id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
143,140,764 |
PartlyAllowed md.And In Re:-The petition for anticipatory bail is partly allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,143,787 |
3. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 09/02/1992 at 6.30 PM Ram Prakash (deceased), employed as a Driver in Balaghat Depot of MP State Road Transport Corporation, was travelling in Sagar-Seoni Bus bearing No. 1701 of MPSRTC.Jagdish (PW-1) was the Driver and Daulat Singh (PW-12) was the Conductor in the bus.While Driver of bus (PW-1) tried to overtake a truck, respondent/accused who was coming on a motor bike along with other acquitted co-accused persons, objected to the driver of bus (PW-1) saying how he was driving the bus.Altercation took place between the respondent/accused and passengers of the bus.Somehow dispute was settled for a while and passengers started sitting in the bus.When deceased went to road side for easing himself, respondent/accused stabbed knife in his arm pit and leaving the motorcycle on the spot ran away from the place along with the co-accused persons.Deceased was taken in the bus to the Police Station- Bandol.In view of the serious condition of the deceased, police asked to take the bus to Seoni Hospital.Deceased was brought to the hospital dead.FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Driver (PW-1) at Police Station- Bandol.On receiving information of death of deceased from Seoni Hospital, B.L. Barmaiya, ASI (PW-11) 3 Cr.R. No.435/1993 & Cr.A No. 187/1994 proceeded to the hospital and prepared Ex.P-14 Naksha Panchayatnama of dead body and forwarded the dead body for post mortem.Vide postmortem report (Ex.P-11) Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-9) found following injuries on the person of the deceased:-Stabbed wound 2 1/2cm X 1 1/2 cm X 5 cm on right side of intra axillary area in between right anterior and middle axillary line, also found corresponding puncture wounds of 2X2 cm in right lung and liver respectively.On 09/02/1992 at 11.00 PM vide Ex.P-6 Seizure Memo, motor cycle MUJ 1070 was seized from the spot.Next day i.e. on 10/02/1992 blood stained soil and plain soil was obtained.On 11/02/1992 Vide Ex.P-5 Seizure Memo at the instance of the respondent/accused knife and his clothes, like jursy, shirt and pant was recovered.Aforesaid incriminating articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical examination.Jagdish Prasad, Driver (PW-1) took the deceased in his bus first to Police Station Bandol and then to Seoni Hospital, but in Para 11 of his statement he has clearly admitted that while he reached Police Station from Hospital after death of the deceased at about 9.30 PM then FIR was written.Heera Singh, Head Constable (PW-3) stated that FIR was written about 7.10 PM at Police Station Bandol by him.Prahlad Singh, ACCUSED S/o Roopa Baghel, aged 26 years, R/o Narayanganj, P.S. Bandol, District- Seoni (M.P.) ****************************************************************** For appellant : Shri R.S. Shukla, Panel Lawyer.For Respondents : Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate ****************************************************************** Date of hearing : 19/06/2012 Date of judgment: /07/2012 2 Cr.R. No.435/1993 & Cr.A No. 187/1994 This judgment shall govern the disposal of this State Appeal as well as Revision petition filed by the complainant, wife of the deceased.against the judgment dated 21/05/1993 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1992 acquitting accused persons persons including the respondent/accused Prahlad Singh Baghel of the charge under section 302, IPC.Despite grant of opportunities, none appeared for the petitioner/complainant to argue the revision petition.Learned Panel Lawyer Shri R.S. Shukla has rendered his valuable assistance in the revision petition also, instituted in the year 1993 and argued the State Appeal as well on merits.Vide FSL report Ex.P-16, blood was found on the knife and on shirt, pant of the respondent/accused.After completing the investigation, police Bandol submitted a charge sheet against respondent/accused and two other under section 302 IPC.To substantiate case of prosecution, statements of Jagdish Prasad, Driver (PW-1), Suresh Prasad (PW-2), Heera Singh, Head Constable (PW-3), Nagendra Singh, Passenger (PW-4), Puran Singh, Constable (PW-5), Arun Kumar (PW-6), Kamta Prasad (PW-7), K.S. Baghel, Station House Officer (PW-8), Dr. A.K. Tiwari (PW-9), Tulsiram (PW-10), B.L. Barmaiya, ASI (PW-11), Daulat Singh, Conductor (PW-12), Krapa Shankar (PW-13) and Shayam Sunder Pandey, Sub Inspector (PW-14) were recorded.Defence of the respondent/accused in the Trial Court was that of false implication.To substantiate aforesaid defence, statements of K.K. Shrivastava, Depot Manager, MPSRTC (DW-Cr.R. No.435/1993 & Cr.A No. 187/19941), Narottam (DW-2) and Kashiram, Constable (DW-3) were recorded.After appreciating the aforesaid evidence, Trial Court found the evidence of prosecution to be doubtful and having extended benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused persons of the aforesaid charge.Challenging the aforesaid judgment of acquittal State has preferred this appeal on the ground that appreciation of evidence is not proper.Evidence of eyewitnesses have been wrongly disbelieved by the Trial Court.In fact prosecution has succeeded to prove the case against the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt.Similarly finding of acquittal has been challenged by the petitioner/complainant on the ground that evidence of eyewitnesses and the evidence of Seizure of motor cycle, knife have been wrongly disbelieved by the Trial Court.It is pertinent to note that leave to appeal has been granted by this Court only against the respondent/accused.On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has supported the finding of acquittal.There appears material discrepancy regarding time of writing of FIR.In aforesaid back drop statement of Kashiram, Constable (PW-3) assumes importance wherein he stated that copy of the FIR was not sent to the concerned Magistrate because Ex.D-6, Ex.D-7 and Ex.D-8 complete set of three copies of FIR were still lying in the police station.Glaring lapse in compliance of provision of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is apparent from the face of the record.Possibility of anti-timing of FIR cannot be ruled out in these circumstances.Cr.R. No.435/1993 & Cr.A No. 187/1994On perusal of evidence of Jagdish Prasad, Driver (PW-1) and Daulat Singh, Conductor (PW-12), it is not clear that these witnesses knew the respondent/accused earlier.PW-1 lodged FIR Ex.P-1 naming two persons, i.e. respondent/accused and one Rajmohan.In Para 21 of his statement he stated that he did not know the accused Rajmohan.Though in his statement he is stated to have acquittance with the respondent/accused prior to the incident, but in Ex.P-1 FIR he has not mentioned so.Daulat Singh, Conductor (PW-12) in Para 7 of his statement admitted that he did not know the name of the accused persons.Same day he submitted a report Ex.D-5 to Depot Manager (DW-Suresh (PW-2) further stated that out of two miscreants, who actually assaulted the deceased he could not see.Similarly, Nagendra Singh (PW-4) also failed to see as to who actually assaulted the deceased.Evidence of eyewitness, particularly, evidence of Jagdish Prasad, Driver (PW-1), in our considered opinion has been appreciated by the Trial Court in right perspective.After a detailed scrutiny of evidence on each count, Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of eyewitnesses.FIR Ex.P-1 was shown to have been recorded within 40 minutes of the incident.In fact, FIR has been drawn up after about more than 3 hours of the incident after collecting the evidence regarding identity of the assailants.Fact of recovery of the motor cycle from the spot has also been properly considered by the Trial Court.Since motor cycle 6 Cr.R. No.435/1993 & Cr.A No. 187/1994 was registered in the name of Arun Kumar (PW-6) a stranger, who sold this motorcycle to one of his relative through respondent/accused, on the basis of seizure of motor cycle, no inference of involvement of the respondent/accused can be drawn.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,149,691 |
1 24.12.2019 148 sdas rejected C.R.M. 12344 of 2019 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.12.2019 in connection with Kolghat Police Station Case No. 349 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019 under Sections 376DA/305/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 2
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,150,451 |
Heard on admission.The applicant has moved the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in criminal revision No.66/2011, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed and the order dated 4.2.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in an unregistered complaint "Awdesh Sen Vs.Ganga Prasad Vishwakarma" was maintained, in which the complaint of the applicant was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.The facts of the case, in short, are that, the applicant has moved a complaint for offence punishable under Sections 190, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471 of IPC against the respondent that the applicant as well as the respondent contested the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bara Kathar.The respondent has filed his nomination form and in the declaration of that nomination, he did not mention the fact that he was punished by the Revenue Officer in revenue case No.83/ M.Cr.C.No.13003/2011 v-68/2005-06 under Section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code and the Tahsildar concerned directed vide order dated 19.9.2006 to dispossess the respondent and also imposed a fine of Rs.200/- and therefore, that fact was hidden in the nomination form, therefore, a forged nomination form was filed by the respondent No.1 before the Returning Officer and therefore, the offence of forgery is made out against the respondent.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced by the applicant, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. and the revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed in toto.For constitution of offence of forgery, it is necessary that forgery should be made as defined under Section 463 of IPC.If some person makes a false document having resemblance with the genuine document then, it can be said that he committed the forgery.The respondent was expected to file the nomination form and that nomination form filed by the respondent was original.If he had hidden some facts before the Returning Officer then, it cannot be said that he made a false document and therefore, no offence of forgery like Sections 463, 464, 465, 486, 471 of IPC would be constituted.C.No.13003/2011 So far as the offence under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicant has filed the incomplete document of order-sheet dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Naib Tahsildar of concerned Tahsil.If the order shown as Annexure A/3 is perused then, it is a photo copy of one page, in which no case number is visible.The complete copy of the document was shown by the learned counsel for the applicant during the arguments.Similarly, these documents were to be filed by the complainant before the trial Court.C.No.13003/2011 A copy of order be sent to both the Courts below alongwith their records for information.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,154,691 |
Heard on I.A.No.11141 / 2014, which is an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation.For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.Heard finally.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted that prosecutrix had remained with the applicant for 6- 7 months after getting married to him and was residing with the applicant at Nagpur and had also conceived a child.The applicant is in custody since 07/03 / 2014 and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the application.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the material available on record, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Bablu be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 / - (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/ trial Court securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE) VACATION JUDGE SJ/-C.No.6260 of 2014 12 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 4 Shri P.K. Saxena, Advocate for the applicant.Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the respondent /State.Heard on I.A.No.10432 / 2014, which is an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation.For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.Heard finally.This is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 22/03 / 2014 in connection with Crime No.1339 /2013 registered at Police Station Waidhan District Singrauli (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 144, 151, 152, 353, 332, 341, 294, 506, 307, 340, 342, 186, 188 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted that applicant is 32 years young person and he is only earing members of his family, therefore, if he is left in jail, his whole family will suffer.The applicant is in custody since 22/03 / 2014 and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the application.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the material available on record, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Gauri @ Gauri Shanker be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 / - (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court /trial Court securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.Heard on I.A.No.10430 / 2014, which is an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation.For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.Heard finally.This is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 18/03 / 2014 in connection with Crime No.338/2014 registered at Police Station Waidhan District Singrauli (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted that applicant is 30 years young person and he is only earing member of his family, therefore, if he is left in jail, his whole family will suffer.The applicant is in custody since 18/03 / 2014 and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the application.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the material available on record, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Lavkush Gupta be released on bail on his 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 committal Court/ trial Court securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.Heard on I.A.No.11094 / 2014, which is an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation.For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.Heard finally.This is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in custody since 18/03 / 2014 in connection with Crime No.338/2014 registered at Police Station Waidhan District Singrauli (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.The applicant is in custody since 18/03 / 2014 and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Govt. Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the application.Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the material available on record, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Santosh Dubey be released on bail on his 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 committal Court/ trial Court securing his presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,157,511 |
It is not in dispute that the trucks were purchased by the petitioner with finance provided by the company, of which the respondent no. 11 is a director.It is further not in dispute that the trucks were intercepted at Panagarh, District Burdwan and possession thereof was taken by the agents of the company.1 to 8 For the respondent no.9 : Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Advocate Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas, Advocate Mr. Anit Kumar Das, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, Advocate 10 and 11 Mr. Shibnath Bhattacharya, Advocate Heard on : February 1, 2016 Judgment on : March 2, 2016The short question that emerges for decision on this writ petition is whether the police authorities and the Regional Transport Officer, Howrah (hereafter the RTO), the respondent no.8, in not recovering the trucks bearing nos. WB- 11B/1246 and WB-11B/1204 (hereafter the trucks) of the petitioner from the clutches of the respondents 10 and 11, acting on the petitioner's complaints dated December 1 and 4, 2015, have made themselves liable to be commanded by a Mandamus for such purpose.The pleadings in the writ petition are basically to the effect that the hire- purchase agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause and, therefore, the respondent no.10 (hereafter the company) could not have taken possession of the trucks without an award/order being passed by the arbitrator; also that, such forcible dispossession having been brought to the notice of the police as well as the RTO, it was their bounden duty to set things right by registering an F.I.R. against the respondents 10 and 11 and by restoring possession of the trucks in favour of the petitioner.In course of hearing, Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the respondents 10 and 11 placed copy of a 'vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement' entered into by and between the respondent no.10 and the petitioner.He submitted that the petitioner having failed to pay the agreed equated monthly instalments towards clearance of the dues, the drastic action of re-possessing the trucks was necessitated.Reference was made by him to clause (E) titled 'EVENTS OF DEFAULT, RIGHTS AND REMEDIES THEREON' to support the action of re- possession.The petitioners are entitled to an order as prayed for.This Bench has heard learned advocates for the parties and considered the decisions having a bearing on the issue that has emerged for decision (noted at the beginning of this judgment).
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,159,366 |
During his entire professional career as driver he has not caused any other accident.On the date of accident he had not fled from the spot and during trial also he regularly appeared.CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 3 of 11Another plea taken by the petitioner is that the scooterist fell on the road and suffered injuries after the scooter hit against CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 4 of 11 the wooden plank (phatta) which were meant for weekly bazaar.Contention of the petitioner that PW-7 Pappi Singh is a planted witness is falsified from the record as he is a witness not only to the personal search memo of the petitioner (Ex.PW-4/C) but also to the seizure memo Ex.PW-4/A vide which the scooter was seized, Ex.PW-4/B vide which the offending bus was seized and Ex.PW-4/D vide which the license of the injured PW-1 Rehmat Khan was seized by the I.O. Not only that the documents pertaining to the offending bus No.UP 14 D 2853 i.e. photocopies of insurance, permit, pollution certificate, RC Book were also seized in his presence.Personal search memo Ex.PW-4/C bears signatures of the petitioner and nowhere suggestion has been given to PW-7 that he was not present at the time of arrest and seizure.CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 4 of 11As per the prosecution case, I.O HC Bhim Singh along with Ct.Hira Lal visited the spot on receiving DD No.10A recorded at 9:30 a.m vide which information was received regarding the incident at Seema Puri Bus Stand Depot.The endorsement Ex.PW-11/A made by the I.O is to the effect that on receipt of DD No.10A when he along with Ct.Hira Lal reached the spot, he found the Bus and the Scooter as well as the Bus driver and PCR staff at the spot.The injured had already been removed by PCR Van to GTB hospital.Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, APP CORAM:HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI % MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANIThe present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 401/397 Cr.P.C. impugning the order passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi on 29.09.2011 whereby the appeal filed by him against his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned M.M. was dismissed.In brief the prosecution case is that on 18.04.1996 at about 9:15 a.m the petitioner was driving Bus No.UP 4D P 2853 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety and while driving so, hit the Scooter bearing registration No.DL 2S B 2816 as a result of which Rehmat Khan driving the scooter and the pillion rider Mohd. Asif both suffered injuries.One passerby lady namely Tara also suffered injuries due CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 1 of 11 to the impact.All the three injured Rehmat Khan, Mohd. Asif and Tara were removed to GTB Hospital by the PCR Van.Mohd. Asif succumbed to the injuries.On the basis of statement made by Rehmat Khan, case FIR No.206/1996 was registered at P.S. Seema Puri, Delhi and after completion of investigation, the petitioner was sent to face the trial.CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 1 of 11The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in order to prove its case.In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the evidence adduced by the prosecution.He has not led any evidence in his defence.Believing the testimonies of PW-1 Rehmat Khan, the complainant/injured and eye witness and another public witness PW-7 Pappi Singh, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 279 IPC and simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 337 IPC.The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.The conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner were affirmed by the Appellate Court.The impugned judgment and order on sentence have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court on the ground that the learned trial court and the appellate court have failed to appreciate that PW-1 Rehmat Khan during his cross-examination before the Court could not even give the registration number of the offending Bus and rather in his cross-examination he stated that the scooter was hit by a truck.It has been contended that if the scooter was hit from behind then there was no occasion for CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 2 of 11 the scooterist to observe as to in what manner the Bus was being driven by the petitioner.It is also submitted that when the Investigating Officer of the case visited the spot he did not meet any eye-witness.It is contended that the place of accident is thickly populated area but no independent witness was joined by the I.O. and the writing work was done by him in the comfort of Police Station.On behalf of State, it has been submitted that the conviction of the petitioner is based on the testimonies of PW-1 Rehmat Khan and PW-7 Pappi Singh who are the eye-witnesses of the incident and they have absolutely no enmity towards the petitioner.PW-1 Rehmat Khan is the injured and driver of the scooter at the time when the scooter was hit from behind by the Bus driven by the petitioner, who deposed about the manner in which the accident had taken place resulting in injuries to him and fatal injuries to the pillion rider Mohd. Asif.PW-7 Pappi Singh was travelling in the Bus driven by the petitioner and in his statement he has stated that he asked the driver of the bus to drive slowly as he was driving the bus at a very high speed which is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the petitioner.After leaving Ct.Hira Lal to guard the spot, he reached GTB Hospital and obtained the MLCs of Tara, Mohd. Asif and Rehmat Khan, who were admitted in the hospital due to injuries received in a road side accident.He recorded statement of the injured Rehmat Khan PW-1 and thereafter returned to the spot where he found PW-7 Pappi Singh present and he sent the CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 5 of 11 rukka for registration of FIR.The time for sending the rukka to police station is at 11:10 a.m.. This endorsement which has been recorded by the I.O on reaching the spot on return from the hospital established beyond reasonable doubt that the accident had taken place between the Bus No.UP 4D P 2853 and Scooter No.Statement of PW1 proves that he was travelling in the Bus driven by the petitioner present there and arrested from the spot.CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 5 of 11So far as testimony of PW-1 Rehmat Khan is concerned, he has specifically stated that on 18.04.1996 at about 9:15 a.m. when he was going on Scooter No.DL 2S B 2816 along with Mohd. Asif from Seema Puri to Patparganj and had reached at Shahdara, his scooter was hit from behind.No doubt, the scooterist moving ahead could not have seen the driver at that time or the manner in which the Bus was being driven by him, but at the same time the manner in which the scooter moving ahead has been hit by the Bus driven by the petitioner, is sufficient to prove that the Bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the petitioner.This statement of the injured stands fully corroborated by PW-7 Pappi Singh who was travelling in the Bus at the relevant time and stated that as the petitioner was driving the bus at a very high speed, he asked the petitioner to drive slowly.The site plan prepared by the I.O proves that the accident has taken place on the road and not on pavement where the wooden planks (phattas) might have been put by the vendors of weekly Bazar and even otherwise it has come on record that the weekly Bazar used to start in the evening whereas the time of accident is in the morning.CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 6 of 11The place of accident has been immediately visited by the I.O and the vehicles involved in the accident were found to be the offending bus and the scooter.It is nowhere case of the prosecution or of the defence that any truck was involved in the accident nor any such suggestion has been given to any of the material prosecution witnesses or to the I.O during the course of their cross- examination.The plea of the petitioner that he was apprehended from behind the Bus Depot is nothing but an after-thought for the simple reason that while seizing the documents of the Bus, photocopy of his driving license was also seized and even though he has denied in his statement that he was driving the offending bus, the documentary evidence and the oral testimonies of PW-1 & PW-7 establish beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was the driver of the offending bus, who hit the scooter from behind resulting injuries to Tara and PW-1 Rehmat Khan and fatal injuries to Mohd. Asif.Post mortem report of Mohf.Asif also proved that he succumbed to the injuries suffered in this accident.Merely because injured Tara could not be examined is not sufficient to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution, as the MLCs of the three injured i.e. Rehmat Khan, Asif and Tara were prepared at the same time in GTB Hospital and all the three were removed to the hospital in the PCR Van.It was subsequently CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 7 of 11 on the incomplete address mentioned by her as Tara, wife of Majij, r/o Jhuggi, Kalanda Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi she was not traceable, for which prosecution cannot be blamed.CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 7 of 11The petitioner was driving a private bus.It was his duty to drive the bus carefully and cautiously so as to care not only for the safety of the passengers travelling in the bus but also for the safety of other road users.The manner in which he had hit the scooter from behind resulting in injuries to Rehmat Khan and Tara and fatal injuries to Asif, is sufficient to hold him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC.Having glanced through the evidence and the reasoning given by the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment convicting the petitioner under Sections 279/337/304A IPC.Accordingly, I am of the opinion that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the courts below.The prayer for setting aside the conviction is accordingly declined and the impugned judgment convicting the petitioner is maintained.Counsel for the petitioner has also prayed for leniency on the point of sentence.He submits that the petitioner is the only bread earner of his family and he is facing the agony of trial for more than 16 years and had never absented during the trial.I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner on the point of sentence.CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 8 of 11A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours.He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion.This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles."In Manish Jalan vs. State of Karnataka JT 2008 (7) Sc 643, while considering the plea of the appellant for reduction of sentence, the Apex Court observed as under:-True that in the instant case the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 9 of 11 279 and 304-A IPC for driving rashly and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately resulted in the loss of a precious human life.But it is pertinent to note that there was no allegation against the appellant that at the time of accident, he was under the influence of liquor or any other substance impairing his driving skills.In above referred case, the Supreme Court, after taking into account that the appellant of that case had suffered a protracted trial of almost 17 years, reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant and awarded him imprisonment for a period of less than one year, as prescribed under law, giving the delay as a special reason.In the instant case, undisputedly the revisionist has undergone a protracted trial for almost 15 years.He has suffered the agony and trauma of a protracted trial.Besides that, he is the sole earning member of his family comprising of his wife and three children.Sessions Judge."CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 10 of 11In this case also, petitioner was not found to be in inebriated condition at the time of commission of this offence.He was facing protracted trial for almost more than 16 years.Thereafter, the concerned Court shall send information to the Registry to this effect and in case of failure of the petitioner to surrender before the concerned Court, the Court shall take necessary steps to secure his presence and send him to jail to undergo the sentence.Trial Court Records be send back forthwith to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for compliance.CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 stands disposed of in the above terms.(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE JULY 17, 2012 dc CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 11 of 11CRL.REV.P. 101/2012 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,066,861 |
Item No. 159sdas C.R.R. No. 3243 of 2016 In the matter of : An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In retaliation, impugned criminal proceeding has been instituted against the petitioner at the behest of the opposite party no. 2 herein.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,408,118 |
The detenu, namely, Deva, male, aged 24 years, S/o.4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2882 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 5 of 6and P.T.ASHA, J.(mmi) H.C.P.No.2882 of 2019 27.05.2020 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the father of Deva, male, aged 24 years, S/o.Arumugam, who is the detenu.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.Page 2 of 64.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:Further, I submit no bail petition has been filed so far on behalf of the accused Thiru.Further the Sponsoring Authority has filed a Special Report stating that the relatives of the accused Thiru.Deva was trying to release the accused on bail in the ground case.Further in a similar case in Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station Cr.No.695/2013 u/s. 323, 302 IPC againstVetrivel, 2.Thiru.Ramu and 3.Thiru.Elumalai, bail was dismissed by the District Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.No.3794/2013 dated 25.11.2013 and they were released on bail by the order the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai in Crl.Hence I infer that there is a real Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2882 of 2019 possibility of his (Thiru.Page 3 of 6O.P.No.290/2014 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2882 of 2019 the order of detention in D.O.No.91/2019-C2 dated 20.11.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.Arumugam, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.Page 4 of 6Home, Prohibition Excise Department, Fort St.2.The Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,082,460 |
The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 448/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered vide Chapra P.S. Case No.501 of 2012 The petitioner is in custody for 118 days.He shall not also tamper with the prosecution case or commit any offence, while on bail.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.( Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 2 ( Subal Baidya, J. )
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,083,442 |
29.08.13 Item No. 47 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 47And In the matter of: Kalipada Roy & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Samiran Mondal For the Petitioners Ms. Ratna Ghosh For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Beliatore Police Station Case No. 22 of 2013 dated 24.04.2013 under Sections 143/148/323/325/379/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,093 |
The facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petitions are that, while the workmen was driving the bus in route No.102F from Madras to Arni near the Kolathur junction road, the bus collided with the another bus belonging to the same management coming in the opposite direction and after the impact the bus went on its right side, crossed the road and dashed on a tree.Due to the accident eight passengers died and nineteen persons sustained serious injury and four persons sustained simple injury.A case was registered against the workmen in crime No.383 of 1995 on the file of the Kaveripakkam Police Station for offences under Section 279, 337 and 304 (A) IPC.According to the management, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the workmen.Prayer in W.P.No.5336 of 2004 : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in claim petition No.30/2002 dated 18.06.2003 and quash the same.The petitioner in W.P.No.5807 of 2003 is the Management of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Villupuram Division II (hereinafter referred to "as the Management).The second respondent was working as a driver in the petitioner management (hereinafter referred to "as the workmen").The learned counsel appearing for the Management after elaborately setting out about the manner in which the accident had occurred would strenuously contend that the accident is solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the workmen and that the management was fully justified in passing the order of termination, that the Labour Court failed to apply the principles of res-ipsa-loquitor and ought to have dismissed the dispute raised by the workmen.That the Labour Court ought to have seen that the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of the workmen, which resulted in collision of two buses belonging to the management, loss of eight lives and injuries to passengers, and damage to the buses of the management and such misconduct warrants the punishment of termination; that the bus was driven at very high speed in a reckless manner and as a result of which the workmen lost control of the vehicle and the bus crossed the road and hit against a tree and the tyre marks on the road clearly establish the accidents, since the bus had travelled nearly 150 feet away from the collision spot, whereas the other bus travelled only 80 feet from the place of collision.Further, the past record of the workmen is a from being satisfactory, since he had caused injury to a child on the road and he was warned for the said delinquency.Further before the enquiry officer, the driver of the other bus was not examined as a result of which the workmen herein did not have an opportunity to the cross examine the other driver.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,093,598 |
Shri R.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the complainant.Shri R.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the petitioner for same incident a FIR was registered on 7.11.2008 (Annexure P/2).After investigation, police submitted a report (Annexure P/3).It was recommended that matter be closed against the petitioner.I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.It is seen that the petitioner himself has filed certain statements, which were recorded by the court below before taking cognizance.Said statements are against the petitioner.However, interestingly, police report was also placed before the court below.It gives a different story and nothing is found in it against the petitioner.The police recommended for dropping the proceedings against him.The court below in one breath opined that statements of complainant witnesses and police report were perused.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,143,269 |
06.8.13 Item No. 88 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 88And In the matter of: Pradip Biswas @ Raju Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Subir Debnath Mr. Debjit Kundu For the Petitioner Mrs. Suman Shenabis For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Santipur Police Station Case No. 420 of 2013 dated 10.07.2013 under sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.The Petitioner is the husband of the complainant.They have one child.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other material on record.The Complainant will accept the amount without prejudice to her rights and contentions to file any proceedings for maintenance.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,154,169 |
The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, is as under:"1. .... DD No. 5A was registered on 17.04.2000 at PS New Ashok Nagar regarding admission of a lady with 95% burn injuries in Safdarjung Hospital.PW-6 SI Rajbir Singh reached at Safdarjung Hospital and took MLC of injured Preeti Sharma.PW-6 recorded her statement and informed about the occurrence to the SDM and CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 1 of 26 requested him to record statement of Preeti Sharma.SDM PW-19 Ravi Dadhich recorded statement of injured Preeti."PW-12 Surinder Nath s/o.Siddhi Nath aged 41 years, Chokidar, R/o.Jhuggi No.114 Sector 10, Noida U.P. permanent address Village Fulad, PS Paru, Distt.Muzaffarpur Bhiar.On SA.I am working as guard in AIIMS apartment Vasundhara Enclave Delhi.I know accused Shantanu Raja present in the court, witness correctly identified as in year 2000 he was residing in flat no.28 alongwith his wife.In the night of 16/17 April, 2000 I was on night duty from 8 pm.to 8 am.I did not make any entry of the vehicle of accused in the register being the resident of the society.I have brought the original register maintained at the gate for coming and outgoing the vehicle inside the society.The photostate copy of register dated 17-04-00 is Ex.PW-12/A (within 3 pages) original register seen and returned.She was brought by her husband Raja.History was given by herself.General condition was critical.She sustained 95% thermal burns.The MLC is in the handwriting of Dr.Rajender and is Ex.PW4 and PW5 have deposed that accused Rajesh and Saroj used to ask their daughter to bring cash money from her parents in dowry.As already discussed, PW20 has alleged that accused Rajesh had told him that for getting money, he has hatched conspiracy to extract money from them.As per PW20, he had paid Rs.250/- to each guest who appeared in the marriage.PW-20 has further deposed that on 17.04.00 when he reached at ICU ward Safdarjung Hospital, attendants of CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 22 of 26 neighbourer patient of UP had told him that accused Raja had come there with some police officials and some other persons and had taken thumb impressions of Preeti on some papers and Preeti was semi conscious and murmuring in low voice " Mujhe Jala Diya, Mujhe Jala Diya".This statement of PW-20 is in contradiction to the Statements made by PW-4 and PW-5 who were also present in the hospital at that time.PW20 does not stop here.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 22 of 26As per the testimony of PW-4, after the marriage in the year 1999 respondent no.2 used to visit their house along with the daughter and used to demand money in dowry.The parents of the respondent no.2 also used to ask the deceased to bring cash from her parents.No exact date or any specific demand has been shown to have been made.It has also been deposed that in the year 1999 a sum of Rs.50,000/- was given to the respondent no.2 besides jewellery and other dowry items at the time of marriage.Present appeal has been filed by the parents of deceased, Preeti Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.8.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.70/08, whereby respondents no.2 to 4 have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code.After postmortem dead body was handed over to parents of Preeti Sharma.On 21.04.00 on the recommendation of SDM this FIR No. 69/00 under section 498A/304B was recorded.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 1 of 26From the spot, he seized various clothes in torn condition, a cane of kerosene oil, match box, one match stick and some pieces of broken bangles.PW-6 also recorded the statement of witnesses.Thereafter further investigation of this case was marked to D.I. U. Cell East District.Further investigation of this case was conducted by PW-22 Inspector A.S. Dhaka.He recorded statement of witnesses.Accused Rajesh Sharma and Saroj Devi Sharma, parents of accused Raja were formally arrested as they were granted anticipatory bail by Delhi High Court.After investigation police filed chargesheet against three accused persons under sections498A/304B IPC.3. Charges under sections 498A/304B/34 IPC were given to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."The prosecution has examined 24 witnesses.Mr.Madhukar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court is contrary to the evidence and the same is not in conformity with the law relating to matrimonial cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A IPC.Counsel further submits that the daughter of the appellants died in unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage, she was repeatedly harassed for dowry and CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 2 of 26 upon her resistance to the same she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty.Counsel next submits that the findings of the trial court, more particularly in paras 34 and 35 of the impugned judgment, are contrary to the facts.Counsel also submits that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry a few hours before the incident as Raja, respondent no.2, had demanded money from the mother of the deceased and upon her failure to pay the same he had sought to leave the deceased at her matrimonial home itself.Thus, the respondent no. 2 had sought to make the matrimonial status of the deceased depending upon the fulfilment of the said demand.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 2 of 26It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the incident of demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased has led to the burning of the deceased, which has been deposed by PW-4, mother of the deceased.In her statement the mother had categorically deposed that few hours prior to the incident of burning, respondent no.2 had come to her house and raised a demand of Rs.20,000/-.Since the appellant no.2, father, was not at home she could not arrange for Rs.20,000/- upon which the respondent no. 2 started fighting with Preeti, threatened her with dire consequences and told her that he would not take her till the money was arranged by the appellants.Another argument has been raised by learned counsel for the appellants that the trial court has failed to appreciate that at the time of the incident the deceased was present behind closed doors along with the husband, respondent no.2, and no reasonable explanation is forthcoming from respondent no.2 so as to explain the cause of death of the deceased.It is next contended by learned counsel for the appellants that respondent CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 3 of 26 no.2, husband, did not suffer any burn injuries to douse the flames which would have resulted in injuries to his hands.It is further contended that there are material contradictions as two versions have been given out by respondent no.2 to the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-7 immediately after the incident.It is further contended that PW-7, Rahul Jain, who accompanied appellant no.2 to the hospital in NOIDA, was informed by respondent no.2 that cause of injuries sustained was during cooking whereas PW-2, Vir Singh, was informed that the cause of injuries were self-inflicted.It is also contended that respondent no.2 acted in a suspicious manner with regard to the cause of burns sustained by the deceased.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 3 of 26Another leg of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the trial court committed an error in relying upon the dying declaration recorded by the SDM.It is further submitted that the deceased suffered 95% burns and, thus, in the ordinary nature of things she would be incapable or would not be in a position to speak.It is also submitted that the dying declaration bears the thumb impression of the deceased, who was completely burnt.9. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the dying declaration cannot be relied upon as it is not credible for the reason that in the dying declaration the time of the incident has been mentioned as 11.30 p.m. whereas the deceased and respondent no.2 had entered their society complex at 2.00 a.m. (in the night).Further as per the dying declaration the period of marriage between the deceased and respondent no.2 was four months whereas in fact they were married for six months.Counsel further submits that given the 95% burn injuries, the deceased could not have made any statement to the SDM.Counsel submits that the purported CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 4 of 26 fitness certificate has overwriting and that too in a different ink, which establishes the collusion between the authorities and respondents no.2 toCRL.A.1465/2010 Page 4 of 26It is also submitted that Dr. Savita, who signed the fitness certificate, was not examined by the prosecution and PW-13, Dr. Savita, proved her signatures on the fitness certificate.It is next submitted that the dying declaration was not signed by any witness or the Doctor, who signed the fitness certificate.To buttress his argument that the dying declaration is unreliable since the deceased had mentioned the date of incident as 11.30 p.m., reliance is placed on the evidence of PW-12, the chawkidar, to show that the deceased and respondent no.2 had entered the main gate of the flat at 2.00 a.m. (in the night).The evidence of PW-12 reads as under:In that night accused Shantanu along with his wife and entered in the main gate of flats at about 2 am (right) in his car.At about 4 am accused went outside the gate in his car.I did not check the vehicle of accused as I knew accused Shantanu being the resident of society and sticker of the society was affixed on the vehicle.One copy given to Ld. APP, one copy given to accused persons and one copy retained in judicial file.On the next day i.e. 18-4-00 police recorded my statement.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 5 of 26xxxxxxxx by Sh.S.K. Ahluwalia counsel for all accused In those days the parents of Shantanu was not residing in that flat Vol: Prior to the occurrence they used to reside.I cannot tell when the parents of Shantanu had left the flat before the occurrence.As per the entry of register on 16-4-00 one Bunty Resident of B16 Chander Nagar Ghaziabad has visited at Flat No.28 at 6:05 p.m. Bunty is brother of Preeti.I never heard any complaint of Shantanu with regard to quarrel with his wife.Generally guard used to make entry in the register of the visitors except the resident of the colony.But sometimes visitors reluctant not to make entry in the register then we generally take permission from the resident and thereafter allow the entry of the vehicle.I know Sh.R.K. Mittal who is present in the court today.As per the register entry Mr.R.K. Mittal R/o.B-16, Chander Nagar Ghaziabad had visited in flat no.28 at about 9:45 pm and went from gate at 11 pm on 9-4-00."Learned counsel for respondent no.1, State, has pointed out that no leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the trial court.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4 submits that the deceased and respondent no.2 had a love marriage and they enjoyed a very good relationship.Counsel further submits that the dying declaration of the deceased makes it abundantly clear that respondent no.2 and his family members had no role to play in the death of the deceased.Counsel next submits that the dying declaration is self-explanatory as she had stated that on account of a quarrel with her husband, respondent no.2, on a small matter, since he told her that he would not talk to her, she put herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil.The deceased in her statement had categorically stated that there was no demand for dowry and it was a love marriage of the deceased and respondent no.2 as they were having an affair for the last three years.The deceased also made it clear that her in- laws resided at Bijnor and there was nothing against them.Learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4 contends that the parents of the deceased and her relations have made false depositions on account of the CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 6 of 26 fact that they never approved the love marriage between the deceased and respondent no.2 and this forced the deceased and respondent no.2 to get married after running away from their house.Counsel next contends that there is no question of demanding any dowry by respondent no.2 or his family, as respondent no.2 is a well-settled person and carries on the business of property dealing.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 6 of 26Learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4 has placed reliance on the evidence of DW-1 to DW-3 to show that the parents of respondent no.2 were residing at Bijnor.As per the evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 the deceased was an acquaintance of respondent no.2 and she had visited their house once or twice; the deceased had informed them of her love; and her parents were interfering in her matrimonial home.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.We have also perused the trial court record, which was summoned.The arguments of learned counsel for the appellants can be summarised as under:The evidence of the parents of the deceased and close relations clearly proves that the deceased was being harassed for demand of dowry, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and her in-laws in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death and since the death of the deceased was in unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act is against respondents no. 2 to 4 and accordingly Section 304B would be attracted.The dying declaration is neither credible nor trustworthy as Preeti had suffered 95% injuries and she was not in a position to make a statement, which is also evident from the fact that she had made CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 7 of 26 two factual errors in her statement which she would not have made in case she was in her right senses.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 7 of 26Doctor has not signed the dying declaration as a witness.Arguments of learned counsel for the respondents can be summarised as under:The dying declaration was made before the SDM.There was no necessity that the Doctor should have signed the dying declaration as a witness.Savita, Exhibit PW-13/B. It may further be noticed that this witness was not cross- examined with regard to the credibility of the fitness certificate.The evidence of PW-13 reads as under:"PW-13: Dr.Savita Arora, Specialist Plastic Surgery, Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi on sa:I have been deputed by the MS to testify on behalf of Dr.Rajender Kumar and Dr.Who have left the services of the hospital.I have seen MLC No.280118 dt. 17.4.00 at 06.45 AM, the same is in the handwriting of Dr.Rajender Kumar whos handwriting and signatures I identify being conversant with the CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 16 of 26 same as he was my junior.The MLC is Ex.PW13/A which bears his signature at point A. It reads as under:CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 16 of 26That alleged history of sustaining burn injury, when she poured kerosene oil on her body set herself on fire after quarrel with her husband.PW13/A and his signature circled at point A.I have also perused the endorsement made by Dr.Swati on the application of the IO with regards to status of fitness of the patient.Fitness for the statement was given by Dr.I am conversant with her handwriting.She had worked under me.Her endorsement is Ex.PW13/B in encircled portion with her signature at point A.Xxxxxxx by Shri S.K. Ahluwalia, Counsel for the accused persons It is correct that the permanent address of the Doctors are in the administrative Branch.I have not checked the address.The MLC and other report were not prepared in my presence.I have no personal knowledge of these MLC and other report.The history was given by the patient herself."It has also been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the victim had suffered 95% burn injuries and, thus, she would not be in a fit state to give the statement and there were two factual errors in the dying declaration, firstly, with regard to the time of incident and, secondly, the duration of marriage.Since Dr.Rajender Kumar, who was working as a Junior to PW-13, Dr.Savita Arora, had left the service of the hospital, PW-13 has proved the MLC, Exhibit PW-13/A, prepared by Dr.PW-13 has also proved the endorsement made by Dr.As far as the submission of the counsel for the appellants with regard to the demand of dowry soon before the death of the deceased is concerned, the same has been discussed by the trial court in the following manner :PW4 Raj Kapoor has made specific allegations that in December, 1999, he had given Rs.50,000/- to accused Rajesh Sharma when he had come to his house along with accused Raja and his daughter.PW-4 and PW-5 have nowhere alleged that for the alleged demand of dowry, if either in their presence, Preeti was harassed and tortured by either of the accused persons or if Preeti had ever told that she is being harassed or tortured by accused persons for demand of dowry.Except the alleged incident which took place on 16.04.00 in their house, which as per prosecution, was only witnessed by complainant PW-5 and neither PW4 nor PW-20 was present there at that time.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 21 of 26As already discussed, PW-3 Smt Reeta Singh who is neighhourer of the parents of the deceased Preeti has deposed that the mother of Preeti had told her that accused Raja and his mother used to torture her daughter for dowry but statement of PW-5 who is mother of the deceased is silent if Preeti had ever told her that her harassment and torture for demand of dowry either by accused Raja or his mother accused Saroj .He has further made allegations against first IO HC Rajbir Singh and against IO Inspector A.S. Dhaka (PW22) and SDM Ravi Dadhich (PW19) for not acting fairly and being in collusion with accused persons.Because of these massive improvements made by PW-20 in his statement vis a vis statement of PW-4 and PW-5, his testimony is not found credit worthy."According to this witness on 15.4.2000 in his absence the respondent no.2 had come to his house at midnight and demanded Rs.20,000/- and this is the incident of demand of dowry soon before the death of Preeti.The mother of the deceased has deposed on the similar lines and given the reason for demand of Rs.20,000/- as it was to be re-paid to one Gurpreet Singh Dhara.PW-10, Gurpreet Singh Dhara has admitted that he has given Rs.20,000/- to respondent no.2, but he had never asked respondent no.2 to return the money, although respondent no.2 had offered to return the money, but he did not accept the same by CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 23 of 26 saying that it may be treated as a wedding gift.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 23 of 26In the case of Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported at 2010 (3) Apex Court Judgments 258 (S.C.), it has been held as under:PW2 (father of the deceased) has not stated in his evidence before the Court that Jagdish and Gordhani, in any way, subjected the deceased to any harassment or cruelty.PW4 (mother of the deceased), however, has stated that the deceased used to complain about the demand of a Scooter by Girdhari and harassment by her mother-in-law Gordhani, but PW-4 has not stated what was the exact act of Gordhani by which the deceased felt harassed.The evidence of PW-5 (brother of the deceased) is that whenever the deceased used to come home she used to complain that her in-laws have been teasing her and they were demanding a Scooter or Rs.25,000/- for a shop and that when the deceased came home one month prior to her death, she complained that her mother-in-law and all other in-laws used to torture her and taunt her that she did not bring anything, but PW5 has not described the exact conduct of the mother-in-law and other in-laws on account of which the deceased felt tortured and taunted.On the other hand, the evidence of PW4 is clear that Amar Singh used to taunt her that she has come from a hungry house.Thus, there was evidence in the case of Amar Singh about his exact conduct which caused harassment to the deceased but there was no such evidence in the case of Jagdish and Gordhani.A prosecution witness who merely uses the word "harassed" or "tortured" and does not describe the exact conduct of the accused which, according to him, amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the Court in cases under Section 498A and 304B IPC.For this reason, the High Court has taken a view that the charges against Jagdish and Gordhani have not been established beyond reasonable doubt and that their case is distinguishable from that of Amar Singh and that Jagdish and Gordhani appear to have been implicated because they were members of Amar Singh's family.CRL.A.1465/2010 Page 24 of 26We, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention of Dr.Singhvi that the High Court should have sustained the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhani and we accordingly dismiss this appeal."In the present case, the mother and father of the deceased have not been able to establish that any specific demand of dowry was made by respondents no.2 to 4 either soon after the marriage or soon before the incident.The alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- a day before the incident is not found to be reliable and, thus, it cannot be said that there was any live link between the demand of dowry and death of Preeti, more particularly, in view of the dying declaration of Preeti.The testimony of PW-20 is most unreliable, although he is the uncle of the deceased, but he has given details of payments made and monies spent which have not even been stated by the mother and father of the deceased.It may also be noticed that although the parents of the husband (respondent no.2) i.e. respondents no.3 and 4 were staying at Bijnor even they were not spared in making allegations, which shows that the testimonies of PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-20 are not reliable; and more particularly when their own daughter has given her husband and her in- laws a clean-chit.We may notice that respondent no.2 was with Preeti, he took her to the hospital and made all efforts to save her including calling up his friends in the middle of the night to seek their help.Thus, it cannot be said that respondent no.2 did not make any effort to save his wife.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
541,608 |
In thejudgment, the appellant will be referred to as "A.1" and the other accused,who was acquitted by the trial Court, will be referred to as "A.2".A.1 andA.2 were charged under Section 341 IPC.and A.2 was also charged underSection 342 IPC.The facts are as follows:-P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the mother of thedeceased.They were all residing in ReddiarColony.A day after the Pongal festival in the year 1998 (15.1.1998), theaccused went to the house of the deceased and wanted him to accompany him toCoimbatore and thereafter, the accused left the house with the deceased andP.W.1, the wife of the deceased, who was in the house, saw both A.1 and herhusband leaving the house.The deceased did not return home.At 4.30 a.m.on 20.1.1998, when P.W.1 was sleeping in her house, the accused went there andwoke up P.W.1 by calling her name.P.W.1 came out of the house and A.1informed her that while she and the deceased returned from Coimbatore in a busand after alighting from the bus, when they were proceeding towards thevillage, her husband had become sick and that blood is oozing through hismouth.He requested P.W.1 to go over to the place.P.W.1 accompanied by hermother-in-law went along with A.1 and found her husband in front of a motorpump shed.The deceased was alive; but was not in a position to talk.Hetook the hands of P.W.1 and placed it on the neck, where she found a cutinjury.The deceased, thereafter, breathed his last.In the meantime, at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.4, the VillageAdministrative Officer, was informed by his menial that Kasinathan is lyingdead near a pump shed and P.W.4 went there.He found P.W.1 by the side of thedead body of her husband and she was crying.He questioned her and she gave astatement, which was reduced into writing.The said statement is Ex.P.1.Thereafter, P.W.4 despatched Ex.P.1 to Kattumannar Koil Police Station throughhis menial and Ex.P.1 was received by P.W.12, the Head Constable of the saidpolice station.P.W.12, on the basis of Ex.(Ayyadurai Anthoniar was not examined inCourt as he was bedridden and could not attend Court and the investigationconducted by him was spoken to by P.W.12, who assisted him and who knew hishandwriting and signature).The Inspector of Police, Ayyadurai Anthoniar, after taking upinvestigation in the crime, reached the scene of occurrence, where in thepresence of the Village Administrative Officer and others prepared anobservation mahazar, Ex.At the time of inquest, P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 6 andothers were examined and their statements were recorded.The scene ofoccurrence and the dead body were caused to be photographed by a photographer.1.Incised wound about 3 = cm x < cm x skin depth.Horizontal in front of neckone cm below the thyroid cartilage level.Centre of neck.2.Incised wound 1 = cm below the first said injury 1 is seen in front of neckmeasuring about 5 cms x 1 = cm x 1 cm on the left side edge of the injury and2 = cm on the right end of the injury.The doctor issued Ex.P.8, post-mortem certificate, reserving his opinion aboutthe cause of death and after the receipt of the chemical analyst's report,gave his final opinion opining that the deceased died on account ofhaemorrhage and anoxia due to the injury suffered by him about 18 to 22 hoursprior to autopsy.The Inspector of Police, continuing with his investigation,questioned P.Ws.7, 8 and others and recorded their statements.He searchedfor the accused; but they were found absconding.At about 12.30 p.m. on24.1.1998, on an information received, he proceeded to the house of A.2, wherehe arrested both A.1 and A.2 in the presence of P.W.10 and another.A.1 wasquestioned and he gave a statement.In pursuance of the admissible portion,Ex.P.4, given by him, A.1 took the police to a pump shed room and from near apipe produced M.O.3 and the same was seized under a mahazar Ex.Index:YesInternet:Yesbs/To,A.1 was charged under Section 302 IPC., while A.2 wascharged under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.The allegation against them isthat at about 3.30 a.m. on 20.1.1998, they wrongfully restrained thedeceased, Kasinathan and that A.1 cut him with an aruval and caused his deathand A.2 shared the common intention of A.1 in causing the death.The learnedtrial Judge, while acquitting A.2 under Section 341 IPC., convicted only A.1under the said section and sentenced him to one month rigorous imprisonment.A.2 was acquitted under charge No.2 as well as under charge No.4 framed underSections 342 and 302 read with 34 IPC.; but A.1 was convicted under Section302 IPC.and sentenced to imprisonment for life.A.1, aggrieved by the saidorder of conviction and sentence, has chosen to prefer the above appeal.Thereafter, he seized M.Os.1 and 2, blood-stained earth and sample earth respectively, under a mahazar Ex.The body was then despatched to thehospital with a requisition to the doctor for conducting autopsy.On receipt of the requisition, P.W.11, Civil Assistant Surgeonattached to Government Hospital, Kattumannarkoil, conducted autopsy on thebody of Kasinathan and found the following external injuries:-The crimewas altered to one under Section 302 IPC.and the accused were, thereafter,sent to Court for remand.The shirt, pant, underwear as well as the knifewere sent to Court with a requisition, Ex.P.15, requesting the Court toforward them for analysis.He obtained the post-mortem certificate on17.11.1998 and after the receipt of Exs.P.18 and P.19 the reports of thechemical analyst and Exs.The accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. onthe incriminating circumstances appearing against them and they denied all theincriminating circumstances.The prosecution, before the trial Court, examined the doctor,P.W.11, to establish the cause of death and from the evidence of the doctor aswell as from the certificate, Ex.The first circumstance is brought out through the evidence ofP.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased.She has further deposed that at about 4.30 a.m.on 20.1.1998, A.1 came to her house and woke her up and informed her that heand her husband returned from Coimbatore in a bus and that after alightingfrom the bus, while they were on their way to the village, her husband hadbecome sick near a pump shed and that blood is oozing through his mouth.Thereafter, the complaint was given by her to P.W.4, theVillage Administrative Officer, who arrived at the scene on being informed byhis menial.In t he said complaint, P.W.1 has mentioned that the deceased wastaken by A.1 to Coimbatore a day after Pongal festival.She has furtherstated in the complaint that while she was in the house, A.1 informed her thather husband has developed sickness while he and her husband were walkingtowards the village after alighting from the bus.This evidence of P.W.1,therefore, indicate that A.1 and the deceased were together when the deceasedsuffered injuries and it is for the accused to explain the circumstances underwhich the deceased came to suffer the injuries.It is no doubttrue that this witness was treated hostile; but it is settled principle of lawthat the portion of the evidence of a witness, even if the said witness turnedhostile, can be taken into consideration.P.W.6 is treated hostile as he didnot say in his evidence that he saw the accused and the deceased following himafter alighting from the bus.He has also stated thathe, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 alighted at Thottimadhagu.At this juncture, it is to beremembered that in the complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated that she wasinformed by A.1 that he and the deceased have alighted at Thottimadhagu andthat later, while they were proceeding towards the village, the deceasedbecame sick.The evidence of P.W.6, in the background of the statement ofP.W.1 in the complaint, Ex.P.1, therefore, show that A.1 and the deceased wereseen together in the bus by P.W.6 and that both of them alighted atThottimadhagu and later, the deceased was seen at the pump shed by P.W.1 withan injury on the neck.He was alsotreated hostile because he did not say that he saw A.1 cutting the deceased;but he has stated that he saw the deceased and A.1 in the bus and also sawthem alighting from the bus at Thottimadhagu.The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 9, therefore, show that the deceasedwas seen in the company of A.1 in the bus at 3.30 a.m. and that both of themalighted together and later the deceased was seen by his wife with a cutinjury.The accused, even in his 313 statement, did not utter a word as tohow the deceased suffered injuries.The total denial of all the circumstancesby the accused and the absence of explanation on his part to explain theinjury on the deceased can be taken as a missing link in the chain ofcircumstances as held by the Supreme Court in JOSEPH -vs- STATE OF KERALA (2000 S.C.C. (CRL.) 926),The prosecution having succeeded in establishing the cause ofdeath and the deceased having been seen in the company of the accused at 3.30p.m.at Thotimadhagu and the deceased was found with a cut injury on the neckand the fact that the accused had no explanation to offer as to how thedeceased suffered injuries, when put together clearly show that theprosecution has succeeded in establishing all the links in the chain ofcircumstances and therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with theconviction of A.1 under Section 302 IPC.On the evidence on record we find nomaterial to find A.1 guilty under Section 341 IPC.and therefore, he isacquitted of the said charge framed under Section 341 IPC.In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed upon A.1 underSection 341 IPC.are set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed uponhim under Section 302 IPC.The appeal isdismissed in the manner indicated above.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate,Cuddalore.2.-do- through the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.3.The Inspector of Police, Kattumannarkoil Police Station, Cuddalore District.4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.5.The Collector, Cuddalore.6.The Director General of Police, Madras.7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,161,475 |
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.100 of2019 registered with Kasarvadavali police station, onexecuting PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one ortwo sureties in the like amount;(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Stationon the frst and fourth Monday of every month between11:00 a.m. to 1:00 noon till the charge is framed;(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence orattempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnessesor any person concerned with the case;3 The application is accordingly disposed of.4 It is made clear that observations made hereinabovebe construed as expression of opinion only for the purposeShivgan 3/4 ::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:02:23 ::: 24-BA-2781-::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:02:23 :::2019.odtof granting bail and the same shall not in any wayinfluence the trial in other proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 18/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 11:02:23 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,163,291 |
(a) The complainant Manisha Rajendra Sayamber (P.W.1) filed F.I.R. Exh.22 with Police Station, Ambhora on 24.3.2002 and Crime No.15/2002 came to be registered at 2.15 p.m. She reported that, she ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 3 resides near village Parodi (Taluka Ashti) at about half Km.from the village by having a thatched roof house on the field.She has a son, daughter and husband living with her.So saying, they put fire to the thatched roof and it started burning.At that time, she came out with daughter and saw these people going in the light of the fire and moonlight.She ran shouting towards the village and the accused persons went away towards their house from behind.All the villagers gathered.By that time, the whole roof had ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 4 burnt.There were two bags of jawar, one bag of bajra, one bag of groundnut and empty sacks, beddings, clothes and utensils, which all got burnt.4 saris, 4 dresses worth Rs.10,000/- were destroyed.They have been convicted of offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C. in brief) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine and they have also been convicted for offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months and fine.The husband drives tempo.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Nearby there is no other residence., She claimed that, she has old strained relations on the count of agricultural field with the accused persons, who have been troubling her and her husband for one or the other reasons.When her husband is not at home, these people come and give trouble.claims that, on 23.3.2002, Saturday night at about 2.00 a.m. she was sleeping in the house along with her daughter and the accused persons came and called out to her asking her to come out.She did not go out and at that time, they kicked on the door and said that if she does not come out, they will burn the thatched roof.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Rs.15,131/- kept in plastic box were also burnt.Thus, the complaint.(b) The complaint was registered by P.W.6 A.S.I.Pandurang Shelke.Completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.Prosecution brought on record evidence of the complainant Manisha (P.W.1) supported by P.W.3 Kisan Parakale supporting the complainant that, after the fire was started, she was running towards the village shouting and that he saw the accused going away from near the spot.P.W.4 Ramrao Parakale and P.W.5 Shankar Thorat were examined to prove that, after the fire took place, they had heard the complainant saying that it was the accused persons who had put the house to fire.P.W.4 Ramdas turned hostile, but in cross-examination, supported the ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 5 prosecution while P.W.5 Shankar remained hostile as to what the complainant was saying.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::The defence of the accused persons is that of denial.According to them, because of the strained relations, false case has been filed against them.Trial Court, after discussing the evidence, concluded that, the complainant was sufficiently corroborated by other witnesses and the spot panchanama and that the offence was established.Consequently, the trial Court convicted the accused persons.Against the conviction, this appeal is filed contending and the learned counsel for accused argued, that the trial Court wrongly observed that, there is no material omission or contradiction.It was wrongly held that, delay in filing of the F.I.R. was satisfactorily explained.P.W.3 Kisan Parakale should have been held to be interested witness.There was complaint against son of P.W.3, filed by the accused No.3 Arjun and the strained relations were not properly appreciated.The appreciation of the evidence of the trial Court was wrong.The ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 6 evidence of P.W.4 was wrongly ignored where he deposed that the complainant was heard shouting that "somebody" has burnt the house.According to the learned counsel, the explanation of the delay that the husband was not at home, as given by the complainant, was not stated in the F.I.R. The complainant, after the incident, had stayed in the night at the house of P.W.3 Kisan Parakale.She tried to suppress the fact.Merely because the accused were seen running would not be enough evidence to hold that they had put the house to fire.There was no evidence that the accused actually put the house to fire.The evidence that all the three accused called out and all the three accused threatened and all the three accused put the house to fire was unacceptable as it is vague.Which accused exactly did what has not come on record.While showing the spot, the complainant did not point out as to where the said amount was kept which she claims to have burnt.This, although other things were pointed out.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Against this, the learned A.P.P. for State supported reasons recorded by the trial Court.According to the A.P.P., it was not possible for the complainant to see the accused persons before the house was put to fire and thus, if evidence on that count is not available, it is not material.In the incident, the ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 7 whole house was burnt.P.W.3 has supported the complainant to depose that he had seen the accused going away from the spot.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::The learned A.P.P. argued that, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.I have gone through the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and I have also gone through the reasons recorded by the trial Court to convict the accused persons.The Trial Court referred to the evidence of the complainant P.W.1 Manisha and observed that there was no material omission or contradiction in her evidence.Regarding the delay, the trial Court considered the evidence of complainant that she met her husband only at 1.00 p.m. on the next day and then they had filed complaint and so, according to the trial Court, the delay was satisfactorily explained.The admission of the complainant in cross-examination that the complaint was written in the house of P.W.3 Kisan Parakale was passed off by the trial Court saying that it was only a slip of tongue as the P.W.6 A.S.I. had stated that the husband of the complainant wrote the F.I.R. at the police station in his presence.The trial Court referred to the evidence of P.W.3 Kisan Parakale to observe that he corroborated the complainant that he had seen her running away from the burning house and accused were seen on spot.Reference was ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 8 made by the trial Court to charge sheet in R.C.C. No.43/2003, in which the accused No.3 Arjun is the complainant and one of the accused is son of P.W.3, with offence of rioting and assault.Trial Court reasoned that, if the accused had enmity with P.W.3, they would have burnt his house and not that of complainant.Trial Court found P.W.4 corroborating the complainant that after the incident she was referring to the names of the accused.Trial Court found that, although P.W.5 was partly hostile, his entire evidence could not be rejected.Trial Court observed that, there is enmity between the complainant and the accused.For such reasons, the trial Court discarded the rulings relied on by the accused and the trial Court accepted the evidence, and convicted the accused for offence of arson and criminal intimidation.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Looking to the submissions made and the evidence, and the reasonings recorded by the trial Court, it would be appropriate to see if the evidence is in fact appealing and if the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubts.The evidence of complainant P.W.1 Manisha is that, she resides in the field in grass-made hut (spot panchanama shows it had walls of stone with thatched roof).She deposed that, she and ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 9 her daughter were sleeping in the house in the night concerned.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Her evidence is that, accused Nos.1 to 3 came to her house at about 2.00 a.m. in midnight.She claimed that, they asked her to open the door, but due to fear she did not open the same.She claimed, her husband had gone to Ahmednagar on that night.According to her, the accused gave three kicks on the door, but she did not open the same and so, accused said that husband was not in the house and so set fire to the grass-made hut-cum-house.She says, thereafter they set fire to the house.She stated that, when the hut started to burn, she opened the door and came out with her daughter and she saw accused Nos.1 to 3 in the light of fire and moonlight.Thus, she wants to say that, before she came out of the house, she had not seen the accused.Naturally, she did not see as to who put fire to the house also.Although she claimed that accused Nos.1 to 3 came to her house and called out to her and claims that she was knowing these accused persons, she did not depose as to which accused stated what.She did not even claim that she could identify the voices of the accused persons.The evidence plain and simple is that she was in the hut and the three accused came, they called out to her to open the door and she did not open, and all accused stated that her husband is not ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 10 at home and the house should be set to fire and then the fire started.This is like saying that all the acts and talks were committed in unison.She even attributed three kicks on the door (as if one for each accused).The learned counsel for the accused is rightly arguing that such evidence should be treated as vague.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::The evidence of complainant then is that, when she came out of the house, she saw the accused in the light of fire and moonlight and she claims that thereafter she rushed towards the village shouting and after making reference to the articles and cash burnt, she deposed that, she had lodged complaint to the police station.It has come in her cross-examination that the said hut is between village Parodi and Borowadi.The spot panchanama shows that, road has gone abutting the field where she was staying in the thatched hut.Evidence is that, the village Parodi has a population of about 2000-2500 people and there is also a police patil by name Nivrutti Sayamber.P.W.3 Kisan Parakale gave evidence in support of the complainant claiming that the incident took place at about 12.00 - 1.00 midnight.He claims that, he was at his house and the complainant Manisha came shouting that her house was burning.He deposed that, he went on the road and saw accused Nos.1 to 3 running away ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 11 towards village.In the cross-examination, omission was brought regarding the word 'running'.Thus, what remains is that, the P.W.3 claimed that he saw the accused persons going away.This Kisan claimed that he saw the fire and also saw that the complainant was rushing towards the village.He did not speak of complainant coming to him.In the cross-examination, the complainant accepted that, after the said incident, firstly she met this P.W.3 Kisan Parakale.She deposed that, he is her relative.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Initially she denied that she stayed at the house of Kisan Parakale and only on next day went to the police station.P.W.3 Kisan also, in his evidence, did not claim that the complainant, after the incident, came shouting to his house.He deposed as if he saw her rushing away towards the village.In the cross-examination, rather he claimed that, after the incident, complainant went running into the village and after that, she did not meet him.In the further cross-examination, the complainant deposed that, at that night her husband was not at home and, therefore, she lodged complaint on next day.She deposed that, the complaint was written in the house of Kisan Parakale.Although the trial Court has passed off this evidence of complainant as a slip of tongue, I do not agree with the trial Court.Rather than slip of tongue it was blurting out of truth.F.I.R. clearly appears to be delayed and filed after deliberation.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 12 If the evidence of P.W.1 complainant and P.W.3 Kisan is read together, there is feeling that, these persons are trying to hide facts.P.W.3 Kisan conveniently claimed lack of knowledge regarding pending case between the accused and his son in Ashti Court.It shows strained relations.The reasoning of the trial Court that if there were strained relations between the accused and P.W.3 Kisan, the accused would have burnt rather house of P.W.3 than that of the complainant is not appealing because there is admitted case of the complainant herself that she and her husband have disputes regarding property with the accused persons.In the F.I.R. Exh.22, the complainant clearly mentioned that, she and her husband have disputes with the accused persons regarding field property.However, in oral evidence, the complainant wanted to avoid these questions.In her evidence regarding the incident, she did not state as to why at such late hours as 2.00 a.m. the accused had come and what were they asking.Why they wanted her to open the door, is not stated.Whether they wanted to talk to her or they were agitated by any incident or what, nothing is there.If the accused wanted to put the hut to fire, it is unreasonable that they would expose their identity and unnecessarily call out to her and bang the door and then say that they will burn the house.The case of the complainant on this count, appears to be not inspiring ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 13 confidence.It would be unnatural conduct for the accused to reveal their identity by voice (when parties are known) and risk themselves.The complainant, in cross-examination, stated (in para 7) that, it was not true that there was quarrel between her husband and accused No.2 prior to the incident.She accepted that, accused No.2 is her real brother-in-law.She denied that, there were often quarrels taking place between her husband and the accused.Thus, although in the complaint it was mentioned that there was strained relations on the count of agricultural property, in the evidence complainant denied strained relations and wants the Court to accept her evidence that the accused persons simply came, shouted out, banged door and put the house to fire.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Then there is evidence of P.W.4 Ramdas, who, in his examination-in-chief, claimed that, hearing shouts he got up and found fire at the farm house of complainant.He deposed that he saw complainant rushing towards village shouting that her cattle shed was burnt by "somebody".Cross-examination of this witness shows that, the cattle shed of the complainant was 500 ft. away from his cattle shed.In the cross-examination by A.P.P., this witness stated that, the complainant was saying that cattle shed was put to fire by the accused.However, even this ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 14 witness admitted that, P.W.3 Kisan Parakale is his uncle.I have already mentioned that, complainant deposed that P.W.3 Kisan Parakale is her relative.Thus, they are all relatives.P.W.4 Ramdas admitted in cross-examination that after the incident quarrel had taken place between the son of P.W.3 Kisan and the accused.Thus, although P.W.4 was accepting the fact regarding quarrel between the accused and son of P.W.3, Kisan Parakale (P.W.3) himself pleaded ignorance to avoid the questions.P.W.5 Shankar was examined to show that the complainant was seen shouting referring to the name of the accused as people who burnt her house.He turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::As regards delay, the incident took place in the night at about 2.00 a.m. and the evidence is that, the complainant had rushed to the village shouting regarding the fire.Exh.22 claims that, all the villagers of the village assembled in the night itself.Admittedly the village has a police patil, but there is no material to show that the police patil went and reported the matter to the police station.The F.I.R. in this matter was not registered in the manner in which ordinarily police register offences.In this matter, although P.W.3 Kisan kept quiet, the cross-examination of complainant brought on ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 15 record the fact that, in the concerned night, the complainant had gone to his house and had stayed there.The complainant accepted that the complaint was written in the house of Kisan Parakale.The evidence of P.W.6 A.S.I. Pandurang in the cross-::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::examination brought on record the fact that the complaint was written by the husband of the complainant.claimed that the husband wrote the complaint sitting in the police station, there is no reason coming on record as to why the husband had to write it at Police Station and why the P.S.O.could not have recorded the complaint.The complaint Exh.22 does not even bear endorsement of P.W.6 as "Before" him.Although P.W.6 wanted to say that it was not true that the complaint was already prepared and brought, looking at the complaint, it does appear to be one which was prepared and brought and filed.The thumb impression on the original complaint has endorsement of "Dastur" by some Baban Sonawale.Who is this Baban Sonawale is not clear.If the original document Exh.22 is perused, it contains overwriting regarding the date of document, which was converted from "23.3.2002" to read as "24.3.2002".In the third para also, regarding the date of incident, on time there is change of date which was earlier written as "22.3.2002".It was overwritten to read as "23.3.2002" and the time also has been added ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 16 subsequently.This is apparent on bare perusal of the original document.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::Looking to all this evidence and the admitted strained relations, I find it risky to maintain the conviction.The complainant as well as the other star witness P.W.3 Kisan, I find to be risky to rely on as they appear to be suppressing fact or avoiding uncomfortable questions.There is yet one more aspect.The evidence of the complainant herself shows that, the fields of the accused persons are adjacent to her field.The evidence of P.W.4 Ramdas is that, he was at his cattle shed in the night concerned, which cattle shed is at a distance of 500 ft.from the cattle shed of the complainant.Although P.W.3 Kisan did not state if he was also staying at farm house, his defence is that, he was staying 500-1000 ft. away from the house of complainant.In fact he claims that she is his neighbour.Thus, if the accused persons had field adjacent to the field of complainant, and if these witnesses could be nearby, only because the accused persons were seen in the vicinity would not be enough evidence to jump to the conclusion that the accused persons had put the house to fire.This is specially in the background of the evidence which I have already ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 ::: Criminal Appeal No.715/2003 17 discussed that the evidence of complainant as to what happened before start of the fire, is vague.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::For such reasons, I am unable to agree with the reasons recorded by the trial Court and the conviction awarded.Fine, if paid, be refunded to them.(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2016 00:00:25 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,164,703 |
Heard on I.A. No.20794/2018, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.The final hearing of this appeal will take time.If the appellants are not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be futile.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the appellants may be allowed and the period of their remaining jail sentence may be suspended and they may be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.The custodial sentence awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Appellants Munna Singh, Bhupendra Singh and Moorat Singh be released from custody subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.They shall appear and mark their presence before the trial Court on 18.03.2019 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.Office is directed to requisition the record of the Court below and thereafter, list the matter for admission after four weeks.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 11/12/2018 18:02:24
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 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.
|
541,683 |
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.2.1992 of the KeralaHigh Court in Crl.M.M. Kashyap for the Appellant.M.T. George for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byK. RAMASWAMY.J.: Special Leave granted.The appellant was charged, found guilty and convicted undersection 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for life for causing the death of his brotherMathew on August 5, 1988 at about 8 a.m. in their Ramanattuhouse in Mazhuvannur in kerala State.Thus this appeal by specialleave.The prosecution case in nutshell is that Ramanattu Varkeyhad seven sons and four daughters.During his life time heexecuted repeated settlement deeds settling his extensiveproperties of 60 acres,double storeyed building andfactories which lead to acrimony among his children.In1976 the deceased Mathew was charged for patricide but wasacquitted.He was a discharged military officer and managedto have complete hold of the properties and excluded otherbrothers and sisters from enjoyment of the peorperties.Theappellant is the youngest and he resented the conduct of thedeceased.The prosecution case itself was that later onthere was reconciliation between the appellant and thedeceased as spoken to by the widow of the deceased (PW. 10)and one brother (PW. 12).According to the prosecution theaccused nursed grievance against the deceased for hisobstinance to exclude him of right to residence in theirfamily Ramanattu house.Consequently he was living atEmakulam where from his wife hails.The prosecution casewas that on the fateful day the appellant came and killedthe deceased in the Ramanattu house, bolting the door frominside.From the evidence it is apparent that Mathew met with agruesome murder with one stab injury and 17 incisedinjuries, injury No. 14 was a stab injury and was inflictedon the chest said to be with MO-IV and other incisedinjuries with MO-III chopper on his head, face, shoulder,hands and knees etc. There is little doubt from theprosecution evidence that the deceased met with homicide andthe offender committed gruesome murder with an intention tokill.But the main question is whether the appellant aloneperpetrated the crime.There is no direct evidence in proofof the prosecution case.It relies upon circumstantialevidence to connect the appellant that he alone hadcommitted the offence.The circumstances relied on are: (1)motive of the accused; (2) preparation; (3) His presence inthe neighbourhood and in the locality immediately before theoccurrence; (4) presence of the accused in Ramanattu Houseon the date of occurrence; (5) his presence immediatelyafter the occurrence; (6) Recoveries pursuant to hisstatement under section 27; (7) Injury found on the fingerof the accused.From these circumstances the prosecutionclaimed to have established that the appellant had committedthe offence of murder.The evidence of PW. 10, widow PW. 11, one sister PWS.12and 16 other brothers and the documentary evidence Ext. P6etc.would show that disputes among the brothers and sistersregarding the properties did exist, in particular, theevidence of PWs.10 and 12 establishes that Mathew excludedhis brothers and sisters, took possession of the entireproperties and was enjoying.A perliminary decree forpartition at the behest of PW. 12 was granted but finaldecree proceedings were pending.The deceased kept theRamanattu House locked.In this case the evidence of PWs,1, 2, 4 to 7, 14 and 21 is material to connect the395appellant with the crime.Normally when the Trial Court andthe High Court concurrently found that the accused hadcommitted the crime, this Court would refrain to appreciatethe evidence.On going through the Judgments of theSessions Court and the High Court we entertained doubtregarding the conclusiveness of the appellants' complacence.Therefore, we directed the appellant' counsel to produce theevidence.Accordingly the typed evidence has been placed onrecord.From the evidence we are satisfied that the Courtsbelow did not subject the evidence to critical analysis onthe touchstone of human conduct and probabilities andoverlooked material admissions and obvious unfair trial andincurable irregularities leading to grave prejudice to theappellant and miscarriage of justice.PW.1 was examined to prove the motive, the subsequentpresence of the appellant near about the place ofoccurrence.PW. 1 admittedly is agnate of the deceased andthe appellant.He was also a co-accused with the deceased,and had worked for him Ho also admitted that he wasenimically disposed towards the appellant.During the lifetime of their father he also worked in their fields.It wassuggested that the deceased stabbed Issac and John, otherbrothers but he denied the same while other witness admittedit.He was examined to prove that he was said to be presentin the Coffee House of PW. 4 and he saw the appellant withblood stained clothes at about 7 or 7.30 a.m. and also sawhim later while he was sitting in the coffee hotel.Heclaimed that he was sitting there from 7 O' Clock onwards.He found two or three drops of blood on appellant's Dhoti.It is incredible to believe his evidence for diversereasons.He was a co-accused with the deceased.He wasenimically disposed towards the appellant and his presencewas not spoken by PW. 4, the Coffee House owner and it isunimaginable that he had to remain in coffee hotel from 7a.m. to 8 a.m. or 8.30 a.m. just to sip coffee.He alsoadmitted that Ranjit, another brother had duplicate key ofthe house.He admitted in his cross-examination that nobody was present in the tea stall on that day when theaccused came there.He also admitted that none had seen theappellant at the junction.He admits that between 7.30 to10 a.m. the business- at the junction was very busy.It isnot has case that he accosted the appellant the tea stall.He disclaimed knowledge that Mathew was convicted in a caseof attempt to murder of Issac and John, his other brothers.He also admits that Ranjit used to complain to him thatMathew was not paying his share of income from the property.From this evidence it is clear that Ranjit had a duplicatekey of the house and other brothers equally bad motiveagainst the deceased.Mathew attempted to kill his twoother brothers and was prosecuted for the said offence.Theappellant and the deceased had reconciled and there is noevidence of subsequent hostility.PW. 1 had motive toperjure the evidence and he is a chance witness at best.Soit is very difficult to place absolute reliance on hisevidence that he saw the appellant before and after theoccurrence in the hotel PW.2 was a labourer.He claimedthat at about3968 O'Clock he went to Ramanattu house alongwith otherlabourers to work in the fields of the deceased.Accusedwas seen at the house with a white Dhoti and he noticedblood drops on it.He claimed that when the appellant camenear him, he made an extra judicial confession that he had afight with the deceased and he went away without sayinganying.He was an accused in a complaint laid by Issacagainst him.He admitted that Mathew arranged a lawyer forhim and the deceased looked after his case.He alsoadmitted that in the absence of Mathew, Ranjit was enteringinto the house with a duplicate key.He also admitted thatthe deceased attempted to kill Issac and John but he claimedthat it was hearsay.He also admitted that there were manyothers in the neighbourhood field of Ramanattu house andthat nobody had heard the appellant's making an extrajudicial confession to him that he had a fight with thedeceased.He also admitted that he did not tell any bodythat he saw blood stained marks.He also admitted that hedid not tell to the police when he was first questioned andthat he did not tell the colour or the border of the towel.From this evidence it is clear that he is an accused and thedeceased arranged dafence counsel to him in a case filedagainst him by Issac and that he is a chance witness.It isincredible to believe that the appellant made anextrajudicial confession.There is no corroborativeevidence that he worked on that day in the field of thedeceased.-PW. 4 is the tea shop owner, one km. away from Ramanattuhouse towards south.p.m. in the previous dayof occurrence.He kept a small bag with him.The next dayaround 8.30 a.m. he came to his shop and asked for thereturn of his bag.He changed his dress and thereafter hehad a tea and went away.He admitted even to the leadingquestions put by the prosecutor that he did not see anythingon the Dhoti.He did not give any special reason as to whythe appellant had to come to his shop alone on the previousday and kept the bag with him.He did not claim to have anyclose friendship with the appellant.He admitted that thebag was kept in the open place.He did not speak to thepresence of PW 1 in his stall.when the appellant had comeimmediately after the occurrence and asked for the bag tochange his dress one would expect that PW. 4 would have seenthe blood stained cloths now said to be of the appellant.He admitted to the leading questions that he did not findany blood stain on the appellant's white Dhoti.He isobviously accommodating witness to the police.Therefore,his evidence is of little assistance to connect theappellant.We have the evidence of PW. 5 that at about 8 or8.30 a.m. he went to the shop of PW.4 for tea and breadtoast.He admits in the cross-examinationthat his house is 1/2 k.m.to PW.4's tea shop.In betweenthere is another tea shop belonging to Ithupery and to thenorth of his house there is yet another tea shop and he is alabourer.Healso admitted that Ranjit was visiting Ramanattu house.Itwas also admitted that Ranjit Was assisting the prosecutionand he was instructing him to give evidence.From thisevidence it is clear that he was a brought up witness andhas no regard for truth.When there are two tea shopsnearby his house it is incredible to believe that he went tothe shop of PW. 4 at 1 km only to see that the appellant hadcome between 8 and 8.30 a.m. with a while Dhoti and bloodstained drop.He also spoke that the appellant hadthereafter changed the dress and he wore pant and shirt.His wearing pant and shirt was not even spoken by PW.He is another tea stall owner at a distance of 1-1/4k.m.from the place of occurrence.He claims that he hadseen the appellant around 5-5.30 a.m. in his shop.Headmitted that there are other tea shops nearby and there wasno special reasons for the appellant to come to his shop.He admitted that he cannot say how many other persons cameto his tea shop on that day.He also admitted that no bodyfrom Ramanattu house took tea in his shop, either before orthereafter none from the village had taken tea from thatshop.He also admitted that near Ramanattu house there areother tea shops.Police had examined him after two or threedays after the death.It is, therefore clear that he is anobliging witness to the police.PW. 7 claims to be an auto-rickshaw driver.He was examinedto prove that the deceased alighted at Ramanattu house froma bus by name Raja and he traveled in the bus and alightedat junction to take the auto-rickshaw which he was drivingand thereafter the appellant had traveled in his auto-rickshaw at 8.45 a.m. and paid him Rs. 10 as fare.Headmitted that he is a labourer and had no licence to driveauto.He claimed that he had driven auto for three yearsand said that he had taken auto on hire from several peoplebut he did not remember even the number of any one of theauto which he claimed to have-driven nor the owner's name ofeven one of the vehicles.He did not claim any prioracquaintance with either the deceased or the appellant.Healso did not know even the fare he was collecting per k.m.He admitted that he did not know the changes in the rates ofthe auto-rickshaw.It was suggested that he was givingfalse evidence at the instance of the police.Thesuggestion appears to be well justified.This witness wasexamined to connect that the deceased came to Ramanattuhouse on that day and the appellant left the scene around8.45 a.m. This is nothing but false evidence as he had noprior acquaintance with either the appellant or the deceasedand it is anybody's guess as to how it was possible for himto remember them on that day.There is no evidence that healso traveled by that bus and why? Thus this evidence isnot only false but incredible-to believe.14 is anotherowner of tea shop at Valakam.He claimed that the appellanthad placed a coffee coloured bag, with him398promising that he would collect it on the next day.About10 or 20 days thereafter he came to the shop and collectedit.He admitted that the police came and placed the bag inhis shop before making panchnama and thereafter they camewith the accused and Panch witness; prepared the Mahazar andrecovered blood stained clothes.This was elicited thechief examination itself to the leading question put to him.He was neither treated hostile nor was cross-examined by theprosecution.He admitted that the appellant did not pay anymoney for the tea he had taken.The bag said to havecontained white Dhoti, coloured towel with blood stain.Hedid not say that the accused kept those clothes in the bag.He admitted that he had seen the clothes in the bag when theMahazar was prepared and before that he did not open thebag.He also admitted that he did not tell the police aboutthe identity and contents of the bag.21 is the doctorwho had examined the appellant to establish that theappellant was found healed wound in the medial left finger.He admitted that he cannot say theage of the wound.From the above evidence it is clear that prosecution broughton record the circumstantial evidence from obligingwitnesses to the police.Appellant was said to have seenbefore or after the occurrence by several tea shop ownersand the labourers in the tea stall etc. To corroborate theevidence of tea stall owners, labourers were examined thatthey had seen the appellant with blood stained clothes andsame were recovered pursuant to the statement under s. 27 ofEvidence Act. It is preposterous to place absolute relianceon such suspect evidence.It is curious that the appellantclaimed to have gone to each tea stall for tea just toenable them to note his movements.The normal human conductwould be to avoid any body noticing him either before orafter committing the offence.It is highly unbelievablethat he had used two types of weapons one stabbing andanother cutting weapon.The most startling aspect we came across from the record isthat the criminal trial was unfair to the appellant and theprocedure adopted in the trial is obviously illegal andunconstitutional.The Sessions Court in fairness recordedthe evidence in the form of questions put by the prosecutorand defence counsel and answers given by each witness.The Sessions Court permitted even withoutobjection by the defence to put leading questions in thechief examination itself suggesting all the answers whichthe prosecutor intended to get from the witnesses to connectthe appellant with the crime."Then I saw Jose (appellant) coming fromthe north and399going towards south".Did you notice his dress then? Yes.He had worn a white dhoti Did you notice his dhoti? Yes.Ihad seen two or three drops of blood on his dhoti.Suddenly I had a doubt".Similarly PW. 4 also at that time"Did any one from Ramanattu house came for tea? Yes.When did Jose came to have tea? I do not rememberDid Jose came on the previous day.Yes came about 6 p.m. inthe evening.Did he say anything? He brought a bag andsaid let it be here I shall take this bag after some timeWhat was the dress of the accused when he came to the shop?He was wearing white dhoti and tied a cloth on his hand.Have you noticed anything particular on the dhoti? No".We had already allowed the appealand acquitted him by our order dated April 12, 1993 and setthe appellant at liberty which we have little doubt that itwas carried out by date.The appeal is allowed and theappellant stands acquitted of the offence under section 302I.P.C.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,169,425 |
of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,205 |
Therefore, present FIR may be quashed.5 Learned APP for State fairly conceded that since the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 has been taken place and both of them are major, in the interest of justice instant FIR may be quashed.6 Respondent No. 3, who is personally present in the court states that she has married the petitioner on his own sweet will without any pressure or coercion and is residing happily with him.She further submits that she has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.M.C. 3564/2011 Page 4 of 3M.C. 3564/2011 Page 3 of 3M.C. 3564/2011 Page 4 of 3Counsel for the Petitioner submits that vide FIR no. 334 dated 10.10.2011, a case Under Section 365 Indian Crl.M.C. 3564/2011 Page 1 of 3 Penal Code, 1860 has been registered against the petitioner on the complaint respondent no. 2 at PS-Nazafgarh. .M.C. 3564/2011 Page 1 of 3M.C. 3564/2011 Page 2 of 3 7 In the circumstances, I quash the FIR No. 334/2011, Under Section 365 IPC, P.S. Najafgarh and all the proceedings emanating therefrom.8 CRL.M.C. 3564/2011 is allowed and disposed of accordingly.M.C. 3564/2011 Page 2 of 3SURESH KAIT, J NOVEMBER 03, 2011 j Crl.M.C. 3564/2011 Page 3 of 3 Crl.
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,205,260 |
Heard Shri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.Contention raised by the counsel is that the F.I.R. was got registered on 12.08.2020 on the next day of incident of 11.08.2020 against seven named accused persons including the applicant in which a general and omnibus has been attributed to all the assailants that they have assaulted by respective lathi, danda and kulhari.I have perused the post-mortem report of deceased Bali and from the post-mortem report it reveals that the deceased has sustained six incised wound and three multiple abrasions over posterior are present.During investigation there is a recovery of lathi from the applicant.Certainly the danda could not cause the incised wound.Taking into account the totality of circumstances, the deceased has died on account of ante-mortem injuries.Moreover, specially the incised wound on the scalp.The bail application is allowed.Let the applicant Meghraj Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., 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.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 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,208,366 |
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, prays for sh and is granted to withdraw I.A. No.260/2018, an application for e amendment in the petition.ad Accordingly, I.A. No.260/2018 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,211 |
In the course of the search made in pursuance of the action taken under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 17-2-1983, a statement was recorded from the revision petitioner with regard to the purchase of the house bearing Door No. 20, I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, on 22-11-1982, from one V. Seshamma.The revision petitioner had stated that the said house was purchased for Rs. 2,40,000 by selling a part of the her jewels and the jewels of her mother Neelaveni and grand-mother Rajamma.The revision petitioner could not disclose the details of such jewels and the sale thereof.On the same day, i.e., on 17-2-1983, the office premises of Hariharan & Co., Chartered Accountants, who were attending to the income-tax matters of Kumari Jayapratha, was also searched under section 132 and inter alia, a receipt, dated 31-8-1982, signed by Smt. V. Seshamma, acknowledging the receipt of advance amount towards sale of the house bearing Door No. 20, I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, to the revision petitioner and her mother Smt. P. Neelaveni, for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 was seized.Smt. V. Seshamma had represented to the department on 30-3-1983 that she had really sold her house for Rs. 5,70,000 to the revision petitioner though the sale consideration was mentioned in the sale deed as Rs. 2,40,000 at the request of the revision petitioner.She had also disclosed that the sum of Rs. 3,30,000 was not mentioned in the sale deed.A letter signed by Smt. V. Seshamma on 30-3-1983 confirming the sale consideration at Rs. 5,70,000 was also handed over to the Assistant Director of Inspection, Income-tax department.Later, a sworn statement was also made by her to the abovesaid effect.In the course of the search made in pursuance of the action taken under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 17-2-1983, a statement was recorded from the revision petitioner with regard to the purchase of the house bearing Door No. 20, I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, on 22-11-1982, from one V. Seshamma.The revision petitioner had stated that the said house was purchased for Rs. 2,40,000 by selling a part of the her jewels and the jewels of her mother Neelaveni and grand-mother Rajamma.The revision petitioner could not disclose the details of such jewels and the sale thereof.On the same day, i.e., on 17-2-1983, the office premises of Hariharan & Co., Chartered Accountants, who were attending to the income-tax matters of Kumari Jayapratha, was also searched under section 132 and inter alia, a receipt, dated 31-8-1982, signed by Smt. V. Seshamma, acknowledging the receipt of advance amount towards sale of the house bearing Door No. 20, I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, to the revision petitioner and her mother Smt. P. Neelaveni, for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 was seized.Smt. V. Seshamma had represented to the department on 30-3-1983 that she had really sold her house for Rs. 5,70,000 to the revision petitioner though the sale consideration was mentioned in the sale deed as Rs. 2,40,000 at the request of the revision petitioner.She had also disclosed that the sum of Rs. 3,30,000 was not mentioned in the sale deed.Admittedly, P.W.3 Seshamma was examined by P.W. 1 and P.W.3 had also given a statement that the above- said house owned by her was sold to the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs. 2,40,000 as seen in Ex.It is equally not in dispute that the office premises of Hariharan & Co., Chartered Accountants of Kumari Jayapratha, was also searched under section 132 and some documents were seized, as shown in the mahazar Ex.P- 16 in the list of certain letters shown in the mahazar Ex.Item No. 9 in Ex.P-16 relates to the files of Kumari Jayapratha.In that file Ex.P-12, as seen in Ex.In all the statements referred to above, and also in the attestation made by P.W.4, it was admitted by P.Ws. 3 and 4 that the property referred to above was sold for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 by P.W.3 to the revision petitioner, but the sale consideration was mentioned in the original sale deed Ex.P- 11, in Ex.ORDER This criminal revision petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 19-8-1996, in Crl.A letter signed by Smt. V. Seshamma on 30-3-1983 confirming the sale consideration at Rs. 5,70,000 was also handed over to the Assistant Director of Inspection, Income-tax department.Later, a sworn statement was also made by her to the abovesaid effect.It is under the said circumstances that the complainant has filed the complaint against the revision petitioner, stating that she has committed offences punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with section 136 of the Income Tax Act, section 420 IPC, read with section 511 IPC and sections 276C(i) and 277 of the Income Tax Act.It is under the said circumstances that the complainant has filed the complaint against the revision petitioner, stating that she has committed offences punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with section 136 of the Income Tax Act, section 420 IPC, read with section 511 IPC and sections 276C(i) and 277 of the Income Tax Act.The revision petitioner has examined D.W. 1 and filed Exs. D-1 and D-2, in support of her case.Of the 7 charges framed against the revision petitioner, the learned Trial Judge found the accused not guilty under charge Nos. 3 and 6, but found her guilty under charges 1, 2,4,5 and 7 and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, in default, to undergo R.I. for 4 months for the offence under section 420, read with section 511 IPC; to undergo R.I. for 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 in default, to undergo R.I. for 4 months for the offence under section 193 IPC, read with section 136 of the Income Tax Act; to undergo R.I. for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 weeks for the offence under section 276C(1) of the Income tax Act and to undergo R.I. for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 weeks, for the offence under section 277 of the Income Tax Act (2 counts), for each count, and the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court in E.O.C.C. No. 136 of 1984, dated 6-11-1989, the accused, as appellant, filed C.A. No. 248 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.After considering the material evidence available on record and after hearing the submissions made by both sides, the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.Aggrieved by the judgment dated 19-8-1996 in C.A. No. 248 of 1989 on the file of the appellate court, the appellant, as revision petitioner, has come forward with the criminal revision petition on the file of this court.The revision petitioner has examined D.W. 1 and filed Exs. D-1 and D-2, in support of her case.Of the 7 charges framed against the revision petitioner, the learned Trial Judge found the accused not guilty under charge Nos. 3 and 6, but found her guilty under charges 1, 2,4,5 and 7 and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000, in default, to undergo R.I. for 4 months for the offence under section 420, read with section 511 IPC; to undergo R.I. for 3 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 in default, to undergo R.I. for 4 months for the offence under section 193 IPC, read with section 136 of the Income Tax Act; to undergo R.I. for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 weeks for the offence under section 276C(1) of the Income tax Act and to undergo R.I. for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 weeks, for the offence under section 277 of the Income Tax Act (2 counts), for each count, and the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court in E.O.C.C. No. 136 of 1984, dated 6-11-1989, the accused, as appellant, filed C.A. No. 248 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.After considering the material evidence available on record and after hearing the submissions made by both sides, the learned Appellate Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.Aggrieved by the judgment dated 19-8-1996 in C.A. No. 248 of 1989 on the file of the appellate court, the appellant, as revision petitioner, has come forward with the criminal revision petition on the file of this court.P- 18, a receipt dated 31-3-1983, issued by P.W.3 Seshamma, in connection with the receipt of advance amount and the sale consideration, is found.A perusal of Ex.P/18 would disclose that P.W.3 had given the stamped receipt, stating that the property belonging to her, situate at No. 20,I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 and an advance was also received vide D.D. No. OL-019092 from the revision petitioner and her mother Smt. Neelaveni.P.W.3 gave a statement, subsequent to the seizure of Ex.P-18 to P.W.1, as seen in Ex.P- 12, dated 30-3-1983 and also sent a letter dated 30-3-1983 as seen in Ex.P-9, to the Income-tax department.P.W-4 Dhinakar Reddy gave a statement as seen in Ex.P-8, dated 5-3-1983 to P.W1 and also attested the statement of P.W.3, Ex.P-4, as Rs. 2,40,000, at the request of the revision petitioner.The documents recovered in the search made in the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 and the documents produced by the abovesaid witnesses as seen in Ex.P-22 to P-36 would lend support in the light of the Ex.P-18, the receipt issued by P.W.3 to the revision petitioner, to come to the conclusion that the demised property should have been sold by P.W.3 Seshamma to the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 and not for Rs. 2,40,000 as claimed by P.W.3 at the initial stage as seen in Ex.P-4 and also by the revision petitioner as seen in Ex.The admitted evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 before the trial court in support of the documents referred to above cannot be disbelieved as rightly concluded by the trial court as well as by the appellate court.P- 16 in the list of certain letters shown in the mahazar Ex.Item No. 9 in Ex.P-16 relates to the files of Kumari Jayapratha.In that file Ex.P- 18, a receipt dated 31-3-1983, issued by P.W.3 Seshamma, in connection with the receipt of advance amount and the sale consideration, is found.A perusal of Ex.P/18 would disclose that P.W.3 had given the stamped receipt, stating that the property belonging to her, situate at No. 20,I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Madras, was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 and an advance was also received vide D.D. No. OL-019092 from the revision petitioner and her mother Smt. Neelaveni.P.W.3 gave a statement, subsequent to the seizure of Ex.P-18 to P.W.1, as seen in Ex.P- 12, dated 30-3-1983 and also sent a letter dated 30-3-1983 as seen in Ex.P-9, to the Income-tax department.P.W-4 Dhinakar Reddy gave a statement as seen in Ex.P-8, dated 5-3-1983 to P.W1 and also attested the statement of P.W.3, Ex.P-12, as seen in Ex.In all the statements referred to above, and also in the attestation made by P.W.4, it was admitted by P.Ws. 3 and 4 that the property referred to above was sold for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 by P.W.3 to the revision petitioner, but the sale consideration was mentioned in the original sale deed Ex.P- 11, in Ex.P-4, as Rs. 2,40,000, at the request of the revision petitioner.The documents recovered in the search made in the house of P.Ws.3 and 4 and the documents produced by the abovesaid witnesses as seen in Ex.P-22 to P-36 would lend support in the light of the Ex.P-18, the receipt issued by P.W.3 to the revision petitioner, to come to the conclusion that the demised property should have been sold by P.W.3 Seshamma to the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 and not for Rs. 2,40,000 as claimed by P.W.3 at the initial stage as seen in Ex.P-4 and also by the revision petitioner as seen in Ex.The admitted evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 before the trial court in support of the documents referred to above cannot be disbelieved as rightly concluded by the trial court as well as by the appellate court.In view of the abovesaid position, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court, which was confirmed by the appellate court, that P.W.3 had sold the demised property to the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs. 5,70.000 and executed the original of Ex.P-41, dated 22-11-1982, for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 in favour of the revision petitioner, has to be accepted.The fact remains that the revision petitioner filed a petition under section 230A(1) for issuance of a certificate as seen in Ex.P-38, dated 12-5-1983 before the income-tax authorities along with Form No. 37 and copy of sale deed Ex.It is not in dispute that the abovesaid certificate was sought for by the revision petitioner from the income-tax authorities under section 230A(1) for the purpose of executing a settlement deed with regard to the demised property in favour of her son as absolute owner thereof, but by retaining life interest for herself in the said property.According to the prosecution, the revision petitioner has attempted to cheat the Income-tax department by giving false declaration with regard to the sale price, to obtain certificate intentionally used documents containing false declaration and had also wilfully attempted to evade payment of tax, penalty or interest, chargeable or imposable under the Act by making verified statement, knowing full well that it is a false statement and not a true statement, to avoid payment of tax.The fact remains that the revision petitioner filed a petition under section 230A(1) for issuance of a certificate as seen in Ex.P-38, dated 12-5-1983 before the income-tax authorities along with Form No. 37 and copy of sale deed Ex.It is not in dispute that the abovesaid certificate was sought for by the revision petitioner from the income-tax authorities under section 230A(1) for the purpose of executing a settlement deed with regard to the demised property in favour of her son as absolute owner thereof, but by retaining life interest for herself in the said property.According to the prosecution, the revision petitioner has attempted to cheat the Income-tax department by giving false declaration with regard to the sale price, to obtain certificate intentionally used documents containing false declaration and had also wilfully attempted to evade payment of tax, penalty or interest, chargeable or imposable under the Act by making verified statement, knowing full well that it is a false statement and not a true statement, to avoid payment of tax.Ex.D-1, dated 31-3-1983 is the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, for the assessment year 1983-84, with regard to the revision petitioner in her individual capacity.Ex.D-1 would disclose that the total income of the revision petitioner was determined under protective basis at Rs. 6,75,000 without prejudice to the stand to be taken by Kumari Jayapratha, with regard to the demised property under consideration.A perusal ef Ex.D- 1 would disclose that the assessment made in connection with the income of the revision petitioner was only a protective basis assessment and not actual assessment.A perusal of Ex.D-2 would disclose that the income-tax authority had come to the conclusion in the said assessment order that Kumari Jayapratha had incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 6,75,000 from out of her income towards purchase of the demised property, including the sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000, apart from the registration and stamp paper expenditure.It is also mentioned in the said assessment order that a protective assessment was made in the name of the revision petitioner herein for the assessment year 1983-84, inclusive of the sum of Rs. 6,75,000 as her income, without prejudice to the stand to be taken in the case of Kumari Jayapratha, as real owner of the demised property.Accordingly, it was also mentioned in the said assessment order Ex.D-2 that Kumari Jayapratha is the real owner of the property.Based on the abovesaid contents in the assessment order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 was paid only by Kumari Jayapratha, that the revision petitioner is only a name lender and that, therefore, the entire sale transaction is a benami transaction.Ex.D-1, dated 31-3-1983 is the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer, for the assessment year 1983-84, with regard to the revision petitioner in her individual capacity.Ex.D-1 would disclose that the total income of the revision petitioner was determined under protective basis at Rs. 6,75,000 without prejudice to the stand to be taken by Kumari Jayapratha, with regard to the demised property under consideration.A perusal ef Ex.D- 1 would disclose that the assessment made in connection with the income of the revision petitioner was only a protective basis assessment and not actual assessment.A perusal of Ex.D-2 would disclose that the income-tax authority had come to the conclusion in the said assessment order that Kumari Jayapratha had incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 6,75,000 from out of her income towards purchase of the demised property, including the sale consideration of Rs. 5,70,000, apart from the registration and stamp paper expenditure.It is also mentioned in the said assessment order that a protective assessment was made in the name of the revision petitioner herein for the assessment year 1983-84, inclusive of the sum of Rs. 6,75,000 as her income, without prejudice to the stand to be taken in the case of Kumari Jayapratha, as real owner of the demised property.Accordingly, it was also mentioned in the said assessment order Ex.On the other hand, the revision petitioner is claiming absolute right over the said property and has also come forward with an application under section 230A(1), for issuance of a certificate in order to execute a settlement deed with regard to the said property, in favour of her son, retaining life interest.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends contra, stating that the verified false statement filed under section 230A(1) will constitute an offence punishable under sections 276C(1) and 277 and that, therefore, the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner should not be accepted.As already pointed out, the assessment made against the revision petitioner for the assessment year 1983-84 was protective assessment and without prejudice to the stand to be taken in the case of Kumari Jayapratha as real owner of the property.The very same stand had been taken by the department in the assessment of Kumari Jayapratha for the assessment year 1983-84 also.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends contra, stating that the verified false statement filed under section 230A(1) will constitute an offence punishable under sections 276C(1) and 277 and that, therefore, the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner should not be accepted.As already pointed out, the assessment made against the revision petitioner for the assessment year 1983-84 was protective assessment and without prejudice to the stand to be taken in the case of Kumari Jayapratha as real owner of the property.The very same stand had been taken by the department in the assessment of Kumari Jayapratha for the assessment year 1983-84 also.As already stated supra, Kumari Jayapratha cannot be the real owner of the demised property and the revision petitioner should alone be the real owner of the property.The prosecution has been launched against the revision petitioner while protective assessment was made by the income-tax department for the assessment year 1983-84, against the revision petitioner.While protective penalty cannot be levied under protective assessment, it is doubtful whether prosecution can be launched against the assessee for the abovesaid purposes under the Act. This court asked the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as for the department to bring to the notice of this court the present legal position on this point.Both the learned counsels submit that there is no settled law on this point as on date.This court, at this stage, wanted to know about the developments in the protective assessment made against the revision petitioner for the assessment year 1983-84 and also about the stand taken by Kumari Jayapratha, with regard to the ownership of the demised property.For this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-department submitted that the assessee, Kumari Jayapratha, submitted a petition under section 119(2)(b) of the Act to the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, with regard to the dispute in the assessment and the said Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, passed an order, dated 13-9-1994, directing the income-tax authorities to assess Kumari Jayapratha on all incomes that are the subject-matter of assessment proceedings from all sources and in determination of such income, the incomes relating to the personal exertions of her near relatives, viz., brothers, sisters and mother would be given a set-off.It is also directed in the said order, according to the learned counsel for the respondent-department, that the income of those individuals will be assessable in their hands and interest under sections 215 and 217 would be waived for and up to the assessment year 1988-89 for the period beyond one year from the date of filing of the returns.It was also submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, directed to compound all technical offences under the new scheme by initiating suitable steps in this regard.In pursuance of the said direction, according to the learned counsel appearing for the department, an assessment order, dated 24-3-1997 for the assessment year 1983-84, was passed in connection with Kumari Jayapratha, wherein the purchase of the property at No. 2, I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungampakkam, Madras, for Rs. 6,75,000 was also taken into consideration and a sum of Rs. 1,56,000 was taken as emanating from the revision petitioner while the balance investment of Rs. 5,19,000 was from Kumari Jayapratha in connection with the said transaction.The records in connection with the abovesaid direction were produced before the court for verification and return and a copy of the said proceeding was also submitted to the court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-department.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accepts the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-department as subsequent development and is not disputing the said position.As already stated supra, Kumari Jayapratha cannot be the real owner of the demised property and the revision petitioner should alone be the real owner of the property.The prosecution has been launched against the revision petitioner while protective assessment was made by the income-tax department for the assessment year 1983-84, against the revision petitioner.While protective penalty cannot be levied under protective assessment, it is doubtful whether prosecution can be launched against the assessee for the abovesaid purposes under the Act. This court asked the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as for the department to bring to the notice of this court the present legal position on this point.Both the learned counsels submit that there is no settled law on this point as on date.This court, at this stage, wanted to know about the developments in the protective assessment made against the revision petitioner for the assessment year 1983-84 and also about the stand taken by Kumari Jayapratha, with regard to the ownership of the demised property.For this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-department submitted that the assessee, Kumari Jayapratha, submitted a petition under section 119(2)(b) of the Act to the Government of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, with regard to the dispute in the assessment and the said Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, passed an order, dated 13-9-1994, directing the income-tax authorities to assess Kumari Jayapratha on all incomes that are the subject-matter of assessment proceedings from all sources and in determination of such income, the incomes relating to the personal exertions of her near relatives, viz., brothers, sisters and mother would be given a set-off.It is also directed in the said order, according to the learned counsel for the respondent-department, that the income of those individuals will be assessable in their hands and interest under sections 215 and 217 would be waived for and up to the assessment year 1988-89 for the period beyond one year from the date of filing of the returns.It was also submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, directed to compound all technical offences under the new scheme by initiating suitable steps in this regard.In pursuance of the said direction, according to the learned counsel appearing for the department, an assessment order, dated 24-3-1997 for the assessment year 1983-84, was passed in connection with Kumari Jayapratha, wherein the purchase of the property at No. 2, I Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungampakkam, Madras, for Rs. 6,75,000 was also taken into consideration and a sum of Rs. 1,56,000 was taken as emanating from the revision petitioner while the balance investment of Rs. 5,19,000 was from Kumari Jayapratha in connection with the said transaction.The records in connection with the abovesaid direction were produced before the court for verification and return and a copy of the said proceeding was also submitted to the court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-department.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner accepts the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-department as subsequent development and is not disputing the said position.But, in this case, both sides concede about the development referred to above in the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, in connection with the assessment of the revision petitioner as well as her sister Kumari Jayapratha and both sides are not averse to consider the abovesaid development.This court also feels that remanding the matter back to the trial court for giving opportunity to both sides to produce documents with regard to the subsequent development will only lead to further harassment of the parties and protracted legal proceedings between them.But, in this case, both sides concede about the development referred to above in the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, in connection with the assessment of the revision petitioner as well as her sister Kumari Jayapratha and both sides are not averse to consider the abovesaid development.This court also feels that remanding the matter back to the trial court for giving opportunity to both sides to produce documents with regard to the subsequent development will only lead to further harassment of the parties and protracted legal proceedings between them.If the said subsequent developments with regard to the investment made on the demised property by both the sisters are taken into consideration, the revision petitioner is liable to pay tax only on the admitted taxable income of Rs. 1,56,000 for the assessment year 1983-84 and Kumari Jayapratha has to pay income-tax for the balance amount of Rs. 5,19,000 during the said assessment year.The tax payable by the revision petitioner in connection with the abovesaid sale transaction was for Rs. 1,56,000, even according to the income-tax department.The tax payable by the revision petitioner in connection with the abovesaid sale transaction was for Rs. 1,56,000, even according to the income-tax department.If that be so, the question of wilful evasion of tax for penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under the Act in connection with the abovesaid transaction on the part of the revision petitioner will not arise, as rightly, contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.The fact remains that the demised property was purchased by the revision petitioner from P.W.3 V. Seshamma on 22-11-1982 under the original of Ex.P-41, for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 and not Rs. 2,40,000, as mentioned in the application filed under section 230A(1), as seen in Ex.P38, along with the verified statement in the form annexed to it, as seen in Ex.P-39, letter Ex.P-40 and copy of the sale deed Ex.P-41, etc. The attempt made on the side of the revision petitioner before the income-tax authorities to contend that the revision petitioner had no knowledge about the sale transaction and passing of consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 was not accepted by the income-tax department in view of the seizure of documents during the course of the search conducted at various places.The evidence available before this court also confirms that the revision petitioner should have known that the demised property was purchased for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 and not for Rs. 2,40,000 as mentioned in the sale deed executed by P.W.3 in favour of the revision petitioner.In Ishwarlal Girdharilal Parekh v. Stale of Maharashtra (1968) 70 ITR 95 (SC), it has been held that the order of assessment does not create a right in the assessee in the sense that he has a right to pay tax only on the total amount assessed therein and his liability to pay tax is also restricted to that extent.If the abovesaid facts, coupled with the decisions referred to above, are taken into consideration, it is clear that the revision petitioner has committed an offence punishable under section 420, read with section 511 of the IPC.The fact remains that the demised property was purchased by the revision petitioner from P.W.3 V. Seshamma on 22-11-1982 under the original of Ex.P-41, for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000 and not Rs. 2,40,000, as mentioned in the application filed under section 230A(1), as seen in Ex.P38, along with the verified statement in the form annexed to it, as seen in Ex.P-39, letter Ex.P-40 and copy of the sale deed Ex.P-41, etc. The attempt made on the side of the revision petitioner before the income-tax authorities to contend that the revision petitioner had no knowledge about the sale transaction and passing of consideration of Rs. 5,70,000 was not accepted by the income-tax department in view of the seizure of documents during the course of the search conducted at various places.In this case, the revision petitioner had filed a copy of the sale deed, mentioning the sale consideration of Rs. 2,40,000, along with verified statements in relevant form as mentioned above for obtaining a certificate under section 230A(1).A deceptive method was adopted by the revision petitioner for obtaining a certificate mentioned above.A deceptive method was adopted by the revision petitioner for obtaining a certificate mentioned above.P-37 and directed the complainant herein to file the complaint before the competent court.Under the said direction of the Commissioner (Investigation), Madras-34, the complainant has lodged the complaint.After coming to know about the raid and recording of the statements by the Enforcement Wing Officer in a raid, the Income Tax Officer of Karaikudi issued summons to K and J and obtained statements from them.The statements made by K and J were similar to the retracted statements made by both the persons subsequently.The said receipt of money and disbursement was accepted by K and J in the statement, who subsequently retracted the said admission in writing, by sending a communication to the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate stating that the statement was not voluntary but obtained under threat and force.After coming to know about the raid and recording of the statements by the Enforcement Wing Officer in a raid, the Income Tax Officer of Karaikudi issued summons to K and J and obtained statements from them.The statements made by K and J were similar to the retracted statements made by both the persons subsequently.In fine, the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under section 420, read with section 511 and section 193 of the IPC, read with section 136 of the Income Tax Act, are confirmed and the criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner against the said conviction and sentence is dismissed.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
111,214,604 |
Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 05-03-2006 around 4.40 a.m., DD No.4 was recorded at Police Station Sarai Rohilla Crl.A.No.945/2009 Page 1 of 9 regarding a quarrel at jhuggi No.N-95/45, Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, Delhi.A copy of the DD report was entrusted to ASI Ram Kishan (PW-A.No.945/2009 Page 1 of 96) for verification, who immediately proceeded to the spot of occurrence.There he found that the injured had been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital.He then visited the hospital and found that both the injured persons namely, the deceased Akhtar Ali and the appellant Arshad were in the operation theatre.ASI Ram Kishan met the complainant Kallu (PW-2) at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW-2/A.3. Kallu in his statement Ex.PW-2/A stated that on the fateful morning at around 4.30 a.m., he was woken up by some neighbours who told him that they had heard the noise of quarrel emanating from the jhuggi of the deceased.On this, they went to jhuggi No.Someone within the jhuggi was shouting "bachao bachao".They tried to open the door of the jhuggi but it was closed from inside.Akhtar Ali ultimately succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.The Investigating Officer went through the formalities of the investigation Crl.The appellant Arshad @ Ashraf has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the murder of his father Akhtar Ali in Sessions Case No.11/2006 FIR No.95/2006 Police Station Sarai Rohilla under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 14.07.2009 and the consequent order on sentence dated 17.07.2009 pursuant to which the appellant has been awarded life imprisonment.He was apprehended and when asked as to what had happened, the appellant told that the deceased was abusing the appellant's mother.On this, a quarrel ensued between him and his father and in the process he struck his father on the head with a grinding stone (sil- batta).On the basis of this statement, a formal FIR was registered.A.No.945/2009 Page 2 of 9 and on completion thereof, challan against the appellant was filed in the Court.A.No.945/2009 Page 2 of 9The appellant was charged for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of the evidence.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.On completion of the trial, learned Trial Court, relying upon the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 302 IPC.During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant has submitted that the appellant admits that he had struck his father with a "sil- batta'(grinding stone) resulting in head injury to him which ultimately proved to be fatal.A.No.945/2009 Page 3 of 9The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,440,277 |
against Apurva Shukla, and his father, Anil Shukla, mother Smt. Kamla Shukla, the wife of his elder brother Neelam Shukla, the uncle Ajay Shukla, and aunt Sunita Shukla under Section 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section ¾ D.P.Act with the allegations that marriage of Shivani, the daughter of O.P.No.2, was taken place with Apurva Shukla on 24.04.2008 at Kanpur in accordance with Hindu rites.Just after the marriage the accused person (arrayed in the FIR) startted demanding of a good car from Shivani's parents and started taunting and scolding her for bringing less dowry.She was subject to cruelty and harassment for the same.She was also beaten in her in-laws house at Kanpur.Shivani made a complaint of it to her parents but she was assured by the parents that very soon every thing will be all right.The parents of Shivani also tried to reconcile the matter with the in-laws of Shivani but they did not mend and continue to harass Shivani.On 26th January, 2010 in between 8 to 9 p.m. accused persons extended threat to life and abused Shivani.At the same time she was expelled from the matrimonial house at Kanpur after taking her ornaments and entire stridhan and put her belongings in a box and kept it the same by the accused in their custody.At the time of expulsion they told Shivani, if she comes back without car, she will not be allowed to enter into house and will be done to death by putting her on fire.Shivani anyhow reached to parental house at Unnao and told the entire story to the parents.This FIR was lodged in police station Kotwali, district Unnao.By this petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5 of 2012 (State Vs.Apurva Shukla and ors.) under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code(for Short 'IPC') and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P. Act') pending before the Court of ACJM-III, Unnao against the petitioners were sought to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction by Unnao court.The investigation was started at Unnao.While recording the first information report, Crime No. 'Nil' was mentioned for the aforesaid reason.The investigation was carried out and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao against accused persons.The Court of ACJM, Unnao proceeded with the trial after taking cognizance.Accused person during pendency of proceeding before Unnao court moved an application on 12.08.2011 (125-C) challenging the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that entire cause of action arose at Kidwai-Nagar, Kanpur, hence court at Unnao has no territorial jurisdiction.The learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.05.2012 (Anneuxre-1 to this petition) held that jurisdiction of the court would be determined on the basis of permanent residence of husband, or where husband and wife reside together.However, the court finds that the wife is permanent resident of Unnao so court at Unnao has territorial jurisdiction and rejected the application.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners filed criminal revision bearing No. 66 of 2012 before the court of sessions.Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao dismissed the revision vide order dated 20.10.2012 (Annexure-2 to writ Petition) in view of judgment rendered by Apex Court in Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs.The complaint be returned to respondent No.2 who, if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate Court to be dealt with in accordance with law.The appeal is accordingly allowed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,344,060 |
Briefly stated, the case as put forth by theprosecution was that Jaffar Ali, the father of the appellantwho migrated to Pakistan and is now a Pakistani national,owned a big farm measuring approximately397250 acres in villages Hamid Nagar and Parbatbans within thejurisdiction of Police Station, Bilaspur, District Rampur.Out of the said area of the farm, Jaffar Ali had leased outone acre of paddy growing land to Habib, deceased, the sonof Bandu (P.W. 17) who was a Mistri or Mechanic byprofession on 'Ahdhiya ghalla batai' basis in lieu of hisservices for maintaining in working order the hand pumpsinstalled by the former for irrigating the farm.On November11, 1969, the appellant armed himself with a 12 bore doublebarrel gun belonging to his uncle, Hamid Ali, andaccompanied by his younger brothers, Mohd. Jaffar and SalimJaffar who have since been acquitted, went to the aforesaidfield where the deceased was harvesting and thrashing thecrop raised by him and told the latter that this time hewould be allowed only one third and not one half of theproduce.Thereupon the deceased protested asserting that hewas entitled to half of the produce as agreed to between himand the appellant's father and that cruelty and injusticeshould not be perpetrated on him.Annoyed at the audacity ofthe deceased, the appellant's aforesaid brothers startedhurling abuses at the deceased and exhorted the appellant tofinish the deceased without being deterred by theconsequences which they right have to face Thereupon, theappellant fired four shots at the deceased from hisaforesaid gun as a result whereof the deceased fell down anddied on the spot.Intimation of the incident was sent byAzmat Ali (P.W. 1) to Bandu (P.W. 17), the father of thedeceased through Muzammil (P.W. 7).On his return afterapprising Bandu of the incident, Mozammil was deputed byAzmat Ali to carry the report (Exh. Ka. 1) which he gotwritten by Abrar Hussain (P.W. 11 ) to the Police Station,Bilaspur where it was lodged at 5.10 P.M. When Muzammilreached the Police Station, he found the appellant alreadypresent over there.The wounds are oval and congested and margins are inverted.Size 1/2x1/2x depth to wounds of exit near hip.Multiple lacerated gun shot wounds of exit in an area 2 1/2"x2"" on back of right thigh lower part and back of right knee joint.The margins of wound are averted.16 shots recovered.Lacerated gun-shot wound of entry 1 1/4"x1"x cranial cavity deep on right side back of head 11" behind right ear brain flowing out".On internal examination of the dead body, the Doctorfound all bones of the vault and base of skull fractured.Frank Anthony, B. P. Maheshwari, P. Basu and SureshSethi for the Appellant.O. P. Rana for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J. The above noted three appeals, thefirst two out of which viz. Criminal Appeal No. 213 of 1977under section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement ofCriminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 and CriminalAppeal No. 237 of 1977 by special leave challenge thereversal of acquittal and conviction of Salim Zia aliasFodi, appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Codeand section 27 of the Arms Act and the last one whereof viz.On receipt of Exhibit Ka.1,S.I. NarainSingh Negi (P.W. 18) registered a case under section 302 ofthe Penal Code and repaired to the scene of occurrence aftersending the appellant to the Government Dispensary atBilaspur for examination of the injuries on his person andrecording his statement.On arrival at the place ofoccurrence, Narain Singh Negi prepared the inquest reportand sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortemexamination to the District Hospital at Rampur where Dr. R.K. Misra, M. O. In-charge of the Hospital conducted theautopsy and found the following injuries on the body of thedeceased:-Multiple lacerated gun shot wounds of entry in an area 2"x1/2" on front and outer side of right thigh lower part.Lacerated gun shot wound of entry with inverted and tattooed margins 1 1/4"x1 1/4" x depth wound of exist in abdominal wall near it right side upper joint abdominal wall.Inverted and tattooed margins.Lacerated gun-shot wound of exit with averted margins right side of abdominal wall 1 1/4" to injury No. 4 with a loop of small intestine coming out.Lacerated gun shot wound exit with averted margins on right side abdominal wall 11 above and behind injury No. 5 size 1/4"x1/4"x abdominal vacity deep.Lacerated gun-shot would 4 1/4"x2 1/4"x thickness of right palm.Entry palmer side with inverted margins and exit on back of hand with averted margins with fractures of matacarpals of little and ring fingers.Multiple gun-shot wounds in an area 7 1/2x4"on front and outer side of right shoulder and right arms, wounds of entry.With a central wound 1 1/4"x1/4"x2" surrounded by many small wounds 1/10"x1/10" and varying depths.Healso found not only the brain membranes but the brain itselflacerated and flowing out of the surface injury.He took out15 pellets and one piece of wad out of the brain.He alsofound the membrane of the abdomen ruptured.According to theDoctor, the death of the deceased was due to coma as aresult of gun-shot injury on the head.On the basis ofdispersal of shot and tattooing and the shape of wounds theDoctor opined that the aforesaid injuries were not causedfrom a distance of 15 to 20 paces but were caused from aclose distance.After usual investigation, the appellant and hisaforesaid two brothers were proceeded against in the Courtof Additional District Magistrate (J), Rampur, who committedthem to the Court of Section to stand their trial undersection 32 and section 302 read with section 34 of theIndian Penal Code respectively.At the said trial, theprosecution examined 18 witnesses including Azmat Ali, AbrarHussain, Muzammil, Dulah Khan, Mst.Altafi and Khairati whoclaimed to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence.By hisjudgment and order dated December 23, 1970, the SessionsJudge while observing that he was inclined to think that theprosecution story was true accepted the appellant's versioncontained in Exhibit Ka-13 said to have been lodged by himat the Police Station, Bilaspur about ten minutes prior tothe report (Exh. Ka 1) to the effect that he had gone on around of his Father's farm at about 4.00 P.M. carrying withhim his uncle's double barrel 12 bore gun; that on reachinghis field in Parbatbans, he saw Hahib deceased and Asmat Alistealing his paddy bags; that at that time Shabban ofRampur, Bhonda alias Anis and Amir Daulat of village Koelawere working in the vicinity of that place; that seeingthis, he challenged Habib and Azmat Ali whereupon Habibfired at him from a revolver hitting him on the right thigh;that he remonstrated with Habib who fired another shot athim which grazed past his left thigh and that finding thatHabib was determined to kill him and there was no hope ofescape, he fired two or three shots from his uncle's gunwhich he was carrying in consequence whereof Habib fell downand Azmat Ali ran away and that taking away the revolverfrom Habib's hand, he had reached the Police Station in thetractor driven by his brother, Jaffar.The Sessions Judgeacquitted the appellant and his brothers giving them thebenefit of doubt observing that the prosecution had failedto adequately demolish the defence version which left areasonable doubt that the prosecution might have suppressedthe revolver used by Habib and that the appellant had firedin the exercise of the right of private defence.On appeal,the High Court set aside the acquittal of the appellantrejecting the defence version and convicted him as statedabove and sentenced him to life imprisonment under section302 of the.lant without referring to the conclusions, which in theproved circumstances of the case, had been correctly arrivedat by the Sessions Judge.He has further urged that thegenesis of the prosecution story not having been establishedand the deceased who was seen stealing the bags of paddyhaving opened fire at the appellant, the latter was fulljustified in firing back at the deceased in exercise of theright of private defence.Verma after examination of the person of the appellantthat the said injuries were through and through orcommunicating wounds and that since Dr. Verma admittedly didnot try to as certain by use of probe whether they werecommunicating injuries or not, he could not be expected togive a categoric opinion about their character merely onthe basis of the condition of their margins or edges.TheHigh Court has also correctly pointed out that the aforesaidinjuries on the person of the appellant were not gun shotwounds as usually the401entrance wound in fire arm injuries is smaller and the exitwound is bigger but curiously enough this was not the casehere.The High Court has also rightly found that theaforesaid injuries on the person of the appellant could notbe gun shot wounds as the exit wound was not only smaller indimension than the entry wound but was also smaller indimension than the size of the cartridge (Exh. 7) taken outof the revolver (Exh. 4) which according to the appellantwas used by the deceased for causing injuries on his person.The observations of the High Court receive ampleconfirmation from the statement of Dr. B. C. Joshi whichappears to have been based on his personal experience andnotable works on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology bycelebrated authors like Sydney Smith, John Gallister, Taylorand others that in case of a bullet injury except where thebullet gets fragmented after entering the body and only aportion thereof passes out of the exit wound or the bulletremains embedded in the body and does not pass out in thenormal course and is subsequently taken out or except incase of a point blank wound (which is not the case ofdefence), it is practically and usually not possible thatthe size of the wound of exit may be smaller than thediameter of the bullet.On being shown the aforesaid bullet(exh. 7) Dr. Joshi stated that if the diameter of the bulletis .8 cm it could not usually cause the exit wound describedas injury No. 2 in Exhibit Kha.II unless the bullet gotfragmented inside the body or only a small length thereofpierced and made the exit wound.Thusthe forensic medicine expert evidence in respect of thecharacteristics of the wounds said to have been observed onthe person of the appellant rules out the case of theinfliction of the injuries on the person of the appellant byrevolver (Exh. 4).That these injuries were caused in the course of thesame incident which resulted in the death of the deceasedalso seems to be highly improbable in view of the statementof Narayan Singh Negi, Investigating Officer, who reachedthe scene of occurrence within an hour of the lodging of thereport (Exh. Ka.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,344,097 |
I, Vellore, after taking the case on file, issued summons to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and since the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore, on appearance of the accused, had framed charge under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were exhibited.No material objects were marked.4.P.W.1 is the victim girl.According to her, on 30.5.1997 when she went to the pumpset room belonging to the accused for the purpose of washing the cloths, there was a current failure and due to that the motor pumpset came to a halt and at that time the accused came there and asked her (P.W.1) to go inside the pumpset room and to ascertain whether the electricity supply has been restored.When she went inside the pumpset room the accused also followed her and after locking the door of the pumpset room had committed the offence of rape and has also subjected her to sexual assault.She immediately returned to her house and informed about the incident to her mother.Her mother had preferred Ex.P.1-complaint and that she was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for 10 days.According to her, on the date of occurrence she saw her daughter at about 8.00 am after she returned from the motor pumpset.She could notice contusion at both the breast of the victim girl and when she enquired about this P.W.1 had narrated what had happened to her in the pumpset and that she preferred Ex.6.P.W.3 had advised P.W.2 to take P.W.1 to the hospital after knowing about the occurrence.7.P.W.4 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.1 on 31.5.1997 in the Government Hospital at Vellore.3.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.P.2 is the copy of the accident register issued to P.W.1, after examining her for a sexual assault.According to her, there were injuries on the breast of the victim girl and also injuries found on the both sides of the thigh and the genitalia was found to be swollen and that her private part had admitted the tip of the little finger.P.8 is the opinion of P.W.4, the doctor, to the effect hat the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault.8.P.W.5 is the doctor, who had examined the accused and issued Ex.P.3-certificate declaring him as potent.9.P.W.8 is the then Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, who had registered the complaint-Ex.P.1 preferred by P.W.2 under Cr.No.448 of 1997 of Vellore Taluk Police Station under Section 307IPC.P.6 is the copy of the FIR.He had visited the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.He had also drawn a rough sketch Ex.He had arrested the accused arrested on 4.6.1997 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for judicial remand.He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.He had sent the victim girl as well as the accused for medical examination.10.P.W.7 is the then VAO of Avarampalayam village.According to him in S.No.253/1 measuring 26 ares in Avaramapalayam village belongs to Sagothammal and there is a motor pumpset in the well of the said land.11.P.W.8 after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial judge, the accused had preferred an appeal in C.A.No.44 of 2002 before the Additional District & session Judge, Vellore.The learned first appellate Judge has also dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the learned trial judge, which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision before this Court.13.When the revision was taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.Relying on the evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, who had examined the victim girl P.W.1, after the occurrence, had issued Ex.In Ex.P.2, copy of the accident register, the doctor, has categorically stated that the hymen of the victim girl was intact, but he has mentioned about the external injuries found on the breast and thigh of the victim girl.P.8 is the final opinion of P.W.4, the doctor.In Ex.P.8, the doctor, has stated that the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault.In Ex.P.2 it has been clearly stated that hymen of the victim girl was intact.14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian relying on 2006(3) SCC (Cri) 556 [Tarkeshwar Sahu Vs.P.8 is that the victim girl was subjected to sexual assault.A careful reading of evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 the victim girl, will go to show that the accused on the date of occurrence at the time of occurrence had made an attempt to commit the offence under Section 375 IPC with the victim girl, which warrant conviction and sentence under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC.15.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner at this stage would represent that the accused is in jail for the past four years and would plead that set of may be given to the accused.16.In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the first appellate Court in C.A.No.44 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, under Section 376 IPC is set aside, instead the accused is convicted under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years RI and a fine of Rs.5,000/- default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment.Set off is granted under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The fine imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate Court, will sustain and the same is to be converted in to a fine paid under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC.The entire fine amount shall be given as a compensation to the victim girl P.W.1 under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C.1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Vellore.2.The District & Sessions Judge, Vellore.3.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Vellore.4.The Principal Session Judge, Vellore.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.6.The Inspector of Police, Vellore Rural Police Station, Vellore District, (Crime No.448 of 1997)ADVANCE ORDERCrl.R.C.No.1109 of 2004 A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN.J, In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of the first appellate Court in C.A.No.44 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, under Section 376 IPC is set aside, instead the accused is convicted under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years RI and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months SI.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,413,574 |
(Delivered on 02/ 02/2019) Per Virender Singh, J.The prosecution case in short is that on 15.1.2011 Guman Singh (PW-2) and his brother Sujan Singh were loading thorny bushes in their Cart.Near to them 2 CRA No.938 of 2011 crop of 'Tara Meera' was standing in their field.A cow of Radheshyam barged into their field and started grazing the crop.They pushed her back and again started loading their Cart.Sujan Singh also raised an objection before Radheshyam as to why he didn't stop his cow to enter their field.Radheshyam started abusing them and suddenly inflicted a stick on the head of Sujan Singh.Shyama also gave a blow on his head.Sujan fell unconscious.Guman took him to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead.2 CRA No.938 of 2011The Doctor informed the police station--Susner, District--Shajapur (Ex.P/1).The Police reached the hospital, called the witnesses and prepared panchanama lash (Ex.P/4 & 5).The Police also requested the doctor for postmortem vide Ex.In postmortem it was found that the death was due to cardio respiratory arrest caused by the injury sustained on the head particularly injury No.2 sustained on the occipital area of the head.The police registered FIR Ex. P/14 at crime No.6 of 2011 under Section 302/34 of IPC against Radheshyam and Shyama.The police visited the spot, prepared spot map Ex. P/11, arrested the accused vide Ex.P/9, recovered a stick from his possession vide Ex. P/6 and also recorded the 3 CRA No.938 of 2011 statements of the witnesses.In the investigation, co- accused Shyama was found minor, therefore, a separate charge-sheet was filed against him before the Juvenile Justice Board and charge-sheet against the present appellant was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who later on committed the same to the Sessions Court.3 CRA No.938 of 2011The appellant was charged, tried and convicted as stated in para 1 above.The appellant has preferred this appeal on several grounds but during the argument, learned Counsel representing him has submitted that he does not want to press the merits of the appeal.His only prayer is that both the appellant and the deceased belong to the same village and the same tribe caste.The appellant comes from a very poor background.He is a shepherd and earns livelihood by grazing cattle of villagers.He neither owns any agricultural land nor the cattle.His income falls within the category of BPL (below poverty line).The incident happened all of sudden.There was no intention, preparation or premeditation on the part of the appellant.There was some altercation between both of them (deceased and the appellant) on account of a petty and very common issue in the villages of entry of cattle in the field.In this case also the incident started for this reason only.The deceased started 4 CRA No.938 of 2011 abusing the appellant.There was some heated altercation between both of them.In that spur of moment, the appellant inflicted a lathi blow, which the villagers particularly the shepherds keep with them while grazing the cattle in the forest.As per prosecution case itself the cause of death was second blow of lathi, which was given by Shyama.The appellant has not repeated any blow or not took any advantage of the situation.The offence was not committed brutally, only after giving a blow the appellant ran away from the spot.Unfortunately, the deceased died but there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased, therefore, the case of the appellant falls within the purview of Section 304-II and not in Section 302 of IPC and, therefore, his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, which is now about more than 8 years.4 CRA No.938 of 2011Though the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,414,084 |
"Those that are water-soluble (vitamin B complex, vitamin C) are easily absorbed, but the fat-soluble vitamins (vitamins A, D, E and K) are poorly absorbed in the absence of bile or pancreatic lipase."In this batch of writ petitions since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.The petitioners had appeared in the preliminary examination which was held for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Class II in Lower Judicial Service of the State.Learned counsel for the petitioners were unable to satisfy this Court that model answers in respect of the questions except question No.24 are such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.Now we may advert to question No.24 which pertains to the vitamins that needs no support for its digestion.The relevant extract is as under:Accordingly, the result of the preliminary examination of the Civil Judge, Class II shall be re-tabulated and an intimation shall be sent to the concerned candidates for their appearance in the main examination.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,419,727 |
The prosecutrix revealed that she was a resident of No.81,Jasari Kaleeli, Rustum ji Compound, Richmond Road, Bangalore and wasearning her livelihood by rendering services as a maid in the house ofShilpa Shetty at Shanti Nagar, Bangalore.According to her, because of theill-treatment of her husband, she shifted to Bangalore about 8 months priorto the incident by separating from him.She alleged that at about 7.30 P.M. in the previous evening,while she was coming back from work and was at the Richmond Park, an autorickshaw ,with two persons in it including the driver stopped by her sideand she was pulled inside.According to her, after travelling somedistance, two other persons also got into the auto rickshaw.Themiscreants then blindfolded her, by her chudidar cloth and took her to anauto garage where there was no light.The prosecutrix stated that theabductors lit a candle, spread 2 seats of the auto rickshaw on the ground,laid her forcibly thereon and in spite of her resistance and objections,forcibly undressed her and raped her by turn.She disclosed that 3 of thefour persons ravished her.Out of them, two committed the act twice and thethird only once.The prosecutrix further stated that one of the persons broughtdosa and idli and also offered the same to her, whereafter they tried torepeat the same act, to which she protested for which she was kicked andfisted and further they snatched her Tali (mangalsootre) gold ear-studs.They then made her to wear her clothes, brought her in the auto rickshaw toa vacant place and discarded her.According to her, these violators wereaddressing each other as Raju, Venu, Parkash and Francis and claimed thatshe could identify them, if produced.Investigation followed and in thecourse thereof, the appellants were apprehended.The fourth person Franciscould not be nabbed as he absconded.As a matter of fact, after thesubmission of the charge-sheet against the appellants, the trial wasconducted by segregating the absconding accused.They denied the chargeunder the above provisions of law.It would thus be expedient,to analyse the evidence, oral and documentary before adverting to the rivalarguments based thereon.PW1, the prosecutrix on oath stated that she has a female childthrough her husband who lived separately with another lady and she and herdaughter lived in the compound of PW2 Geeta.She deposed that she had beenworking in the house of Shilpa Shetty for the last three years and thateven prior to the incident, the appellants used to tease her and passremarks on the way.She stated that in the evening of the date of theincident along with the appellants, another person had boarded the autoand that the two persons sitting on her sides were appellants Venu Gopaland Parkash.She testified that she also did peep out of the auto thinkingthat someone would save her, for which the person with the beard in theauto slapped her and therefore she felt frightened and sat behind.Shestated that the abductors then blindfolded her with her own dupatta,molested her inside the auto and ultimately took her to an auto garage andin spite of her objections, raped her one by one.According to her, shewas raped by Venu Gopal, Parash and the bearded person in that order.In her deposition, however she stated that appellant Raja alsoassaulted her and had forcible intercourse with her.She reiterated thatthe violators then brought dosa and idlis and also offered some to herwhich she on being assaulted, did eat.In a departure from her FIR, theprosecutrix deposed that thereafter all the four performed one more roundof intercourse by turn.Thereafter according to her, the bearded personsnatched her Tali (mangalsootre) and the other, her ear studs.They didassault her by kicks and thereafter by making her wear her clothes, tookher in the same auto and left her near a bridge.She complained of havingsustained injuries on her thighs.She stated that thereafter she took water from a person nearthe garage road and ascertained from him the area where she was situated.According to her, from the location of the place, she could understand thesite of the garage and on reaching there, she saw broken pieces of herglass bangles and also the litter and left overs of the food taken in thegarage and could convincingly identify the place.She deposed further thatat that time, a man came in a bicycle to whom she narrated the entireincident, who asked her to wait and went to the Hoysala Police Station toreport, whereafter the police did come, inspect the place as shown by herand took her to the Sampangiramanagara P.S. past midnight where she madeher verbal complaint which was reduced into writing and she put her thumbimpression thereon.Accordingto her, in the next morning at 6 A.M., the appellants were brought to thepolice station.She admitted to have been taken to the Vanivilas Hospitalwhere she was medically examined.She also stated to have identified theappellants in the test identification parade conducted in the central jail.She admitted that though the auto travelled for10 minutes thereafter, she did not try to get down as she was scared of herabductors.She further disclosed that the appellants used to speak to herfrom 2/3 days prior to the incident.According to her, while she was near Fatima Bakery, which wasopposite to Johnson market, she was taken inside the auto.She admitted tohave known the accused Francis then.She claimed to have identified twopersons in the auto rickshaw when she was first picked up from the roadas appellants Parkash and Francis.PW2 testified that this was not to the liking of theprosecutrix, who was enraged by such refusal and left the place byintimidating them of adverse consequences.The witness on oath statedfurther that the prosecutrix after returning home in the evenings andafter completing the house hold work, used to go around in the nightindulging in prostitution and when asked as to why she had lodged thecomplaint against the accused persons, she disclosed that this wouldcompel them to part with the money that she wanted.Though grudgingly, as admitted by her, she also consumed the food asoffered to her by her molesters.In cross-examination, she admitted that she was not married to Sarvanathough she claimed him to be her husband in her examination-in-chief.AMITAVA ROY, J.At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses andalso marked several documents and exhibited material objects seized duringthe investigation.The appellants rendered their statements under Section313 Cr.P.C. reiterating their innocence and also examined one witness indefence.The trial court, to reiterate, acquitted the appellants of thecharges levelled against them.The High Court by the impugned decision hasreversed the acquittal and the appellants thus stand convicted underSections 376(g) and 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC and have been sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for 10 years.The instant adjudication being one to examine the tenabilityof the conviction of the appellants on the reversal of their acquittal, anindependent assessment of the evidence on record is indispensable in theinterest of justice, two courts of facts having arrived at irreconcilableconclusions on the same materials on records.In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that she wasnot married and that she had come to Bangalore with Saravana whom she hadreferred to in her examination-in-chief, as her husband.She stated thatshe lived with Saravana for three years in Bangalore and that they used toearn their living as labourers.She stated that Saravana deserted her,following frequent quarrels with her, whereafter PW2 Geeta gave her andher daughter, shelter.She testified that she used to earn Rs. 700 p.m. byworking in the house of Shilpa Shetty and that there was none in thefamily or in her village to support her financially.She admitted thatfrom one week prior to the incident, the appellants used to tease her andthat from then she knew them.She admitted that the road from which shewas abducted was a public thorough fare but asserted that she could notscream as she was gagged.She admitted that none of theabductors did speak to her while in the auto rickshaw.She also concededthat she did not scream for help from the passers-by on the road.She wasconfronted with her disclosure in the FIR that only three persons hadcommitted rape on her though four had been named therein.She admittedthat at the time when she was offered two idlis and a glass of water, shedid not cry for help and instead had made up her mind to teach themiscreants a lesson by informing the police.She also stated, by departingfrom the FIR that for the second time, three persons committed sexualintercourse with her.According to her, the ear studs had been given toher by her husband who got them made at Kaveripattinam in Tamil Nadu.Sheclaimed that her FIR was written by one Anthony in the police station whomshe came to know at that point of time.In her cross-examination, she further deviated by stating thatapart from the 4th person referred to by her, there was yet another personof short stature and that she had forgotten to refer to him in her FIR.She admitted that her mouth was never shut but her abductors did threatenand scold her.She admitted that after she was abandoned by themiscreants, she did alone return to the garage where the act was committed.She also stated to have narrated her incident to five more persons atdifferent places before the police had intervened, who according to her,were watchmen.She stated that she wanted to see the place beforeinforming the police and, therefore she went in search thereof.Shedeposed that she saw the jeep of the Hoysala police and called for helpwhereafter she was taken in the jeep.She took the jeep near the garageand from there, she was taken to two more police stations before lodgingthe FIR at Sampangiramanagara Police Station.She contradicted herself by stating that the complaint was notwritten by Anthony.She also stated that her report was typed, read out toher whereupon she put her left thumb impression.When Ex. P1, FIR wasshown to her, she admitted that it was not typed.She admitted as well thatwhile narrating the incident and lodging the complaint, she did notdisclose the names of the accused persons.She conceded as well that whenshe was taken to the hospital, there were no wounds.She admitted as well that PW 2 Geeta had advised her to takemoney and return to her native village and not to file a case as otherwiseshe would disclose that she was a prostitute.She denied the suggestionthat she had requested for financial help from the appellants and whenthey expressed their inability, she lodged a false case against them towreak vengeance.She also denied the suggestion that the materialexhibits, more particularity ear studs and tali (mangalsootre) were nothers and that the police had procured the same from elsewhere, to frame theaccused persons.In the context of her identification of the appellantsin the TIP, she admitted in her cross-examination that even prior to theincident, she had seen the accused persons and that not only they used totalk to her, she knew them as well.PW2 Geeta, on oath stated that she also did earn her livingas a labourer.She admitted that she knew the prosecutrix who wasdeserted by her husband and that she had accommodated her and her daughterand had provided shelter to them about 7 years prior to the incident.Shestated that about four years back (coinciding approximately with the dateof the incident), the prosecutrix had disclosed to her that on her wayback home, she had been teased, on which she advised her to be careful.The witness stated that in the evening of the date of the incident, theprosecutirx did not return home and that at about mid-night, the policebrought her back.She stated that she saw marks of assault on the body of prosecutrix and on being enquired, she stated that “they did not pay meany money but have snatched my ear studs.They have extracted all the workneeded”.The witness volunteered to explain “work” meant prostitution.At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined.In her cross-examination, she admitted that when the prosecutrixreturned that night, she had suffered wounds and was limping.She deniedto have stated before the police that the appellants had snatched her goldornaments and had committed rape on her.She also denied to have identified the ear studs, as those of the prosecutrix and instead asserted thatthe same were not hers.She denied the suggestion that her retractionfrom the statement made before the police was with a view to help theaccused persons.She volunteered to state that the reason for her husbandto desert the prosecutrix was her activities of prostitution which had cometo his knowledge.The witness further disclosed in her cross-examination by thedefence that about a fortnight before the incident, the prosecutrix alongwith her had approached the accused persons for an amount of Rs. 10000which she intended to invest for living in a separate house, which washowever declined.PW4 Muthu produced as a seizure witness of the ear studsdenied that same had been seized in his presence and instead testified thaton the insistence of the police he put his signature on a paper.Thiswitness was declared hostile but did not budge from his statement in hisexamination-in-chief.PW5 M.K. Srirangaiah was the Tehsildar, Bangalore NorthTaluk at the relevant time and he proved the conduct of TIP, in whichthe prosecutrix identified the appellants.PW8 K.M. Nandagopal was the Assistant Professor, OBG, VanivilasHospital on 11.10.1997 where at about 9 a.m. on that day, the prosecutrixwas medically examined.He deposed that the prosecutrix was found to havesustained red colour injury on her left thigh.While stating that thevaginal swab of the prosecutrix was sealed and sent to the Forensic ScienceLaboratory, he was of the clear opinion that she was accustomed to the actof sexual intercourse.In his cross-examination, the doctor admitted thatthe prosecutrix did not reveal any evidence or sign of having sexualintercourse at the time of her examination.Vis-a-vis the injuries on herthigh, the witness stated that this could happen due to reasons other thansexual intercourse.PW11 B.S. Mudumadeviah, the Investigating Officer affirmedthat the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix at 2 a.m. on 11.10.1997 at thepolice station.He deposed that after the medical examination of theprosecutrix, he accompanied her to the place of occurrence and seizedtherefrom a red colour drawer, one box of Nirodh (contraceptive), two autorickshaw seats, two broken pieces of black bangles and three black banglesfound strewn around.He identified the seized articles in court.Hereferred to the disclosure statement of the appellant Parkash leading tothe discovery of the ear studs of the prosecutrix from his house which heidentified in the court as well.He also claimed to have seized the autorickshaw identified by the same appellant used for abducting theprosecutrix.According to him, he had written down the complaint of theprosecutrix made verbally He conceded that the prosecutrix did not state that at thatpoint of time, that she had been abducted by five persons and raped byfour.She also did not disclose that there was another short person whohad raped her as well.The witness admitted that she did not disclose thatshe was abducted while near the Fatima Bakery but referred to the spot asRichmond Park.He denied the suggestion that the prosecutrix at the timeof lodging of the complaint did not name the miscreants.He denied thesuggestion as well that the ear studs were bought from Man PasandJewellers, Shanti Nagar by taking Rakesh, a friend of accused No. 3-Parkash for the purpose.He denied the suggestion with regard to seizuresfrom the spot and also the identification by the prosecutrix at the testidentification parade.The defence witness Rakesh deposed on oath that after theincident, while one day he was in the house of Parkash, the police visitedthe place and threatened the grand-father of the appellant Parkashalleging that he (Parkash) had snatched a pair of ear studs from theprosecutrix, to which his grand-father objected.The witness identified the ear studs through the emblem “M.P.” thereon.Hedenied that the material Ex. 1, the ear studs belonged to the prosecutrixand that the same had been seized from the appellant Parkash.Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for theappellants has insistently argued that it being patent on a combinedreading of the FIR and the testimony of the prosecutrix at the trial, thatshe is wholly untrustworthy and that the appellants have been falselyimplicated, the impugned judgement and order is liable to be set aside lestit perpetuates gross injustice.Filtering the unnecessary factual details, suffice it is torecount that the incident allegedly had occurred at 7.30 p.m. on a publicroad while the prosecutrix was returning home after the day's work.Herversion is that while she was on the way, an auto rickshaw with two personstherein pulled up by her side and she was dragged in forcibly.Aftermoving for about 10 minutes, the abductors were joined by two more persons,whereafter she was taken to a garage and was molested against her willforcibly.To start with, the prosecutrix has contradicted herself qua theplace of alleged kidnapping.In the complaint, she mentioned the spot tobe near Richmond park, whereas in her evidence she referred to the same asopposite Johnson market.This is moreso, as admittedly the prosecutrix at the relevant time was a major andcould very well foresee the disastrous consequences to follow.She hasadmitted in her deposition as well that while she was ravished inside thegarage and even during the intermittent breaks, she did not shout for anyhelp.Her version in the complaint with regard to the offending act andthe number of persons, who had committed the same, is inconsistent with hertestimony on oath at the trial.Notably in the complaint she mentionedabout four persons of whom three raped and out of them, two committed theact twice.On oath, shehowever introduced a fifth person as well.She accused all the fourpersons to have committed sexual intercourse with her for the second time.Shedisclosed more than once that the accused persons used to tease her forabout 5-6 months prior to the incident and that she used to talk to them aswell.In view of this admission of hers , the identification by theprosecutrix of the accused persons in the TIP pales into insignificance.She contradicted herself in the cross-examination by stating that three ofthe four did rape her for the second time.She was also inconsistent withregard to the writer of her complaint.Her conduct during the alleged ordeal is also unlike a victim of forciblerape and betrays somewhat submissive and consensual disposition.From thenature of the exchanges between her and the accused persons as narrated byher, the same are not at all consistent with those of an unwilling,terrified and anguished victim of forcible intercourse, if judged by thenormal human conduct.Her post incident conduct and movements are also noticeably unusual.Instead of hurrying back home in a distressed, humiliated and a devastatedstate, she stayed back in and around the place of occurrence, enquiredabout the same from persons whom she claims to have met in the late hoursof night, returned to the spot to identify the garage and even look at thebroken glass bangles, discarded litter etc. According to her, she wanderedaround the place and as disclosed by her in her evidence, to collectinformation so as to teach the accused persons a lesson.Her avengefulattitude in the facts and circumstances, as disclosed by her, if true,demonstrably evinces a conduct manifested by a feeling of frustrationstoked by an intense feeling of deprivation of something expected, desiredor promised.Her confident movements alone past midnight, in that state arealso out of the ordinary.Her testimony that she met a cyclist to whomshe narrated her tale of woe and that on his information, the Hoysalapolice came to the spot and that thereafter she was taken to successivepolice stations before lodging the complaint at Sampangiramanagara policestation as well has to be accepted with a grain of salt.PW8, who medically examined her, opined in clear terms thatshe was accustomed to sexual intercourse and that no sign of forcibleintercourse was discernible.This assumes great significance in view ofthe allegation of forcible rape by 3 to 4 adult persons more than once.The medical opinion that she was accustomed to sexual inter course whenadmittedly she was living separately from her husband for 1 and ½ yearsbefore the incident also has its own implication.The medical evidence assuch in the attendant facts and circumstances in a way belies theallegation of gang rape.The evidence of PW2 Geeta who admittedly had offered shelter tothe prosecutrix and her minor daughter, though had been declared hostile,her testimony as a whole cannot be brushed aside.In her testimony, thiswitness indicated that the prosecutrix used to take financial help fromthe accused persons and that she used to indulge in dubious late nightactivities for which her husband had deserted her.The defence plea offalse implication as the accused persons had declined to oblige theprosecutrix qua her demand for financial help therefore cannot be lightlydiscarded in the overall factual scenario.Her version therefore is aplausible one and thus fit in with the defence plea to demolish theprosecution case.It wasenounced that the evidence of a hostile witness remains admissible and isopen for a Court to rely on the dependable part thereof as found acceptableand duly corroborated by other reliable evidence available on record.The seizures said to have been effected by the investigatingagency also do not inspire confidence.Not only PW 4 Muthu denied that theseizure of ear studs had been made in his presence, DW1 on oath hadstated that this item of jewellery had in fact been purchased by thepolice from a local shop which he could identify on the basis of thesymbol ‘MP’ inscribed thereon.We are of the unhesitant opinion that theprosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellants to thehilt as obligated in law and thus, they are entitled to the benefit ofdoubt.The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,421,150 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants over this Application, moved under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short 'Cr.P.C.), by Smt. Kanta Devi and Dinesh Baghel, against State of U.P. and Mitthan Khan, challenging summoning order, dated 13.3.2019, passed in Complaint Case No. 6901940 of 2018 (Mitthan Khan vs. Zannat & others), under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC'), Police Station-Shahganj, District Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.4, Agra as well as impugned summoning order, dated 13.3.2019 and other process issued against them.Subsequently, Rs.1,45,000/- was also paid in cash to them, but they did not execute sale deed, rather disclosed the property to be owned by Zannat.Lateron, it was came to notice that Kanta Devi had executed sale deed in favour of Bhuri Begum, fraudulently, for the same plot, prior to execution of sale deed by Zannat.Hence, it was a dishonest deception by Dinesh Baghel and Kanta Devi, who had taken money in lieu of promise for making transfer of above plot and there was evidence to this effect, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., which stood further corroborated by evidence, recorded, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., that is why summoning order was passed for offence, punishable, under above sections, against the applicants.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,952,893 |
solemnized at Balia in the State of Uttar Pradesh.i) The marriage was a negotiated one.In marriage, articles like utensils- made of steel, silver, and gun-metal; furniture; electronic goods were given.Old and silver ornaments were also given apart from cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid as dowry, out of which Rs. 65,000/-was paid in cash and Rs. 1,35,000/- in draft in the name of Indranil Rai the uncle in-law of the petitioner.ii) The in-laws assured the bridal side that the money would be kept in deposit with the local Post Office where the wife of the brother-in-law of the complainant was working.iii) After the marriage, the complainant went to her matrimonial home at village Kathoda, where the accused were all sharing common mess.iv) After few days the complainant noticed that the husband was in the grip of the lady being the wife of the brother-in-law.The in-laws were controlled by the said lady.Without her permission nothing could be done.She also doubted the relationship between her husband and the said lady.v) After a fortnight of the marriage, the husband and the lady went to Faijabad and came after sometime.That fact strengthened the doubt of the complainant.vi) The complainant was compelled to give all her ornaments to her-in-laws who took it on the plea that it would be kept in safe custody of the bank.vii) In September, 2004, the complainant's brother came to see her and took her to her parental home where the complainant stayed for a couple of months and thereafter her brother-in-law again took her to her matrimonial home.viii) Within a few weeks of return, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 started complaining about insufficient dowry.They also expressed displeasure about the quality of the gifts.ix) The accused started pressurizing the complainant to tell her parents to come down to Balia for a compromise, otherwise she would be "set on fire"x) The parents along with their well-wishers went to Balia and requested the in-laws to come down to Asansol for settlement of dispute on the issue of further demand.The respondent No. 2 2 made a complaint with the local Police Station at Asansol that her husband and in-laws subjected her to torture.The Police initially did not entertain the complaint.She approached the learned Magistrate under Section 156 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The complaint before the learned Magistrate would reveal as under:Accordingly in May 2006, discussion was held at Asansol when accused Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 informed them that their social prestige had been lost and such loss must be made good.Ultimately, it was settled at Rs. 1,00,000/- on the assurance that there would be no further demand.In July 2006 when accused No. 1 visited her parents at Asansol they assured them that the balance money would be paid at Asansol.xii) In meddle of 2007, the accused made a further demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- for setting up business of electronic goods.Ultimately she had to leave her matrimonial home in the last part of October, 2007 without taking her belongings.xiii) Further negotiation took place when father of the complainant arranged for the couple's accommodation at Asansol and made arrangement for the husband for selling of Mobile Card.Such arrangement was made at the house of Monoj.xiv) In the said house the accused Nos. 5 7 and 9 used to come occasionally and tortured the complainant.In last week of December 2007, the husband left Asansol and did not return.The complainant wrote letters on January 8, 2008 and January 17, 2008, however no reply came.If we closely analyse the aforesaid petition of complaint we would find that the couple stayed for about less than a couple of months at Asansol in the last part of 2007 where the accused Nos. 6, 7 and 9 tortured her.In July 2006 negotiation took place at Assansol and a part of payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made there.Apart from these two incidents, no other part of the cause of action arose within the State.Hence, this application for revision by the accused.Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the accused/ petitioners contended that on a combined reading of the petitioner's complaint it would appear that a substantial part of the incident of torture happened at Balia where marriage was solemnized.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,953,613 |
SL No.127 AP CRM 5708 of 2019 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.07.2019 in connection with Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 111/2019 dated 27.03.2019 under Sections 326/354A/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Ahad Ali Sekh @ Asad Ali Sekh.....Petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
199,955,081 |
Shri Ajay Bagadiya, learned counsel for the Objecor.Case diary perused.Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 3.5.2019, rendered by Special Judge under SC/ST Act, Indore in B.A. No.34/2019, whereby the prayer for regular bail has been declined.As per prosecution case, complainant Rita Dagre has filed a complaint before police station Banganga on 18.10.2010 stating that her daughter has went to buy breakfast on 16.2.2019 at about 9.00 a.m., but she has not returned till date.On the basis of the report, case was registered by the Police at crime No.220/16 regarding missing person.As no information regarding daughter of the complainant was received, the Police on 22.2.2017 registered a case under Sections 365,364, 302, :2: Cr.4234/2019 201, 120-B of IPC and under Sections 3 (2)(v) and 3 (2)(v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against unknown person.During the investigation, the Police recorded the statement of complainant Rita Dagre, her husband Sanjay Dagre and other witnesses and also recorded the statement of one Lakhan Suryavanshi.On the basis of statement of Lakhan Suryavanshi, the applicant and other co-accused persons have been taken in custody.After investigation, challan has been filed against the accused persons.Thereafter, the applicant has filed an application before the trial Court, which was dismissed.:2:Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that, there is no legal evidence available against the present appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.He further submits that the name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the FIR as well as on the basis of the charge sheet also, there is no participation of the appellant in committing the said crime and the trial is likely to take long time in its conclusion.Under these circumstances, he prays that the appellant be released on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the submission made by learned senior counsel for the appellant and submits that, at the time of destroying the dead body the appellant was present on the spot and his presence was corroborated by the prosecution witness Lakhan Suryavanshi, who was present on the spot at the time of the incident.Therefore, he prays that the appeal be dismissed.Learned counsel for the Objector also opposes the bail application and submits that, the appellant is an influential person and he tried to threaten the witnesses, for which, FIR :3: Cr.4234/2019 was also lodged by the Objector.In such circumstance, he submits that, if the appellant is released on bail then he will threaten the witnesses and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,999,587 |
1.The VII Metropolitan Magistrate,George Town, Chennai.2.-Do- The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,Egmore, Chennai.3000 of 1994 is a petition filed by one T.V.Krishnamachari, who is an advocate, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.522 of199 4 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.2. Crl.O.P.No.7394 of 1994 is a petition filed by one R.S.Natarajan, Former Special Officer, TUCS Ltd., Big Street, Triplicane, Madras,to quash the proceedings in the C.C.No.522 of 1994, on the file of the VIIMetropolitan Magistrate, Madras.Since the facts and the issues raised in both the petitions areidentical, I deem it fit to pass a common order.b) Therefore the first accused therein in his capacity as a SpecialOfficer of TUCS Limited, Madras had filed two applications in E.A. No.1476 of1988 and E.A.No.1477 of 1998 in E.P.No.1006 of 1988 through his counsel namelyT.V.Krishnamachari (second accused in C.C.No.522 of 1994), praying for policeaid and break opening the lock of the premises, respectively.In support ofthe above said petitions, a common affidavit is said to have been filed by thefirst accused therein and the second accused had put his signature by way ofapproval of the contents of the above said common affidavit in his capacity asthe counsel of the TUCS, before the Court of X Assistant City Civil Judge,Madras, wherein at Paragraph-3, he has stated as follows:I submit that to my surprise the outer door of the E.Pmentioned property was locked up by the respondent/Judgement Debtor in orderto prevent me from taking possession of the E.P mentioned property.c) The averments mentioned above is the defamatory matter according tothe complainant.The complainant further states that the statements are falseto the knowledge of the accused and a per se defamatory and moreover the firstaccused admittedly was not an eye-witness to the incident and consequently hassworn to a false affidavit.Hence he has filed the present complaint for anoffence under Section 500 IPC.At the outset, it may not be out of place for me to state that thecomplainant had filed an application in E.a.In otherwords, the only allegation against him is that he attested the affidavit andthat when such an application has been filed, he ought to have perused therecords in the EP namely the bailiff report, the letter of obstructor andconsequently, he was also a party who deliberated the preparation of theaffidavit.However, the complainant admits on 03-07-2002 that he was the counsel for thecomplainant's wife namely Shanmugavadivu and he has signed the petition andappeared for her in E.A.No.3345 of 1999, wherein at paragraph-3 it has beenclearly averred that the petitioner's counsel on perusal of the records of theabove E.P after the filing of E.A.No.15 32 of 1988 found that there is anobstructor etc., and from the above it is clearly established that thecomplainant has knowledge about the incident as early as on 21st August 1989.In fact on going through the copies supplied by the respondent in E.A.No.3345of 1989, it is found that the complainant has signed as the counsel for thepetitioner.When the incident has come to his knowledge as early as in theyear 1989 and the prosecution has been launched in the year 1994, I am of theopinion that the prosecution is clearly barred by limitation in view of thebar laid down by Section 468 Cr.P.C, which states that the period oflimitation is only three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonmentfor a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.Consequently, Ihave no hesitation to quash the proceedings in relation to both the accused inC.C.No.522 of 1994 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.In the result, the petitions are allowed.O.P. No.3000 of 1994andCrl.O.P.No.7394 of 1994
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,999,769 |
Motibai, P.W. 4 is the widow of Parshi Motya Valvi.Appellant was married to one Daharibai Who was subsequently divorced.Appellant was keen to contract second marriage and was persuading his brother deceased Parshi Motya to arrange for cash, if necessary, by sale of some cattle heads belonging to the family, but the deceased was putting off the appellant under one pretext or the other and this reluctance on the part of deceased Parshi Motya to provide necessary cash to enable appellant to contract second marriage is proffered by the prosecution as a motive for the crime.On the night of 1st Oct. 1970 both the appellant and the deceased Parshi Motya consumed two bottles of liquor and then took dinner and decided to go in search of extra helping of liquor which led them to the house of Bhikjya P.W. 8 residing at a distance of three miles from the house of the deceased.When both the brothers were at the house of Bhikjya, original accused No. 2 Bhamta is alleged to have joined them.Two bottles of liquor were purchased from Bhikjya and one was consumed at the house of Bhikjya and thereafter both the brothers and original accused No. 2 Bhamta left the house of Bhikjya together during the night.In the early hours of morning of 2nd Oct. 1970 the appellant alone returned to the house and on a query by Motibai, P.W. 4, the widow of the deceased, as to where her husband had gone appellant was found to be evasive in his reply.Motibai thereupon contacted Bhikjya who acquainted her with the events of the previous night.Leta, P.W. 3 accompanied by Fatya, P.W. 5 and Bhongya, P.W. 7 visited the house of deceased Parshi Motya where appellant was present and he was questioned about the whereabouts of deceased parshi Motya when appellant is alleged to have made some extra-judicial confession.Thereupon Police Patil Kutrya, P.W. 11 was contacted and on his questioning the appellant dead body of deceased Parshi Motya was recovered from the side of a nala.JUDGMENT D.A. Desai, J.This appeal under Section 2-A of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, by Pohalya Motya Valvi, original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 12/71 on the file of Sessions Judge, Dhulia in Maharashtra State arises from a judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1329 of 1971 filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Dhulia, setting aside his acquittal and convicting the appellant for having committed an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life.Parshi Motya Valvi, the deceased was the brother of the appellant and they were residing together.Immediately thereafter Police Patil Kutrya went to Dhengaon Police Station and gave information of the offence.An offence was registered and PSI, Mr. Patil, P.W. 14 commenced investigation.Appellant and Bhamta original accused No. 2 were charge-sheeted for having committed offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Sessions Judge at the conclusion of the trial was of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against both the accused and acquitted them.As the case depends on circumstantial evidence, at the outset the well-established principles governing the appreciation of evidence in a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence may be borne in mind.It is better to reproduce them so that the examination becomes pertinent, pinpointed and confined within narrow limits.Says the High Court:To summarise, the circumstances which could be said to be proved against the accused No. 1 would be that the deceased and the accused No. 1 left the house together at about 10 p. m. and the deceased carried a spear in his hand.Both of them went to the house of Bhikjya by about midnight and consumed liquor.The accused No. 1 did not return home till next morning and returned alone.When questioned by the widow of the deceased Motibai, he offered a false explanation.Immediately after his arrest, he gave the information leading to the discovery of the spear which was found to be stained with human blood, and that was the spear which the deceased had carried.Finally he has given a false explanation.On these established circumstances the High Court was of the opinion that no other view is possible except that the appellant was responsible for the murder of the deceased.We propose to examine each one of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court in the order in which they have been set out.The first and the second circumstances relied upon by the High Court can be examined together.It is alleged that the deceased and the appellant left their house together around 10 p.m. on 1st Oct. 1970 on their way to the house of Bhikjya in search of liquor.There is evidence of Bhikjya, P.W. 8 to that effect and it has been accepted by both the Courts.According to Bhikjya, P. W 8 the appellant and deceased Parshi Motya came to his house around midnight time and asked for two bottles of liquor.But further according to Bhikjya, at about that time accused No. 2, Bhamta also joined them.According to Bhikjya all the three, i.e. deceased, appellant and Bhamta left his house together.Undoubtedly thereafter deceased was not seen alive by anyone but two persons were in company of the deceased, viz., appellant and Bhamta when they left the house of Bhikjya.Now, Bhamta was the co-accused.This very circumstance has not been found to be of some importance against Bhamta.To some extent the circumstance ceases to be of an incriminating character because not only the appellant should account for the disappearance of the deceased but simultaneously on evidence of Bhikjya, original accused No. 2 Bhamta would also be required to explain the same circumstance.Not only was Bhamta acquitted in respect of the offence, the State even did not choose to question his acquittal though it did prefer appeal against the acquittal of the present appellant.In this background the fact that deceased was seen last alive in the company of the accused would cease to be a circumstance of an incriminating character.The next two circumstances, viz., circumstances 3 and 4 may be examined together.It is alleged that the appellant did not return home till the next morning and when he returned to the house in the early hours of the morning he was alone and When questioned by Motibai, P.W 4, the widow of the deceased, he offered a false explanation.Evidence of Motibai, P.W. 4 would show that when the appellant returned to the house in the early hours of the morning she asked a question as to where the deceased was and the appellant replied that he was overcome and intoxicated under the influence of liquor and that he did not know where deceased had gone.Now, unless the charge against the appellant is held proved there is no other positive evidence on record to show that the explanation is false.Evidence of Motibai herself would show that both her husband and the appellant had consumed liquor at the house and then left together in search of extra helping.Evidence of Bhikjya would show that two bottles of liquor were purchased from him by the appellant and the deceased and one bottle was consumed at his house.This was the state of inebriation of the appellant and the deceased.If, therefore, the appellant when he might have returned to his senses in the early hours of morning thought of returning to the house and when questioned said that he was intoxicated under the influence of liquor and did not know the whereabouts of the deceased, it is difficult to say that the explanation is false.The fallacy lies in arguing backwards in the sense that if the appellant is shown to have committed murder of his brother, obviously the explanation is false.Therefore, circumstances Nos. 3 and 4 have no evidentiary value.The next and the fifth circumstance relied upon by the High Court is that after the appellant was arrested he gave information leading to the discovery of the spear which was found to be stained with human blood, and this spear was identified to be one which was in the hand of the deceased when he in the company of the accused left the house on the night of 1st October 1970 to go to the house of Bhikjya.While examining this circumstance it has been observed by the High Court that it is a circumstance of clinching character.Evidence of PSI, D. K. Patil, the investigating officer is that he arrested the appellant who was already in custody of the police patil on 3rd October 1970 and attached Articles.8 to 11 from the person of the appellant being the clothes of the appellant which appeared to be stained with blood.He questioned the appellant on 4th Oct. 1970 when according to him appellant made the following statement:I have hidden the spear in the heap of grass on the southern side of my house in the field of jawar.I will produce it.After excluding the inadmissible portion, the statement reads as under:I give my true statement before the Panchas that that spear is kept hidden under the heap of grass which is just taken out and near the small plant of Hengal in the crop of the Jawar and towards the southern side of my dwelling house.I am willingly ready to produce the spear hence come with me.The learned Sessions Judge has reproduced the original statement in Marathi language and then translated it as under:That spear is kept hidden under the heap of grass which is just taken out and near the small plant of Hengal in the crop of the Jawar and towards southern side of my dwelling house.I am willingly ready to produce that spear.The High Court reads the statement as reproduced in its judgment as under:I give my true statement before the Panchas that (then comes the inadmissible portion which we do not consider proper to reproduce here)...that spear I have hidden in the grass in my field of Jawar to the southern side of my house, That spear I am ready to produce.The High Court uses the pronoun 'I' at two places.The prosecution had attempted to offer evidence of motive which would be valuable in a case dependent on circumstantial evidence.But both the Courts have discarded the evidence of motive as well as the evidence bearing on the proof of extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant and we must accept this concurrent finding of both the Courts.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,068,818 |
The story revolves around 3 characters Dr. Sanjay who is a plastic surgeon, his girl friend namely Priya and one another lady who is step mother of Priya.The step mother visits Dr. Sanjay for cosmetic treatments for her body transformation as a gift to her husband on his 60th birthday who is a retired Army Officer.During the course of interaction the step mother and Dr. Sanjay grow close to each other and become physically intimate with each other.On the other hand, Priya, the girl friend of Dr. Sanjay decides to introduce him to her parents.When Dr. Sanjay meets Priya's parents, he is left dumb founded, as the step mother of Priya is the same lady who had earlier become intimate with Dr. Sanjay.However, Dr. Sanjay and Priya eventually get married.P.C submits that the web series is about interpersonal relationship and different circumstances/situations arising therefrom.The petitioner submits that the web series is a drama/comedy/parody, which explores schemes of romance and human sexuality in different modern day scenario.The web series and episode are not remotely connected with Indian Army or religion.The petitioner submits that he is a Managing Director of ALT Digital Media Entertainment Ltd, registered under the Companies ...9... M.Cr.C. No.28386/2020 Act, 2013 and having registered Office at C-13, Balaji House Dalai Industrial Estate (Opposite Laxmi Industrial Estate), New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai (Maharashtra).This Company is a subsidiary of Balaji Telefilm, which is a Prominent Media and Entertainment Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which produces and has produced some well known Indian soap operas and entertainment programmes and shows in various Indian languages.The frame work, rules, law and regulations applicable to broadcast services is completely inapplicable to the SOVD services.Certain policy issues that are of fundamental importance to ... 10 ... M.Cr.C. No.28386/2020 broadcasters such as interconnect, licensing, QoS etc are completely inapplicable to SOVD services.(11.11.2020) This order seeks to dispose of the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.02142020, registered at police station Anapurna, Indore (M.P.), under the provisions of Sections 294, 298 and 34 of IPC, under Sections 67 and 67-A of I.T. Act and Section 3 of State Emblem Act....7... M.Cr.2. Facts which are relevant for discussion in this matter are that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner with regard to transmission of an episode in web series (XXX Uncensored) on Zee 5 which is being promoted by ALT Balaji, a concern owned by petitioner and her mother.The web series contains different stories or episodes which the complainant has mentioned as obscene and vulgar to an extent that it calls for penal action.Shocked Priya files divorce case against Dr. Sanjay and her step mother claims that it was Dr. Sanjay who was ...8... M.Cr.The impugned FIR contains certain allegations against the web service.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,707,176 |
The marriage ran into rough weather, the second respondent raised allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her stridhan.The identity of the second respondent has been confirmed by the counsel present with her and also by self attested copy of adhar card, which is taken on record.M.C. No.746/2019 Page 2 of 7First information report (FIR) no.411/2015 having been registered on 11.06.2015 by police station Karawal Nagar on her complaint involving offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the case being directed against her husband (first petitioner), his parents (second and third petitioners), his sister (fourth petitioner), and husband of the said sister (fifth petitioner).On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which Crl.M.C. No.746/2019 Page 1 of 7 cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.M.C. No.746/2019 Page 1 of 7The parties, however, have entered into an amicable settlement and executed a settlement deed dated 20.02.2018 in the Counselling Cell of Family Court at Karkardooma Courts upon reference by the said court during pending litigation there.In terms of the settlement, the parties have decided to forego the dispute and allegations against each other and also part ways peacefully by seeking divorce by mutual consent, the second respondent having agreed to receive and the first petitioner having agreed to pay to her total amount of Rs.4,25,000/-as full and final settlement in installments.The present petition was filed on the basis of the said settlement seeking quashing of the present proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case.Upon notice, the second respondent appeared and has sworn an affidavit dated 18.07.2019 which has come on record.By the said affidavit and orally at the hearing, the second respondent has confirmed that she has already received Rs.3,00,000/- and only an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- remains to be paid.At the Crl.M.C. No.746/2019 Page 2 of 7 hearing, the first petitioner has handed over to second respondent and she has received a demand draft for Rs.1,25,000/-, bearing No.728720, dated 30.07.2019, drawn on UCO Bank, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
370,721 |
The accused in C.C. No. 1376/90 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Palani, has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same.Short facts are : The respondent has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for offence under section 417, I.P.C. on the allegations that 10 months prior to 15-6-90, at Andinaickanvalasu village, the accused and victim Minnalkodi loved each other that accused had sexual intercourse with Minnalkodi with her consent by promissing her that he would marry her and Minnalkodi became pregnant and thereafter the accused refused to marry her and thus cheated her.Mr. Hajee P. K. Jamal Mohamed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that (i) on the evidence available on record, no offence under section 417 is made out.(ii) The charge sheet is barred by time.Sentence for offence under Section 417, I.P.C. is imprisonment for one year.As per Section 468(2)(b), Cr.P.C. the period of limitation is one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.As per Section 469, Cr.P.C. the period of limitation, in relation to an offender shall commence,(a) on the date of the offence, so this charge-sheet filed on 7-9-90 is barred by time.(iii) For making out offence under section 417, I.P.C. the inducement must not be for doing an illegal act and in this case the inducement was for an illegal act viz. sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons and so the offence is not made out.(vi) The allegations in the F.I.R. would not make out an offence under Section 420 or 493, I.P.C. and while so, the case was registered for offence under section 420 and 493, I.P.C. and investigation was taken and ultimately the charge sheet was filed for offence under section 417, I.P.C. Section 417, I.P.C. is a non cognizable offence.So the bar imposed under section 155, Cr.P.C. will be there and the proceedings are to be quashed.I have heard Mr. E. Raja, the learned Government Advocate, on the above aspects.I shall take up the submissions in seriatim.In the first information report, it is stated that when the accused began to move in an improper way she did not agree to accede to his request and at that time the accused told her that he would definitely marry her, that if she agrees, on that very moment both of them can go to some other place and get married and live together and that they can live at Palani and that he would not he afraid of his parents and other relatives and that he cannot live without her and so saying made a promise by touching her head and that she believed him and had sexual intercourse with him.Then she has stated that whenever they had sexual intercourse, he used to say like that and that she became pregnant and requested him to marry, as promised, that he replied that if she delivers a baby within four months of the marriage, people will talk ill of her and so she must dissolve the pregnancy and then he would marry her.She has further stated that he gave Rs. 100/- through Lakshmi and sent her to the hospital at Dharapuram and that the lady doctor said that already she is pregnant by six months and she cannot dissolve the pregnancy.Then she has stated that they reported the matter to Mailsamy and still he said that only if she dissolve the pregnancy, he will marry her.She would further stated this matter came out to her father and relatives that a panchayat was held that Mailsami's father told the panchayats that on an auspicious day, the marriage can be celebrated.But thereafter, they had kept Mailsami in some place and said that he would not available.Then again, when the Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeranur sent for the accused and others.They said that he will marry her; but again they have kept the accused in some place and refused to have the marriage.Then she has stated that Mailsami had cheated her by giving out false promise that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her and had made a request to find out Mailsami, the accused and make him to marry her.In this report, it is specifically stated that even after the complainant went to the hospital at Dharapuram for dissolving the pregnancy, as desired by the accused and after the lady doctor told that pregnancy is already six months old and could not be dissolved, still the accused had said that only if she dissolves the pregnancy, he would marry her.That would go to show that he was putting an impossible condition for marriage, which would virtually amount to refusal to marry her.Then it is alleged in the latter portion of the F.I.R. that her parents had kept him in some place and did not allow the marriage.The totality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. would go to show that she must have been a willing party for the same.So it cannot be stated that he never refused to marry her and that there was no cheating whatsoever.The submission that no offence under section 417, I.P.C. is made out, cannot be accepted for the reason that when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him, he made a promise that he will definitely marry her and induced her to subject herself for sexual intercourse by him; but ultimately when she insisted for marriage, after she became pregnant, he evaded and ultimately he put an impossible condition and did not marry her.This order was challenged in the High Court.The learned Judge upheld the order of the District Magistrate (J) and had dismissed the revision proceedings.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,707,757 |
M.B.No.10652/2015 is dismissed.It was past mid-night.At 1:07 in the dead of the night information was received at P.S.Shahdara and noted in DD No.2A, Ex.PW-12/A by SI Sumer Singh PW-12, the duty officer at the Police Station, that near Sai Baba Mandir, Kabool Nagar, Shahdara, a quarrel was taking place.The PCR van stationed near where Ram Dulari PW-1, her deceased son Rajinder and the elder son - Subhash resided, reached the spot and removed Rajinder to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital where he was declared brought dead as recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-6/A by Dr.The duty officer at the hospital conveyed said information to PS Shahdara where it was recorded in DD No.3A, Ex.PW-12/B by SI Sumer Singh.ASI Lala Ram PW-13 was entrusted with the investigation and accompanied by HC Ombir Singh he reached house No.1/6060 Kabool Nagar, near Sai Baba Temple and met Ram Dulari PW-1 who told him that her son had been removed to GTB Hospital.K.K.Upadhyaya PW-15, the Addl.SHO of the area also reached the spot on learning about the incident.Crime team was summoned.Whereas deceased was CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 2 of 6 hardworking and through his earnings the day to day expenses of the house were met, the appellant was lazy, quarrelsome and an alcoholic.On the day of incident i.e. July 15, 2008, the appellant returned to take dinner at 10.30 P.M. when her younger son requested him to improve himself and earn something so that family expenses can be met, appellant abused and left and returned after two hours at past 12.00 mid-night.Appellant went to the room where Rajinder was sleeping on the first floor to take a bedding and abused Rajinder.She heard a noise.As she came to the staircase she saw the appellant with a brick in one hand and a stick in the other.He was raining blows on her younger son who was bleeding from the head and mouth.She raised an alarm.One Ashok and one Sohan Lal came.Appellant ran away.Her son was removed to GTB Hospital where he died.CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 2 of 6Sohan Lal has appeared as PW-2 who corroborated PW-1 in all material respect but turned hostile when it came to naming the appellant.Ashok Kumar PW-4 has fully corroborated PW-1 in that has deposed that when he heard a noise of quarrel from the house of PW-1 he reached there and saw appellant running away from the house.Ram Dulari was screaming saying that appellant had injured her younger son Rajinder.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) Crl.M.B.10652/2014 whereunder the appellant seeks bail pending final hearing of the appeal.We have accordingly decided to hear arguments in the appeal today CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 1 of 6 itself.CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 1 of 6Ram Dulari's statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded from the spot and the FIR Ex.PW-12/C for the offence of murder was registered.As per her statement Ex.PW-1/A she has deposed in Court that deceased Rajinder was her younger son and accused Subhash was her elder son.There is sufficient evidence to establish that the appellant had attacked his younger brother and the injuries inflicted by the appellant were the cause of Rajinder's death.The post mortem report Ex.PW-8/A of Rajinder which was authored by Dr.Sumit Tellewar records the undernoted 16 injuries:-"(1) Reddish graze abrasion measuring 1 cm x 1 cm present on the lateral malleolus of right leg.(2) Reddish graze abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm present on left CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 3 of 6 posterior aspect of arm 7 cm below above elbow joint.CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 3 of 6(3) Reddish graze abrasion 1 cm x 1.2 cm present over the left posterior forearm 2.5 cm below elbow joint.(4) Reddish raze abrasion with reddish contusion measuring 4 cm x 3 cm present on the right shoulder joint.(5) Lacerated wound 7 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep present on the right posterior parietal scalp, 1 cm away from midline and 8 cm above right ear, 8 cm above occipital protuberance.(6) Reddish graze abrasion measuring 11 cm x 6 cm present on the whole left face extending onto right cheek area.(7) Reddish abrasion 2.8 cm x 2 cm present on the bridge of the nose with underneath fracture of nasal bone.(8) Lacerated wound measuring 7 cm x 3 cm x 0.5 cm present along right ramus of mandible and right chin area.(9) Reddish abrasion and contusion measuring 3.5 cm x 1.8 cm present on the left side of forehead, 1.6 cm from midline and 0.5 cm.Above medial end of left eyebrow.(10) Lacerated wound with abraded border 1.7 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm present on the left side of face, 1 cm below mid of left eye and 3.5 cm from midline.(11) Lacerated wound with abraded border 2 cm x 0.4 cm x 0.2 cm present on left side of fact 5.8 cm in front of left ear tragus and 8 cm from midline.(12) Lacerated wound with abraded border 2.3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm present over the lateral angle of left eyebrow.CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 4 of 6present on the left tample area with underneath depressed fracture of left temporal bone.(14) Reddish contusion 2.5 cm x 1 cm present on the right side of neck, oblique 1.5 cm from midline and 5.5 cm above medial end of right clavicle.(15) Reddish contusion measuring 3.4 cm x 2.6 cm present on the left side of neck, 8 cm from midline and .6 cm above mid of left calvicle.(16) Reddish contusion 4.5 cm x 1 present on the anterior aspect of left arm, 5 cm above elbow joint."Internal examination of the dead body evinces extravasation of the blood vessels, a depressed fracture in left temporal bone, linear fracture in left frontal and right temporo-parietal bones.There was subdural haemorrhage in right parietal area.Sub arachnoid haemorrhage was present.There were contusions in left basi frontal and left temporal lobes.There was laceration in left temporal parietal areas.Cause of death was obviously the severe brain injuries.It was opined that injuries No.5, 9, 12 and 13 were possible from a wooden stick and injuries No.5 and 12 were also possible with a broken brick.The injuries evince defence and fall injuries besides injuries caused on the skull using a hard object such as a brick and a stick.So ferocious was the assault that knowledge has to be attributed to the assailant that as a result of the injuries caused death would ensue.If nothing else Section 300 fourthly is attracted.The appellant has to be attributed knowledge that his acts were so imminently dangerous that in all probability they would cause death.CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 5 of 6The appeal is dismissed.Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail Tihar for his record and thereafter to be supplied to the appellant.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 skb CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 6 of 6CRL.A. 679/2012 Page 6 of 6
|
['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.
|
370,801 |
(State of U.P. Vs.ORDER M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners seek quashing of proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 240/94 registered under Sections 420/511/120-B IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.However, both the suits were disposed of in terms of compromise between the parties.As per agreement between the parties, respondent No. 2 agreed to pay to respondent No. 3 a sum of rupees 73 lakhs in full and final settlement of the claim and the respondent No. 2 undertook to withdraw the criminal case instituted against the petitioners.The petitioners, therefore, seek quashment of the criminal proceedings on the ground of the settlement between the parties.It is significant to mentioned that the offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC and Section 13(1)/13(2)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not compoundable.The whole scheme of compounding of the offences is dealt with and regulated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Proce-The provisions of Section 320 ibid are exhaustive i nature and sub section (9) of Section 320 is couched in a mandatory form and it lays down that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section.The question is : Can a High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. convert a no compoundable offences into a compoundable offence and vice versa? The answer should be 'No'.It is now well settled that: (i) power under Section 482 can be exercised only for either of the three purposes specifically mentioned in the Section ; (ii) it cannot be invoked in respect of any matter covered by the specific provisions of the Code; and it (iii) cannot be invoked if its exercise would be inconsistent with any of the specific provisions of the Code.(R.P. Kapur Vs.State of Pun-jab) Suraj Devi Vs.Pyre Lal) 1981 SC 736; Madhu Limey Vs.State of Maharashtra , Simrikhia Vs.Dolly Mukherjee ; Dharam Pal Vs.Ramshree , Marry Angles & Ors.State of Tamil Nadu and Arun Shanker Shukla Vs.State ofUP .In Arun Shankar Shukla (supra), it was held that "the expression 'abuse of the process of the law' or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of the process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law including procedural law and not otherwise.Thus, Section 482 of the code confers no new powers on the High Court.It merely safeguards all existing inherent powers possessed by a High Court necessary (among other purposes) to secure the ends of justice.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,084,610 |
This appeal is filed by the appellant, who is in jail, through his Advocate Mr. Amit S. Band.The appellant/accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(i)(j) read with Section 109::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 2 APEAL655.19.odt of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 16 and 17 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act" for the sake of brevity) and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, however no separate sentence was imposed on him for his conviction under Sections 16 and 17 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::The prosecution case as it was disclosed during the course of trial, can be narrated as under :-A] Smt. Swati Lokhande, a Woman Police Naik, was attached to Weltur Police Station on 10.8.2017 and when she was discharging her duties on the said day, at 11.30 am, the victim along with her grandmother came to police station.The victim gave her oral report.years and she was taking her education in 8 th standard at Bhartiya Dnyanpeeth School at village Fegad.She is having one elder sister and two brothers.Her parents are the labourers.As per the report, on 05.8.2017, she along with her friend Anjali at 5.00 O'clock in the evening were proceeding to their friend Harsha for obtaining homework note book.That time, Sumit Ramteke (appellant) called her.Anjali proceeded further.At that time, the appellant caught hold the victim and took her to the house of Golu Barsagade (co- accused).Thereafter, she was pushed by the appellant inside the house of Golu and from outside he latched the room.That time co- accused Golu was present in the house.As per the first information report, from the outside appellant stated "xksyq yk teoq ns] rwyk fdrh iSls ikghts rs eh nsrks".Therafter, as per the first information report, co-accused Golu removed the clothes of the victim and committed rape on her.In the meanwhile, her sister Kajal was brought by Anjali and she took out the victim from the house of co- accused.As per the report, since there was a threat given by Golu that she (victim) will be defamed in the society, she and her sister Kajal did not disclose the incident immediately.However, on 09.8.2017 pain started to the victim and therefore, she disclosed the incident to her grand-mother and thereafter they reached to the::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 5 APEAL655.19.odt police station and lodged the report.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::C] After registration of the crime, its investigation was entrusted to API Avinash Upase (PW9).He took panchas with him and went to the spot and prepared the spot panchanama (Exh.27), which was duly signed by him and two panchas.He also sent the victim to Primary Health Centre, Weltur by giving requisition letter to the Medical Officer (Exh.73).From there, the victim was referred to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur.Therefore, the Investigating Officer gave requisition letter to the Medical Officer, Mayo Hospital Nagpur (Exh.57).The victim was examined there by the Medical Officer.API Upase then arrested the accused persons.He also collected the Birth Certificate of the victim issued by the Gram Panchayat in pursuance to the requisition letter given by him to the Gram Panchayat to provide the Birth Certificate.The Investigating Officer also recorded the statement of the victim through CWC and also through the Magistrate.D] The Investigating Officer also seized a quilt from the spot while preparing the spot panchanama.Said quilt was seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.28).He also seized clothes of the::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 6 APEAL655.19.odt victim vide seizure panchanama (Exh.29) and the medical samples of the victim were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.30).He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::Accused no.2 Rohit @ Golu was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code read with under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for Ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 3 APEAL655.19.odt of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.It is informed to this Court that the said co-accused chose not to file any appeal before this Court.After recording the said report as per the victim's version, the said was signed by the victim herself.Smt. Swati Lokhande also recorded the statement of some witnesses after registration of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::Similarly, the clothes of the appellant were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.32), while the clothes of co-accused Golu were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.31).After completion of usual investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::E] The learned Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, in Special Child Protection Case No. 246/2017 framed the Charge against the appellant and co-accused Rohit @ Golu.The learned Judge Charged the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 506 and 109 read with Section 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 16 read with Section 3, 4 of the POCSO Act, whereas he charged co-accused Rohit @ Golu for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(i)(j), 506 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Both the accused denied the Charge and claimed for their trial.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses and also relied upon various documents duly proved during the course of the trial.Statement of both the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the learned Judge.Co-accused Rohit @::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 7 APEAL655.19.odt Golu also examined two defence witnesses.The appellant did not examine any defence witness.His defence was of total denial.Defence of the co-accused was that the day of the incident was Rakhi Pournima and therefore, his sisters were present in the house and he was not alone at home.The learned Judge found that the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused and at the same time found that co-accused could not prove his defence.The learned Judge also found that there was no occasion or reason for the victim girl to falsely implicate the appellant and therefore, passed the impugned judgment.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::According to the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. A.S. Band, the appellant is falsely implicated in the crime.Per contra, Mr. Khan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently submitted his brief for dismissal of this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::The prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses they are as under :-iii] PW3 Tejram Ghadwe.He also acted as panch along with PW2 Shrikrushna Titarmare.iv] PW4 is Smt. Kantabai, grand mother of the victim, to whom the incident was disclosed by the victim and thereafter, she accompanied the victim to the police station.v] PW5 is Kajal.She is sister of the victim, who rescued the victim from the house of co-accused.vi] PW6 is Anjali Bagade.She is friend of the victim.She turned hostile.vii] PW7 is Dr. Priyanka Shelkar, who examined the victim.viii] PW8 is Lata.She is the mother of the victim.ix] PW9 is ASI Avinash Upase, the Investigating Officer and x] PW10 is Swati Lokhande, who has taken down the oral report.During course of the investigation, PW9 ASI Upase gave a requisition to the Gram Panchayat, Fegad to furnish the birth certificate of the victim.Accordingly, Secretary of the Gram::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 9 APEAL655.19.odt Panchayat issued birth certificate of the victim.The said version of the victim was not at all challenged by any of the accused.Thus, it is crystal clear that on the date of the incident the age of the victim was about 13 years and as such she was a "Child" within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 2(1) of the POCSO Act.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::As per the report, the victim belong to a backward class and was taking education in 8th standard.She in her evidence as well as in the first information report stated that she along with PW6 Anjali were proceeding to the house of one Harsha for collecting homework note book.PW6 Anjali did not support the prosecution, however, support the version of the victim that she is her friend and Harsha is also their friend.As per the evidence when the victim along with Anjali (PW6) were proceeding to the house of Harsha, on the way the appellant intercepted the victim and caught hold her and pushed her::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 10 APEAL655.19.odt inside the house of co-accused Golu and latched the door from outside.As per the first information report as well as her substantive evidence, when the victim shouted that time the appellant stated and uttered words from outside "R;kyk teoq ns] rwyk ykxsy frrds iSls eh nsby-" In this part of the country, when words are made to read "teoq ns" that means that the person uttering such words demands sexual pleasure from such girl or woman.The incident has occurred in village Fegad.Therefore, it is quite possible that the appellant, who is resident of such village, would use such rustic language.Therefore, after pushing the victim inside the house of co-accused Golu when the appellant said from outside "R;kyk teoq ns", it means that he was asking the victim girl that she should allow Golu to have sex with her.Not only that, as per the victim's evidence, the appellant further states that he will pay the amount to her as per her wish.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::According to the learned counsel Mr. Band, independent witness Anjali has turned hostile.It is also his submission that the appellant has not committed rape on her.However, if her evidence is scanned properly, it is crystal clear as to for what reason she is not supporting the prosecution case.Paragraph 4 of the evidence of Anjali when::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 11 APEAL655.19.odt she was cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is very important in that behalf and the same is reproduced herein below :-::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::"4] It is true that, our's is a small village and therefore we know every person.It is true that, the family members of the accused are playing black magic.It is true that as such the villagers have apprehension in their minds for them.It is true that, as such people are not talking against them.It is true that, due to such apprehension I am also not interested to involve in this matter.It is true that, the incident happened with xxx (victim) is known to may villagers.It is true that, I also know the incident occurred with xxx (victim).It is true that, as we have to stay in the village and due to apprehension I am not deposing against them."From the aforesaid, it is clear as to what must have been the reason in the mind of this prosecution witness, who was also aged about only 14 years, for not supporting the prosecution case.However, her evidence as appearing in paragraph 4 clearly proves that the incident had occurred to the victim, but due to fear for the reasons stated, she was not courageous to state in examination-in-chief.Though, in the examination-in-chief, she could not gather courage, however it appears from her cross-examination that anyhow she gathered courage and truth has come on record.In that view of the matter, though formally Anjali (PW6) was declared hostile, she is witness to::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 12 APEAL655.19.odt the truth and she supported the prosecution when she narrateed that the incident had occurred to the victim.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::As per the evidence of PW5 Kajal, Anjali (PW6) had been to her house and narrated that victim was shouting from the house of Golu.Therefore, PW5 Kajal went near the said house.As per the evidence, that time the appellant was standing outside the house of the co-accused and the house was closed from outside.When she tried to enter, the appellant obstructed her from entering in the house.However, she gave jerk to the appellant and entered inside the house.That time co-accused Golu was committing rape on her minor sister.When she was taking out her sister, as per the evidence of Kajal, both the accused extended threat to kill her parents and defame both of them.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::PW7 Dr. Priyanka Shelkar had examined the victim.At the relevant time, she was working as a Gynecologist in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Nagpur, where the victim was referred under requisition (Exh.57).Victim's mother Lata (PW8) was accompanying her.The victim also gave history to said witness.The history as narrated by the victim was taken down by Dr. Priyanka in the medical report (Exh.58).Even at that time, it was stated by the victim to the Doctor that she was pushed inside the house of co- accused Golu by the appellant and thereafter rape was committed on her.Dr. Priyanka found that hymen of the victim was torn, though old one.I am not attaching much importance to it as tried to be::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 14 APEAL655.19.odt suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, since the incident had occurred on 5th and she was examined on 10.08.2017, therefore, not noticing fresh tear of the hymen, in my view, is most natural one.As per the Chemical Analyser's report, the undergarment of the victim was stained with blood and no explanation is there.Finding of undergarment stained with blood, in my view, is an incriminating circumstance especially when nothing is brought on record to show that during said period the victim was in her menses.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::Her evidence withstood to the::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 15 APEAL655.19.odt scrutiny of cross-examination, though there are some omissions, which are minor in nature and does not go to the root of the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::There was no reason for the victim to falsely implicate the appellant.She has disclosed the truth before the Court that she was pushed inside the house of Golu and then asked the victim that she should allow co-accused Golu to have sex with her and for that she will be rewarded with money.In my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the victim was a consenting party has to be shown the exit door outrightly in view of the fact that the victim was minor and was "child" within the meaning of the provisions of the POCSO Act.There is a presumption available in favour of the prosecution under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The same reads as under :Presumption as to certain offences - Where a person is prosecuted to commit any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved."::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::Though, the presumption is available in favour of the prosecution, it is rebuttable one.However, in the present case, once it is noticed that the prosecution has proved the foundational facts, it was for the accused persons to rebut the same by adducing evidence either by way of cross-examination or by way of independent evidence.Insofar as the appellant is concerned, he has not adduced any independent evidence.Even from the line of cross-examination of the material prosecution witnesses, the presumption is not rebutted.Not only that, though an attempt was made on the part of co-accused that the day of the incident was Rakhi Pournima, nothing was brought on record to show that the said day was Rakhi Pournima.Therefore, in my view, the learned Judge of the trial Court was right in rejecting said defence also.Section 16 of the POCSO Act reads as under :Abetment of an offence`` - A person abets an offence, who --- Instigates any person to do that offence ; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that offence, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that offence ; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that offence."::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::17 APEAL655.19.odt Similarly, Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under :Evidence of the prosecution witnesses would clearly establish that it is the appellant who has intentionally extended aid to the co-accused to commit rape on the victim.The evidence on record has established that when the victim was pushed inside by the appellant, he latched the door from outside and not only that, he guarded the house from outside.Further, he tried to prevent Kajal from taking entry inside the house.accused Golu.The acts committed by the appellant which are duly proved by the victim and other prosecution witnesses, in my view, proves that the appellant was abetor and he abeted co-accused Golu to commit rape on the victim, a minor girl.In totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that there is no error in the impugned judgment and on re-appreciation::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 ::: 18 APEAL655.19.odt of the entire prosecution case, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant in its entirety and he is sentenced correctly by the learned Judge.Consequently, I pass the following order :::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::The criminal appeal is dismissed.V. M. Deshpande, J.Diwale::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2020 01:10:30 :::
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,482,750 |
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 26/6/2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur in Bail Application; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Vimlesh under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to get bail in Crime No.369/2019 registered at P.S. Stationganj, District Narsinghpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366 (ka), 368, 376 (2) (n), 342, 506-II, of IPC, Section 6 r/w 5(1) of POCSO Act and Sections 3(2)As per prosecution case, on 27/5/2019 co-accused Geeta Bai and co- accused Sharad abducted the prosecutrix, who was minor and took her to Narsinghpur, where co-accused Sharad kept the prosecutrix in the house of co-accused Laxmi @ China for 13 days and committed rape with her thereafter, he took the prosecutrix to co-accused Uma's house, where he also kept her for five days and thereafter, co-accused Sharad forcibly got prosecutrix's married to appellant Vimlesh.Co-accused Munni Bai was also involved in the crime.On that, police registered Crime No. 369/19 at P.S. Stationganj Kareli, Distt.The statement of prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial Court.She clearly deposed in her statement that the appellant did not commit intercourse with her.The prosecutrix was major and she performed marriage with the Signature Not Verified SAN appellant on her own will.Narsingpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC.During the investigation, on 20/6/2019 police arrested the appellant.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.The other co-accused persons namely Smt. Uma Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.09.02 14:16:16 IST 2 CRA-3914-2020 Bai, Smt. Laxmi @ China and Ku.Charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The appellant will cooperate in the trial;The appellant will not indulge himelf in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and 6 .The appellant will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.09.02 14:16:16 IST
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,830,380 |
The prosecution story as unfolded through the record reflects that the informant Surendra Kumar Verma lodged the written report on 30.07.2001 at 4:30 a.m. against the appellant involving element of crime under Section 364 IPC with specific allegations that his son Sunny aged about 14 years was playing in his room along with his two brothers on 29.07.2001 around 2:30 p.m. At that time, the appellant Banti alias Firoz alias Sikandar son of Bhola alias Nasruddin who was friend of the informant's brother in law and used to visit his house often in the past also, came to his house and enticed away his son Sunny on allurement of giving him cold drinks but did not return.On query being made from his (informant) brother in law, it transpired that the appellant Banti alias Firoz alias Sikandar was not available at home.The informant apprehended that his son may be killed.Sunny was seen in company with the appellant while being taken away by Dharmendra Soni and the two sons of the informant.It was prayed that report be lodged and action be taken.Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.) By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.09.2010 passed by the Special Judge (DAA) Agra, in Special Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2001 State of U.P. Vs.Banti alias Firoz alias Sikandar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.361 of 2001, under Section 364A IPC, Police Station- Etmaddaula, District- Agra whereby the appellant Banti alias Firoz alias Sikandar has been sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.20,000/- under Section 364A IPC, with default stipulation for six months' additional simple imprisonment.Heard Shri Samit Gopal, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Shri Saghir Ahmed, Shri J.K. Upadhyay, Kumari Meena, Smt. Manju Thakur, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record.Contents of the aforesaid information were taken down in the Check FIR on 30.07.2001 at 4:30 a.m. at aforesaid police station at Case Crime No.361 of 2001 under Section 364 IPC.He has effected recovery of the victim on 11.08.2001 on the tip off information at 22:30 hours that some miscreants will pass through Etmadpur to Anandpur whereupon the police intercepted them in an encounter near Anandpur crossing where three persons were seen coming on motorcycle.Seeing the police, two persons fled away from the scene leaving behind one boy with blind folded eyes, the police chased the two miscreants but could not succeed.Memo of recovery was prepared on the spot.It was stated that because of sudden recovery at deserted place, no public witness could be availed.The Investigating Officer after completing other formalities filed charge-sheet Ext. Ka-4 against the appellant.After filing of charge-sheet, committal proceeding took place and the trial court was entrusted with the task of hearing and disposal of the concerned Special Sessions Trial Nos.111 of 2001 (pertaining to Case Crime No.361 of 2000) under Section 364A IPC.The learned trial Judge heard both the sides on point of charge and was prima-facie satisfied with case against the accused.Consequently, the trial court framed charge under Section 364A IPC.Charge was read over and explained to the accused who abjured charge and opted for trial.In turn, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony whereupon the prosecution produced in all 8 witnesses.A brief sketch of witnesses is as under:-Surendra Kumar Verma PW-1 is the informant and father of the victim.Abhishek Verma @ Sunny PW-2 is the victim himself.Dharmendra Soni PW-3 is witness of fact.Similarly Ashish Verma PW-4 is also witness of fact and has stated to have seen the victim in company with the appellant.S.I. Rama Shanker Sonkar PW-5 is the Investigating Officer and also witness of recovery of victim Sunny on 11.08.2001 and has proved the same before the trial court.Veer Sahai Gautam PW-8 is the first Investigating Officer of this case who has taken over investigation and prepared site plan and recorded statement of various persons including the prosecution witnesses and accused and has proved the relevant entries made in the concerned Check FIR and GD, Ext. Ka-7 and Ext. Ka-8, respectively, whereby, the case was registered against the appellants.No further evidence was adduced by the prosecution.Therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has claimed his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.He was arrested by the police while he was going to Sasural of his sister.No evidence, whatsoever, has been led by the appellant.The case was heard on merit by the learned Judge who after appraisal of facts and evaluation of the evidence and circumstances of the case, returned finding of conviction against appellant under Section 364A IPC and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.20,000/- under Section 364A IPC, with default stipulation for six months' additional simple imprisonment.Consequently, this appeal.It has been vehemently contended by Sri Samit Gopal, learned amicus curiae for the appellant that in this case there is not an iota of evidence that may link the appellant with the crime.Every piece of evidence on the face is shaky and wholesome testimony of the prosecution witnesses instead of giving rise to the fact of commission of any offence pronounces strongly innocence of the appellant.The victim himself has stated that he went to take cold drink with the appellant but he returned home.The entire prosecution story has been fabricated by the informant in collusion with the police just to harass the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that testimony of witnesses of fact is on the face contradictory and full of hollowness.There is no point for making charge under Section 364A IPC as on the basis of allegations, no charge for demand of any ransom is made out.Learned trial Judge while appraising facts and evaluating evidence and circumstances misread the same and recorded erroneous and illegal finding of conviction and sentence.Per contra, the learned AGA retorted to aforesaid arguments by submitting that the factum of kidnapping of minor child aged about 14 years has been proved well from testimony of both the witnesses namely Surendra Kumar Verma PW-1 and Sunny PW-2 and no doubt can be raised on their innocuous testimony which positively proves guilt of the accused-appellant.Testimony of the prosecution witnesses, if looked carefully, will reflect that it was tried to be influenced and won over by the accused-appellant himself that is why some aberration has emerged in their testimony which aberrations are not of vital stature and do not hit at the root of the prosecution case.Learned trial court has judiciously recorded conviction and has passed appropriate sentence.We have also considered the rival submissions and taken into consideration rival claims.In view of above, the point for determination of this appeal relates to fact as to whether the offence under Section 364 A IPC was committed by the accused-appellant by kidnapping the victim Sunny aged about 14 years on 29.07.2001 around 2:30 p.m. from his house and he was seen by the witnesses and the prosecution has proved charge under Section 364A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?In this case undoubtedly, perusal of the first information report reflects that the allegations of kidnapping simplicitor have been made against the accused-appellant in the written report Ext. Ka-1 that he came to the house of the informant around 2:30 p.m. when his son Sunny was playing with his two brothers inside the house.On careful scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses of fact PW-1 informant, PW-2 victim, PW-3 Dharmedra Soni and Ashish Verma PW-4, we come across fact that the story of kidnapping of the victim Sunny by the accused-appellant has been positively denied by all witnesses in their cross-examination.The informant has gone to the extent by deposing that name of the accused-appellant was written in the first information report at the instance of the crowd.He has further deposed on page 12 of the paper-book that his son did not spell name of any accused when he came back to home.Even in the testimony of PW-2 the victim on page 16 of the paper-book in his cross-examination, it emerges that the appellant came to his house around 12:30 p.m. and took with him victim Sunny for entertaining him by providing cold drinks.The victim after taking cold drinks returned.The victim further deposed that no one saw him when he was accompanying the appellant.This specific testimony by itself is sufficient to throw doubt on the claim of the prosecution that the accused-appellant enticed away the victim Sunny on 29.07.2001 and the victim did not return.Further charge under Section 364 IPC is specific and speciality of charge lies in fact that it carries special element for constituting offence of kidnapping when kidnapping is committed for ransom.We have scanned the entire record wherein nothing positive has surfaced which may whisper about the cause that the accused-appellant ever demanded any ransom from the informant or any other person.Therefore, we are in agreement with the contention of the appellant that charge under Section 364A IPC was not required and the same was erroneously framed.Therefore, charge may be treated under Section 364 IPC, instead of, under Section 364A IPC.Before we deal with factum of recovery of victim, it would be convenient to scrutinize testiimoy of both the witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 as to what they deposed on point of occurrence and on point of involvement of the accused-appellant in this case.On perusal of testimony of both the witnesses Dharmendra Soni PW-3 and Ashish Verma PW-4, we notice that both of them have not supported the prosecution case on point that they ever saw the accused-appellant enticing away the victim-Sunny.They have even denied having given any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against the accused-appellant, therefore, requisite support and corroboration from independent source regarding commission of the offence is missing in this case.Now we may switch over to the factum of recovery of the victim.Rama Shanker Sonker PW-5 has effected recovery after tip off information was received by him at 22:30 hours on 11.08.2001 that some miscreants will come with kidnapped person from Agra from Etmadpur side and will be going to Anandpur.On this tip off information, the police party reached Anandpur crossing when they saw three persons coming on motorcycle.As soon as driver saw the police, he wanted to speed away motorcycle, the motorcycle was disbalanced and it fell down.The miscreants somehow controlled motorcycle and one person was also with them with blind folded eyes.When police party came near to them, the two persons escaped away from the scene on motorcycle after starting it and leaving behind one person with blind folded eyes.The police party chased the miscreants but could not succeed and the miscreants secured their escape.The police party took control of the person who was left behind, he was very much perturbed and after unfolding his eyes, the police party asked about his identity whereupon he told his name Sunny.He does not know name of any such accused.Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.09.2010 passed by the Special Judge (DAA) Agra, in Special Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2001 State of U.P. Vs.Banti alias Firoz alias Sikandar and others, arising out of Case Crime No.361 of 2001, under Section 364A IPC, Police Station- Etmaddaula, District- Agra is set aside by us.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,830,662 |
4] The appellant is arrested in connection with Crime No.129/2019 registered with the respondent No.1 - Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 376(2)(l), 354-A, 354-B and 352 of the Indian Penal Code.The crime is registered on the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 06:19:42 ::: 2 apeal831.19 report lodged by mother of respondent No.2 - victim.The facts on record show that respondent No.2, though aged about 32 years, is mentally challenged.The disability certificate issued by the Medical Board / Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Gadchiroli on 29th November, 2012 showing the disability at 45% is placed on record at page No.39 of the paper book.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 06:19:42 :::5] The appellant is arrested on 2nd June, 2019 and since then is in jail.6] Considering the facts of the case, it is directed that the appellant, having been arrested in Crime No.129/2019 registered with the respondent No.1 - Police Station be released on provisional bail on executing P.R. bond for ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount.7] The appellant shall attend the trial before the Sessions Court on every date unless granted exemption by the learned Sessions Judge.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 06:19:42 :::3 apeal831.19 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.1081/2019 For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed on condition that the applicant shall file the certified copy of document mentioned in the application as and when directed by the Court.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 06:19:42 :::
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,836,846 |
Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.114/2018 registered at Police Station Bajag, District Dindori for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the IPC.The case of the prosecution against the applicants is that deceased is grand son of the applicants.Deceased was used to drink liquor daily and also used to commit theft.A criminal case was pending against the deceased.On the date of incidence, he came in the night inebriated state.In the next morning, he found died.Doctor, who conducted postmortem of the deceased, has stated that the deceased had died due to strangulation and trachea cartilage was broken.On that basis, FIR has been registered under aforementioned Sections.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No.1 Buddhu Lal is aged about 64 years and applicant No.2 Radhabai is aged about 62 years.After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.The conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicants may be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, opposed the application.After completion of investigation, charge- sheet has been filed.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 31987/2019 (Buddhu Lal & anr.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants Buddhu Lal and Radha Bai, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.09.20 17:49:35 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,841,120 |
a) The complainant namely, the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras has been maintaining a very high standard in technological education in India and has acquired a name for its academic excellence through out the world and as such, a publication was made in the newspaper "Statesman" dated 9.8.2000 under the caption "Andhra Tribal wins battle against Indian Institute of Technology"." she said.Her parents too were unwilling to talk to the media.Sujee's father Mr. Surendra Babu, is a sales executive at an Agro company in Bhimavaram.Mr. A. Sathyanarayana, assistant director of the National Commission for SC/ST and in charge of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, told The Statesman: "I went through Miss Teppal's papers.I was convinced there might have been some discrimination.There could have been some mischief in the evaluation of her test papers for the preparatory course".Faced with chances of being dragged into a controversy, the institute, quite unusually, put the girl and five others through an intensive one-week course.While three of them failed, Sujee sailed through, topping the list.She was a meritorious student all through.In the first year of her Intermediate course, she had scored a centum in Physics and in the second and final year she got 90.75 per cent Maths, Physics and Chemistry was 94 per cent.She had appeared for the Engineering and Medical Common Engineering Test the entrance examination in Andhra Pradesh, standing first in the ST category."" However Mr. Sathyanarayana has denied the same in a communication to the Director of Indian Institute of Technology and besides the above said averments, the report further states "Perhaps what made the matter worse for the Indian Institute of Technology was Sujee's academic record." "Meanwhile, Sujee, unable to bear her agony, tried to kill herself and was admitted to Apollo Hospital here.ORDER A. Packiaraj, J.This petition has been filed by Mr. C.R. Irani, Editor in Chief of the News Paper "Statesman", to quash the proceedings in CC No. 7715 of 2000 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.The petitioner, who is the Editor-in-Chief, has been prosecuted along with two others Ms. Jaya Menon, Correspondent and Mr. Sibi Thomas, Publisher of the said news paper, who are not before this court, for offence under Section 500, 501, 502 r/w 34 and 120(b) of IPC.The said publication reads as follows:-ANDHRA TRIBAL GIRL WINS BATTLE AGAINST IIT 'TEACHER PUNISHED SUJEE TEPPAL FOR BEING TOO SMART' Chennai,Aug.8 - A tribal girl from Andhra Pradesh, Miss Sujee Teppal, won admission last week to the five-year "Dual Degree Programme" for B.Tech and M.Tech in the communcations engineering programme of IIT, Madras, after waging a bitter battle against the institute.The Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam, an offshoot of Periyar's Dravidar Kazhagam, accused the IIT of "deliberately" failing the girl in Physics after the one year preparatory course for B.Tech.Sujee had reportedly scored brilliantly in Chemistry and Mathematics, raising doubts about the evaluation of her Physics Paper.Inquiries showed that she might have been deliberately failed in the paper.Highly placed sources said the Physics teacher "punished" her for being too smart for him, using easier methods to solve problems.The IIT director, Mr. R. Natarajan, is said to have conducted an inquiry into the matter, perhaps sensing that all was not well with the evaluation process.The institute was spurred into further action when the regional head of the National Commissioner for the Welfare of SC/ST wrote a letter to the director asking him to not to admit B.Tech students till Sujee's case was settled.Meanwhile, Sujee, unable to bear her agony, tried to kill herself and was admitted to Apollo Hospital here.The PDK alleged that the girl attempted suicide even for a second time.When contacted in her hostel room at the IIT, she refused to talk about her suicide attempts."I'm thrilled that I finally got what I wanted.She opted for the five year "Dual Degree Programme" in the much sought after communications engineering course.The institute has claimed it had resorted to the unusual procedure only because Sujee had made "tearful representation to the director".Denying reports that he had been pressured by the Andhra Pradesh chief minister into admitting the girl, Mr. Natarajan, said: "We have a tough and transparent admission procedure".Sujee belongs to the Kammara tribe of Bhimavaram in Andra Pradesh.The Director said children of at least 15 former IIT directors had failed to pass the JEE.The PDK had put up posters all over the city, giving details of the case and distributed booklets alleging discrimination against Dalits by the IIT.The party alleged that the IIT, Madras, has flouted all reservation norms while admitting students and selecting faculty members.Perhaps what made the matters worse for the IIT was Sujee's academic record.The girl had reportedly scored brilliantly in Chemistry and Mathematics, raising doubts about the evaluation of her Physics paper.The paper also read that enquiry showed that she was deliberately failed in the Physics paper and highly placed sources told that the Physics teacher punished her for being too smart for him, using easier methods to solve problems.It is further stated that one Mr. Sathyanarayana, Assistant Director for the National Commission for SC and ST and in charge of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry told the first accused "I went through Miss Teppal's papers.I was convinced there might have been some discrimination.There could have been some mischief in the evaluation of her test papers for the preparatory course.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,850,629 |
During pendency of the said appeal, appellants Sukhlal and Harcharan expired and therefore Cri.Appeal No. 454/2000 is being now prosecuted by sole appellant Ajay Singh.It is further relevant to mention here that two amongst the accused namely Devpal Lodhi and Ajab Singh absconded and could not be traced out.Appellants Nirbha, Pistabai, Kamla, Thakurdas in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00, appellants Sukhlal, Harcharan and Ajay Singh in Cri.Appeal No. 454/00 and Smt. Sampatbai in Cri.Appeal No. 459/00 stood trial on the charges levelled against them before the trial court and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced as follows :-(a) for the offence punishable under Section 148 of I.P.C., they were sentenced to suffer one-one year's rigorous imprisonment;(b) for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of I.P.C. for causing murder of Ajeeta in prosecution of their common object, and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they were directed to suffer additional six-six months' rigorous imprisonment;(c) for the offence punishable under Section 326/149 of I.P.C. for voluntarily causing grievous hurt with common intention to the injured, they were sentenced to suffer five-five year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were Cra.355/2000, Cra.3.1 The trial court further directed that out of total fine amount of Rs. 64,000/- deposited by the appellant under the impugned judgment, Rs. 40,000/- be paid as compensation to the wife of the deceased Ajeeta under Sec. 357 Cr.P.C.4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties and also perused the judgment and the evidence on record.The prosecution story in brief is that at about 4 p.m. on 15/3/99 Virdha (PW-1) alongwith his daughter Imratibai, Savitribai, sister Kalibai, Suniyabai, Gyasobai, mother-in-law Sonabai, wife Runiabai and sister-in-law Shantibai was harvesting the wheat crop at village Bamhari, P.S. Dinara.Deceased Ajeeta was also present.It is alleged that at that moment, all the accused alongwith Devpal and Ajab Singh wielding lathi, luhangi, Farsa, Kulhadi and country-made pistols arrived at the scene of the crime and started abusing Virdha (PW-1) and his family members.On being objected to, accused Devpal (absconded accused) fired with his country-made pistol resulting in deceased Ajeeta sustaining gunshot injury at the back and dying on the spot.Shantibai, Bhuniabai, Runiabai, Imratibai, Kalibai, GyasobaI, Savitribai and Sonabai rushed to the rescue when the accused assaulted and injured them.Thereafter, Mathura (brother Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 4 of the deceased Ajeeta) and Ramdeen Jatav also came to the scene of the crime when the accused fled away.FIR was lodged by Virdha (PW-1) vide Ex.P/1 at 6 p.m. on the same day where the said incident was reported and old property dispute was assigned as the motive behind the crime.The necessary formalities of investigation were completed by the police which included panchnama of dead- body, seizure of the plain and blood-stained soil, arrest of the accused and recovery of the offending weapons based on disclosure statements.over the sup.Surface Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 5 and left shoulder.(Delivered on the 27th day of October,2017) Per Sheel Nagu, J.The aforesaid three Criminal Appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated dated 3/5/2000 Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 2 rendered in Special Sessions Trial No. 56/1999 by the Special Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.).Since the judgment and order challenged in these criminal appeals is one, all the appeals are herewith taken up together for disposal and decided by this common judgment.At the very outset, it would be appropriate to point out that Criminal Appeal No.454/2000 was filed by three appellants namely, Sukhlal, Harcharan and Ajay Singh.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 3 directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one month;(d) for the offence punishable under Section 325/149 of I.P.C. for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the injured with common intention, they were sentenced to suffer three-three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one month;(e) for the offence punishable under section 323/149 of I.P.C. for causing simple hurt to the injured with common intention, they were sentenced to suffer six-six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of which they were directed to suffer additional imprisonment of one month.The investigation was conducted by SDO (P) Karera who sent the seized items for chemical analysis to FSL, Sagar but the forensic report was not obtained.After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against all the 11 accused (including four appellants in Criminal Appeal No.355/00, one surviving appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 454/00 and sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No.459/00 except against Devpal and Ajab Singh who absconded and against whom perpetual warrants were issued.5.1 The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. R.K.Goyal (PW-10) who prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P/3) finding the following injuries on the dead-body:-"(i) Incised wound of size 8 cm.x 1/2 cm.x deep up to bone over the post aspect of head, occipital region, Rt.side obliquely placed.(ii) Contusion of size 4 cm.x 2 cm.Over right side of head;(iii) Lacerated wound of size 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.x skin deep over the right ankle left aspect;(iv) Abrasion of size 1 cm x 1 cm.over the left knee anterior aspect.(v) Lacerated wound of size 1 cm.x 1/2 cm.X skin deep over the left elbow posterior aspect.(vi) Contusion of size 2 cm.x 2 cm.(vii) Gunshot injury of entrance over the back at the level of T6, caused by pallets which found embedded in the bone and the lungs.5.2 On internal examination of the dead-body, left lung was found to be in collapsed state.The autopsy surgeon opined the Injury No.(i) to be caused by sharp-cutting weapon, Injury Nos. (ii) to (vi) by hard and blunt object while Injury No.(vii) by firearm.Injury No.(vii) was further opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.5.3 Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) deposed that on 17/3/1999 at 6-55 p.m. he examined injured Pistabai aged 35 years (appellant No.2 in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00) and found as per MLC (Ex.P/4) one contusion of size 2 cm.X 1 cm.over dorsal aspect of left forearm, middle region.He further deposed that on clinical examination no external injury was seen.5.4 Similarly on the same day injured Sampat Bai aged 35 years (appellant in Cri.Appeal No. 459/00) was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who found as per MLC (Ex.P/5) one contusion of size 1 cm.x cm.over right side of face below right eye with reddish blue hue.He further deposed that on clinical examination no external injury was seen.5.5 On 16/3/1999 injured Imarti (victim) w/o Parmanand aged 30 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11), who found as per MLC (Ex.P/6) lacerated wound of size 1 cm.x cm.x muscle deep over dorsal aspect of left lower leg.One contusion of size 2 cm.x 1 cm.over posterior aspect of right lower leg, middle region and one contusion of size 1 cm.X 1 cm.over left scapular region.5.6 On 16/3/1999 injured Kalibai (victim) w/o Kallu aged 40 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11), who found vide MLC Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 6 (Ex.P/7) three lacerated wounds; first of size 3 cm.x cm.x bone deep over right side of parietal region of skull, second of size 1 cm.x cm.x muscle deep over anterior aspect of left lower leg, middle region and third of size cm.x cm.x muscle deep over lateral aspect of right lower leg, lower 1/3 rd region.For injury sustained on right side of parietal region, the injured was referred for x-ray examination to the District Hospital, Shivpuri.5.7 On 16/3/1999 injured Gyasobai (victim) w/o Parma aged 55 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11), who found vide MLC (Ex.P/8) one contusion of size 3 cm x 1 cm over the left scapular region placed obliquely.One swelling of size 3 cm x 2 cm over posterior aspect of right lower leg middle region and one contusion of size cm x cm.over tip of little finger of left hand.For injury No.1 sustained on scapular region, x-ray examination was advised.5.8 On 16/3/1999 injured Muniya (victim) w/o Halke aged 50 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11), who as per MLC (Ex.P/9) found diffused swelling of size 4 cm x 3 cm over dorsal aspect of left forearm lower 1/3rd region.For this injury, x-ray examination was advised.5.9 On 16/3/199 injured Runiabai w/o Virdha aged 35 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who as per MLC (Ex.P/10) found lacerated wound with diffused swelling of size 1 cm x cm x muscle deep with swelling of size 4 cm x 3 cm over dorsal aspect of left hand, lacerated wound of size 1 cm.x cm x muscle deep over dorsal aspect of right hand in between index finger and thumb, lacerated wound of size 2 cm.x cm x muscle deep over anterior part of left lower leg middle region, lacerated wound of size cm x cm x muscle deep over lateral aspect of right lower leg and one abrasion of size cm x cm over anterior aspect of Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 7 left knee.For the injuries sustained by this injured on left/right hand and left leg, x-ray examination was advised.5.10 On 16/3/199 injured Shanti (victim) w/o Imrat aged 35 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who vide MLC (Ex.P/11) found one incised wound of size 3 cm x cm x bone deep over right side of parietal region of skull, lacerated wound with diffused swelling of size 2 cm x cm x muscle deep with swelling of size 4 cm x 3 cm over posterior aspect of left elbow joint, multiple contusions of maximum size of 1 cm x 1 and cm and minimum of 2 cm x cm over both legs and posterior aspect of chest, one contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm over post aspect of left lower leg and lacerated wound of size 1 cm x cm x muscle deep over anterior aspect of right lower leg.For injuries sustained by the injured on right side of parietal region and left elbow joint, x-ray examination was advised.5.11 On 16/3/199 injured Savitri (victim) daughter of Virtha aged 12 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who vide MLC (Ex.P/12) found diffused swelling of size 3 cm x 2 cm over dorsal aspect of left forearm middle region, one contusion of size 1 x cm over dorsal aspect of right forearm middle region, one contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm over posterior aspect of left thigh lower 1/3 rd region, one contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm over posterior aspect of right lower leg middle region and multiple abrasions of maximum size 3 cm x 1 cm and minimum 1 cm x over both sides of posterior aspect of chest.For the injury sustained on dorsal aspect of left forearm x-ray examination was advised.5.12 On 16/3/199 injured Sonabai (victim) w/o Bhagwandas aged 50 years was examined by Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya (PW-11) who vide MLC (Ex.P/13) found one lacerated wound of size cm x cm x muscle deep over dorsal aspect of right forearm lower 1/3 rd region Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 8 and one contusion of size 1 cm x 1 cm over dorsal aspect of left forearm middle region.5.13 Dr. M.L.Agrawal (PW-12) carried out the radiological test on 20/3/1999 and found the following grievous injuries:-fracture of 1st phalanx of index finger of right hand vide Ex.Shantibai Fracture of lower end of humerus bone vide Ex.The trial court after marshalling of the evidence, out of the 13 original accused (Devpal and Ajab Singh absconding) acquitted accused Jevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharajsingh of the charge of murder but convicted appellants Nirbha, Pistabai, Kamla, Thakurdas in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00, appellants Sukhlal, Harcharan and Ajay Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 454/00 and sole appellant Sampatbai in Criminal Appeal No. 459/00 of the charge of murder punishable u/S. 302/149 and for causing grievous and minor hurt to the injured u/Ss. 326/149, 325/149, 323/149 I.P.C., and u/S. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced accordingly as mentioned above.Hence, these appeals.Before adverting to the findings rendered by the trial court, the testimony of each of the injured eye-witnesses deserves consideration as follows :-(i) PW-1 Virdha in his testimony disclosed that all the accused had collected since 6 a.m., on the fateful day at the house of Ajay Singh (sole surviving appellant in Cri.Appeal No.454/00), which was situated adjacent to the agricultural Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 9 field of Virdha (PW-1) where the incident took place.This witness further disclosed that all these accused consumed liquor cooked and ate food and when it was around 4 p.m. all the accused armed with different weapons came to the spot where the incident took place.This witness has categorically testified that the appellants Sampatbai and Pistabai had no weapon in their hands.PW-1 has unequivocally disclosed the presence of all the appellants at the time of incident by further stating that the absconded accused Devpal inflicted gunshot injury upon deceased Ajeeta with country-made pistol leading to the death of deceased on the spot while other absconded accused Ajab Singh inflicted injury with a pharsa on the neck of deceased.This witness has denied the suggestion that any disclosure in his earlier statement or FIR was made regarding appellants having collected since 6 a.m. on 15/3/1999 at appellant Ajay's house situated adjacent to the field in which incident took place.(ii) PW-2 Suniabai who is mother-in-law of PW-1 Virdha being an outsider (resident of Jhansi) stated that she was harvesting crop alongwith PW-1 Virdha and his family members and recognized only the absconded accused Devpal but none of the other accused since she permanently resides in District Jhansi.Although PW-2 states that number of other persons had come when the said absconded accused Devpal and other accused were involved in the act of abuse and assault and that the absconded accused Devpal inflicted firearm injury upon deceased Ajeeta who died on the spot.As regards injuries sustained by one self she disclosed of having sustained injury on her wrist which Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 10 according to her was inflicted by one of the assailants.PW-2 Suniabai further states that her accomplices Shantibai, Runiabai, Guniyabai, Gyasobai, Savitribai, Imratibai also sustained injuries.Certain omissions and contradictions were noticed between her earlier statement and the testimony recorded in the court of the said witness Suniabai (PW-2) but the trial court found that PW-2 Sunibai was present on the date of the incident and sustained injuries while being attacked by the appellants while she was harvesting crop of wheat and that the absconded accused Devpal had inflicted gunshot injury upon deceased Ajeeta which led to his death.PW-2 Suniabai further deposed that the incident took place in the agricultural field of Virdha (PW-1).(iii) PW-3 Muniabai, the sister of Virdha (PW-1) who was also an outsider being resident of Jhansi testified and disclosed about the same facts and circumstances which were revealed by PW-2 Suniabai.(iv) PW-4 Runiabai states that she was present at the scene of the crime and she was harvesting the crop of wheat alongwith PW-1 Virdha and his family members.She states that apart from Jeevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharajsingh, all the other accused (including the appellants herein in all the three criminal appeals) were among the assailants, who had accompanied the absconded accused Devpal and Ajab Singh and that the deceased died on the spot due to gunshot injury inflicted by Devpal.This witness further disclosed that she sustained injuries due to assault made by absconded accused Ajab Singh, Kamla, Nirbha, Sampatbai and Ajay Singh with the weapons like lathi, pharsa, axe etc. This Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 11 witness also states that there is long standing property dispute between the rival parties arising out of agricultural field where the incident took place.She also states that PW- 13 Mathura witnessed the incident.(v) PW-5 Gyasobai who is an outsider being resident of Jhansi has testified and made disclosure in manner similar to that of PW-2 Suniabai and PW-3 Muniabai.(vi) PW-6 Imratibai, daughter of the PW-1 Virdha who is also an outsider being resident of Jhansi, testified that she was harvesting the crop of wheat alongwith his father and other family members.She states that bedsides Jeevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharaj Sngh all other appellants had come to the spot alongwith absconded accused Devpal who inflicted gunshot injury upon deceased Ajeeta and all these assailants caused injuries by assaulting the women family members of PW-1 Virdha.This witness as regards injury sustained by her, discloses that absconded accused Devpal inflicted an Axe blow on her left hand while appellant Kamla and Thakurdas (two of the appellants in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00) inflicted lathi blow on her.This witness further reveals that Ajay Singh (sole surviving appellant of Cri.Appeal No.454/00) was present at the scene of crime as one of the assailants.This witness lastly testified that the acquitted accused Jeevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharaj Singh were not present at the scene of crime.(vii) PW-7 Kalibai another sister of PW-1 Virdha is an outsider being resident of Jhansi, who also states that the acquitted accused Jeevanlal, Narayan Ju and Maharaj Singh were not present at the scene of the crime and also clarified that being outsider she did not know the assailants prior to Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 12 the incident.This witness has revealed that she was present at the scene of the crime and was harvesting the crop of wheat alongwith her brother Virdha (PW-1) and other family members when she saw absconded accused Devpal inflicting gunshot injury on the deceased who died on the spot.This witness further testified that sole appellant Sampatbai in Cri.Appeal No.459/00 and Pistabai one of the appellants in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00 were present at the scene of the crime.This witness further reveals that Nirbha/appellant in Cri.Appeal No. 355/00 alongwith Sampatbai assaulted all the injured women who were harvesting the crop.She has further stated that Nirbha did not cause any assault upon her.(viii) PW-8 Shantibai who is an outsider belonging to the neighbouring village testified that she was harvesting wheat crop alongwith PW-1 Virdha and his relatives.She states that PW-1 Virdha is her brother-in-law (Behanoi) and she knows the appellants Sampatbai and Pistabai and she belongs to the neighbouring village and not to the village where the incident took place and therefore she does not know the other appellants but clarifies that she recognizes the absconded accused Devpal since prior to the incident and that it was Devpal who inflicted gunshot injury upon the deceased who died and that absconded accused Devpal and appellant Kamla inflicted injury on her.(ix) PW-9 Savitribai another daughter of PW-1 Virdha states that she knows the appellants Sampatbai, Pistabai, Kamalbai, Nirbha and Thakurdas since before the incident but does not know other appellants.However, she states that she knew absconded accused Devpal and Ajab Singh Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 13 who were very much available and she witnessed the incident when she was harvesting the crop of wheat alongiwth PW-1 Virdha and other relatives.This witness states that 8 to 10 persons came to the spot and among whom the absconded accused Devpal inflicted gunshot injury to the deceased who died on the spot while appellant Kamla inflicted minor injury with an axe and appellants Thakurdas inflicted injury with lathi.Appellants Sampatbai also gave lathi blow and appellant Pistabai caused blow with the blunt side of a spade.She states that these accused also inflicted injuries to the persons harvesting the crop in the agricultural field alongwith PW-1 Virdha.This witness further reveals that appellant Kamla inflicted minor injury with an axe on her leg.She also reveals that the incident was witnessed by Ramdeen and Mathura.(x) PW-13 Mathura who is brother of the deceased disclosed his presence at the scene of the crime where PW-1 Virdha and his relatives were present and harvesting the crop alongwith Ramdeen and Chandan when absconded accused Devpal caused gunshot injury upon deceased Ajeeta who died on the spot.The appellant Thakurdas, Nirbha, Samptatbai and Pistabai were stated to be present on the spot.Appellant Nirbha and as well as Thakurdas inflicted farsa blow on the deceased while appellants Pistabai and Sampatbai pelted stone on her and other women harvesting the crop alongwith PW-1 Virdha.This witness has denied suggestion that she alongiwth PW-1 Virdha and other injured witnesses has concocted the story to implicate the appellants.(xi) PW-10 Dr. R.K.Goyal who conducted the postmortem Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 14 has proved the same by reiterating his opinion in the postmortem report by stating that out of all the injuries found on the body of the deceased, the cause of death was a result of excessive internal and external haemorrhage due to gunshot injury over the back region which corroborates the ocular version of the deceased being assaulted by absconded accused Devpal.The injuries No. (ii) to (vi) were caused by hard and blunt object while Injury No.(vii) was a firearm injury which was opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Dr. Goyal (PW-10) accepted suggestion that the incised injury No.(i) can be caused by weapon such as Pharsa or Kulhadi.All the injuries were also stated to be antemortem in nature and caused within 24 hrs of the autopsy.(xii) PW-11 Dr. Vinod Chaurasiya who had conducted examination of the 8 injured witnesses namely, Pistabai, Sampatbai, Imartibai, Kalli, Gyaso, Muniabai, Runia, Shanti, Savitri and Sona, proved MLCs prepared by him in regard to each of the injured persons while PW-12 Dr. M.L.Agrawal proved the radiological/x-ray examination of the grievous injures described above and sustained by injured Bhunia, Rania, Savitri and Shanti.Per contra, appellants Nirbha, Pistabai, Kamla and Thakurdas recorded the statement of DW-1 Nahar Singh, DW-2 Saligram, DW-3 Lakhan Singh and DW-4 Kailash in support of their plea of alibi.Appellants Kamla, Nirbha and Pistabai took the plea that they had gone to attend Satyanarayan Ki Katha at the house of Nahar Singh (DW-1) whereas appellant Thakurdas took the plea that he had gone to his in-laws' place since his wife was unwell.Both these pleas of alibi were discarded by the trial court primarily on the ground that all Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 15 the said Dws were closely related to the said four appellants and therefore are interested witnesses and also the fact that no such suggestions were made in respect of these four appellants being elsewhere at the time of occurrence of incident in the cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses.The court also found that no such plea was raised in the statement of any of these four appellants recorded u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. More so, further reason for discarding testimony of Dws was that they contradicted each other as regards period of stay of the appellants Kamla, Nirbha and Pistabai at the house of Nahar Singh to attend said Satyanarayan Katha.One of the said DWs stated that the said appellants stayed away for one day while other DW stated that they stayed away for 3 days.10.1 The plea of right of private defence was also raised by the appellants.In this regard, the plea was raised that the appellants were in possession of the agricultural land on which deceased, PW-1 Virdha and his relatives including the injured witnesses were harvesting wheat crop and therefore altercation and assault took place in exercise of right of private defence of property.The trial court discarded this plea as none of the witnesses supported the said plea while in fact categorically denying the possession of the agricultural field in question, to be of the appellants.The court further noticed that the witnesses were unanimous on the aspect that civil suit between the rival parties in regard to the said agricultural field was pending since last 12 years.The court also noticed that the appellants had collected in the adjoining field since 6 a.m in the morning on the fateful day where they cooked and ate food and drank liquor liquor.Alongwith appellants, Sampat and Pistabai (appellants) were also present and it was only at about 4 p.m. that they came down to the place where the deceased, PW-1 and his relatives were harvesting the crop to perpetrate the crime in Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 16 question.The court also found that the deceased, PW-1 Virdha and his relatives were unarmed while the appellants were armed.10.2 The trial court found that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly to assault and commit crime.The common object of forming unlawful assembly was inferred by the trial court on the basis of all the appellants having collected since 6 a.m., in the morning in the adjoining field and thereafter coming down to the scene of incident and committing the offence, armed with weapons.The court also found that all the appellants actively participated in the incident thereby strengthening assumption of all the appellants nursing common object which was to put an end to life of the deceased Ajeeta.From the analysis of the evidence above, the fact which comes to light is that all the appellants involved in the present three criminal appeals have been convicted u/S. 302 with the aid of Sec. 149 I.P.C. Thus, the trial court was of the view that all the appellants formed unlawful assembly as defined in Sec. 149 I.P.C., for committing offence of murder alongwith the principal absconded accused Devpal who inflicted fatal firearm injury.x 1/2 cm.x bone deep over the occipital region of the head of the deceased, which obviously was caused by sharp-cutting object such as phrasa or an axe, which appears to have been caused by another absconded accused Ajab Singh vide testimony of the PW-1 Virdha.So far as injury No.(ii) is concerned, the same was contusion over the right of the head which was minor in nature and the injury Nos. (iii),(iv) and (v) were also minor in nature being lacerations and abrasions on non-vital parts of the body, i.e., ankle, knee and elbow.12.1 As regards injury inflicted to the injured eye-witnesses Virdha (PW-1), Suniyabai (PW-2), Muniabai (PW-3), Runia (PW-4), Gyasobai (PW-5), Imartibai (PW-6), Kallibai (PW-7), Shantibai (PW-8) and Savitribai (PW-9), all have sustained injuries of minor and grievous on non-vital parts of the body.In the above conspectus of the circumstances, this court has to see whether each of the appellants involved in the present appeals was individually responsible for his/her individual act of assault or Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 18 there are circumstances to indicate that they shared common object to commit murder of Ajeeta with principal absconded accused who inflicted fatal firearm injury.13.1 The element of common object pre-supposes the commonality of motive and intention among all the members of unlawful assembly.PW-1 Virdha in the FIR has stated that at about 4 p.m., when they were harvesting wheat crop, the main absconded accused alongwith the appellants came to the spot armed with weapons and started abusing and assaulting.In his testimony PW-1 for the first time brings out a new story that since 6 a.m., on the fateful day i.e., 15/3/1999 the absconded main accused Devpal, Ajab Singh alongwith all the appellants herein had collected in the adjoining field belonging to the appellant Ajay Singh and were cooking and eating food and consuming alcohol and when it was around 4 p.m., all of them came down to the field where injured PW- 1 Virdha and his relatives were harvesting crop and started abusing and assaulting.It is this burning desire in the mind of the appellants of hoping to acquire ownership of the land by fruits of litigation which was pending since long that the appellants were motivated to commit the assault when they saw the yield of the crop being harvested by PW-1 Virdha.Thus, in the considered opinion of this court the fact of sustaining injuries by appellant Pistabai and appellant Sampatbai, the admitted long standing litigation of the rival parties in regard to the land in question where the incident took place coupled with the burning desire of neighbouring farmer to increase his holdings which appears to have been frustrated by long standing litigation, the trial court ought to have given the benefit of right of private defence of property to the appellants to at least some extent.15.3 Pertinently, appellants Sampatbai and Pistabai, as er ocular evidence of PW@-1 were empty handed and merely pelted stones causing only minor injuries.Thus, these two appellants are liable for the offence of voluntarily causing minor injury punishable u/S. 323 Cra.355/2000, Cra.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 21 I.P.C. Whereas all the other appellants except Sampatbai and Pistabai have been seen by one or more of the injured witnesses to cause minor and/or grievous hurt and thus are liable to be held guilty for offence punishable u/S. 324 and/or 325 I.P.C. as enumerated in the table infra.In view of the above discussions, the element of common object being missing and not spelled out from the attending circumstances, the appellants herein have been wrongly convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable u/Ss. 148, 302/149 I.P.C. read with 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act, but have been rightly held guilty for causing minor and grievous hurt to various injured witnesses with the help of their different weapons thereby rendering themselves punishable u/Ss. 325, 326, 323 I.P.C.454/2000 and Cra.459/2000 22fine one month rigorous(iii) Appellant Sampatbai in Cri.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,851,825 |
Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 31.5.2001 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case 23 of 1993 by and under which the appellant - accused is convicted for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal code ("IPC" for short) and is sentenced to suffer rigorous::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 ::: 2 apeal150of01 imprisonment for seven years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/-.2 Heard Shri R.M. Daga, the learned counsel for the accused and Shri N.H. Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::3 The learned counsel for the accused Shri R.M. Daga submits that the sexual relationship, even if it is assumed that the sexual relationship is established, was consensual.Shri R.M. Daga would then submit that the prosecution failed to prove that the age of the prosecutrix was less than 16 years as on the date of the alleged incident.Per contra, Shri N.H. Joshi, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supports the judgment and order impugned.The learned APP would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has after appreciation of evidence recorded a finding that the prosecution has proved that the prosecutrix was less than 16 years of age, which finding is unexceptionable.4 Having given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, I am inclined to accept the submission of Shri R.M. Daga that::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 ::: 3 apeal150of01 the sexual relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix was consensual.PW 4 - Prosecutrix has deposed that she and the accused became acquainted since both used to visit the house of one Ragabate to watch television.It is the version of the prosecutrix that love blossomed between the two, letters were exchanged and the prosecutrix used to met the accused daily.Since the accused was not seen for 2 to 3 days, the prosecutrix visited the quarter of the accused who was working as class IV employee in Primary Health Center, Etapalli.The accused induced the prosecutrix to have sex assuring that some day or other he and the prosecutrix have to marry.The menstrual cycle was interrupted and was regularized after prosecutrix consumed three pills given to her by the accused.The prosecutrix then states that the accused assured the prosecutrix that they would marry at Gadchiroli pursuant to which assurance, the prosecutrix left the house on 17.1.1992 and went to the quarter of the accused.The second sexual intercourse referred to supra took place on that day and according to the prosecutrix this sexual intercourse was against her will and she was induced to have the sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage.The next day morning::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 ::: 4 apeal150of01 the accused asked the prosecutrix to go home, she refused to do so since she had left the house with the intention of going to Gadchiroli.However, the accused told her that since she is under age, her father may lodge report against him and he may be placed behind bars.The prosecutrix did not relent and was driven out of the house by the accused who threatened her that should she disclose the incident to anybody, her parents will be harmed.The prosecutrix went to the house of friend of her mother one Mainabai Sarkar.It was when she was staying with Mainabai that she disclosed the incident to her brother Rahul and then her father lodged report against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::The evidence that the first sexual intercourse took place on 10.10.1991 is an omission.In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix was questioned about the incident which took place on 17.1.1992 and in response a grossly exaggerated and improved version is given.According to the prosecutrix, she was forcibly made to lay down on the ground, she kept on attempting to get up and she was brought down on the ground time and again (about 15 to 20 times, is the deposition).She states that her clothes were removed forcibly and she shouted for 5 minutes.She suffered pain in the private part, her breasts were pressed forcibly, there was swelling on the private part and on the::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 ::: 5 apeal150of01 breasts.It is elicited in the cross-examination, that from 17.1.1992 to 25.1.1992 she did not have any talk with her father.The evidence that she narrated the incident to her brother Rahul is an omission.It is elicited that at the time of her birth her father was residing at Girgaon Tahsil Nagbhid and her birth is registered at Grampanchayat, Aheri.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::No injury on the person of the prosecutrix was noticed nor was any bleeding noticed from the vagina.No injury was noticed over the internal genital organs.6 PW 2 - Shivlingu Parsalwar states that he is acquainted with the prosecutrix and her father and also the accused.PW 2 states::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 ::: 6 apeal150of01 that he came to know from the father of the prosecutrix that she was driven out of the house by the accused.The prosecutrix was then living in the house of one Dipak Tikle.The prosecutrix expressed her desire to marry the accused.However, PW 2 asked the accused whether he is ready to marry the prosecutrix, he refused to do so.The evidence of PW 2 does not take the case of the prosecution any further.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::7 PW 9 - Ishwar Dhoke is the father of the prosecutrix who has deposed that there was a relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused.PW 9 states that he told the prosecutrix that she had not attained the age of marriage.PW 9 states that the prosecutrix conveyed her decision to marry the accused and one evening she told PW 2 that since her desires are being sacrificed, she wished to go to the house of the accused and left residence.PW 9 states that he came to know that within a day or two the accused throw the prosecutrix out of the house.He states that the prosecutrix disclosed that the accused had sexual intercourse with her by promising marriage.It is elicited in the cross-examination that while admitting the::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 ::: 7 apeal150of01 prosecutrix in the school, the certificate of Grampanchayat was not produced.The evidence that the prosecutrix disclosed that accused promised marriage, is an omission.The evidence that the prosecutrix disclosed after being allegedly driven out by the accused that the sexual intercourse was in view of promise to marry, is again an omission.It is elicited that he refused to accept the custody of the prosecutrix when the police asked him to do so.Pertinently, PW 9 admits that he gave the date of the incident as 17.1.1992 in order to show that the prosecution was minor.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::8 The admission given by the father of the prosecutrix that he stated the date of the incident (alleged sexual intercourse) as 17.1.1992 in order to show that the prosecutrix was minor is particularly significant since as on 17.1.1992, the prosecutrix was only 3 days short of turning 16, even if the date of birth is accepted at face value.Her version in the cross-examination that she was forcibly ravished, that she was resisting and shouting, is incompatible with the earlier version that she was induced into sexual relationship by the promise of marriage.Her readiness to marry the accused even after the alleged incident took place on 17.1.1992 is again a circumstance which would shake the credibility of the evidence of the prosecutrix.The conscious of the Court is satisfied that the sexual relationship, assuming there be any, was consensual.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::9 The pivotal question is however, whether the prosecutrix was not 16 years when the sexual intercourse took place, if at all.That apart, the extract of the school register Exh. 25 which is proved by PW 8 reveals that the prosecutrix was admitted in the 11 th standard.Record of the first school in which the prosecutrix was admitted is not::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 ::: 9 apeal150of01 produced.PW 8 admits that entry of birth in Exh. 25 is on the basis of the transfer certificate produced by the student.The primary document on the basis of which the entry is taken is not produced.Exh. 42 is ossification test report which states that the prosecutrix appears to be between 14 to 16 years of age.The best possible evidence, which is birth certificate is not produced on record although it is admitted by the prosecutrix that her birth is registered with Grampanchayat, Aheri.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::In the light of the discussion supra, the judgment and order dated 31.5.2005 is set aside, the accused is acquitted of offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:44:51 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,857,785 |
Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Mr.Moti-ur-Rehman and Ms. Farida Jalal are present in person.2. Ms.Farida Jalal had also made a complaint which had resulted in registration of FIR No.26/2007, P.S. New Friends Colony, Delhi, under Section498/406/34 IPC.Mr. Moti ur Rehman had made a complaint against the petitioner herein pursuant to which FIR No.12/2007 under Sections 341/323/448/380/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Simri, District Darbhanga, Bihar.Similarly, Mr.Shakeel Ahmad had filed a private complaint against Ms.Farida Jalal at Jamshedpur.Pursuant to the order dated 15th April, 2008, the criminal proceedings pursuant to FIR No.12/2007 and the private complaint were transferred to criminal Courts at Delhi by the Supreme Court of India.There was settlement and compromise between Ms.Farida Jalal and her ex-husband-Mr.Basid Rehman.They have separated and are now divorced.Vide order dated 28th May, 2010 criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to FIR No.26/2007 Police Station New Friends Colony were quashed in view of the WP(CRL) 1166 & 1168/2010 Page 1 settlement agreement dated 20thMarch, 2003 entered into before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.Copy of the said order dated 28 th May, 2010 along with the settlement agreement dated 20th March, 2010 have been placed on record.An amount of Rs.17 lacs has been paid to Ms. Farida Jalal in terms of the settlement agreement.Moti-Ur-Rehman and Mr. Shakeel Ahmad are father and brother of Mr. Basid Rehman, ex-husband of Ms.Farida Jalal.Let their statements be recorded on oath.I have heard the statements made by Mr.Moti Ur Rehman and Mr. Shakeel Ahmad.The petitions are disposed of.
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,472,005 |
Case diary is available.This is fourth application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C filed for grant of bail.Third bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.10.2017 passed in M.Cr.C.No.17288/2017 with liberty to file afresh after the prosecutrix is examined.The applicant has been arrested on 21.03.2017 in connection with Crime No.156/2017 registered by Police Station Civil Lines, District Vidisha, for offences punishable under Sections 370, 376-A, 344, 506, 120-B of IPC and added Section 370-A, 376(2)(d), 376 (gha) and 372 of IPC.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,720,278 |
Jailani, residing at No.12, Ambedkar Street, Ramya Nagar, Madhanandapuram, Mugalivakkam, Chennai-125 and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, S-13 Chrompet Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case :i.S-5 Pallavaram Police Station Crime No.2883/2016 registered under Sections 147, 363, 342, 323, 294[b], 384, 506[ii] of IPC @ 147, 364A, 342, 323, 294[b], 384, 506[ii] and 202 of IPC.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 12.01.2017, one Abdul Khadar, S/o.Khaja Moideen, as de facto complainant has given a complaint in S-13 Chrompet Police Station, wherein, it is alleged to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the present detenu and others have formed unlawful assembly and indiscriminately assaulted the son of the de facto complainant and due to their overt act, he passed away and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.77/2017 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the son of the detenu as petitioner.On the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed.Likewise, in respect of 2nd representation, in between column Nos.7 and 9, 7 clear working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, 23 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.In fine, this petition is allowed.The Detention Order dated 06.04.2017 passed in BCDFGISSSV No.133/2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Moideen Pichai, aged 52 years, S/o.Jailani is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
|
['Section 147 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.
|
74,722,637 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 4.2.2020 and the order dated 3.2.2020, both passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahar, in Case No. 3441 of 2019, State vs. Neeraj, under Sections - 366, 376 I.P.C., P.S. Khurza Dehat, District - Bulandshahar, arising out of Case Crime No. 320/18, under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. P.S. - Khurza Dehat, District Bulandshahar and quash the entire illegal proceeding in Criminal Case No. 3441/2019, State vs. Neeraj, under Sections - 366, 376 I.P.C. P.S. Khurza Dehat, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulahdshahr, which is arising out of First Information Report dated 19.11.2018, lodged at Police Station - Khurza Dehat, District - Bulandshar bearing Case Crime No. 320 of 2018, under Sections - 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station - Khurza Dehat, District - Bulandshahr.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
747,315 |
But the petitioner was surprised to receive a summons dated 23.8.99 issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.15th Court, Calcutta in connection with the aforesaid case whereby she was directed to appear before the concerned Court on 7.10.99 to answer a charge under the aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code.It has further been alleged by the petitioner that upon receipt of such summons, she immediately filed her appearance before the learned Magistrate through her lawyer and also filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying therein for exemption from personal appearance alleging therein that she was not a Director at the time of inception of the transaction between M/s. Sequence Estates Pvt. Ltd. and the company which the complainant represents and it was also stated by her that she being a permanent resident of New Delhi her regular attendance before the Court would cause serious financial loss.It has also been alleged that the allegations levelled in the complaint are to the following effect:(c) The accused Nos. 2 (husband of the petitioner), 4 (father of the accused No. 2) and 5 (Mr. Prakash.Khaitan) represented to Mr. Mahendra Kumar Jalan and the complainant that the accused No. 4 has been residing at Calcutta and was wealthy person having very high reputation in society and amongst the business community.(f) The accused No. 5 further requested Mr. M.K. Jalan and the complainant to arrange for finance from M/s. Twenty First Century Security Ltd. for accused No. 1, 2 and 3 amounting to Rs. 1 crore against the security of the aforesaid 32 lakhs equity shares of Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. The accused No. 5 further represented that the money thus taken on loan would be repaid with agreed interest @ 30% per annum within 90 days from the date of receipt of the said money.(g) In order to deceive Mahendra Kumar Jalan and the complainant by inducing with false faith and confidence, the accused No. 2 in course of discussion, made several telephonic calls from his mobile and after one such call, told Mahendra Kumar Jalan and the complainant that he had a talk with the accused No, 6, who is the Chairman cum Managing Director of Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. and that the accused No. 6 had approved of the proposal of the accused No. 2 to pleade 32 lakhs shares of Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. and to obtain loan of Rs. 1 crore.The said cheque was deposited by the accused No. 2 in the bank account of the accused No. 1 and the same was also encashed and in acknowledgement thereof, the accused No. 2 issued a receipt.The accused No. 2 also delivered 16 original share scripts of Jai Prakash Industries Ltd. as also executed transfer deeds for the said shares.Acknowledging payment on behalf of the accused No. 1, accused No. 2 issued a receipt.The accused No. 2 further executed a few documents, inter alia, a letter of request, a promissory note, letter of continuity, an affidavit along with post dated cheques for repayment of the loan as also a deed of pledge.Simultaneously, the accused No. 2 in presence of the accused No. 5 handed over a second lot of equity share scripts claiming those to be original genuine ' share scripts of Jai Prakash Industries Ltd.The petition of complaint filed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, therefore, does not specifically allege participation of the petitioner in the transaction at all except the fact she has been implicated in the instant case solely on the basis of her position as a Director of accused No. 1 and according to the petitioner, the allegations made in the complaint do not make out any ingredient of the offences punishable under Sections 420/471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and since the petitioner had resigned as a Director of M/s. Sequence Estates Pvt. Ltd. on and from 15.09.98 as such she could not have been arraigned as an accused in view of her status as a Director of accused No. 1 company.It has been contended on her behalf that there is no reason for proceeding with this case against this accused and the continuation of the same will be a clear abuse of the process of law.Hence, this prayer.This prayer has, however, been opposed by the opposite party No. 2 alleging that in view of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, her prayer for quashing is not permissible under the law as materials disclosed in the complaint are sufficient enough to hold, prima facie, that there are allegations against her for proceeding in the matter.I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length.It has further been contended on their behalf that the opposite party No. 2 has filed a vacating application in the instant revisional application where he has annexed certain documents which also find mention in the said complaint.These two documents, as it appears, would, clearly show that the accused No. 2 had negotiated such loan on behalf of the accused No. 1 company and the accused No. 3 had no part to play in the said transactions and in those documents, participation of the present petitioner has not at all been reflected.Further it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that primary and basic ingredient of the offence under Section 420 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code has not been made out against the petitioner as it will be evident from the reading of the petition of complaint itself inasmuch as paragraphs 5 and 6 of the petition of complaint disclose the false and fraudulent representations given to the complaint by the accused No. 4 and 5 which induced the complainant and his company, M/s. Twenty First Century Securities Ltd. to sanction such loan of Rs. 1 crore and the said paragraphs, however, do not disclose any false and fraudulent representations given by the petitioner which induced the complainant or his company to part with such sum of money.It is, thus, apparent that the accused No. 3 i.e. the present petitioner had no part to play in inducing the complainant or his company to part with the said sum.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,740,442 |
Of Forensic Medicine, Ascoms.& Hospital, Sidhra, Jammu-180017; A.K. Srivastava, Professor, Deptt.of Forensic Medicine; Mukesh Yadav, Associate Professor, Deptt.of Forensic Medicine, Ascoms. & Hospital, Sidhra, Jammu-180017; Virendra Kumar, Asstt.Professor, Deptt.of Anatomy; Bhagoliwal A., Associate Professor, Deptt. of Obs & Gynae; S.P. Mathur, Professor & Head, Deptt.In the first stage, fusion is yet to start.In the second stage, fusion begins near one third of iliac crest.In the third stage, fusion is in the half of iliac crest.In the fourth stage, the iliac crest is fused in th part and in the last stage the fusion is complete.On the basis of findings recorded by them, they have concluded that complete fusion of Iliac crest with ilium occurs at the age of 19-20 years in males and 18-19 years in females in the Gujarat State population.The said study also records that this in accord with the prior studies conducted of Galstaun in Bengal and Kothari in Rajasthan.CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 8 of 14CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 7 of 14CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 8 of 14SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)1. Chob Singh and Ashok Kumar by the impugned judgment dated CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 1 of 14 21.07.1998 have been convicted under Sections 302, 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.For the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each.CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 1 of 14Before the trial court, the two appellants had pleaded and claimed they were less than 16 years of age on the date of the incident i.e., 25/26.07.1997 and hence juveniles as per the then law.In view of the contention raised ossification test of both the Appellants were conducted.The trial court record has several X-rays which were under taken at Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Shahdara to ascertain and determine their age.On the basis of the said X-rays, in the case of appellant Chob Singh vide report dated 22.01.1998, doctors opined that his approximate radiological age was between 18 to 20 years on the date of examination.The report also gives the reason for coming to the said conclusion.It is mentioned that the Iliac crest was not fused whereas epiphyses of the elbow joint was fused.The upper CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 2 of 14 end of humerus and lower end of radius of ulna were also fused.His Iliac crest was not fused but lower end of the radius was fused.CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 2 of 14In view of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, any person who has not completed the age of 18 years is juvenile.Supreme Court in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2009 13 SCC 2011 has held that the new enactment, i.e., the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 will apply to all pending proceedings including appellate proceedings.In the case of appellant Chob Singh, during the pendency of the appeal, vide order dated 22.02.2013, an inquiry was directed to be conducted by the court of District & Sessions Judge on the question of juvenility.CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 3 of 14The inquiry report of District and Sessions Judge dated 21.02.2013 in the case of appellant Chob Singh relies upon the report of the Medical Board dated 21.12.2012 in which it has been opined that on the date of the examination, appellant Chob Singh was between the age of 22 and 25 years.The said report relies upon X-rays.Examination of the said report indicates that on dental examination it was opined that the appellant on the date of examination was not less than 17 years but his upper age could not be determined.The X-rays reports' clearly indicate that there was a fusion of bones including Iliac crest.There is no indication whatsoever in the said report to indicate how the Board arrived at the conclusion that the appellant on the date of examination was not more than 25 years.We record and notice that the report itself is per se unbelievable and cannot be accepted when we physically see the two appellants who have appeared before us in person.If we accept this report dated 21.02.2013, the appellants would have been in their early teens.However, the earlier ossification reports dated 22.01.1998 support the plea of the appellants.CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 4 of 14It is recorded in the reports dated 22.01.1998 that the X-rays of the appellants Chob Singh and Ashok Kumar show that the Iliac crest was not fused.This is a clear finding recorded in the two ossification reports of appellants Chob Singh and Ashok Kumar.In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology- 23rd Edition there is a table at page 289 referring to the different studies made regarding appearance and fusion of some of the epiphyses as observed by various authors.As per the table, it is indicated in the studies conducted on Bengalis by Galstaun, fusion of ilium in males takes place at the age of 19 to 20 years.Our attention was also drawn to Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology- 11th Edition, which also has a table at page 405, referring to Roentgenologic studies of Epiphyseal union around elbow, wrist and knee joints and pelvis in boys and girls of U.P. (S.M. Das Gupta, Vinod Prasad, Shamer Singh, J. Ind M A., Vol 62, No 1, Jan 1, 10-12, 1974) which CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 5 of 14 suggests that fusion in Iliac crest in males takes place in the age group of 21- 22 years.CRL.A.237/1999 & CRL.A.17/2000 Page 5 of 14Learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our attention to three Articles/Research Papers.The first Article is on "Estimation of Age from Pelvis - A Radiological Study" by Alok Kumar, Lecturer, Deptt.of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, G.M.E.R.S. Medical College & Civil Hospital Sola, Ahmedabad; Dharmesh Shilajiya, Asso.Prof. BJMC, Ahmedabad; Ganesh Govekar, Prof. & Head, Govt Medical, Surat; Chandresh Tailor, Asst.Prof., and published in J Indian Acad Forensic Med.In the said paper, reference is made to studies done in India by Galstaun in 1930 and 1937 on Bengali population (referred to in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology), Bajaj in 1967 in Delhi and several others.It was observed that these studies were based upon routine X-rays method and were not using digital X-rays, which are of better quality.On the basis of the study, the authors have come to the conclusion that there are five stages.In view of these articles/research papers, we feel that it will be appropriate and just to accept the two ossification test reports dated 22.01.1998 in the case of appellants Chob Singh and Ashok Kumar.However, the question still remains whether both of them should be treated as juveniles on the date of the offence, i.e., 25/26.07.1997 in view of the said reports.In the case of appellant Chob Singh, we have the benefit of school records in the form of School Leaving Certificate Ex.Ram Niwas, CW2, Shiksha Mitra, Primary School, Majhara, Shamshabad, Agra (UP) has proved on record the admission register Ex.We have come across several cases in which the trial courts have examined a large number of witnesses on either side including the conduct of ossification test and calling for odontology report, even in cases, where matriculation or equivalent certificate, the date of birth certificate from the school last or first attended, the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat are made available.We have also come across cases where even the courts in the large number of cases express doubts over certificates produced and carry on detailed probe which is totally unwarranted.Xxxx xxxx xxxxWe fail to see, after having summoned the admission register of the Higher Secondary School where the appellant had first studied and after having perused the same produced by the Principal of school and having noticed the fact that the appellant was born on 24-10-1990, what prompted the court not to accept that admission register produced by the Principal of the school.The two appellants are present in court and, on instructions, learned Amicus Curiae states that the appellants accept their conviction but their sentence may be quashed.The appeals will accordingly be treated as disposed of.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,741,568 |
No. 0833 aa.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION C.R.R. 3791 of 2014 Pronob Bazndhu @ Dhnu & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to learned advocates for the parties at an early date.( Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. )
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 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 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,744,580 |
Both these petitions arise out of the same criminal case, giving rise to similar questions about same set of orders, involving the same Crl.M.C. 4578/2015 & 3182/2016 Page 1 of 10 set of parties and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.M.C. 4578/2015 & 3182/2016 Page 1 of 10Petitioner Divya Mittal of the second captioned matter was married to Ankur Mittal (second respondent in Crl.M.C.3182/2016), he being son of the petitioners in the first captioned petition, they also being respondents (third and fourth) in the second captioned petition.The marriage of the said parties was solemnized on 28.11.2004 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.The inquiry into the said complaints by CAW Cell eventually resulted in first information report (FIR) No.66/2012 being registered by Police Station Anand Vihar on 14.03.2012 involving offences punishable under Section 498- A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).It appears some efforts were made during the course of inquiry, and investigation, for conciliation but the same did not bear fruit.Eventually, report (charge sheet) of investigation under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was submitted by the police on 03.07.2013, on which court of metropolitan magistrate took cognizance and summoned all the three said persons, i.e., Ankur Mittal (husband), Praveen Mittal (mother-in-law) and Vineet Mittal (father-in-law) as accused for offences punishable under Sections 498- A/406/34 IPC.The metropolitan magistrate thereafter considered the Crl.M.C. 4578/2015 & 3182/2016 Page 2 of 10 question of charge.By her order dated 22.09.2014, she found that there was no material on the basis of which any of the three accused could be put to trial on the charge for offence under Sections 498-A/34 IPC.She, however, found charge made out and directed the same to be framed under Section 406 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the three accused.M.C. 4578/2015 & 3182/2016 Page 2 of 10The revision petition was partly allowed, it having been concluded by the sessions court that there was no case made out for putting the husband on trial, there being no allegations of entrustment of stridhan/jewellery articles to him.Both the petitions and the applications filed therewith stand disposed of in above terms.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,746,186 |
Deceased along with her mother came to the residence of her grand mother.She was missing, thereafter on 22.5.2015 her semi naked dead body was found in a dry well situate at the field of Mr. Darshan Kaurav.Prior to that on the same day Kotwar of the village lodged Dehati Nalisi/ missing report of the deceased.Deceased was identified.Her postmortem was conducted by the Doctor.Chappal and Salwar of the deceased were seized on producing the same by the mother of the deceased.Doctor also prepared vaginal swab slide of the deceased.P. W. 1 is Kotwar of the village.Panchnama of the dead body of the deceased was prepared (Ex. P.2).Patwari of Halka prepared spot map (Ex. P.3) and he signed the same.5 Police seized a Salwar of black colour and a fiber Chappal by Ex. P.4, he signed the same.He also signed seizure memo (Ex. P.5).A Naksa Panchnama (Ex. P.7) was also prepared before him and he signed the same.Accused/ appellant was arrested vide Ex. P.8, he signed the same.Thereafter, identification memo of the accused was prepared by Ex. P.9, he signed the same.P. W. 2 is mother of the deceased.She deposed that she had come to village Baglai from her parents house at around 10.00 O'clock.Girl was with her.She was sleeping in the after-noon and thereafter she had gone out side at around 3.00 Olock in the noon.She further deposed that she tried to trace the girl.However, she could not find out her.Her husband came to the house at around 6.00 p. m. Thereafter she told him about the girl.On the next day she had made phone call to her family members and tried to find out the girl.On the next day her Bahnota (sister's son) told her that one Salwar and one Chappal were lying on the way.On the request to identify the same she had gone near Bandhiya and found a Salwar and Chappal of the deceased and thereafter she told to her brother and father in law and they had gone to lodge the report at the police Station.Police came and thereafter they tried to search the girl then dead body of the girl was found lying in a dry well of one Darshan Kaurav.She handed over a Salwar and a Chappal of the deceased to the police.A seizure memo (Ex. P.4) was prepared, she signed the same.9. P. W. 3 is grand father of the deceased.He deposed that he had lodged missing person report of the deceased at the police station.He further deposed that his son and Kotwar had gone to search the dead body of the deceased and they found dead body of the deceased in a dry well.He identified the dead body.Police prepared Naksha Panchnaya and he signed the same.P. W. 4, father of the deceased deposed that his daughter was aged about 12 years and she was studying in 7th Class, when he returned back to the house her wife told him that deceased was missing.Thereafter on the next day dead body of the deceased was found in a well of one Darshan Kaurav.P. W. 5 in his evidence deposed that at around 3.00 p. m. on Wednesday he had seen Baba @ Ravishankar and deceased Ramlata and thereafter in evening he came to know that deceased was died.In his cross-examination he admitted that he had given his statement to the police after incident and not after two months.However, police had beaten him and he had deposed the fact as told by the police.P. W. 6 deposed that he had seen that accused was offering biscuit to the deceased one and half year before.P. W. 10 in his evidence deposed that he was working at the relevant time as contract teacher and deceased was the student of his 7 school.Long contusion on left shoulder including scapula region and also right thigh.There was swelling on perennial region.Hymen was ruptured.She further deposed that she prepared and sealed two vaginal slides and handed over for biochemical examination.Cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to throttling.Injuries were ante-mortem in nature.Time of death was 48-72 hours.She further deposed that two fingers easily enter into vagina of the deceased.There was swelling in genetic parts of the deceased.In her cross-examination she deposed that she had taken specific care in preparing vagina slides.Body of the deceased was dragged.Hence, there were abrasions and contusions on all over the body.He deposed that he had prepared Nazri Naksha of the place (Ex. P.3) and he signed the same.P. W. 15 deposed that before him Doctor had taken blood samples of the appellant along with another person Roopram in the bottles.Police had also seized chappal of the deceased.Police had recorded memorandum of the accused, which is Ex. P.24 and he signed the same.P. W. 16 Dr. Shipra Kaurav deposed that at the relevant time she was posted as medical officer at Government Hospital Chichali.Police had come along with accused appellant Baba @ Ravishankar for collecting blood samples at the hospital.She had taken out blood of the appellant and sealed in a bottle.It was seized by seizure memo Ex. P. 5 and she signed the same C to C. Identification memo of the accused (Ex.P. 9) was prepared before her on 8.7.2015 and she signed the same.She further deposed that she was present at the time of postmortem of the deceased.In her cross-examination she deposed that she had taken all care at the time of taking blood sample of the appellant and same was handed over to the police.P. W. 17 Tahsildrar deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as Tahsildar, Gadarwara.He had conducted identification of chappal of the deceased.Identification memo is Ex. P.25 and he signed the same.Shobha bai identified chappal of the deceased and 9 she affixed thumb impression on identification memo Ex. P. 25 and after identification Chappal was sealed and it was handed over to the Station House Officer In-charge.20. P. W. 8 Mr. R. R. Choudhary in his evidence deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as senior scientist at F. S. L. Sagar.In slides of the deceased Ex-A human sperm were found while.No spot of semen or sperm were found on Salwar Ex. B, nor human blood was found on Ex. B. Human blood was not found on Chappal Ex. C. Ex. A. and Ex. B. were sent for DNA examination to DNA unit FSL Sagar.He submitted his report (Ex. P.10).In his cross-examination he admitted the fact that on Ex. B, Salwar of the deceased the blood was found.P. W. 11 Dr. Pankaj Shrivastava in his evidence deposed that between 24.6.2015 to 20.7.2015 he was posted as Scientist Officer at FSL Sagar.All the samples were sealed and seal was unbroken.DNA test of aforesaid articles was conducted by DNA extraction method and DNA genetic marker with the help of amplification power flex by 23 kit was done through multiplex P.C. R. process and in accordance with DNA examination my opinion is as under:"e`frdk dqekjh jkeyrk ds L=ksr oStkbZuy LykbZM ,oa lyokj ij lansgh ckck mQZ jfo'kadj ds leku iq:"k Mh- ,u- ,- izksQkbZy ik;h x;h A"He specifically deposed in his cross-examination that he had taken all care at the time of DNA examination and DNA examination was fully proved.P. W. 18- M. D. Yadav at the relevant time was posted as Sub-Inspector at P. S. Chichali.He deposed that on 22.5.2015 Purushottam Kaurav lodged the FIR.He had registered the offence under Section 363 of IPC.On information of village Kotwar on 22.5.2015 a merg was registered i. e. Ex.P.15 and map of the place of incident was prepared, which is Ex. P.28 and he signed the same.He further deposed that he had taken the statement of Purushottam Kaurav on 22.5.2015 and on the same day on producing a Salwar and fiber Chappal of the deceased were seized by Ex.P. 4 and he signed the same.Investigation officer P. W. 19 deposed that at the relevant time he was posted as Station House Officer Chichali.On the same day dead body of the deceased was found in a well.Statement of Smt Shobha bai was recorded on 22.5.2015 and Statement of Satya Prakash Kaurav was recorded on 23.5.2015 and thereafter on 7.6.2015 supplementary statement of Smt. Shobha Bai was recorded.Seized property was sent through Superintendent of Police Narsinghpur for examination to F. S. L. Sagar.He issued duty certificate to Head Constable Chetram for postmortem of dead body (Ex. P.31).25. P. W. 20 Smt. Harsha Singh in her evidence deposed that she had received information about death.She had examined dead body of the deceased She had given her opinion about death that it was caused by strangulation.P. W. 21 in his evidence deposed that he was working as Village Employment Assistant and before him statement of accused Ex. P. 24 was recorded and on his memorandum statement a Chappal of the deceased was seized by seizure memo Ex. P.23, he signed the same.Accused/ appellant also signed the same.Kinshuk Jaiswal, (PW-12 ) had prepared the DNA swab slide of the deceased.She deposed that she had prepared two vaginal slides of the deceased.In her cross examination, she further deposed that she used the sterilized slides at the time of preparation of vaginal slides and she was also wearing the mask.2016) As per S.K. Gangele, J:Both reference and appeal have been heard together.Accused was arrested and on his memorandum one Cahappal of the deceased was seized.Blood of the accused was taken for DNA test.Superintendent of police sent the articles vaginal swab, Salwar, chappal of the deceased for DNA test to F.S.L. Sagar.Police also sent blood samples of accused Hargovind Kaurav, Nandi @ Anand Vanshkar & Baba @ Ashok Kaurav to FSL Sagar.As per FSL report DNA profile of accused/ appellant Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma and fluid which was found on the slide prepared by the Doctor from semen and blood stains which were found on the Salwar and vagina of the deceased was same.After conducting investigation police filed charge sheet before the trial Court.Accused denied commission of offence.He had taken a plea that he was falsely implicated in the case.He further contended that proper procedure was not adopted at the time of taking sample and preparing slides of vaginal fluid of the deceased.One of the Analyst deposed that he had found human blood spur on Salwar of the deceased.The blood of the appellant was not taken properly.Hence, appellant could not be convicted on the basis of DNA test.The DNA profile of the accused/ appellant and DNA which was found on the vaginal slide of the deceased and her Salwar is same.Hence, it has been proved by cogent evidence that spurm of the present appellant was found in the vagina of the deceased, it clearly indicates that appellant accused had committed rape with the deceased and thereafter she was murdered by the appellant in brutal manner.Body of the deceased was thrown in a dry well in order to conceal the evidence.Appellant/ accused had committed rape with young girl aged about 13-14 years and murdered her and her body was also thrown in a well.P. W. 12 Doctor Kinshuk Jaiswal perform postmortem of the deceased.She deposed that body of the deceased was decomposed.There were contusions and abrasions on all over body of the deceased particularly on the following parts: an abrasion on left hand 15 x 3.5 cm.Left thigh 8 x 3 cm.Left leg below knee 7.5 x 2.5 cm.Below waist on the left side 15x 4 cm.Contusion on both sides of neck and also on clavicle part.He further deposed that on 20.7.2015 he had recorded the statement of Smt. Alop Bai, Sharda, Nimma Yadav and Itta @ Kichchu Yadav.P. W. 23 deposed that on 4.8.2015, he was posted as In-charge Station House Officer at P. S. Chichali.He had recorded the statement of accused in presence of the witnesses Prakash Chand Mehra, Krishna Kant Kaurav (Ex.P.23) and map was also prepared.Chappal was sent for identification to Tahsildar Chichali.P. W. 24 Head Constable deposed that he had received sealed packet of vaginal slides and other articles of the deceased and also prepared seizure memo.30.The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.The trial court has relied on two evidence.The DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the biological blueprint of every life.DNA is made-up of a double standard structure consisting of a deoxyribose sugar and phosphate backbone, cross-linked with two types of nucleic acids referred to as adenine and guanine, purines and thymine and cytosine pyrimidines.The most important role of DNA profile is in the identification, such as an individual and his blood relations such as mother, father, brother, and so on.Prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in showing that the skeleton recovered from the house of the accused was that of Diana daughter of Allen Jack Routley and it was none other than the accused, who had strangulated Diana to death and buried the dead body in his house.What is DNA? It means :- "(Deoxyribonucleic Acid), which is found in the chromosomes of the cells of living beings is the blueprint of an individual.DNA decides the characteristics of the person such as the colour of the skin, type of hair, nails and so on.In cross-examination PW-46 had stated as under :-Two slides were handed over.Other articles of the deceased were handed over to the Constable.36.PW-16, Dr. Shipra Kaurav had taken out the blood of the deceased and it was sealed pack, Ex. P-5 and handed over to the SHO, Incharge.She further deposed that alongwith the accused the blood of other two persons was also taken out and handed over to the Police.At the time of taking blood samples, proper procedure was followed.A chemical was also mixed in the blood to prevent the blood clouting and it was sealed in a cold carrier seal pack and handed over to the SHO, Incharge.37.PW-8, R.R. Choudhary, Senior Scientist, who was posted as Senior Scientist Officer had conducted the FSL, Sagar confirmed that he had examined the Ex.3-A :- (a) slide, (b) Salwar, ( c) Chappal.On Ex. A, the slide of deceased human sperms were and on Ex.(b) Salwar the human blood was found.38. PW-11, who was working as Scientific Officer at FSL, Sagar deposed that he received two packets Ex. (a) and Ex. (b) from Zoology Project, Sagar for DNA examination and three packets from Constable Kamlesh and three packets from other persons and DNA test was performed.Bottles were sterilized and the blood sample was taken.At the time of preparation of vaginal swab proper care was taken and thereafter it was sent in a sealed cover.This fact has also been proved.The deceased was aged about thirteen years.She was raped and thereafter she was killed.There was bleeding due to sexual intercourse and 23 thereafter she was killed.The appellant had denied the act.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,748,526 |
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.513/2018 registered at Police Station Rampayli, District- Balaghat under Sections 323, 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.10.2018, the prosecutrix had committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon her in her matrimonial home situated under the jurisdiction of P.S.-Rampayli, District-Balaghat.She was taken to the hospital, where her medical examination was conducted and dying declaration was recorded and during the course of treatment, she succumbed to her injuries.The statements of the family members of the deceased have also been recorded.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of the address shown in the application.The applicant is a lady.She is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon her.There is no chance of her absconding or tampering with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand as opposed the application.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
665,654 |
ORDER P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.That petition was filed by the respondent for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the Government dated 7 June 1951 dismissing him from service.The petitioner joined service of Government in the Revenue department about thirty years ago and he was a permanent member of that department in the Coimbatore district.Two charges were framed against him and an enquiry was directed to be made by the tribunal for disciplinary proceedings.The two charges were:(1) that he demanded a sum of 10,000 as a bribe for acquitting the accused in the case before him, and (2) that he demanded and received illegal gratification of two sums of Rs. 500 each from one Gopalaswami Gounder promising to convict the accused concerned in the case filed by him against one Chinnaswami Gounder and others.The tribunal, however, found that no money was actually paid.The tribunal held that the charge (2) had not been proved at all.The tribunal recommended that the officer may be dismissed from service.On receipt of the report, the Government, after consultation with the Board of Revenue, called upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service.A copy of the tribunal's report was also sent to him.The respondent then sent in his explanation, but the Government, by their order dated 7 June 1951, accepted the findings and the recommendations of the tribunal and directed that he be dismissed from service with effect from 23 June 1949, the date from which he had been kept under suspension.It is to quash this order that the writ petition was filed.Three contentions were raised on behalf of the respondent before Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., who heard and disposed of the petition, namely:(1) that the Disciplinary Tribunal had no jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint against the petitioner because the petitioner was an officer in the Judicial department;The learned Judge upheld the first and third contentions, but rejected the second contention.The State of Madras has filed the above appeal from the said order.There will be no order as to costs here and before Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,576,356 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties.It is alleged against so many persons that they assaulted the deceased Raghvendra.It is alleged against the co-accused Ram Singh that he assaulted the deceased Raghvendra with a sword causing a fatal injury and thereafter, the deceased Raghvendra had died.According to the FIR, it is alleged against the applicants Purshottam and Kumer that they had a katarna and stick.No fatal and grave injury has been caused by the applicants as per allegations.No common intention of the applicants can be presumed with the co-accused Ram Singh and therefore, prima facie nooffence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of I.P.C. The co-accused Lallu Lodhi has been released on bail vide order dated 6,.7.2015 in MCRC No.19966/2015 and the case of the applicant is similar to the co-accused Lallu Yadav.Under these circumstances, applicants pray for bail.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,583,274 |
Item No. 55And In the matter of: Sujoy Mohanta @ Pakai Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Amanul Islam For the Petitioner Ms. Rita Datta For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Kotwali Police Station Case No. 1237 of 2011 dated 28.10.2011 under Sections 341/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The co-accused have been granted bail by the Court below.As the charge sheet has already been filed, the Petitioner shall appear before the Court below within 15 days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,584,946 |
Heard on the question of admission.Considering the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to suspend the execution of custodial part of the sentence imposed against the petitioners- Ramlal Banjara and Mewalal Banjara, till the final disposal of this revision.Accordingly, I.A. No. 8611/2016 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by each of the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, for their regular appearance before this Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence imposed against the petitioners shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this petition.The petitioners, after being enlarged on bail shall mark their presence before the Registry of this Court on 20th December, 2016 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the registry.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sumathi
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,589,744 |
17.8.2018 This third bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Cr.P.C") has been filed seeking regular bail by the applicant, who is in custody with effect from 15.7.2013 for the offences under Sections 307, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be 2 referred to as "I.P.C") and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act pertains to Crime No.689/2013 registered at Police Station T.T.Nagar, District Bhopal.His first bail application (MCRC No.3806/2014) was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 17.7.2014 and thereafter second bail application (MCRC No.18262/2016) was also dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 6.12.2016 with a direction to the Trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of production of certified copy of this order otherwise the applicant would be at liberty to renew the prayer.It was also asked on which date the order of the Court sent by the Registry has been received to the office of the District and Sessions Judge.On the said issues, the report was directed to be prepared through the District and Sessions Judge within a period of two weeks and to submit it indicating the fault of the persons responsible for it.In furtherance to the said directions, the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal has sent a preliminary inquiry report dated 10.2.2018 and said, the order dated 6.12.2016 of MCRC No.18262/2016 was produced by Shri Mayur Chalisgaonkar, Advocate on 27.1.2017 but on memo to file the said order, endorsement of the Presiding Officer is not there.In the order sheet dated 27.1.2017, the reference to file the order is also not on record.The statement of the Advocate was recorded, who deposed, when he has shown the order of the High Court to the Judge, the Presiding Officer being busy, said it may be seen by her later and may be handed over to the Reader.He also observed that generally such documents are being given to the concerned Reader, who used to put it on record.Mohammad Yunus Khan stated that he came to know about the document in mid 2017 i.e the date from which the file was asked by the Copying Section when the certified copy of the document was demanded.In view of the above, an order was passed on 5.3.2018 asking the report from the Registrar (Judicial) on which date the order dated 6.12.2016 passed in MCRC No.18262/2016 was sent to the concerned Court for information in view of the directive issued by 6 the Court.The copy of the order of the High Court is attached with the record of the trial, however, the said document would have attached by the Reader with the file, why he has not brought this order to the knowledge of the Judge and why it has not been taken on the order sheet by him.Meaning thereby the said Clerk/Reader has ignored the order of the High Court intentionally.The steps taken by the Trial Judge against the said Reader or by the District & Sessions Judge is not on record even after acknowledging of their mistake.One more relevant fact is also required to observe that either prior to receiving the directions by the High Court or after filing the certified copy of the order, the dates fixed in trial are with the same interval except the few dates from February, 2018 for some time.It is also experienced that on elapse of the time as directed, the Courts send the PUD for extension of time 12 without showing their endeavour of disposal of the case giving all such details and write the letter in routine manner, it again makes the cause list long, burdensome and also waste the time of this Court.C No.338/2018 (Imran Khan Versus State of M.P) for evolving mechanism to circulate the orders amongst the Courts, the matter was placed by the Principal Registrar (Judicial) before Hon'ble the Chief Justice.(2) May direct the Registrar (IT/SA) to develop a programme for Dealing Assistants of the High Court to monitor of the cases and to keep statics of the cases in which directions have been issued by Hon'ble High Court for the Subordinate/Trial Court for compliance.Programme should be such that Registry Officers may also view & monitor the same regarding the status of cases and action taken by the Dealing Assistants.(3) May direct the Registrar (IT/SA) to develop & provide the link/tab in the CMIS User ID of each 13 Dealing Assistants of the High Court as well as User IDs of all the Judges in their CIS 2.0 Module of the Subordinate/Trial Courts, so that, the directions may also be sent online, directly to the concerned Judge.(4) May direct Registrar General to issue instructions from administrative side to all the District & Sessions Judges of State of Madhya Pradesh to evolve their mechanism for receiving & circulating all the orders issued by the High Court amongst the concerned Judicial Officers of the Subordinate/Trial Courts, so that, the directions be complied timely and to send the acknowledgment of the order of High Court and compliance report to this Registry.(Arvind Kumar Shukla) Principal Registrar (Judicial) Hon'ble the Chief JusticeThe Registrar General vide memorandum dated 7.2.2018 communicated to all the District and Sessions Judge of the State of Madhya Pradesh to evolve a mechanism for receiving and circulating the orders of the High Court amongst the concerned Judicial Officers of the Subordinate Courts/Trial Courts for timely compliance.The relevant portion of the said memorandum is reproduced as under:------ ***** -----Under the subject cited above, it is to bring to your kind notice that Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on perusal of the Court Order dated 30-01-2018 passed in M.Cr.C.No.338/2018 (Imran Khan Vs.The State of M.P.) (copy enclosed), has been pleased to direct all the District & Sessions Judges of the State of Madhya Pradesh to evolve their mechanism for receiving & circulating all the orders issued by the High Court amongst the concerned Judicial Officers of the Subordinate/ Trial courts, so that, the directions be complied timely and to send the acknowledgment of the order of High Court and compliance report to this Registry.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Encl.:- Copy of Court order dated 30-01-2018 Registrar General Passed in M.Cr.This Court vide order dated 10.7.2018 directed to call for the record of the case of the trial from the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal alongwith the policy formulated for circulation of the order of the High Court amongst the Judges.The District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal has not informed regarding the mechanism developed for communication to the order of the High Court amongst the Judges, who are dealing with the cases and the compliance is expected from them as directed by the Court.The Principal Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to place a policy formulated by the High Court in this regard.In furtherance thereto, the Principal Registrar 15 (Judicial) vide note sheet dated 11.7.2018 has made the communication, however, it is reproduced as under:- Sub.: Submission of report regarding status of evolving mechanism for sending orders of the High Court to the concerned Trial Courts/Subordinate Courts.11/07/2018 In compliance of order dated 10/07/2018 passed in MCRC No.25749/2017, the report regarding policy formulated by the High Court regarding circulation of the order of the High Court is submitted as under:-In compliance to this, vide Memo No.47, dated 10-07-2018 the record has been received today by special Messanger along with a separate envelope No.883, dated 10-07-2018 (both are sent in sealed cover envepole) by the District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal.2- In addition to this, in compliance of Court order dated 30/01/2018 (Flag-A) passed in MCRC No.338/2018 and vide administrative order dated 05/02/2018 (Flag-B), Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to direct to take opinion of Registrar (IT) to find out the modules regarding evolving mechanism for sending orders of the High Court to the concerned Trial Courts/Subordinate Courts.The copy of order dated 05/02/2018 was forwarded to you on 07/02/2018 (Flag-C) to take further necessary action and also to give your opinion in the matter accordingly.3- In compliance of aforesaid Court order dated 30/01/2018, Memo No.10/PR(J)/2018 dated 07/02/2018 (Flag-D) and Memo No.59/ PR(J)/2018 dated 25/04/2018 (Flag-E) have already been forwarded to all the District & Sessions Judges of State of Madhya Pradesh.4- To comply with the abovementioned Court order dated 10/07/2018, a status report of the policy formulated by the High Court for evolving mechanism for sending orders of the High Court to the concerned Trial Courts/ Subordinate Courts has been obtained vide ntoe-sheet dated 10/07/2018 (Flag-F).5- In response, Registrar (IT/SA) has submitted a report dated 10/07/2018 (Flag-G) in which it has been informed that only the 16 District Harda has complied the order and rest of the District Courts have not shown any updated status.Copy of the updation sheet has also been enclosed alongwith the report.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,590,844 |
P.Ws.2 & 3 are the father and mother respectively of the deceased.P.W.1 and the deceased were residing together in their house at Ramachandran Pettai at Virudhachalam.P.Ws.2 & 3 were living in a separate house at a distance in the same Village.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.3.It is alleged that on 01.08.2011, around 12.15 am when P.W.1, the deceased and P.Ws.2 & 3 were in the house of the deceased, all these seven accused, came to the house of the deceased armed with knives and veechu knives.They entered into the house of the deceased.Accused 1 and 3 shouted at the deceased in abusive language.It is further alleged that in the same transaction, the accused 1,3 to 6 attacked the deceased with knives repeatedly on various parts of the body.The accused 2 & 7 who were also in the crowd induced the others to do away with the deceased.When P.W.1 intercepted, A.1 attacked her with knife and caused simple hurt.The deceased fell down, in a pool of blood.Then, all the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with weapons.P.W.16, the then Special Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.630/2015 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324 & 302 I.P.C. The complaint was made against only 6 accused including A.6 Mr.Ravi @ Kulla Ravi.5.The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.18, the then Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam Police Station.On 01.08.2015 at 4.00 am, according to P.W.18, he visited the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses.He recovered the blood stained earth; sample earth and the other blood stained material objects from the place of occurrence, in the presence of witnesses under a mahazar.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post mortem.6.P.W.17 Dr.P.23 is the post mortem certificate.P.W.17 gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the multiple injuries.7.During the course of investigation, P.W.18 recovered the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to Court.While in custody, all the accused gave independent voluntary confessions, one after the other.Based on the same, they disclosed the place where they had hidden the knives and blood stained clothes respectively.In pursuance of the same, they took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the material objects.J) The appellants are the accused 1 to 7 in S.C.No.270 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam.They stood charged for various offences as detailed below:-Charge No.AccusedSection of law1A.1 148, 449, 324 & 302 I.P.C.,2A.2 & A.7148, 449 & 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.A.3 to A.6148, 449 & 302 I.P.C.By judgment dated 09.09.2016, the trial Court convicted all the seven accused and sentenced them as detailed below:-NoAccused Section of lawSentence12A.2 & A.7302 r/w 149 I.P.C.,Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years3A.1 to A.7449 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years 4A.1 to A.7148 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for one year each5A.1324 I.P.C.,Rigorous imprisonment for one yearA.1, A.3 to A.6302 I.P.C.,Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two yearsA.1 & A.3 are not found guilty by the trial Court for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C., and accordingly they are acquitted from the said charge.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this Criminal appeal.It is alleged that there was a longstanding dispute in respect of the landed property between A.1 and his brothers on one side and the deceased and his son on the other side.Because of the said civil dispute, there was longstanding enmity between the two families.Geethanjali conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 01.08.2015 at 12 noon.She found the following injuries:-1.Upper part of right side of neck.Transversely placed 8x3x4-5 cms exposing the underlying cut tissues, Blood vessels, muscles and nerves.2.2 superficial Transverse abrasions from below right ear of size 4 cmsx0.5cm (red in colour)3.Back to neck, transverse 7x3x3-4 cms.4.Back of right shoulder of size 13x6x4-4.5 cms.5.Front of upper part of chest transverse 12x3x4-5 cms underlying fractured bone6.Back of left shoulder oblique 6x3x2cms.7.Back of right upper arm of size 17x4x3-4cms exposing the underlying cut tissues & fractured bone.8.Entire back upper 2/3rd multiple transversely placed chop wounds one below the other.A 8cms below the Nape of neck 28x7x8-10 cms underlying ribs fracture on both side.B 4cms below above injury 22x2x1cms over centre and right side of back.C.(oblique) 3cms below above injury over centre and right side 25cmsx3x3cms underlying ribs fractured.D.Right lateral chest wall (3cms below above injury) e. 4 cms below above injury over centre of back 9x4x2cms with underlying vertebrae fractured tissues cut and contused.F.4cms below above injury over centre of back and right side 29x4x4-6 with underlying fractured vertebrae and ribs.9.Transversely placed back of right knee 14cmsx4cmx4cm.10.Back of lower 1/3rd of right leg transverse, 8x2x3cm.11.Upper 1/3rd of right forearm oblique over back 8x2x2 cms.12.Back of middle 1/3rd of left thigh transversely placed 18x3x4-5cm with fracture of underlying bone and cut tissues all the above injuries are mortem in nature.Margins are clean cut and regularEx.They were all recovered under a mahazar.8.On returning to the Police Station, P.W.18 forwarded the accused 1 to 6 to Court for judicial remand and also handed over the material objects to Court.While in custody, he made a voluntary confession in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the knife and the blood stained cloth.In pursuance of the same, he took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the knife and the blood stained cloth.The same were recovered under a mahazar.9.All the material objects were sent to Court and all the accused were remanded to Court for judicial custody.At the request made by P.W.18, the material objects were sent to the Forensic Expert for chemical examination.The report revealed that there were blood stains on all the material objects including the knives.On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the accused.10.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 30 documents were exhibited, besides 24 Material Objects.11.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.She was examined as eye witness.However, during the course of examination, she turned hostile and she has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.She has stated that some persons entered into the house; cut the deceased and killed him.She has further stated that when she tried to make alarm, A.1 attacked her with knife and she also suffered injury on her hand.She has not identified any of these accused as assailants.She has also disowned the complaint made by her, however, she has admitted her signature found in the complaint.12.P.Ws.2 & 3 the father and mother of the deceased respectively have stated that though they were living separately in a house, in the same street, they had come to the house of the deceased on 31.07.2015 and they had stayed there and they also witnessed the entire occurrence.They have stated that all the seven accused entered into the house of the deceased while they were sleeping and they attacked the deceased indiscriminately with knives and killed the deceased.P.Ws.4 to 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.9, the then Village Administrative Officer has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar; rough sketch; the recovery of material objects; arrest of the accused 1 to 6 and the consequential recoveries made out of their disclosure statements.13.P.W.10 Dr.On 01.08.2015 according to him, around 4.00 am, P.W.1 was brought to the hospital and he found a cut injury measuring 1x1 = cm, on her left leg.P.W.11 has spoken about the statements recorded from the witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.12 a Forensic Expert has stated that he examined the internal organs of the deceased.He found ethyl alchocal in the internal organs of the deceased.P.W.13, a Forensic Expert has stated that he examined the material objects and he found blood stains on all the material objects including the knives recovered from the accused.P.W.14 has stated that he handed over the dead body of the deceased to Doctor for post mortem.P.W.15 has stated that on 01.08.2015, he was the Special Sub Inspector of Police at Virudhachalam Police Station.One Mr.Kupusamy was yet another Special Sub Inspector of Police.He has stated that P.W.1 made complaint at 2.30 pm on 01.08.2015 upon which, Mr.Kupusamy registered the present case.Then the F.I.R., was sent to the Court.P.W.17 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.14.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not chose to examine any witness nor did they mark any documents on their side.15.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellants/accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellants/accused are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.16.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.17.As we have already narrated, the prosecution, in this case mainly relies on the eye witness account of P.Ws.2 & 3, viz., the parents of the deceased alone.P.Ws.2 & 3 were not residing along with the deceased.The deceased and P.W.1 alone were residing in their house.It is well settled that if the witnesses claim to have been present at the place of occurrence by chance, then, it is for them to explain to the satisfaction of the Court as to why and how they had been present at the place of occurrence.In this case, absolutely there is no explanation as to why P.Ws.2 & 3 had come to the house of the deceased and stayed there.It is not the fact that they were staying along with the deceased and P.W.1 in the past.Thus, the very presence of P.Ws.2 & 3 at the place of occurrence is doubtful.18.As we have already pointed out, P.W.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution, and she has turned hostile.She has even disowned Ex.P.1 - complaint.P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that even he accompanied P.W.1 to the Police Station and the complaint was drafted in his very presence and the same was handed over to Mr.Kupusamy (P.W.16), the then Sub Inspector of Police, for registration of the case.P.W.2 is not an ordinary man.He is an Advocate by profession.So, it can be presumed that he knew the consequences of any omission made in the complaint.Only six persons names have been mentioned as assailants.Had it been true that seven accused had participated in the crime, being an Advocate and knowing the consequences of such omission, P.W.2 would not have omitted to mention the name of 6th accused in the complaint, when it was drafted.The very fact that only six persons names have been mentioned in the complaint and the complaint was drafted in the presence of P.W.2 would go to show that the present complaint is a concocted document and at every stage, an attempt has been made to increase the number of assailants.P.W.2 has further stated that, he was not aware of the person who wrote the complaint also.This is yet another circumstance against the prosecution.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the said fact spoken by P.W.16 is doubtful.In order to substantiate the said contention, the he would point out that F.I.R., had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate on 01.08.2015 at 8.20 am.When P.W.1 and the deceased alone were there at his house, the possibility of any one of the enemies entering into the house of the deceased and caused the death of the deceased cannot be ruled out.P.Ws.2 & 3 would not have witnessed the occurrence at all.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,592,320 |
This is the first application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested on 19.8.2015 in connection with Crime No. 34/2015, registered at Police Station Aawada District Sheopur for the offences punishable under Section 399, 402 of IPC and under Sections 25/27 of Arms Act and further under Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act.It is alleged that on the tip of informer that some miscreants were making a plan to commit a dacoity near Nahar of Halgovada.Police party reached there and caught three miscreants and other accused persons fled away.From the possession of applicant Khalid a sword has been seized.He has been falsely implicated in the crime.It is argued that Criminal Case No. 471/2010 has been registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323, 506-2 of IPC, in which he has been acquitted from the charges.( 2) M.Cr.C No. 9316/2015 Criminal Case No. 600/08 has also been registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323/34, 294,506-B of IPC, in which applicant has also acquitted.Therefore, he prayed for grant of benefit of regular.Learned PP opposed the application.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,596,851 |
L.P. 472/2013 Page 1 of 15The case of the prosecution as unfolded by PW-3 (Mohd. Akbar), who is the star witness of the prosecution, is that on 20.03.2010 at about 1:30 P.M. he was returning home from the barber shop.When he reached the street near his house, he noticed respondent Mohd. Iqbal rushing out of their house holding a knife in his hand, chasing deceased Mohd. Akhtar uttering "mai usko aaj chhodunga nahi".PW-3 also chased the respondent.Since the respondent was running very fast, PW-3 could not catch up with him.When he (PW-3) reached Shahganj Chowk, he saw the respondent catching hold of his deceased brother (Mohd. Akhtar) and repeatedly stabbing him with a knife.When he reached near the respondent, he found the deceased had fallen on the ground and the respondent was trying to cut the neck of the deceased.He pushed the respondent aside with force.The respondent escaped towards G.B. Road with the knife which he was holding in his hand.In the meanwhile, a policeman (Constable Bandhu Kumar PW-7) reached the spot.PW-3 with the help of PW-7 removed the deceased to LNJP hospital where Mohd. Akhtar was declared 'brought dead'.In this regard statement of the PW3 when reproduced reads as under:"I think I stated to the police that whenever accused used to beat the deceased, we all used to save the deceased from the accused.I stated to the police that accused in routine used to extort money from our deceased brother who was working independently in Sita Ram Bazar.Bandhu must have specifically stated about presence of Mohd. Akbar there.Had Mohd. Akbar accompanied Ct.Bandhu to the hospital, he would not have omitted to state about the same.But there is nothing in the statement of PW7 that Mohd. Akbar accompanied from spot to the hospital.Bandhu simply stated about recording of statement of Mohd. Akbar by Inspector Jarnail Singh at the hospital.L.P. 472/2013 Page 7 of 15During investigation, IO did not seize any blood stained clothes of PW Mohd. Akbar to substantiate prosecution version regarding his presence at the given date, time and place or that he had accompanied to the hospital.As rightly pointed out by learned defence counsel there is contradiction in the statements of PW3 about conveyance used in removal of Mohd. Akhtar to the hospital.According to PW3 Mohd. Akbar, injured was taken to hospital in a cycle rickshaw.Contrary to it is statement of PW7 Ct.Bandhu who stated in his cross examination that within a minute or two a TSR was arranged and the injured was removed to hospital.Recovery of mobile phone from the spot 13 .It is case of prosecution that one mobile phone no.9213880289 i.e. of the accused, was found lying near an electric pole, at the scene of crime and the same was seized by recovery memo Ex.PW3/B by Inspector Jarnail Singh in presence of Mohd. Akhtar (sic Akbar) SI Brijesh Mishra, HC Mahesh Tyagi.While appearing in court as PW3 Mohd. Akbar deposed that two mobile phones were recovered by the police from the spot.He specifically stated that one mobile phone was of the accused and other was of the deceased.G. P. MITTAL J. (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 13466/2013 & CRL.M.A. 13467/2013 (delay)M.A.13466/2013 has been filed by the State seeking condonation of 70 days' delay in filing the present petition for leave to appeal and Crl.M.A.13467/2013 has been filed by the State seeking condonation of 72 days' delay in re-filing the present petition for leave to appeal.2. Heard.For the reasons stated in the applications, present applications are allowed.Delay in filing and re-filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned.Applications stand disposed of.By this petition under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code), the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment Crl.L.P. 472/2013 Page 1 of 15 dated 08.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), (Central) Delhi in Sessions Case No.25/2010 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The IO recorded the statement (Ex.PW-3/A) of Mohd. Akbar, made his endorsement (Ex.PW-29/A) on the same and on the basis of which the instant case was registered.During the course of investigation, the respondent was apprehended and a bloodstained knife was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him.On completion of the investigation, the respondent was forwarded to the court for trial for an offence punishable Crl.L.P. 472/2013 Page 2 of 15 under Section 302 IPC.L.P. 472/2013 Page 2 of 15On the respondent pleading not guilty to the charge, prosecution examined 29 witnesses which included Mohd. Akbar PW-3, Pawan Kumar PW-8 and Mohd. Salaman PW-15, who were projected as eye- witnesses to the alleged incident, Constable Bandhu Kumar PW-7 who had removed the deceased to the hospital, apart from the witnesses to the recovery of the mobile phone, bloodstains etc. from the spot and recovery of the knife at the instance of the respondent.On appreciation of evidence, the learned ASJ disbelieved PWs 3, 8 and 15 to be eye-witnesses of the incident.He further disbelieved the recovery of the knife at respondent's instance.He found the recovery of the mobile phone belonging to the respondent from the spot to be doubtful because of the calls having been received and made therefrom even after the incident.The learned ASJ thus reasoned that the prosecution case was not established against the respondent beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.He, therefore, acquitted the respondent giving him benefit of doubt.8. Learned APP for the State argues that the trial court committed manifest error of law in disbelieving the testimonies of the three eye witnesses and the recovery of knife at respondent's instance in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him.While relying on Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753, the learned counsel argues that on seeing a gruesome incident, different witnesses behave differently and simply because PW-3's clothes were not stained with blood or that the same were not seized by the IO or that his name was not mentioned in the relevant column of MLC as the person who had Crl.L.P. 472/2013 Page 3 of 15 brought the injured to the hospital, the learned ASJ ought not to have disbelieved PW-3 to be an eye witness.It is stated that PW-8 and PW-15 also supported the prosecution version with regard to the injuries inflicted by the respondent on the deceased.Constable Bandhu Kumar PW-7 also stated about the presence of PW-3 in the hospital.Thus, the three eye- witnesses (PWs-3, 8 and 15) ought to have been believed by the learned ASJ which was sufficient to bring home the respondent's guilt.It is urged that in view of the overwhelming evidence adduced by the prosecution, the order of acquittal passed by the learned ASJ is liable to be reversed.L.P. 472/2013 Page 3 of 15We have heard the learned APP for the State and have perused the impugned judgment and the testimonies of the material witnesses relied upon by the State.In our view, the trial court has given valid and substantial reasons for disbelieving the alleged three eye witnesses as also the recovery of the mobile phone from the spot and the recovery of the knife in pursuance of the disclosure statement (Ex.PW-24/B) alleged to have been made by the respondent.When he reached in the street, near his house, he saw the accused rushing out of the house holding a knife in his hand.The accused was uttering that he was not going to leave him (Mohd. Akhtar).On hearing these words, he (PW3) chased the accused.He could not catch hold of him (accused) but kept following him, because the accused was Crl.L.P. 472/2013 Page 4 of 15 running very fast.On reaching Shah Ganj Crossing, he saw that accused had caught hold of Mohd. Akhtar and repeatedly stabbed him with the knife.Further according to the witness, when he reached near the accused, he found him trying to cut neck of Mohd. Akhtar, who had fallen on the road.He then pushed the accused on one side with force and the accused ran away.L.P. 472/2013 Page 4 of 15It is not case of the prosecution that any other family member of the accused was not present inside the house when PW3 Mohd. Akbar saw accused and the victim running out of the house.There is no evidence that any other family member also rushed out of the house.Had the accused come out of the house with a knife while chasing the younger brother, it is not believable that other family members would have remained behind.They would have also chased the accused so as to avoid any harm to Mohd. Akhtar.Since there is nothing on record to suggest that any other family member came out of the house or chased the accused so as to save the victim, it is difficult to believe the version of PW3 Mohd. Akbar that it is only he who came out of the house and chased the accused.Even otherwise on having seen the accused chasing his younger brother, with a knife in his hand, Mohd. Akhtar (sic Akbar) must have raised hue and cry attracting other persons of the area or in the street, but from the evidence led by the prosecution, it appears as if no hue and cry was raised by Mohd. Akbar.Further reference has been made to the cross examination of PW3 Mohd. Akbar, were (sic where) he displayed ignorance on material aspects of the case and also improved upon his statement Ex PW3/A made before the police, while narrating the incident in Court, so on to contend that these omissions are improvements further go to suggest that PW3 Mohd. Akbar was not present on the given date, time and place.In his cross examination, PW3 displayed ignorance on various aspect.In this regard statement of the witness reads as under: "I do not remember if I had specifically mentioned in my statement that behaviour of the accused was bad or cruel towards my deceased brother.L.P. 472/2013 Page 5 of 15 used to force him to work him without any remuneration.I do not remember whether I told the police that when Akhtar was still in gali accused Iqbal stared beating him.I do not remember whether I stated to the police that Akhtar saved himself and rushed inside the house.L.P. 472/2013 Page 5 of 15I do not remember whether I told to the police that Akhtar told us that Iqbal was beating him to extort money.I do not remember whether I stated to the police that when I reached near the accused he was trying to cut the neck of my brother with knife, who had fell on the road.I do not remember whether I told the police that I pushed the accused on one side with the force.I do not remember whether I stated to the police that one police man had come from nearby chowki, with whose help I took my injured brother to the hospital."A perusal of his cross examination would reveal that he has improved upon material aspect.I stated to the police that on 20.03.2010 at about 1.30 pm, I was returning home after getting my shave done from the shop.I stated to the police that when I reached in the gali near my house, I saw accused rushing out of the house."A comparison of this statement Ex PW3/A made before the police, with the statement made in Court, would reveal that PW3 Mohd. Akhtar (sic Akbar) has improved upon these material aspects of the prosecution version.It is case of prosecution that on 18.03.2010, during the night, Mohd. Akhtar was severely beaten by the accused when the former did not pay him money; that on that night all of them saved Mohd. Akhtar from the accused but the accused extended threat that he would kill Mohd. Akhtar in case he fail to (sic pay) money every Crl.L.P. 472/2013 Page 6 of 15 week.In his statement made in Court, when the witnessed was cross examined, PW3 Mohd. Akhtar stated that he had told the police that two days before the date of incident Akhtar had returned home at about 01.30 am in the night after work as he used to make video films marriages and that Iqbal threatened that if Akhtar will not work for him, he will kill him.L.P. 472/2013 Page 6 of 15In his statement made in Court, it does not find mention that other family members were present at the house on the night of 18.03.2010 or that they have saved Mohd. Akhtar from the accused or that accused has extended threat to kill Mohd. Akhtar in case he failed to pay him money every week.This goes to show that even in this regard PW Mohd. Akbar has not made statement in consonance with statement Ex PW3/A made before the police.During investigation no person from the neighbouring house was associated in the evidence to lend corroboration to the prosecution version that any one of them had heard any cry being raised by PW3 Mohd. Akbar or any other family member or to have seen accused chasing the victim.In this regard, when there is not corroboration from any other person, it is difficult to rely on the sole statement of PW3 Mohd. Akbar that he saw accused coming out of the house with knife and chasing the victim.According to PW3 Mohd. Akbar, one policeman came from a nearby chowki and helped him in removal of his brother to LNJP Hospital.L.P. 472/2013 Page 7 of 15 clear that he was informed by many persons that one person was stabbing another at Shah Ganj Crossing and thereupon he reached the said crossing and found Mohd. Akbar (sic Akhtar) lying in pool of blood.The witness nowhere stated that Mohd. Akbar met him at the place where said injured was lying.Had Mohd. Akhtar (sic Akbar) been present there, Ct.But surprisingly police officers have nowhere whispered about recovery of another phone i.e. of the deceased from the same place.L.P. 472/2013 Page 8 of 15Electronic Evidence 14 .Prosecution has examined PW5 M.N. Vijayanand to prove that mobile phone connection no.9213880289 was in the name of the accused and also to prove call details Ex.PW5/C. As per the prosecution version, occurrence took place on 20.03.2010 at about 1.35 p.m. but PW5 has admitted in his cross examination that as per call detail record on 20.03.2010 four incoming calls were received on his mobile phone at 2.10, 3.49, 4.13 and 5.34 and the last outgoing call made from his mobile phone was at 6.22 p.m. It has rightly been contended that in case this mobile phone is alleged to have been found lying at the spot soon after the occurrence but it remains unexplained as to how conversation could take place by way of "four incoming calls: and "one outgoing call" depicting after the occurrence.There is nothing on record to suggest that any such caller was associated in the investigation or enquired to know as to who had made calls on this mobile phone.No such person having this mobile phone connection no.9250131777 was associated in the investigation to inquire from him or her as to who had made this outgoing call to him at about 5.34 p.m. When prosecution has failed to establish as to who made last four incoming calls and who received the same and as to who made the last outgoing calls and who received the same, the prosecution version that accused was present on the given date, time and place of occurrence with this mobile phone connection becomes doubtful.As per prosecution version, PW8 Pawan Kumar who runs a scooter repair work in shop no. 3804, Shah Ganj, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi also witnessed the accused and Mohd. Akhtar (since deceased) coming from the side of Shah Ganj while running and then stabbing Mohd. Akhtar with knife.According to this witness, their brother Mohd. Akbar was also seen rushing to save Mohd. Akhtar but by then accused had already stabbed Mohd. Akhtar and ran away with knife.L.P. 472/2013 Page 9 of 15Learned defence counsel has pointed out that this witness did not make any phone call although there a telephone connection his shop.He also did not try to save Mohd. Akhtar.Attention has also been made to the statement of PW8 Pawan Kumar where he admitted to have not stated to the police that he had seen Mohd. Akbar rushing after Iqbal and Mohd. Akhtar.As a result, it cannot be said that Pawan Kumar knew the three brothers or that he saw accused and deceased coming while running from the side of Shah Ganj side or that he saw Akbar rushing after them.Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments that it depends upon each individual as to how he or she reacts in a given situation and PW8 Pawan Kumar did not rang up the police from his landline phone or tried to save Akhtar, he could go to the police lateron and tell about the occurrence and at least help in removal of injured from the spot to the hospital after the assailant had run away.Since he did not take any such step, it becomes difficult to believe what he has narrated before this Court claiming himself to be an eye witness There is nothing in his statement to suggest as to who told the police that he had witnessed the occurrence.This further creates doubt that PW8 Pawan Kumar saw the accused inflicting injuries on the person of Mohd. Akhtar.It is case of the prosecution that PW15 Salman, also witnessed Crl.L.P. 472/2013 Page 10 of 15 the accused giving injuries on the person of his brother Mohd. Akhtar with knife and Mohd. Akbar reaching there and giving push to accused or that whereupon accused ran away.L.P. 472/2013 Page 10 of 15Learned defence counsel has pointed out that according to PW15 he was having a mobile phone but he did not make any call to the police, which remained there for about a hour to tell about the facts witnessed by him, or tried to save the injured.That he did not tell the police about arrival of Mohd. Akbar to save Mohd. Akhtar or that Mohd. Akbar had pushed accused Iqbal, which creates doubt regarding his presence on the given date, time and place.Another contention raised by learned defence is that from the cross Examination of PW 15, it would transpire that he has nowhere explained as to how he knew the three brothers i.e. accused, deceased and PW Mohd. Akbar and that having regard to this fact, no reliance should be placed on his testimony when he named all three brothers in his statement.According to PW15 Mohd. Salman, on 20.03.2010, at about 1.15 2pm, while present in his street, he heard noise emanating from the side of Shah Ganj Crossing.On reaching Shah Ganj crossing, he saw Iqbal accused inflicting injuries on the person of his brother Akhtar, their brother Akbar also came there to rescue Akhtar.A perusal of cross examination of PW15 would reveal that he nowhere stated to have made any statement before the police.On the other hand, he clearly stated that he had not informed the police about the facts seen by him.He did not make any call to the police or even tried to save the injured.Admittedly, the witness was having a mobile phone with him.Even if the explanation furnished by him that he got scared as the accused was having a knife is accepted for the sake of arguments, he could easily make a phone call after the accused had run away from the spot, but there is no explanation for his having not gone to the police station or nearby police post or to have called the police on phone to inform them about the occurrence.According to PW15 Mohd. Salman, PW Akbar had given a push to the accused and thereafter the accused had run away.However, it is significant to note that PW Pawan Kumar nowhere stated to Crl.L.P. 472/2013 Page 11 of 15 have witnessed or stated that PW Akbar had pushed the accused or that thereafter the accused had run away.Rather according to PW8 by the time Akbar tried to save Akhtar, Iqbal had stabbed Akhtar and run away.As noticed above, PW8 Pawan Kumar has improved upon his statement on the point of Akbar having been seen rushing after the accused and the deceased.L.P. 472/2013 Page 11 of 15As rightly pointed out by ld. defence counsel, when PW15 has denied to have stated before the police that he was on visiting terms with the deceased but this fact finds recorded in his statement made before the police, same creates doubt if he ever made any such statement before the police or he was associated in the investigation."He testified that SI Jaswant Singh, Constable Abdul Karim and brother of the deceased also reached the hospital.Thus, apart from the fact that PW-3's clothes were not stained with blood and that his name was not mentioned in the MLC as the person who had brought the deceased to the hospital.PW-7 categorically stated that the brother of the deceased along with two police officials had subsequently reached the hospital.He nowhere stated that Mohd. Akbar met him at the place of the incident.Thus, PW-3 could not have been an eye witness to the incident.Similarly, with regard to PW-8 and PW-15, apart from the fact that they did not help PW-7 in removing the deceased to the hospital, the trial court noticed various improvements and omissions in their testimony in the court as against their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the IO.Moreover, if PW-8 and PW-15 say that PW-3 Mohd. Akbar (the Crl.L.P. 472/2013 Page 12 of 15 deceased's brother) was an eye witness to the incident, which we have already disbelieved, this would negate the presence of PWs-8 and PW-15 on the spot at the time of the incident.L.P. 472/2013 Page 12 of 15As noticed by the learned ASJ, PW-15 did possess a mobile phone but he did not make any call to the police and nor did he tell the police about the incident which remained at the spot for about one hour.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,779,455 |
P.21 but subsequently turned hostile.PWs.2and 3 are close friends and business partners of the deceased.PWs.4 was workingas a salesman in the wine shop, viz., "Shobana Wines" belonging to the deceased.PW.5 was working in Vijaya lodge in which the deceased was a partner.PW.6 isthe paternal uncle of the deceased.PWs.5 and 6 were at the scene of occurrenceimmediately and alleged to have seen the accused running after the occurrence.PWs.7 and 8 are the partners in the wine shop belonging to the deceased.The deceased was a rising star in the D.M.K.Party and the president ofthe Sivaganga District Youth Wing of that party and held other importantpositions.There was inner-party rivalry between him and A12, the Ex-MLA ofD.M.K. A dispute arose between the deceased group and A-12 group with regard toevicting the occupant from a house in Lakshmipuram in Devakkottai.Cases andcounter cases were filed.At the time of the occurrence, the election to theKaraikudi Co-operative Milk Society was imminent and the deceased contested forthe Presidentship.The accused group supported one Periyathambi.That is the motive according to theprosecution.PW.1, who subsequently turned hostile, joined the services of thedeceased as his driver four months prior to the date of occurrence.On8.11.1998, after visiting Sivagangai, Karaikudi and other places with regard tothe election propaganda, the deceased returned to Devakkottai, at about 8.30p.m.At about 8.45 p.m., the deceased was on his way to his residence.Then in front of the St.The deceased asked the driver (PW.1)to stop the vehicle.The car was stopped.At that time, one of the two personscame towards the car staggering as if he was drunk.Therefore, the deceasedshouted at him.At that time, the said person came behind and opened the doorof the car where the deceased was sitting.The deceased shouted.8 knownpersons came from St.Mary's School Street towards the car, damaged the car andpulled the deceased out of the car.There were 10 persons.Each of them washolding knives, aruvals, sticks and other deadly weapons.PW.1 shouted.One ofthe assailants attacked PW.1 also.Another person cut the deceased below theleft shoulder.Another cut the deceased above the left knee.Another repeatedlycut the deceased above the right hand elbow.Three others with their knife andaruval cut the deceased on the head repeatedly.Another cut the deceased on theright hand and severed his little finger.The deceased lay in a pool of blood.It was raining at that time.PW.1 sustained injuries on his back on the leftside, and on the right side and on the head.He slowly got up.He went to thehouse of one Bala and told him that the deceased had been attacked.The saidBala came out of his house and on hearing his hue and cry, the mother of thedeceased as well as uncle of the deceased (PW.6) also came out.They took theinjured to Madurai Jawahar Hosptial.They were asked to go to the ApolloHospital.When they went to Apollo Hospital, they were informed that thedeceased had died.They returned to Devakkottai Government Hospital at about1.30 a.m.,.PW.1 also went to the Government Hospital, Devakkottai withoutpolice memo and took treatment.The injuries found bythe Doctor are as follows:A horizontal lacerated wound on the back of let shoulder 3cm x 1 cm depthwith 2 c.m. Gaping.A contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the left parietal scalp.An abrasion below the left axilla on the back side.P.22 is the ExpressF.I.R. He sent the F.I.R. to the Court and to the higher officials.P.W.26 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased between 03.00 and5.00 a.m., in the hospital in the presence of the panchayatdars PW.2, PW.7 andothers.P.15 is the Post-Mortem Certificate.In the mean time, PW.26 went to the scene of occurrence and in thepresence of witnesses, he prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.1 and roughsketch Ex.He recovered the blood stained earth MO.1, sample earth MO.2under Ex.P.2 mahazar, slippers MO.3 (series) under Ex.P.3 mahazar.On 9.11.1998at about 7.30 a.m., he recovered the M.80 Bajaj two wheeler bearingRegn.T.N.63/8137 (MO.4) in the presence of the same witnesses.On the sameday, he examined Bala @ Balamurugan, Doctor Periyasamy, Ganesan, Ilango, andothers and recorded their statements.On the next day, i.e. 10.11.1998, heexamined some more witnesses and recorded their statements.On the same day, hesent the Tata Sumo Car T.N.63 Z 6566 to the Motor Vehicle Inspector andthereafter, handed it over to the wife of the deceased.On directions from theCBCID superior officials, he entrusted the further investigation to the CBCID.PW.27 belonging to the CBCID took up the investigation on 12.11.1998and on the same day, he went to Devakkottai and examined the witnesses PW.4,PW.22 and PW.23 the Motor Vehicle Inspector.He again examined PW.4 and PW.2.On 19.11.1998, he recorded the statement of PW.1 and others.He learnt that A3, A4, A5 and A6 had surrendered tojudicial custody and were in Central Jail, Chennai.On23.11.1998, he took custody of them and recorded their confessional statements.The admissible portion of the confessional statement given by A4 isEx.He recovered MO.5 and MO.15, MO.16 under Ex.The admissibleportion of the confessional statement given by A5 is Ex.P.27 and from thisconfession, he recovered MO.17 iron rod under Ex.From the admissibleportion of the confessional statement given by A6, he recovered MO.18 underEx.On 25.11.1998, heremanded A3 to A6 to the judicial custody.On 27.11.1998 on information, he arrested A10 in front ofthe Arappalayam Bus Stop in Madurai.From the admissible portion of theconfessional statement under Ex.P.9, he recovered MO.19 knife under Ex.P.10 inthe presence of the witnesses.He also recorded the statement of PW.10 andanother.On 5.12.1998, he recorded the statement of PW.5 again.On 11.12.1998, he arrested A9 and A11 infront of the Everest lodge in the Town Hall Road and remanded them to thejudicial custody.On 11.12.1998, A13, who was arrested by the CBCID Inspector,Madurai was arrested by him and statement was recorded.He remanded A13 tojudicial custody.On 20.12.1998, he recorded the statements of PW.12 and PW.23.He arrested A8 in front of the Madurai Periyar Bus stop near the KattabommanStatue.On 28.12.1998, he arrested A12 near Dindigul Bus Stand and remanded himto the judicial custody.He also filed a requisition for police custody of A12.On 29.12.1998, he arrested A7 in front of Manamadurai Railway Station andremanded him to the judicial custody.A2 had surrendered before the JudicialMagistrate, Mannargudi and was in Mannargudi Sub Jail.After taking A2 intothe police custody, he recorded his confessional statement.From the admissibleportion of the confessional statement given by A2 under Ex.P.11, he recoveredMO.5 Hero Honda and Bajaj Champion MO.6, and Arual MO.20 aruval and knife underEx.On 7.1.1999, he recordedthe witnesses at Chennai and on 11.1.1999, he sent the material objects forchemical analysis.On 28.1.1999, he examined Rajaram, Azhagaiah and others.No doubt, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if theprosecution had wanted to fabricate a false complaint, they would have given allthe names of the assailants and also fixed the overt-acts.On behalf of thedefence, it is stated that even at the time of lodging Ex.P.21, the police hadnot decided who should be fixed as the assailants and therefore, to provide a"safety cushion" Ex.P.21 was prepared as if eight known persons had attacked thedeceased and PW.1 would be able to identify the assailants if he saw them.There is something very contrived and unnatural about Ex.The witnesses PW.2, PW.3,PW.4 and PW.6 all speak of them taking the deceased for Devakkottai to Madurai.a) PW.2 claims to have gone to the house of the deceased at about 9.00p.m.since he was asked by the deceased to come to his residence at about 9.00'O' clock to talk about some business.Therefore, he had taken the motor cycleand proceeded to the house of the deceased at 8.30 p.m. on the day ofoccurrence.Since it was raining, leaving the motor cycle in one of hisrelatives, he went taking an umbrella to the house of the deceased.He was thusproceeding on the Thirupathur - Karaikkudi road towards the north.It is amain road and on the north side of the road Annasalai gets separated.At thatjuncture, the Tata Sumo car belonging to the deceased overtook him and crossedat Annasalai.In the head light of the car, he saw the deceased shouting at twopersons, who were standing at the scene of occurrence as if they were doingrepair work to one M 80 two wheeler.The deceased asked the car to be stoppedand one man came towards the deceased, immediately, A4 and A5 and four or fivepersons came with deadly weapons and stick, damaged the car and also hit thedriver.He saw them pulling out the deceased and cutting him.PW.2 shouted atthat time, A3 cut the deceased on his left elbow.A3 cut him on his left leg.PW.2 shouted again.From the house PW.6 came running.PWs.3 and 4 came out.As soon as they came to the deceased, the accused ran away.Thereafter, Balaalso came.One Kutbuddin drove the car.PW.6, 3, 7 and one Ilango also came with them in the case.They first went toJawahar Hospital at Madurai and they were informed that the senior Doctor wasnot there.PWs.4, 6 and themother of the deceased came running from the house.Bala brought Tata Sumo andtook the deceased to Anbu Clinic, Devakottai, and after 45 minutes, they went toApollo Hospital, Madurai, and the doctors saw the deceased in the car and toldhim that the deceased had already died and therefore, they came back toDevakottai.This witness also admits that he had not stated to the policeduring their investigation that he was standing under a tree in the house of thedeceased.According to PW.4, A2cut the deceased on the left leg and A3 cut the deceased on the left leg and allof them jointly attacked the deceased.In that group A5 and A6 were also there.The two persons pushed the M.80 two wheeler moving away from the scene ofoccurrence and Bala took the deceased in his car.They are directed to be releasedforthwith if they are not required in connection with any other case.Fineamount, if any paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them forthwith.Bail Bonds if any executed by the appellants shall stand terminated and suretiesare discharged.The Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivagangai.Inspector of Police, CBCID, Sivagangai.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are as follows:Convictionunder Section(s)SentenceA1302 r/w 34 IPC147 IPC427 IPCImprisonment for life and a fine Rs.10,000/- in default, 1 year rigorousimprisonment.Rigorous Imprisonment for six monthsRigorous Imprisonment for one yearA2 to A6302 r/w 34 IPC148 IPCImprisonment for life and a fine Rs.10,000/- in default, 1 year rigorousimprisonment.Rigorous Imprisonment for six monthsA9 toA-11302 r/w 34 IPC148 IPCImprisonment for life and a fine Rs.10,000/- in default, 1 year rigorousimprisonment.Rigorous Imprisonment for six monthsThe sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.The case of the prosecution are as follows:PWs.1 to 4 are the eye witnesses.Thereafter, another person stabbed him onthe left side of the back.PW.1 fell down.Another person attacked thedeceased on his head with an aruval.Doctor, PW.21 examined PW.1. PW.1 had stated that at about 8.45p.m., hewas attacked with knife and stick and sustained injuries.Thereafter, he sent a requisition through PW.25 forconducting post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased.PW.22, the Doctor, who received the requisition for post-mortemconducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.He found the following external injuries:A cut injury found on the left upper arm cutting through the softtissues, shaft of left Humerus bone encircling the arm 20 x 7 cm depth of Ant.aspectA cut injury lower and of left Femur cutting through soft tissue,Patella and lower end of Femfur encircling, just above the left knee joint inant.Aspect (30 X 15 cms depth)A cut injury 2 cm below the second cut injury in left knee joint 5 x 1cms bone deep and punctured wound which is 2 x 1 cms deep laterally.A cut injury on lower part of right arm on lat.Aspect cutting throughsoft tissues and lower end of right humerus 12 x 5 cms deep.A punctured and lacerated wound just 2 cms above injury 4 which is 5 x4 cms depth.An oblique cut injury 6 x .5 cms depth in the middle of forehead(scalp)Another old cut injury 6 x .5 cms depth in the upper end of forehead inthe middle 2 cms above and parallel to injury No.6 (7 fracture)A cut injury oblique which is 4 cms x .5 cms depth in the left parietalbone.Another oblique cut injury 5 cms depth in left parietal area (upperend of wound present in middle of wound No.9)Another oblique cut injury 5 cms depth in the middle of foreheadcrossing wound No.7, 6 and 11 starts from right parietal area to left paritalarea.A cut injury 4 cm x .5 cm on the left base of left thumb.A cut injury on right little finger distal phalanx chopped off and thechopped portion missing.A punctured wound in the proximal phalanx with fracture right middlefinger.A cut injury 4 cms depth in middle of right ring finger in the ant.A vertical cut injury 4 x 1 cms in the middle aspect of right elbow.A punctured wound 1 x 1 cms in right side of face which is 3 cms infront of right ear.Opinion as to cause of death:The deceased would have appear to have died of due to multiple cut injuryand would occurred about 9.00 hrs prior to post-mortem.On3.2.1999, he examined some more witnesses.After completing his investigation,on 10.2.1999, he filed charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 341, 427, 324,120(B) and 212, 302 r/w 143 IPC.The prosecution in order to establish its case, has examined PWs.1 to27, marked Exs.The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied their guiltand participation in the offence.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the various appellants attackedthe judgment under the following grounds:i) There is a huge, unexplained and unnatural delay in the F.I.R.,.Therefore,Ex.P.21 complaint is not a spontaneous piece of evidence.ii) Ex.P.21 does not mention names of the accused nor the so-called eyewitnesses though all the eye witnesses are closely acquainted with thedeceased.The driver of the deceased would definitely know these persons.Thenon-mention of these names makes their presence at the scene of occurrence verydoubtful.Though Ex.This shows that the prosecution case has been got up toimplicate the accused.iii) PWs.2 to 4 are chance witnesses and their presence at the sceneof occurrence is extremely artificial and the fact that they were notmentioned in Ex.P.21 also falsifies their witnessing the occurrence.iv) PWs.2 to 4 are also interested witnesses.Their presence is also doubtfulas at the time of occurrence it was raining, and no satisfactory explanation hasbeen given regarding their presence outside when it was admittedly raining.Their evidence should be accepted only after careful scrutiny.v) There is also evidence to show that the street lights were not burning.Thisis borne out by the evidence of PW.19 and PW.21 electrician and wireman, whoturned hostile.So the visibility was poor.vi) Though the prosecution tried to explain the delay in despatching the F.I.Rand reaching the Court by projecting a story that the deceased was taken fromDevakkottai to Jawahar Hospital, Madurai, then to Apollo Hospital and fromApollo Hospital, Madurai to Devakkottai, none of the Doctors who saw thedeceased at Jawahar Hospital or Apollo Hospital was examined to show that thedeceased was actually taken to Madurai and then returned to Devakkottai.vii) The deceased was a politically prominent person.There is evidence to showthat the bandobust police were near the scene of occurrence at the time ofoccurrence.A large crowd had gathered nearby.Therefore, the fact that nocomplaint was lodged till 1.45 a.m. when Ex.P.21 was received is unbelievable.This raises a doubt about the presence of the so called eye witnesses at thescene of occurrence.The prosecution had utilised the time to decide whoshould be roped in as assailants and as eye witnesses.viii) The non-examination of the independent witnesses like the watchman of theSt.Mary School and Bala in whose Ambassador Car the deceased was taken raises adoubt regarding the prosecution case.It is relevant to note that Ex.P.21 showsthat immediately after the attack PW.1, had gone to Bala.This Bala was notexamined.The presence of Bala was mentioned by other witnesses also but yetnot examined.ix) The non-examination of the mother of the deceased who came immediately afterthe occurrence on hearing the hue and cry of P.W.1 is also fatal to theprosecution case.x) The version given by PWs.2 to 4 regarding the contents of their S.161statement is contradictory to what PW.27 has stated in his cross-examination.Therefore, hecannot be believed.xii) PW.5 claims to have come to the scene of occurrence and had seen theaccused immediately after the occurrence.His evidence regarding the accusedcoming in two vehicles was not found in the statement recorded by the police.Till then he had not informed any onethat had seen the accused fleeing the scene of occurrence with the weapons.Hisconduct is unnatural and his evidence is unreliable.xiii) PW.6 is the uncle of the deceased.According to him, because it wasraining, he closed his shop early and returned to his residence.He heard thecries of the deceased.He came out of his house.He saw 10 persons runningWestwards on Thirupathur Road.Further it was dark and raining at that time.Therefore, PW.6, could not have seen the accused immediately after theoccurrence is also not believable.xiv) PWs.2, 3, 4 and 6 are closely associated with the deceased, they are eitherrelated or they are business partners.xv) The non-examination of the Doctor Periasamy, who is said to have accompaniedthe deceased upto the Apollo Hospital, Madurai, is also fatal to the case of theprosecution.xvi) The manner in which the recovery witnesses PW.9 and PW.10 have voluntarilygone to the police station raises a doubt regarding the genuineness of recovery.xvii) It is extremely unnatural that no one thought of lodging a complaint till1.45 a.m.,.The evidence of PW.2 would go to show that while they were takingthe body to Madurai, they shouted to some one to lodge a complaint as they wereleaving Dr.Periasamy hospital.PW.3 has also deposed to the effect that he saidthat a complaint should be given.But no such complaint has been given.His evidence shows there are telephonesin every house and yet no one had thought of making complaint to the policeearlier.xviii) The inordinate delay in the F.I.R. reaching the Judicial Magistrateraises a doubt about the veracity of the complaint Ex.The police stationand the Judicial Magistrate are within a kilometer's distance of each other.So thevariations between Ex.P.21, his S.161 statement and his testimony in Court mustbe ignored.c) The presence of PWs.2 to 4 are extremely natural.In these circumstances, PW.2had been asked by the deceased to come to the deceased's residence at about 9.00'O' clock to talk about same business.Therefore, he had taken the motor cycleand proceeded to the house of the deceased at 8.30 p.m. on the day ofoccurrence.Since it was raining, he left the motor cycle in one of hisrelatives' house and borrowed an umbrella and went to the house of the deceased.He was thus proceeding on the Thirupathur - Karaikkudi road towards the northwhen he saw the occurrence.Therefore, all these witnesses are interestedwitnesses and inimical to the accused.As such we have to scrutinise theirevidence with great care and caution.The prosecution mainly placed reliance on the eye witnesses PWs.1 toAmong them, PW.1 turned hostile.Apart from that, the prosecution hasplaced reliance on the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6 who claimed to have seen theaccused immediately after the occurrence.(i) Delay in lodging the F.I.R:(a) The occurrence took place allegedly at about 8.45 p.m.,.The deceasedwas a very well known person.He was a politically prominent person.From thescene of occurrence, he was taken to Anbu Clinic, which is very short distancefrom the bus stand where there was a bandobust police at that time.PW.2 hasstated in his evidence that they were waiting in Anbu Clinic for about 45minutes and during that time people came.PW.2 has stated that he and otherswent along with the deceased to Madurai.On their way to Madurai fromDevakkottai, they have requested some body to make a complaint to the police.PW.3 has also deposed to the effect that he had requested some one to givecomplaint but yet no complaint was given until 1.45 a.m. nearly after five hoursafter the occurrence.PW.26 has admitted in his cross-examination that there was tension inthe area after the occurrence and that the normal police bandobust from about6.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. was also there.They are all business partners, who areassociated with the deceased.This was attempted to beexplained by the prosecution by stating that PW.1 was recently recruited driverand could not be expected to know the names of the assailants.But, it is inthis context the delay assumes importance if PW.2 or PW.3 had really seen theoccurrence and had also known the identity of the assailants and when allegedlythey went from Devakkottai to Madurai and came back to Devakkottai where Ex.P.21was recorded.The delay in lodging the complaint has notbeen satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.Merely stating that all ofthem were concerned with the life of the deceased and that is the reason whythey did not lodge a complaint is not believable.This is a case whereaccording to the eye witnesses, the enemies of the deceased had fatally injuredthe deceased.The normal conduct would be for the F.I.R. to be lodged namingthe assailants.In the complaintEx.Thoughthis witness had turned hostile, this probabilises the doubts raised on behalfof the defence.P.21, alsothe averment that there was enmity between the deceased and some persons "xUrpyUf;Fk;;", only to provide room for the prosecution to rope the persons to bearrayed as accused at a later point of time.It is also seen from Ex.P.21 that PW.1 went along with the deceasedall the way to the hospitals at Madurai.While being examined PW.1 hadcategorically stated in the chief examination that immediately after theoccurrence he made a phone call to Matha Medical Shop and also to the policestation and thereafter the police came to the scene of occurrence, from thescene he was taken to police station and he has narrated about the occurrencebut the police not recorded the same but only obtained his signature in theblank papers.In his Ambassador Car, they took the body of the deceased toDr.Periasamy Hospital at Devakottai, who told them that if the deceased wastaken to the Apollo Hospital at Madurai within two hours, there is possibilityof survival.Therefore, they took the deceased on the Tata Sumo Car from AnbuMedical Shop, PW.2 went along with the deceased.They requested some body to make a complaint to the police andthereafter, they went to the Apollo Hospital and Doctors saw the deceased in thecar and informed them that the deceased had died and they went back toDevakottai Hospital and till the morning at about 1.30 a.m., PW.2 fainted andwas lying down on the bench.Thereafter, police enquired him and then, CBCIDenquired him.In cross-examination PW.2 has admitted that he does not rememberif he had stated to the police that the deceased should be taken within twohours to Madurai to keep him alive.He claims he stated to the police.Herequested somebody to inform the police and give a complaint.But he has notstated so during his examination by the police as per the evidence of P.W.26,Investigating Officer.Though he has claimed in his chief examination that hehas witnessed the occurrence through the headlight of the car, he has not statedso during his examination by the police as per the evidence of P.W.26,Investigating Officer.Butcuriously he has not informed anyone or made any report to the police over thephone.P.W.2 claimed that while he was proceeding to the house of the deceasedin a motorcycle at 8.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence it was raining andtherefore he left his motorcycle in one of his relatives' house, nearby andtaken an umbrella from there.But he has not stated this during his examinationby the police as per the evidence of P.W.26, Investigating Officer.It is alsopertinent to note that he has wrongly identified A-10 as A-5. PW.2 is a closepartner of the deceased but yet his name is not mentioned in Ex.It hasbeen elicited in the examination of PW.27 that PW.2 has not mentioned in hisstatement to the police that they went to Dr.Periasamy's hospital and were askedto go to Madurai or that he requested some one to give a complaint or that hesaw the occurrence under the car head light.The discrepancy between thestatement made to the police and the evidence is crucial and not trivial.Itbasically raises a doubt whether PW.2 could have been present at the scene ofoccurrence.Conveniently, this witness claims he fainted in Devakkottaihospital after the deceased died.The evidence of PW.2 does not inspire ourconfidence.(b) PW.3 is a friend and is closely related.He is also an eye witness,who happened to go on the relevant date at the relevant time.He has made onlygeneral allegation regarding the occurrence.He has not spoken of any specificovert-act with regard to any one.He has deposed that 7 to 8 persons came witharuval and stick and broke the car and pulled out the deceased and cut him.Hehas specifically stated that after the attack two of the assailants pushed the M80 moving away from the scene of occurrence and that after the assailants hadcut the deceased and ran away from the scene of occurrence.He admits that no one gave any complaint.Admittedly, there were STDbooths and telephone facilities nearby.Even after returning to Devakottai, hehad not ascertained whether any police complaint was given.He has also statedthat once the news that the deceased had been injured spread, crowd gathered atAnbu Clinic, Devakottai, including the known persons of the deceased.It isalso admitted by P.W.3 that he has not asked anyone to give a report to thepolice and he was along with the deceased at Devakottai for 45 minutes and he isnot able to remember whether the police came there during that period.Thisevidence should be read in conjunction with the evidence of PW.26 who in hiscross-examination had admitted that there was tension in the area after theoccurrence, and that normally, there would be police bandobust from about 6.00p.m., to 10.00 p.m., and on the date of occurrence also, there was policebandobust and the police bandobust and the scene of occurrence are on the sameroad and there is a police station at about 1 or 1/2 km from Anbu Clinic.But,in spite of this, PW.3 had not made any attempt to give any report.He alsoadmits that on the way from Devakottai to Madurai, there are several policestations on the way but yet none of the persons who were with the deceased inthe same car thought it fit to give police complaint.There are discrepancies in his evidence and hisstatement made before the police.His name is not found in Ex.For thereasons stated above we are not inclined to believe the evidence of this witnessas having been present at the time of occurrence and at the scene of occurrence.PW.4 is working as a salesman in the wine shop of the deceased, viz.,Shobana Wines and according to him, he used to go to the house of the deceasedfrequently.But, these witnesses are persons who are closely associated andfrequently visit house of the deceased.His driver PW.1 would definitely haveknown them and mentioned them in Ex.P.21 if they had been there at the scene ofthe occurrence.It is difficult to believe the case of the prosecution thatPW.1 did not mention Pws.2, 3 and 4 because he could not have known them.According to PW.4, he went to the house of the deceased at about 8.30 p.m.,.Since the deceased was not there, PW.4 was standing in front of the compoundwall.He saw the car of the deceased approaching the house and he saw PW.3standing under a tree.There were two persons standing as if they wererepairing a M.80 two wheeler and following a wordy quarrel, some 10 or 15persons came with aruval and deadly weapons and A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6 werethere.A1 broke the wind shield of the car and assailants attacked thedeceased.Though there is reference to the attack on PW.1, it is not stated,who attacked him.According to him, when he went near thescene of occurrence, the accused threatened him that he would also meet the samefate and ran away.This witness claims to havegone back to his home town because he was afraid and only when CBCID had takenup investigation he voluntarily came and gave the details after a week.P.W.4has not stated during investigation that he was frightened after the occurrenceand therefore he left for his home town.Further, he admits that he was examined after a week of theoccurrence and that he voluntarily went to the CBCID police after the CBCID hadtaken up the case.According to the witness, PW.3 came soon after theoccurrence.It was not stated before the police that PW.4 was standing outsidehouse in front of the compound wall of the deceased.It is also not stated byP.W.4 during investigation that he has witnessed the occurrence with the help ofthe car head light.He had also not given details of the overt-acts of A1, A2and A3 in respect of breaking the car of the deceased and the attack on thedeceased when he was first examined by the CBCID Police.It has been elicitedthat there are several criminal and civil cases pending against this witnessalso.He was arrested in respect of the very same case as a preventive measurebut even then he had not disclosed to the police that he had witnessed theoccurrence.Apart from that, the overtacts alleged by this witness implicates A1, A2, and A3 but he had not statedanything about the overt-acts of any other accused.He had not stated so on thefirst occasion when he was enquired by the CBCID.It is only thereafter, he hadcome out with the overt-acts with regard to A1, A2 and A3 as and he had given avoluntary statement.It is admitted by P.W.4 that till he was examined by thepolice after a week as he had appeared before them voluntarily, he has notinformed anyone about the occurrence except to his parents.Therefore, P.W.4'sevidence is highly artificial and unbelievable and we have no hesitation to holdthat his evidence is unreliable and untrustworthy.So, the alleged eye witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 4 are not trustworthy.Other witnesses:PW.5 claims to have gone to the scene, immediately after theoccurrence.He was working in the Vijaya Lodge at Devakottai, in which thedeceased is a partner.At about 8.50 p.m., he was coming along with theKizhamel Road from the West to the East.This is a main road.Tubelights wereburning.At that time, two vehicles was coming.One was a Hero Honda and theother was Kawasaki and four person in each vehicle came up.A2, A3, A11 and A9in the first vehicle were holding blood stained deadly weapons and their shirtsalso got blood stains.In the next vehicle, A10, and three others were holdingblood stained deadly weapons and their shirts also got blood stains.Twopersons moved away the M.80 two wheeler.When he was coming nearer to theAnnasalai Arch, he saw the damaged car of the deceased and the deceased waslying in a pool of blood.The deceased was taken to the hospital by one Bala.PW.5 went to the house of the deceased to inform this and at that time the wifeand mother-in-law of the deceased had gone to Madras and he gave information tothem.Thereafter, he went back to his home town.It is only after 10 dayslater this witness was enquired.This witness was working in the lodge owned bythe deceased and he is an interested witness.Though he had stated in his chiefexamination that he saw the accused coming in Hero Honda, Kawasaki, he had notstated in his statement to the police about the vehicles in which the accusedcame and that he saw the accused going away in the motor cycle in the bloodstained vehicle.He had not stated anything about the two personspushing out M.80 two wheeler.There are material and vital differences betweenthe statements recorded and the evidence given by him.Even when he went to thehouse of the deceased to pay his last respects, he had not told any oneregarding what he had seen.According to the witness, it was because of hisgrief.This conduct is very unnatural, considering the fact that the deceasedwas a politically important person.As already stated, P.W.5 was examined bythe police nearly after two weeks and in view of the above said infirmities, weare of the considered view that P.W.5 is not a reliable witness.PW.6 is the uncle of the deceased and therefore, his evidence is alsoto be scrutinised with great care and caution.According to PW.6, he heardcries of the deceased and PW.1 at about 8.45 p.m., and came out of the house andhe saw the damaged car of the deceased and he also saw 10 persons runningWestwards from Annasalai towards Thirupathur Road.According to him they wereholding sticks and other weapons.He saw two persons pushing away M.80 twowheeler and 10 other persons.According to this witness, when he came to the spot, PW.2, PW.3 were thereand Bala came there took the deceased in his Ambassador car to one Anbu Clinic,where the Doctor requested to them to take the deceased to Madurai and they wentto Jawahar Hospital.Since the senior doctor was not there, they were asked totake the deceased to the Apollo Hospital, Madurai.The Doctor at ApolloHospital examined the deceased in the car and told them that the deceased hadalready died and they reached Devakottai at 1.30 a.m.on the next day.He says he came out of thehouse and saw everything.According to him, the accused were running theWestwards on the Karaikudi - Devakkottai, if so from where, he stood, he couldhave seen only the backs of the accused.It was raining, it was night time evenif he saw some persons running he could not have identified them just by seeingtheir backs.Therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 is also unreliable and it ishighly doubtful that he could have seen the accused running immediately afterthe occurrence.PW.9 is a mahazar witness.He is a resident of Devakkottai.There he saw the fouraccused whom he named.He has admitted that he has no other reason to go toMadurai.The reason given by him for voluntarily going to the CBCID office allthe way from Devakkottai to Madurai does not appear plausible.Similarly, PW.10, who is a resident of Madurai, claims that on27.11.1998 he was unwell and so he asked a substitute watch man to take hisplace and went to Arappalam to have tea.At that time, the police requested toassist them.In spite of illness, he was with the the police from 4.00 a.m.for 6 hours.This too sounds artificial.Further, he had not identified A10properly.The non-examination of independent witnesses and the parents of the deceased :Doctor Periasamy, who is said to have accompanied the deceased toMadurai has not been examined.If he had been examined, the nature of theattack and condition of the deceased at that time could have been proved.Thenon-examination of the father and mother of the deceased also assumesimportance.It is the categorical version of P.W.1 that soon he has informedthe parents of the deceased about the occurrence.P.W.3 categorically stated inthe chief examination that the mother of the deceased immediately rushed to thescene after the occurrence.P.W.6 also stated in his chief examination that theparents of the deceased were present in their house at the time of occurrence.The mother of the deceased would have immediately made enquiries about theidentity of the assailants.She came to the scene at once.If the eyewitnesses had identified the assailants she would have spoken about it.She wascited as witness but not examined.Like wise, Bala was also not examined.It isin Bala's car that the deceased was taken at once to Anbu Clinic.Theprosecution is unable to explain why all these important witnesses have not beenexamined.It is true that it is not the number of witnesses which count.Butthe evidence of Bala would have definitely strengthened the prosecution's case.It has been held in Chandrasekar Suresh Bhatt vs. State of Maharashtra[(2000) 10 SCC 582] that the marginal variations between the statement of theprosecution witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the testimony givenin Court, cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive.But,in this case, the variations are in respect of the material particulars whichcast a doubt on the very presence of the eye witnesses and they cannot beignored.In Rajeevan and another v. State of Kerala [(2003) 3 Supreme CourtCases 355], on the facts of that case, the Supreme Court observed that thepossibility of sudden implication of the appellants as a result of anafterthought, may be due to political bitterness, cannot be ruled out.Subsequently, the complaint waslodged with much delay.The independent person, whose name has been mentioned inEx.P.21 viz., Bala whose presence is indisputable and whose statement was alsorecorded by the police was not brought to testify before the Court.The main featurewhich disturbs us is the fact that men who were in politics, who were inbusiness did not choose to lodge a complaint immediately especially when theyclaim that their close acquaintance had been murdered by his enemies.Even ifwe accept that different people react differently in different circumstances,the conduct of PW.2, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6 is unnatural.It is indeed surprisingthat both PW.2 and PW.3 who claim to be eye witnesses stated that they faintedin the hospital and did not recover for some time.This is very artificial andunbelievable.The whole scenario appears stage managed and the prosecution'scase is shaky and falters at every stage.The case against the appellants hasnot been proved beyond reasonable doubt.For all the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed the judgment ofconviction and sentence dated 17.10.2001 passed in S.C.NO.27 of 2000 on the fileof the Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga is set aside.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.PRABHA SRIDEVAN, JANDK.N.BASHA, J(asvm/gg) Criminal Appeal(MD) Nos.1151, 1153, 1177 of 2001, 1914 of 2003and Crl.R.C.No.56 of 2002 14.12.2006
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,951,219 |
At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has placed before me the order dated 3.11.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.19181/2016, by which the applicant has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail in a connected case.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 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.
|
177,954,559 |
DATE OF DECISION : 16.02.2018::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 2 apeal629of04 ORAL JUDGMENT :::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 29.9.2004, rendered by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge Wardha, in Sessions Trial 132 of 2002, by and under which, the appellants - accused are convicted for offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to payment of fine of Rs. 5000/- each and are further convicted for offence punishable under section 304-B read with section 34 of the IPC and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years.2 Heard Shri M.I. Dhatrak, the learned counsel for the accused and Shri V. P. Maldhure, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.3 The gist of the prosecution case is thus:-Shri Anandrao Thakare, the father of deceased (PW 12) lodged oral report::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 3 apeal629of04 (Exh 70) at Hinganghat Police Station on 17.6.2001 at 7.30 p.m.. The gist of which oral report is that deceased Surekha suffered taunts from accused since she was of sallow complexion.On the basis of the said report offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 and 304-B of the IPC was registered at the Hinganghat Police Station.The completion of the investigation led to submission of the charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat, who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh 15) for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 304-B read with section 34 of the IPC.The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The trend and tenor of the cross- examination and the statements recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code reveal that the defence is of total denial.4 Shri M.I. Dhatrak, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the prosecution has failed to establish that the possibility of the accidental death is excluded.Shri Dhatrak invites my attention::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 4 apeal629of04 to the admissions attracted in the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW 19) Shri Vinod Wankhede, which is to the effect that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Dr. Gupta and Dr. Khandare on 1.2.2002 and the statements reveal that deceased Surekha disclosed to Dr. Gupta and Dr. Khandare that she suffered accidental burns while cooking.Shri M.I. Dhatrak then invites my attention to injury report Exh. 44 which records alleged history of the injury as accidental burns due to gas flames.The injury certificate Exh 44 further records that the condition of the patient was stable, conscious, cooperative and oriented.The submission of the learned counsel is that the failure of the investigating agency to record the dying declaration of deceased Surekha, which dying declaration would have thrown light on the cause of death, is fatal to the prosecution case.The medical history is admissible in evidence, is the submission.Since the deceased Surekha was stable, conscious and well oriented, the possibility of somebody else having narrated the medical history is remote, is the submission.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence on record clinchingly establishes that the deceased was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of the IPC explanation (a) and (b).The death concededly occurred within 38 days of the marriage and due to burns.The cruelty to which the deceased was subjected was in connection with a dowry demand, is the submission.6 Section 304-B was introduced in the IPC by Dowry Prohibition Amendment Act, 1986 with the avowed object of curbing and eliminating dowry menace.Simultaneously, legislative changes were effected in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act. Section 113-B was introduced in the Indian Evidence Act and offence punishable under section 304 of IPC was made non- bailable and triable by Sessions Court by appropriate amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code.Section 304-B of the IPC reads thus:"304-B. Dowry death - (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 6 apeal629of04 "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::PW 12 Anandrao Thakare, the father of the deceased is conspicuously silent on any demand for dowry.The First Information Report recites that the deceased Surekha suffered taunts due to her sallow complexion and that she apprehended danger to her life from accused.The prosecution has examined as many as twenty witnesses to bring home the charge under section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC.The material witnesses from the perspective of the prosecution are PW 1 Shrirang Kolte, PW 4 Shankare Mule, PW 11 Baynabai Thakre who is the grandmother of the deceased, PW 12 - Anandrao Thakre, the father of the deceased, PW 13 Subhadrabai Thakre, the mother of the deceased, PW 14 Diwakar Thakre, the uncle of the deceased and PW 15 Pinglabai Karkade a friend of the deceased Surekha.The submission of the learned APP Shri V.P. Maldhure is that testimonies of these witnesses conclusively establish that the deceased Surekha was subjected to cruelty and that the cruelty was for or in relation to dowry demand.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::during the marriage settlement talks accused Rambhau demanded gold chain of 20 grams, a gold ring of 6 grams, clothes of the bridegroom and expenses for two ST buses.The deposition is that it was thereafter agreed that PW 12 Anandrao would give to the accused a gold chain of 10 grams and gold ring of 4 grams, expenses of one bus and the clothes for bridegroom.PW 1 states that when he met Surekha in a marriage on 29.5.2001, she disclosed that the accused taunted her.PW 1 states that the disclosure was to the effect that accused Rajesh used to tell Surekha that her complexion was black and that she was not engaging in conversation with his friend.Accused Usha used to tell her that she was not working properly and that accused Rajesh and Rambhau used to express that they were expecting much more from her father.In the cross-examination, it is elicited that at the relevant time PW 1 was working as a police sub inspector.It is elicited that the articles, ornaments and clothes were traditionally given out of love and affection and that PW 12 Anandrao Thakare gifted the articles, ornaments and clothes as per his financial condition.The defence was obviously not alive to the settled position of law that it was necessary to seek an::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 15 apeal629of04 explanation from the Investigating Officer as regards the delay in recording the statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Randhir and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1409).::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::The failure of the defence to be alert and alive to the settled position of law does not however detract from the fact that the undue delay of 5 months in recording the 161 statement is inexplicable.This court is conscious of the fact that an explanation was not sought from the Investigating Officer.The CID which took over the reins of investigation on 22.9.2001 obviously did not justify the confidence reposed by the complainant on its ability and competence.The evidence of PW 1 Shrirang Kolte does not take the case of the prosecution any further.PW 1 Shrirang Kolte does not speak of any illtreatment or harassment to the deceased Surekha, connected with any dowry demand.The disclosure said to have been made by Surekha to the effect that Rajesh and Rambhau were expecting much more from her father cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination, as a disclosure that Rajesh or Rambhau demanded dowry.The only other disclosure is that Rajesh said that Surekha was of black complexion and was not conversing with his::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 16 apeal629of04 friend and Usha said that Surekha was not working properly.15 The evidence of PW 4 Shankar Muley is of no assistance to the prosecution to prove illtreatment or harassment since the deposition is that when PW 4 Shankar Muley inquired from Surekha about her marital life, she said nothing since she was with her husband Rajesh.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::16 PW 11 Bayanabai is the grandmother of the deceased Surekha.She states that when the deceased and her husband Rajesh visited Nagbhid to attend a marriage, they were invited for tea by the elder daughter of Bayanabai.Deceased Surekha conversed with the witness in the kitchen, accused Rajesh was in the sitting room and the deceased Surekha who was weeping, disclosed that the accused were troubling her by saying that Surekha's parents did not give proper clothes and did not pay the fare of one ST bus.In the cross- examination every material statement in the examination in chief is brought on record as an omission.The evidence of PW 11 Bayanabai must be discarded since the entire evidence on the::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 17 apeal629of04 disclosure made by the deceased Surekha is omission partaking the character of contradiction.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::17 PW 12 Anandrao Thakare is the father of the deceased and the informant.I have noted supra, that the First Information Report (Exh. 106) makes no reference to any unlawful demand much less unlawful demand accompanied by harassment or illtreatment.The report speaks of taunts due to the sallow complexion of the deceased Surekha.Surekha disclosed that the accused were complaining about the quality of the clothes gifted to the bridegroom, deceased Surekha also disclosed that accused Rajesh was saying that her complexion is black and was troubling her.She also expressed an apprehension that her life might be in danger, is the deposition.In the cross-examination, it is suggested to PW 12 that the accused are falsely implicated since there was a verbal altercation between PW 12 and the accused on the occasion of 'Satyanarayan Puja".The suggestion is denied.The rest of the cross-examination endeavors to bring into focus that the statements in the examination in chief are absent in the First Information Report which renders the::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 18 apeal629of04 reliability and credibility of the evidence suspect.18 PW 13 Subhadra Thakare, is the mother of the deceased who has deposed that Surekha disclosed to her that accused Rambhau threatened her that she should bring dowry of Rs.50,000/-.The version of PW 13 that Surekha disclosed a dowry demand is not supported by any other prosecution witness.PW 13 has deposed that according to Surekha she was scolded and taunted in her matrimonial home.Her husband Rajesh used to tell her that she was black in complexion and was dumb.She disclosed that accused Rajesh was complaining about the cost of the dress, the value of the gold chain and ring.PW 13 has further deposed that Surekha disclosed to her that accused Usha criticized her manner of speaking and behavior and the ability to do household work and questioned her culinary skills.PW 13 states that Surekha also disclosed that accused Rajesh beat her.In the next breath PW 13 states that the accused, with common intention, burnt Surekha.In the cross-examination, several omissions are brought on record, some of which are proved in the evidence of PW 18 PSI Balakdas Patil.The endeavor in the cross-examination was to demonstrate that every material and significant statement is an omission.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::19 PW 14 Diwakar Thakare, the uncle of the deceased has deposed that he met Surekha on 30.5.2001 and during the said meeting Surekha disclosed that her husband was taunting her which caused irritation.Deceased Surekha disclosed that her husband was complaining as regards the ornaments and the quality of the clothes, is the deposition.The omissions are duly proved in the evidence of PW 18 Shri Patil.20 PW 15 Pinglabai Karkade, a friend of the deceased was examined to bring on record that when the deceased came to Nagbhid::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 20 apeal629of04 on 27.5.2001, she visited the house of PW 15 on 29.5.2001 and disclosed that her husband was calling her black and that the other inmates of the matrimonial home were complaining that the dowry paid was less.PW 15 states that it was disclosed to her by her friend Surekha that Ushabai criticized her culinary skills and that Rajesh and Umesh were complaining about her ability to converse.In the teeth of evidence on record, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution has proved offence punishable under section 304-B is clearly sustainable.The prosecution has not established that dowry was demanded much less that the deceased was illtreated or harassed for or in connection with dowry demand.The common thread which runs through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that the accused were not satisfied with either jewellery or quality of clothes or the amount of bus fare which were, according to the prosecution, the terms agreed during the marriage negotiations.Demand for dowry must be strictly proved.Expression of dis-satisfaction can not be construed as a demand for dowry.The prosecution witnesses, as a fact, admit that the jewellery and articles were presented as a tradition and as would suit the financial capacity of PW 12 Anandrao.The only::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 ::: 21 apeal629of04 witness who speaks of a dowry demand is PW 13 Subhadra who speaks of a disclosure made by the deceased Surekha that Rs. 50,000/- was demanded as dowry.No other prosecution witnesses corroborates the version of PW 13 that Rs. 50,000/- was demanded as dowry.The learned counsel for the accused is more than justified in the submission that even if the evidence is taken at face value, offence punishable under section 304 part B of IPC is not made out since the demand for or in connection with dowry is not established.The accused are entitled to be acquitted for offence punishable under section 304-B of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::21 It is already recorded supra, that the statements of most of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded belatedly.In the backdrop of the First Information Report being totally silent on the causes and motive for the illtreatment or harassment other than stating that Surekha was taunted in view of her sallow complexion, the fact that 161 statements are recorded more than six months after the death assumes significance.22 The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is entirely predicated on the disclosure made by the deceased Surekha.It would be apposite to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in Bhairon Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 ALL SCR 213:::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::"(1) Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death.In this respect as indicated above, the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the peculiar condition of our society and the diverse nature and character of our people, has thought it necessary to widen the sphere of Section 32 to avoid injustice.(2) The test of proximity cannot be too literally construed and practically reduced to a cut-and-dried formula of universal application so as to be confined in a straitjacket.In their deposition PW-4 and PW-5 stated that their sister told them that accused was torturing her as he wanted that her brothers should arrange a job for him or the house at Ganj Basoda is given to him or a cash of Rs.1 lac is given to enable him to do some business.They deposed that as and when their sister come to their house, she would tell them that accused used to insert cloth in her mouth and give beatings for dowry.The trial court as well as the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 and held that charge under Section 498A, IPC, against the accused was proved.Apart from the statement attributed to the deceased, none of the witnesses had spoken anything which they had seen directly insofar as torture and harassment to Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari was concerned.The moot question is: whether the statements attributed to the deceased could be used as evidence for entering upon a finding that the accused subjected Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari to cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A, IPC.In our considered view, the evidence of PW-4 and PW- 5 about what the deceased Ranjana Rani @ Raj Kumari had told them against the accused about the torture and harassment is inadmissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and such evidence cannot be looked into for any purpose.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2018 00:48:11 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,955,886 |
Mr. Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. V.S. Mishra, learned G.A. for the State.This application has been filed U/s.438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant Gudda Choudhary in connection with Crime No.292/2017 of P.S. Umariyapan, Distt.Katni for an offence under Section 306 of I.P.C.According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant whose arrest is being wanted in the aforesaid case, is stated to have abetted the death of the deceased.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there was a land dispute going on between the applicant and the deceased and that the applicant had floated rumours about illicit relationship between the applicant's daughter and the deceased on account of which he is stated to have left his home on 11.7.2017 and on 13.7.2017, he was discovered hanging from a tree.Thereafter, there was no action taken for almost two months and on 6.9.2017, the FIR has been registered for an offence U/s.306 I.P.C. The only allegation against the applicant herein is that there was dispute relating to land between the applicant and the deceased and that the applicant had spread canards about the deceased having been in an illicit relationship with the daughter of the applicant herein on account of which he is stated to have committed suicide.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. He shall however join the investigation as and when directed to do so by the Police.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,779,637 |
Tamilselvi (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') isnone other than the wife of Andrews (PW1).They had beenblessed with three children.Except Romeo (PW 10) the othertwo children were staying in a hostel.PW 1 was carrying on groundnut cake business in theground floor of his house at Gandhi Nagar, Chennai.PW 1,the victim and their daughter Romeo were staying in theupstairs of the said house.The accused Murugan wasemployed as an assistant in PW1's shop and he was staying inthe ground floor itself where the business was carried on.Thedeceased used to get his ration of food from PW 1. 2 On 3.8.2000 at about 1.30 p.m. the victim went to theground floor for the purpose of handing over the ration of foodto the accused.P.W.1 waited for some time, but the victim hadnot returned.He came down to the ground floor and heard analarming noise.When he attempted to push the outer door ofthe ground floor, he found that it was locked from inside.P.W.1 went around the house and peeped through the window.Hefound to his shock that the accused, taking position on hiswife who was lying on the ground, attempted to strangulateher.Thereafter the accused opened the door from inside andsped away from the scene of occurrence.Theaccused took shelter in a nearby bush.He went to the churchand informed the people over there.He came down to hishouse and found his wife dead.Thereafter P.W.1 went toKolathur Police Station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to thesub-Inspector of Police, P.W.9, who was present over there.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a DivisionBench of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction ofthe appellant for offences punishable under Section 376(1)read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 1 the `IPC') and Section 302 IPC.The appellant was sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and LifeImprisonment for two offences.The latter registered a case in Crime No.1050/2000 for the 3 offence under Section 302 IPC and prepared printed FIR Ex.P9 and despatched the same to the learned JudicialMagistrate concerned and the copies thereof to the higherofficials.The Inspector of Police, Mr. Natrajan-P.W.13, who wasIncharge of the said police station when Varadarajan, theregular Inspector of Police P.W.14 was on leave, took up thecase for investigation on receipt of a copy of the FIR andrushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared the roughsketch-Ex.He also prepared the observation Mahazar-Ex. P-2 in the presence of Chellaiah, P.W.4 and anotherwitness.He entrusted the dead body to the HeadConstable Mohan, P.W.8 for the purpose of taking the same tothe doctor for conducting postmortem examination.4 Dr. Deivasigamnai, P.W.7, conducted autopsy on thedead body of the victim at about 11.40 a.m. on 4.9.2000 andfound the following injuries and symptoms on the dead body:"A well defined incomplete oblique ligature abrasions mark in front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage, 16 x 1 cms on the front, the ligature abrasion was 6 cms below the chin and 6 cms about the suprasternal noted and the ligature abrasion was absent on the back of the neck.The subcutaneous soft tissues underlying the ligature abrasion were found congested.2) Inward compression fracture of right horn of the hyoid bone found with extravasations of blood in the surrounding soft tissues.Heart: Intact.Normal Trachea: Empty.Stomach contained 200 ml. of brown fluid with partly digested cooked rice particles.No definite smell.After investigation charge sheet was filed.As theaccused pleaded innocence, he was put on trial.In order to establish the prosecution version 14witnesses were examined.Placing reliance on the evidence ofPWs. 1 & 2, the trial court found the accused guilty andconvicted and sentenced.The High Court upheld theconviction and the sentence.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for theappellant submitted that the defence version has beenerroneously discarded by the High Court.He has stated thatthe conduct of PW1 after allegedly having seen the accusedwith his wife unnatural and should not have been relied upon.The presence of PW2 at the spot had also not been explainedLearned counsel for the respondent-State supported thejudgment of the High Court.PW 1 has chosen to chase the accused along with PW 2and having found some people in the church, which is nearby,informed them about the occurrence and thereafter came backto his house to verify the fate of his wife.PW 1 obviously wasin a state of shock having seen the accused strangulating hiswife.It is quite common for a person under shock to share hisgrief to the persons who are found close by.It is not as if PW 1rushed straight to the police station after informing certainpersons in the church without even verifying the fate of hiswife.The accused had been arrested on 6.9.2000 and only onthe basis of his confessional statement his apparels had beenrecovered.It is contended by the learned counsel for theaccused that the accused, who was spotted committing thecrime, would not have taken some time to hide his apparels ata safe place.It is the case of the prosecution that PW 1having witnessed the occurrence by peeping through thewindow came down to the doorway with a view to open thedoor.The door was opened from inside by the accused.It is 7 not as if the door was opened by PW 1 immediately afterwitnessing the occurrence through the window.The accused,who was inside the house, would have had time to remove hisapparels, which were found blood stained, to put it in a safeplace in the house.Further it will not take much of a time toremove the clothes by a person who was in a hurry to escapefrom the scene of crime.In view of the above, there is nothingto doubt the recovery of the apparels of the accused made bythe investigating officer.The recovery at the instance of theaccused raises presumptions of guilt as against him.If at all the victim had anaffair with a stranger residing at a far off location, it would nothave come to light.But stand of the accused, who lived in theground floor for five years to be having an affair without beingnoticed is too hollow to be accepted.Trial court and the High Court have analysed theevidence in great details and have come to the rightconclusion about involvement of the accused.We do not findany infirmity in the reasoning of the trial court and the HighCourt to warrant any interference.The appeal fails and is dismissed.July 7, 2008 9
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,964,264 |
In short, the prosecution case is that on 30.3.2002, at about 11 O' clock in the day, complainant Rajendra (PW1) and his father Chetram (deceased) were digging a well in their field.Harchhat (PW19) and Madan (PW18), who happened to pass from there, invited Chetram to eat betel- nuts.Chetram left the work and went with them.When Chetram was eating betel-nuts with them near the `Khalihan' of appellants, suddenly appellants viz. Badri Yadav, his sons Kishori @ Ram Kishore and Boua @ Sugreev reached there armed with axe and sticks.Over the past enmity, Badri Yadav assaulted Chetram with axe and Kishori and Boua dealt lathi blows to him.Looking at this, Rajendra and his mother Beti Bai rushed to the spot and intervened, whereupon Kishori and Boua assaulted to Rajendra also with sticks.The incident was witnessed by his mother and his wife viz. Panno Bai.Out of fear, Rajendra ran towards the village and informed the incident to other persons.As a result of injuries, Chetram died at the spot.Somebody informed police on telephone.Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector B. D. Pandey proceeded to spot.Rajendra (PW1) met him on way and tendered Dehati Nalishi Ex. P/2 to him.State of Bihar- (2002) 9 SCC 147, the Apex Court observed that "merely being relatives of the deceased or injured is no ground to reject the testimony of the witnesses who are otherwise found to be trustworthy and reliable." In view of the aforesaid, we are supposed to critically scrutinize the evidence of these witnesses to find out whether they are truthful witnesses.Rajendra (PW1) deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 9.30 A.M., when he and his father were digging a well and his mother Beti Bai and wife Panno Bai were also present, Harchhat and Madan reached there and offered him to have betel-nuts.On the pretext of it, they took him and his father (deceased) near the `Galla' (Khalihan) of appellant (6) Cr.A.No.1690/2002 Badri.As soon as they reached there appellant Badri dealt axe blows on the head of his father from back side.When he, his wife and mother shouted and ran towards them, appellants Kishori and Boua dealt lathi blows to him.He went running and shouting towards the village and narrated the incident to Kotwar of village Keolari.PW-1 deposed that Ram Kishore and Boua had also assaulted his father.Due to injuries caused by axe, his father died at the spot.When he was going to lodge the report, on way, he met police officers.For the Appellants : Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.For the Respondent/State : Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt. Advocate.A dehati merg Ex. P/2 was also recorded.When these informations were sent to police station, first information report Ex. P/20 was registered.Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector B.D. Pandey (PW24) reached at the spot, prepared the spot map and conducted inquest proceedings.Thereafter, he referred the dead body of Chetram for postmortem (3) Cr.1690/2002 examination.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.During trial, appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication due to enmity.Upon trial and after appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Judge held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, appellants have filed the present appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge mis-appreciated the evidence on record and erred in holding the appellants guilty.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.It has not been disputed that deceased Chetram died of a homicidal death.In his opinion, injury no.1 was fatal to life.Injury nos. 2 to 4 were grievous in nature, whereas injury nos. 5 and 6 were simple in nature.The death of deceased was due to massive external heamorrhage causing shock and the death was homicidal in nature.(5) Cr.From the aforesaid medical evidence, it stood established that the deceased met with the homicidal death.The next question before us is whether appellants caused aforesaid injuries to deceased which resulted into his death.Prosecution, to prove its case examined five eye witnesses viz. Rajendra (PW1), Madan (PW18), Harchhat (PW19), Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21).Madan (PW18) and Harchhat (PW19) did not support the prosecution case.As such, they were declared hostile.PW1, PW20 and PW21 are respectively the son, wife and daughter-in-law of deceased.Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the evidence of close relatives, who were inimical to appellants and whose evidence was discrepant and contradictory was not credit-worthy.In Bijoy Singh and another Vs.A dehati merg Ex. P/2 was also recorded.When police reached the spot and people of the village also reached there, inquest memorandum Ex. P/5 was recorded.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW-1 stated that he did not mind as to who 7-8 persons were sitting at the platform of Banyan tree situated near the place of occurrence, whereas he in his police statement Ex. D/1 mentioned the names of those persons.Learned counsel further pointed out that this witness was contradicted on the point that at the time of incident appellants were mending their hedge.These contradictions, in our opinion, can not be said to be material affecting the veracity of the witness about the core of the prosecution story.Evidence of Rajendra (PW1) appears cogent, consistent and credit-worthy much more because he also received injuries in the same incident at the hands of accused Kishori and Boua.The narration given by him in the Court stood corroborated from (7) Cr.A.No.1690/2002 Dehati Nalishi report Ex. P/1, from the postmortem report of the deceased and also from his injury report Ex. P/37-A. Dr. Rajesh Athya (PW23) testified that on 30.3.2002, Rajendra Yadav was brought by police for medical examination.On examining him, he found (1) an abrasion 3 x 1 cm on middle part of his left hand and (2) a contusion 2 x 1 cm on his left scapular region.These injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were simple in nature.Thus, the presence of Rajendra (PW1) stood established at the place of incident.The evidence of Rajendra (PW1) stood further corroborated from the evidence of Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21), respectively the widow and daughter-in-law of deceased.Beti Bai (PW20) deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 11 A.M., her husband and daughter-in-law were working in the well.Harchhat Yadav and Madan reached there and took her husband for eating betel-nuts towards the village.When they reached near the `Khalihan' of Badri, suddenly Badri assaulted her husband with axe, Boua and Kishori also dealt stick blows to him.When her son Rajendra went to intervene, he was also assaulted by Kishori and Boua.Similar facts were narrated by Panno Bai (PW21).Some discrepancies were pointed out in the cross examination of these witnesses pertaining to distance from which they saw the occurrence and whether at the time of assault deceased had eaten betel-nut or not.In our opinion, these discrepancies were not material as they did not pertain to basic facts of the (8) Cr.1690/2002 prosecution case.The Apex Court in the case of Rizan and another Vs.State of Chhattisgarh-(2003) 2 SCC 661 observed "normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be." In the present case when the witnesses were cross examined and they tried to explain by saying something, they were confronted with their previous statements, in these circumstances, the discrepancies occurring in their evidence cannot be labeled as material since they do not go to effect the core of the prosecution case.Evidence of Rajendra (PW1), Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21) stood corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Rajesh Athya, who testified that there were four injuries on the body of deceased which were caused by sharp edged weapon and two injuries were caused by hard and blunt object like sticks.It is true that no blood was detected on the axe seized at the instance of appellant Badri Yadav, but in view of the reliable evidence of eye witnesses this fact does not assume much importance.After (9) Cr.A.No.1690/2002 scanning and scrutinizing the evidence of eye witnesses we find their evidence consistent and credit-worthy.In our opinion, trial Court committed no error in holding that appellants assaulted deceased.Badri Yadav caused injuries with axe on the head, ankle joint and finger of deceased and Kishori and Boua caused injuries with sticks on scapular region and iliac crest of deceased.It also stood proved that Kishori and Boua caused simple hurts to Rajendra (PW1) with sticks.Learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance on the ratio of Babubhai Ranchodbhai Patel and another Vs.State of Gujarat- AIR 1994 SC 1400 argued that the conviction of appellants Kishori @ Ram Kishore and Boua @ Sugreev was not justified under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as it was not established that they shared common intention with appellant Badri, who dealt axe blows on the head of deceased.On perusal of evidence of Rajendra (PW1), Beti Bai (PW20) and Panno Bai (PW21), we find that they could give no genesis of the occurrence.According to Rajendra (PW1) when deceased, along with Madan and Harchhat reached near the `Khalihan' of Badri, Badri suddenly emerged from his `Khalihan' and dealt axe blows on his head.Simultaneously or a little later, Kishori and Boua dealt lathi blows to him.Lathi blows were inflicted on scapular region and iliac crest which cannot be held to be vital parts of the body.It is true that it was just by chance that deceased happened to go with Harchhat and Madan for eating betel-(10) Cr.1690/2002 nuts near `Khalihan' of accused persons, therefore, it cannot be surmised that all the three appellants were waiting for deceased to come with a premeditation to assault him.Merely from the fact that father assaulted and sons also assaulted, no ground is made out to draw inference of their prior meeting of minds to commit murder of deceased.In Babubhai (supra) the Apex Court having regard to the facts of the case observed that since "it was a sudden affair and that A-2 inflicted only a simple injury, it is difficult to hold that he had the common intention with A-1 to commit murder of the deceased.We think it would be unsafe to convict A-2 also for the offence of murder.The injury inflicted by him endangered life and would be punishable under Section 326, of the Indian Penal Code."They deserve to be acquitted of the said charge.Appellant-1 Badri Yadav, since dealt two axe blows on the head of deceased which proved fatal to the life of deceased, his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code deserves to be affirmed.So far as appellant-2 (11) Cr.Instead they are convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.From the record, it appears that both the said appellants have already remained in jail for a period more than 8 months.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,779,664 |
Prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows:Statement was given by lnderjit (PW 8) to ASI Sukhjit Singh in Civil Hospital, Morinda on 10.4.1996 at 11.50 P.M. lnderjit stated that he along with his son Pawan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), Amarjit Singh son of Ram Singh and Ved Parkash were coming from their house and going towards the market for some domestic work.When they reached near the house of one Khushal Singh, at about 9.00 P.M., accused Narinder Singh @ Nita armed with a knife like a dagger, Amarjit Singh @ Amba armed with a lathi, Surinder Singh @ Chhinda and Raja Singh son of Gurmukh Singh who were not armed met them.Accused persons stopped them and stated that they wanted to talk to them.As complainant Inderjit went forward, accused Amarjit Singh gave a lathi blow on his head.Pawan Kumar, the son of the complainant, came forward to rescue him.J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.729 of 2006)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar.The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302/323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC' ).Accused appellant-Narinder Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.He was, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in terms of Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.Accused-appellant, Amarjit Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- with default stipulation.He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in terms of Section 323 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation.Raja Singh and Surinder Singh caught hold of Pawan Kumar and Narinder Singh @ Nita thrust a knife in the chest of deceased who fell down.On this, Inderjit fell upon his son to save him.Thereafter, accused Raja Singh, Surinder Singh and Amarjit Singh gave fist and slap blows to the complainant.Complainant raised a hue and cry.Accused persons fled away from there.Amarjit Singh son of Ram Singh, Ved Parkash and the complainant then took deceased to Civil Hopsital, Morinda, but his life could not be saved.The motive for the commission of the offence was that some days earlier, Narinder Singh @ Nita had teased the complainant's daughter Nirmla Devi.Complainant had reprimanded him and hot words were exchanged between them.Due to this, appellants committed the murder of the deceased.On the basis of this statement, formal FIR, Ex. PJ, was registered on 11.4.1996 at 12.05 A.M. in Police Station Morinda.Special report reached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rup Nagar on 11.4.1996 at 3.00 A.M.In order to further its case, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses.PWs 8 and 9 were stated to be eye-witnesses.Though PW-9 partially departed from his statement made during investigation, the residue was considered relevant.The trial Court on analysis of the evidence found the accused guilty and convicted the accused persons and sentenced them.Accused persons filed appeal before the High Court and questioned correctness of trial Court's judgment.The High Court did not find any substance in the appeal and dismissed the same.Stand before the High Court was that there is no material to find the accused guilty.Accused Amarjit and Narinder have not preferred any appeal against High Court's judgment.This appeal is by Surinder and Raja.They came together and left together.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,049,470 |
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record be requisitioned.Heard on I.A.No.25236/2017 filed by the appellants/accused under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence and grant of bail.The appellant no.1 Kamlesh Jain stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, with default stipulation and under Section 506-II of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation.The appellant no.2 Sandeep Jain stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, with default stipulation and under Section 506-II of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during trial.There is fair chances to succeed in the case.If the appellants are not released on bail, their purpose of filing this appeal will be frustrated.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of appellants be allowed and the period of their remaining jail sentence be suspended and they be released on bail.Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.The custodial sentence awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Appellant no. 1-Kamlesh Jain and appellant no. 2 Sandeep Jain be released from custody subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17.5.2018 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List the appeal for final hearing in due course of time at its own turn.Certified copy as per rule.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE VKV/-Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2017.12.23 12:34:31 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,090,657 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 17.11.2015 relating to Crime No.181/15 registered at Police Station Sirsod, District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 341, 506-B/34, 324 and 326 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are reputed citizens of the locality.They did not have any criminal past as alleged against them.Except of offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC, remaining offences are bailable.It is alleged against the applicants that they have assaulted the victim Ramswaroop and Kalyan with sharp cutting weapon.However no grievous injury was found to any of them caused by sharp cutting weapon.Prima facie no offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the applicants.The victim Kalyan has sustained fracture on his left clavicle bone which was caused by the co-accused Naresh with blunt object, hence, at the most offfence under Section 325 of IPC shall constitute which is bailable.A counter case has also been registered against the victim and his companions.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the application.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 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.
|
181,133,746 |
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Heard on the question of admission.The prosecutrix has come before this court against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.01.2017 in Session Trial No.57/2015 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, whereby the learned judge has acquitted the accused from the charge under section 376(2)(N) and 506(part II) of IPC.The fact in brief are that on 13.04.2015, the prosecutrix lodged a compliant (Exh. P/3) at police station, Barwani stating that she got married with one Shivram.In the year 2008-09, she left her husband and started residing in the house of Bherusingh Bhinde in Vrindavan Colony, Barwani.In the year 2011, the accused Nagendra came in her contact.He started visiting her house.He made a promise to marry her.He persuaded her to made sexual relationship with him.Relying on his promise, she submitted herself.The accused asked him to deliver a baby for him to show her love and affection, and thereafter, he will marry her.On the basis of complaint, the police registered a case and after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecutrix was a consenting party, therefore, accused HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.It has clearly come in the statements of prosecutrix who is a 40 years old school teacher, her 19 years old daughter Shraddha and 17 years old son Vishwas that both, the prosecutrix and accused were married earlier with some different persons and marriage of both of them was not dissolved by any decree of divorce.They both were aware about this fact.C No.3583/2017 (Smt. Rukmani Vishwakarma Vs.State of MP) without obtaining divorce from her husband or without completing the process of divorce of the accused from his wife, they cannot marry.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,280,657 |
( .3.2017) The applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2011 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 327/2010, whereby the Court below has framed charges against the applicants for commission of offence punishable under Section 452, 147, 307/149 and 323/149 (two counts) of IPC.The brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.2010 at about 12 O'clock when complainant has reached his house after casting the vote, the accused persons came together and used filthy languages with the complainant.Thereafter accused Premnarayan with intention to kill gave below of Pharsa on the head of Ashish, accused Kaushal and Ramkishore gave below by means of lathi which caused injuries on the leg of Ashish.Other accused persons also caused injuries to Ashish.Report was lodged by the complainant Ashish at crime No. 14/2010 under Sections 452, 294, 147, 148, 323 of IPC has been registered.Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants have preferred this revision application.According to the medical report, injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object.The injured person was advised for X-ray but no X-ray report was produced before the trial Court and there is no opinion of the doctor that the injury was life threatening.In such circumstances, prima facie it cannot be said that the injury sustained by the injured Ashish is sufficient to cause death, therefore, the charges under Section 307 of 307/34 of IPC is not made out.As per the medical report of injured Jai Prakash Dubey, it is found that he has received swelling and abrasion on the shoulder, chest and back and these injuries-( 3 )- CRR.No.193/2011 have been reported to be caused by hard and blunt object and if the applicants had intention to commit murder, then despite having opportunity to inflict repeated injuries they did not do so.Looking to the nature of injuries and the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that prima facie charges under Section 307 and 307/149 is not made out against the applicant.Taking this view of matter, the revision petition is allowed in part.As the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 307/149 of IPC are not satisfied and the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 294, 148, 452 323, 323/149, 324 and 324/149 of IPC prima facie are made out, accordingly, the applicants/accused are discharged from the offence under Section 307 and 307/149 of IPC.It is however made clear that the trial against the applicants/accused shall continue further for the offences under Sections 294, 148, 452 323, 323/149, 324 and 324/149 of IPC.The revision petition stands disposed of to the extent indicated above.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.(S.K.Awasthi) Judge neetu 8
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,138,579 |
(Delivered on the 11th day of August, 2015) The appellants have preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 9.9.1998 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in ST No.113/1996 whereby the appellants have been convicted of offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution story, in short, is that the marriage of deceased Tara Bai took place with appellant Vishram three years prior to the incident.On 13.1.1996 appellant Vishram had lodged a missing report Ex.P-18 at Police Station Babai that deceased Tara Bai and a small child aged 4 months were missing.On 14.1.1996 the Village Kotwar found the dead body of the deceased and her son in a well of Village Bajjarwada (Police Station Babai District Hoshangabad).A marg enquiry was initiated.When the statements of Sukhram (PW-1)-father of the deceased, Pannalal (PW-2)-uncle of the deceased and Sushila Bai (PW-4)-aunt of the deceased were recorded, they had alleged against the appellants that they harassed the deceased for demand of dowry.Also the appellants assaulted her and ultimately she committed suicide.Hence a case was registered against the appellants.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Hoshangabad who committed the case to the Sessions Court and ultimately it was transferred to the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad.The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea, however Champalal (DW-1)- maternal uncle of the deceased was examined with the pretext that the deceased prior to her marriage was residing with Champalal and her marriage was also arranged by Champalal and Sukhram-father of the deceased had no concerned with Tara Bai, because after the death of first wife of Sukhram, he was married with Krishna Bai (PW-5), and therefore deceased Tara Bai was kept in the house of Champalal-maternal uncle of Tara Bai, who performed the marriage of deceased Tara Bai with appellant Vishram.The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.According to the witness Rajendra (PW-3) Kotwar of the Village, the dead body of the deceased along with her small child was found in a well in the village, though the well was 5 ft. wide and a stone was affixed in front of the well and while climbing the plinth of the well, if leg of someone is touched to that stone, then one could fall in a well.According to Dr.Mahendra Jain (PW-6) he performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased Tara Bai & small child, and gave his report Ex.P-4 and P-5 respectively.Both of them had died due to drowning.The appellants had tried to establish that the death of the deceased was an accident and it was not a suicide case.Therefore, such questions were asked to Village Kotwar Rajendra (PW-3).However, it is an admitted fact that deceased Tara Bai served dinner to the appellants and thereafter the deceased was found missing, and therefore appellant Vishram had lodged a missing report Ex.If Tara Bai would have gone to fetch some water from a well, then she should have given her child to the appellants and atleast she would have intimated them before leaving to a well to fetch some water.They admitted the fact that Tara Bai after taking her child without intimating anyone in the house went to a well at about 10:00 PM in the night.Looking to the time of the incident and conduct of deceased Tara Bai, it is clear that it is a case of suicide.There was no need to deceased Tara Bai to visit to a well in the dark night without any reason and without intimating to her relatives.Hence when her dead body was found in a well, because she died due to drowning, then certainly she committed suicide.For constitution of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, it is not necessary to prove that the death of the deceased was suicidal or homicidal.But, if offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not proved and if the situation under Section 306 of IPC is to be examined, then it is to be settled as to whether the death of the deceased was suicidal or not.For commission of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, the death should be unnatural and it is apparent that the death of the deceased was unnatural.Sukhram (PW-1)-father of the deceased, Pannalal (PW-2)-uncle of the deceased, Sushila Bai Bai (PW-4)- aunt of the deceased and Krishna Bai (PW-5)-step mother of the deceased, have stated that the appellants have tortured deceased Tara Bai for demand of dowry.She was beaten in consequence of that demand.As and when deceased Tara Bai went to the house of Sukhram, she intimated about the deeds of the appellants to them, and therefore she committed suicide due to torture done by the appellants.On the other hand, the appellants examined one Champalal-maternal uncle of deceased Tara Bai to show that since Sukhram, father of the deceased was married with Krishna Bai, and when a step mother of the deceased was brought, deceased Tara Bai was sent to the house of Champalal and the marriage of the deceased was arranged by Champalal himself.She had no concern with Sukhram etc. relating to her family affairs.However, Champalal has accepted in the cross examination that after the marriage of Tara Bai, she never visited the house of Champalal.Champalal gave an explanation that since Krishna Bai was prohibiting to take Tara Bai to the house of Champalal, he could not take his ward Tara Bai to his house.However, Champalal has accepted that he did not know about the death of Tara Bai soon after her death, because he was not intimated.If the marriage of Tara Bai was performed by Champalal himself, then the appellants who informed Sukhram that deceased Tara Bai was missing, they could also inform Champalal that she was missing, because he was close relative to deceased Tara Bai, but since Champalal was not intimated by anyone about the fact of missing and death of Tara Bai soon after her death, then it would be apparent that initially Tara Bai was kept in the house of Champalal for sometime, but the statement Sukhram appears to be acceptable that 6-7 years prior to her marriage Tara Bai started residing with her father Sukhram and the marriage was arranged by Sukhram and not by Champalal.Under these circumstances, the testimony of Champalal does not give any relief to the appellants.If the evidence given by Sukhram, Pannalal, Sushila Bai and Krishna Bai is examined, then there is a lot of inter-se material contradiction between the statements of these witnesses.Also there is a lot of material contradictions between the statements of these witnesses before the Court and their case diary statements.According to Sukhram, the appellants demanded a motorcycle from the deceased and she told about that demand to Sukhram and the deceased visited his house only for 2-3 times.According to Pannalal, there was a demand of Rs.20,000/-.According to Sushila Bai the appellants had demanded a vehicle and money, but she could not give the actual denomination of the money sought by the appellants.Krishna Bai has stated that the appellants had demanded a motorcycle and some cash.However, Krishna Bai was the step-mother of deceased Tara Bai, who has accepted in para 6 of her cross examination that she was tutored by her husband and she gave her statement according to the instruction given by her husband.Although all the witnesses have stated that Tara Bai went to the house of Sukhram for 2-3 times after her marriage, whereas Krishna Bai has stated that she came to her house for 4-5 times after her marriage.It would be apparent that the statement of Krishna Bai is given due to tutoring done by her husband and such statement cannot be believed.As discussed above, there is lot of difference in the statements of Sukhram, Pannalal and Sushila Bai about the nature of demand and person who demanded.According to Sukhram and Pannalal, only the appellants had demanded the aforesaid articles and cash from the deceased and she was harassed, however Sushila Bai had also alleged against the brother-in-law of the deceased that he had also demanded such things.When Sukhram was asked as to why he did not state about the demand in his case diary statement, then he could not give any appropriate answer.If the case diary statement Ex.D-1 of witness Sukhram is examined, then it is not mentioned in the statement that a specific sum or a motorcycle was demanded by the appellants.According to his version before the police, the appellants told the deceased that nothing was given in the marriage and every time Sukhram sent Tara Bai back to her husbands house with an assurance that every thing will be all right in lapse of some time.He has stated that such demand was informed to him by Faturi (PW-10) and Ramswaroop (PW-12), however Faturi and Ramswaroop did not corroborate the version of Sukhram, father of the deceased.Similarly, Pannalal and Sushila Bai have accepted that Pannalal and Sushila Bai were residing in a separate house and they did not have much knowledge about the problem of deceased Tara Bai.Sushila Bai has stated a peculiar thing that Tara Bai came only for three times to the house of her father after her marriage.In para 6 of her statement, she has stated that Tara Bai came to the house of her father in first Shrawan (a Hindi month) after her marriage and thereafter she came to her fathers house in the same year on the occasion of Sankranti (a festival).She has also accepted in the same para that for first year of her marriage, she was kept with comfort by the appellants, and therefore it would be apparent that Tara Bai did not say anything adverse against the appellants in her first two visits which took place in first year of her marriage.Hence as stated by the witnesses that when Tara Bai went to her fathers house, she told about the grievances appear to be incorrect for her first two visits.Sushila Bai has further accepted that for third time, Tara Bai was brought to the house of her father by the appellant Vishram in the month of Shrawan (a Hindi month) with the pretext that there was a dispute between Tara Bai and appellant Rukmani, and therefore he left Tara Bai for sometime and after completion of Shrawan he took Tara Bai back.But Sukhram, Pannalal etc. did not say about the story as told by Sushila Bai that there was a quarrel between Tara Bai and her mother-in-law, and therefore appellant Vishram left her wife Tara Bai to the house of Sukhram for few days.If Sushila Bai did not state in case diary statement that any talk took place with appellant Vishram, when he came to take Tara Bai for third time.Under such circumstances, the story told by Sushila Bai to the Court appears to be incorrect.There was no dispute between deceased Tara Bai and appellant Rukmani so that appellant Vishram would have left Tara Bai to her parents' house.Sukhram in para 6 of his cross examination has accepted that deceased Tara Bai visited his house for three times and on every time the appellant Vishram took the deceased Tara Bai back.Every time Tara Bai went to her husband's house with pleasure and joy and therefore it would be apparent that if the appellants would have demanded dowry and the deceased was tortured in consequence of that demand, then father of the deceased Sukhram would have asked appellant Vishram atleast for once that such type of torture should not be done on deceased Tara Bai and either an FIR would have been lodged or any Panchayat of the community would have been called or atleast some redressal proceeding must have done by Sukhram.On the contrary, Sukhram has accepted that he was informed about missing of Tara Bai and then he went to the house of his relatives to look for Tara Bai.He could not imagine that Tara Bai would have committed suicide.After death of Tara Bai, he kept silent for five days and thereafter he made omnibus allegations against the appellants.According to the evidence given by Sushila Bai, who was relative of father of the deceased Tara Bai, first two visits of Tara Bai took place within first year of her marriage and it is admitted view of Sushila Bai and Sukhram that deceased Tara Bai was kept with comfort for atleast one year after her marriage, and therefore there was no demand or harassment to deceased Tara Bai from the side of the appellants at that time and there was no possibility for Tara Bai to tell anything against the appellants about the dowry demand and harassment in her first two visits.Looking to the cross examination of these witnesses, it appears that the appellants took a plea that in their community, it is prestige for a girl that her father would have taken her to his house on the festival of Sankranti.According to the witnesses, deceased Tara Bai visited only for two times to her father's house in first year of her marriage, she was taken to the house of her father on the festivals.Her third visit took place in the month of Shrawan 1 months prior to her death, which indicates that Sukhram did not bring his daughter on the festival of Sankranti.Also all these witnesses have accepted that the deceased committed suicide on the eye of Sankranti and in that year also Sukhram did not take her.Sukhram has accepted that he did not bring his daughter on the eve of Sankranti, and she was found in a well one day prior to Sankranti.All these witnesses have accepted that if a girl is not taken to the house of her father on the occasion of Sankranti, then she has to face the blame of the members of the community residing in the locality of that village, and therefore the appellants tried to establish that the deceased committed suicide, because she was neglected by her father Sukhram.It may be a co-incident that the deceased committed suicide on the eve of the festival of Sankranti, however she had jumped in a well along with her child, and therefore it cannot be said that she committed suicide on the ground that she was neglected by her father.However, it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.According to the evidence given by witnesses Sukhram, Pannalal and Sushila Bai, it would be apparent that deceased Tara Bai visited the house of her father Sukhram for only three times, however in her first two visits which took place in the first year of her marriage, she had no problem and thereafter Sukhram, Pannalal and Sushila Bai did not claim that they visited to the house of appellants in last two years to know the problem of the deceased, and therefore there is no evidence to show that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for dowry demand or any other reason in those two years.If the facts as told by Sushila Bai are accepted, then it would be apparent that appellant Vishram took his wife Tara Bai to the house of Sukhram so that she can be saved from the quarrel between her and her mother-in-law and thereafter he himself went to take his wife and taken away.If appellant Vishram was torturing his wife for dowry demand, then certainly he could not take his wife every time to avoid the quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law and if there was no demand from the side of appellant Vishram, then it was not possible for appellant Rukmani to demand for a motorcycle.However, the testimony of Sushila Bai upto that extent is not acceptable, because she did not tell such a fact to the police in her case diary statement.Hence when at the third time when Tara Bai was going back to her husband's house, if she would have said something against the appellants, then she would have denied to go with appellant Vishram and Sukhram would have discussed about the problem so that no further torture should be given to deceased Tara Bai for dowry demand or otherwise.But Sukhram did not claim that there was an occasion to discuss the matter with appellant Vishram when he came to take deceased Tara Bai for third time.Under these circumstances, when in the entire marital life of the deceased no FIR was lodged from her side, no panchayat of the community was called, no grievance was shown to the appellants by her father, it would be clear that she was not tortured for any dowry demand.Omnibus allegations relating to dowry demand and harassment were made by Sukhram, father of deceased Tara Bai and his relatives against the appellants without any basis.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellants for commission of offence under Section 304-B of IPC.It is the settled view of Hon'ble the Apex Court that though the charge under Section 306 of IPC is not framed, but the facts reveal that such offence is made out and the facts put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., then the accused can be convicted of offence under Section 306 of IPC in absence of charge under Section 306 of IPC, if the charge of Section 304-B of IPC was framed.However, in the present case, it is established that the deceased visited with the appellants' house for two times in first year of her marriage and at that time she had no grievance.It is also discussed that the deceased was not harassed in her remaining marital life for dowry demand.There is no allegation by any of the witness that the deceased was being harassed for other reason except the dowry demand, and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant abetted deceased Tara Bai to commit suicide.In this context, the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court as cited by learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Harjit Singh Vs.State of Punjab, [(2006) 1 SCC 463] may be referred, in which it is held that if the accused is not charged of offence under Section 306 of IPC and it is found that the accused cannot be convicted of offence under Section 304-B of IPC, then still he can be convicted of offence under Section 306 of IPC, such contention cannot be accepted.Such type of things cannot be claimed in every case.Such plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before the appellate Court unless a charge of Section 306 of IPC is made out from the material on record.When no harassment to the deceased for any reason in first year of her marital life has been proved and thereafter Sukhram etc. did not get any information about the act done by the appellants towards the deceased, then there is nothing on record to prove that the appellants dealt the deceased with cruelty, though such point has not been raised before the trial Court.Even it would be apparent that when the child was born to the deceased, then her parents would have visited the house of her husband for some customary gifts etc. and she would have told about her grievance.But witnesses Sukhram, Pannalal, Sushila Bai and Krishna Bai did not state that any of them has visited to the house of the appellants and at that time deceased Tara Bai told about such grievance.Krishna Bai has stated that after delivery of child to deceased Tara Bai, she went to the house of her husband, but such statement was not confirmed by Sushila Bai and others.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellants appears to be acceptable.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,448,292 |
Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the complainant.Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, feeling aggrieved with the order dated 19/01/2018, rendered by Special Judge (SC/ST), Shajapur, in S.T.No.10/2018 whereby the prayer for regular bail has been declined.As per prosecution story, on 05/01/2018, the appellant caught hold of the hand of the prosecutrix in order to outrage her modesty.Further allegation against the appellant is that he, regularly, used to follow and gaze the prosecutrix when she goes to her coaching classes.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a youth of 20 years and has been falsely implicated in the present case.Investigation of the case is completed, charge- sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take long time.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.902/2018 (Akshat Chintu vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh) It is further submitted that there is possibility of absconsion of the appellant if released on bail.Under these circumstances counsel prayed for grant of regular bail of appellant.Learned counsel for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on bail, hence the application filed by the appellant be dismissed.Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.02.24 12:33:25 +05'30'
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
181,574,427 |
Gangele) JUDGE kkcThis is first bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr. P. C. for grant of bail to the applicant as he has been arrested in connection of Crime No.202/2014, registered at Polic Station Vijay Raghavgarh, District Katni for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, in option of Section 304-B Section 302 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 29.6.2014 and trial is still at the stage of evidence.It is further contended that another co-accused Smt. Rekha Bai has been released on bail hence the applicant be also released on bail This Court vide order dated 5.8.2014 passed in M. Cr.C. No..1060/2014 granted bail to Smt. Rekha Bai.The Court passed following order:"Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for applicant.Shri A. Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.In this Case the statement of family members of the deceased was recorded after seven days of the incident.Apart from this, allegations leveled against the applicant are same to that Smt. Rekha.C. C. as per rules.(S. K.
|
['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.
|
181,600,212 |
(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R.No.434 of 2019 registered with Ghatkopar Police Station, the applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only each) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,828,180 |
The petitioner, as well as respondent no.2 are identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Roshan Lal, Police Station Nangloi, Delhi, who is present in Court.It is stated that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant, Manjit Singh, against both the petitioners alleging that the complainant had been cheated on account of fraud and forgery having been committed by the petitioners.The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has also been filed.This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.712/2002 registered at Police Station Nangloi on 19.08.2002 under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.3. Counsel for the State, as well as the counsel for the complainant who is respondent no.2 herein, accept notice.At that stage, the matter was referred to the CRL.M.C. 3179/2014 Page 1 of 7 mediation by the court below and a settlement was arrived at on 01.02.2014 in the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi between the parties.A copy of the settlement has also been annexed to the petition.FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."I am of the opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus more so, since the parties have settled the matter between themselves and there is hardly any possibility of the success of the prosecution once the complainant is not supporting the case.Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 712/2002 registered at Police Station Nangloi on 19.08.2002 under Section 420/468/471/34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.CRL.M.C. 3179/2014 Page 6 of 7The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,832,156 |
Case diary is available.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 63/15 registered at Police Station, Malajkhand, Dist.Balaghat for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 506of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(xii) and 3 (2)(v) of the S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities)Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the prosecutrix, aged 37 years, lodged a written report (Annexure A/2) on 06-05-2015 at Police Station, Malajkhand, Dist.She used to live with him as his wife but in the year 2015 he refused to marry her.On the aforesaid grounds learned counsel contends that it was a case of consent and there is no ingredient of rape in this matter because the age of the prosecutrix was more than 18 years when she entered into the company of the applicant/accused.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned P.L. opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the case diary.The applicant/accused 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 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,832,938 |
Furnishing the following particulars and relying upon Rules 335, 339and 341 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rule, 1993, the convict petitioner praysfor issuance of a Habeas Corpus directing the authorities concerned to sethim at liberty.The particulars furnished are as follows:-S.No.Relevant parameter Required Details1.Name of the Detenu Arul @ Arulvendan (M, 44/18),S/o. Esakkimuthu2.Period of detention17 years and 7 months[Order of the Court was made by S.VIMALA, J] ? I know not whether the laws be right, or whether laws be wrong;All that we know who lie in gaol is that the wall is strong; and that each day is like a year, a year whose days are long.? - Oscar Wilde.The imprisonment encompassing prison and the prison deprivingfreedom for the human-beings are the nightmare for any convict and sometimesfor the family members of the convict also.Nobody would like to go toprison, however good it may be.Some of the leaders had claimed that it isonly in prison, they are able to write books, understand liberty and havetime to enhance their knowledge.The prison has the important role ofprotecting the community against the most dangerous offenders.Whether the prison system promotes reformative theory of punishment,is the issue to be considered, in the light of the prayer made by thepetitioner and other convict prisoners.The darker shades of prisondepicting problems on account of overcrowding, sexual abuse, corruption, drugabuse, mental illness, health problems, etc., would also be a factor whileconsidering the question of remission of sentence.The world is talking about the alternatives to imprisonment whichmay be helpful: (a) to repair the harms suffered by the victims, (b)treatment to drug addict, (c) treatment to mentally challenged and (d)rehabilitation of offenders, in addition to reducing prison cost.Eventhough the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed its appreciation for open prisons asan effective institution for rehabilitation of offenders in the case ofDharamveer v. State of Uttar Pradesh, still, open prison is rarely seen inIndia.With this background in mind, the Court has to consider the claimmade by the prisoners.3.Date of Representation20.01.20174.Punishment Under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code ? sentences to undergo rigorousimprisonment for three months.Under Sections 396 of Indian Penal Code- sentences to undergo imprisonment for life and fine or rupees 1,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor three months.Under Section 396 read with 402 of Indian Penal Code ? sentences to undergorigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of rupees 1,000 in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the learned trial judgedirected to undergo both sentences to run concurrently.It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation,dated 20.01.2017, placing the relevant facts and sought for pre-maturerelease.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,833,767 |
23.. 17.09.2010 C.R.R. 1913 of 2010 With C.R.A.N. 3149 of 2010 Mr. Siladitya Sanyal Mr. Arindam Jana .... For the petitioner Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta .... For O.P.Nos. 2-4 Mr. Kasem Ali Ahmed ... For the State Heard learned Advocates for both parties present.I have heard learned Advocates for both parties present.Certified Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the petitioner.(Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.)
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,836,820 |
Shri R.K. Awasthy, learned counsel for the complainant.Prosecutrix and her mother Sangeeta Udasi are present in person and she has been identified by Mr. R.K. Awasthy, Advocate.Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.552/2019 registered at Police Station Gohalpur Distt.Jabalpur for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376 (2)(N), 506 of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.The allegation of prosecution is that the prosecutrix aged about 17 years and 6 months was found to be disappeared from her house, report of which has been lodged by her brother Gaurav Udasi.It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant by enticing the prosecutrix has taken her.On that basis missing person report was registered and offence under section 363 of IPC was registered.Later on prosecutrix was recovered and her statements under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., have been recorded.The statements of her family members were also recorded.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.In this regard they have also filed affidavits stating the same facts.CC as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE SKM Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 17/10/2019 23:13:58
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,883,855 |
of the case in short are that on 2.11.2013 the applicants assaulted the victims Gajraj Singh and Deep Singh by sticks.In the incident, it was found that the victim Gajraj Singh sustained a fracture on his right humerus bone and remaining injuries were found simple in nature, whereas the victim Deep Singh sustained fracture on left tibia, left fibula and right tibia bone in his legs.Thereafter, in Trapti Hospital, a second x-ray of the victims took place.According to the report of Trapti Hospital, the victim Deep Singh sustained fracture on left fibula, right tibia and hairline fracture on his left radius bones, whereas the victim Gajraj Singh sustained fracture on both condyle lower, right humerus and fracture of right ulna bone.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be apparent that none of the applicants assaulted the victims on their vital parts of the bodies with force.There was no allegation that any fracture was caused to the victims Gajraj Singh and Deep Singh on the head or ribs.No vital parts like brain, heart, lungs, liver, spleen etc. were found damaged.Under these circumstances, though, the repeated assaults were caused by the applicants but looking to the place of assaults and the overt act of the applicants, they did not repeat the assaults on the head or vital part of the victims Gajraj Singh and Deep Singh therefore, it cannot be said that they intended to kill the victims Gajraj Singh and Deep Singh.In absence of intention of the applicants to kill the victims Gajraj Singh and Deep Singh and in absence of any fatal injury, no ingredient of Section 300 of the IPC is attracted.Prima facie, no offence under Section 307 of the IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of the IPC.The Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in framing the charges under Sections 307/149 of the IPC.At the most, the offence under Sections 325 or 325/149 of the IPC may constitute against the applicants.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the order dated 23.7.2015 passed by the 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore is hereby set aside.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information.C.C. as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,843,092 |
Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the present FIR was got registered in which all the four named accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathi and rod.The post mortem report reveals that there are as many as four injuries over his person having one injury over the head.Besides this, there is haematoma present over the head.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., 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.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.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 10.11.2020 Sumit S
|
['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.
|
138,843,229 |
Undisputedly, the respondent no.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste whereasthe appellant does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.They got acquainted with one another which ultimately culminated intoa love affair.The appellant and the respondent no.2 were aware oftheir respective castes.On 22.11.2011, the respondent no.2 along with her two friendsvisited the shop of the appellant's father at APMC Market, Vashi toinform him about their relationship and, therefore, made a proposal ofmarriage.It is contended that after knowing the caste of the respondentno.2, the appellant's father said that he would marry his son with any 2/10 6-criminal appeal-191-2020=.docheroin but he does not want the "filth of Mahar".It is alleged that at that time when the respondent no.2attempted to touch the fit of her in-laws to seek blessings, the father ofthe appellant alleged to have insulted by saying " you belong to Maharcaste therefore, do not touch us, you do not deserve people like usbelonging to upper caste and you will never been accepted as ourdaughter in-law, please leave our son" .It is further alleged that themother of the appellant taunted the respondent no.2 by saying that " weare so rich that our son could have received 20 to 25 lakhs as dowry but 3/10 6-criminal appeal-191-2020=.docbecause my son married a person like you belonging to a lower caste,my son and us have suffered a great loss ".It is also alleged that inorder to compel the appellant to divorce the respondent no.2, theappellant's parents often used to demand dowry of Rs.10 lakhs by sayingthat "they would accept her only if the demand is fulfilled".The prosecution case further reveals that in the year 2013 whenthe respondent no.2 had been to the house of the parents of theappellant at Kopar Khairane with Kheerpuri and bhaaji, it is alleged thatwhen the respondent no.2 told the appellant about arrival of herparents, the appellant shouted by saying "I do not eat from the house ofMahar and now even you should not eat, I have uplifted you and stillyou have not improved" in front of her parents as well as friends namelySangeeta Shinde and Raani Rai.After hearing the commotion theneighbours gathered and the parents of respondent no.2 left the houseas they were deeply hurt by such words.The impugned order dated29.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Thane is quashed.(ii) The appellant - Yogesh Mahadev Kamthe, be released onexecuting a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or twosureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SpecialCourt, Thane in Crime No. I-21 of 2020 registered with VashiPolice Station.(iii) The appellant shall stay out of New Bombay area untilconclusion of the trial.for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.This is an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging an Digitally signed by order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions UDAYUDAY SHIVAJISHIVAJI JAGTAPJAGTAP Date:2020.06.12 19:08:12 Judge, Thane rejecting the application for bail preferred by the appellant +0530 1/10 6-criminal appeal-191-2020=.docunder Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The appellant and his parents have been charge-sheeted byrespondent no.1 State at the instance of Vashi Police Station in CrimeNo.I-21 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323,504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(r)(s)(v), 3(2)(va) ofS.C.S.T. Act and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.Subsequently, the respondent and the appellant got married on27.12.2012 against the wishes of the parents of the appellant.They gotmarried at Vishweshwar Mandir, Nirmal Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai asper Hindu rituals.The marriage has been registered.It is alleged thatthe marriage was not attended by the parents of the appellant.Rather,the father of the appellant had threatened the relatives that any one whoattends the marriage of the appellant with respondent no.2 will be shotat.It is the case of the prosecution that a few days after the marriage,the respondent no.2 and the appellant had been to the parents house ofthe appellant.The appellant threw the foodin the dust-bin and started hurling abuses at the respondent no.2 andher parents.He had even assaulted the respondent no.2 on her stomach.On 30.12.2013 the respondent no.2 delivered a girl child namelyNeha.However, there was no change in the behavior of the appellant 4/10 6-criminal appeal-191-2020=.docand his parents who continued abusing and insulting the respondentno.2 on her caste.It is alleged that in the year 2014 when therespondent no.2 and the appellant had visited the parents of theappellant along with their daughter Neha, the parents of the appellantdid not let them enter the house.Rather, they abused and insulted therespondent no.2 on her caste by saying " this girl cannot be our granddaughter as she is born to a mother belonging to a lower caste ".The record further reveals that father of the respondent no.2passed away in the month of July, 2014 and, therefore, the respondentno.2 was left with no support.She, therefore, addressed a notice to theappellant informing that she was ready to co-habit with the appellantwherever he decides.However, the appellant did not co-operate anddid not take the responsibility of the respondent no.2 and her daughter.At the outset, the learned Counsel for the appellant assailed theimpugned order by submitting that the learned Trial Court has failed to 5/10 6-criminal appeal-191-2020=.docappreciate the fact that there is absolutely no explanation as to whythere was a delay of 6 years in lodging the report by respondent no.2against the appellant.The parents have already been grantedprotection from arrest by this Court.Since the charge-sheethas already been filed, there is no question of bar of Section 18 of theS.C. S.T. Act. The learned Counsel also took me through the statementand the report of the respondent / 1st informant by contending thatwhatever allegations levelled against the appellant were not withinpublic view, in the sense, the offence is alleged to have been taken placeinside the house and, therefore, no case under the atrocity Act has beenmade out.The Investigating Agency has invoked Section 3(1)(r) and3(1)(s) of the S.C.S.T. Act by alleging that the utterances were takenplace within public view.However, it seems from the statement ofrespondent no.2 and from the recitals of the FIR that they werenecessarily inside the house.It reveals from the FIR that at one point of 6/10 6-criminal appeal-191-2020=.doctime, the appellant was ready and willing to reside with the parents ofrespondent no.2 during her pregnancy and in fact they were residingwith her parents till Neha was born.That being so, it prima faciesounds improbable that the appellant would abuse his wife on casteespecially when it is a love marriage.The section invoked by theprosecution is 498A of the IPC which provides punishment for 3 years.Indeed, there is no explanation as to why it took 6 years for the wife /respondent no.2 to lodge a report against the husband.Since, thecharge-sheet has already been filed and the parents of the appellanthave already been released, no fruitful purpose would be served indetaining the appellant behind the bars as the trial has not yetcommenced.Mr. Sarwade, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2has strongly objected the release of the appellant by contending that hehad been repeatedly abusing his wife on caste and committing atrocitiesand, therefore, it would not be safe to release him on bail as there arelikelihood of repeating the offence at the hands of the appellant.The learned APP has also objected the release, however, he 7/10 6-criminal appeal-191-2020=.docsubmits that strict conditions be imposed to refrain the appellant frominfluencing or threatening or abusing the respondent no.2 in anymanner.The learned Counsel for the appellant is fair enough to submit thatthe appellant is ready to stay out of New Bombay since his wife -respondent no.2 is staying at Kamothe.Having considered the entire circumstances of the case includingthe fact that charge-sheet has already been filed and there was noexplanation for a delay of 6 years in filing the report, it would be a fitcase in which the appellant can be released on bail, however, by puttingappropriate conditions.The impugnedorder, therefore, needs to be quashed.Consequently, I proceed to passthe following order :-6-criminal appeal-191-2020=.doc ORDER(i) The appeal is allowed.(iv) The appellant shall not in any manner whatsoeverthreaten, influence, coerce or contact the respondent no.2 /victim or her relatives, daughter or witnesses either directly orindirectly.(viii) The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.This order shall be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of thisCourt.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
1,388,442 |
P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the parents of the deceased Saroja.The deceased Saroja was given in marriage to the accused on 2-6-1982 and after five months of their marriage when the accused and deceased Saroja came to the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in connection with Deepavali, P.Ws. 1 and 2 presented a dining table, worth about Rs. 950/-.It is stated that the accused told them that it would have been better if they had paid the value of the dinning table instead of purchasing a dining table, as he would have deposited the money in the bank.So saying, he quarrelled with P.Ws. 1 and 2 and returned to his house without taking the meals there.The parents of the accused also came and expressed the same view.In the latter part of 1983 there were quarrels between the deceased and accused.On account of the same, deceased Saroja came to her parents' house.At her request, here father, P.W. 1, secured a job in a printing press.It is stated that the accused came there and insisted for the payment of deceased's salary and also quarrelled on that account.Subsequently, the relations of the accused came to the house of the deceased's parents and took the deceased to the accused's house after mediation.Thereupon, the deceased was living with her husband, the accused, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a female child.It is stated that the accused insisted that the child should be presented with a jewel.Accordingly, P.W. 1 presented 2 bangles of one sovereign, worth about Rs. 2,500/-, to their grand child.About 10 months later, after the birth of the child, they also presented clothes and earrings to the child.In the year 1985, P.W. 2 sent her son Jaganathan to invite the accused and the deceased in connection with the Deepavali festival.When Jaganathan went there, the accused refused to come for Deepavali and sent him back.Thereupon in connection with the 'Aravan' festival, P.W. 1 sent his wife, P.W. 2, to invite the accused and the deceased.Accordingly, P.W. 2 went to Perianaickenpalayam to invite them.When she went there, the accused was not there.She waited till the arrival of the accused.Accused returned to the house by 06.00 p.m. and when P.W. 2 invited them the accused told her that if the deceased wants to go she could do so only after leaving the child and removing the Thali and giving it to the accused.The deceased expressed her inability to attend the festival.After that P.W. 2 left the accused's house.On 12-11-1985, after P.W. 2 left the house, the deceased poured kerosene over her body and set fire.When she raised noise, her neighbour Mariappan along with the accused ran to her and found her laying with burn injuries in the bathroom.They put down the fire and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore and admitted her in the hospital.On coming to know about the incident, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to the hospital and saw the deceased.When they questioned her, she told them that she could not live with her husband, the accused, and they can take back the child as well as the properties.P.W. 4, Medical Officer sent Ex. P-3 to Police.On receipt of the same, a Constable came from the outpost P.S. and recorded the accused's statement under Ex. P-10 P.W. 7 is the Judicial Magistrate.On receipt of the same, P.W. 11 came to the Government Hospital and held inquest over the dead body between 10 a.m. and 01.00 p.m. During the inquest he examined the deceased's parents.P.Ws. 1 and 2, and others.P.W. 11 sent his report, Ex. P-12 to police.Thereupon, the body was entrusted with P.W. 8 for the purpose of post-mortem, with a requisition to the Medical Officer.P.Ws. 1 and 2 convened the panchayat immediately, even before the body was taken to the burial ground, and got back the jewels and other articles of the deceased from the accused, and also got the custody of the child.After post-mortem, the body was also entrusted to P.Ws. 1 and 2 for last rites, as per their desire.P.W. 12, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation of the case and inspected the scene place.As the Tahsildar took up investigation of the case, P.W. 12, the Inspector of Police, did not proceed further.Thereafter, no further action was taken.P.W. 12, registered a case in Crime No. 200 of 1985 under section 498(A) of I.P.C. after changing it from 174, I.P.C. Thereafter he prepared the First Information Report, sent the same to then Court and then he examined the witnesses.P.W. 13, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up further investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused under sections 498(A) and 306 of I.P.C. When the accused was examined under section 313(1), Cr.P.C., he totally denied the prosecution version, and according to the accused, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are responsible for the death of deceased Saroja as they had given the belongings of the deceased's elder sister to the deceased at the time of marriage and since the her elder sister demanded back the jewels, they wanted the deceased to return the jewels.On account of the same, quarrel arose between the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 leading to her death.On the side of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined.Exs. P-1 to P-14 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked.On the side of the accused Exs. D-1 to D-3 were marked.After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and acquitted him.The State, second respondent in this revision, has not preferred appeal.P.W. 1, father of the deceased, preferred this revision.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the reasonings of the Court below in acquitting the first respondent are not convincing and the Court below has not properly applied the provision of law under sections 498A and 306, I.P.C. to the facts of the present case.The Court below ought not to have given importance to the minor discrepancies and the Court below failed to see that evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, can be considered and accused though they are related the deceased.The Court below ought to have accepted the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 who are the independent witnesses.The Court below failed to see that the accused did not make any attempt to prevent the fire on the deceased and when he went along with P.W. 3 on hearing her noise.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that there is absolutely no acceptable evidence on the side of the prosecution.There was no cruelty on the part of the accused and he was not responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased.Once cruelty is not established, no case can be made against the accused.He would further submit that even accepting the three instances referred to in the prosecution, they would not amount to the demand of dowry as per the definitions of the Dowry Act. He would submit that the deceased committed suicide only on account of the dispute between the deceased and her parents.This fact is probabilised by their conduct in taking back the jewels and other articles belonging to the deceased and her child, even before the deceased's body was taken for burial.A careful consideration of the impugned order as well as the oral and documentary evidence and the rival submissions shows that the accused married the deceased on 2-6-1982, and were living happily after their marriage.According to the prosecution, after five months of the marriage, when the accused and deceased went to the latter's house, P.Ws. 1 and 2 voluntarily presented them with a dining table worth about Rs. 950/-.It is further stated that when the accused deserted his wife, the deceased, in the year 1984, she was employed in a printing press and the accused went there and insisted on the payment of her salary.It is to be noted that there is absolutely nothing to prove this aspect excepting the interested testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that the deceased was working in a press and was drawing salary.No other document or independent evidence has been produced to substantiate this.There was absolutely no reason given for the non-examination of this Jagannathan.In the absence of his evidence, there is absolutely nothing to show that Jagannathan came and invited the accused and the accused refused to come for the Deepavali.Further it is stated by the prosecution that in connection with the 'aravan' festival, at the instance of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 went to the accused and invited him for the festival.He refused to come and imposed a condition that the deceased could go only after leaving her child and removing the thali.Thereupon, the deceased expressed her inability to attend the festival and P.W. 2 returned back.Even when examined by the Tahsildar, P.Ws. 1 and 2 they did not make any statement against the accused nor did they speak about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the accused.Further, the version of the accused is probabilised by the fact that after the occurrence took place on 12-11-1985, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined by the authorities, and they did not find any material to proceed further and further action was deferred.Thereafter P.W. 1 gave a report on 2-3-1986 and on the basis of that cases P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and a case has been initiated against the accused.Admittedly, a case was filed before the Civil Court for the custody of the child and the accused won the case up to High Court.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,849,859 |
I.A. No.3745/2018 and 3746/2018, applications for early hearing and hearing during vacation, respectively, stands dismissed as being rendered infructuous.Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.2944/2018, an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence moved on behalf of appellant- Roopsingh.All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and did not misused the liberty so granted to him.It is further submitted that as per the statement of injured constable Satish Parmar (P.W.4), 5-6 persons assaulted police party and one of them gave a blow of knife due to which he sustained injuries on his left scapular region, however, he accepted in his cross- examination that he has not identified the assailants.Cr.A. No.2456/2018 2Roopsingh was caught by the police party from the spot, therefore, trial Court has come to the conclusion that he has inflicted injuries to the constable Satish Parmar (P.W.4).The Doctor Sandeep Jatwar(P.W.3), who medically examined the injured Satish accepted in his cross- examination that the injuries sustained by Satish (P.W.4) were simple in nature and not dangerous to life.Under these circumstances the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and committed error in convicting the appellant under Section 307 of IPC.At the most, the appellant can be convicted for offence under Section 332 of IPC and he has already suffered more than 6 months of jail sentence.It is also submitted that there are fair chances of success in the appeal and the appellant cannot be kept in custody unnecessarily, otherwise the present appeal filed by him may turn infructuous.The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court.Under these circumstances, counsel prayed for suspension of remaining jail sentence of appellant and grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application, submitting that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on bail, hence the application filed by the appellant be dismissed.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2018.06.26 13:48:09 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,851,408 |
DATED : 29th March, 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT :1. Admitted.Heard finally by consent.The charge sheet has been filed pursuant to the investigation in Crime No.86/2010 of Ladkhed Police Station.Complaint was lodged by the respondent no.2-The respondent no.3 who is original accused no.3, is the mediator who had allegedly assisted the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 to arrange their marriage.It is the stated by the respondent no.2 in her complaint that her ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:48:05 ::: cri.apl.279.11 3 marriage with the applicant no.1 took place on 12th August, 2008 at Bhaskar Sabhagriha, Nagpur, according to Buddhists rites and rituals.It is alleged that she was treated well for about 2 months.It is further alleged that after about two months, the applicant no.2 daughter of first wife of applicant no.1 came there and she started the whole trouble.In brief, it is stated in the FIR that the applicant no.1 himself and with the assistance of applicant no.2, had subjected the respondent no.2 to cruelty.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:48:05 :::Mr. Thote, learned Advocate has, therefore, contended that there were all chances of manipulation and filing a false complaint against the applicants.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:48:05 :::Apart from these arguments, it was specifically submitted on behalf of the applicants that the applicant no.2 had never been staying with the applicant no.1 and respondent no.2 and that the allegations made against her are with ulterior motive to implicate the father and daughter, both.Xerox copies of photographs have been annexed to the affidavit.In the circumstances, the issues raised by the applicants will have to be decided during the course of trial.Whether the delay has been properly explained or not and whether it is for genuine reasons or not, will have to be examined by the trial Court and not in this Court.::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:48:05 :::For all the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Application is dismissed.Ad-interim order, if any, stands vacated.JUDGE sahare ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:48:05 :::::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 16:48:05 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,388,517 |
He raised alam as a result of which his Son Ram Prakash saved him.The appellants then ran away and he was taken to hospital by his son.PW-3 Ram Prakash is the son of injured.He has stated that on 23.5.93 he was reading newspaper while sitting on the roof.He also stated that there was no injury on the abdomen as per the x-ray.In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant Ramesh Kumar admitted that he was a tenant under the injured Brahmdev Gupta but denied having caused injury to him.The appellant Rajpal admitted that he was present in the house in question on 23.5.93 but denied the allegations against him.He stated that in the night of 2.5.93 SI Keshav Kumar, IO of this case along with Ct.This is an appeal against the judgment and Order on Sentence dated 14.1.2000 whereby the appellants Rajpal and Ramesh Kumar were convicted under Section Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 1 of 13 307 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay find of Rs. 2,000/- each or to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each, in default.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 1 of 13The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the FIR is that one Kalawati, mother of the appellants who was also a co accused with them and was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was a tenant under complainant Brahmdev Gupta in respect of house No. Q- 10, Gali No. 10, Brahmpuri.Civil litigation was going on between the complainant and Kalawati and there was a quarrel on the day previous to the day of this incident, when the appellant Rajpal tried to take possession of some open portion of the house, on 23rd May, 1993, when the complainant entered the house, on being instigated by Kalawati, the appellant Rajpal gave danda blow on the fingers of his right hand and Kalawati herself gave danda blow on his head which he averted.Thereafter Kalawati asked Ramesh to stab him.Rajpal caught hold of him from behind and Ramesh stabbed him on the right Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 2 of 13 side of his abdomen and when he tilted in order to save himself, the knife injured right side of his abdomen.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 2 of 13During trial the injured came in the witness box as PW-2 and stated that on 23.5.93 at about 9.30 am when he came after purchasing milk, Kalawati said 'Maaro Saale Ko' and catch him.Rajpal caught hold of him while Ramesh stabbed him with knife on the right side of his abdomen.His father came to the house after purchasing milk.The appellant Rajapal caught hold of his father and appellant Ramesh stabbed his father with a knife on his abdomen.His father raised alarm and as soon as he came down stairs, both the appellants ran away.In cross examination he admitted that as per depth of the wound indicated against injury No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 3 of 13 correlated with x-ray, it would be treated as a Simple Incised Wound.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 3 of 13PW-9 Dr. S.C. Bhalla examined the x-ray plate of the injured and found fracture of base of third proximal phalpnx on the left palm.Satish and Ct.Satender came to the tenanted premises.He further stated that the complainant Brahmdev Gupta and his son attacked his wife on that day.He made complaint against the investigating officer and he was then suspended and an inquiry was instituted against him.DW-1 D.D. Nigam, ACP has stated that he conducted inquiry on the complaint of Rajpal and Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 4 of 13 submitted his report mark A. DW-2 Inspector Balbir Singh has proved the order of Additional Commissioner of Police Ex. DW2/A and Ex. DW2/B. These documents show that in P.E. in was found that the IO had helped the complainant in getting her house vacated from the appellant and then implicated the appellants in a false case under Section 307 of IPC.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 4 of 13A perusal of the MLC of the injured / complainant Ex. PW7/A would show that he had the following injuries(i) A CIW 7 x 1 cm right hypochordrium,(ii) tenderness right melacapoplandyant.When correlated with the statement of the complainant / injured Shri Brahmdev Gupta, it would show that the complainant / injured Brahmdev Gupta had two injuries (i) one on his right hand finger and the other on the right side of his stomach.As regards the injury on his finger, the case of the complainant is in the FIR is that it was appellant Rajpal who cause this injury on his right hand with a danda.When the complainant came in the witness box, he did not say a word about the injury on his right hand.He did Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 5 of 13 not way that the appellant Rajpal had given a danda blow on his right hand finger.PW-3 who is the son of the complainant also did not say a word as to how his father sustained injury on his right hand finger.Thus, there is absolutely no evidence as to who caused injury on the right hand finger of the complainant.The testimony of PW-9 Dr. S.C. Bhalla coupled with his report Ex. PW9/A shows that there was a fracture on the left palm of the complainant / injured Brahmdev Gupta.In the FIR lodged by him, the complainant stated that Kalawati gave a danda blow on his head which he was able to avert.Possibly he got this fracture in order to save himself from the danda blow given by Kalawati.He does not attribute the injury on his left palm eight to appellant Rajpal or to appellant Ramesh.Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is no evidence that the injury on the left palm of the complainant was caused by either of the appellant.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 5 of 13The only evidence which has come against the appellants is that while appellant Rajpal caught hold of Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 6 of 13 injured from behind, appellant Ramesh gave him a knife blow on the right side of his abdomen.As noted earlier, depth of the wound found on the right side of the stomach of the complainant has not been given in the MLC.PW-7 Dr. Ravinder Kumar has admitted in his cross examination that since as per x-ray report of abdomen, evidence of gas under the right doom of the diaporam was not seen, that means the injury was not upto the peritorium which is an internal organ.In fact, according to him they had gone for x-ray of abdomen for this very reason.He opined that since depth of the wound has not mentioned against the injury no. 1, without co relation with x ray, it would be treated as a simple incised wound.Thus the evidence produced by the prosecution proves only this much that a simple incised wound of the size of 7 cm x 1 cm was given by appellant Ramesh on the right side of the abdomen of the complainant by knife and at that time he was held by appellant Rajpal.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 6 of 13No one has told the court as to what was the size of the knife used by appellant Ramesh.The knife has not Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 7 of 13 been seized.Ordinarily only kitchen knife are likely to be available in a household.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 7 of 13In order to succeed in a charge u/s 307 of IPC, the prosecution was required to prove (i) that the death of a human being was attempted, (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by consequence of the act of the accused and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injuries as the accused knew to be likely to cause death or was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.14, To justify the conviction under Section 307 of IPC it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted.Although the nature of injury may often given considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deducted from other circumstances.What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 8 of 13Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 8 of 13In that case, six incised wounds, which were not more than half inch in size and were skin deep, were found on the body of the injured.The High Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that a sharp edged cutting instrument was used and certain injuries were caused on the chest portion of the complainant, the intention of the assailant was clearly to commit murder.In Hari Singh Vs.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 9 of 13Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 9 of 13The appellants were tenants in a house owned by the complainant.A civil case was admittedly pending in the court.There must have been some quarrel on 22.5.93 when according to the complainant, the appellant Rajpal tried to take possession of some vacant portion of the house.It appears that the injury to the complainant was caused in the course of the quarrel that ensued on 23rd May, 1993 consequent to the quarrel on the previous day and keenness of the complainant to get the house vacated.The preliminary Enquiry against the IO has revealed his connivance with the complainant.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 10 of 13Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 11 of 13The act of the appellant Rajpal in holding the complainant when knife blow was given to him by appellant Ramesh proves that he shared a common intention with Ramesh to cause injury to the complainant with a knife.Therefore, he also is liable to be convicted under Section 324 of IPC, read with Section 34 thereof.For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the order of the Trial Court is modified to the extent that Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 12 of 13 both the appellants are convicted under Section 324 of the IPC r/w Section 34 thereof.During the course of arguments it was admitted by Addl.PP that the appellants have been in custody for more than six months each.Hence both of them are granted benefit of probation and shall be released on furnishing bond of peace and good conduct in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each for a period of one year each, to the satisfaction of the trial court within one week.In the event of failure to furnish bond of peace and good behaviour in terms of this order, they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and will also pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each or undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each in default.One copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court within three days for information and compliance.One copy be given dasti to the appellants.Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 12 of 13(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE October 30, 2009/acm Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 13 of 13Criminal Appeal No. 85/2000 Page 13 of 13
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,916,238 |
It is the case of the prosecution that in the year 2000 one Vijay Ishwaran and Joseph, the founders of "QI Group" formed a company under the name and style "Gold Quest International Private Limited".Gold Quest International Private Limited used to sale gold plated coins.In the year 2000 the rate of gold was Rs. 5,000/- per 10 gms., however, they used to sale the gold plated coins for Rs. 30,000/-though the gold was less than 10 gms.Thereafter, the purchaser of the gold coin becomes a member of the group.He was required to make more persons as the member of the Gold Quest International Private Limited.On the basis of the number of members which he brings, he was placed to get the commission.So he was supposed to bring minimum two persons and the hierarchy had pyramid structure.So one member treated at the right side and second member was treated on the left side.It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/accused Suresh Thimiri was appointed as Indian head and C.E.O. of QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited and the applicants/accused Michael Ferreira and Malcholm Desai had joined the said company in the year 2006 and actively participated in the expansion of this company.They stopped the business of QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited company but formed a new company by name Q Net.Under this brand of Q Net, three companies i.e. Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Private Ltd, Transview Enterprises India Private Limited and Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt.The police have recorded the statements of three persons who have stated that the seminars were conducted for the persons who were interested in getting degree of M.B.A. They have stated that as per the representation made before them, they paid the amounts as they were promised E-course of M.B.A. which was affiliated to some Swiss University.They were informed that as and when payment is made, you will get identity and one "Independent Representative" (I.R.) number and a link will be provided with a password so that they could have access to the site.However, 10 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected] irrespective of their efforts they could not get access and could not complete the degree and thus they were cheated.He submitted that Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Private Ltd. and Pallava Resorts Private Limited have created a Website and travel packages.He submitted that the company gives rosy picture of 'money back scheme' to the public at large.However, once a person become a member, he is called as 'Independent Representative' (I.R.) and then he can get the commission.However, he does not earn money as promised.For that purpose, workshops are conducted where study and business material is provided with a jugglery of words, promises and dreams.applicants/accused are facing charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3 of Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments Act) in C.R. No. 2 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected] 316 of 2013 registered with Oshiwara police station, Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::The volume of the said business after enrollment of new member increases when 1000 units are credited to 3 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected] the account of the old member which are treated equivalent to the commission of Rs. 11,500/-.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::It is the case prosecution that in the year 2003 a fraud was detected and the offence was registered at Chennai against the said Gold Quest International Private Limited company.So the owners of the said company repaid everything to the members to whom they have promised to pay and the offence was compounded.Hence, the first information report was quashed.However, the company continued the illegal activities by forming another company by different name i.e. "QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited".They started one "Pallava Resorts Private Limited" and also launched various products especially the products by name Biodisck, Chi Pendent, Watches, Gold Coins.These products were sold from minimum Rs.30/- to Rs. 7 lacs.The false representation was made by the company that the said product Biodisk cures diseases.Biodisk is to be kept in the water and due to molecular effect, the quality of the water is changed and if that water is consumed, it will give good result and cures the diseases including like cancer.4 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::In the said company, the applicant/accused Malcholm Desai was holding 20% shares and the applicant/accused Michael Ferreira was holding 80% shares.Other two applicants /accused Magaral Balaji and Shinivas Vanka were appointed as Directors of the Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. Under the said Vihaan company, they continued the activities of selling the same products of Biodisk, Gold coins, Chi Pendents etc. They established one Pallava Resorts Private Limited and Vanmala Hotels, 5 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected] Travels and Tourism Services Private Ltd. The applicant/accused Suresh Thimiri was the C.E.O. since 2010 and became Director of Transview Enterprises India Private Limited.The holiday packages were issued by the said company.However, all these holiday packages were not given but only few were provided.Many persons also became members could not get a business as promised by the company.Therefore they felt deception.Thereafter the police registered offence on 16th August, 2013 against the present applicants/accused.At that time, it was found that nearly 90000 members were cheated at the hands of applicants/accused and they suffered wrongful loss of amount of Rs. 425 Crores and as such money laundering was of Rs. 425 Crores.However, till today during the investigation, it was found that number of members who are deceived are around 5 lacs and misappropriation and money laundering was about more than of Rs. 1000 Crores.Hence, this complaint.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::Mr. Amit Desai, Mr. Ashok Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Girish Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicants have submitted that the applicants/accused are innocent.6 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected] They have neither cheated anybody nor committed any offence.It is submitted that the complainant is a motivated person who has lodged a false complaint against the applicants/accused due to business rivalry.Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. company has total 50 products and they are categorized sales known for nutrition and herbal products, the tourism holiday, wellness products etc. Mr. Amit Desai, the learned Senior Counsel, further has submitted that the applicants/accused neither promoted any investment nor collected deposits in any scheme.They are selling products and the buyers get the commission.He described the policy of the company as "if you sell more, you earn more".He relied on the terms and conditions of the contract/policy which every member has to sign with the company after he gets Independent Representative number and the membership.He submitted that the 7 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected] company has also refund policy and the persons who did not receive the service or are not satisfied with the service, they can approach the company.The company has refunded nearly 95-100 Crores.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment of Gold Quest International Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2014) 15 Supreme Court Cases, 235 where the company has filed Petition for quashing the first information report and wherein a compromise/settlement between the parties has taken place and the Supreme Court quashed the first information report and allowed the Appeal.He further relied on para 6 of the said ruling.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::The learned senior counsel has submitted that since the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. And Others, (1994) 4 Supreme Court Case, 260 to the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the law on the point of arrest has changed as the police officer must be satisfied about necessity and jurisdiction of such arrest on the basis of investigation.He relied on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 565 and Siddharam Mhetre (supra), wherein the principle of arrest in the cases of anticipatory bail is explained.It was the case under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles of grant of anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::Mr. Pradeep Gharat, the learned special prosecutor submitted that Chi Pendent and Biodisk were sent to Bhabha Atomic Research Center for radio activity test which was conducted on 20 th February, 2015 wherein it was reported that no radio activity was detected.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::The commission was not paid on the products though the new members were introduced.The registered office of Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Private Limited company is a call center.He further submitted that in December, 2014 the Ministry of Corporate Affairs sealed their office at Chennai and declared Gold Quest International Private Limited and QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited as the fraud companies.Thus money is collected on-line and though the Independent Representative number is given, actual money was not available for withdrawal.Said money was laundered outside India.The police in the investigation have come across 73 bank accounts of Q Net Limited and total laundering of Rupees is around 135 Crores.The learned special prosecutor further submitted that in the year 2014 the complaint was filed against Q Net Limited and QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited companies of Q1 Group as they have 11 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected] cheated many persons.He submitted that Q1 Group is from Malaysia and through the said group these activities are carried out under different name and style.There are multiple bank accounts, there is mens rea to cheat the people and thus, the companies i.e. Transview Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. and Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. cheated many persons and that is continued till today.There is money- trail which is disclosing money level circulation scheme.In support of his contentions, he relied on the following authorities:::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::5) Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. C.B.I., in Cri.7) Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anil Sharma, S.C, rd Cri.12 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::8) Sudhir vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, Cri.In the said case, the Court has referred Section 45 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and which has overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:08 :::The complainant Gurupreetsingh Anand who was present in the Court wanted to address the Court and so in all fairness, the opportunity was given to him.He was heard.He has also filed the intervention application.He stated that QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited carried out their business and after the prosecution of 14 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited, they introduced the business plan under the name and style Q Net Limited.The applicants /accused and the other representatives are not accessible and finally the person lose his money.He submitted that the same persons are rotated from QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited to Vanmala Hotels, Travels and Tourism Services Pvt. Ltd. and Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that the payments were promised and the partnership was as per the business plan.He submitted that nearly 15000 Independent Representative of Q Net Limited were transferred to Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd. company.The complainant relied on the business plan of QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited.So also the Frequently Asked 15 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] Questions(FAQ) in the business of Vihaan Direct Selling (I) Pvt. Ltd.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::So also the genealogy report.He submitted that they are attracting people by giving false promises.The learned counsel for the applicants/accused in reply submitted that the applicants/accused have fully cooperated the police and the details of financial transactions also supplied to the police.Only few crores have gone out of India.The learned senior counsel Mr. Desai has submitted that direct marketing is promoted by Government of India and Government has supported direct marketing i.e. how the applicants/accused are carrying out the business and all the activities are legal.The applicants/accused who are running company explained the facts to the public at large and the persons who became members.A contract is entered between them.The entire business is legal so that people can earn more money and quick money and it is not dependent on enrollment of members but on the sell.He submitted that in this scheme, income is on the basis of sale of 16 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] products.It is not compulsory for any person to become member and enroll in it.He submitted that earlier it was Gold Quest International Private Limited and if at all there is some fault or illegality found in the scheme, then the person can change the scheme as per the requirement of the law and it can be corrected and therefore a new scheme can be introduced.Therefore, there is difference between Q Net Limited and QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited.There are no registration charges for becoming Independent Representative in Q Net Limited, which were compulsory in QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited.The commission depends only on sale of goods.There is also a refund policy in the working of Q Net Limited.The applicants/accused are not sitting on anybody's money.In the case of QuestNet Enterprise (P) Limited, the Madras High Court initiated the prosecution against different persons than the applicants/accused.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::However, the order passed by the Madras High Court was subsequently set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the parties entered into a compromise.17 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::"The scheme is so grossly unworkable that the persons who made representations to that effect and induced persons to part with money did entertain the contumacious intention.They knew fully well that unworkable false representations were being made.The obvious attempt, it can be presumed at this stage, was to induce persons by such false unworkable representations to part with money.Initially some subscribers can be kept satisfied to induce them and others similarly placed to join the long queue.But inevitably and inescapably later subscribers are bound to suffer unjust loss when they swallow the false and therefore the charge can be 19 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] framed under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code at the said stage."::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::A letter dated 1st January, 2015 issued by the Chief General Manager, R.B.I. is placed before me, wherein R.B.I. has cautioned the public against multilevel marketing activities as the people due to attractive offers are falling prey to the said schemes and finally they suffer losses.In the case of Shrinivasa Enterprise (supra), the competency of the legislature to enact the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 was challenged.20 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] "In the matters of economics, sociology and other specialised subjects, Courts not embark upon views of half-::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::Perused the documents presented by both the sides.I have gone through the plan which is given by Qnet to every individual representative (IR).I have gone through the statements of many witnesses, who claimed that they have been cheated under the scheme launched by Qnet.22 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::Apart from these offences for which the applicants/accused are prosecuted, cheating is the only non-bailable offence under section 420 of the IPC.While hearing the case of the prosecution and the defence, my main query to both the parties and myself was whether offence of cheating is prima facie made out or not.In order to attract the offence of cheating, the ingredient of intention to cheat should be present in the mind of the accused.The entire business was Internet based and, therefore, the persons who are responsible i.e., the top brass i.e., the applicants/accused, were not approachable to the persons who were aggrieved.The nature of the business was knitted in the interest of the Directors and shareholders in such a manner that the persons who are at the lower level of the pyramid cannot get any access to put 24 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] up their grievances.The manner in which the persons were contacted, incentives offered, the workshops were conducted, are best examples of inducement.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::Undoubtedly, all these workshops and sessions and training centres are run at the behest of the applicants/accused by the Directors and shareholders i.e., the applicants/accused and thus, they have control either directly or remotely, over the dishonest 25 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] inducement and aggressive marketing which is the modus operandi of this company.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::The motto of the company 'sell more, earn more' appears very attractive and 26 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] innocuous.However, this motto is fully camouflaged.The company stands on a basic statement that people can be fooled.Thus, the true motto is 'sell more earn more' by fooling people.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants-accused that selling the product at a very high price is not an offence, is true and cannot be controverted in the marketing business.It depends on the marketing capacity of an individual and so the level of his profit.However, in this marketing, the IRs are directed to give all the names and details of the relatives, phone numbers of their acquaintances, references and thereafter the persons in the higher level, who are given some positions, contact these acquaintances and references and the chain is multiplied.The persons who are gullible, are bound to be prey of such kind of persuasion which is coloured with inducement.Thus, the deceit and fraud is camouflaged under the name of e-marketing and business.27 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected]::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::Desai, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants, has submitted that the law under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has developed and changed a lot till today.The Supreme Court has taken a very liberal view and a humanistic view on the point of arrest.He relied on Joginder Singh Sibiya and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth (supra) and submitted that in the cases especially where the punishment is less than 7 years, the Supreme Court has disapproved arrest and, therefore, section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is enacted.It is true that the Legislature in order to avoid illegal arrest, rather to check the police-mania of arrest, has enacted section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court responding to the said legislation in Arnesh Kumar (supra), has laid down guidelines directing the police how to give notice and the person should get opportunity to put up his explanation.The applicants/accused were granted interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge and thus, the applicants/accused have visited 28 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] the police station on a number of occasions and gave explanation to the police, which they wanted to.However, the police have opposed their applications for pre-arrest bail in the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court has denied the same.It shows that section 41A was in fact fully complied with.This shows that the police whatever explanation and information they received from the applicants/accused are not satisfied.I made searching queries to the learned Prosecutor in order to clear the doubt as to whether the police wanted to arrest the applicant-accused only out of vengenace or they have made it a prestige issue.However, after going through the record, which is placed before the Court and the submissions made by both the parties, I found that such element is absent.There may be misdirected over-enthusiasm on the part of the prosecution in sending Biodisk and Chi Pendent to BARC.However, I am of the view that they need to investigate properly and more effectively to find out the money trail and from where the products are manufactured, also to check the correct addresses, bank accounts, networking of the company, etc. Moreover, by this deceitful inducement, large number of people, may be approximately 2.5 lakh people, are trapped in this money-tree planting business and 29 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] everyday, as it is an ongoing activity, more people are accepting these attractive camouflaged offers.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::It has very grave and serious impact on the economic status and mental health of the people on a large scale.On considering parameters of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am not inclined to protect the accused.It won't be out of place to mention that such circulation is required to be stopped.Though by stopping this business, a large group of people may get financially affected, however, it will save larger groups of people from becoming prey of this activity.In the result, the Anticipatory Bail Applications are rejected.Criminal Applications for interventions stand disposed of.At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/accused seeks continuation of earlier interim relief for a period of 10 weeks as the applicants/accused intend to challenge the 30 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 ::: [email protected] order before the honourable Supreme Court.Learned Prosecutor has opposed this oral prayer.::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 31 / 31 ::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:09 :::
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,917,163 |
( 26.05.2017) In the instant revision petition, the applicants are aggrieved with the judgement and conviction dated 5.4.2003 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Appeal No.125/2001, arising out of judgement dated 23.8.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.108/2001, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal of the applicants.The conviction and sentence of applicant Nos.1 and 2 under Section 324/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC') has been set aside and instead of that they have been imposed fine amount of Rs.5,000/- each.So far as applicant No.3 Dinesh is concerned, he 2 has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.7.1999 at about 4:00 p.m. the complainant Inder Singh stopped applicant No.2 from grazing cattle on the 'Medh' of his field and after sometime when the complainant was going to his home, the applicants met him on the way and by abusing committed 'Marpeet' by 'Ballam' and wooden stick on the person of the complainant.After investigation the case under Section 323, 324/34 of IPC was registered.The learned JMFC framed charges under Section 323, 324/34 of IPC and sentenced conviction to applicants to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- each.Whereas the applicant No.3 has been convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months.So far as applicant Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, it is submitted that they have already deposited the fine amount.With the aforesaid directions, the criminal revision is allowed and disposed of.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,917,199 |
Satya Prakash Singh, Assistant Legal Adviser, Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai.Mr. S.K. Shinde, P.P., a/w.Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P., for Respondent No.4-State.Yeshwant Shenoy i/b.Corruption Bureau, and the Director, Enforcement Directorate, need not wait for any orders of the Court before lodging First Information Report, (for short, "FIR"), if, according to the concerned Agencies, a case is made out for lodging of FIR against any of the Respondents (present Petitioner was Respondent No.6 therein) , or, any other person.This Court also made it clear that law on this subject is quite clear, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.WP-3931-16.doc 4::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 :::Accordingly, FIR No.32 of 2015 dated 8th June 2015 was registered by the A.C.B., Mumbai, invoking Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short, "PC Act"), and Sections 109, 406, 409,420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 r/w.Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, "IPC").The Petitioner was arraigned, amongst various other accused, as accused in the said FIR.The investigation in the said FIR was culminated with issuance of Charge-Sheet No.16 of 2016 filed before the Special A.C.B. Court at Mumbai.Petitioner was arraigned, against amongst various other accused, as accused in the said FIR also.The investigation into the said FIR was also culminated with issuance of Charge-Sheet No.10 of 2016 filed before the Special ACB Court at Mumbai.The Petitioner is on bail even in the said case, which was granted at post-cognizance stage.WP-3931-16.doc 5::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 :::It is further case of the Petitioner that, thereafter, on 17 th June 2015, an Enforcement Case Information Report, bearing No.ECIR/MBZO/07/ 2015, was registered in the office of Respondent No.2 in Mumbai.ECIR/MBZO/08/2015, was also registered in respect of separate FIR No.69 of 2015 dated 13 th June 2015, concerning Taloja Police Station, New Bombay.The Petitioner is, however, not arraigned as accused in the said FIR.The grievance of the Petitioner is that, in respect of these Enforcement Case Information Reports, (for short, "ECIR"), he was summoned, for the first time, on 14 th March 2016 and, accordingly, he appeared before Respondent No.2 in his office on the same day, at about 10:30 hours, to co-operate him in the investigation.However, the Petitioner had been restrained from moving out of the office, even for taking lunch, and was, thus, illegally taken in custody by restraining his movements.It is his further contention that to show that his arrest was in consonance with Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, in the impugned arrest order dated 14 th March 2016, it WP-3931-16.doc 6 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 ::: was stated that the arrest of the Petitioner was made at 22:05 hours.WP-3931-16.doc 6It was not even ascertained as to whether the offence under PML Act was cognizable or non-cognizable.According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 was erroneously proceeding on the basis that the alleged offence under PML Act is cognizable.Respondent No.2 also did not produce any Case Diary, required to be maintained under Section 172 of the Code and which was required to be produced in terms of Section 167 of the Code before the Special Court at the time WP-3931-16.doc 7 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 ::: of seeking remand.The Special Court also did not ask for the same.The established norms were bypassed and the project of Maharashtra Sadan was given to M/s.K.S. Chamankar on a platter in defiance of rules and regulations prevalent in the matter.The project was amounting to Rs.4,700 Crores (at the price, then, prevailing in the year 2006).It was awarded to a contractor having hardly any experience of undertaking such a huge project, or having any resources to execute the same.The proceeds derived out of this criminality were to be shared between the conspirators including M/s.K.S. Chamankar Enterprises, their partners and their associates, M/s. Prime Builders and Developers, their partners and associates, namely, the Petitioner.Whereas, M/s.K.S. Chamankar Enterprises, its partners, its partners, the Chamankar Family, M/s.Prime Builders and Developers, its partners, Shailesh Mehta and Dhanpat Seth WP-3931-16.doc 9 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: have reaped an undue gain of Rs.840.16 Crores.It was also alleged that the property worth Rs.17,35,80,400/-As per further allegations in the complaint, the proceeds of the crime were then transferred to the accounts of the Petitioner/entities from Mumbai against fraudulent and sham transactions.He had devised the entire methodology and scheme of things to defraud the State Government by conceptualizing and implementing a scheme, wherein, the Maharashtra Sadan/R.T.O. project was awarded to M/s. K.S.Chamankar Enterprises by misusing his official position.Section 19 of the PML Act gives certain powers to the authorized officers to effect the arrest, when such officer has reason to believe, on the basis of the material in its possession, that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under the said WP-3931-16.doc 24 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: Act. This Section does not contemplate lodging of FIR, before effecting the arrest.Thereafter also, from time to time, the said Special Court has extended the remand of the Petitioner to the judicial custody on 17th and 31st March 2016 by passing detail WP-3931-16.doc 42 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 ::: orders, giving all the reasons.WP-3931-16.doc 42::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::(a) Director or Additional Director or Joint Director,Searches and Arrests How to be Made -The Form III, read as follows;WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 463 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3931 OF 2016 Ms.Anjali Damaniya ] Occupation : Profession, ] WP-3931-16.doc 1 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 ::: Address : 5th floor, Vijayshree Durga, ] 6th Road, Santacruz East, ] ... Applicant / Mumbai - 400 055 ] Intervener In the matter of :-WP-3931-16.doc 1::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 :::Mr. Shalabh Krishnan Saxena for the Petitioner.Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Additional Solicitor General a/w.Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General, a/w.Purnima Kantharia, Mr.Samar Kachwala, Mr.Sanyat Lodha, Ms.Chanan Parwani, Ms.Indrayani Deshmukh and Mr.Yash Momaya for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (Enforcement Directorate).CORAM: RANJIT MORE & DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.WP-3931-16.doc 2::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 :::JUDGMENT : [Per Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.]1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.This relief is claimed by the Petitioner in the conspectus of the following facts :-The Petitioner is a citizen of India and the then PWD Minister in the State of Maharashtra.In a Public Interest Litigation No.23 of 2014 filed by the Aam Aadmi Party and its office bearers, who is intervener in this petition, the grant of contract for construction of WP-3931-16.doc 3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 ::: "New Maharashtra Sadan" at Delhi was questioned, inter alia, alleging irregularities, lack of transparency and apprehending transfer of funds indirectly to the Petitioner.In the said Public Interest Litigation, on 18th December 2014, the Division Bench of this Court directed constitution of a Special Investigation Team, (for short, "SIT"), comprising of Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, and Director, Enforcement Directorate, to look into the allegations made against the Petitioner and his relatives.WP-3931-16.doc 3::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 :::Accordingly, the SIT was constituted and on the receipt of the reports of the SIT from time to time, this Court, vide its order dated 29th April 2015, was pleased to clarify that the Director, Anti-The Petitioner is on bail in the said case, which was granted at post-cognizance stage.Another FIR No.35 of 2015 dated 11th June 2015 was also registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, (for short, "ACB"), against the Petitioner, invoking Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act and Sections 109, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 474, 474 and 477A r/w.Sections 34 and 120B of IPC.However, Sections 154 to 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, "the Code"), were not complied with.The copy of the said ECIR was supplied to the Petitioner along with the complaint.Another Enforcement Case Information Report, bearing No.::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 :::The Special Court also did not call for the grounds of arrest.WP-3931-16.doc 7::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:17 :::The Special Court granted the custody of the Petitioner upto 17 th March 2016 to the Enforcement Directorate, as sought by Respondent No.2, for custodial interrogation of the Petitioner.As a result, at present also, Petitioner is in judicial custody and taking treatment on medical grounds at Bombay Hospital, as ordered by the Special Court.Meanwhile, on 30th March 2016, a detail Criminal Complaint No.2 of 2016 was filed against the Petitioner, and fifty-two other accused, before the Special Court at Mumbai, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 3 r/w.Section 4 of PML Act with a specific allegation that the Petitioner and his family members had generated huge illicit funds, which were money laundered during the period from 2006 to till date.The specific allegations against him, as disclosed in the Criminal Complaint No.2 of 2016 dated 30 th March, 2016, filed against him, by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai are to the effect that M/s.K.S. Chamankar WP-3931-16.doc 8 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: Enterprises secured R.T.O. development project from the Maharashtra Government by misrepresentation and fraud and in connivance with the Petitioner and other public servants.WP-3931-16.doc 8::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::WP-3931-16.doc 9::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::For that purpose he accepted the bribe in the form of cash and laundered the WP-3931-16.doc 10 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: same into the purported business activities of his group.He was thus, the chief conspirator, for generation of the proceeds of crime.WP-3931-16.doc 10::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::He has thus, directly and intentionally indulged himself in the money laundering activities and thus, responsible for the generation for proceeds of crime and its laundering and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 4 read with section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "PML Act").The Special Court, vide its order dated 27 th April 2016, took cognizance of PML Complaint No.2 of 2016 by passing detail order containing various reasons.Petitioner, therefore, preferred Criminal Bail Application No.1050 of 2016 in the said case on medical grounds before this Court.As a result, the Petitioner is still in the custody.WP-3931-16.doc 11::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::The Petitioner thereafter preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.2744 of 2016 before this Court, seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus, amongst other Writs, while challenging the vires of Sections 45 and 49 of PML Act, or, for reading them down and seeking Writ of quo -Meanwhile, Petitioner came to know about the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gorav Kathuria Vs.Petitioner, in such circumstances, sought to withdraw the earlier Writ Petition, seeking liberty to file the instant Petition, restricting his relief only to the extent of Writ of Habeas Corpus.WP-3931-16.doc 12::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::Here in the case, it is urged that, as the complaint was filed much after the Petitioner was arrested and produced for remand before the Special Court, his arrest is illegal, being against the procedure established by law.WP-3931-16.doc 13::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::WP-3931-16.doc 14WP-3931-16.doc 15::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::WP-3931-16.doc 17::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::WP-3931-16.doc 18::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::No such power under Section 19 of PML Act is conferred on any other Director.Admittedly, Respondent No.2 is not the Director but an Assistant Director and in the absence of any notification, produced on record to show that he has been authorized by the Central Government to exercise the power of arrest, the very arrest of the Petitioner, effected by Respondent No.2, is ex-facie illegal, void and unauthorized and hence liable to be set aside.WP-3931-16.doc 20::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::The Petitioner has, in this context, in view of these alleged manifest illegalities while effecting his arrest and granting remand, sought an urgent ad-interim relief of his release on bail.He is also suffering from episodes of bradycardia and ischemia and has been hospitalized many times since his arrest.This Petition came to be resisted strongly by Respondent Nos.1 to 3, vide affidavit-in-reply of Respondent No.2 Shri.::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::WP-3931-16.doc 22::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::WP-3931-16.doc 23::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::WP-3931-16.doc 24::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::Section 19 of PML Act that he was the 'officer' appointed to exercise the power of arrest and, therefore, he was competent and authorized to arrest the Petitioner.Therefore, the challenge to Petitioner's arrest on this ground also fails.WP-3931-16.doc 25::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::His arrest and custody is also validated by the order of the competent Special Court and in such situation, the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot lie for his release.It is also submitted that the Petitioner has made every attempt to get himself released on bail, even on the medical grounds.Therefore, there should not be any grievance on that score.Moreover, it is submitted that, such a plea cannot be considered in this Writ Petition when it is already rejected on merits, after having regard to all the medical papers produced and on their proper consideration by the Special Court and this Court.WP-3931-16.doc 26::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::This petition is strongly resisted by the intervener also, at whose instance the P.I.L. No.23 of 2014 was filed against the Petitioner alleging multi-crore fraud.According to learned Counsel for the intervener, this petition is clearly an abuse of the process of law, as the Petitioner has resorted to it, having been unsuccessful in his attempts to get bail, even on medical grounds.It is submitted by him that this Court should exercise judicial restraint and not grant WP-3931-16.doc 27 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: such extra-ordinary relief of Habeas Corpus, which is sought to circumvent the provisions of bail.WP-3931-16.doc 27::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::38. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Choudhary, learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Neeraj Kaul for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Shri Shinde, learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.4-State and learned Counsel for intervener Shri Shenoy at length, we are of the considered opinion that for appreciating these rival submissions, one has to take recourse not only to the various Judgments cited at Bar by both the parties, but also to the provisions of PML Act, in detail, including the objects and reasons, for the purpose of which this PML Act was brought on the Statute Book.However, before adverting to the provisions of PML Act, it would be necessary to deal, firstly, with the maintainability of this Petition, as challenged by learned Additional Solicitor General for the Respondents.Maintainability of Petition for Habeas CorpusIn this case, the Petitioner is seeking the relief of habeas corpus on the ground that his arrest by Respondent No.2 and his WP-3931-16.doc 28 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: subsequent detention in the custody, as per the remand granted by the Special Court, is illegal and void ab initio.Hence he is entitled for his release; whereas, according to Respondents, the Petitioner was arrested and taken into custody for committing an offence under Section 4 r/w.Section 3 of PML Act and his custody has been duly authorized and granted by the competent Special Court, established under the PML Act. Therefore, he is under custody in consequence of judicial orders of remands passed by the Special Court.As such, his Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be maintainable for the release;WP-3931-16.doc 28::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::The grounds raised for challenging his arrest were three fold; namely, his detention was in violation of Clause (1) of Article 22 of the WP-3931-16.doc 29 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: Constitution, as he was not informed of the grounds for his arrest.WP-3931-16.doc 29::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::Secondly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darjeeling, has no jurisdiction to try the cases filed against him.While considering these grounds, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, so far as the first two grounds were concerned, as they relate exclusively to the legality of the initial alleged detention of the Petitioner in the District Jail, Darjeeling, it was not necessary WP-3931-16.doc 30 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: to decide them in view of well settled position that the earliest date with reference to which the legality of the detention can be challenged in a habeas corpus proceeding is a date of filing of the application for habeas corpus and not any other date.As on the date of filing of Habeas Corpus application, the detention of the Petitioner Kanu Sanyal was in the District Jail at Vizakhapatnam, it was held that legality of his earlier detention need not be considered.As regards the third ground, it was held that the conditions laid down were clearly satisfied and hence there was no question of granting relief.WP-3931-16.doc 30::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::"the material date on the facts is the date when the affidavit on behalf of the Government was filed justifying the detention as a lawful one.Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon the Three-Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye (supra), wherein Madhu Limaye, the then Member of Lok Sabha, and several other persons were arrested, on November 6 in the year 1968 at Lakhisarai Railway Station, near Monghyr.On the same date, WP-3931-16.doc 32 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: Madhu Limaye had addressed a Petition in the form of a letter to the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution mentioning that he along with his companions had been arrested, but had not been communicated the reasons or the grounds of arrest.It was stated that the arrested persons had been merely told that the arrest had been made under sections, which were bailable.It was, therefore, prayed that the Writ of Habeas Corpus be issued for restoring liberty of the Petitioners therein, as their arrest and detention were illegal.WP-3931-16.doc 32::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::WP-3931-16.doc 33::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::Considering that Madhu Limaye and others had made a positive assertion in their Petition that they had not been informed of the grounds of their arrest and the said assertion had remained uncontroverted, having regard to the specific mandatory safeguard laid down in clause (1) of Article 22 of the Constitution, in para No.14, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that;"14.Once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters.This the State has failed to do.The remand orders are patently routine and appear to have been made mechanically.All that Mr. Chagla has said is that if the arrested persons wanted to challenge their legality the High Court should have been moved under appropriate provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.The orders of remand are not such as would cure the constitutional infirmities.This WP-3931-16.doc 34 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 ::: disposes of the third contention of Madhu Limaye."WP-3931-16.doc 34::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:18 :::In this case, the complaint was lodged against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 409 and 114 of IPC.He filed an application under Section 482 of the Code, challenging the registration of FIR and further investigation.On the same day, i.e. 17th July 2012, the High Court passed an interim order staying further proceedings in respect of the investigation.On 19th July 2012, an application was filed seeking bail by the appellant on the ground that the High Court had stayed further investigation and sought the release of the appellant-accused.The JMFC rejected the bail application holding that the High Court order was regarding stay on investigation.The appellant-accused WP-3931-16.doc 37 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 ::: unsuccessfully approached the Sessions Court.Then the appellant-WP-3931-16.doc 37::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::accused filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.It was rejected as the High Court did not find any infirmity in the remand order of the applicant-accused passed by the JMFC.The appellant, therefore, approached the Hon'ble Apex Court challenging the order of the High Court.The perusal of the initial order of 15th March 2016, when the Petitioner was produced before the Special Court for the first time, on his arrest on 14th March 2016, clearly reveals that the Petitioner was produced by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate and the grounds for his arrest and production were brought to the notice of the Special Court.It its order, the Special Court has considered in detail the report submitted by Respondent No.2 for seeking remand of the Petitioner, which report is also produced in this Petition at Exhibit "P", from page Nos.166 to 171 of the paper-It was pointed out to the Special Court and the Special Court has stated in its order that, as per the order passed by this Court on 18th December 2014 in Public Interest Litigation No.23 of 2014, SIT comprising of Director General, A.C.B., Mumbai, and Director, Enforcement Directorate, was constituted to conduct the enquiry with regard to the allegations made against the Petitioner, who was the then Minister in the Government of Maharashtra and his relatives.The remand WP-3931-16.doc 43 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 ::: orders gives the details as to how these offences came to be registered against the Petitioner and others.It also gives details as to how during investigation of those offences, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of PML Act were revealed.The evidence collected in the investigation also revealed generation of huge illicit funds and its laundering by the Petitioner, his family members and his associates.The remand order also records the prima facie satisfaction of the Special Court to the effect that, "the evidence collected and money trail available so far in respect of offence of money-laundering, there are reasons to believe that the accused before the court is guilty of the offence of money-laundering.WP-3931-16.doc 43::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::WP-3931-16.doc 44::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::Having regard to the detailed Remand Report, in which various materials transpired in the course of investigation, was stated, saying that the proceeds of the crime to the tune of Rs.750 Crores were yet to be identified and for that purpose, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner was necessary to unearth the process of generation of illicit funds and for the purpose of the corroboration and confrontation of the Petitioner with the others involved in the case, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner was necessary.It was further stated in the remand order that the Petitioner, having played a very crucial role in generation and subsequent monitoring of huge amounts of money and being prima facie guilty of the offence of money-laundering, as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PML Act, and further having regard that he being an influential person and may influence the other witnesses or tamper the evidence, if allowed to remain at large, his detention was necessary.The order passed by the Special Court, in this way, gives detailed reasons as to how there was sufficient material creating a reasonable belief about the commission of the offence and the custodial interrogation being necessary for the same.The Remand Order also shows that not only the learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents was heard, but even learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner was also heard at length.WP-3931-16.doc 45::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::WP-3931-16.doc 47::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::He had not even raised the ground that he was called at the office of the Enforcement Directorate at 10:30 hours and was detained illegally.He had also not contended that his arrest was wrongly shown at 22:05 hours to further show his production before the Special Court within twenty-four hours.Though the Special Court has specifically stated the timing of his production as "4:30 WP-3931-16.doc 48 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 ::: p.m." and asked him whether he has any complaint of ill-treatment, it was noted that "there was no such complaint of ill-treatment or illegal detention".This was also submitted by his learned Senior Counsel also, who was representing him before the Special Court.WP-3931-16.doc 48::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::Therefore, now it is too late in a date for the Petitioner to contend, in this Petition, that the learned Special Court has not applied its mind to these contentions and remanded him mechanically to the judicial custody.If really there was such illegal detention of the Petitioner or he was not given the grounds of arrest or was wrongly arrested by an officer, who had no authority to do so, then, the Petitioner, who was ably represented by his learned Senior Counsel, would not have failed to raise these grounds before the Special Court.The fact that those grounds were not raised before the Special Court either at the time of first remand or thereafter from time to time or in the two Bail Applications; one filed before the Special Court and another before this Court, and after the lapse of more than six months, when he is raising these contentions for the first time to challenge his custody on the count that it is illegal for non-compliance of mandatory requirements, then, it goes without saying that this Petition for Habeas Corpus can hardly be WP-3931-16.doc 49 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 ::: maintainable on the ground that his arrest itself was illegal and, therefore, the remand order was also illegal.WP-3931-16.doc 49::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::It is pertinent to note that in the case of Madhu Limaye (supra), on which much reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, on the very day on which Madhu Limaye and others were arrested, they had addressed a Petition in the form of a letter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under Article 32 of the Constitution, mentioning that they had been arrested but not been communicated the reasons or the grounds for the arrest and in view thereof, the cognizance of their Petition seeking the Writ of Habeas Corpus was taken; particularly when the said assertion had remained uncontroverted in the 'Return' filed by the State.The perusal of paragraph No.10 of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said matter reveals that the authorities wanted to invoke all kinds of provisions, like Sections 151, 107 and 117 of the Code, apart from Section 188 of IPC, and since no arrest could be effected for an offence under Section 188 of IPC by the Police Officers without proper orders, it was held that "these officers may have been naturally reluctant to comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, by giving WP-3931-16.doc 50 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 ::: necessary information and that was the reason why the reasons of arrest were not told to Madhu Limaye and others".In that backdrop, it was held that this infirmity being not cured in view of the routine remand orders passed by the Magistrate mechanically, without applying his mind to all the relevant matters, the Petition for Habeas Corpus would lie.WP-3931-16.doc 50::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::The same is further ensured from the Original Record which this Court has, by order dated 9th April, 2014, called for from the ig Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, District Samastipur, Bihar.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai."(emphasis supplied)Accordingly, it was held that the Petitioner cannot be entitled to the relief of the habeas corpus, which he was seeking, making it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies as WP-3931-16.doc 53 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 ::: available to him, in accordance with law.Secondly, the petitioner does not appear to have made any application for grant of bail, even when the remaining accused persons alleged to be absconding and remain to be served.WP-3931-16.doc 56::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::In such situation, there does not arise any question of this Court invoking the extra ordinary remedy of writ jurisdiction, that too of habeas corpus.::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::WP-3931-16.doc 58::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::Interim Relief for BailOnce it is held to be so, then, as regards the interim relief claimed by the Petitioner for his release on bail on the medical ground, also cannot be granted.We say so, not only because the Petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable, but, we say so, because already the Petitioner has, on this very medical ground, applied for his release on regular bail, under Section 439 of the Code.It is a matter of record that his application for bail filed before the Special Court on 3rd May 2016 on the medical ground came to be rejected by the Special Court vide its detail order on 13 th May 2016, after considering all the contentions raised therein and being satisfied that the Petitioner is given proper medical treatment, which may be necessary.In the said application, it was brought to the notice of the Special Court by the Respondents that the Petitioner was already taken to the J.J.Hospital for his medical ailment and there necessary tests were advised, for which he was taken to the private Bombay Hospital.The detailed order of the Special Court reveals that, after considering each and every aspect of the matter, Petitioner's application for bail came to be rejected.WP-3931-16.doc 59::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::This application was also considered and heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court in detail and vide its order dated 16 th June 2016, rejected the same on the count that the medical problems of the Petitioner are adequately and more than sufficiently attended to by the concerned Doctors in the J.J. Hospital and private Bombay Hospital.WP-3931-16.doc 60::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::Grounds of challenge to ArrestHowever, as we have heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the merits of the Petition also, considering that this Petition pertains to the personal liberty of the Petitioner, which is sacrosanct under the Constitution of India and which should not be affected in any way, without following the due process of law, we deem it appropriate to proceed further for dealing with various contentions raised in the Petition challenging alleged illegalities in the Petitioner's arrest.The first ground on which the arrest is challenged by the Petitioner is that the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 3 of PML Act is a non-cognizable one and, hence, without permission of the competent Court, as required under Section 155(1) of the Code, the arrest could not have been effected.The second ground pertains to his arrest, being not effected by the Officer, duly authorized by the Central Government and, thirdly, the procedural safeguards for the arrest, as laid down under the PML Act and also under the Code, being not followed in the case.WP-3931-16.doc 61::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::Provisions of PML ActNow, in order to consider and appreciate various contentions raised on these three grounds, it would be necessary to first consider, in detail, the provisions of PML Act, along with its object and reasons and the purpose for which the said Act was brought on the Statute Book.It needs to be stated that the PML Act was enacted on 17 th January 2003 to prevent the offences of money-laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money-laundering and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.In the 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' of the Act, it was specifically stated that;"It is being realized, world over, that money- laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty".The 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' further elaborates some of the initiatives taken by the international community to obviate such threat.One of those measures are stated to be "the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action, adopted by United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution dated 23 rd WP-3931-16.doc 62 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 ::: February 1999, inter alia, calling upon the member States to develop mechanism to prevent financial institutions from being used for laundering of drug related money and enactment of Legislation to prevent such laundering." It was further stated that India is a signatory to this declaration.WP-3931-16.doc 62::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:19 :::The PML Act was subsequently amended again in the year 2009 to expand the scope of the Act by adding certain offences in Part 'A' and Part 'B' of the Schedule to the Act; to make provisions for the "offences with cross border implications" and to add new Part 'C' in the Schedule of this Act for such offences; to ensure that the Investigating Agency can attach any property, and to empower the Enforcement Directorate to search the premises immediately after the offence is registered etc.WP-3931-16.doc 63::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:20 :::For our purposes, Chapter VII of PML Act, which deals with "Establishment of Special Courts for Trial of the Offence Punishable under Section 4 this Act" and Section 45 WP-3931-16.doc 71 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:20 ::: therein is of relevance, which reads as follows :-WP-3931-16.doc 71::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:20 :::(b) Deputy Director, WP-3931-16.doc 73 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:20 :::WP-3931-16.doc 73145 I-146 A-B)-WP-3931-16.doc 81WP-3931-16.doc 83WP-3931-16.doc 86It only contemplates the reason to believe, which should be on the basis of material in possession.Here in the case, there was ample material in possession of the arresting authority, on the basis of which there was reason to believe that the Petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 3 of the PML Act. It is not controverted that after the arrest, the copy of the order, along with the material in possession, was forwarded to the executing authority in a sealed envelope and, as stated above, it is also not disputed that immediately on the next day, the Petitioner was produced before the Special Court.WP-3931-16.doc 97WP-3931-16.doc 100::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 :::WP-3931-16.doc 101::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 :::"20.Procedure to be followed by officer-in-charge of police station.-The officer-in-charge of a police station to whom WP-3931-16.doc 103 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 ::: any person is forwarded under Section 19 shall either admit him to bail to appear before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, or in default of bail forward him in custody to such Magistrate."WP-3931-16.doc 103::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 :::The Review Petition preferred against the said Judgment also came to be rejected.WP-3931-16.doc 108::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 :::Even the emphasis placed by learned Senior Counsel for the WP-3931-16.doc 109 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 ::: Petitioner on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs.Deepak Mahajan & Anr., (1994) 3 SCC 440, is also misplaced as the salient and indeed substantial question, which involved for determination, in the said Appeal was formulated as follows :-It was his contention that these amendments were unconstitutional WP-3931-16.doc 114 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 ::: and ultra vires, unless read down so as to make them constitutional, stringent and harmonious with the objects of PML Act.WP-3931-16.doc 116WP-3931-16.doc 117::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 :::Union of India & Ors., dated 3rd August 2015, in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No.4247 of 2015, wherein, on the basis of the similar contentions, as raised in this Petition, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court was pleased to grant the relief of release of the Petitioner therein.However, in our considered opinion, as this Judgment is merely an order of interim nature and does not decide the dispute involved therein finally, it has neither the persuasive value, far remain the binding effect.In paragraph No.31 of the judgment, Division Bench itself has stated that "we prima facie agree with some of the arguments advanced by Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the Petitioner".In view thereof, regard was given to the peculiar facts of that case, which showed WP-3931-16.doc 118 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 ::: that fraud has been committed by some of the accused, however, the complaint did not show any material evidence, direct or circumstantial against the Petitioner.It was found that "so far as the Petitioner therein was concerned, there was no recovery or discovery from or at the instance of the Petitioner.Barring statements, there was no prima facie material evidence against the Petitioner of any money laundering, despite the fact that he was in custody for the last about 11 months".It was also noticed that "the uncle of the Petitioner, who was alleged to have much higher role and stated to be the main accused was on bail.Not only that, out of 89 accused persons and entities, all were on bail, except eight or nine including the Petitioner".Hence, it was held that, "if about 80 out of 89 accused are ordered to join investigation under protection of Court order, the Petitioner who had already undergone about 11 months is entitled to interim relief as prayed".Needless to state that the facts of the present case are totally different, as in this case the Petitioner, who is the then Ex-Minister in the State of Maharashtra is alleged to be the master-mind and the kingpin in the money-WP-3931-16.doc 118::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 :::laundering of multi-crore.Therefore, the factors which weighed with the Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in allowing the release of the Petitioner in that case being totally different, the said decision needs WP-3931-16.doc 119 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 ::: to be differentiated.WP-3931-16.doc 119::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:21 :::WP-3931-16.doc 120::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:22 :::WP-3931-16.doc 123It can be reproduced as follows;As such, Respondent No.2, being Assistant Director, had no authority to effect the arrest.WP-3931-16.doc 125Dr. WP-3931-16.doc 126 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:22 ::: Shanmugham, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr., in Criminal Bail Application No.71 of 2013, dated 4th February 2013, wherein the similar issue was raised relating to the power of arrest by the Assistant Director.After considering the provisions of the Act, it was rightly held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that "this exclusive power conferred on the director of FEMA is not to the exclusion of other authorities, which are specified in Section 19 of the PML Act itself.The Director may be given exclusive powers, but not to the exclusion of other authorities".WP-3931-16.doc 126::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:22 :::As rightly held in the above-said decision, sub-section (2) of Section 49 of PML Act will come into play only when Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director, as the case may be, would like to appoint any other officer for the purpose of exercising the powers and for discharge of duties conferred or imposed under FEMA.However, that does not preclude the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, to issue order appointing Assistant Director under FEMA to function under the PML Act.WP-3931-16.doc 128I have considered these arguments.WP-3931-16.doc 131::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:22 :::WP-3931-16.doc 133::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:22 :::WP-3931-16.doc 134As regards clause Nos.(1) and (2) of Article 22 of the Constitution, they lay down the following safeguards :-WP-3931-16.doc 135WP-3931-16.doc 136::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::WP-3931-16.doc 137::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::WP-3931-16.doc 139::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::In our considered opinion, in order to appreciate this submission, the Arrest Order of the Petitioner needs to be considered and it can be reproduced as follows;ECIR/07/MZO/2015 Dated : 14th March, 2016 ARREST ORDER Whereas, I Sanjay V. Kinjawadekar, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, have reason to believe that Shri Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal, resident of 8th floor, Solitaire, Convent Avenue Road, S.V. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai, has been guilty of an offence punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003).Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), I hereby arrest the said Shri Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal at 22.00 hours on 14.03.2016 and he has been informed of the grounds for such arrest.(emphasis supplied) WP-3931-16.doc 140 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 ::: Dated at Mumbai on this 14th day of March Two Thousand Sixteen.WP-3931-16.doc 140::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::The Arrest Order bears the signature of the Petitioner in acknowledgment of having received the same on the same night at about 22.05 hours.Therefore, unless something contrary is produced on record, it has to be presumed and held that the Petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and in acknowledgment thereof he has signed on the Arrest Order.If, no such grounds were communicated to him, then, it is clear that he would have made endorsement to the effect WP-3931-16.doc 141 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 ::: that, he has not received the grounds of arrest.After-all the Petitioner is not some illiterate person but an educated person, in the sense that he was the Minister in the earlier State Government and that too for several years.WP-3931-16.doc 141::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::He has also not raised this grievance in his bail application(s) filed before the Special Court and this Court.It is needless to state that the offence alleged against the Petitioner is of money-laundering.The report submitted to the Special Court, on the basis of which the Special Court has taken cognizance vide its order dated 27th April 2016, reveals that M/s.K.S. Chamankar Enterprises secured RTO Development Project amounting to Rs.4,700/- Crores from the Maharashtra Government by misrepresentation and fraud and in connivance with the public servants and the Petitioner, who was the then PWD Minister of Maharashtra State.As a result, the State Government has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.840.16 Crores; whereas, the Petitioner and the others have reaped undue gain of the said amount.Thus, there was WP-3931-16.doc 146 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 ::: sufficient material before the arresting authority for the reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w.Section 4 of the PML Act. If for such a serious offence in view of this prima facie material, Respondent No.2 had reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence of money-WP-3931-16.doc 146::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::In view thereof, having regard to the gravity of the offence, the very object of the PML Act would be frustrated, if the Petitioner projects some loophole or infirmity in the implementation of the provisions of the PML Act, in order to get his release from detention, that too by invoking such extra-ordinary remedy, circumventing the very specific provisions of bail, as laid down under Section 45 of the PML Act. After all, the provisions of PML Act or any Statute are to be interpreted in order to advance the substantial cause of justice and not to curtail the same in any way or to create an hindrance in achieving the said cause.If the provisions of PML Act are to be interpreted, therefore, in the proper perspective, then, we do not find that there was any such lacunae, infirmity or, much less, illegality in the arrest and detention of the Petitioner, for this Court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction for release of the Petitioner.WP-3931-16.doc 148::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::Civil Application also stands disposed of.[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] WP-3931-16.doc 149 ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::WP-3931-16.doc 149::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2016 01:04:23 :::
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,891,817 |
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.) The appellant is the first defendant in the suit in C.S.No.909 of 2002 on the file of this Court.The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.The brief facts of the case which are averred by the first respondent/plaintiff in the plaint are as follows:While availing the loan, the first respondent/plaintiff was called upon to execute a deed of simple mortgage.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 Apart from that, the signature of the first respondent/plaintiff was taken in several filled and unfilled forms and blank papers.Though the loan documents speak of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards consideration, the appellant/first defendant had not paid a sum of Rs.11,09,180/- and the reason for such deduction had not been disclosed then.The first respondent/plaintiff has no connection whatsoever with both accounts.(iii) The father of the third respondent / third defendant Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, who had also availed a loan from the appellant / first defendant had directed his purchaser the second respondent / second defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1 crore to the appellant / first defendant and take possession of the title deeds and the keys from the appellant / first defendant.The appellant/first defendant was specifically called upon on 23.7.1997, to receive the sum of Rs.1 crore towards the loan of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and the first respondent/plaintiff in A/c.On the date of payment by the second respondent/ second defendant it appears that a sum of Rs.64,72,074/- is alleged to be due and payable by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to the appellant/first defendant.Without disclosing the accounts, a notice was issued on 10.12.1997 as if a sum of Rs.37,13,712/- is due towards interest and Rs.50,00,000/- towards principal.There is no whisper about the payment of Rs.1 crore by the second respondent / second defendant to the appellant/first defendant.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013An undated notice was issued through Vamana auctioneers, fixing the date of auction on 26.12.2002 at 3.p.m.(vi) The first respondent/plaintiff further states that if the amounts paid by the second respondent / second defendant are taken into account, the entire loan would almost stand discharged.The first respondent/plaintiff states that the appellant/first defendant had deducted nearly 10% of the loan amount towards registration charges and service charges but it was stated 5% was deductible towards registration charges and another 5% towards service charges.The amount of 5% charged towards registration is on the higher side and the appellant/first defendant cannot take advantage of its illegalities and attempt to stake a claim under various heads, when the same had not been disclosed when the loan was disbursed.(vii) The first respondent/plaintiff was under the bona fide impression that the amount of Rs.50 lakhs would be paid and therefore she had signed the documents.The documents pertaining to her property are available with the appellant/first defendant and they are bound to return the same.(i) The appellant/first defendant admitted that the first respondent/plaintiff availed the loan of Rs.50 lakhs from the appellant/first defendant on 14.11.1995 and executed a mortgage but denied that the first respondent/plaintiff signed on blank papers and unfilled forms and that the contents of the documents were not explained to her.K.S.C. Iyer to the appellant/first defendant.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant would submit that the execution of mortgage was admitted by the first respondent/plaintiff for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- on 14.11.1995, buthttp://www.judis.nic.in 16/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 disputed the passing of consideration to the tune of Rs.19,34,180 and it is for the first respondent/plaintiff to prove that those payments were not legal.The first respondent/plaintiff had categorically agreed to pay interest at 22.2% p.a. and also to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- p.m. on 80 installments towards payment of loan amount apart from interest payment.The first respondent / plaintiff was neither prompt in paying the recurring deposit at Rs.50,000/- per month nor the interest towards the suit debt.There was no tripartite agreement between the first respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/first defendant and Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to adjust any amount payable to K.S.C.Iyer to be adjusted in the first respondent/plaintiff's loan account.While availing the loan, she was called upon to execute a deed of simple mortgage.Apart from that, her signature was taken in several blank papers.Further, though the loan documents speak of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards consideration, the appellant/first defendant had not paid a sum ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 24/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 Rs.11,09,180/- and the reason for such deduction had not been disclosed to her.But the first respondent/plaintiff has no connection whatsoever with both accounts.The document stipulates that a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid each month for 80 months in a recurring deposit bearing account No. 689 and this shall be utilized in addition to the interest on the loan amount.At the time of borrowal, the appellant/first defendant had charged interest @ 22.2% p.a and in default of payment of interest or the recurring deposit, interest shall be chargeable @ 24% p.a.The first respondent/plaintiff was issued with a notice of demand on 03.04.1996 by the appellant/first defendant to pay Rs.5,55,000/- allegedly being the interest for 6 months and default interest at Rs.27,750/- and interest tax at 3% amounting to Rs.17,482/-.Without disclosing the accounts, a notice was issued on 10.12.1997 as if a sum of Rs.37,13,712/- is due towards interest and Rs.50,00,000/- towards principal.The appellant/first defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.1358 of 2002 and the same is pending disposal.Further, an undated notice was issued through Vamana auctioneers, fixing the date of auction on 26.12.2002 atThe first respondent/plaintiff further states that if the amounts paid by the second respondent / second defendant are taken into account, the entire loan would almost stand discharged.She filed the suit for passing of preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage dated 14.11.1995 and to pass a final decree directing the appellant/first defendant to execute a deed of cancellation for mortgage dated 14.11.1995 and to direct the appellant/first defendant to furnish and correct accounts for the various amount paid towards the said loan transaction.After trial, by decree and judgment dated 17.09.2012, the learned Single Judge decreed the suit in part and passed a preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage dated 14.11.1995, in respect of the suit schedule property for rendition of accounts against the appellant/first defendant and that an account be taken of what was due to the appellant/first defendant on the date of decree towards (i) principal and interest on the mortgage, (ii) the cost of the suit, (iii) other cost charges and expenses properly incurred by him upto the date of decree in respect of the mortgage security, together with the interest thereon.Further, the first respondent/plaintiff shall also be at liberty tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 apply for appointment of a Commissioner for ascertaining the outstanding sum towards suit mortgage, if any, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.The learned Single Judge also further held that the unmarked letter dated 25.05.1997, written by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, shall be kept along with Court records, and the same shall be produced during the rendition of accounts before the Commissioner to be appointed and if the first respondent/plaintiff fails to do so, the Court shall suo motu appoint a Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose and would proceed further.The costs of the suit was also awarded to the first respondent/plaintiff.Challenging the said decree and judgment dated 17.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/first defendant has filed the present appeal before this Court.The document stipulates that a sum of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid each month for 80 months in a recurring deposit bearing account No. 689 and this shall be utilized in addition to the interest on the loan amount.At the time of borrowal, the appellant/first defendant had charged interest @ 22.2% p.a and in default of payment of interest or the recurring deposit, interest shall be chargeable @ 24% p.a.(ii) The first respondent/plaintiff was issued with a notice of demand on 03.04.1996 by the appellant/first defendant to pay Rs.5,55,000/- allegedly being the interest default for 6 months and default interest at Rs.27,750/- and interest tax at 3% amounting to Rs.17,482/-.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013(iv) The appellant/first defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree in I.A.No.1358 of 2002 and the same is pending disposal.The first respondent/plaintiff was shocked on receipt of the said notice, since the entire proceedings had been done in violation of the decree of the Court.A telegraphic notice was issued on 24.11.2002, by the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff.(v) In the meantime, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, had called upon the first respondent/plaintiff to appear before her in connection with the criminal proceedings launched against the Directors of the company under Sections 409 and 410 of IPC.On 02.05.2000, an attempt was made and the first respondent/plaintiff had launched a criminal complaint in the R4 Police Station.The appellant/first defendant has to account for the various amounts received from her and from Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and also prays for accounting.The secondhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 respondent/second defendant is impleaded as a party, since he was called upon by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to pay a sum of Rs.1 crore to the appellant/first defendant and hence he is a necessary party to the proceedings.As Mr.K.S.C.Iyer is not alive, the third respondent/third defendant is impleaded as his legal representative to speak the relevant facts.(viii) When the appellant/first defendant filed the said application in I.A.No.13181 of 1999 in O.S.No.5173 of 1999 for injunction, though the said application was pending at the time of filing of the suit, subsequently, the same was dismissed.Therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for preliminary decree as stated supra.The appellant/first defendant filed a written statement inter alia contending as follows:-The appellant/firsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 8/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 defendant further denied that the first respondent/plaintiff has not paid a sum of Rs.11,09,180/- from the loan amount of Rs.50 lakhs and the reason for the deduction was not disclosed to her then.As the first respondent/plaintiff had availed the loan of Rs.50 lakhs, she had been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for 80 months in a recurring deposit for adjustment of the principle of the loan amount at the end of 80 months.The interest charged on the loan is the contractual rate prevalent at that time and hence the first respondent/plaintiff cannot wriggle out of her liability to repay the interest.The penal interest will be charged only when the first respondent/plaintiff defaults in payment of interest on the due date and if the first respondent/plaintiff had ensured due repayment there would have been no penal interest charged on her account.(ii) The appellant/first defendant admitted that the notice of demand on 03.04.1996 was issued by them calling on the first respondent/plaintiff to pay the amount as stated therein.The appellant/first defendant admitted that Mr.K.S.C.Iyer wrote a letter to the appellant/first defendant on 25.5.1997 stating that he sold his property in No.9, Rajarathnam Street, for Rs.1 Crore and had asked for crediting the sale proceeds towards the dues to his and the first respondent/plaintiff's loan account.Though Mr.K.S.C.Iyer stated that the property had been sold for Rs.1 crore, only a sum of Rs.80,50,802/- washttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 realised from the sale and the appellant/first defendant had to waive the interest due on the loan availed by the Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to close his account.(iii) The allegation that the appellant/first defendant was called upon on 23.07.1997 to receive Rs.1 crore towards the loan of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and the first respondent/plaintiff is obviously made to substantiate her false claim.The second respondent/second defendant had been informed by the appellant/first defendant on 07.07.1997 that the dues from Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and his associates was Rs.83,36,759/- and that interest was waived to settle the account.Therefore, the appellant/first defendant denies that there was a surplus of Rs.35,26,826/-.(iv) The appellant/first defendant states that in June 1997 a letter was issued to Mr.K.S.C.Iyer that only after full and final settlement, the keys and documents would be handed over and on the request of Mr.Harshad R. Patel the appellant/first defendant gave a letter on 07.07.1997, stating that total dues from Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and thereafter on 16.09.1997, requested the appellant/first defendant to hand over the original documents to Mr.Bharatkumar R.Patel and for discharge of mortgage.(v) The appellant/first defendant states that the notice dated 16.12.1997, was therefore issued to the first respondent/plaintiff calling on her to repay the due on her account.The allegation that there is no whisper of payment of Rs.1 crore by the second respondent/second defendant to the appellant/first defendant and true accounts were not disclosed in the said notice is without any justification.The fact that the first respondent/plaintiff admits filing of O.S.No.5173 of 1999, before the City Civil Court for bare injunction to restrain conduct of auction on 24.08.1999 and her conduct in filing the present suit later will reveal the lack of bona fides in the case of the first respondent/plaintiff.It is pertinent to note that O.S.No.5173 of 1999 has been subsequently dismissed.(vi) The appellant/first defendant reiterates that they have taken steps available to them under law and if the first respondent/plaintiff had repaid the amount due from her, the appellant/first defendant would not have taken thosehttp://www.judis.nic.in 11/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 steps.The appellant/first defendant being a benefit society, receives deposits from the public and is bound to repay to the public and is constrained to realize the amounts from the securities on default by the debtors of the society.The appellant/first defendant denies that it is under an obligation to disclose the accounts of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to the first respondent/plaintiff and in any event as stated supra there was no surplus from the amounts made available by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to credit to the first respondent/plaintiff's account.The appellant/first defendant also denied that the amounts paid by the second respondent/second defendant has discharged the entire loan of the first respondent/plaintiff also.The interest and service charges charged is the contractual rate and hence the first respondent/plaintiff cannot question the same.(vii) The appellant/first defendant denied the allegation that the first respondent/plaintiff was not aware about the service and registration charges while availing the loan and was under the bona fide impression that the entire Rs.50,00,000/- would be paid to her.The first respondent/plaintiff is bound to prove the same in the light of the contents of the documents she signed willingly.The appellant/first defendant denied that they are liable to return thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 12/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 documents of tile to the first respondent/plaintiff.The appellant/first defendant states that suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as the 3rd defendant was not a party to any of these proceedings and after the sale of the property, he is not a legal representative of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer with respect to these proceedings.(viii) The present suit is barred by res judicata and also hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. and also barred by limitation.As per the mortgage deed, the appellant/first defendant is entitled to claim and the first respondent/plaintiff is liable to pay the said amount.Therefore, according to the appellant/first defendant,, the suit is liable to be dismissed.The second and the third defendants remained ex parte and they have not filed any written statement.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage dated 14.11.1995 in respect of the suit property ?Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a finalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 13/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 decree directing the defendants 1 to 3 execute the deed of cancellation of mortgage dated 14.11.1995 as prayed for ?Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts against the first defendant as prayed for ?Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious and illegal ?Whether the suit in O.S.No.5173 of 1999 would operate as res-judicata forbearing the first defendant for enforcing the mortgage ?Is not the payment made by the plaintiff after the sale of property of K.S.C.Iyer an admission of her liability to repay the loan availed from the first defendant ?Whether the plaint is barred under the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. ?Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ?http://www.judis.nic.in 14/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013To what relief, the parties are entitled to ?"After issues were framed, during trial, in order to prove the case, on the side of first respondent/plaintiff she examined herself as P.W.1 and marked as many as 23 documents as Exs.On the side of the defendants, the appellant/first defendant examined their Joint Managing Director as D.W.1 and marked as many as 8 documents as Exs.After hearing of the arguments, the learned Single Judge decreed the suit in part and also passed a preliminary decree as stated above.Challenging the same, the appellant/first defendant is before this Court.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant would raise the following points for consideration:(i) The plaintiff, being the mortgagor having filed the suit for redemption of mortgage, has she discharged her burden in proving that the mortgage debt is discharged.(ii) In absence of the burden of proof being not discharged by the mortgagor can any adverse inference drawn against the mortgagee and seekhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 for rendition of accounts by a preliminary decree.(iii) The defendants 2 and 3 are strangers to the loan transaction of the plaintiff with 1st defendant and are not necessary and proper parties.The suit is bad for misjoinder of parties.Further, the letter sent to Mr.K.S.C.Iyer on 25.05.1997 by the appellant/first defendant with the signature of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer would go to show apart from the discharge of loan of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer in HL-A/c.No.19, in respect of Door No.9, Rajarathinam Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-10, the debts of four companies namely M/s.SIC Business Association for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs; M/s.SIC Financial Services for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-; M/s.PB Financial Services for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-; and M/s.PB Business Associates for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and the interest accrued thereon shall be adjusted and therefore, there would not be any excess amount in the said sum of Rs.1 crore paid by the second respondent/secondhttp://www.judis.nic.in 17/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 defendant on the directions of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and therefore the first respondent/plaintiff alone is liable to discharge the her mortgage debt.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant would further submit that the appellant/first defendant has also produced the relevant mortgage deed of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, the letter written by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer on 25.05.1997 and registration copy of the receipt of discharge of mortgage of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer into Court on 29.07.2009 and therefore, there could not be any adverse inference be taken against the appellant/first defendant.Further, the letter issued by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer on 16.09.1997, in Ex.D4 would show the discharge of the entire debt of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and to hand over the keys to the purchaser of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, the second respondent/second defendant and that there could not be any discharge of mortgage debt of the first respondent/plaintiff in respect of the suit property.The learned senior counsel further submitted that the first respondent/plaintiff has to pay contractual rate of interest at the rate of 22.2% per annum and it is not an usurious one.The learned senior counsel further submitted that the appellant/first defendant is a benefit fund and they are receiving fixed deposit from public and they have been issued interest at 15% to 18 % per annum onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 18/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 the said deposits and the interest rate during the relevant period from 1993 to 1997 was 18 % per annum, paid as interest on the deposits to the public and therefore, the appellant / first defendant has to necessarily lend loans at 22.2% per annum which includes the suit mortgage also.The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant would further submit that the first respondent/plaintiff had categorically agreed to pay interest at 24% per annum in default of payment of installments of recurring deposit at Rs.50,000/- per month or to pay interest every month and therefore, the said interest cannot be considered as penalty.The first respondent/plaintiff has to necessarily to pay and discharge the suit mortgage and seek for redemption of mortgage, but without paying the principal and interest she relied upon the consideration paid by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, who had paid the money for discharging his mortgage and his debts which is not sustainable in law.The suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff in order to skip the appellant/first defendant from taking action under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act and also delaying payment of the money towards the suit mortgage and to prolong the case as far as possible.http://www.judis.nic.in 19/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013Further according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the rights and duties of the appellant/first defendant and the first respondent/plaintiff and that the first respondent/plaintiff admitted the execution of the mortgage deed, borrowal of money and signature was also admitted.Therefore, it is for the first respondent/plaintiff to prove that the consideration has not been passed as stated by her.Once she admitted the mortgage deed and borrowal of money and signature, it is for her to prove the same in the manner known to law.Further the amount paid by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer is only to his loan on mortgage deed and the second respondent/second defendant paid only to the mortgage loan of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and not for the first respondent/plaintiff loan.Further, the first respondent earlier filed a suit and though the said suit was decreed ex parte, the present suit would operate as res judicata and it is hit by Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. and therefore the learned Single Judge failed to consider the scope of the redemption of the mortgage under the Transfer of Property Act and the Code of Civil Procedure and erroneously passed the preliminary decree, even though the first respondent/plaintiff has not paid the mortgage amount, which warrants interference of this Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 20/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that though the first respondent/plaintiff has become the share holder of the appellant/first defendant company in the year 1995 and in order to apply for a loan of Rs.50,00,000/-.The appellant/first defendant agreed to grant the above said loan of Rs.50,00,000/- and obtained her signature on 14.11.1995 on various papers, all of which were blank papers.At that time, she was not aware of the fact that for what purpose, the appellant was obtaining her signatures in the blank papers and on the same date i.e. on 14.11.1995, the appellant issued one cheque bearing No.326425 for a sum of Rs.41,75,000/- retaining a sum of Rs.8,25,000/- on the ground that the same will be its commission for granting the loan and also they deducted even from the cheque and they have not paid the entire sum of Rs.41,75,000/-, they deducted for the registration fees and other deductions.Therefore, the mortgage deed was not fully supported by the consideration.Being a lady and in need of money, she affixed her signature in the blank papers.Taking advantage of the signatures obtained in blank papers subsequently they have demanded money even though they have not filed any statement of accounts of the first respondent/plaintiff and also that of one Mr.K.S.C.Iyer who also borrowed from the appellant/first defendant.http://www.judis.nic.in 21/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff further submitted that Mr.K.S.C.Iyer sold his property to the second respondent/second defendant and Mr.K.S.C.Iyer directed the second respondent/second defendant to pay Rs.1 crore to the appellant/first defendant and after deducting his loan account, the balance would be deducted in the loan account of the first respondent/plaintiff.Even the documents filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/first defendant, a letter issued by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to the second respondent/second defendant and the letter issued by the second respondent/second defendant to the appellant/first defendant would clearly shows that the second respondent/second defendant paid a sum of Rs.1 crore to the appellant/first and also the letter sent by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, itself proves that after deducting the loan account of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, the balance amount be credited in the first respondent/plaintiff account.The appellant has also not given credit to a sum of Rs.70,000/- paid on 11.02.1997 and further sum of Rs.30,000/- paid on 13.12.1997 by the first respondent/plaintiff.Subsequently, the first respondent/plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- on 31.03.1999 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.05.1999, for which payment only, the appellant/first defendant gave receipts.If thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 22/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 appellant produce the statement of account of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and the first respondent/plaintiff that would reveal the balance amount to be paid by the first respondent/plaintiff.Further in the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff has also deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- which amount has already been paid by the first respondent and the K.S.C.Iyer after deducting his account and the balance amount is credited in the account of the appellant and Rs.50,00,000/- also deposited.Therefore, definitely there would not be any balance amount to be paid to the appellant/first defendant and if the appellant/first defendant produced the correct accounts of the mortgage loan account of K.S.C.Iyer and the first respondent/plaintiff, certainly it would reveal that no amount is necessary to be paid by the first respondent/plaintiff.Even otherwise, if the accounts are filed, that would reveal what is the amount exactly the first respondent/plaintiff has to pay.Therefore, after deducting all the amount paid by the first respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/first defendant and if anything is there, she is ready to pay the said amount, for which necessarily the accounts has to be rendered.Thus, considering all the facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly decided the suit and passed the preliminary decree.Instead of filing the accounts, the appellant/first defendant has filed the present appeal, which is liable to be dismissed.http://www.judis.nic.in 23/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013Heard the learned counsel on either side and and also perused the records.The father of the third respondent / third defendant Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, who had also availed a loan from the appellant / first defendant had directed his purchaser the second respondent / second defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1 crore to the appellant / first defendant and take possession of the title deeds and the keys from the appellant / first defendant.The appellant/first defendant was specifically called upon on 23.7.1997, to receive the sum of Rs.1 crore towards the loan ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 25/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and the first respondent/plaintiff in A/c.On the date of payment by the second respondent/ second defendant it appears that a sum of Rs.64,72,074/- is alleged to be due and payable by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to the appellant/first defendant.The first respondent/plaintiff states thathttp://www.judis.nic.in 26/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 the appellant/first defendant had deducted nearly 10% of the loan amount towards registration charges and service charges.The first respondent/plaintiff was under the bona fide impression that the amount of Rs.50 lakhs would be paid and therefore she had signed the documents.The documents pertaining to her property are available with the appellant/first defendant and they are bound to return the same.The appellant/first defendant has to account for the various amounts received from her and from Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and also prays for accounting.When the appellant/first defendant filed the said application in I.A.No.13181 of 1999 in O.S.No.5173 of 1999 for injunction, though the said application was pending at the time of filing of the suit, subsequently, the same was dismissed.Therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for preliminary decree as stated supra.The case of the appellant/first defendant is that the first respondent/plaintiff admitted the mortgage deed, payment of interest and the signature in the deed.Therefore, she has no right to challenge the same since she agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- in 80 installments but she failed to pay it.Therefore, she was issued with a notice and even after obtaining the notice shehttp://www.judis.nic.in 27/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 failed to pay, therefore Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act was invoked and when the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit, the sale proceedings were dropped.There was no tripartite agreement among the first respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/first defendant and Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to adjust any amount payable to K.S.C.Iyer to be adjusted in the first respondent/plaintiff's loan account.Further, the letter sent to Mr.K.S.C.Iyer on 25.05.1997 by the appellant/first defendant with the signature of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer would go to show apart from the discharge of loan of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and the interest accrued thereon shall be adjusted and therefore, there would not be any excess amount in the said sum of Rs.1 crore paid by the second respondent/second defendant on the directions of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and therefore the first respondent/plaintiff alone is liable to discharge the suit mortgage debt.The first respondent/plaintiff has to pay contractual rate of interest at the rate of 22.2% per annum and it is not an usurious one.The first respondent/plaintiff had categorically agreed to pay interest at 24% per annum in default of payment of installments of recurring deposit at Rs.50,000/- per month or to pay interest every month and therefore, the said interest cannot be considered as penalty.The first respondent/plaintiff has to necessarily to pay and discharge the suit mortgage and seek forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 28/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 redemption of mortgage, but without paying the principal and interest she relied upon the consideration paid by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, who had paid the money for discharging his mortgage and his debts.The suit has been filed by the first respondent/plaintiff in order to skip the appellant/first defendant from taking action under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act and also delaying payment of the money towards the suit mortgage and to prolong the case as far as possible.Therefore the appellant/first defendant could not proceed further.It is for the first respondent/plaintiff to prove that Mr.K.S.C.Iyer has discharged the suit mortgage.Though the first respondent/plaintiff has admitted the execution of the mortgage deed and also borrowal but she has stated that she has received only a sum of Rs.38,90,820/- and not Rs.50,00,000/-.Further the interesthttp://www.judis.nic.in 29/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 claimed by the appellant/first defendant is very exorbitant.It is not in dispute that the appellant/first defendant is a financial company and the first respondent/plaintiff borrowed loan from the appellant/first defendant and executed the mortgage deed.The signature in the mortgage deed is also admitted.For which, the appellant has admitted that Mr.K.S.C.Iyer has also mortgaged his property with their institution and the second respondent paid Rs.1 crore for and on behalf of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and though they have stated that apart from that, other loan accounts also in M/s.SIC Business Association; M/s.SIC Financial Services; M/s.PB Financial Services; and M/s.PB Business Associates have been deducted.Unless the statement of accounts of the first respondent and Mr.K.S.C.Iyer are produced, it is very difficult to say what was the balance amount to be paid on the suit mortgage as on date.Though, in this case, the mortgage was admitted and Rs.1 crore received from Mr.K.S.C.Iyer was also admitted.Though the first respondent has specifically stated that she made certain payments and Mr.K.S.C.Iyer also gave a letter to the appellant that after deducting his loan account the balance would be credited to the account of the first respondent.The appellant has admitted the said transactions and the letters and in this case the appellant has not produced the statement of accounts of the first respondent as well as Mr.K.S.C.Iyer.If they filed the statement of accounts, certainly it would reveal what is the amount so far they have paid and what is the balance amount to be paid.Therefore, under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge drawn an adverse inference that the appellant has not produced the statement of accounts and proved that from the date of borrowal what was the credit made in the first respondent account and what are the debits regarding the interest and the penal interest and if any amount credited in the account ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 31/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 the first respondent based on the letter given by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer.If the accounts of the K.S.C.Iyer is also produced, then it will reveal what was the outstanding in his account at that time and what was the balance amount and whether the balance amount was credited in the account of the first respondent/plaintiff.Therefore, in the absence of statement of both the accounts of the first respondent and Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, it cannot be stated that what is the balance amount.Therefore, the first respondent has pleaded in his plaint very clearly and also during the evidence, that she made payments and also Mr.K.S.C.Iyer gave a letter.Even though the appellant has stated that there is no tripartite agreement but however the appellant admitted that they received a sum of Rs.1 crore from the second respondent on the instructions of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer.Therefore, it is the duty of the appellant to give the statement of accounts of the first respondent and Mr.K.S.C.Iyer.Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the preliminary decree only for rendition of accounts.Point No.(iii)Point No.(iii) is as the defendants 2 and 3 are strangers to the loanhttp://www.judis.nic.in 32/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 transaction of the plaintiff with 1st defendant and are not necessary and proper parties and therefore the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties.Though the appellant has stated that the second and the third respondents are strangers to the loan transaction, they are unnecessary parties and the suit is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary parties.In this regard, though the first respondent/plaintiff has specifically pleaded in her plaint that during the pendency of the mortgage one Mr.K.S.C.Iyer gave a letter to the appellant and as K.S.C.Iyer is no more at the time of filing of the suit, by way of abundant caution, the third respondent who is the legal representative of K.S.C.Iyer was impleaded as a party in the suit because the averments in the plaint states that Mr.K.S.C.Iyer paid a sum of Rs.1 crore through the second respondent and after deducting his mortgage debt the balance would be deducted to the account of the first respondent/plaintiff.Since the second respondent has purchased the property of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, which was mortgaged with the appellant and in order to discharge that mortgage, Mr.K.S.C.Iyer instructed the appellant to receive Rs.1 crore from the second respondent and hand over all the mortgagehttp://www.judis.nic.in 33/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 documents, original title deeds to the second respondent.Accordingly, the appellant has also admitted the receipt of Rs.1 crore and he has also returned back all the documents to the second respondent as instructed by K.S.C.Iyer.Therefore, under these circumstances, the second and third respondents are necessary parties.Therefore, the suit is not bad for misjoinder of parties since Mr.K.S.C.Iyer is no more, in the absence of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer, his son, the third respondent, is a necessary party.Even otherwise the respondents 2 and 3 are proper parties to the suit.Therefore, merely showing the second and third respondents as parties in the suit, the same is not bad for misjoinder of parties.Point No. (iv)So far as this point is concerned, as stated, during the pendency of the mortgage, the appellant issued sale notice with regard to the selling of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 34/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 mortgaged property and therefore the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.5173 of 1999 on the file of the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for declaring the public auction sale notice issued by M/s.Balaji & Co, the second defendant therein fixing the date of auction of the sale of mortgaged property on 24.08.1999 as illegal, null and void and for consequential permanent injunction.Though in the said suit ex-parte decree was passed, the appellant filed petition to set aside the I.A.No.1358 of 2002 in O.S.No.5173 of 1999 and the same was subsequently dismissed.There is no other appeal/revision against that order, therefore, in the said suit issues were not finally decided between the parties.Therefore, though the suit was only decreed as exparte, even though issues were framed in the said suit no issue was tried and finally decided in that suit.Res judicata: No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 35/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.Explanation I- The expression “former suit” shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to the suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.As far as Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C. is concerned, the earlier suit was filed because the appellant herein was taking effective steps to sell the mortgaged property by auction, therefore the first respondent/plaintiff filed the earlier suit for injunction.The said suit was decreed ex parte.The cause of action arises in the present suit is entirely different.Though the first respondent ought to have filed the suit for all the claims in that suit itself, but considering the fact that the date of auction sale of the property was fixed on 24.08.1999 and the appellant has also not produced the statement of accounts to the first respondent and therefore under those circumstances the earlier suit in O.S.No.5173 of 1999 was filed to declare the the auction sale dated 24.08.1999 as illegal, null and void and also for permanent injunction not to sell the property.Admittedly, the suit was decreed as ex parte and the same was final.Whereas, in the present suit the plaintiff has sought from the appellant for rendition of accounts.Though Mr.K.S.C.Iyer said to have written a letter directly to the appellant on 25.05.1997 itself.The appellant also admitted the transaction between the appellant and Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and Mr.During the trial, they have not produced the letter of Mr.K.S.C.Iyer dated 25.05.1998 before the Court.In fact the letter dated 25.05.1997, addressed to the appellant by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer would go to show that a sum of Rs.1 crore would be paid by the second respondent towards the outstanding sum in H.L.A/c.No.H-19 mortgage debt of K.S.C.Iyer and other debts of SIC and PB Group of Companies and at last the remaining amount was directed to be credited to the loan account of the first respondent/plaintiff namely Sarojini Ramanathan in respect of HL.A/c.The said document is an important one and it ought to have been marked as exhibit while DW1 was in box but it was produced subsequently and it was not marked as documentary evidence.Therefore, once the said letter is produced before the Court, though the parties have not marked the said letter but they have admitted the transaction betweenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 41/45 O.S.A.No.232 of 2013 Mr.K.S.C.Iyer and the appellant and also the letter written by the appellant, though the document is not marked and since admitted the transaction between the appellant and Mr.Though the learned Single Judge could have reopened the case and marked the said document through the witness and given effect to the document but however without marking the document the learned Single Judge has considered the letter issued by Mr.K.S.C.Iyer to the appellant dated 25.05.1997 and directed that the copy of the letter dated 25.05.1997, shall form part of the records.Since the transaction is admitted even though the document is not marked, no prejudice would be caused to the appellant.Further, the decree passed by the learned Single Judge is only to render the accounts of the first respondent and K.S.C.Iyer.Therefore, once the appellant produces the account then if any explanation has to be given, he can make it but without submitting the account he has nothing to say.If both the accounts are produced, the exact amount to be paid by the first respondent/plaintiff, if any, would be arrived at and therefore under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to set aside the judgment and preliminary decree passed by the learned Single Judge.There is no merit in the appeal, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 409 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.