brick kiln of Sankar babu and he used to return home by 8 p.m. every night.From his evidence we get that Bhakta Sardar now resides at a different place under P.S. Kaligunj.This has been taken from P.W.1 perhaps to explain the non-examination of Bhakta Sardar who was cited as a witness in the charge-sheet.It should be however noted here that this Bhakta Sardar is a person different from the father of Niranjan whose name is also Bhakta Sardar.From his cross-examination we get that the village Kathalberla is to the east of their village and the residence of Puspa is to the south of Haritala intervened by 20/22 houses.We also get from P.W.1 Niranjan that his house is to the east of Haritala intervened by 20/ 22 houses.Although in his examination-in-chief he says that he was at the relevant time in his house busy in calling people for meeting yet in his FIR he stated that at the relevant time he get information about the incident at field from Ajit Sardar.. In his cross-examination however he says that at that time he was in the field situated in the northern side of the village.The learned Advocate for the appellants comments that from the different versions given by the petitioner in the FIR and in examination-in-chief and cross-examination it is difficult to get any consistent idea as to where actually the P.W. 1 Niranjan was present at the relevant time and how he get the information or how he was actuated to come to the spot. .In his cross-examination P.W. 1 Niranjan says that he had no quarrel with the accused Badal Sardar, but Badal Sardar had often quarrels with the deceased Shyam Sardar.He denies the defence suggestion that Shyam claimed share in his homestead and for that reason their relationship was strained and he and Ajit murdered Shyam Sardar and falsely implicated the accused persons.4. P.W.2 Netal Sardar is the cousin brother (Mastuto Dada) of P.W.1 Niranjan Sardar.The evidence of Netal Sardar is that Shyam Sardar was murdered at 8 p.m. In a winter about 5 years back.He says that a meeting was called at Haritala of their village and within a minute they heard a row from the house of the wife of Shasan (that is, Puspa) and they ran there and found that the body of Shyam was lying in the courtyard of Bhakta.He also speaks of seizure of soil and clothes of the deceased by the police.He is a seizure list witness.According to his evidence many persons were present in the meeting but the persons against whom the allegation was brought were not present in the meeting.According to his evidence about 60/70 persons were present in the meeting.P.W.3 Tarak Sardar is the son of the deceased Shyam Sardar, His age when he deposed in March 1993 was about 22 years and that being so he was about 17 years on the date of occurrence.He says that his father was murdered and thereafter police came and made seizure.He is also a seizure list witness.At the time when they deposed, they, that is, he and his mother P.W.6 Debi Sardar were residing in the house of P.W.1 Niranjan.P.W.4 Puspa Sardar is the wife of Shasan Sardar who claims to be an eye-witness, in fact the only eye witness to the occurrence.She says that she found injury on the head and throat of the deceased Shyam Sardar.She further says that she reported the incident to the persons who came there and she told Niranjan, Netal, Bhakta.Debt and others that the accused persons committed murder of Shyam Sardar.She also says that she recognised the accused persons as they were villagers and moreover the night was a moonlit one.According to her evidence her husband and son had gone to attend the village meeting".From her cross-examination we get that to the east of her house there is a pathway stretching north to south and to the east of that road there is the house of Bhakta.It has been argued by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the evidence of Puspa Sardar would thus show that Puspa and Bhakta Sardnr had no common courtyard inasmuch as even according to the evidence of Puspa there is a pathway (road) stretching north to south in between the house of Puspa and the house of Bhakta.. In this connection our attention is also drawn by the learned Advocate for the appellants to the statement of Puspa in her cross-examination that there are big trees by both sides of the village road.It was been taken from P.W.4 Puspa in her cross-examination that to the south of her house there are houses of Alo, Tarani, Tentul, Surjit, Arun and others.it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that if the road itself is about 100/150 cubits from her house and if the courtyard of Bhakta was on the other side of that road as is the evidence of Puspa, in that case, Shyam Sardar must have gone quite a considerable distance from the courtyard of Puspa after sustaining the bleeding injuries from the accused persons before he dropped down in the courtyard of Bhakta.Puspa says that her courtyard was stained with blood of Shyam Sardar and the police officer saw that place.She further says that the way from her courtyard to the courtyard of Bhakta was stained with the blood of Shyam.The learned Advocate for the appellants also criticises that to the.I.O. Puspa did not tell that she recognised the accused persons in the moonlight, but she stated only that she recognised the accused persons.P.W.6 Debi Sardar is the wife of the deceased Shyam Sardar.Her evidence is that at the relevant time she was in her house and on hearing the hue and cry raised by Puspa she rushed to her house and found that the body of her husband was lying is the courtyard of Bhakta Sardar.She says that she found marks of injuries on the head and near the throat of her husband and at that time her husband was alive but he could not speak and he expired within a short time.She says that Niranjan, Netal, Bhakta and 200 persons went there and P.W. Puspa told her that Badal, Mongal, Budhu and Goutam murdered her husband.She further says that her husband tried to escape but he fell down in the courtyard of Bhakta.In her cross-examination she says that she saw a mark of poke injury near the throat of her husband.The learned Advocate for the appellants was critical of this statement as the doctor's evidence does not show any poke injury.He visited the spot after the first information report was lodged at the P.S., and he prepared inquest report on the dead body of Shyam Sardar.According to his evidence the inquest report was prepared in the courtyard of Bhakta Sardar, although initially, presumably by mistake, he said that it was done in the courtyard of Shasan Sardar.He also recorded the statements of Puspa Sardar, Bhakta Sardar, Netal Sardar and Debi Sardar.He says that the accused persons could not be available in their houses and in the village.On the next days, that is, on 9.12.87, according to his evidence, he again made raid but the accused persons were not available and thereafter he prayed before the court for issuing warrant of arrest and proclamation (W/PA) against the accused persons.He further says that on 30.12.87 he again held a raid to arrest the accused persons but in vein.The FIR was dodged at the P.S. on 12.10 a.m. P.W.8, the.I.O. says that he reached the P.O at 1.30 a.m. and he visited the house of Shasan Sardar.He further says that he seized nothing from the house of Shasan Sardar.He says that the P.O. was the house of Shasan Sardar but the victim died in the courtyard of Bhakta Sardar.The assulting was done, he says.In the house of Shasan Sardar.He however did not prepare any sketch map of the P.O. He says that as the night was dark he could not get trail of blood from the house of Shasan to the courtyard of Bhakta.As we have seen, both the P.W. Puspa and Debt stated that blood was there in the courtyard of Shasan Sardar.As regards the evidence of the I.O. that he could not get trail of blood from the house of Shasan to the courtyard of Bhakta as the night was dark it has to be pointed out here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded in his judgment, by consulting the almanac that the night was Krishnapakhya Tritia (3rd night after the full moon night).That being so that moon must have been shining at the mid night on the date of occurrence when the I.O went to the spot.It is argued on behalf of the appellants in this background that the plea of the.I.O that he could not get trail of blood in the courtyard of Shasan as the night was dark is not acceptable.The question whether the moon was there in the sky in that night came up for consideration also in view of the evidence of Puspa that she recognised the accused persons as they were her co-villagers and it was a moonlit night.The trial court has recorded that the moon must have appeared in the sky in that night at about 8 p.m. and that being so it was also possible for Puspa to see the accused persons at the time of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m.. In the light of the moon.The. I.O., P.W.8 says that he found bleeding injury on the left side of the throat of the dead body and cut injuries on both the cheeks as well as cut injury on the head.He says that he saw those injuries in sufficient light.In his cross-examination he says he did not prepare any nil seizure list as he could not apprehend the accused persons who were not known to him from before.He however volunteers during cross-examination in that connection that Niranjan Sardar helped him a lot at the time of raid, search and seizure.He further says in cross-examination that source was engaged for collecting the whereabouts of the accused persons.He says that Puspa stated to him that Budhu made poke injuries by means of Kirich, but the word 'throat' was not used by her.He also says that Puspa stated to him that she recognised the accused persons but did not state that she did that in moonlight.He further says that Puspa did not state to him that the accused persons assaulted the victim by means of Bakhari but she told that the accused persons assaulted the victim by lathi.Puspa however did not state to him.as he says, that she noticed mark of injury on the head of the injured person.We get it from the I.O. that the witness Debi Sardar told him that he saw the accused persons to assault her husband and to leave the place in her presence.Ext. 2 is the seizure list which was prepared by the I.O. at 2.35 a.m. In the night of the occurrence.Under that seizure list some blood stained earth and clean earth from the courtyard of Bhakta Sardar where the dead body of Shyam Sardar was found lying as well as the wearing apparels of the deceased, namely, blood stained doothi, blood stained full shirt and blood stained Khadwar Chaddar were seized by the I.O. In presence of the seizure list witnesses, namely, the P.Ws.Netai Sardar and Tarak Sardar.Now we are required to consider whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution can unhesitatingly lead the court to a conclusion that the prosecution case against the accused persons has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.According to the prosecution case Shyam Sardar was chased and caught by the four accused persons in the courtyard of P.W.4 Puspa at about 8/8.30 p.m. and the fatal injuries were delivered to him there and the accused persons ran away and the injured Shyam Sardar also tried to escape but dropped down in the courtyard of Bhakta Sardar and expired thereafter others came on hearing the hue and cry raised by Puspa Sardar.. It is the prosecution case that Bhakta Sardar and Puspa Sardar have a common courtyard.But from the evidence we have got that as a matter of fact one village pathway or road having big trees on both sides runs in between the houses of Bhakta and Puspa and the distance of the said road from the house of Puspa is about 100/150 cubits.This gives us some idea about the distance of the house of Bhakta Sardar from the house of Puspa Sardar.We however do not get an exact idea from the evidence as to at what place in the courtyard of Bhakta Sardar the injured Shyam Sardar dropped after fleeing from the courtyard of Puspa.I.O. has not prepared any sketch map of the place where the dead body was found lying in the courtyard of Bhakta.I.O also did not seize any blood or blood stained earth from the courtyard of Puspa Sardar although Puspa Sardar in her cross-examination very specifically says that her courtyard was stained with blood and the police officer saw that place and the way from her courtyard to the courtyard of Bhakta was also stained with the blood of Shyam.Even P.W.6 Debi Sardar, the wife of the deceased Shyam Sardar in her cross-examination says that she also saw stain of blood in the courtyard of Puspa and police collected blood stained earth from the courtyard of Puspa.We have however seen that blood stained earth was collected by the.I.O. from the courtyard of Bhakta and not from the courtyard of Puspa.On the other hand the.I.O. says that he could not get trail of blood from the courtyard of Bhakta as the night was dark.That cannot be a good explanation because it was a moonlit night, only three nights after the full-moon night and the.I.O. came to the spot after midnight when the moon must have been shining very brightly and that being so there should not have been any difficulty for the.I.O. had no occasion to expect blood in the courtyard of Puspa at all and that is why he did not search for any blood there.It was known to the.I.O. from the FIR itself as well as from the statement of Puspa that the assult took place in the courtyard of Puspa and it was therefore only natural that the.I.O. would have search for blood in the courtyard of Puspa also in the moonlight or with the aid of kerosene lamp or torch light, and had he found any blood there he would have certainly seizued the same.Non-seizure of any blood-stained earth from the courtyard of Puspa or from the trail of blood spread over the two courtyards creates a very disturbing confusion, to say the least.Perhaps it could have been argued by the prosecution that since the injured Shyam was wearing dhooti, full shirt, chaddar, it might be that blood coming out from the injuries of the victim at the head and neck initially got soaked in the wearing apparels of the injured without getting sufficient opportunity to drop down on the earth at that stage and in the meantime the injured Shyam moved away from the courtyard of Puspa and arrived at the courtyard of Bhakta and dropped down there as a result of which the earth there only was stained with blood.If the existence of blood in the courtyard of Puspa becomes doubtful, ills prone to have a reflection on the question whether the occurrence really took place in the courtyard of Puspa at all or in the manner in which she wants us to believe.And if that be so, the proximate presence of Puspa, as the only eye-witness to the occurrence will also be exposed to doubt.Then again, Puspa in her evidence says that after bringing Shyam Sardar in her courtyard the accused persons were assaulting him by Bakharil (split bamboo] and the accused Budhu hit him by Kirich in the throat.As we have seen, the FiR was lodged by P.W.1 Niranjan on the basis of what he heard from Puspa after coming to the spot.Therefore if Puspa had seen the accused Budhu hit at the throat of Shyam with Klrlch she would have specifically told the name of Budhu in that connection to Niranjan at that time as she says in her deposition in the court and in that event Ntranjan also would have specifically named the accused Budhu as the person who hit Shyam Sardar with Kirich at his throat.To the.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,528,841 |
This revisional application has been directed against the order dated 26.06.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge North 24-Parganas at Barasat in criminal revision No. 88 of 2007 (Saurav Roy and 4 Others Vs.The State of West Bengal with Smt. Brinda Roy, Nee Nag) arising out of Bidhannagar (East) case No. 9 of dated 23.01.2004 under Sections 498A/406/420, Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, G.R. Case No. 1055 of 2004, G.R. case No. 26 of 2004, and G.R. case No. 261 of 2004 (Bidhannagar).It is the case of the petitioner, defacto-complainant, that on 23.01.2004 the Officer-in-charge, Bidhannagar (East) police station started police case No.9/2004 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the opposite parties No. 2 to 6 to the effect that Smt. Brinda Roy (Nee Nag) submitted a written complaint before the Officer-in-charge of Barasat Police Station to the effect that she was married with Sri Saurav Roy as per the provision of Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 29.11.2002 and there was transaction of cash and kind to negotiate that marriage.The husband and parents-in-law of the petitioner Brinda Roy used to torture upon her at different times and used to create pressure upon her demanding further dowry and money, for which she left her husband's house on 9.9.2003, and since then she is staying with her father.The petitioner attempted to get her stridhan property including jewellery and furniture, but to no avail.After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the opposite parties no. 1 to 5 under Sections 498A/420 of Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and also under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by way of supplementary charge-sheet after further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. That case was numbered as 1055 of 2004 and re-numbered as G.R. 26 of 2004 and G.R. 261 of 2004 at Bidhanagar Judicial Magistrate's Court.After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record on 26.02.2004 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges against five accused persons under Sections 498A/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in G.R. Case No. 26/2004, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty.The subject matter of this revisional application is the impugned order dated 26.06.2008 of the learned Sessions Judge, North 24 parganas.In CRR No. 1596 of 2004 also this Court passed necessary order.For that reason the petitioner of this revisional application prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and sending the case back to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, for trial framing charge against 5 accused persons.As per submission of Mr. Jiban Kr.9. Present opposite parties No. 1,2 and 3 are contesting the matter though they have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition.Mr. Jiban Kr.Learned Counsel for the defacto- complainant also submitted that all the points have been decided by the Hon'ble Justice D.P Sengupta and Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukar, and he has placed xerox copy of the order sheet for perusal of the Court.Mr. Sudipto Moitra, learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Barasat, in criminal revision No. 88/2007 suffers from no illegality or perversity nor there was non-application of mind or non-consideration of . 5 materials on record while passing the impugned order or exercising revisional jurisdiction, and as the learned Sessions Judge found no material for framing charge against the opposite party Nos. 5 and 6, who have subsequently been re-numbered as opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, so she has ordered their discharge from the said case, and though learned Sessions Judge, Barasat, has passed that order of acquittal, yet practically that is an order of discharge as because at the stage of framing charge an accused can be discharged according to law if required and cannot be acquitted before consideration of evidence.But the learned Sessions Judge has rightly and legally passed said revisional order discharging the accused opposite party Nos. 5 and 6, who have been re-numbered 2, 3 subsequently.Mr. Sasanka Ghosh, learned Counsel for the State/ opposite party No.1 has submitted that in view of the materials of the C.D. charge should be framed against the present opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 along with other accused persons, though learned Public Prosecutor-in-charge did not submit anything before the learned Sessions Judge in this regard.It appears that on the basis of a written complaint of the petitioner Smt. Brinda Roy (Nee Nag) dated 23.01.2004 G.R. Case No. 26/2004 was initiated against 5 accused persons.It was alleged in the said written complaint that the accused persons being husband, parents-in-law, sister- in-law of the petitioner and her husband used to torture her and demanded money and other articles for which the petitioner was compelled to leave her matrimonial home at Saltlake on 9.9.2003 and she sent her representative to her matrimonial home to collect her articles, when the accused persons .6 refused to hand over the articles to him.The matter was investigated by police and charge-sheet under Sections 498A/420 of the Indian Penal Code and 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted against 5 accused persons.Thereafter a supplementary charge-sheet was filed under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was taken to that effect by the learned SDJM, Bidhannagar.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned SDJM, Bidhannagar, dated 26.02.2007 in G.R. Case No. 26/2004 the accused persons preferred a revisional application before the learned Sessions Judge, North 24-parganas.Then 5 accused/petitioners filed criminal revision no. 88/2007 against aforesaid order Learned SDJM, Bidhannagar.Then learned Sessions Judge, North 24-parganas at Barasat, delivered her judgement in criminal revision No. 88/2007 by which learned Sessions Judge, North 24- parganas, allowed criminal revision No. 88/2007 in part on contest and acquitted accused Nos. 4,5 namely Saswati Sharma, Anurag Sharma from charge under sections 498A/ 406 of the I.P.C. and 3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act while directing the learned ACJM, Bidhnanagar, to complete the trial against the accused Nos. 2,3,4 Saurav Roy, Ajit Ranjan Roy, Anima Roy, within one month from the receipt of the order.Apparently by the impugned order learned Sessions Judge, North 24 parganas in fact discharged the accused Nos. 4 and 5 namely Saswati Sharma, Anurag Sharma though she passed an order of their acquittal, as she has stated in body of her judgement at page 5 that : -"I do not find any material in the C.D. or supplementary charge-sheet for framing charge under Sections 498A/406 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Nos. 4 and 5 and hence they should be discharged from this case."So in effect the said order of acquittal appears to be an order of discharge of accused Nos. 4 and 5 namely Saswati Sharma and Anurag Sharma.In fact acquittal order cannot be passed before taking evidence, and at the time of framing charge discharge order maybe passed against an accused in case no material is found against him for framing charge.Be that as it may, the fact remains that at the time of hearing of this revisional application learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 submitted that initially charge was framed against 5 accused persons, but subsequently learned Sessions Judge, North 24-parganas, acquitted accused Nos. 4 and 5, namely Saswati Sharma and Anurag Sharma respectively, vide order dated 26 January, 2008, while giving direction to complete trial of accused persons No. 2,3 namely Saurav Roy, Anima Roy and Ajit Ranjan Roy, being the opposite party Nos. 2, 4, and 3 of this revisional application.As such there was no need to make the opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 4 party in this revisional application.In pursuance of that submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for deleting the names of the said opposite party Nos. 2,3 and 4 of this revisional application on that ground, to which no objection was raised by the opposite parties.It has already been pointed that the learned Sessions Judge, North 24 parganas acquitted or discharged the accused Nos. 4, 5 namely Saswati . 8 Sharma and Anurag Sharma, who have been re-numbered as opposite parties No. 2, 3 vide order dated 27.07.2010, as she did not find any material in the C.D. or supplementary charge-sheet for framing charge against them under Sections 498A/406 and Section 3 , 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.It is an established principle of law that at the time of framing or consideration of charge against the accused it is to be considered as to whether there is prima facie case for framing charge against the said accused or not.The test to determine the prima facie case depends upon the facts of each ease and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down any rule of universal application and if two views are possible, and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not, and it has been so held by the Hon'ble Apex Court through the decision reported in 2008(2) E.Cr.N. at page 678 ( Yogesh Vs.Thus, it appears that regarding framing of charge against the present opposite parties No. 2, 3 and 4 husband and parents-in-law of the petitioner, there is no dispute between the parties, but the question is whether discharge of the present opposite parties No. 5, 6, who have been re- numbered as petitioners No. 2, 3 in the instant revisional application, was proper, correct and justified, and whether charge should be framed against them also for facing the trial, and whether those questions can be considered in this revisional application under Section 401 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 or not, require consideration.As per the provisions of Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court exercises the power of revision, and Section 482 of the Code .9 Criminal Procedure saves the inherent power of the High Court.Accordingly the said order stands.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
352,940 |
:: Mrs. Geetha Ramaseshan- - -Prayer : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for a direction to call for the records in C.C.No.4591 of 2006 now pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.For Petitioner in both the Crl.:: Mr. Aparna Mukerjee For Respondent-1 in both the Crl.:: Mr. Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, Government Advocate (Crl. side) For Respondent-2 in both the Crl.C O M M O N O R D E R The above Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4591 of 2006 pending on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The second petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.15673 of 2008 is the mother of the first petitioner therein.The second respondent-Ms.Deepa Ebenezer was married to the first petitioner; difference of opinion arose between them; on the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent a case was registered and now the same is pending as C.C.No.4591 of 2006 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The above said Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4591 of 2006 on the ground that the second respondent and the accused have entered into a compromise and settled all their disputes and infact have filed a petition in O.P.No.2043 of 2008 before the learned second Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking divorce by mutual consent.The respective parties namely the petitioners in both the Criminal Original Petitions and the second respondent have filed separate affidavits stating that they have settled all their disputes and the Original Petition for divorce by mutual consent has also been filed before the said Court and the second respondent has stated specifically that she has no objection for quashing of C.C.No.4591 of 2006 and give a quietus to all the disputes.In the affidavit she has also given an undertaking that she will not initiate any proceedings against the second respondent or her family members with respect to this dispute in the future.Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do complete justice, we should while dismissing this appeal also quash the proceedings arising from criminal case Cr.No.224 of 2003 registered in Police Station Bilaspur (District Rampur) filed under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondents herein."A perusal of the said observations of the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that if the parties to the matrimonial dispute amicably settle the dispute, then it becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.The Inspector of Police, J-3 Police Station, Guindy, ChennaiThe IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
35,294,742 |
No.36 of 2018 for thealleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC againstthe petitioner/sole accused and in order to quash the same, the petitioner isbefore this Court by filing the present petition.3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.T.M.AjmalJenif, the Sub Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, TuticorinDistrict is present.The defacto complainant and the petitioner are presentand their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition tothe confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) through Mr.T.M.Ajmal Jenif the Sub Inspector ofPolice, Murappanadu Police Station, Tuticorin District.4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed thisquash petition along with a joint memo of compromise dated 05.06.2018,wherein, it is stated as follows:"3.Now both the defacto complainant and the petitioner of the instantquash petition have settled the issue outside the Court amicably in thepresence of elderly persons and solved the dispute and there is no problembetween the petitioner and the defacto complainant.5.Now both the parties decided to withdraw all the allegationsmade against each other and have settled the dispute amicably in the presenceof elderly persons.Hence, the FIR may be quashed on the ground that thematter has been settled.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law."6.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated05.06.2018, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matter pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inFIR No.36 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent in respect ofthe petitioner/sole accused are hereby quashed.7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on thebasis of the compromise entered into between the parties.The jointcompromise memo dated 05.06.2018 shall form part of this order.(i)Issue order copy on 18.06.2018(ii)Mark a copy of this order to the Registrar (Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.1.The Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station, Tuticorin District.2.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(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,531,324 |
Shri Anand Purohit, learned counsel for the complainant.Heard on I.A.No.4/2020, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C.In view of the averments made in the application, it is hereby allowed and the counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist the learned Public Prosecutor.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this fourth application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier first bail application was dismissed on merit vide order dated 01/07/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 25896/2019, second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30/08/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 35469/2019 and third application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.11.2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Raun, District Bhind (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.20/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable under sections 323, 294, 506 and 34 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.53511/2019 (Badelal alias Ajay Sirothiya Vs.Prosecution story in short is that on 28/01/2019, the complainant was going to temple for performing puja, at that time, the applicant along with co-accused Raju Sirothiya & Mukesh used unparliamentary language against the complainant, which was opposed by him, due to which, the accused persons assaulted the complainant by kicks and fists.Applicant assaulted the complainant by Lathi, which hit on his left side of the head.Co-accused Raju gave Lathi blow on his left leg.Co-accused Mukesh assaulted by Danda.The complainant sustained various injuries on his body.On the aforesaid basis, the applicant has been implicated in the present case.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter.There is no criminal case pending against the applicant.It is submitted that FIR has been lodged after seven days of incident which indicates that FIR is an afterthought.Earlier some complaints were lodged against the complainant with regard to some incident, therefore, he was pressurizing the applicant to enter into compromise.No prosecution witness has yet been examined and applicant is in custody from eight months.Applicant 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.53511/2019 (Badelal alias Ajay Sirothiya Vs.State of M.P.) can not be kept in jail for an indefinite period.Applicant is ready to abide the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court, if he is released on bail.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.It is further submitted that offence under Section 307 of the IPC was enhanced subsequently after C.T scan report was received in which fracture of skull has been reported.Consequently, this repeat fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,531,540 |
[Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU.J.,] The appellant is the 2nd Accused in S.C.No.297 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.Including the appellant there were five accused in the said case.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- Two persons by name Sri.Jebrudin [hereinafter referred to as "D1"] and Sri.Mujibur Rahman [hereinafter referred to as "D2"] were allegedly murdered by A1 and A2 on 03.09.2008 at 01.30 p.m. It is the case of the prosecution that the wife of A1 was often eve teased by the deceased.Enraged over the same, it is alleged that on 02.09.2008, at about 07.00 p.m. in a TASMAC shop near Rajangkulam in Tindivanam, all the five accused conspired to kill both the deceased.D2 accompanied D1 in the auto.A1 followed the load auto in his motor cycle.At 10.30 p.m. , P.W.1, the brother-in-law of D1 called D1 over phone and inquired as to where he was.D1 told him that he had come with load auto to Tindivanam and after unloading the refrigerator at Tindivanam, he would return to his village.But, till 01.00 a.m., both the deceased did not return.Thereafter, on the next day, by 11.00 a.m., the load auto belonging to D1 was found parked near Balaji Petrol Station at Tindivanam.Immediately, P.Ws.1 & 3 went to the said place and found the auto abandoned by the side of the road.Both D1 and D2 were not seen either in the auto or anywhere near the auto.P.W.1, thereafter, went to the police station and informed about the same.But, no case was registered on the said complaint.P.Ws.1 and 3, thereafter, went in search of D1 and D2, but, they could not find them anywhere.On 06.09.2008, at about 04.00 p.m. , P.W.1 came to know that two dead bodies were found near Tindivanam Kidangal Lake in a highly decomposed condition.Immediately, P.Ws.1, 3 and other family members had gone to the place and found that the dead bodies were that of these two deceased.Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Tindivanam Police Station and at 05.00 p.m. he made a complaint [Ex.P.1].P.15 is the FIR.P.W.12 immediately forwarded both the complaint-Ex.P.1 and the FIR-Ex.P.W.6, the elder brother of D2 and P.W.7, the brother-in-law of D2 identified the dead bodies as that of these two deceased.Then, P.W.13 prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P16) at the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer and another witness.Then, at 06.30 p.m. on 06.09.2008, he recovered a chappal-black in colour [M.O.2] and a xerox copy of license belonged to D1 under a mahazar (Ex.P.4) in the presence of the same witnesses.He also recovered some blood stained earth and ordinary earth under a mahazar (Ex.P.3) in the presence of the same witnesses."Decomposed body of a male lies on its back with all four limbs extended.Foul smell spreads at the distance of 100 metres from the decomposed body.Maggots seen swarming all over the body.Facial distortion with eyes opened and eyeballs bulged out.Mouth opened and lips swollen.Hairs easily pluckable from scalp.Muscles over the chest wall are decomposed and exposing ribcage outside on both side.Anterior abdominal wall is seen burst open with loops of bowel protruding out.Internal Examination:Head and Neck - No fracture of skull bones.Brain - Liquefied.Hyoid bone preserved.Thorax - No fracture of ribs.Lungs were decomposed.Heart - Empty on C/s.Abdomen: Stomach -empty on C/S and decomposed.Liver, Spleen and Kidneys were decomposed.Small and Large Intestines were distended with gas and fecal matter.P.9 is the postmortem certificate.She gave opinion that the deceased would have died due to hemorrhage and irreversible shock due to the injuries to neck vessels and multiple soft tissues.She noticed the following on the dead body of D2:-"Decomposed body of a male lies on its back with all four limbs extended.Foul smell spreads at the distance of 100 metres from the decomposed body.Maggots seen swarming all over the body.Facial distortion with eyes opened and eyeballs bulged out.Mouth opened and lips swollen.Tongue swollen and within the oral cavity.Both upper central incisors tooth missing and others intact.Blisters seen on both arms, trunk and legs.Skin peeling over the abdomen, thighs and legs seen.Loosening of nails from fingers and toes.Hairs easily pluckable from scalp.Anterior abdominal wall is seen bursts open with loops of bowel protruding out.Teeth intact.External Genitalia were swollen.External Injuries:Hyoid bone preserved.Thorax-No fracture of ribs.Lungs were decomposed on C/S. Heart - Empty on C/S. Abdomen: Stomach - empty on C/S and decomposed.Liver, Spleen and Kidneys were decomposed.Small and Large Intestines were distended with gas and fecal matter.Bladder-Empty on C/S."She preserved the visceral organs for chemical analysis.P.10 is the postmortem certificate.She opined that the deceased would have died of hemorrhage and irreversible shock due to the injuries to the neck vessels and multiple soft tissues.In both the cases, she opined that the death would have occurred 3-5 days prior to autopsy.On such arrest, A1 and A2 gave independent voluntary confessions one after the other in the presence of P.W.2 and another witness.In pursuance of the same, they took the police and the witnesses to the respective place of hide out and A1 produced a vegetable cutting Knife and a surikathi and A2 produced a motor cycle from the respective place of hideout.P.W.13 recovered the vegetable cutting knife (M.O.4) and Surikathi (M.O.5) under a mahazar (Ex.P.7) and the motor cycle bearing (M.O.6) under a separate mahazar (Ex.P.8) in the presence of the same witnesses.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed as many as five charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the same, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined, 20 documents and 6 materials objects were marked.D2 accompanied D1 in the load auto.Thereafter, according to P.W.1 and P.W.3, the deceased did not return.The trial court framed as many as five charges.The trial court, by judgement dated 28.03.2011, acquitted A3 , A4 and A5 from all the charges, but, convicted A1 and A2 alone.The trial court convicted the appellant/A2 and A1 for offences under Sections 302, 34 r/w 302, 120-B r/w 302, 201 r/w 302 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for seven years for offence under Section 201 of IPC.No sentence of fine was imposed for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A2 is, now, before this court with the present criminal appeal.P.W.12, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint under Ex.He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 05.45 p.m. He requested P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer and the Village Assistant by name Sri.Sivamoorthy to come to the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Government Hospital at Tindivanam.6. P.W.4 Dr.She noticed the following on the dead body of D1:-Tongue swollen and within the oral cavity.Both upper central incisors tooth missing and others intact.Blisters seen on both hands and both foot.Skin peeling over abdomen and both thighs and both legs with loosening of nails from fingers and toes.External genitalia were swollen.(1) Cut injury on the neck seen starting from the sterno mastoid muscle on left side running horizontally above the level of thyroid cartilage crossing the midline and ending at the anterior border of sterno mastoid muscle on right side.Sterno mastoid muscle and great vessels of the neck on left side, Trachea in midline and great vessel of the neck on right side are completely cut.Length 17 c.m.; width 4 cm ; depth of the wound is 3.2 cm on left side of the neck and 2.5 cm in midline and 1.5 cm on right side and tapering at the anterior border of sterno mastoid muscle on right side.Margins of the wound well defined and the injury is ante mortem in nature.Bladder - Empty on C/S. Pelvis - Intact."She preserved the visceral organs for chemical examination.(1) Cut injury on the neck seen starting from the sterno mastoid muscle on left side running horizontally above the level of thyroid cartilage crossing the mid line and ending at the anterior border of sterno mastoid muscle on right side.Sterno mastoid muscle and great vessels of the neck on left side , Trachea in mid line and great vessels of the neck on right side are completely cut.Length 18 cm ; width 4.5 cm; depth of the wound is 3.5 cm on left side of the neck and 2.8 cm on mide line and 2 cm on right side tappering at the anterior border of sterno mastoid muscle on left side.Margins of the wound well defined and the above said injury is antemortem in nature.Internal Examination :-Head and Neck: No fracture of skull bones .Membrane-Intact.Brain - Liquefied.On returning to the police station, P.W.13 forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand.He sent the material objects also to the court with a request to forward the same for chemical examination.On the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis.The chemical analysis conducted on the material objects revealed that there were human blood stains on the earth mixed with vegetative matter with dark brown stains which was recovered from the place of occurrence.On completing the investigation, P.W.13, filed the final report against the accused.They have further stated that on 06.09.2008, at 04.00 p.m. the dead bodies of D1 and D2 were found in a highly decomposed condition.Thereafter, P.W.1 made a complaint to the police.They have sated that they heard that the dead bodies of D1 and D2 were kept in the mortuary in the Government Hospital at Tindivanam.11. P.W.2, the then Village Administrative Officer, Tindivanam, has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch.P.W.4-Doctor has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the dead bodies of D1 and D2 and her final opinion regarding the cause for the death and the time of death.P.W.5, the Chemical Analyst, who examined the internal organs of both the deceased, has stated that no poison was detected on any of the visceral organs of both the deceased.P.W.9 is the star witness for the prosecution.He has stated that on 02.09.2008 at about 07.00 p.m. when he had gone to the TASMAC shop at Rajangkulam near Tindivanam, he found A1 to A4 consuming liquor.It is alleged that at that time A1 told the rest of the accused that since his wife was eve teased by D1 and D2, he would by deceiving D1 and D2 bring them to Tindivanam where all the five should kill them.P.W.10, who was the Scientific Assistant in the Forensic Laboratory, has stated that he found human blood stains in the earth mixed with brown stains which was recovered from the place of occurrence.P.W.11, the Head Constable, has spoken about the fact that he carried the dead bodies to the Government Hospital at Tindivanam for postmortem.P.W.12 has spoken about the registration of the case and handing over of the case dairy to the Inspector of Police.P.W.13 has spoken about the entire investigation done by him and filing of the final report against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor did they mark any document.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court acquitted A3 to A5, but, convicted A1 and A2 alone under Sections 302, 34 r/w 302, 120-B r/w 302, 201 r/w 302 of IPC and accordingly punished them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.That is how, A2 is now before this court with this criminal appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/A2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and also perused the records carefully.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.Thereafter, both the deceased had not returned.From the evidence of P.W.4-the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, the prosecution has established that the death of D1 and D2 was due to the injuries found on the dead bodies of the deceased and that the injuries would have been caused by violence.Thus, the prosecution has established that the death of both the deceased was due to homicidal violence.He has admitted during cross examination that when P.W.1 had gone to the police to make a complaint, he accompanied him.He has further stated that when all the accused were sitting and consuming liquor in the wine shop, he was sitting at a distance of 20 feet.In our considered view, the conduct of P.W.9 in not disclosing about the above vital fact relating to the alleged conspiracy to kill his brother's brother-in-law would make his evidence unbelievable.Apart from the above, the prosecution relies on the recovery of vegetable cutting knife (M.O.4) and surikathi (M.O.5) on the alleged confession made by A1 and A2, the appellant herein.But, the prosecution has failed to establish any link between the alleged weapons and the crime.Not even any blood stain was found on the alleged weapons.Except the above two circumstances, the prosecution has not projected any other circumstance against the appellant so as to establish his guilt.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,809,489 |
The Judicial Magistrate No.2 Puducherry.S.Sakthivel Revenue Officer, Office of the Sub Collector (Revenue) North, Puducherry.This petition has been filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in STR No.9785 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Puducherry.The first respondent has filed a charge sheet alleging that on 06.08.2010 at about 11.25 hours the petitioners herein, in furtherance of common intention criminally trespassed into the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North) Puducherry, abused one P.Vallavan who is the staff working in the said office with filthy language as such to hold him to do his official duty and also threatened him with dire consequences as he delayed to forward the file pertaining to correction of the Re-Survey number to the concerned office and thereby prevented him from discharging his official duty as a Government servant and thereby the petitioners herein have committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 189, 294 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one Kanagasabai gave a letter to the Deputy Collector, Revenue Department, North Puducherry, requesting to correct the guideline value in the GLR in respect of his lands.On 07.07.2009, based onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 the said letter, the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North has passed an order on 09.07.2010, that the petitioners' request cannot be considered and subsequently on 21.07.2010, the said Kanagasabai gave another petition to consider his resquest.He further submitted that on 26.07.2010 the Sub Collector has forwarded the said letter to the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Oulgaret, calling for the report, with regard to the admissibility of the said Kanagasabai's request and based on the same, on 29.07.2010 itself, the Tahsildar has submitted his report, but, thereafter, till 06.08.2010, the officials attached to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (North), Puducherry have not taken any steps to pass orders and hence the petitioners went along with the said Kanagasabai to the aforesaid office and politely they have made request that the representations submitted by the said Kanagasabai has not been considered and immediately, the second respondent gave a false complaint against the petitioners stating that they have criminally intimidated the staff and also used filthy language and criminally trespassed into the public office.He furhter submittedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it is not specifically stated that the petitioners armed with any weapons or the words uttered by the petitioners created any fear in the mind of the concerned staff namely P.Vallavan and therefore offences under Sections 189 and 506 IPC also will not attract.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) has submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, witnesess have clearly stated that the petitioners came with the said P.Kanagasabai and criminally intimidated them and thereby they have prevented the witness P.Vallavan from discharging his public duty and filthy words also have been used and therefore there is a primafacie case against the petitioners to proceed further and hence he prayed to dismiss the petition.A perusal of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C of the witnesses Sakthivel and Vallavan, would primafacie show that the petitioners herein have criminally intimidated the witness Vallavan.Since the alleged occurence took place in public office, Section 448 IPC may not attract.Further in the Statements recorded under Section 161 (3) Cr.Under the said circumstances, Section 294 IPC also will not attract.In the result, this petiton is partly allowed.01.11.2018 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ebsi/vvhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 P.RAJAMANICKAM.J., ebsi/vvThe Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.O.P.No.2203 of 2011 01.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,811,488 |
Sri Ram Raj Mishra appeared for opposite party no. 2 and filed power which is taken on record.He states that he has taken no objection from earlier counsel Sri B.R. Maurya, Heard Sri KD Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Raj Mishra for opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ripusudan Yada, learned AGA for the State.As per the mediation report dated 6.8.2014, the mediation between the parties have failed.After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, I find that so far as applicant no.1, namely, Ikram alias Shahnawas, is concerned, there is no justification for quashing the impugned order and prosecution of the aforementioned case.The prayer to that extent on behalf of applicant no.1 is hereby refused.So far as applicant nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, it has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that they are the family members of applicant no.1 and the allegation levelled against them are wholly vague and no specific allegation has been levelled against them.Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2012 (10) ADJ 464 and has drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraphs 17, 19, 20, 21 and 24 of the following judgments.The said paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow:-Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in this matter had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister in law by the complainant appeared to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible.The learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant tried to justify the summoning order passed against the applicant nos.2 amd 3 also but they could not dispute that only bald allegation have been levelled against them.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,388,154 |
JUDGMENT R.P. AwasthyIt is an appeal against the rinding of holding the accused appellant guilty for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.marriage of the daughter of Dhola Kumhar was going to be solemnised and on account of the said marriage ceremony, several people of village Chirga (Nayapara).Police Station Dhaurpur, District Sarguja.and the adjoining villages were invited at the house of Dhola Kumhar.There Kabilaso (PW-7) her son Sookham, accused Panha and several other persons, including Prem and his wife Khaderan.were present.A quarrel took place between the wife of Prem and Kabilaso regarding the manner in which the food was served and the wife of Prem and Prem threw Kabilaso on the ground.Sookhan protested regarding the said incident and said that his mother had uttered nothing against either Prem or his wife and hence why they had thrown her on the ground.Thereafter, Sookhan.Dhola Kumhar and Deonda Gond intervened and saved the mother of Sookhan.In the said process, it appears that some injuries must have been caused to Prem or his wile.Panha, the accused, who was present at the place of incident, went to his house and brought an axe from his house.At that time, Sookhan was sitting on a col and people of Ghasia caste were playing music on drums.Few girls of that community were dancing in the courtyard.Sookhan was throwing coins towards the drummers.At this juncture, the accused, who had brought an axe from his house, came; there and all of a sudden, without giving any warning, dealt one blow on the head of Sookhan and dealt yet another blow on his neck.On account of the said injuries.Sookhan died at the place of incident itself.A report regarding the said incident was lodged by Khaituran (PW-6) at Police Station Dhaurpur.He prepared map Ex.P-22 of the place of incident Shri Remish Kispotta seized coins from the place of incident, as per seizure memo Ex.He found that the cot, on which Sookhan was sitting.was having blood-like stains.After causing injuries to Sookhan, the accused had thrown the axe on the place of incident itself and had fled away.The said axe was seized from the place of incident as pet (seizure memo Ex.Blood-stained and plain earth from the courtyard of the house of Dhola were also seized as per seizure memo Ex.On the articles being sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.Sugar, all the articles, including the axe seized from the house of Dholu and the rope with which the cot was weaved.were found to be stained with blood.According to the report of Serologist.blood found on the rope and Baniyan of the deceased, was of human origin.Blood found on other articles, as per the said report, was disintegrated and.After completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed against the accused appellant.However, his contention is that the criminal act committed by the accused would come within the ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.She has also stated that after intervention by people, the persons, who were quarrelling with each other, were separated and thereafter Sookhan was sitting on a cot.In spite of it, altercation, between the persons quarrelling continued.As the case may be the present case would not fall within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code because the accused had gone to his house, had taken out an axe and then again returned to the place of incident.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,818,033 |
</span></span></span></font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"> </span></span></span>C.C. as per rules.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <br> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 100%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font style="font-size: 13pt" size="3"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="3">(</font></font><font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4">Tarun Kumar Kaushal)</font></font></font></font></p> <p style="text-indent: 0.5in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 100%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4"> Judge</font></font></p> <p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY" lang="en-US"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font style="font-size: 6pt" size="1"><span style="background: transparent">tarun</span></font></font></p> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font><p style="margin-right: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> <span lang="en-US"><span style="background: transparent">This is an application for bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 294, 323, 427, 506B, 34 of IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in connection with Crime No.273/2014 registered at police station Jaisingh Nagar District Shahdol.</span></span></font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> According to prosecution on 20/07/2014 complainant Pusta Bai Choudhary, who happened to be a member of SC/ST caste lodged report making allegation that while she was constructing house on her patta land, petitioners came and objected and made some quarrel and also hurled abuses in the name of caste.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> Learned counsel for petitioners submits that it is dispute of encroachment and given colour of caste just to make case more serious and to debar the petitioners from getting benefit of anticipatory bail and remaining IPC offences are bailable except section 427 IPC.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> Learned counsel for State submits that it was quarrel over the point of dispute of possession of land, petitioners have also hurled abuses also and there had been loss of about Rs.1 lac by dismantling aforesaid house by the petitioners.</font></font> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><font size="3"> Learned counsel for petitioners submits that it is a civil dispute.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> </p> <p style="margin-left: 0.07in; margin-bottom: 0in; line-height: 150%" align="JUSTIFY"> <font size="3"><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"> Without commenting on merits of the case, on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to grant bail to the petitioners</span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">.</span></span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal"> </span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Petitioner no.1 Ayodhya, petitioner no.2 Dulre, petitioner no.3 Balli </b></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">and</span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b> petitioner no.4 Suiya </b></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">are</span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b> </b></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">directed to join the investigation immediately and fully cooperate with the investigating agency and the trial.In the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of </span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><b>Rs.30,000/-each </b></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">with a separate surety of like amount </span></span></span></span></font><font face="Bookman Old Style, serif"><span style="font-style: normal"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="font-weight: normal">to the satisfaction of arresting officer.Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall apply on the petitioners during currency of bail.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,818,040 |
Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate for the complainant.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.66/14, Police Station Daboh, District Bhind, offence registered under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323, 294, 506-B/34 of IPC.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per FIR lodged by Devendra who is son of injured-Rajendra, the applicant/accused-Shishupal Singh and co-accused Pushpendra both assaulted the deceased-Virendra and Rajendra, however it has not been clarified by Rajendra that by whom the injury to the deceased on his left parietal region was inflicted, in this regard his statement is vague.Learned counsel further contends that as per statements of the injured Rajendra, Rashmi, Kaushlendra Singh and Bihari, it has come on record that the injury to the deceased on left parietal region was caused by co-accused-Pushpendra.The cause of death has been shown in the postmortem report by the said injury.The applicant/accused-Shishupal inflicted injury to Virendra whose injury was found to be of simple in nature.Learned counsel further submits that an FIR of the cross-case bearing crime No.67/14 of the same incident was lodged by Narendra Singh against the deceased and Devendra Singh, MCRC 6717/14 Shishupal Singh Vs.State of M.P.Rajendra Singh and Kaushlendra Singh under sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC.Learned counsel further pleads that the incident occurred suddenly without any kind of premeditation.The charge sheet has already been filed and trial will take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposing the submissions have submitted that the deceased was assaulted by the applicant/accused- Shishupal as well as co-accused Pushpendra Singh and as a result head injury was caused to the deceased and he scummed to death.In such circumstances, the applicant/accused should not be granted bail in this case.Arguments were considered and case diary was perused.On perusal of the statement of Rajendra, Rashmi, Kaushlendra Singh and Bihari, it has come on record that the injury to the deceased on his head was caused by co- accused-Pushpendra instead of by the applicant/accused.Considering the submissions made on behalf of the applicant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court MCRC 6717/14 Shishupal Singh Vs.State of M.P.during pendency of the trial of the case concerned and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned.as per rules.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,388,203 |
J U D G M E N TARIJIT PASAYAT, J.In the Shakespearian epic 'Othello' principal character Othellosuspected his wife's fidelity because of the Machinations of villainIago.The tragic consequences which followed have become literaryhistory.Thedeceased persons namely, Amru (wife of the accused), Achla (brother-in-law of the accused) and daughters Kesi and Meera were fatallyassaulted and suffered homicidal death.Law was set to motion by aFirst Information Report which was lodged on 10.10.1992 at about 7.30a.m.and the alleged murders took place after mid-night of 9.10.1992i.e.He lodged the FIR on the basis of what he hadheard from Gaina Ram (PW-9).According to the prosecution, thefollowing is the factual background.Accused woke up Gaina Rai (PW-9) around 2.00 a.m. on 10.10.1992telling that some one had given beatings to his children.When GainaRai (PW-9) asked him who the person was and what type of clothes he waswearing, the accused replied that he could not see his clothes but theperson had run away.The accused told him that he was sleeping in thesmall room, and when he came out and started making uproar hearing thesaid person run away.On a query of the witness as to where the saidperson had gone, accused replied he did not know.The accused theninformed the witness that not only his children, but also his wife andbrother-in-law had been beaten.The witness went to the dhani ofaccused.The accused went inside.From the fencing line outside thedhani, the witness could see that Amru, Achla and Kesi were lying onthe cots, and Meera was crying in pain that she was dying.The witnessgot perplexed.He asked accused to remain present in the house and wentto call the neighbours namely, Khartha and Khumbha.He told them aboutwhat the accused had told them.Thereafter, the witness and Kharthawent to the house of Khumbha, who was also told about the incident.Khartha and Khumbha were sent to the dhani of Kheraj, and the witnesscalled one Daula (PW-1) who was sleeping in the gudal of his house.Hedisclosed what he had heard and seen to Daula and he and Daula went tothe dhani of Kheraj where Khumba and Khartha were sitting outside.Thereafter, the witness and Daula opened the back door and went insideand saw that all the four persons were lying drenched with blood.Immediately they entered inside, and found that except Meera, the restthree had died.He enquired from Meera as to what had happened, but shecould not speak.At that time Kheraj was smoking chilam in thecourtyard.The witness came out and sent Daula to lodge a report withthe police.Subsequently, Meera also died.Then he sent Khartha to callLalla and Sadula (brother of the accused).After sunrise, they searchedfor footprints, if any.Though they noticed footprints of a person inthe north side going to the dhani of Achla and returning from there,the footprints were of shoe-worn.The footprints were also present inthe east of the dhani.The accused used to blame the deceased Amru forher alleged infidelity and was quarrelling with her.He was told byKannu and Veero (PWs 5 and 6 respectively) that the accused and hiswife had a quarrel in the night.The police investigated into theallegations, and came to the conclusion that accused was responsiblefor the four killings.Initially, a case was registered for commissionof offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC'), and subsequently, it wasmodified to Section 302 IPC when all the four died.The trial Court on consideration of the evidence led by theprosecution found the accused guilty of offence punishable underSection 302 IPC.Considering the brutal nature of the killing deathsentence was imposed.Accused also filed an appeal.Both the deathreference and the appeal were heard together and disposed of by theimpugned judgment.The High Court noted that the case was one which rested oncircumstantial evidence.According to the prosecution, the followingwere the circumstances which unerringly pointed out the finger of guiltat the accused, and having found the accused guilty, he was sentencedto death.The circumstances relied upon were as follows:(1) the motive with the accused to commit the murder of hiswife as he felt that his wife was a lady of easy virtuesand the two deceased daughters were not born from his loin;and the relations between deceased Smt. Amru and theaccused0a-appellant were not cordial and they werequarrelling;(2) PW5 Smt. Kannu and PW6 Smt. Veero had heard accused anddeceased Smt. Amru quarrelling on the previous night andthe accused was saying that the two daughters were not bornform his loin and deceased Amru had scattered the money toher friends and the parents;(3) The accused gave false story regarding the commissionof the offence to Gaina Ram and other persons who came atthe scene of the occurrence when they were called by theaccused;(4) The conduct of the accused in smoking the chilam at thetime when the other persons who were called by him, came tohis house;(5) The last seen of the accused in the company of thedeceased persons in his house;(6) The extra judicial confession made by the accusedbefore PW12 Simratha Ram; and(7) The recoveries of the blood-stained dhoti of theaccused, the jooti of deceased Achla and the blood-stainedkulhari on the information and at the instance of theaccused-appellant."Some of the circumstances noted above were relied upon by thetrial Court and accordingly conviction was made and sentence wasimposed.The High Court considered the above circumstances not to havebeen proved and sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused anddirected acquittal.Therefore, the State of Rajasthan is in appealbefore us.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted thatthough the case is one which rests on circumstantial evidence,circumstances highlighted and established by the prosecution rule outinvolvement of any other person and clearly establishes that therespondent-accused was the author of the heinous crime.Learned counsel for the respondent-accused on the other handsubmitted that there has been lot of manipulations done such assuppressing the actual date of arrest of the respondent-accused, andthe same is a suspicious circumstance.Other alleged to beinconsistencies and improbabilities have been highlighted by the HighCourt to justify the order of acquittal.The High Court observed about this aspect as under:The accused, afterthe incident, informed PW9 Gaina Ram that somebodyhad killed Smt. Amru, Achla Ram and his twodaughters Meera and Kesi and inflicted injuries tohim, also.The accused had injuries on his person,which is clear from the statement of PW13 Dr.Davendra Singh Choudhary, who examined the injuriesof the accused after his arrest on 23.10.1992 andfound five injuries on his person.PW7 Smt. Saro hasadmitted in the cross-examination that the policewas tracing the foot-prints and they had disclosedto this witness that Smt. Amru has been killed bysomeone and they were tracing the foot-prints.PW9Gaina Ram has also admitted that in the morning theyfollowed the foot-prints of one person who had gonetowards the northern side of the dhani of Achla andhe cannot say that these foot-prints were of whombecause he is not a tracer.PW14 Poona Ram has alsoadmitted that the police along with Chimanji came tohis house following the footprints.PW18 Jagga Ram-the investigating officer has also admitted that hehad followed the footprints.When the footprintswere available there and the police tried to tracethose footprints, it is surprising to note that theinvestigating officer did not take the moulds of thefootprints in order to establish conclusively theidentity of the perpetrator of the crime.From thefacts and circumstances of the case and the evidenceproduced by the prosecution, it is, therefore,clearly established that the accused did not try togive any false explanation, rather on the otherhand, the investigating officer did not properlyconduct the investigation and rest contended withimplicating the accused with the crime instead ofmaking an impartial investigation.The accusedhimself had injuries on his person and the same havebeen proved by PW13 Dr. Davinder Singh Choudhary andtherefore, it cannot be said that the version givenby the accused was false.The accuseddoes not dispute this.He went to the house of Gaina Ram (PW-9) andtold him about the assaults on his children.The claim that hesustained injury at the hands of somebody was not stated to Gaina Ram(PW-9).On the contrary, for the first time he was medically examinedafter about 12 days of the alleged date of occurrence.In the cross-examination of PW-9, the defence itself has brought out that theaccused did not tell the witness that he was also beaten by some oneand/or that he was injured.The High Court was greatly impressed by thealleged injuries suffered by the accused.There is no material to showthat he had sustained injuries during the course of assaults on hiswife, children and brother in law.The injuries were of verysuperficial nature and self-infliction was not ruled out.The storythe accused concocted that some one (and not some others) did thekillings is hard to swallow.The killings were possible by one who wasknown to the victims and who could have gained access without creatingany stir or attracting anybody's attention, keeping in view the timeand place of incident.The plea that he had raised an alarm is hardlycredible.It is not his case that more than one person were involved,and/or that he tried to resist the assaults.Had he tried it, someserious injuries and not the superficial injuries would have resulted.Though much was made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused of the alleged discrepancy of date of arrest, that is really ofno consequence.If the accused sustained injuries during the assaultsat least he could have described the assailant as well as the natureand manner of defence he tried to protect all or any of them.There isno material that the accused tried to protect his wife, brother in lawand children and sustained any injury in that process.This conduct tosay the least is unnatural.The explanation offered about thesustaining of injuries is also hard to believe to warrant acceptance.Further, four people were brutally and in a gruesome manner attacked,as the port-mortem report reveals.The nature of injuries inflicted andthe manner and position the bodies were found dead on the cots wouldalso go to show that a person who was already inside the house, with aperfect plan and design should have so smartly and swiftly killed allof them without causing any flutter to disturb any one of them, so asto either make them awake or even attempt to escape.The accused, afterthe incident, informed PW9 Gaina Ram that somebodyhad killed Smt. Amru, Achla Ram and his twodaughters Meera and Kesi and inflicted injuries tohim, also.The accused had injuries on his person,which is clear from the statement of PW13 Dr.Davendra Singh Choudhary, who examined the injuriesof the accused after his arrest on 23.10.1992 andfound five injuries on his person.PW7 Smt. Saro hasadmitted in the cross-examination that the policewas tracing the foot-prints and they had disclosedto this witness that Smt. Amru has been killed bysomeone and they were tracing the foot-prints.PW9Gaina Ram has also admitted that in the morning theyfollowed the foot-prints of one person who had gonetowards the northern side of the dhani of Achla andhe cannot say that these foot-prints were of whombecause he is not a tracer.PW14 Poona Ram has alsoadmitted that the police along with Chimanji came tohis house following the footprints.From thefacts and circumstances of the case and the evidenceproduced by the prosecution, it is, therefore,clearly established that the accused did not try togive any false explanation, rather on the otherhand, the investigating officer did not properlyconduct the investigation and rest contended withimplicating the accused with the crime instead ofmaking an impartial investigation.The accusedhimself had injuries on his person and the same havebeen proved by PW13 Dr. Davinder Singh Choudhary andtherefore, it cannot be said that the version givenby the accused was false.The learned AdditionalSessions Judge was, therefore, not justified inrelying upon this circumstance against the accusedappellant."
|
['Section 354 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.
|
138,823,591 |
No.1/State.The respondent No.2-Smt.Jamuna Devi is also present in person.She is duly identified by her counsel.Her presence be marked.Smt. Jamuna has stated that a compromise took place between her and her husband and therefore, she is residing with her husband since last seven months and no harassment has been done by the applicants.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Consequently, petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants Deshraj Singh, Villa alias Vimal, Chatur Singh, Smt. Javitri and Uday Singh is hereby allowed.In the light of compromise took place between the respondent No.2 and her husband, proceedings of the trial Court in Criminal Case No.14683/13 are hereby quashed.Trial for remaining offences shall be dropped immediately and copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.C.C. as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE van
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,823,840 |
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was lodged by mother of the girl on 16.06.2019, under section 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, againt applicant with the allegation that the applicant had dragged her daughter in his house and committed rape upon her.It is further submitted that the victim in her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., has stated that she was in love affair with the applicant and both of them want to marry with each other and she has maintained physical relationship with the applicant without any resistance or objection.There is no medical examination of victim for ascertaining her age.As per her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. she is aged about 18 years.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.06.2019, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant appears to be quite convincing and appealing for the purposes of bail only.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 and taking into account of statements of victim under section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as the age of the girl, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Ravi Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,388,256 |
Factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass.Accused Rajeev Jain at the relevant time was the Collector Stamps appointed under the provision of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, 'the Act').All these sale deeds were registered under the Indian Registration Act at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ujjain.ORDER N.K. Jain, J.All these revisions (No. 630/1998, 18/1999 and 22/1999) arise out of the order dated 25-8-1998, passed by Special Judge, Ujjain, in Special Case No. 8/1996, discharging accused Rajeev Jain (the respondent here in Criminal Revision No. 630/1998) and two others of the charge under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while directing framing of charges against other co-accused persons (the applicants here in Criminal Revisional Nos. 18/1999 and 22/1999), for the said offences with the aid of Sections 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.For the sake of convenience all these persons shall hereafter be referred as "accused person(s)".Criminal Revision No. 630/1998 is preferred by the State challenging discharge of accused Rajeev Jain, while Criminal Revision Nos. 18/1999 and 22/1999 are preferred by other co-accused persons against the charges framed against them.All these revisions have been heard as connected matters and are being disposed of by this common order.The Sub-Registrar, Ujjain, vide his orders dated 7-7-1989 and 14-9-1989, purporting to act under Section 47A (M.P. Amendment), referred all the aforesaid sale-deeds to the Collector Stamps, Ujjain, for determination of market value of the property in question and the proper duty payable thereon.Accused Rajeev Jain, the then Collector Stamps Ujjain, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing and after holding enquiry (evidence was also taken), passed orders dated 3-3-1992 and 10-6-1992 thereby determining the market value of the said property which was slightly higher than the one disclosed in the sale-deeds but lesser than the one suggested by the Sub-Registrar.It appears that some complaint was made against accused Rajeev Jain to the Lok Ayukta, M.P., Bhopal, which led to some enquiry into the matter and ultimately a crime was registered by Special Police Establishment and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Special Court, Ujjain, for trial under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 109 and 120B of IPC.The Court below after hearing parties and on consideration of the evidentiary material filed with the charge sheet passed the impugned order as aforesaid thus giving rise to these revisions.The prosecution against him should, therefore, fail on merit also.As regards other accused persons, since no prosecution is maintainable against principal accused Rajeev Jain, these other accused persons cannot be prosecuted by taking recourse to Section 109 or 120B of IPC (see : B.H. Narasimha Rao, AIR 1996 SC 64).These other accused persons arc non-public servants.They can be prosecuted for abetment of the offence under Section 13 of the Act only along with the public servant concerned, [sec : (1999) 6 SCC 559], The charges framed against them are also, therefore, liable to be quashed.In the result while I dismiss State's revision (No. 630/1998), allow revisions (No. 18/1999 and 22/1999) filed by other accused persons and set aside the order framing charges against them.They along with co-accused Rajeev Jain shall stand discharged.Criminal Revision No. 630/98 dismissed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,436,482 |
In the said case, Hannan Sk's sons Aprup Sk.Milon Sk.and Sujan Sk. have been granted anticipatory bail.One Shifat Sk./379/324/ 307/ 435/ 436 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Defence counsel submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the de-facto complainant in the instant case due to village rivalry.The date of incident is 3rd November, 2015 and admittedly there was a clash between two groups - one constituted by Hannan Sk., his son and his associates and the other group comprising of the petitioners.The said case was started at 00.24 hours.in respect of the same incident filed Ketugram P.S. Case No. 350/2015 dated 4.11.2015 at 14.45 hours wherein he implicated the sons of Hannan Sk., namely, Aprup Sk., Milon Sk.and Sujan Sk.amongst other F.I.R. named accused persons.At 19.25 hours on the same day wife of Hannan Sk.and the mother of Aprup Sk, Milon Sk.and Sujan Sk. filed Ketugram P.S. Case No. 351/2015 wherein the petitioners have been named as accused persons.Having considered the submissions of the parties and the case diaries of Ketugram P.S. Case Nos. 349 and 351 of 2015 which have been produced before us, undoubtedly an altercation took place between two groups- one group comprised of Hannan Sk., and his sons and the other group comprised of the petitioners herein.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,674,365 |
JUDGMENT Kumar Rajaratnam, C.J.This is an appeal preferred by State against acquittal of A1 to A3 and A5 for offences under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and alternatively against A4 and A5 for offences under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.2. A4 who is the principal accused and against whom overt act has been alleged, died during the pendency of the appeal on 26th June, 1991 and this Court by order dated 4-10-1991 held that the appeal against acquittal of A4 abates.Accordingly, we have before us A1, A2, A3 and A5 as respondents.Prosecution case in brief is that the accused persons, with a common object of murdering the deceased Tauhid son of Naimuddin, formed themselves into unlawful assembly and in pursuance of that common object, all of them committed murder of said Tauhid by shooting him with a double barrel gun on 20th November, 1987 at about 4.00 - 4.30 p.m. P.W. Nos. 9 and 15 are the eye-witnesses.The prosecution case further is that at about 3.00 -3.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence, P.W. 3, the father of the deceased, left his village on foot to go to the Village Nahri to attend the bazaar.At some distance away when he went near the bridge, he saw his son (deceased) accompanying P.W. 15 and going towards the Village Baroli.After the deceased went further by about two furlongs, he saw a tractor driven in speed by A4 and in the trolley the other accused were sitting.Suddenly, P.W. 3 heard gun-shot noise and P.W. 9 came and informed P.W. 3 that P.W. 3's son (deceased) had been shot by A4 and others.Pursuant to this, a complaint was lodged with police by P.W. 3, father of the deceased.P.W. 15 was admittedly travelling with the deceased in a bicycle and P.W. 9 was a chance-witness.There was also seizure of gun from A2 on the basis of admissible portion of his confession.P.W. 15's name finds place in the inquest report (Ex. P-5).We have before us the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 16) who conducted post-mortem.He found following injuries on the body of the deceased:(1) A lacerated wound on the lower right side of the neck, oblique in direction, 4 cms x 2 cms.x neck-deep, perforated across, the neck on the left side.Margins were inverted, blood was present on the wound, there was black tattooing over the margins, with no pellet or round present.Margins were averted and irregular, with blood present.(3) A lacerated wound on the right tip of shoulder, 4 cms x 4.2 cms x 3 cms, irregular, circular, margins inverted with tattoo marks present.Bones were palpable.(4) An abrasion with burn mark on the right mandibles angle, 5.9 cms x 3.8 cms., transverse, black in colour.(5) An abrasion with burn mark, just above the injury No. 1 on the right side of the neck, oblique, 2.5 cms.x 1.5 cms., black in colour.(6) An abrasion with burn mark, just below the right ear, lobule oblique, 1/2 cm.x 1/4 cm., black in colour.(7) A lacerated wound on the right deltoid region, near the tip of the spine of the scapula, 0.5 cm.x 0.4 cm.x 0.4 cm., vertical, margins clear and that burn and tattoo marks were present over the margins.Internal injuries : (on dissection) (1) In the neck, the neck-vertebrae C-5 and C-6 were fractured, the spinal-cord was lacerated with blood-clots present and that both the cartoid arteries were ruptured, along with tra-arteries were ruptured, along with tracheal tear.No pellets or bullet was found.(2) There was black colouration of the right shoulder muscles but no pellets or bullet was found.(3) On the opening of the Thoreau and viscera, the abdomen and pelvis with viscera, no pellets or pellet were found.(4) The other internal organs, like the lungs, kidney, spleen, brain etc. were found normal and healthy.The opinion of the doctor was that the deceased died of single gun-shot injury.The entire finger of suspicion points towards A4 and there can be no dispute if the evidence of P. W. 15 is perused that it was A4 who took the gun and shot at the deceased as a result of which he succumbed to injuries.Even the doctor speaks of single gun-shot.The only question, which looms large in this case is whether the other accused could be convicted either under Section 302/34, IPC or Section 302/149, IPC.The FIR clearly indicates that it was only A4 who shot at the deceased.The other accused persons no doubt were armed with guns and were travelling in the tractor.It is also brought out in evidence that A4's father was murdered by the uncle of the deceased.There was an apprehension in the mind of the accused that there may be threat to their lives.All other co-accused were sitting in the tractor when A4 got down and shot at the deceased.In fact, there is evidence that the other accused fled away after the occurrence and did not in any way help A4 to shot the deceased.In fact, they were surprised by the conduct of A4 in shooting the deceased.Therefore, no case is made out for an offence either under Section 149 read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code or Section 34 read with Section 302, Indian Penal Code.We have closely perused the complaint.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,442,407 |
Heard learned counsel Mr. S.A. Gaikwad, for the applicant.Inyear, 2005 a crime was registered against the present applicant videCrime No. 146 of 2005 with Police Station Jintur, District Parbhanifor the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 504, 188 and506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 :::906 aba 423-19 2It appears from the submissions of the learned counsel forthe applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. Y.Mahajan that inspite of the summons issued to the present applicantto remain present in the Court of the learned Magistrate, he did notremain present.Consequently, Non-bailable Warrant was issued.However, prior to execution of said Non-bailable Warrant, theapplicant preferred an application before the learned AdditionalSessions Judge at Parbhani vide Criminal Application No. 60 of 2018and sought the relief of his pre-arrest bail.The applicant seriously disputed about the receipt of thesummons issued by the learned Magistrate.Even from thediscussion made in the order passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge rejecting the pre-arrest bail, there is no referencethat the summons were served upon the applicant and inspite of thesaid, he remained absent.What is observed is that an incorrect ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 ::: 906 aba 423-19 3address of residence was furnished by the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 :::On merit, the applicant was already granted relief of bail.Further at no point of time any application for cancellation of bailwas filed by the prosecution that he has misused the liberty grantedto him.In view of this typical position, in my view at this stage alonethis application can be disposed of by imposing certain conditionsupon the applicant.Consequently, I pass following order.(II) In the event of arrest of the applicant - Mohan s/o Uttamrao Kulkarni (Salapurikar), in connection with Crime No. 146 of 2005 with Police Station Jintur, District Parbhani for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 504, 188 and 506 read with Section 34 of the ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 ::: 906 aba 423-19 4Indian Penal Code culminated in RCC No.74 of 2006, hebe released on bail, on his executing P.R. Bond ofRs.10,000/- with one solvent surety.::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 :::(III) The applicant is directed to appear before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jintur, DistrictParbhani in RCC No. 74 of 2006 is directed to furnishbail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one solventsurety in the like amount.(V) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jintur isdirected to accept the bail bonds executed before himby the applicant.(VI) Till 16.04.2019, no coercive steps should be takenagainst the applicant.If the applicant fails to appearbefore the learned Magistrate on 16.04.2019 and fails toexecute the bail bond, it will be open for the policemachinery to execute the Non-bailable Warrant againstthe applicant.::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 :::906 aba 423-19 5 (VII) Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order.(VIII) The application stands disposed of accordingly.[V.M. DESHPANDE, J.]vsm/ ::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2019 07:42:54 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,447,226 |
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11/05/2018 in connection with Chandrakona P.S. Case No. 193 of 2017 dated 20/06/2017 under Sections 143 /149 /447 /323 /325 /308 /379 /354B /506 /34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Debidas Roy & Anr.....petitioners.Mr. U. K. Roy ...for the petitioners.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,674,477 |
JUDGMENT S.S. Jha, J.This appeal is filed against the acquittal of respondent for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 498A, I.P.C.According to the prosecution, deceased Mamta was burnt on 29.1.1987 at her house.She remained in Hospital for 10 days.It is alleged that respondent has beaten his wife Mamta and burnt her by pouring kerosene oil upon her.After burning Mamta she was pushed out of the room where the wife of her husband's elder brother and aunt have extinguished fire by pouring water on her body and she was sent to the District Hospital where she died on 9.2.1987,There is no eye-witness to the incident.Prosecution case rests upon the oral dying declaration.P.W. 1 Ramavtar has deposed that the deceased remained unconscious for 3-4 days and thereafter she regained consciousness.When she regained consciousness at that time this witness Ramavtar, his father Mangilal, respondent Kailash and Kailash's sister-in-law were present.Deceased told him that she was beaten and burnt by Kailash.However, P.W. 2 Mangilal has deposed that deceased gave oral dying declaration to him when no one was present on the spot.Ramavtar has deposed that the dying declaration was given between 12.00-1.00 O'clock in the night.Mangilal has deposed that time of dying declaration was 2.00 a.m., whereas P.W. 3 Parvati Bai has deposed that in the afternoon when she was alone oral dying declaration was given by the deceased.Shakuntala has given similar statement.Oral dying declaration of these witnesses does not corroborate each other.Even otherwise it is stated that the deceased was beaten and thereafter burnt, but this fact is not corroborated by medical evidence.P.W. 6 Dr. A.P. Srivastava, performed the post-mortem and P.W. 7 Dr. D.K. Bansal has deposed that post-mortem was performed before him.MLC report of deceased is Ex. D-8, which was proved by D.W. 4 Dr. C.P. Tiwari.In Ex. D-8 only burn injuries are mentioned and injuries on the body of deceased were not found.Thus, oral evidence about beating by respondent Kailash to deceased is not corroborated by medical evidence.In her case diary statement before police deceased has mentioned that her clothes caught fire while cooking food on stove.Witnesses have not deposed a word about demand of dowry against the respondent.In the said facts of the case Trial Court has acquitted the respondents.As discussed above and in view of conflicting evidence on record, we do not find that Trial Court has taken perverse view.Accordingly appeal is dismissed.Bail bonds and sureties of respondent are discharged.Respondent is in jail, he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.On going through the record we find that the police officers were of the opinion that no case is made out against the respondents, yet challan was filed and false case was lodged against the respondents.He has stated that he has recorded the statement as stated by the deceased before him.Thus, even the police officer from the investigating team has mentioned in the Court that statement was recorded and statement Ex. D-2 does not allege any allegation against the respondent.R.D. Mishra, P.W. 12, was holding the post of Dy.Superintendent of Police, Ghatigaon on the date of deposition and was holding the post of Dy.Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri at the time of investigation.He has deposed that he has recorded the statement of Mangilal, father of Mamta, mother Parvati, brother Ramavtar and elder sister Shakuntala.He has admitted that he has not filed the statements recorded before investigating the Marg and he could not explain the reasons why the statements were not filed in the Court.This shows that this officer was not only negligent but has also wilfully suppressed the documents in order to bring false case against the respondent.The discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses itself discloses that the statements of the witnesses were not correctly recorded by the police officers and they have not even cared to serutinise the evidence and produce the doctor in Court.Statements which have been recorded and are not corroborated itself disclose that investigation was not only improper and faulty but challan has been filed with intention to implicate respondent falsely.Considering the facts of the case these officers R.D. Mishra and Head Constable Hotilal are liable to be prosecuted for bringing a false case against the respondent.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,674,561 |
Pursuant to an advertisement, the appellant applied for recruitment to the post of Constable, Grade-II and was provisionally selected by Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board).He was directed to appear on 26.8.03 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, for medical test and was found fit on such medical test.All other formalities were complied and while he was waiting for the letter of appointment, the respondent issued the impugned letter on 19.1.04 as per Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1978) and refused to appoint the appellant on the ground of doubtful antecedent.The appellant preferred W.P. No. 16375/04 and brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that S.C. No. 3/01 in which he was made an accused ended in his acquittal by judgment dated 30.10.01 passed by the 2nd Addl.v. Dhaval Singh , the Supreme Court noticed that the candidate for appointment as a constable put a cross-mark in the column in which he was required to give information about pendency of the criminal case, if any, against him.Explanation:- (1) A person who is acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant "turned hostile" shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case;Explanation:- (2) A person involved in a criminal case at the time of police verification and the case yet to be disposed of and subsequently ended in honourable acquittal or treated as mistake of fact shall be treated as not involved in a criminal case and he can claim right for appointment only by participating in the next recruitment.X X X X X X X X
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
|
167,462,583 |
It is the case where the appellant and two others werehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 charged for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.The Trial Court after considering the evidence let in by the prosecution has acquitted A2 and A3, whereas convicted A1 for offence under Section 304(I) IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment.He was also got injured.Thereafter, A1 snatched the Aruval from the deceased and had cut him causing injuries which later led to his death.The Lower Appellate Court has considered this proven act of evidence as an act of private defence but excessive, therefore, held guilty of offence under Section 304 (I)IPC.It is an admitted case that the deceased feared of A2 giving complaint against him to the police about the dispute between him and Sivakumar A2 on the eve of New Year, a day prior to the incident.The quarrel on 31.12.2007 in connection with playing the tape recorder with high decibel by him, the deceased has anticipated retaliation by Sivakumar and others.Therefore, he has gone to the house of his friends Rajesh and Iyyappan [PW.2] and informed them about the happening and called them to be with him, so that they can do away Sivakumar.On the next day at 9.30 a.m., Sivakumar was found in company with Prabhu and Sureshkumar.It was the deceased who went to his house took the knife and attacked Prabhu, who has sustained injury while snatching the knife.These are all admitted facts even by the deceased in his statement to police at the hospital as well as the eye-witnesses.While so, applying the principle of excessive private defence to hold the accused (A1) guilty of offence under Section 304(I) IPC is not available when the sequence of events have happened in a very close proximity of time and the weapon used to attack the deceased was not possessed by the accused but it was brought by the deceased himself to attack Sivakumar[A2] the friendhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 of the accused[A1].From the complaint given by the deceased and recorded by the police, it is clear that the deceased had the intention to kill Sivakumar and went to the spot carrying the weapon.His statement to the police, since he is died, should be taken as piece of evidence.The appreciation of the First Information Report and the complaint given to the police gives information about the reason for death.The very fact that the appellant and the other accused were not armed with weapons and it was the deceased, who carried the weapon and tried to attack Prabhu.While seizing the weapon, Prabhu sustained injury.It is quite natural to prevent further attack as a defence, the accused had retaliated back using the knife snatched from the deceased.This Court finds that the private defence exercised by the appellant is not excessive.while exercising his right private defence against a person carrying knife and the accused armless, when the person attack with knife snatching it and attacking the assailant with knife is not an excessivehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 defence.It is adequate and he cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 304(I) IPC.In the result, the appeal is allowed.The Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.208 of 2008 dated 22.11.2011 is set aside.The appellant is set at liberty.Bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall be cancelled.Fine amount if any paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.03.04.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/ Non speaking order rpl To1.The District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam District.2.The Inspector of Police, Mauiladuthurai Police Station, Nagapattinam District3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 rpl Crl.A.No.768 of 2011 03.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,464,686 |
CRR No. 1752 of 2013 Venkitachalam Rajagopal Vs.The State of West Bengal.Mr. Debasish Ray, Mr. Sanjoy Banerjee, Mr. Dipak Dey ..... For the Petitioner.Ms. Rituparna De ..... For the State.This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for return of petitioner's passport lying seized in connection with GR.Case No. 2379 of 2007 arising out of New Market Police Station Case No. 174 dated 05.10.2007 under Sections 120B/471/467/468/420/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 now pending before the learned 4th Special Judge, Calcutta.The orders dated 17th May, 2012 and 21st May, 2012 of the learned trial court have been challenged so far as those 2 relate to rejection of the prayer for return of the passport of the petitioner seized by the police in connection with this case.Commissioner of Customs, Airport and Administration & Ors.).Learned Advocate, Ms. Rituparna De, appearing for the Opposite Party State, submits that Investigating Officer has submitted a report dated 17th June, 2013 wherein Investigating Officer raised strong objection in returning the passport to the petitioner-accused as there is a chance of tampering of evidence as further investigation is still going on.Admittedly, the present petitioner was arrested in connection with the present case and was also released on bail under certain conditions.The revisional application stands disposed of accordingly.Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent Photostat certified copies of this order to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.( Tarun Kumar Gupta, J. )
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,466,748 |
Heard on admission.The appellant preferred this appeal being aggrieved by Judgment dated 12.01.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.08/2017 passed by Special/Additional Session Judge, Shahdol whereby the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction under Sections 341 and 354 of IPC passed by the Court of JMFC in Criminal Case No.1219/2015 and converted the sentenced passed under Section 354 of IPC in one year of R.I. and enhanced the fine of Rs.2,000/- instead of Rs.1,000/-.This appeal is having arguable points, therefore, it is admitted for final hearing in due course.Also heard on I.A. No.1303/2019, an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant Munna @ Ramprakash Gupta.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I.A. No.1303/2019 is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Court of JMFC on 25.03.2019 and all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Court in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the applicant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Revision No.383/2019 (Munna @ Ramprakash Gupta Vs.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.02.04 10:22:04 +05'30'
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,470,795 |
The respondents Nos.1 & 2 are the mother-in-law and married sister-in-law of the deceased.The First Information Report was lodged on 19.08.2012 by the petitioner alleging that he married his daughter Neha to co-accused Nagmani on 21.05.2011 in accordance with Hindu religious rites.At Crl.Rev P No.710/2013 Page 1 of 17 the time of marriage, Nagmani, the husband, was in employment in Delhi and, therefore, immediately after the marriage, the daughter of the informant came to stay with her husband in Delhi where the couple resided in a rented accommodation.It has been averred in the First Information Report that sometimes in January, 2012 his daughter was insinuated and troubled at the instance of the respondents and her husband for bringing insufficient dowry.The daughter of the informant thereafter came to her parental home and joined her husband later on the husband apologizing for his conduct.Again, a complaint was made by his daughter in the month of July, 2012 about similar bad behavior by her husband.The daughter of the petitioner told him that she always feared the arrival of her husband in the night.The husband of the deceased again promised of good conduct and took his wife to his home.The bad behaviour continued unabated.On 18.08.2012 at about mid-day, the petitioner is said to have talked to his daughter on telephone when the petitioner made it known that he wished to visit her.The daughter of the informant prevented him from visiting her and said that she should be left to her own fate.At about 8.30 pm on the same day a neighbour of the in-laws of the daughter of the petitioner gave an information on telephone that his daughter had committed suicide.On such information, the informant/petitioner and his family members left for the matrimonial home of the deceased from Sangam Vihar.The informant found that the husband of the deceased had already taken her to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.This incensed the informant and, therefore, it was alleged by the Crl.Rev P No.710/2013 Page 2 of 17 petitioner that because of the ill treatment meted out to the deceased, she committed suicide.The police after investigation submitted chargesheet under Sections 498A/406/304B/302 and 34 of the IPC, whereupon cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.The Trial Court vide the order impugned discharged the respondents namely mother-in-law and married sister-in-law of the deceased on the ground that they were not named in the First Information Report and no role has been attributed to them with regard to dowry demand or harassment.The Trial Court took note of the fact that the respondent No.1 (mother-in-law) admittedly did not stay with the deceased and her husband, rather she was a permanent resident of a village in the district of Rohtas in the State of Bihar while respondent No.2 (married sister-in-law) resided at Sarojini Nagar, Amausi, Lucknow, U.P.The Trial Court, on the basis of the aforesaid facts and appreciation of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, on the point of charge, held that the death of the deceased was not proximate to any cruelty foisted on her and the statement of the mother of the deceased also did not specifically allege that any demand of dowry or cruelty was unfurled on the deceased soon before her having committing Crl.Rev P No.710/2013 Page 3 of 17 suicide.The petitioner who is the informant of FIR No.212/2012 has challenged the order dated 11.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-West in Sessions Case No.15/2013 whereby he has discharged respondent Nos.1 & 2 of the offence under Section 498A/304B and 34 of the IPC and has framed charges under the aforesaid sections only against the husband of the deceased namely Nagmani @ Montu.Rev P No.710/2013 Page 1 of 17Rev P No.710/2013 Page 2 of 17As a result of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No.212/2012 (P.S.Nangloi) was registered for investigation under Sections 498A/304B and 34 of the IPC.However, charges were framed under Sections 498A/304B against the husband of the deceased, Nagmani @ Montu.Rev P No.710/2013 Page 3 of 17The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that the police papers indicate that the stridhan given to the deceased during her marriage was lying with her in-laws (respondents) and that there was sufficient material against respondent Nos.1 & 2 also for framing charges against them.The aforesaid provision of presumptive evidence was introduced in the Evidence Act for tackling large number of dowry deaths within the confines of the matrimonial home of the deceased, with almost negligible direct evidence for the same.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,591,750 |
9210300090 that rape has been committed with a girl at House No. X18, DDA Flats, Turkman gate, Delhi.The information was reduced into writing vide DD No. 27(Ex.PW17A).SI Sangeeta (PW18) recorded the statement of the Complainant, father of the victim (Ex.Pw1/A) wherein he stated that on 16.12.2012 he had sent his nephew aged about 9 years and his daughter aged about 6years to the opposite block to deliver food to his sister and at about 10:45 PM his nephew returned home and informed the complainant that his daughter was caught by one boy in the stairs who pulled down her pyjama and was doing 'chera khani' with her.The complainant rushed downstairs and apprehended the said boy at the distance of about 200mts.Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.By the present criminal leave petition filed under section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the state seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by the learned ASJ in sessions case No. 56/2013 whereby the respondent (accused before the trial court) was acquitted of the charges punishable under section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code read with section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.The relevant facts, as noticed by the trial court are that on 16.12.2012 at about 11:05PM intimation was received from mobile no.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 1 of 9A call was made to the PCR, FIR was got registered under section 376 IPC read with section 4 of the POCSO Act, victim was medically examined and accused was arrested.On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.Thereafter charges against the accused were framed under section 376 (2) (f) IPC read with Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge, upon which the prosecution examined 22 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the respondent.Learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has observed that intimation of the incident was received by the PCR on 16.12.2012 from mobile no. 9210300090 which was found to be registered in the name Savita Bhasin but as per prosecution case, the call was made by the Fufi of the victim (PW9).During investigation no effort was made to interrogate Savita Bhasin from whose number PCR received the information about the incident and no evidence was adduced to establish that Fufi of the victim (PW9) had any connection with Savita Bhasin.Trial Court further observed that there is a Crl.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 2 of 9 possibility that the name of PW9 as an informant was introduced later on when police failed to find out the alleged Savita Bhasin.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 2 of 9The version of PW18 that PW9 had gone out of station and hence she could not record her statement does not get any support from PW9 as she deposed in her examination that she went out only in the month of June and this shows that the Investigating Officer, Sangeeta (PW18) has made a false statement in the court that PW9 told her that she was out of station.The relevant para has been reproduced below:".......the main reason for discarding their evidence is that their statements under section 161 of CrPC came to be recorded on 8th August, 1991 after about four and a half months.No explanation whatsoever was given by the Investigating Officer Gurmeet Singh (PW11) as to why their statements could not be recorded earlier.Both these witnesses were members of the patrolling party and even after knowing that on 22nd March, 1991, Sukhdev Singh left along with the appellants and was admitted in the hospital in an injured condition, they did not come forward to tell about this fact.It is in these circumstances, we do not feel it safe to accept their evidence on this vital circumstances, namely, Sukhdev Singh was last seen alive in the company of appellants."Learned trial court has also pointed out that local police received the intimation from PCR at about 11:05PM and by 11:30 PM, Investigating Officer, Sangeeta (PW18) and SI Ram Niwas (PW19) were at the spot along with their staff but surprisingly Investigating Crl.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 3 of 9 Officer, Sangeeta (PW18) had taken five hours in recording the statement of complainant (PW1) despite the fact that complainant was very much present at the spot.Also the contents of rukka are contrary to the deposition of PW18 and there is no document on record to establish that when the copy of FIR was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate or to the concerned court in terms of section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 3 of 9Learned Trial Court further observed that biological samples of victim and accused were taken and sent to FSL for analysis.As per FSL report, no semen/vaginal epithelial cells were found on Ex.F1 and F2 (filter paper described to contain finger wash of right and left hand of the accused) and no such cell was found on Ex.F3 (filter paper described to contain penis wash for vaginal cells) and Ex.G1 and G2 (jeans pant and tshirt of the accused) which disproves the prosecution version that accused had inserted his finger in the vagina of the victim.It has also been noticed by the Learned Trial Court that at the time of incident, Victim (PW6) and cousin of victim (PW7) were present but victim (PW6) failed to identify the accused and the testimony of PW6 is not helpful.Also cousin of victim (PW7) identified the accused during trial but he deposed that entire incident had taken place within a minute.So it's quite improbable that he would be in a position to recognize the features of the accused properly since there was no electric pole near the place of occurrence and there was darkness at the place of incident.In the background learned counsel for the state submits that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment on hypothetical presumptions, conjectures and surmises and the order is perverse and lacks legality.Counsel further submits that the learned trial court Crl.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 4 of 9 failed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and wrongly acquitted the respondent.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 4 of 9Learned counsel for state further argued that no doubt victim (PW6) failed to identify the accused during trial, but there is sufficient evidence and material on record to bring home the offences charged against the respondent.Regarding cousin of victim (PW7), learned counsel for the state submits that PW7 identified the accused in court and deposed that he had seen the accused commit the offence on the victim which duly proves the case of the prosecution regarding commission of the offence.Also the testimony of PW7 is fully corroborated by Complainant (PW1) and brother of complainant (PW10) which clearly nails the accused person in the case and the accused person ought to have been convicted.With regard to deficiencies in the prosecution matter, particularly in the testimony of Investigating Officer (PW18), learned counsel for state submits that lapses on the part of PW18 are insufficient to discard the entire prosecution case and minor lacunas in the investigation should not affect the case of the prosecution adversely.Learned counsel for state also submits that there is no delay in registration of FIR and if there is any delay, same is not fatal to the prosecution case.In our view, trial court has given good and valid reasons to disbelieve the prosecution case.Regarding the delay in registration of FIR, it can be said that Investigating Officer, Sangeeta (PW18) had taken about 5 hours in recording the statement of complainant (PW1) and the plea taken by PW18 to justify the lapse on her part that she was busy in medical Crl.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 5 of 9 examination of the victim and recorded the statement only after returning from hospital is false because as per the MLC (Ex.PW14/A), victim reached the hospital at about 12:26AM which means that the statement of complainant(PW1) was recorded by PW18 prior to reaching the hospital.Thus there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in registration of FIR and also in recording of the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure.Also there is a delay in sending the copy of FIR to Illaqa Magistrate u/s 157 Code of Criminal Procedure.Hence in our opinion, trial court has rightly rejected the case of the prosecution on the point of delay in FIR.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 5 of 9Initially she deposed that she was busy in the medical examination of the victim and could not record the statement of the complainant (PW1) prior to 3AM but in cross examination when the attention was drawn towards the rukka (Ex.PW18/A) she admitted that she had recorded the statement of complainant prior to going to hospital which casts a reasonable doubt over the prosecution case.It is the admitted case of prosecution that PW6(Victim) and PW7(Cousin of victim) were present at the spot of incident but the testimony of PW6 was rightly discarded as she failed to identify the accused.Also the testimony of PW7is insufficient to prove the identity of the accused as there was complete darkness at the place of incident and PW7 admitted in his cross examination that the entire incident had taken place within the period of one minute.Thus PW7 had no sufficient time to notice the features of the culprit.Hence prosecution had failed to adduce any other cogent evidence to prove the identity of the accused.Leave Petition No. 51/2015 Page 6 of 9Regarding medical evidence, the FSL report is not helpful to connect the accused with the alleged crime because if accused had inserted his penis there would have been some semen cell on the underwear/pant of the accused and some vaginal cell would have been found in the penis wash but no such evidence was found.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,596,134 |
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.155/2014 registered at Police Station, Malanpur, District Bhind, for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and Sections 11,13 of the MPDVPKAs per prosecution case, when the complainant reached near Cadbury Factory Puliya, three persons came in front of his tractor and one of them, who was armed with iron rod, gave a blow of iron rod on the right hand of the complainant, then complainant stopped the tractor.Thereafter, one of them pulled down the complainant and another one took away his tractor.Remaining two were catching hold of the complainant.After some time, they also left the place.The applicant is not named in the FIR.No TIP has been held.Hence, prayed for bail.2 M.Cr.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that looted property has been seized from the possession of the applicant and he has criminal history and as many as 22 criminal cases are registered against him.Case diary perused.The report has been lodged against unknown persons, however, in pursuance of the memorandum of the applicant, looted property has been seized from the possession of the applicant after 10 days of the incident.
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,602,255 |
(i) Rule is made absolute insofar as charges framed against the applicant for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code are concerned and those are quashed and set aside.(ii) Insofar as charges framed against the .....5/-::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 01:59:16 ::: Judgment revn157.17 12 5 applicant for the offence punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act stand confirmed and the prosecution to prove those charges during the course of the Trial.::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 01:59:16 :::(iii) The criminal revision application is partly allowed and disposed of.JUDGE !! BRW !! ...../-::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 01:59:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2018 01:59:16 :::
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,605,260 |
However, it is also ordered that out of the total amount of fine awarded to the two convicts 75% shall be paid to the injured person as compensation.As the petitioners are presently lodged in jail and serving the sentence of imprisonment they shall now be released from there.P.K. BHASIN,J September 27, 2012 CRL.654/2009 & CRL.655/2009 Page 5 of 5654/2009 & CRL.655/2009 Page 5 of 5P.K.BHASIN, J:These two revision petitions have been filed by the two convicted accused under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the common judgment dated 07.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby separate appeals filed by them against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court convicting them for the commission of offence punishable under Section 326/34 IPC were dismissed and while affirming their conviction the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- awarded to both of them was also maintained.The facts of the case were noticed by the trial Court in its judgment dated 06.05.2008 are as follows:-".....that on 5.1.1997 DD No. 18 B was recorded at PS Vasant Kunj regarding amputation of foot of a person near Nuclear Sciences Centre, kishan Garh, Aruna Asaf Ali Road.The DD NO. 18 B was thereafter handed over to SI Diwan Chand who along with Ct.Shailender Kumar reached the spot where he came to know that the injured has already been taken to the Safdarjung Hospital by the PCR Va. SI Diwan Chand left the Ct.Shailender at the spot and himself went to Safdarjung Hospital where injured Netra Pal was admitted vide MLC No.SI Diwan Chand recorded the statement of the injured Netra Pal in which he alleged that on 5.1.1997 at about 9 am he had gone to ease himself in the jungle in front of Nuclear Science Centre, Aruna Asaf Ali Road when accused Jai Prakash armed with a "PHARSA" accused Pappu @ Sanjay and Arjun armed CRL.654/2009 & CRL.655/2009 Page 2 of 5 with "LATHI" and accused Hambeer with "DANDA and accused Vivek @ Vicky with GHANDASA" (now expired) had attacked him.The accused Jai Prakash hit the complainant/injured with the "PHARSA" as a result of which his left foot was amputated.The other accused persons also hit the complainant with "LATHI" and "GHANDASA" as a result of which the injured/complainant received multiple sharp as well as bone injuries.When the complainant had shouted for help all the accused persons ran away.The complainant managed to come out of the Jungle and reached a PCR Van which took him to the Safdarjung Hospital.."654/2009 & CRL.655/2009 Page 2 of 5Hence the present revision petitions came to be filed by the two convicted accused and since both CRL.655/2009 Page 3 of 5 the petitions were heard together the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,607,165 |
1) Petition of petitioner No. 1, 2 and 3 is hereby disposed of as withdrawn.2) Petition of petitioners No. 4 to 8 is hereby allowed.3) Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause "B" to the petitioners No. 4 to 8 only.4) Rule made absolute in the above terms.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 09:18:59 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,760,878 |
Page 1 of 30"1) Deceased Sonu and Rakesh were good friends, who were residing in the same locality.Rakesh was working as driver and he along with his family, was residing in the house of Ms. Nandi Devi as her tenant.Ms. Samta was the daughter of landlady of Rakesh.Deceased Sonu was having close relationship with wife of accused Rakesh, which was not liked by accused Rakesh.On 08.03.2009 accused Rakesh took Sonu along with him during night, out of a pre-plan to eliminate him.They had taken drinks along with accused Ravi.Rakesh had taken a Toyota Qualis vehicle from his cousin Manoj and both accused took deceased in that vehicle for outing.Sonu had become too much intoxicated under the influence of liquor and then in pursuance of the plan, Ravi fired on the chest of Sonu from close range while sitting in the same vehicle.Thereafter, accused Rakesh took country made pistol from Ravi and fired on head of Sonu, due to which Sonu died in the vehicle itself.Sonu was thrown out of the vehicle on the road going towards Khurja, near Maharam Pur, U.P. thereafter, accused Page 2 of 30 persons came back to Delhi.On next day i.e. 09.03.2009 accused Rakesh took away his family from the house of Ms. Nandi and left Delhi.The family members of Sonu were making inquiry about Sonu and Sh.Madan Singh (father of Sonu) finally lodged a missing report on 12.03.2009 Sh.Madan Singh had been making inquiry about the accused Rakesh from Ms. Samta and her mother on 15.03.2009 during evening time, he was informed by Ms. Samta that accused Rakesh had made telephonic call to her.He asked Samta to politely extract information from accused Rakesh about his son Sonu.Ms. Samta was talking to Rakesh on her mobile phone, which was not having recording facility, however some parts of the talk between accused Rakesh and Ms. Samta were recorded in the mobile phone of Sh.Madan Singh, while keeping speaker on of the phone used by Ms. Samta.In that talk, accused Rakesh confessed of eliminating deceased Sonu and thereafter, Sh.Madan Singh again visited police station and disclosed all facts to the SHO.Accused Rakesh gave his Page 3 of 30 disclosure statement thereby disclosing involvement of co-accused Ravi and the use of Toyota Qualis vehicle in the murder of Sonu.Police recovered Toyota Qualis vehicle from Sh.Nafees Ahmad.The vehicle was examined by experts of CFSL, Lodhi Road, who found blood stains on the seat of vehicle and the same was seized for the purpose of FSL examination.Page 3 of 303) The dead body of Sonu was found near village Gangthalla, Khurja in the early morning of 09.03.2009 and local police sent the dead body for postmortem examination in District Hospital, Bullandshahar.PW-2 : Accha ghar jaa rahe ho.Faridabad me ho tum."Internal Examination:Page 24 of 30Occipital bone was fractured, brain membranes and brain was lacerated about 30 ml blood was present inside the head.On left side chest, fifth and sixth ribs were fractured on front and on back eight ribs were fractured.Opinion In my opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries No. 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature."PW-8 opined that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of firearm injuries on the head and chest of the deceased and was sufficient to cause death.Scientific Evidence:PW-17 B. K. Mohapatra, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi examined the vehicle bearing no. DL-IV-7598 (Toyota Qualis) for presence of forensic biological clue material and suspected blood stains on the middle seat cover which were collected and handed over to the police for further necessary action.PW-17 gave his report dated 23.11.2009, Ex.PW-17/A on sealed parcel No. 1 and 5 which are blood stained clothes of the deceased and piece of seat cover retrieved from the vehicle.Page 25 of 30Present appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 23.05.2015 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 62/14 whereby the Page 1 of 30 appellant had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, the amount shall be recovered as per Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appeals have been heard and are disposed of by a common judgment..His statement was recorded and FIR was registered by police under Section 365 IPC against accused Rakesh.Page 2 of 302) On 04.07.2009 on the basis of secret information, accused Rakesh was arrested by officials of Special Cell, Delhi Police and thereafter, he was formally arrested in this case after interrogation.They also lodged a case on 12.03.2009, however, on the basis of pamphlets and publication of photographs of the dead body, Sh.Madan Singh visited PS Khurja City and identified the clothes and photographs of deceased Sonu.Thereafter, the further investigation of the case was transferred from Khurja City to Delhi for investigation of offence under Section 302 IPC.4) After completion of investigation, police chargesheeted accused Rakesh and Ravi for offence under Section 364/302/201/34 IPC.5) On 04.03.2010, charges were framed for offences under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC against both accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Page 4 of 306) Both accused persons were charged with allegations that on 08.03.2009, at about 09:00 PM, they both formed common intention to abduct and commit murder of Sonu and in furtherance of their common intention, they abducted him with intent to cause his death and thus, they committed offence punishable under Section 364/34 IPC.7) They were also charged with allegations that on or before the above said date, time and place, they formed common intention and in furtherance of such common intention, they committed murder of Sonu and thereby, they committed offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.8) They were also charged with allegations that on the same date, time and place in furtherance of their common intention, they caused evidence of commission of the offence to disappear i.e. disappearance of the fire arm used and cleaning the evidence of the brain material on the seat of the vehicle and with intention to screen themselves with legal punishment and thereby, they committed offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC."To bring home the guilt against the appellant, prosecution examined 40 witnesses in all.The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Page 5 of 30 the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he denied all the accusation against him.Malkhan Khan and PW-23 Inspector Vijay Prakash Singh in their testimonies deposed that the height of the dead body was about 5'9" and 5'5" respectively.The counsel next submitted that the factum of intoxication of the deceased Sonu was not supported by the post mortem report.(v) The recovery of vehicle alleged to have been made in furtherance to the disclosure statement of the appellant is disputed and in any case, it is highly improbable that the blood sample matched with the blood of the deceased lifted from seat of the alleged vehicle after four months of the incident and has no link with the commission of the crime and as such, it would be impermissible in law to use the recovered vehicle against the appellant for sustaining his conviction.The counsel for the Page 7 of 30 appellant further submits that there is no recovery of weapon of offence used in the commission of crime.Page 7 of 30On the contrary, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State, strongly refuted the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and lent support to the judgment on conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.Counsel argued that the prosecution has been able to prove their case beyond any shadow of doubt.Kaha par ho tum.Page 10 of 30Rakesh : Nahi yaar Haridwar paar kar raha hun. ....................................................................PW-2 Samta deposed that on 09.03.2009 Madan Singh (father of the deceased) enquired as to the whereabouts of appellant Rakesh from PW-26 Smt. Nandi Devi (mother of PW-2) and also informed her that his son Sonu was missing.PW-2 Samta deposed that on 15.03.2009 accused Rakesh had called on her mobile phone.On answering the call, she informed accused that the father of deceased Sonu was searching for him to which he retorted that he had got a job for Sonu in Chandigarh and later on changed his version and said that he got rid of him (thikane laga diya hai).PW-2 further deposed that she elicited this information in a very polite and affectionate manner and it was recorded by father of the deceased while the same was on speaker mode.The extract of the conversation is Ex.PW-2/A which was seized by the police and her voice sample was taken by the FSL.PW-26 Nandi Devi (mother of PW-2 Samta) also supported the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-10 Kamal Gupta (neighbour) on aspect of extra-judicial confession stating that on 15.03.2009, her daughter Samta received a call on their Tata mobile phone.The call was made by accused Rakesh and at that time PW-27 Madan Singh (father of the deceased) was present at her house and recorded the conversation.Page 11 of 30She deposed that the call was repeatedly disconnected.She further deposed that there was no recording facility in the phone.PW-26 further deposed that she heard Rakesh saying that Sonu had been sent to Chandigarh and also heard that "Maine Sonu Ko Thikane Laga Diya Hai".She heard the conversation as Madan (father of the deceased) had put their Tata Mobile Phone on speaker mode.She deposed that there was a gap of 15 minutes between first and second call and the talk on the mobile took place 4 to 5 times.PW-27 Madan Singh (father of the deceased) deposed that on 15.03.2009 he went to the house of Samta and found that she was talking with the accused Rakesh and identified his voice and put her phone on speaker mode.Page 15 of 30On examining the evidence against the appellant and after perusal of the above judgments, it emerges that the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility.The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it.In the present case, it is not in dispute that on 15.03.2009, the appellant called PW-2 Samta on her mobile phone.It is revealed from the extract of the transcript that the appellant was at Haridwar and made a call to PW-2 Samta.It is pertinent to note that though the call got disconnected numerous times, the appellant repeatedly made calls to PW-2 Samta which only shows that he wanted to inform her that he had done away with Rakesh and the repeated calls show that it was voluntary and he reposed confidence in PW-2 Samta.There was no pressure on the appellant to disclose what he had done and the confession made by the accused Rakesh to PW-2 Samta on telephone only leads to one conclusion that the confession was made voluntarily.The confession is equally supported by the testimonies of PW-10, PW- 26 and PW-27 and appears to be cogent.Last Seen Together Theory So far as the deceased having been last seen with the appellant is concerned, it will be useful to peruse the testimonies of PW-2 Samta, PW-26 Smt. Nandi Devi and PW-9 Raj Rani.Page 16 of 30PW-2 Samta in her examination in chief deposed that accused Rakesh was a tenant @ Rs.1,100/- p.m. in their house and deceased Sonu who lived in the same street were good friends.According to her, on 08.03.2009 around 7:30 p.m. while she was studying, she saw the accused Rakesh and deceased Sonu moving towards the house of Sonu which fact she brought to the notice of her mother and she along with her mother after coming out of their house saw Sonu going inside the house and they waited for him.In her cross examination, she admitted that when she saw accused Rakesh and Sonu together, it could be 10:30 p.m. She further admitted that she saw the accused Rakesh and deceased Sonu going together and the accused Rakesh did not return that night and returned on 09.03.2009 and left along with his family.The second prosecution witness, PW-26 Smt. Nandi Devi, mother of PW-2 Samta deposed on similar lines.According to the third witness, PW-9 Raj Rani (mother of deceased Sonu), Sonu was a good friend of accused Rakesh and on 08.03.2009 at about 10:40 p.m. accused Rakesh and her son Sonu came home in an inebriated condition and left together and went inside the house of PW-2 Samta.Left side lung was lacerated about 300 ml of blood was present on left side chest cavity. ........Serological examination of the exhibits vide report Ex. 17/A dated 28.3.1990 of B. K. Mohapatra revealed that the blood group "O" which was detected on the clothes of the deceased matched with the blood group found on the piece of seat cover.".....The High Court has also not discussed the circumstance that the respondent was absconding till the night of January 16, 1979 when he was arrested which is surely a link in the chain of circumstances to establish that the respondent alone had committed the offence of murder of his wife."In Rukia Begum Vs.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,676,166 |
JUDGMENT Ajit K. Sengupta, J.On 26th February 1980 between 7-30 and 8 p.m., the deceased Kamal Thakur and his friends P.W. 4, Sadananda Lal, P.W. 5 Asim Tarafdar, P.W. 6 Nepu Biswas and P.W. 8 Gopal Dasgupta were gossiping near the residence of Kamal at No. 216/6, Golmohor Avenue.The 4 accused persons then came in a private car at Golmohor Avenue and arrested Kamal Thakur.After putting him under arrest the accused persons assaulted Kamal at Golmohor Avenue with lathi and wooden rod and also gave him fist blows.Kamal was bleeding from his nose.The accused persons forced him to enter into the private car and left for Golabari Police Station.PW 1 Sailon ran after the car and also reached Golabari Police Station.He found Kamal in the police lock-up who was assaulted by the accused persons and other police personnel.Blood was coming out ceaselessly from the nose of Kamal.1 Sailen questioned the right of the accused persons to assault his son and demanded that he might be produced before the court if he was guilty of any offence.At this, accused Sushil Dey threatened to arrest him and put him in police lock-up.Not remaining content with the threat, Sushil gave several blows on his chest and then started assaulting Kamal Thakur with kicks on the abdomen and with blows and fists on other parts of the body.PW 1 then rushed to the residence of Shri P. K. Chakraborty, the then D.S.P., Howrah D.I.B., narrated the Incident to him and requested him to intervene in the matter and stop the assault of his son.Shri Chakraborty assured him that he would give necessary directions to the police officers over telephone and there was no cause of anxiety.Thereafter, Saileh returned to Golmohor Railway Quarters.2 Sk.Abdullah also saw Kamal in the police lock-up bleeding profusely from his nose and mouth.He also saw beating of Kamal with rods and pressing of burning cigarette ends on his body.PW 3 Bapi Ghosh who was arrested in connection with another case and was lodged in the lockup saw Kamal being hit with rods, fist blows and kicks.Burning cigarette ends were also pressed on his body and Kamal was writhing in pain.10 Baidyanath Chatterjee also went to the police station between 11.00 and 11.30 p.m. and found Karrial being beaten by the police and then hand-cuffed and placed inside the lock-up.PW 11 Bimal Sarkhel saw Kamal at Golabari Police Station lock-up till 9-40 or 10.00 p.m. At that time a person in civil dress came there, and directed police constables to bring out Kamal Thakur out of the lock-up.After Kamal was brought out, the man in civil dress asked Kamal to hand over the revolver.He rose up from his chair and pressed the neck of Kamal with both hands and threatened to kill him.PW 1 did not get any further information of his son Kamal on that night.Next morning at about 6.00 a.m. he went to the police station and found a police officer sitting in front of the door of the police station.He also found his son lying on his back in the police lock-up.Sailen took a tooth powder with him and asked the police officer to give it to his son.The police officer angrily ordered him not to disturb Kamal who was sleeping.One of the under-trial prisoners informed him that his son had been severely assaulted.He went back to railway quarter.PW 1 Sailen again sent to the police station at 8.30 a.m. and met PW 2 Abdullah at the gate of the police station.Abdullah informed him that his son was very restless and he requested Abdullah to give him some tablets.But he was not allowed by the police to give those tablets Sailen then went to the police lock-up and found his son in a sitting posture with his legs stretehed in front and his head kept against the fencing.He touched the body of his son and found that it was cold.His son Kamal was then taken to Howrah General Hospital by a police van.He also followed, reached the hospital and found his son lying dead in a stretcher.The dead-body of his son was removed by a constable to the morgue.There is no dispute that appellants Sushil Dey and Dilip Biswas were among the police party who arrested deceased Kamal in the evening of 26th February 1980 from Golmohor Avenue though there is dispute with regard to the time and manner of the arrest.The version of appellants Sushil and Dilip Biswas is that while they were returning to the Police Station at about 9.30 p.m. on 16-2-80 after a raid, some shop-keepers and local men informed them that accused Kamal Thakur with his gang had raided shops in front of Golmohor Avenue and Dobson Road.The further story that a knife was seized from the possession of Kamal Thakur cannot be accepted in the absence of any seizure list.The G.D. Entry un-mistakably reveals considerable anxiety on the part of the police to suppress the fact that the deceased was mercilessly assaulted by the police after his arrest which ultimately led to his death.The story that the deceased was arrested and brought to the police station between 9.30 p.m. and 11.35 P.M. also appears to be improbable.In support of the plea of alibi raised by accused appellant Sunil Biswas who was then in charge of the Golabari Police Station, the defence has examined DW 1 Ranjit Kumar Roy and personal diary of Shri Biswas (Ext. E series).He has deposed that he and Inspector Sunil Kumar Biswas held joint raid under the supervision of A.S.P., Howrah at Bandhaghat and other places from 8-30 p.m. to 12-30 mid-night.According to the entry made by Shri Biswas in his personal diary (Ext. E/2), he left for Bandaghat area for holding raid at 8.15 p.m. and as per Ext. E3 he returned to the police station to 00.35 hour.These entries, even if true, do not support the plea of alibi.The deceased was arrested and brought to the police station between 7.00 and 7.30 p.m. and not between 9.30 p.m. and 11.35 p.m. as alleged by the defence.The witnesses to this part of the prosecution story are P.W. 1 Sailendranath Thakur, P.W.2 Sk.Abadullah, PW 3 Bapi Ghosh, PW 10 Baidyanath Chatterjee and P.W. 11 Bimal Sarkhel.P.W. 1 Sailen states that after the accused persons took the victim in the car and started for the police station he ran after it and reached the Golabari Police Station.The evidence of P.W 3 Bapi Ghosh is very important.There is no dispute that Bapi Ghosh was arrested in the evening of 26-2-80 and kept in the police lock-up of Golabari Police Station.According to the defence he was arrested and brought to the police station at about 11.00 p.m. but it has been elicited from his cross-examination that he was arrested at 5.30 p.m. The testimony of PW 3 is that Kamal was brought at 7.30 p.m. by Sunil Biswas and Dilip Dey.He was then assaulted after being tied.Sunil and Dilip beat him with lathi and also gave fist blows and kicks.Burning cigarette ends were also pressed against his body.At that time Kamal was writhing in pain.He asked for medicine but no medicine was given.He was then placed in the lock-up.Again at night he was brought out and assaulted.Kamal vomitted blood.This is his substantive piece of evidence.He saw a constable hitting the shoulder of Kamal with his elbow.According to the defence, deceased Kamal Thakur was a notorious anti-social who was wanted in connection with several cases.The testimony of the witness goes to show that the sacred thread ceremony of Ashit Kumar Mahapatra, youngest son of Mrityunjoy Mahapatra, was held on 27-2-80 and the witness attended that ceremony.He was there from the noon of 26-2-80 to afternoon of 27-2-80 and he saw appellant Bimal Dikshit there all through.From hospital Sailen went to Golabari Police Station to lodge First Information Report but he was not allowed by the police to enter into the police station and lodge a complaint.Sailen then made a petition of complaint (Ext. 5) in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on the same date.The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate examined several witnesses on different dates and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.All the accused persons, pleaded innocence denying the alleged assaults on the deceased.Accused Sunil Biswas took a plea of alibi alleging that on 26th February 1980 at the time of the incident he had been to Dolgobinda Singh Lane within Golabari Police Station on receipt of information of a stabbing incident.He had also been to Malipanchghora and Golabari P.S. area to hold a joint raid at Bandhaghat and after several raids at different places he came back home at about 12.30 a.m. and on 27th February 1980 at.about 8.30 a.m. he along with A.S.P. Town (North), I.C. Malipanchghora P.S. and with force of 9th Battalion went to Banaras Road and Sitanath Bose Lane on a special raid and was falsely implicated by Bapi Ghosh who had been arrested by him on 26th February, 1980 at about 10.30 p.m.The case of the accused Sushil Dey and Dilip Biswas was that while returning to the police station at about 9.00/9.30 p.m. on 26th February, 1980 after a raid some shop keepers and local men informed them that accused Kamal Thakur with his gang had raided shops in front of Golmohor Avenue and Dobson Road.They and others at once rushed there but seeing the police party Kamal retreated and took shelter in a four storeyed building inside the Golmohor Housing Complex.The police party reached the roof and found that Kamal was hanging holding the cornice.When the police focussed a torch light on him he jumped and fell on the roof below.He had a dagger with him.The police party succeeded in arresting him after a scuffle and at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m. the police party came to the police station.Kamal sustained injuries by fall on the roof and in the scuffle with police personnel.Kamal refused to go to hospital for treatment of his injuries and first aid was given in the police station.Accused Bimalendu Dikshit took up a plea of alibi.His case was that on and from 19th February, 1980 he was on casual leave for a week and went to village Krishnanagar in Midnapur District where he stayed for 7 days and after extending his leave for one day more he came back on 28-2-80 to his place of work and he did not know anything about the occurrence.Upon a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case that the deceased was mercilessly assaulted and he died of the injuries caused by such assaults and rejected the defence version that the injuries leading to the death of the deceased were caused by a fall from the roof but he was of the opinion that the prosecution could not prove by unimpeachable evidence beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused persons took part in the assault.He accordingly acquitted all the accused persons of the charge under Section 302/34, Penal Code.Before proceeding to consider the evidence and see for ourselves whether the order of acquittal can be sustained, we may bear in mind the scope of appeal against the order of acquittal.Supreme Court in Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. has reiterated that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large all the evidence and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed.PW 7 Dr. B. K. Mukherjee held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kamal Thakur at 4.30 p.m. on 27th February, 1980 and found sub-conjunctival haemorrhage present in both eyes, six abrasions 1/2" x 1/2" each, and ecchymosis on the right knee, ecchymosis 3" on the lower part of left thigh, 4 abrasions and ecchymosis in the left elbow and ecchymosis of the lower portion of the left arm with diffusion of blood underneath.There were also abrasions, ecchymosis on the right buttock and on the left angle of jaw, right face and right side of forehead with signs of inflammation around the injuries.On dissection the 3rd and 4th ribs of the left side were found fractured and the right lung congested.The liver and the right kidney were also found ruptured and the left kidney congested.In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to the combined effects of the injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.According to the doctor, the external injuries could be caused with wooden rules or lathi and also with kicks with force.The fracture of ribs can be caused if one is hit by hard and blunt substance with force like lathi, iron rods or wooden rules.Liver and kidney may be ruptured by violent kicks.According to the doctor one may vomit blood if one lung is injured by the fracture of ribs.The doctor is emphatic that all the injuries both external and internal taken together are homicidal and not accidental due to a fall.The defence case was that the injuries resulting in death of the deceased were due to accidental fall of the deceased who was hanging from a cornice on the roof below is falsified by the medical evidence.The learned Additional Sessions Judge also accepted the prosecution case that the deceased was mercilessly beaten while in custody of police at the Thana and died as a result of the injuries sustained by him and that the injuries were not due to fall from the roof as contended by the defence.There is no dispute that the deceased was arrested and kept in the lock-up of the Golabari Police Station on the night of 26th February, 1980 and the next morning he was found dead.The deceased did not receive any medical attention before his death while in custody of police.The circumstances clearly prove that the deceased was mercilessly beaten at the police station and at the lock-up and was victim of a brutal third degree method resorted to for the purpose of extorting a confession or a statement regarding a weapon.At least the police personnel who arrested the deceased and brought him to the police station and kept him in the lock-up cannot easily escape responsibility.There is no dispute that at least S.I. Sushil Dey and constable Dilip Kumar Biswas were among the police party who arrested the deceased, though there is dispute with regard to the time and the manner of the arrest.It is generally difficult in cases of deaths in police custody to secure evidence against the police men responsible for resorting to third degree methods since they are in charge of police station records which they do not find difficult to manipulate.It is only in a few cases, as in this case, that some direct evidence is available.There is direct evidence of assault by the four accused persons.The learned Additional Sessions Judge discarded the entire evidence of the eye-witnesses on the ground of minor discrepancies, exaggerations and infirmity or falsity of a part of the testimony forgetting that falsus uno falsus omnibus is not a sound principle of law or practice.It is the duty of the court to separate grains from the chaff.It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed in such a duty and has not properly shifted the evidence and rejected the entire evidence on insufficient grounds.Upon a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case we have no doubt that the prosecution has been able to prove satisfactorily that accused Sunil Biswas, Sushil Dey and Dilip Kumar Biswas were responsible for the death of the deceased, though the evidence against accused Bimalendu Dikshit is not satisfactory and his plea of alibi has been established by cogent evidence.Of them PW 6 Nepu Biswas was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution.His evidence was totally discredited by his earlier initial deposition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate.We may, therefore, leave his testimony entirely out of our consideration.PWs 1, 4, 5 and 8 all have deposed in one voice that on 26-2-80 between 7.00 and 7.30 p.m. the witnesses and the deceased Kamal were gossiping on a cemented platform in front of the house of PW 1 and the deceased when a police party headed by the Officer-in-Charge, Golabari Police Station came there in a private car and arrested Kamal in spite of their protests and assaulted him with fists, blows and wooden rods as a result of which Kamal started bleeding from his nose and forced him to enter into the car and went away to Golabari Police Station.PW 1 Sailendranath Thakur, father of the deceased Kamal Thakur named all the four accused persons as members of the police party.PW 4 Sadananda Lal identified all the accused persons as members of the police party.He also spoke about the assault resulting in nose-bleeding.P. W. 5 Asim Tarafdar implicated all the four accused persons.In his initial deposition before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrates he did not mention the names of Bimalendu Dikshit and Dilip Kumar Biswas.The learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in discarding the entire evidence of PW 5 when a part of his testimony only regarding accused Bimalendu Dikshit and Dilip Kumar Biswas was contradicted by his earlier deposition before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate.PW 8 implicates accused Sunil Biswas only who was the Officer-in-Charge of Golabari Police Station at the relevant time.PW 4 has, however, stated that Kamal's father came immediately after they had informed him about the fact of assault.Relying upon this statement, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that PW 1 was not present at the time of the occurrence at all and his testimony implicating the accused persons cannot be accepted.The statement of PW 4 does not necessarily show that P.W.1 could not see the last part of the incident.The evidence discloses that the occurrence lasted for about 10 minutes.Kamal was arrested just in front of his house where his father P.W. 1 was also residing.It was, therefore, quite possible for P.W. 1 to come to the place of occurrence on receipt of information of arrival of police and see the later part of the occurrence when Kamal was forcibly dragged to the car and taken away to the police station while assaulting him all the time.The evidence of P.W.1 does not otherwise suffer from any infirmity and in our opinion there is no justification to discard his testimony altogether.He has not, however, implicated accused Bimal Rakshit in his initial deposition before the committing Magistrate and his present testimony so far as it implicates him must, therefore, be rejected.On receipt of this information they along with other police officers at once rushed there but seeing the police party Kamal retreated and took shelter inside the Golmohar Housing Complex and the police party found him hanging from a cornice.Seeing the police party Kamal jumped and fell on the roof below.He had a dagger with him.The police party succeeded in arresting him after a scuffle and at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m., the police party came to the police station.Kamal sustained injuries by fall on the roof and in the scuffle with police personnel.Kamal refused to go to hospital for treatment of his injuries and first aid was given in the police station.This version of appellants Sushil and Dilip is falsified by the evidence of PWs which has been discussed above.There are also inherent improbabilities in the story.The defence relies upon G.D. Entry No. 2481 dated 26-2-80 at 11.35 p.m. (Ext. 46).The said G.D. entry was made by accused Sushil Dey.The first paragraph of the said entry is to the effect that the deceased Kamal Thakur was brought to the police station under arrest in connection with P.S. Case No. 15(2)/80 under Section 326/ 307, Penal Code and Section 6(3) Indian Explosives Act. The next paragraph of the G.D. entry, however, gives minute details about the mode of apprehension of Kamal Thakur which appears to be quite unnecessary and improbable.The story that some shop-keepers reported to the police party while they were returning to the police station at 9.30 p.m. that deceased Kamal Thakur along with his associates armed with bombs and daggers threatened them with dire consequences for deposing against him and Nemai Roy appears to be quite improbable.There is no First Information Report or diary lodged by any of the alleged shop-keepers.It is improbable that instead of going to the police station to lodge information they would wait on the road with the hope of accidentally meeting the police party.According to G.D. entry, on receipt of this information the police party went near the railway quarters at Golmohor Avenue and arrested Kamal Thakur who took shelter inside a building.This part of the story in the G.D. is inconsistent with the first part that Kamal Thakur was arrested as he was wanted in connection with Golabari P.S. Case No. 15(2)/80 under Section 326/307 Penal Code and Section 6(3), Explosives Act. Shops are not likely to remain open till 9.30 p.m. and the story of information by the shopkeepers at 9.30 p.m. is highly improbable.The story that Kamal Thakur who was hanging from a cornice fell down on the roof of another building below on seeing the police party and thereby sustained injuries which ultimately caused his death is falsified by the medical evidence.We have already seen that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not be caused by the alleged fall and these were homicidal in nature.The story that in spite of repeated requests by the police the deceased declined to be medically examined and treated at the hospital sounds to be quite improbable and the story appears to have been invented with the idea of explaining a serious lapse on the part of the police for not arranging medical examination of the deceased.On 27th February, 1980 they again held raid at Salkia Benaras Road from 6.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. DW 1 had not produced his personal diary and has deposed from memory.His evidence is, therefore, hardly convincing.Appellant Sunil Biswas before departure at 8.15 p.m. could, therefore, very well arrest the deceased and bring him to the police station and participate in the assault.The above discussion will clearly show that the prosecution has been able to satisfactorily prove that appellants Sunil Biswas, Sushil Dey and Dilip Kumar Biswas along with others arrested the deceased on 26th February, 1980 between 7.00 and 7.30 p.m. near the railway quarters at Golmohor Avenue and caused bleeding injuries to the deceased by fists and blows.Let us consider the next part of the prosecution story, namely, the alleged merciless beating of the deceased at the police station.He found Kamal in the police lock-up being abused by the accused and other police personnel.The accused persons were assaulting him and blood was coming out ceaselessly from his nose.The witness questioned the right of the accused persons to assault his son and he demanded that the victim might be produced before Court if he was guilty of any offence.At this, appellant Sushil Dey threatened to arrest him and put him in police lockup, gave serveral fist blows on his chest and then started assaulting Kamal with kicks and fist blows.Kamal began to cry for help.The further evidence of PW 1 is that he then rushed to the residence of P. K. Chakraborty the S.D.P.O., Howrah (D.I.B.) and reported the incident to him and requested him to intervene in the matter and stop the assault.As Shri Chakraborty assured him that he would give the necessary directions over the telephone and there was no cause for anxiety, the witness returned home.Next day (27-2-80) at 6.00 a.m. he went to the police station and found a police officer sitting in front of the door of the police station and found his son lying on his back in police lock-up.He took tooth-powder with him and asked the Police Officer to give it to his son.He asked the A.S.I. who was sitting in front of the police lock-up about the time when his son would be produced before Court.The police officer angrily said "Don't distrub him, he is sleeping".He went back home and again returned to the police station at 8.30 a.m. At the gate he met PW 2 Sk.On receipt of an information from him that his son was very restless at one time, he went close to the lock-up and found his son in a sitting posture with his legs stretched in front and his head resting on the fencing and hands touching the rods of the fencing.He touched the body of his son which was cold.His son was taken to Howrah General Hospital in a Police van.He also went to the hospital and found his son lying dead on a stretcher in the Emergency Ward.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has discarded the evidence of P.W. 1 altogether mainly on the ground that no other witness speaks of his presence at the police station.He has further held that in the absence of examination of Shri P. K. Chakraborty, the story of P.W. 1 that he went to him and informed him about the torture of his son by the police cannot be accepted.In our opinion, these are not sufficient reasons for discarding the evidence of P.W. 1 altogether.There is no serious infirmity in his evidence.The complaint was lodged promptly and there is no departure in his evidence on any material particular.The only blemish in his evidence is that though he has implicated appellant Bimalendu Dikshit in his initial deposition he did not mention his name.It appears from his evidence that he left the thana and went to Shri Chakraborty to inform him about the matter and returned home as a superior police officer assured him that he would do the needful and there was no cause for anxiety.It was quite natural for PW 1 to get assured and return home.That explains the fact that he did not take any further step on that night.The evidence of P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 shows that they went to the police station much later and it is no wonder that they did not see P.W. 1 in the police station.The story of P.W. 1 that on 27-2-80 after 6.00 a.m. he went to the police station with tooth powder for his son and enquired of the Duty Officer as to when his son would be forwarded to the Court, though challenged in the cross-examination, is corroborated by the G. D. Entry No. 2490 made at 6.15 a.m. (Ext. A/10).The testimony of PW 2 Sk.He saw marks of hitting with rods and burning by cigarette ends on the person of Kamal who expired at about 7.30 a.m. When he first saw Kamal in the lock-up, he was in a sitting posture and was restless.He asked the police to send Kamal to the hospital but police did not send him to the hospital in spite of his request.The further testimony of the witness is that Kamal told him crying that police assaulted him.The testimony of this witness shows that there were marks of injuries on the person of Kamal who was writhing in pain and made statement that he was assaulted by police.The learned Additional Sessions Judge is of the opinion that this statement of the deceased cannot be regarded as a dying declaration that points to the immediate cause of his death.He has observed as follows:"now the utterance made by the deceased Karnal in my humble opinion cannot be said to be a dying declaration that points to the immediate cause of his death." The learned Judge appears to be entirely wrong.The statement of the deceased is with regard to the cause of his death made shortly before his death.Then Dilip Biswas and Bimal Dey kicked on his abdomen.Sunil Biswas and Sunil Dey assaulted him with rules.Next morning at 7.30 a.m. Kamal Thakur expired at police lock-up.At that time his hands were placed on the bars of the lock-up.In the cross-examination the witness has stated that the beating of Kamal Thakur continued for 1 1/2 to 2 hours at Golabari Police Station outside the lock-up.After 10.30 and 11.00 a.m. again beating commenced.Except that he was not assaulted at any other time.The witness, however, states that from 10.30 p.m. the beating continued to 5.00 a.m. on the next day and there was no respite and (beating?) was made with blows, fists, rules and lathi.Though P.W.3 has implicated all the four accused/appellants, in his initial deposition before the learned Magistrate, he did not implicate appellants Sushil Dey and Bimalendu Dikshit.This part of his testimony implicating appellants Sushil Dey and Bimalendu Dikshit must, therefore, be rejected but with regard to the incident of assault by the Police personnel and participation of appellants Sunil Biswas and Dilip Kumar Biswas his testimony does not suffer from any serious infirmity except some exaggerations and minor discrepancies here and there which may be safely overlooked.His statement in the cross-examination that from 10.30 p.m. the beating continued to 5.00 a.m. on the next day and there was no respite and during the entire period the deceased was assaulted with blows of fists, rules and lathi certainly contains some exaggeration and it need not be taken too literally.What the witness really intends to state is that the deceased was beaten several times during that night.The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved P. W. 3 who is a natural and competent witness, mainly on two grounds.Firstly, the medical evidence indicates that there was no injury on the testicles and burn injuries and as such the testimony of the witness regarding the alleged kick on the testicles and pressing burning cigarette ends against the body of the deceased must be discarded as incredible.Secondly, this witness swore an affidavit (Ext. 1) on 26th August, 1980 stating therein that he was arrested without any reason on 26th February, 1980 from near his house and was put in Hazat by Thana Duty Officer but as the O.C. did not come back to the Police Station and was not available either on night or in the following morning he could not ventilate his grievance to the O.C. At about 11.30 p.m. Kamal was arrested and put inside Hazat by Sushil and Dilip.First aid was rendered to Kamal who expressed his unwillingness to go to hospital.It was further stated in the affidavit that Kamal was a local rowdy and was arrested several times by the police party.He has, further stated in the affidavit supporting the present defence case that Kamal was jumping from the roof in order to escape and sustained the injuries as a result of a fall.The witness has stated in his evidence that the accused persons took him to the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate and asked him to swear the affidavit and he accordingly swore the affidavit out of fear.The learned Judge has observed "so it is rather risky to rely upon the deposition of a fickle minded and a timid boy like this witness who swings from one side to another and takes resort to exaggeration".The victim was not naked and the witness could not exactly see if the kick was on the testicles.The kick was obviously in the abdomen and it appeared to the witness that it might be on the testicles.The postmortem was held long after the injuries.Marks of such injuries like blisters might disappear at the time when the post-mortem examination was held.The testimony of the eye-witness ought not have been discarded simply because at the time of autopsy which was held long after, the injuries likely to be caused by pressing of burning cigarette ends on the body of the deceased were not found.With regard to the second ground for rejection of the testimony of P.W. 3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has apparently forgotten that an ordinary witness like P.W. 3 was deposing against mighty police officers.He has also failed to notice that the affidavit sworn by the witness is entirely uncalled for and was obviously intended to destroy the effect of his testimony before the Magistrate and the subsequent testimony, if any, to be given at the time of trial.The affidavit curiously states the defence version of the occurrence.There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the statement of P.W. 3 that he was made to swear the affidavit at the dictation of the accused persons out of fear.Credit must be given to the witness that ultimately he got rid of fear of police and deposed against the police officers.Considering all the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was entirely wrong in discarding the evidence of P.W. 3 altogether.The confusion about the surnames of some of the accused persons is not of much consequence.P.W. 3 was arrested for commission of a petty offence and he was released by the Court next day.Undisputedly, he was the most natural witness to the occurrence.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has himself found that the injuries were not due to accidental fall but were due to the merciless beating by police.There is also the significant circumstance that police did not make any arrangement for medical examination of the deceased and it was only after his death or just prior to his death that he was removed to the hospital.Considering all the circumstances, we have no hesitation in accepting the testimony of P.W. 3 at least with regard to accused Sunil Biswas and Dilip Kumar Biswas.P.W. 10 Baidyanath Chatterjee has deposed that on 26-2-80, on receipt of information from PW 1 Sailen Thakur he went to the police station at about 11.00 or 11.30 p.m. and saw Kamal Thakur handcuffed inside the lock-up being beaten by the police.He saw blood trickling down his body.Police was beating him with wooden lathi.In the cross-examination, he has stated that he saw the police personnel dragging Kamal, slapping him and pushing him with wooden lathi.Barababu came in plain dress.In his examination-in-Chief he has deposed that he asked Barababu of the Police Station not to beat Kamal Thakur any further.Barababu assured him and advised him to disperse.He has, however, stated that he does not remember the persons who assaulted Kamal.He has further stated that those persons who assaulted him were not in the Court.He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution on this part of his testimony only.He was controverted with his statement in his initial deposition before the committing Magistrate that O. C. S. Biswas, S.I. Sushil Dey Constable Dilip and others were among the police party and that he requested S. Biswas, O.C. not to assault him further as he might die.It is quite obvious that he is not implicating Sunil Biswas, Sushil Dey and Dilip Biswas either out of fear or out of some ulterior motive.It may be mentioned here that in spite of his efforts not to implicate any of the accused persons he unwillingly and indirectly implicated Sunil Biswas who was then Officer-in-Charge of Golabari Police Station.The Officer-in-Charge of a Police Station is usually called "Barababu".Admittedly, Inspector Sunil Biswas was in charge of Golabari Police Station at the relevant time.The testimony of P.W 11 Bimal Sarkhel, an Advocate's Clerk is that on 26-2-80 he saw Kamal Thakur at Golabari Police lock-up between 9.40 and 10.00 p.m. At that time a person in civil dress came there, the duty officers and constable stood up and saluted him and then took their seats and informed him that they had arrested Kamal Thakur.The man in civil dress directed the police constable etc. to bring him out.That person in civil dress asked Kamal Thakur to handover the revolver.He was declared hostile and contradicted with reference to his previous statement made before the committal court that O.C., Golabari P.S. whom he knows came inside the office and ordered the lock-up duty constable to bring out Kamal by saying "Kamalke ber kar" and that O.C. then sat on a chair with lathi in his right hand and burning cigarette in his left hand and that O.C. then rose up from chair and throttled the neck of Kamal with both his hands saying "Sala Toke mere felbo".Like P.W. 10, P.W. 11 also has tried to save the accused persons particularly Sunil Biswas though he has supported the prosecution story that Kamal was assaulted by Police Officers.He has stated that Kamal cried "Amake Bachan Amake Ebabe Marben Na" (Save me, please do not assault me in such a manner).During his cross-examination by the prosecution the witness has stated that immediately thereafter, O.C. started beating him with lathi on both hands, back and other parts of the body.Even if true, this does not give a right to the police to liquidate him while he was in their custody.The third degree method that was employed by the police has no sanction of law.It would indeed be an end of democracy and rule of law if police is allowed to act as Prosecutor, Judge and Executioner at the same time.Let us next consider the plea of alibi of appellant Bimalendu Dikshit.We have already seen that the evidence against him is scanty; his name was not mentioned by any of the witnesses in their initial depositions before the learned Magistrate and the present testimony implicating him cannot be relied on.The testimony of DW 7 Amal Kumar Bhattacharjee, the then traffic Habildar attached to Tandel Bagan Out Post has stated that appellant Bimalendu Dikshit was also posted at Tandel Bagan Out Post at the relevant time.A general diary was maintained and duty roster was also maintained.G.D. entry No. 694 dated 28th February, 1980 marked Ext. A/12 shows that he reported for duty on 28-2-80 at 8.35 a.m. after extending casual leave by 1 day.PW 8 Benode Behari Prodhan is a resident of village Krishnanagar, Police Station Nandigram, District Midnapur.Appellant Bimal Dikshit also belongs to the same village and his house is at a distance of 100 yards from that of the witness.The evidence of PW 8 shows that Bimal's father-in-law Mrityunjoy Mahapatra, family Priest of the witness, lives in village Anandabati which is only one mile away from Nandigram.He also saw Bimal Dikshit in the village 6/7 days before the ceremony.The testimony of this witness together with the relevant entries in the official records which were not made by this appellant, leave no doubt that at the time of the occurrence Bimal was at his father-in-law's house at Midnapur where he had gone to attend the sacred thread ceremony of his youngest brother-in-law by taking casual leave for 7 days.They mercilessly assaulted deceased Kamal Thakur while in their custody after arrest in order to extort confession or recovery of a weapon.It is true that they did not intend to cause his death.Appellants Sunil Biswas, Sushil Dey and Dilip Biswas might not even intended rupture of liver and kidney etc. but they had knowledge that the kicks, fists and lathi blows were likely to cause such injury as were likely to cause death.All of them acted with prior concert and shared common intention of assaulting the deceased for extorting confession which was likely to cause death.They were, therefore, liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part II/34 Indian Penal Code.In the result, the appeal and the revision are allowed in Part.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,617,541 |
Counsel for the applicant draws my attention to another FIR dated 13-4-16 relating to an incident between 11:30 AM to 02:34 PM but, this FIR had been registered at 02:34 PM at the same Police Station which was earlier in point of time to the FIR registered by the complainant and this FIR was Crime No.89/16, according to which the wife of the applicant herein, was improperly touched by the complainant in the case against the applicant herein, on which the wife of the applicant is said said to have called her husband who came and questioned the complainant as to why he had done this act.Thereafter, the wife of the applicant along with the applicant went to the Police Station, Sleemnabad and registered the FIR No.89/16 against the complainant in this case under Sections 354-A and 323 of IPC, as the complainant had assaulted the applicant herein and caused injuries to him.Under the circumstances, the bar of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does not become operable as exfacie the contention of the counsel for the applicant appears to be correct.However, without reflecting upon the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the instant application filed under Section 438 CrPC and direct the Arresting Officer to enlarge the applicant on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond to the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) with one solvent surety to like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge ac.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,629,350 |
Applicant is seeking enlargement on bailin Crime No.269 of 2018 registered with NaupadaPolice Station, Thane for the alleged offencespunishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" forshort).M/s Jay Bhavani Associates builders anddevelopers are 'promoters', who had agreed to sell ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2020 00:50:37 ::: Najeeb 2/3::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2020 00:50:37 :::It is alleged the applicant and the co-accused forged another agreement purpotedlyregistred with the sub-registrar and obtained theloan from Gruha Finance Ltd., who relying upon theforged documents sanctioned the loan and issued thecheque for Rs.28,48,000/- in the name of M/s JayBhavani Associates builders and developers.Besides it may be stated the applicant had indulgedinto a similar modus operandi and obtained the loanfrom another NBFC, "M/s Capital First" Company.Learned APP submitted the applicant andco-accused had opened the bogus bank account inKarnataka Bank, Corporation Bank, Vijaya Bank, IDBIBank and Axis Bank.Be that as it may, prima facie,evidence shows applicant indulged in the act ofcreating the rights in the property by forgingdocuments purpotedly registered under the ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2020 00:50:37 ::: Najeeb 3/3::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2020 00:50:37 :::8.BA-3054-2019Registration Act and as such has committed anoffence punishable under Section 467 of IPC, whichis punishable with imprisonment for life orimprisonment of either description for a term whichmay extend to ten years.In view of the nature of accusation,evidence on record and the antecedents, theapplication is rejected.(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2020 00:50:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2020 00:50:37 :::
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,632,502 |
The allegation in the FIR is that thedeceased came to the house of the applicant armed with iron rod.Thereafter scuffle took place between the parties andsomeone hit thedeceased on his head and he died.The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,676,338 |
JUDGMENT S.R. Dongaonkar, J.Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant-State, none for respondent No. 1 [original complainant] and Mr. Firdos Mirza, learned Advocate for respondents No. 1-A to 22 [Accused persons].This is a revision application under Section 397 read with Section 399 of Criminal Procedure Code by which the applicant- State challenges the order passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Sessions Trial No. 37/1998 below Exhibit 61 by which the application of the applicant-State / prosecution, under Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of sanction to withdraw the prosecution, was rejected.3. Facts leading to the filing of this revision are thus.The said application was opposed by the complainant.This order is challenged in this revision petition claiming the same to be illegal, improper and unjust.Learned Counsel for the applicant-State has contended that the learned prosecutor while filing application for grant of consent to withdraw from the prosecution has stated that on consideration of all the related facts and circumstances of the case and after independent application of his mind to the facts of the case he has decided to withdraw from the prosecution in the above case.He has also stated in the application that in his opinion, it is necessary to withdraw from the prosecution of the accused in the interest of public, the complainant as accused are residing at Rohinkhed, in the above circumstances for maintaining law and order in the village.He has also specifically mentioned that from the record it is apparent that the conviction is far cry in the Sessions Trial and if the consent is granted to withdraw from the prosecution of the accused, then socio-personal problems would be solved.Further according to the learned Counsel, the P.P. in the said application has observed that chance should be given to the accused for uplifting their moral in the society and there will be no harm to the society at large, if the consent for withdrawal is granted.With this main contention and also submitting that the Government of Maharashtra has already instructed to withdraw from the prosecution in the matter, he had applied for consent to withdraw from the prosecution.Learned Counsel for the applicant therefore, submitted that the trial Court should have granted this application.None appeared for the respondent No. 1 i.e. complainant.Learned Counsel for the accused - respondents, submitted that in the circumstances of the case, the learned Trial Judge should have accorded consent to withdraw from the 'prosecution to the Public Prosecutor.Therefore, that application should have been allowed.Having formed the opinion that there is no possibility of conviction of the accused in the matter and therefore, in view of the above authorities, he submitted that the order of the learned Trial Judge is incorrect, improper and unjust at law and as such it is liable to be set aside.In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to consider the facts of the case.The accused persons are 21 in number.There is a civil dispute between the parties regarding the temple.The matter was taken in revision before the High Court.He has specifically mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the application thus:I have gone through the record of charge-sheet in this trial.On consideration of all the related facts and circumstances of the case and after independent application of my mind to the facts of the case, I have decided to withdraw from prosecution in the abovesaid case.In my opinion, it is necessary to withdraw from the prosecution of the accused in the interest of public and complainant and accused are residing at Rohinkhed in above circumstances making law and order in the village.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,639,259 |
(Delivered on this 8th day of May, 2018) PER SETH, J.In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applicant is seeking quashment of F.I.R. dated 10.05.2010 registered by the Special Police Establishment- Lokayukt and charge-sheet dated 15.03.2017 as well as criminal proceedings in Special Case No.64/2015 pending before the ::2::C. No.8189/2017 Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal.In brief, the prosecution case is that at the relevant point of time, applicant was working as Accounts Officer in Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation.In the capacity of Accounts Officer, applicant made an excess payment of Rs.84,00,000/- to M/s. L&T Finance.An F.I.R. to this effect was registered and the matter was investigated.On the basis of F.I.R., Crime No.35/2010 has been registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC and ultimately charge- sheet has been filed in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Bhopal for the offences mentioned above.Hence, this petition has been filed to ::3::M.Cr.C. No.8189/2017 quash the F.I.R. as well as framing of charges against the applicant.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,642,591 |
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?These appeals and the death sentence reference arise out of the judgment dated 02.08.2008 and the order on sentence dated 11.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.19/2004 arising out of FIR No.112/2004 registered at police station IGI Airport.By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellants Jyotish Prasad and Ashish Kumar Kapri have been convicted under Sections 394/302/201/34 IPC as well as under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order on sentence, imposed the extreme penalty of death sentence on both the appellants in respect of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.With regard to the conviction under Section 394 IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and also to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 1,000/- each and in default of the payment of such fine, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.With regard to the offence under Section 201 IPC, the appellants were DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 2 of 51 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years alongwith a fine in the sum of Rs 1,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, they were required to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.As regards their conviction under Section 376 (g) IPC, the appellants were directed to undergo imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine in the sum of Rs 1,000/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.At the said airport, she took a taxi bearing No. DL-1T-2248 from the prepaid taxi booth at about 2.30 a.m. The driver of this taxi is alleged to be the appellant Jyotish Prasad.The allegation is that the appellant Jyotish Prasad alongwith the appellant Ashish, who is also a taxi driver, were already planning to loot some passenger.The allegation goes further that when the appellant Jyotish Prasad had taken the said Ms Griggs in his taxi, she appeared to be an easy prey.After driving a short distance, the appellant Ashish was also admitted into the taxi by the appellant Jyotish Prasad.Thereafter, they took the taxi onto an unpaved (kachha) passage towards the jungle around the airport area.On this, Ms Griggs started shouting.It is alleged that Ashish caught hold of her and DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 3 of 51 gagged her mouth with a piece of cloth which was in the taxi and which was used for cleaning purposes.The prosecution case goes further in that the appellants stopped the taxi near a well in the jungle and snatched her waist purse.She was then taken out from the taxi and dragged near the bushes and thereafter, raped by the appellants one by one.Thereafter, the appellants used a screw driver which was available in the taxi and caused injuries on her person.They throttled her by pressing her neck and also by gagging her and thereby killed her.It is further alleged that they took out the luggage of the deceased from the taxi, opened the same and searched through her luggage for valuables.They took out the currency and travellers cheques, etc. from the bags which they threw in a dry well nearby and then disappeared.At about 10.50 a.m., on 17.03.2004, an information was received at the police station IGI Airport, Delhi that a dead body of a female was lying in the jungle near the Bharat Petroleum Gate of IGI Airport.The information was reduced to writing as D.D. No.3-A (Exhibit-PW-1/A).The said information was marked to PW-27 (SI Suresh Chand) who left for the spot alongwith Constable Anil Kumar.PW-28 (Inspector J.L. Meena), who was the investigating officer in this case, came to know about this fact and he departed from the police station IGI Airport by recording the same in D.D. No.4-A (Exhibit-PW-1/B) at 10.55 a.m. When the investigating officer (IO) reached the spot at about 11.20 DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 4 of 51 a.m., he found a dead body of a female of foreign origin lying in the jungle about 300 metres away from the Bharat Petroleum Depot.There was blood lying at the spot and a piece of cloth was found inserted in the mouth of the corpse.The investigating officer (J.L. Meena) also noticed injuries near the right eye and nose of the deceased.He also noticed bluish marks on her neck.One plastic bottle and spectacles were found lying near the dead body.The bottle was of Evian brand.After conducting a search, the investigating officer found some articles lying in a dry well about 150 metres away from where the dead body was lying.One Murari Pandey (PW-16) at the request of the investigating officer took out the articles from the well.The articles comprised of one red bag of medium size, two black bags and some loose papers, books and a pair of shoes.A tag of the airlines mentioning CX-753 was found affixed on all the three bags.On checking the contents of the bags, two photocopies of the passports were recovered.One was an Australian passport and the other was a British passport.The name of the holder of both the passports was Dawn Emelie Griggs.A photograph was recovered from the baggage and the photographs of Dawn Emelie Griggs were also visible in the photocopies of the passports.The investigating officer compared the photograph as appearing in the photocopies of the passports with that of the dead body and came to the conclusion that the dead body was of Dawn Emelie Griggs.DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 5 of 51After sometime, the crime team reached the spot and photographed the dead body, place of incident and the surrounding areas.Photographs of the bags taken out from the well were also taken.The site was inspected by the crime team members and they also inspected the plastic bottle and other articles.The finger print team also reached the spot and they lifted finger prints from the glass, one plastic lunch box and from one bottle of plastic and from the polythene pouch and a folder after taking the same out of the bags.The articles which were recovered were sealed in parcels with the seal of JLM and seizure memos were prepared.Blood stained earth and earth control were also lifted from the spot and were sealed separately with the seal of JLM (initials of the investigating officer) vide separate seizure memos Exhibit-PW-2/C.The investigating officer had also found the ear rings lying near the head and the said ear rings and other belongings of the lady and those which were found on her dead body were removed and sealed vide seizure memo Exhibit-PW-2/B. The said other belongings, included a Citizen watch, two rings, one chutki, one stone necklace, one ring on which the following words were inscribed -- Param Pita Shiv Parmatma.After completing the other investigative procedures and after the finger-print expert and the crime team officials handed over DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 6 of 51 their reports, the investigating officer left the spot alongwith PW-27 (SI Suresh Chand) and reached IGI Airport.The investigating officer collected details of the flight from PW-8 (SI Surender Latia), who was posted at IGI Airport and who was deputed by the investigating officer to collect details from the Immigration Office.Photocopies of the flight chart were seized vide memo Exhibit-PW-8/A. Photocopies of the disembarkation card, photo copies of the flight manifesto, record of the Bureau of Immigration, etc. were taken.In order to cross-check as to the mode of transport taken by her, upon her arrival at the Delhi Airport, the investigating officer went to the prepaid taxi booth / counter.At the said counter, one Mahender Pal (PW-3) was found to be in charge of the prepaid taxi booth.The passenger's name was given as Mr Griggs Daun.The taxi number 4428 was written in hand.The said voucher (Exhibit-PW-3/D) was taken into possession vide seizure memo Exhibit-PW-27/C. Jyotish Prasad is then said to have led the police party to the taxi stand near IGI Airport and to have pointed out the taxi bearing registration No. DL- 1T-4428 which was seized vide seizure memo Exhibit-PW-27/H. At the parking lot, the underwear, which Jyotish Prasad was wearing, was also taken into possession and sealed vide memo Exhibit-PW-27/D. Thereafter, the appellant Jyotish Prasad took the police party to the place of incident and pointed out the same and also identified the well where he dropped the belongings of the deceased.He is alleged to have also pointed out the sewage manhole where he is alleged to have dropped some cards and the passport of the deceased, after the offence.He is also said to have pointed out the place where he concealed his share of the loot.Pointing out memos Exhibit-PW-27/D, 27/E, 27/F DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 9 of 51 and 27/K were prepared.The appellant Jyotish Prasad is said to have led the police party to a well which was 14-15 feet deep and in the presence of the police party he entered the same and after digging some soil, with his hands, he took out a bundle (potli) and thereafter he came out of the well.When the said bundle was opened, it was found to contain 300 Australian dollars, seven travelers cheques, four currency notes of Hongkong dollars in the denomination of 100 dollars each and two currency notes of Hongkong dollars in the denomination of 20 dollars each.The travelers cheques were found to be in the name of Dawn E. Griggs.The said articles were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit-PW-27/G. The investigating officer alongwith the police officials then once again visited the prepaid taxi parking lot at the IGI Airport.The crime team officials had been informed to inspect the recovered taxi and when the investigating officer arrived at the parking lot, the crime team members were present.Thereafter, the taxi was inspected by the members of the crime team who recovered one junglee gokhroo (wild thorn) from the right hand side rear tyre of the vehicle.One such gokhroo was also found from the mat which was lying near the rear seat and the mud was also removed from all the four tyres.Some hair were also lifted from inside the taxi.The investigating officer then once again visited the DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 10 of 51 prepaid taxi booth situated in the arrival section of IGI Airport.There, he met one Vijay Kumar (PW-4) who was an employee working at the said booth.Thereafter, the investigating officer returned to the police station and deposited the case properties in the malkhana.Since Jyotish Prasad had named Ashish as his accomplice, the investigating officer searched for Ashish.At the taxi stand, appellant Ashish Kumar was allegedly produced by one Kishan Pal, who was the owner of another taxi, but upon interrogation, Ashish Kumar did not disclose anything.He was handed over to the Station House Officer for further interrogation.The investigating officer then went to Safdarjung Hospital for the purposes of getting the post mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Ms Emelie Dawn Griggs.It is also pertinent to note that in the meantime, the Consul Officer and Consular General of the Australian High Commission had also arrived at the Safdarjung Hospital.A team of doctors conducted the post mortem examination and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to one Mr DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 11 of 51 Josef who had been appointed by the Australian High Commission to collect the dead body.On 18.03.2004, appellant Ashish was released after interrogation with the direction to appear at the police station on the next day.On 19.03.2004, when Jyotish Prasad was again interrogated, he apparently disclosed that he, alongwith Ashish, had thrown the passport of the deceased and other documents in the sewer and that he had handed over the screw driver to Ashish.Consequently, Ashish was again called to the police station on 19.03.2004 and was interrogated.He did not reveal anything and as such, he was released with the direction to visit the police station again the next day.On 20.03.2004, Jyotish Prasad is alleged to have led the police party to the sewer situated near the Bharat Petroleum depot.The sewer was searched with the help of the contractor / employees of the airport and in the course of the search, five cards and one plastic cover were recovered.On 20.03.2004, Ashish visited the police station, but as before, he did not disclose anything and denied knowledge about the case.On 21.03.2004, Ashish was thoroughly interrogated and gave information with regard to the screw driver and the looted amount.Consequently, Ashish was arrested vide arrest memo Exhibit-PW-13/A. Ashish, thereafter, took the police party to the place of occurrence and at a DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 12 of 51 distance of about 30-35 steps away from the dry well in which the luggage had been recovered pointed out the place where he had thrown the screw driver.Thereafter, he took out the screw driver Ex. A-1 from the mud (kichar).The investigating officer prepared the sketch of the screw driver Exhibit-PW-27/N and seized the same vide Exhibit-PW- 27/P. In the meanwhile, the employees of the contractor Nasruddin (PW-9) were busy in the search of the passport in the sewer.At the end of the sewer near the treatment plant jail (mesh), an Australian passport cover was recovered.Allegedly, both the appellants identified the cover of the Australian passport as the same belonging to the deceased which they had thrown in the sewer.The passport cover (Exhibit-P-7) was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-PW-9/B and the statements of Nasruddin and Virpal, who had entered the sewer and searched for this document, were recorded.It is then alleged that the appellant Ashish led the police party to a place at a distance of about 350 metres from Shahbad on the Samalkha side where he pointed out the place amongst the bushes and took out a white polythene bag which, when opened, was found to contain Rs 5,400/- in Indian Currency, 260 Australian Dollars, 54 coins of different countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Hongkong.He also took out one shirt (Exhibit-S-17) from the bushes.The shirt and the other recovered articles were seized and placed in separate sealed parcels vide seizure memo Exhibit-PW-27/Q.DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 13 of 51On 23.03.2004, both the appellants were produced before Dr Sarvesh Tandon (PW-26) at Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination.After conduct of the said examination, six parcels duly sealed with the seal of Safdarjung Hospital reportedly containing scalp hair, pubic hair and blood gauze of both the appellants were collected.The same were seized vide memo Exhibit-PW-18/A by SI Vivek Pathak (PW-18), who also handed over to the investigating officer the post mortem report of the deceased and 9 sealed pulandas (parcels), which were prepared by the doctor after the conduct of the post mortem examination of the dead body of Dawn Emelie Griggs.The said parcels were duly sealed with the seal of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Safdarjung Hospital and were seized vide seizure memo Exhibit-PW-18/B. The contents of the 9 parcels seized as per memo Exhibit-PW-18/B were as under:-One glass phial sealed with the seal of aforesaid seal and bearing a (paper) slip on which aforesaid detail were written and containing the nail clippings of left hand.One glass phial sealed with the aforesaid seal and bearing a (paper) slip of a aforesaid details containing vaginal swab (4) in number.One glass phial sealed with the aforesaid seal having a (paper) slip with some detail thereon, containing vaginal slides (4) in number.A glass phial sealed with the aforesaid seal having a (paper) slip with the aforesaid detail and containing the nail clippings of right hand.On 01.04.2004, the investigating officer went to the jungle where the dead body had been recovered and lifted six gokhroos (wild thorns) from the place of incident by way of samples vide seizure memo Exhibit-PW-29/N. Finger prints of the accused persons had also been collected by the investigating officer and were sent to the Finger Prints Bureau, Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Delhi at Malviya Nagar for comparison with the finger prints lifted from the articles in the baggage and the taxi.We find that soon after the dead body of Dawn Emelie Griggs was found, the investigating officer arrived at the scene.From a nearby well, some baggage was taken out.On opening the said baggage, the photocopies of the passports of Dawn Emelie Griggs alongwith photographs were recovered.The photograph on the said photocopies matched with the face of the dead body.From this, the investigating officer could easily conclude that the dead body was of Dawn Emelie Griggs.One of the bags, which did not carry any checked-in baggage tag, contained the air tickets indicating that the passenger had come from Hongkong to Delhi and that the next leg of her journey was Delhi-Colombo and thereafter Colombo-Brisbane.RESULTS OF EXAMINATION The DNA profiles of the Biological fluid present on the source of the Exhibits 14'(i.e.Cotton wool swab said to be Vaginal Swab from the Deceased, 15b', 15c', 15d'(i.e.Microslides said to be Vaginal slide from the Deceased), 16a' (Pyjama said to be from the Deceased), 16d'(Underwear said to be from the Deceased), are identical with the Profiles from the source of the Exhibits 1' (i.e. blood sample of the Accused Jyotish), 8'(i.e.Underwear of Accused Jyotish Prasad) and 3'(i.e.The said documents were marked as Exhibit-PW-8/B, C, D and E).On going through the said documents, the investigating officer arrived at the conclusion that the deceased Ms Griggs had arrived at IGI Airport in the early hours by Flight No.CX-753 from Hongkong.He provided a carbon copy of a voucher (Exhibit-PW-3/B), which was issued in the name of the deceased.The said voucher indicated the destination as Karol Bagh and the fare for the journey was indicated as Rs 250/-.The document, which was provided by the PW-3 (Mahender Pal) was seized vide memo Exhibit-PW-3/A. It may be relevant to point out that the investigating officer also seized DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 7 of 51 the photocopy of the register maintained at the prepaid taxi booth and the same was marked as Exhibit-PW-3/C. The original register was also later on placed on the judicial file during evidence and it is exhibited as Exhibit-PW-3/C. It is the case of the prosecution that this register contains the record of the taxies which are allotted to passengers from the said prepaid booth.Armed with the information hitherto gathered by him, the investigating officer searched for the owner of the taxi.Apparently, the taxi owner PW-11 (Rakesh Kumar) was found in the parking lot of IGI Airport.The said taxi owner PW-11 (Rakesh Kumar) is alleged to have told the investigating officer that it was driven by the appellant Jyotish Prasad.The sequence of events, according to the prosecution, which followed, is that thereafter, the said PW-11 (Rakesh Kumar) led the police party to the house of one Harender at Shahbad where the appellant Jyotish Prasad was residing as a tenant.The appellant Jyotish Prasad was found at that place.It is stated that the appellant Jyotish Prasad was then taken to the parking lot where the taxi was parked and he was interrogated on the way near Shahbad Road.Apparently, the appellant Jyotish Prasad confessed to the crime vide Exhibit-PW-27/A. DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 8 of 51 He is also stated to have named appellant Ashish as his accomplice.Jyotish Prasad was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Exhibit-PW-27/B. He was found to be in possession of one purse containing one US dollar, Rs 240/- in Indian currency, one telephone diary, one driving licence, one Nokia mobile phone, one key of a vehicle and one prepaid voucher (Exhibit-PW-3/D), which was the driver's copy issued by the prepaid taxi booth.Exhibit-PW-3/D bore the number 88919 and, on it, Griggs' was written separately.Consequently, the statement of Vijay Kumar was recorded.One white colour cloth parcel sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine, S.J.H., India bearing the words P.M. No.399/2004 dt. 18.3.2004 signature and date.One glass phial sealed with the seal of Department of Forensic Medicine, S.J.H. India containing the scalp hair of deceased Ms. Dawn Emelie Griggs, aged 59 years/F, R/o P.O. Box 243 Byron Bay NSW Australia, P.M. No.399/2004 dt. 18.3.2004 and bearing a slip of paper on which some words were written.One glass phial sealed with the seal of aforesaid seal bearing a (slip of papers) on which some detail were written, containing the blood Gauze piece of DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 14 of 51 deceased.One glass phial sealed with the seal of aforesaid seal bearing a (paper) slip on which the aforesaid details were written and containing a cloth piece of mouth.One glass phial sealed with the seal of aforesaid seal bearing a (paper) slip on which the aforesaid details were written, containing the pubic hair.The extracts collected from the medical examination of the appellants and those collected upon the conduct of post mortem DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 15 of 51 examination of body of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi on 22.04.2004 through PW-12 (Head Constable Ranbir).It is alleged that when the investigating officer went to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini to collect the report in this case, they informed him that some more blood of the accused persons would be required for comparison and detailed examination.Consequently, an application was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who by an order dated 01.10.2004, permitted the investigating officer to produce the appellants before the doctor for the purposes of collecting blood samples.Thereafter, the appellants were produced before the doctor on 07.10.2004 at Safdarjung Hospital and their blood samples were taken.On 08.10.2004, the same were handed over to PW-21 (SI Amleshwar Rai) for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini for the purposes of conducting a comparison.On 22.11.2004, PW-17 (Head Constable Rawat Singh) collected the results from FSL, Rohini.On going through the report, the investigating officer found that the offence of rape was also disclosed and, therefore, Section 376 (g) IPC was DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 16 of 51 incorporated in the supplementary charge-sheet dated 23.11.2004 which was submitted in court.It is further alleged that since the blood group of both the appellants was the same, the investigating officer requested the FSL, Rohini for conducting the DNA test which was consequently conducted.The DNA report is Exhibit-PW-6/K, L, M, N, O, P, Q. A supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.03.2005 was submitted.As per the prosecution, the DNA report indicates that the semen on the clothes of the deceased and the vaginal swab and the vaginal slides of the deceased matched with the semen on the underwears of both the accused persons as well as with their blood samples.Thus, according to the prosecution, it was clear that both the appellants had committed rape upon the deceased.The conclusion contained in the DNA report reads as under:-CONCLUSION The DNA test performed on the Exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that Biological fluid present on the sources of Exhibits 14' (i.e. Vaginal Swab said to be from the Deceased), Exhibits 15b', 15c' and 15d' (i.e. Microslides said to be Vaginal slide from the Deceased) and Exhibit 16a' (Pyjama said to be from the Deceased) and Exhibit 16d' (Underwear said to be from the Deceased) are from the Source of the Exhibit 1' (i.e. Blood of Accused Jyotish') and Exhibit 3' (i.e. Blood of Accused Ashish').Initially, the charges framed against the appellants were for offences under Sections 120-B/394/397/404/302/201/34 IPC.After filing of the supplementary charge-sheet, as indicated above, the charge under Section 376 (g) IPC was also framed against the appellants.The DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 17 of 51 appellants having pleaded not guilty to the charges framed, claimed trial.The prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses.The trial court, after going through the testimony of these witnesses and after examining the other evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty under Sections 394/302/201/34 IPC as well as under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC.The circumstances being:-(1) recovery of articles at the instance of the appellants;(2) recovery of the screw driver, blood stained shirt, etc. at the instance of the appellants;(3) the last seen evidence of PW-15 (HC Upender Singh);(4) the report of the finger prints expert and the FSL report with respect to the DNA test.According to the learned counsel for the appellant Jyotish Prasad, the entire case is a frame-up.According to him, it was a face saving exercise conducted by the Delhi Police to show that tourists of developed nations get quick justice.According to him, the defence DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 18 of 51 would be able to demonstrate the probability of the evidence having been created.He submitted that the authorities were hard-pressed to solve the case somehow as it got a lot of media attention at both the national and international level.The ear rings, watch and other articles were left on the body.Even the camera and other articles, which would have had some value, were left in the baggage which was found from the dry well nearby.The clothes were not torn, they were not removed.The letter of request for conducting the post mortem examination did not indicate any request to the doctor to examine the dead body from the angle of rape.A reference was made to Exhibit-PW-26/DA, which sets out the brief facts given to the doctor for conducting the post mortem examination.The said document is dated 18.03.2004 and it only mentions murder.Another aspect of the matter to which the learned counsel for the appellant Jyotish Prasad drew our attention was the circumstance that PW-11 (Rakesh Kumar) was found to be present at the airport at 2.00 p.m. on 17.03.2004 when the investigating officer met him.At that point of time, the taxi DL-1T-4428 was parked at the taxi stand and Jyotish Prasad was not within the airport premises.The only implication that can be drawn from this, according to the learned counsel, is that Jyotish Prasad had handed over the taxi to PW-11 (Rakesh Kumar) by 2.00 p.m. and since PW-11 (Rakesh Kumar) has himself admitted that he also plied his taxi whenever Jyotish Prasad asked for rest, it meant that in all probability Jyotish Prasad had also handed over the keys to PW-11 (Rakesh Kumar).Yet, the keys were shown to be recovered from the appellant Jyotish Prasad later in the day.DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 23 of 51Referring to the testimony of PW-15 (HC Upender Singh), the learned counsel for the appellant Jyotish Prasad submitted that this witness has been produced as the last seen witness but, his testimony cannot be believed.As per his testimony, PW-15 (HC Upender Singh) stated that Vijay Kumar (PW-4), the clerk at the prepaid taxi booth filled in the voucher No.88919 and allotted the taxi No. DL-1T-4428 and handed over the same to PW-15 for the purposes of helping the lady to board the taxi.While doing so, he saw that Jyotish Prasad was driving the taxi.With regard to this, the learned counsel for the appellant Jyotish Prasad submitted that the photograph of the deceased was not shown to PW-15 (HC Upender Singh) as admitted in his testimony.How, then, did he connect the lady whom he allegedly took to the taxi with the lady who was found dead, namely, Dawn Emelie Griggs ? Moreover, it was submitted that it was not possible for the said witness to have remembered the faces of all the passengers and also to remember as to which taxi they had used.This is clearly so because as admitted by the said witness in his cross-examination--more than 500 to 700 foreigners also used the services of prepaid taxi in a night at IGI Airport.The said witness has also admitted that it is not possible to DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 24 of 51 remember the faces of the passengers and also to remember as to which taxi they had used.The learned counsel also submitted that the testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon at all, particularly as the appellant Jyotish Prasad was also not subjected to any test identification parade.The learned counsel for the appellant Jyotish Prasad then challenged the recoveries allegedly made from or at the instance of Jyotish Prasad.Referring to the evidence with regard to the finger prints and, in particular, to Exhibit-PW-5/A, which pertains to the lifting of the chance prints from the luggage, the learned counsel submitted that the same was purportedly done after 1.00 p.m. on 17.03.2004, when the goods had already been taken out and had passed through several hands.He also submitted that it is of significance that only three chance prints were found on a small plastic glass (tumbler) and that no other chance prints were found on the suitcase, including the articles contained therein, such as the camera, etc. According to the learned counsel, this clearly indicates that the chance prints were planted inasmuch as when the accused allegedly went through the baggage of the deceased, they must have handled other articles but their prints are not to be found.DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 25 of 51With regard to Exhibit-PW-5/B, which relates to the lifting of the chance prints from the taxi, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the chance prints were taken from outside the taxi.There were no chance prints from inside the taxi.Moreover, only eight points have been mentioned with regard to the comparison of the admitted prints and the chance prints as indicated in Exhibit-PW-7/A and Exhibit-PW-7/B. He further submitted that it was the prosecution case that the appellants strangulated the lady with bare hands, yet no chance prints have been taken from the neck of the deceased.No chance prints were also found from the top of the luggage which meant that nobody else also left any prints, whereas a number of people had handled the baggage.Referring to Exhibit-PW-6/A to G, which is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 19.11.2004, the learned counsel submitted that insofar as Jyotish Prasad is concerned, it appears that his blood group is O', whereas that of the deceased is A'.There is no blood or semen stain on the deceased or any of her articles which belongs to the O' group and, therefore, the appellant Jyotish Prasad is clearly not involved.He further submitted that there had been no request or necessity for retaining Exhibits 15b, 15c and 15d for further DNA analysis and, therefore, the note at the end of the results of analysis in Exhibit PW-6/A to G indicating such retention, was clearly DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 26 of 51 an afterthought and manipulated.He also referred to PW-6 (A.K. Srivastava), who, in his cross-examination, indicated that he did not recommend the DNA test nor did he ask the police for getting the DNA test conducted.The learned counsel questioned - Why, then, were the vaginal swabs and slides retained and who directed the drawing of blood samples from the appellants on 07.10.2004? The learned counsel then took us through the testimony of PW-29 (J.L. Meena, the investigating officer) in an attempt to point out the failings in the investigation carried out by him as also the contradictions.The learned counsel suggested that the investigating officer had manipulated the entire evidence in order to frame the appellants who were poor and defenceless.The learned counsel also contended that several witnesses, who had been cited, were not ultimately examined by the prosecution.For example, Kishan Pal, who allegedly gave the undertaking to produce the appellant Ashish on each date at the police station was not examined.Constable Anil Kumar, who was cited as a witness and would have testified as to the recoveries, was not examined.Constable Raj Kumar was also not examined though cited as a witness in respect of the arrest and recovery memos.Virpal, who was one of the persons who went into the sewer to recover the cards and passport cover and was cited as a witness by the prosecution, was also not examined.It is only the contractor Nasruddin who was examined as a witness.Head Constable Babu Lal, who was cited as a witness to the recovery of the DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 27 of 51 passport cover as also a witness to the drawing of blood samples on 07.10.2004 from the appellant Ashish was also not examined.Again, Constables Vinod Kumar and Parveen Singh, who were witnesses to the recovery of the soil and gokhroos, were not examined.Dr Brajesh Mishra, who examined the accused Jyotish Prasad on 18.03.2004 was also not examined nor was the MLC produced in evidence.Mr Navin Chawla, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Ashish, reiterated and adopted the arguments made on behalf of the appellant Jyotish Prasad.In addition, he submitted that the recoveries attributed to Ashish would have no meaning inasmuch as the screw driver was allegedly recovered at a distance of 30-35 steps from the well where the luggage had already been recovered.The area had already been searched thoroughly by the crime team and, therefore, it cannot be believed that the screw driver, which was shown to have been recovered at the instance of Ashish, was not already within the knowledge of the investigating officer.The spot from where the Australian dollars, etc. were shown to have been recovered at the instance of Ashish, was also only about 100 feet from the main road and open to public.The said recovery, therefore, cannot be attributed to Ashish.As regards the blood stained shirt recovered from the bushes at the instance of Ashish, the learned counsel submitted that there is no independent recovery witness insofar as this shirt is concerned.He DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 28 of 51 further submitted that the pointing out memos with regard to:- (i) the alleged place of occurrence (Exhibit-PW-27/K); (ii) the pointing out of the well (Exhibit-PW-27/L); (iii) the pointing out of manhole (Exhibit- PW-27/M); (iv) the pointing out of the place from where the screw driver was allegedly recovered (Exhibit-PW-27/O); and Exhibit-PW- 27/Q from where the articles, including the Australian currency were recovered, were all facts which were already within the knowledge of the investigating officer and, therefore, the same could not be attributed to Ashish.With regard to the recovery of the underwear Exhibit-PW- 27/R from Ashish, the learned counsel submitted that the same was shown to have been recovered from his room in a residential colony, but no independent witness was joined.From 17.03.2004 till 21.03.2004, Ashish had been called by the police every day.The learned counsel submitted that it is difficult to believe that when Ashish had washed his pants, he would not have washed his underwear if he had anything to hide !Assuming that the post mortem report and the samples DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 29 of 51 were with the police on 23.03.2004, they were retained in the malkhana till 19.04.2004 in an unrefrigerated condition and then sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini.There was a chance of the samples degrading since they had been kept at normal room temperatures.Between 19.08.2004 and 19.11.2004, on 01.10.2004, an application had been moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge indicating that the FSL, Rohini has asked for more blood for conducting the DNA tests.The application was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by an order dated 01.10.2004 itself.On 07.10.2004, the blood samples were drawn from the appellants Jyotish Prasad and Ashish at Safdarjung Hospital.After conducting the test, remnants of the samples were retained by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini except Exhibit 15b, 15c and 15d, which were the vaginal microslides.On 28.03.2005, the DNA test was conducted.According to the learned counsel, the entire sequence of events leading to the conduct of the DNA test is nothing but suspicious.The learned counsel submitted that the vaginal swab was taken on 18.03.2004, whereas the DNA test was conducted in March, 2005 and the possibility of degradation cannot be DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 30 of 51 ruled out.With reference to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty-third Edition, he submitted that vaginal swabs are prone to degradation in a short time and it is, therefore, essential for the same to be refrigerated.In this context, he referred to the testimony of PW-17 to indicate that the vaginal swabs had not been kept in a fridge.Consequently, he submitted that the possibility of degradation cannot be ruled out which would make reliance on the DNA report doubtful.Lastly, Mr Navin Chawla contended that an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.He submitted that the order directing the drawing of blood samples from the appellants was patently illegal and violative of the constitutional guarantee given in Article 20(3) which clearly stipulated that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.According to him, the drawing of blood samples against the wishes of the appellants, constituted one such infraction and, therefore, the DNA report, which is based on a comparison with the blood samples drawn pursuant to the said order dated 01.10.2004, cannot be looked into.For this proposition, he placed reliance on the following decisions:-1) The admissible portion of the disclosure statement of Ashish leading to the recovery of the screw driver, foreign currency and blood stained shirt from near the place where the dead body was found;2) The circumstance of the blood found on the shirt of Ashish matching with the blood of the deceased; andThe Delhi-Colombo and Colombo-Brisbane segments were unused.Obviously, the next step for the investigating officer was to go to IGI Airport and to cross- DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 36 of 51 check the arrival of this passenger.The investigating officer went to IGI Airport, met with the Immigration Officers.He then went to the prepaid taxi booth which was the next logical step to ascertain as to whether the said passenger had taken a taxi from any of the said booths from the airport.The same was cross-checked with the register maintained at the prepaid booth.From this, the owner of the taxi bearing registration No.4428, namely, Rakesh Kumar (PW-11) was located.He indicated that the taxi was standing in the parking lot and that on the night intervening 16/17.03.2004, the taxi had been driven by his employee (Jyotish Prasad).Thereafter, the investigating officer went to Jyotish Prasad's place of residence, found him to be there, interrogated him, made seizures from him and further recoveries at his instance, as indicated above.It is thus clear that the events starting from the discovery of the dead body to the arrest of Jyotish Prasad form a complete and unbroken sequence and this in itself lends credibility to the prosecution case.We now come to appellant Ashish.Ashish is connected with this case only through the disclosure statement made by the appellant DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 37 of 51 Jyotish Prasad.Since, apart from the disclosure statement of Jyotish Prasad, there was no material against Ashish, he was not initially arrested.But, he was called each day to the police station for interrogation.Ultimately, Ashish disclosed certain facts which led to the recovery of the screw driver at his instance, foreign currency and the blood stained shirt.It is in this manner that both, appellant Jyotish Prasad and appellant Ashish, have been implicated for the rape and murder of Dawn Emelie Griggs.We do not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants that they have been framed in this case.It is, therefore, difficult to imagine as to how he had recalled the name of Dawn Emelie Griggs without having been shown a photograph of hers.He was also not asked to identify the appellant Jyotish Prasad in any test identification parade.Therefore, his testimony has to be considered with a pinch of salt.DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 38 of 51The chance prints lifted from the plastic tumbler found in the baggage of the deceased matched with the finger prints of Jyotish Prasad.This clearly establishes the fact that Jyotish Prasad had opened the baggage of Dawn Emelie Griggs and had gone through her articles.This clearly connected the appellant Jyotish Prasad with the said taxi.The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Exhibit-PW-6/A to G) dated 19.11.2004 clearly indicated the blood stains on the shirt belonging to Ashish to be of A' group.The blood stained hair of the deceased was also of A' group as were the blood stains found on the lady's top and the underwear belonging to the deceased.The semen stains from the underwear of Jyotish Prasad indicated O' group and the said stains present in the underwear of Ashish Kumar were indicated as inconclusive.The test conducted on the blood samples drawn on 08.10.2004 from the appellants were revealed in the report (Exhibit- PW-6/H to J).The said report indicated that the blood group of both the appellants Jyotish Prasad and Ashish Kumar was O'.From the reports (Exhibit-PW-6/A to G) and (Exhibit-PW-6/H to J), it is evident DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 39 of 51 that the blood group of the blood stains in the shirt belonging to Ashish was the same as the blood group of the deceased, i.e., A' group.blood sample of the Accused Ashish) and 9'(i.e.Underwear of Accused Ashish).CONCLUSION The DNA test performed on the Exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that Biological fluid present on the sources of Exhibits 14' (i.e. Vaginal Swab said to be from the Deceased), Exhibits 15b', 15c' and 15d' (i.e. Microslides said to be Vaginal slide from the Deceased) and Exhibit 16a' (Pyjama said to be from the Deceased) and Exhibit 16d' (Underwear said to be from the Deceased) are from the Source of the Exhibit 1' (i.e.Blood of Accused Jyotish') and Exhibit 3' (i.e. Blood of Accused Ashish').The DNA profiles of the biological fluids present in the microslides were found identical with the profiles from the blood samples of the appellants Jyotish Prasad and Ashish Kumar.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,708,920 |
The members shall elect from amongst themselves a person to hold the office temporarily.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-It is therefore prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed with costs and the petitioner further prays to quash the order Annexure P/9 and also prayed to issue a writ of mandamus, quo warranto or any other writ, order or direction against the respondent No.4 and 5 not to take over charge of sarpanch from the petitioner and not to hand over the same to the respondent no.9 till Sarpanch of gram panchayat Sukhapatha is not duly elected.Any other relief for the ends of justice may also be awarded."By resolution dated dated 21/5/2018 the Gram Panchayat Sukhapatha, Janpad Panchayat Dabra, District Gwalior had conducted a meeting in which the nomination papers for election for the post of officiating Sarpanch were considered and as none of the candidates withdrew their nomination form, accordingly, voting was done.The petitioner got eight votes, whereas respondent no.6 got twelve votes and accordingly, respondent no.6 was declared elected for the post of officiating Sarpanch.Challenging the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, in 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.12268/2018 Smt. Pooja Parihar Vs.State of M.P. and others which respondent no.6 was elected as an officiating Sarpanch, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had contested the election for the post of UP- Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sukhapatha, whereas respondent no.6 had contested the election for the post of Panch.Petitioner was elected for the post of Up-Sarpanch, whereas respondent no.6 was elected as Panch.One Pratap Singh Parihar was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat.As Pratap Singh Parihar was taken into custody by Police Station Pichhore, District Dabra in Crime No.106/2017 registered for offence under Sections 302, 323, 324, 294, 506, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC, therefore, the petitioner was given the charge of the post of Sarpanch under Rule 3 of M.P. Panchayat (Powers and Functions of Sarpanch and UP-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, President and Vice-President of Janapad Panchayat and Zila Panchayat) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1994").It is submitted that thereafter Pratap Singh Parihar by order dated 7/5/2018 was suspended from the post of Sarpanch, as he was detained in jail.Another notice dated 15/5/2018 was issued for the same purpose.Accordingly, on 21/5/2018 the nomination papers by the 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.12268/2018 Smt. Pooja Parihar Vs.A meeting was convened by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Sukhapatha for electing Sarpanch in place of Pratap Singh Parihar.The petitioner herself participated in the election proceedings and after having lost the said election, she has filed the present petition, whereas she is estopped from doing so.Heard learned counsel for the parties.One Pratap Singh Parihar was the elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Sukhapatha, whereas the petitioner is the elected Up-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and the respondent no.6 is the elected Panch of the said Gram Panchayat.Admittedly, Pratap Singh Parihar was arrested in connection with the criminal case registered for offence under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly, by order dated 3/10/2017 (Annexure P/3), 8/11/2017 (Annexure P/4), and 8/11/2017 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner was given the additional charge of the post of Sarpanch.The interim order is hereby vacated.No order as to costs.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,715,436 |
The story of the prosecution is that the incident had taken place at around 11:30 a.m. on 23 rd of March, 2008, in Village Tedhhi Imli, Police-Station Piplod District-Khandwa.The accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Dharam Singh and his wife Bhagwati Bai by sword, 2 Cr.A.No.701/2010 axe and stones because of which both of them died on the spot.As per the story, Dharam Singh had agricultural land in the said village.At around 11:00 a.m. on 23.03.2008, accused Teni @ Sheru and his wife approached Bhagwati with the demand of their share of wheat in lieu of performing the duty of guarding agricultural field.Since, Bhagwati rejected their request, there was a quarrel between Sheru and his wife on one hand and Bhagwati on the other.At the time of said incident, Dharam Singh was sleeping at home.Dharam Singh's daughter Ku.Surjeet (PW-4) informed about the said incident to Dharam Singh.Thereafter, Dharam Singh, Bhagwati and Surjeet reached Teni @ Sheru's house.A quarrel took at that place.Accused persons Fattu and Antu arrived with axes.When Dharam Singh and his wife were returning to their house, accused Teni @ Sheru and Munshi pelted stones at them because of which Dharam Singh fell down.Thereafter, Fattu (since absconding) and Antu attacked Dharam Singh.Bhagwati rushed to protect Dharam Singh.She was also assaulted by sword and axe.As a result both of them died on the spot.The daughter of deceased Surjeet lodged Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/4).Panchnama of body was prepared and postmortem was conducted and report of postmortem is Ex.Accused Antu and Teni @ Sheru were arrested.The weapons used in the assault were recovered through memorand Ex.In addition, the stone allegedly used were also recovered through memorandum Ex.P/21 and P/21-A. The clothes were also recovered.The Expert reports Ex.(07-02-2019) Per: Sujoy Paul, J.This appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 06.04.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No.155/2008; whereby the appellant Antu was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 (on two counts) of the Indian Penal Code for murder of Dharam Singh and his wife Bhagwati Bai and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/-, with default stipulation.P/14 and P/16 were obtained.FSL report was marked as Ex.After completion of investigation, challan was filed.In due course, the Court below framed charges against accused persons.They abjured their guilt and accordingly, were put to trial.Surjeet, the sole eyewitness produced on behalf of the prosecution was daughter of deceased persons.She narrated about the incident and stated that Antu assaulted his father thrice by an axe on right side of neck.On the basis of evidence on record, the Court below acquitted co-accused persons Teni @ Sheru and Munshi; whereas, Fattu absconded.The statement of sole eye witness Surjit (PW4) is not reliable because she has stated in her cross-examination that she had also sustained stone injuries on leg during the incident; whereas, no such claim was made by her in her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C.. The conviction of appellant on the basis of her statement is not proper and justifiable.By taking this Court to the nature of the injuries, he submits that the conclusion drawn by the Court below on the basis of doctors' statements is not proper and legal.In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the statements of Dr. S.K. Shrivastava (PW-8) and Dr. Sharad Harne (PW-9).Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State supported the impugned judgment.He placed reliance upon the material available on record.No other points were pressed by learned counsel for the parties.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The impugned judgment is mainly based on the statement of solitary eyewitness, daughter of deceased persons Ku.In paragraph no.8 of her examination-in-chief, she, with accuracy and precision, deposed that Antu was carrying an axe and he assaulted her father thrice on his neck.Her aforesaid statement could not be dented during the cross- examination.In spite of repeated query from the bench, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out anything from the cross-examination of Ms. Surjeet, which can make her statement unbelievable.The statement of Dr. S.K. Shrivastava (PW-8) and Dr. Sharad Harne (PW-9) shows that there were incised wounds on a vital part like neck and on the body of Dharam Singh.The following injuries were found on the body of Dharam Singh:Incised wound 3'' x 1 '' x 1 '' with blood clots, transverse in position present on back of upper part of neck.Incised wound 2 '' and 1 '' with blood clots and transverse in position below the level of injury no.2 and finger could be passed through this wound which would come out from injury no.6 described below.Incised wound 3'' x 2'' with muscles cut, with blood clots, extending from back of neck to left side of neck.Incised wound 3 '' x 1 '' with cutting of posterior part of right mandible with blood clots.Finger could be passed from this wound on back of neck to oral cavity.Incised wound 5'' x 2'' with blood clots.7 th vertebra spinal cord, trachea, oesophagus Rt carotid artery were cut.This wound is extending from lowest part of neck to anterior part of neck on right side of neck.Four straight lines of contusions about 8'' x 9'' long and 3 mm wide are obliquely placed.3 out of 4 were present on thorasic lumber spines with upper ends direct up & to right on back of trunk.Last one out of 4 lines contusion was extending from left buttock to right side above on right lumber spinal region on back of trunk.Thus, the statement of Ku.Deceased and his wife, both were murdered at the same place by use of deadly weapons.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,715,638 |
Certified copy, as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2019.02.12 15:11:47 +05'30'Without making any opinion on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant-Devilal is allowed.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.5027 of 2019 is allowed and stands disposed of.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,722,637 |
Prosecution case, in brief, is that upon a false promise of marriage, on 13/7/11 respondent took her to Village Tikariya and persistently subjected her to sexual intercourse for a period of two months.The aforesaid information was given by the prosecutrix when she was recovered from the custody of respondent, pursuant to investigation into missing person report lodged by brother of prosecutrix.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we have perused the impugned judgment.After appreciation of age-related evidence on record, the trial Court found that on the date of incident the prosecutrix was more than 18 years of age.Trial Court also found that the prosecutrix was not kidnapped for the purpose of committing rape and had extensively travelled, at her own accord, with the respondent to Mandla and Bhopal, and, accordingly inferred that she was a consenting party.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,507,259 |
ORDER N.K. Bhattacharyya, J.1. Heard the submission of the Ld.Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Talukdar appearing with Mr. A. K. Pal & A.K. Adhya and the Ld.Advocate for the O.Ps. 1 & 2 Mr. Sekhar Bose appearing with Mr. Debasish Roy.Considered the materials on record.By the instant revision Under Sections 401/482 of the Cr.P.C. the de facto complainant has challenged the order dated 16-3-95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Howrah in Crl.Case No. 97/95 whereby the Ld.Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 herein and by that order also directed that in the event of arrest of the accused persons or their surrender before the appropriate authority, they shall be enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each on the terms as contained in the said order.In challenging the said order being order No. 11 dated 16-3-95 in Crl Misc.Case No. 97/95 Mr. Talukdar submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order is illegal, improper and incorrect.Inasmuch as, earlier, an application before this High Court was moved before the Division Bench Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by the accused persons and the matter was heard at length and thereafter on the prayer of the Ld.Advocate for the accused persons, the matter was not proceeded with and it was treated as not pressed.The said fact was suppressed before the Ld. Sessions Judge and as a result of which the Ld.Sessions Judge entertained the application of the accused persons Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and granted anticipatory bail to the said two accused persons who are O.Ps. 1 and 2 herein.Appearing for the accused-persons, Mr. Sekhar Bose candidly and very fairly submitted that he has no point to argue but beseeched the Court to look upon the case with mercy as the accused persons are ladies and house-wives.Before considering the respective submissions on behalf of the parties, a brief resumption of the fact is necessary to appreciate the arguments of the Ld.Advocates for the parties.The de facto complainant, who is the petitioner herein, lodged an FIR in Shibpur P.S. which was registered as Shibpur P. S. Case No. 273/94 dated 16-9-94, Under Sections 409, 420, 120B of the I.P.C., on which a G.R. Case was started being G. R. Case No. 1976 of 1994 in the Court of the Ld. S.D.J.M. Howrah, the two accused persons made two applications before this Court for anticipatory bail Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and the said two applications were contested.The Division Bench, after hearing the parties at length, when was about to pass an order which might not be favourable to the accused persons, a submission was made on behalf of the accused persons by their Ld.Advocate that the accused-persons would not press that applications of the said two applicants and they were treated as not pressed.Accordingly, the Division Bench passed such order on such submission that the said two applications be treated as not pressed and rejected the same.But in that order the Division was pleased to record that the matters were heard at length and the arguments advanced by both the parties.Thereafter, the accused persons in suppression of the said fact made an application Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying for anticipatory bail.Sessions Judge, another application was moved by the accused persons before a Single Bench of this Court Under Section 482 of the Cr.As indicated earlier, thereafter, on 7th February, 1995, the accused-persons moved the Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail by filing an application Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. which was registered as Crl.The factum that the accused persons earlier moved this High Court for anticipatory bail was suppressed before the Ld. Sessions Judge.The de facto complainant in his show cause application disclosed that fact.During the continuance of the hearing of that application Under Section 438 of the Cr.Para (2) That we have not moved the said application through or with the help of any Advocate on any date and it was resulted as not pressed.Para (3) That we have been first moving this petition of anticipatory bail before the District and Sessions Judge, Howrah vide.Case No. 97/95, vide filing date 7-2-95." (Sic).After hearing both the parties and considering the materials on record including the affidavit as indicated above, the Ld. Sessions Judge passed the order impugned and ordered in the ordering portion that in the event of arrest of the accused persons or on their surrender before the appropriate authority they shall be enlarged on bail of Rs. 1,0000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.Thereafter, the Ld.Sessions Judge specified the conditions.The accused persons also suppressed the fact that they moved this Court before a Single Bench challenged the F.I.R. Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter the said two accused persons, C.P. Nos. 1 and 2 herein, surrendered before the Ld. S.D.J.M. at Howrah in connection with the Shibpur P.S. Case No. 273/94 dated 16-9-94 Under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the I.P.C. G. R. Case No. 1976/94 and they also made there an application for bail.In view of the submission of Mr. Talukdar for the petitioner that in spite of an order by a Division Bench of this Court rejecting the applications Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. made by the accused persons, the Ld. Sessions Judge entertained the application of the accused persons Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. submitted an affidavit alleging that they filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in connection with that case in question i.e. Shibpur P.S. Case No. 273/94 Under Sections 409/420/120B of the I.P.C. But that application was never moved before the Hon'ble High Court.So, that application was not pressed.She further stated in the affidavit that they were moving the petition (Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C) for anticipatory bail for the first time before the District & Sessions Judge, Howrah through Crl.The xerox copy of the said affidavit is made annexure-A of the application.I have already mentioned that to watch the proceeding the de facto complainant Sri Asoke Kumar Kabra engaged one Ld. Lawyer and through him he filed an application on 21-2-95 in the said Crl.Case No. 97/95 wherein the said petitioner/de facto complainant in paragraph-6 clearly stated that the petitioners, namely, Smt. Kamala Devi Shaw and Smt. Kanika Devi Shaw had earlier moved an application Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and subsequently on 27-9-94, the same was rejected, as the said application was not pressed by the then Ld. Advocate of the petitioners.A xerox copy of the petition filed by the de facto complainant Sri Asoke Kumar Kabra in Crl.Case No. 97/ 95 is made annexure-'B' of the petition."Sessions Judge was exonerated.P.C. before the Ld.Sessions Judge suppressing the order dated 27-9-94 and the said affidavit was affirmed by one Nurul Islam who identified himself as Tadbirkar'.It has been further stated in the said affidavit that the accused O.P. filed a supplementary affidavit in the Crl.Rev. No. 543/95 before this High Court.It has also been disclosed in the said supplementary affidavit that the said Nurul Islam is a surety of the accused persons who affirmed this affidavit to the application Under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before the Ld. Sessions Judge and also on behalf of the accused persons in their application for revision before this High Court as 'Tadbirkar' of the accused persons.Having heard the Ld.It appears to me in consideration of the materials on record that the accused persons played a fraud upon the learned Sessions Judge by suppressing the fact that earlier their applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected by this Court after hearing the parties at length.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,737,935 |
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation while relying upon the case registered as FIR bearing No. 355/2006 for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC.Further submits, during the investigation of the said case the respondent could give all the particulars of the offending vehicle to the investigating officer.Thereafter, the investigation has been completed, arraying the driver of MAC.Appeal No.419/2010 Page 2 of 7 the offending vehicle as accused.Tribunal has relied upon the supplementary statement by which he could produce the correct number and make of the offending vehicle.He further submitted that one eye witness, namely, Surender Pal Singh, whose statement was recorded by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C., also named the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL1M 1098, an Eicher Container as real culprit.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.Consequently, relying upon the said settled law, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- to the respondents/claimants on account of death of their child.No order as to costs.
|
['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.
|
399,091 |
The fact of the case giving rise to this revision, briefly stated, was that Pancham Singh, father of applicant Dambar Singh and Jorawar Singh, father of opposite party Kamod Singh, were real brothers.They had another brother Amiri Singh.Property of Amiri Singh was inherited by Pancham Singh, father of applicant Dambar Singh being real brother of Amiri Singh as his other brother Jorawar Singh father of Kamod Singh died prior to him.Kamod Singh also claimed half share in the property of Amiri Singh.Since Dambar Singh was not ready to give him above share, opposite party Kamod Singh filed Civil Suit No. 280 of 1982 in the Court of Munsif, Fatehabad.In the above suit, an injunction order was also passed.However, the above injunction order was allegedly wilfully disobeyed and therefore Kamod Singh filed Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of 1983 under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C.P.C. in which learned Munsif passed order of attachment on 17-2-1982 and appointed Commissioner to execute the order.The Commissioner came to the spot with police force on 31-3-1984 at 2.30 p.m. for affecting attachment.The Commissioner executed the order of attachment and took item of ornaments and jewellery in custody and prepared memo of attachment.Applicant Dambar Singh refused to sign the above document.Since, Dambar Singh or Kamod Singh failed to provide a supurdgar, therefore Commissioner left the spot with the attached ornaments to be deposited in the Court.ORDER U.S. Tripathi, J.When he reached at the house of Natthi Lal, Dambar Singh along with six or seven persons came there and Dambar Singh and Ranvir Singh snatched the attached articles from the Commissioner.The other 5-6- persons started throwing brick bats.Dambar Singh also fired, which hit Sobran Singh and others.The Advocate Commissioner lodged written report of the said incident at P.S. Iradat Nagar on same day at 4.45 P.M. against Dambar Singh, Ran Veer Singh and 5-6 unknown persons.On investigation a charge sheet was submitted by the police under Section 396, I.P.C. and Special Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1984 was registered.Applicant Dambar Singh lodged a report at P.S. Iradat Nagar, district Agra with the allegations that on 31-3-1984 at about 4 P.M. when he returned to his house, he saw that the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 committed dacoity in his house and looted 40 tolas gold and Rs. 25,000/- cash.The complaint objected opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 and they came on the Chabutara of Natthi, where they started beating him with lathi and Pharsa.Kamod Singh had pistol, Om Prakash, Sobran Singh and others had country made pistols.The opposite parties fired from their respective arms.On the basis of first information report, the police registered a case and investigated the same.After investigation, the police submitted final report on 30-5-1984 as no case of dacoity was made out.The I.O. found that case under Sections 147, 323, 324, 307, I.P.C. was made out and submitted charge sheet under said Sections.Thereafter, the applicant filed complaint against opposite party Nos. 2 to 11under Sections 147, 148, 395, 397, 307, 302, 323, 329, I.P.C. on 17-6-1985 before the special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area).If the facts and evidence as appeared before the Special Judge in this case are considered in the light of above decisions of the Apex Court, it would appear that according to report lodged by Advocate Commissioner Jai Vir Singh Yadav and order of attachment in Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of 1983 was passed against the applicant Dambar Singh for attachment of the jewellery etc. tying in his house.The Commissioner along with police force came to the spot on 31-3-1984 at 2.30 p.m. made attachment took into the custody jewellery and prepared Farda, Kurki.The applicant Dambar Singh, who was present on the spot refused to sign the attachment memo (Fard Kurki).Since the parties could not provide any reliable supurdgar, the Advocate Commissioner was taking the jewellery etc. with him to be deposited in Court.When he reached in front of house of Natthi Lal.Dambar Singh, Ranvir Singh along with 5 and 6 persons came there snatched jewellery and started throwing brick bats.Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of above evidences, which he was authorised to consider at the stage of framing charges rightly concluded that there was no ground for proceeding further against the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 under Sections 395, 397, I.P.C.Regarding offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 324 read with Section 149, I.P.C. the learned special Judge also found that since the evidence on record showed that no dacoity had taken place and incident took place otherwise as indicated in the report of Commissioner, Jai Vir Singh Yadav, the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 cannot be said to be members of unlawful assembly and therefore, individual act of Kamod Singh and Om Prakash was taken into consideration.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,909,147 |
CRL.A.103/2013 Page 1 of 33On 18.11.2009, information was received at Police Station - New Ashok Nagar that a lady named Sonika (deceased) was stabbed by a knife in a quarrel near Pradhan Building, MCD Barat Ghar who had been rushed to the hospital.This information was recorded as DD No. 45A. On receipt of DD No. 45A, ASI Yogender Singh reached LBS Hospital where Sonika was admitted with alleged history of accidental injury by knife.MLC was prepared by Dr. Shalini Gupta.As per the MLC, there was only one injury on the body of Sonika i.e. Linear insiced wound at left breast size 3x.2cms.ASI Yogender Singh recorded the statement of Sonika wherein she stated that her one year old daughter was playing near a stand containing spoons and knives.When she tried to save her from the stand, she slipped on the stand, due to which the knife pierced through her left breast.This information was recorded vide DD No. 19A which was entrusted to ASI Rajender Singh who reached the spot and recorded the compromise agreement signed between the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the appellant herein and other family members of the deceased.Statement of Chander Bhan was recorded.Chander Bhan stated that he came to meet his sister Sonika at Room No. 33, C - Block near CRL.A.103/2013 Page 2 of 33 Barat Ghar where he found minor injury on her chest whereupon he questioned his sister Sonika, she told him that she had exchanged hot words with her Devar Ravi and while grappling she sustained an injury to her chest.Chander Bhan then called 100 number to inform the police.He further told the police that the Husband, Devar and other relatives of his sister apologized for their mistake and ill treatment of Sonika after which they had mutually settled the issue for the sake of Sonika and her daughters future in the matrimonial home and thus, he did not want police to take any action but in case his sister was harassed in future, action would be taken against them.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 2 of 33On the intervening night of 19/20.11.2009, information was received through telephone at Police Station - New Ashok Nagar that Sonika, who had been admitted in Kailash Hospital with stab injury, had expired.The testimonies of PW-1 & PW-3 would establish that the deceased had informed her brother and father that Neeraj, cousin of Amit had caught hold of her and respondent no. 5 Ravi had stabbed her.It is contended that the statement of the father stands corroborated by the statement of the brother.PW-1, Chokhey Lal is the father of the deceased.After marriage, his daughter and Amit were residing at Village Kader Pur.On 01.11.2009, Sonika delivered a baby girl at his house and thereafter started residing with her husband at New Kondli, Delhi at Pradhan building after Holi last year.After 2-4 months of marriage, her in- laws, namely, Braham Chand and Prakash Devi and Amit started harassing his daughter.They used to demand plot and 2 bigha of land.His daughter used to inform him about the demands.His daughter also told him that Amit used to tell her to take double the money which had been spent on the marriage and leave him.PW-1 also testified that he had given a motorcycle, four tolas of gold ornament and 30-35 tolas of silver ornaments and cash of Rs.25,000/-.On 18.11.2009, Amit called his son Duli Chand and informed him that Ravi, real brother of Amit had met with an accident.His son Chander Bhan lived in Ghaziabad.Duli Chand made a call to Chander Bhan and informed him about this.Accordingly, Chander Bhan visited the house of Sonika at Kondli, but the house was locked.Chander Bhan made a call at the medical store being run by Amit where their servant informed him that Ravi is in LBS Hospital.Chander Bhan reached the LBS Hospital and met there with the accused persons and asked them about Ravi.17. PW-1 has further deposed that he found Sonika was admitted in the hospital with a stab wound on the left side of her chest.They thought that Sonika would become all right, they left them for Ghaziabad to the house of Chander Bhan.At midnight, Amit made a call on the mobile of Chander Bhan and informed him that the condition of Sonika is serious and she is admitted in Kailash Hospital, Delhi.On reaching the Hospital, they learnt that Sonika had died.He further testified that he met Sonika in her house after her discharge from LBS Hospital and she had told him that Neeraj (cousin of Amit who is facing trial before JJB) had caught hold of her and that Ravi had stabbed her.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 6 of 33In cross-examination, he deposed that Amit was having illicit relationship with his maami.On account of this reason, he used to harass Sonika and used to demand dowry.Sonika had also told him that she had made a statement to the police earlier but did not disclose the true facts in order to save her matrimonial life.Actually, she had been caught hold by Ravi and stabbed by Ravi.In the cross- examination carried out by counsel for the respondents, he admitted the document Ex.PW1/DX (compromise agreement) bears his signature at point A. He identified the signatures of Chander Bhan, Duli Chand and Bihari Lal at points B, C and D respectively.He also admitted that Amit, Brahm Singh and Prakash Wati had also signed on Ex.The mother and Duli Chand, brother of Sonika had come with her.Choke Lal, father of Sonika had also met her outside the court.She admitted that on that date she was deposing at the instance of the parents of Sonika.She admitted that she did not remember the date when Sonika delivered her daughter.She denied the suggestion that Sonika delivered her daughter in Delhi and not at her parents house.20. PW-3, Chandra Bhan is brother of deceased Sonika.He testified that on 17.11.2009 in the evening he received a call from his brother Sh.Duli Chand who informed him that brother-in-law(Devar) of his sister Sonika had met with an accident.He deposed that for the last 4-5 months Sonika was residing at Village Kondli, near Pradhan building, Samudaya Kendra with her husband.In the evening of 18.11.2009, he went to the house of his sister.There he found the premises locked.At the entrance door he saw a ladies shawl lying on the floor.He thought that it must be of his sister and she had left it there.He picked the shawl to put it on wire tied.The moment he picked the shawl, a buttondar knife having blade of 12 inches came out of it.He thereafter put the shawl on the knife.He thereafter made a call at the mobile phone of his sister, someone picked the phone and asked him to come to the LBS Hospital.He thereafter reached LBS Hospital.There he saw Sonika lying on a bed and was taking deep breathes.All the four accused persons present in Court were correctly identified by him were present in the hospital.Sonika started crying after seeing him.She told him that Neeraj, cousin of Amit(maternal uncles son) had caught hold her and Ravi, her Devar had stabbed her.Sonika further told him that after she was stabbed, her neighbours gathered there and brought her to hospital.She further told him that Neeraj and Ravi had run away from the spot after stabbing her.He saw that CRL.A.103/2013 Page 10 of 33 Sonika had suffered injury on the right side of her chest and the wounded portion was bandaged.Amit told him that Ravi had stabbed Sonika and has run away.Exchange of hot words took place between him and the accused persons.He made a call to his brother Duli Chand and informed him about the all the facts.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 10 of 33He testified that at about 11:00 a.m. Sonika was brought to the house by the accused persons.At about 2:30 p.m. his family comprising of his father, his brother-in-law Vijay Singh, his brother Duli Chand, his Foofa Sher Singh reached the house of Sonika.Sonika also told his family members about the entire incident.Exchange of hot words took place between his family and the accused persons.Some quarrel also took place amongst themselves.Accused told them to do whatever they can do and they had stabbed Sonika.He testified that from there in the evening, he and his other family members returned to Ghaziabad.At about 12:30 midnight, he received a call from Kailash Hospital, Noida informing him that Sonika had died.Sonika used to be beaten by Amit and her parents-in-law to fulfill their demands of dowry.She was even beaten with belts and oil was poured over her.He testified that accused also used to demand plot, car and cash from them.Sonika used to tell all this to him.Once Sonika had come to their house in the Village, there Amit had come to take Sonika with him.Sonika was not willing to go back with Amit as he and his family used to misbehave with her due to this reason Amit got angry and started beating her with belts and also kicked her.He and his mother were present in the house at that time.He testified that mother CRL.A.103/2013 Page 11 of 33 in-law and father-in-law alongwith Devar Ravi used to abuse Sonika.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 13 of 33PW-4, SI Narender Kumar testified that on the night intervening 19/20.11.2009, he was posted as SI, Police Station New Ashok Nagar.On receipt of DD No.3A, he reached Kailash Hospital and collected medical record of treatment of the deceased.26. PW-5, Dr.Shalini Gupta, Casualty Medical Officer at LBS Hospital, Delhi, has deposed that on 18.11.2009 at 10.20 p.m., the patient, Sonika, was brought by her husband in the hospital with the history of accidental injury by knife.As per PW-5, the patient had suffered following injuries:"Linear incised wound at left breast size 3 x .2 cms, red in colour.PW-5 referred the patient to SR Surgery.She admitted that the MLC, Exhibit PW-5/A, is in her hand and bears her signatures at point A.27. PW-6, Dr.Vinay Kumar Singh, Forensic Medicine, LBS Hospital, Delhi, has testified that on the directions of Executive Magistrate, Sh.PW1/DX1), which bears his signature at point H. In cross-examination, he testified that Chanderbhan did not tell him anything except as noted down by him in statement (Ex.PW1/DX1).30. PW-11, SI Yogendra Singh, P.S. Model Town deposed that on 18.11.2009, he was posted as ASI in P.S. New Ashok Nagar.He deposed that at 9:50 p.m., he received DD entry 45A(Ex.PW11/A).On that basis, he reached at LBS Hospital.Deceased Sonika was admitted there.He collected the MLC of deceased Sonika.In the history, the doctor had mentioned accidental injury by knife.Today, my daughter aged about one year had been playing where the stand of spoon and knife had been kept.My daughter had been playing with a toy.As soon as I moved to save my daughter from the stand, my foot slipped out of a sudden.As a result of which, I fell on the stand due to which the knife kept in the stand pierced through my chest.One of my neighbour living on rent made the call seeing my injury.Now has inflicted this injury to me.This injury was caused to me due to the sudden slip of my foot.You have recorded my statement and I heard the same and found it to be correct."RTI of Smt. Sonika Sd/-Amit Kumar (In Hindi) 9818362469 Dated: 18.11.20009 Attested by:Next time in the future, if the family members, the husband, the mother in-law, the father in-law and the younger brother in-law harass my sister Sonika, legal action may be taken against them.Chokhey Lal, father of the deceased; PW-3, Chander Bhan, brother of the deceased; PW-9, Smt.Sushila, neighbour of Sh.Chokhey Lal; and PW-2, Smt.In his evidence PW-3, Chander Bhan, brother of the deceased, has testified that Sonikas husband used to beat Sonika to fulfil his and his parents demands of dowry.She was even beaten with belts and oil was poured over her.The accused also used to demand plot, a car and cash.Sonika was beaten with belts and oil was also poured over her.This witness further goes on to testify that on one occasion his sister, Sonika, had come to his house in the village.When her husband, Amit, came to take her back, she was not willing to go back as her husbands family used to misbehave with her on which her husband got angry and started beating her with belts and also kicked her.Learned counsel for the appellant has laboured hard to canvas his argument that the compromise, Exhibit PW-1/DX1, would show that the deceased had informed her brother that there had been a squabble and scuffling between her and the younger brother- in-law, Ravi and thus Ravi was responsible for the death of Sonika.A reading of this compromise agreement (Exhibit PW-1/DX-1), on which heavy reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant, would show that it is not the case of the prosecution that Ravi stabbed the deceased.As per Ex.PW1/DX1, "during scuffle Sonika slipped and got injured in her chest."Evidence of PW-1 would show that when PW-1 and PW-3, Chander CRL.A.103/2013 Page 26 of 33 Bhan, reached the house of the deceased at Kondli, Chander Bhan had made a call at No.100 and thereafter assuming that Sonika would be alright, PW-1 father of the deceased went to Ghaziabad to the house of Chander Bhan.M. A. 671/2013This is an application for condonation of 248 days delay in filing the present appeal.The prayer made in this application is not opposed.Application stands disposed of.The present appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the brother of the deceased against the judgment dated 15.02.2012 by which respondent nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted.The investigation was entrusted to SI Narender Kumar who went to Kailash Hospital.The SDM was informed.Statement of Chokhey Lal, father of the deceased was recorded.Based on his statement, an FIR under Section 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment dated 15.02.2012 by virtue of which the respondent nos. 2 to 5 stand acquitted is bad in law, suffers from gross application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside.Counsel further contends that the testimonies of the PW-1 father of the deceased and PW-3 brother of the deceased and the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-9 would show that the deceased was being harassed for dowry and thus a case under Section 498-A is made out against respondent nos. 2 toCRL.A.103/2013 Page 3 of 33Counsel further submits that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the statement of the deceased cannot be treated as a dying declaration as the same was made in the presence of respondent no. 2 and SI Yogendra Singh and the possibility of coercion cannot be ruled out.It has also been stated in the grounds that the statement could probably have been made with a view to save her matrimonial home as she did not expect to die at the time when the statement was made.Counsel submits that the dying declaration would have little or no value in view of the subsequent compromise agreement wherein it was stated that the deceased fell on the knife after grappling with her devar.The compromise agreement is of a later date and a complete reading of the compromise agreement would leave no room for doubt that the deceased was being harassed for demand of dowry.Counsel has also submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate that there was evidence of dowry having been given at the time of marriage which has been confirmed by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 & PW-9 and the deceased was continuously being subjected for demands of dowry.Counsel contends that the trial court has failed to take into account the testimony of PW-1 & PW-3 wherein it has categorically CRL.A.103/2013 Page 4 of 33 been stated that the deceased was being harassed and the in-laws were demanding a plot and two bigas of land.The respondent no. 2 was regularly threatening the deceased by telling her that she should take double the money her father has spent on the marriage and leave him.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 4 of 33As far as the respondent no.5 is concerned, learned counsel submits that a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.PW-3 has also testified on identical lines and additionally PW-3 had testified that when he had gone to the house of his sister Sonika, he had found a butter knife under the shawl of the deceased which was the weapon of offence and thus a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.12. Learned APP for State has also argued on identical lines.She submits that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt.The order of the trial court should be set aside and the respondents no.2 to 4 should be convicted for the offences under Sections 498-A and respondent no.5 should be convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, APP for the State as also counsel for the respondents.Before the rival submissions of the parties can be considered, we deem it appropriate to discuss the testimonies of some of the material witnesses in detail.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 5 of 33Thereafter, Chander Bhan made a call to him.He along with 8-10 persons of the village came at Kondli, Delhi, the house of the CRL.A.103/2013 Page 6 of 33 deceased, where she was present.Chander Bhan was also present.Police reached the spot and informed them that it was a case of murder, but the accused persons explained that Sonika sustained stab wound herself by falling on the stand.The SDM recorded his statement and the statement of Chander Bhan.This witness was also cross-examined by the APP.PW1/DX1 in his presence at points E, F and G and CRL.A.103/2013 Page 7 of 33 the policeman who had come at the spot signed the document Ex.PW1/DX1 at point H. He also admitted after execution of Ex.PW1/DX1 they had left the matrimonial house of Amit for Village Sunpura, District Ghaziabad.He also stated during cross-examination that they had told the police that they did not want any police action against the accused in the matter.He admitted that they did not make a call to the police from Kailash Hospital.He admitted that he did not make any complaint against the accused persons regarding harassment and torture of his daughter with police of Distt.Ghaziabad or Bulandshahar or in Delhi prior to the case.He admitted that his daughter had passed 10th class in the year 2003 and her husband had got her admitted in class 11th in Kisan Inter College, Bulandshahar.He also admitted that on 17.11.2009, he had come to Delhi to the house of Amit and left on the same day for his village in the evening.He admitted that on 18.09.2007, a 366 sq.yd.plot was purchased by Amit in the name of Sonika at Village Kadarpur, District Bulandshahar, U.P. This witness was confronted with the statement of Ex.PW1/A wherein it had not been recorded that the accused used to demand plot of 2 bigha of land from Sonika and she had told him this.During cross-examination, he also stated that he did not know from where the motorcycle was purchased which was given in marriage.Neither he did know the exact amount.He denied the suggestion that the motorcycle of Amit was purchased by him prior to the marriage.He stated that the photographs of the motorcycle was taken at the time of CRL.A.103/2013 Page 8 of 33 marriage.He admitted that Ex.PW1/DX5 pertains to articles given by him in dowry, but it did not contain the photograph of the motorcycle.He stated to the police that after 2-4 months of the marriage, the in- laws of Sonika namely Braham Chand and Prakash Devi and Amit started harassing his daughter Sonika and they used to demand plot and 2 bighas of land from Sonika.Sonika used to tell him all this.He was confronted with the statement Ex.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 7 of 33CRL.A.103/2013 Page 8 of 3319. PW-2, Smt. Vimlesh is one of the neighbours of the parents of deceased Sonika, who has testified that Sonika used to come to her parents house, she used to tell her that her in-laws and her husband used to harass her for dowry.She testified that panchayat was called by parents of Sonika and thereafter Sonika was sent to her matrimonial house.She testified that Sonika had given birth to her daughter in her parents house.She was cross-examined by the counsel for the defence .In cross-examination, she stated that she had come to Delhi for the first time.(The court, during the course of cross-examination, observed that the witness was not aware about the dates.) She denied the suggestion that when Sonika used to CRL.A.103/2013 Page 9 of 33 come to her parents house, she used to tell her that her in-laws and husband used to harass her for dowry.She admitted that she cannot tell the date, month and year when Sonika had met her.She denied the suggestion that was deposing falsely.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 9 of 33Sonika had told him that on the birthday of her daughter, accused Ravi had caught hold her hand and had misbehaved with her after this she had beaten Ravi with chappals.Due to this reason Ravi had stabbed Sonika.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 11 of 33He testified that on 18.11.2009, accused had taken Sonika to the house from LBS Hospital at about 9:30 a.m., while in the hospital in the morning, he did not make any complaint to the police against the accused.He testified that his family had reached at about 2-2:30 p.m. and he made a call at 100 number at about 7:00 p.m. He testified that he had told the police that for the last 4-5 months Sonika was residing at Village Kondli, near Pradhan building, Samudai Kendra with her husband.In the evening of 18.11.2009, he went to the house of his sister, there he found the premises locked.At the entrance door, he saw a ladies shawl lying on the floor, he thought that it must be of his sister and she had kept it there and forgotten to take it.He picked the shawl to put it on wire tied there.The moment he picked the shawl, a buttondar knife with a blade of 12 inches came out of it.He thereafter put the shawl on the knife.He thereafter made a call at the mobile phone of his sister, someone picked the phone and asked him to come in the LBS Hospital.He reached at LBS Hospital, there he saw Sonika lying on a bed and was taking deep breath.The witness was confronted with CRL.A.103/2013 Page 12 of 33 statement Ex.PW3/DX1 and Ex.PW3/DX2, wherein it is not so recorded.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 12 of 33He testified that he told the police that Sonika started crying after seeing him and she told him that Neeraj, cousin of Amit (maternal uncles son) had caught hold her Ravi, her Devar had stabbed her.Sonike further told him that after she was stabbed, her neighbours gathered there and brought her to hospital.She further told him that Neeraj and Ravi had run away from the spot after stabbing her.He saw that Sonika had suffered injury on right side of her chest and the wounded portion was bandaged.Amit told him that Ravi has stabbed Sonika and had run away, exchange of hot words took place between him and the accused persons.He made a call to his brother Duli Chand and informed him about all the facts.The witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW3/DX1 and Ex.He testified that he had told the police that Sonika used to be beaten by Amit and her parents-in-law to fulfill their demands of dowry, she was even beaten with belts and oil was poured over her, accused also used to demand plot, car and cash from them.Sonika used to tell all this to him.Once Sonika had come to their house in the Village, there Amit had come to take Sonika with him, Sonika was not willing to go back with Amit as he and his family used to misbehave with her, due to this reason Amit got angry and started beating her with belts and also kicked her, he and his mother were present in the house at that CRL.A.103/2013 Page 13 of 33 time.Mother-in-law and father-in-law along with Devar Ravi used to abuse Sonika.Sonika had told him that on the birthday of her daughter accused Ravi had caught hold her hand and had misbehaved with her, after this she had beaten Ravi with chappals, due to this reason Ravi had stabbed Sonika.This witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW3/DX1 and Ex.P.K. Jayant, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Sonika w/o Sh.Amit Kumar, aged about 25 years.He has further deposed that on examination he found the following external injuries:CRL.A.103/2013 Page 14 of 33Incised wound, stitched with two black silk suture, 2.5 x .3 cms, obliquely present over left side of chest, 118 Cms above heel and 3 cms from midline, 4.2 cms above nipple, margins sharp and regular, upper and acute "stab wound", directed inwards, downwards and left to right.2. Abrasion, 1.5 x .2 cms obliquely present over right side of chin, 1.5 cms below lower lip and 2 cms away from midline.3. Injection marks in both cubital fossae, right and left and dorsum of both hands right and left."28. PW-6 has further testified that on internal examination he found following injuries.In chest in continuation to injury No.1 after incising skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles, from coastal margin, diaphragm, peritoneam and mesentry with hemorrhage along track and about 1 liter of blood in cavity, both lungs pale.In abdomen cavity about 500 ml of blood with clots present.Stomach was empty and walls was pale.CAUSE OF DEATH Was due to hemorrhagic shock consecutive upon incised stab wound to the chest.All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and recent in duration.Injury No.1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The time since death was 16 to 24 hours.The clothes and blood in gauze was seized and sealed with the seal of DFMT/LBSH and handed over to IO.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 15 of 33The P/M is Ex.PW6/A which is in my hand and bears my signatures at point A."29. PW-10, ASI Rajendra Singh, Main Security Line, Vinay Marg, deposed that on 19.11.2009, he was posted as ASI at Police Station New Ashok Nagar.On that day, he received a DD No.19A(Ex.PW10/A).He reached at House No.G-18, Kondli.He deposed that there, Chanderban, brother of deceased Sonika met him.He recorded the statement of Chanderbhan(Ex.He recorded the statement of deceased Sonika(Ex.PW6/DX1)[dying declaration]which bears his signature at point B and thumb impression of deceased at point C. He deposed that since no offence was disclosed, due to this reason the DD was kept pending.Respondent no.2 is the husband of the deceased Sonika, while respondents no.3 and 4 are father-in-law CRL.A.103/2013 Page 16 of 33 and mother-in-law of the deceased.A charge has been framed against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased under Section 498A/34 of the IPC.Relevant portion of the charge reads as under:CRL.A.103/2013 Page 16 of 33"That you Amit being husband of the deceased Sonika and you Braham Chand and Prakashwati being parents-in-law of deceased Sonika at the matrimonial home in furtherance of your common intention harassed her and treated her with cruelty after her marriage with a view to coercing her and her parents to fulfil demands of more dowry and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 498A/34 IPC."A charge has separately been framed against respondent no.5 under Section 302 of the IPC.Before the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties can be considered, we may note that a statement (Exhibit PW-6/DX1) was made by the deceased in presence of SI Yogendra Singh(PW-11), after the incident.A translation of the statement made by the deceased reads as under:"Translation of Ex PW 6/DX1, a dying declaration dated 18/11/2009 made by Sonika Gautam W/o Amit Kumar Gautam, forthcoming on the record of the case noted as under:Case (FIR) No.491/2009, dated 20.11.2009 for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code related to Police Station N.A. Nagar, Delhi.Sonika Gautam W/o Amit Kumar Gautam aged 25 years, R/o House No.D-18, Harijan Basti, Kondli, Delhi made the following statement :CRL.A.103/2013 Page 17 of 33I reside at the aforesaid address on rent alongwith my husband.And I am a house-wife.We may also note that a settlement was arrived at between the family members of the deceased and in-laws of the deceased, which was signed after the incident, but before the demise of Sonika.The English translation of Exhibit PW-1/DX1 reads as under:"Translation of Ex PW 1/DX1, a statement dated 19/11/2009 made by Chander Bhan S/o Sh.Chokha Lal, recorded by SI Rajender Singh forthcoming on the record of the case (FIR) No. noted as under:Case (FIR) No.491/2009, dated 20.11.2009 for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code related to Police Station New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 18 of 33Chander Bhan S/o Sh.Chokha Lal, Age 24 years, R/o Village Nehru Pur, Khurja, Bulandshehar, U.P. made the following statement:I reside at the aforesaid address along with my family.Today, in order to meet my sister I reached Room No.33, C Block near Barat Ghar.I found my sister with simple injury inflicted on her chest.I asked my sister the reason behind the injury.She told me that there had occurred squabble and scuffling between her and her younger brother in law (devar) Ravi.During the scuffling she slipped and got injured in her chest.Seeing the injury of my sister, I got angry and called at 100 number.My sister's younger brother in law Ravi, her husband Amit Kumar and all family members have admitted to their guilt.Now we have compromised among ourselves.Now we don't want any police or legal proceedings.I heard the statement and found it to be correct."S. 498A. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, cruelty' means--Vimlesh, another neighbour of Chokhey Lal.37. PW-1, Sh.Chokhey Lal, has testified that 2-4 months after the marriage of Sonika, her in-laws and her husband demanded a plot and two bighas of land.He has further testified that his daughter used to tell him that her husband, Amit, used to tell her to take double the money, which had been spent on their marriage, and leave him.PW-1 CRL.A.103/2013 Page 20 of 33 has also testified with regard to giving a motocycle, four tolas of gold ornaments, 30-35 tolas of silver ornaments and Rs.25,000/- in cash.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 20 of 33PW-3 and his mother were also present in the house at that time.It has further been testified by PW-3 that the mother-in-law and the father- in-law along with devar, Ravi, used to abuse Sonika.We find the evidence of both the star witnesses i.e. father of the deceased, Sh.Chokhey Lal, PW-1, and brother of the deceased, Sh.Chander Bhan, PW-3, to be unreliable.There is material contradiction in the testimony of both these witnesses.There is no reference of beating in the testimony of the father of the deceased, while the brother of the deceased has stated that Amit used to beat Sonika with belts, poured oil over her and when she had refused to go back with Amit, Amit in the presence of PW-3 and in the presence of his mother had beaten Sonika with belts and also kicked her.Such an incident, if ever had taken place, would certainly have been mentioned by the father in his testimony.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 21 of 33We may also note that the mother of the deceased has not stepped into the witness box.The evidence of father and brother of the deceased do not give any dates as to when any demand of dowry was made by her husband and his family members.During cross-examination, the PW-1, father of the deceased was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A wherein it had not been recorded that accused used to demand plot of 2 bigha of land.During cross-examination, he also stated that he did not know from where the motorcycle was purchased.Also, during cross-examination, he had admitted that photograph Ex.PW1/DX5 pertained to articles given in dowry, but it did not contain photograph of motorcycle.The testimonies of other two witnesses, being PW-2 and PW-9, who are the neighbours, are also not trustworthy.PW-2 has testified in her cross-examination that she was deposing at the instance of the parents of Sonika.PW-2 has further testified that when Sonika used to come to her parents, she used to tell her that her in-laws and husband used to harass for dowry and twice Panchayat was called by the parents of Sonika.The testimony of this witness, PW-2, is also vague.No dates, as to when any demand of dowry was made, have been given by PW- 2 in her testimony.The trial court has also observed that PW-2 is not aware about any date.In the cross-examination PW-2 goes on to state that it was wrong to suggest that the deceased used to tell her that her in-laws and husband used to harass her for dowry.PW-2 has further testified that she could not tell the date, month and year when she had met Sonika.44. PW-9, Smt.Sushila, the other neighbours of Sh.Chokhey Lal, has also CRL.A.103/2013 Page 22 of 33 testified without giving any reference to the dates.PW-9 has also testified that Panchayat was called in the village but in the evidence of the father and the brother of the deceased there is no reference of any Panchayat ever having been called.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 22 of 33The evidence of these four witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9, are also to be considered in the light of the dying declaration made by the deceased where there is no reference of any demand of dowry having been made or any harassment by her husband or her in- laws.The dying declaration only speaks about the manner in which the knife pierced through the chest of the deceased.Another relevant factor, which is to be noticed, is Exhibit PW-1/DX1, English translation of the statement dated 19.11.2009 made by PW-2, Chander Bhan, according to which PW-2 had asked his sister how she suffered the injury and his sister had told him that it had occurred on account of a squabble and scuffle between her and her younger brother-in-law (devar), Ravi.In Exhibit PW-1/DX-1, a compromise has also been recorded between the parties, wherein no reference of demand of dowry or harassment in relation to demand of dowry has been made either by Chander Bhan or other family members of Sonika.Although, learned counsel for the appellant has laboured hard to draw the attention of the Court to the concluding part of PW-1/DX- 1 wherein it has been recorded that in future, if any, member of the family of the husband, the mother-in-law, father-in-law and the younger brother-in-law harassed his sister, legal action would be taken but we are of the view that the document (PW-1/DX-1) does not speak about the harassment with respect to demand of dowry.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 23 of 33In case, there was any demand of dowry in the past, certainly the family members of the deceased would have made some reference and to the contrary there is not even a whisper.There is yet another aspect of the matter which shows the ensuring good relationship between the two families.In his cross-examination PW-1 has admitted that he had sent invitation cards (Exhibit PW- 1/DX2, and Exhibit PW-2/DX2) of the marriage of his son, Duli Chand, to Brahm Chand and his family.On 17.11.2009 the father of the deceased had also come to Delhi at the house of Amit for the full day.It has also been admitted by PW-1 that on 16.11.2009 he along with Chander Bhan, Duli Chand, sister-in-law of Shakuntala and maternal uncle of Amit had gone to Chandni Chowk for purchase of clothes for marriage of Duli Chand, which would show that the relationship between them was congenial.The issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of the prosecution.Rejection of the defence case on the basis of CRL.A.103/2013 Page 24 of 33 the evidence tendered by defence witness has been effected rather casually by the High Court....."CRL.A.103/2013 Page 24 of 33Dudh Nath Pandey goes a step further and seeks to bury the ghost of disbelief that shadows alibi witnesses, in the following words:"Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution.And, courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses.Quite often, they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses."51. DW-1, Swaran Singh, has testified that he was known to the accused persons being their neighbours.He had attended the marriage of Amit and Sonika.If the family members were inimical to the deceased or their relationship was strained or there was lack of trust, in all probability, the husband of the deceased, Amit, would not have purchased a plot in the name of Sonika (since deceased).It may also be noted that PW-1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that after marriage, his daughter who was class Xth pass was admitted to Class XI in Kisan Inter College at Bulandashahar.The above factors would show that there was a healthy relationship between the husband, his family and the deceased.If according to the prosecution and the appellant, Ravi was responsible for the stabbing, no settlement would have been signed.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 26 of 33In the examination-in-Chief, PW-1 has testified that when he had met his daughter in her house after her discharge from LBS Hospital she had told him that Neeraj, cousin of Amit, who is facing trial before JJB, had caught hold of her and Ravi stabbed her.Reference of Neeraj has not been made in the statement/settlement nor Neeraj was made an accused.In case such a statement was made by the deceased to her father, it would have certainly been reflected in the settlement exhibit PW-1/DX1 wherein a scuffle has been mentioned with Ravi but it has not been stated that Ravi stabbed Sonika nor it has been stated that Neeraj, cousin of Amit had caught hold of her.Thus, making the statement of PW-1 to be unreliable, more particularly in the light of two statements and the dying declaration of the deceased where there is no reference to Neeraj and no reference that Ravi stabbed her.The only common factor between the two statements i.e. first statement [dying declaration] made before SI Yogendra Singh and the oral statement made to the brother is that she slipped and got injured in the chest.In case the deceased had informed her father and brother that she had been stabbed by her devar, Ravi, the father and brother would not have left their injured daughter in the house of Amit where the assailant was present.No father or brother would have trusted or CRL.A.103/2013 Page 27 of 33 left their daughter/sister in the house of an assailant, who had stabbed their daughter/sister with a knife.CRL.A.103/2013 Page 27 of 33It may also be noticed that in the cross-examination, PW-1 has testified as under:"I did not make any call to the police not did I tell the Police that Sonika told me that Neeraj (cousin of Amit who is facing trial before JJB) had caught hold her and Ravi had stabbed her.We did not go to the PS for making any complaint.It is correct that we had not taken Sonika with us and left her with the accused persons.It is correct that no medical aid was provided by us to Sonika.It is wrong to suggest that we had no complaint against the accused, due to this reason we left Sonika with the accused persons."PW-3, Chander Bhan, has also testified that when he, his father, brother-in-law Vijay Singh, Duli Chand and his foofa, Sher Singh, reached the house of Sonika, she told the family about the entire incident.Hot words were exchanged and accused persons had told them that they had stabbed Sonika and they can do whatever they want.This witness has further testified that thereafter, in the evening, he along with other family members returned to Ghazibad.Even this statement of PW-3, brother of the deceased, does not repose confidence as in case his sister had narrated the incident that she had been stabbed by Ravi and if the in-laws had told the entire family of Sonika that they had stabbed Sonika and they can do whatever they want, would PW-3 and other family members have left Sonika in the house of the accused.The logical answer would be No, unless there was trust, unless the family of the deceased was satisfied with the CRL.A.103/2013 Page 28 of 33 explanation of in-laws of Sonika and more particularly the fact that Sonika was alive at that point of time and she did not complain to her family regarding demand of dowry or the fact that Neeraj caught hold of her when Ravi stabbed her.It may also be noticed that no evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer with regard to the fact that Ravi was present in the house at the time of the incident.PW-3, Chander Bhan, has also testified that when he reached the house of his sister, he had seen a 12 inch button knife having blood but no such knife was recovered by the Police.There was no reference with regard to such knife in the statement, Exhibit PW- 1/DX1, given to the Police.No efforts were made by the prosecution to seize the clothes of Ravi.In the present case, we may notice that the deceased had made a statement Ex.PW6/DX1 in the presence of SI Yogendra Singh.No doubt, at the time of making the statement her husband was also present.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
399,108 |
JUDGMENT V.B. Bansal, J.Hari Ram, petitioner, was convicted for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC and he was sentenced to R.I. for 1-1/2 years under Section 304-A IPC and fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days under Section IPC vide judgment dated 29th July, 1989 and order dated 5th August, 1989 by a metropolitan magistrate, Delhi.Being not satisfied with his conviction and sentence Hari Ram has filed this petition.Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner have been that on 23rd April, 1986 he was driving bus No. DEP 5557 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety and at about 12.30 P.M. near Punjab Tent House, Nazafgarh Road hit scooter DHM-4324 causing the death of Anil Kumar.FIR No. 165 was got registered by ASI J.C. Sharma who after completing the investigation got the accused-petitioner challaned.Shri Mukesh Kalia, Advocate was appointed amices curiae at State expense to argue the case for the petitioner.I have heard Shri Mukesh Kalia learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Bhalia learned counsel for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the record.It is not disputed that the petitioner was the driver of bus No. DEP 5557 on 23rd April, 1986 at Nazafgarh Road near Punjab Tent House at about 12.30 P.M. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner had been that Anil Kumar (deceased) in fact was at fault who tried to over-take the bus from wrong side when a pedestrian came in front of the scooter on account of which the scooter fell down and Anil Kumar sustained injuries resulting in his death.He has further submitted that the only fault of the petitioner was that he stopped his bus finding injured person lying on the road and removed him to the hospital.He has also submitted that there was no eye witness of the incident and false witnesses have subsequently been introduced to indicate that they, in fact, had witnessed the occurrence.According to him had the eye witnesses Narinder Kumar (PW2) and Ram Kumar (PW9) witnessed the occurrence they would have been available to the police officer when he reached at a spot and the very fact that no eye witness was available at that time is clear indication that they have falsely been introduced at a last stage.A prayer has, therefore, been made for the acquit of the petitioner.I have carefully gone through the evidence keeping in view the aforesaid submissions but have not been able to find any cogent reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate confirmed by the appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge.Narinder Kumar (PW2) has made a category statement that the bus driven by the petitioner hit the scooter of Anil from behind as are suit of which Anil Kumar and his scooter were dragged up to a distance of 6-7 paces.He has also claimed that Anil Kumar was taken out by him and the other witness from under the bus and thereafter removed to the hospital while he went to give information at the house of Anil Kumar who was his neighbour.The statement of this witness has no where been challenged to the fact that Anil Kumar and the scooter were found under the bus and they having been dragged by the bus after the scooter was hit by the bus.This testimony of the witness finds corroboration from the testimony of S.I. Ram Singh (P.W.5) who has proved the inspection report Ext. PW5/A in respect of the scooter and Ext PW5/B in respect of the bus involved in this accident.A perusal of these reports clearly indicates that there was damage on the back side of the scooter and front left side of the bus.There is no doubt that Ram Kumar (P.W.9) supported the case of the prosecution in the examination-in-chief but during cross-examination admitted the suggestion made by counsel for the accused that a pedestrian trying to cross the road struck against the scooter of the deceased on account of which he fell on the road along with the scooter and that the accused stopped the bus and then removed the injured to the hospital.This witness, thus, has made contradictory statement and so is admittedly not truthful witnesses.Merely because he has made contradiction statement cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story and the testimony of Narinder Kumar (PW2) which finds corroboration from the inspection report of the vehicle.Prayer has, therefore, been made for reduction in the sentence.As a result the revision petition stands dismissed.Petitioner be informed through Superintendent Jail.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,914,507 |
BAIL APPLN.BAIL APPLN.1461/2019 & CRL.M.(Bail) 1061/2019This is an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 225/18 U/s 498A/406/354/506/511/34 IPC registered at Police Station-Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.BAIL APPLN.1461/2019 Page 1 of 6Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 06.12.2018, the present FIR was registered at PS Rajinder Nagar, Delhi on the basis of the complaint of the complainant in which she had levelled allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty against the petitioner as well as his entire family.On 10.12.2018, statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant was recorded in which she alleged that petitioner used to threaten her by showing gun for bringing more dowry and he also used to show her porn movies against her will and asked her to do as shown in porn movies and had sex forcefully.The complainant also made allegations of sexual harassment against her bother-in-law and father-in-law.According to her statement offence u/s 354 IPC was fond to be made out.However, in her initial complaint, the complainant had stated about attempt of sexual assault.Therefore, initially, the case was registered under section 354/511 IPC.CBI (109 (2003) DLT 494), Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another Vs.Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on September 14, 2018 and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,918,742 |
14/2009 Page 1 of 71The un-rebutted facts are, i) that the Notification for the election was issued on 4th November, 2008; ii) that the Sultanpur Majra Constituency is reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates; iii) that the Nominations were to be filed by 1500 hrs.The petitioner questions the election pleading that-i. On 5th December, 2008, the petitioner, in response to a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005, received information of the following criminal cases registered against the respondent no.1 at various Police Stations at Delhi; EL.14/2009 Page 2 of 7114/2009 Page 2 of 71RTI Act, received information on 1 st January, 2009 that the respondent no.1 was not the student of C.R.Z. Senior Secondary School, Sonepat, Haryana from which the respondent no.1 as per information given by him in his Election Nomination Form claimed to have matriculated in the year 1981; iii.that the respondent no.1, in the affidavit submitted by him alongwith his Nomination Form (and which affidavit is available EL.14/2009 Page 3 of 71 online on the website of Election Commission Office), a) had suppressed the material facts regarding criminal cases aforesaid registered against him; and, b) had falsely claimed himself to be educated upto class 12th and having Matriculation from C.R.Z. Senior Secondary School, Sonepat, Haryana.14/2009 Page 3 of 71It is further the plea of the petitioner,a) that furnishing false or wrong information in the affidavit filed alongwith the nomination and as per the direction dated 28th June, 2002 of the Election Commission of India amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951;b) that the wrong information about his personal character so furnished by the respondent no.1 was calculated to prejudice the election of the petitioner;c) that the respondent no.1 was accused in case FIRs 250/1984 and 251/1984 of Police Station Sultanpuri under Sections EL.14/2009 Page 4 of 71 147,148,149,395,396, 397,303,496,427 and 201 of the IPC registered on 31st October, 1984 after assassination of Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi;14/2009 Page 4 of 71d) that there are near about 47000 Sikh voters residing in the Sultanpuri Majra Constituency;e) that 25% of the voters in the Constituency are from the age group of 18-22 years and these cases having been registered against the respondent no.1 before their birth, are not aware of the accusation against the respondent no.1;f) that the petitioner in his affidavit filed alongwith his Nomination Form had declared himself uneducated;g) that the respondent no.1 falsely published himself as educated upto 12th class to attract the prospect of majority of electors;h) this was the main arm for strategy of election adopted by respondent no.1 through out the canvassing during election EL.14/2009 Page 5 of 71 to impress the voter and to prejudice their mind against the petitioner;14/2009 Page 5 of 71i) that the petitioner and the respondent no.1 were nearest rivals in this election and educational qualification was the main feature for inducement of electors to cast their vote in favour of respondent no.1;j) that if voters of the constituency would have learnt about false information of education, they might not have preferred to elect the respondent no.1 as a law maker for themselves;k) that concealment of fact of accusation and furnishing false and wrong information regarding the education in order to induce electors to cast vote in favour of inducer comes within the definition of cheating the voters, children and public at large;14/2009 Page 6 of 7114/2009 Page 6 of 7114/2009 Page 7 of 7114/2009 Page 7 of 71p) that the voter has a right to know the bio-data and antecedents of a candidate to decide in whose favour to cast his vote;q) voters right to know antecedents including the criminal past of candidate contesting election is fundamental and basic for survival of democracy;r) that the respondent no.1 suppressed material information of his lesser education than matriculation and accusation of criminal cases aforesaid;s) that these false, wrong and suppressed information are defects of substantial character of respondent no.1 and were subject to easy verification of Returning Officer by documentary evidence;The petitioner, besides himself has examined -a. Amit Singhla working as Deputy Commissioner cum District Election Commissioner, North West District, Kanjawala as PW1;b. Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Returning Officer of the Sultanpur Majra Legislative Constituency as PW3;c. Shri Raj Kumar Principal CRZ, Senior Secondary School, Sonipat, Haryana as PW5;d. Inspector Indraj Kumar working in the RTI Cell of North West District of the Delhi Police as PW6;14/2009 Page 15 of 71None of the other respondents have led any evidence.The counsels have been heard.I now proceed to discuss the evidence led:(i) The petitioner (appearing as PW1) in his examination-in-chief repeated the contents of the petition and has inter alia proved:(a) The response dated 05.12.2008 of the Public Information Officer of the Office of the Commissioner of Police in response to the RTI query of the petitioner EL.14/2009 Page 16 of 71 giving particulars of the criminal cases against the respondent no.1 as Ex.14/2009 Page 16 of 71(b) The affidavits of the respondent no.1 in the form of Annexure-I of Nomination Form as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.Though the admission into evidence of Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 was subject to the objection of the counsel for the respondent no.1 as to the mode of proof on the ground of the same EL.14/2009 Page 17 of 71 being computer generated copies downloaded from the website but no merit is found in the said objections as the respondent no.1 in his written statement has not denied the factum of the FIRs and the defence of the respondent no.1 is of the FIRs not disclosed in the Nomination Form / affidavit accompanying the Nomination Form being not required to be so disclosed.The objection to Ex.PW1/6 which has been furnished to the petitioner through the medium of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is even otherwise misconceived.(vii) PW9 Sh.Sumit Singh, a voter in the subject constituency who had cast his vote, has in his affidavit of examination-in- chief stated that the facts and information given by the contesting candidates in their Nomination Form were being displayed on television through various news channels and he and his friends residing in the same constituency had formed a opinion that the respondent no.1 would be a good MLA of the constituency on the basis of the information so published by all the candidates.He has further deposed that the majority of the constituency was affected by the respondent no.1 being qualified upto 12th Class and there thus being more chances of EL.14/2009 Page 24 of 71 his becoming a minister in Delhi Government and which would be beneficial to the constituency.(ix) PW12 Sub Inspector R.K. Maan has proved the RTI application as Ex.PW12/A and the information collected in pursuance thereto and the reply given to the RTI query as Ex.PW12/B, Ex.My education qualifications are as under:- Name of School / University and the year in which the course as completed should also be given) (1) C R Z Higher Secondary School, Sonepat, Haryana X 1981 (2) National Open School XII 2002"14/2009 Page 31 of 7114/2009 Page 31 of 71The respondent no.1 in the affidavit Ex.M.K. Nagpal, M.M., Tis Hazari, Delhi under Sections 186, 353 & 332 of the IPC.(c) Case No.667/2002 of the court of Ms. Sugandha Aggarwal, M.M. Rohini, Delhi under Sections 186, 353 & 34 IPC.The respondent no.1 in his affidavit in Form 26 under Rule 4A and proved as Ex.PW1/4 shows the respondent no.1 as respondent no.8 in that appeal.From the said document, it cannot be said that notice of the said appeal stood served on the respondent no.1 prior to his filing the affidavits EL.14/2009 Page 33 of 71 aforesaid.Besides Ex.PW1/4 there is no other evidence that the respondent no.1 otherwise knew of the said appeal.14/2009 Page 33 of 71If so, the details thereof.(iii) The educational qualifications of the candidate.14/2009 Page 46 of 71(e) Educational qualifications giving details of school and university education including name of the school / university and the year in which the course was completed.In view of my above findings:(i) Issue No.2 i.e. "Whether the petitioner does not have a Locus Standi to file present petition.14/2009 Page 1 of 71l) the nomination of the respondent no.1 was improperly accepted;m) that the respondent no.1 was under statutory obligation to declare in his affidavit Annexure-I of Nomination Form about his discharge, conviction and acquittal in past criminal cases and this fact related to the substantial character of the candidate and subject to easy verification of the Returning Officer;n) that the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 was not in the form prescribed vide direction dated 28.06.2002 of Election Commission of India;o) that the respondent no.1 has adopted corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) by intentionally furnishing false and wrong information claiming himself to be matriculate and to prejudice prospect of petitioner's election;t) that the valid votes obtained by respondent no.1 by adopting such corrupt practice, would have been polled for the petitioner had the respondent no.1 not adopted such EL.14/2009 Page 8 of 71 corrupt practice and the petitioner would then have been declared elected; and, u) that the result of the respondent no.1 as the returned candidate has been materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination by Returning Officer and display by the Returning Officer in his office and on the website of affidavit aforesaid of respondent no.1 containing incomplete, suppressed, false, wrong information--if the voters of constituency would have known of false information of education, they might not have preferred the respondent no.1 to be elected as law maker for themselves.14/2009 Page 8 of 71The petitioner thus, while seeking a declaration of the election of the respondent no.1 as void, seeks to be declared elected for filling up the seat in the Legislative Assembly of the said Constituency.Notice of the petition was issued; the respondent no.1 filed a written statement and which was subsequently permitted to be amended; besides EL.14/2009 Page 9 of 71 him only the respondent no.10 has filed a written statement and none of the other respondents have filed written statement.14/2009 Page 9 of 71The respondent no.1 in his amended written statement has pleaded,i) that the election petition does not contain any material in support of the allegations levelled; ii) that the allegation of corrupt practice in an election, within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act, is quasi criminal in nature requiring a strict proof because the consequences are not only serious but also penal since a finding of commission of corrupt practice is punishable under Section 125A of the Act; it is for this reason only that the Courts insist upon a strict proof in such allegation of corrupt practice and the same is not to be decided on preponderance of probability; iv) that the respondent no.1 was not required to furnish information of the FIRs registered against him--the affidavit required him only to furnish details of those cases where cognizance had been taken or cases where charges were framed and information of which cases was furnished; v) that the FIRs mentioned by the petitioner and set out in para 3(i) hereinabove are not covered under the requisite categories of Annexure-I and Form-26 and the EL.14/2009 Page 10 of 71 plea of the petitioner is thus frivolous; vi) that the respondent no.1 had been unnecessarily dragged in the election petition with an ulterior motive;14/2009 Page 10 of 71vii) that even if it were to be assumed that the respondent no.1 had given false information in the affidavit submitted alongwith the nomination, the only penalty therefor is for filing a false affidavit and does not give any right to the petitioner to file an election petition under Section 80; viii) that the FIRs for various offences as mentioned in the petition are wrong and denied and if any typing error is there that cannot be a ground for challenging the election which is conducted by the Election Commission of India, a constitutional body; ix) that there is no condition in the Representation of People (R.P.) Act regarding qualification of a candidate for contesting any election and therefore there is no need to mention about the education qualification and if at all the respondent no.1 has mentioned his qualification, in that case also the petitioner cannot take the benefit under the umbrella of corrupt practice; x) that no ground under Section 123(4) of the Act had been made out and the averments regarding the filing of affidavit alongwith the nomination paper has no relevance or connection with Section 123(4) of the Act; xi) the law requires that the publication of EL.14/2009 Page 11 of 71 false statement is in relation to the personal conduct / character of the other candidate and the statement is material so as to prejudice complainant's prospect in the election - the petitioner in this petition has not alleged any allegation regarding any statement being made by the respondent no.1 against his candidature which is false and believed to be false by the respondent no.1 which relates to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner so as to cause and make the statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner in the election; it is denied that the respondent no.1 had falsely claimed himself to be 12 th Class pass; xiii) education is not a mandatory requirement to contest election; and, xiv) that rather the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.14/2009 Page 11 of 71Whether the petition is not maintainable due to want of cause of action.OPP EL.14/2009 Page 12 of 7114/2009 Page 12 of 71Whether the petitioner does not have a Locus Standi to file present petition.Whether the respondent no.1 has not furnished information in terms of the rules framed by Election Commission of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and its effect.Whether the corrupt practice and filing of false affidavit constitutes an electoral offence only.Whether the respondent no.1 returned candidate has published a statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to his personal character being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospect of his election which amounts to corrupt practice.Whether the nomination of respondent no.1 has been accepted improperly.Whether non disclosure of correct educational qualification constitute corrupt practice as per section 123(2) & 123(4) of the EL.14/2009 Page 13 of 71 R.P. Act. OPP14/2009 Page 13 of 71Whether the said corrupt practice has resulted in inducement and thwarted the free exercise of an Electoral Right of the voter.Whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared elected.Vide order of the same day, the contention of the respondent no.1 to treat the issue no.4 aforesaid as a preliminary issue was rejected and the election petition was put to trial.On 15th January, 2010 it was clarified that EL.14/2009 Page 14 of 71 the onus of proving issue no.1 was on the respondent/defendant and that the onus of proving issue no.12 was on the petitioner and issue no.10 aforesaid was recast as under:14/2009 Page 14 of 71Whether the respondent No.1 has not furnished the complete facts of acquittal, discharge, conviction and pendency of his past criminal cases in Annexure-1 on his nomination?(c) The judgments dated 23.12.2002 in FIR No.250/1984 of Police Station Sultanpuri of acquittal of the respondent no.1 accused therein as Ex.(d) Copy of the Gazette of Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani, Haryana for the year 1981 pertaining to C.R.Z. Senior Secondary School, Sonepat, Haryana of acquittal of the respondent no.1 accused therein as Ex.Though the counsel for the respondent no.10 also cross examined the petitioner but again to no avail.It is also significant to note that though the cross examination by the counsels for EL.14/2009 Page 18 of 71 the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.10 of the petitioner stretched for several days but the counsels during the arguments did not even feel the need to refer to the cross examination.The same also confirms the frivolous and vexatious nature of the cross examination.14/2009 Page 18 of 71(ii) PW3 Ranjeet Singh was the Returning Officer of the said constituency in the subject election and has proved the affidavits submitted by the respondent no.1 as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 and in his cross examination deposed that he as Returning Officer scrutinized the nomination papers of the candidates and found the nomination papers of the respondent no.1 to be in order as per the rules and thus accepted the same.He has further deposed that there were no objections raised at the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper of the respondent no.1 and neither the petitioner nor any other contesting candidate had disputed, challenged or controverted the affidavits filed by the respondent no.1 along with his nomination paper.He has further admitted the suggestion in EL.14/2009 Page 19 of 71 his cross examination that the said affidavits were put on the office Notice Board as well as on the internet and that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court requiring the filing of such affidavits, other candidates have a right to file a counter affidavit if they dispute or find the affidavit filed by any other candidate to be false.He has further stated that the Returning Officers do not go into the contents of the affidavit and only verify whether it has been duly signed by the candidate or not or attested by the attesting authority or not.14/2009 Page 19 of 71(iii) PW5 Sh.Raj Kumar working as Principal C.R.Z. Senior Secondary School, Sonepat, Haryana produced the original Gazette of the year 1981 of the said School and copy whereof is proved as Ex.In his cross examination he stated that the 10th class is the Board Examination; the students who EL.14/2009 Page 20 of 71 had obtained admission in school and are enrolled in the School are regular students of the school and are eligible to appear in 10th class Board Examination; though the private students can also appear in 10 th class Board Examination but they have no concern with the school; that the Gazette Notification Ex.PW1/6 contains the names of all the students who appear as regular students from the school including the compartment candidates and also the candidates whose admission has been cancelled and the candidates who did not appear in the examination; that the Board Examinations in the year 1981 used to be held twice; that the Gazette Ex.PW1/6 was of the Board Examination held in March, 1981 which pertained to enrolled candidates and not of the Board Examination held in September, 1981 of other candidates including compartment candidates.He has further deposed that the private students can appear in the Board Examination both in the month of March as well as in the month of September and that the school does not get the Gazette of the EL.14/2009 Page 21 of 71 candidates who appear as private students.14/2009 Page 20 of 7114/2009 Page 21 of 71(iv) PW6 Inspector Indraj Singh has proved the RTI application of the petitioner as Ex.PW6/A, the report of the concerned Police Station as Ex.PW6/3 and the RTI reply given to the petitioner as Ex.PW6/C. Though he was also cross examined exhaustively but significantly no suggestion to the effect that the information furnished in RTI response Ex.PW6/C being false or incorrect was given.(v) PW7 Sh.Umesh Singh Rawat working as Judicial Assistant in Criminal Branch, High Court of Delhi proved the amended memo of appeal in Criminal Appeal No.146/2007 and the orders therein as Ex.The said document was admitted into evidence subject to the objection of the counsel for the respondent no.1 of the same having not been filed along with EL.14/2009 Page 22 of 71 the petition but having been filed along with the replication.(vi) PW8 Sh.Subhash is a voter of the subject constituency and has in his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief deposed that the respondent no.1 in his election campaign was giving emphasis on his educational qualification as disclosed in his nomination paper and on the petitioner being illiterate and thus being not in a position to help the people at all.He has further deposed that had the respondent no.1 not given false information in his Nomination Form and not suppressed his criminal record, the petitioner would have been the returned candidate.He however in his cross examination could not show the newspapers or give particulars as to where the Nomination Form were published and could not even give the EL.14/2009 Page 23 of 71 names of all the contestants in the 2008 election or give any particulars of the disclosures by the other candidates in their Nomination Forms.He also denied the suggestion that the respondent no.1 had won the election of the year 2008 for the good work done by him in the past and not on the basis of his educational qualification.He has further deposed that on learning that the respondent no.1 had suppressed information of the criminal cases against him and the falsity of the information regarding the educational qualification of the respondent no.1, he felt cheated.The said witnesses in his cross examination by the counsel for the respondent no.1 however could not tell the particulars of the information disclosed by the other candidates including the petitioner.14/2009 Page 24 of 71(viii) PW10 Jagjeet Kumar is similarly a resident voter of the said constituency and has also deposed that if people of the constituency had known that the respondent no.1 is an EL.14/2009 Page 25 of 71 illiterate person they would not have voted for him and would have voted for the petitioner who has no criminal history.His cross examination also is on the same lines.14/2009 Page 25 of 71PW12/C & Ex.PW12/D. In his cross examination also there is no suggestion of the contents of any of the documents being incorrect(x) PW1 (repeat) Sh.Amit Singhla working as Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer, North-West District, Kanjhawla has proved the record of the total number of electors in the constituency in the 2008 election, the total votes polled, the score of votes of contested candidates, total number of electors between the age group of 18 to 25 years and the percentage of Sikh and Punjabi electors residing in the constituency as Ex.PW4/A. The admission into evidence of EL.14/2009 Page 26 of 71 the same also was subject to the objection of the respondent no.1 of no such record / information having been relied upon by the petitioner in the pleadings.Though the said witness was cross examined but to no effect.14/2009 Page 26 of 71(xi) Respondent No.1 (appearing as RW1) in his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief has deposed having won the election for the post of Member Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the subject constituency in the year 1993; his wife Smt. Sushila Devi having won the election for the post of MLA from the subject constituency in the year 1998 defeating the petitioner herein; having yet again won the election from the subject constituency in the year 2003 defeating the petitioner; having yet again in the year 2008 won the election with a margin of 19000 votes defeating the petitioner; that apart from the cases mentioned in the affidavits filed with the Nomination Form in the year 2008, no other cases were pending at the time of filing affidavits in which either EL.14/2009 Page 27 of 71 cognizance had been taken by the Court or Charge had been framed; having passed 10th class from C.R.Z. Senior Secondary School, Sonepat, Haryana as a private candidate and having passed 12th class from the Open School; that his education qualification is not so high or not of much importance so as to be mentionable to win an election.In the cross examination, he denied knowledge of FIR No.1647/2006 on the complaint of Mr. Dinesh Gupta at Police Station Sultanpuri against him, he also denied knowledge of a case under Sections 323,506 and 34 of IPC having been registered against him on the basis of the said FIR; he however admitted being on bail in the said FIR but clarified that he received the summons from the Court in the year 2010 only and obtained bail in the year 2010 and that in the year 2008 there was no case against him and there was no necessity for him to obtain any bail.He denied knowledge of registration of a case against him on the basis of FIR No.1451 dated 01.10.2007 of Police station Sultanpuri under Sections EL.14/2009 Page 28 of 71 354 & 506 of the IPC on the complaint of Smt. Veena Joshi.He deposed having obtained his roll number for the 10 th class examination from the Haryana Board but did not recollect having passed the said examination in the Arts stream with English; the centre of examination being C.R.Z. Senior Secondary School, Sonepat, Haryana.He stated that he had not brought the 10th class examination mark sheet with him having already filed it with the Election Commission office with the Nomination Form at the time of filing thereof.He denied the suggestion that the same had not been filed.He denied the suggestion that the 10th class document was a sham document.He further claimed having obtained bail in the 1984 riot cases in the year 1995 and having been acquitted therein in the year 2002 but denied any knowledge of any appeal thereagainst and stated that he had not been summoned in the appeal.He also denied that revision petitions pertaining to the 1984 riot cases EL.14/2009 Page 29 of 71 where he was a party and had been noticed were pending in the Delhi High Court.14/2009 Page 27 of 7114/2009 Page 28 of 7114/2009 Page 29 of 71(xii) RW2 Balbir Aggarwal, a resident voter of the subject constituency, in his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief has exhorted the virtues of the respondent no.1 and deposed having voted for the respondent no.1 because of the work done by the respondent no.1 in the constituency.He has further deposed that no publication of the respondent no.1 claiming himself to be better qualified than the petitioner had come to his knowledge.He has also denied having read any information published by the candidates.(xiii) RW3 Mr. O.N. Asthana, has deposed to the same effect.(xiv) Respondent No.10 (appearing as R10W1) in his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief dealt with the various FIRs against the respondent no.1 and has deposed that FIR No.162/1983 of Police Station Sultanpuri and FIR EL.He has further deposed that voters of the said constituency were well aware of the accusations and acquittal of the respondent no.1 in such cases and elected the respondent no.1 for the works for the betterment of the public done by him.14/2009 Page 30 of 71The respondent no.1 in his affidavit Ex.PW1/3 verified on 10.11.2008 submitted before the Returning Officer, qua his educational qualification stated as under:"(4).PW1/3 supra gave the information of the following cases pending against him in which cognizance had been taken by the Court:PW1/5 gave information of the following cases in which he was accused of offences punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and in which charges had been framed by the Court of competent jurisdiction:14/2009 Page 32 of 7114/2009 Page 32 of 71(A) FIR No.346/1998 of Police Station Sultanpuri under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 332 & 353 IPC pending in the Court of Sh.M.K. Nagpal, M.M., Tis Hazari, Delhi.(B) FIR No.1034/1994 of Police Station Sultanpuri under Sections 186, 353 & 332 IPC pending in the Court of Sh.M.K. Nagpal, M.M., Tis Hazari, Delhi.(C) FIR No.677/2002 of Police Station Sultanpuri under Sections 136, 353 & 34 IPc pending in the court of Sh.Manish Gupta, M.M., Rohini, Delhi.The memo of parties of Criminal Appeal No.146/2007 of this Court proved as Ex.Thereafter the RP Act was amended with effect from 24.08.2002 incorporating therein inter alia Section 33A requiring a candidate to furnish information as to whether:(i) he is accused of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by Court of competent jurisdiction;(ii) he has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 were also amended with effect from 03.09.2002 inter alia adding Rule 4A prescribing the form of affidavit, to be filed at the time of delivering the nomination paper, in Form 26 to the said Rules.Form 26 requires the candidate to inter alia disclose:(I) Whether he / she is accused of any offences punishable with imprisonment for two or more years in a pending case in which charges have been framed by the Court of competent jurisdiction and the particulars of such cases.14/2009 Page 48 of 71 (II) Whether he has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more and if so, the particulars of such cases.14/2009 Page 48 of 71(III) His / her educational qualifications giving details of highest school / university education mentioning the full form of the Certificate / Diploma / Degree course, name of the school / college / university and the year in which the course was completed.It would thus be noticed that Section 33A and Form 26 prescribed in Rule 4A did away with the requirement as prescribed by the Supreme Court and the Press Note supra, i) of giving all educational qualifications, giving details of school and university education and confined it to details of highest school / university education; and; iii) of giving particulars of even those cases in which the candidate though had been charged with a criminal offence but had been acquitted.The said aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in PUCL supra and it was observed that the information of acquittals will not be of much relevance inasmuch EL.14/2009 Page 49 of 71 as acquittal prima facie implies that the accused is not connected with the crime or the prosecution has no legs to stand and therefore as regards past criminal record, what the Parliament has provided for is fairly adequate.14/2009 Page 49 of 71However need is not felt to elaborate further on the same.I will now proceed to examine the affidavit filed by the respondent no.1 to gauge whether the same suffers from any falsehood, suppression and mis-declaration.I will take up the disclosure with respect to the educational qualification first.The respondent no.1 was as per Form 26 supra required to make disclosure only of the highest school / university education.As per the disclosure made by the respondent no.1 in his affidavit Ex.Though the respondent no.1, EL.14/2009 Page 50 of 71 as aforesaid was required to disclose only the highest school / university education' but he also disclosed that he had passed Class X in the year 1981 from C.R.Z. Senior Secondary School, Sonepat, Haryana.The challenge made by the petitioner in the petition is not to the highest' educational qualification of the respondent no.1 but to the educational qualification preceding the said highest education qualification' and which as per Form 26 was not required to be disclosed.The question which thus arises for consideration is whether there can at all be said to be a defect in the affidavit or falsehood qua disclosure of matters which were not required to be disclosed.14/2009 Page 50 of 71The reason, for the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Association for Democratic Reforms, was that for health of democracy and fair election disclosure inter alia of the candidate's qualification is necessary to enable the voters to decide intelligently for whom to vote and to enable the voters to make a choice.It was held that voters are required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidates.14/2009 Page 51 of 7114/2009 Page 51 of 71I have checked on the website of the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) formerly known as National Open School (NOS) to find out whether for a candidate to appear in a Class XII examination, eligibility of having passed the Class X examination is essential.The revised syllabus effective from 2008-2009 of the NIOS as available on its website, provides that for a candidate to be eligible for admission at Senior Secondary level, should have passed Secondary Class (Class X) from any recognized Board.The purpose as aforesaid, for disclosure of educational qualification is to enable the electorate to make a choice between a candidate with a higher educational qualification and another with a lesser qualification.The challenge as made in this petition to eligibility qualification for such highest' qualification, is irrelevant.It was for the NIOS to, at the time of allowing the respondent no.1 to appear in the Class XII examination, satisfy itself that the respondent no.1 was eligible therefor.Mention at this stage may also be made of Mark R10W1/PX1 which was shown for the first time to EL.14/2009 Page 53 of 71 respondent no.10 appearing as R10W1 in his cross examination.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,924,540 |
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. )
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,926,895 |
(i) The deceased Muthu was the husband of P.W.1 A1 is the younger brother of the deceased.A3 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1 and the deceased.All of the them including the deceased Muthu resided at Andipatti.Thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 deceased Muthu had another brother by name Muthukannan and one sister Chellammal.Muthukannan suffered from mental retardation.P.W 3 Chellammal was taking care of him.Therefore, when there was a partition of the family properties, the deceased Muthu ensured that Muthukannan's share was allotted to Chellammal.There was also an election motive.A3 who was the estranged daughter-in-law of P.W 1 and the deceased contested the local body election in which P.W 1 and the deceased did not extend their support.A3 lost in the election.There was also a petty altercation between the son of A1's brother in law and the son of P.W.3 a few days prior to the occurrence.(ii) On 13.06.2012, at about 07.30 P.M, the deceased Muthu, the defacto complainant Nagammal and P.W.2 Kattaripandi were chatting under the streetlight near Andipatti drama stage.At that time, all the three accused suddenly appeared on the scene.The third accused instigated the first accused to kill Muthu by uttering certain words.The second accused stood behind Muthu and caught hold the deceased while the first accused took out M.O.1 knife and stabbed on the left side of his neck, due to which he died on the spot.3.P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint leading to registration of Ex.P6 F.I.R in Crime No.74 of 2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Madurai District.P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered the FIR under Sections 302 and 109 IPC and forwarded the same tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 court through P.W 10, Head Constable Vasan.P.W.16, the Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation and reached the spot of occurrence at 21.30 hours and had the dead body sent to the Government Hospital.He prepared Observation Mahazar/Ex.P16 and rough sketch Ex.P17 and also seized blood stained earth and ordinary earth under Ex.He then conducted inquest over the dead body in the hospital in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared inquest report/Ex.At about 05.30 a.m, he arrested all the three accused and recorded their confession.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The appellant/accused no.1 has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment dated 27.02.2017 in S.C No.198 of 2013 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.There were totally three accused.The learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.The second accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC.The third accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC.The second and third accused were also likewise sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The second and third accused filed Criminal Appeal Nos.138 and 139 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court and by a common judgment dated 12.07.2017, this Court held that they are entitled for acquittal and allowed their appeals and set aside the conviction and sentenced imposed on them.The present appellant did not challenge the impugned judgment in time.In fact, this appeal came to be filed after the appeals filed by A2 and A3 were allowed.2.The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :The admissible portion of confession of A1 is marked as Ex.P20 and pursuant to the same, he seized M.O.1 knife under Ex.P21 seizure mahazar and forwarded the same to the court.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements on 27.06.2012 and forwarded all the material objects to the court for chemical examination.4.After conducting further investigation and examination of other witnesses, he laid the final report against all the accused.The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Usilampatti took cognizance of the offences in PRC No.6/2013 and since the case was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, it was committed to the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai under Section 209 of Cr.PC.5.Charges were framed against the first accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, against the second accused under Section 302 r/w.34 & 341 IPChttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 and the accused no.3 was charged under Section 302 r/w 114 r/w 34 IPC.On being questioned on the charges, the accused pleaded not guily and claimed to be tried.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W 1 to P.W.17 and marked Exs.M.O.1 to M.O.4 were also marked.After questioning the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC and after hearing the arguments on either side, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty as mentioned above and sentenced them accordingly.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the first accused has prefered this criminal appeal.6.We heard Shri.G.Karuppasamy Pandian for Shri.P.Mahendran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri.S.Chandrasekar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.The foremost contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in view of the allowing of the appeals filed by the co-accused vide judgment dated 12.07.2017 in Crl.A(MD)Nos.138 and 139 of 2017, this appeal also will have to be allowed.Almost all the prosecution witnesses except the official witnesses are close relatives of the deceased.The investigating officer has not chosen to examine any independent witnesses.The motive ascribed by the prosecution is too flimsy.The FIR reached the jurisdictional magistrate after much delay and the prosecution hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 not come out with any explanation for the delay.The very presence of P.W1 and 2 is highly doubtful.The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 455 (Haridial Singh vs. State of Punjab).7.We carefully considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances, the judgment passed by the court below and the evidence on record.After carefully considering the matter for the reaons set out below, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by first accused deserves to be dismissed.8.Reliance placed by the appellant on the outcome of the appeals filed by A2 and A3 is wholly misplaced.P.W.1 had claimed in her evidence that after the stab injury was caused by A1, all the accused removed the knife from the body of the deceased and left.After a detailed analysis of the evidence, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 as regards the A2 and A3 was highly unbelievable.The prosecution had not established any pre-arranged plan between A2 and A3 to do away the deceased.9.There was no evidence of any motive insofar as A2 was concerned.Likewise, the motive ascribed to A3 was also highly unbelievable.According to the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.3 witnessed the occurrence.In fact, even a few days prior to the occurrence, there was altercation between the family members.P.W.1 had clearly stated that the first accused inflicted the fatal injury on the left side neck of the deceased with M.O.1 knife.10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant tried to undermine the prosecution case by relying on the answers given by the principal witnesses in their cross examination.But then, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, when P.W.1 to P.W.3 were cross examined originally, their evidence was not shaken.They were recalled for further cross examination almost one year later and only in the said subsequent cross examination, some answers favouring thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 accused were given by these witnesses.From this, this Court can come to the conclusion that the witnesses had been won over in the meanwhile.But, on this count, their earlier testimony cannot be discarded.Of course, their evidence will have to be carefully scrutinized.The learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the conduct of P.W.1 to P.W.3 after they were recalled in the second time after a year does not appear to be natural as they readily accepted all the suggestions put forth by the defence.This conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge is certainly sound and correct.11.The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has considerable significance.P.W.13, postmortem doctor identified the following injuries on the body of the deceased :“There was a stab injury about 3.5 cm X 2 cm x 7.5 cm depth in the left side of neck extending 4 cm away and lateral to suprosternal notch.On dissection there was a punctured wound in the left carotid artery and trachea.” Ex.P11 is the postmortem certificate issued by him.The said doctor opined that the death of Muthu was due to injury to the vital organs.He has also stated that the death would have been occurred some 12.00 to 20.00 hrs prior to autopsy.The time of occurrence has not been challenged by the accused.P.W.13 stated that the injury could have been caused by a knife.The biological report and serological report have confirmed that the blood found in M.O.1 knife and the blood found in the cloths of the deceased are all human blood and are A type blood.The occurrence is said to have taken place on 13.06.2012 at about 08.00 P.M. Ex.P1 was lodged on the same day at about 08.30 P.M. We conclude that the prosecution has proved the motive for the occurrence and the place of occurrence.Merely because the other two accused in this case have been acquitted, the same cannot be a ground to throw out the prosecution case altogether.Involvement of the appellant herein/A1 and infliction of the fatal stab injury by him has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.It is the duty of any court to remove the chaff from the grain.The trial court was right in convicting the appellant/A1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment.13.We find no ground to interefere.The appeal lacks merit.It stands dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/first accused by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.198 of 2013 dated 27.02.2017 stands confirmed.1.The The Inspector of Police, Sedapatti Police Station, Sedapatti, Madurai District.http://www.judis.nic.in 102.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 11 The Hon'ble Chief Justice and G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.Skm Crl.A.(MD) No.412 of 2017 and Crl MP(MD)No.9443 of 2017 25.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,931,223 |
In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Reena died on 11th May, 2006 in her matrimonial home at C-68, Raja Vihar Badli, Delhi.A. 733/2011 Page 1 of 11A. 733/2011 Page 1 of 11Reena at that time was 19 years of age.On general examination, PW-9 had noticed as under:-"(ii) Face was congested, petechial hemorrhages present over the forehead and cheek, greenish discolouration present in the right iliac fossa, marbeling present, neck circumference 33 cm, rigor mortis passed off, postmortem staining at the back, eyes closed, sub conjuctival hemorrhages present in both eyes, mouth partially opened, tongue protruded and caught between teeth, dried brownish in colour, serosangunious discharged from both nostrils."Deceased also had the following external ante mortem injuries:-over the right side of neck 3cm outer to midline.iii) Multiple crescentric abrasions present in an area of 66 cm present over the middle front and left side of next in the middle.iv) Bruise of sixe .5.5 cms reddish present over the left side angle of mandible."On internal examination, PW-9 noticed that brain oedemotus was congested and petechial hemoorhages were present in the parenchyma.On examination of neck structure, PW-9 found that the deceased had fractaure of right cornu of head.Extravasation of blood was found at the fracture side and in the muscles of neck and base of Crl.A. 733/2011 Page 2 of 11 tongue.Both lungs of the deceased were oedemotus and congested.Petechial hemorrhages were found in inter lobar surface of both lungs.All internal organs were congested.The detailed post mortem report was proved and marked as Ex PW9/A. PW-9 was not cross-examined and his statement went unchallenged.A. 733/2011 Page 2 of 11Sanjay, a neighbour, had appeared as PW-18 before the Trial Court and, in his testimony, he has stated that at about 6.30/7.00 A.M, when he was filling water from a nearby tap, the appellant came to him and stated that his wife had expired due to Cholera (Haija).On this information, he went to the house of Raj Kumar, another neighbour, who was sleeping on the roof of his house and narrated the facts to him.Thereafter, he along with Raj Kumar and the appellant went to the house of latter and saw the dead body of Reena lying on the roof.At the request of the appellant, they brought down the dead body and laid it on a sheet, as it was a summer season.Public gathered there and, on asking of some public persons, they removed ornaments from the body of Reena.PW-18 stated that he had noticed some marks on the neck of Reena.Police came to the spot.In-laws i.e. parents and brother of the appellant also came at the spot.Thereafter, PW-18 left Crl.A. 733/2011 Page 3 of 11 the spot.In the cross-examination, PW-18 was only asked whether or not police had made inquires and, if so, on what date.It was suggested to him that he had not brought the dead body down from the roof and had not joined investigation.These suggestions were denied.PW-18, Sanjay also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Kartar Singh, father of the deceased.Presence of the appellant, at the spot, also stands proved and established from the statement of mother, father and brother of the deceased-Reena, namely, Krishna, Kartar Singh and Rakesh, who had appeared as PW-3,12 and 4, respectively.A. 733/2011 Page 3 of 11Krishna (PW-3) deceased's mother, in her testimony, has stated that on 11th May, 2006, at about 7.30 A.M, she had received a telephone call from Randhir Singh, father of the appellant that her daughter had expired.Husband of PW-3 was serving in military and was not posted in Delhi, at that time.The form also records the alleged confession made by the appellant but same is inadmissible and has not been taken into consideration by us.It has to be ignored.SI Chander Prakash (PW-13) was marked and asked to investigate DD No.34B (Ex. PW 13/A), which was recorded after the PCR form (Ex PW 11/B) was recorded.PW-13 has stated that he, along with Constable Anil, reached the spot and found dead body of a female, aged about 19 years, lying in the varandha of the house.He found ligature marks and blood on the face of the body.He informed the SHO that it was a case of murder.Crime team was called which reached and inspected the spot.SDM recorded statement of deceased's Crl.A. 733/2011 Page 5 of 11 mother (PW-3) Krishna.Thereafter, case was processed and FIR was registered.A. 733/2011 Page 5 of 11Inspector Niyampal Singh (PW-17) has deposed on the similar lines.He has stated that, on 11th May, 2006, when he was posted as Additional SHO at PS S.P. Badli, he had visited the spot of occurrence along with SI Chander Prakash (PW-13).At the spot, they found dead body of Reena lying on the floor of the house.Strangulation marks were visible on her neck.On inquiry, he came to know that Reena married the appellant about 2-2 months back.SDM reached at the spot and prepared inquest proceedings.SDM also recorded statement of Krishna (PW-3) deceased's mother, Rakesh (PW-4) brother of the deceased and one neighbour, namely, Lata.Investigation was marked to PW-17 by the SHO.Rukka was prepared and thereafter FIR was registered.PW-17 prepared the site plan (marked Ex PW 17/B) at the spot.The dead body was sent to mortuary for post mortem.In the cross-examination, PW-17 admitted that initially he had registered a case under section 302 IPC and had not added Section 304-B IPC.Inspector Nagin Kaushik (PW-19) was the Investigating Officer and assigned the duty to investigate the case.He got the scaled site plan prepared through draughtsman and also recorded statement of the father of the deceased.The case was re-investigated and statements of several other witnesses were recorded.A. 733/2011 Page 6 of 11From the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that Reena had died because of strangulation, at her matrimonial house, in the night intervening 10th and 11th, May, 2006 and the appellant was present at his residence, at that time.The appellant had informed PW- 18, Sanjay about the occurrence/death of Reena.He claimed that Reena had died because of Cholera (Haija).The appellant did not remove the body or take the deceased to the hospital for treatment.Presence of ligature marks, on the neck, has been mentioned by all the witnesses who had seen the dead body.At this stage, we notice the report of the crime team (marked Ex PW 14/A), in which it was recorded that the dead body of Reena was found lying in the verandha, on a mattress, and cotton had been inserted in her nostrils.It records that there were injury marks, on her neck, and some abrasions were visible.The crime team had remained at the spot from 12.30 P.M. to 1.30 P.M. The photographs of the deceased, at the site of occurrence, were taken by Constable Dalbir (PW-6).Seven photographs, marked Ex 6/8 to A14, from different angles were taken and these photographs show visible ligature and abrasion marks, on the neck.The deceased Crl.Naresh, the appellant herein, stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of his wife- Reena and has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-.Stomach was empty and no charasteristic smell was found.Dr. Upender Kishore (PW-9) opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation (manual).She, along with her two sons, went to the house of the appellant, at Samaypur Badli, and found that her daughter had expired.A lady by the name of Lata, from the neighbourhood, met them and told her that Reena was murdered by the appellant.At this stage, we may record that the in-laws of Reena, namely, Randhir Singh, Suresh Kumar and Angoori Devi were also prosecuted under Section 498A and 304B/34 IPC, but they have been Crl.A. 733/2011 Page 4 of 11 acquitted.The State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal.The parents of Reena have also not filed any appeal.A. 733/2011 Page 4 of 11Rakesh @ Monu (PW-4) deceased's brother has made a similar statement.He has stated that when he reached at the spot, dead body of his sister was lying in the verandah.He noticed blood in the nose of his sister and strangulation marks on her neck.Head Constable Jagpal Singh (PW-11) has proved the PCR form marked Ex. PW11/B which records that, at about 11.20 hours on 11th May, 2006, a telephone call was received from one Monu number 55547354 that his sister had been strangulated to death at C-50, Raja Vihar Colony, behind Badli Industrial Area, Delhi.A. 733/2011 Page 7 of 11 had also bled from the mouth and nose.Cotton was stuffed in one of the nostrils.A. 733/2011 Page 7 of 11The appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had stated as under:-"Q2 It is further in evidence against you that co-accused Randhir on 11.5.2006, at about 7.30am gave a telephonic call to PW-3 Krishna that the deceased had expired.At that time, PW-12 Kartar Singh, who was serving in Army, was on duty.PW3 Krishna and PW-4 Rakesh after receipt of call on 11.5.2006 at about 7.30 am regarding the death of deceased went at the house of deceased situated at Rama Vihar, Badli Industrial Area where they found the dead body of the deceased lying in verandah inside the house.At that time, PW3 Krishna and PW-4 Rakesh @ Monu noticed the strangulation marks around the neck of dead body of deceased as well as the blood near the nose.PW-8 Lata told PW3 Krishna that the deceased was murdered by all of you.The dead body was brought from the roof of the house to the verandah by PW-18 Sanjay and PW16 Raj Kumar.PW18 Sanjay also noticed some marks around the neck of deceased.What have you to say?It is incorrect.I do not know how Reena had died.She was sleeping along on the roof and when in the morning, I had gone to fetch her tea, I found her lying dead on the cot.in this case.I was keeping properly Reena.I do not know how she expired.On 11.5.2006, I had gone to serve tea to Reena on the roof of my house and when I went on roof, I found Reena lying dead.I never made any demand from Reena and her parents.I was not having any relations with Ashu."A. 733/2011 Page 8 of 11The appellant, in his statement under Section 313, has stated that Reena was suspicious about his relations with Ashu, but he was not having any relations with Ashu.It is apparent from the aforesaid that there were disputes and differences between the appellant and deceased.A. 733/2011 Page 10 of 11The appeal is dismissed.SANJIV KHANNA, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,935,262 |
Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.266/2018 registered at Police Station Shahganj, District Sehore under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code..The case of the prosecution is that, in the mid night of 12/13.10.2018 about 10-11 unknown persons armed with weapons entered into Swami Ramswaroopanand Giri, Ashram Narmada Mandir situated at Bandrabhan under the jurisdiction of Police Station Shahganj, District Sehore and have committed dacoity of Rs.86,000/- and also robbed some other articles related to the said temple.The report of the incidence was lodged on the next morning by Sadhvi Pragyanand Giri, on that basis crime under the above mentioned offence has been registered against the unknown persons.During the course of enquiry, applicant and other co-accused persons have been taken into custody and during the course of interrogation applicant Ameen Khan and co- accused Hamid Kha have given information regarding robbed money and other articles.Later on, the robbed money and other articles have been recovered on their information and instance.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Ameen Khan, is allowed.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 26/03/2019 21:57:06
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,134 |
The name of the deceased is Raju alias Rajendra Marotrao Yawalkar, resident of Onkar Nagar, Nagpur.According to the prosecution case, the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 reside in front of the house of the deceased Raju.The house of the accused No. 4 is to the rear side of the house of the deceased Raju.The accused Nos. 5 and 6 are also residents of Onkar Nagar, Nagpur.However, at the time of the said elections he left the said Organisation and carried on propoganda of the Congress-I. Candidate Shri Ashok Dhawad, due to which the relations between the accused persons and the deceased Raju were strained.On 18-4-1990 between 8-30 p.m. and 9 p.m. at night, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Raju, his parents i.e. Marotrao (P.W. 1) and Laxmibai (P.W. 8), and one Pitambar Haribhau were sitting on the terrace of his house.At that time, the accused Nos. 1 to 6 came out of the house of the accused No. 4 and then after going to the house of one Shrikhande which is also in front of the house of the deceased Raju, entered the Court yard of his house.The accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 abused Raju in filthy language and asked him to come down to the court yard.The deceased Raju came down to the court yard from the terrace and asked them as to why they were abusing him.At that time the accused No. 4 caught hold of the right hand of the deceased Raju and dragged him outside the court yard.All the accused then took him in front of the house of Gulab Shrikhande.According to the prosecution case, the accused persons were armed with hockey stick, Iron rod, knife, Gupti (sword stick), motor-cycle chain and Cricket bat.After surrounding the deceased Raju in front of the house of Gulab Shrikhande, all the accused persons assaulted him giving blows to him with the weapons in their hands.After about 15 minutes, Raju fell down on the ground.However, the accused persons continued to inflict blows upon him as a result of which he died on the spot.As per the prosecution case, when the deceased Raju was called by the accused persons to come down in the court yard from the terrace, his parents Marotrao (P.W. 1) and Laxmibai (P.W. 8) also followed him.When the deceased Raju was being beaten and was crying for help, his mother tried to rescue him requesting the accused persons not to assault him but she was pushed aside by the accused No. 1 as result of which she fell down and her bangles were broken.Her repeated requests not to assault Raju fell on deaf ears.As regards the father of the deceased Raju, according to the prosecution case he was prevented from going near him by the accused No. 1 who terrorised and threatened him by pointing gupti towards him.The accused No. 4 also threatened him by raising the hockey stick to assault him.The prosecution case then shows that when the deceased Raju and his parents cried for help, there were about 150 persons who had gathered near the spot, but none came to the rescue of the victim Raju as the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons.After having seen that Raju had died on the spot, the accused ran away from the spot.Marotro (P.W. 1), the father of the deceased Raju, immediately lodged report (Exh. 21) in the Police Station, Ajni about the above incident.It is on the basis of his report (Exh. 21) that the FIR (Ex. 62) was recorded in the instant case.The Police Inspector R. P. Mishra (P.W. 14) who was then working in the said Police Station, Ajni, along with his staff immediately visited the spot.Although there is no material to show when the body of the deceased Raju was actually removed to the Government Medical College Hospital, Nagpur, it is clear from the evidence of Dr. Ashok Tank (P.W. 2) and his postmortem examination report which is Ex. 27 that he was handed over the body for post mortem examination at 1.00 p.m. on 19-4-1990 and that he had conducted the post-mortem examination from 1-45 p.m. to 3-00 p.m. on the said date.According to the said post-mortem examination report (Ex. 27) there were as many as 17 external injuries caused to the deceased of which, according to Dr. Ashok Tang (P.W. 2), the external injuries 1, 2 and 3 with their corresponding internal damage were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death taken individually or collectively.Dr. Ashok Tang (P.W. 2) was asked to give his opinion about the weapons recovered in the instant case and clothes of the deceased Raju which were on his person at the time of the assault.Dr. Ashok Tank (P.W. 2) as per his examination report of the Muddemal Article/weapon (Ex. 28) opined that the injuries caused to the deceased Raju were possible by the weapons sent to him for his examination and that the cut-marks upon the clothes of the deceased were possible by the knife and the Gupti sent to him for examination.The Police Inspector, R. P. Mishra (P.W. 14) who made the initial investigation in the instant case, had recorded the statements of most of the witnesses including the statements of the parents of the deceased Raju and independent witness Rajkumar (P.W. 12) and Dr. Ashok Tank (P.W. 2).The accused could not be traced out till 9-5-1990 on which date they were arrested.The accused No. 1 had discovered gupti and knife from his house as per memorandum (Exh. 66) and seizure Panchanama (Exh. 67).JUDGMENT Dhabe, J.These two appeals which arise out of the same judgment in Sessions Case No. 703 of 90 can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.All the accused Nos. 1 to 6 are convicted by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 148 and 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC).Briefly the prosecution case is that the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 viz. Manoj, Milind and Mangesh are real brothers and the accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are their friends.As the accused could not be traced for a long time, the clothes which they had put on on the date of the incident could not be seized.However, the clothes of the deceased were seized, which along with the Gupti and the knife seized pursuant to the memorandum of the accused No. 1 (Exh. 66) and the broken pieces of hockey stick and bent stick pieces recovered from the spot were sent to the Chemical Analyser for his examination.The report of the Chemical Analyser is exhibit 30 which shows human blood upon these articles.It may be stated that the investigation was taken up by P. I. Kisan Khandare (P.W. 10) on 8-6-1990 from the P. I. Ramraksha Mishra (P.W. 14) and as per his evidence he had recorded the statements of the three independent eye witnesses and called for the report of the Chemical Analyser referred to above.After the investigation was complete, he filed the charge-sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur who committed the accused persons to Sessions trial.The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.Of these 14 witnesses examined by the prosecution, eight witnesses are eye witnesses.They are Marotrao (P.W. 1), Prabha (P.W. 3), Manoj (P.W. 6) Ajay (P.W. 7), Laxmibai (P.W. 8), Khushal (P.W. 9) Chandrashekar (P.W. 11) and Rajkumar (P.W. 12).Out of these eye witnesses except Marotrao (P.W. 1) Laxmibai (P.W. 8) and Rajkumar (P.W. 12) the others have turned hostile to the prosecution.The prosecution examined Ajay (P.W. 4), and Anil (P.W. 5) as Panch witnesses upon the memorandum of the accused No. 1 (Ex. 66) and seizure panchanama (Ex. 67) pursuant to the same.The above Panch witnesses have also turned hostile to the prosecution.The defence of the accused in the instant case is that of denial and their false implication in the instant incident because of the love affair of the accused No. 4 with Durga, the sister of the deceased Raju which was not to the liking of his family.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on the basis of the evidence on record, held that the evidence of the eye witnesses Marotrao (P.W. 1) Laxmibai (P.W. 8) and Rajkumar (P.W. 12) was trustworthy and was supported by the medical evidence in the instant case.He held that the accused Nos. 1 to 6 formed an unlawful assembly and that each of them was guilty of the offence punishable u/S. 147 of the IPC for which he sentenced them to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo further R.I. for one week.He also held them guilty of an offence u/S. 148, IPC for which he sentenced them to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to suffer further R.I. for one week respectively.He further convicted the accused Nos. 1 to 6 of the major offence punishable u/S. 302 read with S. 149, IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life.He directed that the substantive sentences should run concurrently.In appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to see that the prosecution case is principally based upon the oral evidence of the eye witnesses viz. Marotrao (P.W. 1), Laxmibai (P.W. 8) and Rajkumar (P.W. 12) who have not turned hostile.The prosecution evidence shows that prior to the deceased Raju joining Congress (1) and canvassing for its candidate in assembly elections, there were friendly relations between him and the accused persons who were on visiting terms with him.They were thus known to his parents also.These witnesses thus corroborate the eye witnesses Marotrao (P.W. 1).Laxmibai (P.W. 8) and Rajkumar (P.W. 12) in so far as they have stated that the deceased Raju was assaulted with weapons like knife, gupti, hockey, stick and stick at about 9 p.m. on 18-4-1990 as a result of which he had died.He has stated in his evidence that there were as many as 17 external injuries upon the body of the deceased Raju corresponding to which there were five internal injuries noted by him.He has then stated in his evidence that the external injuries 1, 2 and 3 which were on the vital organs with their corresponding internal damage was responsible for the death of the deceased Raju taken either singly or collectively.Further, according to him, the external injuries 1, 2, 4, 6 and 9 were caused by sharp cutting instrument like a knife or a gupti blade and the rest of the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object like hockey stick or a motor-cycle chain.The above medical evidence supports, as we shall presently show, the occular testimony in the instant case that the deceased Raju was assaulted and had received injuries on the vital parts of his body as noticed by Dr. Ashok Tank (P.W. 2) in his post-mortem examination notes (exh. 27) inflicted by blows given by Gupti, knife, hockey stick, stick and motor-cycle chain.What is, however, sought to be urged on by the defence counsel on the basis of the evidence of Dr. Ashok Tank (P.W. 2) is that since according to him the external and internal injuries were ante-mortem and that they were caused within 2 to 6 hours prior to the death of Raju, it would mean that the assault had not taken place between 8-30 p.m. and 9 p.m. when Raju is alleged to have died on the spot, but that it had taken place 2 to 6 hours before that time when the presence of the accused on the spot is not proved by the prosecution.As already pointed out, all the eye witnesses including those who have turned hostile have deposed that the assault had taken place between 8-30 p.m. and 9 p.m. on 18-4-1990 in which Raju had died instantaneously on the spot.Similarly, in Datta v. State, 1979 Cri LR (Mah) 137 this Court relied upon the evidence of the Police Head Constable to prove possession of liquor bottles although out of the two pancha witnesses upon the panchanama in that case, one had turned hostile and the evidence of the other was not credible.The sole question, therefore, to be considered in the instant case is, whether the evidence of the Investigating Officer Shri Ramraksha Mishra (P.W. 14) inspires confidence so as to accept the discovery evidence in the instant case.As regards Rajkumar (P.W. 12) who is an independent witness examined by the prosecution, it is urged that he is a chance witness and, therefore, his evidence should be discarded because he had no reason to remain present at the spot at the time of the incident.He has stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident i.e. 18-4-1990 at about 8.30 p.m. or 9 p.m. he was returning from medical stores on purchasing the medicines as he was not well.According to him, he was returning by the Main Road in Onkar Nagar and when he reached near the house of the deceased Raju he had witnessed the incident of assault against him by the accused persons.In his cross-examination he had admitted that no doctor had prescribed any medicine to him.However, according to him, since he was having fever he bought some tablets.He had, however, denied the suggestion that on taking medicine he had reached his home.Be that as it may, the fact remains that Rajkumar (P.W. 12) is not the resident of the same locality and he has not given any convincing reason to be on the spot at that time.If he was not well and was running fever as deposed to by him, it is most unlikely that instead of rushing to his house he would wait on the spot to witness the incident particularly when he has denied the defence suggestion that Raju was his friend.As regards the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1), the main criticism as regards his evidence is that he had come on the spot after the accused had run away and, therefore, had not seen the actual incident of assault.In this regard the learned counsel for the accused has brought to our notice the contradiction in the police station of Laxmibai (P.W. 8) because in her statement before police in portion marked 'A' she had stated that her husband had reached after the accused had run away.The learned counsel for the accused has also sought to rely upon the evidence of Rajkumar (P.W. 12) as he has stated in his cross-examination the Raju's father was at his house at the time of the incident and was not present when Raju was assaulted and was given the first blow near the water tap.As regards the evidence of Rajkumar (P.W. 12), we have already held as urged on behalf of the accused themselves that he was a chance witness and, therefore, his evidence in regard to the incident of assault needs to be ignored.However, even otherwise, the cross-examination of Rajkumar (P.W. 12) does not go to show that Raju's father i.e. Marotrao (P.W. 1) was not present on the spot and he had not witnessed the incident.It is clear from the cross-examination of this witness Rajkumar (P.W. 12) that Raju's father was not present when the alleged first blow was given to the deceased Raju near the water tap.However, the next sentence after the above sentence in his cross-examination shows that Raju's presents were crying for Raju's rescue which would mean that they were there at the time of the assault.The above cross-examination, therefore, does not destroy his evidence in examination-in-chief that Raju's father Merotrao (P.W. 1) was present on the spot, but he could not save his deceased son Raju, because as we shall presently point out from the deposition of Raju's father Marotrao (P.W. 1) he was prevented from doing so by the accused No. 1 who had threatened him at the point of Gupti and by the accused No. 4 who had used the hockey-stick to assault him.As regards the contradiction in the police statement of Laxmibai (P.W. 8) relied upon on behalf of the accused, it is necessary to see that as per her evidence itself when the deceased Raju was called to come down by the accused persons, she had immediately followed him and had got down from the terrace.Further, according to her evidence, her husband had also followed her and had come down-stairs.However, it is clear from her evidence that when the blows were given to the deceased Raju, she had gone to his rescue but the accused Nos. 1, 5 and 6 had lifted her and had thrown her aside.Reading of her evidence would show that her attention was wholly focussed upon her son who was being assaulted by the accused persons and she had, therefore, seen her husband only when the accused had run away.The above contradiction in her statement would not, therefore, prove that during the whole of the incident, the father of the deceased Raju viz. Marotrao (P.W. 1) was not present on the spot and had seen the incident.In our view, the best corroboration to the presence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) on the spot is his complaint itself which he had lodged immediately after the incident in the Police Station, Ajni.In his complaint itself he has given the material particulars of the incident and also named the accused persons who had assaulted his son.Marotrao (P.W. 1) was present in the house when, according to the prosecution case, the accused persons had come in his court-yard and called the deceased Raju to come down stairs.The intentions of the accused persons were very clear.It is, therefore, difficult to believe that Marotrao (P.W. 1), the father of the deceased Raju would not follow him when the accused persons called him to come downstairs and forcibly took him from the court-yard of his house to the spot in front of Shrikhande's house and started beating him.However, as to deposed to by him, he was prevented from going to his rescue because he was himself threatened with gupti and hockey-stick and was terrorised by the accused Nos. 1 and 4 so that he should not go near him.There is not doubt in our mind that Marotrao (P.W. 1) has seen the incident himself and thereafter had lodged the complaint to the Police about the same.We cannot, therefore, accept the submission made on behalf of the accused that Marotrao (P.W. 1) was not present on the spot and had not seen the incident in which his son Raju was fatally assaulted by the accused persons.Turning now to the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) he has described the incident in his evidence.He has deposed that on 18-4-1990 at about 8 or 9 p.m. he, his wife Laxmibai and the deceased as also one person by name Pitambar were sitting on the terrace of their house and were talking about disposing of their house for payment of dues to the society.According to him, they had, thereafter, gone to the house of one Shrikhande and after coming out of his house had entered the court-yard of his house which is in front of the house of Shrikhande.His further evidence is that the accused Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 then abused Raju in filthy language and asked him to come down-stairs whereupon the deceased Raju went down-stairs and asked them the reason for abusing him.According to his evidence, the accused No. 4 then caught hold of his right hand and dragged him surrounded by the other accused persons.They thus brought him in front of the house of Shrikhande.His evidence shows that the accused No. 4 was armed with a hockey stick, the accused No. 1 with gupti (sword stick), the accused No. 5 with an iron rod and a knife, the accused No. 6 with knife and the accused No. 3 with a motor-cycle chain and the accused No. 2 with a cricket bat.His evidence further shows that the accused No. 4 had dealt a blow with hockey stick on he back and head of the deceased Raju and thereafter he shouted 'Savdhan' when all the accused started giving him blows with the weapons in their hands as a result of which Raju fell down on ground within 15 minutes thereafter.However, the accused Nos. 5 and 6 each still gave two knife blows to him on his person and the accused No. 1 gave him 4 to 5 Gupti blows.His evidence then shows that as a result of several serious blows received by him, Raju had died on the spot.The evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) also shows that after Raju had come down from the terrace he and Laxmibai and followed him down-stairs.When he had fallen down as a result of blows received by him, Laxmibai (P.W. 8) had intervened and had placed herself over his body requesting the accused persons not to assault him.She was, however, pushed aside by the accused No. 1 as a result of which her bangles were broken.At that time, according to Marotrao (P.W. 1), he was standing there, but he could not do anything to save his son who was crying loudly to save himself, because he was prevented from doing so by the accused No. 4 who had raised hockey stick to assault him and by the accused No. 1 who had showed him gupti.His evidence further shows that the accused persons had threatened all those present including him by uttering words to the effect that if they would give evidence against them in the Court, they would be murdered.Apart from the question of his presence on the spot, his evidence is sought to be criticised principally on the ground that there are omissions in his police statement i.e. F.I.R. (Exh. 21) about the weapons used by the accused persons in assaulting the deceased Raju.As regards the omissions in his police statement which are sought to be brought out, Marotrao P.W. 1) has deposed that he was not in a proper frame of mind at the time of giving the report.The above reason given by him cannot be lightly brushed aside because just about half an hour before lodging the complaint (Exh. 21) there was brutal murder of his son.That apart, it is not necessary that in the complaint (Exh. 21) itself all the details regarding the incident should be given.In our view, the particulars regarding the weapons in the hands of each of the accused persons is not such an omission which would amount to a material omission/contradiction so as to make his testimony in the Court incredible.In fact, considering the evidence of these hostile eye-witnesses the only question which needs to be considered is whether it was the accused persons who assaulted the deceased Raju at the spot or not.Turning now to the evidence of Laxmibai (P.W. 8) her evidence is on the same lines as that of Marotrao (P.W. 1).Apart from the contradiction about the presence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) on the spot which we have discussed above, the other contradiction which is sought to be brought out from her police statement is as regards the difference in her police statement and her evidence in the Court about the weapons in the hands of each of the accused persons.Moreover, it has to be seen that when there are so many accused persons involved in the assault and when the evidence is recorded after a long time, some discrepancies in the police statement and the oral testimony are bound to creep in.However, on the material particulars of the assault, there are no discrepancies in her police statement and her testimony in the Court.The evidence of Laxmibai (P.W. 8) is sought to be challenged on the ground that she was not present at the time of the incident because she had gone to her neighbour's house to see the programme of Chitrahar on TV at that time which she usually used to do and had come to the spot only after hearing the hue and cry and after the accused had run away from the spot.Although Laxmibai (P.W. 8) had denied the defence suggestion that she used to go to her neighbour's house for watching TV programmes, her husband Marotrao (P.W. 1) has stated in his evidence that occasionally she used to go to her neighbour's house for seeing TV programmes.However, on 18-4-1990 it does not appear that she had gone to see TV programme of Chitrahar at about the time of the incident, because the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) as well as Laxmibai (P.W. 8) discloses that one Pitambar had come to their house some time before the incident and with him and her deceased son Raju, they were sitting upon the terrace of their house and were having a talk about disposing of their ancestral house for paying the dues of the society.According to their evidence, while they were thus talking the accused had come to their house and had abused the deceased Raju who thereupon went down-stairs followed by them.The above evidence thus shows that she was in her house itself at about time and had not gone to see the TV programme of Chitrahar at that time.Further, her evidence as regards the presence on the spot is corroborated by the broken pieces of bangles seized from the spot because according to her evidence as well as the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) when she had gone to the rescue of her son, she was pushed aside by the accused persons because of which her bangles were broken.The only positive evidence in this regard in favour of the defence is of the hostile witness Sau Prabha (P.W. 3) who has stated in her cross-examination by the prosecution that Laxmibai (P.W. 8) had gone to see "Chitrahar" on TV to the house of Salve and that she was called by her when Raju had fallen down.Apart from the fact that she is an hostile witness, it is difficult to accept her above testimony because she has herself stated in her examination-in-chief that she was frightened on seeing the incident and had closed her entrance door.The evidence of Laxmibai (P.W. 8) thus fully corroborates the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) and their evidence clearly proves that the accused Nos. 1 to 6 assaulted the deceased Raju with gupti, knife, motor-cycle chain, hockey stick and stick as a result of which Raju died on the spot.In appreciating the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) and Laxmibai (P.W. 8) who are parents of the Raju, it is necessary to bear in mind that they are natural witnesses as the incident had commenced in their presence when their son was abused and had gone down-stairs followed by them.They had thus clearly watched the incident.If that is so, it is difficult to see why they should implicate persons other than those who have actually assaulted their son.Their testimony that it is the accused Nos. 1 to 6 who had fatally assaulted their son is thus trust-worthy and deserves to be believed.The next question which arises for consideration, is whether there was sufficient light in the locality near the spot so that these eye-witnesses could see the accused persons and identify them as the persons who had fatally assaulted the deceased.The incident has taken place during the night time between 8.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. It is true that there is no map of topography drawn by the prosecution.The spot panchanama (Exhibit 18) also does not mention anything about the lighting in that area.However, there is material in this regard in the evidence of the key eye-witnesses Marotrao (P.W. 1), Laxmibai (P.W. 8) and Rajkumar (P.W. 12) which we shall consider.Marotrao (P.W. 1) has stated in para 4 of his evidence that he had seen the incident in the moon light and also in the light of the electric tube which was burning in front of his house on an electric pole which was at a distance of about 25' from his house.He has also stated that the place of the incident which was in front of the house of Gulabrao Shrikhande was about 50' away from the tube light.Further, according to him, the electric light outside the house of Gulabrao was also burning.In his cross-examination, an omission in his police statement i.e. his complaint (Exhibit 21) about the lighting near the spot is brought out.As already observed by us, it is not necessary that the report or the complaint of the offence lodged in the police station must contain all the details of the offence.The evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) about the lighting in the locality near the place of occurrence cannot, therefore, be brushed aside only because of omission in this regard in his complaint to the Police (Exhibit 21).As regards the evidence of Laxmibai (P.W. 8) she has also stated in her evidence that there was a light burning in front of the house of Shrikhande.According to her evidence, there was an electric pole in her court-yard and a tube light was burning on the pole.She has then stated in her evidence that an electric bulb was burning at the entrance of the house of Ingle which is in front of the house of Shrikhande.In her cross-examination she has denied that it as a dark night and that there was no electric light in the court-yard of her house.She has also denied the suggestion that the bulbs outside the houses of Shrikhande and Ingle were not burning.In evaluating her evidence, it may be seen that even though there may be a mistake committed by her in giving the location of the electric pole as being in her court-yard that would not mean that there was no electric pole at all near about the place of the incident about which, apart from the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) hereinbefore referred to there is evidence of Rajkumar (P.W. 12) also.Rajkumar (P.W. 12) has stated in para 2 of his evidence that there was an electric pole at a distance of 15' to 20' from the place where the deceased Raju was lying and that there was a tube light burning upon the said pole.He has also stated that the electric bulb at the entrance door of Shrikhande's house was also burning and there was a tube light burning in Shrikhande's house.In his cross-examination, the suggestion given to him that no electric bulb or tube was burning as deposed to by him is denied by him.It may be seen that although the evidence of Rajkumar (P.W. 12) may be ignored on the question of the particulars of the incident on the ground that he is a chance witness, his evidence relating to the topography of that area need not be ignored because he lives near the locality in which the incident of fatal assault upon Raju has taken place.His evidence supports the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) that there was an electric pole at a distance of 15 to 20' from the place where the body of the deceased Raju was lying.As regards the question whether there were lights in the area where the fatal assault had taken place, it is material to see that the place of occurrence was in the habited area and there would be normally street lights in that area.The evidence of these witnesses that there was electric pole upon which there was a tube light has, therefore, to be believed.The incident this could be seen in the tube light burning from the electric pole even assuming that no light came from or near either Shrikhande's or Ingle's house.In the case of Khulji v. Surendra cited (supra), it is observed in para 7 of its judgment by the Supreme Court while appreciating the evidence of an eye-witness that if the incident occurred at a public place, it is reasonable to infer that the street-lights illuminated the place sufficiently so as to enable the eye-witnesses to identify the assailants.The above observations of the Supreme Court aptly apply in the instant case for identification of the accused persons by the eye-witnesses Marotrao (P.W. 1) and Laxmibai (P.W. 8).Moreover, even assuming that there was poor lighting, near the spot of the incident, still as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. Dr. M. V. Ramana Reddy .Since the accused persons in the instant case were well known to the above eye-witnesses as already held by us in this judgment because they were friends of their deceased son Raju, were living in that area itself and were coming to their house to see their deceased son Raju, their identification of the accused persons even in poor light cannot be doubted.Further, according to their testimony, the accused persons had initially come to their house and was standing in the court-yard while they were standing upon the terrace of their house.They could, therefore, see them clearly in their house itself before they had started assaulting their son Raju by taking him to the spot of the incident near the house of Shrikhande.There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) and Laxmibai (P.W. 8) upon the identity of the accused persons in the sense that they were the persons who had made the fatal assault with weapons upon their deceased son Raju near the house of Shrikhande between 8.30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on the date of the incident.As regards the motive, the prosecution case is that the accused persons and the deceased Raju were previously the members of Chhatrapati Sena.However, the deceased Raju had left it and canvassed for Congress (I) candidate Ashok Dhawad in the previous Assembly Elections because of which his relations with the accused persons were strained.The accused persons wanted him to join Chhatrapati Sena which he refused to do because of which they assaulted him on the date of the incident.Therefore, the direct evidence of the prosecution in the instant case which is credible and trustworthy cannot be discarded on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for murder although despite the absence of proof to show whether there was in existence "Chhatrapati Sena" or not, the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) and Laxmibai (P.W. 8) clearly shows that because the deceased Raju canvassed for Congress (I) candidate in the Assembly Elections, relations between him and the accused persons were strained leading to the fatal assault by the latter upon the former.The attempt made on behalf of the accused to create doubt about the prosecution case for lack of proof of motive cannot thus succeed.Therefore, even assuming that the motive is not proved by the prosecution in the instant case, presence and participation of the accused persons in the assault upon the deceased Raju is proved by unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) and Laxmibai (P.W. 8) and the failure to prove motive for the same would not thus affect the prosecution case.The next question to be considered is whether there was in the instant case an unlawful assembly within the meaning of Section 141 of the IPC having a common object to assault and commit murder of the deceased Raju.On our finding hereinbefore rendered the presence and participation of the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in the assault upon the deceased Raju stands proved in the instant case.Even the independent witnesses who have truned hostile have stated that there were 9/10 persons who had committed assault upon the deceased Raju in the instant case.As stated above, they had all gone to his house, had abused him, has called him to come down strairs after which they brought him in front of the house of Shrikhande and fatally assaulted him with deadly weapons like Gupti, Knife, motor-cycle chain, hockey stick and stick with which, as held by us, they were armed.It is further necessary to see that the intention of the accused persons was not only to beat the deceased Raju so as to teach him lesson but to beat him un to death as is clear from the evidence of Marotrao (P.W. 1) and Laxmibai (P.W. 8) according to which, after the deceased Raju was beaten initially for about 15 minutes he had fallen down on the ground, but the accused were not satisfied with that and they continued to beat him and it was only when they had found that he had died that they had run away.The common object to beat him unto death is thus writ large upon the acts of the accused persons in the instant case.There was thus unlawful assembly of the accused persons within the meaning of Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.As to the law on the question of an unlawful assembly within the meaning of the said provisions, it is wellsettled that a constructive or vacarious responsibility for the offence is fastened upon the members of an unlawful assembly.As held by us above, the common object of the unlawful assembly being to commit murder of the deceased Raju, the accused persons are guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC besides Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC as rightly held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur.The guilt of the accused for all these offences is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution in the instant case.In the result, the instant appeals fail and are dismissed.The accused who are on bail, shall surrender to their bail within one week.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,136,744 |
No proper and plausible explanation has been tendered by the prosecutrix, aged 35 years, well educated, for the inordinate delay of lodging the report.Learned counsel further pleads that the detailed reasons for false implication of the applicant/accused has been mentioned in the application and in this regard 13 documents have been produced alongwith the application in support of the submissions.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail.Learned P.L. for the State and learned counsel for the objector opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Therefore, allowing this application, it is ordered that in the event of arrest by the arresting officer or by the Court, the applicant shall be granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer or the Court.The applicant is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE
|
['Section 376 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.