id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
138,919,783 |
This ever increasing vehicular explosion in traffic is due to the rapid increase of human population primarily due to continuous migration of people in search of their livelihood from adjoining states and from far flung areas.In this unmanageable crowd, what we have lost is humanity, morals, our age old rich culture, tradition, ethos and path of truthfulness and righteousness as shown to us by saints and scriptures.Of all the maladies afflicting India, the malady of inner decay reigns supreme.There is a weakening of our moral fibre and ethical values.Second important witness as per the prosecution was PW-2 Mr. Manoj Malik who in his deposition stated that in the month of January 1999 he was staying at CGO Complex, Lodi Road and was working there at the Dhaba of one Kailash.He testified that he was going towards the railway station along with his two friends when they were stopped by the police at the site of the incident.He further testified that he was standing in the middle of the road when one truck had hit them due to which three police officials and two of his friends were killed while he himself got injured.As per the counsel for the appellant, the conduct of the prosecution in the case of PW-2 Manoj Malik is much more objectionable than their dubious conduct in the case of PW-1 Hari Shankar.No. 807/2008 Page 18 of 274This part of the evidence of PW-2 stating presence of the fog is also corroborated from the evidence of meteorological department adduced through PW-2 deposing about the presence of mist in the early morning of 10.1.1999, senior counsel contended.Counsel for the appellant further stated that due to the presence of the fog as referred to by PW-2 in his deposition and also by the meteorological department the said witness PW-2 could not have noticed the offending car approaching at a fast speed towards the place of accident due to the poor visibility.He checked out from his hotel on 9.1.99 at about 12.30 P.M., disclosing the place of destination as Solan; after landing in Delhi on 7.1.99 by Goa Express to meet some Minister of State in connection with a vigilance case of his friend.He initially stayed in a hotel namely Ajanta in Phaharganj and thereafter shifted to one Shiva Hotel.After the said dinner both of them sat near Shiv Mandir, near Maharishi Raman Marg and kept sitting around a bonefire lit by three wheeler drivers.Since Mr. Kulkarni could not get any three wheeler he started walking on foot towards Nizamuddin railway station so as to hire some auto rickshaw to reach his hotel.As he was trying to find out some three wheeler, he was going by the side of the divider, when he saw a group of people who were standing in the middle of the road talking to each other.At that very point of time he saw very heavy lights of some vehicle coming from the opposite direction, but could not see Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 23 of 274 much because of the powerful lights.As per the witness the said vehicle, which was a black car hit those people who were standing on the road and as a result of the same, few persons were flung in the air and the remaining fell by the side of the car.He heard the sound of application of brakes and thereafter, heard one more sound, which appeared to him to have been caused after being hit by the same car.At that time, he was 62-70 feet away from the spot.He further saw 3-4 persons coming out of the said car to see the damage caused to the car.All the three persons sat in the car again reversed the car a bit and then sped away from the right side of the witness.This witness tried to wake up the persons sleeping in the petrol pump, but nobody woke up from their sleep.He could not see PCO or telephone in the vicinity.After walking some distance he got an auto rickshaw, hired the same and went to the Nizamuddin railway station.He also tried to dial 100 number from the railway station but could not succeed because all the five public telephones lying installed at the railway station were not in a working condition.He boarded Chattisgarh express and went to Bhopal to meet another person with the name of Kataria.He came back after 2-3 days to Delhi and made a telephonic call to Mr. Amod Kanth, Joint Commissioner of Police or perhaps to DCP Mr. Srivastava.The said Joint Commissioner Mr. Amod Kanth immediately called him to Police Headquarter where he narrated everything to Mr. Kanth.Mr. Amod Kanth directed the witness Mr. Kulkarni to meet DCP Srivastava.The witness was given accommodation to stay in the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 24 of 274 police station Lodi Colony itself.The next day, in the morning he was shown the BMW car stationed in the Lodi Colony police station.His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police.He would wait for a passing car and summon help.3. Came to meet a minister in connection with a vigilance case but then meets a friend to start a mushroom business.But on the 9th he has gone to New Delhi Station.Obviously he wanted to leave Delhi.But he met Sushil Kataria and abandoned the idea of travelling.From 1 P.M. what did he do till dinner time? No interrogation, no evidence.How dinner till 3.45 A.M. Both sat on a public road warming themselves with a free bon fire lit up by other poor rickshaw drivers.Then he is alone, does not go with his bosom friend, nor did that fellow invite him.Suddenly he wants rickshaw to reach his Hotel.Which hotel he had checked out.Went to the Petrol Pump and tried to wake up persons sleeping there but did not succeed.He did not meet or see Hari Shankar PW-1The light of the car prevented him from seeing clearly.Ultimately gets a rickshaw but does not go to the hotel.Why did he go to station-to leave for Bhopal to meet whom-Again Kataria.No. 807/2008 Page 25 of 27410. Stayed in Bhopal for two-three days.No explanation of what he did there with or without Kataria.Returned to Delhi called police officers Amod Kanth DCP Srivastava.Called yet no statement recorded.Instead police sent him to the spot.Exclude Sidharth Gupta.He never knew any names.(619 & 621) Name of Sanjeev brought in under pressure.Some parts are under pressure.This reaction time as per the author varies with different individuals but 0.5 to 0.8 seconds is a normal reaction time.Giving example, the counsel submitted that if the vehicle is moving at a speed of 60 Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 35 of 274 K.M. per hour, the distance travelled in reaction time would be 8 to 15 meters.The FIR in the present case shows the skid marks of the car to a distance of 38 to 40 ft. which means approximately 12 meters.As per the public prosecutor, the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 47 of 274 police came into action after the information about the said accident was received and registered vide DD No. 27-A immediately whereafter SI Kailash Chand posted at P.S. Lodhi Colony on emergency duty rushed to the spot along with one Constable Jagan Lal.On reaching the spot he found three deadbodies lying scattered on the road.One leg of the deceased constable was lying at one place while abdomen of the other deceased was lying scattered at another place.PW 58/A. What have you to say?It is incorrect.From my house at Defence Colony I was straightaway taken to P.S. While Police came to my house to take me away.I was assaulted by the police and therefore I have injuries on my face.At that time my friend Manik Kapoor and Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 61 of 274 Siddarth Gupta were not with me.This witness without contacting the police after the incident alleged to Crl.On 9 th January, 1999 after checking out from the hotel he went to see a movie at Sheela theatre but did not disclose whether in fact he had seen any movie or not.Thereafter, he spent one hour time at Delhi station, which must be New Delhi Railway Station being near to Sheela theatre, wherefrom he made some STD calls.At about 11.30 p.m. he went to Lodhi Colony so as to meet his friend Mr. Sushil whose address he could not remember.Here also it looks highly improbable that the person who had checked out from his hotel at 12.30 p.m. and even had seen some movie at Sheela theatre, would kill his time upto 11.30 p.m., after spending just one hour at New Delhi Railway station.Nowhere this witness gave any particulars of Mr. Sushil Kataria nor the police made any efforts in this regard so as to test Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 130 of 274 the credibility of this Court witness.In his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he stated that he left for Nizamuddin Railway Station from the residence of his friend at Lodhi Road around 4.00 a.m. or 4.15 a.m. so as to board Chattisgarh Express for going to Bhopal and since he could not get any auto on his way, therefore, he went on foot to Nizamuddin Railway Station.In his deposition before the Court he deposed that after having dinner with Sushil both of them sat near Shiv Mandir at Maharishi Raman Marg around a bonfire lit by three wheeler drivers.He was sitting with the three wheeler drivers but still he was not able to get an auto rikshaw so as to move towards Nizamuddin Railway Station.In his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he stated that when he reached in front of HUDCO building at Lodhi Road and was walking on the central verge then from the opposite direction a vehicle at a very fast speed was seen by him coming towards the petrol pump and had hit 5-6 persons who were standing near petrol pump.He also stated that the vehicle was being driven in a zig zag manner and the impact was so forceful that 2-3 persons were flown by the impact of the said car and later fell down.While in his deposition before the Court he deposed that he saw a Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 131 of 274 group of people who were standing in the middle of the said road and they were talking to each other when from the opposite direction very heavy lights of some vehicle were seen by him and then the said vehicle which was of black colour had hit those people standing on the road.In his statement under Section 161 he stated that after moving a distance of 200 -300 ft the car stopped near the central verge when the driver came out from his seat and saw the vehicle from front and back side so as to assess the damage to the car.He also saw some persons underneath the car when the person from the co-driver seat also got down and screamed "Sanjeev let us rush" and thereafter, after crushing the men under the vehicle fled from the spot.The concentration of alcohol is important, and generally the stronger the drink the more rapid is its effect.Absorption is usually complete within the first hour, so that after a single dose the maximum concentration in the blood is reached within the same period.After absorption, the alcohol is distributed, more or less evenly throughout the tissues, with the exception of the bones and fat.Thus by estimating the amount of alcohol in the blood it is possible to calculate the approximate total quantity in the body at that time and the minimum, quantity which must have been ingested.It to be cleared of alcohol after the ingestion of a single large whisky.The concentration in the blood varies, however, increasing during absorption and then decreasing with oxidation.The critical concentration seems to lie at or about the 0.15 level and any person with this amount in his blood can be considered to have imbibed a dangerous amount of alcohol.With increasing concentrations the symptoms become more intense and at concentrations beyond 0.2 per cent up to 0.5 per cent there is likely to be marked inco-ordination, come and possibl Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 158 of 274 Effects of alcohol'.Character of the speech;Manner of walking, turning sharply, sitting down and arising picking up a pencil or coin from the floor;Memory of incidents within the previous few hours and estimation of their time intervals;The learned trial court took into consideration the scene of crime as narrated by S.I. Kailash Chand in the rukka and in his rough site plan proved on record as Ex. PW58/B and the testimony of PW-2 Manoj Malik, who in his deposition stated that the vehicle came at a very fast speed from Nizamuddin and hit them.The trial court further took into consideration the deposition of court witness Sunil Kulkarni who in his testimony testified that the vehicle was at a very-very high speed and due to the impact of the accident 2 or 3 persons fell on the bonnet and wind screen of the car.After the receipt the DD, I along with Ct.Jagan Lal reached the spot i.e. Car Care Center, Petrol Pump, Lodhi Road, where three persons namely Ct. Ram Raj-DHG, Ct.Rajan Kumar (CRPF) and unknown age about 35 years were found and four persons were reported to be shifted to hospital by PCR Van.A broken No. of plate was found lying.After assembling broken pieces the particulars were revealed as M- 312-LYP and Park Lane and BMW.At the spot the black colour piece of bumper and rear wind screen and black colour broken piece of the car were found scattered in the radius of 100/125 ft.Skid marks of a vehicle were seen on the road.The head of unknown body was found crushed, brain matter was found out side the skull.The body of Ct.Ram Raj was found crushed due to passing of the vehicle, his right leg was found detached and was lying at distance of 10'-15'.Blood is lying at point A. At point B which is at 38 steps away from point A, blood is lying and there are blood stains and skid marks.At point C on the middle divider there are friction marks of the tyre.Point C is eight steps away from point B. At point D one dead body is lying having its right leg amputated.There are blood and friction/drag marks from point C to D. At point E one dead body is lying near electric pole no. 12 and blood as well as drag marks are seen.It is his duty to ferret out the truth.Laborious hard work and attention to the details, ability to sort through mountainous information, recognised behaviourial patterns and above all, to co-ordinate the efforts of different people associated with various elements of the crime and the case, are essential.The prosecution has successfully proved on record that a BMW car was parked in the said bungalow in a damaged condition after it had caused accident of such a high magnitude in which the precious lives of six people were lost.Can anybody sleep in his house if some one known after causing an accident brings his accidental car and park it there? No person in such a situation can remain asleep and more so when a friend of son of the owner of the bungalow was involved in the offence.It is in evidence against you that on 10.1.99 PW 59 Const.Ram Avtar, photographer took the photographs of the scene of occurrence from different angles and he also prepared the video film from the scene of occurrence to the place of 50, Golf Links.The photographs are Exht.PW59/1 to 18 and the video recording is Exht.What have you to say?According to the experts at the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre (NTPRC), the number of road accidents in India is three times higher than that prevailing in developed countries.The number of accidents for 1000 vehicles in India is as high as 35 while the figure ranges from 4 to 10 in developed countries.According to the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) report released on 12/6/2009, the total number of accidents in Delhi is almost 2.5 times higher than that of Kolkata, and 2.1 times higher than Chennai.Pedestrians in Delhi, where a third of working people walk to work, accounts for 47 per cent of fatalities in these accidents.Due to rise in vehicular traffic, both motorized and non- motorized, no perceptible improvement in the quality and the size of the roads, the pedestrians who constitute almost half of the total ratio of accidents are the soft targets.The said CSE report says, "The walkers remain invisible in the maze of motorized traffic that chokes our roads.They walk in extremely unsafe and hostile conditions, in constant conflict with motorized traffic and are easy victims to crashes and accidents".Accidents not only result in loss of precious lives of the citizens but also affect the entire economy of the country.3. Improvement in the methods of investigation so as to make it more scientific.To introduce and implement the system of Native Citizen cards as being talked about, maintain complete data of citizens as the country which will facilitate checking of persons and their records.Installation of CCTV cameras on major roads.Random checking by the police to prevent the menace of drunken driving specially near pubs, five star hostels, discos etc.The aforesaid suggestions are illustrative but not exhaustive.No. 807/2008 Page 272 of 274* "The miracle is not to fly in air or to travel to the moon, but to walk on the earth", says a Chinese proverb.The increase in vehicular traffic alongwith the population of Delhi has grown much faster since the time Maruti Company has flooded the market with their brand of cars for the middle class of the society.Although the capital of the country is dominated by the middle and lower class, but the presence of rich and affluent is no less visible when one looks at the roads of Delhi to find large number of high class luxurious cars, including the Mercedes and BMWs.The traditional mode of travelling by tangas, bicycles, rickshaws, two wheelers is coming to gradual extinct except in the interiors of some localities.No. 807/2008 Page 2 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 2 of 274Except for a few hours between midnight to dawn, one cannot see even a patch of earth but vehicles and vehicles either running or stranded in traffic jams on Delhi roads.Corruption, red tapism, callousness, casualness and crumbling moralities dominate our public life instead of much needed culture of care, compassion, empathy, and catholicity.Drunken driving, insensitivity and apathy of the Government for public safety on roads; poor, faulty and ill equipped police investigation; growing interference of media in criminal trials; media hype; hostile and dishonest witnesses; falling standards of legal profession, filthy use of money power by rich and mighty; unholy nexus between defence counsel and State appointed Special Public Prosecutors are some of the issues that cropped up in this infamous case known as the BMW case.No. 807/2008 Page 3 of 274 Brief FactsNo. 807/2008 Page 3 of 274In this background, it would be relevant to briefly put forth the facts of the case before delving upon the contentions of counsel for the parties, which are as under:At about 4:00 am on the cold wintry morning of 10/1/1999, the accused Sanjeev Nanda in an inebriated state, without an Indian driving licence while driving a brand new BMW car bearing registration no. M 312 LYP caused an accident at the Lodhi Road in which 6 persons, including three police officers were trampled to death and one person was injured.After causing the accident, the accused Sanjeev Nanda fled away from the accident spot and parked the accidental car at 50 Golf Links at the residence of his friend Siddharth Gupta.The accused has been convicted u/S. 304 (II) IPC and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment by the trial court for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Accused Siddharth Gupta was discharged by this Court and accused Manik Kapoor was acquitted by the trial court.Accused Rajiv Gupta, Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh Rana have been convicted by the trial court u/S. 201 (II) IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of offence committed by accused.Aggrieved with the said orders of conviction & sentence dated 2/9/2008 passed by the learned trial judge, the appellant Sanjeev Nanda preferred appeal bearing Crl.A. No. 807/2008; Rajiv Gupta preferred appeal bearing Crl.A. No. 767/2008; and Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh Rana preferred appeal bearing Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 4 of 274A. No. 807/2008 and then I will deal with Crl.A. No. 807/2008 Arguments of the appellantAt the outset of his arguments, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate with a view to narrow down the controversy very fairly admitted to the factum of accident and the fact that the accused No.1 Sanjeev Nanda was at the driving seat of the offending BMW car bearing registration no. M-312 LYP.The submission of Mr. Jethmalani was that the accused is an absolutely honest person and in his very first encounter with the police, he truthfully and honestly disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure that the said unfortunate accident in which six persons had died and one was injured had occurred when he was driving the said vehicle on the said fateful morning.The contention of the senior counsel for the appellant was that except for the said disclosure statement of the appellant, the prosecution had no evidence to implicate the appellant for the offences charged against him.He fiercely attacked the judgment of the trial Court on all fronts.As per him, it is a case where prosecution totally failed to prove its case, the trial judge failed to appreciate facts in the right perspective, misapplied law, indulged in self research to give strength to the prosecution theory, assumed the role of an expert though not being an expert after viewing the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 5 of 274 videography of the site, attached undue weightage to the testimony of one of the most discredited witnesses and displayed his prejudice against the rich and mighty, blaming the accused for the ills and misdeeds of greedy lawyers and so on and so forth.No. 807/2008 Page 5 of 274The trial was sometimes adjourned for weeks and months together.His trial was defective.The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 Hari Shankar who was working as an attendant in the petrol pump was the first one to inform the police about the said incident.One of the injured person Mr. Manoj PW-2 was taken in the PCR vehicle Crl.They Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 15 of 274PW-1 Mr. Hari Shankar was declared a hostile witness.He was an employee of petrol pump known as Car Care Centre, Lodi Road.He testified that one vehicle was coming from the side of Nizamuddin.He also testified that in the accident some person fell down on the road and died after receiving injuries.Admittedly, he came on the road after hearing the sound of thud which would mean that the accident had already taken place and Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 16 of 274 sound of thud was heard by him after the accident.The deposition of this witness before the court clearly goes to show that false story was put into his mouth by the prosecution whereas the fact of accident was clearly not known to him.Certainly, the man was not standing out on the road but was at the petrol pump and it must have taken him at least one minute time to come out on the road after hearing the said sound.Hari Shankar was made an eye witness by the prosecution.Little did the prosecution realise that what made the said witness to come to the site of the accident was a noise which was created because of the impact of the accident, therefore, such a witness could not have been a witness to the accident, prior to the collision or at the time of the impact.The FIR in the present case was lodged at 7.10 A.M. in the morning of 10.1.99 and as per the Rukka, sent by S.I. Kailash Chand no witness was available which fact would show that even Hari Shankar was not present there at the site.This was the witness who was injured but was conscious when taken in PCR Van and upon inquiry about the accident at 5.27 A.M. by PW-36 he clearly stated that he did not know anything about the accident.This revelation by PW-2 Manoj Malik at 5.27 A.M. was deliberately suppressed by the prosecution and he was made an eye-witness by the police not realizing that already he had given the said statement to the Police Control Room officials.In his deposition this witness mentioned about the existence of fog and to that extent, the evidence of the hostile witness would be admissible as per the settled legal position, counsel for the appellant contended.No. 807/2008 Page 18 of 274Counsel submitted that this witness PW-2 who could be the only eye witness to the exact circumstances leading to the accident, once having said to the police officials of PCR van that he was not aware of anything about the accident, inevitably leads to the only conclusion, that he could not see the accident either due to the presence of the fog or on account of the impact of high powered lights of the BMW car.Counsel thus submitted that statements of said two witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were nothing but bundle of lies recorded at the instance of the police and the said statements were also in complete contradiction to the messages recorded by the PCR officials.Counsel for the appellant thus submitted that the entire evidence was fabricated by the police with a view to falsely implicate the appellant for a crime punishable for non-bailable offence which he had never committed.Counsel for the appellant drew attention of this Court to the depositions of PW-34 and PW-36 who in their depositions committed an act of perjury by falsely stating that the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 19 of 274 said witness PW-2 Manoj Malik had told them while being carried in the PCR van that he saw one big black car coming from the side of Lodi Hotel at a very fast speed being driven in a zig-zag manner and on seeing such car, he had shouted Bachaao-Bachaao but the car ran over the persons standing at that place.The relevant portions of statement of PW-34 Constable Shadi Ram is reproduced below:No. 807/2008 Page 19 of 274...............Then we took that injured whose name was disclosed by that injured himself on way ot hospital as Manoj who was conscious at that time.On the way incharge Davinder Singh had asked that injured Manoj as to what had happened and then Manoj told him that he was going to Nizamuddin Railway Station to leave his companion Gulab at the station.Manoj also told that two other persons were also going with them and when they reached in front of car care centre some police men were present there.He further told that in charge that at that time one black coloured car of big size came and had stuck against them and that car had come at a very fast speed.(objected to by the defence council as being here say as Manoj himself has been examined already and he has not claimed so).Manoj was then taken to the AIIMS hospital.After getting Manoj admitted in AIIMS we came back to the spot that is place of the incident.At the spot Inspector Jagdish Pandey and SHO had also reached when we came back from AIIMS.The relevant portions of statement of PW-36 ASI Devender Singh is reproduced below:...............On the way I asked Manoj as to with what he had met with the accident.He told me that one big black coloured car had come from the side of Lodhi Hotel at a very fast speed and which was being driven in a gick zack manner and on seeing that car being driven in that manner he had shouted Bachao-Bachao' but that car was driven over them who were standing at that place and he informed me that one Gulab Singh of his Village and one other person from his Village were with him at the time of accident besides four other persons....The third important witness as per the prosecution to nail the appellant is the Court witness Mr. Sunil Kulkarni.With all the vehemence at his command Mr. Jethmalani, raised a challenge to Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 20 of 274 the credibility and creditworthiness of the said witness.Mr. Sunil Kumar was introduced as one of the key prosecution witnesses who as per the prosecution witnessed the accident himself.He in fact was the only witness who could give detailed account of the exact sequence of events which led to causing the said accident.For better appreciation of the facts, relevant portion of the said order dated 30.9.99 is reproduced as under:No. 807/2008 Page 20 of 274The proceedings of such meeting remained under wrap and came to be known to the appellant only during the final hearing.One of the serious objections taken by the counsel for the appellant was about the said closed door meeting between the Court and the prosecution witness.As per the counsel for the appellant, this itself vitiates the trial, besides being an act of contempt of Court.Instead of initiating contempt proceedings against the said witness the meeting had struck a very sympathetic chord in as much as the learned judge felt inclined to Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 22 of 274 direct police protection to him.Public trial and an open hearing to the public at large as well as to the parties are the essential features of our jurisprudence and any deviation from such established procedure will certainly vitiate a trial, counsel for the appellant contended.He was produced by the police in the Court and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate.The police had arranged the TIP but the same did not take place.No. 807/2008 Page 23 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 24 of 274Following objections were raised by the counsel for the appellant to discredit the deposition of the said Court witness Mr. Kulkarni as borne out from his written submission:If he was an eye witness he would wait for the police and not leave for Bhopal he had no urgent business of any kind.2. Is it conceivable that all alone he tried to move the injured and did not shout for held.He would at least talk to Manoj and another who were alive.There he met DCP Vivek Gogia, Vimlesh Yadav and IO Kailash chand.They confirmed his story from the scene and their record.No statement recorded.Slept at the police station.No statement next morning.They showed him the car BMW.Police were concocting a false case.He had seen three come out of the car but mentioned only 2 in the statement.Admits pressure of police upto 164 statement being recorded.Persons were standing in the middle of the road.Denied his statement of 31.3.99 Ex. CW1/PB.18. 11.7.2007-shown site plan.High speed but not excessive.Luggage of the 6 victims was scattered on the road.Concocted story.Whose luggage? Why six? Where is it mentioned.Based on the above objections, the counsel for the appellant submitted that Mr. Sunil Kulkarni had dinner with one Mr. Kataria which went on till 3.45 A.M., without knowing where the dinner had taken place, he sat around the bonfire along with three wheeler drivers but could not get a three wheeler so as to reach back to the hotel.He is the only witness who talks of reversal of the car, which is not even the case set up by the prosecution in their substantive or non-substantive evidence.The evidence of Mr. Hari Shanker PW-1 appeared to be more natural as he was on duty at the petrol pump and he heard the sound of impact and thereafter rang up his employer who in turn contacted the police the senior counsel contended.The prosecution failed to prove that no public telephone was available in the said vicinity or five telephones installed at the railway station were out of order or that he could not come across even a single constable at the railway station.The prosecution also failed to give any reason as to why the evidence of the said witness was not immediately recorded when he had approached the Joint Commissioner of Police on his return from Bhopal and enough time was consumed by the police to record his statement on the lines suggested by the police, the senior counsel argued.The delay on the part of the police in recording his statement clearly shows that the fabrication was in progress to record the statement of the said Court witness in a manner which suited the prosecution.The witness also failed to explain as to why he had gone to Bhopal although he was destined to go to Solan and why from Bhopal also necessary information was not given by him about the said incident.No. 807/2008 Page 26 of 274Continuing with his fierce attack on the credibility of the said witness Mr. Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate submitted that if the entire conduct of the said witness is taken into account, then one Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 27 of 274 cannot but conclude that he was not an eye witness to the said incident.As per his deposition he had tried to shift the injured to the divider, and if it is accepted as correct then why there was no trace of blood on his clothes and in fact why his clothes were not seized by the police; why the Joint Commissioner of Police Mr. Amod Kanth did not record the statement of Mr. Kulkarni immediately when he met him at the police headquarter.Every police official owes a legal duty to record the statement of any witness without any loss of time.Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Maruti Rama Naik Vs.The police wrongly directed him to give an application in writing under his signatures.Counsel further submitted that it is a settled legal position that if witnesss signatures are taken on Section 161 statement then the same is certainly a breach of Section 162 Cr.P.C. The signing of the statement by the said witness and the same having been accepted by the prosecution itself vitiates the testimony of the said witness.In any event two admissions were made by the said witness also on which the defence has placed reliance.Firstly, in his deposition he had stated that the light of the car prevented him to see clearly.He had admitted that the police pressurized him to Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 28 of 274 exclude certain names and such conduct of the police would clearly show that there was a clear attempt on their part to set up a false case against the accused.He had also admitted that at the time of recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he was under pressure.Counsel also submitted that the testimony of the witness was totally untruthful when he says that group of persons were standing in the middle of the road and their luggage was also scattered on the road.Counsel thus urged that to rely on the testimony of such a witness would be the most hazardous thing to do.In support of his argument counsel for the appellant placed reliance on State of U.P. Vs.Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 and Baij Nath Prasad Vs.Madan Mohan Das AIR 1952, AllahabadNo. 807/2008 Page 27 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 28 of 274Even when he arranged the sting operation he was trying to find out how much money he would be able to extract.It is a fact on record that so far the appellant accused is concerned, the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded when he was in jail.Even the conversation in sting operation is with regard to the attempts being made to extract money but in fact nothing was paid by the appellant or on his behalf by anybody else.The next ground of challenge made by the counsel for the appellant pertains to wrongly connecting the appellant with the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II Indian Penal Code on the premise that the appellant was driving the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 29 of 274 offending vehicle in a highly drunken state of intoxication beyond reasonable limits.As per the medical report produced on record, the appellant was found to have 0.115% w/v, the quantity of alcohol in his blood.No evidence was produced on record to prove that the accused was intoxicated in the sense in which intoxication is understood under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code, nor in the sense of having his ability to control the motor vehicle getting substantially impaired as a result of intake of alcohol in terms of requirement of Section 185 (1) (a) of the M.V. Act. Section 185(1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes artificial limit beyond which one must not go, submitted learned Senior counsel.No. 807/2008 Page 29 of 274(a) was introduced after 1994 amendment and prior to the said amendment even the consumption of one sip of alcohol was made punishable for driving the vehicle.This small consumption was found by the legislature totally reasonable and it was thought that the people must be allowed to drive after consuming a little quantity of alcohol which in the said amendment they put it at 30 mg in 100 ml of blood.The said Section 185 (1) (a) also introduced a test for analyzing the alcohol content in ones blood through the mechanism of breath analyzer.Counsel for the appellant further submitted that even if the presence of alcohol determined through inadmissible evidence of blood test is taken as correct, then, admittedly the same was found at 0.115%.The presence of quantity of the alcohol as per the medical test again cannot be accurate because out of the same 0.020 has to be deducted on account of the presence of non-alcoholic substances like aldehydes and Ketones in every human body.This has been proved on record in defence evidence through examination of an expert as well as with the help of text books on medical jurisprudence.Even no reliance can be placed on the report of the blood samples as admittedly out of two samples, taken on 10.1.99, Crl.Another strong factor to show that the appellant was quite sober and was in his full senses is the fact that he could drive the car for more than 16 k.m.without any hassle or causing any kind of mishap on its way prior to reaching at the place of accident.The appellant also applied the brakes immediately and stopped the car within a few meters and this again shows complete orientation of the mind of the appellant.58(Kant).Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the presence of quantity of alcohol of 0.115% is absolutely near the safety point and that the trial Court committed an error by holding that the same was beyond the prescribed limit.Counsel thus submitted that with the presence of the said quantity of alcohol, the appellant could not have been considered a person excessively drunk for which much more vital symptoms were required to be proved by the prosecution.No. 807/2008 Page 33 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 30 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 31 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 32 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 33 of 274Finding fault with the judgment of the learned trial Court, Mr. Jethmalani, counsel for the appellant pointed out that many judgments of the Apex Court and other courts were cited before the learned trial Court, but the learned judge misconstrued the rationale and import of those judgments.The learned trial Court distinguished them on the ground that none of those cases pertained to drunken driving.Counsel further submitted that there is no breach of law if a person drives a vehicle after consuming liquor because the law permits to drive with intake of liquor up to certain amount of limit.It is only when one takes something more than the required limit then one can be held guilty of committing breach of legal duty punishable under Section 185 M.V. Act, but even taking the liquor in excess, above the prescribed limit under Section 185 M.V. Act in itself would not render the act as intentional, deliberate or willful, as illegally held by the learned trial Court and even otherwise drunkenness has not been established by the prosecution in the present case, the counsel contended.The next submission of the counsel for the appellant was against the alleged perverse finding of the trial court to hold that the vehicle was being driven by the appellant recklessly and at an excessive speed.As per the counsel for the appellant, it is well recognized fact that the oral evidence of witnesses on the issue of speed whether given by the bystanders or passengers travelling in the vehicle is notoriously unreliable.Speed of the vehicle involved in the accident essentially has to be determined from circumstantial Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 34 of 274 evidence especially scientific evidence and not on the basis of oral evidence.For instance, there should be examination of the skid marks of the vehicle on the road and secondly, the position of victims.The Apex Court also observed that the witnesses who deposed that they saw the accident in question need to be carefully scrutinized because such witnesses only observed the incident after their attention was drawn to the impact resulting from the collision.The statements of such witnesses to a large extent are influenced by what they imagined must have happened and not from what they have practically seen happening.The reaction time is the time which the driver takes to apply the brakes fully after he perceives the necessity to apply brakes.Such a speed on a lonely road at 4.30 A.M. on the wintry morning by no means can be considered either excessive or dangerous or reckless.Even if the conclusion regarding the skid marks is corroborated by the evidence of sole eye witness Mr. Sunil Kulkarni whom the trial court had believed, is taken into account, he also nowhere stated that the speed was excessive, rather he stated the same was high only.No expert had said this and the learned judge had converted himself into an expert which is against all judicial norms.The forensic laboratory report dated 21.7.99 placed on record before the trial court clearly states that no facility is available with the said laboratory to determine the speed of the vehicle with the help of mechanical devices or instruments.Counsel Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 36 of 274 for the appellant drew attention of this court to the observations made in the said report, which are reproduced as under.No. 807/2008 Page 34 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 35 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 36 of 274"(b) Facilities do not exist to determine the co-efficient of friction of the road hence speed of the vehicle could not be determined."This admission on the part of the prosecution is a clear pointer to the fact that no scientific evidence was available to prove the speed.Counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned Judge assigned to himself the role of expert by examining the video tape as after viewing the said video, the learned trial Court could notice the marks demonstrating reversal of the car.As per the counsel for the appellant marks of reversal are never disclosed by the skid marks.The skid marks are caused due to the sudden application of brakes and therefore, they appear because of the friction, however, when you reverse the car you do not produce such marks as are caused while moving forward after application of brakes.Counsel thus submitted that the learned Judge became an expert to draw a conclusion after viewing the video that the vehicle had reversed after hitting the victims to support the theory which was not even propounded by the prosecution.The learned Judge could see even what the prosecution did not see and for which even the defence got no opportunity to contradict or destroy.It is a disclosure by the judge himself which came to the notice of the defence only after reading the judgment.The counsel also pointed Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 38 of 274 could not have seen the few persons standing on the road, the counsel contended.No. 807/2008 Page 38 of 274L.J 1089 also took the similar view.Even no such question of suggesting excessive speed was put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Crl.P.C. contended counsel for the appellant.Based on the above submissions, counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution miserably failed to prove that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle at a highly excessive speed.No. 807/2008 Page 40 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 40 of 274The next limb of argument of the counsel for the appellant relates to the presence of fog/mist on the wintry morning of 10.1.99, which as per the counsel for the appellant was ignored by the trial court.Counsel for the appellant invited attention of this court to the certificate given by the office of the meteorological department proved on record as Ex. PW15/B, wherein they have clearly stated the presence of mist on the said day with visibility of one thousand meters.PW-2 Mr. Manoj Malik in his cross examination also disclosed the presence of fog on the said day.Counsel for the appellant also found fault with the report of the meteorological department wherein they have disclosed the visibility at the distance of one thousand meters on the ground that the said visibility was not present at the place near the accident but the same was at Safdarjung Airport.The portion of the said examination in chief of PW-15 Mr.As per the report given by me the visibility on that day at 5.30 A.M. was thousand meters at Safdarjung Airport.In his cross-examination also the said witness stated that the visibility was thousand meters on account of the presence of the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 41 of 274 mist which remains at the height of up to five hundred meters from the ground level.The said witness also stated that the concentration of the mist at lower height from the ground level is more and there is only a little changed concentration of the mist up to the next five hundred meters.The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that because of the presence of the mist at the lower level, one may not be able to see the human beings on the road, but although may be able to see the stars in the sky.Counsel for the appellant although admitted that the appellant should have taken a precaution of dipping the lights of his car due to the presence of the fog and because of not dipping the said lights certainly the presence of fog Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 42 of 274 must have affected the visibility of the appellant in not finding the presence of victims, in the middle of the road from a distance.No. 807/2008 Page 41 of 274Rough site plan of the spot of accident was prepared by the said sub inspector which was duly proved on record as Ex. PW 58/B. As per the prosecutor, this site plan was never challenged by the defence during the trial.After arrival of the said Sub Inspector Kailash Chand, Jagdish Pandey from Police Control Room also reached there who saw the trails of the oil reaching from the site of the accident to 50, Golf Links, where ultimately the said car was found parked inside the Kothi in a badly damaged condition.Some human flesh and blood was also found on the vehicle.Rajiv Gupta, one of the other co-accused in the connected appeal, disclosed that the said offending car was parked there by none else but the appellant Sanjeev Nanda.All the accused persons were taken for medical examination at 12.20 a.m. on 10.1.1999, in AIIMS where blood samples of appellant Sanjeev Nanda were taken and in the said report it was found that the appellant was heavily drunk.Rukka was prepared by SI Kailash Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 48 of 274 Chand which was proved on record as Ex. PW 58/A after the registration of DD.Explaining the purpose of DD, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the only purpose of the DD is to inform the police so that the police officer may proceed to rush to the spot to probe the matter.As per the Prosecutor, the only purpose of the DD is to put the police into motion.The recovery memo of articles seized by SI Kailash Chand from the spot was also proved on record which remained unchallenged by the defence.The contention of the public prosecutor is that if the testimony of SI Kailash Chand and that of SI Jagannath supported by the said site plan and recovery memo is taken into consideration then the same would clearly show how the said barbaric accident had occurred and after causing the said accident how the appellant had fled from the spot.No. 807/2008 Page 47 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 48 of 274The State prosecutor, Mr. Pawan Sharma further submitted that the three eye witnesses cited by the prosecution were later on examined as PW 1 Hari Shankar and PW 2 Mr. Manoj Malik while Mr. Sunil Kulkarni appeared as a court witness.Counsel further submitted that although the said two witnesses; PW 1 Hari Shankar and PW-2 Manoj Malik turned hostile but still as per the settled legal position, the testimony of the hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in entirety.Counsel for the State then categorized his submissions in reply to certain specific contentions raised by the petitioner.Dealing with the issue of speedy and fair trial the state counsel Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 49 of 274 submitted that during the entire period of trial no lapse or delay can be attributed on the part of the prosecution.The proceedings for consideration of charge were held between 14.5.1999 to 17.7.1999 and on 2.8.1999 charges were framed against the appellant and other accused persons.During the aforesaid period on 14 dates the accused persons argued their case while on three dates the prosecution made their submissions on framing of charges.Three times there was no electricity in the court, two times the ld.Presiding officer was on leave and on one date the ld.Judge adjourned the proceedings because of "no time left".During the said period also one application was moved by the appellant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and on one of the dates defence counsel took time.The prosecution evidence was completed between 2nd August, 1999 to 22nd August, 2003 and during this period request for adjournment was made by the accused nine times.On 38 hearings prosecution witnesses were examined.Request for adjournment by the State was made four times and at least on eight occasions the case was adjourned due to "no time left".Only on two occasions no witnesses were present and at least on three dates there was a joint request for adjournment.The case was also adjourned 7 times because the trial court records were summoned by the High Court.The matter was once adjourned because of the Republic Day arrangements.Adjournments were also taken for various other multiple reasons for which prosecution cannot be blamed.Application for exemption was moved by Mr. Rajiv Gupta at least ten Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 50 of 274 times and the appellant moved similar application at least 12 times.Presiding Officer was on leave at least for five times.The defence evidence was completed between 24.10.2005 to 5.5.2008 and during this period the matter was adjourned 12 times at the request of the defence.During this period the ld.to summon Sunil Kulkarni as a court witness.Supplementary chargesheet was also filed during the said period.The final arguments were addressed by the State counsel at least on eight hearings while the defence counsel made their submissions on 15 dates.The order of conviction and sentence was passed on 2.9.2008 and 5.9.2008, respectively.After giving a detailed account of the court proceedings, counsel submitted that there has not been any delay on the part of the prosecution and the appellant cannot complain that he was either denied the speedy trial or fair trial.Special emphasis was laid by the State counsel on para 32 of the said judgment referred as under:No. 807/2008 Page 49 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 50 of 274We answer the questions posed in the orders of reference dated 19-9-2000 and 26-4- 2001 in the abovesaid terms.No. 807/2008 Page 52 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 52 of 274B. Sriniwas 2008 (3) JCC 2115 and Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs.Based on the above judgments and on the legal proposition laid in the above judgments, the counsel for the State submitted that the appellant cannot complain that he was denied fair and speedy trial by the court.Counsel also submitted that it is not only the appellant/accused who is entitled to the fair trial but the victims as well.The witness PW1 in his deposition clearly stated that he was sitting in the petrol pump when on hearing the noise he came out and saw one vehicle coming from Nizamuddin side, causing the said accident.He also clearly deposed that as a result of the accident some people received injuries and some died also.He also categorically stated that the vehicle was coming at a fast speed.Counsel further submitted that this witness PW 1 Hari Shankar was the first person who had informed the happening of the said occurrence and his entire testimony cannot be brushed aside because of some minor variations in his stand.In fact, as per the Prosecutor, he was wrongly declared as a hostile witness.Even the testimony of PW 2 Manoj Malik cannot be discarded in entirety as he has supported the prosecution case fully except the fact that he took somersault when he deposed that infact the offending vehicle was not a car but a truck.This minor contradiction in the testimony of PW 2 would not render his entire testimony uncreditworthy, more particularly, when the defence is no more disputing the involvement of appellant causing the said accident.No. 807/2008 Page 54 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 54 of 27451 State of U.P. Vs.F. Khan & Ors .Counsel further submitted that no doubt that the court has to see the statement of such a witness with great caution and care but solely based on the shady character of the witness, his testimony cannot be ignored, more particularly, when deposition of such a witness is corroborated by other circumstances.The presence of the said court witness Mr. Kulkarni in Delhi cannot be denied as PW 42 Ms. Alka, receptionist of Hotel Shiva Continental duly proved this fact in her deposition by proving the hotel records.No. 807/2008 Page 55 of 274Counsel further submitted that this witness has no enmity with any of the accused persons and has no relations with any of the police officials.State where also the witness turned hostile and the prosecutor also colluded with the defence and the Honble Apex Court directed fresh trial of the case.Special reference was made to paras 2, 13, 36 & 38 of the said judgment which are reproduced as under:- Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 56 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 56 of 274One of the appeals is by Zahira who claims to be an eyewitness to macabre killings allegedly as a result of communal frenzy.She made statements and filed affidavits after completion of trial and judgment by the trial court, alleging that during trial she was forced to depose falsely and turn hostile on account of threats and coercion.That raises an important issue regarding witness protection besides the quality and credibility of the evidence before court.It could not be served on the ground that he had left for his native place in Uttar Pradesh.Therefore, fresh summons were issued on 9-6-2003 for recording his evidence on the next day i.e. on 10-6-2003, giving only one day's time.If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves.Courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators.No. 807/2008 Page 57 of 274Drawing strength from the said decision counsel submitted that in similar circumstances, the trial court had exercised the power to summon the said witness although dropped by the prosecution.For antecedent of witnesses, relevance of testimony of expert witnesses etc., counsel for the State referred following judgments:-Farid Khan page 51Taking strong exception to the stand taken by the counsel for the appellant during the course of his arguments that he will proceed with the admission that Sanjeev Nanda was driving the BMW car on the said fateful day, Mr. Pawan Sharma, lamented that no such plea Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 58 of 274 can be introduced by the defence in the appeal when such a defence was never set up before the trial court.Throughout the trial, the case of the defence was that the said BMW car was not involved in the accident as would be evident from the suggestions given by the defence in the cross-examination of various witnesses examined by the prosecution.In the appeal the defence has tried to build a case to bring the same within the four corners of Section 304- A of the Indian Penal Code while before the trial court the accident in question itself was denied by the defence.State of Punjab , 2005 (2) LRD (Delhi) DB.No. 807/2008 Page 59 of 274The counsel also urged that the videography proved on record totally belies the story of the defence.P.P. The counsel also averred that the brakes were not applied by the appellant before the impact.Refuting the submission of Mr. Ram Jethmalani, attributing mysterious presence of the police on the intervening night of 9-10th of January, 1999, counsel for the State submitted that the testimony of Mr. Bannu Singh (PW 53) clearly proves that the constable who Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 60 of 274 died on that day was on duty.No. 807/2008 Page 60 of 274To establish the fact that the appellant was driving the offending vehicle in a drunken condition counsel invited attention of this court to the replies given by the accused to the question Nos. 11,38, 45,90 & 92 putforth by the court at the time of recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the same are as under:-Q. 11 It is also in evidence against you that there is evidence that BMW car being No. M-312 LYP was involved in this accident on 10.1.1999, Because of the accident, the injured and the deceased were found scattered at different places between the radius of 100/150 feet.What have you to say?Q.38 It is in evidence against you that SI Kailash Chand PW 58 directed SI Hullas Giri PW to go to Defence Colony for bringing you to Golf Links who returned along with three persons including you, Manik Kapur and Siddharth Gupta who immediately on their arrival asked Rajiv Gupta accused KYA GARI DHUL GAI HAI'.All the three, including you, were interrogated.It was also noticed that you were in intoxication state and smelling alcohol and having injuries on your lips/face.My grand father, mother and domestic servants were present in the house.No. 807/2008 Page 61 of 274Q. 45 It is in evidence against you that on 10.1.99 after getting the Medical examination of all the six accused persons including you were brought back to 50 Golf Links and after interrogations and being satisfied, sufficient incriminating evidence has come, you and your other co-accused were arrested and were personally searched and memo were prepared.The personal search memos are Exht.PW 37/B to Ext. PW 37/G. SI Kailash Chand explained the grounds of arrest to you and other co-accused.The BMW Car bearing No. M 312 LYP was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 37/H Seizure Memo of Tirpal is Exhibit PW 37/J and that of flesh pieces exihibit PW 37/K. Some blood was lifted from the Car and was kept in a sealed pulanda with the seal of K.C. Details of lifting the blood were recorded in the memo Ex. PW 37/L. All the accused persons were brought to the Police Station and were kept in the lock up and the case property was deposited in the Mal Khana of the Police Station.What have you to say?I was not brought to 50 Golf Links however I was arrested and I am not aware of what documents at what time were prepared by the police.After medical examination I was brought by the Police to P.S. Q.90 Why this case against you?my sister I was made accused in this case.I was not involved in this accident nor I had driven the said car.I was assaulted while I was arrested by the police.Contrary to the said stand, the appellant in cross-examination of PW 37 Const.Jagan Lal gave a suggestion that he was first taken to 50 Golf Links and in answer to question 45 the appellant said that he was not brought to 50 Golf Links.The contention of the counsel for the State was that the appellant is not a truthful witness and if the accused gave false answers under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure then for that the advantage goes to the prosecution and not to the defence.Another false stand taken by the accused was that they were straightway brought to the police station and were never taken to 50, Golf Links where the offending Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 62 of 274 vehicle was parked.In fact the said false stand of the defence bridges the missing Links in the prosecution case.Even in answer to question 92 he has stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and he was innocent since the car belonged to his sister & this again goes to show that the appellant was dishonest and only now he has taken the plea that he alone had caused the said accident.No. 807/2008 Page 62 of 274Counsel for the State further submitted that only at the stage of appeal before this court admission of accident is made and during the course of entire trial before the trial court, the accident was being denied by the appellant.Counsel for the State further submitted that this admission on the part of the defence has merely been made to claim leniency from this court, therefore, such an admission on the part of the appellant at the stage of appeal will be of no help to him when the prosecution has already proved its case under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.He also urged that in a similar case, the Division Bench of this court has in Nehru Jain Vs.State of NCT of Delhi-2005(1) JCC 261 turned down such an argument and convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II.Counsel for the State further took an exception to the approach of the ld. Counsel for the appellant attacking the conduct of the Ld. Trial judge instead of confining his attack only on the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.Counsel further submitted that the defence has tried to base his arguments primarily on foreign judgments, literature and certain Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 63 of 274 authors and books without taking care of putting the relevant questions to the witnesses examined by the prosecution.Counsel thus submitted that defence cannot build his case based on such material which material was not placed before the trial court and even no such case was built up by the defence before the trial court.No suggestion was given to the said witnesses that they had not properly seized the blood samples of the appellant or their report was wrong.The contention of the counsel for the State was that the finding of the Expert witness cannot be ignored or overlooked by the court on the basis of certain opinions and views expressed in some books and commentaries.In support of his argument counsel for the State placed reliance on the following judgments reported in State Vs.Santosh Kumar 2007 Cr.LJ 964 , Ram Bali Vs.State AIR 2004 SC 2329, Nehru Jain Vs.State 2005 (1) JCC 261 and State of U.P. Vs.No. 807/2008 Page 63 of 274On the submission of the counsel for the appellant that since the appellant had safely travelled about 16 kilometres without causing any accident from Sainik Farm to Lodi Road, counsel for the State placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in AIR 1965 SC 1616 Kurban Hussain Vs.State : 1965 (2) Cr.The contention of the counsel for the State is that simply because of Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 64 of 274 the fact that no untoward incident had taken place prior to the occurrence of the accident cannot lead to this conclusion that the appellant was sober and not in a drunken state.No. 807/2008 Page 64 of 274On the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the blood group of the appellant was not ascertained by the prosecution, counsel for the State submitted that the report of the forensic expert reported that blood on the jersy and steering wheel was of group B. The contention of the counsel for the State was that once the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 65 of 274 presence of blood of the appellant was ascertained then proof of a Rh factor of the blood i.e. B+ or B- was not required to be mentioned.Counsel for the State placed reliance on the judgments in 2001 SCC (Crl.) 323 (para 20) Gura Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan and 42 (1990) DLT 211 (para 22B) Balwan Vs.No. 807/2008 Page 65 of 274On the submission of the counsel for the appellant on the failure of the prosecution to place on record the PCR messages and the contradiction in the PCR messages and the statements of material witnesses, counsel for the State submitted that evidentiary value of PCR messages cannot be equated either with the statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or their depositions made before the Court.Counsel for the State further submitted that such PCR messages are precise and cryptic and are sent just for information purposes to pick victims of accident to take them to hospital or for other desired actions.Counsel for the State further submitted that persons who had recorded the messages were not examined to prove the said PCR messages.No. 807/2008 Page 66 of 274 sentence had already gone through the case diaries and therefore every conceivable material was available with the trial court before passing the final order.As per CFSL report proved on record he first struck against the persons who were standing on one side of the road and then moved 40-45 steps and then again struck on central verge and after striking on central verge again went ahead and as per the videography proved on record, the court also took into consideration the reversal of car resulting into crushing the bodies already entangled with the car.Counsel for the State also placed reliance on the deposition of Mr. Manohar Lal (PW 24) wherein he deposed that when he had asked Manoj Kumar (PW 2) as to how he had received injuries he was told that one big car of black colour had come at a very fast speed from the side of Lodhi Road in a zigzag Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 67 of 274 manner and despite their shouting BACHAO BACHAO, the driver of the car did not care and struck against him.It was quite natural for the said police officials of PCR Van to have questioned PW 2 Manoj Malik once he was found present at the site of the accident in an injured state.Besides ruining his love life, this was the only period when he was to undergo proper education to look for better employment avenues.What more can be a reflection on the prosecution when in such a case of accident they have filed three charge sheets.In such a case the trial court ought to have taken recourse to Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to put an end to such protracted and unfair trial.The said judgment of the High Court was absolutely extraneous and could not have influenced the mind of the court to draw a hostile inference against the appellant.No. 807/2008 Page 71 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 70 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 71 of 274The right to such an inspection or for local investigation is given to the court to better and properly appreciate the evidence placed before the court that too after due notice to both the parties.The legislature was conscious of such extraordinary right being given to the Magistrate for local inspection which could influence the judge to form a particular perception and therefore such a local inspection was envisaged only after due notice to both the parties so that the judges perception could be formed with the proper assistance of both the parties.If such reversal marks can be discovered, then may be some scientifically expert person based on some scientific investigation could trace out the same but not the judge who has no such expertise in the field.Counsel thus submitted that this whole discovery by the Ld. Trial court of the reversal marks is an act of his poor imagination and therefore, the findings of the trial court after viewing the said video by correlating the same with the evidence of the said court witness Mr. Kulkarni are absolutely perverse and illegal vitiating the entire proceedings.No. 807/2008 Page 73 of 274 who was on duty at petrol pump cannot be doubted at least on one point that he was present at the petrol pump on the cold wintery morning and his attention was drawn only when he had heard the noise.This witness alone had informed his employer about the accident who in turn had contacted the police.Contrary to his deposition, Mr. Kulkarni said that he went to the petrol pump where he found everybody was sleeping.He even could not make any telephone call from the petrol pump and evidence of such a witness whose presence gets destroyed with the evidence of Hari Shankar was believed by the court to accept the theory of reversal of the offending vehicle.Counsel thus submitted that the evidence of Mr. Kulkarni was absolutely untrustworthy and unreliable.No. 807/2008 Page 73 of 274In a criminal case, it was for the prosecution to have proved that the appellant Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 74 of 274 was not sober but was heavily drunk but the prosecution miserably failed to discharge such an onus.No. 807/2008 Page 74 of 274Negativing the contention of the State prosecutor that one cannot place reliance on the medical jurisprudence or other text books to prove any point, counsel for the appellant took great exception to such an argument as the help of text books can always be resorted to for better appreciation of the points in issue.Trial judge presumed the speed of the offending vehicle excessive.Countering the argument of the counsel for the State with regard to the counsel submission that the accused can always use his disclosure statement or the confession made therein to draw support in his favour but the same cannot be used by the prosecution to use the same against the accused as per the mandate of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.No. 807/2008 Page 75 of 274I have heard learned Senior counsel Mr. Ram Jethmalani, led by battery of lawyers representing the appellant Mr. Sanjeev Nanda Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 76 of 274 in criminal appeal No. 807/2008; and Mr. Pawan Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.No. 807/2008 Page 76 of 274Counsel for the State raised a dispute that this admission amounts to raising a new plea before the Appellate Court.No. 807/2008 Page 77 of 274 found the involvement of appellant in causing the said ghastly accident while driving BMW Car bearing registration No. M 312 LYP on the tragic morning of 10.1.99, thus the said admission is immaterial.Be that as it may, this admission on the part of the accused cannot be construed as taking or introducing a new plea as the appellant after the trial of the case can always admit his guilt and the prosecution at least cannot raise a plea to challenge such an admission on the part of the accused.This may not be true in a case where the accused at the appellate stage introduces a new plea to evade conviction.The judgment of Nehru Jain (Supra) is not of any support to the counsel as it relates to some other issues.No. 807/2008 Page 77 of 274(a)Speedy trialThis brings me to deal with the first submission of the counsel for the appellant claiming denial of speedy and fair trial to the appellant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.As per the counsel for the appellant the prosecution has taken more than 8 years time in completing the trial without their being any lapse on the part of the appellant accused.After conducting fresh examination of the appellant under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure on 19.11.2007 and after the start of defence evidence again, the appellant was again examined to record his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Contention of the counsel for the appellant was that the entire career of the appellant got ruined educationally, professionally as well as on his matrimonial front.The appellant lost his precious adolescent life either by remaining behind bar or facing the ordeal of trial.Strong reliance was placed by the counsel for the appellant on the Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 79 of 274 A.R. Antuleys case (Supra) and Pankaj Kumars case (supra) On the other hand Mr. Pawan Sharma, APP for the State gave detailed account of day to day hearing before the Trial Court and submitted that no delay has been caused by the prosecution and the adjournments, if any, had taken place before the Trial Court were for multiple reasons beyond the control of the prosecution for which the appellant cannot claim denial of the speedy trial.No. 807/2008 Page 78 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 79 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 90 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 90 of 274(ii) the deliberate absence of witness or witnesses, (iii) crowded dockets on the file of the court etc. In Raj Deo Sharma (II)2 in the dissenting opinion of M.B. Shah, J., the reasons for delay have been summarized as, (1) dilatory proceedings; (2) absence of effective steps towards radical simplification and streamlining of criminal procedure; (3) multitier appeals/revision applications and diversion to disposal of interlocutory matters; (4) heavy dockets, mounting arrears, delayed service of process; and (5) judiciary, starved by executive by neglect of basic necessities and amenities, enabling smooth functioning.Several cases coming to our notice while hearing appeals, petitions and miscellaneous petitions (such as for bail and quashing of proceedings) reveal, apart from inadequate judge strength, other factors contributing to the delay at the trial.Generally speaking, these are: (i) absence of, or delay in appointment of, Public Prosecutors proportionate with the number of courts/cases; (ii) absence of or belated service of summons and warrants on the accused/witnesses; (iii) non-production of undertrial prisoners in the court; (iv) presiding Judges proceeding on leave, though the cases are fixed for trial; (v) strikes by members of the Bar; and (vi) counsel engaged by the accused suddenly declining to appear or seeking an adjournment for personal reasons or personal inconvenience.It is common knowledge that appointments of Public Prosecutors are politicized.By convention, Government Advocates and Public Prosecutors were appointed by the executive on the recommendation of or in consultation with the head of the judicial administration at the relevant level but gradually the executive has started bypassing the merit-based recommendations of, or process of consultation with, District and Sessions Judges.For non-service of summons/orders and non-production of undertrial prisoners, the usual reasons assigned are shortage of police personnel and police people being busy in VIP duties or law and order duties.These can hardly be valid reasons for not making the requisite police personnel available for assisting the courts in expediting the trial.The members of the Bar shall also have to realize and remind themselves of their professional obligation -- legal and ethical, that having accepted a brief for an accused, they have no justification to decline or avoid appearing at the trial when the case is taken up for hearing by the court.All these factors demonstrate that the goal of speedy justice can be achieved by a combined and result-oriented collective thinking and action on the part of the legislature, the judiciary, the executive and representative bodies of members of the Bar.Based on the above legal principles, let me examine the facts of the present case to see whether the prolongation in the trial was on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the prosecution for any extraneous reasons or the delay took place due to multiple factors involved in the gradual progress of the trial.Mr. Ram Jethmalani has put the blame on the prosecution on account of the fact that supplementary chargesheets were filed by the prosecution after Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 91 of 274 about a lapse of 7 years i.e. 3rd September, 2006 and 18th September, 2007, which led to the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on three different occasions.The filing of the chargesheet was opposed by the counsel representing the appellant and then also the Court observed that there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused as already the Court observed that Investigating Officer is at liberty to carry out further investigation of the case under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is thus evident that the two supplementary chargesheets were filed by the police under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the senior counsel for the appellant failed to satisfy this Court as to how the filing of the said two supplementary chargesheets has prejudiced the case of the appellant by just recording subsequent statements of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.When the documents were filed along with the supplementary chargesheet dated 3.9.2006 the defence counsel sought time to move an application to examine more witnesses and also sought time to examine the summoned witnesses as was borne out of the order dated 4.9.2006, which is reproduced as under:- Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 93 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 91 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 92 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 93 of 274However, Ld defence counsel submits that since some new material has come on record, he wants to move an application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. to further summon a few witnesses and submits that further questions U/S 313 Cr.P.C. be recorded after decision of the application or examination of the witnesses, if any, summoned by this court U/S 311 CrPC.It is submitted by Ld defence counsel that defence witness namely Sumitra Nanda and Karan Singh are present, however, he would like to examine him after further recording of statement U/S 313 CrPC.The aforesaid delay in filing the supplementary chargesheet and the consequent examination of the appellant/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in my view has not caused any prejudice to the appellant and has not caused such delay so as to make him entitled to claim acquittal on this ground.In Antulays case (supra) as well as the other judgments cited above, the Apex Court has clearly held that every case has to be examined on its own facts and the Court has to perform balancing act after taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances.The Apex Court has also held that each and every delay does not necessarily prejudice the accused and many delays can be attributed to the delays in the system, which occur due to the multiple factors, due to filing of various applications by the parties, challenge made to the various orders before the Court, heavy dockets of the Court, Presiding Officer on leave, advocates of either side not available due Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 94 of 274 to their pre-occupation in other Courts or for their own personal reasons and many other unforeseen situations.The detailed account placed on record by the State counsel of day to day hearing before the Trial Court does exemplify that on many dates the Court file was not received by the Trial Court due to pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, on many dates one or the other application of the prosecution or the accused was pending consideration, on many dates even the Presiding Officer was on leave.However, the perusal of the Court proceedings clearly reveal that on most of the dates effective proceeding took place and, therefore, the instant case cannot be considered to be a case of denial of speedy trial to the appellant accused.No. 807/2008 Page 94 of 274In any event of the matter, the appellant himself must share the burden of causing delay in the matter as with a view to hoodwink the prosecution and to escape from the clutches of law, he denied the factum of accident.It is only at the stage of final arguments before the trial court and in appeal, the appellant turned honest to accept occurrence of the said horrifying accident while driving BMW Car bearing registration No. M-312-LYP.Certainly, a lot of time could have been saved had the accused been honest from day one and admitted his guilt.No. 807/2008 Page 95 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 95 of 274(b) The audience given by the Learned Judge to Mr. Sunil Kulkarni, the court witness in his chamber on 11.7.1999 without making disclosure to either of the parties till during the course of final arguments when passing reference of the said meeting was made by the judge during the course of final arguments.(c) Reference made to the High Court Judgment in Sting Operation case without affording any opportunity to the accused.(d) Non-production and non-disclosure of the PCR messages , more particularly in reference to the statement of PW 2 Manoj Malik Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 96 of 274 victim of the accident recorded by the police officials of the PCR Van and flashed to the police control room.No. 807/2008 Page 96 of 274In support of his arguments with regard to the unfair trial, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Section 20 of the Jamaica (Constitutional) Order as referred in Herbert Bell Vs.Director of Public Prosecutions & Anrs.State of Punjab (Supra), Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.State of Maharashtra (Supra) and Chandran @ Surendran and Anr.State of Kerala (Supra).Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on Rule 16 of Bar Council of India Rules & Guideline A- 252 of the Attorney General Guidelines.Mr. Pawan Sharma, Addl.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the said contention raised by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the approach of the trial court was absolutely fair and judicious.Fully supporting the trial judge for the observations made by him in the final judgment, counsel for the State submitted that presiding officer cannot remain a mute spectator to various happenings taking place surrounding the case in hand and is required to take active interest to elicit all relevant material to find out the truth and to administer justice with all fairness and impartiality.A Crl.After coming back to Delhi, he contacted the then Joint Commissioner of Police in his office to disclose that he had witnessed the said incident on the said fateful morning.The Joint Commissioner of Police directed him to report before the concerned DCP who in turn sent him to the SHO P.S. Lodhi Colony where his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after 5 days of the accident.This witness also made a voluntary statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after 11 days of the accident.For the prosecution this was an important witness being an eyewitness of the accident.This prosecution witness was dropped by the prosecution.This witness was already enjoying police protection as he had complained of some danger to his life at the hands of the police.Vide orders dated 14.5.2007 court also gave directions to the SHO of P.S. Lodhi Colony to provide security to the said witness.His examination-in-chief was recorded on 17.5.2007 but his cross- examination was deferred in terms of some order of the High Court.The said witness again stated that he required police protection till the next date and accordingly directions were given by the court to the police to provide security to the said witness till the completion of his evidence.In the meanwhile on 30.5.2007 NDTV had conducted a sting operation.In the said sting operation, the electronic media had shown certain pictures as to highlight that the defence counsel and the public prosecutor were trying to win over the said court witness to testify in such a manner to help accused Sanjeev Nanda.In view of the said sting operation, the main prosecutor and the additional public prosecutor withdrew from the said case and vide orders dated 31.5.2007 the court observed as under:-No. 807/2008 Page 104 of 274However, I accusations are correct and truthful, the implications would be more serious because any effort to win over a witness prejudices and interferes with the true course of judicial proceedings and also tends to obstruct the administration of justice.It is on 11.7.2007 the said witness sought audience from the court which was given by the presiding Judge in his chamber.The said sealed envelope was directed to be opened by this court and access to the letters was granted to counsel for both the parties.The said envelope contained one letter dated 11.7.2007 addressed by the presiding judge to the Commissioner of Police.In the said letter, the court brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Police the grievance of the court witness against the public prosecutor and the defence counsel who as per him were threatening and blackmailing him so as to support them in the matter concerning Crl.The copy of the said judgment was produced before the Trial Court Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 117 of 274 by none else but by Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate who was representing counsel for the appellant before the Trial Court and it cannot be said that the appellant was taken by surprise to find certain observations made in the impugned judgment about the decision of the said High Court case in the sting operation.I also do not subscribe to the view of the counsel for the appellant that the said judgment of the High Court had influenced its judicial mind to reach the final conclusions, which are in fact based on various other factors independent of the said High Court judgment.No. 807/2008 Page 117 of 274(c) Conduct of prosecutionThe last contention of the counsel for the appellant so far the allegation of unfair trial is concerned relates to suppression of PCR messages by the prosecution and as per the counsel for the appellant it deprived the accused of his unbridled right to fair trial.The PCR messages as per the counsel for the appellant were of great significance for the accused to prove his defence as one of the victims of the said accident himself denied knowing anything with regard to the exact facts leading to the accident in question in his first encounter with the police when he was being taken in PCR van.Counsel for the appellant further attributed dishonesty of the police officials of the PCR van, who entered in the witness box as PW 24 Const.Manohar Lal; PW 34 Const.Sadhu Ram and PW 36 ASI Davinder Singh and deposed that Manoj Kumar when being taken in the PCR van had told them that one big black colour car had come Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 118 of 274 from the side of the Lodhi Road at a very fast speed in a zig zag manner and struck against them.It is further not in dispute that at about 5.27 a.m. on the morning of 10th January, 1999 message from police officials of police control room van known as E-11 was sent to the main control room informing that one Manoj Kumar s/o Mr. M.C. Malik C/o Kailash Gupta came to roam around and was fully conscious and knew nothing about the accident.This very Manoj Kumar in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. gave a detailed account as to how the accident on the morning of 10 th January, 1999 had occurred.In his statement he averred that on the morning of 10th January, 1999 around 4.15 a.m. he along with Nasir, Mehndi Hassan and Gulam left his place for Nizamuddin Railway Station when at about 4.30 a.m. they reached near petrol pump, Lodhi Road, they were stopped by three police officials who started enquiring from them and at that point of time, from the side of Crl.The Apex Court in Ramasinh Bavaji Jadeja vs State of Gujarat (1994) 2 SCC 685 while dealing with the similar issue, where the appellant accused claimed that his name was not disclosed by the Head Constable when he informed about the incident on telephone to the police official at control room, the Court held as follows:-No. 807/2008 Page 119 of 274This can be illustrated.The cryptic telephonic message received at the police station from Nagardas PW 4 had only made the police agency to rush to the place of occurrence and record the statement of Yashmoti PW 3 and thereafter commence the investigation as was admitted by the investigating officer in his testimony which testimony was not challenged during the cross-examination of the investigating officer.The High Court failed to notice that the vague and indefinite information given on the telephone which made the investigating agency only to rush to the scene of occurrence could not be treated as a first information report under Section 154 of the CrPC.The unchallenged statement of the investigating officer that he Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 121 of 274 commenced the investigation only after recording the statement of PW 3 Yashmoti unmistakably shows that it was that statement which alone could be treated as the first information report.There is no material on the record for the above opinion of the High Court.The cryptic telephonic message given to the police by Nagardas PW 4 was only with the object of informing the police so that it could reach the spot.For better appreciation, I feel it appropriate to discuss their role separately.PW1: Hari ShankarThis witness in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that he was an employee with Car Care Centre, Lodhi Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 124 of 274 Road for the past about 12 years and he was on night duty from 2.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m. on 9th -10th January, 1999 and while he was present at the petrol pump at about 4.30- a.m. he saw that one black coloured imported car came from the side of the Nizamuddin like lightening in the clouds and hit 6-7 persons out of which three were police men.He also stated that because of the impact 2-3 persons fell on the bonnet of the car while others came underneath the car.As per him, while those on the bonnet fell down and those underneath the car got dragged for some distance as the car did not stop till after it had struck against the divider whereafter one person came out of the car and then again entered the car to flee away from the spot.This witness in his deposition before the Court took a stand that while he was sitting inside the petrol pump on the morning of 10 th January, 1999 he heard some noise and on hearing the same he came and saw one vehicle coming from the side of Nizamuddin having met with an accident in front of the petrol pump.He also deposed that he came inside the petrol pump and rang up his owner who in turn informed the police whereafter the police reached the site of accident in about 20 minutes.He also deposed that he got so much frightened and went inside the petrol pump and then did not come out till the time of his interrogation by the police.No. 807/2008 Page 124 of 274This witness was declared as hostile witness as he took an inconsistent stand in the evidence contrary to his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.As per the counsel for the appellant this witness was not the witness to the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 125 of 274 accident as admittedly he came on the road after hearing some noise.That must be sound created by the impact.Counsel also claimed that the prosecution had put a false story in his mouth to make him an eye witness of the accident and his deposition made in the Court is more near to the truth than his statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the other hand counsel for the State submitted that although PW1 was declared as hostile witness but still to a large extent he supported the case of the prosecution and to that extent his testimony cannot be disbelieved.Now, since the factum of the accident is not in dispute, therefore, the deposition of PW 1 so far the same shows his presence at the petrol pump on the morning of 10th January, 1999 and his being a witness to the site of accident cannot be doubted.I agree with the submission of the senior counsel for the appellant that he must have rushed to the road after hearing the noise of "thud", which must have been caused the car had hit the victims on the road.The deposition of this witness stating that vehicle had come at a fast speed also does not inspire any confidence and appears to be imaginative as witness was not present on the road to testify the speed of the vehicle.It is evident that after having witnessed the ghastly scene of crime, any prudent person would assume the speed of the vehicle as "fast" and not "normal".No. 807/2008 Page 125 of 274Based on the above discussion, in my view the testimony of PW1 can be believed only to the extent that he had seen the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 126 of 274 involvement of BMW car in causing the said horrifying accident after he had entered the road after having heard the noise of impact.PW 2: Manoj MalikNo. 807/2008 Page 126 of 274PW 2 Manoj Malik was also declared a hostile witness because of his retraction from a very important fact of substituting the offending vehicle from "BMW" car to a "truck".The learned Trial Court has taken a considerable support from the testimony of Manoj Malik PW2 in believing the prosecution theory as well as the theory of reversal of car propounded by the Court witness Sunil Kulkarni in his deposition before the Court.Counsel for the State on the other hand placed reliance on his entire deposition which proves the prosecution story except that of his retraction made with regard to the nature of the vehicle involved in the accident.I have already discussed above that the cryptic messages which were sent primarily for the police to come into action have no evidentiary value.Nevertheless, the depositions of PW 24, 34 and 36, who were present in the PCR van at the time of taking PW 2 Manoj to the hospital, have falsely deposed that on the way to the hospital Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 127 of 274 Manoj told them that one big car of black colour came at a very fast speed from the side of the Lodhi Hotel in a zig zag manner and had struck against him and other victims of the accident.This may be the version of Manoj Kumar PW 2 when his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded but to say that he made such a statement on his way while being taken to the hospital is nothing but an utter falsehood on the part of these police officials who as per even on the basis of their own PCR messages.In any event of the matter, the testimony of PW2 so far it proves the occurrence of the accident can be safely relied upon.So far the incriminating statement of this witness stating that the vehicle was coming at a very fast speed from Nizamuddin side and his deposition as to the presence of the fog on the said morning are concerned, the same will be discussed in the later part of this judgment.Credibility of this witness was seriously challenged by the Senior counsel for the appellant.Even the Trial Court described his character direct from the novel of Charles Dickens and has very strange aspect to his personality, but still he gave undue weightage Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 128 of 274 and credit to his testimony believing him to be an eye witness of the said accident.The Trial Court although in the impugned judgment has stated that the testimony of the witness was read by him time and again very carefully and the same duly tallied with the site plan Exhibit PW 58/B and the scene of crime as appearing in videography, but I feel otherwise.The more I read the statement of this Court witness, the more dishonesty, falsehood and crookedness of this man flows out.This witness has been introduced as a chance Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 129 of 274 witness to the scene of crime and how his presence in the wee hours of morning of 10th January, 1999 has been shown is itself flabbergasting and mind boggling.Counsel for the appellant highlighted many instances to expose the conduct and character of this witness clearly reflected in his unsavory and unpalatable statements and depositions with no plausible explanation to the same coming forth from the side of the State Prosecutor.No. 807/2008 Page 128 of 274It would be relevant to mention here that this witness in his cross-examination in the Court deposed that he was forced to take the name of Sanjeev under pressure of the police in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This is also surprising as at the time of recording of his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he stated that the concerned Magistrate was quite courteous to him and he was even offered a cup of tea by the Magistrate, but still could not tell the Magistrate that he was under pressure from the police.In his statement before the Court, he deposed that three or so persons came out of the said car and were seen moving in front and back of the car to assess the damage, they then sat in the car and after taking a bit reverse, drove away the car with a speed from his right side.No. 807/2008 Page 130 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 131 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 132 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 132 of 274In his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he stated that he was at a distance of 300 ft.from the first impact while in his statement before the Court the distance disclosed by him is 60 to 70 ft. away from the spot of the accident.According to him, he also tried to wake up the persons sleeping in the petrol pump but they did not wake up from their sleep.This version of court witness goes contrary to the deposition of PW-1 Hari Shankar who in his deposition stated that after hearing the impact, he came on the road and witnessed the scene of crime.Essentially, Hari Shankar is not a chance witness who was on a night duty at the petrol pump and his presence at the petrol pump looks more natural and therefore, the above statement of court witness deposing that everybody were asleep at the petrol pump and they did not wake up although due efforts were made by the court witness appears to be absolutely illogical and inappropriate.It is highly improbable that a person on a night duty at a petrol pump would sleep and other persons did not wake up despite alleged efforts made by the court witness.It is also highly unbelievable that the court witness when reached Nizamuddin railway station found all the five public telephones lying installed there not in the working condition.He boarded Chattisgarh Express so as to meet one person named Kataria but again he was never in possession of any railway ticket nor he had disclosed any particulars of his friend named Kataria.It is again amazing to note that when he came back after 2-3 days he directly made a telephone call to an officer not less than a Joint Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 133 of 274 Commissioner, Delhi Police.It is also fascinating to note that the said witness was treated as a guest by the police for 2-3 days.No explanation has come forth from the State as to why the statement of this court witness was recorded on 15.1.99 after a gap of 2-3 days although the witness remained throughout available with the police.He also resiled from his earlier statement given under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., stating that the vehicle was coming in a zigzag manner.He also took a different stand in his deposition before the Court, when he stated that he heard the voice Sanch/Sanz while in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he clearly stated that the voice heard by him was Sanjiv let us go.Later on in his cross examination before the Court he disclosed that the name of Sanjiv was mentioned by him because of some pressure from the Police Headquarter.He, in his cross-examination before the Court, also disputed the fact of the appellant coming out from the driving seat after the incident.He also admitted in his deposition before the court that the police kept on deliberating with him before finally recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It was also strange on his part when he deposed that he had identified the appellant being one of the occupants of the car because of his cognitive faculties although he had only seen the physique of the occupants and not their faces.No. 807/2008 Page 133 of 274The said court witness was earlier dropped by the prosecution as the prosecution was under the apprehension that he already stood won over by the defence.He was examined as a court Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 134 of 274 witness after a gap of 7-8 years when all of a sudden the court felt the necessity of summoning him as a court witness in exercise of powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. This is the witness who was accused in Crime No. 271/99, at Bombay under Section 420 IPC.This is a witness against whom one Gaurishankar had given an interview on electronic media saying that Mr. Kulkarni was present in Mumbai on the date of the said accident (acquaintance with Mr. Gaurishankar has not been denied by the court witness in his deposition before the court).This is the witness who was sought to be arrested by the Bombay Police when some altercation between the police and advocates took place in the precincts of Patiala House Court.This is the witness who kept on changing his stand and was shown in sting operation carried out by the NDTV, negotiating a deal for helping out the defence.The defence treats such a witness totally unreliable and untrustworthy, while the prosecution on the other hand considers this witness as a totally reliable one even if his other antecedents may not be of any creditworthiness.No. 807/2008 Page 135 of 274 testimony gets sufficient corroboration from the circumstantial evidence and from the evidence of other witnesses.At this juncture I deem it appropriate to analyse the legal position as to the relevancy to the evidence of a chance witness.Many a times, the witness does not live near the place of the crime or there is no reason for him to be present at that particular time and place and in fact if he is an outsider, such a person is called a "chance witness" in legal parlance.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that Sunil Kulkarni is a shady character who, in order to hog the limelight, made his entry on the scene on 15.1.1999 and was Crl.He was destined to go to Solan but then ultimately boarded a train for Bhopal.Finding involvement of an accused from a rich and affluent family, he jumped into the fray may be to make a fortune.As noted above, the manner in which the police had been hob-nobbing with this witness even the motive of police appears to me to be a suspect.The defence for their apparent motive also tried to fiddle with this witness.Counsel for the State, on the other hand, placed reliance on the evidence of PW-16 and of the FSL report duly proved on record as Ex.16/A by the said PW-16, Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Sr. Scientific Officer.Since the counsel for the appellant has proceeded with his arguments after accepting the presence of 0.115% alcohol in the blood sample of the appellant as opined by PW-16, Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Sr.The offender in the said case at about 10.45 P.M. on 7.5.85 left along with his brother and drove his car at Erdington turn.He drove erratically for about six miles and about 11.15 P.M. he collided at high speed with the wall of an underpass in the city centre thereby killing his brother.the individual's personal physiology, the amount, if any, which he has eaten and the nature of the alcohol which he has drunk, I would indorse the advice given by the Divisional Court that the prosecution should not seen to rely on evidence of back-calculations save where the evidence is both easily understood and clearly establishes the presence of excess alcohol at the time when the accused was driving.The next important question is whether the appellant had consumed the liquor beyond the permissible limit and was in a state of intoxication or drunkenness, impairing his driving ability at the time of causing the said accident.In the test report submitted by Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL she found the presence of 0.115% weight/volume ethyl alcohol in his blood.The said test report was duly exhibited as Ex.PW-16/A in the evidence of PW-16, Dr. Madhulika Sharma.In her cross-examination, PW-16 clearly explained that 0.115 % would be equivalent to 115 mg per 100 ml of blood.In answer to the court question the said witness also clearly deposed that as per traffic rules if the person is under the influence of liquor and alcohol content in blood exceeds 30 mg per 100 ml of blood, the person is said to have committed an offence.Even the plea of deduction of 0.020% from the said intake Crl.(e) Whether accused was Sober or intoxicated at the time of accidentNow proceeding with the fact of the presence of 115 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, the next question would arise as to whether with the presence of the said quantity of alcohol the offender could be considered sober or in the state of drunkenness or Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 154 of 274 intoxication to the level which could result in inpairing his capability to drive the vehicle at the time of occurrence of the accident.No. 807/2008 Page 154 of 274It is generally believed that a person with a concentration of 0.1 per cent alcohol in the blood appears to be gay and vivacious, and those with a concentration of 0.15 per cent alcohol in the blood are regarded as fit to drive a motor vehicle.This concentration of alcohol in the blood is regarded as a presumptive limit of safety, and may result from the rapid consumption of 8 ounces of whisky or 4 to 5 pints of beer.Persons with a concentration of 0.2 per cent alcohol in the blood, show symptoms of moderate intoxication where as those with 0.2 to 0.4 per cent are progressively dizzy, delirious, stuporous and quite drunk, and those with more than 0.5 per cent are dead drunk or deeply comatose.When the amount of alcohol approaches 0.6 to 0.7 per cent or more in the blood, death usually ensures from asphyxia.It is a legal offence for a person to with a blood alcohol level above 0.05 per cent drive a motor vehicle in Norway, above 0.08 per cent in Sweden and in England (Road Safety Act 1967) and above 0.10 per cent in Denmark, while in many states of USA, 0.15 per cent level results in a conviction.Table of Equivalents Methods of Expressing the Concentration of Alcohol of the Tissues Milligrams per 100 ml Milliliter per 100 ml Grams per liter Percentage (w/v) (v/v) 50 63.13 0 0.05 100 126.26 1.0 0.10 150 189.89 1.5 0.15 200 252.52 2.0 0.20 Crl.Referring to the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 157 of 274 Taylors Medical Jurisprudence, Volume II pages 535 and 536, the court dealt with the subject in detail.It would be relevant to reproduce the following paras from the said judgment:No. 807/2008 Page 156 of 274Reaction of the pupils;Character of the breathing, especially in regard to hiccup.V. That the following are the tests, upon which taken by themselves, little stress should be laid in deciding whether or not a person is under the influence of alcohol:Presence of tachycardia (rapid pulse);Repetition of set words or phrases;Character of handwriting;Walking along a straight line;Failure of convergence of the eyes.A survey suggests that drunken drivers have been responsible for the maximum number of road rages and accidents.Although in India the numbers of cases detected are few, there are too many who consume alcohol while or before driving.Though the laws to check the drunken driving do exist in India but they are totally inadequate to deal with this growing menace to effectively deal with the alcohol- impaired drivers.The punishment for drunken driving is a meager 950 rupees, which is sufficient to get an offender out on bail even if he has fatally knocked down or crippled someone.The Parliamentary Standing Committee on transport, tourism and culture in its 139th report on motor vehicles (amendment) bill, 2007 recently proposed making drunken driving a criminal offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC and there is an urgent need for the State to bring suitable legislation so as to make drunken driving a Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 161 of 274 more stringent offence.The said recommendation is reproduced as under:Be that as it may, the appellant in the present case was taken to the AIIMS Hospital for his medical examination on 10.1.99 at 12.29 P.M. and he was found to be oriented, alert, cooperative, speech coherent, but eyes congested, gait unsteady with the presence of alcohol.The statement of the appellant was recorded by the police on the same morning at about 7 A.M. and there was no complaint of the police that the appellant was not sober or was not able to give statement due to intoxication.As would be seen from the above, the word "drunk" shall be taken to mean that the person concerned was so much under the influence of alcohol as to have lost control of his faculties to such an extent as to render him unable to execute safely the occupation on which he is engaged at the material time.It can also be seen from the above discussion that alcohol acts differently on different individuals and also on the same individual at different times.Counsel for the appellant has admitted the presence 0.115% alcohol, which is equivalent to 115 mg in 100 ml of blood and it has to be Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 162 of 274 seen whether the said quantity of alcohol in the blood of the appellant was considered as sober or not.In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd Edition, at page 315, 0.15% alcohol, which is equivalent to 150 mg of alcohol in the blood has been regarded as fit to drive the motor vehicle, but in Narayan Nairs case (supra), the Cochin High Court while referring to Taylors Medical Jurisprudence Volume II observed that the presence of 0.15 mg of alcohol in the blood can be considered a dangerous amount of alcohol in the blood.It was further observed that with the increasing concentration, the clinical symptoms in a person becomes more intense and at the concentration between 0.2 to 0.5% there is likely to be marked incardination, coma and possible death.In Taylors Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Eleventh Edition at page 426, while discussing the effect of the different quantities of alcohol in blood with varying symptoms, it has been observed as follows:-No. 807/2008 Page 162 of 274Broadly speaking, it is agreed that with concentrations in the blood below 0.05 per cent, there is little change to be observed on clinical examination; at 0.10 per cent a number show mild symptoms and a few more decided symptoms.Between this level and 0.2 per cent the number showing decided symptoms of intoxication increases, and at the latter figure it is to be expected that practically all will be diagnosed clinically as being under the influence of alcohol.The critical concentration seems to lie at or about the 0.15 level and any person with this amount in his blood can be considered to have imbibed a significant amount of alcohol.With increasing concentrations the symptoms become more intense and at concentrations beyond 0.2 per cent up to 0.5 per cent there is likely to be marked incoordination, coma and a danger of death.There are thus different medical views but one thing is clear that the case of the appellant was somewhere in between the level of Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 163 of 274 sobriety and drunkenness.Now since as per the medical jurisprudence, consumption of alcohol acts differently on different individuals and also on the same individual at different times and the presence of some of the clinical symptoms even at 12.29 p.m. on 10.1.1999 i.e. unsteady gait, eyes congested as opined by PW10 Doctor T. Milo in his MLC report, it cannot be said that the accused was fit to drive the said BMW car safely on the fateful morning of 10.1.99 at 4.30 a.m. The manner in which the said ghastly accident has taken place and the scene of accident go to show that the appellant was under the influence of liquor and was driving the vehicle most recklessly.Merely because the appellant had driven his vehicle upto a distance of 16 Kms without any untoward incident is no ground to believe in itself that he was not in an inebriated state.More so when it is not known whether he alone continued to drive the vehicle till the place of accident and no one else drove the same.No. 807/2008 Page 163 of 274Based on the above discussion, I am of the view that presence of 0.115% of alcohol, which in any case is much above the limit of 30 mg prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act certainly must have affected his ability to drive the vehicle in a safe manner otherwise mishap of such a magnitude could not have taken place.Even otherwise no suggestion was given by the defence to the expert witness PW16 Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer that as per Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology the consumption of alcohol of 0.115% w/v by the appellant was near sobriety.No. 807/2008 Page 164 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 164 of 274Conviction under Section 304 (II), IPC - whether sustainable or should it be altered to that under Section 304 - A?Coming to the most crucial aspect of the case as to whether the appellant had been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code or whether Section 304-A IPC would attract in the facts of the present case.However, there may be some other explanations such as a mechanical defect or an inadvertent failure to observe a traffic sign and so on.It only refers to a mans disregard to a probable or possibly injurious consequence.No. 807/2008 Page 182 of 274Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, contended that the appellant was driving the vehicle on a cold wintry morning of January and it was not expected of him to know or visualize that a crowd of seven people would be standing in the middle of the road and according to him, accused will have to be presumed to have driven the vehicle safely till he reached Lodhi Road as he had, by then, covered almost a distance of 16 kilometres without endangering anybody's life.Therefore, knowledge cannot be attributed to him.No. 807/2008 Page 184 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 184 of 274There was no previous enmity between the deceased and the accused.Circumstantial evidence to determine knowledge: fog, videography, speed.Before coming to any conclusion as to negligence or rashness or knowledge on the part of the accused under Section 304 Part Crl.Assailing the said finding of the learned trial court, counsel for the appellant argued that speed of the vehicle involved in an accident essentially has to be determined from circumstantial evidence and especially the scientific evidence and not from oral evidence.The examination of the skid marks could be the best evidence to determine the speed of the vehicle, counsel urged.No. 807/2008 Page 189 of 274 Referring to the forensic laboratory report dated 21.7.99, the counsel submitted that in the said report, there is a clear admission on the part of the State that no facility is available with them to determine the speed of the vehicle with the help of mechanical devices or instruments.Counsel also took objection to the conduct of the learned trial judge who assigned himself the role of an expert to give his findings about the reversal of the car and existence of three parallel long blood dragged marks of blood on the road after having viewed the C.D. of scene of crime.The abdomen of Rajan Kumar was found burst and the blood is spread on the road for considerable distance...... On the spot pieces of flesh was found scattered in a large area.These facts were indicating that death of these three persons occurred due to forceful impact of vehicle no. M-312, LYP, there were skid marks upto 30'-40'.......The said scene of crime has been further described in the rough site plan proved on record as Ex. PW58/B and the learned trial court made the following observations based on the description of crime as described in the said rough site plan:No. 807/2008 Page 190 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 190 of 274Investigation officer SI Kailash Chand prepared a rough site plan Ex. PW58/B. As per observation of the IO at point A of site plan was the place where first impact occurred.At point F another dead body is lying and point F is 26 steps away from the point E. From the point E to F the drag marks and blood are visible.Pieces of bumper and broken pieces of glass were lying scattered.Bumper was black colour.One oil trail was also observed by the Investigating Officer going towards Madarsa Safdarjang.The description of scene of crime as observed in the rukka is corroborated by the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and the videography done by the police of the scene of crime.Since the site plan is made by Investigating Officer on his own observations, the same is admissible in evidence.The points where blood and dead bodies are lying, skid marks and the oil trail prove it clearly that the offending vehicle was coming from the side of Nizamuddin and after the offence went towards side of Madarsa Safdarjang.This scene of crime makes it clear that the offending vehicle first hit the persons standing on the left side (i.e. at point A) of the road near footpath where some blood is seen lying.Thereafter the vehicle took a right turn and hit the central verge.The videography scene of crime ( now converted into a CD) would show that there are three parallel dragged marks of blood on the road up to a certain distance.As per the rukka and the site plan, thereafter one body is lying and second body is lying after that and third body is lying at a distance.This leads to only one conclusion that these persons had been entangled with the car and thereafter they were dragged by the offending vehicle and they fell one by one and were also got crushed and amputated.I have already discussed that the offending vehicle was BMW car driven by accused Sanjeev Nanda...There cannot be any two opinions that the said accident resulting into six deaths and one injured was one of the most ghastly and gruesome incident especially after noticing the horrifying death of six persons whose bodies were ripped into pieces with the spread of blood all around.The Apex Court in Jagdish Chanders case (Supra) dealing with the similar controversy, held in para 7 as under:After going through the record to which our attention was drawn, we cannot help observing that the investigation into the offence in question was not Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 191 of 274 conducted on scientific lines and it leaves much to be desired.Our attention was not drawn to any material on the record showing if the tyre marks of the two vehicles on the road were carefully examined with the object of finding out the approximate speed and the manner of application of brakes at the time of the collision.Our attention was not invited to any statement of the witnesses explaining at whose instance various notings were made on this plan.No such scientific investigation was undertaken by the Forensic Science Laboratory in the present case and rather in the report submitted by the FSL it was candidly admitted that no such facility is available with them.No. 807/2008 Page 195 of 274In such a helpless situation, the trial court relied upon the deposition of PW-2 Manoj Malik and took into consideration the scene of crime as described by S.I.Kailash Chand in his rukka as well as the rough site plan.Undoubtedly, the speed of the vehicle on the empty road in the wintry morning with a clear visibility of 1000 meters as opined in the deposition of PW-15 Dr. S.C. Gupta, Director, Meteorological Department, would have been on the higher side only.Had the vehicle been not driven at a high speed it would not have created such an impact resulting into bodies of the victims being flown in the air or getting entangled under the bonnet and then thrown at various distances, fragmenting their Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 196 of 274(ii) Visibility at the site of accident/FogOne of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant was that there was presence of fog/mist on the wintry morning of 10.1.99 which fact as per the counsel was ignored by the trial court.The fact of presence of mist found duly mentioned by the meteorological department in their report exhibited as Ex.PW15/B. The meteorological department has mentioned the factum of mist on the said morning with visibility of 1000 meters.The presence of fog was also disclosed by PW-2 Manoj Malik in his cross-examination and as per the counsel for the appellant, the said deposition duly corroborates that part of the said report submitted by the meteorological department.Counsel for the appellant also took a stand that the learned APP in cross- examination of PW-2 himself suggested that there was no light in the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 197 of 274 street, and there was fog, but the learned trial court took a contrary stand by holding that it was nobodys case that lights were not illuminating at the site of the accident.As per the counsel for the appellant the only fault of the appellant was that he did not dip the lights of his car which he should have, due to the presence of fog, and therefore, the presence of fog must have blurred his visibility in not finding the presence of the victims in the middle of the road from some distance.No. 807/2008 Page 197 of 274He contended that this was never the case of the defence before the trial court that there was presence of fog or mist on the said wintry morning of 10.1.99 and this would be evident from the fact that no such suggestion was given by the appellant to any of the prosecution witnesses and not even to PW-15 Dr. S.C. Gupta, Director, Meteorological Department.PW-15 Dr. Gupta, in his cross-examination, had vaguely mentioned about the presence of fog but the said fact was neither mentioned by him in examination-in-chief nor any suggestion to this effect was given by the prosecution during his cross-examination.The presence of fog, no doubt would be a very important circumstance as far as the cases of accidents are concerned.The presence of fog near the surface of earth certainly obscures and restricts visibility of the person driving any vehicle.Mist on the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 198 of 274 other hand, limits the visibility of a person to a lesser extent.The definitions of fog and mist as given in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary; 10th Edition published by Oxford University press and The Chambers Dictionary; 1st Edition published by Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. are as under:No. 807/2008 Page 198 of 274He, in his report, stated that the weather was mainly clear sky and the visibility was 1000 metres.He mentioned the expression mist against the column of weather in his said Crl.In his cross-examination also the said witness clearly stated that it was due to the presence of mist that the visibility was 1000 meters on that day.No doubt, the defence counsel gave suggestion to the said witness that there was heavy fog at Lodhi Road area at 4.30 A.M. on 10.1.99, but since it was not the defence of the appellant, as would be apparent from his examination under Section 313 Cr.No such suggestion was also given to PW-2 by the defence and very casually the said witness mentioned the presence of fog while taking another contrary position to depose that there was no light at the place of the accident.In this regard, it would be useful to refer the relevant para of judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Man Singh,2003 (I) AD (Crl.) SC 61, where the Apex Court was confronted with such a similar situation.The same is reproduced as under:No. 807/2008 Page 199 of 274The theory of fog was introduced before the High Court for the first time.The eyewitnesses were never asked in the cross-examination as to whether there was fog at the time of Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 200 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 201 of 274Diverse methods are, therefore, involved in making a successful completion of the investigation.No. 807/2008 Page 215 of 274Need for scientific investigationScientific inputs help the investigators in solving a number of cases of crime.The latest state-of-the-art equipments are the need of the hour considering the escalating rates of acquittal in India due to faulty and defective investigation.In plethora of cases, the Honble Apex Court has pointed out the need for scientific investigation by the investigating agency and deprecated the practice of failure on the part of the investigating agencies in collecting relevant evidence resulting in the acquittal of the accused due to inefficient and untrained Investigating Officers, who take the investigation in a very casual, careless and traditional manner.With the advancement in science and technology, it is high time that the novel & scientific methods of investigation by a team of well-trained experts and not merely through an ill equipped, overburdened and constrained team of Investigating Officers.Criminal Appeal Nos.767/2008 and 871/2008Let me now deal with two separate set of appeals, one filed by Rajiv Gupta and the other by Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh Rana, the employees of Rajiv Gupta, challenging the order of conviction Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 216 of 274 and sentence passed by the learned trial judge for having committed offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC.No. 807/2008 Page 216 of 274Criminal Appeal No.767/2008 has been filed by Rajiv Gupta while Crl.Appeal No.871/2008 has been filed by the other two accused.Mr. Dinesh Mathur, learned Senior Advocate represented Rajiv Gupta in Crl.Appeal No. 767/2008 while Mr. S.S. Gandhi, learned Senior Advocate represented Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh Rana in Crl.This common order shall dispose of both the appeals.Sesions Judge, New Delhi hereby charge you (1) Rajiv Gupta s/o Ved Parkash Gupta, age 52 years, business; (2) Shyam Singh Rana s/o Nandan Singh Rana, age 37 years, Service (3) Bhola Nath s/o Moti Lal, age 31 years, Service as follows:-That you on 10.1.99 knowing or having reason to believe that an offence u/s 304 (I)/308 IPC had been committed by co-accused persons Sanjiv Nanda, Manik Kapur and Sidharth Gupta caused certain evidence of the said offence to disappear by washing BMW Car No. M 312 LYP to remove blood from it in furtherance of your common intention of screening the said three offenders from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 201/34 IPC and within my cognizance.And I hereby direct that you all be tried by this court on the aforesaid charge.The first and foremost contention raised by counsel for the appellants in both the appeals is that no offence under Section Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 217 of 274 201/34 IPC is made out against the appellants as the prosecution miserably failed to bring on record any evidence to prove the said charge.No. 807/2008 Page 217 of 274Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the story of washing of car was introduced by the police later on, on the suggestion of the prosecution.The contention of the counsel for the appellants was that the charge sheet in the present case was forwarded by the police on 25th March, 1999 and the same was received by the prosecution agency on 26th March 1999 and in the course of scrutiny by the prosecution agency, certain lacunae were found with regard to the material brought on record vis--vis Section 201/34IPC and therefore on the suggestion of the prosecution, the police recorded supplementary statement of PW13 Jagdish Pandey wherein for the first time, the police coined the story of washing of car by the appellants, so as to remove the blood stains etc. Counsel for the appellants thus contended that till 10.1.99, none of the police witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. raised accusation against any of these appellants attributing allegation of washing of car.In support of their arguments, counsels for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported as R. Sarala Vs.Highlighting various contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the counsels pointed out that according to Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 218 of 274 PW-11, ASI Ram Awadh, he reached 50, Golf Links along with PW-13, S.I. Jagdish Pandey who was accompanying him in the same PCR Van, but neither in his testimony he deposed about having seen the car being washed nor he deposed that S.I. Jagdish Pandey had seen the car being washed, while on the other hand, PW-13 S.I. Jagdish Pandey in his PCR message sent at 6.10 A.M. mentioned the fact of car being washed, besides intimating the fact of presence of the said accidental BMW car with sticker of Park Lane in the said bungalow No. 50, Golf Links.The said S.I. Jagdish Pandey again saw the car as per the PCR message sent by him at 7.35 a.m. but in his said message also nowhere he named any of the appellants being seen washing the said car, although, this time he stated that the said accidental car was seen freshly washed and covered with tarpoline.The contention of the counsels for the appellants was that the car, if at all it washed, the same could be prior to 7.45 a.m. before it was handed over to PW-55, SHO Vimlesh Yadav at 7.45 a.m. Counsels thus contended that it is at a later stage, i.e. at the stage of recording of his supplementary statement, that PW13 introduced the fact of having seen washing of the car and in his deposition before the court he made further improvement by stating that even he had shown the car washing to SHO Vimlesh Yadav also.On the similar lines, PW-55 SHO Vimlesh Yadav never mentioned the fact of washing of the car in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but later on in her deposition before the court she introduced the story of having seen the washing of the car, after allegedly peeping inside Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 219 of 274 the gate of the said Bungalow.PW-58, S.I. Kailash Chand also never stated about the said fact of washing of the car in his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but in his deposition before the court, he deposed about the fact of having seen the car being washed after he reached 50, Golf Links after 7.50 A.M. The contention of counsels for the appellants was that in fact SHO Vimlesh Yadav by that time had already taken possession of the car at 7.45 A.M. and therefore, this witness PW-58 could not have seen washing of the car at 7.50 A.M. Even PW-29 Nagesh Kumar Wadhera, Finger Print Expert and PW-37 Constable Jagan Lal made false statements by deposing before court that they found the car in a wet condition, whereas, in their statements under Section 161 they stated that the same appeared to have been recently washed.Counsels contended that even if it is assumed that the the car was washed between 6.10 A.M. to 7.35 A.M., then also the same could not have stayed wet, for such a long time, i.e., after 10.30 A.M./10.45 A.M. when PW 47 and all these witnesses visited the said Bungalow.Counsels for the appellants further submitted that the trial court ignored the basic tenets of law by taking into consideration those circumstances which were not even put to the appellants during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The contention of the counsels for the appellants was that the trial court has given undue credence to the contents of video recording showing wet floor without putting the same to the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the appellants Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 220 of 274 further submitted that similarly no questions were put to the appellants with regard to the removal of the number plate which is otherwise also beyond the charges framed against the appellant.In support of their arguments counsels for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported as Ashok Sadashiv Astikar Vs.State of Maharashtra- 3 (1989) (Crimes) 642 (Bom), Ram Kumar Pande Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1026; Col Mohan Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan- 1979 (4) SCC 11 and AIR 1984 SC 1622 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.State of Maharashtra.No. 807/2008 Page 218 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 219 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 220 of 274Counsels for the appellants further submitted that the theory of washing of car clearly gets demolished from the fact that 18 chance finger prints were lifted by PW-29 Finger Print Expert and lifting of blood stains by PW-31,Mr.D. S. Chakoutra, Senior Scientific Officer from Forensic Science Laboratory, between 09:30 A.M. to 10.45 A.M. and that had the car been washed by the appellants then, the said witnesses would not have been in a position to collect either the finger prints or blood stains from the said car.Casting serious aspersions on the conduct of PW-13 S.I. Jagdish Pandey, counsels for the appellants contended that if the fact of cleaning of the car by the appellants is taken as correct, then the prosecution owed an explanation as to how the police officers who were present outside the said bungalow allow perpetration of Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 221 of 274 the crime by the offenders inside the bungalow.The contention of the counsels for the appellants was that the story put forth by the prosecution is absolutely unbelievable and none of the appellants indulged in the act of cleaning the car.No. 807/2008 Page 221 of 274Counsels for the appellants further submitted that the small patches of wet surface were not appearing due to the washing of the car but because of the presence of the mist on the cold wintry morning of 10.1.99 and the trial court by viewing such wet patches on the video wrongly believed the theory of washing of the car by the appellants.Counsels also contended that it cannot be lost sight that PW-29 Mr. N.K.Wadhera also saw presence of flesh and blood stains ,on the said car and had the car been washed by the appellants then, there would not have been presence of flesh and blood stains on the car.Counsel for the appellants further contended that the trial court wrongly took into consideration the police record and diaries.The contention of the counsels for the appellants was that such records are used by the prosecution as a back up, to refresh their memory but the same cannot be used by the Court for forming an opinion on the merits of the case.Counsels for the appellants further submitted that PW-13, S.I. Jagdish Pandey who sent the PCR messages at 6.10 A.M. clearly stated that he had seen a sticker under the name Park Lane on the said BMW car, but the said sticker could not have been seen by the police official without gaining entry inside the bungalow.The contention of the counsels for the appellants was that the BMW car Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 222 of 274 was parked in the said bungalow after the same was dragged inside with the front side of the car facing towards the main gate and the sticker of Park Lane which was affixed on the back wind screen, could not have been visible just from peeping inside the bungalow from the front side gate without practically entering the bungalow.Counsels for the appellants further submitted that no evidence was produced on record to show that the appellants had knowledge of the commission of offence, committed by the other accused persons, and therefore, the appellants had no reason whatsoever to have screened the offenders.No. 807/2008 Page 222 of 274Counsel also argued that the trial court fell in grave error by ignoring the fact of discharge of Siddharth Gupta, son of appellant Rajiv Gupta before passing the impugned order.The contention of the counsel for the appellant Rajiv Gupta was that once the complicity of Siddharth Gupta was not found in the commission of any offence, there could be no reason or motive for the appellant Rajiv Gupta to have involved himself to screen anybody else.Counsel for the appellant also submitted that under Section 36 of the Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the senior police officers to deal with the faulty investigation and not for the prosecution to intermeddle.Counsel for the appellant further submitted that Siddharth Gupta was discharged on 6.11.2000, but the trial court did not amend the charges causing serious prejudice to the appellant Rajiv Gupta as charge under Section 201, could not have been sustained against him after the discharge of his son Siddharth Gupta.No. 807/2008 Page 223 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 223 of 274The Trial court is stated to have committed another grave error in not complying with the basic principles of criminal justice that the defence witnesses were to be considered at par with the prosecution witnesses.The contention of counsels for the appellants was that the trial court failed to give any weightage to the deposition of DW-6 and DW-8 while treating the deposition of DW5, DW7 and DW9 as immaterial much to the prejudice of the appellants.In support, counsels for the appellants placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in AIR 1981 SC 911 Dudh Nath Pandey Vs.State of U.P. Counsel for the appellants also contended that the police did not seize any incriminating material from the spot to prove that the said car was washed by the offenders.Counsels for the appellants also contended that PW-60 S.I. Hulas Giri in his cross examination falsely stated that he had recorded the supplementary statements of only those witnesses whose statements were not earlier recorded.The contention of the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 224 of 274Counsel for the appellant Rajiv Gupta also submitted that it is totally unexpected of a person worth hundred crores to be seen washing the car with his own servants, therefore, the prosecution wrongly implicated the appellant Rajiv Gupta for extraneous reasons.Finding fault with the case of the prosecution, counsel for the appellant contended that initially the case set up by the prosecution was that six persons did the job of cleaning.Counsel also submitted that there was no independent eye witness to the said act of washing of car by the appellant, except the police officials whose evidence due to their inconsistent stand of highly doubtful nature to be relied upon by the court.Counsel for the appellants further submitted that it is for the prosecution to have proved the evidence on record that the appellants had the requisite knowledge or reasons to screen the offenders and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the same.In support of their arguments, counsels for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarwah Singh Rattan Singh Vs.No. 807/2008 Page 225 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 225 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 227 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 228 of 274Even if the two basics are established, and the prosecution failed to establish the next requirement, the court cannot convict the accused for the highest tier specified in the section.In S.R. Mulani Vs.The conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC depends on the sustainability of the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC.If Appellant 1 was rightly convicted under that provision, the conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC on the facts found cannot be challenged.Counsel representing Rajiv Gupta has also taken unpalatable stand of feigning ignorance of Rajiv Gupta about the parking of offending car in his bungalow till he was told by DW-5 Gaurav Karan at about 9.00 A.M. The prosecution has duly proved on record that by tracing the oil trail the police could reach to 50, Golf Links, the bungalow owned by Mr. Rajiv Gupta.The prosecution also proved that the said BMW Car bearing registration No.M 312 LYP in a damaged condition was found parked on the driveway of the said bungalow.After parking the said car, Sidharth Gupta had gone to the residence of the main offender Sanjiv Nanda at Defence Colony.It is equally unbelievable that Siddharth Gupta would not have woken up his father and other family members when the damaged vehicle was allowed to be parked in the said bungalow.No. 807/2008 Page 234 of 274Based on the above discussion, I am of the view that all the appellants were fully aware about the commission of offence by Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 235 of 274 Sanjiv Nanda or at least had reason to believe that an offence has been committed by Sanjiv Nanda while driving his BMW car.No. 807/2008 Page 235 of 274Coming to the next important contention raised by the counsels for the appellants that the prosecution failed to prove either with the help of any direct evidence or the circumstantial evidence to establish the fact that the appellants with the common intention to screen the offenders of the main crime washed the said BMW car bearing registration No. M312 LYP to remove blood from the same so as to destroy evidence from the said car.With a view to shatter the case of the prosecution and to substantiate their line of arguments, the counsels for the appellants raised the following points:(a) The theory of washing of car by the police gets falsified from the PCR messages sent by PW13 Jagdish Pandey and PW58 Kailash Chand.(b) The story of washing of car by the appellants was introduced for the first time on the suggestion of the prosecution branch whereafter supplementary statement of PW13 was recorded, wherein for the first time accusation of washing of said car was made against the appellants.No. 807/2008 Page 236 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 236 of 274(d) Collection of 18 chance finger prints by finger print expert PW29 Mr.Nagesh Kumar Wadera and blood stains by PW31 Mr. D.S.Chakoutra,Sr.Scientific Officer after the alleged washing of car by the appellants.(e) Attaching undue importance to the illegally admissible evidence of videography.(f) During the course of examination of appellants under Section 313, relevant questions relied upon by the prosecution were not put to the witnesses.This court has already dealt with the admissibility of the PCR messages hereinabove when dealing with the appeal filed by Sanjiv Nanda.The learned trial court has also dealt with these PCR messages much in detail.Doubting the accuracy of these messages, the trial court pointed out that in one of the PCR messages, the message flashed was that a red colour contessa car had committed the offence, while in fact the BMW car involved in the accident was of a Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 237 of 274 black colour.Nevertheless, the trial court even after accepting the correctness of the messages came to the conclusion that Inspector Jagdish Pandey as well as SHO Vimlesh Yadav had seen the vehicle being washed by the appellants.The trial court also observed that till the apprehension of all the accused persons, the investigation was going on a right track and was fully credible but due to the influence of some high-ups the crack started developing in the investigation.The court also observed that the principle of weighing the evidence on golden scales cannot be applied in such a case, because trial in the instant case is an example where the entire criminal justice has been hijacked by the rich and influential persons.The said observations made by the court are not just a passing reference, but painfully describes the concern and anguish of a judge witnessing the assorted game plan of the police to create enough loopholes in the course of investigation so as to ultimately help out the accused.The Apex Court, in a well acclaimed decision of Zahira Habibulla (supra), although was confronted with more serious questions concerning the faulty and bias investigation as well as perfunctory and improper conduct of trial by the public prosecutor, directed retrial of the entire case and some of the observations made in the said judgment are of utmost importance in the context of the present case.The relevant paras of the said judgment are referred as under:No. 807/2008 Page 237 of 274The present appeals have several unusual features and some of them pose very serious questions of far-reaching consequences.One of the appeals is by Zahira who claims to be an eyewitness to Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 238 of 274 macabre killings allegedly as a result of communal frenzy.She made statements and filed affidavits after completion of trial and judgment by the trial court, alleging that during trial she was forced to depose falsely and turn hostile on account of threats and coercion.That raises an important issue regarding witness protection besides the quality and credibility of the evidence before court.Ultimately, the Public Prosecutor gave purshis for dropping him as witness and surprisingly the same was granted by the trial court.This goes to show that both the Public Prosecutor as well as the court were not only oblivious but also failed to discharge their duties.Though the witness was present, the Public Prosecutor dropped him on the ground that he was not mentally fit to depose.The trial court could see the said game plan of the prosecution after noticing clear accusations made by the police against the appellants, in their remand application proved on record as Ex. PW58/F. The trial court also considered the said PCR messages to reach to the conclusion that the appellants had washed the said BMW car and thereafter covered the same with tarpoline.In the message sent by PW11 ASI Ram Awadh at 6.10 A.M. the said police officer merely stated that a black colour BMW car in an accidental condition was found parked at 50, Golf Links and when chowkidar of the said bungalow was inquired into but he refused to open the gate.The police officer in the said message also stated that the said car was carrying a sticker under the name of Park Lane.In the message flashed at 7.35 A.M. by Inspector Jagdish Pandey, he stated that one vehicle involved in the accident appeared to be recently washed.In his message he also stated that apart from police other persons were also standing in the bungalow and the accidental car was covered with a tarpoline.No. 807/2008 Page 241 of 274 succeed to effectively rebut or discredit their depositions.No. 807/2008 Page 240 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 241 of 274The High Court has basically relied upon the statements of six witnesses which had been recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 CrPC to record a positive finding that the respondent could not have been present at the scene of commission of the crime as he was present in a meeting of Nagar Nigam at Allahabad.In view of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 162 CrPC, the statement can be used only for the limited purpose of contradicting the maker thereof in the manner laid down in the said proviso.This Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 242 of 274 argument of counsel, no doubt, though specious but taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, the same falls face down.At the most, it can be said that the said witness might have been able to gain entry from the side gate at 6.10 A.M. and thereafter the three appellants might have washed the said car.It has come on record that PW11 and PW34 had also seen water coming outside from the left side drain of the bungalow.This position is also strengthened from the fact that PW-13 had seen these appellants washing the said car after he peeped inside the bungalow from the side gate, but actually came to know about their identity after having entered the bungalow from the main gate after the arrival of the SHO Vimlesh Yadav.On the same lines, PW- 55 SHO Vimlesh Yadav also deposed that she had also peeped inside the gate and saw the car being washed and thereafter she requested the chowkidar to open the gate when exactly she could know the name of the persons who were washing the said car.No. 807/2008 Page 242 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 243 of 274 clearly stated that he found that the car was wet from the roof top and bonnet was also wet.He came to inspect the said car at about 10.00A.M. and even at that time the car was still wet.The said finger print expert had to wait for some time for the car to dry up and only thereafter he could apply the developing powder for lifting chance prints from the car.It is thus evident from his deposition that chance prints could be lifted even from a car which earlier got wet but the same could be lifted only after it dried up.No suggestion was given to the said finger print expert by the defence that chance finger prints could not be lifted from the car once it got wet, due to water or otherwise.PW-31, Senior Scientific Officer, lifted the blood stains from the steering of the car and also from the bumper of the car and it cannot be ruled out that had the car not been washed by the appellants, the said officer could have collected more blood samples from the car because admittedly six persons had died in the accident and some of those victims even got badly entangled beneath the car.In any event of the matter, no suggestion was given to the said witness that had the car been wet he would not have been in a position to lift the blood samples.No. 807/2008 Page 243 of 274In this regard, the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs.Kalki-(1981)2 SCC 752 explained the difference between material and normal discrepancies in following terms:No. 807/2008 Page 244 of 274The second ground on which the High Court refused to place reliance on the evidence of PW 1 was that there were material discrepancies.The discrepancies are with regard to as to which accused pressed the deceased and at which part of the body to the ground and sat on which part of the body; with regard to whether the respondent, Kalki, gave the axe blow to the deceased while the latter was standing or lying on the ground, and whether the blow was given from the side of the head or from the side of the legs.In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be.These discrepancies 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 the occurrence, and the like.Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.Handing over possession of the car to SHO Vimlesh Yadav at 7.45 A.M. would not mean that the car was immediately driven out from 50, Golf Links, which was lying in a damaged condition, not fit to be driven out.Counsel for the appellants has over-emphasized such minor contradiction in the deposition of PW-58 who was also witness to the washing of the car by the appellants.When he visited the said bungalow, not only did he see that back side number plate was affixed in the reverse direction but after taking out the same, he tallied it with the number plate, which was found by him from the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 245 of 274 site of the accident.None of the appellants cross- examined the said witness to discredit his testimony or to challenge the authenticity of the video film taken by him from the spot.Video comes within the definition of document under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. In Halsbury Laws of England, 4th Edition, at Page 56, it has been observed that documents include in addition to a document in writing, any plan, graph, drawing, photographs, disk, sound track or similar device or any film, micro-film, tape or similar device, just like any other document, therefore, the video can also be proved through the evidence of an expert who had taken the video of the scene of crime.The video, being in the nature of a document, is a corroborative piece of evidence but the authenticity and genuineness of the video should be proved in the same manner as any document or a site plan is required to be proved under the Evidence Act.It is a matter of record that the learned presiding judge of the trial court personally viewed the said video and copy of the same was also supplied to the defence counsel.After viewing the said video, so far the appellants are concerned the court found that on Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 246 of 274 the back side of the BMW car, the number plate was not visible.The trial judge also saw the area/floor/path way where the car was parked appearing to be washed after having seen the video.The said video was also viewed by this court in the presence of both the parties and one could clearly see the wet patches on the floor/path way around the car and to this extent the observations of the court did not appear to be incorrect, more particularly when no challenge was made by the defence to the authenticity and genuineness of the said video.Washing of car is otherwise evident from the other evidence proved on record and even the expert witnesses in their depositions have deposed about the said car in a wet condition at the time of their visit.The video also clearly shows that the car from the outside appeared to be totally clean which is again an indicator to the fact that it was washed by the persons present inside the bungalow.No doubt, on the wintry morning of 10.1.1999, the presence of mist could have contributed wet conditions but not to the extent as has been proved on record through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and videography.No. 807/2008 Page 246 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 247 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 248 of 274 present case.The precise question arising from the fact of the present case is to what extent appellants can take advantage of this position.Undoubtedly, the direct question with regard to the removal of the number plate was not put to any of the appellants, although indirectly question no. 23 was put and in the charge also no such Crl.As regards the contention of the counsel for the appellants that no questions were put to these appellants with regard to how floor under the car was wet or the water was coming out of the bungalow, I find that question no. 15,16,24,25,34,35 and 68 put to these appellants demolish the said argument.It would be appropriate to reproduce the same as under:No. 807/2008 Page 249 of 274It is also in evidence against you that PW13 Inspector Jagdish Pandy on reaching the main entrance-gate found that the water was coming out from the Kothi beneath the gate and the gate was closed which arose suspicion in his mind.What have you to say?It is also in evidence against you that the water which was coming out from the gate through the Nali was, in fact, the same water which was being used for washing/cleaning the BMW Car which was found parked on the driveway of the Kothi in a damaged condition.What have you to say?I do not know.Ques.24.It is in evidence against you that BMW car was found at the house of Siddharth Gupta at 50, Golf Links, and you, Bhola Nath and Shyam Singh were noticed washing the BMW Car.What have you to say?I was woken up by Gaurav Karan at about 9.30 A.M. and when I came down to the Ground Floor there was no BMW car parked at my residence.It is in evidence against you that at 50 Golf Links you, accused Shyam Singh Rana and accused Bhola Nath, tried to clean/wash the car with a view to destroy the evidence available on the BMW Car.What have to say?No. 807/2008 Page 250 of 274I was sleeping at that time and was woken up by Shri Gaurav Karan at about 9.30 A.M. and when I came down to the Ground Floor I did not see any BMW car at my residence and nor did I wash any car.It is in evidence against you that the entrance iron gate of that H.NO.50, was closed.On inquiry, it was found later on that it belongs to you.Jagdish Pandey PW13 peeped from the space from one side of iron gate and saw one black car parked there.Bonnet of that car was damaged and its lights were broken.Before peeping inside, he noticed that water was coming out from inside the house.He then knocked at the gate but it was not opened by anyone from inside.When he peeped inside the house, he had also seen that three persons were washing that blacked BMW Car.When the gate was not opened he gave a message to the SHO, Lodi Colony and then SHO PW55 and S.I. Kailash Chand PW58 also reached there.What have you to say?It is in evidence against you that thereafter the gate of the house NO. 50, Golf Links was got opened.The names of the persons washing the car were revealed as accused Rajiv Gupta, accused Shyam Singh and accused Bhola Nath.What have you to say?I was sleeping at that time and was woken up by Shri Gaurav Karan at about 9.30 A.M. as stated earlier.It is in evidence against you that PW29 Nagesh Kumar Wadhera, Finger Print Expert, lifted the chance finger prints from the BMW Car on 10.1.99 at the request of the Police and submitted the report Exbt.PW29/A. At the time of lifting of the chance prints, the BMW car was sent and he had to wait for the car to dry up.What have you to say?I do not know.The contention that the video was not put to the accused persons is falsified from the question no. 33 put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The same is reproduced as under:No. 807/2008 Page 254 of 274 The case diaries were examined by the learned trial judge to find out the reasons behind the murky investigation.The judgment of the Kerala High Court in Amminis case (Supra) is of no help to the counsel for the appellants as the same clearly permits the trial court to use the case diaries to ascertain the time on which the investigation began and closed on which day, the places visited by the officers and the circumstances ascertained through investigation.The trial court in the impugned judgment has clearly held that the defence witnesses namely, Gaurav Karan, Karan Singh and Sudhir Singh being interested witnesses and due to the false testimony of DW-6 and DW-9, their evidence was considered not worthy of any credence.No doubt, there could have been more elaborate discussion on the Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 257 of 274 depositions of the said defence witnesses, but even in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the trial court has not taken into consideration the evidence of the said defence witnesses, before giving the final verdict.Perusal of testimonies of DW6 Ms. Himalyani Gupta, DW9 Shri Sudhir Sareen and statement of Rajiv Gupta under Section 313 Cr.P.C., clearly show contradictions as to on whose call Himalyani went to the police station as Rajiv Gupta in his statement said that he called up Himalyani Gupta, whereas Sudhir Sareen, DW9 also stated that he called up Himalyani Gupta.Since there are apparent contradictions in the testimonies of DW6, DW9 and Rajiv Gupta, thus the trial court rightly rejected the evidence of the said defence witnesses.No. 807/2008 Page 257 of 274It ordinarily allows some significant Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 261 of 274 discretion to the judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case.No. 807/2008 Page 261 of 274Of course, the courts are given discretion in the matter of sentence to take stock of the wide and varying range of facts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum of sentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with due regard to larger interest of the society and it is needless to add that passing of sentence on the offender is probably the most public face of the criminal justice system.Keeping in mind the above, I would now delve on the contentions of the parties regarding the sentence to be awarded.No. 807/2008 Page 267 of 274Accordingly, I direct the Registrar General of this Court to file a complaint against him under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the Court of competent jurisdiction.Before concluding, I would like to discuss the apathy of the government towards public safety.As the Indian economy is booming, the changes in the lifestyle of people are so visible.Even as darkness falls on the capital, the streets are full of cars, motorcycles, scooters, trucks, tankers and state transport buses.There are no stop signs, no speed limits and as the heavy vehicles go zig zag on the roads, it is hard to ignore the disturbing reality - many of commercial and private drivers behind the wheels are drunk and no one checks them.No. 807/2008 Page 268 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 268 of 274A recent survey in Delhi has found that drivers of more than 45 per cent of vehicles involved in accidents consume alcohol and 50 per cent of the road accidents happen because of drunken driving.Visibly, changed lifestyles and lack of parental & societal control over the youngsters results in indulgence into drinking habits and often these youngsters venture on roads in inebriated conditions risking the life of the pedestrians, companions and fellow drivers along with their own lives.Each year, 1.2 million fatal road accidents are reported worldwide.India's road mishaps account for 10 percent of the toll.According to the Department of Road Transport and Highway, Government of India, India holds the dubious distinction of registering the highest number of road accidents in the world.Rash driving and road accidents and consequent deaths have made India the land of highest deaths in road accidents.India with 1.3 lakhs accidents has pushed China back to second position.This is despite India having less than 1% of the world's vehicle population.According to the survey most of the cases are of hit and run.In case of speed of less than 30 kmph there are chances of survival of pedestrians, but in case of speed of more than 50 kmph death is almost certain.No. 807/2008 Page 269 of 274No. 807/2008 Page 269 of 274According to a recent article in English daily the national capital tops in road accidents in the metros, with pedestrians accounting for almost half the fatalities in Delhi as road conditions are most unsafe for them.According to the Planning Commission, the social cost of road accidents in India stands at Rs 55,000 crore annually.This constitutes 3% of the countrys GDP.The aforesaid statistics clearly show that India has not taken road safety very seriously so far and does not have a comprehensive Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 270 of 274 policy on road safety.Public safety is the last in the list of priority of the govt.Slayer BRT corridors, Killer Blueline buses and slaughterer Delhi-Gurgaon Expressway and very recently unfortunately Delhi Metro Rail Corporation of which every citizen is most proud of has joined the list of State apathy towards the citizens.No. 807/2008 Page 270 of 274Considering the above data, it is manifest that public safety is an area of great concern to India, which has recorded one of the highest accident rates in the world.Incident management needs improvement, both on highways and within cities, towns and villages.All Indian cities are already struggling with traffic flow problems due to the various types of vehicles on the road, the lack of need-based road and traffic design and engineering, and the unchecked growth of private vehicles and with the entry of the new cheap car Nano on the roads of India very soon, the situation is likely to worsen.The absence of intermodal planning is leading to poor connectivity between various modes of transport and poor passenger/customer satisfaction.Most of the times after a mishappening due to poor strategy of the government on public safety, instead of taking responsibility and coming up with stricter laws and better public safety planning, the government shirks its responsibility by suggesting the citizens and especially, pedestrians that they should be more careful on the road.Today, India is making a mark in the world map due to myriad reasons but the internal situation of the country when it comes to public safety is gloomy.It is high time that government should Crl.No. 807/2008 Page 271 of 274 become sensitive to the plight of the citizens and come up with stringent laws and better planning to curb drunken driving and such other menaces in the society which are reasons for fear in the mind of the pedestrians, each day, when they move out of their homes, whether they would safely reach home.No. 807/2008 Page 271 of 274In this regard, following guidelines are recommended:-Proper and strict implementation of the excise laws for minimum age for consumption of liquor;Proper lights on the streets and better maintenance of roads so as to reduce occurrence of any kind of accidents;
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,919,988 |
Learned lawyer for the State/respondent submits report wherefrom it appears that charge sheets have already been filed in Baranagar PS Case No.636/2016 dated 22.08.2016 under Section498A/325/506/307/34 IPC and Baranagar PS Case No.598/16 dated 08.11.2016 under Section 406 IPC.Learned lawyer for the respondents no.4-7 denies and disputes the allegations levelled against them.I have considered the materials on record.Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.(JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.) 3
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,389,272 |
In between the night of 10th and 11th of August, 2000, complainant Shivnarayan was sleeping in his house, his wife Mamta Bai was also sleeping nearby him.The light of the room was on, at that juncture, he whisper of jump, as a result of which, his wife woke up and screamed.He also woke and saw that one miscreant is hidden in the room and when the complainant tried to catch him, he warned not to come forward, otherwise, he would fire.The complainant even then tried and succeeded in catching him but in the meantime, he fired by a katta as a result of which, the complainant sustained injury on his chest but despite it, he overpowered the accused and later on, his wife also joined her hands.On being shrieked by these two persons, other members of the family and inhabitants of the village came on the spot.All these persons caught hold the accused and on being asked, he stated his name to be Lalji.By leaving the accused at his house, the complainant went to Police Station to lodge the report and thereafter brought police party to his house.On lodging of the FIR (Ex. P-1), the criminal law was set in motion and the police party arrived at the house of the complainant and arrested the accused at his house.The investigating officer sent the complainant for medical examination at Distt.Hospital, Vidisha but the operation theatre, at the relevant time was bacteria infested as a result of which, he was sent to Bhopal for treatment.In furtherance to his investigation, investigating officer seized necessary articles and recorded the statements of the witnesses and after doing all the needful, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Competent Court who in its turn committed the case to the Sessions Court, from where, the case was received by the Trial Court for trial.The learned Trial Judge after going through the charge-sheet framed charge under Section 459, IPC which was denied by the accused/appellant.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and placed Exs. P-1 to P-12, the documents on record.The contention of the accused is that he was carrying on the business of snacks and the money which he earned was given to the complainant and the complainant was trustee of his money, when he came to take back his money, at that juncture, altercation took place, in which, some unknown person fired.Though there is specific defence of the accused, but he did not choose to examine any witness in support of his defence.The learned Trial Judge after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, came to hold that the appellant committed offence for which he was charged and eventually, convicted him and passed the sentence mentioned hereinabove, hence, this appeal.I have heard Shri S. Gajendragadhkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Vijaysunderam learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/State.The FIR (Ex. P-1) has been lodged by complainant Shivnarayan.On going through the FIR, it is noticed that he was sleeping in his house and he heard the whisper of jump inside his house, as a result of which, his wife woke and he too woke up.The light of the room was on and in the light, he saw that one person is hidden inside the room.As soon as he come forward to catch him, the accused warned him that he will fire.In that meantime, he fired as a result of which, complainant sustained injury on the right side of his chest.Thereafter, on being screamed by him and his wife, his parents and inhabitants of the village namely Kartar Singh and Bhikam Singh, arrived on the spot.On being asked to that person, he stated his name to be Lalji.On going through the evidence of the complainant Shivnarayan who was examined as P.W. 1 in the Trial Court, it is gathered that whatever he has stated in the FIR, he had said the same version in his statement in the Court.The evidence of Shivnarayan is corroborated by the medical evidence (Ex. P-2) in which, the injury sustained by him was found to be caused by pistol and there was blackening entry wound which would mean that the fire took place from very close distance.The evidence of the complainant has been corroborated by the evidence of his wife Mamta (P.W. 2) though there are some minor cortradictions in it.His evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of Kartar Singh (P.W. 3), Tulsa Bai (P.W. 4) and Vir Singh (P.W. 6).One important fact which can not be marginalised and blinked away is that the accused was arrested from the house of complainant and therefore, this fact also corroborates the version of the prosecution witnesses.Apart from this, in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.PC this fact has been admitted by the accused.I have considered entire evidence of the prosecution and I find it to be cogent and trustworthy.I have also gone through the reasonings assigned by the Trial Court and they are found to be based on the evidence placed on record and I do not wish to deviate myself from those reasonings and by this judgment, I hereby give my stamp of approval to those reasonings.Yet there is another facet of the case.This fact has not been disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the State.Entire sum of the amount of Rs. 3000/- be paid to the complainant Shivnarayan s/o Natthu Singh.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha is hereby directed to carry out this part of the order and the amount of fine Rs. 3000/- be paid to the complainant.With the aforesaid modifications, this appeal is allowed in part.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
138,931,439 |
Allowed md.And In Re:-Kartick Mandal and another ... Petitioners Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Saibal Bapuli, A.P.P.The petitioners claim that following a property dispute with another branch of the family there was a fight whereat one of the persons on the rival side suffered a serious injury and succumbed thereto, but there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to kill any person.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,432,288 |
4 M.Cr.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall deposit deposit Rs. 20,000/- in favour of Army Central Welfare Fund having A/C HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C.No.19755/2020 ( Padma Vs.State of M.P.) No.520101236373338 of Corporation Bank, Chandani Chowk Delhi within one month.5 M.Cr.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 9/4/2020 by Police Station Nateran, District Vidisha in connection with Crime No. 43/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (D), 450, 201, 202, 313, 315, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.She further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.C.No.19755/2020 ( Padma Vs.State of M.P.) Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C.No.19755/2020 ( Padma Vs.State of M.P.) This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicants :-The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about her residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,434,021 |
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla,J.1. Leave granted.At the very threshold, we are confronted with a question as to which of the judgments which have taken conflicting views have to be followed in the matter of termination of a Constable in the Police Department, who concealed certain relevant facts which he was called upon to disclose after his selection was finalized and after order of appointment was issued by placing him on probation.After a subsequent medical examination, the appellant, along with others was declared fit and was sent for training.At the time of consideration of the appellant’s claim, a Declaration Form in the form of an Affidavit was called for in order to ascertain his conduct and involvement in any criminal or civil case.The appellant submitted the Declaration Form on 10.11.2006 by swearing to an affidavit.In the said affidavit the appellant declared that he has not been convicted by any Court; that no criminal case was registered against him; that no criminal case was pending against him in any Court; that no criminal case was under investigation against him; that he had never been arrested by police in connection with any criminal case; that he was never challaned in any criminal case and that his character was clean and bright.At the end of the declaration, in paragraphs 15-16 he declared that all the information/averments which he made in the affidavit were true and correct and if any information/averment was found to be false or incorrect after his selection on the said post then his selection could be cancelled immediately without giving any notice and he could be removed from the training course.Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & Another - 1999(2) SCC 247, Secy., Deptt.of Home Secy., A.P. & Ors.Ram Ratan Yadav(supra) i.e., Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Anr.Dhaval Singh - 1999 (1) SCC 246, Kamal Nayan Mishra Vs.All these facts, however, had been concealed in Column 13 of the verification roll submitted by the respondent in which he was required to state whether he was ever arrested, detained or convicted.The authorities, therefore, did not appoint the respondent as a constable.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we fail to appreciate how when a criminal case under Sections 148/323/380/427/596, IPC, against the respondent was pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, any mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to the authorities to appoint the respondent as a constable.Did the competent authority ever have a look at it, before passing the order of cancellation of candidature? The cancellation of the candidature under the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material.The Tribunal, therefore, rightly set it aside.July 30, 2012
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,438,511 |
This is the first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, as per the affidavit submitted by applicant No. 1 Smt. Rekha.The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 201/2014 registered at Police Station Bilaua district Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 452, 323, 294, 506-B and 34 of IPC.Allegedly the complainant lodged the report that at about 07:45 PM, when she was at her residence, accused Rekha, his son Gopal and Gajju came to her house uttering obscene words.Accused Gopal injured her by axe, accused Gajju inflicted injury by wooden stick and accused Rekha caused her injury by fists and kicks.On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the applicants are members of the same family.Therefore, Section 452 of IPC is not attracted.It is also claimed that all other offences mentioned above (except Section 452 of IPC) are bailable offences.Therefore, the applicant No. 1 Rekha and applicant No. 2 Gajju be granted anticipatory bail.On behalf of the State, application is opposed on the ground that applicant No. 2 Gajju has criminal record and eight different crimes registered against him.The injuries inflicted are simple in nature.Applicant No. 2 Gajju armed with axe entered into the house of the complainant and inflicted (Smt. Rekha & anr.State of M.P.) 2 M.Cr.C. No. 12094/2014 injury.He has certain criminal records also.Therefore, so far applicant No. 2 Gajju is concerned, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge Abhi
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,446,323 |
This petition has been filed to set aside the Docket order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Trichy District in Cr.M.P.No.952 of 2018 dated 16.03.2018 thereby the private complaint lodged by the second respondent for the offences under Sections 420, 498(A), 506 (I) of IPC r/w Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, has been forwarded to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and report.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Stations, Perambalur and Lalgudi.MP(MD)No.2681 of 2018 11.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8They also filed referred charge sheet before the learned Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.After serving referredhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2018 charge sheet to the defacto complainant, no action was taken on the closure report.Hence, the second respondent filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Trichy, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., for a direction to file final report and the same was allowed by directing the first respondent to register FIR and investigate the same and file final report as early as possible.In this circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court for quash the Docket order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Trichy.Due to previous enmity between the petitioners and the second respondent, the petitioners closed the complaint as 'action dropped'.Therefore, she lodged a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Trichy.The learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., to the file of the first respondent and directed the first respondent to register FIR and investigate the same and file final report.Even then, the first respondent did not register a case as against the petitioners.Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2018The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the private complaint lodged by the second respondent, the learned Magistrate directed the first respondent to register the case under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and it is pending for enquiry.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.It is seen that the second respondent lodged a complaint as against her husband and her in-laws on the file of the petitioner herein.During the pendency of the investigation, the husband and in-laws of the second respondent filed a quash petition before this Court to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.4 of 2016 in Crl.OP(MD)No.4903 of 2017 and this Court observed as follows:-” On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in the case, tis Court is of the view that the present prosecution in Crime No.4 of 2016 has beenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2018 engineered in such a way that all the family members of Ravishankar have been falsely implicated as accused.When the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, the demand of Kavitha was that Ravishankar should set up a separate home and leave the joint family, which was not agreeable to Ravishankar.In Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar [2014 {8} Scale 250], the Hon''ble Supreme Court has noted the tendency of the wives to lodge false complaints against all the family members of husband and harass them.This case appears to be one such case.However, this Court directs the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Sub Division, Trichy to monitor the investigation in Lalgudi Police Station Crime No.4 of 2016 and if the allegations found therein are false, it is needless to state that the FIR against the accused shall be closed.With the above direction, this petition is closed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”It is seen that, there was no dowry harassment as alleged by the second respondent.On the strength of her enquiry, the second petitioner dropped the action on the FIR registered in Crime No.4 of 2016 andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2018 the charge sheet duly served on the second respondent.On the closure report, the second respondent did not lodge any private complaint or private notice as against her husband and family members.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Trichy, without recording any submission, mechanically directed the first respondent to register FIR on the complaint lodged by the second respondent.Accordingly, the second petitioner conducted investigation and closed the case as 'action dropped'.The learned Magistrate has to apply his mind before referring the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., The order, impugned in the present case, the learned Magistrate without considering the absence of the defacto complainant, mechanically forwarded the complaint to the Inspector of Police, Lalgudi, under Section 156 (3)http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2018 Cr.P.C., cannot be sustained.Further, it is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the Docket order dated 16.03.2018 passed in Cr.M.P.No.952 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Trichy District is hereby set aside and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.11.11.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order dss To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, Trichy District.2.The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Trichy.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.dss Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2018 and Crl.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
44,447,456 |
Brief facts leading rise to the present appeals are that on 22 nd December, 2009 at about 07:15 hours, an information (Ex PW 15- A) was received by Ram Singh (PW-15), Inspector, on phone said to be by Satish Kumar son of Kanshi Ram, that Ratti Ram son of late Shri Roshan Lal, had died due to gun shot.On receiving such information, a Police team led by the Station House Officer of Police Station Ghumarwin proceeded towards the place of occurrence.Subsequently, on the statement of Neelam Sharma (PW-1), daughter of deceased Ratti Ram, FIR No. 218 was registered on 22nd December, 2009 at about 14:05 hours.Neelam Sharma had stated that her father left home at about 8 am on 21st December, 2009 informing her that he would go to the house of Karma at Village Chujala and thereafter he would go to attend his duty at Village Harlog.But when he did not return till 6 pm, she called on his mobile number but mobile was switched off.She called in the morning to the Forest Guard to inquire about her father who told her that her father had not come there to join the duty.Thereafter, she made telephone call to accused Satish Kumar, whose house is in front of her house and sought phone number of Karma, resident of Village Chujala.The Police came to her house on 22nd December, 2009, when she came to know that her father had died due to gun shot by Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar and the body of his father is lying at Balh Churani forest.The motive of murder was said to be land dispute with Satish 2 Kumar pending in Shimla High Court.Ram Singh (PW-15), Inspector, deposed that the disclosure statements of accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar were recorded on 22nd December, 2009 itself.The statements of both the accused Satish Kumar (Ext. PW2/A) and Rajeev Kumar (Ext. PW15/C) were recorded in the presence of Jaswant Singh (PW-2) and Kuldeep Singh (PW-3).They disclosed that the dead body of deceased Ratti Ram had been concealed in Balh Churani forest and that they could get the same recovered.She further deposed that PW-2 Jaswant Singh had informed her before the arrival of the police that the dead body of her father was lying in the forest.Jaswant Singh is ward member from Balh Churani of Gram Panchayat Robin.Some officials proceeded to the spot, whereas some came along with dead body of her father.She denied that Balh Churani forest is a big forest.On the other hand, PW-2-Jaswant Singh was declared hostile when he deposed that no disclosure statement was made by Rajeev Kumar in his presence.He was cross-examined by the public prosecutor.He denied that any disclosure statement was made by 9 the accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar.He also denied that Rajeev Kumar had signed any statement in his presence.He denied other recovery memos as well.In the cross-examination by the accused, he admitted that Balh Churani forest starts near the house of deceased Ratti Ram and many registered hunters used to come to this forest for hunting prior to the occurrence.Some hunters without permission, would also come to the forest.The dead body of Ratti Ram was recovered from a distance of approximately 1 KM from his house.The motorable road is at a distance of 1 ½ KM from the dead body.He deposed that the statement of Neelam Sharma and accused Satish Kumar was recorded near the dead body after identification of the dead body.He deposed that Satish Kumar stated to the police that he fired a gunshot by mistake but he had not stated that the gunshot was fired by him and by Rajeev Kumar.He stated that Rajeev Kumar had stated to the police that their gun was not used for firing but was still taken into possession by the police.He admitted that there were criminal cases between Kanshi Ram, father of Satish Kumar and himself, but those cases were compromised.PW-3 Kuldeep Singh turned hostile and denied that any statement was made by accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar in his presence.In cross-examination he deposed that 15-20 persons of Balh Churani Village had gone to the forest.He admits that the dead body was searched by the police and was not demarcated by anybody else.HEMANT GUPTA, J.Both the accused accompanied the Police team to Balh Churani forest and on their demarcation of the spot, the dead body of deceased Ratti Ram was recovered on 22nd December, 2009 in the presence of witnesses Jaswant Singh and Kuldeep Singh.The memo of taking possession of dead body is Ex.PW15/F. A bag was also recovered lying nearby the dead body which was identified by Neelam Sharma (PW-1) belonging to her father.The dry soil was also taken from the spot by the Police and spot map of the recovery of dead body was also prepared.Two pellet marks were visible on the stems of bushes.The embedded pellets were removed with a stone.Subsequently, on the same day, another statement of accused Rajeev Kumar was recorded in respect of disclosure of single barrel gun concealed in his house.Accused Lekh Ram is the father of accused Rajeev Kumar.It is alleged that the gun was licensed in his name and two live cartridges were recovered from his house.The Investigating Officer (IO) had also taken possession of blood-stained soil, leaves and grass particles lifted from the spot; and the clothes worn by the deceased Ratti Ram.All these articles along with the gun, the empty cartridge and the live cartridges were sent for forensic science examinations.The report (Ex.PW14/D) dated 22nd March, 2010 in respect of articles such as clothes and blood on the clothes and the soil was furnished whereas in respect of the gun, the cartridge was found to be fired from the gun recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of Rajeev Kumar.It was also reported that traces of gunshot residue on the holes was present on the clothes worn by the deceased and the range of firing was distant.The postmortem was conducted on 23 rd December, 2009 by Dr. N.K. Sankhan (PW-7) who had found multiple injuries on the dead body of deceased Ratti Ram and also found multiple perforated wounds.As per his final opinion, deceased Ratti Ram died due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of injuries to lungs and heart and hypovolemic shock as a result of gunshot injury.The learned trial court returned the following finding:The High Court found that the finding of the learned trial court that the dead body was recovered prior to the disclosure statement made by the accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar is not cor- rect.In fact, the dead body was recovered only on the basis of the disclosure statements.The High Court further found that the re- covery of the dead body and the weapon of offence in pursuance of the disclosure statement stands corroborated with the report of the forensic science laboratory.Thus, the chain of the circum- stances is complete so as to warrant conviction of all the accused.However, in appeal preferred by the complainant, the judgment of the trial court was set aside.PW-15 proceeded to Balh Churani forest along with other police officials after receipt of such information.Ex. PW1/A is the statement of Neelam Sharma recorded at 12.45 pm by PW-15 at Village Balh Churani.The FIR is registered at 14.05 hours.The first statement of Neelam Sharma (Ex. PW 1/A) is that she came to know from the police, when they arrived at the village, that Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar have killed her father.She as PW1 deposed that the statement of the accused was recorded before they proceeded to the forest, and that except ward member (Jaswant Singh) nobody had told her that her father had been murdered by Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar.It is after her statement was recorded that she went to the forest with the police, and the witness Jaswant Singh and Kuldeep Singh, and accused Rajeev Kumar and Satish Kumar.PW-15 Ram Singh in his cross-examination deposed that the accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar were arrested on 22 nd December, 2009 at 1.30 pm.He categorically deposed that he had not informed Jaswant Singh (PW-2) before proceeding from the police station.He did not enquire with anybody over the telephone from the police station pursuant to Daily Diary Report.He deposed that he came to know that deceased had died due to gunshot injury before recording the statement of Neelam Sharma.The accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar were questioned in the presence of Jaswant Singh and Kuldeep Singh.He denied that no telephone call was made by Satish Kumar to police station.He admitted that the place where the dead body was lying was about 1 KM from the house of Ratti Ram and both the accused collectively identified the place where the dead body was lying.The phone call was received by police at 7.15 am.The distance of the place of recovery of dead body in forest from the house of the deceased is only about 2 Kilometers approx.In the first statement of Neelam Sharma recorded at 12.45 pm, there is an assertion that her father was killed by gun shot by Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar.But as per PW-2 Jaswant Singh, the police called him and got the first confirmation about the incident from him, whereas the IO 11 completely denied having made any attempt to contact PW-2 to get any information.As per the IO, he proceeded to Balh Churani forest after associating Satish Kumar, Jaswant Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Neelam Sharma.The conclusion of the cause of death as due to gunshot by Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar could find mention in the FIR, which is the basis of initiating the investigating process, only if the dead body had already been recovered.The IO has given contradictory statement as that of statement of PW-1 Neelam Sharma as well as PW-2 Jaswant Singh.The statements of the witnesses do not appear to be trustworthy so as to maintain conviction of the appellants.The evidence of the prosecution does not inspire confidence.The entire prosecution case is based upon the telephone call made by Satish Kumar but no call details have been produced to verify the correctness of the telephone call.As per the IO, there was no verification made in pursuance of the phone call received.The other incriminating circumstance weighed with the High Court is the recovery of the single barrel gun with the cartridge from the house of Lekh Ram, the licence holder.The report of the forensic science laboratory would only show that such gun was used in the commission of crime, but the prosecution has failed to establish which of the accused has actually used the gun.The disclosure statement of the accused Satish Kumar is that he fired from the gun.But the recovery of the gun is on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Rajeev Kumar.There is no direct evidence as 12 to the use of licensed gun of Lekh Ram, though the gun along with empty and live cartridges were recovered on the statement of Rajeev Kumar.It is not possible to conclusively hold that it was either Rajeev Kumar or Satish Kumar who fired upon the deceased.In the absence of the evidence as to which of the two accused fired upon the deceased, the accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of recovery of gun used in the commission of crime.The High Court has convicted all the accused additionally for the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act. None of the conditions mentioned in Section 25 of the Act are even broadly extended towards all the accused including Lekh Ram, the licensee.Section 27 of the Act provides for punishment if whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 of the said Act. Again, none of the conditions mentioned in Section 5 are attracted towards any of the accused including Lekh Ram.At best, there could be an allegation of violation of conditions of licence but, none of the accused have been charged for violation under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, none of the accused is liable for conviction for any offence under the Act.In a case based upon circumstantial evidence motive is relevant but the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the accused.As per the statement of Neelam Sharma (PW-1), the motive was land dispute with Satish Kumar.If such was a motive, then there is no reason for her to contact Satish Kumar, who was said to be staying near her house, to find out whereabouts of her 13 father.The said motive has no foundation to stand.The trial court has recorded an order of acquittal.Such order of acquittal could be interfered with only if there was perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court.We find that the prosecution has failed to prove the role of accused in causing death of the deceased Ratti Ram inasmuch as the recovery of dead body in pursuance of similar disclosure statements made by accused Satish Kumar and Rajeev Kumar is not proved.In the absence of any evidence led by the prosecution as to who fired the fatal shot, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons and 15 was rightly granted by the learned trial court.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
444,516 |
On this there was a quarrel between them on the question of grazing of grass by their cattle in the field of Tulsiram (P.W. 1).Today, at about 8 o'clock in the night he was taking meals at his house, Village Chowkidar Kanchedi informed him that Santosh and Tofan both have beaten Ratna.The deadbody of Ratna is lying on the road and Mansingh and Phoolsingh both had seen the incident.Thereafter, P.W. 1 went on spot alongwith Kanchedi and he has seen the deadbody and thereafter went to lodge the report.The FIR was recorded by S.S. Parmar (P.W. 10), which is Ex. P-l.Thereafter criminal law sat into motion and the matter was investigated.Spot map (Ex. P-2) was prepared.Statements of the witnesses were recorded.Naksha Panchayatnama Lash (Ex. P-8) was also prepared.Deadbody of the deceased was referred for post-mortem.Accused persons were arrested.JUDGMENT A.K. Gohil, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 21-7-93 under Section 302/34 of IPC in Sessions Trial No. 19/93, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Mungaoli, District Guna, the appellants have filed this appeal.Appellants were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungaoli, District Guna in Sessions Trial No. 19/93 for a charge under Section 302/34 on an allegation that on 12-11-1992 at 6.00 p.m. in furtherance of their common intention the appellants committed murder of deceased Ratna by causing injuries by lathi.As per prosecution story, Tulsiram (P.W. 1), elder brother of deceased Ratna, lodged a report at Police Station, Bahadurpur.In the FIR it is stated that he is residing at Village Jaroli.His brother deceased Ratna was working as a labourer in the field of Omprakash Lala.He is having Padat land in the village and both the appellants Santosh Yadav and Tofan Yadav used to graze the grass by their cattle in his field.Memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared and article lathis were seized and charge-sheet was filed.Appellants were put to trial.At the trial appellants/accused persons abjured their guilt.Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and after considering the prosecution evidence convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 34 of the IPC and sentenced to them for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of six months each.Against which, the appellants have filed this appeal.We have heard Shri Atul Gupta and Smt. Geeta Bhadoriya, Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.S. Bansal, Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State.Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no direct evidence in the case.There is no material evidence on record for convicting the appellants.Tulsiram (P.W. 1) has stated on the basis of the information received from Chowkidar Kanchedi.Phoolsingh (P.W. 3) and Mansingh (P.W. 2) have not supported the prosecution.The evidence of Dasiram (P.W. 7) is also not reliable.Dr. Roopsingh Parihar (P.W. 9) has not stated that any of the injuries either individually or collectively were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and there is no background of enmity between the parties and in the absence of any evidence there can not be any conviction under Section 302, IPC.Their submission was that the Trial Court has convicted the appellants on the evidence of hostile witnesses.The conviction can not be based on the evidence of hostile witnesses and their testimony has to be discarded and the infirm witnesses can not corroborate each other and cited two decisions in the cases of Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 1975 SC 1400; and Muluwa s/o Binda and Ors.In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent, Shri S.S. Bansal submitted that there is no bar that the conviction can not be based on the testimony of hostile witnesses if it is corroborated.In this case the evidence of hostile witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence.The evidence of extra- judicial confession of Omprakash (P.W.,6) is also available on record, which is further supported by the evidence of memorandum prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Exs. P-11 and P-12) and seizure of lathi.After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we have considered the evidence of the witnesses.It is not in dispute that the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine Mansingh (P.W. 2), Phoolsingh (P.W. 3) and Dasiram (P.W. 7) and as per the medical evidence of Dr. Roop Singh Parihar (P.W. 9) the doctor has found three lacerated wounds; two lacerated wounds in the left parietal and one lacerated would in the right parietal region and five contusions and in the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was syncope due to haemorrhage and haemorrhage in both the kidneys.The doctor has admitted in cross-examination that there was no injury by any sharp-edged weapon and the duration of death was within three days.In the cross-examination he has stated that it was within 24 hours and he has wrongly mentioned the duration of three days in his report (Ex. P-18).9. Tulsiram (P.W. 1), brother of deceased, who lodged the report has deposed that at about 9 o'clock when he was in the house, Chowkidar Kanchedi (P.W. 5) has informed him that deadbody of his brother Ratna is lying on the road.He has also stated that he had informed that Phoolsingh and Mansingh had seen the incident and both had stated that appellants Tofan and Santosh both had assaulted the deceased.Mansingh (P.W. 2) and Phoolsingh (P.W. 3) were declared hostile and were cross-examined but in the examination-in-chief both have stated that they were knowing Ratna.They are also knowing appellants Tofan and Santosh.Mansingh (P.W. 2) has deposed that when he was preparing to inject his buffalo, Ratna came at the house of his door and Santosh also came behind him.Ratna asked Santosh why they are grazing their cattle in his field and there was a wordy quarrel between them.In the cross-examination he has firmly maintained that there was altercation between Santosh and Ratna in his presence and Santosh gave a lathi blow to Ratna in his leg in his presence and he had only seen that he gave one lathi blow.Phoolsingh (P.W. 3) in the examination-in-chief has stated that when he came outside his house he had seen that there was a quarrel between Santosh and Ratna, then he had asked them why they arc fighting in front of his house.Thereafter Ratna went away and Santosh remained there.He does not know why they were fighting.After some time he came to know that the body of Ratna was lying near the road.When he reached on spot, Ratna was alive but when they shifted him on the road, he died.In the cross-examination he has firmly supported this version to the extent that there was altercation between Santosh and Ratna, except this he has denied the other versions.Laxmiprasad (P.W. 4) is not the eye-witness of the incident.He has only stated that deceased Ratna was known to him.Appellants were also known to him.Phoolsingh had stated to him that Santosh has killed Ratna.Kanchedi (P.W. 5), Village Chowkidar, has also deposed that when he was coming back to his village from Mungaoli, Komal informed him that Tofan and Santosh have killed Ratna.Thereafter he went to inform Kamta Prasad Patel, who directed him to inform Tulsiram, brother of the deceased about the incident.In his presence Panchnama Lash and spot map were prepared.Omprakash (P.W. 6) has also stated that when he was coming back from his field, in the way Phoolsingh informed him that Santosh and Tofan have killed Ratna, whose body is lying near the field of Kanhi.He has further stated that thereafter Tofan and Santosh met him in the village and on asking both have stated to him that there was quarrel with Ratna, therefore, they have killed Ratna by lathis.They have also informed that the body of Ratna is lying near the field of Kanhi.Thereafter he with the help of Phoolsingh and Dasiram brought the body of Ratna on road.At that time he was breathing but thereafter he died.Dasiram (P.W. 7) has also supported the prosecution case upto the extent that when he was sitting on his door, Ratna, Tofan and Santosh came.They were quarrelling.Santosh was carrying lathi.In his presence Santosh assaulted Ratna by lathi and thereafter Santosh and Tofan both took him towards Jaroli road.In the cross-examination he has stated that Santosh and Tofan are the residents of his village and Ratna was not resident of his village.He does not want to have enmity with the villagers.He further stated that Ratna and Santosh were quarrelling at his door but Tofan was there or not, he can not say.Udham Singh (P.W. 8) is the witness of Safina Form (Ex. P-7), Panchnama Lash (Ex. P-8), arrest memos (Exs. P-9 and P-10) and memorandums (Exs. P-11 and P-12) and also the seizure memo of lathis (Exs. P-13 to P-15).He has also taken the deadbody and executed its receipt (Ex. P-17).After critical analysis of the evidence, it is clear that Mansingh (P.W. 2) has stated that there was quarrel between Santosh and Ratna.Phoolsingh (P.W. 3) has also stated that there was quarrel between Santosh and Ratna in their presence, therefore, it can be said that they are the witnesses of last seen.Omprakash (P.W. 6) has stated that Phoolsingh had informed that Santosh and Tofan have assaulted Ratna by lathis but Phoolsingh (P.W. 3) only stated that there was quarrel between Santosh and Ratna.He does not say anything about Tofan though Omprakash has also stated about the extra-judicial confession made by Tofan and Santosh before him that they have killed Ratna.Dasiram (P.W. 7) has stated about the incident before his house in his presence.In the cross-examination he has confirmed about the quarrel with Santosh but has further created doubt about the presence of Tofan.Therefore, from the aforesaid evidence of Mansingh (P.W. 2), Phoolsingh (P.W. 3) and Dasiram (P.W. 7) it is clear that in their presence quarrel took place between Ratna and Santosh and in presence of Dasiram Santosh assaulted Ratna by lathi.This evidence is corroborated by Omprakash (P.W. 6), before whom they have made confession.Therefore, he is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of thirty days for undergoing the remaining jail sentence, otherwise the Trial Court shall take him to custody and send him to jail for undergoing the remaining jail sentence.Bail bonds of appellant Santosh stand cancelled.Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed.
|
['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.
|
44,453,788 |
However, accused-appellant nos.1 and 3, namely, Daya Ram and Gandharv Singh have passed away during the pendency of this appeal before this Court and instant appeal in respect of appellant nos.1 and 3 Daya Ram and Gandharv Singh respectively has already been abated vide order dated 14.02.2020 and thus, now this appeal confines only in respect of appellant no.2 Hira Lal.As per prosecution case, about two years prior to the incident, some miscreants have committed murder of complainant's neighbour Gyan Singh and in that regard first information report was lodged against first informant's brother namely, Maheshwar and Hari Ram and that case was pending before the Court.Due to this reason, accused Daya Ram, Sahukar, Hira Lal and Gandharv Singh were having enmity with the complainant Goverdhan Lal.Incident of the present case took place on 16.09.1982 at about 12:00 noon when complainant was sitting in verandah of his house.Accused Daya Ram and Sahukar having guns, accused-appellant Hira Lal armed with country made pistol and accused Gandharv armed with lathi came there and they exhorted to take revenge of Gyan Singh.They fired at complainant and resultantly complainant suffered pellets injuries on his left arm and left leg.Hearing noise, complainant's father Govind Prasad, mother Sarbati and wife of complainant's brother namely, Satyawati and some other persons of village including Khusi Ram and Sarnam came there.Accused Gandharv Singh assaulted complainant's father and mother with lathi, accused-appellant Hira Lal fired a shot, however, complainant escaped from that shot.Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from the spot.Injured Goverdhan Lal was medically examined vide M.L.C. Ex. Ka-2 and as per his injury report, he has sustained following injuries.I. Punctured wound caused by gun shot wound circular 1/2 c.m. X 1/2 c.m.tatooing present on the middle and posterior surface of the fore arm.Advised X-Ray.Punctured wound caused by gun shot wound circular 1/2 c.m. X 1/2 c.m. X 1 c.m. totooing present on the posterior surface about 4 c.m. away towards the medial surface .. the injury no.1 of left fore arm (Advised X-Ray).Punctured wound (caused by gun shot wound) circular 1/2 c.m. X 1/2 c.m. X 1 c.m.totooing present on the abdomen left side about 7 c.m. away & upwards from lt.Iliac superior spine of hip bone (Ad.X-Ray).This appeal has been preferred against the Judgement and order dated 29.01.1988 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj in Session Trial No. 152 of 1985 State Vs.Daya Ram and others, Crime No. 497 of 1982 under Sections 323, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Chhibra Mau, District Kannauj whereby accused-appellant Daya Ram and accused-appellants Hira Lal and Gandharv Singh (since dead) have been convicted under Section 307/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 I.P.C. In case of default in payment of fine they have to undergo six months additional imprisonment.Both the sentences were to run concurrently.At the very outset, it may be stated that instant appeal has been filed by accused-appellants Daya Ram, Hira Lal, Gandharv Singh and Sahukar, whereas record shows that accused Sahukar son of Sri Gandharv Singh has died during the pendency of the trial before the Court below and he was not convicted by the impugned order.This fact clearly indicates that this appeal has been preferred in most casual manner without perusing the impugned Judgement and order.Be that as it may, this appeal was maintainable only in respect of accused-appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 namely, Daya Ram, Hira Lal and Gandharv Singh respectively.Abrasion:- Black, circular 1/2 c.m. X 1.2 c.m. on the centre part of left side abdomen.Injured Satya Bati was medically examined vide M.L.C. Ex. Ka-3 and as per her injury report, she has sustained following injuries."I. Contusion-Reddish 10 c.m. X 2 c.m. longitudinally on the posterior side and left part of back.Contusion-Reddish, 10 c.m. X 2.5 c.m.on the posterior side of right fore arm, longitudinally.Contusion-Reddish 11 c.m. X 3 c.m.on the posterior surface of right left upper part longitudinally".Injured Smt. Sarbati was medically examined vide M.L.C. Ex. Ka-4 and as per her injury report, she has sustained following injuries."Contusion-Reddish 12 c.m. X 3 c.m. longitudinally on the top of Rt. shoulder joint."Injured Govind Prasad was medically examined vide M.L.C. Ex. Ka 5 and as per his injury report, he has sustained following injuries."I. Contusion-Reddish 10 c.m. X 2.5 c.m.on the top of Lt. shoulder joint transversely.Contusion-Reddish 15 c.m. X 3 c.m. postero laterally side of Rt.fore arm longitudinally.Contusion-Reddish circular on rop of lt. patella bone of left left (7 c.m. X 7 c.m.)"As per X-Ray report Ex. Ka 6 of Goverdhan Lal, multiple radio-opaque foreign bodies were seen in both the silms.Investigation of case was conducted by Sub-Inspector Hari Singh.Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and Section 323/34 I.P.C against all accused persons.In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined five witnesses.After prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied the prosecution evidence and claimed false implication.After hearing and analyzing the evidence on record, accused-appellants Hira Lal, Daya Ram and Gandharv Singh were convicted under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this Judgement.Being aggrieved, accused-appellant Hira Lal and deceased accused-appellants Daya Ram and Gandharv Singh, have preferred this appeal.Heard Ms. Ruchi Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that all the witnesses of fact are interested witnesses and that no independent witness was examined.As per prosecution, alleged incident took place at 12:30 noon in mid of village but despite that no independent witness has been examined and thus testimony of those interested witnesses cannot be relied upon.Role attributed to appellant is that he has fired a shot from country made pistol which has not caused any injury to any injured and that there is no evidence that injured persons have sustained injuries in furtherance of common intention.It was further argued that there is no motive on the part of appellant to indulge in such incident and that the appellant-Hira Lal has been falsely implicated in the instant case on account of enmity.It was submitted that there are material contradictions and in-consistencies in statements of witnesses.Per contra, learned A.G.A. has argued that in the instant case there are four injured persons, out of which, three injured persons have been examined by prosecution.These injured witnesses have made clear and cogent statements.They have been subjected to cross examination but nothing adverse could come out.The version of these witnesses has been corroborated by medical evidence.It was further argued that there is sufficient evidence on record which establishes the involvement of accused-appellant Hira Lal in the incident and that there is no error in the impugned Judgement and order of conviction.In evidence, first informant/P.W.1 Goverdhan Lal has stated that two years prior to the incident, brother of accused-Daya Shanker namely, Gyan Singh was murdered and in that case, complainant's brother Maheswar and Hari Ram were named as accused and due to that reason, accused persons were nurturing enmity against him.On the day of incident at around 12:00 noon while P.W.1 Goverdhan Lal was sitting outside his home, accused-Daya Ram and Sahukar having guns, accused Gandharv having lathi and accused appellant Hira Lal armed with country made pistol came there and accused-appellant Daya Ram and Sahukar made firing at P.W.1 Goverdhan Lal and consequently he sustained firearm injuries at his leg and abdomen.P.W.1 further stated that his mother, father and sister-in-law as well as some villagers including Khushi Ram and Sarnam also came there but accused-appellant Gandharv has given lathi blow at his mother.Accused-appellant Hira Lal fired a shot, however, he escaped.Thereafter accused persons ran away from the spot.P.W.2 Satyawati has stated that after hearing noise, she came out from room and saw that accused Sahukar and Dayaram were armed with guns, accused-appellant Hira Lal was armed with country made pistol and accused Gandharv was having lathi and they were saying that they would take revenge.Sahukar and Gandharv fired from their respective guns, which caused injuries to her brother-in-law (Jeth)/ complainant.Accused-appellant Hira Lal also fired by his country made pistol but it did not hit any person.P.W.2 Satyawati further stated that her mother and father in-law also rushed to the spot, but they were also assaulted by Gandharv with lathi and that she (PW-2) also sustained injuries.19. P.W.3 Saraswati has also made similar statement wherein she stated that on the day of incident at about 12:00 noon after hearing noise she came outside and saw that accused-appellant Hira Lal and Daya Ram were armed with guns and Sahukar was armed with country pistol whereas Gandharv was having lathi and that they have fired at her son Goverdhan Lal.She has stated that accused Daya Ram and accused Sahukar have made firing, whereas accused-appellant Gandharv has inflicted lathi injuries at her husband and daughter.20. P.W.4 Dr. Chaturburg Sharma has examined the injured persons and had proved their M.L.C. P.W.5 Constable Gedan Singh has proved documents prepared by the Investigating Officer Hari Singh.21. D.W.1 Tej Singh has stated that he is Pradhan of Village and on the day of incident he heard sound of firing from the side of tubewell of Goverdhan Lal and when he rushed there, he saw that Goverdhan Lal was lying in injured condition.The main thrust of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant-Hira Lal has been attributed role of firing from country made pistol, which is not believable as no one sustained any injury from said fire and there is no evidence that alleged fire was shot upon complainant or injured persons.Scrutiny of evidence shows that only role assigned to the appellant-Hira Lal is that he came along with accused-persons and that co-accused Daya Ram and Shankar have fired at PW-1 Goverdhan Lal, accused Gandharv Singh has given beating with lathi and accused appellant Hira Lal has fired from pistol which has not hit anyone.If a person fires at 3-4 persons with intention to kill them from a distance of 4-5 steps, in all probability such victim or victims would suffer injuries unless there is some specific case that they saved themselves from such fire by running from there or by taking side of some other object like wall etc. The prosecution version, that accused-appellant Hira Lal had fired a shot which has not caused injury to anyone, does not appears to be cogent and believable.It would be pertinent to mention that there was long standing enmity between the parties which is clear from the evidence that earlier Gyan Singh and Mathuri were murdered.Gyan Singh was brother of accused persons whereas Mathuri is stated father of accused persons and in that case family members of complainant were named as accused persons.In the instant case, as stated above alleged fire shot by accused-appellant has not caused injury to any person.Alleged pistol has not been recovered.No cartridge has been found at spot.There is long standing enmity between the parties.Considering evidence on record as well as attending facts and circumstances of the case, it is thoroughly doubtful that the appellant-Hira Lal was having common intention with co-accused persons to cause injuries to complainant and other injured persons.In view of the aforesaid, conviction and sentence of accused-appellant-Hira Lal is set aside and he is acquitted of charges levelled against him.The appellant is on bail.His personal bonds is cancelled and sureties are discharged.The appeal is allowed
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
444,584 |
The neighbours came, the injured was taken to Onda P.S. and from there to the hospital.Her husband took the appellant to the P.S. Tapan Palit (P.W.3) has stated that Pradip threw the Sabal (Iron crow-bar) at him causing an injury on his thumb.Then the appellant struck him with the kencha on his abdomen causing bleeding injuries.His father who came there chased and caught the appellant.Amarendra (P.W.4) is the father of Tapan.He saw the appellant throwing a Kencha at Tapan and injuring him on the left side of his chest.He ran after the appellant and caught him.JUDGMENT Nisith Kumar Batabyal, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Bankura in Session Case No. 2 of December, 1984 (S.T. No. 2 of Feb., 1985).The learned Judge by the impugned order sentenced the appellant (Dwijabar alias Dwijapada now deceased) to suffer R.I. for four years and pay a fine of Rs. 200/- i.d., to suffer R.I. for one month more for an offence under Section 326 IPC.The prosecution case, in short, is that on 27.6.83 at about 10.00 a.m. over some quarrel, the sons of appellant Dwijabar were abusing Amarendra Palit and his sons in filthy language.Tapan S/o Amarendra protested when the appellant and his son, Pradip came out with an iron crow-bar and the appellant threw the spear which struck Tapan at the upper part of his abdomen causing a bleeding injury.Amarendra rushed out of his house and held Dwijabar and detained him till the arrival of police from the local P.S. On the complaint of Smt. Basanti Palit W/o.Sri Amarendra, Onda P.S. case No. 7 dated 27.6.83 was started and it culminated in a charge-sheet under Section 326 and 307/34 IPC against the appellant and his son, Pradip; charge was framed under Section 307/ 34 IPC.against both and they pleaded not guilty thereto.The defence plea was that Amarendra brought out Dwijabar by pulling his hair from his house and started beating him with a lathi.The sons of Dwijabar came out on seeing this.At that time, Tapan and Tarun, sons of Amarendra came out with a crow-bar and a spear.Pradip tried to snatch away spear from Tapan and in the push and pull, the spear accidentally went into the abdomen of Tapan.The learned trial Judge has been pleased to hold after trial that the appellant voluntarily caused grievous hurt Tapan by means of a spear and as such he committed the offence under Section 326 IPC but not with the intention of causing his death.The learned Judge further held that the other accused person was entitled to an order of acquittal.The learned Judge has accordingly convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 326 IPC and has sentenced him to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- i.d. to suffer R.I. for one month more.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, the appellant has come before this court.It is to be noted the during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant has died.4) One abrasion over the left side of the forehead 1/2" x 1;5) One abrasion over the anterior surface of the right knee-joint size 1/2" x 1/2 "A hue and cry was raised.The neighbours came, the Kencha was extricated with his help.Then Police came.It was put to this witness in cross-examination that he had given false evidence as to the occurrence.At that time neighbours came there ; Smt Bela Patra (P.W.7) is a common neighbour.Her house is about 30/40 cubits way from the place of occurrence.On hearing a hue and cry, she hurriedly went to the P.S. She saw Tapan trying to extricate the Kencha from his body.After sometime police came.She is not an eye-witness to the mounting of attack on the victim.Smt. Bharati Bauri (P.W.8) has stated that she saw the appellant throwing the Kencha at Tapan Palit at the time of occurrence.Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate has submitted that in the FIR which was lodged immediately after the occurrence by the mother of the victim who was an eye-witness to the occurrence, it was stated that the appellant jumped upon Tapan to kill him and his son struck Tapan into his right abdomen.At that time, Pradip threw a Sabal to Tarun, second son of Basanti (P.W. 1).Mr. Mukherjee has further submitted that Dr. Patlanayak (P.W. 14).who was attached as M.O., Onda, P.H.C., on the date of occurrence examined injured Tapan at about 11-30 a.m. on 27.5.83 with bleeding injuries.The patient stated before him that he was assaulted by Pradip S/o, Dwijapada by a Kencha.On the same date, the patient was taken to Bankura Sammilain Medical College Hospital from the P.H.C. There Dr. Dayamoy Chatterjee (P.W.22) examined the victim.Before him, the victim stated that he was assaulted by Dwijapada with a Kencha,According to the learned advocate for the appellant, the earliest version of the role of the appellant is not tallying with the role ascribed to him in evidence.Moreover, the history of the injury as given by the victim himself to the doctor at the Onda P.H.C. shows that the appellant did not assault the victim with the Kencha.In the circumstances, the prosecution story about the assault by Kencha on Tapan is highly suspect.The appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt in the circumstances.Basanti (P.W. 1) has stated in her substantive deposition that the appellant threw a Kencha towards Tapan and it struck him on the abdomen.In the FIR she stated that the appellant jumped upon Tapan to kill him.The appellant had a Kencha which was given to him by his son, Pradip.The son struck Tapan into his right abdomen.But she has not stated that the son struck with Kencha.Other eye-witnesses to the occurrences, namely, Amarendra (P.W.4), Kumari Dipu Palit (P.W. 5) and the victim himself (P.W.3) have stated that the appellant hurled a Kencha towards Tapan (P.W.2) and it caused a bleeding injury on his abdomen.The medical evidence corroborates the injuries.The neighbours Bharati (PW8) who were attracted to the P.O. by the hue and cry did not see the actual assault but saw the appellant at the place and Tapan (P.W.2) with bleeding injuries.The victim (P.W.2) has stated that Pradip came with a Sabal and a Kencha and gave the Kencha to the appellant and aimed the Sabal towards him and the appellant directed the Kencha towards him causing a bleeding injury to the chest.He showed the place as below the left nipple.This witness on the same day stated before the doctor at Onda P.H.C. (P.W. 14) that Pradip assaulted him with a Kencha.But the same witness on the same day told the doctor at B.S.M.C. Hospital (P.W.22) that the appellant caused the injury with the Kencha.Thus from a consideration of the materials on record it appears that there is no contradiction between the version as given in the FIR, and as given by P.W.I. The son of the appellant in the FIR struck Tapan on the right side of the chest but the injury with spear was caused on left side.It was not stated in the FIR that the son of the appellant caused any injury with the Kencha.With regard to the attack by the appellant on Tapan (P.W.3) with kencha, all the eye witnesses to the occurrence have supported the prosecution version.The victim (P.W.3) himself has stated before P.W.14 at Onda P.H.C. that Pradip struck him with a Kencha but he stated before the doctor (P.W.22) at the Medical College at Bankura on that very day that the appellant caused the injury with the Kencha.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,661,841 |
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Present:TheHon'bleJusticeDebasishKarGupta And TheHon'bleJusticeMd.MumtazKhan CRA No. 374 of 2010 Mahammad Ali Vs.The State of West Bengal For amicus curiae : Mr. Mainakh Bakshi, ld. advocate : Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury, ld.Advocate For the State Mr. Miank Gupta, ld.Advocate Heard on : 17.08.2017 Judgment on : 22.11.2017 Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. :By virtues of impugned judgment appellant was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (here in after referred to as IPC) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more with a direction for set off against the sentence of imprisonment under the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.).The prosecution case, in brief, is that on February 13, 2003 at about 3.05 p.m. while P.W.1 along with her deceased husband and her son P.W.2 were doing their job in their snack shop situated in front of Bamangachi Railway Station in between the space of Railway line no.2 and 3 then suddenly this appellant struck the victim with a shackle on his back from his backside.They then caught the appellant and the victim caught hold that shackle as a result he also sustained cut injuries on his fingers but appellant managed to fled away therefrom from their grip.P.W.1 then took the victim to Barasat hospital where the doctor declared him dead.On the basis of said complaint P.W.8 started Bongaon GRPS case No. 6/2003 dated February 13, 2003 under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and took up investigation of the case after the case was endorsed to him.During investigation he visited the place of occurrence, prepared rough sketch map, examined the available witnesses including the complainant and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., seized the weapon and offence as also blood stained earth etc. and sent the same to the FSL for chemical examination report and collected the FSL report as also report of the UD Case being UD Case No. 51 of 2003 started at the Barasat P.S. and thereafter on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant being No. 17 of 2003 dated September 21, 2003 under Section 302 IPC.P.W.7 conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the victim and during post mortem examination he found (1) abrasion '' x '' on right half of forehead placed 2'' above right eyebrow, 1'' right from anterior mid-line.(2) One incised wound 3'' x '' x muscle placed slightly obliquely from distal interphalangeal joint of left index finger extending on the left palm.On dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, fascia, muscle and vessel and nerve at the corresponding level.(3) One incised penetrating wound 5 '' x 1 '' thoracic cavity deep placed obliquely over left side of posterior chest wall 2 '' below the hip of left shoulder, 3'' below the spinous process of C7 vertebrate, 48'' above the left heel, '' left from posterior mid-line.On dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, fascia, muscle, vessel, nerve at the corresponding level to enter the chest cavity in between the left 2nd and left 3rd rib in the way producing a cut fracture on left 3rd rib piercing the intercostal muscle, vessel, nerve, left pleura, upper lobe of left lung, pericardium to finally terminate within the cavity of left atrium of heart making an incised injury 0.5'' x 0.2'' x cavity.Direction of the wound was downwards, forwards and medially.Throacic cavity contained 12 ounce of fluid and clotted blood.All the injuries showed the evidences of vital reactions.Abrasion was red in colour and non-scabbed.Margin of the incised wound and incised penetrating wound were clean cut and red in colour and opined that the cause of the death was due to the above injures which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature.Charge was framed on February 28, 2007 against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and after the appellant denied his involvement in the crime, trial commenced.Prosecution examined 9 witnesses and also produced and proved the written complaint, formal FIR, rough sketch map with index, inquest report, PM report, FSL report, seizure list etc. and thereafter on conclusion of trial and examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. learned court below passed the impugned judgement.It was submitted by Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned advocate appointed as amicus curiae that the impugned judgment, order of conviction and sentence are not sustainable due to delay in lodging the FIR which has not been satisfactorily explained, discrepancies and contradictions in between the statement of the witnesses, non- examination of the witnesses to the inquest, inquest report silent with regard to the assailant and failure to prove the motive behind the incident in question.We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the respective parties.We have also gone through the evidences and materials on record to consider the propriety of the impugned judgement.It was evident from the evidence of P.W.7, the autopsy surgeon, as also the PM report (Ext.3) that during post mortem examination over the dead body of the victim on February 14, 2003 he found abrasion '' x '' on right half of forehead placed 2'' above right eyebrow, 1'' right from anterior mid-line; one incised wound 3'' x '' x muscle placed slightly obliquely from distal interphalangeal joint of left index finger extending on the left palm and on dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, fascia, muscle and vessel and nerve at the corresponding level; one incised penetrating wound 5 '' x 1 '' thoracic cavity deep placed obliquely over left side of posterior chest wall 2 '' below the hip of left shoulder, 3'' below the spinous process of C7 vertebrate, 48'' above the left heel, '' left from posterior mid-line and on dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, fascia, muscle, vessel, nerve at the corresponding level to enter the chest cavity in between the left 2nd and left 3rd rib in the way producing a cut fracture on left 3rd rib piercing the intercostal muscle, vessel, nerve, left pleura, upper lobe of left lung, pericardium to finally terminate within the cavity of left atrium of heart making an incised injury 0.5'' x 0.2'' x cavity and the direction of the wound was downwards, forwards and medially.Throacic cavity contained 12 ounce of fluid and clotted blood and all the injuries showed the evidences of vital reactions, abrasion was red in colour and non-scabbed, margin of the incised wound and incised penetrating wound were clean cut and red in colour and opined that the cause of the death was due to the above injures which was ante mortem and homicidal in nature.On being shown the weapon of offence namely, the Mat.Ext. 1, the doctor opined that the injuries sustained by the victim may be caused with the said weapon.His evidence remained unshaken.So from the above it was abundantly clear that death of the victim was due to the effects of the injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.Now with regard to the above injuries it was the specific allegation of the prosecution that on February 13, 2003 at about 3.05 p.m. while the victim along with his wife (P.W.1) and son (P.W.2) were preparing snacks in their shop in between the space of railway lines No. 2 and 3 in front of Bamangachi Railway Station towards Bongaon then the appellant suddenly while coming from behind struck the victim on his back by a shackle and managed to flew away therefrom.As a result victim succumbed to his injuries.Defence had however denied the above allegation of the prosecution and taken the plea of innocence and false implication.Learned court below took into consideration the evidences of the defacto complainant (P.W.1) and other eye witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.3 besides the evidence of the doctor and the IO found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him for the said offence.On perusal of the evidence of eye witnesses together with the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) and the PM report (Ext.3) it was evident that death of the victim was due to the incised penetrative wound on the throacic cavity deep placed obliquely over the left side posterior chest wall and on dissection and tracing the tract of the wound it was seen to cut the skin, facia, muscle, vessel, nerve at the corresponding label to enter the chest cavity in between the left 2nd and left 3rd rib in the way producing a cut fracture on left 3rd rib within the cavity of left atrium of heart.The circumstances leading to the death of the victim has been described in the letter of complaint (Ext.1) including the name of the appellant.On perusal of evidence P.W.1, we found that she has corroborated the FIR and vividly narrated the entire incident.She had specifically stated on oath that on the relevant date and time while she was preparing telebhaja and while the victim husband was preparing singara then appellant came from behind and hit the victim on his back with a hansua (Mat. Ext.1).They then caught him and snatched the hansua but the appellant managed to flew away from their grip.She also specifically stated that due to assault her husband sustained bleeding injuries on his back and also cut injuries on his fingers as he tried to snatch the weapon from the hand of the appellant.Thereafter her husband was taken to the hospital but on the way he expired.She then lodged the complaint which was scribed by P.W.4 from her instruction.She identified the hansua and also the appellant during in course of her examination before the court.She was cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing came out contrary to her statements in chief.Her evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination.They too were cross-examined by the defence at length but the appellant/accused person failed to discredit their oral testimony with regard to the basic feature towards his involvement in the commission of the offence.The manner of assault narrated by eye witnesses in causing the injuries on persons of the victim also found corroboration from medical evidence.Ext.7, the FSL report, also confirmed the presence of blood on the seized sickle and the wearing apparel of the deceased but as the blood was disintegrated in respect of scrapings from sickle blade and the handle it's origin or blood group could not be determined.They were cross-examined by the defence at length but their evidence remained unshaken.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,766,360 |
This is third application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 161/2016 registered at Police Station Paharganj, District Morena for the offences punishable u/s 324, 323, 341, 294, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and section 326, 307 of I.P.C.By order dated 06/02/2017, it was directed that the order shall remain operative for a period of sixty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned court.In compliance of the aforesaid order when the applicant appeared before the police then she was informed that the offence u/s 307 of I.P.C is also added against her but this is not mentioned in the orders.In these circumstances, applicant has moved present application.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for rejection of the application.The applicant is directed to appear before the Investing Officer as and when directed.The terms and conditions regarding furnishing of bail bonds, surety bonds etc. as mentioned in the order dated 06/02/2017 passed in MCRC No. 1351/2017 shall remain intact in this order also.This order shall remain operative for a period of thirty days and during this period the applicant is free to move the regular bail application before the concerned court.The application stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,672,766 |
The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,673,500 |
and 3 namely Ramrup Mishra and Mahesh Prasad Mishra, though acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"), have been convicted under Section 304 Part I read with 34 of the IPC and respondent nos. 2,4,5 and 6 namely Ramji Mishra, Ganesh Prasad Mishra, Sudama Prasad Mishra and Shanti Bai have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the IPC.Prosecution case, in brief is that, on 15/10/2009, at about 3 p.m., respondents, being armed with Lathis and Dandas constituted an un-lawful assembly and in furtherance of its common object, caused the death of Ramesh Pratap Singh (since deceased).Morgue intimation report (Ex.P/2) and First Information Report (Ex.P/3) were recorded at the instance of brother of the deceased complainant Shailendra Pratap (PW3) at Police Station Kothi and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Trial Court also found that the quarrel was sudden and without any premeditation.In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment was passed.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
|
['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.
|
107,673,894 |
C.C.as per rules.( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Requisition the record of the trial Court.Also heard on I.A.No.9204/2015 which is an application under Section 397 read with Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of Chhotelal S/o Jawarchand Chouhan.The applicant suffered conviction and sentence as under:-The applicant is under custody.After going through the impugned judgment and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.It is directed that if the present applicant furnishes personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the remaining portion of the jail sentence of the applicant shall be suspended and he be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 29.02.2016 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,677,386 |
This application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicant produced the document No. 10309/2019 before this Court.On due consideration, the said document is permitted to take on record.Heard on PUD dated 31.07.2019, received from first ASJ, Jatara District Tikamgarh.It is mentioned in the PUD that the record of main Session Trial No. 40/2003 belongs to case of applicant-Nanhe Raja and same has been decided by the trial Court and against the acquittal of co-accused, the State has preferred an appeal before this High Court.The record of trial Court of Session Trial No. 40/2003 is tagged with criminal Appeal No. 1582/2007, due to which the supplementary Session Trial No. 58/2007 belongs to present applicant is pending for more than 10 years.Learned ASJ has requested to send back the same.Considering the aforesaid, office is directed to send the record of Criminal Appeal No. 1582/2007 to trial Court immediately.The applicant is in custody since 06.07.2019 in connection with Crime No 104/2003, registered at Police Station Lidhora, District Tikamgarh (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.Earlier, in main Session Trial No. 40/2003, the applicant was absconding thus the trial Court has passed the judgment dated 28.04.2006 whereby the co-accused of the case has been acquitted.On supplementary charge sheet, the case of present applicant bearing Session Trial No. 58/2007 is registered against the applicant and on 04.01.2008, the learned trial Court has enlarged the applicant on bail.During trial, on 25.11.2011 neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared before the Court, thus, the arrest warrant was issued against him.On 06.07.2019, he has been arrested and sent to jail.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter as he has not done any offence.He submits that the applicant is a labor and he went along with his family to Punjab for his livelihood, due to which he could not contact to his counsel and not appear before the Court.The mistake of the applicant is bona fide in nature and deserves to be condoned.Since, the applicant has already enlarged on bail, merely on the basis of his bona fide mistake he may not be keep detained in jail.The applicant is willing in cooperate.He further submits that Trial will take long time for final disposal.The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bond as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the said bail application.Considering the contentions of both the partie and looking to the fact that the applicant has already been enlarge on bail by the trial Court vide order dated 04.01.2008 and due to his livelihood purpose, he went to Punjab and could not appear before the trial Court, this Court is of the 3 MCRC-32863-2019 view that the petitioner is entitled to get the bail.Without commenting on merits of the case, this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant-Nanhe Raja Lodhi shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lack Only) with two solvent surety of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE L.R.Digitally signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2019.10.05 16:26:48 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,678,809 |
gsk Crl.O.P.No.7511 of 2020 12.05.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.03.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections under section 465, 468,http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.O.P.No.7511 of 2020 471 of Indian Penal Code read altered 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 120B of I.P.C., in Crime No. 2 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that the Respondent Police registered a case based on the complaint preferred by defacto complainant, namely T.Balasubramanian, Under Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai for the alleged offence under sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC @ Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) of I.P.C., and the petitioner was formerly arrested on 06.03.2020, when he was in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.4 of 2020 registered by another Wing attached to the CBCID.It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons fabricated the documents and forged the signature of the Government officials, in conspiracy with other accused persons with a view to obtain illegal gain by way of tampering the examination documents, OMR sheets in connection with the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as TNPSC).The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material evidence available against the petitioner and he is in prison fromhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.7511 of 2020 09.02.2020 in view of another case in Crime No.4/2020, and also some of the co-accused persons were released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.He further submitted that the petitioner was implicated in some other two cases also, wherein also the interrogation has been completed.He further submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 83 days.Hence, he sought for grant of bail to the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner involved in committing the offence by fabricating documents, forged the signature, tampering the answer sheets and aided the prime accused in commission of crime.Thereby, he committed a serious offence against the society.He also submitted that the investigation is still pending and therefore, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.It is seen that the petitioner is one of the accused in the scam of Group IV and Group II-A examination conducted by the TNPSC, by fabricating the documents and forged the signature of Government officials and tampering the examination sheets.Thereby, he committed serious offence against the society and as such, this Court has dismissed the bail petitions of the co-accused on various occasions.O.P.No.7511 of 2020 grant bail to the petitioner and hence, the petition stands dismissed.However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Magistrate Court concerned under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., to obtain default bail.12.05.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order gskhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.7511 of 2020The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.7511 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 465 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 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
107,679,190 |
However, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that on 15.1.2005 pursuant to an information received in the Police Station Uttam Nagar vide DD No.51-B with regard to a 'missing report', police reached House No.201, Gali No.2, Sainik Enclave, Near Gandhi Chowk, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.The statement of Smt. Mor Kali @ Rani w/o Ram Chander was recorded there.In her statement, she complained about the 'missing' of her son.She stated that her son had left home at about 12.00 noon on 13.01.2005 for going to the house of the petitioner.Later, when it was revealed to the Police Officials that the matter pertained to the area of Police Station Najafgarh, the complaint was referred to Police Station Najafgarh vide DDNo.According to the case of prosecution, Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 2 of 7 efforts were made to trace out Raj Kumar @ Raju but to no effect.Subsequent thereto on 12.02.2005 Smt.Mor Kali made another statement stating about her family background and antecedents of her son Raj Kumar @ Raju.In her statement she had stated that her son had left home for gong to the house of the petitioner.She also stated that her son was having two mobile phones but had left one mobile phone at the residence.She further stated that her son called up and asked for a diary containing telephone numbers of his acquaintances.She has also stated that when she asked about the return of her son, he told that he would be back within 1 to 1-1/2 hours, but he did not return.According to the complainant she made efforts to know about the whereabouts of her son but all in vain.It is also said in the statement that when she contacted the petitioner, it was told to her that the deceased had accompanied his friend Rajeev @ Monu and also that she did not know as to where they both had gone.The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is based upon the circumstantial evidence, which is basically consisted of two facts:-Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 1 of 7Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 1 of 7Later, on the basis of a statement allegedly made on 12.02.2005 a case vide FIR No. 102/2005 under Section 365 IPC was registered with Police Station Najafgarh.On 21.01.2005 an unclaimed, unidentified dead body was discovered in the area of Police Station Bahadurgarh.According to the police the dead body had injuries on the head and an FIR vide No. 21/05 under Section 302/201 IPC was registered with Police Station Bahadurgarh.The prosecution has already examined 9 witnesses.Aggrieved of the orders dated 17.01.2009 and 03.10.2008, the petitioner preferred a bail application bearing No. 455/2009 in this Court.However, in view of the fact that during the pendency of the bail application some more witnesses were examined in the trial court, who did not support the case of the prosecution, the petitioner wanted to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court again and thus, moved an application for withdrawal of bail application No. 455/2009 and this court vide order dated 1.5.2009 granted permission to withdraw the bail application.Hence, the present bail application before this court.Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 2 of 7Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 3 of 7The prosecution has not been able to establish the motive of the petitioner either in the chargesheet or in the evidence of the complainant, who was examined as PW-1 before the trial court.The trial court dismissed the application for bail vide order dated 17.01.2009 without appreciating the material change in the circumstance that PW-3 Hoshiar Singh, an independent witness to the recovery of katta (weapon of offence), had not supported the case of the prosecution even remotely and was declared hostile.Even PW-6 Pradeep Sharma, who allegedly over heard the conversation between the petitioner and co-accused Monu on 9.1.2005 at the house of the petitioner while they were planning to commit the murder of Raju (now deceased) has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and as such she undertakes to attend the court and to face the trial.Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 4 of 7Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 5 of 7On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that it is the case of circumstantial evidence and the petitioner is facing trial as a conspirator with the other co-accused person.It is also submitted that merely because one of the witnesses has not supported the extra-judicial statement made by the petitioner that does not shatter the case of the prosecution.It is also submitted that the recovery of weapon also proves the complicity of the petitioner in this case.Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 6 of 7Bail Application No.1283/2009 Page 6 of 7At this stage, suffice it to say that the evidence prima facie relied upon by the prosecution against the petitioner is not sufficient to keep the petitioner further in judicial custody.Her custody cannot be continued awaiting some other evidence which may or may not come against her and that also of the police witnesses with regard to the recovery of katta and gold chain from her residence at the instance of co-accused, Rajeev @ Monu.Even if any other evidence comes on record, the same will have to be taken into consideration along with other facts at the time of final disposal of the case.Taking into consideration that the petitioner is in judicial custody for a period of more than four years, she is admitted to bail on her furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.The Petition stands disposed of.MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 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.
|
107,682,102 |
Let the appellants Triveni Rai, Jamuna Rai, Vinod Rai and Sanjay Rai involved in the aforesaid session trial be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on their each furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned The realisation of half of the fine shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal, provided the appellants deposit half of the fine within one month.On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photo state copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal.Let the paper books be prepared.List the appeal for hearing in due course.Order Date :- 26.7.2011 shailesh
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,560,029 |
JUDGMENT [PER S.S. SHINDE, J.]:1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.The Petition is filed with following prayers:"b. Order and sanction leave extension for two days, c. Quash and declare the complaint (F.I.R.) lodged by respondent no.1 and 3 against the petitioner u/s 224 of the I.P.C. at Nashik Road police station vide C.R. No.00/17 dated 10/06/2017 as ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 3 null and void and devoid of any merit or substance in the interest of justice.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::d. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directing to release the Petitioner immediately on furlough leave as he has already completed the surety bond formalities of the same."The background facts giving rise to file this Petition, in nut-shell are as under:- A) The Petitioner is a citizen of India by birth a permanent resident of Kharihani, Tehsil- Mehnagar, Dist-Azamgarh, State-Uttar Pradesh and that he is survived by his wife and children.The Petitioner was not on bail during pendency of trial and since his arrest on 16th March, 2009, he is in jail and is presently serving imprisonment at Nashik Road Central Prison.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::C) The Petitioner had been previously released on furlough leave on one occasion and had surrendered back on the due date.D) The Petitioner had also been released on parole leave on 9th May, 2017 and was supposed to surrender to prison on 9th June, 2017 on completion of his leave period, but due to unavoidable circumstances, as the Petitioner fell severely ill and was unable to undertake a journey of two days, hence on regaining fitness, he ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 5 surrendered back to prison and in the process was late by two days.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::E) The Petitioner had also contacted the office of the Divisional Commissioner (Respondent No.2) through a telephonic conversation and had pleaded for relief and had asked whether he could be granted parole leave extension for two days or so since he was ill and unable to surrender but the authorities clearly declined and stated that as the Petitioner has approached the High Court for leave, he should approach the High Court again for the extension too.F) The Petitioner had also contacted and intimated Prison Authorities (Respondent Nos.1 and3) regarding his inability to surrender back in time from parole leave through a telephonic message, and had clearly informed that he would be surrendering back on 11th June, 2017 as it takes two days to complete the journey back to the ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 6 prison from his State i.e. Uttar Pradesh, but even then the prison authorities unnecessarily lodged a totally baseless complaint against him at Nashik Road police station, vide C.R. No.00/17 dated 10th June, 2017 under Section 224 of the I.P. Code.G) The Petitioner had also applied for furlough leave and had been sanctioned the same vide order dated 8th May, 2017 by the Sanctioning Authority and that while returning from parole leave, the Petitioner had completed the required surety formalities for the same and had brought along the Bond papers for his subsequently release on furlough leave.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::H) The Petitioner was denied release on furlough leave by Respondent Nos.1 and 3 and was rather told that he would first have to procure bail in the case registered by them under Section 224 of the I.P. Code and then only he would be released on furlough.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::cwp1237.17 7 I) The Petitioner was denied release on furlough by the prison authorities by them citing amended Rule 4 Sub rule (11) of the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 vide Notification dated 26th August, 2016 wherein it is mentioned and inserted that prisoners whose appeal against conviction is pending or who have any case pending against them in any Court of law shall not be eligible for release on furlough unless the concerned Courts have granted bail in the said cases.J) The Petitioners thereafter the prison authorities through his application dated 4th August, 2017 explaining that he did not have and second case pending against him in any Court of law and as the prison authorities too did not possess any warrant (production or remand) issued by any Court in connection with any second case pending against him in any Court of law, the ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 8 action of Respondent Nos.1 and 3 of preventing the Petitioner's release on furlough was clearly illegal, illogical and dictatorial and that the Petitioner had requested to release him on furlough.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::K) Even after explaining the legal point of view and the correct meaning of the rules, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 refused to acknowledge the same and once again informed the Petitioner that they would not release him on furlough till he procures bail in the complaint lodged by them under Section 224 of the I.P. Code.On the above grounds the Petitioner has filed this Petition and prayed for the reliefs as afore mentioned.It is submitted that the Petitioner suddenly fell ill, he could not surrender back to the jail within time and he surrendered late by two days.It is submitted that the Petitioner has also contacted the office of the Divisional Commissioner and jail authorities through a telephonic conversation and prayed for extension of parole for two days, but his request was not favourably considered.In support of her contentions, learned counsel invites our attention to the medical report of the Petitioner from Adarsh Pathology Centre, Kharihani, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh and the prescription given by the Medical Officer Dr. M.K. Vishwakarma of "Ashirwad Chikitsalaya", Kharihani, Azamgarh.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner was supposed to surrender back to the jail on 9th June, 2017 and as he did not report back on due ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 10 date, the jail authorities lodged Crime No.00/17 against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 224 of the I.P. Code.The Circular gives due weightage to the expectancy of the convict to get extension of furlough or parole.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::It is submitted that the Petitioner has reported back to the jail on 32nd day after his release.After completion of maximum period of parole for 90 days if the convict fails ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 12 to report back to the jail, on 91st day crime could be registered against him under Section 224 of the I.P. Code.Therefore, it is submitted that the crime registered against the Petitioner is liable to be quashed.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::Learned counsel further submits that merely because appeal against conviction and sentence is pending, is no ground to deny the furlough in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur, in Criminal Writ Petition No.196 of 2017 and Criminal Writ Petition No.97 of 2017 [Arun s/o Gulab Gawli and another vs. D.I.G. (Prisons) (East) Nagpur and another], and Criminal ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 13 Writ Petition No.462 of 2017 [Abdul Rajjak Sheikh Abdul Nabi Shah vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and others].Learned counsel submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, invites our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Rajkumar keshavrao Sali, serving as Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, and the annexures thereto and submits that the Petition may be rejected.We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, and with their able assistance perused the averments in the Petition, grounds taken therein, annexures thereto, reply filed by the Respondents and the exposition of law in the cases cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::The Government has taken a wise decision in considering the maximum period permissible to be enjoyed by a convict either as a furlough or parole ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 15 for considering the mens rea of the convict and the action to be taken against him for committing offence u/s. 224 of the IPC.The guiding instructions disclose that the convict is entitled for furlough of 14 days with additional furlough extension of 14 days.In case of parole, the maximum period at one time can be 30 days, which can be extended twice so as to grant maximum period of parole for 90 days.If the application is moved by the convict for extension of furlough or parole and same is rejected and still he does not return to the Jail, FIR should be lodged against him u/s. 224 of the IPC.The Circular dt. 01.01.2015 shows that, in case of furlough, if the convict does not return on 29th day and in case of parole he does not return on 91st day, crime should be registered against him u/s. 224 of the IPC.This Circular refers to assumption of extension of furlough or parole even though such furlough or parole might not have been granted.This Circular gives due ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 ::: cwp1237.17 16 weightage to the expectancy of the convict to get extension of furlough or parole but at the same time due caution is taken that such expectation cannot be beyond the permissible period."::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:22 :::It appears that immediately on 10th June, 2017, Crime No.00/17 was registered against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 224 of the I.P. Code.In the present case admittedly the Petitioner applied for extension of parole and reported back to the jail on 32nd day.As already observed the Petitioner has placed on record medical papers regarding his ailment and and also there was delay of only two days, the explanation given by the Petitioner deserves acceptance.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 :::In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the material on record, we are of the opinion that there was no deliberate omission on the part of the Petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 ::: cwp1237.17 18 to return to jail and therefore the Petition deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clause "b" and "c".::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 :::Upon perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondents, it is stated in the reply that since the appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging his conviction is pending before the High Court, in view of the provisions of Rule 4(11) of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, amended as per the Notification dated 26th August, 2016, furlough/parole cannot be granted to him.No.00/17 for the offence under Section 224 of the I.P. Code is registered against the Petitioner at Nashik Road Police Station.Since we are allowing the Petition in terms of prayer clause "b" and "c", the second ground of registration of FIR would not survive.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 :::So far as the reason stated by the Respondents that appeal filed by the Petitioner against his conviction is pending before the High Court is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, merely because appeal against conviction and sentence is pending, is no ground to deny the furlough in view of the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur, in Criminal Writ Petition No.196 of 2017 and Criminal Writ Petition No.97 of 2017 [Arun s/o Gulab Gawli and another vs. D.I.G.(Prisons) (East) Nagpur and another], and Criminal Writ Petition No.462 of 2017 [Abdul Rajjak Sheikh Abdul Nabi Shah vs. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and others].In the light of discussion herein above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause "b" and "c".So far prayer clause "d" is concerned, we grant liberty to the Petitioner to ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 ::: cwp1237.17 20 file application afresh requesting to release him on furlough.If such application is filed by the Petitioner, the Respondent authorities to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, however within TWO WEEKS from the date of filing such application, ignoring that aforementioned Crime No.00/17 was registered against him and secondly his appeal is pending before the High Court.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 :::The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly.We appreciate the sincere efforts taken by learned counsel Ms. Harshita Manglani in promptly preparing the memo of the Petition, filing the same within time and extending able assistance during the course of hearing of the Petition so as to reach to the correct conclusion.Since Ms. Harshita Manglani, learned counsel is appointed to prosecute the cause of the petitioner, her fees be paid as per the schedule ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 ::: cwp1237.17 21 of fees maintained by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/OCT17 ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:44:23 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,572,792 |
CRM 4898 of 2020 With Court No.08 Item No.23 CRAN 3111 of 2020 (ALLOWED) (Through Video Conference) akd & ab In Re:- An application for bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Pingla Police Station Case No. 174 dated 07.06.2020 under Sections 341/323/325/307/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Swapan Kumar Mondal & Ors....Petitioners Mr. Rajeswar Chakraborty ...For the Petitioners.Ms. Faria Hossain, Ms. Amita Gaur....For the State.The learned Advocate on record of the petitioners undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition/application as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of the normal functioning of the Court.Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.The interlocutory application, being CRAN 3111 of 2020, is thus disposed of.Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in-charge and on perusal of the Memo of Evidence specially the injury report, we do not find any ingredient of offence under Section 307 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail, being CRM 4898 of 2020, is allowed.CRAN 3111 of 2020 is also allowed.(Bibek Chaudhuri, J) (Soumen Sen, J)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,574,321 |
The trial in this case has not yet commenced.In view of their joint decision all the accused and the defacto complainant are filing this joint memo of compromise without coercion or compulsion.This petition has been filed to call for records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1555 of 2012 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.On the complaint lodged by P.Annie Sebasteena, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.6/2010 on 16.07.2010 for offences u/s 498(A) and 406 IPC, and after completing the investigation has filed Final Report in C.C.No.1555 of 2012 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, against which the petitioners are before this Court for quashing the prosecution on the ground, that they have arrived at an amicable settlement with the de facto complainant.Today, Mr.K.Manonmani, Woman Head Constable, W 6 All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram, is present before this Court.Emmanuel Jayakumar [A1] and P.Annie Sebasteena [de facto complainant], are also present before this Court and they submitted that they have rejoined and are living happily.They have also filed the Memorandum of Compromise, wherein in paragraphs 6 to 8, it is stated as follows:-The defacto complainant herein and all the petitioners on 09.04.2014 arrived at a compromise in the presence of the church elders and both our fammily members and had been living together peacefully at 3/549, Mogappair west, Chennai along with in laws till date without having any knowledge about the exparte divorce order.After knowing about the exparte divorce both the first petitioner and the defacto complainant have taken steps to set aside the exparte order and to withdraw the main divorce petition before the I Additional Family Court, Chennai.The defacto complainant had also filed the above said criminal case in crime no.6/2010 under Section 498A and 406 IPC and the same has been numbered as C.C.No.1555 of 2012 pending disposal before V M.M. Egmore, Chennai.Now all the parties are living together happily along with their minor daughter from 09.04.2014 and want to remain united for the rest of their lives hence this quash petition.In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1555 of 2012 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is quashed.10.08.2016gms/kmiP.N.PRAKASH,J.,gms/kmiTo2.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.OP No.17509 of 201610.08.2016
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,575,266 |
C.R.R. No.3927 of 2015 August 16, 2016 Bpg.In the matter of : Smt. Minu Dey @ Mandira Dey and another.Versus The State of West Bengal and another Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Nirmalya Chatterjee....for the petitioners.Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Ms. Ruxmini Basu Roy, Md. Jiaur Rahaman....for the opposite party no.2..The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding of Case no.A.C.2003 of 2012 pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore by filing this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It appears from the materials on record that the opposite party no.2 filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners and others praying for issuance of process under Sections 177/182/193/427/500/120B of the Indian Penal Code.On August 6, 2012 learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore.On October 16, 2012 learned Judicial Magistrate examined the opposite party no.2 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and issued process against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceeding on the ground that the contents of the petition of complaint do not disclose the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and that cognizance is barred under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, learned counsel representing the petitioners contends that the petitioners started the criminal proceeding against the opposite 2 party no.2 on January 29, 2007 and the opposite party no.2 has started the present criminal proceeding against the petitioners on August 6, 2012 which is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.submits that the starting point of limitation in a criminal proceeding for defamation will be the date of knowledge of the complainant who has started the criminal proceeding.By referring to the averments made in the petition of complaint, Mr. Banerjee submits that there is specific allegation of initiating criminal proceeding against the opposite party no.2 by the petitioners on false allegation and thereby the status, prestige and dignity of the opposite party no.2 is lowered down in the eye of common people and thereby defamation is made out against the petitioners.On May 22, 2012 the opposite party no.2 came to learn from the information supplied by the State Information Officer of Kolkata 3 Police that the criminal case bearing no.N.G.R.24 of 2007 started against the opposite party no.2 on the basis of two entries made in the general diary of the year 2005 and 2007 and those general diaries had no existence as the same were not available in the respective police stations.Ultimately, the said criminal case bearing no. N.G.R. 24 of 2007 was dismissed by learned Magistrate under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.On perusal of the entire petition of complaint, I find that N.G.R. 24 of 2007 was not disposed of on merit, but the same was ultimately dismissed on the ground that the criminal proceeding is barred by limitation.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,582,380 |
C. No.42843/2018 This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant - Kaliram as he is in custody since 3 16.04.2018 in connection with Crime No.177/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B/34 of IPC.(v) M.Cr.C. No.42857/2018 This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant - Kaliram as he is in custody since 16.04.2018 in connection with Crime No.178/2018 registered at Police Station Kotwali District Seoni for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B/34 of IPC.Apart from the above mentioned conditions, the applicants shall also abide by the following conditions :With the aforesaid, all the applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands disposed of.as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2018.12.18 15:01:25 +05'30'
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,585,886 |
P.S.Ganesan filed a private complaint in Cr.M.P.No.5472 of 2014, before thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, for the offences under Sections147, 294-B, 323, 453 and 506(i) I.P.C., against the District Collector,Vellore, Executive Engineer (Buildings) and other Government Officials.While so, a notice for demolition, dated 20.09.2013, was issuedto Ganesan alleging that he had put up construction without obtainingplanning permission and therefore, he was called upon to show-cause as to whythe building put by him should not be demolished.Challenging the same,Ganesan filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.15910 of 2013, but no stay wasgranted by this Court.While so, on 26.09.2013, the building put up byGanesan was demolished.Hence, Ganesan filed a private complaint against the District Collector and the Municipal Authorities for the aforesaid offences.Challenging the same, the present revision has been filedwith a delay of 149 days.This Court condoned the delay by order dated 23.01.2018 in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.890 of 2016 in Crl.R.C.(MD) No.SR2845 of 2016 and took up the main revision itself for final disposal.When the revision taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the petitioner had died.The learned counsel forthe petitioner further submitted that he has sent a communication byregistered post to the petitioner's son, by name, G.Karthikeyan, but the samereturned ?Unserved?.The unserved communication was produced before this Court and it has been returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner.In a revision petition, even if the revision petitioner dies, this Courthas power to see as to whether the order under challenge suffers from anyillegality or impropriety.In this case, the District Collector and theMunicipal Authorities have demolished the building put up by the petitioner,since there was no sanction for the construction.In such view of thematter, no prosecution can be initiated against the District Collector andthe Municipal Authorities, being Government Servants, without appropriatesanction.Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugnedorder warranting interference from this Court.In the result, the criminal revision is devoid of merits and it isdismissed.The Judicial Magistrate No.II,Madurai.
|
['Section 323 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.
|
141,499,670 |
RESERVED ON :- 06 SEPTEMBER, 2017 PRONOUNCED ON :- 10 OCTOBER, 2017JUDGMENT ( PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellantchallenging the Judgment and Order dated 25/07/2012 passed by theDistrict Judge - 6 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in SessionsCase No.231 of 2008 whereby the Appellant was convicted forcommission of offence punishable under Section 364-A read with 34of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and topay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to sufferURS 1 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 ::: 2 APEAL 900-12-Judgment.docsimple imprisonment for a term of 15 days.The Appellant was furtherconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 386 read with 34of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment offine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of 10 days.TheAppellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section342 read with 34 of the IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in defaultof payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of 5 days.The Appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable underSection 363 read with 34 of the IPC as well as Section 384 read with34 of the IPC but in view of the sentences awarded under Sections364-A and 386 of the IPC, no separate sentence was passed for thesetwo offences.The Appellant was acquitted from the charges ofcommission of offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 ofthe IPC.The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrentlyand the Appellant was given benefit of set off under Section 428 of theCr.The prosecution case is in respect of abduction of KalulalBhimji Patel for ransom.The FIR was lodged on 08/03/2008 by thesaid Kalulal Patel at Mira Road Police Station.The Appellant wasarrested on 08/03/2008 itself.The investigation was conducted andthe charge-sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, 13 th Court, Thane.After filing of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the CourtURS 2 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 ::: 3 APEAL 900-12-Judgment.docof Sessions for trial.The charges were framed against the Appellanton 27/06/2011 to which he pleaded not guilty.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::During the trial, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses.PW 1 Kalulal Patel was the victim and the first informant.PW 2Rupjibhai Patel was the brother of the PW 1 who had paid the ransomamount.PW 5 PI Vasant Giri had investigated the offenceregistered vide C.R.No.I-116/2008 at Mira Road Police Station.According to the prosecution case, therewere other absconding accused who could not be arrested and thepresent Appellant is the only accused who had faced the trial.The prosecution case obviously rests on the evidence ofPW 1 Kalulal Patel.He has deposed that since 2008, he was dealingin the business of scrap material and was having his shop by name JayRathod Old Paper at Golden Nest, Sector 11, Mira Road.He hasdeposed that originally he is from Rajasthan.Thereafter on 17/01/2008 at about 4.00 a.m., somebody knocked onthe shutter of his shop.The two persons who had sold the steelmaterial as mentioned earlier, were present along with the presentAppellant.He has further deposed that the Appellant questioned himregarding purchase of 153 kgs. of steel material.He has furtherdeposed that the Appellant took him forcibly in a four wheelertowards steel company at Bhayander.He was detained there and wasbeaten by steel rods.Thereafter, this witness had called his cousinRupjibhai and had asked him to bring the steel material.Tillthen, this witness was kept locked in the premises of the companybelonging to the Appellant.He has further deposed that the Appellantand his companions asked for Rs.2 Lakhs for his release but thesettlement was arrived at and Rupjibhai paid Rs.60,000/- andRs.70,000/- respectively in two installments.This witness has furtherdeposed that 10 days after this incident when he was at his shop, theAppellant again came there with 4 other persons in a car.They againforcibly took this witness to the same company.On this occasion, oneNathuji who was a friend of this witness, was also taken with them.He has further deposed that both of them were beaten in the saidcompany.Then there was a talk between Rupjibhai and the Appellantover telephone.Rupjibhai was not in town and he was to return after3 to 4 days.The Appellant thereafter applied some inflammatory oilon the body of this witness.This witness and Nathuji were released at8.00 p.m. PW 1 has further deposed that Rupjibhai came back fromhis native place.In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that hewas not knowing the Appellant before the incident.He has furtherdeposed that he had gone to the hospital for treatment after four daysof lodging of the FIR.He hasdeposed that the incident had occurred on 17/01/2008 and at 5.00a.m.he received a phone-call from PW 1 Kalulal about therequirement of money to pay the ransom amount.This witness metsome of the accused near Swagat Hotel at Bhayander as per theirdirections and then he was taken to Dhanalaxmi Industrial Estatewhere the PW 1 was detained.He was told that PW 1 had purchasedstolen steel material and that had to be returned.Thereafter, thiswitness came to the shop of the PW 1, took 153 kgs.of scrap steelmaterial from the shop and gave it to the Appellant and others.Hehas further deposed that the Appellant asked Rs.2 Lakhs for releasingKalulal.By the evening, this witness could collect Rs.60,000/- whichwas paid to the Appellant and then the PW 1 was released.He hasfurther deposed that he paid further Rs.70,000/- after 5 days.He hasfurther deposed that in February 2008, he had gone to his native placein Rajasthan.On 25/02/2008, he had received a phone-call fromKalulal at 3.00 p.m. This time again, Kalulal informed him that heURS 5 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 ::: 6 APEAL 900-12-Judgment.docwas abducted by the same persons and they were demanding Rs.1Lakh for his release.P.C. for the period for which he was detained in custody duringinvestigation and trial.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::Thiswitness had conducted the investigation from 02/06/2008 onwards.PW 6 PSI Dipak Salunke was the initial Investigating Officer who hadinvestigated the offence from 08/03/2008 and had arrested theAppellant on the same day.On 10/01/208, twopersons had sold 100 kgs. of steel material to him for Rs.2,500/- andagain on 13/01/2008, they had sold 54 kgs.of steel for Rs.1,300/-.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::After discussing the matter with the community, theURS 4 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 ::: 5 APEAL 900-12-Judgment.docPW 1 lodged his FIR in the month of March against the Appellant andothers.PW 1 received medical treatment at BhagwatiHospital.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::This witness then had a talk with the Appellantand promised to talk to them after 2-3 days on his return.When hereturned from his native place, PW 1 and Nathulal were alreadyreleased.Thereafter, they decided to lodge the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::He has deposed thaton 08/03/2008, PW 2 approached him and told him that PW 1 hadstolen material from the Appellant's factory and the Appellant hadkept PW 1 in the factory.He has furtherdeposed that the Appellant then demanded Rs.2 Lakhs.The materialwhich PW 1 had stolen, was returned to the Appellant.He has furtherdeposed that the Appellant threatened them not to lodge thecomplaint.He has also deposed that PW 2 requested the Appellantnot to lodge a complaint with the police (for theft) and requested tosettle the matter.This witness has further deposed that Rupjibhaipaid Rs.60,000/- and Rs.70,000/- on two separate occasions and thedispute was settled.He has deposed that 10 days after that, again theAppellant abducted PW 1 and Nathuji and demanded Rs.1 Lakh fortheir release.This time this witness, along with Rupjibhai, went to thepolice station to lodge the complaint.PW 4 Dr. Avinash Pradhan had examined PW 1 on03/06/2008 and had found a scar on his left hip.He had askedURS 6 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 ::: 7 APEAL 900-12-Judgment.docfor call record details from the mobile phone company.However, thecall records were not collected and were not produced before the trialCourt.PW 6 PSI Dipak Salunke had conducted the initialinvestigation and had arrested the Appellant.The other accused werenot found neither the amount allegedly paid was recovered.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::We have heard Mr. Nitinkumar Sejpal, learned Advocatefor the Appellant and Ms. R. M. Gadhvi, learned APP for the State andwith their assistance, we have read the evidence and perused therecord.According to Mr. Sejpal, learned Advocate for theAppellant, the story put forth by the prosecution through thesewitnesses does not appear to be true.No money was recovered.The otheraccused were not arrested.The steel scrap material which was thesubject-matter, was not recovered.The call details record wereneither collected nor produced before the Court.Therefore, theprosecution has failed to prove the case against the present Appellant.As against this, Ms. Gadhvi, learned APP for State,submitted that the statements of PW 1 and his cousin PW 2 aresufficient to hold that the Appellant committed the offence.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::The FIR in this case was lodged on 08/03/2008.Obviously, there is an unexplained delay of more than a month fromthe date of the incident.According to PW 1, the first incident hadtaken place on 17/01/2008 and 18/01/2008 when he was firstabducted and was released.At that time, PW 2 had paid Rs.60,000/-and Rs.70,000/- on two separate occasions.This witness hascategorically stated that the second incident took place after 10 days.This delay has remained unexplained.Even the dates given by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 do notmatch with each other.PW 2 has stated that the second incident hadtaken place on 25/02/2008 when he was at his native place atRajasthan.From his evidence, it appears that both the incidentshad taken place after 08/03/2008 which, obviously, could not be true.Thus, the prosecution has not led cogent and reliable evidence toshow as to on which date these incidents had taken place.It isnoteworthy that the prosecution has not reexamined PW 3 neither hewas treated as a hostile witness.Therefore, it was the duty of theprosecution to explain the apparent discrepancy in the evidence ofthese 3 witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::There is absolutely no reason as to why PW1 was not immediately referred for medical examination either fortreatment or for procuring the evidence to corroborate his version thatsome inflammable substance was applied on the person of PW 1 whenhe was detained and beaten.His medical examination was conductedon 03/06/2008 and it does not reveal any fresh injury except a scarwhich cannot be conclusively related to the incident in question.Moreover, PW 1 has stated that he had gone to the hospital fortreatment after 4 days of lodging of the FIR.Therefore, there is no corroborative piece of evidence inthis case.The evidence of PW 3 shows that PW 2 himself wasrequesting the Appellant not to make a complaint to the police andwas requesting him to settle the matter.It shows that PW 1 and PW 2had committed some offence in respect of property of the presentAppellant and as a counter-blast and to prevent the Appellant frommaking a police complaint, this FIR in the present case was lodged.The Appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of theCr.P.C. has stated thus :"I was President of steel buffing Association.Subodh Mishra was member of association.4-5 days before 17 January material was tolen from his factory.On 17 Jan Subodh informed me that he had caught the persons committing theft and purchasers.I went to their company.Rupji, Mandeep and More were there.They had settledURS 9 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 ::: 10 APEAL 900-12-Judgment.doc dispute& since the material was sold they agreed to pay money.I adviced to go to police.Rupji requested not to give complaint & he would pay money.I left the place when Subodh agreed not to give complaint.I don't know what happened thereafter.Police came to my factory on 6 March."::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::Thus, we find that the evidence led by the prosecution inthe form of PW 3 does probablize the defence of the Appellant to agreat extent.We find that PW 1 and PW 2's evidence inter se iscontrary.There is an unexplained delay, deliberation and falseimplication.There is no corroborative piece of evidence in the form ofrecovery of money or the scrap material or even in the nature ofmedical evidence supporting the prosecution case.No other accusedis arrested in the case.The mobile call details record was a crucialpiece of evidence in this case which could have been easily madeavailable.Non-production of such evidence indicates either no suchdata was available or if produced, such data would not be favourableto the prosecution.With the result, we allow thisAppeal.Hence the following order :(i) The Appeal is allowed.(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 25/07/2012 passed by the learned District Judge - 6 and Additional SessionsURS 10 of 11 ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 ::: 11 APEAL 900-12-Judgment.doc Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.231 of 2008, are set aside.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2017 02:07:32 :::
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,504,002 |
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Murugan, son of Govindan, aged about 32 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1061/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 25.8.2014, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982) the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail in Crl.M.P.No.593/2009, on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, in Crime No.26/2009, under Section 379 IPC; and in Crl.M.P.No.8311/2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai, in Cr.No.162/2013, under Sections 341, 294[b], 392, 397 and 506[ii] IPC.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,506,600 |
Her autopsy was conducted.During investigation, applicant was arrested and interrogated by the Police.He admitted that he committed forceful sexual intercourse with the deceased and thereafter committed her murder by stabbing knife on her stomach and chest.He also strangulated her with mantilla (dupatta).The applicant has also given the information regarding the place of incidence, his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incidence and other things have been recovered on his instance.Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant in Crime No.121/2018 registered by Police Station Khairlanji.The case of the prosecution is that, on 01.05.2018 at about 04:00 pm from Village Gosaitola under the jurisdiction of Police Station Khairlanji, District Balaghat deceased Priyanka Banote has been disappeared.Her father Santosh Banote lodged a missing person's report on 04.05.2018 which was registered under Crime No.121/2018 for the offence under Section 363 of IPC.On 07.05.2018 the dead body of Priyanka Banote was found near Dabba Talab, Village Khairi.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant has abducted the minor prosecutrix, committed rape with her and brutally murdered her.In the view of the aforesaid, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
141,508,445 |
As per office report dated 08.07.2020, notice has been served upon respondent no. 2, but neither anyone appeared nor counter affidavit has been filed upon his behalf.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The appellant is languishing in jail since 25.01.2019 and he has no criminal history except the present case to his credit.On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application.The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,150,954 |
The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) upon feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 4.3.2005 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.236/2004, whereby the appellants/accused Mahipal Singh and Pappu @ Chandrapal Singh have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and appellant/accused Sangram Singh has been found guilty of Section 302 with the help of Section 34 of IPC and all of them have beed sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each.(2) The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 20.9.2004 one Bhaiyalal Yadav lodged an FIR in Police 2 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 Station Badarwas District Shivpuri stating that, last evening the cattle belonging to his brother Lakkhu accidentally entered in the field owned by Mahipal Singh, which led to heated exchange between them.Thereafter, on 20.9.2004 at about 9-10 am, when his nephew Veer Singh S/o Mohan Singh Yadav was ploughing his agricultural field known as 'Kumhar Wala Khet', the appellants reached there to avenge the confrontation occurred last evening and inflicted several injuries by axe.Primarily the fatal injuries were caused on the head and also incised wounds were visible on the right hand of Veer Singh.The aforesaid incident was witnessed by Kok Singh and the same was narrated to Bhaiyalal, whereafter he reached to the spot, however while the injured Veer Singh was in transit to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.Based on the narration of above story, the police registered an FIR bearing Crime No.239/2004 for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and named the appellants as accused.(3) Thereafter, SHO Badarwas Rajiv Tripathi (PW-11) reached the Civil Hospital Badarwas and prepared the 'Lash Panchnama' of the deceased Veer Singh, Ex.P-10, and sent the deadbody for post-mortem.According to the post-mortem report, he found presence of 2 incised wounds on his head, 1 incised wound on the rear portion of the right shoulder, 3 incised wounds on his right hand, 3 abrasions on his hand, and 1 contusion above the right eye.Whereafter, SHO Rajiv Tripathi (PW-11) recorded 3 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 the statements of various witnesses and appellants were arrested.The weapon used in commission of crime (Axe) was recovered on the memorandum executed by both the accused Mahipal Singh and Chandrapal Singh.Head Constable Raghuvir Singh seized clothes of the deceased from the hospital by recovery memo Ex.All the seized articles were sent for forensic science examination vide letter, Ex.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolaras District Shivpuri, who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately it was transferred to Second Additional Sessions Judge Shivpuri for trial.(4) The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea but they have stated that they are innocent and are falsely implicated in the matter due to dispute over land and cattle but no defence evidence was adduced by them.(5) The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.(6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The only eye- witness Kok Singh (PW-2) presented by the prosecution has deposed contradictory statement, which is evident from the fact that, in one breath he states that, he informed about the incident to Bhaiyalal but in the next breath he retracts from his narration and states that, no information was given by him to Bhaiyalal.Similarly, he 4 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 has made contradictory statement with respect to the place of incident because firstly he has stated that the incident occurred on the field of complainant Bhaiyalal (PW-1) whereas in the later part of his statement he narrates that the incident occurred on his field.In this regard, the evidence given by Dr. 5 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 L.S.Uchariya (PW-10) is pertinent, who performed the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Veer Singh and gave a report Ex.He found following injuries on the body of the deceased :-(1) Incised wound transversely 6cm x 2cm x3cm.9 cm.above the right wrist, on lower of right forearm.Part of cut muscle blood vessel and both bones are visible;(3) Incised wound 4cm x 3/4cm x 3/4cm on lower of right arm.Posteriorly; (4) Incised wound 4cm x 3/4cm x 3/4cm right shoulder posteriorly;(5) Incised wound 10cm x 10cm x 6cm extending from right side fronto temporal part of skull upto upper part of right ear.Part of scalp muscle blood vessel x skull bone one cut are visible with blood cloot present;(6) Incised wound in shape 13cm x 1cm x 2.5 cm with cut of part of scalp muscle with skull bone with brain membrance, on middle of occipital region of head, blood clot, brain matter visible;(7) Incised wound 11cm x 3cm x 2.5 cm.extending from left parietal to temporal region transversely upto just above the left ear part of cut muscle blood vessel with bone skull visible with clotted blood; (8) Abrasion 5x3 cm with contusion around it 9x4 cm on right elbow, antero laterally; (9) Abrasion 2x1 cm right hand posteriorly; (10) Abrasion 2 in number 2 to 3cm x 1cm above the left shoulder;(11) Contusion 3x1 cm upper eye lid of right side eye.From perusal of above, it can safely be deduced that blood vessels and muscles of radius & ulna bone of the right hand of the deceased were cut through and through, blood was clotted on the right fronto temporal 6 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 and occipital region, internal muscles and blood vessel were found cut and there were fractures on right fronto temporal and occipital region of the head.According to the opinion of Dr. Uchariya, the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.Since incised wounds and fractures were found on the skull of the deceased and naturally such injuries could neither be caused by the deceased himself nor could they be sustained by him in any accident, therefore, the opinion given by Dr. L.S.Uchariya (PW-10) is acceptable that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.(11) The Complainant Bhaiyalal (PW-1) deposed in his examination-in-chief that around three months ago, at about 9-10 am, his nephew Veer Singh went for ploughing the field where the appellants surrounded him and assaulted by axe.The aforesaid incident was informed to him by Kok Singh whereafter he reached the spot and found that Veer Singh was lying in the field and he had received injuries on his neck, skull and hand.It is pertinent to point out that the perusal of FIR reflects name of Guddibai as another eye-witness, however, her testimony shall be discussed in later part of the judgment.(12) Now reverting back to the statement of Bhaiyalal (PW-1) it is apparent that, at the time of incident he was not present at the spot.(13) Kok Singh (PW-2), who claims to be eye-witness, stated in his examination-in-chief that around 3 months ago, at about 10-11 am he and deceased Veer Singh were ploughing their respective field, when the accused/appellants Mahipal Singh and Pappu reached there, armed with axe and they assaulted Veer Singh.7 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 After witnessing this incident, Kok Singh (PW-2) ran towards his house, however, on the way, Bhaiyalal (PW-1) met him to whom he narrated the entire incident.This witness has been declared hostile on the limited point that in his statement under Section 161 of CrPC, he mentioned the name of Sangram Singh which has been omitted in the statement recorded before the Court.Whereafter he was confronted with cross- examination by Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) in which he stood by his omission regarding absence of Sangram Singh at the place of incident.While it is true that, in his testimony the witness Kok Singh (PW-2) had conceded that he did not narrate the incident to Bhaiyalal but he remained persistent with the statement that appellants No.2 and 3 had inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased.(14) Rajesh (PW-3) also claimed himself as an eye- witness and deposed that he saw that Veer Singh was ploughing his field when Mahipal Singh came and assaulted Veer Singh by inflicting injury by axe on his head.When Veer Singh tried to escape, the appellant Sangram Singh told Mahipal Singh to catch him, as he was fleeing away, in between Veer Singh reached at the field of Kok Singh (PW-2) where accused persons killed him by causing injuries by axe.Thereafter he went to the house of Veer Singh and informed family members of Veer Singh about the incident but in the cross- examination he admitted that he reached the spot after hearing the alarm of Guddibai, wife of Veer Singh and when he reached, he found that Veer Singh was lying in the injured condition, therefore, it appears that the incident had not taken place in front of Rajesh Singh 8 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 (PW-3).If Rajesh would have seen the incident then he would have informed such incident to Bhaiyalal (PW-1) and Bhaiyalal would have mentioned in the FIR that he has received the information about the incident from Rajesh.(15) Guddibai (PW-4) deposed in her examination-in- chief that around three months, at about 9-10 am, her husband Veer Singh was ploughing the field and she was collecting soyabins.Upon hearing the alarm of his husband Veer Singh she saw that, Mahipal Singh and Pappu were assaulting Veer Singh by means of axe.Accused/appellant Sangram Singh was telling to surround Veer Singh so that he may not flee away.Her husband ran towards the field of Kok Singh (PW-2) where more injuries were inflicted due to which he fell down there, after that accused persons ran away.When Veer Singh was being taken to Badarwas, he died on the way.(16) Mohan Singh (PW-6) stated in his examination-in- chief that three months ago at 9.00 am when he was sitting at the platform in the village, when he saw that the accused Mahipal Singh and Pappu armed with axe were going and Sangram Singh was accompanying them.After a while, Kok Singh (PW-2) and Rajesh Singh (PW-3) informed him that the appellants killed his son by causing injuries by axe, then he reach his field and saw his son Veer Singh in serious condition.Veer Singh was not in a position to talk with anybody.Whey they were taking him to Badarwas, he succumbed to the injuries on the way.From the statement of Mohan Singh (PW-6), it appears that he has not seen the incident and he reached on the spot after receiving information 9 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 about the incident.(17) From the perusal of aforestated, following factual situation emerges that, the incident took place at 9-10 am on 20.9.2004, whereafter the FIR was lodged at about 1.30 pm at police Station Badarwas, which is situated 10 Kms.away from the place of incident; in the FIR the names of Kok Singh and Guddibai were mentioned that they had seen the incident.Although the statement of Guddibai under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded 9 days after the incident, but such delay has been explained by Guddibai that, after the death of her husband she was in a state of shock and was not in position to narrate the story to the police.Looking to her explanation, it cannot be said that Guddibai is a planted witness to strengthen the prosecution story.(18) SHO Rajiv Tripathi (PW-11) stated in his examination-in-chief that on the information given by the accused Mahipal Singh and Pappu @ Chandrapal Singh, axes were recovered from them vide seizure memos Ex. P-8 and Ex. P-9, respectively, and they were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.From perusal of the record, it appears that chemical analysis report was received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Gwalior, which is admissible under Section 293 of CrPC.This report indicates that the bloodstains found on axe recovered from accused Mahipal Singh and on the soil collected from the place of incident contains blood group 'B', which matches with the blood group of the deceased.This report corroborates the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the accused Mahipal Singh caused injury to deceased Veer Singh by 10 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 assaulting through axe.(19) None of the prosecution witnesses has stated in their statement that accused Sangram Singh has assaulted the deceased Veer Singh.Although Rajesh Singh (PW-3) and Guddibai (PW-4) tried to involve Sangram Singh in the present incident by stating that at the time of incident he was saying - 'catch Veer Singh otherwise he will flee away', but the presence of Rajesh Singh (PW-3) was not found proved on the spot at the time of incident and Guddibai (PW-4) has not stated this fact in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of CrPC.Therefore, no credibility can be attached to the statement of Rajesh Singh (PW-3) and Guddibai (PW-4) regarding involvement of appellant Sangram Singh in the present incident.Apart from it, no weapon was recovered from the appellant Sangram Singh.Under these circumstances, the trial Court has committed an error in holding appellant Sangram Singh guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.(20) The appreciation of evidence in the context of contradictions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants which finds mention in paras 7 and 8 of this judgment, provides no leeway for this Court to give the same any stamp of approval because, the contradictions which are referred by the learned counsel for the appellants are not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story as the withdrawal by Kok Singh (PW-2) from the statement about narration of incident to Bhaiyalal (PW-1) will not discredit the fact that Kok Singh (PW-2) still stood by his narration about the infliction of injuries by the appellant No.2-Mahipal 11 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 Singh and appellant No.3-Pappu @ Chandrapal Singh, which finds corroboration from medical and forensic evidence.Similarly, another contradiction highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants about the place of incident is not material in nature because the statement cannot be appreciated in isolation and communitively.Reading the statement of Kok Singh (PW-2) would give a clear picture about the happening of incident, i.e., the appellants No.2 and 3 confronted with the deceased on his field and partly assaulted him whereafter, the deceased attempted to run to safe his life and reached to the adjoining field which belongs to Kok Singh where more injuries were inflicted.The spot map, Ex.P-12, drawn by Patwari, reflects the place of incident to be the field of Shiroman Singh, who is the father of Kok Singh.(21) Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.B.Suresh vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 4 SCC 31, and submitted that as regards the cause of death, Dr. L.S.Uchariya (PW-10) has opined that it was because of shock but the possibility that the deceased died due to mishandling of the deceased by the person carrying him to the hospital cannot be ruled out.Under these circumstances, he prayed that the act of the appellants No.2 and 3 falls within the purview of Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC.We are not impressed with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, for which another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court deserves consideration which was pronounced in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Arjun Singh and others 12 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 (2011) 9 SCC 115, in which following observation has been made:-"31. ...... Considering the medical evidence that Himmat Raj Singh sustained 7 gunshot injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course, we are satisfied that the death of Himmat Raj Singh undoubtedly falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC."Apart from it, we cannot ignore that the case of the prosecution itself is that while after the deceased having sustained the injuries was being taken to the hospital for treatment, he died on the way and Dr. L.S.Uchariya (PW-10) has also stated that the deceased suffered shock on account of the injuries sustained by him and he has also clearly mentioned that, the injuries found on the person of the deceased were fatal and dangerous to life.Dr. Uchariya (PW-10) further stated that the deceased suffered fractures on his fronto parietal region and radius and ulna bone.The deceased received 11 injuries and out of them, 7 injuries were incised wounds and 2 injuries were found on the vital part of the body, which indicates that repeated blows were inflicted on the vital organ of the deceased.Under these circumstances, the act of the appellants Mahipal Singh and Pappu @ Chandrapal Singh would fall within the purview of Section 302 of IPC, not under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC.(22) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant No.1-Sangram Singh is hereby allowed.His conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby set aside and he is acquitted from the said charge.He would be entitled to get the fine amount 13 Criminal Appeal No.266/2005 back, if he has deposited the same before the trial Court.(24) A copy of the judgment be sent to the court below along with its record for information.
|
['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.
|
141,516,395 |
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-309-2010 (KALLU @ LAXMI NARAYAN YADAV & Anr.Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 20-01-2018Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned amicus curiae for the appellants.Shri A. K. Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.SentenceUnder Section 399 R.I. For 7 and find Rs.1000/-, of IPC in default of fine, further R.I.For 2 months.Under Section 307 of IPC R.I. For 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine, further R.I. For 2 months.Under Section 402 of IPC R.I. For 5 years and fine 500/-, in default of fine further R.I. For 1 month.Under Section 25(1)(B) of R.I. For 1 year and fine 500/-, Arms Act in default of fine further R.I.For 1 month.Under Section 27 Arms Act R.I. For 5 years and fine 500/-
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,415,288 |
The petitioner herein is a Transport operator having a transport contract with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai.The second respondent herein is also a transport operator owning a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.KA-21-4665 and he did not have a direct contract with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, for transport of bulk quantities of LPG.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by R.Velusamy, the sole accused in Cr.No.402 of 2005, now pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal.The criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner in the above said calendar case for alleged offences under Sections 420 and 402 IPC, is sought to be quashed on the ground that the complaint and continuation of the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of Court.2.The facts leading to the filing of the petition can be briefly stated as follows:-As such, the petitioner and the second respondent entered into a contract between themselves, by which the above said tanker lorry was allowed to be used by the petitioner for the transport of LPG for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited to various filling stations in consideration of the petitioner agreeing to pay 90% of the transport charges received by the petitioner from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited after deducting 10% of the transport charges for the LPG transported through the tanker lorry of the second respondent bearing Registration No.In accordance with the terms of the said agreement, the above said tanker lorry of the second respondent was used by the petitioner from January 2000 to July 2000 to transport 18 consignments of LPG.According to the second respondent/complainant, the total transport charges received by the petitioner from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for the transport of the above said 18 consignments using the tanker lorry of the second respondent was Rs.8,81,620/- out of which, he had to pay a sum of Rs.7,93,458/-, as 90% in accordance with the terms of the agreement, but, However, the second respondent was paid by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.7,38,961/- alone and there remained a balance of Rs.54,497/-.Contending that the petitioner with dishonest intention induced the second respondent to allow the petitioner to use the tanker lorry of the second respondent for the purpose of transporting LPG and thereafter withheld a part of the amount payable as per the agreement to the second respondent as amount payable out of the transport charges received from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, towards the transport charges for the transport of LPG through the tanker lorry belonging to the second respondent and thereby the petitioner had committed the offences of cheating and criminal misappropriation punishable under Sections 420 and 403 IPC respectively.Based on the said complaint, a case was registered on the file of Namakkal Police Station as FIR No.810 of 2004 and after investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime, Namakkal Police Station submitted a final report against the petitioner herein, alleging commission of the above said offences.The same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.Thus, having been implicated in the above said criminal case, the petitioner herein has approached this Court for quashing of the said criminal proceedings on various grounds set out in the criminal original petition.3.This Court heard the submissions made by Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.I.Paul Nobel Deva Kumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the second respondent.The materials placed on both sides were also perused.4.The criminal proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal is sought to be quashed on the following grounds:-c) Even for the disputed amount, the second respondent filed a suit on the file of the learned District Munsif, Namakkal in O.S.No.643 of 2005 claiming that a sum of Rs.54,497/- as the amount due from the petitioner.But the Civil Court granted a decree after contest, for a sum of Rs.46,352/- alone, of course, with a direction to pay interest for the said amount at the rate of 9% p.a Pendente lite and a post decree interest of 6% p.a.The said fact will make it abundantly clear that there was a bonafide dispute regarding the amount to be paid and the same was adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, which resulted in a decree for lesser amount than the one claimed by the second respondent and it shall be sufficient to negative the contention of the second respondent that there was any dishonest intention at the time of entering into the agreement itself to deceive.d) Pursuant to the decree passed by the Civil Court, Execution Petition was filed and the decree amount was collected fully and a full satisfaction has been recorded.Even after such a recovery and recording of full satisfaction, the persistence of the second respondent to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner will show that he was inclined to harass the petitioner by abusing the process of law.e) The amount received by the petitioner from the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited as transport charges for the transport of LPG in accordance with the contract the petitioner had with the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited cannot be claimed to be the money belonging to the second respondent and the said amount cannot be said to be received by the petitioner, on behalf of the second respondent as his trustee.There was no entrustment of the money belonging to the second respondent so as to say that the utilisation of the amount by the petitioner for his own benefit would amount to criminal misappropriation.The liability to pay 90% of the transport charges as commission to the second respondent had arisen only as a contractual liability and therefore, there was no entrustment or even semblance of entrustment to attract Section 403 IPC.5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out the above said facts viz., the nature of contract between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and the petitioner and the nature of agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent, argued that there was no question of entrustment of money belonging to the second respondent by anybody to the petitioner which is the sine qua non for prosecuting for criminal misappropriation under Section 403 IPC.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for prosecuting a person for cheating under Section 420 IPC, the person sought to be prosecuted should have deceived by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived, to deliver any property or to do anything, which he would not do or omit to do, if they were not so deceived.7.This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the counsel appearing on both sides.The contractual obligations under both the contracts are separate and independent of each other.In Para 14 of the complaint, the complainant has stated as under:"... Release of payments to complainant was never depended on the payment released by Bokaro Streel Plant a unit of SAIL to TISCO Growth Shop and TCPL."Thus, admittedly the two contracts are independent of each other and payment under one has no relevance qua the other.Such an order brings about serious repercussions.So far as the appellants are concerned when no case is made out for the alleged offences even as per the complaint filed by the complainant, there is no reason to permit the appellants to be subjected to trial for the alleged offences.KA-21-4665 during the period between January 2000 and July 2001, out of which after deducting 10% as commission, the balance of Rs.7,93,458/- was to be paid to the second respondent.Out of the amount payable to the second respondent, admittedly a sum of Rs.7,38,961/- was paid and what remained was only Rs.54,497/-, comparatively a meager amount even as per the contents of the complaint.The second respondent, besides preferring the complaint, chose to file a suit for the recovery of the said amount and the said suit viz., O.S.643 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Namakkal was contested by the petitioner and after contest, a decree was passed for a lesser sum than what was claimed by the second respondent.Admittedly, decree amount was recovered and full satisfaction was recorded subsequent to the date of decree.The same will show that there was a bonafide dispute regarding the amount to be paid.Under such circumstances, the launching of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is no doubt an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case and thus, an abuse of process of Court.P.C to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner here in C.C.No.402 of 2005 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal.Accordingly, the petitioner succeeds and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.402 of 2005 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal is hereby quashed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.gpaToJudicial Magistrate No.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,415,405 |
The police received information about the incident, at 11:25 PM that night, through wireless; they rushed to the spot, where they found the dead body (of Tejpal)." On 28-9-1991 I and Tejpal had come to Shahdara Railway Station by train and got down there and we went to house of Prem Kumar accused present in court.It was in the evening time.Prem Kumar served me and Tej Pal with liquor.At about 9 PM.Then Prem Kumar, his wife, sons Manoj and Ashok and one, other boy Kamal, started beating us.In the meantime, Manoj also procured one string Crl.A. Nos.165/98, 58/2002 & 272/98 Page 6 (dori) and started strangulating my neck with the said string (dori).Thereafter I became unconscious.Accused Prem Kumar present in court caught hold of Tej Pal, and accused Manoj and Kamal gave him beatings with hockey.He also became unconscious.Prem Kumar caught hold of Tej Pal and Manoj and Kamal strangulating him with a string (dori).This judgment will dispose of three appeals against the judgment and order dated 21-3- 1998 and the order on sentence dated 24-3-1998, holding the appellants guilty - as charged, for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC, and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also pay fine.Two of the original six accused, i.e. Jayanti and Brahmpal, were acquitted.The others, i.e. Prem Kumar, Ashok, Manoj and Kamal, have appealed to the court.They are hereafter referred to by their names.Prem Kumar served them liquor.PW-6 had earlier worked with Prem Kumar -for about 5-6 days; he was carrying on a security service business from his residence.He stopped working for him, and worked with a property broker, in Ghaziabad.Tej Pal too used to formerly work with Prem Kumar; he had left that employment, and had started his own security service agency, near Pawan Cinema, in Ghaziabad.It was alleged that Prem Kumar showed his guests - Tejpal and PW-6 a letter written to his daughter (which apparently contained some abusive, or objectionable content) and alleged that they or either of them had written the letter.Both PW-6 and Tejpal denied this, and volunteered to give their specimen handwriting samples, for comparison with the handwriting on the letter.Thereupon, alleged PW-6, that the accused fell upon them, and rained hockey blows.PW-6 claims to have fallen down, and having been sat upon by Manoj, who attempted to throttle him; the witness lost consciousness.He also stated that Tejpal was similarly beaten, with hockey sticks, by Ashok, Manoj and Kamal.He fell, and Prem Kumar held him, upon which Manoj and Kamal throttled him with a dori (string).After seeing the body, and securing the premises, the police went to the SDN hospital, where PW-6 had been admitted.His MLC was collected - it was later exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A. The dead body of Tejpal was sent for postmortem, its report was collected, along with other material objects and evidence, which were seized during the investigation.The six accused were arrested, and after investigation, charged by the Trial Court, for the offences mentioned earlier; they stood trial, Crl.A. Nos.165/98, 58/2002 & 272/98 Page 2 after claiming innocence.Two of the accused were acquitted; the Appellants were convicted for committing the offences they were charged with.Having discounted the involvement of the other two accused, particularly Jayanti, whose role as an active participant in the entire episode was disbelieved, the impugned judgment could not have, on the basis of the same evidence, relying on PW-6's testimony, convicted the others.It was urged that besides this, the prosecution had pleaded a common role and intention of Brahm Prakash, which was completely disbelieved after the trail; that accused was acquitted.PW-6, the injured eyewitness, spoke about what he saw.According to him, Prem Kumar was his previous employer; he had worked for him, for about 5-6 days in his security firm.He also knew the deceased Tejpal, who too had worked for Prem Kumar.********** ************ I and Tej Pal were being beaten there with hockeys, which were in the hands of Ashok, Manoj and Kamal, present in court.I sustained injuries with hockeys on my feet and on the chest.I still have the scars of the injuries on my body.Tej Pal also received injuries on his body.Prem Kuamr accused had shown us a letter which was written in the name of his daughter and said they were alleging that either I or Tej Pal had written the letter.We denied it to have written the said letter and offered that our handwriting be taken and compared with the letter.I was caught hold by accused Jayanti present in court and Accused Ashok gave me beatings with hockey.I rescued myself from their hands and started running, then Smt. Jayanti caught hold of my feet, and Prem Kumar accused caught hold of my hands and I fell down.In the meanwhile Manoj accused present in court sat on my chest and started strangulating my neck.Tej Pal died at the spot.Tej Pal was taken to another after strangulation with the string.."The postmortem report (Ex. PW-5/A) listed three obliquely placed bruised areas on the arms (Nos 2 and 3); two lacerated wounds, on middle parts of right leg (Injury No. 4); bruised area on the left side on the back of the chest (Injury No. 5) and a horizontally placed ligature abrasion mark, on the front of the neck over thryroid cartilage passing to the back of the neck (Injury No. 6).This injury did not indicate damage to the bone, or thyroid, tricoid, cartilages which were normal.Injury No.1 which, according to PW-5, the post-mortem doctor, was fatal, read as follows:"One lacerated wound was seen on left side of the forehead placed vertically of size 5.5 cm X 1.5 cm muscle deep."The prosecution forcefully argued that the fatal injury, and the ligature mark, i.e Injury No. 6, clearly indicated that the accused intended to kill a helpless Tejpal, who had fallen immediately on being attacked.It was urged that having regard to the concerted nature of the attack, where the accused co-operated and facilitated the murderous assault, the court should uphold the application of Section 34 IPC and affirm culpability of all the accused, who are in appeal in these proceedings.The Appellants, on the other hand, urged that the acquittal of two accused, especially in the light of Jayanti's role attributed in the incident, ought to be considered in their favour, to disbelieve PW-6's testimony.At best, say the Appellants, some of them might be held guilty individually for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, or 304- II IPC.PW-6 deposed that Prem Kumar after serving liquor to him and Tejpal, accused them of having written a letter to his daughter; they denied, and even volunteered to have their handwriting samples compared with the one in the letter.PW-6 first stated generally about an attack by Prem Kumar, his wife and sons.The next time he spoke about it, in the examination in Crl.A. Nos.165/98, 58/2002 & 272/98 Page 7 chief, he stated that Ashok, Manoj and Kamal, who were identified in court, used hockey sticks to beat the deceased, and him.The deceased's post-mortem revealed six injuries; the first one, on his head, proved fatal.PW-6 claims to have attempted to run away, but was tripped by Jayanti and then sought to be strangulated by Manoj.The Trial Court acquitted Jayanti.PW-6 claims to have sat upon Manoj, who tried to strangulate him consequently; the witness lost consciousness.He also mentioned about Tejpal similarly falling down, due to the attack, and Prem Kumar holding him, while Manoj and Kamal sought to strangulate him.The post-mortem revealed a ligature mark; however the concerned injury, No. 6, was not the cause of death.The doctor also stated that the injury was not so deep as to sever cartilage or bone.The High Court held that she would not have shared the common intention.In our view the same reasoning applies to A-2 so far as the murder charge is concerned.It is only A-1 who inflicted the two fatal blows one on each of the deceased and, therefore, a clear case of murder is made out against him.So far as A-2 is concerned he inflicted simple injuries with the stick on PW 2 and one on the deceased Ramaswamy.Therefore, common intention to kill the two deceased cannot be made out against him.A-2 inflicted only one simple injury on the deceased Ramaswamy.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 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.
|
1,390,207 |
She was the daughter of Babu Naik (PW 7).He was living in Arjunwadi with his family members.He has two houses in the said village.Yallubai used to cook food for them and used to go to other house for tethering cattle.Accused No. 3 used to go to the house of Yallubai for taking food and she used to serve food to him.Illicit relationship was developed between them.In order to avoid pregnancy, accused No. 3 took Yallubai to the hospital of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Mouje Adkur.She was admitted for abortion.Prior to that, accused No. 3 took Yallubai to the hospital of Dr. Dalwi (PW 8).But he refused to do abortion.When the abortion was carried on at the hospital of accused Nos. 1 and 2, Yallubai died due to excessive bleeding and in order to hide this offence, accused No. 2 with the help of his friend Albert Lobo (PW 5) brought the body of Yallubai to Adkur and all the accused buried her body within the limits of Adkur and Saroli.On 14.8.86 PW.1 Head Constable received one anonymous letter and, therefore, he started making inquiry.He learnt about the aforesaid activities of the accused.On 19.8.86 he lodged complaint i.e. FIR (Exhibit 21) against the accused.Then investigation was carried out by PSI Pratap Randiwe (PW 12).The accused were arrested.Dead body of Yallubai was recovered.It was sent for post-martem.The report lodged by him with the police station is not on record as stated earlier.In the cross examination this witness (PW 7) has stated that Yallubai was not going to field but she used to remain in the house.He has admitted that accused Nos. 3 and Ramu Naik were facing litigations regarding landed property.The next witness of the prosecution is P.W.8 Dr .Ramchandra Dalwi, resident of Naganwadi.Accused No. 3 wanted to bring one girl in the hospital.The doctor, therefore, permitted him to do so.Within five minutes, accused No. 3 brought one girl and told that the girl was to be aborted upon.The list is at Exhibit 13 and then number of documents admitted in evidence on that day itself which means that the defence did not raise any objection for admitting those documents.Those documents, being important, are named as under:(Exhibit 16).(Exhibit 17).(Exhibit 18).(Exhibit 19).(Exhibit 20).(Exhibit 21).(Exhibit 23.)Panchanama of the place from where the dead body buried shown at the instance of accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik dated 19.8.86 (Exhibit 25).Panchanama of Memorandum under Section 27 of accused No. 1 Floor Kutino about production of weapon.(Exhibit 26).(Exhibit 27).(Exhibit 28).(Exhibit 29).(Exhibit 30).(Exhibit 31).(Exhibit 32).(Exhibit 33).(Exhibit 35)(Exhibit 36).Then on 22.8.1989 also certain documents were produced and admitted in evidence.Those are:A. Report given by PSI Chandgad dated 7.2.87 to the Tahsildar, Chandgad.(Exhibit 46).B. Hand sketch drawn by Circle Officer, Chandgad of scene of offence.(Exhibit 47).It is stated in the panchanama, as disclosed by the accused No. 3 Arjun Naik, that accused No. 3 will show the spot where the dead body of Yallubai was buried, then police party came there along with four persons, digged the spot and a corpse of female kept in a gunny bag and tide with jute rope was taken out.It was identified by the brother of Yallubai as that was Yallubai.It was noted that internal part of the body had come out of the vagina of Yallubai.This panchanama is signed by the police officer, two male panch, one female panch, and also by SEM Suryakant Upadhye and the doctor.This corroborates the testimony of police officer that two persons were present.Then another panchanama was drawn.It is about the gunny bag in which the dead body of Yallubai was kept and about the clothes recovered from her body.Soil was attached to the gunny bag.Other articles including blouse, petticoat, jute rope with soil, pieces of broken bangles and clothes were also recovered.When P.W.1 2 gave his evidence and proved all these documents, he was not cross examined at all with a view to falsify the evidence given by him.Only 5 questions were put to him.He denied the suggestion that he had not prepared the panchanama about receipt of medicines.Accused No. 4 expressed his intention to take out pick-axe from the place where he had hide it.The police party, therefore, after preparing memorandum, went to the spot as shown by accused No. 4 and, from the house where the family members of accused No. 4 were residing, the accused No. 4 took out the pick-axe from the room.There also soil was attached to the handle and to the iron portion.He has stated that he would be showing the place where the plastic bag containing foetus removed from the womb of Yallubai was thrown.His statement was recorded in presence of panchas and then accused No. 3 led the police party in a jeep to a field having sugar cane crop.He went in the crops along with police and panchas and one plastic bag with white paper but open was recovered.It was a torn bag and soil was attached to the bag and clothes.It was wet.The plastic bag and white paper were giving offensive odour.The police searched the field but they did not find the foetus.Then there is one more important panchanama.It is at the instance of accused No. 6 Subrao Vithoba Patil.It is in respect of clothes of Yallubai which were on her person at the time of abortion and which were given to her by the doctor.This statement was recorded by P.W.12 in presence of panchas.Then police officer along with panchas went along with accused No. 6 and recovered a bag from a pond.The clothes were there.They were washed in water from pond and they were as under:A six yard green colour cotton sari design of white red flowers.One old brownish or reddish terriycot blouse with sleeves and plastic buttons.One brownish or reddish cotton petticoat with design of green white flowers print.Then P.W.12 has stated that all those articles were sent by him to the C.A., Pune and he had also received report in that regard.JUDGMENT D.G. Deshpande, J.Heard learned APP Mr. Pol for the State Appellant and, learned advocate Mr. Ingawale for the Accused - Respondents.This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 28.08.1989 of the IIIrd Addl.Sessions Judge, Kolhapur by which the learned Addl.Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused of the offences under Sections 318, 176, 201 r/w 34 and of the offences under Sections 304, 315, 314, 316 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.By the said judgment accused No. 1 was also acquitted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.Articles used for burying the dead body of Yallubai were recovered.From the statement of accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, clothes were recovered.Hospital was seen and visited.Incriminating articles were seized and when the Doctor opined that Yallubai died as a result of shock due to perforation of uttered following abortion i.e. due to excessive bleeding on account of abortion, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused.The prosecution has examined in all thirteen witnesses and produced number of documents in support of the charges which were framed against all the accused.The charges against accused No. 1 to 3 were under Sections 304, 315, 314, 316 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, the charges against accused Nos. 1 to 6 were under Sections 318, 176 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused No. 3 was charged for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.In support of each charge, the trial Court framed 8 points for determination, but gave negative Page 0655 findings on all those points and consequently acquitted the accused.Hence this appeal.The learned APP Mr. Pol contended that the approach of the trial Court is totally and completely wrong.The trial Court has failed to take into consideration the vital and important evidence of P.W.8 Dr. Ramchandra Dalwi to whom accused No. 3 had taken Yallubai for carrying out abortion.He further contended that the trial Court also disregarded the evidence of father and grand-mother of Yallubai about intimacy of accused No. 3 with Yallubai and Yallubai becoming pregnant before marriage and also disregarded other material circumstantial evidence brought on record in the form of recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused No. 3 and other accused.The learned APP, therefore, contended that in any case and at any rate accused No. 3 is required to be convicted for the offences charged against him though offences under Sections 376 and 304 may not be attracted.On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Ingawale, appearing for the accused, contended that there are number of lacunae in the prosecution case.For example, according to him, missing report filed by the father of Yallubai was not placed on record, nor anonymous letter received by the police constable.He, therefore, contended that the FIR was lodged by the constable after making inquiry and, therefore, it could not be treated as FIR.Regarding evidence of father and grand-mother of Yallubai, Dr.He also contended that the statements of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded by the police were almost like confession of crime with all the history given and, therefore, they are not at all admissible.This, according to him, is a major lacuna in the prosecution case, and the benefit of which was rightly given to accused No. 3 and other accused.At this juncture, it is necessary to clarify that the statements of the accused under Section 27 will be read in evidence only in so far as they relate to discovery of incriminating articles and other part about confession will have to be totally disregarded as in adimissible in evidence.In view of the rival submissions it is necessary to scan and scrutinise the evidence.He was working as Head Constable at Nesari Police Station at the relevant time.He has stated that one Babu Nagoji Naik came to police station during night between 12.00 to 12.30 and made a report about missing of his daughter Yallubai.Then on 14.8.86 he received one anonymous letter requesting for immediate inquiry.Unfortunately neither the entry in the missing register nor the anonymous letter was produced on record by the prosecution.11. P.W.1 has, further, stated that thereafter he called accused Arjun Naik, Ganu Naik, Subrao Patil and Ramchandra Naik and made enquiry from them and they told that Yallubai had illicit relations with accused No. 3 Arjun Naik and she was pregnant from him, that she was taken to hospital at Adkur for her abortion, that she was given injunction and in that attempt she died.Thereafter accused No. 3 returned to his village Arjunwadi and told his father about the death of Yallubai and asked his father to call her parents.But thereafter accused No. 3 took other accused with him to Adkur.They carried spade with them.Yallubais body was kept in a gunny bag, it was tide and buried in Adkur limits.12. P.W.1 has stated about this information.The learned APP tried to contend that the information was given by these accused to P.W.1 before they were made an accused and before registering FIR and hence it is admissible in evidence.We will consider that aspect later on.Next witness is the father of Yallubai.He has stated that he was residing at Arjunwadi.Accused No. 3 used to take food at his house and accused Nos. 3 to 5 used to work in his field.He has stated that Yallubai used to be in the house and she used to cook food.He had no doubt about illicit connection of accused No. 3 and Yallubai.But when he returned from Bazaar he found that Yallubai was missing from house.He inquired about her from his mother but she could not tell anything.Thereafter he doubted that accused No. 3 might have kidnapped her.Then he went to Nesari to the house of maternal uncle of Yallubai for making inquiry.But Yallubai was not there.After four days he learnt that accused No. 3 had taken Yallubai to the hospital of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Adkur; that Yallubai was pregnant from accused No. 3; that she was taken to that hospital for abortion; that she died and buried within the limits of Adkur and Saroli.Admittedly, this witness does not know about illicit relations of accused No. 3 with Yallubai.But he denied the suggestion that on the say of Ramu Naik he had given the name of accused No. 3 in his complaint.He denied that he admitted Yallubai in the hospital as she was serious.The next witness for the prosecution is the grand-mother of Yallubai.At the time of recording her evidence, she was 70 years of age.She has stated that accused Nos. 3 and 5 used to come to their fields for work.Her son Babu (PW 7) was having three sons and three daughters including Yallubai.Yallubai used to cook food and accused No. 3 used to come to their house for taking food and Yallubai used to serve food to him.She has also Page 0657 stated that when Yallubai was taking bath, she noticed that Yallubai was pregnant but she did not enquire from Yallubai in this regard.The girl was wearing printed saree (Patal).She was aged 17/18 years and when the doctor made enquiry, she concluded that she was carrying 6 months and she was the resident of Arjunwadi.Then doctor told accused No. 3 and the girl that abortion could not be done at his hospital and asked the accused to bring her parents and money for sending her to Belgaum hospital.The doctor also stated that he had no facility for abortion in his dispensary.Heavy reliance was placed upon this witness by the prosecution.Whereas unfortunately for the accused there is absolutely no cross examination worthy of consideration.The witness admitted that he had not seen accused No. 3 previously and he was not knowing him and that he came to know about the name of accused from police.He could not explain how the name of Arjun Naik had appeared in his statement.Suggestion given to him that accused No. 3 never came to his hospital was denied by him.The prosecution has also relied upon one more witness i.e. P.W.9 -Krishnamurti Joti, resident of Naganwadi.He has stated that he had taken contract to run canteen at S.T. Stand, Naganwadi since 1978 and about three years before, he saw accused No. 3 sleeping on the bench of the S.T. Stand with one lady.He also stated that they had missed bus and, therefore, they halted at the S.T. Stand on that night.But on the next day morning, this witness had not seen them.In the cross examination, he admitted that he had never seen accused No. 3 prior to that night and till the day of his evidence.We are not inclined to place any reliance upon this witness because he had no specific reason to note down the presence of the accused with one lady on that particular night.He had never given description of that lady nor approximate date and time when he saw the accused with one lady on that night.The prosecution also examined one Special Executive Magistrate.He is P.W.13 -Vasant Rane.He has stated that he was intimated by police to record statement of one Albert Luis Lobo.He, therefore, asked the police to keep the witness present in the premises of Judicial Magistrate.He has also stated that the police were not present there and the witness voluntarily gave his statement.The witness signed it and he also counter signed it.The only suggestion given to him is that he had not recorded the statement and, he prepared it as per the say of police and thereafter obtained the signature of witness.He denied that suggestion.Then he also admitted that there is no mention on the statement (Exhibit 53) that it is under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.The next witness examined by the prosecution is PSI Pratap Randiwe (PW.12) who is the Investigating Officer.Before considering the evidence of PSI, it is necessary to note that there are number of documents tendered by the prosecution and exhibited by the court.C. Post Mortem Notes of the dead body of Yallubai Babu Naik.(Exhibit 48).(Exhibit 53).It will be seen from the aforesaid circumstances that very important documents were exhibited by consent of the defence which also means that the accused have not challenged the documents at all in any manner whatsoever.Therefore, these documents will have to be looked into and gone for assessing the prosecution case.It is to be clarified that so far as statement of Albert Luis Lobo (Exhibit 53) is concerned, the trial Court has rightly declined to believe it.Because when Albert Luis Lobo was examined as P.W.5 and when he turned hostile, he was not confronted with this statement.In fact, whether the Special Executive Magistrate had powers to record the statement of any witness under Cr.P.C. is a different question.But if the statement is there and the person is examined as witness and he turned hostile, then it was necessary for the prosecution to confront the witness with the said statement.He has not been careful and diligent but on the contrary reckless when he knew that the statement of P.W.5 Albert Lobo recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate and the witness turned hostile, it was his duty to confront the witness with his previous statement.Further when each of the panchanama was admitted by the defence under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. and it was exhibited, then it was at all not necessary for the APP to examine any witness to prove those panchanamas.However, he examined the panch witnesses who turned hostile.He turned hostile on the panchanama of bed-sheet where Yallubai was seen lying.He is the panch witness.He supports the prosecution case.He turned hostile on burying of body of deceased Yallubai in gunny bag.The next witness is Krishna Appa Kamble (PW 6).He also turned hostile on the panchanama of digging out a corpse.The Investigating Officer PSI Pratap Randiwe (PW 12) has proved all the panchanamas.When the panchanamas were exhibited by consent of parties and when in addition the IO has given evidence regarding those Page 0660 panchanamas, then evidence of IO can certainly be considered in the proof of panchanamas.These panchanamas, which are proved by IO Pratap Randiwe (PW 12) and admitted by the defence and then exhibited, are of following nature.It is also to be noted at this juncture that most of these panchanamas include detailed statements of the accused which are nothing but confession.But all that is required to be disregarded and discarded because they are not admissible in evidence.We are, therefore, considering those panchanamas only to the extent admissibile.It was accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik, according to P.W.12, who lead the police to the spot where the dead body of Yallubai was buried.P.W.12 has stated that he thereafter called two panchas, the Tahsildar Chandgad and doctor, then along with accused Nos. 3 and 4 went to the spot.D.S.P. was also present and when the accused showed the spot, the dead body of Yallubai was recovered and inquest panchanama was made as per Exhibit 17 which is signed by the panchas, the police officer and Dr. Shinde.He also denied that none of the accused had given any memorandum i.e. no disclosure under Section 27 was made by any of the accused.From this cross examination it will be clear that there is absolutely no challenge to the fact of accused No. 3 pointing the place where Yallubais body was buried.At this juncture three more important pieces of evidence were tendered by the prosecution in the form of panchanamas.These panchanamas were exhibited by consent of defence under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. The witnesses examined by the prosecution, unnecessarily in this regard, turned hostile.But the IO PSI Pratap Randiwe (PW 12) has proved these panchanamas and, there is absolutely no cross examination in that regard.Regarding Exhibit 27, P.W.12 has stated that accused No. 5 desired to point out the spade used by him.Accordingly memorandum was prepared in presence of panch.Then police party went to the house of accused No. 5 and from the loft in kitchen Page 0661 the said accused produced the spade to which soil was attached both on the handle and in the iron portion of the spade.It is about recovery of pick-axe at the instance of accused No. 4 Ramchandra Naik.It was seized under the same panchanama.Exhibit 29 is another panchanama.It is about recovery of mud or soil from the place where the dead body of Yallubai was buried.This was shown by accused No. 3 Arjun Naik and, when accused No. 3 led the police party, in his presence sample of soil was taken.It is pertinent to note that this soil was of red colour and the soil attached to the handle and iron portion of pick-axe and spade was also of red.It was at the instance of accused No. 3 Arjun Naik.There is no challenge to it at all.The four articles were before the C.A. i.e. one gunny bag, one spade, one pick-axe and earth, red in colour.The result of the C.A. is, Earth from Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 tallies with earth -------in Exhibit 4 in respect of chemical composition and physical properties.The over all effect of this evidence is that accused No. 3 pointed the place where Yallubai was buried.The spade and pick-axe were used in burying the body of Yallubai and, the sample of the soil was taken from that place and, even the soil found attached to the spade and pick-axe is identical not only in colour but also upon chemical analysis.This piece of evidence is brought on record by the aforesaid panchanamas specifically named.It is true that from the evidence of PSI Randiwe (PW 12) and the birth certificate produced by him, Yallubai was not minor.There is no direct evidence that Yallubai was pregnant from accused No. 3 but the fact that she was pregnant at the time of her disappearance is fully supported by her grand mother and Dr.Dalwi, who was medical practitioner and has nothing to do with accused No. 3 and is totally independent witness and has categorically stated that on 13.8.86 at about 5.30 a.m. in the morning accused No. 3 came to his dispensary and asked the doctor that Yallubai was to be aborted upon.The instruments used in burying the body of Yallubai were recovered at the instance of accused as stated above.All this evidence is sufficient to hold that accused No. 3 was responsible for causing abortion, in that attempt Yallubai died, then he destroyed the evidence by burying the body of Yallubai.One most important factor is that in his evidence P.W.8 has stated that when the girl came to him along with accused No. 3, she was wearing printed saree (patal).Panchanama of clothes of Yallubai at the time of abortion shows that she was wearing printed saree.This therefore direct corroborates the testimony of P.W.8 that Yallubai and accused No. 3 had in fact gone to P.W.8 Dr.It may be that missing report filed by the father of Yallubai was not on record.It may be that anonymous letter received by the constable (PW 1) was also not on record.But visit of accused No. 3 with Yallubai to P.W.8 Dr.Dalwi on 13.8.86 and immediately finding of Yallubais body soon thereafter and, the opinion of the doctor that she died as a result of shock due to perforation of uttered following abortion, makes out a full proof case against the accused.They have resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and, therefore, this appeal has to be allowed partlyRegarding extent to which the appeal has to be allowed, in our opinion, it has to be allowed against Original Accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik only against whom there is overwhelming evidence.From the evidence of P.W.8 Dr.The fact that the Yallubai was unmarried is not disputed.All these facts clearly show that accused No. 3 was an instrumental in causing the woman to miscarry and obviously it was not done in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman i.e. Yallubai.Miscarriage was with a view to wipe out evidence of Yallubai being pregnant.Therefore, for all these reasons We pass the following order:ORDER Appeal of the State against acquittal is partly allowed so far as it relates to Accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik.Accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik is convicted under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 2000/-in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months.Accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik is also convicted under Section 315 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months.Accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik is also convicted under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months.Accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik is also convicted under Section 318 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 2000/-in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months.Accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik is also convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 2000/-in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months.Accused No. 3 Arjun Ganu Naik is on bail.His bail bond stands cancelled.He should surrender before the trial Court for undergoing sentence within a period of four weeks from today.The Appeal of the State against other accused i.e. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 is dismissed.Acquittal of Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 from the charges levelled against them is upheld.Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are on bail.Their bail bonds stand cancelled.All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,022,416 |
A.No.558 of 2015 was filed by the appellant who is the 4th accused and Crl.A.No.558 of 2008 is filed by the appellant who is the 3rd accused before the learned Trial Court.For the sake of convenience, the appellants are hereafter referred as per their rank and capacity hold in the trial Court.The 4 th accused on the same day at about 15.45 hours, found possessed 65 numbers of 100$ American Dollars.Appellants/Accused as against the judgment of conviction passed in Sessions Case No.397 of 2007 dated 01.07.2008 by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.The Criminal Appeal No.496 of 2008 is filed by the 1st Appellant who is the 1st accused, Crl.Another accused arrayed as A2 namely Christy was died during trial.2.The learned Trial Court found all the appellants/Accused as guilty and imposed the sentence as follows:http://www.judis.nic.in 3 The 3rd accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 489(A) of Indian Penal Code.At the same time the 1st and 4th accused are convicted for the offence under Section 120(b) r/w 489(C) of IPC.Further, the 3rd accused was convicted for the offence under Section 120(b) r/w 489(B) and (C) of IPC, accordingly under section 489(C) of IPC all the Accused/Appellants were imposed 4 years of Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default 6 months of Rigorous Imprisonment was also imposed.For the offence under Section 120(b) r/w 489(B) the 3rd accused was imposed 7 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and was also imposed a sum Rs.5,000/- as fine and in default he has to suffer 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment.3.Feeling aggrieved over the judgment of conviction all the accused filed three separate appeal and they have been clubbed together, accordingly they have been disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.4.The case of the prosecution is that on 02.06.2003, when the respondent on the regular patrolling duty in front of Shanthi Theatre, Anna Salai, Chennai, the 1st and 2nd accused possessed 15 numbers ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 counterfeit 100$ American Dollar and the 3rd accused possessed 350 number of counterfeit 100$ American Dollar along with negative films used for the process of counterfeiting currencies.The 3rd accused entrusted each 50 numbers of 100$ American Dollars to the 1st and 2nd accused and 65 numbers of 100$ American Dollars to the 4th accused with an intention to use the same as genuine currency.The 3rd accused performed the process of counterfeiting the aforesaid American Dollars in a printing press namely Lavanya processing at Thiruvotriyur.So, a case was registered on the complaint given by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached with the CB-CID counterfeit currency prohibition wing.After the completion of investigation, final report was filed as against all the accused under Section 120(b) r/w 489(B), 489(C) of IPC.5.In pursuance of the final report filed by the Inspector of Police concerned the case was taken on file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and the same was committed to the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and thereafter the same was made over to the file of the learned Trial Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 5On the side of the Accused/Appellants no witness was examined but Exhibits-R1 to R3 were marked.Considering the totality of the case, the learned Trial Court found the appellants/accused are guilty and the sentences were imposed accordingly.7.The learned counsel for the appellants/accused would submit that though the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution to prove the charges against the Appellants/Accused, without considered the same on the part of the prosecution, conviction has been recorded.He would also submit that the alleged confession, recovery were made in the presence of PW-3, but he has admitted in the cross examination that he is a stock-witness.So, the alleged confession and recovery of the appellants/accused is unbelievable, when these vital aspects have become doubtful, then the case of the prosecution is to be thrown out.All the prosecution exhibits were prepared only in the presence of PW-3 is doubtful that too he himself has admitted that he is a stock-witness and the learned trial Court hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 not considered these material lacunas, hence this Court in the appellate jurisdiction, in the interest of justice may re-appreciate the evidence and set-aside the judgment of conviction.8.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and the oral and documentary evidence are found intact.Apart from that it is no need for the prosecution to foist any false case as against the appellants/accused.So, the learned trial judge has rightly appreciated the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case and found guilty of all the appellants/accused which does not warrant any kind of interference and prays for the dismissal of the appeals.9.I heard Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent in all the Criminal Appeals and all the materials available on record are perused.The informant identified two persons who were found possessed of counterfeit American dollars as stated supra.PW-1 in the presence of PW-2 recovered M.O.s-1 and 2 series through recovery mahazars Exs.Hence, he proceeded to the Police Station along with the accused and material objects and lodged complaint Ex.Thereafter, they proceeded to search the 3rd accused followed by the confessional statement of the 1st and 2nd accused.From the 3rd accused also recovery was made followed by confessional statement.Pursuant to this, they proceeded to search the 4th accused and from whom also M.O.-7 series were recovered.11.In order to ascertain the currencies are counterfeit steps were taken through Exs.P4 and P5, but the perusal of the same would disclose that they will not be the proper course.No steps were taken properly to prove the same which in the considered opinion of this Court would affect the prosecution case.Further, no steps were taken to bring another accused into the case, who is allegedly owner of the printing press.Apart from that the discrepancies found betweenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 Exs.D1 to D3 and Exs.At the same time, there is no explanation as to why another recovery witness namely one Perumal was not examined.The overall appreciation of evidence available would show that the investigation has not conducted in a proper manner which leads to the way to consider the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal.14.Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 this Court is constrained to allow all the three appeals.15.In the result:
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,032,968 |
of the Indian Penal Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
139,033,810 |
The perusal of compliance report dated 12th March, 2019 sent on behalf of District Magistrate, Gorakhpur also clearly mentions that the passage shown in the map does not find place in the revenue record, though it has been sought to be shown in the report that at present, one 16 feet wife Kharanja is existing on the side which has been constructed by the village residents collecting common fund.This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.01.2019 passed by the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur u/s 133(1) of Cr.P.C. in Case No.Certain directions were also given to the District Magistrate with regard to immediate measurement of the spot in question.Matter was thereafter listed to come up on 3rd April, 2019 with the direction to learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit.Later on case was again taken up on 31.4.2019 and the compliance report about the directions issued by this Court was filed on behalf of State.Matter was fixed up for final disposal on 17th April, 2019 and last opportunity to file counter affidavit was given to opposite party.Rejoinder affidavit if any, was also directed to be filed in the meantime.These persons, according to the claim of revisionist, joined hands with each other and one complaint dated 19.7.2017 was moved before the administrative authorities on the date of Janta Darshan organized on 22.7.2017 and in the said complaint it was alleged that three sides of graveyard are surrounded by a public way and is being used by the villagers since long time for their movements and also for performing Janaza process and the present revisionist purchased land of said public way from a few land owners by using force, in respect of which proceedings are pending in the court and about 20 days before, the revisionist raised the boundary wall on his land by encroaching upon the said public way whereby the village residents are facing serious difficulties and are feeling aggrieved and in case no immediate action is taken, any untoward situation may arise.This application dated 19.7.2017 was treated as complaint u/s 133 of Cr.P.C. and Case No.201805310000230 of 2017 was registered and report was called from the local police, upon which two reports dated 03.8.2017 and 10.10.2017 along with handmade map of the land in question were submitted by the local police before the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur, who has been arrayed in his individual capacity as third respondent in this criminal revision.The erstwhile city Magistrate passed preliminary order dated 06.11.2017 u/s 133 of Cr.P.C. calling response of revisionist for removal of boundary wall or for showing cause as to why the order should not be confirmed.The revisionist submitted his objection dated 02.02.2018 denying existence of public way adjacent to the graveyard and explained that neither revenue record nor municipal record discloses any public passage on the land in question and also disclosed that the land in question was purchased by him through registered sale deeds and also stated that no encroachment has been done by him on any public passage and the entire story of complainant is concocted and false lacking all factual basis.The complainant, who has been arrayed as second respondent in this criminal revision, filed his replica dated 11.4.2018 against objection filed by the revisionist and also moved an application for spot inspection.Thereafter, third respondent got posting as City Magistrate, Gorakhpur and conducted spot inspection on 28.12.2018 in respect of which a hand written site map was prepared and the joint statement of few residents of the vicinity was recorded and was placed on record.Counsel for the revisionist further submits that the unfair bias of opposite party no.3 is apparent on the face of record in view of the subsequent act of demolition of boundary wall at his instance, despite having knowledge of the interim stay order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Court, which act amounts to deliberate defiance of the order passed by this Court and even attracts the provisions of Contempt of Court Act. In this respect, reliance has been placed on supplementary affidavit dated 22.02.2019 filed by revisionist.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. supports the order dated 11.01.2019 by submitting that the same is based upon two reports of local police and the inspection of third respondent himself and hence no interference is required.Supporting the submission of learned A.G.A., learned counsel for second respondent i.e. the complainant, has attempted to make a halfhearted faint submission that the public passage was existing at the place since long and was being used by the villagers and due to efflux of time, the land in question being used as public passage cannot be encroached by the revisionist, as his title is disputed and as such, the order dated 11.01.2019 is justified.It would be useful to quote the relevant part of inspection report dated 08.3.2019 :"नायब तहसीलदार, पिपराइच द्वारा जांचोपरांत अपनी जांच आख्या दिनांक27.2.2019 (पताका- ग) प्रस्तुत करते हुए उल्लिखित किया गया है कि आ०नं०243/29 रकबा 0.295 हे० कब्रिस्तान के पूरब उत्तर नजरी नक्शे में प्रदर्शित रास्ते का अंकन राजस्व अभिलेख में नहीं है। मौके पर वर्तमान में 16 फीट की चौड़ाई में रास्ता कायम है जिस पर खड़ंजा लगा है। उक्त रास्ता ग्राम निवासियों द्वारा चन्दा लगाकर बनवाया गया है (रास्ते का फोटोग्राफ तथा ग्रामवासियों का चन्दे से रास्ता बनवाए जाने का बयान संलग्न)"The said inspection report dated 08.3.2019 is the enclosure of the report of District Magistrate dated 12.3.2019, which is based thereupon.Both the said reports dated 8.3.2019 and 12.3.2019 mention several other aspects of the land in question regarding its sale and purchase as well as regarding deficiency of stamp, which aspects are absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication of the case.The perusal of impugned order reveals observation of the third respondent to the effect that denial of revisionist regarding public passage is not reliable and that is why the removal of encroachment on public passage is justified.The third respondent has also observed that the inspection of site was conducted by him, during which statements of certain persons who were present on the spot were recorded, which disclosed that there was a chak road and chak Nali on the north and east side which has been demolished by the revisionist and road has been constructed.It has also been observed that the said chak road was going towards village via kabristan and the said passage having width about 16 feet near the kabristan has been squeezed by the revisionist and because of wall raised on the public passage, only 8 feet passage is available on the spot and the passage has been encroached.With such observations, the third respondent i.e. the City Magistrate, Gorakhpur has passed order u/s 133 (1) of Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been asked to remove his wall on the passage within a week, so that the passage being used by the villagers may not have any hindrance.There is a recital in the said order about communication thereof to the local police station Cantt.for appropriate action and after due action the file has been ordered to be consigned to record.The above noted observations and findings of third respondent do not disclose any detail about entry of public passage in government record and also do not disclose as to why the denial of the revisionist about existence of public passage was not found reliable.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,903,547 |
Heard Sri S.K. Singh and Sri Balkeshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 10.6.2019 in Case Crime No. 493/2019 u/s 376 IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow.According to prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. the informant had left his daughter aged about 12 years at the house of accused-applicant who is the nephew (Bhanja) of the complainant.On 9.6.2019 at 3.00 P.M. the victim said to his father that she does not want to live in the house of accused-applicant and, therefore, the informant should take her from his house.Thereafter the victim told her father that the present applicant-accused has committed rape upon her.The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant has been falsely implicated as he has not committed the offence as alleged and the present applicant and complainant being a close relation and the complainant is having malafide intention against the present applicant, therefore, he lodged the F.I.R. and tutored his daughter.Today learned counsel for the applicant has filed affidavit enclosing therewith copies of two affidavits, the same are taken on record.Those affidavits which have been filed along with this affidavit are the affidavits of Smt. Neetu Singh, the mother of victim and Sri Pankaj Singh, the father of victim who is informant.The perusal of aforesaid affidavit which have been enclosed with the affidavits filed today clearly reveals that the informant and his wife have submitted that the present applicant has been implicated for the reason that there was some grievance of the complainant against the present applicant.Be that as it may, since the complainant and his wife have filed affidavits submitting that the allegations so levelled against the present applicant are not true, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.Learned AGA has also submitted that since the parties have entered into a compromise and the specific affidavits of the complainant and his wife have been filed, therefore, he has nothing to say.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.Let the applicant Dharmendra Kumar Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 493/2019 u/s 376 IPC & Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.Order Date :- 15.10.2019 Om [Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,042,342 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the proceeding pursuant to the charge sheet dated 12.11.2018 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicant in 19.12.2018 in S.S.t. No. 852 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPc and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC and ST Act, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC and ST Act).In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,046,237 |
Heard on I.As.No.6378/2017 and 7410/2017 which are the first applications under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellants.The former I.A. has been moved jointly on behalf of appellant Bundel Singh and Bahadur Singh and the latter I.A. has been moved on behalf of appellant Bane Singh.Vide the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Sironj District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.366/2012, appellant Bundel Singh stands convicted under Sections 304 Part-I r.w. 34 and 452 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- (five thousand) and R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs.1000/- (one thousand) with default jail sentences respectively.Appellants Bahadur Singh and Bane Singh stand convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- (five thousand) with default jail sentence 'each'.It be noted that the substantive jail sentences awarded to Cr.A. No.1076/2014 Bundel Singh and Ors.vs. State of M.P.appellant Bundel Singh are directed to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that each of the appellants has so far been in prison for a period of three years and a few days over seven months including the period of judicial custody.He submits that the appellants are ready to deposit fine sentences if the I.As.are allowed.He submits that this appeal is of the year 2014, therefore, there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard on merits.He submits that as per the MLC report Ex.P-3 and postmortem report Ex.P-5 of deceased Jamnalal, he sustained one injury on his head and died thereof.He submits that as per the evidence on record, appellant Bundel Singh gave a lathi blow on the head of deceased and appellants Bahadur Singh and Bane Singh assaulted him with lathis but deceased sustained only one injury on his head as per the said reports.Thus, it is proved by medical evidence that appellants Bahadur Singh and Bane Singh had not assaulted the deceased with lathis.He submits that the incident occurred when the deceased refused to give ten rupees to appellant Bundel Singh for consumption of liquor.Thus, it is not a case that appellant Bundel Singh had hit the deceased on his head with a lathi having formed a common intention with appellant Bahadur Singh and Bane Singh.He Cr.A. No.1076/2014 Bundel Singh and Ors.submits that there is ample evidence on record to the effect that there had been a scuffle between appellant Bundel Singh and the deceased and the deceased fell down on the ground in the course of scuffle.Therefore, there is strong possibility that deceased suffered a head injury due to a fall.Thus, the appellants have good case on merits.He lastly submits that all the appellants are real brothers, that they are permanent residents of village Gadaghat, the place of occurrence and that they have no criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.As.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.On being released on bail, the appellants shall appear before the Registry of this Court to mark their presence first time on 26.03.2018 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by it in this regard until further orders of this Court.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge van
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,390,476 |
The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association, forwarded a copy of the resolution passed by the Association at an emergent meeting held on 16-3-1993 condemning the brutal assault on Nurul Haque and the physical torture meted out while he was in police lock-up.Nurul Haque died on account of such brutalities committed on him by the police.The brief facts set out by the Bar Association may be stated as under.At that time he was in good health.He was, however, remanded to police custody for 72 hours for interrogation.During the said period he brutally assaulted and tortured by the police.As a result of the cruel treatment meted out to him while in police custody his condition deteriorated.On the expiry of the period of remand on 12-3-1993, since he was in very and shape and almost sinking, the police officers without producing him in court secured an order remanding him to judicial custody.However, the jail authorities referred him to the Hailakandi Civil Hospital for treatment when they realised that his condition was serious.He died in the hospital on 13-3-1993 at about 5.00 a.m.Further, the Bar Association alleges that to hush up the matter the police personnel got the post-mortem done without informing the family members of the deceased about his demise and tried to bury the body but their attempts were foiled by the vociferous protests from the members of the public.The wife of the deceased filed a complaint on 14-3-1993 against certain police personnel alleging that her husband was murdered by them.She requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, to take immediate custody of the dead body of Nurul Haque and get a proper post-mortem examination done.The report of the Superintendent ends with the findings."Nurul Haque neither died in police lock-up nor in police custody.The learned Magistrate conceded this demand.The police, however, secured orders from the Deputy Commissioner for the disposal of the dead body by burial but their efforts were rendered unsuccessful by the members of the public.The Bar Association in the backdrop of these facts demanded a judicial inquiry.This communication received from the Bar Association was ordered to be treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and was so numbered.Thereupon, this Court by its order dated 20-8- 1993 directed the Director General of Police, State of Assam, to inquire into the matter and forward a detailed report in regard to the events leading to the death of Nurul Haque.Pursuant to the said order the Registrar General of this Court caused a letter to be written to the Director General of Police, Assam, to forward is report.Thereupon, the Inspector General of Police, forwarded his report under letter No. C-150/91/107, dated 13-9-1993 along with enclosures in the regional language.The letter discloses that he got the matter inquired into through the Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi, who prepared a report which was forwarded to this Court along with the afore numbered forwarding letter.The report of the Superintendent of Police sets out the facts thus : On 27-10-1992 at about 6.30 p.m. a gang of dacoits entered the house of Moinul Haque of Village Boalipar, Police Station Hailakandi and gold ornaments, etc., worth about Rs. 15, 000 and a gun.On a complaint being lodged by Moinul Haque investigation started in the course whereof six names including that of the deceased Nurul Haque surfaced.Out of them four confessed to the police that they were members of the gang of Nurul Haque and had committed this and other dacoities under his leadership.When Sub-Inspector A. H. Choudhary went to Boalipar to apprehend Nurul Haque the latter ran away but he was overtaken by the members of the public who beat him with fists and blows before handing him over to the police.As ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate he was sent to the Civil Hospital for treatment.He could not be radiologically examined as the X-ray machine was out of order.After interrogation he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12-3-1993 whereupon he was taken in judicial custody.The wife and other relations of the deceased were duly informed in writing and the post-mortem examination was conducted by a conducted by a qualified medical officer of the Civil Hospital, Hailakandi.Since the wife and other relatives of the deceased were not satisfied with the findings of the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem examination, on the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi, the dead body was sent to the S. M. Civil Hospital, Silchar, where the Standing Medical Board carried out the post-mortem examination and submitted its report.From the above, it emerges that according to the police version in the report, the deceased was beaten up by the members of the public and then handed over to the police.It was only thereafter that the police took him in custody and effected his formal arrest.The reason for the public wrath against Nurul Haque is stated to be that he was a notorious dacoit and a rapist.The case of the police is that after his arrest he was sent to the Civil Hospital for treatment and three external injuries, viz. (i) abrasion on cheek 1 cm.x 1 cm.(ii) abrasion on left leg 2 cm.x 2 cm.with tenderness in right leg over upper third of tibia and (iii) abrasion both forehands, size 2 cm.x 1 cm.These injuries are found noted in the copy of the medical certificate dated 8-9-1993 appended to the report.On 11-3-1993 when he was produced before the court, the Investigation Officer stated that the accused was beaten up by the members of the public and has sustained injuries, but no mention was made regarding his examination by a medical officer and the nature of injuries sustained by him.Even the learned Magistrate's order dated 11-3-1993 does not show that the accused had received medical treatment before his production before him and that is why he directed the Investigating Officer to arrange to provide for medical treatment.The doctor's prescription of 11-3-1993 does not show that the accused had received medical treatment before his production before him and that is why he directed the Investigating Officer to arrange to provide for medical treatment.The doctor's prescription of 11-3-1993 shows that besides prescribing certain medicines he had advised X-ray of the right leg, upper third of tibia.The medical certificate dated 8-9-1993 in respect of the examination dated 11-3-1993 reveals that the following external injuries were noticed."(1) one lacerated wound present over the left thumb of size 2.5 cm.x 1.5 cm.x skin deep.(2) one abrasion present over the left forearm at middle third of size 1 cm.x 2 cm.(3) one abrasion present over the left arm of size 2.5 cm.x 2 cm.(4) one abrasion present over the left leg over the tibia of size 3 cm.x 2 cm.(5) one lacerated wound present over the right leg at upper third over the tibia of size 1.5 cm.x 1.5 cm.x bone deep and severe tenderness."The record of 12-3-1993 shows the production of the accused before the court which prima facie negatives the allegation that since he was in bad shape he was actually not produced.Unless the note in the order sheet of 12-3- 1993 is a routine note, it would be difficult to accept this allegation.The copy of the post-mortem report dated 14-3-1993 shows five external injuries.The injuries were ante-mortem.Unfortunately, the post-mortem report does not disclose the corresponding internal injuries except a crack fracture in the middle of the right tibia.In the column pertaining to the heart there is a mention of 'an infracted area 2 cm.in diameter in the anterior part of the inter-ventricular septum'.In the opinion of the doctor death was due to myocardial infection with heart failure.The particulars in regard to the findings recorded in the case diary would show that the body was highly decomposed which is perhaps natural having regard to the fact that it was the middle of March and three full days and passed.However, fracture was noticed on the right tibia while the other bones were healthy.No opinion was expressed in the absence of the chemical analyser's opinion on the viscera sent for examination.It is clear from the above that the deceased had certain external injuries one of which had resulted in the fracture of the right tibia bone.The letter dated 9-9-1993 (page 36 of paper-book) shows that the victim had 'multiple injury' on 12-3-1993 and was immediately referred to the Civil Hospital, Hailakandi, for necessary treatment.Since the dead body had reached the morgue by 5.00 p.m., it would be reasonable to infer that he must have died a few hours before that.In the circumstances, the condition of the deceased on 12-3-1993 would shed a lot of light.The report on the viscera would be equally vital.The statement in the report of the Superintendent of Police that 'The P.M. Report did not indicate any external injury over the dead body' was factually incorrect and, if we may say so, misleading.We had called upon the officer to explain the same ad he states in his affidavit that the word 'not' had inadvertently appeared for which he apologised.When the Court calls for the report of the Director General of Police, the Court places confidence in the objectively of a person holding such high office and when such an officer mechanically forwards the report of his subordinate with a forwarding letter he betrays a casual approach shaking the Court's confidence in him and dilutes the probative value of the report.There is one thing more which needs to be noticed.Even the police have registered an offence under Section 302, IPC, albeit against unknown members of the public.The fact that the deceased was beaten up is not in doubt.He had fractured a bone.In the circumstances even if it is believed that he died of cardiac failure there can be no doubt that those who caused the injuries had committed grievous hurt.The possibility of the police having caused injuries cannot be ruled out altogether.Since the local police at the highest level have taken a stand that the assault on the deceased was by members of the public and not the police after the apprehension of the deceased it is futile to expect an independent and wholly objective investigation by the State police.Even otherwise, the people will have little confidence in the investigation no matter how honest and objective the investigation be.In the circumstances, we deem it most appropriate that the investigation of the crime in regard to the murder of the deceased under C. R. Case No. 275 of 1993 and/or FIR No. 120 of 1993 should be undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).In doing so, the CBI will bear in mind the allegation of the wife and other relations of the deceased that the he died on account of the beating given to him after his apprehension on 9-3-1993, without being influenced by the fact that in the FIR No. 120 of 1993, it is alleged that the assault was by the members of the public.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,050,516 |
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code [ for short "the Code"] against the judgement passed by IIIrd A.S.J. Mandsaur in S.T. NO. 62/2013 on 28/09/2015 whereby he has convicted each appellants for the offence under Section 323/34 (on two counts) and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- for each count with default claused.[2] Brief facts of this case are that appellants and complaint Goverdhan are neighbourers.There was a boundary wall made by stones between their houses.On 17/08/2012 at about 7:00 a.m. Appellant Dilip Singh was damaging the boundary wall.Complainant Goverdhan asked him why he is damaging the wall, then appellant Dilip Singh started abusing and beating Goverdhan, then other appellants who are the members of the family of appelllant Dilip Singh also came there and started beating Goverdhan by lath, kicks and fists.Complainant Goverdhan lodged a report then an offence under Section 294,323 and 506(II) was registered against the appellants, whereas on the report of appellants a counter case was registered against the complainant Goverdhan, Mod Singh and Bhopal Singh for the offence under Section 341,294 and 307 of IPC.As counter case the case was triable of Court of Sessions, therefore, the case of the appellants was also committed to the court of Sessions for trial.[3] Learned A.S.J. Has framed the charges against appellants under Sections 294, 323/34 (on two counts) and 506(II) of IPC, appellants have abjured the guilt, therefore, they were put on trial.After hearing the parties learned ASJ has convicted the appellants as aforesaid.Being aggrieved with this judgement, the appellants have filed this appeal.They were not armed with any weapon.Their was no plan to cause injury.Their families are dependent on them.[7] Now I have considered the sentence passed by the Trial Court.The appellants are agriculturists, having no criminal antecedents.Incident is taken place on spur of a moment, at their instance a counter case was also registered against the complainant party.[8] The order passed by the trial Court in regard to the disposal of the property and to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,500/- to each injured is hereby affirmed.[9] Thus, the appeal is allowed as indicated above.The copy of this order be send forthwith to the trial Court for conmpliance.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,059,411 |
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.2013 in Criminal Misc.Case No.1324 of 2013, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, by way of which it has affirmed the order dated 16.3.2013, passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), observing that examination of the witnesses sought to be examined by the appellant-accused was in fact unnecessary, and would in no way assist in the process of arriving at a just decision with respect to the case.3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. An FIR dated 10.8.1998 was registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1988’) against the appellant and other accused persons.After the conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 19.7.2001 by the investigating agency, i.e., CBI against Smt. Rita Singh (A-1), Mrs. Natasha Singh (A-2), appellant, and Mr. Y.V. Luthra (A-3), a Public Servant.B. In view thereof, charges were framed by the learned Trial Court on 5.5.2003 against all the three accused.The other accused, namely, Mr. Y.V. Luthra concluded his defence on 19.2.2013, after examining two defence witnesses, namely, Mr. A.K. Saxena and Mr. Satpal Arora.The appellant preferred an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 5.3.2013 for permission to examine three witnesses.The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.3.2013, against which the Criminal Misc.Hence, this appeal.Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the FIR was lodged in 1998 and if the prosecution has taken more than a decade to examine 52 witnesses, and that if after the appellant had closed her defence, the other accused had laid evidence in his defence, and that thereafter, without losing any time, the appellant had preferred an application seeking permission to examine three witnesses in her defence, and had even given reasons for their examination, the same should not have been dismissed.Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed.The chargesheet further revealed that:?“Investigation has revealed that in order to obtain insurance claim, accused Rita Singh (A-1) in her capacity as Director, Mideast India Ltd. accused Natasha Singh (A-2) in her capacity as Director, approached IFCI and in view of the aforesaid necessity for obtaining NOC from Financial Institutions/Banks, Sh.S.S. Batra, Company Secretary, MIL vide letter dated 1.3.96 requested IFCI, New Delhi for issuing a NOC for releasing a sum of Rs.3.75 crores as interim on account payment.B.B. Huria the then Chief General Manager, IFCI recorded a note on this letter for issuing NOC subject to payment of over dues aggregating to Rs. 58 lacs.Despite the fact that there were over dues to the tune of Rs.58,92,197/- against Mideast (India) Limited, accused Y.V.Luthra dishonestly and fraudulently issued NOC dated 1.3.96 for release of Rs.3.75 crores by the insurance Company in respect of property at B-12/A Phase II, Noida and he on 2.3.96 recorded a note in the office copy of the letter dated 1.3.96 that NOC was issued as there were no over dues as confirmed from Accounts Department.This NOC dated 1.3.96 was handed over to the representative of Mideast (India) Limited, which was presented to Delhi Regional Office of UIICL and on the strength of the said false NOC the Insurance Company's Head Office at Chennai released a payment of Rs.3.60 crores to Mideast (India) Limited vide cheque No.454431 dated 8.3.96 which was credited to the account of Mideast (India) Limited.A sum of Rs.15 lacs was retained out of the approved amount of Rs.3.75 crores towards payment to PNB Capital Finance.”The Trial Court, while entertaining the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., had asked the appellant to provide a brief summary of the nature of evidence that would be provided by the defence witnesses mentioned in the application, and in keeping with this, the appellant had furnished an application stating that the appellant wished to examine one Shri B.B. Sharma who was one of the panchnama witnesses, and who the prosecution had neither listed nor examined in court.Therefore, the appellant wished to examine him in defence.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,059,888 |
Sensing the hesitance of the complainant company to supply goods on credit, the accused made an initial payment of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand only) following which the complainant company supplied goods valued at Rs. 1, 80,496/- to the accused company which were duly received by the latter in good condition and commercially utilised.After adjusting the initial payment of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand only) a sum of Rs. 1, 55,496/- was due and the complainant company made repeated demands for clearance of such dues.Upon failure of the accused company to keep its promise, the complainant issued notice to the accused company addressed to the petitioner through its learned advocate on 02-11-2015 which was received by the accused company on 03-11-2015 despite which the accused company failed and neglected to clear the dues.Versus The State of West Bengal & Another reported in (2020)1 C Cr LR (Cal) 222 and Anu Mehta & Others v/s Gunmala Sales Private Limited & Another reported in (2015) 4 CAL LT 310 (HC) and has prayed for his discharge from the case under section 245(2) of the Code by setting aside the order impugned.In raising serious objection to the contention of the petitioner, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the petitioner posed himself to be the Director, Chief Executive, and/or person in charge, in control and/or responsible for the affairs of the accused company and approached the petitioner for delivery of goods in favour of the accused company on credit.Learned Counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that upon learning that the petitioner's son is one of the Directors of the company and the petitioner does not represent the company in any capacity, the opposite party has taken out an application before the learned trial court under section 319 of the Code praying for adding the Directors/office bearers of the company as accused in the case.Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,062,425 |
Brief facts are as under:-Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/4/1989, at about 5.00 P.M., accused Nos. 1 to 5 entered the house of deceased Apparao and all of them assaulted the deceased with knife in his house situated at Warad Chawl.Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Raul S. Kate for the Appellant.Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State.convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.He is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal in this court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::(APEAL-415-91)According to prosecution, brother of Apparao was also assaulted with knife and, thereafter, the accused ran away.An FIR was registered against the accused and they were arrested.Postmortem was performed by Dr. Kanaki who has stated that the injury on the neck was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Statements of witnesses were recorded.Prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case and the accused examined four witnesses and raised a plea of alibi.Trial Court convicted the accused No.2 on the basis of the sole eye witness testimony of Bhagirathi, wife of the deceased and held that the plea of alibi had not been proved by the accused.Mr. A. P. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had acquitted the accused No.1, 3, 4 and 5 and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 ::: 3 (APEAL-415-91) observed that testimony of the sole eye witness P.W. 1 - Bhagirathi was not trustworthy so far as the said accused are concerned.However, at the same time, Trial Court relied on her testimony so far as her evidence against accused No. 2 is concerned.Secondly, it was submitted that P.W.1 had made number of improvements in her evidence apart from the fact that there were omissions and contradictions in her testimony which were proved by the defence by bringing them on record.It was thirdly submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated on account of enmity between the deceased, his wife P.W.1 and accused No.2 since the complainant did not like the appellant assisting their landlord Mr. Patil.It was then submitted that the accused No.2 had examined four witnesses in order to prove that he was in the Mill at the time when the said incident had happened.It was submitted that the Trial Court had wrongly discarded the evidence of these witnesses who had established presence of the appellant in the Mill from 9.00 A.M. to 6.00 P.M.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::On the other hand, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that so far as the ground of alibi is concerned, the Court had noticed that there were some alterations in the muster roll and in other documents which were produced by the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::After having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and after going through the evidence on record, in our view, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and apart from that the accused has established a plea of alibi and, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court will have to be set aside for the following reasons.Prosecution in support of its case has examined about 19 witnesses whereas the defence has examined 4 witnesses.Prosecution has examined P.W. 1 - Bhagirathi who is the wife of the deceased and who is a sole eye witness for the said incident.The other four eye witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.P.W. 2 - Bhiwaji Narote is a panch witness who has been examined by the prosecution to prove recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant.This witness, however, has not supported the prosecution case and he was, therefore, declared as hostile.Though recovery panchanama has been proved by the Police Officer, since the panch who is an ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 ::: 5 (APEAL-415-91) independent witness has turned hostile, recovery of knife at the instance of the accused cannot be relied upon.The next witness is Mallinath Kolhe (P.W.3), brother of the deceased.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::Prosecution case was that the brother of the deceased was also assaulted with knife by all the accused.P.W.3, however, did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile.The next witness is Vishnu Khandekar (P.W.4) who is the father of P.W.1 - Bhagirathi.Though the prosecution case is that he was in the house and had witnessed the said incident, this witness did not support the prosecution case and stated that he was in Pune when the incident took place and he came to know about death of Apparao when he received the telegram.The next witness is Dhanraj Khandekar (P.W.5).He also did not support the prosecution case.P.W. 6 is Sharifabi Tamboli.She did not support the prosecution case and, therefore was declared hostile.P.W. 7 - Saudagar Aher is the panch witness who was examined to prove the seizure panchanama of clothes.He also did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, he was declared hostile.P.W. 8 - Dr. A.S. Kanaki had performed the postmortem.He has stated that the cause of death was a shock as a result of stab injury.He has stated that there were five injuries on the person of the deceased and the first injury was a stab injury on the neck and other injuries were simple injuries.Prosecution, therefore, has proved that the death of Apparao was homicidal.P.W. 9 is Dr. S.B. Patil who was working as Medical Officer in the General Hospital, Solapur who examined Vishnu Khandekar ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 ::: 6 (APEAL-415-91) and Mallinath Kolhe and has stated that there were two injuries on the person of Vishnu; one was grievous and the other was simple and the same was the case of injuries which were found on the person of Mallinath.P.W. 10 - Sanjay Kamble is the panch witness who was examined to prove the pachanama in respect of the recovery made at the instance of the accused.He has also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.P.W. 11 - Isamail Shaikh is another panch witness regarding the recovery of sword at the instance of accused Wakse.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::ig However, he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.P.W. 12 - Basawant Patil is the Police Head Constable who was on duty at the Police Station who recorded statement of Mallinath.P.W. 13 - Bhanudas Gaikwad is the Police Head Constable who has proved the panchanama in respect of clothes of the deceased.P.W. 15 - Shivaji Desai is the Police Inspector who was attached to Police Station Foujdar Chawadi, Solapur.P.W. 17 - Somanna Kumthekar was holding additional charge of Foujdar Chawadi Police Station between 8/6/1989 and 30/7/1989 and he investigated the offence during this period.P.W. 18 - Ramchandra Deshpande was working as Assistant Sub- Inspector who interrogated the accused and recorded memorandum of panchanama in respect of the sword which was produced at the instance of accused Nos. 3 to 5 and, finally, P.W. 19 is Dr. Suresh Bakale who was working as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 ::: 7 (APEAL-415-91) Radiologist and who examined Vishnu Khandekar.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::From the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses examined by the prosecution, the prosecution has relied on the sole eye witness testimony of P.W. 1 - Bhagirathi, the wife of deceased.P.W. 8 is the doctor who performed the postmortem.Panch witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and the other witnesses are Police Officers who conducted investigation.So far as the evidence of recovery of knife is concerned, it is not established since the panch witness has turned hostile.The accused/appellant has taken a plea of alibi and has examined four witnesses viz D.W. 1 - Vishwanath Wadaje, who was serving as Labour Officer in Narsing Girji Mill, Solapur, D.W. 2 - Narayan Kalsulkar who was working as a Folding Master in the said Mill, D.W. 3 - Shivaji Bodhale who was a worker in the Cloth Godown and on that date he was entrusted with the work of a jobber and, lastly, D.W. 4 - Shankarayya Chadchankar who was working as Pay Sheet Clerk in the said Mill.It is a settled position in law that whenever defence of alibi is raised by the accused, the entire burden of proving ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 ::: 8 (APEAL-415-91) his case is on the accused alone in view of provisions of section 103 of the Evidence Act. At the same time, the initial burden of proving the case against the accused is on the prosecution and, therefore, prosecution has first to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt against the accused and, thereafter, a plea of alibi has to be taken into consideration and while weighing the prosecution case and defence case, pitted against each other, if the balance tilts in favour of the accused, the prosecution would fail and the accused would be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt which would emerge in the mind of the court.Keeping this principle in mind, it has to be seen whether the prosecution has established its case on the basis of evidence which is on record.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::The entire case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of sole eye witness P.W. 1 - Bhagirathi, wife of the deceased since other eye witnesses have turned hostile.In her evidence, she has stated that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 entered her house, caught hold of her husband and dragged him out and when she tried to intervene, accused No.1 pushed her aside and he also pushed aside her father and then took out knife and gave a blow with that knife on the neck of her husband and further he also assaulted brother of her husband Mallinath.In the cross-examination, several improvements made by this witness (P.W.1) have been brought on record and the Trial Court on the basis of improvements and omissions made by this witness has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 ::: 9 (APEAL-415-91) acquitted the other accused.In our view, it is difficult to rely on testimony of this witness.If part of the testimony of this sole eye witness has been disbelieved, it is difficult to rely on the other part of her testimony in which she attributes overt act to the accused No.2, appellant herein.In our view, it is difficult to convict the accused No.2, appellant herein on the basis of testimony of P.W.1 particularly because all other witnesses including father of P.W.1 and her brother-in-law and other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.Recovery of knife at the instance of the accused/appellant has not been established since the panch witness has turned hostile.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::Apart from that the appellant has examined four defence witnesses who have stated that the appellant was present in the Mill on that date from the morning till evening upto 6 O'clock.It is a settled position that so far as defence witnesses are concerned, they cannot always be termed to be tainted and they are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution.The issue of credibility and trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses on par with that of the prosecution.D.W. 1 - Vishwanath Wadaje was working as a Labour Officer in the said Mill where accused/appellant was working.He has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 ::: 10 (APEAL-415-91) given the schedule of working in the said Mill.D.W. 2 - Narayan Kalsulkar was also a co-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::worker working in the said Mill and he has stated that the appellant was present on that day in the Mill.He has further stated that the appellant was paid salary in the evening at about 4.30 P.M. and his presence had been marked in the Pay Sheet.D.W. 3 - Shivaji Bodhale has stated that the appellant was on duty with him in the Cloth Godown on the date of the incident and since the permanent jobber was on leave, he was entrusted with the work of a jobber.He has stated that on 10/04/1989, in all, 11 persons were on duty and the appellant/accused was one of them.P.W. 4 - Shankarayya Chadchankar has stated that he was working as a Pay Sheet Clerk in the said Mill and he has further stated that the appellant was present on the date of the incident and the salary was paid to him at about 4.30 P.M.Taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the appellant before the Trial Court, in our view, the appellant has established that on the relevant date he was present in the Mill from 9.00 A.M to 6.00 P.M and the documents which are brought on record also further corroborate and establish ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 ::: 11 (APEAL-415-91) this fact.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::It is quite well settled that the burden of proving alibi is on the accused.In our view, from the evidence of the defence witnesses which are examined by the accused, it has been established that the accused/appellant was working in the Mill till about ig 6 O'clcok in the evening and the incident in question admittedly took place between 4.30 P.M. and 5.00 P.M. The Judgment and Order of the Trial Court, therefore, will have to be set aside and the appellant will have to be acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 302 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::The Appellant is on bail.His bail bonds stand cancelled.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:00:51 :::
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,062,674 |
(06/05/2011)This is an appeal by the accused persons convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 32534 IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year each and fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default further R.I. for three 2 Cr.A. No. 69/1999 months each and also under Section 323/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 250/- each; in default further R.I. for one month each.No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal since learned counsel for the accused submits that only on the question of quantum of sentence they are pressing this appeal.The appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34 IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer R.I. for one year each and fine of Rs. 1000/- each; in default further R.I. for three months each and also under Section 323/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 250/- each; in default further R.I. for one month each.On going through the record this Court finds that appellants have already suffered jail sentence of 16 days.Looking to the facts and circumstances they are released for the period they have already undergone, however, the fine amount is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- each which shall be deposited by the appellants on or before 31.10.2011, failing which they shall undergo the sentence as awarded by the Trial Court.Cr.A. No. 69/1999However, let the amount of fine be paid to the complainant Surendra Singh towards compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court is hereby directed to disburse the amount of compensation to the complainant Surendra Singh, S/o Shri Maniram, r/o Gram Singhli, Thana Budhar, District Shahdol.The appeal of appellants is hereby allowed in part.Their bail bonds shall discharge only after deposition of the amount of fine in the Trial Court on or before 31.10.2011 failing which the learned Trial Court shall send them to jail to suffer the remaining part of the sentence.The appellants are hereby directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 31.08.2011 and in case on that date they fail to deposit the amount of fine, the learned Trial Court shall give another date for their appearance which shall be prior to the ceiling date.However, in case appellants deposit the amount of fine on or before the stipulated date 31.10.2011, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.This appeal is accordingly allowed in part to the extent indicated herein-above.(A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE rao 5 Cr.A. No. 69/1999
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,063,189 |
Shri Vikram Singh, counsel for the applicants.Shri D.K. Paroha, Panel Lawyer for the State.Shri B.K. Shukla, counsel for the objector.Since both applications arose out of same crime number, therefore considered and disposed of by this common order.These bail applications filed by the applicant(s) under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicants are in custody in connection with Crime No.427/2014 registered at P.S. Manganwa, Police Chowki Manikwar, District Rewa for the offence punishable under sections 302, 294, 323, 452, 506-B, 34 of IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged that at the time of incident initially co-accused Vijay and Gajju @ Rajendra Singh came to the shop of the complainant where a dispute arose between them on transaction of money.It is further alleged that co-accused person made telephonic call to other accused persons.Thereafter, applicants Pintoo @ Amar Singh and other accused persons came on the place of incident.Allegation against Pintoo is that he initially assaulted complainant Dheerendra and thereafter assaulted Bhola Singh by using sword.During treatment, Bhola Singh has died.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.He further submitted that at the time of treatment, dying declaration of Bhola Singh (since deceasecd) has been recorded by the Executive Magistrate wherein name of these applicants namely Pintoo @ Amar Singh, Gajendra Singh @ Gajju and Sonu @ Ashish Singh has not been stated by Bhola Singh.It is further submitted that Bhola Singh died after one month of the incident after discharge from the hospital, in these circumstances no prima facie case under Section 302 of IPC is made out against the applicants.At the most it may be a case under Section 304-B of IPC against them.Charge sheet has already been filed.The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail.Learned counsel for State and objector have opposed the applications.It is on record that Bhola Singh died after one month of the incident.On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties and over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
139,064,601 |
2 Brief facts of the prosecution case evident from the version of complainant are as follows:(a) The complainant was serving as a Project Manager with M/s.In January 1986 he was assigned duty to find out plot in MIDC, Chinchwad area for the construction of factory building.The complainant visited the office of MIDC at Pimpri Chinchwad.He contacted the office superintendent Mr.Raje who informed him that the plot of small size were not available.The complainant met Regional Manager Mr.Mujawar.He also informed him that the plot is not available.Accordingly, complainant reported the matter to his director Mr.Rathi.The Directors of the Company, made inquiry about the availability of plot by visiting the office of MIDC along with the complainant.They met Mr.They were informed that the plot was not available.However, if anyone surrenders plot, they would get it.complainant to visit office of MIDC to make inquiry about the availability of industrial plot.The complainant visited the office of MIDC Chinchwad.Mujawar was not available in the office.One person met him and inquired about the purpose of complainant's visit to the office, which the complainant explained to him.Complainant told Accused no.2 about requirement of plot.Accused no.2 stated that two plots are available.The accused no.2 quoted his fees as Rs.1,200/-.He also informed that half the price of plot is required to be deposited by draft.The accused no.2 further informed that, the complainant will have to spent Rs.15,000/- to 20,000/-, in cash to various officers in MIDC.Rathi and he was told to go ahead with purchase of plot.(d) Complainant visited office of accused no.2 at Pimpri.The accused no.2 was not available.Rathi told him to find out a plot in MIDC Chinchwad area for factory building of the company.In that connection he contacted office superintendent of MIDC Chinchwad and he was informed that there was no small plot available then.Thereafter he met Regional Manager Mr.Mujawar and even he told him that the plot is not available.P.W.1 informed about the same to Mr.Rathi.After about two days, P.W.1 and his Directors again approached Mr.They were informed that no plot is available and in the event any one surrenders plot then such plot could be alloted to them.At the end of April 1986,::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 13/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc Mr.Rathi again told PW.1 to make inquiry about the plot.He again went to the office of Mr.Mujawar.However, he was not available.P.W.1 spoke to Mr.Pardeshi and appraised him about the requirement of plot.Shri Pardeshi told him that two plots are available.He also stated that he would charge Rs.1200/- as his commission and half the price of the plot is required to be deposited by way of draft.Pardeshi also told him that he will have to pay Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, in cash to various officers in MIDC.He also stated that those officers were Regional Manager, Assistant Engineer and Office Superintendent.P.W.1 informed about the said fact to Director Mr.Rathi who told him to go ahead.Thereafter P.W.1 went to the office of Mr.Pardeshi to meet him.He was shown the map and the plots which were available.P.W.1 approved one plot.He was told that a draft for an amount of Rs.27,000/-, will have to be given for applying for the plot.P.W.1 conveyed this fact to Director Mr.Rathi.Rathi said corruption is increasing and he has to do something.After obtaining instructions from Mr.He lodged the complaint with the office.Panchas::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 14/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc were called.P.W.1 produced amount of Rs.17,000/-, to be used in the trap.Pre-trap panchanama was recorded.Instructions were given to P.W.1 as well as the panchas.The raiding party proceeded to the office of MIDC.P.W.1 and the pancha (P.W.2) entered into the office of MIDC.They were informed that accused no.2 was waiting for them for considerable time, and, thereafter, he left the office.P.W.1 contacted accused no.2 on phone.Accused no.2 informed him that the bribe amount was tobe handed over to Mr.Mujawar by going to his residence.He was called near Alka Talkies for visiting house of Mujawar.Thereafter, at about 7:30 p.m., P.W. 1 and panch no.1 went to Alka Talkies.Raiding party followed them.Accused no2. met them.They went towards Mukund Nagar.On reaching near the house of Mujawar, accused no.2 asked them to wait there as he would make inquiry about the availability of Mr.Accused no.2 went to the house of Mr.Mujawar and after returning informed P.W.1 and panch that it is not possible to hand over the amount to Mr.Mujawar as there are guests in his house.Hence, all of them returned to the office of ACB.Trap was withdrawn.Bribe amount was taken from P.W.1 and he was instructed to come on the next day morning at 8:30 a.m. for trap.He further deposed that on 6 th::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 15/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc May, 1986, he went to the office of ACB.The bribe amount of Rs17,000/- were kept in two packets, one packet was containing Rs.15,000/- and another packet was Rs.2,000/-.Anthresin powder was applied to the bribe amount and the same were kept in an envelope.Both the packets were given to the complainant which were kept by him in the Shabnam bag, which he was carrying.Instructions were given to him and panchas.They proceeded towards MIDC office.P.W.1 and panch no.1 sat in the office of Mr.Accused no.2 came there.Accused no.2 then met Mr.He informed P.W.1 that his work is done.Accused no.2 asked P.W.1 whether he was aware about the phone call from Mr.Rathi to Mr.He told P.W.1 to make enjury about hone call.Thereafter, P.W.1, accused no.2 and panch came downstairs.Accused no.2 left.Trap was withdrawn.Both the packets containing bribe amount were taken by P..I Joshi.Again Anthrasin powder was::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 16/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc applied to bribe amount.Pre-trap panchanama was drawn.Bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- were kept in one packet.The raiding party proceeded towards the office of MIDC.P.W.1 and panch no.1 went in office of MIDC.On 10 th May, 1986, no trap was effected.All of them returned to the office of ACB.Amount was taken from him.Panchas were present.Again pre-trap panchanama was drawn.Requisite formalities were completed.Anthrasin powder was applied to Rs.3,000/-.P.W.1 and panch no.1 went to the office of MIDC.Thereafter, all of them went to the canteen.Thereafter, to signal was given to the members of raiding party and accused were apprehended.The said amount was allegedly demanded by accused no.2 from complainant.Accused no.2 was purportedly doing the work of agent and helping buyer of the plot in MIDC industrial area.He is a private person.He is acting as an agent by charging commission.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::22 To summarise the case of prosecution, the plot was required to be purchased by complainants company in MIDC area Chinchwad.He stated that amount is to be paid to Mr.Mujawar and told P.W.1 to meet in evening.However, again trap failed.P.W.1 has not stated that Mr.Rathi had told him that he had called Mr.Trap was unsuccessful.Thereafter trap was arranged on 10th May, 1986 which was also aborted.Reason has not been disclosed, who had called P.W.1 to MIDC on 12 th May, 1986 is not clear.Bribe amount was reduced to Rs.3,000/-.ORAL JUDGMENT :::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::Those officers were Regional Manager, Assistant Engineer and Office Superintendent.(c) Complainant informed the aforesaid facts to his Director Mr.His assistant showed the::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 4/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc map of plots available, and, took the complainant on the site and showed him the plots.Thereafter, both of them returned to the office.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::(e) The complainant informed that the plot shown to him has been approved.The accused no.2 gave list of documents required for applying for plot.He also informed that draft amount of Rs..27,000/-, would be required towards plot.Complainant left the office.(f) Complainant conveyed the above facts to Mr.Rathi, who stated that corruption is increasing day by day and he would do something for that.Complainant informed Mr.Rathi, that he would report the matter to police.Rathi told him to go ahead and in first week of May complainant went to the office of ACB.Two panch witnesses were summoned.Panch witnesses were introduced to him..::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::Anthrasin powder was applied to the currency notes, which were kept in envelope which was given to complainant.(i) The trap which was laid on 5th May, 1986 and 6th May, 1986 was unsuccessful and the same was withdrawn by drawing withdrawal panchanama of the trap.While withdrawing second trap, it was agreed between accused no.2 and the complainant that accused no.2 would contact the complainant on phone in respect of future action.Complainant informed the said fact to ACB::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 6/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::(k) Complainant approached ACB on 10th May, 1986 panchas were present.Anthrasin powder was applied to bribe amount.Pre trap panchanama was drawn bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-, was kept in packet.Complainant and panchas followed by raiding party proceeded to MIDC office.No trap was effected.They returned to office of ACB.Rs.3000/- was taken as a bribe amount.Anthrasin powder was applied to the said amount.The currency notes were kept in one envelope and the said envelope was kept in the Shabnam bag of the complainant.Pre trap panchanama was recorded.(e) On 12th May, 1986, the complainant and panch no.1 left the office of ACB to MIDC office.After acceptance of the bribe amount, the complainant gave signal to the members of raiding party.The raiding party effected raid and the accused were apprehended.Search of accused no.1 was conducted.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::rpa 7/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc Anthrasin powder was found on the outer cover packet containing bribe amount.Post-trap panchanama was drawn.The packet containing bribe amount was also recovered.The investigation completed and the charge sheet was filed.4 Prosecution examined three witnesses in support of its case.P.W.1 Hiramb Anant Patwardhan is the complainant, P.W.2 Balwant Wasudeo Soman is the panch witness and P.W.3 Ramchandra Krishnaji Joshi is the investigating officer.5 After recording the evidence of the witnesses, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::The defence has not been able to discard the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Respondent no.1 was the public servant working with MIDC and respondent no.2 was a private person acting as an agent.It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.1/complainant clearly establishes that for allotment of the plot required by the complainant's company, the accused had demanded the bribe.The demand and acceptance has been proved.It is submitted that the fact that the bribe amount has been recovered from the possession of accused no.1 has been clearly proved the charges beyond doubt.Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record.Since the demand and acceptance has been established, the accused ought not have been acquitted by the trial Court.The judgment of the trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record.It is, therefore, submitted that the judgment is required tobe interfered with by setting aside the same and the accused deserves tobe convicted for the offences for which they were charged.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::The prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused no.1 have demanded the amount.The prosecution has not established that the amount was to be paid to the other officers of MIDC, and, therefore, the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities.It is, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has given a finding of acquittal which is not required to be set aside.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::The witnesses were cross-examined by the defence.Thus, the defence of the accused which is apparent from the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the written submissions tendered before the trial Court vide Exhibit 95 denotes that the accused have denied the incident, and, thus,::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 12/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc the defence is of total denial.I have also perused the reasons assigned by trial Court while passing impugned judgment of acquittal.On perusal of the evidence on record, I do not find that any interference is required to disturb judgment of the trial Court.The evidence of the witness suffers from various infirmities which creates doubt about the veracity of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution.Raiding party followed them.When they reached at MIDC office, accused no.2 was not there.Accused no.1 approached to them and invited them for tea.Accused no.1 informed that he is getting his work done from the Superintendent.Accused no.2 came to the office at about 1:30 to 2:00 p.m. Accused no.2 met the Superintendent Raje and after meeting him he met the complainant.Allotment letter was in the signature of Mr.Accused no.2 inquired as to whether P.W.1 has brought the bribe amount.All them went to ground floor.They went to the canteen.P.W.1 took the packet containing bribe amount and kept the same in front of accused no.1 near the counter.The distance between the counter and the door is one feet.The accused no.2 gave a signal to accused no.1 to accept the amount.Accordingly, accused no.1 took the packet in his hand and kept the same in his pant pocket.P.W.1 then gave signal to the raiding party who entered into the canteen and apprehended the accused.Post trap panchanama was drawn.Amount was recovered.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::11 In the cross-examination of P.W.1 it was elicited that about 3 to 4 months prior to filing complaint, he met Mr.Mujawar in his office.He again met Mr.Mujawar along with Mr.Rathi and Mr.Lohiya regarding allotment of plot.They were informed that small plot is not available.He met accused no.1 who inquired about his visit.He asked to wait.Accused no.2 came there.In the examination-in-chief it was deposed that accused no.2 was introduced to P.W1 by one person from MIDC office.He deposed that allotment of plots from::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 18/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc MIDC area was within exclusive power of Mr.Mujawar.Allotment letter was given to him on 12 th May, 1986, the date on which trap was effected.Anthrasin powder was applied on outer cover of packet and every time bribe amount was kept in custody of P.W.3 whenever the trap is not effected.By retaining bribe amount, Shabnam bag was given to him.From 5th May, 1986 to 12th May, 1986, accused no.1 did not demand money from him.Accused no.2 had informed him that the amount was to be handed over to Mr.Accused no.2 informed him that plot was alloted to company and that necessary documents would be prepared in the office and would be given to the company.He also admitted that there was crowd of customers in the canteen and the person sitting on counter and customers in the canteen witnessed giving of bribe.Crowd was gathered after the trap.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::He also admitted that the bribe amount was to be given to Mr.It is also apparent that::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 19/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc the allotment letter of the plot was issued in favour of complainant's company.On 5 th May, 1986, the bribe amount which was tobe handed over to the accused was in the sum of Rs17,000/-.On 6th May, 1986, the amount of bribe was Rs.17,000/- and amount was divided into two parts as Rs.15,000/- and Rs.2,000/-.On 10th May, 1986 bribe amount was Rs.3,000/-.On 12th May, 1986, the amount of bribe was Rs.3,000/- fluctuation in quantum of amount creates doubt about the version of the complainant.It is also clear that the requisite formalities towards allotment of plot were completed.It is not the case of the prosecution that before issuance of allotment letter, the accused kept on demanding the money for allotting the plot.Complaint proceeded on the basis that the bribe amount was to be paid to Mr.Mujawar.The amount was not given to Mr.The agreement and allotment letter was handed over to P.W.1 on 12th May, 1986 Initially P.W.1 was informed by accused no.2 that cash amount of Rs.15,000/-, to Rs.20,000/- was to be given to MIDC officers and according to P.W.1, the said fact::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 20/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc was disclosed by him to Mr.Rathi and despite that P.W.1 was informed by Mr.Rathi to go ahead with purchase of plot.However, as per deposition of P.W.1, Mr.Rathi was allegedly concerned about corruption and it was decided to lodge complaint with ACB.13 P.W.2 is the panch witness.He was apprised the facts mentioned in the complaint.They met accused no.1 who informed them that the work of complainant is done.They were also informed that accused no.2 was waiting for them and he has left the office.Complainant wanted to see the plot allotted to him.Accused no.1 showed P.W.1 the map pointing the plot.It is pertinent to note that accused no.1 did not make any demand of bribe amount for completing the work.On the same day at about 6:30::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 21/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc p.m., the raiding party proceeded to house of Mr.Trap was not effected.Both of them then went to the office of MIDC.Accused no.2 handed over agreement letter of allotment and other necessary documents.Thereafter accused no.2 was called by Regional Officer in his cabin.Accused no.2 informed the complainant that Regional Manager has received a telephone from Director of Company and that they were acquainted with each other.Accused no.2 told P.W.1 to hand over Rs.2,000/- to enable him to distribute the same amongst senior staff.Trap could not be effected and, hence, the same was withdrawn.On 12th May, 1986, P.W.2 was called in the office of ACB and the complainant informed that amount of Rs.3,000/- was only to be handed over and no amount was to be handed over to Regional Manager due to telephonic call between the Regional Manager::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 22/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc and Director of company.Hence, Anthrasin powder was applied to the amount of Rs.3,000/-, which was kept in the packet.Thereafter they proceeded to MIDC office.The bribe amount was recovered.Post-trap panchanama was recorded.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::14 It is not established that accused no.1 was aware that the packet which were handed over by the complainant to him was towards the bribe amount.The case of the prosecution proceeded on the basis that the bribe was to be paid to Mr.P.W.2 has not referred to unsuccessful trap dated 10 th May, 1986,::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 23/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc although according to P.W.1 same panchas were called in office for trap on 10th May,1986, anthrasin powder was applied to bribe amount of Rs.3000/-, pre trap panchanama was drawn, P.W1 and P.W.2 went to office of MIDC, followed by raiding party.15 In the cross-examination PW.2 has stated that after withdrawal of trap, bribe amount was kept in ACB office along with contents of Shabnam bag.On 5th May, 1986, accused no.2 took auto rickshaw to residence of Mr.Accused no.2 gave visiting card of Regional Manager.On 6 th May, 1986, he gave one chit to complainant.Plot allotted by Regional Manager.It is the case of the prosecution that whenever a pre-trap panchanama was recorded, anthrasin powder was applied to the bribe amount and the same was kept in an envelope.It is also alleged that Anthrasin powder was also applied to the envelope containing the bribe amount which was kept in the Shabnam bag.On failure of the trap on 5 th May, 1986, 6th May, 1986, the bribe amount kept in the envelope was handed over to the investigating officer.The defence of the accused that the amount was thrusted upon him appears to be plausible.It is also evident that the bribe amount was allegedly handed over to accused no.1 in the canteen.The witnesses have deposed that there were customers in the canteen.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::16 P.W.3 Ramchandra Joshi is the investigating officer.He has narrated the case of the prosecution and recording of pre- trap panchanama and post-trap panchanama.In the cross- examination he has deposed that the complaint of P.W.1 was against Mr.On 5th May, 1986, after withdrawal of trap, envelope kept in a cupboard and articles kept therein were taken out.He could not assign any reason as to why the panchanama effected in that regard is not on record.On 6 th May, 1986 and 10th May, 1986 only statements of complainant were recorded.On 5 th May, 1986, 6th May, 1986 and 12th May, 1986, he was waiting at the ground floor of the MIDC Office.P.W.3::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 25/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc further deposed that he had not recorded statement of witnesses from canteen.Chit seized from accused no.1 is not on record.Accused no.1 did not demand the amount from the complainant.He did not seize Shabnam bag which carry bribe amount.Letter dated 5th May, 1986 (Exhibit-68), forwarded by the complainant's company (Exhibit-66/67) to the Regional Officer stating that the offer letter dated 2nd May, 1986, was received by the complainant's company and the draft of Rs.27,000/- dated 5th May, 1986 is being forwarded and the balance amount shall be paid within the stipulated time.The letter also indicate that application for allotment duly filled and signed by the partners of the company is submitted and the request was made to issue the allotment letter at the earliest.Exhibit - 71 is the order issued on 9 th May, 1986 by chief executive officer for acceptance of payment of Rs.27,000/- made by complainants company towards earnest money for plot.On perusal of these documents, it is apparent that the work of the complainant was being done and the allotment letter was issued to the complainant's company.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::On scrutiny of the complaint Exhibit-77, it can be seen that the amount of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, as a bribe amount was allegedly demanded for paying the same to the Regional Officer Mr.As stated in the complaint, Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, were demanded as a bribe amount in paying the same to the office of MIDC.The earlier trap dated 5 th May, 1986, 6th May, 1986 and 10th May, 1986 had admittedly failed.Prior to that the application was already forwarded, the same was accepted, earnest amount of::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 28/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc Rs.27,000/-, was already deposited by the complainant's company and request was made to issue the allotment letter.Thus, apparently, on 12th May, 1986, the day on which the sanction letter was issued, trap was allegedly effected.There are contradictions in the evidence of witnesses.19 Section 161 of Indian Penal Code reads as follows:::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::Explanations.- "Expecting to be a public servant".If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section." [Repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), section 31]."::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::There is no cogent evidence to establish that accused no.1 accepted gratification as a motive or reward for rendering or attempting to render any service or dis-::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::In any trial of an offence punishable under Sections 161 or 165 of IPC or of an offence referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Acct, punishable under Sub-section (2) thereof, it is proved that on accused person has accepted or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be p resumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing as::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 32/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc the case may be as motive or reward such as mentioned in section 161, or as the case may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knew to be inadequate where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 165 A of IPC or under clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Act, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be as a motive or reward such as mentioned in section 161 of IPC or as the case may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::The presumption envisaged under Section 4 of P.C. Act can be invoked in the event it is proved that accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to acceptor attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person any gratification or valuable thing.Initially P.W.1 contacted office superintendent MIDC for plot and he was informed about non-availability of plot.P.W.1 than approached Regional Manager Mr.Mujawar who also stated that plot is not available.P.W.1, Mr.Rathi and another Director of company again approached MIDC and they were again informed about non availability of plot.At the end of April 1986, Mr.Rathi told P.W.1 to again make enquiry regarding plot.P.W.1 met accused no.2 that plot is available.He also informed that Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- is required to be paid to various officers.P.W.1 contacted Mr.Rathi and apprised him about the aforesaid fact.Rathi told him to go ahead.The date of this incident is not disclosed.P.W.1 or Mr.Rathi did not lodge complaint, and P.W.1 was instructed to 1 AIR 1979 SC 1408::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 34/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc go ahead with purchase of plot.P.W.1 was explained requirement for purchasing plot.Map and plot were shown to him.Accused did not make any demand of bribe on that day.Rathi showed concern for corruption although initially he instructed P.W.1 to go ahead with purchase of plot.Bribe amount was Rs.17,000/-.On what basis the quantum of bribe was decided is not clear.Raiding party visited MIDC office.Accused no.2 had left.Accused No.1 did not demand bribe.Accused no.2 was contacted on phone.Accused no.2 did not demand money.On 6 th May, 1986 again trap was arranged.Amount was devided in two packets (Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/-).P.W.1 has not disclosed the details about preferring application for plot and completing requisite procedure for allotment of plot.23 The company of complainant submitted handwritten application for land in MIDC on 2 nd May, 1986 (Exhibit - 54).Application in proforma was submitted to MIDC (Exhibit - 55).Requisite documents, such as Bio-Data, project report, partnership deed etc., were also forwarded.Letter dated 2 nd May, 1986, stating that, it will be possible for the corporation to consider their request for allotment of plot admeasuring 450 square feet.The company was requested to submit application and earnest money in the sum of Rs.27,000/- (Exhibit - 63/64).The complainant is silent regards to aforesaid documents.P.W.1 has not disclosed the date on which the accused no.2 had told him about payment of money to various officers.The MIDC issued document dated 12th May, 1986 containing office remark about application for plot deposit of earnest money of Rs.27,000/- and request for further order (Exhibit-65).MIDC issued order dated 12 th May, 1986 granting Sanction for allotment of plot (Exhibit-66/67).Letter dated 5th May, 1986 was sent by complainant company to::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 ::: rpa 36/37 415-apeal-142-02.doc Regional Officer MIDC, enclosing Demand Draft of Rs.27,000/- (Exhibit - 68) order accepting amount of Rs.27,000/- dated 5 th May, 1986 (Exhibit - 71).P.W.1 has not furnished details about the same.The bribe was to be paid to officers of MIDC in the sum of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-.On 5 th May, 1986, the bribe was to be given to accused no.2 and Mr.On 6th May, 1986, bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- was to be given to Assistant Engineer and Mr.Trap had failed.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 speaks volume of doubt.Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::24 In view of the above, I do not find any reason to deviate from the view taken by the trial Court and hence the Appeal preferred by the State challenging impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2020 18:39:51 :::
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
142,123,980 |
23 28.01.2015 AB Court 34 C.R.M. 15542 of 2014 Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 7th November, 2014 in connection with Sutahata Police Station Case No. 29 of 2014 Dated 30.01.2014 under Sections 379/461 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code In re : Sk.Kajibul @ Kaju ...Petitioner.Ms. Sutanuka Chowdhury ... for the Petitioner.Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ... for the State.Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the State.We have also perused the Case Diary.Let a copy of this Order be served upon the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district by the learned Registrar General of this Court.Let a plain copy of this Order be given to Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, learned Counsel appearing for the State.(TAPEN SEN, J.) (INDRAJIT CHATTERJEE, J.)
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,421,284 |
In nut-shell, the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court was that the deceased-widow was serving as maid servant in the house of the appellant Jagdish Devda.The appellant assured her for Court-marriage.On 25-6-97, in the night she went to the appellant at 9.00 PM for deliberations regarding expenses of the Court-marriage.During the course of talks, quarrel developed between them and the appellant threatened her to eliminate her whereupon the deceased herself brought kerosene in a bottle from her aunt and while standing by the side of the appellant, challenged him for killing her upon which, the appellant poured kerosene oil on her person and ablazed her.The appellant, after litting fire ran away and immediately thereafter, her aunt reached over there.She extinguished the fire after throwing water on the person of the deceased Madhubai.She was taken to the hospital at Rajgarh where she was attended in the intervening night of 25th and 26th June, 1997 at 12.35 AM by Dr. O.P. Sahu (P.W. 8).Dr. Sahu prepared MLC Report (Ex. P-7) and found in total 14 to 16 per cent burn.The patient was conscious and was admitted in the Surgical Ward.According to Ex. P-7, there was 2nd degree burn on front of chest and back of abdomen, back of both arms and back of chest.Her condition was good.Dr. Sahu sent information to the police by letter Ex. D-2, dated 26-6-97 which was received by the police on 26-6-97 at 6.55 AM.By this letter, the doctor mentioned that Madhubai sustained burn-injury in the night by lamp (Chimney).During the course of treatment, the police of P.S. Rajgarh sent a letter of request to the Medical Officer District Hospital, Rajgarh, through Constable for recording of Dying Declaration of deceased because the Executive Magistrate was not available.On the basis of this request, Dr. P.W. 6 R.C. Bansiwal recorded the Dying Declaration of deceased on 26-6-97 at 7.00 PM in the presence of two witnesses namely Memuna Qureshi (Axillary Nurse Midwife) and Dalchand (sweeper) in the hospital.Signatures of the deceased Madhu were also obtained on the dying declaration.Madhubai died on 1 -7-97 in the hospital.Her body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. P.W. 8 O.P. Sahu with a Panel of three doctors including himself.He found second degree of 14% burn on front of chest, neck, upper arm, back of abdomen and back of chest.The injuries were ante mortem in nature.Foul smell was also coming from the burn injuries due to infection and sloughing tissues.JUDGMENT S.L. Kochar, J.This appeal aims at setting aside the judgment dated 14-9-99 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajgarh (Biaora) in Sessions Trial No. 210/97 thereby finding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine to further suffer additional S.I. for 15 days.According to this doctor, the deceased died because of delayed shock due to inflammed injuries on the body.After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed.The appellant abjured his guilt and took the plea of alibi.He examined two witnesses in his defence.Learned Trial Court finding the appellant guilty convicted him on the basis of the Dying Declaration (Ex. P-6) recorded by P.W. 6 Dr. R. Bansiwal.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record carefully.It emerged from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution that the deceased was a widow and working as maid-servant in the house of the appellant.There was some sort of proposal between the appellant and the deceased in regard to their marriage, which has been stated by P. W. 1 Sunderbai, mother of the deceased.After sustaining burn injuries, the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital by P.W. 5 Kulsumbai.She has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but she has admitted the fact of taking of deceased Madhubai to the hospital in burnt condition.She did not disclose as to how the deceased suffered burn injuries.Dr. O.P. Sahu (P.W. 8) attended the patient Madhubai in the hospital for the first time in the night at 12.35 AM and also examined her.He also found 14 to 16 percent burn injuries.The patient was conscious.After the death of Madhubai, this doctor alongwith a panel of two doctors including himself, performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found infection in the burn injuries and the deceased suffered in total 14 per cent burn.According to the opinion of this doctor, the deceased died because of delayed shock due to infection and if infection would not have been developed, there was no possibility of her death because of less percentage of burn.In cross-examination, he has specifically stated that the deceased died because of infection.He also stated that at the time of admission and examination of Madhubai, she had disclosed that she sustained burn injuries due to lamp (Chimney) and he sent the information to this effect to the police.This document is Ex. D-2 containing this fact.This witness has also staled that upto that time, nobody had disclosed with regarding to setting Ore to Madhubai.After admission of Madhubai in the surgical ward, at the request of the police P.W. 6 Dr. R. Bansiwal recorded the dying declaration of Madhubai.We have perused this dying- declaration as well as the statement of Dr. R. Bansiwal.The dying-declaration (Ex. P-6) is disclosing the fact that the doctor commenced recording dying-declaration on 26-6-97 at 7.00 PM and gave certificate of her fitness to give statement.After completion of the statement, there is endorsement that D.H. Rajgarh, S.W.. No. III Date 26-6-97, Time 7.00 P.M.. This endorsement and the endorsement of date and time on the top of document (Ex. P-6) dying-declaration are disclosing the same time, i.e., 7.00 PM and this is apparently incorrect.If recording of dying-declaration was commenced at 7.00 P.M., then certainly its recording must have taken some time to say at least ten to 1.5 minutes.But, after recording of the dying-declaration, the place, ward number, date and time mentioned are the same.This dying-declaration was recorded in the presence of Memuna Qureshi A.N. Midwife and Dalchand Sweeper of the hospital.Both these witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.After framing of charge, trial programme was submitted by the Govt. Pleader for summoning the prosecution witnesses on 10-1-98 and in this list, the names of both these witnesses were not mentioned.No reason has been assigned by the prosecution as to why these witnesses were not examined who were very important and material witnesses and they could throw sufficient light upon the genuineness of the dying- declaration.Dr. P.W. 6 R. Bansiwal, in his statement in Para 6 has deposed that at the time of recording of dying-declaration, deceased Madhubai was talking with witness Kulsumbai (P.W. 5).She was asking Kulsumbai and thereafter giving reply to him.Contrary to the fact of dying-declaration (Ex. P-6) about allegation of setting fire by pouring kerosene oil, to the deceased by the appellant, the doctor P.W. 8 O.P. Sahu has stated in Para 7 that when deceased was brought in the hospital and examined by him, she had disclosed the fact of sustaining burn- injuries by lamp (chimney).She did not disclose about setting fire after pouring kerosene oil by the appellant.This fact has also been specifically mentioned in the document (Ex. D-2) which information was sent by the doctor to the police and the same was also recorded in the Roznarncha Sanha.Dr. P.W. 6 Bansiwal in Para 8 of his deposition, has stated that in the dying declaration (Ex. P-6), he did not mention the time of completion of the dying declaration, but, the time is available in the document Ex. P-6 and this witness has not been confronted with this fact by the defence Counsel and the Trial Court has also not taken notice of this fact.It is settled legal position that the conviction can be sustained only on the basis of the dying declaration without any corroboration if the same is found fully reliable by the Court.But, here in the case on hand, in view of the first report made by Dr. P.W. 8 O.P. Sahu (Ex. D-2) and his positive admission in his statement that the deceased disclosed about sustaining of burn injuries by lamp (Chimney) is creating doubt upon the veracity of the dying-declaration (Ex. P-6) recorded by Dr. P.W. 6 R. Bansiwal.Dr. Bansiwal also admitted that during the course of recording of dying declaration the deceased was having deliberations with witness Kulsumbai.As a matter of fact, the doctor should have not allowed the presence of Kulsumbai near the deceased at the time of recording of dying-declaration.The non-examination of two independent witnesses of the same hospital namely Memuna Qureshi and Dalchand without assigning any reason, is also throwing doubt over the veracity and the truthfulness of the dying-declaration.The burden of proof is on the prosecution that the dying declaration is a true statement of the deceased and recorded after taking due precautions and care.The deceased was in a fit statement of mind and was not scumbed to any kind of suggestion and tutoring by her near and dear or any body in favour or against the dying declaration.The Trial Court has also failed to note on the basis of the contents of the post-mortem report (Ex. P-8) proved by Dr. P.W. 8 O.P. Sahu that the deceased died due to delayed shock which can be due to inflammed burn injuries on the body.P.W. 8 Dr. Sahu attended the deceased first in point of time and he did not rind any smell or kerosene oil and did not mention in the, M.L.C. Report (Ex. P-7).Nothing is mentioned about smell of kerosene oil in the M.L.C. Report and Dr. Sahu also did not say anything in his statement in Court.Although P. W. 7 Banwarilal Head Constable has deposed and proved the seizure of bottle containing some quantity of kerosene, burnt piece of cloth having small piece of meat vide seizure memo Ex. P-3, but firstly, the panch witnesses have not supported the seizure and secondly, these articles were not sent for examination to the Forensic Science, Laboratory for chemical examination.Therefore, the seizure of these articles is of no consequence.In view of the aforesaid marshalling and discussion of oral and documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that it would be quite unsafe to rely on the dying-declaration (Ex. P-6) for proving the guilt of the appellant for committing murder of Madhubai without corroboration by the independent material particulars.We have noted several infirmities as mentioned hereinabove and contrary to the story of the prosecution about sustaining of burn injuries by the deceased.Consequently, the appeal of the appellant succeeds and it is hereby allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
142,128,771 |
Case diary perused.This first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.581/2018 registered by P.S. Waidhan, District Singrauli (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506/34, 325 and 307 of the IPC.As per the case of the prosecution, on 30/08/2018 at about 8.30 p.m., injured Sunnat Nisha was grazing her cattle in the field, at that time, applicants along with other co-accused persons have reached there and have beaten her by means of wooden sticks and pelted stones on her.When her sons Mashood Sheikh and Maksood Sheikh reached there to rescue her, applicants have also beaten them.The report of the incidence has been lodged at police Station Waidhan District Singrauli, on that basis, Crime No.581/2018 under Sections 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC has been registered against the applicants.On the false report of the complainant, the case has been registered THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.46497/2018 (Moujood Sheikh & another Vs.State of M.P.) 2 against the applicants.They are ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 24/09/2018 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.On going through the medical treatment documents, it seems that there is thin linear undisplaced fracture of occipital mastoid was found on the person of complainant Sunnat Nisha .Injuries of the other injured persons are found to be simple in nature.It is also pertinent to mention that applicants' party have also lodged an FIR against complainant's party.C. No.46497/2018 (Moujood Sheikh & another Vs.
|
['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', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,421,313 |
Both the parties have been heard.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
142,132,224 |
This is third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The second bail application has been dismissed vide order dated 9.10.2015 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.25/2015 registered at Police Station, Karahal, District Sheopur, for the offence punishable under Section 376(D), 366, 506-B of IPC and under Section 3(ii)(v), 3(i)(xii) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities)The other co- accused Bunty and Ramveer have also been enlarged on bail vide order dated 7.7.2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.4279/2015 and vide order dated 10.7.2015 passed in M.Cr.C.No.5710/2015, hence on parity the applicant is also entitled for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer on the ground that no new ground is made out for grant bail.I have perused the statements of the victim (PW-1), who has clearly identified Mahendra, who committed rape on her.It is true that co-accused Mahendra has been granted bail by the trial Court itself, who has been identified by the victim during trial and 2 M.Cr.C.No.11659/2015 Ramveer has been granted bail by this Court, hence on parity the applicant is also entitled for bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K.Paliwal) Judge Patil
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
142,132,799 |
He also threatened to kill him, if cheque amount is not paid to him.This revision petition has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02/03/2015 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior in Special Case No.145/2014, whereby the charges under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC have been framed against the applicant.Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged the report that complainant has sold his truck to the applicant.Applicant gave cheques of Rs. 1,70,000/- and Rs. 2,20,000/- respectively.When complainant presented the cheque of Rs. 1,70,000/- in the bank, it was bounced.He demanded money from the applicant.On account of it, on 21/12/13 at about 10-00 p.m., applicant came in the house, thrown the complainant on bed, abused him, saying that "Chamra Wale", if the cheque amount is not paid to him, he would kill him.On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.401/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC and under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered against the applicant.After due investigation charge-sheet has been filed.The learned Special Judge has framed charges under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act along with sections 323, 452, 323, 294, 506-B of IPC against the applicant.Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant has preferred this revision petition.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal.There is no prima facie material to frame the aforesaid charges against the applicant.Similarly, the other charges are also not made out.Hence, prayed that applicant be discharged from the charge.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet and material available in the case-diary.It the FIR,it has categorically been mentioned that applicant came to the house of the complainant, thrown him on the bed and gave abuses.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
142,137,048 |
He deposed that Roypada is a co-villager.He knew his wife Prabhabati.On 21.2.1986 at about 4.30 p.m. while he was in Lalapur Nabarun Sangha, he saw Mira Banerjee and Lilabati encircle Roypada and his wife with two hasuas in their hands.Bhaben Banerjee stabbed Roypada Goswami with a bhojali on his left armpit.On seeing that he fled away.In cross-examination, he stated that he worked in the house of different persons including Roypada Goswami.P.W.3, Roypada Goswami is the defacto complainant in the instant case and the husband of the deceased.He stated that on 21.2.1986 at about 4.30 p.m. the incident took place near Shiva temple at Lalapur.At that time he and his wife were returning home from his father-in-law's house.As they entered Lalapur village, they were attacked by Ashutosh Goswami and others.They rushed towards Shiva temple.Injury no.1 may be caused 7 by 'bhojali'.Injury no.2 may be caused by hasua and injury no.3 may be caused by sudden fall on earth.P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer of the case.He received written complain from Roypada Goswami and drew a formal first information report.He took up investigation of the case, visited the place of occurrence which was at Lalapur Goswamipara near Shiva temple.He found the deadbody of the lady with injuries on her person.passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malda in Sessions Case 2 No.16 of 1988 arising out of Sessions Trial No.3 of 1996 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life.The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 21.2.1986 around 4.30 p.m. while Roypada Goswami with his wife Prabhabati Goswami (since deceased) were returning from his father-in-law's house, the appellants and one Lilabati Goswami (since deceased) had attacked them near Shiva temple of Lalapur village and had dealt hasua blows on Prabhabati Goswami resulting in her death.Roypada also suffered injuries on his person.On the complaint of Roypada Goswami, English Bazar P.S. Case No. 20 dated 21.2.1986 was registered for investigation against the appellants and Lilabati Goswami.Charge sheet was filed against them under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malda for trial and disposal.Charges were framed against the appellants and the said Lilabati Goswami under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal code.In the course of trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.The defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, the Trial Judge by the impugned judgement and order convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.Nobody appears for the appellants.Ms. Zareen N. Khan is requested to appear as amicus curiae in this matter and assist this court.Ms. Khan argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffered from various infirmities and embellishments.Although P.W.3 claimed that he was an injured witness, no medical evidence in support of such injury had been adduced.P.W.6, in cross- examination, denied the presence of the eyewitnesses to the incident.All the eyewitnesses were interested witnesses and, accordingly, the appeal ought to be allowed.On the other hand, Mr. Hossain with Ms. Das appearing on behalf of the State argued that the evidence of the eyewitnesses are clear, convincing and reliable.Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.P.W.1, Ashok Kumar Goswami is a resident of Lalapur Goswamipara.Roypada tried to save himself and moved away from the place.Thereupon Bhaben Banerjee pushed his bhojali into the throat of Probhabati.4 Lilabati and Mira Banerjee also gave blows with hasua on the backside of Probhabati causing grave injury on her.Prabhabati fell down on the ground.The miscreants fled away.In cross-examination, he denied whether a sessions case was started against Narayan Goswami, Roypada Goswami, Rabindranath and Ajit Goswami for murdering Sunil Goswami.He did not remember whether a life sentence was passed against these persons.P.W.2, Jethu Mondal is also a resident of Lalapur.He deposed that ten years ago in the month of Falgun at about 4.30 p.m. he was at the Shiva temple situated at Lalapur.He saw Roypada and his wife being encircled by the appellants.They were armed with hasua.Bhaben chased Roypada with a bhojali.Then Roypada stepped aside and Bhaben stabbed the wife of Roypada on her throat.When they reached near the temple, Lilabati and 5 Mira encircled them with hasua.Bhaben Banerjee rushed towards them and gave a blow with a bhojali causing minor injury on his left armpit as he stepped aside in time.Bhaben thereafter stabbed his wife with a bhojali at her throat.Lilabati and Mira also hit his wife with hasua.Mira Banerjee succeeded in hitting the victim on her back side with a hasua.His wife suffered bleeding injuries and fell down on the earth and died.One year ago, Sunil Goswami was murdered and he had been named as an accused.He was sentenced to life imprisonment.Presently, he is on bail.He went to the police station and reported the matter to the Darogababu, Narayan Sarkar who recorded his statement which was read over and explained to him.He signed on it (Ext.1).Darogababu came to their village and identified the dead body of his wife.Darogababu held inquest over the dead body and collected bloodstained earth and simple earth, interrogated the witnesses and returned to the police station with the dead body.In cross-examination, he stated that at first he saw Bhaben Banerjee rush towards him from 5/6 cubits.He also saw Mira Rani and Lilabati at a distance of 5/6 cubits for the first time.Bhaben came from the northern side.They tried to flee away but were encircled.P.W.7, Tapesh Chandra Goswami deposed that on 21.2.1986 at about 4.30 p.m. he was by the side of Lalapur Goswamipara near Shiva temple.He saw Roypada and his wife coming towards the Shiva temple from the western side of the village.They were encircled by Bhaben Banerjee with a bhojali in his hand 6 and Lilabati and Mira Banerjee with hasua in their hands.Thereafter, Bhaben Banerjee pushed the bhojali on the throat of Pravabati.Mira Banerjee gave a hasua blow on the back of Pravabati.Probhabati fell down on the ground and died instantly.Bhaben, Mira and Lilabati fled away.He was married to the cousin of Roypada.Ashutosh is his uncle and Mira is the daughter of Ashutosh.P.W.6 is the nephew of Ashutosh Goswami.P.W.4 is the doctor who conducted post mortem over the deadbody of the victim and found the following injuries.One horizontal penetrating injury 2" x 1" with smooth inverted margin at left anterio lateral aspect of base of neck passing inwards cutting left carotid artery left pleura and apex of left lung.One bone-deep incised injury 1" x " at right upper-back cutting skin, muscle, vessle, tissues and scapula.One abrasion 1" x " at posterior aspect of left elbow."According to him, death was due to the effect of injuries which are ante mortem and homicidal in nature.He deposed that injury no.1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.To the north of the place of occurrence there was the clubroom of Nabarun Sangha and towards the south of the place of occurrence there was a village pathway.He conducted inquest over the deadbody and proved the inquest report (Ext.3).He examined witnesses and collected postmortem report and submitted charge sheet.It appears from the evidence on record that the family of Ashutosh Goswami and Roypada Goswami were at loggerheads.PW 3 had been convicted for the murder of the son of Ashutosh Goswami and Lilabati Goswami (since deceased).The appellant no.2, Mira Rani Banerjee is the daughter of Ashutosh Goswami and the appellant no. 1 is the son-in-law of Ashutosh.PW 3 had been enlarged on bail pending hearing of the appeal against the conviction recorded against him.On the fateful day, i.e. 21-02-1996 at about 4.30 PM, he was returning home with his wife Prabhabati, the victim, and when they reached Lalapur Nabarunsangha, Ashutosh and others chased them with 8 lathi.They rushed to the Shiv Mandir of the village where the appellant no.2, Mira Banerjee and her mother Lilabati Goswami armed with hasua encircled them.PW 3 tried to save himself and stepped aside and suffered minor injury on his left armpit.Thereafter, Bhaben assaulted Prabhabati with bhujali on her throat.Mira Banerjee assaulted on her on the back with hasua.Lilabati tried to hit the appellant but failed.Prabhabati fell down and died immediately.Evidence of PW 3 is corroborated by other witnesses being PWs.It has been argued that the PWs 3 had been convicted by the murder of a relation of the appellants and the other witnesses are related to him.They are interested witnesses and ought not to be believed.It has also been argued that no independent witness have been examined though incident occurred in a public place.It is true, that there is enmity between the families.Hence, I have taken care to examine the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses with utmost care and circumspection.I note that the evidence of PW 3 is not only corroborated with other witnesses but also the Autopsy Surgeon, PW 4 with regard to the injuries found on the victim which correspond to the manner of assault of the victim as deposed by the aforesaid eyewitness.It is common knowledge that in a fight between the family members local people are unwilling to take sides and depose as witnesses.Motive of commission of the crime has also been established beyond reasonable doubt.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) I agree.
|
['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.
|
1,421,440 |
(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Katpada Main Road, Washermenpet.P.W.2 is the son of P.W.3, and they are also residents of adjacent houses.The accused/appellant is also a neighbour to P.W.3, and P.W.4 is the elder brother of the deceased Nagalingam.At that time, P.W.2 came out of the house.The accused also came out and asked the deceased why he was always creating problems.In turn, the deceased replied that it was a family affair, and he should not interfere.On hearing this, the accused uttered "I know how to deal with this".Then, he took a knife and stabbed Nagalingam on the left chest.When there was hue and cry, the accused left the place of occurrence.Immediately, P.Ws.1 to 4 and others took the victim to the Government Stanley Hospital, where P.W.13 was the Doctor in charge.It was he who admitted the victim at 4.10 P.M., and the statement of the victim was recorded by him.The same is found in the accident register copy marked as Ex.(b) On receipt of the information at 5.00 P.M., P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to H1 Washermenpet Police Station, went to the hospital and took the statement of the deceased.On the strength of the said complaint, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.843 of 2006 under Sections 341, 307 and 506(2) of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P12, was despatched to the Court.The further treatment was given by P.W.14, the Doctor, who conducted operation on Nagalingam.He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence and went to the Government Stanley Hospital.He recorded the statement of the deceased which was also placed before the Court.(d) On receipt of an intimation, P.W.8, the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, proceeded to the hospital and the deceased Nagalingam was identified; but, he could not record his statement since he was unconscious.The report given by him, is marked as Ex.Following the same, the case was altered to Sec.302 of I.P.C. The express report, Ex.P19, was despatched to the Court.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.II, Madras, in S.C.No.42 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:Then, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.He also gave a requisition to the hospital authorities for conduct of autopsy.(f) P.W.15, the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Stanley Medical College, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Nagalingam and issued Ex.P15, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury on the left side of the chest.(g) Pending the investigation, the Investigator came to know that the accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottriyur.Then, the police custody was asked for, and as per the request, it was ordered.At the time of interrogation, the accused gave a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of two witnesses.He also produced bloodstained shirt and also a lungi which were recovered under another mahazar.He was sent for judicial remand again.(h) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and also the material objects which were recovered from the accused on production, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, which resulted in two reports namely Ex.P16, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P17, the Serologist's report.On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed.In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 21 exhibits and 5 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The Court below heard the arguments advanced, scrutinised the materials available and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found him guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel Mr.T.K.Sampath made the following submissions:(i) According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 6.11.2006 at 4.00 P.M., and P.Ws.1 to 4 were eyewitnesses.Even as per the prosecution case, they were all closely related, and thus, they were all interested witnesses.(ii) From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it would be quite clear that the family of the accused and the family of the prosecution witnesses were not in talking terms for a longtime, and they were on inimical terms.Even as per the evidence available, it would be quite evident that the deceased was in a drunken mood and used to be creating problems, and he had got number of enemies.Thus, someone would have murdered him.In order to take revenge, all the prosecution witnesses have come forward to give a false complaint against the accused.(iii) According to the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 has already given a complaint to the police; but, that complaint has been suppressed.Had that complaint been produced before the Court, the truth would have come out, and hence it is a fit case where adverse inference has got to be drawn.5.Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, according to the evidence of P.W.8, the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, he proceeded to the hospital at about 11.40 P.M., and he could not record the dying declaration of the deceased Nagalingam since he was unconscious; but, according to P.W.13, the Doctor, the deceased Nagalingam was first seen by him at 4.10 P.M.; that it could be well seen that Nagalingam could not have taken liquor in the hospital; that the occurrence should have taken place at 4.00 P.M. And he should have taken liquor earlier to the occurrence; that if to be so, when the Metropolitan Magistrate has seen him at about 11.40 P.M., the liquor should have become subsided; but, the Magistrate has found him unconscious; that it would be quite clear that even before 4.10 P.M., when he was seen by P.W.13, the Doctor, he would have been unconscious; that under the circumstances, the statement of the Doctor as found in Ex.P13, the accident register copy, as if he gave the statement to him and the case of the prosecution that it was he who gave the complaint to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, H1 Washermenpet Police Station, and thereafter, to the Inspector of Police, P.W.17, were all nothing but false introduction, and they have got to be rejected.6.The learned Counsel would further submit that the evidence put forth by the prosecution that he was taken to police custody, and at the time of interrogation he came forward with a confessional statement, and it was also recorded in the presence of witnesses following which M.O.1, knife, has also been recovered from him were nothing but introduction in order to suit the prosecution case; that it is not only a case where the prosecution lacked evidence, but also it is a case where the prosecution had no evidence worth-mentioning to offer; that the lower Court has not considered any one of the factual positions, but has found him guilty, and hence he has got to be acquitted by this Court.7.Added further the learned Counsel in the second line of his argument that in the instant case, even as per the Doctor's evidence, he was in a drunken mood; that the evidence of P.W.2 would clearly indicate that there was a wordy altercation; that the same gave him sudden provocation in which he has acted so, and hence, it was neither intentional nor premeditated; that it was only by the circumstances which provoked him by the deceased; that it would not attract the penal provision of murder, and this legal position has got to be considered by the Court if the Court takes the view that it was the accused who actually stabbed him accepting the factual position as put forth by the prosecution.8.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Following the inquest made by P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.15, the Doctor, who has given his categorical opinion that Nagalingam died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained on the chest and also corresponding internal injuries.The fact that Nagalingam died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant/accused at any stage of the proceedings.The first comment made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P.Ws.1 to 4 were closely related, and hence they have falsely implicated the accused has got to be discountenanced.All the four witnesses have spoken to the effect that they were all available at the place of occurrence; that it was the deceased who came to his brother Velavan and demanded money; that when they were talking to each other, it was the accused who intervened; that there was a wordy altercation between the deceased and the accused; and that the accused stabbed him on the chest and fled away from the place of occurrence.When he has been cross-examined to the effect that whether Nagalingam was unconscious, he has categorically denied the same.The Doctor would state that it was Nagalingam who gave the statement, and he has also recorded the same.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,328,115 |
-: 1 :- Misc.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Misc.(Rustam Alam s/o Kamaruddin Mia Sheik Siddiki v/s State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated : 11.09.2019 :-Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant - Rustam Alam.Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.Submissions were made on this first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.218/2019 registered at Police Station Y.D.Nagar, Mandsaur for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.As per prosecution story, the applicant with other co-accused persons were making plan for committing dacoity.Revolver with six round cartridges has been recovered from the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been filed and the other co-accused have been released on bail by this Court.On this ground bail has been sought.Learned counsel for the State was also heard who has referred to the criminal antecedents against the applicant with two cases under Section 457 and 380 of IPC registered against the applicant.Considered the case-diary.After duly considering the submissions, this application is being allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sumCc as per rules.[ Shailendra Shukla ] JUDGE (AKS) Digitally signed by Anil Kumar Sharma Anil DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, Kumar st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=753b65d225a974 6e99a75a441cdc964aa7a1 Sharma 58d438793e7f32467b3557 45f3ae, cn=Anil Kumar Sharma Date: 2019.09.11 18:28:56 +05'30'
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,336,584 |
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):On the Claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), presented on 05.04.2006 and registered as MACT case No.483/2006 seeking compensation on account of death of Raman Kumar Taneja in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 25.08.2005, was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 21.05.2012 which is impugned through the appeal at hand.In the claim petition it was contended that the deceased was going in his Martui car bearing no. HR 06 D 0896 with two passengers including Sudhir Rana on the front seat and Lalit on the rear when, at about 11 PM in the area of Bhalaswa village, the car was hit by truck bearing No.HR 56 3146 (the truck) causing injuries to all the occupants, Raman Kumar Taneja (the MAC.APP.No.1245/2012 Page 1 of 3 driver), dying as a result.The accident was subject matter of first information report (FIR) No.593/05 registered for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in police station Jahangirpuri, Delhi.It is admitted that the truck is owned by the first respondent herein and that it was insured against third party risk for the period in question with the second respondent herein.It is stated that the truck was driven by the third respondent and that it was on account of rash/negligent driving by him that the collision occurred.No.1245/2012 Page 1 of 3During inquiry, aside from evidence of the first claimant (appearing as PW1), the appellants relied on evidence of Mukesh Lamba (PW2) deposing through his affidavit (Ex.PW2/A).According to PW2, the accident had occurred in his presence as he was also moving on the same road in the same direction driving his own car, the truck having overtaken his vehicle and causing the accident against the car of the deceased immediately thereafter.The Tribunal was not satisfied with the evidence of PW2 and while taking note of the fact that the police had also closed the investigation of the case terming it as a case of "hit and run" returned the finding that the truck of the respondents was not involved.It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that hoping that the testimony of PW2 would be accepted, they had not led further evidence for corroboration even though the other occupants of the car (Sudhir Rana and Lalit) have all along been available and their version would provide corroboration.It is submitted that complaint made by Lalit to the investigating police officer, though noted by the Tribunal in the proceedings MAC.APP.No.1245/2012 Page 2 of 3 in the course of inquiry, no benefit on that account was accorded.No.1245/2012 Page 2 of 3The submission now made is that the impugned judgment may be set aside and further opportunity be given to the claimants to prove the involvement, and negligence of the driver of the truck of the respondents.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted no objection to the prayer thus made.In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside.The claim case is remitted to the Tribunal for further inquiry in the course of which the claimants shall be entitled to lead further evidence.Needless to add, the respondents will be entitled to not only participate by cross-examining the additional witness of the claimants but also by leading evidence in rebuttal, if any.The Tribunal's record shall be returned.The appeal is disposed of in above terms.R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 24, 2016/VLD MAC.APP.No.1245/2012 Page 3 of 3No.1245/2012 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,503,427 |
ORDER M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.4.1994 passed by Shri D.S. Sidhu, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents, set aside the order of conviction passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.In brief, the prosecution case was that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises bearing No. 36/1, Raghunath Building as a tenant of the respondent Raghunath.He was paying Rs. 100/- per month as rent for residential portion and Rs. 70/- per month as rent for a shop of the said building.p.m. the respondents came to the spot with intent to dispossess the petitioner from the residential portion of the said building.As per prosecution case, while the respondent Raghunath engaged the petitioner in conversion, the remaining respondents entered the residential portion occupied by the petitioner and dispossessed him by throwing away his household goods therefrom.The petitioner reported the matter to the police but the police did not take any action.However, on 9.4.1981, the petitioner lodged a written report at the Police Station Vasant Bihar as a result whereof a case under Sections 4481.34 IPC was registered against the respondents.Apprehending their arrest, the respondents again came to the spot on 10.4.1981 at about 9 or 9.30 A.M. and on noticing the petitioner's household goods lying scattered in front of his residential portion, removed them in front of his shop.Thereafter, on a distress telephone call given by the petitioner, the police came to the spot, and started investigation.On completion of the investigation, the respondents were charge-sheeted under Sections 448/34 IPC.The respondents abjured their guilt and examined two witnesses (D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 ) in support of their defense.The trial court after assessing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case under Sections 448/34 IPC and as such convicted the respondents under sections 448/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge after reappraising the evidence set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and acquitted the respondents.The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the respondents herein.The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order of the acquittal, has come up in revision before this court.The petitioner (P.W. 3) deposed that he was in occupation of the residential premises bearing No. 36/1, as a tenant of the respondent Raghunath at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-.He also deposed that on 8.4.1981, the respondents came to his house; that while the respondent Raghunath engaged him in conversation, the remaining respondents entered his house and threw away his household goods therefrom and that after dispossessing him from the said house, the respondents went away.Even Madan Singh (D.W. 1) has admitted in his cross-examination that the petitioner (P.W. 3) was in occupation of the said residential premises and thus this witness has lent material corroboration to the testimony of the petitioner (P.W. 3) and the prosecution witnesses Raju and Ganesh.It needs to be highlighted that both the defense witnesses (DW. 1 & DW. 2) have also admitted in their evidence that on the day in question they had seen the petitioner's household goods lying in front of the said house and on their enquiry they were told by the petitioner (P.W. 3) that he was shifting from the premises in question.The circumstance that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises in question coupled with the fact that on the day in question both the defense witnesses had seen the petitioner's household goods lying in front of the said premises amply corroborates the testimony of the petitioner (P.W. 3), Ganesh and Raju regarding the alleged incident.The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,357,182 |
He undertakes to cooperate in the trial as well as in the investigation and would make himself available as and when required.He further submits that he would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant in any manner.Learned counsel further submits that the applicant intends to perform some community service.7.As per the undertaking given by counsel on behalf of the applicant, it is hereby directed that the applicant shall plant 05 saplings (either fruit bearing trees or Neem/Peepal) at his vicinity alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees, because it is the duty of the applicant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them.Heard on I.A. No. 9366/2019, which is an application for impleadment of prosecutrix in cause title.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although prosecutrix is major as per her school register (date of birth is 05.01.2000) but by way of abandoned caution, he intends to implead the prosecustrix.I.A. No. 9366/2019 is duly considered and allowed.Let necessary impleadment is carried out across the Board.After impleadment counsel for the State informs this Court that prosecutrix is already served.With the consent of parties, matter heard finally.The applicant has filed this first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.199/2018 registered at Police Station Kailaras, District Morena for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354-B, 354-C, 506, 34, 376-D of IPC and Section 2 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesA copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge neetu SMT NEETU SHASHANK 2019.11.26 10:30:54 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,473,492 |
W.P.(C) No.3664/2011 Page 5 of 5RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu, being the husband and father respectively of the respondents herein, was employed with the petitioner MCD, initially in the year 1974 as a Warden and subsequently in June, 1981 promoted as Pharmacist; he was along with certain other persons accused in an FIR under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC; vide judgment dated 7th April, 1993 in the said prosecution, though he was acquitted of offence under Section 498A IPC but convicted under Sections 406 to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and payment of fine for possessing dowry items which were recovered from his residence; an appeal was preferred against the said W.P.(C) No.3664/2011 Page 1 of 5 judgment and he was released on bail.W.P.(C) No.3664/2011 Page 1 of 5The petitioner MCD, on account of conviction of the said Sh.A writ petition being CWP No.6927/1999 was preferred by the said Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu against the order of his removal from service.The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16 th October, 2000 directing the said Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu to avail the remedy of departmental appeal.The said order records that the FIR aforesaid was at the instance of the wife of the nephew of Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu and also that the department was not bound to wait for the result of the appeal against the conviction preferred by the said Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu especially when the offence of which he has been convicted was grave misconduct against the weaker sex and which was unbecoming of a responsible government servant and rendering him unfit to continue in service.The said Sh.During the pendency of the said writ petition and the appeal against the conviction order, Sh.While his legal heirs were substituted in the writ petition, the appeal against the conviction was disposed of as abated.W.P.(C) No.3664/2011 Page 2 of 5The Tribunal has vide order dated 15th July, 2010 impugned in this petition held, that the conduct of Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu leading to conviction was very petty, of retaining few utensils of dowry of his nephew's wife; that there were extenuating circumstances of his wife being a T.B. patient; that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority had not considered the said aspects and had not considered that Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu had been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A IPC; that every conviction may not be a moral turpitude, that role of Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu was not the main role as he was merely an uncle; that there had been non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.Accordingly, Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu was deemed to have been reinstated in service with effect form 7th October, 1999 and deemed to have been in service till his demise and which period was directed to be computed for determining his qualifying service for the purpose of retiral dues.Direction was issued for release of the retiral dues to the legal heirs.While issuing notice of the petition, the operation of the order of the Tribunal was stayed and subsequently the said order was made absolute.7. Rule.We have, with consent, heard the counsels finally.We are unable to agree with the order of the Tribunal.The Tribunal has lost sight of the conviction of Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu under Section W.P.(C) No.3664/2011 Page 3 of 5 406 IPC.We are unable to comprehend as to how the Tribunal has observed that the conviction for the said offence could not be said to be amounting to moral turpitude.Moreover, the said conviction was allowed to attain finality by allowing the appeal thereagainst to abate.The ground on which Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu was removed from service was also not such which required any elaborate inquiry inasmuch as the departmental authorities have acted merely on the judgment convicting Sh.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu.Vijay Pal Singh Sahu from service.W.P.(C) No.3664/2011 Page 3 of 5Setting aside of the order of the Tribunal and upholding the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority will impact not the delinquent employee who is now no more but his widow and children by depriving them of pension.It has already been noted by the Tribunal and not disputed before us that his widow is suffering from ailments.W.P.(C) No.3664/2011 Page 4 of 5The same would at least entitle the legal heirs of the deceased delinquent employee to the financial benefits flowing therefrom.We, accordingly, direct the disciplinary authority to consider the aforesaid aspect and pass necessary orders within one month.Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 02, 2011 Bs..
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,500,626 |
Present application has been filed for suspension of sentence.He has been convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 376(2)(j) of the Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to (1) ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 06:46:25 ::: Appln-387-2020.odtsuffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees FiveThousand only), in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 06:46:25 :::Heard learned Advocate Mr. R. M. Deshmukh for applicant, learned APPMr.S. W. Munde for respondent No.1 - State and learned Advocate Mr. A. R. Hange forrespondent No.2 - victim.It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant/appellantthat the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence properly.He failed toconsider that the victim is mentally challenged and though she has been examined, shehas made material improvements.She has clearly stated that she was taught by police.Informant is her mother, however, her testimony would be hearsay taking into (2) ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 06:46:25 ::: Appln-387-2020.odtconsideration the fact that she was not present in the house.Her testimony has beentried to be connected to the offence on the basis of circumstance told by her that whenshe was going towards her work for cutting onion crops from the field of one GirdharConductor, she met accused near temple of Mariaai.She had a dialogue with accusedwhich indicated that the daughter of the informant is alone in her house.In fact, thehouse of the informant is situated in a thickly populated area.Nobody else has beenexamined to prove that they had seen the accused going in the house of informant.Nobody had heard shouts of the victim.The applicant who was on bail almost throughout the trial, except from27-01-2016 to 01-03-2016 and 27-11-2018 to 18-03-2019, he deserves to be releasedon bail by suspending the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 06:46:25 :::Theyboth have stated that though the victim is mentally challenged, yet, she had that muchunderstandable capacity and had given rational answers.She has clearly identified the accused and told by words aswell as gestures that the accused has committed rape on her.Testimony of theinformant would show that the accused had the knowledge about the fact that thementally challenged daughter of the informant is alone in the house.He went thereafter the request was made by the informant to take the T-poy to the house of heranother daughter at Shirpur.In fact, her statement was that she wanted to send thatwooden T-poy to Shirpur and accused accepted that he would transport it to Shirpur,but then she had stated that she has specifically told the accused not to go to herhouse, at that time, as the victim was alone and she promised that she would give thatT-poy to the accused after her return from the field.In spite of these specificdirections, the accused went to the house of the informant and has committed theheinous crime.He deserves no sympathy.At the outset, it can be said that for some period the applicant was in jailand, therefore, he cannot claim that throughout the trial he was on bail.Theprosecution case rests mainly on the testimony of the victim, who is stated to bementally challenged.He had certified that the victim is 55% mentally disabled.He (4) ::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 06:46:25 ::: Appln-387-2020.odthas certified that the said state of the victim regarding mental condition is moderategrade.It also appears from the cross examination of the said witness by accused thatthe accused is denying the fact that the victim is mentally retarded and, therefore, asuggestion has been given that the victim is of sound mind.Question, therefore, wouldarise in such a case of defence, whether accused can get any benefit regarding the stateof fact about the mental illness of the victim.The fact remains that the evidence hasbeen produced to show that the victim is 55% mentally challenged.It appears that themedical evidence is supporting the prosecution in respect of commission of rape.Therefore, there is prima facie evidence against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2020 06:46:25 :::
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,529,197 |
Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.613 of 2019, registered with Daund Police Station, Pune Rural, for the ofences punishable under Sections 353 and 379 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short).2 Prosecution case is that the complainant is working as a police constable with Daund Police Station, Pune Rural.On 27th December, 2019, at 3:30 p.m., complainant, police constable D.H. Gadhave, police constable M.A. Bhagat were on patrolling duty.At about 3:45 p.m., they reached near Bhimnagar Kachra::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:24:16 ::: rpa 2/3 931-aba-321-2020.doc Depot.They found one truck going towards Daund.The truck was intercepted and inquiry was made with the driver.Applicant was driving the truck.He named Ganesh Ghongade, as owner of the truck.When the truck was taken to police station, one person obstructed police from taking the truck to the police station.The driver of the truck took the truck towards Shirpur.Truck contained three brass sand.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:24:16 :::3 Prosecution case is that the applicant was driver of the vehicle.The vehicle was containing sand.Applicant and the co-accused had threatened the complainant.4 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.It is alleged that, applicant was the driver of the truck.His custodial interrogation is not necessary.No ofence under Section 353 is made out.The applicant had collected information from RTI, which indicate that on the date of incident, the said policeman who were allegedly present at spot of incident were not on duty.Hence, the entire case is false.5 I have perused the FIR and other documents.Specifc role has been attributed to the applicant.He was driver of the vehicle.He was apprehended and questioned by the police.He::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:24:16 ::: rpa 3/3 931-aba-321-2020.doc disclosed the name of the owner of the vehicle.However, both of them had threatened the complainant and took away the vehicle.The defence of the applicant cannot be accepted at this stage.Considering the material on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Hence, Anticipatory Bail Application 321 of 2020, stands rejected and disposed of accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:24:16 :::(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:24:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 19:24:16 :::
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,579,638 |
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Satna as also against the order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, under the provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam).Vide the impugned order dated 11.10.2018, the District Magistrate, Satna has proceeded against the petitioner under Section 5(A) of the Adhiniyam and has externed him for a period of one year from the district Satna and the adjoining districts.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,961,302 |
Other public witness are my close family well wishers."She further deposed "It is true that there is a conversation in between police and our family regarding this case while I was 10 accompanied by the police to Ranaghat Court.Out side of the chamber of Ld.Swapna came with me today." While the evidence of PW3, mother of the victim was examined it appears that mother told that he date of occurrence was 15.08.2012 not 14.08.2015 and she further deposed that "After 3 days from 15th August 2015 she returned to our house and I asked to my daughter where she was and she disclose me that she was at the house of maternal uncle of Litan Sarkar at Dumdum." In cross-examination this witness (PW3) also reiterated that "...after 3 days from 15th August 2015 she returned to our house and I asked to my daughter where she 11 was and she disclosed me that she was at the house of maternal uncle of Litan Sarkar at Dumdum..."He deposed that "I heard that my daughter left with Litan Sarkar, thereafter, I submitted written complaint... After one week I saw my daughter at Badkulla station and thereafter I asked my daughter actually where she went.My daughter did not disclose anything to me.Litan Sarkar is present today (Identified on dock)." In cross-examination this witness further deposed "...I saw that my daughter was loitering at Badkulla station, thereafter I took her from that place.Besides this I have no personal knowledge about the incident."Judgment on : February 6, 2020 Sahidullah Munshi, J.: This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction dated 12th July, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. VII(V) of 2016 arising out of Sessions Case No. 2 11(03) of 2016 (Special) sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment for five years together with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 263 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, both sentences being run concurrently.The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced document in order to bring home the charge framed against the accused whereas the defence pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The learned trial Judge upon perusing the materials on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing respective submissions of the parties passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid.In the appeal the accused/appellant filed an application for suspension of sentence as also prayed for an order directing stay of realization of fine and the said application was allowed.The petitioner is now on bail.Learned Court below stated that when it is proved that the victim was minor and kidnapped by taking her to Dum Dum through train and toto (a three wheeler).And cross-examination of the victim showed that out of fear she did not utter anything to anybody, particularly when the victim was cohabited and ravished by the accused at his maternal uncle's house at Dum Dum where they stayed for 4 days together, it should be taken to be proved that the cohabitation took place on many occasion and cohabitation with the minor girl is completely within the definition of 4 rape and penetrative sexual assault within the ambit of POCSO Act and the accused failed to rebut the presumption.The learned trial Court held, in view of medical evidence, the statement of the victim before the Court and the statement before the learned Magistrate, it is well established that the accused has committed an offence of kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 363 of IPC together with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Learned Court below came to a conclusion that prevailing circumstances as evident from the evidence on record that the accused person had committed an offence of kidnapping and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of the minor girl of 15 years.It is not judicial heroism to blindly follow the off- quoted and repeated saying. 'Let hundred guilty man be acquitted but let not one innocent be punished'.It is undesirable to acquit a guilty person and / or punish an innocent.He submitted that the trial Court instead of proceeding the evidence on record took shelter under Section 29 of the POCSO Act holding that in every case the accused must adduce independent evidence to disprove the allegation leveled against him.He submitted that reverse burden of proof in every case is mandatory for the accused irrespective of the effort shown by the prosecution to prove its own case.Mr. Jana has further argued that the evidence is totally lacking in so far as it says about the kidnapping of the girl from the lawful custody of the guardian even if it is presumed that she is a minor and the entire circumstances narrated by the complainant as also the victim apart from contradiction, does not disclose even the offence of kidnapping and rape.Jay Prakash Singh -Vs.- State of Bihar & Anr.Mr. De submitted that although, it was agitated by the defence that the appellant was falsely implicated because of the political rivalry between the landlord (PW10) and the accused but there was a cross-examination and/or 7 suggestion to prove otherwise on the part of the defence.He submitted that it will not be safe to rely on the medical evidence and to acquit the accused inasmuch as the examination was made by the Officer six days after the commission of offence, as a result the doctor could not find any major injury into the private parts.We have heard the parties at length.The written complaint was (Exbt.2/1) lodged by Sri Sisir Santra, father of the victim aged 15 years.The complaint initially disclosed the offence under Section 363/366A of 8 the Indian Penal Code stating that the victim left home for taking private tuition to Dakshion Suravistan on 14.08.2015 but as she did not return home within expected time the complaint was lodged as he learnt from local people that the accused took the victim away.The written complaint was scribed by one Dilip Biswas (PW7).The written complaint, was forwarded to the learned Magistrate with delay although it ought to have been sent within 24 hours and such delay has not been explained by the prosecution.This long delay of 5 days appears not to have been explained by the prosecution.The victim was examined by the learned Magistrate and her statement has been recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Exbt.1).Such statement was recorded on 26.08.2015 when she stated before the learned Magistrate that she knew the accused and used to visit her friend's house and thus she knew him.The accused took her to Dum Dum in the name of travelling and against her will putting vermilion on her parted hair and married her.Then he took her at a house and raped her against her will.She was there for five days and thereafter, on 19.08.2015 (Wednesday) fled away from that place and went to Belgharia station wherefrom availed herself of a train to reach at Krishnagar where she resides.Accused married and raped her against her will.In the deposition of the victim she has stated that she was going to tuition and the accused threatened her with dire consequences and took to Dum Dum by train at Dum Dum 9 at the maternal uncle's house of the accused.The accused got her married at a Kali Temple and she was kept at the maternal uncle's house where she stayed for four days as husband and wife.The accused also cohabitated with her during such stay and the victim managed to flee away from that place to Badkulla to her parental house.She stated everything to her parents and thereafter, complaint was made.In her cross-examination in reply to the suggestion given on behalf of the accused she deposed that the accused is a supporter C.P.I.M and Bipul jethu (PW10) is the landlord and used to help her father and his family and is a supporter of T.M.C. party.She deposed that "I did not shout when I was taken by accused for going to other place out of fear.I did not see any G.R.P., police personnel at Badkulla station area for narrating the fact them.In the train there are so many passengers and I did not tell to passengers that I was forcibly taken by Litan Sarkar.When I reached Dumdum I did not tell about the incident to station master, police personnel of Dumdum.I did not tell to priest about the incident out of fear.Magistrate police and my mother were present.The cohabitation was taken place against my will and I raised objection.I received injury for forcible intercourse.I have stated the fact to doctor babu.I also stated about the injury after the incident to Darogababu." While it is stated by the victim aged 15years in her cross-examination by the defence that she was followed by the accused and sustained injury for forcible intercourse, the doctor treating the victim on 25.08.2019 deposed "On examination I found there is no sign of injury to the external genitalia but the hymen was raptured." While perusing the report (Exbt.4) of the doctor (PW5) shows "Her labia minora and majora apparently looking healthy.No sign of injury in her private part... Vaginal swab & semen taken and leveled for examination."In this context the evidence of PW8 who is the maternal aunt of the victim.During cross-examination she deposed "...I knew the fact of incident from Swapna that Sarmistha was raped by Litan.Sarmistha Santra used to go here and there by bicycle.If the quality of the evidence of the victim (PW1), father of the victim (PW2), mother of the victim (PW3), maternal uncle of victim (PW6), the scribe (PW7) and maternal aunt (PW8) are taken into consideration it appears firstly, that complaint filed by the father after a delay of at least 5 days has not been explained at all; no justification appears to have been given as to why the inmates of the victim could file at least a missing diary either on the day of the incident or on the following day, although, nature of complaint as has been drafted and filed before the police is not in the nature of a missing diary.It cannot reasonably be believed that the parents who knew that their daughter went for tuition and did not return home kept silent for 5 / 6 days 12 without bringing it to the notice either to the neighbour or to the police.In their entire evidences they did not also disclose that any attempt was made to find out the victim at their relative's house or any other known place where the victim had a possibility of going.The private tutor where the victim had to go, has also not been examined by the prosecution; the prosecution has not examined the maternal uncle of the accused where the victim was taken by the accused and allegedly cohabitated for long 5 days; police did not make any investigation about such place where the victim was taken and the offence of rape allegedly committed upon the victim by the accused; no reason is forthcoming as to why the victim who is admittedly aged about 15 years did not confront with the accused in any manner possible.Evidence of the victim in Court also does not corroborate the complaint and also her statement recorded under Section 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.In her 164 statement she stated that on 19th August, 2015 she fled away from the place where she was kept by the accused and catching a train from Belgharia station she came home.Whereas, the evidence of PW2 the complainant shows that she met her father at Badkulla station and came home with her father.These contradictions are not minor contradictions because such an incident if at all happened with the victim it is not natural that she would forget everything within a span of few months.That apart the victim 13 has stated before the Court that before recording of 164 statement her family members talked to the police personnel outside the Court of the learned Magistrate.This raises a doubt of tutoring by the parents.Therefore, to rely on the 164 statement is risky in this case.It is pertinent to note that mother (PW3) says 3 days after 15th August and father says the commission of offence was 14th August when she left house.If mother is to be believed that she returned home on 18th August then why the complaint was made on 19th August, that too at about 4.25 hours.The father PW2 in his deposition stated that after one week he saw her daughter at Badkulla station.Again PW3 the mother in her cross-examination stated "Grandmother of Litan Sarkar left my daughter at Badkulla station." For all such contradictions it is difficult to believe which one of the witnesses speaks the truth.Even the deposition of PW1 does not inspire confidence at all that she is speaking the truth.Another serious infraction of law is apparent from the evidence of PW3 where she deposed in chief "In my presence Ld.Magistrate recorded the statement." Which is contrary to the provision of law for recording statement under Section 164 of The Code of Criminal Procedure.Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses cannot be relied on at all.So far the medical evidence is concerned the doctor examining the victim on 25.08.2015 stated in chief that he did not find any injury but hymen was ruptured.The report (Exbt.4) shows that specimen was collected for chemical examination but from the examination of the IO it appears that the chemical examination report has not been brought on record.In her examination the victim (PW1) stated "After reaching to my house I have stated all these things to my parents.At Ranaghat S.D. hospital I was examined by lady doctor..." This lady doctor (PW5) while examining the victim has not stated anything about the incident happened with the victim as claimed to have been narrated by her to the doctor.The history has also been noted down by the doctor in the report.On top of it the doctor has stated in cross-examination that "Hymen may be ruptured other than sexual intercourse." Keeping this opinion of the doctor that rupturing of hymen may be caused other than of sexual intercourse find support in this case when PW8 another maternal aunt of the victim deposed "...Sarmistha Santra used to go here and there by bicycle..." The evidence of PW8 raises possible circumstances through which the victim could have sustained injury of the nature in the hymen indicated by the doctor in his report other than sexual intercourse and this possibility gets confirmation when the doctor said she found 15 no sign of injury to the external genitalia.Trustworthiness of the witnesses related to the victim and her parents raises a doubt and more so, when maternal uncle of the victim in his cross-examination pointed out "...there is no good relation in between the family of accused and the family of my elder sister Swapna as well as our family.The seized birth certificate was handed over to the father of the victim on execution of his jimmanama.Exbt.8 appears to be the receipt against the jimmanama whereby the original birth certificate was returned to the father of the victim.It is surprising that although birth certificate was seized, the same was returned to the father but during examination of the witnesses particularly, PW2 (father) or PW3 (mother) it was not even tendered through the investigating officer during his examination before the Court.The learned trial Court has not seriously considered this document and he has allowed the receipt to be marked as an exhibit and treated the same as proof of the date of birth which is not permissible under the law.The other possibility could be that the accused was sought to be trapped because of the strain relationship as indicated earlier and in such circumstances the possibility which would lead acquittal should be considered and definitely the benefit of doubt should be made available for the accused leading to acquittal.That apart in the cross-examination the Investigation Officer deposed that "I have recorded the statement of the V.G U/S 161 Cr.P.C. V.G disclosed me that she was introduced with Litan by her friend and I did not cite the said friend as charge-sheeted witness.V.G stated to me that she was taken to a temple where marriage was solemnized." Despite such fact neither the said friend was examined nor even the priest of the temple where allegedly marriage took place has been examined.the complainant (PW-1) in the present case in her oral report to the Police on the date of incident i.e. on 08.05.2013 claimed that her daughter came to her house after shouting, as the appellant had called her to his house on the pretext of offering bread and that he had done the act that has been described above.The complainant (PW-1) specifically stated in the oral report before the Police that when her daughter (victim) shouted, one Padma Gajjawar came there, upon which the appellant gave bread to the victim (PW-2) and she rushed back to her house.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,964,030 |
After referring to the MLC report of the complainant, he submits that at the time of incident, he was under the influence of alcohol.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.382/17 registered at Police Station Gwalior against him and co-accused Mahesh Rai for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294 and 34 and later added 326 of the IPC.According to the prosecution, on 30.07.2017 at about 3:00 to 3:40 pm in Koteshwar Colony Gwalior, the applicant and the co-accused hurled filthy abuses at complainant Deepak Goswami and thereafter the applicant and the co-accused inflicted blows of sticks on his nose and head respectively.As a result, he sustained a fracture on his nose.He submits that this Court has granted regular bail to the co-accused.He submits that the police had earlier granted bail to the applicant but later arrested him after adding an offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC.He M.Cr.C.No.11106/2017 Manoj Rai Vs.State of M.P.submits that as per the FIR, the applicant hit the complainant with a stick on his nose.But as per the FIR, he sustained an incised wound with a fracture on his nose.This is a material contradiction and that there is a strong possibility that the complainant sustained injury on his nose after his fall on a pointed stone under the influence of alcohol.He submits that the applicant is a permanent resident of Gwalior city and that he has no criminal past.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge van
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,496,659 |
ORDER Debiprasad Sengupta, J.In the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of proceeding being G.R. Case No. 2719/2000 arising out of Beniapukur P.S. Case No. 216 dated 11-8-2000 under Section 121/121A of the Indian Penal Code.The aforesaid case was registered with Beniapukur police station on the basis of a complaint lodged by the officer-in-charge, Anti-Terrorist-Cell, Special Branch, Calcutta alleging commisison of offences punishable under Section 120B/121/121A/153A of the Indian Penal Code.On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the investigating agency under Section 121/121A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah.On receipt of the said charge-sheet the learned Magistrate by his order dated 31-10-2000 took cognizance of the offence.After complying with the provision of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Let the written instructions received by the learned counsel for the respondent State in this regard be kept on record as desired by him.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,726,219 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.EIakkiya.The appellant/accused is her husband.They have a female child.P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased.She was residing at Asur Village in Kunnam Taluk.The accused hails from Keelapuliyur Village which is a neighbouring village.The deceased and the accused were residing with their child along with P.W.11, the mother of the accused at Keelapuliyur Village.For quite some time, the accused had gone to Tirupur for collie work.At Tirupur, it is alleged that he had developed intimacy with a girl and he wanted to marry her.He informed the same to the deceased.The deceased resisted and did not agree for the accused to marry the girl at Tirupur.The accused was enraged over the same.This is stated to be the motive for the accused.It is alleged that to celebrate Pongal festival, during the month of January, 2010, the accused had come to the house of P.W.1 at Asur village along with the deceased and the child.After pongal meal was prepared, P.W.1 had gone to a nearby shop to purchase camphor.At that time, it is alleged that the accused mixed poison in the pongal meal.Having come to know that some poison had been mixed in the meal, they did not eat.The deceased was at the house of P.W.1 along with her child.The deceased had brought a bottle containing mango frooti.He gave it to the deceased and wanted her to drink.She refused.The accused told her that it was good for allergy in her mouth.Therefore, she drank the same.Then, the accused gave the same to the child.The child also drank.Shortly, thereafter, the deceased vomited.She complained of acute abdominal pain.P.W.1 suspected that in the juice given to her, the accused would have mixed poison.Therefore, P.W.1 immediately rushed the deceased and the child to the Government Hospital at Ariyalur.P.W.17, Dr.He was told that the deceased would have taken some unknown poison.The child was drowsy.Her blood pressure and pulse rate were normal.He gave first aid treatment to the child and referred her to Tanjavur Government Medical College Hospital.P.W.15 Dr.Rajendran, the then Assistant Surgeon at Thanjavur R.M. Hospital, treated the child-Mahasri.He found no poison in the body of the child.There was no symptom of any poisoning.The Doctor who examined the deceased at Government Hospital at Ariyalur, declared her dead.P.W.19, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.33 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC against the accused.P.13 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded both the complaint-Ex.P.1 and the FIR-Ex.In the mean time, P.W.19, handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police, Kunnam Police Station, for investigation.P.W.20, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.Then, he recovered in-skirt containing vomit and motion [M.O.1], nighty containing vomit and motion [M.O.2], mango frooti empty bottle [M.O.3], stainless steel tumbler [M.O.4] from the place of occurrence in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar [Ex.P3].P.W.20, in the course of further investigation, arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.12 and another witnesses at Sithali.On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden an empty container with the traces of endosulfan.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hideout and produced the empty metal container [M.O.5].P.W.20 recovered the same in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar [Ex.P.4].P.W.13, Dr.Aruna, who was the Assistant Surgeon at Perambalur Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.He has stated that when he enquired the deceased, she told him that the accused gave her juice mixed with some tablets.She has stated that when she went to the house of P.W.1, she was told that the accused had given poison to the deceased.S.NAGAMUTHU.J., The appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.41 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, Perambalur District, has come up with this criminal appeal challenging his conviction under Section 302 of IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.The trial court has, however, acquitted him from the charge under Section 307 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt.Then, he forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand.After inquest was over, P.W.20 forwarded the body of the deceased for postmortem.She preserved the visceral organs and forwarded the same for chemical analysis.The chemical analysis report received from the Forensic Lab revealed that there was no poison, more particularly, endosulfan detected in any of the internal organs of the deceased.P.W.13, the Doctor, further gave opinion that the death due to endosulfan poison cannot be ruled out.The chemical analysis conducted on the materials objects recovered from the place of occurrence and the container recovered at the instance of the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement, however, revealed that there was traces of endosulfan poison in all these materials objects.P.W.20 on completing the investigation laid final report against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed two charges one under Section 302 of IPC and the other under Section 307 of IPC.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were exhibited, besides 7 Material Objects.Out of the above said witnesses, P.W.1, is the mother of the deceased.She has stated about the earlier occurrence on the day of pongal festival during which, according to her, the accused, who came to her house, had mixed poison in the pongal meal cooked by her.She has further stated that on the day of occurrence, again the accused came with a bottle containing mango juice and gave the same to the deceased to drink.When the deceased refused to drink, he convinced her that it was good for her allergy.Therefore, she drank.Then, the accused gave the same to the child also.The child also drank the same.According to P.W.1, after the accused left the place of occurrence, within a short while, the deceased vomited and she cried that she had acute abdominal pain.Immediately thereafter, she was taken to the Government Hospital at Perambalur, where she was declared dead.According to P.W.1, the child is survived after being given treatment.At that time, she was told that the deceased was suffering from acute abdominal pain.She was thereafter taken to the hospital in 108 Ambulance.P.W.3, yet another neighbour has stated that when she went to the house of P.W.1, P.W.1 told her that the accused had given the juice mixed with poison.According to her, the deceased and the child were taken in 108 Ambulance.P.W.4 is the brother of the deceased.He has stated about the earlier occurrence.On the day of occurrence, he was not at home.4.1. P.W.5 is also a neighbour, who has stated only about the hearsay information.He has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.4.2. P.W.7 was the Vice President of Asur Village.He has stated that on the day of occurrence, he heard that the accused had given poison to the deceased and his child.He has further stated that he gave a chase, caught him hold, detained him and then informed 108 Ambulance service.He passed on information to Kunnam Police Station.Immediately thereafter, Kunnam police came to the place of occurrence.When the police prepared the observation mahazar and the rough sketch, the accused was in his custody.Then, the accused was taken by the police immediately.P.W.8 is the brother of the deceased.According to her, the deceased and child were immediately taken to the hospital in 108 Ambulance.P.Ws.10 and 11 have spoken only about the hearsay information.P.W12 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the recovery of material object, namely, container [M.O.5] on the disclosure statement of the accused.P.W.13 has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.He has stated that he carried the complaint and the FIR to the court and handed over the same to the court.P.W.15 Doctor has spoken about the treatment given to the child at Government Hospital, Thanjavur.He has stated that there was no symptom of any poisoning on the child.P.W.16 has stated that he was the Junior Assistant Officer in the Regional Forensic Lab at Trichy.He received the visceral organs of the deceased for the purpose of chemical analysis.On thorough examination, he found that there was no endosulfan poisoning found in any of the internal organs.He gave report accordingly under Ex.P.W.17, the Doctor at Government Hospital, Ariyalur has stated that he examined the child at Government Hospital, Ariyalur at 02.30 p.m. on 05.02.2010 and referred the child to the Government Hospital at Thanjavur.P.W.18 has stated that he took the dead body and handed over the same to the Doctor for postmortem P.W.19 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.20 has spoken about the entire investigation done by him in this case and the filing of final report against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor he did mark any document in his favour.His defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence u/s 302 IPC, however, acquitted him from the charge under Section 307 of IPC.Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is now before this Court with this criminal appeal.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.There is no denial of the fact that the accused and his wife namely, the deceased-Mrs.Elakkya and their 1 = years old child Mahasri were all residing at Keelapuliyur village.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused was insisting for consent from the deceased for him to marry a girl at Tirupur with whom, he had fallen in love.Since the deceased did not agree for the same, the accused developed grudges against her and this is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.Assuming that this motive has been proved, it is well known that motive is always a double edged weapon and therefore, solely based on the motive, we cannot rush to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was caused only by this accused.We have to examine the other evidences available on record.9. P.W.1 has further stated that on the day of occurrence, the deceased was at home along with her child.By about 12.00 noon, the accused came and gave a bottle containing juice.When he wanted the deceased to drink, she refused.The accused persuaded her that it was good for allergy.Therefore, she drank the same.The child also drank.It is the further case of the prosecution that in that juice, the accused had already mixed endosulfan poison.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that had it been true that endosulfan poison mixed with the juice was given by the accused to the deceased, endosulfan poison should have been found out during chemical examination conducted on the internal organs of the deceased.But, P.W.16, who conducted chemical analysis on the internal organs, had found that there was no endosulfan found in any of the internal organs.According to the learned counsel, this would completely falsify the case of the prosecution that the accused had given endosulfan to the deceased.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, submit that it is in the evidence of P.W.1 that after consuming the juice given by the accused, within a short while, the deceased vomited and she also passed motion.The vomit and motion were there in her in-skirt and other dress materials.They were all recovered by P.W.20, the investigating officer, when he prepared the observation mahazar on his visit to the place of occurrence.These material objects were sent for chemical analysis which revealed that there was endosulfan poison in the same.According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, since there was poison in these material objects, it should be inferred that what was consumed by the deceased was poison.So far as the absence of endosulfan in the internal organs is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that due to some chemical process in the internal organs, the endosulfan poison would have disappeared.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would refer to the evidence of P.W.13, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy wherein the Doctor has stated that in this case, death due to poisoning cannot be ruled out.Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the death was caused only by the accused.It is true, that in the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, chemical analyst had found endosulfan poison.But, there is some mystery or doubt regarding the same.According to P.W.7, the Vice President of the occurrence village, when he went to the house of P.W.1 on hearing about the alleged occurrence, the accused was very much available.On seeing the crowd of people, he took to his heels.Further, according to P.W.7, he gave a chase, caught him hold, brought him back to the house of P.W.1 and detained him.Simultaneously, the deceased and the child were taken in an 108 Ambulance to the hospital after the arrival of the police.P.W.1 has also stated that around 03.00 to 03.30 p.m. when the police came to the place of occurrence, the accused was very much available at her house.She has further stated the accused on his own came to her house after the occurrence.She has further stated that police came to the place of occurrence between 03.00 and03.30 p.m., interrogated the accused and took him to the police station.At about 05.00 p.m. when she went to the police station, police made the accused to stand with only a jatti on his body and attacked him.The police also had tied his hands.The police arrested the accused, took him to their custody immediately and took him to the police station.From these evidences, it is crystal clear that the accused was very much in the custody of the police on 05.02.2010 and his conduct in being present at the place of occurrence is inconsistent with the alleged guilt of the accused.If that is so, what was the earliest information that was received by the police which made them to visit the place of occurrence at 02.30 p.m. to 03.00 p.m. itself and secure the custody of the accused.That earliest information has been suppressed.It is in the evidence of P.W.20 that he arrested the accused only on 07.02.2010 at 12.00 noon at Sithalai in the presence of P.W.12 and another witnesses.This story propounded by the police cannot be believed in view of the fact as spoken by three witnesses namely, P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 that the accused was very much available at the place of occurrence and he was taken into custody by the police around 03,00 p.m. on 05.02.201 itself.We have got reasons to doubt the story that the endosulfan container was recovered on the alleged disclosure statement of the accused.In the light of the above fact, now, we have to examine whether any weightage could be given to the presence of endosulfan trances on the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence.The chemical analyst, who conducted chemical analysis, has not been examined.The chemical analysis report alone has been marked.A perusal of the said report [Ex.P.12] would go to show that endosulfan was detected in the washings of the tumbler, plastic container having label Frooti, in-skirt and nighty.The Doctor has not stated that the death was only due to poison.Thus, death due to other natural causes also cannot be ruled out.In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the cause of death beyond all reasonable doubts.So far as the juice allegedly given to the child is concerned, the Doctors have given opinion that there was no trace of endosulfan poison on the child.The child was treated only for cold and cough.The trial court has accepted the said medical evidence and has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 307 of IPC.No doubt, by means of vomit or diarrhea, residues of the poison in the stomach alone can vanish away because by means of vomiting, but not in the intestines cannot be vanished away.By means of diarrhea the contents of intestines and bowl could excrete, but, not the contents of other organs like liver, spleen and kidneys.It is the scientific truth that as soon as absorption of endosulfan takes place in the body, due to metabolism, the two stereo isomeric forms (alpha and beta) can be converted to endosulfan sulfate and endosulfan diol, which can be further metabolized to endosulfan lactone, hydroxyether and ether.Based on animal data, endosulfan and endosulfan sulfate are believed to be the cause of toxicity.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,911,864 |
Supplementary counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Shivendra Raj Singhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ganga Prasad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -9 of 2016, S.T. No.133 of 2016, under Sections -302, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., Police Station -Kurawali, District -Mainpuri, during pendency of trial."Heard Sri G.S. Das learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Ganga Prasad, who is involved in Case Crime No. 9 of 2016, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. P.S.- Kuraoli, District- Mainpuri.Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated due to village politics.The learned Senior Counsel submits that according to prosecution version, first fire was shot by the applicant has struck on his wrist thereafter due to deflection it entered the upper abdominal region of the deceased, resulting his death.He further submits that on 10th January, 2016 the applicant was arrested with his rifle but neither the rifle nor the empty cartridge, which was recovered, from the breech were subjected to ballistic examination.His third argument is that the seat of injuries, left wrist through and thereafter, right chest lateral part and exit wound on upper part of abdomen belie the correctness of ocular version because these injuries are not result of one shot.He further submits that applicant is a respectable person having landed property.Applicant has no previous history.Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application.At 5:50 p.m. on the same day F.I.R. was lodged.Submission of Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate is that the prima facie there is no possibility of deliberation thereby excluding the chances of false implication and applicant has various strong motive to murder the deceased.Against him he had lost election of village Pradhan which he had earlier won twice.He has no previous criminal history on the date of arrest.At present, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that arising from the same occurrence, initially the version of the applicant was not registered as an FIR by the police.After rejection of the applicant's first bail application, chargesheet has been submitted against 18 persons including the present informant in that case and thereby charges of dacoity and other offences are proposed to be made.Thus, it has been submitted that as on date, there is a cross version of the same incident and it cannot be said that it was the applicant who was aggressor.In fact, according to the applicant, while dacoity was being attempted, a firearm had been shot wherein the deceased received fatal injuries.Reference has also been made to the statement of Toti Ram recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that cross case wherein the aforesaid allegation made by the applicant had been fully supported.(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.Order Date :- 10.1.2020
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
150,003,928 |
Certified copy as per rules.Date: 2018.03.08 11:37:01 +05'30'State of MP) 2 No. 4516/2017 on 10.7.2017, similarly placed co-appellant No.4-Omprakash @ Khan has been granted benefit of suspension of custodial sentence vide order dated 20.11.2017 passed in this criminal appeal.It is further contended that in FIR, there is omnibus allegation against all the nine accused persons that they assaulted with swords, dhariya, farsa and lathi and caused injuries to deceased Tularam and other injured persons, but the injured prosecution witness Balwant (PW-6) has deposed that his father was assaulted by Gangaram and Ramswaroop only and he (Balwant) was assaulted by Pappu, Omprakash @ Khan, Purushottam and Kammodi by dhariya and he received injuries on his skull and elbow of left hand and according to Balwant's x-ray report, only fracture of his left humorous bone was detected and during investigation a stick was seized from the co- appellant Omprakash and an iron rod was seized from the appellant No.2-Purushottam, which is not in consonance with the evidence given by Balwant (PW-6) and above mentioned appellant No.4-Omprakash @ Khan has been granted benefit of suspension by this Court.Per Contra, the above mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of Cr.A.344/2013 (Rakesh Kumar and others Vs.Subject to deposit of fine amount and if appellant No.2-Purushottam furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.70000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he shall appear before the Office of this Court on 12th July, 2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office for his appearance till disposal of the present appeal, then the appellant No.2- Purushottam shall be released on bail and execution of his jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,674,313 |
The parties shall bear their own costs.This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15 t h October 2015 passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A ofIn view of the facts of the case that the respondent - husband has been held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364- A, 302, 302/34, 302/120, 201, 404/34 of IPC and he is awarded a sentence of life.He is in jail, the appeal is heard finally.The plaintiff filed a suit for decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent - husband was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 302/34, 302/120, 201, 404/34 of IPC.The trial court awarded the jail sentence of Death to the respondent - husband.Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the respondent - husband before this court against the judgment of the trial court.That appeal was allowed partially.This court 2 F.A. No. 1043 of 2015 upheld the conviction of the appellant.However, modified the sentence and awarded a sentence of Life.The respondent filed SLP against the judgment, which was also dismissed.The appellant pleaded that she has been living separately with the respondent since July 2002 because the respondent was prosecuted and punished for commission of heinous offence, hence, the act of the respondent amounts to mental cruelty.2 F.A. No. 1043 of 2015The appellant also levelled allegations of demand of dowry was made and she was subjected to cruelty.She also lodged a report against the respondent and the respondent was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.The trial court convicted the appellant.However, on appeal he was acquitted.The trial court held that the appellant has not proved the fact that the respondent had committed cruelty and dismissed the suit.It is an admitted fact that the respondent was prosecuted alongwith other accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 302/34, 302/120, 201, 404/34 of IPC.3 F.A. No. 1043 of 2015The trial court held the respondent guilty for commission of offence and awarded sentence of death.He filed an appeal before this court.This court upheld the conviction of the respondent.Thereafter, the respondent filed SLP before the Supreme Court.In this connection, the culture, temperament and status in life and many other things are the factors which have to be considered.17 F.A. No. 1043 of 2015In the present case, the respondent has committed a heinous offence.He is responsible for the aforesaid act.He 18 F.A. No. 1043 of 2015 was convicted by the trial court.The aforesaid act of the respondent amounts to decision of refusal to have intercourse.The image of the appellant in the society has also lowered down because the respondent has committed heinous offence.In such circumstances, in our opinion, the respondent has committed mental cruelty with the appellant and on this ground within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant is entitled to get the decree of divorce.Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,677,889 |
(i) P.W.2 Chandiran and P.W.4/Annamayil are husband and wife and their son are P.W.1/Vasudevan, who is the complainant and P.W.3/Annamalai.On the fateful day (i.e.) on 05.09.2001, at 7.30 a.m., when P.W.1 to P.W.4 were in their house, the accused persons came in front of their house and abused P.W.1 to P.W.4 in filthy language.P.W.1 to P.W.4 came out of their house and P.W.3 questioned them as to why they abused.At that time, A4/Rajendran assaulted P.W.2/Chandiran on his head with aruval.When P.W.4 made an alarm, she was assaulted by A2/Thangaraj on her head with koduva knife.A5/Subramanian and A6/Venkatachalam indiscriminately assaulted P.W.4 on her head and all over the body.When the injured persons made an alarm, P.W.5/Selvaraj and one Ramasamy rushed to the spot.On seeing them, the accused persons fled away from the place.Immediately, P.W.1/Vasudevan went to Pennadam police station and gave Ex.P1 complaint at 10.00 a.m. on the same day.(ii) One Pazhamalai, who was working as Special Sub-Inspector in Pennadam Police station, received Ex.P8 and forwarded the same to the Court.Then he sent the injured persons to Thittakudi Government Hospital along with medical memo.(iii) P.W.2 to P.W.4 went to Thittakudi Government Hospital, where P.W.9/Dr.Maheshwari treated them.At 11.00 a.m., she examined P.W.2/Chandiran and gave Ex.P3 Accident Register copy, in which, she stated that P.W.2 was assaulted by six known persons with karuvakazhi, reaper, iron rod at 7.30 a.m. on 05.09.2001, in front of his house.She mentioned the following injuries:Since P.W.2 was sustained grievous injuries, he was referred to Cuddalore Government Hospital, where he was treated by P.W.8/Dr.(iv) P.W.9/Dr.Maheswari also examined P.W.3/Annamalai and P.W.4/Annamayil, at 11.25 and 11.35 a.m. and gave Exs.P4 and P5 Accident Register copies, in which, she stated that they were sustained simple injuries.(v) P.W.10/Chellamuthu, who was working as Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.On 05.09.2001, at 11.00 a.m., he went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P9 in the presence of P.W.6/Venu and one Govindasamy.Then he went to the Hospital and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.(vi) On 06.09.2001, at 7.30 p.m., P.W.10 arrested A1 to A3 at Pennadam bus stand and recorded the confession given by A1 in the presence of the witnesses one Jayaraman and Paramasivam.A1 handed over M.O.1/koduva knife and the same was seized under Ex.P10 seizure mahazar.(vii) On 20.09.2001, at 8.30 a.m., A5/Subramanian was surrendered before the police station and he was arrested and sent for judicial custody.On 6.11.2001, P.W.10 examined P.W.8/Dr.The criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 27.02.2004, made in S.C.No.171 of 2003, on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Virudhachalam, whereby A1 to A3 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default in payment to undergo three months simple imprisonment.Natarajan and he took x-rays on his right leg, head and left hand wrist.X-rays were marked as Exs.P6 and P7, in which, it was stated that there was a fracture on right leg in the bones of tibia and fibula.Natarajan and P.W.9/Dr.Maheswari and recorded their statements.He also examined other witnesses and recorded their statements.He has not arrested A4 and A6, since they were surrendered before the Court.After completing investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 r/w 149 IPC.4.The learned trial Judge after following the procedure framed necessary charges against the accused.Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial Court examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.The trial Court placed the incriminating evidence before the accused and the accused denied the same in toto.On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no documentary evidence was marked.On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted A5 and A6 and convicted and sentenced A1 to A4 as stated above.5.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, Mr.D.Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants would make the following submissions.(i) There is a contradiction between oral and medical evidence.(ii) There is a contradiction in the oral evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4, who are the injured eye witnesses.(iii) The evidence of P.W.1 is contradictory to Ex.P1 complaint.P.W.1 in his evidence stated that injury on the right leg of P.W.2 was caused by wooden reaper.Whereas in Ex.P1 complaint, he stated that it was caused by knife.So there is no contradiction between ocular and medical evidence.He further submitted that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of P.W.1 to P.W.4, so non recovery of blood stained earth is not fatal to the case.Crime No.210 of 2001 is not a counter case for Crime No.209 of 2001, because no time and place has been given by the defence in respect of the case in Crime No.210 of 2001, which was referred as mistake of facts.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.7.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record.Immediately, after the occurrence, P.W.1 gave Ex.In his cross-examination, a suggestion was posed to him that while the appellants filling up the pit in front of their house, at that time, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were assaulted the appellants and that the Villagers were chased P.W.1 to P.W.4, which was denied by him.9.Now this Court has to decide whether the case in Crime No.210 of 2001 is a counter case of crime No.209 of 2001? As soon as P.W.2 to P.W.4 sustained injuries, they were taken to hospital, where P.W.9/Dr.Maheswari treated them at 11.00 a.m. onwards and gave Exs.P3 to P5/Accident Register copies, in which, it was stated that they were assaulted in front of their house.In Ex.P1 complaint also, it was stated that the accused were standing in front of the house of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and abused and assaulted them.As per Exs.P1, P3 to P5, the occurrence was said to have been taken place in front of the house of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and that has been fortified by Ex.P2 observation mahazar and Ex.P9 rough sketch.10.As per the evidence of P.W.10/Chellamuthu, Inspector of Police, in his cross-examination, he fairly conceded that on the basis of the complaint given by A1, a case in Crime No.210 of 2001 was registered.11.On perusal of Ex.P9/rough sketch, house of A1/Durai is not mentioned.P.W.6/Venu, who is the attestor of Ex.P2 observation mahazar, deposed that he put his signature in Ex.P2 in the place of occurrence itself.The evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 and Ex.13.As already stated that occurrence had taken place in front of the house of P.W.1 to P.W.4, so P.W.1 gave Ex.As per Crime No.210 of 2001, A1 alleged to have been sustained injury in front of his house.On perusal of Ex.P2 observation mahazar and Ex.P9 rough sketch, it would reveal that scene of occurrence in both the Crime Numbers are different.Furthermore, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the case in Crime No.210 of 2001 has been referred as mistake of fact, the appellants did not file any A.R. Copy before the Court to probabilise the defence.In such circumstances, I am of the view, the cases registered in crime Nos.209 of 2001 and 210 of 2001 are not case and counter case.So the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants in this aspect, does not merit acceptance.While considering their chief and cross-examination, there is no reason for discarding their evidence.Admittedly, A1 to A3 were convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC for causing simple injuries to P.W.2 to P.W.4 with deadly weapons.Considering the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4, A1/Durai assaulted P.W.2 on his right hand, A3/Ramu assaulted P.W.3 on his head, A2/Thangaraj assaulted P.W.4 on her head with koduva knife.So the trial Court convicted A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment to undergo three months simple imprisonment.15.Now this Court has to decide as to whether A4 is guilty for the offence under Sections 326 and 324 IPC by causing grievous and simple injuries to P.W.2? It is true, P.W.2 sustained four injuries viz., two cut injuries and two contusions.The learned counsel for the appellants mainly focussing upon the first injury mentioned in Ex.But P.W.9/Dr.Maheswari opined that the right leg may be fractured and that P.W.2 was referred to Cuddalore Government Hospital, where he was treated by P.W.8/Dr.Natarajan and he took x-rays on his right leg.X-rays were marked as Exs.P6 and P7, in which, it was stated that there was a fracture on the bones of tibia and fibula.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.2, who is an injured eye-witness.It is a well settled principle of law that if six persons indiscriminately assaulted P.W.2 to P.W.4, it is not possible for the injured to find out each and every overt act made by the respective accused and weapons used by them.P1 complaint, P.W.1 stated that A4/Rajendiran assaulted his father on his right leg with knife.In his chief-examination, he stated that A4 assaulted his father on his right leg by using reaper.But P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that A4 assaulted on his right leg using reaper.As per the evidence of P.W.8/Dr.According to x-rays Exs.As per the version of P.W.2, injury has been caused by reaper.17.Now this Court has to decide whether reaper is a deadly weapon? It is true, reaper was not produced before the Court.In such circumstances, this Court cannot decide that the first injury sustained by P.W.2 has been caused with deadly weapon, since the description of weapon is not properly mentioned.In the colloquial language, knife is mentioned as aruval and koduval, which are used by the villagers that too agriculturists.It is also true, the other weapons used by the appellants are not recovered.P.W.1 to P.W.4 stated that A4 assaulted P.W.2 with reaper on his right leg, which caused fracture.Since the wooden reaper was not seized, it is unsafe to conclude that the reaper is a dangerous weapon.So I am of the view, A4 caused grievous hurt, but not by using deadly weapon.Therefore, the A4/appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC and acquitted for the offence under Section 326 IPC.As per the quantum of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that A4 was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment, which is very high.Considering the same, I am of the opinion, A4 is convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount is increased from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.19.In fine,(i) Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.(ii)Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against A1 to A4 for the offence under Section 324 IPC are hereby confirmed.(iii) Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against A4 for the offence under Section 326 IPC is hereby set aside.(iv) A4 is convicted for the offence under Section 325 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default in payment to undergo three months simple imprisonment.(v)The bail bond, if executed by the appellants/accused 1 to 4 shall stand cancelled.(vi)The trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the appellant/A4 to undergo the remaining period of sentence.27.07.2012Index:YesInternet:YeskjR.MALA,J.1.The Additional District Court Fast Track Court No.III, Virudhachalam Cuddalore District.2.Inspector of Police Pennadam Police station Cuddalore District.3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.4.The Record Keeper Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.Pre-delivery judgment made inCriminal Appeal No.536 of 200427.07.2012
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
806,810 |
On the basis of oral report dated 12.9.1995 by Prayagbai Bhaurao Kolhe (PW 1), Pimpalgaon Raja Police Station registered Crime No. 41/1995 under Sections 302, 323 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.Police were informed about the incident occurred on 12.9.1995 at about 10.00 pm about appellant Vinod assaulting her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 3 husband Bhaurao on the abdomen by means of "Bhala" (spear) causing bleeding injuries on left cheek, left chest, right ear and near right ear and also causing injuries to first informant Prayagbai (PW 1) and Bharti (PW 2) before appellant Vinod ran away.Mr A.S. Manohar, Advocate for appellant.Mr S.J. Jichkar, APP for respondent-State Coram : K.J. Rohee and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 5th December 2008 Judgment (Per A.P. Bhangale, J)The appellant questions legality and validity of judgment and order passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 2 17.5.2003 convicting appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code whereby appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence of murder.The trial Court also awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and further more directed appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of one month for offence punishable under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::Prosecution case briefly stated is as under :In the result, Bhaurao after some time succumbed to injuries.On the basis of FIR (exhibit 18) the investigation was taken up.Inquest was held over dead body of Bhaurao (exhibit 23) and spot panchanama was also drawn on the same day.Post-mortem examination was done (vide post-mortem report exhibit 48).Blood-stained clothes of deceased were seized under panchanama (exhibit 30).Seized muddemal articles were sent to the office of Chemical Analyser.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before II Judicial Magistrate's court at Khamgaon who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Khamgaon giving rise to Sessions Case No. 83 of 1995 before II Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon.Charge (exhibit 9) was framed on 24.9.2002 to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::Twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution while one witness was examined by the defence.PWs 1 to 3 were examined as eye witnesses.Placing reliance upon evidence, the trial Court found appellant guilty and sentenced him, as stated in paragraph 1 above.In support of the appeal, learned Advocate Mr A.S.Further, according to learned Advocate, there was delay of more than three hours to lodge report and possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out.Mr Manohar also submitted that the conviction ought not to have been recorded on the basis of witnesses who were interested in the success of the prosecution being relatives of the deceased.According to learned Advocate, offence was not proved against appellant beyond reasonable doubt on account of defects in prosecution evidence and, therefore, appellant be acquitted.5. Learned APP Mr S.J. Jichkar, on the other hand, supported impugned judgment and order and canvassed submission that offences ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 5 were proved beyond reasonable doubt.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::It appears from the prosecution evidence that mainly the evidence consisted of PW 1 Prayagbai (wife of deceased), PW 2 Bharti (daughter-in-law of deceased) and witness no.3 Onkar (independent witness) who were eye witnesses and deposed as to the incident of assault which resulted into death of Bhaurao Kolhe.PW 4 Laxman Wagh deposed that he acted as panch in respect of inquest panchanama (exhibit 23) and spot panchanama (exhibit 24).PW 6 Awachitrao deposed having acted as panch in respect of memorandum panchanama (exhibit 27) and PW 7 Sudhakar deposed about seizure of blood-stained clothes of the deceased (exhibit 30) which were carried in sealed condition to chemical anlayser's office by PW 10 Police Constable Gajanan Kulkarni (vide reports from C.A. exhibits 52, 52A and 53).Medical evidence was led of Dr Gaikwad (PW 12) who performed post-mortem examination (exhibit 48) over dead body of Bhaurao and Dr Mendhe was examined to prove injury certificate issued by him (exhibit 46).We have also gone through evidence of topography of the spot of offence as deposed by PW 9 Mr Hadke, a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 6 revenue inspector who prepared map and other circumstantial evidence, deposed by Madhumati Kolhe (PW 5) and Prabhakar (PW 8::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::- son of deceased) as evidence of sole defence witness DW 1 Laxmibai (wife of appellant).PW 13 API Mahore deposed as investigating officer.We have also examined impugned judgment and order in the light of submissions at the bar.The first and foremost question is as to whether Bhaurao Kolhe met with homicidal death.Dr Gaikwad (PW 12) who conducted post-mortem examination (exhibit 48) found following ante-mortem external injuries on the dead body of Bhaurao :"(a) stab injury anterior abdominal wall supra umbilical with oventum outside the stab above 1-1" x 1" horizontal;(b) stab injury left chest infra clavicular region 2" x 1" x 1".(c ) Incised wound left cheek vertically 4-1/2" x 11-1/4".(d) CLW with avulsion of skin right supra curicular region 2" x 2".(e) Abrasion right leg anterior lower third 1" x 1/2" there was no fracture.These injuries were ante-mortem injuries."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::Observations as to Internal injuries noted in the post-mortem report proved by Dr Gaikwad are as under :Walls : Stab injury ant.wall supra umbilical horizontal.Peritoneum: Haemoperitoneum 2 litres.Cavity : Full of coils of intestine.Omental vessels ruptured.Stomach and its contents : Stab Stab ant.wall horizontal 1" x 1" Pale empty.No noxious smell.Liver with weight and gall bladder : Stab injury.Post surface 1"x1"x1" 900 gms."In the opinion of Dr Gaikwad, the deceased died on account of haemorrhagic shock due to stab injuries.Further, according to Dr Gaikwad, the stab injuries observed were possible by means of "Bhala" (spear) Article No. 9 before the trial Court.Learned Advocate for the appellant invited our attention to the fact that there was absence of medical opinion as to whether injuries were sufficient to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 8 cause death in the ordinary course of nature and, therefore, the evidence cannot lead to the conclusion that deceased Bhaurao met with homicidal death.learned Additional Public Prosecutor, to counter this submission, invited our attention to ruling in Brij Bhukhan v. State of UP (AIR 1957 SC 474) to canvass submission that perusal of injuries observed on abdomen and chest (a) and (b) in post-mortem notes as deposed by Dr Gaikwad demonstrates that they were on vital part like chest and abdomen and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::Similarly, presiding Sessions Judge shall also exercise proper care in recording the statement of the medical witness to ensure that proper dates as also such opinion are brought on record to get at the truth in the interest of justice to arrive at just ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 9 and proper decision in a sessions case.A sessions judge can certainly obtain clarification from the medical officer concerned to prevent or remove any obscurity in the medical evidence.In the present case, however, considering the nature of ante-mortem injuries observed in the post-mortem report as deposed by Dr Gaikwad (PW 12) i.e. dimensions; spots where they were inflicted upon; penetration and depth etc., we find that they were inflicted upon vital parts viz. chest and abdomen.Dr Gaikwad observed stab injury anterior abdominal wall; supra umbilical and horizontal and also observed haemoperitoneum 3 litre in the cavity with rupture of omental vessels accompanied with stab injury.Dr Gaikwad also gave specific medical opinion that the deceased died on account of haemorhagic shock due to stab injuries which were possible by means of "Bhala" (spear) -::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::Public Prosecutor that prosecution has succeeded to establish the fact of homicidal death of Bhaurao Kolhe.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::In the submission of learned counsel for appellant, Dr Gaikwad admitted that injuries observed in post-mortem report did not occur at one and the same time.Dr Gaikwad was questioned by defence about injuries described in column 17 of post-mortem notes regarding contused lacerated wound described as (d) above that skin was peeled and about possibility of injury (e) if the body was dragged on hard and rough surface as also the possibility that if haemorrhage was controlled, the patient would have survived.In our considered opinion, merely putting questions in the cross-examination about possibility as above would not be sufficient to nullify the effect of direct ocular evidence led in the case.In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when stab injuries were attributable to the appellant, there is no escape from the conclusion that deceased Bhaurao Kolhe met with homicidal death.The prosecution led direct evidence of Prayagbai (wife of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 11 deceased) who had seen appellant Vinod coming armed with spear and inflicting injury on the abdomen of her husband.Prayagbai (PW::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::1) had also during the course of incident sustained injuries on her right palm, shoulder and near eyebrow while she tried to save her husband.She had informed police about the incident and lodged a detailed First Information Report (exhibit 17) on the same day at Pimpalgaon Raja Police Station which corroborate her evidence.Another witness PW 2 Bharti (daughter-in-law of the deceased) also deposed as an eye witness having seen the appellant Vinod inflicting spear blow upon her father-in-law while her mother-in-law (PW 1) was obstructing appellant Vinod.According to Bharti (PW 2), after the assault, her father-in-law fell unconscious and Vinod ran away from the back-side of house.Third eye witness Onkar Wagh (PW 3) also deposed that while he was present talking about fodder in the house of deceased Bhaurao he had seen appellant Vinod questioning them as to why they were talking about him and pushing Bhaurao in his presence, Vinod had returned to his house, but later on Vinod came again armed with spear and inflicted spear blow upon Bhaurao.Due ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 12 to fear, Onkar (PW 3) returned home.It appears that PW3 Onkar had seen appellant Vinod twice.First, when Vinod questioned them as to why they were talking about him and at that time, Vinod had pushed Bhaurao.Later, Vinod came with spear and inflicted blow on Bhaurao.The admission elicited in the cross-examination that he had seen Bhaurao running at noon time from the river-side, followed by Vinod does not, in our opinion, damage the direct ocular evidence.It is sufficient and reliable to unequivocally impute guilt to appellant Vinod.It is in evidence of Madhumati (PW 5) that appellant Vinod had written a chit to her with obscene contents which was shown by her to Bhaurao (her brother-in-law-deceased) and they had lodged report at Police Station leading to arrest of appellant Vinod.Thus, appellant Vinod was bound to harbour grudge against Bhaurao irrespective of result of that criminal case.From the evidence of PW 6 Awachitrao it appears that weapon of offence namely, blood-stained spear (Article 9) was seized under panchanama during house-search of Vinod.C.A. Report (exhibit 52) indicates that spear was stained with blood on blade and blood detected on it was human.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::The criticism by learned defence Advocate that PW 1 Prayagbai and PW 2 Bharti were close relatives of the deceased and ought not to have been believed by the trial Court is unwarranted.In our opinion, evidence by close relatives is not to be discarded, because they may be last persons to screen the real culprit and to involve innocent falsely.PW 1 Prayagbai had also suffered assault upon her from appellant Vinod during the incident.Hence, we cannot agree with the submission that the appellant was falsely implicated.It is further submitted on behalf of appellant that PW 2 Bharti and PW 3 Onkar are got-up witnesses and not real eye witnesses.Considering the entire evidence, we cannot accept the submission as correct.The learned trial Judge has considered the direct as well as circumstantial evidence on record to reach conclusion as to guilt of appellant.There is reason to believe that author of the crime was none other than the appellant himself.The trial Court also considered evidence of DW 1 Laxmibai (wife of appellant) who entered in the witness box with a view to save her husband from punishment by introducing a story that Bhaurao had run away with spear after snatching it from her.The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 14 story appears borne of clear after-thought and imaginary.Had it been true, DW 1 Laxmibai would have lodged report with police station since DW 1 alleged that deceased Bhaurao came to her house; used obscene words and outraged her modesty and she took the spear and followed him.Bhaurao snatched it from her and ran away.The story appears invented by the accused with the help of his wife DW 1 Laxmibai only with a view to save himself and, therefore, must be brushed aside as defence which is neither reliable not acceptable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::There was ample direct evidence to prove culpable homicide; assault and house trespass after preparation of assault by the appellant.Next question is as to whether the trial Court was justified to hold appellant guilty of murdering Bhaurao.However, as already observed by us the medical evidence is absent as to whether the injuries observed were cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The evidence as to whether the injuries caused were necessarily fatal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 15 or were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is important in a murder trial.In the absence of such medical opinion on record, it is not safe to hold appellant guilty of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as trial Court cannot judge on probabilities in the absence of such clear medical opinion.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::The admission by Dr Gaikwad can no doubt indicate probability of survival in such case notwithstanding the bodily injuries inflicted on the deceased.However, there can be no doubt that the appellant armed with spear (Bhala) had inflicted bodily injuries upon deceased which were likely ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 16 to cause death and assaulted Bhaurao.In Sukumar Roy v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2006 SC 3406 the Apex Court has observed thus :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::From the above evidence it is evident that the deceased Prafulla died due to the wound in his abdomen which was 4 inches deep.In our opinion this shows the intention of the assailant to kill or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that it was the appellant Sukumar who caused the injury on Prafulla, the deceased.The prosecution evidence of the eye-witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a case of self-defence because the appellant had purchased the land in question from the deceased who had entered into his land inspite of warning and as a result an altercation ensued.He contended that the deceased and his men assaulted the accused person and the injury on Prafulla was an accidental one in the scuffle which followed.We do not agree.From the evidence it is clear that the deceased and his men were unarmed and there was no provocation on their part.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased and his men assaulted the appellant and his family members.Hence, in our opinion, the conviction under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC was fully justified."In the facts and circumstances considered in totality, therefore, appellant is liable to be punished under the first part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code instead of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/- would meet the ends of justice instead of rigorous imprisonment for life with fine.In view of the discussion as above, the appeal is partly allowed.The appellant is convicted for offence punishable under ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 ::: 18 Section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Rest of the conviction and sentence is confirmed as imposed by the trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:07:25 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,684,962 |
PW-1 ran away and raised alarm.After committing dacoity in the house of First Informant all of them looted houses of Ochhey Lal and Ganga Ram in the same village.They also used firearm in the course of dacoity.As per prosecution story in the light of lantern, torches and fire of Pual, the witnesses saw the features of known dacoits and also recognized three known dacoits, who are appellants.Heard Sri Pranvesh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for appellants, at length, on facts and law both, and learned A.G.A. for State.This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by three appellants, namely, Balbir, Mohar Pal alias Chhakauri and Lala Ram against judgment and order dated 11.03.1983 passed by Sri D.C. Srivastava, Judge Special Court (Dacoity), Kanpur Dehat in Session Trial No. 467 of 1981 (State vs. Balbir and others) convicting appellants, Balbir and Lala Ram under Section 395 IPC and appellant, Mohar Pal alias Chhakauri under Sections 395 read with 397 IPC and sentencing appellants, Balbir and Lala Ram to five years rigorous imprisonment and appellant, Mohar Pal alias Chhakauri to seven years rigorous imprisonment.As per first Informant, PW-1, Raj Kumar, the prosecution story is, that, in the intervening night of 26/27.06.1981 appellants alongwith four others committed dacoity in three houses in Village Badra Majra Bakauthia, Police Station Kakwan, District Kanpur Dehat.At about 11.00 O'clock four dacoits jumped into the Courtyard of First Informant and opened door, which allowed other six dacoits to enter into the house.They started beating the inmates and looted belongings.In support of their case prosecution examined PW-1, Ram Kumar, scriber of complaint; PW-2, Sheo Singh, an eye witness of dacoity; PW-3, G.P. Thapalyal, Executive Magistrate, who conducted identification parade; PW-4, S.O. R.K. Verma; PW-5, Head Constable, Sri Krishan, who are formal witnesses and PW-6, SI, Ram Bilas, who was Investigating Officer of the case.After filing of charge sheet charges were framed against appellants, who pleaded not guilty and and claimed to be tried on merits.Trial Court after considering the evidence and other material on record convicted appellants, as mentioned above.It appears that after disclosure of a material fact by Raj Kumar in his cross-examination that accused Mohar Pal alias Chhakauri fired from his gun at the time of leaving his house, the charges under Section 395 IPC was amended against accused Mohar Pal alias Chhakauri and was regulated with charge under Section 397 IPC.I do not find any reason to disbelieve Raj Kumar on the point that Mohar Pal alias Chhakauri had used fire-arm, during the course of dacoity.The situation would have been different if the witness would have given voluntary statement on the point.They were simply acquitted by the court.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,069,023 |
The prosecution story in short is that on 27.12.2008 the prosecutrix who is aged about seven years was going towards her mother.The appellant met with her on the way and on being asked she informed him that as her mother had gone for grazing goats, therefore, she is going there.The accused thereafter told her that her mother has gone towards the river side and accordingly the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant and went towards the river side and at that time the appellant took out the undergarments of the prosecutrix and tried to insert his male organ in the private part of the prosecutrix and when she shouted the appellant got discharged.On hearing the shouts of the prosecutrix her mother Ramnalibai came on the spot.The incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her mother.Thereafter, the FIR was lodged and prosecutrix was sent for 2 CRA No. 808 of 2009 medical examination, the accused was arrested, spot map was prepared.It is stated by the prosecutrix that the appellant is known to her.Her mother had gone to graze the goats and she was eating berry in a nearby field.At that time the appellant on the pretext of taking her to her mother made the prosecutrix to sit in his lap, removed her undergarments and took out his male organ.It is further stated that the appellant 3 CRA No. 808 of 2009 got discharged and his semen fell on the stomach of the prosecutrix.Thereafter she washed the same.She narrated the incident to her mother.At that time her father had gone to Bara village.Thereafter, she went to the police station and informed the incident.She had also gone to the hospital.In cross- examination this witness has stated that at the time of the incident the appellant was grazing his cattle and she was all alone and her mother was other side of the river and was at the distant place.3 CRA No. 808 of 2009Smt. Ramnalibai (PW-2) had stated that she heard the shouts of her daughter and went running towards the spot.She saw the appellant running away from the spot after leaving her daughter.Her daughter informed her that the appellant had made her to sit on his lap and had removed her undergarment and the semen of the appellant had fallen on the stomach of the prosecutrix.The appellant had taken her daughter on the pretext that he would take the prosecutrix to her mother.It was further stated that her husband came in the evening and on the next day they went to lodge the FIR.In cross-examination, this witness admitted that other persons from the village also go for grazing their goats but she clarified that they go to different places.She left her house at 10:00 in the morning and the prosecutrix had stayed back in the house.The place at which she had gone for grazing her goats is about 1 Kms.from her house.She was on one side of the river whereas the prosecutrix was on the another side of the river.The undergarments and the vaginal swabs were handed over to the lady constable in a sealed condition for chemical examination.The MLC report is Ex.(09/02/2017) This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 1.9.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna in S.T.No.The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was also sent for medical examination.The undergarments of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical examination and in the FSL report semen stains and human sperms were found.The police after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet.2 CRA No. 808 of 2009The Trial Court by order dated 26.03.2009 framed the charges against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) r/w Section 511 of IPC.The appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded not guilty.It is not out of place to mention here that earlier this Court had heard the criminal appeal finally and by judgment dated 1.2.2010 the appeal was partially allowed and the appellant was convicted under Section 354 of IPC and was sentenced to the period already undergone.Being aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, the State filed a Criminal Appeal No. 231/2015 before the Supreme Court and by order dated 1.7.2015 the judgment passed by this Court was set aside and the matter was sent back for reappraisal of the evidence and for fresh decision.Hence this appeal has been listed for final hearing before this Court.Undisputedly the prosecutrix is aged about seven years.The appellant has not challenged the age of the prosecutrix.Accordingly, her evidence was recorded.She further stated that by the time her mother came on the spot, the appellant had run away.She had further stated that on the date of incident the prosecutrix was all alone and she further denied that the prosecutrix had not informed anything to her.Dr. Smt. Sharda Bhola (PW-3) had medically examined the prosecutrix.She has stated that the hymen was intact but there was a slight redness on the right side of the hymen.No injury was found on the private part of the prosecutrix.No opinion 4 CRA No. 808 of 2009 could be given about the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that because of infection also redness can be found.4 CRA No. 808 of 2009Babusingh Raghuvanshi (PW-4) had recorded the FIR Ex.R.B.S. Raghuvanshi (PW-5) has stated that the police report Ex.P/3 was lodged by the prosecutrix who had come along with her mother and father.He had recorded the statements of the witnesses and had prepared the spot map Ex.The prosecutrix was got medically examined.The sealed packet received from the hospital was seized by seizure memo Ex.P/5 and the appellant was arrested by arrest memo Ex.P/6 and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Gwalior by memo Ex.In cross-examination he denied that the prosecutrix had not informed about the incident which was committed by the appellant.Dr. Milind Bhagat (PW-6) had medically examined the appellant who found that the appellant was a healthy person.He was not cross-examined by the appellant.Thus, it is clear that on the pretext of taking the prosecutrix to her mother the appellant persuaded her to go along with him and he made her to sit on his lap and removed her undergarments as well as also he took out his male organ.The prosecutrix started crying and she raised alarm coupled with the fact that the appellant immediately got discharged.The mother of the prosecutrix after hearing the alarm raised by the prosecutrix came running towards the place of incident.It is clear that an attempt was made by the appellant to commit rape with the prosecutrix who is aged about seven years.Even in the FSL report, semens and human sperms were found in the undergarments of the prosecutrix.The FSL report has been 5 CRA No. 808 of 2009 marked as Ex.No infirmity could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant from their evidence so as to make their evidence unreliable.5 CRA No. 808 of 2009For making an attempt to commit an offence a person can be sentenced for a term which may extend to half of the imprisonment for life or as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence.The Trial Court considering the fact that the minimum sentence for offence under Section 376 (2) (f) is 10 years and, therefore, imposed the sentence of five years i.e. half of the minimum sentence provided for sentence under Section 376 (2)(f) of IPC.The State has not filed any appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,693,987 |
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed in Crime No.372/2019 registered at Police Station-- Dwarkapuri, District--Indore under Sections 457, 380, 411, 465, 482, 201 and 75 of IPC.Allegation against the petitioner is that he committed theft in the house of complainant - Ashutosh on 18.07.2019 and had stolen i10 Car bearing registration No.MP-04-CC-5221 and LED TV of 43 inch.After seven days of the incident, he was arrested by the police.Car was recovered from his possession and LED TV was recovered on the basis of disclosure from co-accused Imran.The petitioner has seven other criminal cases registered against him earlier.Details of those seven cases reads thus:-Sr No. Crime No. Under Section Police Station 1 378/2013 457, 380 IPC Rajendra Nagar 2 508/2013 457, 380 IPC Rajendra Nagar 3 94/2019 457, 380 IPC Juni, Indore 4 224/2015 457, 380 IPC Juni, Indore 5 344/2015 457, 380 IPC Juni, Indore 6 64/2019 457, 380 IPC Tilak Nagar 7 372/2019 457, 380 IPC DawarkapuriIn the wake of criminal record, learned Counsel prays for and is permitted to withdraw the present petition.Accordingly, petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Virender Singh) Judge Pankaj Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2020.08.17 16:42:16 +05'30'
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,698,332 |
The notifcation is as under :-"HOME DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Madam Cama Marg, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mumbai, 400032, dated the 8th May, 2020 NOTIFICATION PRISONS ACT, 1984 No. APP-0920/CR.179/2020/PRS-3 - In exercise of the powers Conferred by clauses (5) and (28) of section 59 of the Prisons Act (IX of 1894), in its application to the State of Maharashtra, and of all other powers enabling it in that behalf, the Government of Maharashtra hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, namely: -::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 :::In sub-rule -(1) of rule 19 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, after clause (B) the following clause shall be added namely: -ORDER : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]The petition is fled for challenging the order made byrespondent dated 14.8.2020 by which the application made by thepetitioner for getting emergency parole under GovernmentNotifcation dated 8.5.2020 is rejected.Both the sides are heard.The respondent has given reason of rejection that thepetitioner is convicted for the ofences punishable under theprovisions of the Protection of Children From Sexual Ofences ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 ::: Cri.W.P.No.972/20 2(POCSO) Act (sections 6 and 12) and he is also convicted for theofences punishable under sections 363 and 366 of Indian PenalCode (I.P.C.).Reasoning is given that in view of the Rules inrespect of the parole and furlough and in view of the exceptionsmade out in notifcation dated 8.5.2020, he is not entitled to get theemergency parole.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 :::Though in the order, it is mentioned that there is otherreason that he was not released on two occasions in the past oneither furlough or parole as provided in the notifcation and due tothat reason also, he is not entitled to get emergency parole, thatreason need not be considered in detail in the present matter as thatpoint is decided in the past in other matters by this Court.But, thiscondition needs to be considered from diferent angle.Thiscircumstance shows that he has not completed three years ofimprisonment.Thus, under Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole)Rules, 1959 he has not become eligible to get furlough.Emergencyparole of the nature mentioned in the notifcation dated 8.5.2020 isalso diferent kind of parole and so, the condition that he ought tohave come out of Jail on two occasions in the past needs to be ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 ::: Cri.W.P.No.972/20 3considered to ascertain the eligibility period.A prisoner can comeout on furlough only after completing three years of actualimprisonment.From that angle, it can be said that he is not eligibleto get emergency parole.The rules of eligibility to get furlough leaveare applicable for getting parole under Rule 19 (2).::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 :::The notifcation dated 8.5.2020 needs to be quoted hereas the learned counsel for the petitioner is placing reliance on ordermade by Nagpur Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.559/2019 dated 14.07.2020 (Vishal Dagduji Gavai Vs.State ofMaharashtra and Anr.).In the order, the Court has observed thatofences punishable under POCSO Act are not mentioned in thenotifcation dated 8.5.2020 and so, these ofences are not madeexceptions to the scheme prepared by the Government in thenotifcation.The convicted prisoners shall report to the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction they are residing, once in every 30 days;Provided that the aforesaid directions shall not apply::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 ::: Cri.W.P.No.972/20 5 to convicted prisoners convicted for serious economic ofences or bank scams or ofences under Special Acts (other than IPC) like MCOC, PMLA, MPID, NDPS, UAPA etc. (which provide for additional restrictions on grant of bail in addition to those under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and also presently to foreign nationals and prisoners having their place of residence out of the State of Maharashtra.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 :::The amendmentmade in the year 2018 to Rule 4 shows that clause (21) came to beadded in Rule 4 and it is as under :-"(21) Those involved in sexual ofences against minor and human trafcking."Thus, the sexual ofences against minor are also mentioned in the ::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 :::W.P.No.972/20 7emergency parole.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 :::There is no reason to interfere in the order made bythe respondent and for both the grounds given above, this Courtholds that emergency parole could not have granted to thepetitioner.In the result, the petition stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 15/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2020 05:11:27 :::
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
804,273 |
This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10th February, 1981 passed by Sri N. S. Shamshery, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi convicting thereby Shiv Murat Upadhaya, Ram Dhani Upadhaya and Dashmi under Section 304, Part I of I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.The facts leading to this appeal are that the deceased Hardeo was resident of village Vishunpura Khurd which lies within police circle Dhanapur of District Varanasi.He and some ladies of his family including his wife Barethi, daughter Dharmawati, Smt. Lakhaniya and Smt. Ramraji respectively, wives of his two real brothers Charan Deo and Indra Deo, and Smt. Parvati daughter-in-law of Indra Deo, used to do plantation of paddy seedling known as Ropani during the period, the incident took place.It is said that on the evening of 22-8-1978, a day prior to the incident when Hardeo along with aforesaid women of his family was returning home from village Kamharia, appellant Sheo Murat of village Tambagarh met him on the way and asked him to do Ropani in his field on the next day.Hardeo told him that he had already accepted advance wages from one Vikarma Singh of Village Kamharia for doing his Ropani and that he would do his Ropani after the Ropani of said Vikrama Singh.It is alleged that on 23-8-1978 around 7.00 a.m. when Hardeo along with 4-5 aforesaid inmates of his family was going to village Kamharia to do Ropani of Vikrama Singh, the appellants out of whom Sheo Murat Upadhyaya and Ram Murat Upadhaya are inter se real brothers and Dashami was then their ploughman, intercepted him near the peepal tree situated by the side of the field of one Gajadhar Tell of village Pipardaha and insisted them for doing their Ropani, but Hardeo refused to oblige them whereupon all the three appellants fell upon Hardeo and started belabouring him by means of lathis with which they were then armed saying that they would not leave him fit to do the Ropani.On the alarm of Hardeo, Ram Charan P.W.-2 and Ram Naresh P.W.-3 who were going to village Pipardaha to do the Ropani of one Sunder Singh of that village and were a few paces behind him, rushed to his rescue.The women accompanying Hardeo also started weeping and crying whereupon the appellants took to their heels.Hardeo after sustaining injuries had fallen down on the ground.After the incident, Dharmawati, the daughter of Hardeo, went to her village Vishunpura and informed her uncle Dharamdeo and others of the incident whereupon Dharamdeo and others came to the scene of the incident.On enquiry made by P.W.-l Dharamdeo, Hardeo narrated to him the entire incident.JUDGMENT Y.R. Tripathi, J.Dharamdeo thereupon with the help of other persons took his injured brother on a cot to his village and from thereafter scribing a report Ext. Ka-1 on the dictation of Hardeo went to P.S. Dhanapur which lies at a distance of about 12 kms.to the West of his village and made over the written report there to constable Kawal Deep Singh (not produced) who on the basis of that report drew the F.I.R. Ex. Ka-3 and registered a case vide G. D. Ext.-3 at 2.30 p.m. on that very day.The police of P. S. Dhanapur referred Hardeo to P.H.C. Dhanapur where Dr. L. S. Yadav P.W. 5, then posted as Medical Officer conducted his medical examination at 4.15 p.m. on the same day.Dr. Yadav found the following injuries on the person of Hardeo :--1. Contusion with swelling 16 cm x 13 cm on Lt. side of back 20 cm below from Lt shoulder joint.Contusion 18 cm x 3 cm on the back oblique both side from mid line 27 cm below from 7 cervical vertebra.3. Contusion with swelling -- 8 cm x 2 1/2 cm on the lateral side elbow joint of Lt. hand.Fracture of Lt. fore arm about 5 cm above from wrist joint (Lt.) (under observation)5. Contusion with swelling -- 10 cm x 2 cm on the lateral side of thigh (Lt) 21 cm above from knee joint (Lt)Contusion 6 cm x 3 cm on the lateral side of the leg 10 cm below from knew joint (Lt)Laceration -- 1 1/2 x 1/4 cm x skin deep, 1 cm forward from Ear (Rt).Contusion with swelling -- 8 cm x 2 cm.on Rt arm (lateral side) just above the Elbow joint (Rt.)9. Contusion with swelling 9 cm.x 3 1/2 cm dorsal surface of the fore arm (Rt.) just below the Elbow joint (Rt.)Contusion with swelling 6 cm x 3 cm on the palm of the Rt hand.Contusion with swelling -- 8 cm x 2 cm on the antero-medial side of thigh -- 8 cm above from knee joint (Rt.)12. Contusion with swelling -- 15 cm x 3 cm on the lateral side of the thigh (Rt.) middle part.Compound fracture of Rt. leg 4 cm above from Rt ankle joint, outside opening 3 cm x 1 1/2 cm x not correct measurable deep on the medial side of the leg 4 cm above from ankle joint (Rt.) under observation.According to Dr. Yadav, all the injuries of Hardeo had been caused by blunt object and his injury Nos. 4 to 13 were of grievous nature.Dr. Yadav referred Hardeo to S.S.P.C., Varanasi for his treatment and X-ray but as it appears for non-availability of conveyance Hardeo could not be rushed to Varanasi and around 6.00 P.M. on that very day succumbed to his injuries out side the PHC, Dhanapur while waiting for a Roadways bus.The information of his death was passed on at the police station Dhanapur where the case already registered was altered.S.I. Rama Shankar Mishra, P.W.-6 on 24-8-1978 took the inquest of the dead body and prepared, photo nash, Challan nash and other papers' and after sealing the dead body handed it over to constables Zafar All P.W.-7 and Virendra Singh (not produced) for its being taken to the mortuary.According to Dr. B. V. Subrahmanyam the deceased was about 35 years of age and had died 30-36 hours before.He found that rigor mortis had passed off and post-mortem blisters peeled off at places, present.He noticed the following ante mortem injuriesLacerated wound 1.5 cm.x 2.00 cm in front of right ear.2. Abrasion 8 cm.x 2 cm.Over right face margin prominence.3. Contusion 8 cm.x 1 cm.outer aspect of right arm above the elbow.Contusion 9 cm.x 3.5 cm.Contusion 6 cm.x 3 cm.right palm and dorsum of hand.Abraded contusion 6.00 cm.x 1.5 cm.Over outer aspect of right thigh 6.00 cm.below right iliac crest.Lacerated wound 3 cm.x 1.5 cm.x 2 cm.Inner aspect of lower 1/3 of right leg 5 cm.above the right ankle with compound commuted fracture of both bones of right leg underneath.Contusion 35 cm.x 18 cm.over inner, outer and front aspect of left leg.Contusion 10 cm.x 2 cm.Contusion 8 cm.x 2.5 cm.on the outer aspect of left fore arm at its lower 1/3 with simple commuted fracture of both bones of left fore-arm underneath.11. 0.1 cm diameter puncture wound with contusion 12.0 cm.x 10 cm.on the outer and back aspect of right fore arm upper 1/3 2.5 below elbow with underlying fracture of radius.Contusion 18 cm.x 12 cm.Contusion below the two shoulder blades in the middle of the back 25 cm.x 20 cm.According to Dr. B.V. Subrahmanyam, the deceased had died due to haemorrhage and shock on account of multiple injuries.It appears that after registration of the case at P.S. Dhanapur, the relevant papers were sent through constable Shiv Pujan Yadav to P.S. Sakaldeeha which had territorial jurisdiction over the place of the incident where on receipt of relevant papers Head Moharrir Bhagwan Singh, registered a case.S.I. Sri.Abdul Zabbar P.W. 8 then posted at P.S. Sakaldeeha took up the investigation and after completing the formalities presented a charge-sheet Ext. Ka.-11 which culminated into trial of the appellants.The appellants pleaded their innocence and attributed their false implication to enmity with one Deonandan of the village of appellants.The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses.They include Dharamdeo P.W.-l, the informant, Ram Charan P.W.-2, Ram Naresh P.W.-3, Barethi P.W.-4, all witnesses of fact, Dr. L. S. Yadav P.W.-5, who while posted as Medical Officer at P.H.C. Dhanapur had medically examined Hardeo, the injured, S.I. Rama Shankar Mishra P.W. 6, who had taken the inquest and prepared other documents, Mohd. Zafar All P.W.-7, who along with constable Virendra Singh (not produced) had taken the dead body to mortuary for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. B.V. Subrahmanyam P.W. 9 and S. I. Abdul Zabbar P.W. 8, the investigating officer.The learned trial Court after going through the evidence on record and after hearing the prosecution and the defence held the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 304, Part 1 of I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and convicting them of the same sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment.9. Being aggrieved from their aforesaid conviction and sentence the appellants have come up in this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the conclusions of the trial Court mainly on the ground that the evidence led by the prosecution consists of interested and partisan witnesses and falls short of proving the involvement of the appellants beyond doubt.According to him out of four factual witnesses, Dharam Deo P.W.-1 and Smt. Barethi P.W.-4 are closely related to the deceased and Ram Charan P.W.2 and Ram Naresh P.W. 3 belong to Bind community to which the deceased belonged.He has stated to have arrived at the scene of the incident after some time on hearing about the incident from Dharmawati, the daughter of the deceased, who after the incident had gone to Village Vishunpura and had informed him of the incident.The evidence of Dharam Deo P.W.-l is to the effect that on his arrival to the spot, Hardeo, on his enquiry about the manner of the incident, had narrated the entire incident including the conversation which had taken place between him and one of the appellants Sheo Murat on the evening of the day preceding to the date of occurrence.Not only this Dharam Deo has also stated that he along with some other persons has taken his injured brother to his village where he had prepared a written report of the occurrence giving full details of the incident, on the dictation of Hardeo.Dharani Deo thus, though not a witness of the fact has deposed about the facts which were told to him by Hardeo, the victim, immediately after the incident and his evidence is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as part of the same transaction.The evidence of Dharamdeo has been sought to be impeached on the ground that he does not appear to have scribed the written report on the dictation of Hardeo as he himself admits that Hardeo was an illiterate and the written report has been prepared in chaste Hindi.It is a matter of common parlance that the scribe converts the contents into his own language and we find no reason to hold that because of the fact that the written report is not scribed in local dialect, which Hardeo used to speak it was not prepared on his dictation.The written report, thus, prepared on the dictation of Hardeo containing the cause of his death is also admissible under Section 32(i) of the Evidence Act.Then we are left with the evidence of Ram Charan P.W.-2, Ram Naresh P.W.-3 and Smt. Barethi P.W.-4, the wife of Hardeo.They all have consistently deposed about the incident and have corroborated each other on material particulars of the incident.Smt. Barethi was also present on the previous day when the appellants Sheo Murat had asked Hardeo to do Ropani in his field and Hardeo had declined to oblige him saying that he had already accepted advance wages from one Vikrama Singh of village Kamhariya and would do his Ropani only after the advance wages received by him from Vikrama Singh was adjusted.The two other witnesses Ram Charan and Ram Naresh too have given ocular account of the incident.They have stated that at the time of the incident, they were a few paces behind the victim and on seeing the appellant assaulting Hardeo had rushed to the place of the incident and intervened whereupon the appellanta had run away.Taking us through the statements of Ram Charan and Ram Naresh learned counsel for the appellants has tried to show some discrepancies about the places from where they have stated to have seen the occurrence, keeping however, in view the fact that these witnesses are illiterate, the discrepancies pointed out in their statements do not appear fatal so as to dislodge them of their credibility and outweigh its evidentiary value.Contrary to it the presence of these witnesses on the spot, appears most natural, as they were going to Pipardaha to do Ropani of one Sunder Singh of that village.It would be found that there does not appear any habitation in close vicinity of the place of the occurrence and therefore, the presence of any other person at the time of occurrence which took place in the early hours cannot be said to be unnatural.The victim it would be found had been medically examined by Dr. L.S. Yadav P.W. 5 at 4.15 p.m. on 23-8-1978 who had found as many as 13 injuries on his person and had opined that those injuries could have been caused by blunt object about half a day before.The duration of the injuries of the victim as stated by Dr. L. S. Yadav, admits variation of a few hours on either side.His evidence therefore also goes to probabilises the time of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.The medical evidence thus full supports the ocular account given by the prosecution witnesses.Learned counsel for the appellants has also raised some small contentions but they hardly matter any consideration.It has been argued by him that though the victim is said to have fallen down in a nali which existed on the spot but no mud was found on his person or clothes by the doctor, eon-ducting his medical examination.A specific question was also put to Dr. L. S. Yadav P.W. 5 to this effect and Dr. Yadav has stated that no mention about there being mud on any of the injuries of the victim has been made in the injury memo.Therefore, the absence of mud either on the person or clothes of the victim at the time of his medical examination does not go to the root of the prosecution case to belie the place of the incident.The learned counsel for the appellant then referring to the evidence of Ram Deo D.W.-2 urged that the victim had been administered some injection and it appears that he died of its reaction.Dr. L. S. Yadav has denied having administered A.T.S. injection to the victim and Dr. Subrahmanyam, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body has also ruled out the death of the deceased having been caused by reaction of any medicine.This argument therefore also does not carry any weight.Then taking us through the evidence led by the defence, it has also been argued that Sri Vikrama Sihgh D.W.-l has denied having ever engaged the deceased for doing his Ropani.In similar fashion another witness Sunder Singh of village Pipardaha too has denied having ever hired the services of Ram Charan and Ram Naresh witnesses for doing his Ropani.It is not improbable that these witnesses for one or the other consideration might have given their statements to save the appellants from the clutches of law.Their evidence to our mind does not outweigh the direct and positive evidence of factual witnesses Ram Charan, Ram Naresh and Barethi who have given an account of the incident which they had themselves seen.Then our attention was also attracted to the statement of Ramdeo D.W.-2 wherein he states that Hardeo had been beaten up in his own village in the mid night, and that he had also gone to his house in the night itself to see him and had taken him to P.H.C. and Police Station on the following day.Despite the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged in his presence he has pleaded his ignorance about the accused named in the F.I.R. It is not digestible that the informant screening out the real assailants would have implicated the appellants falsely more so when there did not exist any apparent motive for his so doing.The accused have stated that they have been implicated on account of their enmity with one Deonandan of their village but no proximity has been shown between the said Deonandan and the prosecution witnesses which might have supplied any motive for false implication of the appellants.The appellants contrary to it are found to have community of interest in so far as Sheo Murat and Ramdhani are inter se real brothers and the other appellant Dashmi was at the relevant time their ploughman.Neither Hardeo nor prosecution witnesses are found to have had any animosity with any of the appellants to implicate them falsely in this case.So far as the offence proved to have been committed by the appellants is concerned we find that appellants did not intend to kill Hardeo.They simply wanted to chastise and incapacitate him from doing Ropani so as to give him a lesson.None of the injuries found on the victim was aimed at any vital part of the body.No doubt cumulatively the injuries caused to the victim were sufficient to cause his death, nevertheless, there appears to be absence of intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death of the victim.He shall also submit compliance report at the earliest.
|
['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.
|
80,427,618 |
Record of the trial court has been received.Heard on the point of admission.After perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses, this appeal is having an arguable point.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Also, heard I.A. No.18724/2019 an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail by applicant.The appellant stand convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 (two count) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with find of Rs.2,000/- and Section 323/34 (two count) of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year with fine of 1,000/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submit no offence has been made out under Section 326 of the IPC, this appeal will take a considerable time for its final disposal appellant, therefore, he prays to enlarge appellant on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement of all injured.The appellant committed a marpeet with iron rod as well as Lathi.
|
['Section 326 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.
|
80,430,784 |
Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 146/2014 arising out of FIR No. 271/2010 PS Alipur by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 186/353/333/34 IPC.By an order dated 31.10.2014, he was awarded various prison terms with fine.2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 09.08.2010, he and his associates - Raj Kumar @ Rana (Since convicted) and Gulfam (Since Proclaimed Offender) with their common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Const.Dilbagh to deter him in discharge of his official duty as such public servant.The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses to substantiate its case.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.The trial resulted in Crl.It is not clear if co-convict preferred any appeal to challenge his conviction.A.1758/2014 Page 1 of 2Vide order dated 21.07.2015, Crl.M.B.11276/2014 was dismissed and the matter was ordered to be listed in the category of 'After Notice Miscellaneous Matters'.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.02.2016, fresh Nominal Roll of the appellant was called.Nominal Roll dated 25.02.2016 has been received from the Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail No.1, Tihar, New Delhi, to the effect that the appellant has already been released on 12.06.2015 after completion of sentence.The fine has already been deposited by him in jail.Nitish Ojha, Proxy counsel for Mr.Since the appellant has served out the sentence awarded to him and has deposited the fine, it appears that for that reason, he has not contacted the counsel or the Court to get the appeal decided on merits.The appeal has thus become infructuous and is disposed of as such.It is, however, made clear that if the appellant appears within a reasonable time for disposal of appeal on merits, his request will be considered.Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.A.1758/2014 Page 2 of 2
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
804,313 |
Hence the appeal.The other case W.P. No. 751 of 1965 relates to the election of members to the minor village panchayat of Kambarajapuram, Kancheepuram Taluk, Chingleput.There are only two wards for the panchayat, each ward to elect three members, the total strength of the panchayat being six.A further question for consideration and one of some difficulty is, whether a conviction under Section 5 of the Act for burning a copy of the Constitution taints a candidate for election as a member of a Panchayat under Madras Act XXXV of 1958 with moral delinquency, and under Section 25(1) of the Panchayat Act disqualifies him for election.Another plea is raised that the disqualification as imposed under Section 25(1) is discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the Constitution.We shall first briefly set out the facts in the two cases.The further details as to the offence and the conviction will be considered later.But it may be stated for the present that the appellant had pleaded guilty of the offence with which he was charged, wilfully burning Part XVII of the Constitution of India on 4th October, 1964 at about 5 p.m. in the Shandypet Maidan at Rasipuram.The same was the date for scrutiny of nomination papers.The petitioner K.M. Rajagopal and eight others filed their nomination papers for the first ward and for the second ward five persons filed their nominations.At the scrutiny held by one Srinivasan, a Tamil Pandit of the Municipal High School, Kancheepuram, the Election Officer for the election in question, the nomination of the petitioner was rejected suo motu.On the rejection of the petitioner's nomination-according to the petitioner in a arbitrary fashion-it is stated that the other eight candidates for the first ward and all the candidates for the second ward withdrew their nominations and no election was therefore held as programmed.The petitioner was able to secure in writing the ground of rejection of his nomination paper only on 9th December, 1965 on an application to the Returning Officer.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,441,679 |
Re: An application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30th March, 2016 in connection with English Bazar Police Station Case No. 112 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016 under Sections 341/323/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Gibu Molla & Anr.... Petitioners.Mr. Manas Kumar Das, Mr. Jakir Hossain.... For Petitioners.... For State.Apprehending arrest in English Bazar Police Station Case No. 112 of 2016 dated 22.02.2016 under Sections 341/323/326/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya, J) (Debi Prosad Dey, J) 3
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,442,305 |
Appellants Miraj @ Jakir, Asif @ Naeem, Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha, Mohd. Illyas and Shahin @ Bushle impugn the judgment dated 25.01.2010 and the order on sentence dated 29.01.2010 whereby they all were convicted for the offence punishable u/s 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, all were directed to further undergo five months simple imprisonment.All the Appellants were further convicted u/s 449 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.In default of payment of fine, they were required to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.Appellants Shahin Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 2 of 22 @ Bushle, Asif @ Naeem and Mohd. Illyas were also convicted u/s 412 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of which they were to undergo further two months simple imprisonment.Appellants Miraj @ Jakir, Asif @ Naeem and Shahin @ Bushle were further sentenced under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of which they shall further undergo one month simple imprisonment.All sentences were to run concurrently.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 2 of 22First the facts.On the night intervening 05-06/08.2004, Surender Nath Kural (the deceased) was in deep slumber with the members of his family in his house at B-73, Mansarovar Park, Delhi.At about 2:30 a.m., Rita Kural's (PW-9's) sleep was disturbed when she noticed that five young persons aged between 18-20 years had sneaked in the room where she was sleeping.Her father Surender Nath Kural was sleeping on a separate cot while her mother was asleep on another cot.She noticed that Appellant Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha (whose name came to be known to PW-9 later on) was standing near the cot of her father whereas Appellants Miraj @ Jakir and Asif @ Naeem stood near the bed of her mother.Appellant Shahin @ Bushle stood at the door of the room.All of them were armed with chhura.One Akram (juvenile and since released) awakened her (PW-9) and simultaneously placed his hand on her mouth and threatened her not to raise voice.The juvenile broke the gold chain from her neck and then proceeded to remove her ring and bangles.Surender Nath Kural protested and wanted to know from the Appellants and their co-accused as to what they wanted.One of the Appellants told Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 3 of 22 the other to tie the deceased Surender Nath Kural.The deceased, however, got up from the cot.Appellant Salam Kaviraj stabbed the deceased with the dagger which he was holding in his hand, three-four times.PW-9 clinged to her father to save him.The deceased, however, fell down on the cot.Akram again shut her mouth forcibly.However, she managed to scream and raised an alarm and also knocked at the door of his brother's bedroom.Her brother Virender Nath Kural (PW-19) woke up and reached there.Her sister-in-law Usha Kural also reached there.She (Usha Kural) also opened the latch of the door of PW-9's younger brother's (Bhupinder Nath Kural's) room which had been bolted from outside by the Appellants.PWs 9 and 19 were able to restrain and hold two of the culprits Akram (A-1) and Salam Kaviraj (A-4).However, Appellant Salam Kaviraj was successful in freeing himself and he as others made good their escape.PW-9's younger brother thereafter called their uncle Mahender Nath Kural (PW-4) who used to stay in the adjacent house.The persons of the public thrashed Akram who was also tied down by them.Bhupinder Nath Kural (PW-5) informed the police.PW-4 along with PW-5 removed Surender Nath Kural to SDN hospital where he was declared brought dead.The local police as well as PCR van reached the spot.Crime team was also summoned.Statement of eye witness Rita Kural marked Ex.PW-9/A was recorded by Inspector Rajender Singh (PW-24), SHO Police Station Mansarover Park.He (PW-24) made his endorsement Ex.PW-24/A on the basis of which the present case was registered.The I.O. prepared site plan Ex.PW-24/B. He seized certain articles including one piece of gold chain from PW-9's bed (the other been removed by the juvenile); two slippers from different pairs; two Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 4 of 22 polythenes containing bloody chance prints; one red and black piece of cloth like pocket of a shirt, a dagger from outside the bathroom in the verandah at the back near hand pump etc.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 3 of 22A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 4 of 22The juvenile Akram made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-24/C and informed the police about the involvement of the other Appellants.On pointing out by the juvenile, Appellant Miraj @ Jakir (A-2) and Asif @ Naeem (A-3) were arrested on the same evening.They also made disclosure statements Ex.PW-20/B and Ex.PW-20/A respectively.An application was moved by the I.O. (PW-24) for holding a TIP in respect of Appellants Miraj @ Jakir and Asif @ Naeem.They, however, declined to join the TIP.Appellant Miraj @ Jakir led the police party to a place near Shahdara flyover on Loni, Ghaziabad road and produced a shirt having red and black colour strips with it's front pocket and a few buttons missing (the pocket whereof was seized from the crime scene).Appellant Asif @ Naeem in pursuance of his disclosure statement also produced one 'Relaxo slipper from under the bushes on the right side of the railway track.The same was seized by the I.O. Appellant Asif further got recovered one dagger Ex.24/G, hidden buried in the ground as well as a torn shirt.Appellant Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha (A-4) was arrested on 08.08.2004 on the pointing out of Appellant Akram (juvenile).He got recovered a red colour bloodstained shirt with one arm missing marked Ex.PW-9/12 in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by him marked Ex.PW-20/H. Although, as per CFSL report Ex. PW-13/D, human blood was found on this shirt but the blood group of the blood could not be ascertained.Appellant Salam Kaviraj was produced before the learned MM (PW-28) for the purpose of TIP.He too refused to join the TIP.He (A-4) further Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 5 of 22 led the police party to the house of Appellant Mohd. Illyas (A-5) and on 09.08.2004, Mohd. Illyas produced the stolen articles including a piece of gold chain similar to the one which was seized from the spot as well as a brown coloured woodland ladies purse Ex. PW-9/ Article 27 collectively.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 5 of 22On 30.08.2004 at about 6:00 p.m., Appellant Shahin @ Bhushle (A-6) was arrested in pursuance of a secret information and on the pointing out by the juvenile.He also refused to join the TIP.In pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.(i) Recovery of three slippers, one Suji (Ex.PW-9/Article 3) and one Relaxo (Ex.PW-9/Article 1) from the spot and recovery of another slipper Relaxo (Ex.PW-9/Article 2) at the instance of Appellant Asif @ Naeem;(ii) Recovery of one piece of cloth with red and black strips (Ex.9/Article 5) and recovery of one red and black colour shirt (Ex.PW- 9/Article 4) at the instance of Appellant Miraj @ Jakir;(iii) Recovery of one bloodstained shirt with one arm missing at the instance of Appellant Salam Kaviraj.(iv) Recovery of a Woodland brown colour ladies purse containing Rs.1100/- and a piece of gold chain (Ex.PW-9/Article 27 Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 9 of 22 collectively) from Appellant Mohd. Illyas at the instance of Appellant Salam Kaviraj;A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 9 of 22(v) Recovery of one purse (Ex.PW-9/Article 29) containing some visiting cards, one pocket book of Hanuman Chalisa in an iron box from one Kabari shop at Gopalpur at the instance of Appellant Shahin @ Bushle.The prosecution heavily relies on the above circumstance to connect the Appellants with the commission of the offence punishable under Section 396 IPC.Apart from the fact that no public or independent witness were joined at the time of the alleged recoveries, there are several other reasons why we are not inclined to place reliance on the recoveries except recovery of a piece of gold chain from Appellant Mohd. Illyas in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.20/K made by Appellant Salam Kaviraj.Admittedly, the incident took place at about 2:30 a.m. Deceased Surender Nath Kural was removed to the hospital immediately thereafter at about 2:35 a.m. S.I. Pratap Singh along with other police officials and subsequently Inspector Rajender Singh, SHO, P.S. Mansarover Park also reached the spot."In (sic) on the intervening night of 5th and 06.08.2004 at about 1.00 a.m. we were at our house.My mother was not feeling well.I and my father were attending my ailing mother in latters room.Rest of family members had gone to sleep in their respective rooms.Doors of varandha were opened to allow fresh air to come due to my ailing mother.Between 2.00 - 2.30 a.m. five unknown boys aged between 18-20 years entered in our house.One of them came near to me.Two near the bed of my mother.Both of them were having churas in their hands.One stood near my father and one near the gates having armed with similar chura.The boy who was standing near me shut my mouth by hands and forbade me to raise any voice.The same boy snatched a golden chain from my neck which I was wearing that time.He also started putting off my golden bangles and finger ring.Meanwhile my father opposed the same asking them as what they wanted from us.One of those boys asked his other associates to tie my father.The boy who was standing near my father stabbed the latter on his back by that chura 3-4 times.I enarmed my father to save him.He fell down on the cot.That boy again shut my mouth by his hand forcibly.Despite the same I was able to raise an alarm.Apart from that I knocked at the doors of my brothers bed room.After hearing same, my brother Mr. Virender woke up and came there.My statement/complaint is Ex.PW-9/A......"A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 13 of 22In the later part of her testimony, PW-9 identified the Appellants, namely, Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha, Asif @ Naeem, Miraj @ Jakir, Shahin @ Bushle and the juvenile (Akram) and assigned specific roles to each one of them.He also identified the said Appellants and deposed about the part played by each one of them.Both these witnesses in their examination-in-chief have also stated to have identified the Appellants in the Police Station.Referring to this part of their testimonies, the learned counsel for the Appellants have urged that since the Appellants were shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, they were justified in refusing to take part in the TIP.It is thus contended that the Appellants' identification for the first time in the Court after a lapse of 3-4 years is valueless and cannot be relied upon to base their conviction particularly when the witnesses have not given a detailed description in their statements under Section 161 of the Code recorded by the police.G.P. MITTAL, J.PW-20/P made by him, Appellant Shahin @ Bhushle got recovered one dagger buried near a well in Gopalpur.He also got recovered one purse and some other articles from an iron box in the shop of one Kabari in village Gopalpur.On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) was presented against the Appellants and the juvenile.On Appellants' pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses.Rita Kural (PW-9) and Virender Nath Kural (PW-19) are the most crucial witnesses who have deposed about the incident and have also identified the Appellants Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha, Asif @ Naeem, Miraj @ Jakir, Shahin @ Bushle and the juvenile (Akram) as the perpetrators of the crime.PWs 11, 12 and 14 lifted chance prints from the crime scene from two polythene bags whereas PW-17 lifted chance prints (Ex.PW-17/A) from a dagger lying at the spot.The chance prints on the dagger, according to the prosecution have tallied with the specimen finger prints of Appellant Miraj @ Jakir (Ex.PW-17/C) vide report Ex.PW-17/B.In order to afford opportunity to the Appellants to explain the Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 6 of 22 incriminating evidence appearing against them, they were examined under Section 313 of the Code.They denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication.They declined to produce any evidence in defence.On appreciation of evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) found that the prosecution had been able to establish its case against the Appellants for the offence as stated earlier beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.The Appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 6 of 22We have heard Mr. Ajay Verma, amicus curiae for Appellants Salam Kaviraj and Mohd. Illyas, Ms. Rakhi Dubey, amicus curiae for Appellant Asif @ Naeem, Ms. Saahila Lamba, amicus curiae for Appellant Miraj @ Jakir, Mr. Deepak Vohra, amicus curiae for Appellant Shahin @ Bushle and Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.The learned counsel for the Appellants urge that the prosecution case against the Appellants was not established beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.It is contended that they were convicted merely on suspicion.No recovery was effected from them or at their instance.Recoveries shown were planted as no public or independent witness were joined at the time of alleged recoveries.PW-9 did not give the detailed description of the culprits in her statement Ex.PW-9/A made to the police after the incident.In her deposition in the Court also, she failed to give the description of the clothes worn by the culprits.Further, since the Appellants were shown to the witnesses in the police station, they were justified in refusing to take part in the TIP arranged by the I.O. and therefore, the Appellants' identification in the dock much after the incident cannot be attached any importance.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 7 of 22It is very strenuously canvassed that the articles claimed to have been recovered at the instance of the Appellants were planted by the police as they did not find any mention either in the statement Ex.PW-9/A made by PW-9 or in the crime scene report prepared by SI Rohtash Kumar, Incharge of the crime team or in the report Ex.PW-14/A prepared by ASI Sajid Hassan (PW-14) at the time of lifting the chance prints from two polythenes.It is argued that the specimen finger prints of Appellants were not taken by the I.O. in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and therefore report Ex.PW- 17/B showing that the chance print Ex.PW-17/A lifted from the dagger seized from the crime scene tallied with the specimen finger prints of Appellant Miraj @ Jakir Ex.Additional Public Prosecutor urges that the Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 8 of 22 Appellants were shown to the witnesses only after they refused to join the TIP just to confirm if the police investigation was proceeding in the right direction.The dock identification is a substantive evidence which is corroborated by the testimonies of PW-9 and PW-19 with regard to the previous identification in the Police Station.APP for the State thus states that the charge against the Appellants is fully established and the judgment passed by the ASJ does not warrant any interference.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 8 of 22We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the parties.It is the case of the prosecution that S.I. Pratap Singh (PW-27) as also Inspector Rajender Singh (PW-24) along with Constable Satpal reached SDN Hospital after leaving some police officials at the spot.On reaching the hospital, they were informed that the deceased had been declared brought dead.S.I. Pratap Singh and Inspector Rajender Singh (PW-24) thereupon returned to the spot and proceeded to record Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 10 of 22 the statement Ex.PW-9/A of Rita Kural.PW-24 made his own endorsement Ex.PW24/A on the said statement Ex.PW-9/A for registration of the case.It is also the case of the prosecution that the I.O. (PW-24) summoned the crime team and S.I. Rohtash Singh along with other officials of the crime team reached the spot.It is apparent from the crime scene report (prepared by S.I. Rohtash Singh though he has not been examined as a witness) that the crime scene was inspected by the crime team between 3:30 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. The statement Ex.PW-9/A, the endorsement Ex.PW-24/A (made about 5:00 a.m.) and the crime scene report (available on Trial Court record, but not exhibited) conspicuously do not make any mention about recovery of any dagger inside the house near the hand pump, two slippers (one Suji and one Relaxo) and the piece of cloth purported to be pocket of the shirt which was allegedly recovered at the instance of Appellant Asif.The statement Ex.PW-9/A made by PW-9 Ritu Kural, the endorsement Ex.PW-24/A as also the crime scene report prepared by S.I. Rohtash Singh also do not make any mention of removal of any other article except a piece of gold chain which was snatched by juvenile Akram (whereas the other piece of the gold chain was recovered from the bed of PW-9).Crime scene report only makes mention in the column property stolen as 'jewellery'.Theft of purse, wrist watch etc. belonging to PW-9 as also to PW-19 containing some of their personal articles to establish their identities were important articles which should definitely have been mentioned in the statement Ex.PW- 9/A, the endorsement Ex.PW-24/A as also in the crime scene report if they had really been stolen.Similarly, recovery of the dagger should also have been mentioned in all these documents if the dagger had really been found in the open space in front of the room near the hand pump as the Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 11 of 22 scene of the crime was examined for almost three and half hours by the crime team which remained at the spot till 7:00 p.m. as is mentioned in the crime scene report.We are not inclined to believe the recovery of articles stated above from/at the instance of the Appellants.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 10 of 22A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 11 of 22PW-9/A made immediately after the occurrence on the basis of which the present FIR was registered and further from recovery of another piece of the same chain from the cot at the crime scene.Further, as per the CFSL report Ex. PW-13/D, it can be inferred that the deceased's blood group was AB, since the blood of AB group was found on the gauze piece, through which the blood was lifted from the spot.The blood group on the two bed sheets as well as the pillow and also on the lungi of the deceased was found to be of AB group only.However, on the piece of shirt (Ex. 2C), blood of B group, and on two other shirt pieces (Exs.9 and 10), certain blood was detected.These shirts have not been collated by the I.O. specifically with any of the Appellant and since the blood of AB group has not been detected thereon, the alleged recovery of the shirts at the instance of the Appellants is hardly of any Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 12 of 22 consequence.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 12 of 22Coming to the testimonies of the eye witnesses, PWs 9 and 19 have given a very vivid account of the incident.PW-9 testified as under:-I along with latter overpowered two of those boys.One of them succeeded in escape.The boy which was overpowered by us came to know later on as Akram.(PW pointed towards accused Akram correctly).My sister-in-law opened the doors of my younger brother which were latched Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 13 of 22 from outside by those offenders.On his return my brother called my uncle Mahender Nath Kural, who is residing in an adjoining house.He with the assistance of my brother namely Virender Nath Kural to the SDN hospital.Police came to our house.I was interrogated and my statement was recorded by the police.Public persons gathered at our house after hearing commotion.They gave beatings to accused Akram.Obviously, PWs 9 and 19 were not called to take part in the TIP.In fact, as soon as the application was moved by the IO (PW-24), the Appellants refused to join the same.The testimonies of PWs 9 and 19 have to be read with the testimony of PW-24, I.O. of the case.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 14 of 22Admittedly, Akram (juvenile) was apprehended at the spot.PW-24 testified that police custody remand of Akram was obtained.He was interrogated and in the evening at the instance of Akram, Appellants Asif @ Naeem and Miraj @ Jakir were arrested.He deposed that on the next date i.e. 07.08.2004 they were produced in muffled faces in the Court and an application for TIP was moved.He testified that both of them (Asif and Miraj) refused to participate in the TIP.It is very important to note that it was only thereafter that purported recoveries were effected and the Appellants were brought back to the Police Station.PW-24 deposed that thereafter PW-9 Rita Kural and PW-19 Virender Nath Kural met them near railway crossing at Shahadra, Loni, Ghaziabad.They also came to the Police Station after knowing about the recovery and identified the Appellants (Miraj @ Jakir and Asif @ Naeem) in the Police Station.Thus, Appellants Miraj @ Jakir and Asif @ Naeem were shown to the witnesses only after they refused to join the TIP.Similarly, PW-24 deposed that after Appellant Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha was arrested, he was advised to keep his face muffled.Here also PW-24 testified that on an application for holding TIP, Appellant Salam Kaviraj refused to join the same.It was thereafter that three days' police custody remand of Appellant Salam Kaviraj was granted and again purported recoveries were effected from him and while they were returning to the Police Station, PWs 9 and 19 met them near Shahdara flyover and they identified Appellant Salam Kaviraj as one of the offenders.Thus, the Crl.Moreover, PW-9 had sufficient time to watch and observe the Appellants.Although Appellant Mohd. Illyas was also arrested and recovery of certain stolen property was also effected from him and he was also sent up to the Court to face trial under Section 396 IPC, but PWs 9 and 19 did not identify him as one of the persons who participated in the dacoity.Thus, in the instant case, PWs 9 and 19's testimonies have been corroborated by their own depositions with regard to the Appellants' earlier identification before the police after they had refused to participate in the TIP arranged by the I.O. Relying on PWs 9 and 19's testimonies, Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 16 of 22 we have no manner of doubt that juvenile Akram and Appellants Miraj @ Jakir, Asif @ Naeem, Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha and Shahin @ Bushle had committed dacoity and that Appellant Salam Kaviraj had committed the murder of Surender Nath Kural while committing the dacoity.The piece of chain has been duly identified by PWs 9 and 19 and also finds corroboration from the rukka Ex.PW-9/A registered on the statement of PW-9 immediately after the incident.PW-24/G and Ex.PW-24/H from the spot as also at the instance of Appellants Asif @ Naeem and Miraj @ Jakir respectively is doubtful.We are not inclined to take the same into consideration for holding the Appellants guilty as the same could be the result of padding by the police in view of our earlier observation.We are also not inclined to believe the recovery of the dagger and recovery of the piece of red and black striped piece of cloth which allegedly matched with the red and black coloured striped shirt got recovered by Appellant Miraj @ Jakir.We are also not going to attach much importance to the recovery of the dagger and one Relaxo slipper at the instance of Appellant Asif @ Naeem and recovery of one purse containing Hanuman Chalisa and Timestar wrist watch and the dagger at the instance of Appellant Shahin @ Bushle as all these articles were not mentioned either in the statement Ex.PW-9/A or in the crime scene report prepared between 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. and are otherwise debatable.He has not been identified as one of the five intruders.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 18 of 22The same is accordingly liable to be set aside.We have already held above that we are inclined to believe the recovery of gold chain (Ex.PW-9/Article 27 collectively) from Appellant Mohd. Illyas at the instance of Appellant Salam Kaviraj.The question for consideration is whether Appellant Mohd. Illyas can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 412 IPC merely on the basis of Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 19 of 22 recovery of this piece of gold chain.Admittedly, Appellant Mohd. Illyas has not come forward with any explanation with regard to possession of the piece of gold chain.He has simply denied the recovery.At this stage, it would be appropriate to extract Sections 411 and 412 IPC hereunder:A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 19 of 22No evidence whatsoever has been produced by the prosecution to show that Appellant Mohd. Illyas knew or had reason to believe that the piece of gold chain (Ex.PW-9/Article 27 collectively) had been obtained by commission of dacoity or he knew that Appellant Salam Kaviraj belonged to a gang of dacoits.At the same time, no explanation has been given by Appellant Mohd. Illyas as to how he came in possession of the piece of gold chain.Therefore, an inference can definitely be drawn that Appellant Mohd. Illyas knew or had reason to believe that the piece of chain was stolen property.Thus, instead of Section 412 IPC, Appellant Mohd. Illyas is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC.Therefore, while maintaining the conviction of Appellants Miraj @ Jakir, Asif @ Naeem, Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha and Shahin @ Bushle for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 396 IPC, they are acquitted for rest of the offences.Similarly, Appellant Mohd. Illyas is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and is acquitted of rest of the offences.The sentence awarded by the ASJ to Appellants Miraj @ Jakir, Asif @ Naeem, Salam Kaviraj @ Chuha and Shahin @ Bushle for the offence punishable under Section 449 read with Section 34 IPC and 396 IPC is maintained.A copy of the order be transmitted to the Trial Court for information.(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE FEBRUARY 19, 2014 vk Crl.A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 22 of 22A. 716/2010, 721/2010, 728/2010, 981/2010 & 1056/2010 Page 22 of 22
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
80,443,398 |
This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the complaint made by the defacto complainant Mrs.Bhuvana alias Bhuvaneswari on 23.07.2015 in CCB Crime No.283 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are an innocent person and the have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police has registered a case in CCB Crime No.283 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with section 34 IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard M/s.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-However, considering the crime is of the year 2015, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation CCB in Crime No.283 of 2015 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.1359 of 2017 is also closed.25.04.2019 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order msmhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team XI, O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.O.P.No.1873 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.1359 of 2017 25.04.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,710,652 |
The Criminal Writ Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.By this Criminal Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Nagpur, dt.17.4.2017 under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 externing the petitioner from Nagpur City and the adjoining rural areas for two years.The petitioner submitted a reply and pointed out to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur that he had not committed any offence or such activities for which he could have been externed under the provisions of Section 56 of the Act. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and the order of externment was passed against the petitioner under Section 56(1)(bb) of the Act, externing him from Nagpur City and the rural areas for two years.The order of externment, dt.17.4.2017 is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::It is stated that, in view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::(a) ...............(b) ................(c) that an outbreak of epidemic disease is likely to result from the continued residence of an immigrant, the said officer may, by an order in writing duly served on him or by beat of drum or other wise as he thinks fit, direct such person or immigrant so to conduct himself as shall seem necessary in order to prevent violence and alarm [or such prejudicial act] or the outbreak or spread of such disease or to remove himself outside such area or areas in the State of Maharashtra (whether within the local limits of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 ::: 7 wp541.17.odt jurisdiction of the Officer, or not and whether contiguous or not), by such route, and within such time, as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the area or areas specified (hereinafter referred to as "the specified area or areas") from which he was directed to remove himself.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::State of Maharashtra and another that an externment order cannot be passed on the basis of pendency of the cases under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. In the instant case, the externment order could not have been passed under ::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 ::: 10 wp541.17.odt S.56(1)(bb) of the Act when the offences registered against the petitioner during the past three years relate only to the provisions of Section 65 (e) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The respondents have not pointed out any other provision of the Maharashtra Police Act under which the order could be sustained.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.The impugned order dt.17.4.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside.Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2017 00:53:28 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,172,019 |
!For Appellant : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Spl.^For Respondents : Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan for R1 in Sr.Stage Mr.In other words, the said amount had been lyingidle in the bank deposit and the depositors were not benefited.Further, nosteps were taken after 2007 to sell the attached properties.There have been similar orders passedearlier by the Special Court.They have not been challenged.It is forthe Home Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu to look into this issue andtake action against the erring officials.I.Saliyakhan, Caveator for R2:COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The competent authority constituted under the Tamil Nadu Protection ofInterests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997/DistrictRevenue Officer, Madurai, has filed these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.2.Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellant andMr.P.T.S.Narendravasan, learned counsel for the first respondent.Crime No.12 of 1999 was registered on thefile of the District Crime Branch, Madurai City, under section 5 of TNPID Act1997 and 420, 406 of IPC r/w 120(b) IPC.Final report was filed against thesaid financial establishment and 16 others.The case was taken on file inC.C.No.36 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge under TNPID Act Cases,Madurai.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW (Financial Institutions)Madurai is the prosecuting agency.4.The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.130, Home (Courts IIA) Department, dated 14 February 2001 in exercise of the powers conferred bySection 3 of the said Act making an ad-interim order of attachment of as manyas 10 items of immovable properties.The house situate at Door No.24, WestChithirai Street, Madurai is figuring at serial No.10 in the schedule to thesaid Government Order.It is said to be standing in the name ofK.L.Subramanian who is shown as the fourth accused in the final report.5.There are serious doubts as to whether the said K.L.Subramanian isthe title holder of the said property.However, the order of attachment wasmade absolute on 21 January 2004 in O.A.No.3 of 2001 filed by the appellantsherein.While so, one J.S.R.Satheeshkumar and J.S.Rajan, who are figuringas accused Nos.12 and 13 in C.C.No.36 of 2008 filed I.A.No.55 of 2008 seekingraising of the attachment of the said property.They do not appear to have taken any stepsfor restoration of the said I.A. Thereafter, the financial establishment andthe said K.L.Subramanian who describes himself as accused No.6 filed I.A.No.35 of 2016 before the Special Court, Madurai seeking permission topermit one Chandramoorthy to deposit a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- towards saleamount for the said Item No.10 covered in the aforesaid G.O.Ms.6.In the said affidavit, the respondents herein pointed out thatpermission under section 7(7) of the TNPID Act, 1997 was granted for sellingthe attached properties and that one Chandramoorthy wanted to purchase Item No.10 covered in the said Government Order and that he wanted to depositRs.70,00,000/- before the Special Court and that to enable him to do so,permission was being sought by the respondents herein.7.The competent authority/District Revenue Officer, Madurai filed acounter affidavit opposing the said prayer.The respondent in I.A.No.35 of2016/appellant herein instead of questioning the very maintainability of thesaid I.A, rather chose to raise doubts regarding the valuation of theproperty.Though the competent authority had formally opposed the prayer made by the respondents herein, the said I.A was not effectivelycontested before the Special Court.The sale price was quantified at Rs.91,30,000/-.The proposed purchaser was permitted to deposit the sale price within 10days.Inthe affidavit filed in support of the said I.A.No.44 of 2016, it was statedthat the sale price fixed by the Special Court had been remitted in full bythe proposed purchaser and that therefore, the attachment effected in respectof the said item No.10 ought be raised.In the said I.A., a counter for thesake of counter was filed.The Special Judge by order dated 04October 2016 allowed I.A.No.44 of 2016 and raised the attachment made inrespect of the said property.In para 8 of the said order, it has beenmentioned that the Government Pleader did not raise any serious objection toraise the attachment.The learned Government Pleader went one step ahead and stated that the accused/petitioners had paid the deposit amount to someof the depositors and that therefore he has no objections to sell theproperty to the proposed purchaser / third party and invited the Court topass appropriate orders.It is specifically mentioned in the order dated 04October 2016 that the accused withdrew the amount deposited by the proposed purchaser Chandramoorthy and settled the amount with the depositors/witnesses in the criminal case.In view of the same, the Special Judgeallowed the second I.A filed by the respondents herein.Questioning both theorders, these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed.Even thoughthe proposed purchaser was willing to pay only Rs.70,00,000/- for the saidItem No.10, when the Special Court enhanced the amount to Rs.91,30,000/-, theproposed purchaser promptly remitted the same and thus he proved his bonafides.The said amount of Rs.91,30,000/- was withdrawnand the claims of a number of depositors were settled.15.We genuinely suspect the that copy applications were deliberatelynot filed in time so as to enable the transactions mooted at the instance ofthe accused to get concluded.Similarly, we also call upon theHome Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu to take note of the conduct of theGovernment Pleader, who appeared before before the Special Court.18.As regards of Thiru.A.Thiruneelaprasath, Special Judge under TNPIDAct Cases, Madurai, we direct the Registry to place the relevant papersincluding a copy of this order before the Honourable Chief Justice forperusal and for taking appropriate disciplinary action.19.With these observations, the orders dated 02 September 2016 and 04 October 2016 in I.A.No.35 of 2016 in O.A.No.3 of 2001 and I.A.No.44 of 2016in I.A.No.35 of 2016 in O.A.No.3 of 2001 are set aside and these CivilMiscellaneous Appeals are allowed.No costs.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Registrar General, Madras High Court, Madras.2.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, St. Goerge Fort, Chennai.3.The Competent Authority, District Revenue Officer, Madurai.4.The Special Judge (TNPID Act Cases), Madurai.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
717,215 |
Hence they have brought forth this Criminal Appealunder Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated thus:(i) Pursuant to a group clash between two groups at about 11 p.m. on24.9.1999 in front of the house of Murugesan (the deceased in this case)situated in R.C.School Street, Vallam, two cases were registered on the file ofCourtallam Police Station.One against the members of one of the groups in CrimeNo.514 of 1999 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294(B) and506(1) IPC and the other against the members of the second group in Crime No.515of 1999 for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC.Afterinvestigation, both the cases were clubbed and a final report was submittedalleging commission of an offence under Section 160 IPC by the members of bothgroups.The appellants herein and the absconding accused Siva had been shown as"A" party, whereas the deceased Murugesan and two others had been shown as "B"party in the said case.The appellants herein and Siva thought that Murugesanand others, after having attacked them, set the criminal law in motion againstthem and hence they had developed ill-will which proved to be the motive for theaccused to cause the death of Murugesan.(ii) On the fateful day, namely on 6.1.2000, at about 6.45 p.m. thedeceased Murugesan, P.W.1 Murugaiah, P.W.2 Sankaralingam and one Sankarammal,were returning home after attending the funeral ceremony of Mookka Nadar, one oftheir relatives.While they were proceeding towards their residence along themain road in Vallam, the appellants and Siva, the accused in the split up caseintercepted the deceased Murugesan, attacked him with Aruvals indiscriminatelyand caused his instantaneous death on the spot.When P.W.1, P.W.2 andSankarammal raised alarm, they were threatened by the accused that they wouldalso meet with the very same fate, if they ventured to go near the accusedpersons.(iii) Pursuant to the occurrence, Ex.P.1-Complaint was lodged by P.W.1,based on which P.W.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case against theappellants herein and Siva, the absconding accused in Cr.No.13 of 2000 on thefile of Courtallam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections341, 302 and 506(2) IPC.First Information Report prepared by him in theprinted format is Ex.The Printed First Information Report along withOriginal complaint was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi throughP.W.14-Constable.P.W.16, the then Inspector of Police of Tenkasi Circle, whowas also the Inspector-in-charge of Courtallam Police Station, on receipt of acopy of the First Information Report, took up the investigation, went to theplace of occurrence and started his investigation at 9.00 p.m on 06.01.2000itself.He prepared an Observation Mahazar and a rough sketch in the presenceof witnesses which have been marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.20 respectively.Theyalso made arrangements for taking photographs of the dead body and the place ofoccurrence engaging P.W.9 who took the photographs.The photographs of the deadbody and the scene of occurrence taken by P.W.9 and their negatives are M.Os.6(series) and 7(Series) respectively.(iv) In the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses, P.W.16 conductedinquest over the dead body of deceased Murugesan and prepared Ex.P.21 -Inquestreport.Thereafter the dead body was despatched along with Ex.P.W.12 Dr.Ramasubbu, on receipt of the requisition forautopsy and the dead body, conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P.11 - post-mortemcertificate.During autopsy P.W.12 noted as many as 19 cut injuries andincorporated his opinion in the post-mortem report to the effect that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the saidinjuries.During the course of investigation, P.W.16 arrested the firstappellant Muthukumar and the absconding accused Siva, near the stream in frontof Vallam Kattupalli Vasal on 07.01.2000 at 3.15 p.m. Their confessionstatements were recorded in the presence of P.W.8-Village Administrative Officerand the village menial.The admissible part of the confession statement of thefirst appellant and the admissible part of the confession statement of theabsconding accused Siva are Exs.P.4 and P.6 respectively.Based on theinformation furnished by them in Exs.P.4 and P.6, M.Os.3 and 2 were recoveredunder cover of mahazars Exs.P.5 and P.7 respectively.All the material objectsseized from the place of occurrence and recovered pursuant to the confessionstatements made by the above said accused persons by P.W.16-the InvestigatingOfficer were sent along with the documents to the Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.On 18.01.2000 P.W.17, the then Inspector of Police, Shencottai, who returnedfrom leave, took up the further investigation of the case.Meanwhile the secondappellant Aathiraj had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor andwas remanded to Judicial custody.After recording his confession statement at about 6.00p.m on the said date in the presence of witnesses, the admissible portion ofwhich has been marked as Ex.P.23, P.W.17 recovered M.O.1-aruval under cover ofEx.P.24 mahazar.The material objects seized by the Investigation Officer weresent through the Judicial Magistrate to Forensic Laboratory for chemicalexamination and the Chemical analysis report and serological report receivedfrom the Forensic Department are Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 respectively.Aftercompletion of the investigation, P.W.17 submitted a final report allegingcommission of the above said offences by the appellants herein and the accusedin the split up case.The same was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate,Shencottai as P.R.C.No.21 of 2001 and the case was thereafter committed to thePrincipal sessions Judge, Tirunelveli Sessions Division, for trial.The caseagainst all the three accused persons was initially taken on file by thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli Sessions Division as Sessions Case No.99of 2002 and was made over to the Additional District Sessions Judge (Fast TrackCourt No.II), Tirunelveli for disposal.While the said case against all thethree accused was pending on the file of the said Court, Siva, the accused inthe split up case stopped appearing before the Court.On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused(appellants herein) was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence adduced on the side of theprosecution.They denied them as false.No witness was examined on the side ofthe accused.The certified copy of the Judgement of the Judicial Magistrate,Shencottai in S.T.C.No.829 of 2001 was marked as Ex.D.1 on the side of theappellants/accused.At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court heard the argumentsadvanced on either side and took a view that the prosecution had proved thefirst charge, namely the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC aloneagainst both the accused (appellants herein) beyond reasonable doubt, found themguilty as per the first charge, awarded punishments as stated above.So far asthe second charge namely, the charge for the offence punishable under Section506(ii) is concerned, both the accused were acquitted by the trial Court.Asagainst the conviction recorded and the sentence passed against the appellantsfor the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, they have preferred thisappeal on various grounds found in the memorandum of appeal.Arguing on behalf of the appellants, Mr.V.Kathirvelu, the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants submitted that both the eye witnesses werenot only related to the deceased but also related inter se and their evidenceshould be considered with care and caution as they were interested witnesses;that before accepting their evidence, test of careful scrutiny should have beenapplied; that had such a test been applied, the trial Court would have rejectedtheir evidence as their testimonies were of doubtful veracity and that evenamong the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the testimonies of P.Ws.15 and 16,there are material contradictions which would go to the root of the case makingthe prosecution version improbable or at least creating a reasonable doubt inthe theory propounded by the prosecution.This Court also heard the arguments of the learned Additional PublicProsecutor on the above said submission made by the learned counsel for theappellants and paid its anxious consideration to the arguments of the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor.It is not in controversy that one Murugesan, the husband of P.W.3 wasdone to death by inflicting as many as 19 cut injuries all over the dead body.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body of thedeceased was subjected to post-mortem examination by P.W.12- Dr.Ramasubbu, whoissued Ex.P.11-post-mortem examination Certificate.In Ex.P.11, P.W.12 hasincorporated his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due toshock and haemorrhage due to the cut injuries found in the dead body of thedeceased and that the injuries could have been caused using weapons likebillhooks (Aruvals).The following are the injuries:1) Cut injury round shape 4 cm diameter front of scalp.2) A deep cut injury 10x4x3 cm extending from left side of nose to theback of left side of neck 4 cm above left eye cutting left ear.3) A deep cut injury cutting left ear extending upto upper portion ofcentre of neck.(NC) 4x4 cm entering muscle deep blood vessels cut, Treacheacut and open 10x4x3 cm.4) Cut injury below chin extending to front of neck 3x3x2 cm.5) Deep cut injury extending from lower jaw upto 2 cm below Right earcutting through jaw bone and Teeth.6) Cut injury 3x2x1 cm back of Right ear.7) Cut injury centre ofscalp extending from front to back.Brain malter coming out through injury.8) Two cut injury one below other 2x1x1 cm lower part of front of neck.9) Cut injury close to one another 2x1x1 cm right shoulder.10) Cut injury 6x4x5 cm right upper arm cutting the bone(Humerus).11) Cut injury 2x1x1/2 cm right chest lower part.12) Cut injury 4x3x4 cm back of left elbow.13) Cut injury 2x1/2x1/2 cm left index finger.14) Cut injury left shoulder laterally extending back of (NC) neck 10x5x4cm.15) Cut injury 3x2x1/2 cm upper part of left side of back.16) Cut injury upper part of centre of back extending to right shouldercutting scapular 7x4x5 cm.17) Cut injury 4x3x3 cm right shoulder.18) Cut injury 5x4x4 cm upper part of right side of back.19) Cut injury lower part of centre of back."The above said injuries would not have been either self-inflictedor otherwise caused in an accident.There could be no doubt that the same hadbeen caused by one or more persons using weapons like billhooks (Aruvals).Therefore it could be safely concluded that the death of deceased Murugesan wasnothing but homicidal.Apart from the same, the said fact that the deceasedwas done to death by indiscriminately cutting with billhooks was neverquestioned by the appellants herein at any stage of the proceedings.Hence ithas got to be factually recorded so and the finding of the trial Court that thedeath of the deceased Murugesan was homicidal has got to be confirmed.In the instant case, three witnesses had been cited as eye witnessesbut only two out of them, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, were examined before the trialCourt.The same has caused a serious doubt regarding theprosecution version that the above said Sankarammal, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were theeyewitnesses for the occurrence.According to the prosecution version, theoccurrence took place on 6.1.2000 at about 6.45 p.m., when the deceased alongwith Sankarammal, P.Ws.1 and 2 was returning home after attending the funeralprocession of one Mookka Nadar.That being so, the presence of Sankarammal in the scene ofoccurrence becomes doubtful.As a corollary, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 whoclaim to have accompanied the deceased along with Sankarammal on their way backfrom the burial/cremation ground also becomes questionable.That apart, thereare other reasons also to disbelieve that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 thatthey were the actual eye witnesses for the occurrence.As rightly pointed outby the learned counsel for the appellants, there are material contradictions intheir evidence regarding the lodging of a complaint.According to P.Ws.1,2,15 and 16, Ex.P.1 complaint was lodged with thepolice by P.W.1 at about 7.30 p.m., P.W.2 attested the complaint as a witness,thereafter the Investigating Officer along with a team of police reached theplace of occurrence at 09.00 p.m and then only started investigation.On theother hand, it is the specific evidence of P.W.8-Village Administrative Officerthat he got the information at about 07.15 p.m., while he was in his Office andimmediately thereafter he went to the place of occurrence.It is the furtherstatement of P.W.8 in his evidence that the Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspectorof Police and the Police party were already there in the place of occurrence andthe Investigating Officer had started investigation when he reached the place ofoccurrence.Admittedly, the place of occurrence was within distance of 5 to10 minutes walk from the Office of P.W.8-Vellaisamy.Therefore, it makesprobable the defence case of the appellants that the police, on receipt ofinformation over phone, had reached the place of occurrence before 7.30 p.m.,conducted a preliminary investigation and thereafter, prepared Ex.P.1-Complaintas if the same was received at about 7.30 p.m in the police station.It ispertinent to note that P.W.2 pleaded ignorance, when it was suggested to himthat the Sub-Inspector of Police, on information received by him over phone,went to the place of occurrence at 6.00 p.m itself.The same caused a seriousdoubt on the prosecution version that P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the police station at7.30 p.m and lodged Ex.11. P.W.1 would say that Ex.P.1-complaint was not written by the Sub-Inspector of Police, but was written by the Head Constable.Per contra, it isthe evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.15 (Sub-Inspector of Police) that the complaintwas scribed by P.W.15-Sub-Inspector of Police and not by the Head Constable.But the endorsement found in Ex.P.1 is to the effect that the complaintstatement was recorded before the Sub-Inspector of Police and implying that thecomplaint statement was written by another person in the presence of the Sub-Inspector of Police.The said aspect wasnot properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge.But P.W.1 and P.W.2, having givensuch a statement, in their evidence asserted that they did not furnish thedetails of the overt acts of each one of the accused persons committed after thedeceased fell down correlating the same with the injuries.In this regard,P.Ws.1 and 2 have been successfully contradicted with reference to theirstatement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The said contradictions are nodoubt material contradictions and the same coupled with other contradictions aspointed out supra, are capable of making the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2unreliable.Admittedly both of them are closely related to the deceased and arerelated inter se.They are interested witnesses.Therefore before acceptingtheir evidence, test of careful scrutiny should be applied.This Court is of theconsidered view that their evidence do not withstand the test of carefulscrutiny and hence the same should be excluded as unbelievable.If the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 areexcluded, then the balance evidence available for the proof of the commission ofoffences alleged against the accused persons shall be none other thancircumstantial evidence.They are the evidence regarding motive part of theprosecution case and evidence regarding alleged confession made by the accusedpersons and consequential recovery of weapon used for the commission of theoffence.So far as the confession statements alleged to have been given by thefirst appellant and the absconding accused Siva leading to the recovery ofbillhooks marked as M.Os.3 and 2 under cover of mahazars Exs.P.5 and 7 areconcerned, out of the two mahazar witnesses, one witness, namely P.W.8 - VillageAdministrative Officer alone was examined.Of course, in his evidence in chiefexamination he supported the prosecution case by stating the confessionstatements of A1 (P.Muthukumar) and the absconding accused Siva were recordedand M.Os.3 and 2 were recovered in his presence and in the presence of villagemenial.According to P.W.16, he sent a message to theVillage Administrative Officer and the village menial asking them to come to theplace of arrest of the above said persons; that as per his request, P.W.8 andthe Village menial came to that place in a two wheeler and that the arrest of A-1 (P.Muthukumar) and the absconding accused Siva was made only in theirpresence.Per contra P.W.8 would deny having witnessed the arrest.He wouldadmit that he had no knowledge as to when and where the said accused personswere arrested by the Inspector of Police.According to P.W.16, the Sub-Inspectorof Police was not at all present in the place of arrest, when the arrest wasmade and confession statements were recorded.Quite contrary to the same, P.W.8would state that it was the Sub-Inspector of Police who came to the Office ofP.W.8 in a Jeep and took P.W.8 and the village menial to the place wherein theconfession statements of A1 (P.Muthukumar) and absconding accused Siva wererecorded and that the Sub-Inspector of Police was very much present in thatplace.From this, it is quite clear that P.W.8 and P.W.16 have given twodifferent versions, conflicting with each other, regarding the vehicle used byP.W.8 and the village menial to go to the place wherein the confessionstatements of A1 (P.Muthukumar) and the absconding accused Siva were allegedlyrecorded and regarding the presence of Sub-Inspector of Police in that place.The said discrepancies are quite enough to hold that the prosecution versionregarding the confession statement made by A1 (P.Muthukumar) and abscondingaccused Siva and the recovery of weapons are unbelievable.They are capable ofatleast creating a reasonable doubt regarding the story of confession leading torecovery of weapons.So far as the alleged confession statement of the secondappellant, P.Aathiraj and recovery of M.O.3 are concerned, both the personsexamined as attestors of the confession statement and mahazar witnesses havefailed to support the prosecution case and turned hostile.According to the prosecution version,on the very same day itself, he gave a confession statement in the presence ofP.Ws.10 and 11 and the information furnished by him in the admissible part ofconfession statement was marked as Ex.Butboth the witnesses have turned hostile and denied the prosecution version inthis regard.Therefore the alleged confession statement given by the secondappellant, P.Aathiraj and the recovery made thereafter are got to bedisbelieved.In this regard, it will be quite helpful to point out the admissionmade by P.W.8 that when he reached the place of occurrence after receivinginformation, he saw the weapons in the place of occurrence.Therefore, asrightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the theory ofarrest, confession and recovery falls to the ground and the same has got to bedisbelieved as there are more imponderables and discrepancies in the evidence ofprosecution regarding the same.The remaining circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution isthe evidence regarding motive part of the prosecution case.Of course, thereare sufficient evidence to show that pursuant to a previous incident of a groupclash over the noise created by the Tape recorder played by the accused personsthat took place three months prior to the date of occurrence, two cases wereregistered in Crime No.514 of 1999 and Crime No.515 of 1999 and a final reportwas submitted for an offence under Section 160 IPC after clubbing both casesagainst the members of both groups.The deceased and 2 others are shown as "A"party and the accused were shown as "B" party in the said case.No doubt thesame could have provided a motive for the accused to commit the offencecomplained of.But the proof of motive is not enough to hold that the chargeshave been proved beyond reasonable doubt.It is one of the several factors tobe taken into account by the Court to come to the conclusion whether the chargeor charges levelled against the accused have been proved.At the same time, itshould be borne in mind that motive is a double edged weapon capable of beingused for and against the prosecution.In this case the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecutionregarding other aspects except motive part of the prosecution case, full ofdiscrepancies and contradictions making them unreliable.This Court further holds that this is a fit case in which the convictionrecorded in respect of both the appellant for the offence under Section 302 r/wSection 34 IPC and the sentence awarded by the trial Court have got to beinterfered with and set aside.For all the reasons stated above, the Criminal appeal shall succeedand accordingly succeeds.The conviction recorded and the sentence imposed bythe trial Court in respect of both the appellants are hereby set aside and theyare acquitted of all the charges.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants 1 and 2 shall berefunded to them.vsn/SMLToThe Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli.The Inspector of Police, Coutralam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
71,722,684 |
His daughter also came to the scene of crime.Due to his shouts, people gathered there.This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the sh Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to assail the order dated e 08.9.2017 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj in ad Sessions Trial No.247/2017, whereby charges under section 333/34, Pr 294 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against the petitioners/accused persons.The prosecution story giving rise to the Sessions Trial, in brief, is that a report has been lodged by the complainant-Jhalak ad Narayan Pandey who is a Head Constable.He had gone to village of M the petitioner to investigate the matter pertaining to offences under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.At about 12.30 p.m. he of reached village Barod Lathva Tola.In front of the house of the rt petitioner, he saw a person who was polishing the house with cow ou dung.When he asked whether Vinod Mishra is present in the house, he replied that he is Vinod Mishra.When the complainant asked about C the accused-Vijay Shanker Gautam, the person who was polishing the h house, namely, the petitioner-Vinod Mishra got annoyed and started ig abusing the complainant.He assaulted him and alleged that he is not H arresting the accused and asking him about the accused.His son- Deepak Mishra and wife-Ms.Vidhya Mishra armed with 'lathi' came and started assaulting him.They saw the incident.On this information, the Police enquired the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the petitioners-Vinod Mishra, Deepak Prakash Mishra, Vidhya Mishra and daughter-Ms.Arti Mishra.On behalf of the petitioners it is argued that charges framed against the petitioners are not sustainable, for the police persons aggrieved and annoyed because a complaint was lodged on 17.4.2017 in the CM on-line by the applicant against the police, they lodged this report false report implicating the petitioners.Learned Government Advocate has opposed the contentions made by the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the revision.Perusal of the police diary shows that there is clear allegation in the statements of complainant and other witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 'Lathi' has been seized from Deepak Mishra, Vidhya Mishra.Torn clothes sh have been seized from the complainant (Jhalak Narayan Pandey).Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
|
['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.
|
71,729,592 |
2 CRR No. 2458/2017In brief, the prosecution case is that on 16.08.2015 at about 1:00 pm near the Government Hospital, Main Road, Barodia, complainant Balram Singh along with Raghavendra were going to drink tea.Suddenly all the accused persons (applicants herein) came there in one qualis and two bolero jeeps.They restrained the complainant and Raghavendra.Applicant Rajesh abused the complainant and Raghavendra for stealing liquor from his shop.They were trying to take the complainant with them and started assaulting Balram with kick and fist.Other eye-witnesses were present there.Hence, they are being dealt with by this common order.The criminal revision No. 2458/2017 has been filed by the applicants against the impugned order dated 05.08.2017 passed by the Second Addl.Sessions Judge, Khurai in Session Trial No. 3900389/20147 whereby the trial Court has framed charges under Section 307/149, 341, 323 and in alternate Section 323/149, 506-II of the IPC against applicant No. 2/Anil and applicant No. 3/Brijesh whereas charges under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 307 of IPC have been framed against applicant 2 CRR No. 2458/2017 MCRC No. 8757/2017 No. 1/Rajesh.Hence, the applicant Rajesh threatened them for their life and fled away along with other co-accused.On the written complaint filed by Balram Singh on 16.08.2015 at about 2:00 pm at police outpost Barodia, FIR was registered against all the accused persons under Section 341, 323, 294 and 506/34 of IPC.Later on police added Section 307 and 364 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court.After committal of the case, learned trial Court framed charges as mentioned above.Applicant Ravindra Rai filed M.Cr.C. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR on the grounds that, in the FIR the name 3 CRR No. 2458/2017 MCRC No. 8757/2017 was mentioned as Ravindra Munim in fact his name is Ravindra Rai.He has no enimity with the complainant.He has made various complaint against the complainant regarding illegal selling of liquor in the local area to the high authorities, therefore, false allegations were made by the complainant against him.One Sanjeev also complained against Raghuvir and Suraj Kushwah.They made illegal demand of money from him which was not fulfilled by the applicant Ravindra.Hence, the complainant falsely implicated him.3 CRR No. 2458/2017The applicants further contended that in the medical report, no grievous injuries have been found on the complainant, therefore, no case is made out against the applicant under Section 307 of IPC.Co- accused Rajesh claimed that charges have been framed against him without any evidence.All the witnesses are interested witnesses.Other prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and Anil and Brijesh were not named in the FIR.Hence, applicants prayed to set aside all the charges levelled against them.Learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.Perused the record.It is true that FIR in crime No. 148/2015 has been lodged by the complainant on the date of incident within two hours of the incident at Police Station Malthon against the applicant Rajesh and 4 CRR No. 2458/2017 MCRC No. 8757/2017 other accused persons.In the FIR there is no allegation of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Earlier FIR was registered under Section 341, 323, 294 and 506/34 of IPC against the applicants.Hence, such omissions are very material.4 CRR No. 2458/2017After some days, complainant Balram stated to the police that at the time of incident applicant Rajesh fired on him by country made Pistol but the bullet touched his hair and therefore, he did not sustain any injury.Police registered his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In similar way, eye witnesses Raghavendra and Gabba Thakur stated about the gunfire by applicant Rajesh.After considering the differences in their statements from the FIR, by police their statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C were recorded and produced before the trial Court which shows clear improvements in the prosecution story.It clearly appears that after 9 days from lodging the FIR the complainant Balram and his witness prepared concocted story.Learned Government Advocate submits that police seized empty cartridge from the spot which supported their versions.But the FSL report shows negative findings against the prosecution story.In the FIR, it is mentioned that Ajay, Arvind and Ravindra with applicants Rajesh and some other 4-5 persons were involved in the 5 CRR No. 2458/2017 MCRC No. 8757/2017 crime.Applicant Anil and Brijesh were identified as accused during the investigation.Hence, at this stage, they are not entitled to be discharge from all the charges levelled against them.5 CRR No. 2458/2017Therefore, criminal revision No. 2458/2017 filed by applicant No. 1/Rajesh is partly allowed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,930,716 |
ORDER Dipak Misra, J.Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') the husband-petitioner has assailed the order dated 18-12-97 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anuppur in Criminal Case No. 493/96 whereby he has refused to grant permission for compounding of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC').The essential facts giving rise to the present petition are that on the basis of an FIR lodged by the wife of the petitioner the criminal law was set in motion which ultimately gave rise to Criminal Case No. 493/96 for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Anuppur.After filing of the charge-sheet in the Court, the petitioner and his wife reached an amicable settlement and the misunderstanding between them came to end.The Supreme Court while accepting such plea, directed the trial Judge for grant of permission to compound the offence.Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
|
['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,071,747 |
Heard finally through Video Conferencing.This is 12th Application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 14/06/2017 in connection with Crime No.24/2017 registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC, Section 3(1)(2)(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Nishepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, Sections 45(S)/58B (5-A) of the RBI Act and under Sections 4, 5, 6 of Price Chit-fund and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Supreme Court by order dated 06/01/2020 had directed the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings as early as possible within six months from the date of order.As nobody is responsible for non-disposal of the trial, as well as considering the allegations made against the applicant coupled with the fact that not only his previous bail application has been rejected on merits, but his S.L.P. has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a not a fit case for grant of bail.The application fails and is hereby rejected.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA KUMAR PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a1a9e3451 ee450d883083a8e4cc8020eee6f7cb, BARIK cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2020.07.15 12:47:20 +05'30'
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,930,743 |
JUDGMENT Raghubab Dayal, J.Gopal Das Kapoor and another were committed to the Court of Session at Kanpur for trial of offences under Sections 409 and 120B, Penal Code.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,078,001 |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR SANJIV KHANNA, J:Bhim Singh has challenged his conviction under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) in Sessions Case No. 34/2009 arising out of FIR No.122/2009, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla.The prosecution version, accepted by the trial court, is that the appellant Bhim Singh committed murder of Sharda, wife of Kanahiya Lal, in the night intervening 9th and 10th of May, 2009 in a house located opposite electric pole No.EP-153, E-Block, Qutub Vihar, Goyala Dairy, Delhi.Thereafter, the dead body was taken to the roof top of the said house and thrown in the adjacent property belonging to Chandu Lal (PW-2).There, the deceased was beheaded inside a room.The severed head along with the saree, blouse, petticoat, blood stained towel, silver/gillet pajeb, rexine purse and other belongings of the deceased including the knife were kept in a plastic bag/katta and CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 1 of 15 thrown in the Ganda Nala, Kakrola near the police booth.CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 1 of 15The prosecution case primarily relies upon the disclosure statement (Ex.The prosecution also relies upon the testimony of Kanahiya Lal (PW-1), husband of the deceased Sharda, to the effect that the deceased was missing since 9th May, 1999 and he had suspected involvement of Bhim Singh, the appellant herein.Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) has deposed that he had been residing in Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi with his six children.The appellant Bhim Singh was their neighbour and an acquaintance.On 9th May, 2009, the appellant Bhim Singh took the deceased Sharda with him, on the pretext of introducing her to a girl for matrimonial alliance with her son, Monu.When his wife did not return home on 9th May, 2009, distressed and perturbed, PW-1 searched for his wife but in vain.He went to the Goyala Dairy as he had learnt that the appellant Bhim Singh was residing there at the house of his sister.The house was found to be locked.At about 1.30 A.M. on 11th May, 2009, he went to the Police Station Sarai Rohilla and reported the disappearance of his wife, Sharda.The appellant Bhim Singh was traced and arrested at about 3.00 P.M. vide arrest memo, Ex.PW1/A, which PW-1 signed as a witness at point A. The appellant Bhim Singh was interrogated and, thereafter, PW-1 along with the police and the appellant went to Goyala Dairy.At the pointing out by the appellant, lock of a house was broken open and dead body of Sharda was recovered from a CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 2 of 15 vacant room.The body was without clothes and the head had been severed.Blood could be seen scattered.HC Rajiv Kumar (PW-10) took photographs, which were exhibited on record as Ex.PW-10/1 to 4, Ex.PW-10/A-5 to 25, and Ex.Thereafter, the appellant Bhim Singh produced the key of the adjacent house which was opened, and an empty bottle of liquor, two steel glasses and one empty water bottle were seized vide Seizure Memo, Ex.PW-1/C. The key and the lock were seized vide Seizure Memo, Ex.PW-1/D. Photographs of the stairs and roof of the house showing the gap or hole from where the dead body was thrown/lowered in the adjacent house were taken.Thereupon, the appellant took them to Ganda Nala, Kakrola, from where the severed head of the deceased Sharda kept in a plastic bag/katta was taken out by a diver, Rajan (PW-8).A saree, blouse, petticoat, blood stained towel, silver/gillet pajeb, rexine purse with small phone diary, printed cup and a kitchen knife were found in the said bag/katta.These articles were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo, Ex.PW-1/E. Blood samples from the room from where the headless body was found were taken and earth control samples including blood stains, small stones were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo, Ex.PW-1/K.CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 2 of 15He had gone inside the nala and on the indication and instruction of the appellant Bhim Singh CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 3 of 15 fished out the plastic bag/katta.He deposed that the plastic bag was opened in the presence of the accused, and contained a severed head of a lady, blood stained towel, saree, blouse, petticoat, one pair of ladies chappal, one pair of silver/gillet pajeb and a small knife.The said articles (except the severed head, which was not shown to PW-8) were recognized and identified by Rajan (PW-8) in the Court.PW-8 affirmed the Seizure Memo, Ex."On 11.5.09, I was present in the P.S. Sarai Rohilla.Gejender, Const.Sudhir left in the Govt. Vehicle for Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, near Indl.PW-12 has deposed that the appellant Bhim Singh was apprehended from his house at Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road and was interrogated.His disclosure statement (Ex.PW-12/A) was recorded and thereafter, he was arrested vide memo (Ex.PW-1/A).The appellant had then led them to the house near electric pole No.EP-153, E-Block, Qutub Vihar in Goyala Dairy.SI Ram Nath (PW-12) avouched the assertion made by Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) by deposing as to the headless body of a lady being found in a room after they broke open the main door.Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) had identified the dead body as that of his wife Sharda.Thereupon, the appellant Bhim Singh, produced the key and on opening the lock of the adjacent house, liquor bottle, glasses, etc. were found.Photographs of the dead body, place of occurrence and crime scene were taken by the Crime team."... After 9.05.2009, I saw the accused first time on 10.05.2009 in the street where my house is situated while he was in Police Custody.I had brought the Police for getting apprehending the accused and on my pointing out the accused by apprehended.Police did not prepare any document in the street at the time when the accused was apprehended.There was a huge crowd in the street at that time. ..."It is noticeable that in the examination-in-chief, Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) had specifically stated that on 10th May, 2009, he along with his nephew, Sanju had gone to Goyala Dairy, Dwarka, the house of his sister.Thereafter, on 11th May, 2009, he had gone to the Police Station Sarai Rohilla at about 1.30 A.M. In the cross-examination on 9th December, 2009, Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) had reiterated the same facts.He affirmed having gone to the police on 10th May, 2009 to lodge a complaint about his missing wife after making fruitless and futile efforts to locate her.The headless torso and the severed head were identified by Kanahiya Lal (PW-1).In the cross-examination, PW-1 had deposed that he identified the dead body of his deceased wife Sharda on the basis of the tattoo OM and her name which was inked on her right hand.12) also get corroborated from the testimony of Chandu Lal (PW-2), who was the owner of the adjacent property, i.e. the house from where the headless dead body was recovered.He had deposed that he was not residing in the said property which was lying vacant under his lock and keys.On 12th May, 2009, he came to know that a dead body of a lady was recovered from his house.He was called to the police station and had narrated the relevant facts to the police.He deposed that when he visited the house, he found blood stains on the floor of the house, which were washed.PW-2 professed ignorance of his familiarity with the appellant Bhim Singh or the deceased.He further deposed that the adjacent house was locked and the occupants thereof had gone to attend some marriage.Prabhu Dayal (PW-5) has deposed that he was residing since September, 2008 on rent, in the house located opposite electric pole No.E-153, E Block, Phase I, Qutub Vihar, Goyala Dairy, PS Chawla, Delhi,.It was owned by one Surender Singh, serving in the Indian Army.On 6th May, 2009, he along with his family members had gone to Shalimar Bagh in connection with a family wedding.He had given the keys of the house to Raj Devi, sister of the appellant Bhim Singh and his sister-in-law.The appellant Bhim Singh was related to him and CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 9 of 15 used to reside with his sister Raj Devi.On 11th May, 2009, he came to know about the occurrence, i.e. Shardas dead body had been recovered from the adjacent house.The properties in question were rather small and had a common terrace without any parapet dividing the terrace.The scaled site plan (Ex.PW-7/A) demarcates at point C the hole or the gap in the roof from where the dead body was thrown/lowered and, thereafter, taken to the room in the house from where it was recovered.Blood stains were found at the two spots, i.e. the place where the body was lowered from the roof and inside the room.These details are also shown in the unscaled site plan (Ex.Blood is clearly visible at the place where the body was lowered, in the photographs marked Ex.PW-10/1 to 4 and Ex.In his cross examination, PW-13 has stated that there was only one entry or exit gate in the adjacent house but the roof could have provided an alternate access into the said house.Subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage present over left parieto temporo occipital lobes of brain.He opined that the Injury Nos.1 and 2 were peri mortem and recent and were caused by a sharp serrated edged weapon.He was shown the knife recovered from the plastic bag/katta which was identified in the Court.Injury Nos.1 and 2 mentioned in the post mortem report, he opined, could have been caused by the said or similar knife.The knife was marked Ex.P-1; the sketches of the same were exhibited as Ex.PW- 1/H and Ex.Through Mr. Varun Goswami, Additional Public Prosecutor with Inspector Raj Pal Singh, Ashok Vihar Traffic Circle.PW-1/F. The police also seized a half sleeve shirt and one black pant worn by the appellant vide Seizure Memo, Ex.PW- 1/J. The headless body was identified by PW-1, as that of his wife Sharda, vide memo, Ex.PW-1/E. He also identified the photograph marked as Ex.PX-1, which was taken while he was taking out the plastic bag/katta from the drain.CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 3 of 15Learned counsel for the appellant Bhim Singh has challenged the prosecution version and the testimony of Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) and Rajan (PW-8) on several grounds.She had submitted that the disclosure statement (Ex.PW-12/A) was recorded by the first Investigating Officer, SI Ram Nath (PW-12) after he had already seen the headless torso of the deceased Sharda at the property located opposite electric pole No.EP-153, E-Block, Qutub Vihar, Goyala Dairy, Delhi.Reliance is placed upon the first paragraph of the testimony of SI Ram Nath (PW-12), which is to the following effect:-Thereafter I along with the complainant Sh.Kanhiya Lal and my staff HC Suresh, Const.Area within the jurisdiction of P.S. Sarai Rohilla.There I prepared site plan Ex.PW1/M at the instance of complainant bearing my signatures at point B. Efforts were made for tracing out the accused Bhim Singh but he was not available there."We have examined the said contention and the site plan (Ex.PW-1/M).The said site plan does not pertain to the property of the appellant Bhim Singh at Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sarai Rohilla.The site plan (Ex.PW-CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 4 of 151/M) is a composite site plan of two adjacent properties opposite electric pole No.EP-153, E-Block, Qutub Vihar, Goyala Dairy, Najafgarh, Delhi.It is apparent that the last sentence of the first paragraph in the testimony of SI Ram Nath (PW-12) is a mistake or an error because when we read the earlier portion of the first paragraph of his testimony, it makes it crystal clear that he was referring to the visit to the property at Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sarai Rohilla.Obviously, PW-12 was not referring to his visit to the property at Goyala Dairy located within the jurisdiction of Police Station Najafgarh.The subsequent portion of the testimony of SI Ram Nath (PW-12) elucidates and affirms the true factual situation.Thus, SI Ram Nath (PW-12) had clearly deposed that they had visited Goyala Dairy after recording the disclosure statement (Ex.PW-12/A) of the appellant Bhim Singh and not before.The arrest memo (Ex.PW-1/A) bears the time of arrest as 3.00 P.M. on 11th May, 2009 and the place of arrest has been CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 5 of 15 described as House No.2/79, Gali No.7, Harijan Basti, Delhi.The visit to Goyala Dairy and the recovery of the dead body, etc. is subsequent.If, SI Ram Nath (PW-12) had already visited the two properties at Goyala Dairy before recording disclosure statement (Ex.PW-12/A), the question of breaking open the lock on the main door and opening the locks of the adjacent property would not arise.A close scrutiny of the site plan (Ex.PW-1/M) reveals the gap or the hole from where the dead body was lowered/dropped in the adjacent property and taken inside a separate room after going through a verandah.The preparation of site plan (Ex.PW-1/M) would have been possible, if and only if, the draftsman drawing the sketch had physically inspected and seen the property.This happened post the disclosure statement (Ex.PW-12/A).It may be opportune and appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the disclosure statement, admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872:-CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 5 of 15"I can get recovered the headless dead body of Sharda from the house adjacent to Prabhu's house at Goyala Dairy, Chhawla and also the severed head, her clothes, knife, anklet and chappals, etc. which I had thrown* putting them in a plastic sack from the Ganda Nala. ..."The findings recorded above stand confirmed by the testimony of Kanahiya Lal (PW-1), who unambiguously and categorically has stated that only after the arrest and interrogation of the appellant Bhim Singh, they had visited the properties at Goyala Dairy and thereupon at the directions of the appellant Bhim Singh, the headless body and the plastic bag/katta with a severed head and other belongings of the deceased Sharda were recovered.As already noticed, Rajan (PW-8), the diver, has fully supported the prosecution version.The prosecution case that the appellant Bhim Singh was arrested on 11th May, 2009 has been contested relying upon the CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 6 of 15 statement made by Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) in the cross-examination to the following effect:-CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 6 of 15They had returned from Goyala Dairy on 10th May, 2009 at 5.30 P.M. Thereafter, on 11th May, 2009, the events took place after 11 A.M./12.00 noon.Even in the testimony recorded on 10 th December, 2009, Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) has deposed that on 11th May, 2009, he had left the police station along with police personnel for Goyala Dairy, where he identified the headless dead body of his deceased wife Sharda.Subsequently, the severed head and other belongings of Sharda were recovered from the drain.Noticeably, the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) in response to one of the questions had stated as under:-CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 7 of 15"Q. It is in the evidence against you that PW-1 along with PW-13 HC Narayan Dass and PW-15 IO Inspector Rajpal Singh were on a look out for you and at about 3:00 p.m. on 11.05.2009 you were arrested from your house vide memo Ex.PW-1/A and personal search memo Ex.PW1/B signed by you.What do you have to say?The factum of arrest is correct.Further, Banti (PW-3), had affirmed that he had identified the dead body of his mother, which was handed over to his father after the post mortem.The testimony of Banti (PW-3) remained unchallenged.This also puts to rest the contention of the appellant with reference to the testimony of Dr. Parminder Singh (PW-6) that proper authentication was not carried out to ascertain whether the head and the torso were of the same person as the Investigating Officer had not requisitioned any opinion on the said aspect.The factum that Dr. Parminder Singh (PW-6) in the cross examination, had stated that he did not observe any tattoo mark on the body, is plausible but would not be sufficient to negate the statement of Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) that he CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 8 of 15 had seen tattoo mark OM and the name inked on the right hand of the body.Absence or failure of Dr. Parminder Singh (PW-6) to see or re- collect in the factual matrix of the case, would not be sufficient to discard the positive assertion by the husband, Kanahiya Lal (PW-1).Similarly, the contention that photographs do not show the said tattoo mark or name is trivial and trifling, in view of the identification by the husband, Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) and son, Banti (PW-3) of the deceased.CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 8 of 15The testimony of Kanahiya Lal (PW-1) and SI Ram Nath (PW-In his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that on 11th May, 2009, his house was found to be open and he had not asked for the key from Raj Devi.The recovery of the key (seized vide Seizure memo, Ex.PW-1/D) from the appellant Bhim Singh, during the recovery proceeding based on the disclosure statement (Ex.PW-12/A) is noteworthy and corroborates PW-5s deposition.CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 9 of 15The contention is that the prosecution has not shown as to how the dead body was taken inside the locked house or how the appellant managed to escape out of the locked house, is a specious and pretentious argument.The photographs and the site plans are illustrative and negate the submission.The site plan (Ex.PW-1/M) and the scaled site plan (Ex.PW-7/A) are illustrative and affirm the factual situation.Though, there were no stairs, but the protruding bricks on the walls could have been used to climb up or go down to and from the roof to the adjacent house.CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 10 of 15The prosecution version that a kitchen knife was used to severe the head of the deceased at first appears to be implausible, but finds resonance and support from the medical evidence (Ex.PW-6/B).Dr. Parminder Singh (PW-6), who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body, has stated that rigor mortis had passed off and the body had the following external injuries:-"EXTERAL INJURIESIncised wound over neck (Head part), measuring 33 cms, completely encircling the neck, in the middle, cutting all neck structures through and through (Cartilages, blood vessels, trachea, oesophagus etc.), edges are sharp and serrated and is peri mortem in nature.Incised wound of neck (Body part), 33cms completely encircling neck in the middle, cutting all neck structures through and through separating head and body apart from each other with edges sharp and serrated, peri mortem in nature.Bruise 6 X 1.5 cms.present over left side of face near angle of mouth.Bruise 14X8 cms.present over left cheek.Bruising of inner aspect of upper and lower lips present deffusely.Upper and lower gums shows extra vasation of blood.Bruise 1X1 cms.present over middle of upper lip.Bruise 8X4 cms.present around left eye and lateral aspect of left eye.Bruise 6X1.5 cms below right eye.10.Bruise 1.5X1.5 cms.present over right cheek.11.Bruise 3.5 X3 cms present over thenar eminence of left hand.12.Bruise 7.5X7 cms.present over upper part of right side of neck below angle of mandible.13.Bruise 1.5 X2 cms.present over middle of forehead.14.Bruise 1.5 X1 cms.present over right side of forehead.CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 11 of 1515.Swelling 6X5 cms.present over right temporal area of skull."The following aspects were noticed on internal examination:-The opinion as given by Dr. Parminder Singh (PW-6) was that death was due to asphyxia following ante mortem, smothering and throttling, along with cranio-cerebral damage, i.e. head injury.It was held:-We too countenance three possibilities when an accused points out the place where a dead body or an incriminating material was concealed without stating that it was concealed by himself.One is that he himself would have concealed it.Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it.And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there.In fact, it may be a clinching circumstance in factual matrix of a given case.In Shanti Devi versus State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 158, recovery of the dead body based upon the information furnished by the accused from a place adjacent to her house, it was observed, unerringly point towards her guilt.CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 14 of 15In view of the aforesaid discussion, we uphold the conviction of the appellant Bhim Singh under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC.By order of sentence dated 07th July, 2010, the trial court has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302, IPC and in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years.For the offence under Section 201, IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 5 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year.We partly modify the order on sentence and direct the appellant Bhim Singh would undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year in default of payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302, IPC.Sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentence under Section 201, IPC is maintained.The sentences shall run concurrently.The appellant will be entitled to benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.Trial Court Record be sent back.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH KUMAR) JUDGE JANUARY 22nd, 2015 NA CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 15 of 15CRL.A. No. 66/2011 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,092,116 |
Date: 12th DECEMBER 2019::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:44:40 ::: 2 Application 2902 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:44:40 :::1) Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard both the sides by consent for fnal disposal.2) The present proceeding is fled for the relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.233/2019 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station Latur for ofences punishable under sections 376(2)(n), 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for quashing of charge sheet bearing No.119/2019 fled in this crime against the present applicants.It is her contention that in August 2016 she came in contact with Vishal Kale and after the acquaintance there was afair with Vishal.It is contended that on 21-8-2016 in the night time Vishal came to her residential place and by giving promise of marriage he took sexual intercourse with her.It is contended that on 17-5-2019 he promised her that he will take some decision on marriage but after that he did not turn up.It is her contention that she is handicapped lady.::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:44:40 :::4) The informant has made allegation against the present applicants that on 19-5-2019 at 7.00 a.m. applicant No.1 came to her residential place and she picked up quarrel with her and both applicants gave threats of life by saying that she should not marry with Vishal.5) The aforesaid allegations, if they are accepted as they are show that the allegations of ofence of rape are against Vishal.Even if it is presumed that on 19-5-2019 some incident did take place between the applicants and the informant, it cannot be said that said incident had taken place in the course of some transaction which is mentioned as against Vishal Kale.Charge for ofence of rape cannot be framed against these 2 ladies and there::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:44:40 ::: 4 Application 2902 of 2019 will be no question of joinder of charges in view of the aforesaid allegations made against the applicants.It is clear that if the incident dated 19-5-2019 was separately considered, police would have registered it as a non cognizable case.It can be said that to avoid such registration of non cognizable case charge sheet is fled against the present applicants also along with Vishal for the aforesaid ofence.This Court holds that it will be abuse of process of law if the applicants are made to face the trial for the aforesaid ofences like ofences punishable under sections 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code in the case of rape fled against Vishal.This Court holds that relief claimed by the applicants needs to be granted.::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:44:40 :::Rule made absolute in those terms.::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 22:44:40 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,096,407 |
O.P.(MD)No.13012 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.8005 of 2019 19.09.2019This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 118 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit 1/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13012 of 2019 that the petitions are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 118 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b)and 506(ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners.He would further submit that on their complaint the first respondent registered a case against the second respondent and her family members in Crime No. 91 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.K.Appadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.The case was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC.The case of the prosecution is that due to some civil dispute, the petitioners herein abused the defacto complainant and 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13012 of 2019 threatened with dire consequences.It is also seen from the statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C that there are evidences to attract the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.O.P.(MD)No.13012 of 2019 the First Information Report.Hence this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, the respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in both cases and file final report before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.19.09.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav ToThe Sub Inspector of Police Vadamaduri Police Station Dindigul District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.5/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13012 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J, aav Crl.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,101,519 |
Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,045,694 |
The petitioner Kaliammai is the wife of late Karuppiah and the petitioner and Karuppiah were residents of Melapoongudi village in SivagangaTaluk in Sivagangai District.The petitioner Kaliammai is residing in her house in the native village where her children are also residing.The husband of Kaliammai, namely late Karuppiah was running a hotel under the name and style "Nithyakalyani Hotel" at Mary's corner in Thanjavur Town.Said Karuppiah was residing in a house nearby situated in Pappupillai colony and looking after the hotel business.On 21-9-1997 Karuppiah left the hotel at 2-00 p.m. in the afternoon and went to his house to take rest.Karuppiah used to return to the hotel by 8-00 or 8-30 p.m. One Sivaraman, a nephew of late Karuppiah was assisting Karuppiah in running the hotel and he was residing in Thanjavur and working in the hotel for the post more than 20 years.He used to be in charge of the hotel during the absence of Karuppiah.On 21-9-1997 also he was looking after the hotel.Karuppiah who had gone to his house for taking his afternoon nap and did not return even after 8-30 p.m. and therefore Sivaraman sent some of the employees to the house to look for Karuppiah.They returned and stated that the door of the house where Karuppiah was residing was bolted from inside and inspite of their knocking the door, Karuppiah did not.answer and therefore they came back and informed this to Sivaraman.Sivaraman went to the house where Karuppiah was residing and since front door was bolted from inside, he went to the backside and found the backdoor remaining opened.When he entered the house, he saw the dead body of Karuppiah lying in the front room near his bed and he had an injury on the head, a stab injury on the neck, besides other injuries all over the body.There was profused bleeding and Karuppiah was found dead and by the side of Karuppiah, a gold chain was found lying.The wooden almirah kept in the room was found opened and ransacked.One Narasappan who is the uncle of Karuppiah who is also a native of Melapoongudi village was running a pawn broker shop at Thanjavur and he is also settled in Thanjavur for the past many years and was closely associated with late Karuppiah.He used to advance monies on pledge of gold articles and whenever he was short of money, he used to take the pledged jewels and in turn give them to Karuppiah and used to borrowmoney.1/2 sovereigns.All of them were gold jewels.He also knew that Karuppiah used to keep all the jewels in the wooden almirah in his house under lock and key.At 9-00 p.m. when he heard about the murder of Karuppiah, he immediately went to his house and found Karuppiah lying dead in the house with injuries on his head and other parts of the body.He found the bureay has been ransacked and gold jewels have been removed.Sivaraman, the nephew of late Karuppiah went to the police station on the same day at about 10-30 p.m. and lodged a complaint with regard to murder of Karuppiah and missing of jewels.In the same report, Sivaraman also has pointed out the suspicion about involvement of three persons namely Jayaraj, Lakshmanan and Karikalan.Jayaraj and Lakshmanan were employed as workers in the hotel run by Karuppiah and Karikalan was previously employed in the same hotel, but subsequently was dismissed by Karuppiah.Some blood-stained clothes belonging to Jayaraj and Lakshmanan were also found in the back portion of the house.Karuppiah has been done to death by beating with wooden logs and three wooden logs were found thrown in the backyard of the house.Karuppiah used to store fire wood in front of the house for his use in the hotel.The Sub-Inspector of Police, south police station, Thanjavur on receipt of the complaint from Sivaraman, registered a case in his station Cr. No. 613 of 1997 under Sections 302 and 380, IPC.The investigation of the case was taken by the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur west police station and he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars.He prepared an observation Mahazar indicating the position of the dead body and wooden almirah, having been opened and contents ransacked.The body was sent for post-mortem.The Inspector of Police during the course of investigation on 23-9-1997 arrested the accused Jayaraj, Lakshmanan and Karaikalan at the Central Bus stand in Salem.All the three accused separately gave confession statements and on the information furnished by these accused the Inspector of Police traced one Nallathambi, resident of Salem, who is the elder brother of Karikalan.When the Inspector examined Nallathambi, he produced the stolen jewels, cash and other articles.These jewels were seized by the Inspector of Police.The Inspector of Police has sent the seized articles including the jewels to Court for remand.After completing the investigation, he laid the charge-sheet.The accused were charged for the offences under Sections 449, 302, 392 r/w.397 IPC and they were committed to take their trial before the Sessions Judge, Thanjavur by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thanjavur.The case was taken on file as S.C. No. 115 of 1998 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thanj avur and by the judgment dated 18-1-1999 he held that the charges against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted the accused of the charges.However, P.W. 5, turned hostile.P.W. 6 another witness from Salem who was also examined to prove the confession and seizure of jewels, did not support the prosecution case and was permitted to be treated as hostile.P.W. 8 is the Photographer, who took photographs of the scene.P.W. 9 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem over the dead body of Karuppiah.P.Ws. 11 and 12 are the Inspectors of police who have conducted investigation, who have arrested the accused and who have seized the properties.P.W. 10 is the Head clerk attached to Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur who has spoken to sending the blood-stained articles for chemical examination.P.W. 13 is also an Inspector of Police who completed the investigation and laid charge-sheet.The prosecution has filed Exs. P-1 to P-27 documents and has marked M.Os.1 to 68, Besides blood-stained articles namely the wooden logs, sample blaster, sample clothes worn by the deceased, other M.Os are all gold chain recovered from the scene, gold jewels or articles seized on the information furnished by the accused during the course of investigation.By the judgment dated 13-1-1999, the learned Sessions Judge has passed orders with regard to disposal of material objections (objects) marked in the case by stating that M.Os. 1, 7, 32, 51, 52 and 63 shall be returned to Kaliammai wife of late Karuppiah.It is ordered that M.Os.18to31, 39 to 59, 57 to 62 which are all gold jewels and a wrist watch, have to be returned to the persons entitled to the same and since sufficient evidence is not available at the time of trial with regard to persons who are entitled to receive them, the Sessions Judge ordered a separate enquiry under Section 452, Cr. P.C. and to decide with regard to return of those valuable articles.The accused have been acquitted and there is no appeal preferred by the State against the accused or by the persons who are interested in late Karuppiah.Even though the learned Sessions Judge himself in the judgment has ordered that a separate enquiry under Section 452, Cr.P.C. shall be held for deciding the entitlement of persons to receive the M.Os., he himself has not taken up the enquiry and he also did not forward the material objects to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for holding enquiry as ordered in the judgment for disposal of the valuable articles seized and marked in the Sessions case.However, Kaliammai the wife of late Karuppiah, filed Cri.M.P. No. 372 of 1999 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur himself who has taken up the petition for enquiry and passed orders with regard to disposal of M.Os.marked in the Sessions case.It is significant to note that Kaliammai, the widow of Karuppiah, filed the petition praying for return of the jewels and cash, namely M.Os.1,7,32,51,52 and 63 which were already ordered to be returned to her as per the judgment in the case.She has also preferred a claim in respect of M.Os.18 to 31, 39 to 50, 57 to 62 and also a Wrist watch.But, by the impugned order dated 18-8-1999 the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application and ordered confiscation to state of all the jewels cash and wrist watch stating that the petitioner has not established her claim for return of these jewels to her.The petitioner Kaliammai has prayed for return of not only the jewels pledged with late Karuppiah but also prayed for return of M.Os.1,7,32, 51,52 and 63 stating that they belonged to her husband and therefore she is entitled to receive the same.Learned Sessions Judge himself by the judgment made in the Sessions case has already ordered return of these articles to Kaliammai the wife of late Karuppiah.But, even though such an order has been passed and an enquiry u/S. 452, Cr.P.C. was ordered only with regard to return of other jewels, while dismissing the petition, the learned Sessions Judge also dismissed the claim made by Kaliammai in respect of the jewels and cash admittedly belonged to her late husband Karuppiah.Learned Sessions Judge was completely wrong in rejecting the claim of Kaliammai in respect of M.Os. 1, 7, 32, 51, 52 and 63 ordered by the same Sessions Judge to .returned to her.Therefore, when the learned Sessions Judge has chosen to dismiss the petition in to which included these articles, it becomes obvious that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind while disposing the claim made by the widow of late Karuppiah.M.O. 1 is the gold chain worn by the deceased and which has fallen down during the struggle in course of which he was murdered brutally and this has been recovered from the scene from the side of the dead body by the police spon after the occurrence.In fact M.O. 1 has been proved through the evidence of P.W. 2 Narasappan, who has visited the scene soon after the occurrence before the Police Officials.M.Os. 32, 51, 52 and 63 are all cash change and currency notes which were recovered from the persons of the accused as result of the confession made by them to the police during investigation.These articles have been identified as belongings to late Karuppiah and therefore rightly they have been also ordered to be returned along with M.O. 1 gold chain to Kaliammai.I have perused the case diary, the statements recorded from the witnesses during investigation, the statements recorded from the accused when they were arrested by the Police, mahazar, prepared by the police and also the judgment made in S.C. No. 115 of 1998, Moreover we have the additional piece of evidence by way of examination of the petitioner and Narasappan during the enquiry into Cri.M.P. No, 372 of 1999 by the Sessions Judge himself.The documents above referred to disclose the following facts which are not controverted and no contra evidence has been adduced.Late Karuppiah is a resident of Melapoongudi village in Sivagangai district and P.W. 1, the appellant, namely, Kaliammai is the wife of late Karuppiah.On being informed about the brutal murder of her husband at Thanjavur, where he was residing and running a hotel Kaliammai has reached the house of Karuppiah even on the same night and she has seen the dead body lying at the scene, even at that time she has identified M.O.I gold chain which late Karuppiah was wearing and which belonged to him.It is unfortunate that Kaliammai, the widow of late Karuppiah was not even examined during the trial of Sessions case in respect of murder of Karuppiah.Sivaraman was examined as P.W. 1 in the case and P.W. 2 is Narasappan.During the course of evidence, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have stated that P.W. 2 is a money lender and he is a licensed pawn broker.He used to lend money on receipt of pledge of gold jewels.P.W. 2 is also closely associated with the deceased Karuppiah.Karuppiah seems to have been doing well and was running the hotel for many years and he was a man of means and was possessed of lot of cash.It has also come out in evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that whenever P.W. 2 was short of funds, he used to go to Karuppiah and by offering the pledged jewels with him, he used to take money from Karuppiah for his business.So, number of gold jewels which have been originally pledged by third parties with P.W. 2 Narasappan thus happened to be entrusted with late Karuppiah, who himself has advanced amounts to P.W. 2 keeping those jewels as security for the amount thus lent.P.W. 1 Sivaraman is non-else than the nephew of late Karuppiah.He was assisting Karuppiah in running the hotel and he was with Karuppiah for 20 years.He has also spoken to the fact that Karuppiah used to lend money to P.W. 2 and he used to receive jewels as pledge from P.W. 2 with whom third parties have already pledged and raised loans it is now Karuppiah who was living alone in Thanjavur running a hotel was possessed of lot of cash and jewels obviously Karuppiah was living alone in the house which is also situated close to the hotel.Of the three accused who were charged for the murder of Karuppiah, accused 1 and 2 were employees working under Karuppiah even at the time of murder while the third accused Karikalan was a dismissed employee of Karuppiah since Karuppiah was living alone in the house and since these accused were all employees under him.They must have come to the house of Karuppiah now and then and they must have also come to know that Karuppiah was always possessed of cash and jewels.It is only with the object of committing robbery of jewels and cash, these accused have entered the house and in course of robbery they have also committed murder and Karuppiah died due to multiple injuries sustained by him, The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the Sessions case with regard to the fact of late Karuppiah being entrusted with jewels and being in possession of lot of cash was spoken to by them and in this aspect there was no cross-examination and this has not been denied even by the accused.No doubt on going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, I am including to hold that prosecution has not been conducted in an efficient manner expected in a murder case and P.W. 2 has not even asked to identify these gold jewels during the time of trial.He was asked to identify M.O. 1 which was recovered from the scene and which belonged to late Karuppiah.The definite case of the prosecution is Karuppiah was possessed of lot of gold jewels which he received as pledge on the strength of which he advanced money to P.W. 2 Narasappan.So, P.W. 2 Narasappan would be the proper witness to identify the gold articles which were subsequently recovered from the accused in the course of investigation in pursuance of their arrest and discovery statements given by them.Learned Sessions Judge cannot be found fault with when he has ordered a separate enquiry under Section 452, Cr.P.C. with regard to disposal of these valuable jewels which are weighing about 351/2 sovereigns and which are valued at Rs. 1,30,000/-.Kaliammai who was not examined at the time of trial has filed criminal Miscellaneous petition praying for return of jewels and one has also clearly stated in the enquiry that barring certain valuable jewels which belonged to her late husband, all the other jewels were pledged with her husband by P.W. 2 Narasappan, who in turn obtained these gold jewels from third parties.In fact it is not as if that during enquiry under Section 452 Cr.P.C. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have just made bald statement asking for return of these jewels without disclosing the source and basis of their claim.P.W. 1 has clearly admitted that barring few items which belonged to her husband, rest of the items were all pledged by P.W. 2 Narasappan and the persons who have pledged them with Narasappan, after coming to know of the recovery of the jewels in the murder case have been coming and pestering her demanding return of jewels.P.W. 2 has also clearly stated that these jewels have been pledged with him by third parties and he in turn pledged them with Karuppiah for borrowing money on security of those jewels.P.W. 2 besides being closely related to Karuppiah, was running a pawn shop under the name and style "Sri Murugan Bankers".P.W. 2 has also stated that he is running the pawn shop under the name and style "Sri Murugan Bankers" and he has also obtained a licence for running the pawn shop.Even during the investigation at the earliest opportunity in the statement made under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, P.W. 2 has clearly stated that he has got a ledger showing pledge of these articles with him and he also seems to have produced the ledger to the investigating officer at the time of investigation.Learned Judge has discussed the records produced by P.W. 2 stating that they are not maintained in the form required under the Pawn Brokers Act.In the enquiry conducted with regard to disposal of properties concerned in a crime, the learned Sessions Judge is expected to appreciate the evidence and order disposal of the same and it is only a summary enquiry and the learned Judge is called upon to decide as to from whom they have been recovered and as to who are entitled to possession of those articles.In fact if any complicated question is raised with regard to title of those properties, the learned Sessions Judge need not bother himself because his decision will always be subject to any decision by a competent civil Court with regard to title and possession of movables concerned in a crime.This is especially so when there has been no contra evidence and there is no rival claim made by any person.The Sessions Judge has not rejected the case of P.W. 2 that all these Jewels have been entrusted to P.W. 2 by third parties as pledge for money borrowed.Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge seems to have found fault with P.W. 2 for not producing more evidence and documents.As per the judgment, an enquiry has been ordered under Section 452, Cr.Even P.W. 1 the wife of late Karuppiah stated that owners of those jewels are coming and demanding jewels because they were finally found to have been given to her husband by P.W. 2 who was the original pawner.It is unfortunate that Karuppiah was murdered and these jewels were removed, within two days after the murder, the Police have done a good job and have seized the jewels from the accused at a place far away from the scene of crime.Statements have been recorded from the accused, jewels have been recovered in the presence of mahazar witness.Who unfortunately turned hostile during the course of trial.It is not as if the accused have made a claim in respect of these jewels.The accused have just denied the possession of incriminating jewels or the information furnished by them.Nallathambi from whom these jewels were recovered by the Police as a result of discovery statements given by the accused has also naturally turned hostile because he is non-else than the elder brother of third accused Karikalan.But, the fact remains that the jewels which have been removed from the house of late Karuppiah after brutally murdering him were all recovered intact and cash also have been recovered and produced before the criminal Court.There is absolutely nothing to suspect the claim made by P.W. 1 supported by the evidence of P.W. 2 Narasappan.There can be no hesitation in accepting the case of the prosecution that these jewels have been produced and marked in the criminal trial belonged to third parties and they have been originally pledged with P.W. 2 Narasappan who in turn pledged then with late Karuppiah from whose possession they have been removed by thieves, who have also committed the more serious crime of murder.It is unfortunate that the persons who have been responsible for the murder and theft of these articles have not been punished for want of evidence.But, so far as entitlement of P.W. 1 to receive the jewels from the Court is concerned, there can be no controversy.P.W. 1 also do not claim all these jewels for herself and she has also sworn to the fact that demands are being made on her by the persons who have pledged them with P.W. 2 Narasappan.Narasappan also has no objection for returning all the jewels to P.W. 1 Kaliammai, with whose help would see to it that these jewels are returned to the persons who pledged them with him.In fact before returning the jewels the persons who have pledged them have to pay the money borrowed from P.W. 2 and since P.W. 2 has borrowed money in turn from Karuppiah, the money has to go to P.W. 1, the widow of Karuppiah, who is the victim of the murder and robbery.There is absolutely nothing to show that P.Ws. 1 and 2 also have any intention of cornering these jewels for themselves.Late Karuppiah has been in possession of these jewels at the time of his death and all these jewels were removed by culprits and therefore when those jewels were discovered thanks to the nice investigation done by the police, they must be restored to the legal heir of Karuppiah, namely Kaliammai.Kaliammai is definitely entitled to possession of these jewels and therefore the learned Sessions Judge was absolutely wrong in ignoring her claim.The fact that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind becomes obvious from the fact that he has not returned the gold chain which admittedly belonged to Karuppiah which was lying in the scene and which was seized by the Police during the course of investigation.Therefore, in the absence of third party claims and in the absence of any evidence or ground to suspect that P.W. 1 would not return the jewels to the persons who have pledged them, the learned Sessions Judge was not correct in dismissing the claim and ordering confiscation.The State is the last person to whom the jewels could have been returned and the prosecution also never claimed.In fact the learned Government Advocate also has absolutely no objection for allowing this appeal and for returning the jewels to P.W. 1, who will be holding the jewels in trust on behalf of the persons who have pledged them with P.W. 2 who in turn has pledged them with late Karuppiah.It is only natural and reasonable that the persons who have borrowed money on pledge of these jewels shall pay back the money to P.W. 1 and get the jewels.For the reasons stated above, the order passed by II Additional District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Crl.M. P. No. 372 of 1999 is liable to be set aside.Learned Sessions Judge is directed to issue notice to the claimant P.W. 1 the widow of late Karuppiah to whom these jewels have to be returned without any further delay.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,045,700 |
On November 3, 1992 at about 9 a.m. a police party headed by S.I. Sunder Lal of police post Yamuna Vihar, Delhi rang the bell of House No. C-12/464, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi.The door was opened by one Sachin.As soon as the door was opened by Sachin, S.I. Sunder Lal and other members of the police party started beating him.The complainant-petitioner Ritesh Kumar who was present in the house of Sachin Protested to S.I. Sunder Lal against the beating of Sachin.S.I. Sunder Lal not liking the intervention of the complainant, caught hold of him and dragged him out of the house.The complainant was thrown in the police van which was standing out side the house of Sachin.He was carried in the van to the police post Yamuna Vihar where he was illegally detained and confined.The first respondent who at the relevant time was S.H.O. of police station Bhajan Pura, directed S.I. Sunder Lal to remove the ring worn by the petitioner and the money which he may be carrying.The statement attributed to the first respondent in Hindi reads as follows:"Tum Vakil Ke Bache Ko Le Aye Ho.ORDER Anil Dev Singh, J.This revision is directed against the order of the Additional Session Judge dated August 8, 1995 whereby the order of the trial Court dated June 24, 1993, dismissing the application of the first respondent under section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') was set aside.The allegations on the basis of which the petitioner filed the complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate are as follows:Jo Angoothi isne pehni hai, aur jo paisa iske pas hai, nikal lo."Pursuant to the direction of first respondent, S.I. Sunder Lal took out the gold ring from the petitioner's hand and also recovered a sum of Rs. 550/- from his pocket.According to the complaint, the sum of Rs. 550/- found in his pocket was paid to him by his father for making the payment to his tutor on account of tuition fee.As per the complaint, the first respondent obtained the signatures of the petitioner of two blank papers.The incident is said to have been witnessed by Mr. Bahu Dutt Sharma and Mr. S.S. Bakshi, Advocates, who had come to the police post to seek information relating to the incident of arrest of the petitioner.Mr. Bahu Dutt Sharma, Advocate, requested the officer to release the petitioner and offered to stand surety for him, but he was not released.By then the first respondent had not even registered an FIR against him.Subsequently false FIR was registered against the petitioner being, No. 546/92, P.S. Bhajan Pura under sections 147/148/149/341/427/34 IPC.The petitioner was ultimately released on bail the same day at about 5 p.m. after several hours of detention and confinement when his father alongwith Mr. Bahu Dutt Sharma and Mr. S.S. Bakshi, Advocates, again made enquires from the first respondent about the illegal detention of the petitioner and other detainees who were detained along with him on various grounds, one of them being pelting stones of the police.Even after the release of the petitioner, the ring and the money which was recovered from his person by S.I. Sunder Lal at the instructions of first respondent were not returned to him.On November 7, 1992 the petitioner moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahadra, Delhi for directing the respondents to return the above said items recovered on his Jamatalashi.The Moharir Malkhana of P.S. Bhajan Pura, pursuant to the summons issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, produced Rs. 50/- in cash and a ball point pen as items recovered from Jamatalashi of the petitioner but the petitioner declined to accept the same.Instead he filed the above said complaint in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate against the first respondent and S.I. Sunder Lal.Feeling aggrieved of the order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the first respondent preferred a revision.While accepting the revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the alleged act of mis-appropriation of the personal effects belonging to the petitioner cannot be said to be connected with the official duty of the first respondent as a police officer which he was supposed to discharge.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.