id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
104,571,732 |
The petitioners herein who were proposed to be added as accused 5 to 9 in S.C.No.73 of 2007 are before this Court challenging the order dated 16.02.2011 passed by the Assistant Sessions Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.27 of 2008 in S.C.No.73 of 2007 under Section 319 Cr.P.C.No.67 of 2007 on 29.04.2007 under Section 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC against Subramani [A1], Vinayagamurthy [A2], Natarajan [A3] and Shankar [A4/defacto complainant in Cr.No.66/2007].It is seen that both the FIRs are case and counter, each party making allegations against the other party alleging the other party to be the aggressor.After completing the investigation in Cr.No.66 of 2007, the respondent police filed a Final Report in C.C.No.14 of 2007 under Sections 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC against Sengadhiravan [A1], Raju [A2], Arumugam [A3] and Rathnavel [A4].Similarly in Cr.No.67 of 2007 was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.73 of 2007 and was made over to the Assistant Sessions-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, for trial.It appears that during the investigation of the case in Cr.No.67 of 2007, the defacto complainant Arivazhagan was pressurising the local police to add these petitioners also as accused, which came to the knowledge of these petitioners and therefore, they petitioned to the superior Police Officers, on account of which, the case in Cr.No.67 of 2007 was directed to be investigated by the CID, Pondicherry.On a complaint lodged by Shankar, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.66 of 2007 on 29.04.2007 under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC against Sengadhiravan [A1], Raju [A2], Arumugam [A3] and Rathnavel [A4].On the complaint lodged by Arivazhagan, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.67 of 2007, the police filed a Final Report for an offence under Section 307 IPC r/w 34 IPC against Subramani [A1], Vinayagamurthy [A2], Natarajan [A3] and Shankar [A4].The Inspector of Police CID, Pondicherry, filed a report before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Pondicherry stating that the petitioners herein were not involved in the alleged offence and that Arivazhagan [defacto complainant] and his brother Sengathiravan [A1 in Cr.No.66 of 2007] are falsely implicating these petitioners.The trial commenced before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C.No.73 of 2007 and Arivazhagan, Sengathiravan and his group of witnesses gave evidence implicating these petitioners in the evidence.Thereafter, Arivazhagan [defacto complainant] filed CMP No.27 of 2008 in S.C.No.73 of 2007 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to include these petitioners also as accused in S.C.No.73 of 2007, which was allowed by the trial Court on 16.02.2011, challenging which the petitioners are before this Court.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the defacto complainant/second respondent herein and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if the involvement of other persons surfaces during the evidence in Court, the trial Court can implead them as accused and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order inasmuch as all the 5 witnesses who were examined by the prosecution, have spoken about the involvement of these petitioners in the offence.Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the complaint was given by Arivazhagan to the police, he had not named these petitioners and when the defacto complainant was attempting to manipulate the local police for including the name of these petitioners in the Final Report, the petitioners complained to the senior Police Officers, on whose direction CID investigation was done, in which, it was shown that these petitioners were never involved in the offence.This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.This Court carefully perused the complaint and other records.Arivazhagan, in his complaint to the police, has clearly stated that on 29.04.2007, around 4 o'clock, he saw his brother Sengathiravan and Arumugam being assaulted by Subramani [A1], Vinayagamurthy [A2], Natarajan [A3] and Shankar [A4].In his complaint, he has also stated that they were armed with stick and iron rods.On seeing them assaulting his brother, he went to aid his brother and on seeing him, they ran away.Thereafter, he took his brother Sengathiravan and Armuguam to General Hospital, Pondicherry, where, they were taking treatment.Even in the Accident Register, Sengathiravan has stated that he was attacked by four known persons.Arivazhagan has not stated that apart from four persons there were others in the group.Though an FIR is not the encyclopaedia of a prosecution case, yet, in cases of this nature, where, there is a case and counter, the averments in the FIR about the involvement of the accused become relevant.It must be remembered that Sengathiravan and Arumugam who are the injured in Cr.At least, if the injured had stated to the doctor at the time of admission that he did not know how many people had assaulted him, then, the benefit of doubt can be given, to some extent, to the version of the defacto complainant.In the light of the categorical assertion by Arivazhagan and Sengathiravan that only four named persons were involved in the attack, their subsequent parrot-like evidence before the Sessions Court that, apart from the four named persons, these petitioners were also involved, indeed becomes very suspicious.The Pondicherry CID's report also assumes significance.In the facts and circumstances of appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to implead the petitioners herein as accused by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C.In the result, this petition is allowed and the prosecution in Cr.M.P.No.27 of 2008 dated 16.02.2011 in S.C.No.73 of 2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Puducherry are quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Station House OfficerCID, Police StationPuducherry.Assistant Sessions Court-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Puducherry3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH,J.,gmsCrl.O.P.No.11577 of 201107.09.2015
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,574,700 |
Heard on this second application for bail under Section 439 of the sh Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Laxmi Narayan Kori, in Crime No.26/2017 registered by P.S. Orchha, District e ad Tikamgarh under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.Pr His first application for the same relief had been dismissed as a withdrawn by order dated 23.10.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.ad Since the first application was dismissed as withdrawn, this second application is being considered on merits.M As per the prosecution case, victim Omprakash Agrawal trusted co-of accused Ram Bharose Yadav.He got a sale-deed of 2.396 hectares of land registered by a person impersonating for one Hari Mohan in rt favour of victim Om Prakash for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-.At ou the time of the execution of the sale-deed, petitioner Laxmi Narayan C Kori and co-accused Jitendra who was masquerading as Sitaram Ahirwar, identified the impersonator as Hari Mohan.The victim paid h ig Rs.10,00,000/- to the person impersonating as Hari Mohan.In the year H 2013, he met real Hari Mohan and learnt that he had not sold his land.As such, the petitioner and co-accused persons conspired and cheated him of Rs.10,00,000/-.It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is only said to have identified Hari Mohan at the time of execution of the registered sale-deed.There is no explanation for delay.It has further been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2017 and the charge sheet in the matter has been filed.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that by identifying an impersonator, the petitioner had facilitated cheating.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, specially the fact that co-accused Jitendra has been released on bail, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.sh Consequently, this second application for bail under Section 439 of e the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Laxmi ad Narayan Kori, is allowed.Pr It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties a in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for hy his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for ad complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the M Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.of (C V SIRPURKAR) rt JUDGE ou C h ig sp/-Digitally signed by SUNIL KUMAR H PATEL Date: 2018.01.24 04:16:36 -08'00'
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,578,212 |
The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.The matter relates to the alleged kidnapping of a child named Furkan, son of Sagir Ahmed (PW-2) and demand of ransom of Rs.5 lacs for releasing the said child.The prosecution version, unfolded through the testimony of certain witnesses examined before the Trial Court and believed by the Trial Court as well, is that on 28th June, 2006 at about 4.00 p.m., Furkan son of PW-2 who was aged 8 years, had gone out of the house to play in the gali.He, however, did not return back home till 7.00 p.m. PW-2 searched him in the locality but the child could not be traced.Next day, he came to know that his son was kidnapped when he received a telephone call on the telephone both of one Alimuddin (PW-1), a STD owner, on 29th June, 2006 at 4.00 p.m. That unknown caller on the said call informed PW-2 that his son had been kidnapped and ransom money of Rs. 5 lacs was demanded for return of the child.The caller also told him that he would call later to tell where the money was to be brought.The unknown caller told Sagir Ahmed that incase he complained to the police, his child Furkan would be killed.Still PW-2 Sagir Ahmed went ahead and reported the matter to the police.FIR (Ex.PW-2/A) was registered under Section 364 -A IPC.After the registration of the FIR, the police officials instructed PW-2 Sagir Ahmed to prepare a bundle of paper in the shape of bundle of currency notes.On the same day i.e. 29th June, 2006 at about 9.00 p.m. the complainant (PW-2) again received a call at his mobile phone and he was told to bring Rs. 5 lacs at a CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.Thereafter, PW-2 along with the police party reached the Mandoli Village at the given place.They all went in maruti van pre-arranged by the Investigating officer.Police was at a little distance from the father of the child where kidnappers had asked him to come.When the father (PW-2) was handing over the fake currency notes (made from newspaper) wrapped in Black polythene bag to the main accused Nadeem, the other co-accused namely Mumtiaz s/o Munna Khan and Kapil S/o Haneef joined Nadeem.Meanwhile, the police officers who were present near the place watching all the happenings, arrested all three persons namely Nadeem, Kapil and Mumtaz and recovered the fake ransom from Nadeem.The police officers interrogated the accused persons about the child and they told that the child was with Sitara who resides at Sangam Vihar.The disclosure statements of Kapil, Nadeem and Mumtiaz were recorded to this effect.The police officers immediately rushed to Sitara's house at Sangam Vihar on 29th June, 2006 at around 12:00 in the night and recovered child from Sitara's custody and immediately arrested her as well in the presence of lady police constable named Nisha.He did not go to the police to report the matter.PW-2 even could not recall the mobile number while deposing in the court and did not reveal this number to the Court.Further, as pointed out above, statement of recovered child was not recorded at all to ascertain under what circumstances he was kidnapped; who were the persons who kidnapped him; what was the role of the different accused persons.We are pointing out this for the reason that as per PW-2 when he reached Mondoli Jungle with ransom money, he was approached by one person who met him and asked him about the money.Only after he handed over the black polythene bag to that person, "in the meantime two other persons also reached there".(a) As per PW-2, first call at STD booth was received on 29th June, 2006 at 4.00 p.m. After receiving this call, he went to police Station Gokul Puri and reported the matter to the police and got the FIR registered.After the registration of the FIR, the police officer instructed him to prepare a bundle of papers in the shape of bundles of currency notes.This appeal arises out of the conviction of appellants Nadeem, Khalil @ Kapil, Mumtaz and Sitara under Section 364 -A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide order dated 7th July, 2009 passed by learned Additional Session Judge.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 2 of 14 given place in Mandoli jungle.On informing the police abo8ut this phone call, the police officer reached at the house of the complainant at 9.10 p.m. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer namely Sub Inspector Om Pal Singh (PW-8) called another police official from police station to accompany them to the Mandoli Jungle where kidnapper had directed PW-2 to come along with the demanded money.Disclosure statement of Sarita was also recorded.On the respective arrest of the aforesaid accused persons, arrest memos were prepared.These persons were also searched at the time of arrest and their personal search memos were prepared as well.Apart from the STD owner (PW-1), Sagir Ahmed (father of Furkan and complainant) (PW-2) and SI Om Pal Singh PW-8), five more prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the aforesaid prosecution version.After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Khalil @ Kapil stated that PWs have foisted a false CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 3 of 14 case against him as he had left the job with PW-2 where he was working at his "karkhana" and had joined another "karkhana" of one Irfan.Accused Nadeem and Mumtaz also stated on the similar lines.The accused persons also produced four witnesses in defence.DW-1 (Yakub) deposed that he saw the child playing inside the house on the day of incidence as well as on the next day, so the child had never being kidnapped.DW-2 (Ashok Singh) said that on the day of incidence, there was some dispute between Sagir Ahmed and accused persons about money, therefore, in that context Sagir Ahmed took the accused to the police station.DW-3 (Farukh) stated that there was a dispute between Sagir and Nadeem on the date of incidence due to non-payment by Sagir.He also stated that child had not been kidnapped.Asgar Ali who appeared as DW-4 also deposed in favour of the accused persons stating that they were falsely implicated in the case at the instance of Sagir Ahmed who had taken them to the police station on the pretext of entering into compromise.CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 3 of 14Learned Additional Session Judge in his impugned judgment, after hearing the arguments, recorded the finding that the prosecution by the testimony of eight witnesses in its support, has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt that the kidnapping of Furkan was committed by the accused personal namely Nadeem, Mumtaz, Kapil and Sitara for ransom of money of Rs. 5lakhs.The act was done by accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and consequently, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced under Section 364-A read with Section 34 IPC.Against the aforesaid conviction and sentence, all the four convicted persons have preferred these four separate appeals.We may point out at this stage that PW-1 though admitted that he received a call for Sagir Ahmed (PW-2) and informed him about the said call, has not supported the prosecution version on the other aspects, inasmuch as, he has denied having any knowledge as to who was the caller or what was the conversation which transpired between the caller and Sagir Ahmed.He also stated that he did not ask Sagir Ahmed about the conversation.The Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 4 of 14 cross-examined him and confronted him with the statement which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Mark PW-1/A), wherein he had stated that Sagir Ahmed had told him that his son had been kidnapped and caller was also demanding Rs. 5 lacs or that the caller had threatened to kill his son on not giving the said money or that he had stated so to the police.PW-2 Sagir Ahmed and father of the kidnapped boy is the main witness.PW-3 Constable Ali and PW-4 Constable Arvind Kumar had joined the investigation.PW-4 with PW-5 Constable Arvind Kumar had helped in recovery of child.PW-7 Ct.Yashbir is also a witness to the recovery of child.Sub Inspector Om Pal Singh (PW-8) was the Investigating Officer.CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 4 of 14Leading the frontal attack to the prosecution version and challenging the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment, Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate who appeared in Crl.Appeal No. 647/2009, submitted that the appellants were falsely implicated by the police at the instance of Sagir Ahmed who wanted to take revenge.He argued that entire prosecution story was hollow and full of contradictions and concoctions and the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 364-A IPC against the appellants.Ms. Anita Abraham and Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Kanwar, Advocate with additional inputs on their part while appearing in Crl.Appeal Nos. 749/2009 and 361/2010 respectively.These three appeals were heard on 7th April, 2010 and the judgment was reserved.On that day, counsel for the parties made their submissions in that appeal as CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.It is in this backdrop, we are deciding all these four appeals by this common judgment.CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 5 of 14We are not undertaking the exercise of reproducing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, inasmuch as, we are finding force in most of these arguments.Therefore, to avoid repetition, we propose to go ahead with our reasons in accepting these appeals and to demonstrate that in our opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.Infact the prosecution story is replete with shaky dispositions, serious loopholes and alarming gaps the benefit where of has to go to the accused persons.While recording our reasons, we shall simultaneously advert to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APP who appeared on behalf of the State.He has maintained a stoic silence as if he was in a meditating state for 24 hours.He does not take any initiative by making serious attempt to locate his child but comes to know about the alleged kidnapping of his child only when he receives a telephone call at the STD booth of PW-1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 6 of 14 Alimuddin on 29th June, 2006 at 4.00 p.m. This conduct of the father, for 24 hours, whose child has gone missing, puts a question mark on the credibility of the prosecution story as to whether child at all was missing.Clearly, the factum of not lodging FIR for 24 hours is down- played by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge and conveniently glossed over.The learned Addl.What the abnormal conduct is that a father of eight years of child would keep quite and would not report the matter to the police for 24 hours and even when the child did not return whole night and the next day till 4.00 p.m. Curiously, even thereafter, as per the version of the father, he comes to know about the whereabouts of the child when he received STD Call alleging kidnapping.Till that time, he was in slumber.It is this abnormal conduct of a father which has escaped attention of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 6 of 14(ii) In the entire prosecution story, it has not come on record as to how the kidnapping took place.After the alleged recovery of the child from the house of appellant Sitara, neither the accused persons were questioned on this aspect nor anything from Furkan was elicited.This is really strange and major lapse in the prosecution version.(iii) Investigation of the case was as shady and as shoddy as possible.As per the version of PW-2, he received second call on his mobile phone and he informed the police about the same.His mobile phone was not checked to see as to whether any such call had been received.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 7 of 14 been correct, IO would have first examined the cell phone to find out from which number the call was received.No such attempt was made.More curiously, PW-2 deposed that he did not even remember his mobile phone number which had been purportedly "missed from my possession".On the day of occurrence at least, PW-2 was possessing the mobile phone.The first person whom he had handed over CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 8 of 14 the money was Nadeem and other two persons were Mumtiaz and Kapil.Whether they were parties to the alleged conspiracy or had any role could be known from the statement of Furkan.(iv) Most material witness in the present case was Furkan, the child in question, who was allegedly kidnapped.He was not even cited as a witness and examined.He was eight years of old boy.On the other hand reasonable doubt is created that a false case is foisted upon the appellants as it was difficult for the prosecution to take help of this child for setting up such a case against the appellants.Adverse inference can clearly be drawn against the prosecution for non-examination of this child and benefit thereof has to go to the appellants/accused persons.We are not convinced with the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for not examining the child.Though, the learned Addl.The learned Addl.Further Sub Inspector Om Pal Singh has stated in his CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.647 & 749 OF 2009 & 361 & 397 OF 2010 Page 10 of 14 statement that he was not present at the time of preparation of the bundles.CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.(b) There is also contradiction in the manner in which child was allegedly recovered from Sitara's custody.One witness (PW-) stated that it happened in the presence of a lady police Constable Nisha where as other witness has stated that no lady police was present.Further, according to one version, when the house at Sangam Vihar where the child was purportedly kept was knocked, Sitara opened the door and came out and child was inside.Significantly, PW-2 stated in his statement that he received the call at 9.00 p.m. on his mobile phone when the caller told him to come to the jungle of Mandoli with ransom money.If this call was received at 9.00 p.m. by PW-2 and only at that time the place where the ransom was to be given was disclosed, how the police officers could be told at 8.00 p.m. to go to Mandoli jungle.(vii) Other curious aspect which needs to be mentioned is the manner in which PW-2described the accused persons who came to receive the ransom.In this behalf, he has deposed as under:-"When I reached in Mandoli jungle one person met me and asked about the ransom money.Police officials apprehended all those three persons.The name of the person who came first to me and to whom I handed over the polythene bag was revealed as Nadeem, accused present in the court today and the name of other two persons were revealed as Mumtyaz and Kapil, accused persons present in the court today.' The manner in which PW-2 narrated the incident gives an impression that he did not know the said three accused persons and it was revealed to him later that the person to whom he handed over the money was Nadeem and he was also told that other two persons were Mumtiaz and Kapil.Fact is that he knew Nadeem since his childhood and he also knew Kapil much long prior to the incident which he disclosed when specific questions were put to him in the cross examination.In fact he admitted that Nadeem had worked with him for about 20 days, whereafter he left the job and joined some other place.The manner in which he handed over the ransom money to Nadeem also appears to be artificial.As per his version when "one person" (i.e. Nadeem) met him and asked him about money, he handed over the black polythene bag to that person.He did not even ask as to where his child was and whether he had brought his child with him or not or that he would give the money after the child is handed over to him or at least shown to him.He did not even ask as to where the child was kept.This shows, some what unnatural conduct on the part of a father who would hand over the ransom money without first ascertaining himself that his child was safe and would be handed over to them.Sessions Judge as trivial and not very material.We have not been influenced by those inconsistencies viz. who hired the maruti van; how many persons sat in the maruti van; what route was followed by the police party to reach at mandolin phatak as we agree with the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,045,787 |
The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered such an investigation, and pursuant to search warrants issued by him certain blocks for manufacturing the counterfeit of the said trade mark as well as thick paper cartons with the said counterfeit trade mark printed upon them were recovered from some two printing presses and from the respondent.The respondent was found in possession of 375 such cartons with counterfeit trade marks upon them, marked Exhibits III and III/1, a block which was marked Ex. II, as also two other blocks marked respectively Exs.IX and X. The last mentioned blocks, namely, Exs.IX and X were in fact made over by the respondent to the police at some stage of the investigation.Originally, a man by name Chittaranjan De was put upon his trial in connection with the recovery of the said articles.In that trial the respondent was a witness for the prosecution.Chittaranjan De was, however, acquitted.Thereafter, the respondent was sent up to answer a charge under Section 485, Penal Code on three counts.The charge was as follows:
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,582 |
The prosecution case which emerges from the record is as follows :-(a) That the family of one Krishna, who is one of the deceased, was residing at village Varakatwadi in District Kolhapur.His sons were Sambhaji (PW 10), Ananda and deceased Bajirao.He had a daughter by name Akkatai who had been given in marriage at a nearby village by name Walakewadi.The husband of Akkatai was mentally de-ranged and hence the father and brothers of Akkatai had given them a land at village Avali which is towards the Southern side of village Walkewadi, where the accused were also residing.(b) The incident involved in the offence occurred on 18.8.1984 at about 10.30 A.M. On the previous night at about 1.00 A.M, Sambhaji (PW 10) and his brother Ananda had been to the grass land situated at village Avali.In the torch-light they saw that cattle owned by accused No. 1 Dattu were grazing on the said land.Accused No. 1 was also present there and he was asked as to why he was grazing his cattle on the said land.Ananda is said to have given a stick blow to accused No. 1 Dattu and thereafter Sambhaji (PW 10) and Ananda drove out the cattle.Accused No. 1 then went away to his house situated at village Walkewadi and Sambhaji (PW 10) and Ananda returned to their own house at village Vartakawadi.(c) On the next date i.e. 18.8.1984 at about 10.30 A.M. Sambhaji (PW 10) alongwith Ananda, deceased Bajirao, deceased Krishna and the ladies of their house by name Kamal, Sushila and Indubai went to Walkewadi on the way to their land for weeding operation.When they came in front of the house of one Hindurao Rama Walke, accused Nos. 1 to 4 came from the eastern side.Accused No. 1 had a gun, accused No. 2 had a stick, accused Nos. 3 & 4 were carrying axes.According to Sambhaji (PW 10), accused No. 2 gave a stick blows on his back and neck.Further accused No. 4 was about to give him an axe blow and hence he raised his right hand and caught the blow on his index finger.Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 4 ran away.(d) According to prosecution apart from the injured witnesses the incident was also witnessed by the women members of the family i.e. Akkatai, Kamal, Indu and Sushila.So also it was witnessed by other villagers by name Shivram Hari Varkat (PW 9) and one Jaswant.(e) After the incident was over, Sambhaji (PW 10) took the bullock cart of Akkatai, who was residing nearby on the south west side from the scent of offence, and brought the injured to the CPR Hospital, Kolhapur.Deceased Krishna died on the next day i.e. 19.8.1984 and deceased Bajirao expired after a period of one month as a consequence of the wounds suffered by him in the incident.(f) Sambhaji (PW 10) then lodged a complaint at the Laxmi puri police station.(g) On 19.8.1984 the Laxmipuri police station forwarded the complaint registered with them under a zero number to th4e Kodoli police station.The Kodoli police station then registered the offence on 19.8.1984 at 1.30 P.M. (PW 14) Asstt.Sub Inspector Kherappa Kamble was the officer who registered the offence and he then proceeded to the scene offence where he drew the scene of offence panchanama.Akkatai Valake (PW 6) was present with him and she showed him the scene of the offence.Articles 1 to 3 which were blood stained stones and sample of earth were seized from the scene of the offence.The said axe which is article 10, was attached under a Panchanama.One Surjerao who was from the party of the accused and who was injured in this incident, produced the blood stained cloths of the deceased Krishna and they were attached under a Panchanama (Exh. 16) on that day.(PW 17) recorded the statement of witnesses Akkatai, Sushila and about 10 others.He arrested accused Nos. 1 to 3 at the police station.He attached the blood stained clothes on the person of accused No. 1 Dattu under Panchanama the clothes of accused No. 3 and the articles attached under this panchanama are article Nos. 11 to 13 before the court.(i) On 28.8.1984 the Investigating officer recorded the statements of Kamal Vartak and 4 others.(j) On 22.8.1984 at about 9.45 A.M. accused No. 1 made a statement before the Panchas that he would produce the used cartridges and hence accordingly, Memorandum was drawn.In pursuance of this Memorandum on the same day, at the behest of accused No. 1 Dattu, the said cartridges were recovered from the house of accused No. 1 These cartridges and 2 empties so recovered are articles 25 to 28 before the court.(k) On 27.8.1984 accused No. 2 came to be arrested.(l) On 30.8.1984 the Investigating officer took a sample of the blood to the Chemical Analyser, Bombay.The bonds of accused Nos. 1 & 2 are forfeitted and they are to surrender forthwith.JUDGMENT R.S. Mohite, J.This is an Appeal against conviction filed by the appellants (here-in-after referred to as the accused) seeking to quash and set aside the Judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 24.06.1987 in Sessions case No. 35 1985, by which accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of life.By the said Judgment and other, accused Nos. 1 & 3 have alternatively being convicted for an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, individually and each of them is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.Accused No. 4 has been alternatively convicted for an offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay & fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer further RI for 15 days.Accused No. 1 had also been convicted for an offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer RI for one month.accused No. 2 has further been convicted for an offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to suffer RI for one month.It has been directed that the substantive sentences imposed on the accused should run concurrently.Accused No. 1 Dattu fired his gun in the air and hold the party of the complainant that as Ananda had given him a stick blow on the previous night, he would not spare Ananda and saying so he attacked the party of the complainant.Due to this stick blow the gun fell on the ground and fired itself.Accused No. 3 then gave axe blows on the head and neck of Bajirao and as a result of this blow, Bajirao fell on the ground.Accused No. 1 then took an axe which was lying on the ground by the side of Bajirao and gave an axe blow on the neck of Krishna.(h) On 18.8.1984 on Shamrao Hari Valke i.e. accused No. 2 had also lodged his own complaint against the complainants party including Sambhaji (PW 10), deceased Krishna, deceased Bajirao and Ananda.That complaint had also been registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.On 20.8.1984, the investigation was taken over by PSI Sudhakar Kharbas (PW 17).He went to the scene of offence and to the house of accused and seized a gun alongwith its licencee under a Panchanama (Exh. 15).He searched the house of the accused and in the said search he found an axe stained with blood on the loft of the said house.(m) On 4.9.1984 the Investigating officer recorded the statement of Shivram Vartak and others.(n) On 16.9.1984 the blood stained articles were sent to the Chemical Analyser's office and after completion of investigation, on 31.12.1984 the Investigating officer filed a charge-sheet.(o) After committal of the case the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur framed the charges.In the present case the prosecution examined 17 witnesses.The statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded.Thereafter as the defence wanted to lead its own evidence, they were permitted to do so and the defence examined one witness i.e. (DW 1) Dr. Basavraj who was a Medical officer and who had treated some of the injured from the accused side.(p) The defence of the accused, as can be seen from the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses, their 313 statements and a joint written statement filed by them in the Sessions court, was one of private defence.They admitted the incident which had occured on the night before the incident.According to them on 18.8.1984 at about 10 to 10.30 A.M. deceased Krishna, his 3 sons i.e. Sambhaji, Ananda and Bajirao had come to the house where the accused were residing, armed with an axe, stick and motor cycle chain.There they asked Tanaji to ask accused No. 1 Dattu to come out.At that stage, Tanaji was given a blow of the chain by Ananda, as a result of which he became un-conscious.The complainants party which had come there then started beating the accused and hence accused No. 1 went into the house and brought a gun and thereafter fired 2 shots in the air with the intention of avoiding a quarrel, for safeguarding the life of the accused and in the hope that the complainant would run away without causing any injury to the accused.That however, the complainants party continued to beat the accused and caused injuries on the accused with an axe, stick and cycle chain.The persons who were injured from the side of the accused were accused No. 1 Dattu, accused No. 2 Shamrao, accused No. 3 Tanaji, Sadashiv Subrao Valake, Prakash Subrao Valake, Raghunath Dhondi Valake and Dattu Rama Valake.They contended that the lady witnesses from the complainant's family i.e. Akkatai, Sushila and Kamal were not present at the scene of the incident and contended that they were deposing falsely to save the complainant and other accused in the cross case which was filed against them.(q) The learned Sessions Judge tried both the Sessions cases simultaneously and by the impugned Judgment and order dated 24.6.1987, he convicted the accused as aforesaid.On the same day, he delivered a Judgment in Sessions Case No. 36/85 acquitting the complainant in the present case and other accused of all charges against them.The contentions raised on behalf of the accused can be summarised as follows :-(a) That the evidence given by the 5 eye witnesses examined by the prosecution was inconsistent and un-believeable.Of these, (PW 8) and (PW 9) had been dis-believed by the Sessions court itself.The evidence of the eye witnesses were fraught with material contradiction.That 3 of the present accused and 4 other persons from the party of the present accused had been injured.Some of the injuries suffered by these persons were in the nature of incised wounds.The Doctor who had examined accused No. 3 Tanaji had opined that one of the injury suffered by him could have been caused by an article 13 i.e. motor cycle chain attached in the cross case.That the Doctor examined by the defence i.e. (PW 5) had stated that he had examined one Sadashiv from the party of the accused who had suffered CLW over occiputal region of his head extending to vertex vertically placed 6" x 2" scalp deep, with a big haematomo 100 ML approximatally and had found that there was a fracture of the skull.He had admitted that the said injury was dangerous to life.It was contended that the eye witnesses were not deposing to the whole truth and in so far as they had completely concealed the manner in which several persons belonging to the accused party were injured, they should be dis-believed.(b) It was further contend that the burden of proof on the defence to prove that they had a right of private defence was not as onerous as the burden on the prosecution to prove their case.It was contended that the defence was only required to prove their version within the ambit of a preponderance of possibility.It was contended that this could be done by the defence by relying jupon the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses, presumptions in law, through their 313 statements or through the defence evidence.It was submitted that there was sufficient material on record on the basis of which it could be held that the defence had proved its case of a right of private defence and had discharged the burden of proof cast upon them.(c) It was submitted that there was no common intention on the part of the present accused, and that the conviction of the accused Nos. 2 to 4 who had admittedly not given any blows to the deceased with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code was erroneous.On behalf of the prosecution it was contended that the omission in the evidence of the eye witnesses were minor.That omission on the part of the witnesses to explain the injuries on the accused and other persons was not of any significance as the injuries suffered were simple in nature.It was contended that the conviction of all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 was proper because all the accused had accosted the complainants in a premeditated manner.There was a common intention of taking revenge against the injured and to avenge the humiliation suffered by Dattu in the incident which was occured on the previous night.It was contended that in any case even assuming without admitting that any right of private defence did accrue, yet the benefit of exception II to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code could not be granted to the accused persons as the injuries suffered indicated that they had been inflicted with the intention of doing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of such defence.We have heard both the sides and considered the entire evidence on record.In so far as accused Nos. 2 & 4 are concerned, it is the prosecution case that accused No. 2 gave a stick blow to Sambhaji (PW 10).Accused No. 2 had not been convicted for causing any injury and no Appeal against his acquittal has been filed.Apart form this, (PW 6) Akkatai's version about accused No. 2 giving a stick blow to Samghaji is a proved omission in both her statements recorded by the Police.(PW 7) Sushila talked about accused No. 2 giving 2 to 4 blows on the shoulder of Samghaji.There are no such injuries found on the shoulder.(PEW 10) talked about accused No. 2 giving a stick blow on his head, back and neck.No injuries found on his back or neck.The version given by (PW 10) is also not corroborated by the FIR.In the circumstances, the acquittal of accused No. 2 for an offence under Section 326 cannot be faulted.We will deal with the offences under the Arms Act a little later.In so far as accused No. 4 is concerned, the contention of the prosecution that he assaulted (PW 10) with an axe is deposed by (PW 6), (PW 7), (PW 8), (PW 9) and (PW 10).It is also corroborated by the Medical evidence and in the circumstances, we do not find that the conviction of accused No. 4 for an offence under Section 324 of the Penal Code can be faulted.In our view, the conviction of accused Nos. 2 & 4 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, however, will have to be set aside in the facts of this case and for the reasons which are mentioned here-in-below.Firstly, the complainant (PW 10) is shown to have materially contradicted himself with his FIR.It is stated in the complaint that a crowd assembled after the incident and out of crowd, came accused No. 4 armed with an axe and gave a blow on Sambhaji.It appears from the FIR that accused No. 4 arrived at the scene of the offence much later.In his evidence before the court (PW 10) however, deposed to a different version in which accused Nos. 1 to 4 arrived at the same time.This contradiction has been duly brought on record and got proved to the concerned Investigation officer.Apart from this, there is material on record to indicate that the party of the complainants had also come armed with weapons such as an axe, stick and motor cycle chain.The material omission brought on record in the evidence of an independent witness (PW 9) would indicate that the complainants party were infact abusing the accused over the incident which had occured on the previous night.This evidence will be discussed later when discussing the question as to whether accused can be said to have any right of private defence.Suffice it to say at this stage that there is material to indicate that the party of the complainants had come to the village of the accused, armed with weapons such as an axe, stick and motor cycle chain and were well prepared for aggression.If this be the case, it would be difficult to hold that accused Nos. 2 to 4 who admittedly did not commit any over acts against any of the 2 deceased, can be roped in with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.We would therefore, find that the conviction of accused Nos. 2 to 4 for an offence under Section 304 read with 34 will have to be set aside.The contention on behalf of the accused that they have proved their case of right of private defence beyond preponderance of possibility and hence discharged the lighter burden cast upon them has substance.We find that as many as 7 persons from the side of the accused were injured in this incident.These 7 persons and the injuries suffered by them were as under :-(I) Sadashiv, who had suffered a CLW over occiputal region extending to vertex vertically placed 6" x 2" scalp deep Big Haematoma 100 ML approximately, with a fracture of skull.(II) Raghunath Dhondi Walake, who sufferred a CLW 4" x 2" x muscle deep on left arm and an incised wound 1&1/2" skin deep on his right cubital fossa.(III) Shyamrao (accused No. 2) who had suffered incised wound obliquely on the right parietal region of his head, 2" x 1/4" deep, contusion 1" x 1" over left wrist and multiple abrasion over his back right scapula region.(IV) Dattu Rama Walake who had suffered incised wound over 2nd metacartal bone, 1" x 1/2" skin deep bleeding, abrasion over skin of tibia and contusion around middle 1" x 1/2".(V) Dattatraya Walake (accused No. 1) who had suffered contusion over left forearm, 2" x 1" reddish in colour.(VI) Tanaji (accused No. 3) who had suffered contusion 8" x 1" over chest from mid sternum extending obliquely to left anterior axilary line (which injury according to the Doctor could be caused by the motor cycle chain), contusion over left detoid region 2" x 1" and contusion over left in guinem vertical 3" x 1".(VII) Prakash who had suffered contusion over left supresengular region 2" x 1" reddish and contusion over right suprescawular region 3" x 1" reddish.Of these injuries, at least one was a life threatening injury of a serious nature but they were neither explained or dealt with by the prosecution witnesses.In the evidence of (PW 9) Shivram, a material omission amounting to contradiction was brought on record.Though such denial is made, the contradiction has been brought on record and proved through the evidence of (PW 17) PSI Sudhakar Kharbas who has deposed that witness Shivram had stated before him that there was an axe in the hand of (PW 10) and the chain around his neck.He had stated that deceased Bajirao, deceased Kisan, Ananda and Sambha were asking accused as to why the accused had grazed their cattle in their grass land and that accused No. 1 to 4 and were also abusing accused Nos. 1 to 4 in a loud tone.It was pointed out to us that (PW 10) had concealed that fact that he was carrying a motor cycle chain.It was contended that such a chain was not an article normally carried by villagers and that it was not an article required for weeding operation.It was contended that the object of carrying a motor cycle chain could only have been to commit an agressive act against the accused.It was pointed out that the Doctor who had examined accused No. 3 had opined that the injury caused on Tanaji was one possible with the said motor cycle chain.In our view, the material mentioned above thus lends support to the defence contention that the complainants party had also come armed with the weapons such as axe, motor cycle chain and sticks.It can thus be held that the burden cast on the defence to prove their case of the right of private defence has been sufficiently discharged.As the common intention of the group of the accused would be to defend themselves.With this in mind, we have examined the overt acts which are alleged by the prosecution to have been committed by accused No. 1 Dattu and accused No. 3 Tanaji on the 2 deceased.According to all the 5 eye witnesses, accused No. 3 Tanaji gave axe blows on the head and neck of deceased Bajirao.(PW 7) Sushila Vartak had talked about axe blows also being given on his shoulder and back as well.The medical evidence indicates 3 very serious head injuries on the head of Bajirao.These injuries have been described by Doctor (PW 5) as under :-Brain matter coming out extending from (L) frantal amminance 2" in fraut of (L) paretal emminance "Bleeding.2. I. W. over left parietal region 2" x 1/2" long parietal bone fracture, brain matter coming out extending from end of No. 1 injury to left parietal emminance bleeding.Incised wound over left parietal emminance posteriorly skull bone brain matter coming out bleeding toto size 1/1".In our view, not much weightage can be given to the fact that no injuries were found on the back or shoulder of deceased Bajirao.It appears that (PW 6) (PW 7), (PW 8), and (PW 9) had witnessed the incident from the west when the injured were coming towards them.Therefore, they may not be able to properly see where the injuries to Bajirao was exactly inflicted.We find no reason to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses totally, in the face of the corroboration of the evidence of the eye witnesses by the medical evidence.In so far as the axe blows given by No. 3 on the head of Bajirao are concerned, even assuming the party of the accused had right of private defence accruing to them, yet this right would come to an end the moment the threat on the accused persons had abated.The doctor's evidence indicates that each of the axe blows inflicted by Tanaji on the head of Bajirao was sufficient to cause his death.Bajirao must have been incapacitated by the very first axe blow on his head.It has been noticed that from all the three injuries his brain matter has been found to be seeping out.It appears that even thereafter Tanaji has given 2 more axe blows on the head of Bajirao.In our view, this act was not only in excess on his right of self defence but the giving of such additional blows could only be with the intention of giving more harm that was necessary for the purpose of such defence.In our view, accused No. 3 Tanaji therefore, cannot be given the benefit of the said exception and his conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code must be confirmed.In so far as the acts attributed to accused No. 1 Dattu are concerned, he is said to have given axe blows on deceased Krishna by taking an axe from the fallen Bajirao, on his head and neck.The two wounds suffered by the deceased Krishna were deposed to by (PW 5) Dr. Vishnu Rajdeep as under :-1. I. W. over Nape of neck more on rt.side, oblique in direction 4" x 2 & 1/2" spine deep, bony crepistion, spine exposed bleeding.I..W. 3" x 1/2" on left parietal region, scalp deep.It appears that of these 2 wounds, the first wound was the fatal wound.The prosecution has not elicited from the Doctor that the 2nd wound was individually sufficient to cause the death of Dattu.In this view of the matter, we give the benefit of exception -II of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code to accused No. 1, and hold that he can be said to have committed an offence under Section 304 part-I of the Indian Penal Code.We hold this on the basis that a right of private defence accrued in favour of the accused yet the same did not extend the causing of death and was infact, exceeded.That brings us to the next question on the conviction of accused No. 1 under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act 1959 and of accused No. 2 under Section 30 of the said Act. It appears that the said conviction is well founded because the arm was admittedly possessed and used by accused No. 1 without a proper license.This would also be in contravention of the provisions of the License.In the result, we pass the following order:-The Appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 for offences under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge.The conviction of accused No. 1 under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge.3. Accused No. 1 Dattu Shamrao Valake is convicted of an offence under Section 304 part-I of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to under-go imprisonment for a period of 10 years.The conviction and sentence imposed upon accused No. 3 Tanaji Shamrao Valake for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is maintained.Similarly, the conviction of accused No. 4 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained but the sentence is reduced to a period already under gone and to the payment of fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer further RI for 15 days.The conviction of accused No. 1 under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act and the conviction of accused No. 2 Shamrao Hari Valake under Section.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,045,846 |
Briefly stated the allegations are : that the petitioners Tuncay Alankus, Chariman & Chief Executive Officer and Cihan Karanci, Vice-President of M/s. Karsan Ltd., in conspiracy with other accused persons defrauded National Fertilizers Limited, Delhi (for short, "NFL"), to the extent of US $ 38,000,000/- (then equivalent to Rs. 133.0 crores), in the matter of supply of 2,00,000 MT of urea to the NFL @ US $ 190 PMT (Cost, Insurance and Freight basis) against 100% cash pre-payment, which was to be guaranteed by the Insurance Policy also covering M/s. Karsan's risk of non-performance and non-delivery.They obtained 1% of the contract value of US $ 380,000 on 2.11.95, for paying premium towards the above insurance policy.JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.This order will dispose of two petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C."), praying for setting aside the order dated 30.9.2000, passed by the Special Judge, allowing application of the CBI for clubbing the case of A.E. Pinto with the main case and holding that the joint trial would be justified.The contract was signed on 9.11.95 and they were required to obtain remaining amount of US $ 37.62 million only after the submission of the said Insurance Policy.Thereafter the amount was misappropriated and shared amongst various conspirators and their associates.The said cover note dated 6.11.95, covered only marine perils and it did not counter guarantee 100% cash pre-payment and also did not cover risks of M/s. Karsan's non-performance and non-delivery.After the conspiracy was exposed, the case was registered.Petitioners did not join investigations.Tuncay Alankus and Cihan Karanci were arrested in Switzerland on 16.9.96 and could be extradited to India on 3.10.1997 only after all their appeals opposing extradition were dismissed.After investigation charge-sheet was filed on 26.12.97, against nine accused persons, including petitioners.Name of A.E. Pinto was shown at serial number nine, as till then he could not be extradited.It was specifically stated that A.E. Pinto was one of the conspirators; and he unauthorizedly signed the contract.There is material on record showing his involvement.He got his share of US $ 1.20 million out of the defrauded amount of US $ 38 million.Charges on the basis of charge-sheet were framed against the remaining accused persons.Some of the accused persons filed revision petitions, against the order of charge.The trial started and 30 witnesses were examined.A.E. Pinto, could be extradited to India only on 24.8.2000, and after his narrest supplementary challan was also filed.On 31.8.2000, CBI filed an application praying that the case of A.E. Pinto, be clubbed with the main case, to avoid duplicacy in the recording of evidence.Accused persons namely, C.K. Ramakrishnan, D.S. Kanwar and P.C. Yadav, did not object to the clubbing of the cases.However, other accused persons including D. Malesham Goud, M. Sambha Siva Rao and B. Sanjiva Rao filed the reply opposing the paryer for clubbing.Learned trial court vide impugned order allowed the application of the CBI.I have heard learned counsel for parties and have been taken though the record.3. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for clubbing the case.There has to be separate trial for each offence.Thirty witnesses were already examined when trial of A.E.Pinto, was clubbed.The clubbing would prejudice them during the trial and their right for speedy trial is violated.R.N. Trivedi, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of CBI, argued that charges against the accused persons (Tuncay Alankus and Cihan Karanci and six others), were framed.They filed revisions (Crl.R.No. 109/99) against the order framing charge.They had also challenged the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, to try the offences punishable under Sections 420/409/120B IPC together with the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This contention was rejected and it was held:Sub-section (3) of Section 4 empowers a Special Judge to try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, be charged at the same trial.Under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by some person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence and under Section 223 Cr.P.C. persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction, as well as persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment, or of an attempt to commit such an offence may be charged and tried together.Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Special Judge has jurisdiction to try the offences punishable under Section 420/409/120-B IPC together with the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act."The trial thus began.Petitioners' application for grant of bail Crl.1458/99 was also dismissed on the same day.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,045,861 |
The second respondent, who is the husband of the first petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007, has lodged a complaint before the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, Chennai seeking to prosecute the petitioners herein for offences punishable under sections 417, 418, 494, 496, 385, 387 read with section 120B and section 506(ii) IPC.All the petitioners in both the criminal original petitions completely suppressed the earlier marriage and arranged the marriage of the first petitioner with the second respondent on 1.9.2005 and cheated the second respondent.Petitioners 4 to 6 in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 demanded huge amount from the second respondent during the course of hearing of the criminal case, threatening with acid attack.With the aforesaid allegations, the second respondent has prayed for prosecution of all the petitioners herein.The learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai referred the aforesaid complaint under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the first respondent Inspector of Police, W25, All Women Police Station, T.Nagar, Chennai, who registered the complaint in Crime No.16/2007 under sections 417, 495, 496, 385 and 506(ii) IPC and took up the case for investigation and filed final report before the said Court charging the first petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 for offences punishable under section 417 I.P.C. (cheating) and section 495 I.P.C. (solemnization of marriage concealing the first marriage), petitioners 2 and 3 in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 and both the petitioners in Crl.The second respondent, who is the husband of the first petitioner in Crl.Rangabashyam and his wife to intervene in the matrimonial dispute between the second respondent and his wife, but, he had given an evasive reply that they had stopped associating with the family of the in- laws of the second respondent.Narayanan Venu Prasath was examined as LW4 by the first respondent.It is his version that the first accused and himself became thick friends and thereafter they decided to get married as the parents of the first accused were scouting for alliance.They also apprehended that both the family members might not give consent and therefore, they decided to register the marriage.Thereafter, the relationship of Narayanan Venu Prasath with the first accused came to an end.Narayanan Venu Prasath has stated before the investigating officer that he got married Grahalakshmi, having been afraid of the family members, but, in fact, he did not live with her as husband and wife.In the further statement also, Narayanan Venu Prasath has come out with a version that, as he got married Grahalakshmi through registered marriage on 30.12.1998, in the aftermath of their love affair, he got a sim card with a telephone number for Grahalakshmi with her date of birth.He would further state that he provided credit facility for Grahalakshmi in his credit card as Grahalakshmi was his wife.The amount payable to the bank towards the credit card facility extended to both of them was paid only by him.At the fag end of 2003, he closed the said credit card facility, he reveals further.P.Rajesh, LW5, who accompanied Narayanan Venu Prasath, has stated before the Inspector of Police during the course of investigation that Venu Prasath did inform him that he got married the first accused Grahalakshmi in the aftermath of his life affair with her.Thereafter, he went to the Registrar's Office as requested by him for the purpose of registration of the marriage.E.Sankar, LW6, who also allegedly participated in the registration of the marriage between Narayanan Venu Prasath and the first accused, would also say that Venu Prasath informed him that he married the first accused in a marriage hall at Alwarpet and therefore, he co-operated for the registration of the marriage.D.Chandrasekar, LW7, who also played some role in the registration of the marriage would state that Venu Prasath informed him that his marriage with the first accused Grahalakshmi needed registration for the purpose of securing passport.He would further reveal that Venu Prasath informed him that he got married Grahalakshmi following the love affair with her.It is his version that he found Venu Prasath and his wife Grahalakshmi at the Registrar's office.Sudhir Kumar, LW8 comes out with a statement that he located a broker in the office of the Registrar to register the marriage of Narayanan Venu Prasath with Grahalakshmi.Catherinal, LW9, who is working in the Registrar's office, would state that Venu Prasath informed her at the time of registration of the marriage that he got married Grahalakshmi on 30.11.1998 at V.M.Kalyana Mandapam at Alwarpet.In the same breath, he would state that he married Grahalakshmi following the love affair he had with her.O.P.No.26368/2007 Criminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.5967 of 2007 which is pending trial on the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.For petitioners in Crl.M.Ravindran, Senior Counsel for Mr.E.R.K.Moorthy For petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26381 of 2007 for offence punishable under section 496 IPC (conducting marriage ceremony fraudulently) and petitioners 4 to 6 in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 for offences punishable under sections 496 (conducting marriage ceremony fraudulently), 385 (putting in fear of injury for committing extortion) and 506(ii) (threat to cause death or grievous hurt) of IPC.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 have contended in the petition seeking quashment that there is no prima facie case made out as against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under sections 495 and 496 IPC.There was no solemnization of marriage on 30.11.1998 at V.M.Kalyana Mandapam, Alwarpet, Chennai between the first respondent and Narayanan Venu Prasath as alleged.The registration of the marriage had been allegedly done on 30.12.1998 by producing a fake marriage invitation by Narayanan Venu Prasath.The registration of the marriage on 30.12.1998 is of no avail and therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to face the ordeal of Trial for offences punishable under sections 495 and 496 IPC.Immediately after the alleged threat of extortion, no complaint was laid by the second respondent.The second respondent has chosen to falsely implicate all the family members of the first petitioner.No offence of cheating can be brought against the first petitioner since there is no legally valid first marriage.The first petitioner has no authority to investigate the offences punishable under sections 495 and 496 IPC since cognizance of such offences can be taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned only based on the private complaint laid by the aggrieved party.Matrimonial proceedings are pending between the parties wherein the alleged marriage with Narayanan Venu Prasath is going to be determined.Unless it is proved before the Matrimonial Court, the offences punishable under sections 495 and 496 IPC would not be attracted.The criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners are sheer abuse of process of court.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26381 of 2007 have contended that they just participated in the marriage of the first petitioner with the second respondent.They were not at all aware of the alleged first marriage between the first petitioner and Narayanan Venu Prasath.No prima facie case has been made out as against them for offence punishable under section 496 IPC.Therefore, the petitioners in both the criminal original petitions would submit that the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5967 of 2007 may be quashed.In the counter filed by the first respondent, it has been stated that the offences mentioned in the charge sheet have been clearly made out.No valid ground is made out by any of the petitioners to quash the charge sheet.O.P.No.26368, in his counter, would reiterate the tenor of his complaint and has submitted that the charge sheet has been laid by the first respondent police having satisfied prima facie that the offences mentioned in the charge sheet have been made out.Therefore, quashing of the criminal proceedings does not arise for consideration.The points that arise for consideration are1) Whether there is prima facie case as against A1 for offences punishable under sections 417 and 495 I.P.C., A2 to A8 for offence punishable under section 496 IPC and A4 to A6 for offences punishable under sections 385 and 506(ii) IPC.2) Whether taking cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 495 and 496 IPC based on the police report is legally sustainable.Whether there is misjoinder of offences.Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5967 of 2007 on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai are liable to be quashed."The second respondent has come out with a totally artificial version as though a demand for five crore rupees was made and thereafter, step by step, the demand was hiked to fifty crore rupees just to attract the criminal offence.An imaginary allegation is thrown on 4th and 5th accused as though they threatened to throw acid on the second respondent.The materials collected by the first respondent would disclose that there was no valid marriage at all.Mere registration of the marriage in the absence of solemnization under Hindu Marriage Act will not attract either offence under section 495 IPC or under section 496 IPC.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.26368 of 2007 would submit that the petitioners have been slapped with the allegation of the commission of offence punishable under section 496 IPC as they being the relatives of the wife of the second respondent failed to evince interest in conciliating the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife.The complaint preferred by the second respondent would read that the first accused Grahalakshmi having got married Narayanan Venu Prasath on 30.11.1998, registered the said marriage on 30.12.1998 and cheated the complainant suppressing the first marriage she solemnized with Narayanan Venu Prasath.The allegation as against A2 to A8 is that they having participated in the earlier marriage, chose to deliberately suppress the entire facts pertaining to the first marriage of the first accused with Narayanan Venu Prasath.The further allegation found in the complaint as against A4 to A6 is that many an occasion, during the proceedings of the matrimonial case before the Family Court, they, having demanded huge amount for settling the matrimonial dispute, threatened him with acid attack.He also annexed a copy of the marriage invitation along with the application seeking registration of the marriage.The witnesses, who accompanied Narayanan Venu Prasath informed her that they were witnesses to the marriage which took place at the marriage hall at Alwarpet.D.Kanniappan, LW16, who is the Manager of the complainant, would state that on 3.1.2007, when the complainant was entering into the Family Court, Chennai through the back door, Pon Kumar, A5 and his wife Abirami Pon Kumar, A6 threatened him with slapping criminal prosecution under section 498A of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the complainant do not oblige with consent for divorce.On 12.2.2007, when he was entering into the Family Court through the back door at about 10.00 am, Nagarajan, A4 and Pon Kumar, A5 demanded eight crore rupees to settle the matrimonial dispute.Thereafter, on 15.3.2007, they again demanded a sum of fifty crore rupees from the complainant failing which they threatened to take criminal actin for offence punishable under section 498A IPC as against the complainant.The aforesaid statements recorded by the first respondent police in the aftermath of the reference of the complaint lodged by the second respondent invoking the provision under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would disclose that Narayanan Venu Prasath has exhibited oscillation as to the factum of the first marriage.At one stage, he has stated that except the registration of the marriage, there was virtually no performance of the marriage.The marriage registration certificate and the marriage invitation have been seized by the first respondent police.The Proprietor of the marriage hall was not in a position to assertively say whether there was any such marriage on 30.11.1998 between Narayanan Venu Prasath and Grahalakshmi.The Prohit banks largely on his diary to say that he had not performed any such marriage at the marriage hall in Alwarpet.These two offences arise out of the marriage of the respondent with the third petitioner and were allegedly committed even before the bigamous marriage between the eighth petitioner and the third petitioner was performed at Madurantakam.If that be so, C.C.No.3 of 1989 will have to be restricted to petitioners 1 to 3 alone, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Ss.498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of the marriage between the third petitioner and the respondent.There had been misjoinder of accused also.The learned counsel appearing for the complainant also had admitted that there had been misjoinder of offences.In the instant case, the allegation of cheating, solemnization of the current marriage concealing the first marriage, performance of the marriage fraudulently and putting in fear of injury for commission of extortion and threat to cause death or grievous hurt are so inter-mingled and inter-twined that it is very difficult to separate one offence from the other.The series of acts were so connected together as to form part of the same matrimonial transaction of the second respondent.No prejudice also caused on account of combining series of transactions.As per section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, more offences than one forming the same transaction can be taken cognizance of together and tried at one trial.All the offences alleged to have been committed revolve around the marriage of the second respondent with the first accused.The point is answered accordingly.Point No.4:- The last point that arises for determination is whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5967 of 2007 are liable to be quashed.It is found that there is no sufficient ground to proceed as against A7 and A8 for offence punishable under section 496 of the Indian Penal Code, but, there is sufficient prima facie material to prosecute A1 for offences punishable under sections 417 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, A2 to A6 for offence punishable under section 496 of the Indian Penal Code and A4 to A6 for offences punishable under sections 385 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, Criminal Original Petition 26368 of 2007 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings as against A1 to A6 stands dismissed.Quashing the criminal proceedings as against A7 and A8 in C.C.No.5967 of 2007, Criminal Original Petition 26381 of 2007 stands allowed.As the main Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of, Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1 and 2 in both the Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.1. XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The Inspector of Police, W-25, All Women Police Station, T.Nagar, ChennaiM.JEYAPAUL, J.P.D. JUDGMENT IN Crl.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,591,946 |
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan, J.) The petitioner is the detenu herein.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:S. No.Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law1Thirupathur Town Police Station, Crime No.263/2013379 IPC2K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station Crime No.539/2013379 IPC3K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station Crime No.737/2013392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-11 C.M.B.T. Police Station in Crime No.746/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the similar bail order relied on by the detaining authority in Crime No.1677/2012 granted in Crl.M.P.No.8172/2012 is furnished only in the Tamil version and not in the English version, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.Heard Mr.In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.945/BDFGISSV/2013 detaining the detenu, namely Kaleem is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,593,776 |
He was working in a leather factory.Aneez Ahmed, brother of the proprietor of leather factory, was also sleeping nearby him.At about 2:30 am, Dilshad Ahmed woke up, on hearing some noise of breaking of lock, complainant saw appellant Rahis Ahmed carrying away two suit cases.When he asked as to what was he doing Rahis Ahmed gave a knife blow on his chest.Dilshad Ahmed raised alarm at which Aneez Ahmed, who was sleeping nearby, also woke up.In the meanwhile, the appellant gave another knife blow to Crl.Information regarding incident was received in the Police Station R.K. Puram vide D.D. No. 4B, dated 19th June, 1994 and was handed over to SI Mohan Singh (Investigating Officer) for enquiry, who reached AIIMS along with Constable Jagbir Singh and recorded statement of Dilshad Ahmed wherein the incident was described by him in the manner as narrated in para No. 3 hereinabove.Pursuant to his statement, FIR No. 339/1994 was registered.Site plan was prepared.Aneez Ahmed, who was present in AIIMS, handed over blood stained baniyan of Dilshad Ahmed, which was seized by the Investigating Officer.Investigating Officer went to the spot with Anees Ahmed and Constable Jasbir Singh and seized two suit cases and one plass which was lying outside the house.He also found door of the said house broken.The appellant has been convicted under Sections 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short hereinafter referred to as "IPC") by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and has been sentenced to face rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Crl.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 1 of 11 Rs. 5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 392 IPC; sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 397 IPC.Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 1 of 11Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence appellant has filed this appeal.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 2 of 11 Dilshad Ahmed on his leg.Thereafter, Rahis Ahmed ran away, leaving the said two suit cases behind.Dilshad Ahmed was removed to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short hereinafter referred to as "AIIMS") where he was medically examined.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 2 of 11At the Crl.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 3 of 11 instance of Aneez Ahmed appellant was apprehended and arrested.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 3 of 11Appellant made a disclosure statement and got recovered the knife used in the crime.Knife was taken in possession and its sketch was prepared and thereafter, it was seized.After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who in turn took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the sessions court.7. Charge under Sections 392 and 397 IPC was framed against the appellant on 9th January, 1997 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Prosecution examined six witnesses in all.After prosecution closed evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant was recorded on 13th Crl.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 4 of 11 July, 2000 wherein entire incriminating evidence, which had come on record, was put to him.Appellant denied his complicity in the crime and claimed himself to be innocent.He stated that he was having his own leather factory within the premises.He used to manufacture leather goods for Hanif and Aneez Ahmed.That Hanif and Aneez Ahmed owed him Rs.50,000/-.Dilshad Ahmed received injuries at the hands of his brother Sarfaraz.Taking advantage of this fact, Dilshad Ahmed and Mohd. Hanif involved the appellant in this false case in order to avoid payment of outstanding dues of the appellant.However, no evidence was led by the appellant in his defence.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 4 of 11Learned trial court found the testimony of PW1 Dilshad Ahmed and PW2 Aneez Ahmed, trustworthy and reliable.From the testimony of PW5 and the MLC on record, the trial court was satisfied that injuries received by Dilshad Ahmed on his chest and his lower thigh were caused by a sharp object and were duly supported by the statement of Dilshad Ahmed coupled with the factum of recovery of knife pursuant to the disclosure statement of Crl.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 5 of 11 the appellant.Recovery was believed to be correct.Consequently, learned trial court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the appellant.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 5 of 11I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire record including the record of the learned trial court.I have carefully gone through the testimonies of star witnesses of prosecution namely Dilshad Ahmed and Aneez Ahmed, who have been examined as PW 1 and PW2 respectively.I am satisfied that from their testimonies, it is proved that the appellant had stolen suit cases after breaking the lock of the door of the factory and when Dilshad Ahmed noticed this fact and challenged the appellant, he gave a knife blow on his chest and thigh after which he ran away.Testimony of PW1 Dilshad Ahmed has remained unshattered in his cross-examination, on material points and has rightly been accepted by the learned trial court.Testimony of PW1 Dilshad Ahmed has also been corroborated by PW2 Aneez on material points.PW2 has deposed that on hearing alarm raised by Dilshad Ahmed he woke up and saw Crl.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 6 of 11 appellant grappling with Dilshad Ahmed and thereafter running away.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 6 of 11Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that PW2 Aneez was declared hostile by the learned APP for the State and was cross examined.Since PW2 was declared hostile, his testimony cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever.In absence of his testimony only testimony of PW1 was available, which was not sufficient to base the conviction more so, when PW1 was an interested witness.No independent witness was joined during the investigation.Accordingly, it would not be safe to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW1 for convicting the appellant.I do not find any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant.PW2 Aneez Ahmed has corroborated the incident.He has deposed that he was sleeping outside the factory along with Dilshad Ahmed.In the intervening night of 18th or 19th June, 1994 at about 2:30 am he heard a call from Dilshad Crl.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 7 of 11 Ahmed and got up and saw appellant grappling with Dilshad Ahmed and thereafter running away.He also noticed Dilshad Ahmed had sustained knife injuries on his chest and leg.He removed Dilshad Ahmed to AIIMS and got him admitted there.The Police arrived there and recorded statement of Dilsahd Ahmed.His this version clearly show that he has corroborated PW1 regarding the main incident.PW2 has also deposed about the two suit cases being taken into possession by the Police, vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He has identified his signatures on the said seizure memo.To this extent, his testimony can be accepted.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 7 of 11Merely because PW2 had deposed that he did not see any knife in the hand of appellant will not make much difference in the peculiar facts of this case.PW2 has categorically deposed that he saw the appellant grappling with Dilshad and that he noticed knife injuries on the chest and leg of Dilshad Ahmed immediately after the incident.This version of PW2 clearly supports statement of PW1 that he had received injuries by a knife and the same were inflicted by the appellant.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 8 of 11Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 8 of 11In his cross examination by the learned APP for the State, PW2 had admitted that after the accused was arrested he made disclosure statement and got recovered the knife from the flush of the toilet of B-114, Mohadpur, R.K.Puram, New Delhi.He had also deposed that sketch of the knife Ex. PW2/C was prepared and the same bears his signatures.He has categorically deposed that the knife was sealed in a packet and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/D, which also bears his signatures.He also identified the knife in the Court.His version is also supported by the statement of the Investigating Officer.Recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant had been duly proved.Merely because PW2 was declared hostile and cross examined by learned APP for the State, his testimony cannot be thrown away from consideration as a whole.The portion which supports the prosecution case can be read in evidence against the appellant.Accordingly, I am of the view that learned trial court had rightly accepted the testimony of PW1 Dilshad Ahmed and PW2 Aneez Ahmed in concluding that the appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 9 of 11 the intervening night of 18th/19th June, 1994 had stolen two suit cases, after breaking the lock of the factory of Hanif Ahmed and when he was taking away the same with him, PW1 Dilsahd Ahmed woke up and challenged him, at which appellant gave knife blows to Dilshad Ahmed on his chest and leg causing injuries to him.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 9 of 11Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code provides that theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.In this case the appellant had committed the theft and while he was carrying away the property obtained by theft he was noticed by Dilshad Ahmed and was challenged, pursuant to which, appellant voluntarily caused hurt to him by a knife.Thus, his this act falls within the ambit and scope of robbery, as defined under Section 390 of the Indian Panel Code and is punishable under Section 392 of IPC.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 10 of 11Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 10 of 11Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code further provides that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.In this case, the appellant, at the time of committing robbery, used a knife, which is a deadly weapon within the meaning of Section 397, and the same had caused hurt to the complainant Dilshad Ahmed, thus, appellant was liable to be punished under Section 397 IPC.In the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 392 as well as 397 of the Indian Penal Code and has awarded proper sentence to him which needs no interference by this Court.20. Dismissed.A.K. PATHAK, J November 30, 2009 ga Crl.Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 11 of 11Appeal No. 144/2001 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,605,033 |
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.6.2019 in connection with Rejinagar P.S case no. 20 of 2019 dated 22.1.2019 under sections 3376/354/500/34 of the IPC and Allowed In Re : Rejaul Sekh alias Md. Rejaul Haque ...... petitioner Mr. A. Rahamani Mr. Somnath Das Ms. S. Chatterjee Mr. Sk.Aptabuddin ...... for the petitioner Mr. Sudip Kumar ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.Learned lawyer for the State submits that the petitioner took obscene pictures and uploaded them in the social media platform.We have considered the materials on record.The application being CRM 4932 of 2019 is disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,605,079 |
2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under :On 21.9.2007, Dhanibai, Budibai and girl child Uma after were standing near Prakash Gupta in the local market ('Haat') in Village Samarpat, present applicant came on his Hero Honda Splender motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP-10-F-4395 from the side of Village Chiriya Mohanpura rashly and negligently dashed all of them.He did not stop the motorcycle, due to which, Budibai dragged with the motorcycle up to 21 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2130/2020 Balsingh S/o.Kolya Bhil.V/s.State of M.P.-: 2 :-steps and thereafter, the applicant fell down.All the three sustained injuries and were admitted in the District Hospital, where Budibai and Uma succumbed to the injuries. 'Merg' No.68/2007 was registered u/s. 174 of the IPC and later on the case was sent to the Police Station Bistan for further investigation, where the FIR under Crime No.280/2007 was registered against the present applicant for the offence punishable u/s. 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC.During the investigation, the police seized the broken piece of the headlight of the motorcycle, torn clothes of Budibai and Uma and the offending motorcycle.The applicant/accused has filed the present revision u/s. 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.12.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), Khargone and judgment dated 15.10.2020 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone whereby he stands convicted and sentenced as under :After completion of the investigation, challan was filed before the JMFC.Applicant abjured the built and prayed for trial.In order to prove the charges against the applicant, the prosecution examined Dhanibai (P.W.1); Prakash (P.W.2); Jagan (P.W.3); Nasru (P.W.4); Habadia (P.W.5); Kunwarsingh S/o.Gulabsingh (P.W.6); Rama (P.W.7); Harnam (P.W.8); Kunwarsingh S/o.Galsingh (P.W.9); Dr. G.S. Mujalda (P.W.10); Head Constable Mechanic Jagdish Patidar (P.W.11); Medical Officer Dr. G.S. Rai (P.W.12); Head Constable Devicharan Verma (P.W.13); and Girdhari (P.W.14).In defence, the applicant did not examine any witness.After appreciating the evidence came on the record, learned JMFC convicted and sentenced the applicant as under :THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2130/2020 Balsingh S/o.Kolya Bhil.V/s.State of M.P.-: 3 :-Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the applicant preferred an appeal.Vide judgment dated 15.10.2020, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone has upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence for the offence u/s. 279 from 3 months to one month RI; for the offence u/s. 304-A from one year to six months' RI; and for offence u/s. 337 from 3-3 months RI to 1-1 month RI.Learned lower appellate Court has maintained the fine amount imposed on the applicant.Hence, the present revision before this Court.He belongs to a poor family and there is no person to earn the livelihood in the family.On the other hand, learned Panel Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the applicant while driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently in the local THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2130/2020 Balsingh S/o.Kolya Bhil.V/s.State of M.P.-: 4 :-market had dashed three ladies out of which two succumbed to the injuries.The applicant was not having the driving licence as well as he was not the owner of the motorcycle at the time of the accident.Therefore, an appropriate sentence has been awarded by the courts below.No interference is called for and the revision is liable to be dismissed.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of courts below.On 21.9.2007, there was a weekly market ('Hat') in Village Samarpat, in which Dhanibai, Budibai and girl child Uma were going to the market and when they reached to the culvert, applicant came on the motorcycle from the side of Chiriya Mohanpura village dashed all the three, due to which, they fell and sustained injuries.After the accident, the applicant did not stop the motorcycle and dragged Budibai up to some distance.All the three were taken to the District Hospital where Budibai and Uma succumbed to the injuries.The prosecution examined Dhanibai as P.W.1 who has fully supported the prosecution case and has duly identified the present applicant.Prakash (P.W.2) and Jagan (P.W.3) who were the eye-witnesses of the incident though turned hostile, but in the cross- examination admitted the accident in which all the three i.e. Dhanibai, Budibai and Uma sustained the injuries and also admitted that the accident was caused by the present applicant.Therefore, in view of the aforesaid evidence, both the courts THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR No. 2130/2020 Balsingh S/o.Kolya Bhil.below have not committed any error while convicting the applicant.At the time of the accident, the applicant was not having the driving licence.The seized motorcycle was examined by the Mechanic and he found that it was in good condition at the time of the accident.The applicant caused the accident in the local market where he was supposed to drive the vehicle slowly.He was not wearing the helmet and was not having the valid driving licence to drive the vehicle.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,046,075 |
(1) This order will dispose of three criminal Appeals (Nos. 79, 88 and 97 of 1968) which have arisen out of the same incident.The incident had occurred in the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,.on the 31st October, 1966, at about 12 -30 P.M. The prosecution case was that Om Parkash, Public Witness I, accompanied by his wife's sister's husband.Ram Nath, Public Witness 4, had, on the 31st October, 1966, gone to Tis Hazari Courts, to hear the orders in his appeal, filed against his conviction under sections 379/75, Indian Penal Code , pending in the Court of Shri Om Parkash, Additional Sessions Judge and that btoh Om Parkash and Ram Nath were sitting on a bench lying outside the Court when Nand Kishore and Hans Raj had come there.Nand Kishore had threatened Om Parkash that he would teach him a lesson as the latter had gto his brtoher convicted.Nand Kishore had, then, taken out the dagger, Exhibit P/1, and had attacked Om Parkash.Om Parkash had run for his life into the court-room of Shri M.S. Joshi, Public Witness 7, Additional Sessions Judge.Nand Kishore and Hans Raj had chased him into the Court-room.Nand Kishore was shouting that he would kill Om Parkash wherever he may go.Nand Kishore had attempted to stab Om Parkash with the dagger, Exhibit P. I in the court-room but before he could do so, he was apprehended by Ajaib Singh, Public Witness 2, the Naib Court of the Court of Shri M.S. Joshi.Ajaib Singh had snatched the knife from Nand Kishore.Hans Raj was apprehended at the gate of the Court-room by Babu Singh, Public Witness 3, antoher Naib Court, who was corning out of the Court of Shri M.S. Joshi, Babu Singh had snatched the knife, Exhibit P/2, from Hans Raj.(2) Kalyan Singh, Public Witness 8, had come on the spto.He had chased 0m Parkash into the Court.JUDGMENT Om Parkash, J.He had recorded the statement.Exhibit P/A of Om Parkash and had sent it to the Police Station, Subzimandi for registration of the case.On the basis of Exhibit P/A, the formal F.I.R., Exhibit Public Witness 5/A was prepared and after investigation, Nand Kishore and Hans Raj were prosecuted under sections 307/34, Indian Penal Code .Nand Kishore was also prosecuted under section 25 of the Arms Act for unlawful possession of the dagger.(3) The cases were tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.Nand Kishore and Hans Raj denied the allegations levelled against them.The plea of Nand Kishore was that Om Parkash had gto a grudge against him inasmuch as he had made a report to the police that Nand Kishore was dealing in illicit liquor and arms and had gto recovered two pistols and 600 btotles of illicit liquor from the house of Om Parkash.So far as the incident of 31st October, 1966 was concerned, the version of Nand Kishore was that on that day, he was going to Lahori Gate to purchase timber and that Om Parkash had met him at the bus-stand, Om Parkash had hired a scotoer.Nand Kishore had also travelled with him in the scotoer, Om Parkash had made Nand Kishore drink liquor.The two had reached Tis Hazari Courts.On getting down from the scotoer, Nand Kishore had found that a sum of Rs. 75.00/12.00 was missing from the pocket of his shirt.Nand Kishore wanted to search Om Parkash for the amount but Om Parkash had refused to submit to search.The dagger, Exhibit P/l was with Om Parkash at that time.(4) Hans Raj denied that he had gone to the Tis Hazari Courts with Nand Kishore.He further denied that he was possessed of the knife, Exhibit P/2, or had threatened Om Parkash with knife or had chased him into the Court of Shri M.S. Joshi.Hans Raj admitted that he was apprehended by Babu Singh at the main gate of the Court of Shri M. S. Joshi.His explanation was that he had come to the Courts in connection with the pension of his father.Neither Nand Kishore nor Hans Raj produced any evidence in support of the pleas taken up by them.(5) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that Nand Kishore had threatened Om Parkash to kill him and had also tried to stab him in the abdomen with the dagger Exhibit P/1 and that but for the snatching of the dagger by Ajaib Singh, Nand Kishore would have stabbed Om Parkash in the abdomen and caused his death.Nand Kishore was also held guilty under section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment.The sentence under section 25 of the Arms Act was made to run concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment awarded under section 307 Indian Penal Code .(6) Regarding Hans Raj, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that Hans Raj had formed a common intention with Nand Kishore to murder Om Parkash and that in furtherance of the common intention, he had threatened Om Parkash with the knife, Exhibit P/2 and had chased him into the Court.(7) Criminal Appeals Nos. 88 and 97 of 1968 have been filed by Nand Kishore against his conviction under section 307 Indian Penal Code and section 25, Arms Act, respectively.Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 1968 has been filed by Hans Raj against his conviction under sections 307/34 JPC.As already stated, this order will dispose of all the three appeals.(8) The appeals filed by Nand Kishore may be taken up first.The conviction of Nand Kishore is based on the evidence of 0m Parkash, Public Witness I, Ajaib Singh, Public Witness .Om Parkash P.W. I appears to be a man of shady character.He was hauled up under section 307 Indian Penal Code , though he says he was acquitted.He was also prosecuted for being in possession of 600 btotles of illicit liquor and two pistols.He was convicted in a case under sections 379/75 Indian Penal Code , though he was acquitted on appeal.He was externed from Delhi for two years under the order of the Additional District Magistrate, Delhi.He was also detained under the defense of India Rules, Om Parkash is nto worthy of credit.0m Parkash was followed by Nand Kishore who had a naked dagger.Exhibit P/1 in his right hand.Nand Kishore was abusing and threatening Om Parkash with the dagger.Ajaib Singh further states that as Nand Kishore was going to stab Om Parkash in the abdomen, he (the witness) caught hold of Nand Kishore and snatched the dagger from him.Ram Nath, Public Witness 4, had accompanied Om Parkash to the Tis Hazari Courts on the date of the occurrence.Ram Nath states that Om Parkash was sitting on the bench and that Nand Kishore and Hans Raj had come there.Exhibit P/1 and Om Parkash had thereupon run towards the Court of Shri M. S. Joshi, Nand Kishore had followed Om Parkash with the dagger but was caught hold of by Ajaib Singh.Ram Nath, further, states that even after his apprehension, Nand Kishore continued shouting that he would kill Om Parkash on the next available opportunity.Shri Viyas Dev Misra, Additional Standing Counsel, Delhi Administration, Public Witness 6, states that he was arguing a case in the Court of Shri M. S. Joshi on the 31st October, 1966 and that suddenly a person whose name he had later on come to know as Om Parkash, had rushed to the Court and immediately after Nand Kishore, who had the dagger.In cross-examination, Shri Viyas Dev Misra stated that Nand Kishore was swinging his dagger and it appeared that he was aiming the same at the abdomen of Om Parkash.(9) Ntohing was brought out in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses which could shake their testmony.It is true that Ram Nath Public Witness 4, was a relative of Om Parkash and he was declared hostile as he had nto supported the prosecution case fully against Hans Raj but that is nto a valid ground for the rejection of his evidence, especially when his evidence so far as Nand Kishore is concerned, is consistent with the evidence of Ajaib Singh, Public Witness 3, and Shri Viyas Dev Misra, Public Witness 6, two independent witnesses.(10) Nand Kishore did nto lead any evidence to establish his plea that he had travelled in a scotoer with Om Parkash and that he had found that his purse containing Rs. 75.00/12.00 was missing when he had alighted from the scotoer and that he wanted to search Om Parkash in connection with the missing purse, Om Parkash, Public Witness I, had denied the allegation that he had travelled with Nand Kishore on the day of the incident when the allegation had been put to him in cross-examination.(11) The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, discussed above established the following facts-that Om Parkash, Public Witness I, was sitting on a bench in the Tis Hazari Courts, that Nand Kishore accompanied by Hans Raj had come there, that Nand Kishore had threatened Om Parkash that the latter had falsely gto his brtoher convicted and he would take revenge, that Nand Kishore had taken out the dagger.Exhibit P/1, that Om Parkash had run into the Court of Shri M. S. Joshi, that Nand Kishore had run after him with the dagger.Exhibit P/1 in his hand, that Nand Kishore was shouting that he would kill Om Parkash and had tried to stab him with the dagger.(12) It was contended, on behalf of Nand Kishore, that the above facts could nto establish a charge under section 307 Indian Penal Code .The argument was that the facts merely showed that Nand Kishore had made preparation to commit murder but that the facts did nto prove that he attempted to commit murder, inasmuch as, Nand Kishore had nto done the penultimate act, namely of actually stabbing Om Parkash with the dagger.The argument does nto appear to be sound.The distinction between preparation to commit an offence and an attempt to commit an offence was pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar.It was observed :- "THEREis a thin line between the preparation for and an attempt to commit an offence.Undoubtely, a culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence.There appears to be some force in this contention.The sentence of 3 year's R.I. would meet the ends of justice.(19) The evidence already discussed established that Nand Kishore was in possession of the dagger.Exhibit P/1, whose blade was 6' -7".It is nto disputed that the possession of the dagger was unlawful under the Arms Act. The conviction and sentence of Nand Kishore under the Arms Act are maintained.Appeal No. 97 of 1968 will thus stand dismissed.Babu Singh, P.W. 3, states that Nand Kishore and Hans Raj were running after Om Parkash and that Hans Raj had a knife with him.Babu Singh further states that he had caught hold of Hans Raj at the gate of the Court.Babu Singh has also stated that Hans Raj was shouting that he would kill Om Parkash.Excepting 0m Parkash and Babu Singh, no toher prosecution witness states that Hans Raj was running after Om Parkash or had shouted that he would kill Om Parkash.On the toher hand, Ram Nath, Public Witness 4, stated that Hans Raj was apprehended, at the door of the Court-room and that he had no knife with him.According to Ram Nath, the knife was lying on the ground.Ram Nath was declared hostile and was cross-examined.He was confronted with his statement made to the police wherein he had stated that Hans Raj had the knife, Exhibit P/2 with him.This statement cannto be used as substantive evidence.The solitary statement of Babu Singh that Hans Raj had shouted that he would kill Om Parkash cannto be believed.There is absolutely no evidence that Hans Raj had aimed the knife at 0m Parkash.The only fact proved against Hans Raj was that he had accompanied Nand Kishore and was apprehended at the gate of the Court-room.Hans Raj might have gone to the Court-room to know what was happening therein after 0m Parkash had rushed into the Court-room followed by Nand Kishore.It is nto disputed that Hans Raj was nto in any way connected with Nand Kishore or that he had any grudge against 0m Parkash.There is no reliable evidence to show that there was any preconcert or pre-arranged plan between Hans Raj and Nand Kishore to murder Om Parkash.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge erred in holding that Hans Raj had any common intention with Nand Kishore to murder Om Parkash.The conviction of Hans Raj is to be set aside.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,616,013 |
Heard Sri Mukesh Chandra Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.I have keenly perused the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.. In 161 Cr.P.C. statement she states that on 25.02.2018 the applicant had got married with the victim at Mumbai and in 164 Cr.P.C. statement she further states that she went to Mumbai and thereafter Kolkota and established the physical relationship with him.But she has declined to herself for any medical examination so as to ascertain the factum of rape upon her.Not only this there is no ossification test so as to determined the age of the victim.Taking into account that she herself has declined to get her medical examination, on the other hand she submits that she has got married with the applicant and roam around with the applicant to various places and enjoyed the company of the applicant for two months without any resistance or objection, which clearly appears to be consenting party.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Aman be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 204 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Loni Border, District Ghaziabad with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
1,046,168 |
Killed Raja Ram who was at his tube-well which was veryclose to the village, then went to the house of Om Prakashand started firing at the persons who were sitting under the`Chhappar' of his house and then looted property from thehouses of Om Prakash and other.Om Prakash somehow managedto escape from that place.He first went to the tube-well ofRaja Ram as he was having a licenced gun and who happened tobe his brother -in -law but finding him dead went running tothe Police Station which was about a mile away from hivillage.He informed P.I Surinder Kumar Singh who was in-charge of the Police Station that about 20-25 dacoitsincluding Bhoora and Vishram have come to his village, thatthey have killed some persons and are still committingdacoity.Thereupon the police party consisting of SurinderKumar Singh, one police sub-Inspector and 3 Constableaccompanied Om Prakash to the village.They first went tothe house of Data Ram.When they disclosed their identityand told him that they have come to the village to renderhelp to the villagers, the dacoits who were in his houseopened fire.The Police also fired back and thereafter forsome time there was an exchange of fire between the policeand the dacoits.After seam time the dacoits retreated.Theywere chased by the police upto a certain distance butbecause of darkness and the forest being dense had to giveup the chase.THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997Present:Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.T.Nanavati Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N.KhareT.N.Singh, Adv.for the appellantT. Vasandhi, Adv.(A.C.) for the Respondents.J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:NANAVATI, J.The State has filed this appeal against the commonjudgment and order of acquittal passed by the Allahabad HighCourt in Criminal Appeal No. 905/83 and Reference No. 4/83.Both the respondents were convicted by the trial court forthe offence punishable under Section 396 read with Section34 IPC and were sentenced to death.The prosecution case was that Bhoora and Vishram Singh,the two respondent herein, along with about 20 to 25 dacoitswent to village Aimanpura on 23.11.78 at about 6.30 p.m.When the police returned to village they foundthat Raja Ram.Jay Prakash, Mata Prasad and Ghundari werealready dad as result of the injuries received by the andData Ram, Siya Ram and Sudama were seriously injured.Therefore, they made arrangements for sending the injured to ahospital for treatment.Thereafter the investigation startedand chargesheet was filed the two respondent and some otherwho were absconding.Both the respondent were the tried forcommitting the offence punishable under Section 396 readwith Section 34 IPC.In order to prove its case the prosecution had examinedfour eye witnesses: Om Prakash (PW.1), Data Ram (PW.2),Hardev (PW.4) and Phoolan Singh (PW.5).The trial courtfound that about 5 to 6 years back, uncle of Om Prakash(PW.1) had eloped with the mother of the respondent, and asthe respondents are Ahirs and the person who had taken heraway was a Barahman, they had taken it an insult and sincethe they had a grudge against the Brahmans of villageAimanpura and, therefore, on the date of the incident theyhad gone to the village, killed some persons and committeddacoity.The trail court believed the evidence of all thefour witnesses as it found that there was enough light wherethe incident had taken place and that they had enoughopportunity to see the faces of the respondent who werealready known to them.The trial court also believed theevidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that while running away from thatvillage the two respondent had a bused Om Prakash byuttering the following words:"Sale tum aurato ko bhagate to Aaj to tum apne mehman yani police ko bula laye ho.Aage dekhenge."The trial Court, therefore, convicted both therespondent under Section 396 read with Section 34 IPC.Considering the gravity of the offence committed by theaccused, the trial court thought that the proper sentence tobe imposes upon them was death.Therefore, it sentenced themto death.As the accused were sentenced to death a reference wasmade to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence andan appeal was also preferred by the accused against theirconviction.The High Court on reappreciation of the evidencecame to the conclusion that PW.4 Hardev and PW.5 PhoolanSingh could not have seen the incident from the place fromwhere they have stated that they had seen the incident and,therefore, could not have identified the accused.The HighCourt believed the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that they alongwith others were playing cards under the `Chhapper' of thehouse of Om Prakash and that they got up on hearing somenoise coming from the side of tube well of Rajaram which wasin the north-western direction.The High Court also believedtheir evidence that at the material time there was a lanternburning in the shed where they were playing cards and thatthere were 2 electric poles one in the north easterndirection at distance of about 10-15 paces and one in thenorth-western direction at a distance of about 30 paces andthat lights on both the poles were burning.The High Court,however, was of the view that as all the accused were inkhaki uniform and were wearing hats.the eye witness couldnot have identified the respondents.The High Court was alsoof the view that two witnesss did not have enough time oropportunity to recognise the two respondent as the dacoitshad started firing as soon as the person sitting under the`Chhapar' go tup to see what was happening.The High Courtalso did not accept the evidence of these two witness thatwhile running away the respondents, had made the utterancereferred to above for the reason that Data Ram had notstated so before the police and also because Phoolan Singhhas stated in his evidence that after the police had come tothe village the did not hear any dacoit saying anything.Asregards the evidence of notice the High Court was of theview that as the incident of kidnapping had taken place someyears back that could not have been the reason for therespondents to commit this offence.The High Court has givenone more reason for not believing the evidence of Om PrakashPW.1 It considered his conduct in first going to the tube-well of Rajaram which was in the north - eastern directionand then to the police station which was in the south asunnatural.The High Court, therefore, held that theprosecution has filed to establish beyond reasonable doubtthat respondents were among the dacoits who had committedthe dacoity in the village on that day.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted thatthe reasons given by the High Court in holding that witnesscould not have indentified the respondents are neitherproper nor sufficient.He has taken us through the evidenceof PW 2.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 all of whom have deposed about thepresence of two electric poles of their evidence has aremained almost unchallenged.The only attempt made by thedefence in this behalf was to put a question to PW.2 incross-examination whether he had drawn the attention of thepolice officer to the existence of the second electric poletowards the west of Om Prakas's house.Possibly thisquestion was put to him because in the site plan prepared bythe Investigating Officer the second pole situated in thewestern direction of the house of Om Prakash has not beenshown.The Investigating Officer has stated in his evidencethat immediately on being informed by Om Prakash, he hadgone to the village and at that time he had noticed thatlights on both the electric poles were burning.This part ofhis evidence has remained unchallenged in cross-examination.As stated earlier even the High Court has accepted versionof the witnesses that there were two poles near the house ofOm Prakash and on both of them lights were burning at thetime of incident.It was no body's case that the light wasso sufficient that from a distance of 30 paces a personstanding near the electric pole could not be identified.Thereason given by the High Court that because dacoits werewearing khaki uniform and were wearing hats they could nothave been identified appears to be more in the nature of asurmise, as it was not even suggested to any witness thatbecause of the hats worn by the respondents there was shadowon their faces and, therefore, it was not possible torecognise them.It si difficult to appreciate the reasoningof the High Court.If the witnesses were able to recognisethe colour of the clothes worn by the dacoits, surely theycould have recognised their faces also of those who wereknown to them.As noticed from the site plan and also fromthe evidence of the witnesses, one electric pole was to thenorth-western of the even of Om Prakash and one was towardsnorth-east of the house of Om Prakash and one was towardsnorth-west.The accused had come from the north-westerndirection and even if it is assumed that their caps couldhave cast a shadow over their faces while they were passingby the north-western electric pole the light from the otherpole would have fallen on their faces.Om Prakash and othershad stood up to see that what happening.Thus they were nottaken by surprise.Therefore, their evidence that they stoodup and noticed that there were about 20-25 person about 30-35 steps away from the house deserves to be believed.Thereasons given by the High Court for disbelieving theevidence of Om Prakash and Data Ram, therefore, cannot beregarded as proper and sufficient and we hold that theirevidence deserves to be believed.The High Court overlookedthe fact that as soon as firing had started and some personsstanding with him were injured Om Prakash left that placeand went to the police station.He informed the policeofficer in-charge of the police station that about 20-25dacoits have come to the village and were committing dacoityin his house.He further stated that they had killed Jaiprakash, Raja Ram and Gundhari and other persons have alsobeen inured.He had further stated that he had recognisedBhoora and Vishram of village Madanpur in the light of thetwo electric poles.Thus within 45 minutes even whiledacoity was being committed in the village Om Prakash hadstated that he had identified two of them because of theelectric lights.If the High Court had considered this pieceof evidence along with the oral testimony of Om Prakas thenpossibly it would not have committed the mistake ofdiscarding his evidence as regards the identify of therespondents.The High Court also committed an error when itobserved that Om Prakash could not have known that Raja Ramwas murdered when he had lodged the report at the policestation.It discarded the explanation given by him that thefirst went to the tube-well of Raja Ram and, therefore, hehad come to know about the death of Raja Ram.As statedearlier the High Court found the conduct of this witnessunnatural as the tube-well was in the north-westerndirection and the police station was situated in thesouthers direction.OmPrakash would not have come to know about the death of RajaRam unless he had gone to the tube-well where his dead bodywas fond later by the Investigating Officer.In our opinionthe High Court was wrong in discarding the evidence of OmPrakash on the ground that his conduct in going to the tube-well of Raja Ram and then to the Police Station wasunnatural.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,461,849 |
Within six months, i.e. on 24.10.1994, in the dead of night, she was found burnt.Ms. Babita (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was brought to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.She, however, could not survive and succumbed to the burn injuries.The appellant Mr. Mohan Parsad, who is the brother of the deceaseds husband Mr. Jag Lal Parsad, his father Mr. Paras Nath and mother Mrs. Dhanweshwari Devi, were accused of murdering the deceased.Before proceeding to take note of the submissions, on the basis of which findings of the learned trial court are assailed, we deem it appropriate to take note of the facts in brief, as disclosed by the prosecution as well as the findings of the trial court.The deceaseds husband Mr. Jag Lal Parsad was in service and posted out of Delhi.Therefore, after marriage, he generally remained outside to attend to his job.The deceased, however, was staying in the matrimonial home in Delhi along with her husbands brother (the appellant herein), her mother-in-law and father-in-law.As per the Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 2 of 14 prosecution, these three persons started harassing the deceased and demanded Rs.50,000/- from her and that once the appellant also went to the house of the father of the deceased and demanded Rs.50,000/-.He also told her father that if the amount was not paid, then the deceaseds life would be in danger.But the father of the deceased could not pay the said amount.On 24.10.1994, the father of the deceased went to the house of the accused persons and on demand of Rs.50,000/-, he told them that he is not in a position to pay them this amount, on which the accused persons threatened that if the amount was not paid, the life of his daughter will be in danger.On that night, i.e. one day before the fateful night, the father of the deceased stayed at the house of his friend Mr. Ramji Lal.On the next date, i.e. on 25.10.1994, the appellant came to the house of Ramji Lal and informed the father that his daughter was burnt.She is stated to be conscious and well oriented at that time.Local examination revealed that there were fresh deep thermal burns over face, neck, both upper limbs, anterior chest and abdominal wall, part of back, both thighs except lateral aspect of right thigh, both legs (upper half) except lateral aspect of right leg.She was diagnosed with 75% deep burns.What sort of relations : I was having good relations with my were you having with husband.He does the job.He Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 4 of 14 your husband? remains out of Delhi.He was not in Delhi at the time of setting ablaze.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 4 of 14On receiving information, which was recorded as DD No. 6-B, at around 4.30 a.m., the SHO along with the other police staff reached the spot where the incident had taken place.On reaching the spot, he was informed that the deceased had been removed to Safdarjung Hospital.The SHO along with SI Ajay Pal Singh went to the hospital.The SDM was informed and the statement of the deceased was recorded which is exhibited as Ex.PW-2/A. On this, the SHO made the endorsement, which is marked as Ex.PW-7/A, and sent the rukka Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 5 of 14 at around 8.40 a.m. for registration of the FIR.Constable Sarvan Kumar recorded the FIR under Sections 498-A/307/34 IPC, which is marked as Ex.PW-6/B.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 5 of 14FIR was converted into Section 302 IPC in place of Section 307 IPC.Site plan was prepared, which is Ex.PW-10/A. Ajay Pal Singh seized match box (Ex.P-1), chappal (Ex.P-2), burnt pieces of cloth (Ex.P-3) and plastic container (Ex.P-4) from the spot vide memo Ex.PW-1/A. The articles were then sealed and the seal was handed over to Ramji Lal.The accused Dhanweshwari Devi was arrested and her search was conducted and she was then brought to the police station vide DD No. 20-A and copy of which is Ex.PW-10/B. Statements of Ramji Lal (Ex.PW-10/E) and Ram Vichar (Ex.PW-10/D) were recorded.Their defence was that she immolated Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 1 of 14 herself and, thus, committed suicide.The trial court, vide its impugned judgment dated 29.1.1997, has accepted the prosecution version partially, thereby convicting only Mr. Mohan Parsad under Section 498-A and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC).Mrs. Dhanweshari Devi and Mr. Paras Nath have been let off giving them the benefit of doubt.The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC.For commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC, rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months is imposed.The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) has also made it clear that both the sentences shall run concurrently.This appeal is directed against the aforesaid judgment and sentence.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 1 of 14Further, on hearing this new, the father of the deceased went to the house of accused persons, where it was learnt that the injured was removed to the hospital and after reaching the hospital, the deceased told her father, in the presence of Ramji Lal, that since he could not pay Rs.50,000/-, after he went away, the accused persons poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 2 of 14As per the MLC (Ex.MLC also records that the deceased herself informed about the "alleged history of burn injury when her brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law poured kerosene oil over her and set Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 3 of 14 fire".MLC was signed by one Dr. Pradeep Tandon, who appeared as PW-8 and proved the MLC.He further stated that IO moved an application for recording her statement and he was of the same opinion that the deceased was conscious and well oriented and fit to give statement.This permission was given at 5.50 a.m. on 25.10.1994 and his opinion is exhibited as Ex.PW-8/B. The application, pursuant to which he gave his opinion, is Ex.PW-8/C. At about 7.40 a.m., the patient was declared as conscious oriented and fit for statement by Dr. Prakash.PW-8 identified his handwriting and signature and the endorsement of Dr. Prakash is Ex.PW-8/D. Thereafter, her statement was recorded by Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patiala House at 8.00 a.m. This is in question and answer form, which is proved as Ex. PW-2/A and reads as under :-On 26.10.1994, the deceased died in the hospital.The inquest proceedings were completed by the SHO and Inquest Report is Ex.PW-7/B. An application for conducting the post-mortem was made (Ex.PW-7/D).Investigation into the case was handed over to SI Ajay Pal (PW-10) by the SHO Hans Raj(PW-7).Then the other two accused were also arrested.The deceaseds body was identified by her father.The investigations were then completed and the challan was handed over in the court.The charges against the three accused persons were framed under Section 302 IPC as well as Section 498-A IPC.The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses.Relevant witnesses are PW-1 Ramji Lal, in whose house the father of the deceased stayed on Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 6 of 14 24.10.1994 and who is his brother-in-law; PW-2 Mr. Rakesh Nagpal (Sub-Divisional Magistrate); PW-5 Ram Vicchar Parsad, father of the deceased; PW-6 Head Constable Surinder Singh; PW-7 Inspector Hans Raj and PW-10 S.I. Ajay Pal Singh.In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant denied that there was demand of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased or her father and further that any threat was given that if amount is not paid, there was danger to the life of the deceased.He also denied that he had gone to the house of Ramji Lal to inform that the deceased was burnt.He stated that he was falsely implicated and, in fact, the deceased lit herself up and died.Two defence witnesses, namely, Mahinder (DW-1) and Jagmati (DW-2) were also examined.Mr. Mahinder is the neighbour of the appellant, who stated that accused persons never harassed the deceased and further that the deceased had set herself on fire.Statement of Ms. Jagmati is to the same effect.After hearing the arguments, the learned trial court acquitted both mother- in-law and father-in-law giving them benefit of doubt, but convicted the appellant both under Section 498-A and Section 302 IPC.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 6 of 14A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 7 of 14 recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.Further, since in the dying declaration recorded by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, the deceased did not name her mother-in-law and father-in-law, benefit of doubt is given to these two persons.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 7 of 14But, the emphasis must be on the quality of the dying declaration.If the dying declaration is suspicious or suffers from some infirmity, then it should not be acted upon without any corroborative evidence."A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 10 of 14This fact was categorically admitted by PW-2 in his cross-examination stating that when he had reached the hospital, the relatives of the deceased were present by her side, though he did not know their names or their relations with the deceased.Capitalising on this statement of PW-2, the endeavor of the learned counsel was to impress upon us that there was every likelihood of the deceased being tutored by her father, who must have prompted her to implicate the accused persons.He submitted that this was clear from her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. wherein she had mentioned that after the incident when father of the deceased reached the spot, he had made his intentions clear by uttering that he will implicate the entire family of the deceased in-laws.He also submitted that it was highly improbable that when the husband of the deceased was living away from the house in another town, there would be harassment by brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in- law on account of alleged demand of dowry, in the absence of any such imputation on the husband.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 11 of 14A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 11 of 14Concededly, neither the father nor any other relative of the deceased had come to hospital and was with her at that time.Thus, on the very first occasion, immediately after the occurrence, she gave the statement implicating her brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother- in-law.There was no question of tutoring her at that point of time and any external pressure is also ruled out.Another statement is recorded by the SDM and before recording this statement, all necessary precautions, procedural or otherwise, are taken.In this statement, she again categorically mentioned that her brother-in-law Mohan had poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze.Insofar as her mother-in-law and father-in-law are concerned, she had mentioned that there was a demand of Rs.50,000/- by them, including her brother-in-law Mohan.Statement of the father of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he would implicate the entire family of the in-laws of deceased, is an outburst after coming to know that his daughter is set ablaze by in- laws.This submission would be of no help to the appellant as the Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 12 of 14 father of the deceased had uttered these words after reaching the spot/place of occurrence and by that time the deceased had already made her statement before the Doctor, which was recorded in the MLC.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 12 of 14PW2/A and according to PW5 Ram Vichar Parsad the deceased has also stated before him that the accused Mohan Parsad, Paras Nath and Dhanweshwari Devi and the other brother of accused Mohan Parsad namely Sawalia and his wife poured kerosene oil on her and set her ablaze.The deceased has also stated before the doctor that her brother-in- law had burnt her.Although the deceased in the dying declaration recorded by the doctor has not named the accused Mohan Parsad but from the dying declaration as made by the deceased before her father and the SDM, I am of the view that by saying that her brother-in-law had burnt her, she also meant that accused Mohan Parsad had burnt her.In this case the dying declaration of the deceased has been recorded by PW-2 Sh.Rakesh Nagpal, the then SDM and by PW8 Dr. Pardeep Tandon and the deceased has also made the dying declaration before her father, as discussed above.PW2 Sh.Rakesh Nagpal, Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 13 of 14 the then SDM and PW8 Dr. Pardeep Tandon are independent and respectable persons and were disinterested in any manner.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 13 of 14We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.The sentence of the appellant was suspended by the Supreme Court during the pendency of this appeal.However, when this case came up for final hearing, the appellant did not appear and, therefore, initially bailable warrants and thereafter non-bailable warrants were issued, which could not be executed.The appellant is absconding.The Police Authorities are, thus, directed to apprehend the appellant so that he could be lodged in Tihar Jail for undergoing the remaining sentence.(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE February 10, 2010 nsk Crl.A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 14 of 14A. No. 191/1997 nsk Page 14 of 14
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,630,716 |
This is reflected in the MLC.1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 23.05.2006 and 27.05.2006 respectively wherein the appellant Gurdayal Kohli stood convicted for the offence under Sections 304-B/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).For the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years; for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 1 of 12 he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of one month.The other two co-accused i.e. the brother and mother of the appellant stood acquitted.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 1 of 122 The nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on the date when he had been granted bail, he has suffered incarceration of about 2 years including remission.At that time, the parties had a 1- year old female child born out of their wedlock.Her cause of death was burns shock consequent to burn injuries which post mortem report was proved by Dr.Yogender Bansal (PW-7) as Ex.PW-7/A. Since the incident had occurred within less than 7 years of marriage, inquest proceedings were ordered.The SDM G. Sudhakar (PW-1) had recorded the statements of the relations of the victim which includes her mother Shanti Devi (PW-2), her father Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 2 of 12 Mohan Lal (PW-3) and her brother Dalip Kumar (PW-4).It was on the statement of PW-2 that the present FIR was registered.4 Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset points out that the ingredients of Section 304-B of the IPC necessarily entail four elements; even presuming that the three ingredients i.e. death in circumstances other than normal, within seven years of marriage and that there had been dowry harassment have been established, the fourth ingredient i.e. cruelty having been meted out to the victim soon before her death has not been established.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 2 of 125 The counter submission of the learned counsel for the State has also been noted.It is pointed out that investigation had revealed smell of kerosene emanating from the bed room and a kerosene lamp (kept in the open almirah) as also burnt match sticks and some burnt clothes were also seized from the Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 3 of 12 room; submission being reiterated that this evidence is contrary to the theory of an accidental fire having engulfed the deceased in the kitchen.Thus the version in the dying declaration that the victim at that time was cooking in the kitchen when the accident occurred is not in consonance with aforenoted seized items which were recovered from the bed-room.The dying declarations were given by the victim under pressure.Submission being that the dying declarations although exonerate the accused yet they cannot be relied upon in view of this aforenoted controversy.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 3 of 126 Record shows that DD No.69-B was received in Police Station Sarai Rohilla at 10:10 PM giving intimation to the effect that a victim with burn injuries had been admitted in the LNJP Hospital.SI Ashok Kumar (PW-16) reached the hospital along with Constable Nandu Kashyap (PW-14).The MLCs of the victim Kamlesh (Ex.PW-12/A) and Gurdayal Kohli (Ex.PW-12/B) were collected.The history (as disclosed by the patient herself) was accidental burns received while cooking as the child playing nearby had pushed her due to which it dashed the kettle and oil Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 4 of 12 spilled on the body of the patient and her clothes caught fire.The victim was conscious and oriented at that time.She was declared fit for statement in terms of Ex.PW-12/A and this position was affirmed on oath by Dr.He had on oath deposed that he had examined the victim who had been brought in the hospital with 60% burns and she had been declared fit for statement by him as mentioned in the MLC; he had deposed that the history revealed in the MLC was narrated by the patient herself.This narration of the victim exonerated the accused; it had reported to be a case of accidental fire.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 4 of 127 The second dying declaration of the victim was recorded by the Investigating Officer.This was proved as Ex.PW-16/A. This was written in the hand-writing of the Investigating Officer and signed by the victim.In this dying declaration, it was disclosed that while the victim was preparing to cook food, in her attempt to pour kerosene oil in the stove from a can, her 1- years old daughter gave her a push as a result of which kerosene spilled on her clothes; she caught fire from the nearby stove.Her husband had tried to save her by putting a gadda (mattress) over her.She was first taken to the Bara Hindu Rao Hospital where she Crl.The submission of the learned counsel for the State that the victim could not have signed this statement considering the fact that her entire body was burnt except for her front limbs is negatived by the post-mortem report which had noted injuries on almost the whole of the body except the front part of her legs; her skin was peeling of; palms were burnt but her fingers were intact.Her quivering and shaky signature answers the theory that since the palms of the victim were burnt, she was probably not fit enough to hold the pen firmly to sign her name.There was also no smell of kerosene on the body; the fact that the smell of kerosene was not present on the body is indicative of the fact that it was not a case where kerosene oil was poured over her body to kill her but in fact supports the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that this could be a case where because of an accidental spilling of the oil only some parts of the body of the victim had kerosene.The MLC of the Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 6 of 12 appellant (Ex.PW-12/B) shows that his hands had also been burnt; he had also sustained 5% burn injuries.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 5 of 12Appeal No.422/2006 Page 6 of 128 The dying declarations Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-16/A have been penned down by the Investigating Officer.There is however no blanket bar that such a piece of evidence could not be read.PW-12 in his ocular version as also in the document (Ex.PW-12/A) testified that the victim was fit for statement.There was no suggestion given to the Investigating Officer that the victim was in fact not in a fit state of mind.This Court also notes that Dr. Arun Prashant Baxla (PW-12) had certified the patient to be fit for statement which was signed by him in the MLC (Ex.PW-12/A).The victim was brought to the hospital at 10:10 PM.She had expired at 05:10 a.m. on the following morning.There was an intervening gap of seven hours.Her parents had reached the hospital at about 02:30 am and this is clear from their testimonies.At that time, the victim could not speak.It was obviously during this intervening gap i.e. between 10:10 pm and 02:30 am that the dying declaration was recorded.The victim at that time was conscious and oriented.There was also no reason for PW-12, a doctor from a reputed government hospital, to have made a false statement.He Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 7 of 12 was also not cross-examined as to why he would have given a false certificate.Thus there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the dying declarations (Ex.PW-12/A and Ex.PW-16/A); both of them have exonerated the appellant.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 7 of 129 The statements of the parents of the victim were recorded by PW-1 on 07.08.1999 itself.10 In her cross-examination, it was admitted that she had reached the LNJP Hospital Burn Ward at 02:30 am; they were informed about the incident by Ashok, the brother of the appellant.11 Mohan Lal (PW-3) is the father of the victim.He deposed that he had four children.His daughter had been married to the appellant.After Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 8 of 12 marriage, Kamlesh used to tell him that she was being harassed and ill- treated by him but she did not tell who amongst her in-laws harassed her.On the intervening night of 07.08.1999 and 8.08.1999, they received intimation at 12:30 am that his daughter had received burn injuries; they reached the hospital at 02:30 am; his daughter was unable to speak at that time.His statement was recorded by the SDM.This witness was partly hostile.He was permitted to be cross-examined by the learned public prosecutor.He admitted that his daughter was subject to dowry harassment.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 8 of 12His testimony was based largely on what had been told to him by his wife.His wife did not come into the witness box.This witness being an hearsay witness was rightly rejected by the trial Court.Even presuming that was a dowry demand and their daughter was being harassed on this count, there is nothing in their evidence which could establish the ingredient of soon before death.The incident had taken place in the year 1999 i.e. after the lapse of Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 9 of 12 six years.Parties had a 1- year old daughter from this marriage.It might be an unending process.It may continue from the time of marriage up to the incident but this must necessarily come in the evidence.There must be a connection between death and the dowry related cruelty inflicted upon the victim.In fact, it must be the immediate cause of death of the victim.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 9 of 1215 The site plan Ex.PW-16/D has been perused.This discloses that there were three rooms in the accommodation where the parties were living.There was no in between gallery.In fact, the door of the room if open would straightway lead into the kitchen.The site plan revealed that some burnt clothes and match sticks were lying in the bed-room.A kerosene lamp was also found in the almirah in the room.A burnt bed- sheet had also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-14/A which bed- sheet had been recovered at point D in the site plan Ex.PW-16/D. This burnt bed-sheet was lying near the stairs and had probably fallen there at the time when the victim was being taken to the hospital by going down the stairs.The victim in the dying declaration might have made a reference to the bed-sheet as a gadda (mattress).Appeal No.422/2006 Page 10 of 12Appeal No.422/2006 Page 11 of 1217 In this background in the absence of any such evidence, it would be wholly unsafe to convict the appellant.The trial Judge has committed a grave illegality in doing so.Not only is there a dying declaration from the horses mouth herself exonerating the accused, even otherwise there is nothing in the version of PW-2 and PW-3 which could even remotely be said to be within the ambit of soon before death to connect the death of the victim with the cruelty inflicted upon her in relation to dowry demands.There is no such evidence on record.Bail bonds cancelled.Surety discharged.INDERMEET KAUR, J OCTOBER17, 2014 A/ndn Crl.Appeal No.422/2006 Page 12 of 12Appeal No.422/2006 Page 12 of 12
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
104,635,043 |
ROHIT B. DEO, J.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 08:51:19 :::Information Report No.190/2017 dated 6.5.2017 by which offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered against the applicants.Applicant in Criminal Application No. 386 of 2017 is husband of respondent no. 2 - Pooja @ Sonal - the complainant.Applicants in Criminal Application No.417 of 2017 are all relatives of Prasad Waghmode, the husband.Due to such relations, there were litigations between them as complainant filed proceedings under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act against her husband and his relatives and they also filed petition for grant of decree divorce, by mutual consent before the Family Court at Nanded.In::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 08:51:19 ::: 4 said proceedings for divorce, the parties arrived to terms of settlement.During the course of hearing, parties have placed on record agreement entered into between applicant - Prasad and non-applicant no. 2 - Pooja and had also filed Pursis to that effect in both the applications.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 08:51:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 08:51:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 08:51:19 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 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.
|
1,046,448 |
They were residing in the village of Sungara Halli.They have a female child by name Sangeetha aged about six years at the time of occurrence.The second accused is the younger brother of the first accused.The relationship between the first accused and his wife Amudha were not cordial and they used to quarrel with each other very often.The deceased was also not in good terms with her mother-in-law.About two years prior to the occurrence there was a compromise under which the first accused and the deceased were asked to reside in a separate house and the parents of the first accused were asked to reside in the garden belonging to the village Munsif.However, they did not bring any solution and the first accused was continuning to suspect to fidelity of his wife Amudha.The first accused started taking meals in his parents house rather than in his own house.After a period of six months from the date of compromise the parents of the accused came back to the village of Sungara Halli and were residing in the house of one Chinnaraj.During Pongal time in January, 1983, the first accused had beaten the deceased and had removed the 'thali' and her earring from the deceased.However, the villagers pacified the first accused and caused the return of the jewels to the deceased Amudha.The first accused went back to his parents and resided with them in the house of Chinnaraj.The deceased was given half-an acre of land by her mother and she eked out her livelihood by doing cooly work.From January, 1983, the first accused was not meeting the deceased.The first accused had a further grievance that the deceased was going to the village Bommidi during night hours and was acting as a prostitute.About a week prior to the occurrence at about 5.00 p.m. the second accused was talking to P.W. 1 (who has been given pardon under Section 316 Cr.P.C.) in the pial of the local school.The first accused came there and told them that the deceased was a prostitute and therefore, he felt terribly ashamed and he wanted to finish with her.P. W. 1 and the second accused advised the first accused not to undertake any such course but seek justice through the villagers.On the day of occurrence viz., 23-4-1994 at about 7.00 p.m. when P. W. 1 was taking meals, the first accused came there and told him that the deceased had gone to Bommidi with the female child.The first accused further stated that they could go there and bring her back and on the way she can be done away with.P. W. 1 again advised him not to do like that, but bring her to the village and talk over the matter, P.W. 1 however, said that he would come behind the accused, P.W. 1 proceeded in his cycle and both the accused were having only one cycle.Thereupon the first accused proceeded to the shop of P.W. 4 and took a cycle for hire.All the three proceeded in their cycles to Kavitha theatre at Bommidi.It is about five kilometers from Sungara Halli village.They found the deceased with her child in a petty shop belonging to P.W. 7 talking to a stranger.While the others were standing a far off the first accused alone talked to the deceased and brought her.The deceased along with her child were asked to sit in the cycle driven by the second accused and all of them proceeded to the village of Sungara Halli.On the way, they stopped at the hospital belonging to one Muniratnam.The first accused wanted to get some pills from the compounder for his stomach-ache.It was about 9.00 p.m. P.Ws. 5 and 6 who are younger cousin brothers of P.W. 1, were employed as compounders in the said hospital.The first accused went in and brought the pills and all of them continued their journey when they passed Omkalimman temple, the first accused stopped everybody and took the child from the deceased and gave it to P. W. 1 and asked P. W. 1 to take the child to the parents of the first accused.P.W. 1 proceeded to the village and after travelling a distance of one-quarter furlong he turned back to see what the accused and the deceased were doing.The first accused was taking the deceased towards a field belonging to Dr. Muniratnam and the second accused was following behind.A little later P. W. 1 heard the cries of the deceased.Since the child in his hand was also crying P.W. 1 pacified the child.A little later the first accused alone returned and when questioned he told P.W. 1 that he had finished off the deceased Amudha.P.W. 1 proceeded to the village and he could not sleep properly.On 24-4-1984 at about 7.00 a.m. he was taking milk from his field to supply the same to the Society in the village.He went and saw the place where the deceased was hanging and then proceeded to the house of Manickam Naidu who is a respected person of the village.They sent for the first accused and the first accused is said to have confessed to the whole crime and as to how he and his brother the second accused brought the deceased from Bommidi and near the Omakalimman temple in the road leading to the field of Dr. Muniaratnam, they took the deceased to a thorny bush, put a towel around her neck and tightened the same, that the second accused had caught hold of the hand of the deceased and the deceased was thus strangulated.The first accused then went to the house and brought a coir-rope and both A. 1 and A. 2 carried the body of the deceased along with narrow-path to Regada Halli and hanged the body there in a tamrind tree situate near the land of Narasimha Reddy.P.W. 2 and the said Manicka Naidu then sent for the second accused and he also confessed to the crime in the same manner.Further investigation was taken up by P.W. 16, Inspector (Law and Order), Harur Circle.P.W. 16 proceeded to Bommidi Police Station and reached there at 1.30 p.m. He received Ex. P. 17 and took up the investigation.He took the accused and the witnesses to the place of occurrence.The accused took P.W. 16 to their house and in the presence of their father P.W. 3 the house was searched.P.W. 16 recovered a rose colour towel, M.O. 21, a dhoti M.O. 22, a yellow colour shirt, M.O. 23, a cut banian, M.O. 24, a blue Shorts, M.O. 25, a bed-sheet M.O. 26, all of which were blood-stained.He found that below the body.The earth was bloodstained.He conducted an inquest on the body between 3.45 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. Ex. P. 20 is the inquest report.He had examined P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 at the inquest.With a requisition Ex. P-18 he handed over the body to the constable, P.W. 13 for the conduct of an autopsy.JUDGMENT Kanakaraj, J.1. Accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 15 of 1986, on the file of Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, are the appellants in this appeal.They were convicted by learned Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to file imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. two years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 201 I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences should run concurrently.On the early morning of 24-4-1984, he proceeded to Salem to see his ailing father.P.W. 3 is the father of the first and the second accused.When questioned the first accused told P.W. 3 that he had finished with the deceased Amudha.P.W. 3 is said to have followed him and near the Omkalimman temple in the land of Dr. Muniratnam, he saw the deceased Amudha lying dead.The same was taken and shown own as Ex. P. 1 and the signature of P.W. 2 and Manicka Naidu were obtained in the same.It was registered as a Crime No. 64 of 1984 under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. P.W. 15 prepared printed First Information Report, Ex. P-17 and sent the same to the Magistrate and higher authorities.He sent the Material Objects to the Magistrate.P.W. 11 was the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dharmapuri and he received Ex. P-8 from P.W. 16 for conducting an autopsy on the body of the deceased.Ex. P-9 is the post-mortem certificate.He found the hyoid bone fractured on the left side.He reserved his final opinion till the report of the Chemical Examiner was obtained on the soft tissues of the skin bearing rope mark.Ex. P-10 is the report of the Chemical Examiner and it reads as follows :-"The skin shows petechial sub-epidernal and dermal haemorrhages, Appearance suggestive of an antemortem rope mark."On the basis of the said report P.W. 11 gave a final opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation 48 to 60 hours prior to autopsy.On 25-4-1984 he examined P.W. 11 and arranged for the statement of P.W. 1 to be recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Oethankarai.P.W. 12 was the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Dharampuri District.P.W. 1 appeared before the Magistrate on 18-10-1984 at 1.00 p.m. He read over the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from P.W. 1 and P.W. 1 accepted the same as true.He then explained to P.W. 1 the purpose for which he had been produced.He was cautioned that there was no need for him to give such a statement.On 22-10-1984 P.W. 1 again accepted his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and agreed to depose in the same manner at the trial of the case.Considering all the circumstances of the case and the fact that P.W. 1 was not a prime accused, P.W. 11 gave pardon under conditions.Ex. P-12 is the order regarding the same.P.W. 16 gave requisition Ex. P-13 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Harur for sending the material objects for chemical analysis.Ex. P-15 is the report of the Chemical Analyst and Ex. P-16 is the report of the Serologist.On completion of the investigation, P.W. 16 filed a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Harur.The appellants having pleaded not guilty to the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and 20 documents by way of proving the charges.That apart as many as 26 Material Objects were also exhibited.On the appellants being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied complicity of the offence but did not examine any witnesses or file any document.It is on the above evidence that the trial Judge has rendered the conviction and imposed penalty as stated already.Before adverting to the arguments to Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant we would like to analyse the evidence and see how far they could be accepted.We are aware that the evidence of P.W. 1 has to pass the double test of reliability and the test of corroboration.So far as the previous history regarding the life style of the first accused and the deceased there could be no dispute because the evidence as narrated by P.W. 1 is corroborated by P.W. 2, Ex-Village Munsif and P.W. 3, father of the accused.So far as the complicity of P.W. 1 with the offence, we find that P.W. 1 would have this Court believe that at all times, he was against the murder of the deceased and he was advising the first accused to get relief by the conduct of Panchayats by the villagers.He would have it that he agreed to accompany the accused on the fatal day only in the hope that the accused will bring the deceased to the village, so that an amicable settlement could be arrived.He did not participate in the actual strangulation by the first and the second accused, but had taken some part in the sense that he took the child from the deceased with the idea of taking the child to the parents of the first accused.He had also not taken part in the removal of the body and hanging the same by the rope.According to the defence, the police had tempted him with a job and had in fact, given him a job of a peon in the Prohibition Wing of the Circle.We proceed to examine his evidence knowing fully well that he is a most unworthy friend who had bargained for his immunity.The evidence is no doubt, a little unnatural in the sense that he had no complicity in the offence and there appears to be no need for giving pardon to him.It may be that because he had gone along with the accused in bringing the deceased from Kavitha theatre, at Bommidhi and taking her near Omkaliamma temple, and participated in the drama by playing a small part by taking the child away from the deceased.In fact he did not even proceed far after taking the child, but he says he had heard cries of the deceased and the first accused coming soon thereafter and announcing that he had finished with the deceased.The first accused is said to have taken the child back from P.W. 1, before P.W. 1 left the place.In other words, it appears to us that P.W. 1 had some part to play in the offence in the sense he had taken the child and was allowing the first and the second accused to perpetrate the offence.He might have either seen the action of the accused or might have been proceeding to the house of the father of the accused.But one thing is clear that it is only after the deceased was done away with and the same was announced to P.W. 1 that he left the place.We do not therefore, accept his evidence that he had advised the first accused not to murder the deceased, but bring her only for talks with the villagers.He had agreed to go with them to Bommidhi and he had agreed to take the child leaving the accused with the deceased, in a lonely place.He must have been privy to the common intention of the accused in doing away with the deceased.However, his evidence regarding the fact that he proceeded along with them in three cycles to Bommidi and finding the deceased at a petty shop cannot be disbelieved.The Petty shop owner P.W. 7 speaks to the fact that the second accused came to the shop and took the deceased Amudha in the Cycle of the second accused.But that will not affect the case of the prosecution that the accused had gone to the Petty Shop to take the deceased to some other place.We also believe the evidence of P.W. 1 to the effect that all of them returned from Bommidi towards their own village, Sungara Halli and on the way, stopped at the hospital of Dr. Muniratnam.P.W. 1 questioned the first accused as to why he was stopping at the place.The first accused is said to have told him that he was going to get some pills for his stomach-ache.P.Ws. 5 and 6 who are the cousin brothers of P.W. 1 were working in the hospital as compounders, While P.W. 5 turned hostile to the prosecution case, P.W. 6 has clearly spoken to the fact : that at about 9.00 p.m. on 23-4-1984 the first accused came there for taking pills for stomach-ache.The only discrepancy which is sought to be pointed out by the defence is that while P.W. 6 says that along with the first accused his wife Amudha also came inside the hospital, P.W. 1 has stated that.We do not find any discrepancy in the evidence because P.W. 1 did not say that the deceased was standing outside.He has only stated that.In other words, he has not specifically spoken about the deceased standing outside or proceeding inside the hospital.In other words, the fact that the accused was in the hospital at 9.00 p.m. on 23-4-1984, is clinchingly established.We do not see why P.W. 1 should give false evidence especially because P.W. 2 is related to the accused.P.W. 2 had participated in the Panchayat two years prior to the occurrence and had also accommodated the parents of the first accused in his own garden field.This is precisely the reason why P.W. 2 had sent for the accused and questioned them as to how the deceased was found hanging in a tree.The Criticism of the defence counsel that P.W. 2 had no business to conduct an investigation, but he should have simply recorded a complaint and forwarded the same to the police authorities.It is argued on behalf of the defence counsel that it is unbelievable that P.W. 2 would have sent for the first and the second accused and the resultant confession is totally unacceptable.In this connection we have to notice the fact that P.W. 2 had gone to the head of the village Manicka Naidu and both of them had questioned the first and the second accused.The last aspect of the case is the evidence of P.W. 3, the father of the accused.No doubt he turned hostile regarding the visit of the first accused at mid-night on 23-4-1984 and having confessed to him that he had finished with the deceased and having taken a coir-rope from the house.He had also denied the fact that he had proceeded behind the accused to Omakaliamman temple and had seen the wife of the first accused lying dead on the ground.Taking now the medical evidence, the final opinion of P.W. 11 is that the deceased had died of asphyxia due to strangulation.He has also deposed that due to strangulation the fracture of hyoid bone is possible and in this case the hyoid bone was in fact broken.He has denied the suggestion that protruding of tongue was only due to hanging.We have already referred to the report of the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Kilpauk Medical College, on the basis of which P.W. 11 had given his final opinion.With the above analysis of the evidence we will now advert to the argument of Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants.We have the evidence of P.W. 3, father of the accused.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,893,939 |
The petitioner was charged and tried under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 420 of the IPC.By order dated 08.08.2011 he was placed under suspension.Thereafter vide order dated 28.02.2013 the Respondent has revoked his suspension with the observation that the arrears payable during suspension period would be determined by a separate and distinct order.of the case, in short, are as under :-(a) The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Police Department and while his posting at Police Station Nanakheda, Ujjain, a Criminal Case No.66/2010 was registered against him along with one Kulvinder Singh by the Police Lokayukta, Ujjain.(b) The petitioner was also subjected to the Departmental Enquiry No.4/2012 based on the same charges on which the FIR was registered.After the Departmental Enquiry, the penalty of "Censure" was imposed on him.Thereafter the Respondent No.3 in exercise of suo-moto power issued a show-cause notice for enhancement of punishment.The petitioner submitted the reply.By order dated 26.07.2013 the punishment was enhanced from "Censure" to "stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for the period of one year".Thereafter the petitioner preferred the appeal and in which the punishment was reduced to "stoppage of increment with non-cumulative effect for the period of one year".Meanwhile Police Lokayukta filed an application under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this High Court.Vide order dated 15.07.2013 the High Court denied the leave and dismissed the application.(c) The petitioner gave a representation to the Respondent No.4 for determining the period of suspension.By the impugned order dated 09.02.2015 the Respondent No.4 in exercise of powers under F.R. 54-B reached to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for any amount other than subsistence allowance already paid during the period of suspension.Hence, the present petition before this Court.[3] The Respondents filed the return by justifying their action.For the same reason the impugned judgment of the High Court has also to be set aside.It will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellant.In the light of the aforesaid judgment, as no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 10/11/2015 deserves to be quashed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,900,110 |
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.Heard Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I. perused the material brought on record.He next argued that so far as trial is concerned, there are 83 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only 3 witnesses have been examined.The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial.Bail Application No. 9505 of 2015 respectively, copies of which have been annexed at pages 262 to 265 of the writ petition.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 28.5.2018/NS
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,149,059 |
ORDER R.C. Chopra, J.Accordingly, FIR No. 412/2002 registered at PS Nangloi under Sections 406, 420, 468, 120-B/34, IPC stands quashed.Copy dusty to both the parties.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,910,230 |
Heard finally.Case diary perused.This is the first bail application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 19.06.2015 in connection with Crime No.409/2015 registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Sagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 324, 323, 427, 506, 294, 326, 34 of the I.P.C and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.Learned counsel for the applicant on the strength of statements recorded before the trial Court of complainant Mukesh Choubey (P.W.-3) and another injured Laxmi Narayan Choubey (P.W.-4) submitted that they were declared hostile as they have not stated any fact against the applicant.He has also filed the copy of the order sheet dated 14.01.2016 of learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar to point out the fact that compromise petition was filed before the Court and the trial Court also allowed the parties to compromise the matter with regard to Sections 506 Part- II and 294 of the IPC but rejected the same for the non-bailable offence under sections 324 and 326 of the I.P.C. The applicant is in custody and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State vehemently opposed the application on the ground that at this stage, there is no need to scrutinize the statements of examined prosecution witnesses and prays for dismissal of the same .Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the material available on record, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant deserves to be and is hereby allowed.It is directed that applicant Golu @ Rahul be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing applicant's presence before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE)
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,915,216 |
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.42/2014 registered at Police Station, Unnao, District Datia, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(Chha), 342, 506-B, 294, 403, 323 of IPC.As per prosecution case, Narendra, Kaushal, Bheem and Golu after giving some sweet laced with some medicine and doing some Tantra Mantra took away her.It is further alleged that they also took her gold necklace, Mangalsutra and four gold bangles, gave beating to her and confined her in a room.Narendra used to commit sexual intercourse with her daily and give threatening to her that if she lodged the report, she would be killed.She was kept detained for eight days.The aforesaid accused persons committed some offence in which they were arrested.The complainant was also arrested.On 24.3.2014 when the complainant asked to return her jewelleries, the aforesaid accused persons abused and threatened her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated Mcrc.6210.2014 Narendra Purohit Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh in the case.The complainant is having a criminal background and there is no allegation against the applicant of commission of rape.Charge-sheet has been filed.The trial is likely to take time.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.Case diary perused.As per the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the alleged incident took place in the year 2013 one day prior to Deepawali.The complainant is a married lady aged 26 years.The report has been lodged after about five months.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K. Paliwal) Judge pd
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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.
|
114,915,386 |
Crime No.1305 of 2015 has been registered on 03.05.2015 on the basis of the complaint given by the de facto complainant / petitioner herein for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 417, 501, 506(i) IPC r/w.34 IPC against three persons.The de facto complainant filed Crl.Heard both sides.The de facto complainant also filed another petition in Crl.O.P.No.4655 of 2016 for direction directing the respondent police to obtain the Handwriting Expert's opinion on the alleged signatures of the students contained in the complaint dated 13.11.2013 addressed to University of Madras.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though a case has been registered on 03.05.2015, the respondent police has not shown any interest to obtain signatures from the students and send the same to the Handwriting Expert's opinion.Therefore, he prayed for ordering these petitions.Resisting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case has been registered only on 03.05.2015 and they ought to have obtained the documents from the Forensic Department and it is during the investigation, they will follow the procedure and obtain the Handwriting Expert's opinion and thereafter, they will file a report, and he wants sufficient time for investigating the case and for filing final report.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides and on perusal of typed set of papers, nature of offence, specific statement in the complaint that the document sent to the University is not a genuine and it is a concocted one, and it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to obtain all the records from the University and also to obtain the admitted signatures of the students/witnesses and also send for the same to the Handwriting Expert's opinion and thereafter to file a report, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent police to investigate the matter and follow the procedures and file a final report within a period of one year.The Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of.No costs.04.03.2016Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No mraToThe Inspector of Police S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras R.MALA, J.O.P.Nos.4636 and 4655 of 201604.03.2016
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,918,250 |
As per the case of the prosecution, Mohar Singh (PW-1) presented a complaint on dated 24-11-2004 at around 10 am vide Ex.P-1 that he is resident of Village Amodachak and in the vicinity of the Village, a well is placed and the land of complainant-Mohar Singh and accused Bhagirath are just adjacent to it.One day prior to the date of incident, discussion took place between Bhagirath and him about the time of pump irrigation and it was agreed upon, that Bhagirath would keep his pump later on for irrigation.On 24-11-2004, deceased Kadori and Nannu were keeping their pump for irrigation over the well and Gulab Bai (PW-3), Ramkali (PW-7) and his mother Dropdi Bai were irrigating the field whereas complaint was at home.Suddenly, from the well, screaming of the deceased Kadori and Nannu was raised which prompted the complainant alongwith Maharam (PW-2) and Ramsingh (PW-4) to run to the spot where they saw Bhagirath wielding Kulhadi (axe) Shivua with Farsa, Pooran with Stick and Mohar Singh with Iron Rod, Vijay with Farsa and Rakesh, Prem Singh and Ghanshyam with Sticks and with intention to kill Kadori, they started beating him.Manori caused blow of axe over the head of the Kadori, Shivua gave blow of Farsa over his head and Vijay also given blow of Farsa to Kadori.With the blows, Kadori fell down over the ground and blood started oozing.To kill his brother Nannu, Manori gave blow of axe over his head whereas Shivua wielded farsa on which Nannu also fell down over the ground and blood started oozing.Kadori who was lying over ground, beaten by the Moongalal, Rakesh and Prema by lathis over his legs and chest whereas Nannu was beaten by Ghanshyam, Mohar Singh, Moongalal and Prema by lathi and iron rod and also by fists on his stomach.Phoolbai, Kalabai also participated by throwing stones over deceased Kadori and Nannu.Complainants' sister in law (Bhabhi) Gulab Bai, Ramkali and Mother Dropdi Bai also received stones and when complainant intercepted, then with intention to kill, Shivua with the help of farsa and Mohar Singh with iron rod had beaten him up.3 Cr.Phoolbai, Gulabbai through stones and Vijay through handle of farsa given blows over his right buttock.Maharam, Ram Singh were also beaten up when intercepted.At the time of incident, Jagannath, Bharat Singh (DW-1), Mungalal (PW-8), Vishna, Munna, Gulabbai and Halkai were also present and witnessed the incident.After the assault, accused persons exhorting and hurling abusive language escaped from the spot.Town Inspector-Shri D.P. Ahirwar (PW-11) registered the marg intimation report vide Ex.P-45 for decased Kadori and vide Ex.P-46 for deceased Nannu and deceased were taken to the hospital but they found dead and intimation was given to Police Station.Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8 for decased Kadori and vide Ex.(Pronounced on 29th day of June, 2018) Per Justice Anand Pathak, The Criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/03/2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, District-Vidisha in Sessions Trial No.36/2005 whereby appellants No.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 have been convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of Kadori and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation and appellants No.2, 3, 4, 5 have been convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of Nannu and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation and appellants No.4, 5 and 6 have been convicted under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment each and appellants No.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 have been convicted under 2 Cr.P-9 for decased Nannu.Medical examination of Maharam, Ramsingh and Moharsingh was conducted.Autopsy was done in which cause of death of deceased Kadori was found to be shock due to injury caused over his head and for decased Nannu, cause of death was injury sustained by him over his head.Investigation was conducted and accused-appellants were arrested.Seized goods were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar and charge-sheet was filed before the Competent Criminal Court.Accused-apellants abured their guilt.Trial was conducted and evidence were led by the parties.Trial Court convicted the appellants as referred above therefore, the instant appeal has been preferred.According to counsel for the appellants, eye witness account regarding injuries sustained by the deceased does not match with the medical evidence.Deceased-Kadori sustained 3 injuries by sharp edged weapons and FIR bears the said fact.Manori through axe, Shivua through farsa and Vijay through farsa, given blows to the decased-Kadori.Similarly, Manori wielded axe and Shivua wielded farsa while inflicting injuries to Nannu.Postmortem report (Ex.P-17 and P-18) of both the deceased reflects that there is material inconsistencies and contradictions exist between the medical evidence and eye witness account and therefore, the said inconsistencies and 4 Cr.A.No.273/2007 anomalies render the case of the prosecution as inadequately proved against the appellant-accused.Infact, the incident in the morning occurred in such a fashion where the appellant No.1- Bhagirath and appellant No.2-Manori sustained injuries and therefore, report vide Adham Check was filed vide Ex.D-6 and later on, in a motor accident, deceased died but the prosecution has roped the present appellants as accused persons in the present case.It is further submitted that prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused persons.Dr. B.P. Khare (DW-5) medically examined the accused Manori who sustained injuries.Prosecution does not explain the injuries of accused.Similarly, Bharat Singh (DW-1) supported the story of defence that accused sustained injuries.4 Cr.Learned counsel for the appellants referred the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hallu and Others Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, 1974 SCC (Cri.) 462, Ram Narain Vs.State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727, Purshottam and Another Vs.State of M.P., 1981 SCC (Cri.) 352, Kasturi Lal Vs.State of Haryana, 1976 SCC (Cri.) 467, Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs.State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, Dinesh and Another Vs.State of Hrayana, 2002 Cr.LJ 2970 and Thaman Kumar Vs.State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2003 SCC(Cri.) 1362, and submits that if any contradiction, inconsistency, exaggeration or embellishment in the form of ocular and medical evidence exist then same is to be seen with caution and benefit of doubt be given to the accused.It is also submitted at the instance of appellants that case involves violation of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. wherein the Lash Panchayatnama, does not contain name of accused and therefore, while relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of L/NK.Meharaj Singh Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh, 1995 Cr.LJ 457 as well as M.C. Ali and Another Vs.State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573 submits that if inquest report does not disclose particulars in details then this omission is worth consideration and trial Court erred in ignoring all such omissions.While relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Hallu 5 Cr.A.No.273/2007 (supra), It is reiterated that sharp edged weapon would be presumed to be used from the sharp edge and not from the blunt side.As per prosecution, Shivua and Vijay might have inflicted two blows of farsa over the head.Witnesses alleged to be eye witnesses have exaggerated the injuries, which established the plea of false implication.5 Cr.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State opposed the prayer made by the appellants and on the basis of postmortem report of Kadori and Nannu (Ex.P-17) and (Ex.P-18) respectively as well as by seizure memo (Ex.P-5) opposed the prayer and submits that the case in hand is of murder (two counts) and therefore, no interference is required.Eye witness account sufficiently reached to establish the guilt of appellants.No case for interference is made out.He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The first and foremost question for consideration in the case in hand is about the nature of death of the deceased persons namely Kadori and Nannu.Postmortem report of Kadori (Ex.P-17) and for Nannu (Ex.P-18) coupled with the testimony of Dr.G.S. Argal (PW-6) indicates that the cause of death was homicidal in nature because of the injuries sustained by the deceased as referred in the report especially over his head therefore, it is established that the death of the deceased Kadori and Nannu were homicidal in nature.Now the question for consideration is the involvement of the appellant-accused in the case of murder of Kadori (decased), for which Bhagirath, Manori, Vijay, Mohar Singh, Pooran, Ghanshyam and Prema were accused and convicted under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentence to LI with fine of Rs.5,000/-.Out of these accused persons, Manori, Vijay, Mohar Singh and Pooran are suffering conviction and jail sentence for murder of Nannu (deceased) also, under section 302/ 149 of IPC.As per FIR (Ex.P-1) at the instance of Mohar Singh deposed as PW-1 6 Cr.A.No.273/2007 Bhagirath with lohangi, Shivua with farsa, Manori with axe, Vijay with farsa and Mohar Singh with iron rod (laggi) inflicted blows over the deceased Kadori.6 Cr.The said version is repeatedly explained by witnesses Maharam (PW-2), Gulabbai (PW-3), Ramsingh (PW-4), Ramkali (PW-7) and Mungalal (PW-8).The version of all these witnesses narrates the same story about the injuries inflicted by different appellants through different weapons wielded by them over the deceased Kadori.Dr. G.S. Argal (PW-6), who conducted postmortem over the body of deceased Kadori, found total seven injuries over the body of the deceased, in which injuries No.2,3,4 and 7 were grievous and sufficient to cause death.Injury No.2 as explained by the Doctor is; (2) Incised wound over left temporal region-7.15cm x 1cm x Bone deep margin, regular, clean cut, tapering present in both incised depth sub cut deep and in middle up to bone deep.Similarly, injuries No.3, 4 and 7 are; (3) Above 2.5cm to 2 injuries i.e. above 2.5cm 2 injury I.W. left tempero-parietal region- 3.5cm x 0.5cm x Bone deep tapering present on both ends depth sub cut level and (4) lacerated wound present in right occipital to left parietal region-7.5cm x 1cm x bone deep clotted blood present in the wounds and (7) Contusion present over upper 1/3 middle to right side of ante chest 8cm x 6cm on dissertion-radish blood mixed lot present at sub cut to middle level # of upper 1/3 part of sternum found.All injuries are ante-mortem in nature.Taking glance over the injuries, it appears that injuries No.2 and 3 were incised wounds, which must have been caused by sharp cutting edged weapon.Here as per the story of the prosecution, Shivua (farsa), Manori (axe) and Vijay (farsa) were the persons who wielded sharp edged cutting weapon therefore, out of these three persons, two injuries have been caused to the deceased.Injury No.4 is a lacerated wound therefore, it might have been inflicted by the appellants who were wielding- hard and blunt objects i.e. Bhagirath (lohangi), Mohar Singh (iron rod) and Pooran Ghanshyam and Prema (lathis).The witnesses have 7 Cr.A.No.273/2007 explained the presence of these appellants who were allegedly instrumental in murder of the deceased Kadori and their weapons have also been seized by the prosecution.Jamna (PW-12) and J.U. Saiyad (PW-9), who were the seizure witnesses, supported the story of the prosecution and the weapons were seized from the accused persons therefore, while considering the said aspect, trial Court rightly implicated the appellants-accused Bhagirath, Manori, Vijay, Pooran, Ghanshyam and Prema in the murder of the deceased Kadori.7 Cr.As explained earlier, when some 8 Cr.8 Cr.The eye witness account testifies and establishes the injuries with the weapons.Although some gray area exists in the case in hand wherein two incised wound have been inflicted over the deceased whereas appellants (three in number) who are charged with inflicting injuries No.2 and 3 through sharp cutting weapons are Shivua, Manori and Vijay.Out of total injuries, injuries No.2 and 3 have been caused through sharp cutting weapon therefore, it is not possible that one of the injuries, at least caused by the same weapon by two different persons by causing two different blows.This is very exceptional and improbable but since, appellants- accused as referred above in respect of murder of deceased Kadori held liable with the liability of Section 149 of IPC also therefore, the individual act of accused has not to be seen with such minute details to fasten him with the liability of Section 302 of IPC.Once he shared common object in respect of causing injuries to the deceased Kadori and in pursuance to that, common object, if accused-appellants have inflicted grave injuries to the deceased then the liability is vicarious.Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted appellants No.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of deceased Kadori and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine.9 Cr.Now regarding murder of deceased Nannu; the trial Court convicted appellants No.2, 3, 4, 5 under Section 302/149 of IPC for murder of Nannu and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine.Since Mohar Singh has died therefore, he is out of discussion.As per the prosecution witness Mohar Singh (PW-1) who is the scriber of FIR, Shivua with farsa, Manori (axe) and Vijay (farsa) inflicted the injuries with deadly weapons while Pooran, Prema, Monngalal wielded lathis inflicted injuries over the deceased Nannu.Now the role of Manori, Vijay, Pooran is to be seen for 10 Cr.A.No.273/2007 causing death to deceased Nannu.10 Cr.Nature of injuries as referred in the postmortem report of Nannu are as under:-(1) Lacerated wound present over right occipital region, oblique-7cm x 1cm x bone deep clotted radish fresh blood II-over left occipital parietal region, oblique-5.3--cm x 0.5 x deep radish clotted blood present in the wound, major irregular (2) Different contusion over left lower thorax-15cm x10cm.Dr. G.S. Argal (PW-6) in his deposition has admitted that injuries No.1-a and 1-b were lacerated wounds over the occipital and occipital parietal region respectively whereas injury No.2 was over lower thorex Contusion wound.All the witnesses as referred above have specifically maintained their deposition about Manori wielding axe, Shivua (farsa), Vijay (farsa) and Mohar Singh (iron rod) therefore, Manori and Vijay could not have inflicted lacerated wound through their sharp edged cutting weapon.Prosecution could not establish the case about the manner of incident whereby these accused persons have wielded the sharp cutting weapon from the blunt side.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hallu (supra) has considered such exigencies and reiterated the guidance as under:-The postmortem report prepared by Dr. N. Jain Shows that on the body of Jagdeo were found three bruises and a hematoma.On the body of Padum were found four lacerated wounds and two bruises.According to the eye- witnesses the two men were attacked with lathis, spears and axes but that clearly stands falsified by the medical evidence.Not only of the injuries found on the person of Jagdeo and Padum could be caused by a spear or an axe.The High Court however refused to attach any importance to this aspect of the matter by saying that the witnesses 11 Cr.A.No.273/2007 had not stated that "the miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or used the spear as a piercing weapon".According to the High Court axes and spears may have been used from the blunt side and therefore, the evidence of the eye- witnesses could safely be accepted.We should have thought that normally, when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used.If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon."11 Cr.Therefore, it could not be assumed without establishing the fact about the mode of use of weapon that Manori, Vijay and Mohar Singh wielded their weapons from blunt side.It is possible that the other persons who were wielding different weapons specially lathis and iron rods must have inflicted the injuries to the deceased Nannu.When accused persons are more and out of the said group, many accused persons wielded different weapons which could have caused injuries in the form of lacerated wound or contusion wound, then it is possible that the said accused would have caused the injuries to the victim Nannu.In respect of death of Nannu, the case of appellants Manori and Vijay lacks credence and credibility and prosecution could not establish the case against them beyond reasonable doubt.Since the wounds inflicted to Nannu, were the wounds, which could have been inflicted by hard and blunt object by Pooran (lathi) and Mohar Singh (iron rod) therefore, they were rightly convicted under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC.Manori and Vijay cannot be punished for the offence of murder of Nannu therefore, they deserves to be acquitted from the conviction on double counts and they can only be punished under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC for causing murder of deceased Kadori only and for causing murder of deceased Nannu, they deserves acquittal.Prosecution could not established the role of these accused persons in categorical terms to establish object to murder Nannu.To sum up the case of appellants Bhagirath, Pooran, Manori, Vijay, Ghanshyam and Prema, their conviction under 12 Cr.A.No.273/2007 Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC for causing murder of deceased Kadori and sentence for suffering LI alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation is hereby confirmed and affirmed.12 Cr.Appellants No.2 and 5- Manori and Vijay are acquitted from the charge of Section 302/149 of IPC for causing murder of deceased Nannu and they are acquitted from the said charge henceforth.Appellant No.3-Pooran is convicted for causing murder of deceased Kadori as well as Nannu under Section 302/149 of IPC (double count) and would have to suffer jail sentence accordingly.From the record, it appears that appellant No.4-Mohar Singh is dead therefore, no order is passed against him.Appellant No.1 Bhagirath, appellant No.3-Pooran, appellant No.6- Prema and appellant No.7-Ghanshyam are on bail therefore, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court immediately else, trial Court shall issue arrest warrant to serve remaining part of their jail sentence.Appellant No.2-Manori and appellant No.5-Vijay are in jail therefore, necessary supersession warrant be issued for appellants Manori and Vijay for their acquittal from the charge of murder of deceased Nannu under Section 302/ 149 of IPC, but they will suffer their sentence for murder of Kadori as per law.Appeal stands partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information (Anand Pathak) (Vivek Agarwal) Judge Judge 29-06-2018 29-06-2018 vc Digitally signed by VARSHA CHATURVEDI Date: 2018.06.29 15:36:26 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,918,844 |
Admittedly he was juvenile at the time of occurrence as his age was 16 years 4 months.This revision has been filed by Abhishek (minor) through his natural guardian/mother namely, Smt. Rekha to quash the judgement and order dated 25.10.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Court No. 9 (Protection of Child Sexual Offences Act) Meerut in C.N.R. No. UPME-01-01-4945/2019, Computer No. 6155 of 2019 (Abhishek Vs.State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 285 of 2019, under sections 363, 376, & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Transport Nagar, District Meerut by which court below rejected the bail application of Juvenile revisionist.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.Revisionist was not caught at the place of occurrence.Consequently, the revision succeeds and is allowed.
|
['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.
|
159,178,273 |
In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12/09/2018 in connection with Tamluk P.S. Case No. 309 of 2018 dated 08/06/2018 under Sections 354/354A of the India Penal Code read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act.And In the matter of: Mantu Charan Manna ....petitioner.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, subject to the condition that during bail he shall appear before the learned trial court regularly till disposal of the trial and he shall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever and on further condition that he shall not enter the jurisdiction of Tamluk P.S. until further orders except for attending the court proceedings and shall provide the address where he shall presently reside to the investigating officer as well 2 as the court below and shall meet the Officer-in-charge of concerned Police Station where he shall presently reside once in a week until further orders.In the event the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,591,792 |
a)The deceased Gopal is the son of P.W.8 through his second wife.P.W.1 is the son of P.W.8 through his first wife.There was previous enmity between the family of P.W.8 and the accused.On 12.5.2006, a Bull, belonging to the family of P.W.1, entered into the garden of the accused and was grazing.The accused abused P.W.1 and there was a quarrel.The villagers intervened and pacified the situation.On the same day, i.e. on 12.5.2006, P.W.1 along with the deceased went to the field for watering and after watering was over, they were sleeping near the pumpset room on that night.At about 1.00 a.m. on 13.5.2006, P.W.1 heard the barking sound of the dog and immediately, he woke up.He witnessed all the four accused armed with deadly weapons and immediately, he ran away from the place and rushed to P.W.7, the neighbour and informed him.P.W.7, in turn, informed him to go to the village and inform to the villagers.Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the villagers and informed to P.W.2 and all others.P.W.2 rushed to the place and she found that A-2 attacking her son with the knife.On seeing her, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.b)Immediately, P.W.2 and others took the severely injured to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram at about 2.00 a.m. He was admitted by P.W.15, the Doctor, who examined him and has issued Ex.P.10, the accident register.Thereafter, the severely injured was taken to the Government General Hospital, Madras.P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.18, the Sub Inspector of Police.On the strength of Ex.P.1, P.W.18 registered a case in Crime No.640 of 2006 under Sections 324 and 307 IPC.Ex.P.13, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court.c)P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses.He prepared the observation mahazar and Ex.P.14, the rough sketch.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.On 15.5.2006, the severely injured, who took treatment at the Government General Hospital, Chennai, died and on intimation, the case was altered to Section 302 IPC and Ex.P.15, the alteration report was sent to the Court.d)P.W.13, the Doctor attached to the Madras Medical College, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.9, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.II, Kancheepuram made in S.C.No.651 of 2006, whereby the appellant herein shown as A-2 along with three others stood charged under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC, tried and A-2 alone was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months S.I., while A-1, A-3 and A-4 were found not guilty and acquitted of the charge levelled against them.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:P.W.19 proceeded to the Government General Hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.16, the inquest report.Then, the dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy.e)Pending investigation, P.W.19 arrested all the accused on 16.5.2006 and A-2 came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, A-2 produced M.O.1, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar.The accused were sent for judicial remand.All the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department and the reports were received.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and also relied on 18 exhibits and 2 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior Counsel, inter-alia, would submit that the occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place at about 1.30 a.m. on 13.5.2006; that P.W.1 has claimed that he was sleeping along with the deceased and at about 1.00 a.m. on 13.5.2006, he heard the barking sound of the dog and he woke up, but he never stated that the deceased, who was lying by the side, woke up; that according to P.W.1, he saw all the four accused armed with deadly weapons and immediately, he ran away from that place and he informed to P.W.7, the neighbour, who in turn, asked him to go to the village and inform to the villagers and accordingly, P.W.1 went to the village and informed to P.Ws.2 to 6 and he went to the place of occurrence later; that according to P.W.2, on receipt of the information from P.W.1, she rushed to the place of occurrence and found all the four accused and it was A-2 who attacked her son, namely the deceased, with the knife; that on seeing her, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence; that though the prosecution has examined P.W.2 as the only eyewitness, from the available materials, it was noticed that P.W.2 could not have been the eyewitness at all; that the name of P.W.2 was not at all mentioned in the F.I.R.; that as per the statement recorded by the Investigator from P.W.1 at the earliest, P.W.1 rushed to P.W.7 and informed him and thereafter, he went to the village and informed to P.Ws.3 to 6; that he never whispered that he informed to P.W.2 at all; that when the matter came before the court, this development was made; that the Investigator was unable to say as to when the statement of P.W.2, the so-called eyewitness was recorded; that the statement of the said witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has reached the court only on 18.8.2006, i.e. after a few months and thus, introduction of P.W.2 as eyewitness was only an afterthought in order to supply the evidence to suit the prosecution case and thus, it would be quite clear that P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all.5.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that even according to the prosecution, the severely injured Gopal was taken to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and was admitted by P.W.15, the Doctor and it was P.W.1 who accompanied the severely injured to the hospital and admitted him.P.10, the accident register, has come into existence at 2.00 a.m., i.e. within an hour from the time of occurrence, wherein it has been clearly stated by P.W.1 that four unknown persons have attacked the deceased and hence P.W.1 could not have been in the place of occurrence at all; that all put together would clearly indicate that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, but the trial court has taken an erroneous view; that the other part of the evidence as to the arrest, confessional statement and the recovery were all creation in order to suit the prosecution case, but in vain; that the same reasons, which are applicable for an order of acquittal of A-1, A-3 and A-4, are equally applicable to A-2/the appellant herein and hence the judgment of the trial court has got to be set aside and the appellant herein is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.6.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.7.It is not in controversy that Gopal, the son of P.W.2, following an incident that took place at about 1.30 a.m. on 13.5.2006, was taken to the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and thereafter, he was taken to the Government General Hospital, Madras, where he died.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.13, the Doctor, who has deposed before the court as a witness and also opined in the post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.The fact that the deceased died out of the injury sustained by him was never questioned by the appellant and hence it could be recorded so.8.In order to substantiate that it was the second accused/the appellant herein stabbed the deceased at the time of occurrence, the prosecution rested its entire case on the evidence of P.W.2, as eyewitness and also on the evidence of P.W.1 to an extent that he saw all the accused persons at the time and place of occurrence immediately before the occurrence.When the evidence of these two witnesses are scrutinized, the court is afraid whether these evidences could be accepted by the court.P.W.1 would claim that he was sleeping along with the deceased and he heard the barking sound of the dog and woke up and found all the four accused persons armed with deadly weapons.From the evidence of P.W.1, it would be quite clear that all belonged to the same village and there was a quarrel and their families were on inimical terms and the accused were thoroughly known to him previously.The earliest document, which has come into existence in the instant case, is Ex.P.10, the accident register issued at the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram.The deceased was admitted by P.W.15, the Doctor at 2.00 a.m. at the Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and it was P.W.1 who took him the severely injured to the hospital and admitted him for treatment.A perusal of Ex.P.10, the accident register copy would clearly indicate that P.W.1 has stated to P.W.15 that four unknown persons attacked the deceased and thus, it would be quite clear from the above document that the evidence of P.W.1 that he was sleeping along with the deceased at the time and place of occurrence, becomes highly doubtful.Equally, the evidence of P.W.2 is also thoroughly unreliable for the following reasons.9.According to P.W.1, immediately on seeing all the four persons armed with deadly weapons, he rushed to his neighbour P.W.7 and it was P.W.7 who advised him to go to the village and informed to the villagers.But, at the earliest, in the F.I.R., nowhere he has stated that he informed P.W.2, the mother of the deceased.Apart from that, the statement of P.W.2, the so-called eyewitness, though claimed to have been recorded thereafter, reached the court only on 18.08.2006 and thus, how the delay has happened was not explained.Further, at the time of inquest conducted by the Investigating Officer, though she was present, she was not examined.Had it been true that she was the only eyewitness, there could not be any impediment felt by the Investigating Officer to record her statement, but at the time of inquest, she was not examined nor her statement was recorded.But the statement which was said to have been recorded from her by the Investigator has reached the court after a few months.All would go to show that P.W.2 could not have been the eyewitness at all.If the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 becomes unreliable, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the factual position.So far as the recovery of weapon of crime followed by the arrest and the medical opinion canvassed were concerned, in the absence of any evidence, they cannot bring home the guilt of the accused.10.Under these circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to sustain the conviction.As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, the reasons for the acquittal of A-1, A-3 and A-4 are equally applicable to A-2 also.Under these circumstances, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 has got to be made undone only by upsetting the same.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 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.
|
1,591,853 |
The accused in S.C. No. 16 of 1985 on the file of the learned First Additional Special Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant.The accused was a Health Inspector, Southern Railway, Coimbator junction.He was prosecuted for offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was found guilty by the lower court under both counts and under Section 161, I.P.C. he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and under Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 and 10 and marked Exs.The accused has examined one Manickam as D.W. 1 and marked Exs.The leave letter Ex.P. was written by a co-worker Valliammal.P.W. 1 has stated that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- by way of bribe for granting leave.P.W. 1 told the accused that he had no money at the time and that the accused told him to give the money of some means before Tuesday.P.W. 1 was not willing to bribe the accused.P.W. 1 met Asokan P.W. 4 train clerk on 15-10-84 and P.W. 4 also told P.W. 1 that the accused would not grant leave unless P.W. 1 would pay him a sum of Rs. 50/-.At that time, two persons came that way and Asokan told something to one of the persons and one of the two persons asked Ashokan as to who was P.W. 1 and Ashokan told one of them that P.W. 1 wanted leave for 10 days and for the said purpose, the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- and on hearing this, one of the persons introduced himself as the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. and he told Ashokan that if P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 would support him, he would proceed against the accused in this regard.The Inspector of Police took P.W. 1 to Seran lodge and P.W. 4 told P.W. 1 to support the Inspector of Police in this regard and he went away.P.W. 1 went along with the Inspector of Police to Seran lodge and the Inspector asked P.W. 1 to give a report against the accused.P.W. 1 told him that he did not know to read and write and on his instructions a report was written by the Inspector of Police himself who later on read out the same and P.W. 1 admitted the same to be correct and he affixed his signature.Ex. P.2 is the report written by the Inspector of Police.P.W. 1 was asked to see the Inspector of Police at 5.15 a.m. on the next day with a sum of Rs. 50/-.P.W. 1 met the Inspector of Police at 5.15 a.m. at Seran lodge.In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police brought two other employees from the telephone department and P.W. 1 as directed by the Inspector of Police narrated to the other official witnesses about the demand of bribe by the accused.Subsequently sodium corbonate solution was prepared and the signifiance of the phenolptheless test was explained to the official witnesses and also to P.W. 1 and the Inspector of Police instructed P.W. 1 not to touch the currency notes of Rs. 50/- and if the accused demanded money he could pay the same and after paying the amount P.W. 1 should give a signal by lifting his lunghi and wearing the same.Viswanathan, the official trap witness was also directed by the Inspector of Police to watch as to what was going on between them.Accordingly P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went to platform No. 3 of the railway junction of Coimbatore and went to the office of the accused.The office of the accused was found locked at that time.At about 6.05 hrs.the accused came to his office.P.W. 1 was standing near the window and P.W. 2 was standing near the other window and the accused asked P.W. 1 as to what had happened to the amount so demanded and P.W. 1 replied that he had brought the money and showed his left packet where he had kept the money and the accused went inside the office and after giving some work to the other employees, the accused sent them away and again the accused asked P.W. 1 as to what happened to the amount demanded by him and P.W. 1 replied in the affirmative, took the money from his left packet and gave the same to the accused who received and counted the same and kept them in his packet.P.W. 1 asked the accused regarding the leave required by him and the accused seemed to have replied that he would grant the leave and that P.W. 1 need not worry about the same.M.O. 1 series are the five ten rupee currency notes and after paying the money P.W. 1 came out of the office of the accused and gave signal as instructed by the Inspector of Police.Immediately, the Inspector of Police and his party came inside the office of the accused and the Inspector of Police searched the person of P.W. 1 and found two rupees currency notes on his right packet of his shirt.P.W. 2 is the official trap witness.He supported the case of the prosecution by stating that when P.W. 1 asked the accused about his leave letter, the accused in turn asked P.W. 1 as to whether P.W. 1 had brought the money demanded by him and that P.W. 1 replied that he had brought the money and showed his left side packet where he had kept the money and that the accused went inside his office and after giving some work to two employees, the accused asked P.W. 1 to give the money to him and P.W. 2 has stated that he had seen the payment made by P.W. 1 to the accused and P.W. 2 also further added that the accused asked P.W. 1 to give money and P.W. 2 had also seen the payment of Rs. 50/- by P.W. 1 to the accused.After this, P.W. 1 gave the signal to the police and the Inspector of Police and his party entered the office room of the accused, recovered the money from the accused.P.W. 3 Thangaraj is the Health Inspector in Southern Railway at Othanur.P.W. 4 is the train clerk in the southern railway at Coimbatore.His evidence is that P.W. 1 told him that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from him as bribe for granting leave for 10 days to P.W. 1 and that P.W. 1 was not willing to pay the same.P.W. 4 has again stated that P.W. 1 told him that the police asked him to bring Rs. 50/- from him as bribe for granting leave for 10 days to P.W. 1 and that P.W. 1 was not willing to pay the same.P.W. 1 has again stated that P.W. 1 told him that the police asked him to bring Rs. 50/- on the next day.The Inspector of Police, Vijayakumar took P.W. 1 to Seran lodge and P.W. 1 met P.W. 4 in the evening and P.W. 1 also told P.W. 4 about the report given by him to the police.P.W. 5 was the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. and Vijayakumar was the Inspector of Police C.B.I. in the year 1984 and Dakshinamurty was the Sub Inspector of Police in the same office.The evidence of P.W. 5 is that he was introduced by Vijayakumar, Inspector of Police to P.W. 4 and P.W. 4 told P.W. 5 that P.W. 1 was working as a Cleaner in the railway junction at Coimbatore, that P.W. 1 had given an application to the accused for leave, that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- as bribe for sanctioning the leave and that P.W. 1 had no intention to bribe the accused and that P.W. 4 asked P.W. 5 as to whether anything could be done by him.It appears that P.W. 5 told P.W. 4 that proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act could be taken and P.W. 5 took P.W. 1 to Seran Lodge and P.W. 4 left the place thereafter.P.W. 1 told P.W. 5 that P.W. 1 has studied up to 5th standard and that he did not know to read and write Tamil and on his instructions P.W. 5 had written the report Ex. P.2 and P.W. 1 admitted the same to be correct.P.W. 1 had affixed his signature in Tamil.P.W. 5 sent the report to the Central Bureau of Investigation and he asked P.W. 1 whether he would co-operate in trapping the accused red handed and P.W. 1 accepted for the same and P.W. 1 brought a sum of Rs. 50/- as directed by P.W. 5 on the next day.P.W. 1 sent Exs.P.2 and P.9 to the special Judge at Coimbatore and he took up investigation and he sent requisition Ex. P.10 to the lower court on 12-10-1984 for sending the trap solution for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madras.Subsequently the case was transferred to another Inspector for further investigation.He admitted that Ex. P.10 requisition would not show any nexus between the trap solution and the case registered since in all the cases he would send the enclosures along with the first information report.P.W. 7 was the Head Clerk in the District Court and as per Ex. P.8, he received the enclosures and also the material objects in this case on 10-10-1984 and he sent the material objects to the Forensic Laboratory for opinion.Ex. P.11 is the copy of the letter sent to the Forensic Sccience Laboratory and he received the report under Ex. P. 12 from the expert.P.W. 8 is the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Vigilance, Central Excise Collectorate, Coimbatore.P.W. 5 in his secret enquiry came to understand that the accused had received bribe for certain help to be done to his subordinates previously.P.W. 5 also came to know that the accused had not granted leave to P.W. 1 till 15-10-84 and he brought two official witnesses from Divisional Engineer's office and they are P.W. 2 and Ramasubramaniam.After the money was paid P.W. 1 gave signal as directed earlier and P.W. 5 went inside the office of the accused and seized the currency notes under a mahazar.When a question was put to this witness as to whether he could tell the names of the persons whom he examined regarding the antecedents of the accused, P.W. 5 replied that he had made secrete enquiry and that he would not tell the names of those persons.In cross-examination P.W. 5 has stated that the answer given by the accused in the affirmative when a question was put to him as to whether the accused had received the bribe, was not recorded by the Inspector of Police C.B.I. This portion of the evidence of P.W. 5 is false since the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. who recorded the statement belongs to his own department and that the omission to write the word "word in vernacular omitted" expressed by the accused when he was confronted by the police regarding the receipt of bribe is also not true.The evidence of P.W. 5 that he had made certain secret enquiries about the accused about his antecedents and that he came to know that the accused had received bribe on previous occasion from his subordinates for doing some favour is also false and he has given such evidence possibly to prejudice the minds of the court even though his evidence regarding the antecedents of the accused is also not relevant for the purpose of this case and P.W. 5 has purposely stated so possibly to prejudice the minds of the court.P.W. 6 is the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. Madras and as per the orders of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Madras, he registered a case against the accused on 16-10-1984 on the basis of Ex. P.2 received from the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Madras under Section 161, I.P.C. in Cr.No. RC.His evidence in short is that at the time of alleged payment of bribe to the accused in his office, P.W. 2 was standing outside the door and P.W. 1 went inside the room and P.W. 1 came out of the room and on showing the prearranged signal, he along with the police party went inside the room of the accused and asked the accused as to whether he had received the bribe of Rs. 50/- from P.W. 1 and that the accused was found perplexed and thereafter, he prepared the solution and conducted the test and recovered the currency notes.According to him, the accused handed over M.O. 1 series to one of the two witnesses who compared the numbers of M.O. 1 series and found them to be correct.P.W. 9 Mankar was the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. Madras.on 5-11-1984, this case was transferred to him from P.W. 6 for further investigation.Accordingly, he took up further investigation and on 19-12-1984, he came to Coimbatore and applied for Ex. P.1 and got it from the court.He examined P.Ws. 1 and 4 and recorded their statements.He then examined P.W. 2 and Ramasubramaniam on 20-12-1984 and recorded their statements.He received the attendance register Ex. P.6 from the Health Inspector, Health Department, Southern Railway relating to the office of the accused.On 21-12-84, he examined P.W. 3 and recorded his statement and on 26-12-1984, he examined P.Ws. 5 and 8 and recorded their statements.He examined Valliammal on 20-1-1985 and recorded her statement.After examining some witness, he filed the charge sheet against the accused on 30-4-1985 under Section 161 I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This witness has not obtained sanction order for prosecuting the accused since, according to him, the accused had retired from service at the time of filing charge sheet.The accused when questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses as incorrect and submitted that he had not received any bribe from P.W. 1 and that P.W. 1 had returned the sum of Rs. 50/- to him borrowed by P.W. 1 on an earlier occasion.D.W. 1 Manickam was examined for the purpose to show that the P.W. 1 had returned a sum of Rs. 50/- borrowed by him previously.It is his evidence that P.W. 1 told him like that after the payment of the said sum.When the charge sheet was filed in the lower court on 30-4-1985, the accused had attained his superannuation on 31-3-1985 and it was argued that no sanction was needed.But the accused was suspended by an order of the Railway Department from service on 8-12-1984 on the basis of criminal offence alleged against him.But on 22-12-1960, an order of suspension was passed pending departmental enquiry started against him.P.W. 2 has stated in cross-examination that he was standing within the sight of the accused.P.W. 1 has stated that P.W. 2 was smoking a cigaratte within 10 ft.from the seat of the accused and that the accused did not find it unconfortable or shy on seeing P.W. 2 standing opposite to him.This part of the evidence of P.W. 1 is most unreliable since P.W. 2 is a stranger to the accused and when P.W. 2 was standing within the sight of the accused smoking a cigaratte, the normal human conduct of the accused would be to question about the presence of P.W. 2 at that time.The Evidence of P.W. 1 that the accused did not find it uncomfortable or felt shy on seeing P.W. 2, cannot be accepted.Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 2 that he had witnessed the alleged payment of bribe to the accused is equally false and cannot be accepted.The evidence of P.W. 1 is that he was standing near a window and that P.W. 2 was standing near the other window.In this case, the prosecution has also not filed any sketch showing the places where P.Ws. 1 and 2 were standing in order to find whether it would be possible for P.W. 2 to watch the conversation between P.W. 1 and the accused.We do not know the distance between the two windows and the places where P.Ws. 1 and 2 were standing.In the absence of sketch also, it is difficult to appreciate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and to find out whether P.W. 2 could have witnessed the alleged payment of bribe by P.W. 1 to the accused.In all trap cases like this, it is necessary for the prosecution to file a sketch also showing the office or the place where the accused was trapped.Otherwise, it would be difficult, and unsafe to accept the mere oral evidence of Official trap witnesses when they give evidence that they witnessed the payment of bribe especially in this case when P.W. 2 went along with P.W. 1 to the office of the accused.The rough sketch would also help the court to find out whether official trap witness could actually hear the conversation and see the payment of bribe of P.W. 1 to the accused.Therefore, in cases of this nature, it is necessary for the prosecution to file a sketch also showing the places where P.W. 1, the official trap witness and the accused were found at the time of alleged trap and payment of bribe amount.But the evidence of P.W. 1 is that the accused did not find it uncomfortable on seeing P.W. 2 standing opposite to him and smoking a cigatette.The evidence of P.W. 1 is that he was standing near a window and P.W. 2 was standing near the other window, when the accused asked P.W. 2 as to what had happened to the amount he demanded.I have already pointed out that the evidence of P.W. 5 also cannot be accepted since P.W. 5 has stated that the answer given by the accused in the affirmative when a question was put to him as to whether the accused had received the bribe was not recorded by the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., and that the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. who recorded the statement belongs to his own department and that the omission to write the word "word in vernacular omitted" expressed by the accused when he was confronted by the police regarding receipt of bribe is also not true.As pointed out earlier, I am unable to accept the evidence of P.W. 5 also.The evidence of P.W. 8, the Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Vigilance is that P.W. 2 was standing outside the door and that P.W. 1 went inside the room and came out of the room by giving the pre-arranged signal.According to P.W. 8, P.W. 2 was standing outside the door and P.W. 1 went inside the room.If P.W. 2 was standing the alleged payment of bribe by P.W. 1 to the accused (sic).In view of the above discussion of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, I am unable to accept the case of the prosecution that P.W. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 50/- as bribe to the accused.The defence version that he had received Rs. 50/- by way of repayment of the loan from P.W. 1 is reasonable and probable and it is sufficient if the accused showed preponderance of probability of his defence and it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as in the case of the prosecution.The evidence of D.W. 1 Manickam that P.W. 1 had returned a sum of Rs. 50/- borrowed by him previously, is accepted.In the circumstances, the initiation of prosecution itself is not proper and the prosecution has failed to make out the case itself as against the accused.The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is unreliable and the prosecution is illegal and false.In view of the abovesaid decision and also rule 5 of the Railway Discipline Rules, the accused continues to be in service as the order of suspension was not modified or revoked till now.In the circumstances, sanction order Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is mandatory.This contention is untenable and so, it is not open to the respondent to argue that no sanction is necessary.In the absence of valid sanction for prosecution, the entire prosecution is vitiated.In the result, the findings of the lower court cannot be upheld and so, the conviction and sentences are liable to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside.The accused is acquitted and the fine amount if paid, is directed to be returned to the accused.The appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,591,889 |
The appellant was incorporated on 04.9.1998 as a Public Limited company.The main objects of the appellant are to do business in the fields of electronics, electrical, technical, mechanical developing, marketing software system, solutions, designing etc.By an agreement dated 15.7.2000, the appellant sold the entire business undertaking to another company M/s Shree Jee Yatayat (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SYIL).Business undertaking of the appellant was valued at Rs. 1,10,25,64,745/- in the business purchase agreement dated 15.7.2000 between the appellant and SYIL.This business purchase agreement also specifically records that as SYIL had agreed to purchase the undertaking "net of all liabilities" and the past arrears of taxes, charges, levies, outstanding dues and claims, free of all encumbrances.No amount was paid to the appellant for transfer of the entire business undertaking.SYIL did not pay any consideration for purchase of the business undertaking.On the other hand, the shareholders of the appellant were allotted 1,52,73,093/- of shares of Rs. 10/- each in SYIL, as value received for transfer of the undertaking by the appellant.This allotment to the shareholders of the appellant in SYIL was made at a premium of Rs. 60/- per share.In other words, the appellant transferred it's entire business undertaking minus all past liabilities to SYIL of value of Rs. 1,10,25,64,754/-, with the shareholders of the appellant acquiring the shares of face value of Rs. 15,27,30,930/- in SYIL (see Annexure-G of the appeal avernments made in para IX of the application filed before the Company Law Board and para 2 of the impugned order).Thus, SYIL acquired a business undertaking which was valued at more than Rs. 110 crores by allotting 1,52,73,093/- shares of Rs. 10/- each to the shareholders of the appellant or for about Rupees 15.27 crores (approximately).The shareholders of the appellant, paid premium of Rs. 60/- per share of SYIL.Even if we take this premium of Rs. 60/- per share into consideration, there was shortfall of Rs. 3,28,37,141/- (Rs 110,25,64,745-value of the undertaking minus Rs. 106,97,27,604.05 - alleged value of the shares received).Allotment of shares did not result in any monetary outflow or payment by SYIL.Paid up capital of SYIL increased.The appellant was a private limited company but shares of SYIL were listed.On 13th May, 1999, they were last traded for Rs. 2.15 per share.Prior to the said date in 1999, the shares were traded in the range of Rs. 2/- to Rs. 7/-.Therefore, on the date when business purchase agreement dated 15th July, 2000 was entered into, the last traded price of the share of SYIL of face value of Rs. 10/- each was for Rs. 2.15 i.e. the share was traded at discount of Rs. 7.85 per share.Market value of each share of face value of Rs. 10/- on 15th July, 2000 was only Rs. 2.15/-.Shockingly, the shares of SYIL were allotted to the shareholders of the appellant at the premium of Rs. 60/- per share, when actually the allotment should have been at a discount.Securities and Exchange Board of India in it's report has also pointed out that preferential allotment to the shareholders of the appellant at the premium of Rs. 60/- per share for each share of face value of Rs. 10/-, was taken as the basis by the Bombay Stock Exchange to fix the base price for the shares of SYIL, after acquisition of the business undertaking of the appellant.The report of the SEBI also shows that the scrip price of the SYIL jumped thereafter from Rs. 75.55 on 9th August, 2000 to Rs. 463.30 on 28th September, 2000.The trade was however on very low volumes.The price increased from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 463/- in this short period of time.Subsequently, the price moved between Rs. 220/- to Rs. 330/-.The relevant portion of the report of the SEBI is as under:This was derived from the price at which shares were allotted to shareholders or erstwhile Shonkh Technology Ltd.The price of scrip went up from Rs. 75.55 on August 9, 2000 to Rs. 463.30 on September, 28, 2000 on very low volumes.Thereafter, the prices were moving in a narrow range of Rs. 220/- to Rs. 350/- accompanied with large volumes.The price volume data is as shown in Annexure A.The yearly high-low of the prices is as given below:The same may be required pursuant to the business transfer whereby the employees of still will be transferred to SYIL.SYIL did not apply for registration as an NBFC even when it was carrying out NBFC activities.It has not applied for any exemption either.As per 'due diligence report' given by Amarchand Mangaldas Suresh S. Shroff and Co., Sales Tax Registration of SYIL had been cancelled.SYIL did not also have any certificate under the Shop and Establishment Act. The said company had not maintained complete and accurate corporate register in accordance with the relevant provisions pertaining to disclosure of interest of directors.Further SYIL had been carrying on activities as a non-banking financial company though it was not registered as a non-banking financial company with the Reserve Bank of India.These violations were serious.This argument also has to be rejected.Some more facts and allegations made in the application may be looked into.The appellant had spent Rs. 6.37 crores in the years 1999 and Rs. 6.44 crores in the year 2000 towards consultation fee.Similarly, as per the balance sheet for the period ending 31st December, 1999 more than Rs. 7.26 crores was allegedly spent on research and development activities.In the reply filed by the appellant before the Company Law Board, expenditure of more than Rs. 7.26 crores, it was stated was normal and ordinary general business expenditure.Two invoices were raised allegedly by the appellant against Jai Prakash Industries Limited dated 17th November, 1999 and 4th December, 1999 for Rs. 5,15,50,000/- and Rs. 5,35,00,000/-.The bills do not specifically state the type of software purchased and thereafter sold to Jai Prakash Industries Limited.It refers to some agreement dated 16th June, 1999 but the said agreement was/is not placed on record.Similarly, there were alleged transactions between the appellant and Padmini Technologies Limited, a company managed and controlled by Mr. Vivek Nagpal who was also a director in the appellant company.It may be relevant to state here that there are allegations against Padmini Technologies Ltd. also, that it was manipulating and involved in the share market scam along with Ketan Parekh Group.It may be relevant to state here that Padmini Technologies Limited was also a shareholder to the extent of 77,0 6,000 shares (or 17.72 % in value terms) in the appellant company.Allegation was also made in the petition that Padmini Technologies Limited had incurred a huge loss on the sale of the shares of the appellant company.The appellant had denied this and relied upon Annexure F to the reply filed before the Company Law Board.Perusal of Annexure F shows that 27,06,000 shares held by Padmini Technologies Limited in the appellant were transferred to M/s Ankur Cultivators (P) Limited for consideration of Re.1/- only.These shares had been purchased by Padmini Technologies Limited for Rs. 38,17,80,000/-.It was further claimed that on sale of shares of SYIL, Padmini Technologies Limited had made net profit of Rs. 25,88,728/-.The alleged profit is calculated by taking sale price of SYIL between Rs. 142.50 per share to Rs. 19.79 per share.However, no details of the dates on which the alleged sales were made, to whom sales were made and whether the sale amount has been released, was mentioned and stated.It was also alleged in the petition that the appellant had advanced Rs. 7 crores to Adani Export Limited which in turn had advanced money to Ketan Parekh Group.The amount mentioned in the petition was not denied by the appellant but it was stated that the transaction was for supply and development of software but what was the nature and type of software, whether there was any agreement etc., were not furnished.As on 31st March, 2000 the shareholding pattern of the appellant company was as under:The authorized share capital of the appellant is Rs. 20 crores.The issued share capital as on 15.7.2000 was Rs. 15.27 crores.As per the application filed under Section 237 (b), the appellant company was controlled by companies and the person belonging to Ketan Parekh Group.The details of these companies and individuals are in the application filed by the UOI before the Company Law Board including Annexure-I.Classic Credit Limited, Panther Fincap and Management Services Limited and Panther Investrade Limited as per the allegations made by Union of India, belong to Ketan Parekh Group of companies.These companies were also selling clients of Broker -Credit Suisse First Boston India Securities Private Limited.The said broker along with some other brokers as per the SEBI report had created artificial market in certain scripts and assisted, abetted and indulged in market manipulations in entities connected with Ketan Parekh Group.Learned Counsel for the respondent during the course of arguments had relied upon the closure report submitted by Central Bureau of Investigation in case No. RC 7(E)/2003 in the case of the appellant and some other individuals.This FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by Unit Trust of India Growth Fund.As per the closure report, allegation made by Unit Trust of India Growth Fund was that it was cheated.It was alleged that UTI Growth Fund had applied for allotment of shares in the appellant company through private placement by paying premium of Rs. 120/- per share.It was alleged that the Equity Research Cell a Department of Unit Trust of India had not recommended subscription by private placement and as per the estimate, the moderate rate of each shares of the appellant was Rs. 30/- to Rs. 36/- per share.The report of the Central Bureau of Investigation dealt with a very limited aspect and was not at all concerned with the market manipulation, money laundering, conduct of the business and affairs of the appellant etc. The report by the Central Bureau of Investigation focussed itself only on the question whether the Unit Trust of India Growth Fund was able to recover the investment made.Once it was found that the investment had been recovered, Central Bureau of Investigation recommended closure of the case.The said report does not, support the case of the respondent and is not relevant for the issues and questions involved in the present case.I may refer here to the agreement dated 11th August, 1999, which was entered into between Unit Trust of India (Fund manager for the India Growth Fund Unit Scheme) and the appellant.Unit Trust of India had agreed to invest Rs. 14.95 crores in the appellant by applying for allotment of 11,50,000 equity shares of face value of Rs. 10/- on private placement basis for a premium of Rs. 120/-.Unit Trust of India had also agreed to provide financial assistance for part financing for setting up of two divisions i.e. Software Development Division and Convergence Technology Division at total cost of Rs. 57.32 crores.The said agreement specifically provides that unless Unit Trust of India agreed, the appellant would not undertake or permit any merger, consolidation, re-organistion, scheme of arrangement or compromise with its creditors, shareholders or effect any scheme of amalgamation or reconstruction.It was stipulated that the appellant shall not issue any equity or preference shares and change its capital structure, create any charge on assets or give guarantees without it's approval.Shares of the appellant were also required to be pledged by the promoters of the appellant.A company is a separate and distinct entity in law.The appellant will also pay costs which are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.The costs will be deposited with the Official Liquidator within three weeks and will form part of the common pool fund.JUDGMENT Sanjiv Khanna, J.By the impugned order, learned Company Law Board has allowed the petition under Section 237 (b) of the Act seeking investigation into the affairs of the appellant.In the grounds of appeal as originally filed, no question of law was framed.Subsequently, an application for amendment was filed to incorporate specific questions of law.This application was allowed vide order dated 06.10.2006 and it was directed that the questions of law mentioned in the application will be treated as part of the main appeal.As indicated in the earlier report, the period of investigation was divided into 2 stages based on price/volume movements.Stage 1 covered the period August 9, 2000 to September 28, 2000 (Sett.Nos. 20-27) when the price moved up very sharply (almost at circuit filter level i.e. at 8% higher than the closing price of the previous day).The price increased from Rs. 70/- to Rs. 445/- in a very short period of time.This price increase was on low volumes.Stage 2 covered the period September, 29, 2000 to March 2, 2001 when the fell from high of around Rs. /440/- to Rs. 265/-.This stage was characterised by sharp increase in volumes.Prior to this date the scrip was trading in the range of Rs. 2/- to Rs. 7/-.For the new shares of the company (which were allotted on a preferential allotment basis to the shareholders of the unlisted company as consideration for purchase of the business undertaking), the BSE had fixed base price of Rs. 70/-.It is, therefore, clear that prior to "acquisition of the business undertaking of the appellant", SYIL though a listed company was closely held and almost the entire shareholding was held by the said seven shareholders.These shareholders of SYIL substantially gained by acquiring the business undertaking of the Appellant valued at Rs. 110 crores by allotting shares of SYIL having market value of Rs. 2.15/- at a premium of Rs. 60/- per share of face value of Rs. 10/-.I may mention here that as per the balance sheet of SYIL for the period ending 31st March, 2000, the said company had brought forward losses of Rs. 28,80,000/-.It was alleged in the application that the appellant had advanced Rs. 9.35 crores to Padmini Technologies Limited.This was disputed and denied by the appellant in the reply.It was stated that the company had entered into transaction with Padmini Technologies Limited for sale and purchase of computer software.Annexure A filed to the reply shows that as on 1st April, 2000 Rs. 5,85,24,000/- was due and payable by Padmini Technologies Limited to the appellant.Between the period 20th May, 2000 to 22nd June, 2000, further sales of Rs. 3,50,05,000/- have been shown as per the details given below:1 No. Software-Sales -CST1 No. Sale 37,00,000.00The shares allotted to Padmini Technologies Limited in SYIL, in the reply filed by the appellant before the Company Law Board, were described as bonus shares.The reply affidavit on behalf of the appellant has been filed by none other than Mr. Vivek Nagpal, who was also a controlling Director in Padmini Technologies Limited.It was further alleged that till September, 1999, the appellant company had not launched any products of it's own but substantial amount of more than Rs. 16 Crores had been disbursed and paid.Central Bureau of Investigation, however, recommended closure as it was found that Unit Trust of India had been able to sell shares of SYIL for consideration of Rs. 24.30 crores and, therefore, had not suffered loss.Thus, Central Bureau of Investigation felt that case for cheating under Section 420 IPC and 409 IPC read with Section 120B IPC was not made out.The report specifically states that it is merely a report on requisite legal compliances with reference to questionnaire submitted by the said companies.It is full of privileges and conditions.One of them being that it should not be disclosed to any third party or used by any third party without prior consent.The Courts also have power to reject the scheme.Accordingly, the question of law as formulated above is answered in favor of the respondent and against the appellant.
|
['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.
|
159,190,169 |
This is a first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 144/2017 registered at P.S. - Shujalpur, Dst - Shajapur for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPCAfter investigation, it was found that present applicant and one Girish were pressurizing deceased Mahesh for recovery of the loan given to him.His written note was seized by police, in which, he has written that the applicant was harassing him for recovery of the loan.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was the proprietor of Patidar Krushi Seva Kendra and he took loan from the applicant and in repayment of the said loan, he issued a cheque to him.The said cheque was returned by the Bank unpaid and because of which, the present applicant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the JMFC, Shujalpur.The deceased had avoided appearance before the Magistrate.The applicant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in this case, hence prayed for anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate appearing for non-applicant/State opposes the anticipatory bail application stating that the investigation is going on and on the basis of the material collected by police, it is found that the deceased committed suicide because of overt act committed by the applicant and hence prayed for its rejection.5 Shri Manish Yadav, counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and submits that wife of the deceased has made a complaint to SDO ( P) on 18/05/2017 that the applicant is pressurizing her for compromise and if the bail is granted, he may misuse the bail.The deceased has committed suicide because of the pressure and harassment by the applicant, hence the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.It is directed that in the event of arrest applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to abiding the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.Present M.Cr.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,191,450 |
In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA, through Video Conferencing.The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Ankit Kumar @ Ankit Chaturvedi, Amar Kumar @ Amar Chaturvedi, Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Chaturvedi and Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Chaturvedi, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 0053 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Mau, District- Chitrakoot, during pendency of trial.Allegation against the applicants is that they have got fraudulent Will executed in their favour from their grand-mother, Parvati Devi, on 22.11.2002 during life time of her husband, Pt.Suraj Prasad.Allegation is that applicants Nos. 1 to 3 influenced late Parvati Devi to execute Will.The allegation has been made after 18 years.The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 27.5.2020 Ruchi Agrahari
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,389,955 |
They also caused disturbance to the normal traffic.Thirumurugan asked his party members to damage the police vehicle and buses and argued with the police personnels.Though some of them including Thirumurugan were secured and kept in a MTC bus bearing Registration No.TN 01 N 7515, they pushed the police personnel and rushed near the step of the bus and damaged glasses of the bus with stick and portraits.[Order of the Court was made by P.KALAIYARASAN, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking to quash the detention order passed by the first respondent dated 28.05.2017 in BCDFGISSSV No.308/2017 against the detenu Arun Kumar, aged about 27 years, s/o.It is averred in the petition that Inspector of Police, Law and Order D5 Marina Police Station as sponsoring authority filed an affidavit before the Detaining Authority alleging that the detenu involved in the following adverse cases i.Coimbatore City R.S.Puram Police Station Crime No.337/2013 registered under Sections 143, 188, 342, 353 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC.E.3 Teynampet Police Station Crime No.1125/2016 registered under Sections 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.Further, it is averred that D5 Sub-Inspector of Police, Marina Police Station lodged a Special Report wherein it is alleged that marina beach zone area was already not permitted to conduct public meeting, demonstrations and other functions and in spite of elaborate bandhobust arrangement based on the security arrangement on 21.05.2017 at 6 p.m, the detenu and others under the leadership of Thirumurugan, Chief Co-ordinator, May-17 movement wrongfully assembled near Nethaji statue, marina beach and raised slogans in support of srilankan tamils and also banned LTTE movement violating the orders of the police.On the report given by the Sub-Inspector, a case was registered in D5 Marina Police Station in Cr.No.480 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 188, 341 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w 7 (1) (a) of CLA Act and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act.Durairaj, No.49, residing at 4th Street, Balaji Nagar, Vijayanagaram, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 100 is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,404,332 |
The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 2 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.After the marriage, she came to her matrimonial home and after staying 2-3 days went back to her maternal home.After 3 years of the marriage, following tradition of Gauna, she came again to her in-law's house and used to stay there ordinarily but also used to visit her maternal home occasionally.Before the incident, she was at her maternal home and her husband brought her back 15 days prior to the incident and since then she was staying at her matrimonial house.On the fateful night, they both went to sleep together in their room, but in the morning her husband was found dead.Her brother & sister-in-law (Jeth-Jhetani) Ashok Kumar - Roopabai and mother-in-law Basantibai called Village Chowkidar - Bapulal, who saw the dead body and noticed that there was bleeding from the mouth, swelling on the right cheek and tongue clenched between the teeth.He informed the police on telephone.On receiving information, Sub-Inspector of the police - M.L. Ghatia reached on the spot and found the corpse was kept in the front court yard.He inspected the corpse and the spot.He also noticed that tongue of the deceased was clenched between the teeth, both lips were swelled, eyes were swelled and closed, there was blood on right cheek, three small size abrasions on right side of the mouth and one abrasion over right eye were present and also stains of semen like substance were present on underwear.Half ate food was lying in the plate.Beddings (bed sheet etc.) HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 3 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh were chaotic and scattered and there were signs of struggle.The appellant was of loose character and was not interested to live together with the deceased; therefore, she was not regularly residing at her matrimonial home.Bapulal informed the police on telephone.On receiving information, Sub-Inspector of the police - M.L. Ghatia reached on the spot and found the corpse was kept in the front court yard.He inspected the corpse and the spot.He also noticed that tongue of the deceased was clenched between the teeth, both lips were swelled, eyes were swelled and closed, there was blood on the right cheek, three small size abrasions on right side of the mouth and one abrasion over right eye were present and also stains of semen like substance were present on underwear.Half ate food was lying in the plate.Beddings (bed sheet etc) were chaotic and scattered and there were signs of struggle.Dr. Sorin Datta (PW/7), who performed post-mortem alongwith Dr. J.K. Shakya had observed that face of carcass was cyanosed with both eyes closed, conjunctiva was congested, both pupils were dilated, both lips were swelled with teeth protruding and sandwiched under teeth of both jaws.He prepared spot map (Ex.P/3), seized blood stained and plain soil, plastic mat and 3 pieces of plastic bangles, prepared memo of corpse, scribed merg intimation, sent dead-body for postmortem, recorded merg statement of Roopabai, Basantibai, Lalita, Bapulal and Ashok.After completing merg inquiry, registered FIR (Ex.P/17) under Section 304 of IPC.The police sent viscera for chemical examination and received reports (Ex.P/19, P/20 and P/21) from FSL, Sagar, seized blood stain blouse & bangles on the information of the appellant, got it chemically examined and arrested the accused.During merg inquiry, it was revealed that the deceased was murdered, therefore, Section 302 of IPC was added to the charge-sheet.The police obtained postmortem report and sent for FSL examination and filed charge-sheet, after completion of the investigation.2 Cr.A. No.496/20103 Cr.A. No.496/2010The appellant was charged, tried and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of her husband and awarded punishment as stated in para 1 above.The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the judgment of the learned trial Court is contrary to the law and facts on record.Statements of witnesses are full of contradictions, omissions and exaggeration.The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated these statements.Witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses.The prosecution could not produce any cogent or HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 4 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh reliable evidence.No incriminating evidence against the appellant could be established.The evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove guilt of the appellant.She is only convicted on the conjuncture and surmises.4 Cr.A. No.496/2010It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the pieces of bangles and without considering the evidence.Prosecution has failed to prove that the said pieces of bangles belong to the appellant.The learned trial Court did not appreciate the defence of the appellant.The appellant has further, submitted that deceased was died due to consumption of poisonous liquor.This fact is very much corroborated by Dr. Sorin Datta (PW/7), who found liquor in the stomach of the deceased.Viscera report Ex.P/9 given by the FSL also confirmed existence of Ethyl Alcohol.Dr. Datta has stated that cyrosis found on the dead body was could be due to consumption of some poisonous liquor.It is also contended that when last time the appellant came to her matrimonial home, she was living peacefully; there was no quarrel between both husband and wife (the deceased and the appellant).Seizure of blood stained pillow and blouse was not in accordance with the law and source of blood could not be ascertained by the FSL.The trial Court did not appreciate these facts correctly.The case of the prosecution is doubtful, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and has submitted that prosecution witnesses deposed before the trial Court that relations of the appellant and deceased were strained.In question No.45, 54, 78 and 82 of examination of the accused, she has admitted that at the time of incident, she was alone in the room with the deceased.Blood stained articles were seized on her instigation.3-4 pieces of bangles were found on the spot, which matched with the bangles seized from the appellant.Injuries found on the person of the deceased, were not explained by the appellant.As in the fateful night she was alone with the deceased, therefore, onus of explaining the cause of death comes on the shoulder of the appellant but she failed to discharge this burden.It is the prosecution case that just after the incident, Mother-in-law Basantibai, brother & sister-in-law (Jeth-Jhetani) Ashok Kumar - Roopabai and Village Chowkidar - Bapulal had seen the dead body and noticed that there was bleeding from the mouth, swelling on the right cheek and tongue was HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 6 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh clenched between the teeth.Dried up blood stain on right side of face including right eye on left angle of mouth was present.Both lips had with evidence of blood and serous fluid from nostril and mouth.Both fists were semi Clenched with finger nail cyanosed.Postmortem lividity had developed on dependent parts of anterior aspects and on face, chest, upper abdomen, both thighs, upper arms, also on posterior parts on back of chest.Rigor Mortis had developed on muscles on face, neck and upper and lower extremities with evidence of seminal fluid HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 7 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh from penis.There were stains of semen on underwear.Dr. Datta also found following external injuries:7 Cr.A. No.496/2010(i) Superficial abrasion of 1 cm x 0.05 cm in upper hand.(ii) 4 nail marks abrasions of 0.4 cm length laternal to right side of mouth.(iii) Abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on inner aspect of lower lip right side.(iv) Bruise 3 cm x 1 cm on inner aspect of upper lip.(v) Bruise 3 cm x 1 cm on inner aspect of lower lip.After this physical observation, both the doctors opined that the mode of death of the deceased was asphyxia caused by smothering and was homicidal in nature.After postmortem, the team of Doctors preserved viscera and sent for chemical analyses to rule out any possibility of intoxication.Dr. Sorin Datta (PW/7) who was one of the Doctor who performed postmortem, examined before the trial Court.In his cross-examination, he ruled out any other cause of death except asphyxia caused by smothering.He ruled out possibility of injuries found on the dead-body being self inflicted or been caused by falling or smashing.Though, he admitted that there was some smell of liquor which showed that the deceased might have consumed liquor and lividity might have been HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 8 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh caused due to poisonous liquor but he strongly ruled out that asphyxia may be caused due to excessive consumption of poisonous liquor.Dr. Datta (PW/7) admitted in his cross- examination that some time unconsciousness and vomitting caused due to consumption of poisonous liquor may lead to the vomiting of the patient entering in the trachea and causing asphyxia.However in the present case, there is nothing to show that there was any vomiting or something had gone in the trachea of the deceased.No such finding has been recorded by the team of Doctors who performed postmortem and this issue has not been raised during the cross- examination of the Dr. Datta (PW/7).8 Cr.A. No.496/2010Viscera has been sent to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/19) no poisonous substance was found in viscera, therefore, this report further ruled out the possibility of death of deceased by some poisonous substance or by asphyxia caused by some poisonous intoxicant.Thus, from all the evidence discussed above it is established that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia caused by smothering.All other possible modes of death have been ruled out by Dr. Datta (PW/7).The opinion of the doctors is also confirmed by making a reference to Modi's Jurisprudence.Thus, no doubt remains that the death of the deceased was homicidal and was caused by asphyxia due to smothering by some external force.State of Madhya Pradesh9 Cr.A. No.496/2010Admittedly (as replied by the prosecutrix in question No.24, 54, 45, 78, 82 and 99 of the examination of accused) the appellant had come back to her husband's house 15 days prior to the incident and at the time of incident she and deceased were together alone in the room, preceding night of the incident.Therefore, the onus shifts on the appellant to explain unnatural death of the deceased and no such explanation was offered by her.Apart from this, the appellant has admitted in question No.45 of the examination of accused that the blood stained blouse was seized from her possession, pieces of bangles were found on the spot and some bangles were seized from the possession of the prosecutrix and on comparison both were found of the same set of bangles (FSL report Ex.P/20).This evidence coupled with the injuries found on the face of the deceased also indicates that there was some struggle and use of force before the death of the deceased.The learned trial Court has also considered all defences taken by the appellant, like death was due to poisonus substance or it was accidental due to inhaling of vomiting in trachea.The learned trial Court has also considered and concluded that there is no evidence that someone else had entered in the room of the deceased.All signs found on the dead-body only and only indicate that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia caused by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 10 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh smothering.Admittedly, at the time of the death, the appellant was alone with the deceased.She has not offered any explanation regarding unnatural death of her husband, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit vs. State of Maharashtra (2003) 8 SCC 93 and Babu vs. Babu (2003) 7 SCC 37, we are also in full agreement with the conclusion of the learned trial Court that the death was caused by the appellant.We do not find any ground for interference in this finding of the learned trial Court.In the present case motive of the incident could not be established by the prosecution.On the contrary, circumstances show that they were living peacefully.The appellant have stayed in the matrimonial home, used to visit her maternal home also.The deceased brought her back from maternal home 15 days prior to the incident.No such evidence is produced by the prosecution that during this period they ever fought on any issue or there was any domestic discord or dispute between them.Only general and omnibus allegations have been made by the witnesses that the appellant was not liking her husband and was not interested to live with him but HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 11 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh no specific allegations have been that on what account she was not interested to live with him.On the contrary witnesses have admitted that after coming back to the matrimonial home, the appellant and the deceased lived peacefully for last 12-13 days.11 Cr.A. No.496/2010Conduct of the accused/appellant is also note-worthy here.She slept in the night with the deceased, in the morning she woke-up, asked her Jhethani to accompany her for relieving herself and on her refusal to accompany her, she went alone and after relieving herself she came back to the room, made tea, she tried to wake-up her husband, when he did not react, she noticed that some blood were coming out from his nose and mouth, she immediately informed her Jeth Jhethani that her husband is not reacting to her call and some blood is coming out from his nose and mouth.During this period, she was having all opportunity of fleeing away from the spot but she did not, instead her conduct shows that she herself was not aware about the death of her husband.When she noticed something abnormal even then instead of escaping from the spot she called her Jhethani and other family members.It also does not appears that even after finding her husband dead in the presence of her in-laws she ever tried to run away from the spot.This conduct very strongly and firmly indicates lack of ill intention.It has come on record that the deceased was alcoholic.It is not disputed that liquor was found in the stomach of the deceased in the postmortem, which means that in the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 12 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh preceding night also he drank.Sub Inspector Ghatia; who visited the spot first, noticed and recorded the facts that half eaten food was lying in the plate.Beddings (bed sheet etc.) were chaotic and scattered and there were signs of struggle.This shows that when the deceased came in the night in drunken condition, in that situation something had happened and the deceased had died due to something happened in that moment.It does not appear that the accused was having any intention to kill the deceased.No evidence is there to show any preparation or premeditation for the offence the appellant is charged with.The appellant has no criminal antecedent.The judgment passed and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE 13 Cr.A. No.496/2010 Anitabai W/o Suresh Harijan Vs.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,407,892 |
Considered I.A. No. 40230/2019 for taking additional documents on record, the same is allowed.Office is directed to place the documents on record.This is first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Prosecution story in short is that on 07.09.2019 complainant/victim aged about 11 years lodged an FIR alleging therein that on 06.09.2019 in the evening, the victim boy was going towards Gwal Toli for playing then the petitioner called him and took him to a hutment and by covering the window of the hutment through sack, compelled him to touch his penis.It is alleged that one Sonu had seen the incident through window.The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bond, as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, she prays for grant of Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 17/10/2019 12:25:52 2 MCRC-40230-2019 bail to the petitioner.Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposes the bail application.Certified copy as per rules.C. stands disposed of.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 17/10/2019 12:25:52
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,417,190 |
The second respondent herein is the defacto complainant.The respondent Police is common in both the cases.The facts of the case in Crl.O.P.No.491 of 2012 is that the petitioner was working in Southern Railways, as Technician of Diesel Loco Motive Section and he was a Boxer and also giving boxing coaching.He is also a Joint Secretary in Tamil Nadu Amaetur Boxing Association and one Karunakaran is the President of the said Association.There has been some bitterness between the petitioner and one Devan, who is the Coach of Souther Railways Boxing team and his friend V.Devanand of P.A.V. Naidu Boxing Club, with regards to procuring of jobs in Railways in Sports quota.On 01.03.2011, the said Page No.4/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 2013 Karunakaran was arrested and was brought to Court to produce before the Magistrate for remand.During that time, the 1st petitioner viz.,Thulasi, was present there.At that time, the said Devanand along with four others had restrained and surrounded the petitioner and assaulted him.In that process, the petitioner lost two tooth from the upper jaw and thereafter he was taken to the hospital and admitted.Thereafter, a complaint was lodged against the accused persons and the same was registered in Crime No.305 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325 r/w 34 of IPC.More so, as on date, there is no apprehension of threat prevailing in the Court campus as stated by the petitioners, since new complex has been built up and proper security systems were installed and the entry and exit of the public and auto rickshaws were restricted and even installation of CCTV cameras are in progress.Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is no more in existence and the witnesses can be examined without any fear or influence.12.However, in the interest of justice, when the petitioners have any such apprehension, this Court feels it appropriate that the cases be transferred from the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore to some other Court.Page No.11/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 201303.06.2020 Internet : Yes / No rm Page No.12/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 2013The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.The Director General of Police, Chennai.Since the issue involved and the prayer sought for are being common, these petitions are taken up together for a common disposal.O.P.No.490 of 2012 is that on 01.03.2020, the second respondent one Sethuraman, an advocate practising in Egmore Courts had lodged a complaint with the respondent Police that when one Karunakaran in connection with a criminal case has been produced for remand and during that time the supporters of Karunakaran viz., the petitioners herein were present there and abused Page No.3/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 2013 and threatened the photographers and others.When the same was questioned by the second respondent/defacto complainant, the petitioners abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences.Hence, the case in Crime No.311 of 2011 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences under Section 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.After completing investigation, the respondent Police listed six witnesses L.W.1 to L.W.6 and documents and filed the charge sheet.After investigation, the respondent Police filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.4642 of 2011 before the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, after listing 12 witnesses L.W.1 to L.W.12 and documents and now the case is pending for trial.4.It is submitted that both the cases are pending for trial.In C.C.No.4642 of 2011, three witnesses were examined and posted for further witnesses.At this stage, the petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking for Page No.5/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 2013 transfer of the case, stating that the only on the instance of the accused persons in C.C.No.4642 of 2011, the said Sethurman, practising Advocate as a counter has lodged a false complaint against the petitioners.Since the defacto complainant being an Advocate in the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore, all the Advocates were supporting to show their harmony to their brother Advocate upon harassing and threatening the petitioners.The petitioners fear with regard to safety of their life and they were unable to depose and appear as witnesses pointing out previous untoward incidents happened in the Egmore Court with regard to murder of an Advocate by a group of Advocates.5.This Court on 18.02.2013, suo-motto had impleaded Sethuraman, Advocate/defacto complainant, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, Registrar General, High Court, Madras, The Secretary, Home Department, Fort St.Page No.6/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 2013V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent viz., Registrar General, High Court, Madras, had filed an affidavit and stated that periodically status report has been filed by the Registrar General after obtaining reports from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, which shows that several precautionary measures like frisking of Advocates and witnesses, restriction of entry through gates, placing of metal detectors at each entry point etc. It is also noted that a proposal for Out Post Station inside the Court campus is under process and restraining the entry of auto rickshaws and private vehicles inside the Court campus and time restrictions for closing the Bar Chambers by 6 p.m., were also undertaken.It is also stated that after the said incident as pointed out by the petitioners, normalcy has been retained in the Court Campus at Egmore and regular meetings between the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and the Bar Advocates Association are held to infuse responsibility and good conduct of the stakeholders and to build confidence of the public.The Registrar General has further submitted Page No.7/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 2013 that, a proposal for demolishing and reconstruction of old Court Building has also been approved and the Metropolitan Court at Egmore was shifted to Allikulam Complex, Egmore, Chennai and therefore, the old building has been demolished and infact the Court has been functioning at Allikulam Complex, wherein security for the Advocates as well as public litigants were provided.There have been no violent incidents took place and that the entire topography of Egmore Court is now changed.He further submitted that security measures such as installation of C.C.T.V.cameras, deployment of more police force have been requested by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to the Additional Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police by his communication in Dis.No.1967/2019/D dated 17.02.2020 and 1362/2020/D dated 20.02.2020 and the Registrar General is continuously following with the higher officials of the Police Department.Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners for life threat is unnecessary.7.The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant defended to the contention of the petitioners that he had acted at the instance of the Page No.8/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 2013 accused persons in C.C.No.4642 of 2011 and lodged a false complaint against the petitioner is completely false.He submitted that since the petitioner along with group of persons threatened the press people and others inside the Court campus, that was questioned by him.During that time, the petitioner along with group of person abused and threatened him with dire consequences.Therefore, the complaint in Crime No.311 of 2011 came to be lodged.The learned counsel further submitted that this transfer petition has been filed only to prolong and protract the trial taking advantage of the previous scenario.Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the petitions.O.P.Nos.490 & 491 of 2013 remanding him to the judicial custody.At that time, the petitioners herein along with other accused persons attacked the press people and when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, he was attacked and threatened with dire consequences.After this incident, the entire court campus was tightly secured with heavy police force.After that incident, there is no untoward incident happened.Moreover, the Egmore Court was shifted to Allikulam complex and old Court was demolished and new Court was also constructed.Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is unnecessary and prays for dismissal of the petitions.9.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.10.Now, this Court has to consider whether proper safety measures were taken in the Court campus at Egmore and whether the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, have been regularly interacting with the Page No.10/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.13.Accordingly, the cases in C.C.No.2357 and 4642 of 2011 are withdrawn from the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and transferred to the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.Since the cases are pending from the year 2011, and in C.C.No.2357 of 2011, only two or three witnesses have been examined, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is directed to give top priority to these cases and to dispose of both the cases within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.14.The Administrative action taken by the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, with regard to the safety and security of the stakeholders of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, is perused and recorded and the same shall be continued on the administrative side.15.These Criminal Original Petitions are ordered accordingly.Criminal Miscellaneous petitions are closed, if any.The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai.8 .The Joint Commissioner of Police, East Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page No.13/14http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,417,621 |
He used to send dirty messages on her mobile phone.At about 05:00 p.m. on 28.01.2018, appellant intercepted the prosecutrix and started to tease her.Shri R.S. Yadav, counsel for the respondent no.2/victim.As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a 21 years old major unmarried girl belonged to a schedule caste.She lodged the first information report on 30.01.2018 to the effect that the appellant has been stalking and harassing her for past one year.He threatened that if she disclosed the matter to anyone or reported to police, he would kill her; therefore, she did not 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:JABALPUR Cr.A. No.3324/2018 Arjun Bajaj vs. State of M.P. and another lodged the first information report.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter.The FIR was lodged after a delay of about 48 hours.No dirty messages have been seized from the mobile phone of the prosecutrix.No specific allegations have been leveled against the appellant.State of Maharashtra (Cr.A.No.416/2018 dated 20th March, 2018), learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail because the allegation leveled against the appellant appears to be prima facie mala fide.Therefore, it has been submitted that in the light of aforesaid judgment, the matter may be considered and anticipatory bail may be granted to the appellant.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent no.1/State as well as learned counsel for the victim on the other hand has opposed the appeal.Such permissions must be granted for recorded reasons which must be served on the person to be arrested and to the concerned court.Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid directions.
|
['Section 294 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.
|
1,194,210 |
The investigation of the case was conducted by Shri R.S. Khurana, Inspector, Special Staff, under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch-11, New Delhi.Perused the record.Earlier cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 4th February 1984 on a charge-sheet being presented by the police who had investigated into the case and the complaint instituted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi, which was attached to the police report.The petitioners have called in question the legality and validity of the cognizance of the offences taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as also the order of commitment, mentioned above, on various grounds.S. Act & Section 120-B Indian Penal Code has been presented today.Put up on 6th February 1984 for appearance of the accused and for supplying copies to them".
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
119,422,957 |
The facts of the case are briefly stated hereunder:-(i) The accused / Accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased.The deceased in this case was one Gomathi.At the time of marriage, according to the prosecution, the parents of the deceased promised to give 15 sovereigns of golds jewels to the bride and 5 sovereigns of gold jewels to the bridegroom, but they could not, instead they gave 11 sovereigns of gold jewels to the bride and 5 sovereigns ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/14 Crl.A(MD)No.299 of 2014 gold jewels to bridegroom, besides other household articles.After the marriage, they were living happily, as husband and wife.Thereafter, on one occasion, the deceased came to the house of her parents and informed her father that by demanding 4 sovereigns of gold jewels, the husband / accused torturing her.(ii) P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Gomathi.On 07.04.2007, at about 11.00 p.m., there was quarrel between the deceased Gomathi and her husband / A1 in respect of balance 4 sovereigns of gold jewels.The neighbours pacified them.This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant / Accused No.1, against the Judgment and conviction passed by the Mahila Court, Madurai in S.C.No.256 of 2009, dated 20.10.2014, convicting the appellant under Section 498(A) of IPC., and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment and further convicting the appellant under Section 304(b) IPC., and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Again at about 1.00 a.m., the accused throttled the neck of the deceased, by using a rope, as a result of which, the deceased died, thereby, the accused caused death of the deceased.On receipt of final report by the prosecution, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, has taken the case on file as PRC.No.58 of 2008, for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC.As the offence committed by the accused is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, has committed the case along with the entire records to the Mahila Court, Madurai, which was taken on file as S.C.No.256 of 2009.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/14 Crl.A(MD)No.299 of 2014In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 17 and 13 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P13 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked.On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no document was marked.When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.The trial Court, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and challenging the legality of the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has ben filed by the appellant.Mr.C.M.Arumugam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the allegations levelled in Ex.P1, with regard to the alleged demand of dowry.Absolutely, there is no evidence whether P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 reacted and responded on the alleged demand of dowry, one week prior to the date of death of occurrence.The trial Court miserably failed to consider the ambit of Section 113 (b) of Evidence Act, with regard to rebuttal of presumption.The Court below completely brushed aside thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/14 Crl.A(MD)No.299 of 2014 evidence of P.W.12, the Revenue Divisional Officer, who deposed that he do not find the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.The evidence of P.W.1 with regard to dowry harassment of her daughter is an after thought and he does not whisper in FIR or during Investigation.On the other hand, for the first time, he improved and deposed before the trial Court.The trial Court is misconstrued on the evidence of P.W.8, with regard to wordy dual on the day of occurrence, as if it was taken place between the deceased and the appellant, instead it had taken place subsequent to the occurrence between the relatives of the deceased and the accused.P9 and P10, had confirmed unnatural death and gave a categorical finding that there was demand of dowry, harassment, and cruelty, which lead to the death of the victim.Further, the other witnesses, VAO, Panchayat President have stated about the confession and the recovery.The death had taken place in the matrimonial house.A(MD)No.299 of 2014 cognate offenses and had further delved with regard to comparison of offence under Section 304-B and under Section 302 IPC.In paragraph Nos.17 & 18, it has been held as as follows:-The composition of the offence under Section 304-B IPC is vastly different from the formation of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as minor offence vis-à-vis the latter.However, the position would be different when the charge also contains the offence under Section 498-A IPC (Husband or relative of husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty).As the word cruelty is explained as including, inter alia, “harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”.The case is remitted back to the trial Court and the trial Court should proceed against the appellant and not against the other three accused whose acquittal remain unchallenged, from the stage of defence.The appellant should put to notice that, unless he disproves his innocent, he is liable to be convicted under Section 304-B IPC.It goes without saying that considering the fact that the case is of the year 2007, the trial Court shall make every possible endeavor to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either side, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.http://www.judis.nic.in 12/14 Crl.A(MD)No.299 of 2014Since the appellant / accused had already been enlarged on bail pending disposal of the appeal, he shall remain at liberty until the disposal of the case afresh by the Sessions Court.The bail bond furnished by him, shall not be discharged, until disposal of the case upon remand.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly-allowed to the extent indicated above.The Registry shall remit the entire lower Court records to the concern Court within a week from today.Oomachikulam Police Station, Madurai,The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Clerk, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 13/14 Crl.A(MD)No.299 of 2014 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.MPK Pre-Delivery Judgment made in Crl.A(MD)No.299 of 2014 03.01.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 14/14
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,341,616 |
This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,409,058 |
(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The mother of the detenu is the petitioner and challenging the impugned order of detention dated 10.12.2018 passed by the second respondent, in and by which, the detenu has been branded as a Goonda under the provisions of Section 3[1] of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), she has filed the present habeas corpus petition.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 10.12.2018, passed by the second respondent herein, would disclose that the detenu came to the adverse notice in Crime No.341 of 2018, on the file of the Tiruchi City Ponmalai Police Station, for the commission of offence under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC.It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the de facto complainant, namely, one Chelladurai, a resident of Aasari Street, Mudaliarchathiram, Palakkarai, Tiruchirappalli, has lodged a complaint andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 based on the complaint, Palakkarai Police Station (Law and Order), Tiruchirappalli City has registered a case in Crime No.634 of 2018 for the commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307 and 302 IPC.A perusal of the FIR would disclose that the brother of the de facto complainant committed several criminal offences and very many cases are pending against him in various Police Stations and his whereabouts were not known, but, on 09.10.2018, on an information as to his availability at Middle Street, Mudaliarchatram, they found the detenu and his associates armed with Aruval, repeatedly attacked Pandi, associate of Chandru and also attacked his brother and as a consequence, one person died.The detenu was arrested on 12.10.2018 and later on, he was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,477,071 |
O.P.No.4983 of 2017, it may not be necessary to re-state them again here.2.On the complaint lodged by Lee Jae Young, Manging Director, M/s.Doowon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., SIPCOT Industrial Park, Oragadam, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.315 of 2016 on 12.10.2016 under Section 381 and 109 IPC against Kandaswamy [A1], Aravindhan [A2] and Arun Kumar [A3] and others.It is the case of the de facto complainant that the accused had stolen some raw materials from the complainant's factory to a tune of Rs.47,18,427/-.The Police arrested Kandaswamy [A1] and Aravindan [A2] and during the course of investigation, it came to light that Kandaswamy [A1] had secreted the proceeds of the crime in his locker with Karnataka Bank, Thiruvallur Branch, Tiruvallur District.Hence, the Investigating Officer sent a requisition under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. to the Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank, Thiruvallur Branch, to freeze the bank account of Kandaswamy [A1], pursuant to which, the Branch Manager has frozen the bank account, challenging which, Kandaswamy [A1] is before this Court.3.Heard Mr.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-State and perused the materials placed on record.This Court suo motu impleaded the Manager, Karnataka Bank, Thiruvallur Branch as second respondent.State and Others [2003 (Crl.) L.J.2779].The petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.4983 of 2017 for similar relief, in which, the Investigating Officer filed a counter affidavit dated 16.03.2017, on the strength of which, final orders were passed on 09.07.2018 giving certain directions.Since the facts of the case have been set out in the order dated 09.08.2018 in Crl.On such deposit, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur is directed to re-deposit the amount in any Nationalised bank, so that the amount accrues interest.7.Thereafter, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur for interim custody of the amount by giving satisfactory P.N.PRAKASH, J.gmsexplanation that the said amount is not connected to the proceeds of the crime.On such application being filed, the same shall be dealt with by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.The petitioner will be entitled to operate his savings bank A/c.With the above direction, this petition is closed.1.The Inspector of PoliceC-5, Oragadam Police StationKanchipuram District.3.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.18861 of 2018
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,511,838 |
It would be thus relevant to note the testimony of PW-22 as the testimony of other eye witnesses is also in sync with this deposition with minor variations which will be dealt with later on: -"On 14.05.2010 I was posted as Sub Inspector in special staff of outer district.After the incidence of caw slaughtering in outer district a special team comprising of officials of special staff, outer district and police station Vijay Vihar was constituted to apprehend the criminals involved in the crime.It was also informed by the informer that there might be slaughtered cows in the van and the criminals might be carrying deadly weapons.This information was shared by SI Mahavir with Insp.Sudesh Kumar, SHO PS Vijay VIhar and other members of the team.A raid was planned and an entry in this regard was made by SI Mahavir Singh vide DD No.8A. After getting briefing from Insp.Sudesh Kumar and SI Mahavir Singh the team along with the secret informer proceeded towards the place where the suspected criminals were suppose to come.All the team members had gone there by private vehicles.At about 4-4.15 AM the team was again briefed by SI Mahavir Singh on Rani Khera village road towards the road that leads to Mundka Phatak.After proper briefing the staff was deployed by SI Mahavir Singh.In the meanwhile Insp.Sudesh Kumar along with staff had also reached there in the official gypsy.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 14 of 45At about 4.45 AM a white colour pickup van bearing No.UP-14M-7786 was seen coming from Mundka fatak side and proceedings towards Rani Khera village.On the pointing out of secret informer all the members of the team were put on alert by signaling that the criminals have arrived.As per plan HC Surender Dhaiya and Ct.Pawan had already been directed to put big stones in the middle of the road to force stop the vehicle.One stone hit the official gypsy of the SHO PS Vijay Vihar which resulting into smashing of the front glass/wind screen of CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 15 of 45 the official gypsy.We somehow managed to overtake the pickup van and stopped the same after about 50 meters.At this stage, witness has correctly identified the accused Shahbuddin, S/o Abdul, accused Rizwan, Rajesh @ Puteya by pointing out towards them and not by names as the persons who had managed to escape from the spot.At this stage witness has correctly identified the accused Wasim, Sita Ram, Kailash, Asif by name and also by pointing out towards them as the persons who were apprehended at the spot.There were two kattas recovered from the hands of assailants i.e. one was recovered from the hand of Asif and CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 16 of 45 Salim were handed over to SI Mahavir Singh.It is wrong to suggest that it is a motorable road with a heavy traffic round the clock.there is very little traffic on the said road.In my presence SI Mahavir did not lift any chance prints allegedly recovered from the hands of Asif and Mohd. Salim.The rukka was written by SI Mahavir at the spot itself while sitting inside the official gypsy.HC Surender Dahiya and Insp.Gajender Singh returned at the spot when I was still present there at around 10.30 AM.IO SI CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 17 of 45 Mahavir Singh had requested some public persons to join the proceedings after the katta was recovered from the hands of Asif and Salim but none agreed but I was not aware if any notice for refusal was given by him to them.I am not aware if IO had prepared any other document before preparing the rukka.I left the spot at around 12:30 -1 PM (afternoon).from the spot we had gone to PS Kanjhawala.I had not made any arrival entry in the PS.IO can inform if he had made some combine entry.It is wrong to suggest that I am planted witness only to lend the creditability to the prosecution version regarding the incident.It is wrong to suggest that there was no such incidents as claimed by me or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated and wrong identified by me in the court only to work out the blind case."CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 17 of 45In addition to the testimony of the nine police witnesses, CW-1 also deposed regarding the sketch Ex.PW-24/B of a country made pistol recovered from Asif and seized vide memo Ex.PW-24/D. He also proved the recovery of pistol and the seizure memo Ex.PW-24/C from Saleem.He deposed about the three knives recovered from the driver's cabin of the offending vehicle UP 14M 7786 and the photographs of the knives taken at the spot vide Ex.He identified the photographs and the case property which were also seized by SI Mahabir Singh as Ex.He identified the photographs of the pointed rods, hooks, cartridges."On S.A.On 14.05.2010 I was working as SHO PS Vijay Vihar.On that day a secret information was received by SI Mahavir.This information was lodged vide DD no. 8A at 3.15 AM.The contents of secret information was conveyed to senior officers.A joint team comprising myself, SI Mahavir and other staff of PS Vijay Vihar and the police officials of Special Staff, Outer District.Thereafter the police team reached at the place pointed out by the secret informer i.e. at Mundka-Ranikhera Road near Ranikhera Village.The member of raiding party were also briefed and they were deployed at the spot by SI Mahavir.On interrogation their names were known as Kailash, Sita Ram, CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 19 of 45 Wasim and Yakoob.The remaining accused persons succeed in running away from spot.During interrogation the accused Asif, Saleem, Wasim, Kailash, Sita Ram and Yakoob disclosed the names of other associates who escaped from the spot as Bholu, Gulfam, Rajesh @ Putia and Siraj all residents of UP, Rajasthan and Delhi.Bholu is from Raghubir Nagar and Siraj resident of Meerut."Appellant Asif was apprehended at the spot.He fired at the police party while running away which is evident from the testimonies of CW-1 and the nine police witnesses and the weapon of offence/firearm (desi katta) was seized at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW-24/D. PW-7 Dr. N.P. Waghmare, Assistant Director, FSL appeared in the witness box and exhibited his opinion stating that the weapon of offence recovered from the CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 31 of 45 appellant Asif was a country made pistol, besides the ammunitions which were both covered under the Arms Act and were in working condition.Appellant Shahbuddin was not apprehended at the spot.As per the disclosure of Asif, Wasim, Sita Ram and Kailash, Shahbuddin @ Bhura R/o Village Ajerala, Police Station Sadar, Mandali, District Meerut was one of the accomplices who succeeded in running away.The police party as noted above comprised of PWs 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and CW-1 besides SI Mahabir who could not be examined.Shahbuddin who was arrested and faced trial was Shahbuddin S/o Abdul Rashid R/o H.No.519, Gali No.3, old Chungi, Rampur Road, Hapur (UP).Thus, the description of Shahbuddin as given in the disclosure statement of the co-accused does not match with the description of Shahbuddin who faced the trial.Shahbuddin, Gulfam, Rajesh @ Putiya and Rizwan, who are in custody, be released forthwith if not required in any other case.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 45 of 45CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 1 of 45CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 2 of 45CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 3 of 45Appellants Gulfam, Shahbuddin, Rajesh @ Putiya, Bholu, Wasim, Siraj, Asif, Rizwan, Sita Ram and Kailash have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 353/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC, 429/34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 (in short 'PDPP Act') and Section 8 punishable under Section 13 of the Delhi Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act, 1994 (in short 'DACP Act') read with Section 34 IPC.2. Learned counsel for the appellants Gulfam, Wasim, Siraj, Sita Ram and Kailash, Mr. K. Singhal, in Crl.Appeal Nos. 524/2016, 172/2015, 466/2015, 443/2015 respectively submits that the conviction of the appellants is based on confessional statements of the accused and co- accused.Thereafter, the learned Trial Court proceeded to examine CW-1 Inspector Sudesh Kumar on 23rd September, 2014, the then SHO, Vijay Vihar and part of the raiding party.On the statement of this witness the entire prosecution case has been based, though this witness was not cited as a prosecution witness.Conviction of the appellants is based on conjectures and surmises.Though charge for CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 4 of 45 offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC was framed for firing however, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC for pelting stones on the police vehicle.In any case the sentence of imprisonment for ten years awarded for offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC merely on the allegations of pelting stones on the Police Gypsy is highly excessive.The damage to the public property was not proved by mechanical inspection.No crime team was called at the spot.On the basis of the photographs, negatives whereof were not proved, the learned Trial Court held that there was a bullet mark on the police gypsy.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 4 of 453. CW-1 is an unreliable witness as he went beyond the prosecution case to say that Bholu was also present at the spot.Without any mechanical inspection merely on the basis of photographs, that too, without any negatives, conviction for offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PDPP Act cannot be maintained.Further the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment on this count is also highly excessive.The appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 353/34 IPC in a mechanical manner without there being any evidence on this count.Despite the fact that the pickup van containing meat was deposited in the malkhana, as per PW-11 Constable Jai Prakash, the same pickup van loaded with meat was taken to Ghazipur for destroying the meat.In his deposition he has given the number of the vehicle to be the same as that deposited in the malkhana.The only appellants arrested at the spot were Wasim, Kailash, Sita Ram and Asif.Rest of the appellants were not apprehended at the spot and no test identification parade (TIP) was got conducted.Dock identification of the accused for the first time in the Court CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 5 of 45 cannot be relied upon in the absence of the TIP specially in a case where the witnesses had a fleeting glimpse of the accused even as per their version.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 5 of 45No proper expert opinion was proved to show that the meat allegedly found in the vehicle belonged to that of cows.Moreover, a bare perusal of the photographs, even if relied upon, would reveal that there was no place for ten assailants to stand in the vehicle with the same already loaded with meat.Though there is no evidence that any of the appellants killed the cows they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 429/34 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.The appellant Shahbuddin was arrested after more than three years.Shahbuddin was neither arrested on the pointing out of any member of the raiding party nor any TIP was conducted.The slaughtered animals were not sent to FSL and no report was thus received.Further no link CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 7 of 45 evidence has been produced to show that the two slaughtered animals produced for inspection before PW-8 and PW-9 were the same animals which were recovered from the alleged offending vehicle wherein the appellants were reportedly travelling.Mere absence of cross-examination of PW-8 and PW-9 does not automatically result in a finding of guilt under the provisions of DACPCRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 7 of 45Learned Trial Court erred in observing that the accused involved in the present case were part of the dreaded gang of cattle slaughters from Mewat when no evidence was led to indicate that the accused hailed from Mewat.No witness deposed that the appellants were part of the dreaded gang of cattle slaughter from Mewat.Even assuming that they hailed from the said region, no adverse inference can be drawn on this count alone.Bholu was not named in the FIR nor arrested at the spot nor any of the co-accused disclosed about the presence of Bholu in the incident.Though the case of the prosecution was that Bholu was not present at the spot however, on the improved statement of CW-1 learned Trial Court held that Bholu was also present at the spot and involved in the offence.When the alleged recovery was made from the godown, Bholu was not present.The person who took the photographs on the mobile phone was not examined.No certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was produced.CW-1 deposed that he endorsed whatever SI Mahabir Singh did.However, SI Mahabir Singh did not appear as a witness.The photographs show meat loaded in the pickup van however, there is no background showing where the pickup van was found.Though as per the disclosure statements of the co-accused one Putiya was involved however, in his place Rajesh was arrested.Learned counsel for the appellant Asif, Mr. B. S. Chowdhary in Crl.A. No. 887/2015 adopting the arguments above noted further contends that the alleged recovery of Katta has been planted on the appellant Asif.Though no charge for offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act was framed against Asif however, he has been convicted for the same.12. Learned APP for the State Ms. Rajni Gupta responding to Crl.Appellants Wasim, Kailash, Sita Ram and Asif were apprehended at the spot besides Mohd. Saleem (PO) and Mohd. Yakub, since deceased.Pursuant to the disclosure statements of the accused apprehended at the spot recoveries were made which are admissible in evidence.Soon after the incident desi kattas (country made pistol with live cartridge) were recovered from both Asif and Mohd. Saleem (PO).Presence of fire arms with the accused itself shows that the accused shared the CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 10 of 45 common intention of committing the offence which if death would have been caused would have amounted to murder.Besides two desi kattas, four knives, three iron rods and bag full of stones (mountain rocks) were recovered from the pickup van used by the accused for attacking the police personnel chasing the pickup van.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 10 of 4513. PW-29 HC Subhash and PW-31 Constable Pawan Kumar deposed that when they tried to stop the pickup van UP 14 M 7786 by putting stones on the middle of the road and CW-1 Sudesh Kumar, SHO PS Vijay Vihar tried to obstruct the pickup van by putting his official gypsy on the road, the driver of the pickup van again escaped by turning the van on the other side and the accused persons sitting in the pickup van simultaneously started throwing stones on the police party to deter them from following.Although actual firing was done by Asif but all the remaining accused shared common intention as defined under Section 34 IPC and are liable for the acts of each other.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 11 of 45The appellants not apprehended at the spot refused to take part in the TIP and hence the plea that they could not be identified belatedly for the first time in the Court is required to be rejected.Reliance is placed on 2003 (6) Scale 698 Munna vs. State, NCT of Delhi and 2010 SCC OnLine Del. 1659 Guddu vs. State.Since nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses nor suggestions given to the witnesses, the pleas now being taken in the present appeals cannot be considered as the witnesses had no chance to explain the same.Even though charge for offence punishable under Sections 25/27 Arms Act was not framed against Asif however, he can still be convicted for the same as a mere omission or error in the framing of charge does not vitiate the finding or sentence by the competent Court unless there is a failure of justice occasioned thereby which the appellant Asif has failed to demonstrate.Non- examination of SI Mahabir Singh, the complainant and member of the raiding party was for the reason that he was deputed to Sudan and thus could not be examined during the course of the trial however, every act of SI Mahabir Singh was witnessed by Inspector Sudesh Kumar CW-1 who has deposed and thus proved the incident and the documents prepared by SI Mahabir Singh as he had seen SI Mahabir Singh writing and signing in his CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 12 of 45 official capacity.No explanation has been rendered by any of the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, the same is required to be treated as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 12 of 45Learned APP Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, responding to Crl.A. Nos.524/2016 and 1744/2016 adopting the arguments of Ms. Rajni Gupta, learned APP submits that there was sufficient time for the police officials to identify the accused as they were following the pickup van and thereafter at the spot also the appellants were chased.Further six accused were apprehended at the spot.Testimony of police officials who were the eye witnesses and victims could not be discredited merely because they were police officials.Non-examination of the negatives of the photographs or mechanical inspection of the gypsy having not been got conducted does not affect the prosecution case as sufficient evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove the offences alleged against the appellants.PW-8 and PW-9 the expert witnesses were not cross-examined and hence their testimony has gone unchallenged.No overt act is necessary to attract Section 34 IPC and it has to be seen whether the accused acted with prior concerted mind or pre-planning.PW-11 deposed about weighment of the meat, which was found to be 1210 Kg.and destruction of the same at Ghazipur.DW-2 Shiv Lal the defence witness was not an eye witness and his evidence is hearsay, thus not admissible in evidence.Dossiers of all the accused were placed on record before the learned Trial Court to show their involvement in number of cases of theft/robbery of CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 13 of 45 cattle.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 13 of 45Before dealing with the individual appellants and contentions relevant to them it would be appropriate to deal with the evidence on record and legal issues common to all the appeals.During the course of trial, prosecution examined nine eye witnesses to the occurrence, that is, PW-22 Inspector Jasmohinder Chaudhary, PW-24, HC Surender Dahiya, PW-26 HC Hari Chand, PW-27 HC Rakesh Kumar, PW-28 HC Rohtash, PW-29 Constable Subhash, PW-30 Constable Dhanraj, PW-31 Constable Pawan Kumar and PW-32 SI Praveen Atri.They were all members of the raiding party and deposed about the incident, arrest of six accused at the spot and their disclosure statements.SI Mahabir Singh, the Investigating Officer was not examined and CW-1 was examined by the Court who besides deposing about the incident, also deposed about all the documents prepared by SI Mahabir Singh.The driver of the pickup van was indicated to stop the vehicle but since he did not stop so as per the plan HC Surender and Ct.Pawan put big stones on the road in order to stop the said vehicle but they steered the vehicle to one side and tried to escape from there.SHO PS Vijay Vihar was already waiting on the road in his official gypsy while we followed the pickup van on our vehicles, SHO PS Vijay Vihar tried to obstruct the pickup van by putting his official gypsy on the road but the driver of the pickup van again escaped by turning the vehicle on the other side and the persons sitting in the pickup van simultaneously started throwing stones on us.Finding themselves surrounded the driver of the pickup van was compelled to stopped the same and all the persons sitting inside it jumped out and started running in different directions.One of the persons who was trying to escape fired at police party which hit the bonnet of the gypsy of the SHO PS Vijay Vihar.HC Rohtash and Ct.Sandeep overpowered the said person who had fired and managed to apprehend him and snatched the katta from his hand.In the meanwhile another accused who was running away also took out a katta and as soon as he was about to fire on the police officials following him he was apprehended by HC Surender Dahiya with the help of Ct.Hari Chand and Ct.Four other persons who were trying to escape were also apprehended by the other members of the police party whereas 5-6 persons managed to escape from the spot.The persons who were apprehended were then interrogated and their names were disclosed as Asif i.e. the person who had fired on the police party which fire had hit the bonnet.The second person was Mohd. Salim who was apprehended by HC Surender Dahiya and others with a katta in his hand when he was about to fire on the police party third was Yakub, fourth was Wasim, fifth was Sita Ram and one person was Kailash.I can identify all these persons and also some of them who had escaped by pointing out towards them.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 15 of 45The pickup was then inspected and it was found to contain three slaughtered and skinned cows and one plastic katta in open condition containing stones.When the search was conducted inside the cabin four knives and three pointed rods and three hooked iron rods were recovered by SI Mahavir Singh under the driver seat.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 16 of 45Thereafter SI Mahavir Singh prepared the rukka and send the same to the police station for registration of the case and also seized the various rods, knives and kattas/country made pistols recovered at the spot.After the registration of the case Insp.Gajender Singh SHO Kanjhawala to whom the further investigation were marked had come to the spot and conducted the further proceedings.As soon as the accused were apprehended the secret informer left the spot in another vehicle.The informer had left around 5 AM.It is correct that I am not a witness to any of the documents.I was present at the spot at the time of the investigations but did not sign any of the documents which were prepared by Insp.Gajender Singh or by SI Mahavir Singh.The Mundka Rani Khera road is a single road.He also exhibited the various offending articles recovered from CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 18 of 45 the pickup van.Besides the facts noted above it would also be relevant to note portion of the testimony of CW-1 relating to the incident at the spot:-CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 18 of 45At about 4.45 AM one pick up van bearing number UP 14 M 7786 came.We had blocked the road by putting heavy stones on the road.We had blocked the road by putting heavy stones on the road.The driver of the said vehicle had tried to drive the vehicle by putting his van on Kachcha Road.We all staff started following the said vehicle with our vehicles.The persons sitting the pick up van started pelting stones on my Gypsy but finding surrounded by the police officials from all side, the pick up van stopped and the person sitting in the pick up van started running away.In this process one person had fired while he was being stopped which hit the bonnet of my gypsy.The said person was surrounded by us and chased and caught by HC Rohtash and his team.On interrogation the name of this person was known as Asif.At this stage the witness has correctly identified accused Asif by pointing out towards him as the person who had fired at him which fire hit the bonnet of his gypsey.Kuldeep, HC Surender and Ct.Hari Chand had apprehended the other boy who was known Salim.Pawan, Ct.Ajit, HC Rakesh, Ct.Subhash and Ct.Dhanraj had apprehended the four accused persons.PW-8 Dr. Narender Dabas working in the Veterinary Hospital, MCD Rohini deposed that he inspected the slaughtered animals in the tempo TATA-407 parked at PS Rohini South and found two slaughtered cows which he could make out from the skin attached to the hooves of the slaughtered animals.Similarly, PW-9 Dr. Neeraj Bhargava, Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Badli who also inspected the vehicle, found two slaughtered cows duly identified from the skin attached to the hooves.Both these witnesses have not been cross- examined.Thus, it can be safely held that the meat in the TATA-407 was of the slaughtered cows.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that as per the testimony of PW-11 he took the pickup van with the meat for destruction of the same whereas the same was deposited in the malkhana.PW-1 Retd.HC Vijay Singh, the moharar malkhana appeared in the witness box and in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/1 which was tendered in examination- in-chief stated that vide Ex.PW-1/A he deposited the articles in the malkhana.The articles deposited in the malkhana were the weapons of offence recovered, the cement bag with stones etc. It does not state about the deposition of the pickup van bearing No.UP 14 M 7786 Mahindra in the malkhana which was only brought to the police station.Further PW-11 stated that on 14th May, 2010 he was posted at PS Kanjhawala and on the directions of the SHO on that day he went to Ghazipur at 4.30 PM along with the meat pickup van bearing No.UP 14 M 7786 for destroying the CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 26 of 45 recovered meat.After he reached Ghazipur, the meat was weighed at the MCD weighing machine and was found to be 1210 kgs.Thereafter, he got the meat destroyed and the vehicle was brought to the police station and handed over to the SHO.This witness has not been cross-examined by any of the accused and thus his testimony has gone unchallenged.Suspicion should not take the place of proof."Thus merely because the appellants were allegedly found in possession of the slaughtered cows the presumption that they killed the animals cannot be raised.Therefore, the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Section 429 IPC.However, having been found in the possession of the flesh of slaughtered agriculture cattle the conviction of the appellants whose presence at the spot is established for offence under Section 8 punishable under Section 13 of the DACP Act is made out.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 30 of 45Learned counsels for the appellants have strenuously challenged the conviction for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PDPP Act and the resultant sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years on this count.Testimonies of CW-1, PW-22, PW-24, PW-26, PW-27, PW-28, PW- 29, PW-30 and PW-31 are consistent that when the police gypsy started following the pickup van, the occupants of the pickup van started pelting stones at the gypsy resulting in damage to the vehicle.Even in the absence of mechanical inspection, from the evidence of these witnesses and absence of specific cross-examination on this aspect it can safely be held that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that damage to public property was caused.The accused Sohan Lal @ Sohan Singh was called upon to face trial only for the charge under Section 304-B IPC.Neither a charge under Section 302 IPC nor under Section 109 IPC, was levelled against him in the charge-sheet.In the absence of a charge being framed against the accused Sohan Lal under Section 302 or 109 IPC, it would certainly cause prejudice to him, if he is convicted under either of these offences at the end of the trial.Further Shahabuddin was not arrested at the instance of any member of the raiding party.There is no material to show how PW-35 SI Sudhir Rathi identified Shahbuddin S/o Abdul Rashid R/o H.No.519, Gali No.3, Old Chungi, Rampur Road, Hapur (UP) as co-accomplice of Asif, Wasim, Kailash and Sita Ram.No disclosure statement was recorded on the said date and the one on record Ex.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 34 of 45PW-17 HC Devender Singh appeared in the witness box and stated that on 1st July, 2013, he received a secret information that one person by the name of Shahbuddin wanted as an accused in the present case and had been declared a proclaimed offender was present in Hapur.He shared the information with senior officers and thereafter went to Hapur bypass.The informer disclosed that there was a cattle fare at Tehsil Gulwathi and Shahbuddin was present there.At the Gulwathi Cattle Fare, Shahbuddin was arrested on the pointing out of the informer.On interrogation, the appellant confirmed his name as Shahbuddin S/o Mohd. Rashid R/o Aliganj, Rampur Road, Hapur.Though PW-35 stated that he collected the disclosure statement of Shahbuddin from Special Staff Office however, PW-17 in his cross-examination stated that he did not record the disclosure statement of Shahbuddin at any point of time.He deposed in sync with PW-17 about the raid having been made on the secret information and apprehension of Shahbuddin from cattle fare at the instance of the secret informer.Though he stated that disclosure statement of Shahabuddin was recorded but no disclosure statement of Shahabuddin was placed on record.In the evening, PW-35 went to the office of Special Staff and obtained the documents relating to kalandara, arrest, personal search and disclosure statement made by the accused.As noted CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 35 of 45 above disclosure statement purportedly made on 1st July, 2013 has not been exhibited.As per PW-35, on 4th July, 2013, Shahbuddin was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in muffled face and with the permission of learned Magistrate, he interrogated Shahbuddin and thereafter arrested him vide memo Ex.PW-4/A and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW35/A. No recovery pursuant to Ex.PW-35/A was made and thus the said disclosure statement is not admissible in evidence.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 35 of 45Neither PW-35 nor PW-17 nor PW-19 deposed that an application for TIP of Shahbuddin was filed by them after his arrest.Further the application if any filed for the TIP or the proceedings thereon have not been exhibited during the trial.Further though four witnesses, that is, PWs-22, 28, 30 and 31 identified Shahbuddin in Court to be the accused who ran away, they just had a fleeting glimpse of Shahbuddin whereas two witnesses i.e. PW-22 and PW-27 failed to identify Shahbuddin even in Court.His name appeared in the disclosure statement of the four co-accused Asif, Wasim, Sita Ram and Kailash arrested at the spot.In their disclosure statement, they stated that their accomplices who managed to run away included Gulfam R/o Idgah Road.No parentage of Gulfam was CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 36 of 45 given nor any description was given by the witnesses in the FIR and in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Gulfam was arrested on 9 th April, 2013 after nearly 3 years of the incident.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 36 of 45As per the testimony of PW-18 HC Neeraj Rana of the Special Staff, on 9th April, 2013 a secret information was received that one person belonging to the cow slaughtering gang who is proclaimed offender in the present case and whose associates were earlier arrested, would be coming to Mangolpuri Railway Station.Gulfam S/o Ismail R/o Hapur Chungi, Meerut was arrested while walking near Safal Dairy side towards Manglopuri Railway Station on the pointing out of the secret informer.He was arrested under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. and information sent to PS Kanjhawala.PW- 18 deposed having recorded the disclosure statement of Gulfam, however, the same has not been exhibited.Admittedly, arrest of Gulfam was not on the identification of a member of the raiding party.PW-35 having received information from PW- 18 on 9th April, 2013 about apprehension of Gulfam and that he would be produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 10th April, 2013 went to the Court and requested for the formal arrest of Gulfam.PW-35 deposed that Gulfam was produced in Court with his face unmuffled.He then formally arrested Gulfam S/o Ismail and recorded his disclosure statement however, since no recovery was made pursuant to the disclosure statement, the same is not admissible in evidence.It is pertinent to note that the address of Gulfam mentioned in the disclosure statement of Gulfam and that as mentioned in the disclosure statement of the co-accused recorded on the day of incident i.e. 14th May, 2010 is different.The explanation of PW-35 in his cross-examination is that CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 37 of 45 he was not required to get conducted TIP of Gulfam, for the reason he was specifically named in the FIR thus obviating the need to conduct TIP.Gulfam was named in the disclosure statement of the co-accused and not in the statement of the witnesses.The witnesses had a fleeting glimpse of Gulfam while the accused was pelting stones on the police party and/or while he was fleeing away.Thus, not conducting TIP on the ground that Gulfam was named in the FIR was an error in investigation.Moreover, the TIP could also not be conducted for the reason Gulfam was produced in unmuffled face in Court, thereby giving occasion to the witnesses to see him earlier.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 37 of 45In the deposition before the Court though PW-24, PW-26, PW-27 identified Gulfam as the person who escaped however, they were unable to name him.Though PW-28 named Gulfam, he was unable to identify him.Further the witnesses who identified Gulfam, identified him through the dossier as he was exempted from appearing in Court on the said date.This Court is of the opinion that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of these witnesses regarding identification of Gulfam as they had only a fleeting glimpse of Gulfam on 14th May, 2010 and in Court through the dossier.On 14th May, 2010 four accused who were apprehended at the spot did not name their accomplice as Rajesh but as Putiya.Rajesh @ Putiya was arrested by PW-15 HC Raj Kumar on 22nd April, 2013 at Shamshan Ghat Road, Sector 8, Rohini after receipt of a secret information.Disclosure CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 38 of 45 statement of Rajesh @ Putiya was recorded by PW-15 on the same date vide memo Ex.PW-15/B however, no recovery was made pursuant to the same thus the same is not admissible in evidence.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 38 of 45PW-15 arrested Rajesh @ Putiya under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. Information about the arrest of Rajesh @ Putiya was sent to PS Kanjhawala which was marked to PW-20 SI Arun Lather, on 22nd April, 2013 vide DD No. 72B exhibited as Ex. PW-20/A. On 26th April, 2013 PW-20 went to the office of Special Staff and recorded the statement of the official staff who arrested Rajesh @ Putiya and also obtained the copy of the Kalandara Ex. PW-15/C. On 3rd May, 2013, he filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for producing Rajesh @ Putiya before the Court which was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and he was directed to approach the Superintendent, Jail.On 8 th May, 2015 he went to the Jail and formally arrested Rajesh @ Putiya vide arrest memo Ex. PW- 20/B and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW-20/C. On 9th May, 2013 Rajesh @ Putiya was produced in Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate and while being produced he was identified by SI Mahabir Singh who was the complainant of the case.From the evidence of PW-20 it is clear that sufficient time had elapsed when Rajesh @ Putiya was formally arrested and no TIP was got conducted.Further, SI Mahabir Singh who identified Rajesh @ Putiya in the Court has not been examined as a witness.Rajesh @ Putiya was identified by PWs.22, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31 by pointing out from the dossier but none of them was able to name him.As noted above, no TIP was conducted of Rajesh @ Putiya and for the first time, he was identified by the witnesses in Court who just had a fleeting glimpse while pelting CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 39 of 45 stones and/or escaping after a period of four years and that too from the dossier.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 39 of 45In view of the aforesaid discussion, the identification of Rajesh @ Putiya by the witnesses for the first time in Court that too, through the dossier is not sufficient to convict the appellant of the offences charged with.He is acquitted for the charges framed.Siraj was arrested by PW-14 ASI Suresh Rana of Special Staff, Outer District on 4th September, 2012 pursuant to secret information from near the office of Delhi Jal Board, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi.He was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memos Ex.PW-14/A and PW-14/C respectively.However, since no recovery was made pursuant to the disclosure statement, the same is of no value.PW-21 SI Rajesh Kumar of PS Kanjahawala stated that on 4 th September, 2014 he received the information about arrest of Siraj.On 11th September, 2012 he obtained the permission from the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and on 12th September, 2012 went to the Central Jail, Tihar and formally arrested Siraj vide memo Ex. PW-21/B. He also recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW-21/C however, since there is no recovery pursuant to the disclosure statement the same is not admissible in evidence.On the next date, that is, 13th September, 2012 Siraj was produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.As noted from the deposition of the two witnesses it is evident that no effort was made to get the TIP of Siraj conducted.Siraj was not arrested at the pointing out of any member of the raiding party.The only witness who identified Siraj in the Court was PW-27 and that too, by name.Though CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 40 of 45 present in Court Siraj could not be identified by the said witness.As noted above, the witnesses had only a fleeting glimpse of the accused either while running away and/or pelting stones and on the identification of these two witnesses that too after nearly four years, it would be unsafe to convict Siraj.Thus this Court deems it fit to grant benefit of doubt to Siraj.He is acquitted for the charges framed.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 40 of 45He deposed that on 16th February, 2013 they were posted at PS Kanjhawala and went to Rohini Court where Rizwan was produced and after interrogating him, he was arrested vide memo Ex.PW- 13/A and his disclosure statement recorded vide memo Ex.PW-13/B. Application for Test Identification of Rizwan was filed on 5th June, 2013 when he was produced in muffled face and he refused.Rizwan refused TIP on the ground that police officials had taken his photograph.Even in the deposition before Court, PW-22, PW-24, PW- 30 and PW-31 pointed out towards Rizwan whereas PW-27 named him but did not identify him as the person who had escaped from the spot.As noted above, the witnesses had a fleeting glimpse of the accused either while running away and/or pelting stones and on such identification by the witnesses that too after nearly four years, it would be unsafe to base the conviction.Thus, this Court deems it fit to grant benefit of doubt to Rizwan.He is acquitted for the charges framed.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 41 of 45Learned counsels for Bholu has seriously challenged his presence at the spot and states that his name came in the disclosure statements of the co- accused stating that meat was supplied to the godown of Bholu and that recovery of meat could be done from the godown of Bholu.Except CW-1 no witness stated that Bholu was one of the accused who was present and escaped from the spot.As noted above no previous statement of this witness was recorded.Moreover, the case of the prosecution in the FIR was that the meat was supplied to the godown of Bholu and not that he escaped from the spot.Thus this Court deems it fit to grant benefit of doubt to Bholu in respect of his presence at the spot.Further the prosecution has sought to prove the recovery of meat from the godown of Bholu.As contended by learned counsel neither at the time of recovery Bholu was present at the godown nor was any document collected to show that Bholu either owned or possessed the godown from where the recovery was made so that he can be held to be in conscious possession of slaughtered cows.Thus, Bholu is entitled to the benefit of doubt on this count as well.From the consistent testimony of the witnesses, arrest memos and disclosure statements of the accused it can safely be held that Asif, Wasim, Kailash, Sita Ram, Saleem (P.O.) and Yakub (deceased) were apprehended at the spot.In view of the discussion aforesaid conviction of appellants Wasim, Sita Ram, Kailash and Asif who were apprehended at the spot is upheld for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC, 353/34 IPC, CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 42 of 45 Sections 3 and 4 of the PDPP Act and Section 8 read with Section 13 of the DACP Act. Appellants Gulfam, Siraj, Rajesh @ Putiya, Rizwan, Shahbuddin and Bholu are acquitted as the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt their involvements in the offences charged with.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 42 of 45As regards the quantum of sentence, Wasim, Sita Ram, Kailash and Asif have been awarded sentence for rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of 10,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for offence punishable under Section 353 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and 200/- fine in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week under Sections 3 and 4 of the PDPP Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 13 of the DACP Act.Though the charge on the appellants for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was for firing however, they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for pelting stones, except Asif who fired at the police party while escaping and has been convicted on this count as well.As regards Asif, since he fired on the police party while running away, besides pelting stones and is also involved in a number of other cases, he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of 30,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.The sentence of appellants Asif, Wasim, Sita Ram and Kailash for rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years is maintained for offence punishable under Section 353/34 IPC.As regards sentence of Asif, Wasim, Kailash and Sita Ram for offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of PDPP Act, the same is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of 2,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one week.The sentence awarded to Asif, Wasim, Kailash and Sita Ram of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 13 of the DACP Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is maintained.Asif, Wasim, Sita Ram and Kailash are acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 429/34 IPC.The sentences are directed to run concurrently.CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 43 of 45The impugned judgment of conviction is upheld to the extent of conviction of Asif, Wasim, Sita Ram and Kailash for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC, 353/34 IPC, Section 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and Section 8 read with Section 13 of the DACP Act and the order on sentence is modified as above.A. Nos. 887/2015, 172/2015 and 443/2015 are disposed of modifying the impugned judgment of conviction against Asif, Wasim, Sita Ram and Kailash only to the extent that they are acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 429/34 IPC.Their conviction for CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 44 of 45 offences punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC, 353/34 IPC, Section 3 and 4 of PDPP Act and Section 8 read with Section 13 of the DACP Act is upheld.Order on sentence of Asif, Wasim, Sita Ram and Kailash is modified as stated hereinbefore.Asif, Wasim, Sita Ram and Kailash will undergone the remaining sentence.During the pendency of the appeals the sentence of Siraj and Bholu was suspended by this Court.Their bail bond and the surety bonds are discharged.Trial Court record be sent back.Copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Tihar Jail for updation of record.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MAY 25, 2017 'vn' CRL.A. 524/2016, 1726/2014, 1744/2014, 10/2015, 172/2015, 466/2015, 887/2015, 712/2016 & 443/2015 Page 45 of 45
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,657,826 |
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.55 of2016 dated 22.02.2016 on the file of the 1st respondent.It is seen that a case in Crime No.55 of 2016 for the allegedoffences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, has been registered againstthe petitioners / Accused.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused andthe second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications werealso verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identityof the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through therespondent Police, namely, Mr.G.Lakshmi Narayanan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatti Police Station.Learned counsel appearing for the partiesalso endorsed the identify of their respective parties.The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo ofcompromise, duly stating that since the parties have arrived at an amicablesettlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.55 of 2016 pending on the fileof the first respondent.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.?Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise,this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served inkeeping the matters pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings in Crime No.55of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect of all theaccused, including those who are not before this Court, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo shall form part of this order.The Inspector of Police, Vaiyampatti Police Station, Trichy District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,681,644 |
"1) As per section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. accused no.2 Janardhan Waghmare, accused no.3 Rafique Sk., accused no.4 Anil Mohankar, accused no.5 Dilip Wagh, accused no.6 Omprakash Bhatkar and accused no.11 Tanaji Bhosale alias Tanaji Bhole are hereby convicted of the offence punishable under section 3 (1)(As offence under section 120-B of I.P.C. is included in section 3(2) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for that offence.).5) Accused nos.2 and 6 are convicted of offence punishable under sections 3 and 4 read with section 25 of Arms Act and each of them are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months each.6) All the sentences shall run concurrently.7) Accused no.8 Nasreenbano Rafique Sk.is hereby convicted of offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act (inclusive of Section 412 of I.P.C.) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and shall pay fine of::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 8 Rs.Two Lakh in default to undergo S.I. of nine months.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::8) Accused no.10 Anjali Janardhan Waghare is hereby convicted of offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act (inclusive of Section 412 of I.P.C.) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and shall pay fine of Rs.Two Lakh in default to undergo S.I. of nine months.9) Accused no.1 Dilip Korde and accused no.7 Shivaji Bhosale are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and of offence punishable under section 414 of I.P.C.10) Accused no.9 Sk.15) Seized gold bangles of 123-grams 34-allegedly seized from one Vikram Kankute, be confiscated in favour State and so also rest of the seized gold material be confiscated in favour of State and all such gold be sent to Mint after expiry of one year.and motorcycle no.MH-27/AF-6907 be auctioned and sale proceed be credited to State, all after expiry of one year.18) Seized motorcycle no.MH-29/L-6591 which was given on supratnama to P.W.31 Rupreshkumar Banait of Mangala Devi Ner, Tq.Ner, Distt.Yavatmal stand confirmed after expiry of one year.According to the prosecution, the accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are members of organized crime syndicate.They have committed organized crime, i.e., dacoity on 31/8/2010 at Khandelwal Jewellery Shop at Amravati.The prosecution came with a case that on that day at about 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. three dacoits came in the shop as customers and out of them two looked for gold::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 11 finger ring.It is also alleged that one of them spoke on mobile phone and thereafter three more dacoits entered in the shop as customers.One of them pressed the neck of the gate-man and another dacoit gave blow of knife to the shop owner.Some of them have shown pistol and other weapons and by terrorizing the employees and owner of the shop, they detained them in another adjoining room and looted 82 gold bangles and went away on two motorcycles.Thereafter, one of the employees, namely, Shri Kishor Pohokar lodged the report in the police station.Police registered the offence vide Crime No.325/2010 for the offence punishable under sections referred above.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::In the investigation, the police collected CCTV footage and seized hard-disk of the computer.On the basis of the said CCTV footage they carried out the investigation and taken raid on the house of one Vijay Bhatkar who then identified two offenders.During the course of investigation, police arrested accused nos.1 to 6 from different places.Thereafter, other accused were also arrested.In the investigation, the accused made confessional statement and at their instance the police seized some gold ornaments.Police also seized some gold ornaments at the instance::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 12 of accused nos.8 and 10 from the disclosure from the accused persons.Accused no.8 - Nasreenbano is wife of accused no.3 - Rafique Shaikh and accused no.10 - Sau.The accused nos.8 and 10 were knowing that the properties are of the same organized crime committed by the members of the said syndicate.The police obtained necessary permission from the Commissioner of Police, Amravati for registration of offence under the MCOC Act.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::During the course of investigation, the accused persons were identified in test identification parade by the witnesses, who were present in the Khandelwal Jewellers on the day of incident.The police also collected necessary documents during the investigation and obtained necessary sanction for prosecution from the Additional Director General of Police.After completing the necessary investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons.The accused persons appeared in the proceedings before the Special Court.He was also cross-examined but nothing is brought on record to disbelieve him.P.W.5 - Anil Narayanrao Uprikar is also present in the shop and deposed about the incident.He has also identified accused persons, i.e., Anil Mohankar (A-4), Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3), Dilip @ Kalya Wagh (A-5) and Tanya @ Tanaji Vithal Bhosale (A-11).In his evidence he has deposed that at the time of incident there were 16 CCTV cameras and he was present in the shop.The police asked him to show footage of CCTV cameras and accordingly he has shown the footage of CCTV cameras and police prepared the panchanama and seized the articles.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5/8/2014 passed by the Special Judge (MCOCA) Amravati in Special (MCOCA) Case No.1/2011 the appellants/original accused nos.2 to 6, 8, 10 and 11 have filed the present criminal appeals.All these accused were convicted by the Special Court by the impugned judgment and order, which reads as under :-(ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under sections 397, 120-B of I.P.C.2) Accused nos.2, 3 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of twelve years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.(As offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and 3 (4) of MCOC Act is included in section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for those offences.)::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 7::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::3) Accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.(As offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and 3 (4) of MCOC Act is included in section 3 (1) (ii) of MCOC Act, they are not separately sentenced for those offences.)4) Accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each for offence punishable under section 3 (2) of MCOC Act in default to undergo S.I. for two years each.Salim is acquitted of the offence punishable under section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and also of offence punishable under section 412 of I.P.C.entitled to set off for the period of detention already undergone during trial.13) Seized gold bar of 40-grams andbe returned to Govind Varma P.W.28, of Varma Jewellers, Sarafa Lane, Risod after expiry of one year.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::Khandelwal on supratnama, stands confirmed after expiry of one year and intimation to that effect be given to insurer of that shop.MBZTSOSEGA9H055 35 be returned to Baliram Jagtap.20) Seized country made pistol be sent to District Magistrate, Amravati for its disposal, after expiry of one year.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::worthless, same be destroyed after a year."The appellants/original accused nos.5 and 6 have filed joint Criminal Appeal No.91/2015 and also filed individual Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014, therefore criminal appeals filed by them, i.e., Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014 will have to be disposed of.Charge came to be framed against them for the said offences.The contents of the charge were read over to them in vernacular.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::After recording the evidence in the matter and on hearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (ii), 3 (2), 3 (4) of the MCOC Act and also for the offence punishable under Section 397, 120 - B of the Indian Penal Code.The accused nos.8 and 10 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of the MCOC Act. The learned Special Judge also passed order regarding seized muddemal.The seized gold bar of 40 grams and 80 mg.were directed to be returned to Govind Varma (P.W. 28) of Warma Jewellers, Sarafa Lane, Risod after expiry of one year and 36 gold bangles weighing 719 grams and 550 mg.which were given to Deepak Khandelwal on supratnama stand confirmed after expiry of one year.However, the learned Special Judge directed the seized gold bangles of 123 grams and 34 mg.allegedly seized from one Vikram Kankute be confiscated in favour of the State and also rest of the seized gold material be confiscated in favour of the State and all such gold be sent to Mint after expiry of one year.The learned Special Judge also passed the order in respect of seized motorcycles and seized country made pistol.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::We have heard Shri R.M. Daga, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in respective criminal appeals, Shri R.P. Thote, learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellants in respective criminal appeals and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.J. Khan for the respondent - State in all criminal appeals at length.Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has submitted that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongly convicted the accused persons.The accused persons however wrongly convicted on the said basis.He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused persons.The impugned judgment thus requires interference of this Court and is liable to be quashed and set aside.Shri Daga, the learned Counsel has submitted that the accused were arrested on 9/9/2010 and since then they are in custody.He further submitted that the learned Special Judge has directed the sentences to run concurrently.The accused nos.2, 3 and 11 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 15 and accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine and the accused had undergone around ten years of imprisonment including remission.He further submitted that the accused had already undergone substantial period of imprisonment in custody and looking to their poor financial condition and liability to maintain their families, a lenient view may be taken for reduction of sentence.So far as accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 are concerned, he further submitted that the accused nos.8 and 10 are sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of MCOC Act and rigorous imprisonment is awarded for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months.The accused nos.8 has already undergone more than three and half years imprisonment and now she is on bail.Therefore, on undergone sentence, she may be released.In default of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- she is sentenced for nine::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 16 months and therefore, the said sentence be reduced.The accused no.10 has already undergone substantive sentence and therefore, the in default sentence of fine of Rs.2,00,000/- may be reduced.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::Shri Thote, the learned Counsel (appointed) for the appellants in respective criminal appeals has adopted the said arguments for the other accused.The criminal appeals filed by the appellants therefore be dismissed.Shri Wakode, the learned Counsel for the applicant in Criminal Application (APPA) No.1057/2017 in Criminal Appeal No.595/2014 appearing for Khandelwal Jewellers has submitted that by allowing this application the seized gold articles of 370.010 grams recovered in the present offence bearing F.I.R. No.325/2010 be given on supratnama to the applicant.He submitted that the Special Judge while passing the order confiscated the gold bangles of 123 grams 34 mg.in favour of the State as well as rest of the seized gold were also confiscated in favour of the State and::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 17 therefore he prayed to return the same.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::Shri Khan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor however objected for the same and submitted that the applicant has a remedy to file separate appeal claiming the said property.The criminal application therefore be rejected.We have gone through the evidence on record with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties.From perusal of the material on record, it appears that the alleged incident took place on 31/8/2010 in between 2:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Khandelwal Jewellers Shop at Amravati.These accused persons were armed with deadly weapons and by causing injuries to the persons present in the shop including the owner, looted the gold ornaments.It has come in the evidence that there were 16 CCTV cameras inside the shop of Khandelwal Jewellers, Amravati.The defence has not challenged the said facts during the course of trial.During the course of investigation, police have seized C.D. and C.P.U. under panchanamas.It has come in the evidence that the CCTV footage clearly shows picture of three offenders, i.e., accused no.3 - Rafique Shaikh, accused no.4 - Anil Mohankar and accused no.6 - Omprakash @ Omya and later on three more accused arrived in the::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 18 shop and then they looted the gold.Subsequently, three accused arrived in the shop and were seen in the CCTV footage.However, all these accused were identified during the test identification parade by the witnesses and their close relatives.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::P.W.1 - Deepak Harishchandra Khandelwal is the owner of Khandelwal Jewellers.In his deposition, he deposed that his shop "Khandelwal Jewellers" is situated at Jaisthamb Chowk.The incident took place on 31/8/2010 at about 2:30 p.m.. On that day 14 salesmen were working in his shop and the shop was open at 11:30 a.m. He has also deposed that he was present in the shop.He heard some suspicious noise and the accused persons giving dash to Jawanjal, who was at gate of the shop, entered in the shop and tried to assault him and he sustained injury on his hand.He also gave details of the incident in this evidence of dacoity and according to him, there was a robbery of 79 bangles and golden bar and his servant Shri Kishor Pohekar has lodged the report in the police station.In the evidence he has also stated that he has identified the accused persons at the time of test identification parade which was taken in the Central Prison, Amravati on 23/9/2010 and identified the accused.He was cross-examined at length by the defence.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::apeal472.14.odt 19 However, nothing is brought on record in his cross-examination to disbelieve him.He being the owner of the shop his presence at shop is not doubted.He also sustained injury in the said incident.In the cross-examination, he admitted that all ornaments in the shop were insured on the day of incident and he has put up the claim of robbed ornaments with the Insurance Company.His evidence is on the same line of the owner of the shop.In his evidence he has stated that 79 bangles and one golden bar was stolen in the said incident valued about Rs.50,00,000/-.He was cross-examined at length.However, nothing is brought on record in his cross-examination to disbelieve him.He has proved the contents of the report.He has also identified the accused persons.The fact that 79 gold bangles and one golden bar were stolen away from the shop on the date of incident is also proved through his evidence.18. P.W.3 - Jagdish Kisanlal Shrivas is one of the salesmen at Khandelwal Jewellers whose evidence indicates that he was::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 20 present on that day and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 - Deepak Khandelwal and P.W.2 - Kishor Pohekar on material counts.There is no reason to disbelieve him.He has also identified the accused persons in the test identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::19. P.W.4 - Bhujang Himmatrao Jawanjal is the gatekeeper.He has stated that on 31/8/2010 the incident took place.He has also given details of the incident and also identified accused no.5 - Dilip @ Kalya Kisanrao Wagh who pressed his neck and put knife on his abdomen.20. P.W.6 - Sachin Devidas Deshmukh was working in the Khandelwal Jewellers.He has deposed about the incident and also identified the accused Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3) and Janya @ Janardhan Ramrao Waghmare (A-2).21. P.W.7 - Sudam Somaji Sonule has also deposed about the incident and in the test identification parade identified Dilip @::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 21 Kalya Kisanrao Wagh (A-5), Janya @ Janardhan Ramrao Waghmare (A-2), Rafique Shaikh Nabi Shaikh (A-3) and Omprakash @ Omya Bharat Bhatkar (A-6).::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::P.W.8 - Suchit Balkrushna Kusare was working as a Computer Operator at Khandelwar Jewellers on the date of incident.He was cross-examined at length.However, nothing is brought on record in his cross- examination to disbelieve him.The seizure of C.Ds.and CCTV footage is established through his evidence and he has proved the seizure panchanama (Exh.158) drawn by the police.The prosecution has also proved the recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of the accused persons.In the evidence it has come on record that the gold ornaments were seized at their instance and panchanamas under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act are proved.Besides this evidence the accused have also made confessional statement.The::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 22 accused nos.8 and 10 are wives of accused nos.3 and 2 respectively and gold ornaments are seized from their custody.The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication.The evidence on record clearly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.The learned Special Judge, therefore, has not committed any error while convicting the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and wrongly convicted the accused therefore cannot be accepted.The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the test identification parade and the discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not proved also cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::The learned Special Judge has already considered their case and taken a lenient view and awarded sentence of 12 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused nos.2, 3::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 23 and 11 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (ii) of the MCOC Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each.The accused nos.4 to 6 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each.So far as accused nos.8 and 10 are concerned, they are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (5) of the MCOC Act and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months each.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::So far as the next submission of reduction in the sentence in default of accused nos.2 to 6 and 11 is concerned, the learned Special Judge has awarded, in default of payment of fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::The learned Counsel for the appellants has relied upon ruling, reported in (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 243 (Shantilal...Versus...State of M.P.).In the above ruling, the Apex Court has considered the provisions of Sections 64 and 53 of the Indian Penal Code and held that the term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is not a sentence.It is a penalty which a person incurs on account of non-payment of fine.In the said case, the Apex Court ordered that in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months instead three years, as ordered by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.Considering the ratio laid down in the above ruling and considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, we are of the considered view that the appellants/accused nos.2, 3, 11 and 4 to 6 are not entitled to get reduced the in default sentence of fine of Rs.5,00,000/- passed by the Special Judge.The offence committed by them is under Section 3 (1) (ii) of the MCOC Act and also under Sections 397, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, these appellants/accused are not entitled for reduction of in default sentence.Their appeals are liable to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::So far as the sentences of accused no.8 - Nasreenbano and accused no.10 - Sau.Anjali alias Arati are concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused no.8 - Nasreenbano has already undergone rigorous imprisonment for four years and also undergone in default sentence of nine months and she is released.The appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.Considering the submissions of the respective sides, we are of the view that so far as appellant/accused no.8 - Nasreenbano::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 26 is concerned, she has already undergone substantive sentence as well as in default sentence and therefore, her appeal will have to be dismissed.So far as the appeal filed by the appellant/accused no.10::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::- Sau.Anjali alias Arati is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the undergone sentence of three years and eight months by her is sufficient one, considering the nature of the charges levelled against her.The appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.To that extent, her criminal appeal could be allowed.So far as the order regarding muddemal property is concerned, in the operative part of the judgment, particularly paragraph nos.13 and 14 the gold ornaments were returned to the Varma Jewellers and Khandelwal Jewellers.The said order is not challenged by the accused persons and others and therefore, the::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 27 said order is required to be maintained.The person who claims the property has to establish the ownership and identify the said property.The learned Counsel for the applicant could be directed to approach the Special Judge by filing separate application claiming the property and after receipt of the application, all the concerned persons to be heard and necessary order to be passed of handing over the said property or confiscation, if any, on merit.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and for the reasons stated above, we pass::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 ::: apeal472.14.odt 28 the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::O R D E R(i) Criminal Appeal nos.472/2014, 581/2014, 595/2014, 91/2015, 187/2015 and 188/2015 are hereby dismissed.(ii) Criminal Appeal No.475/2014 filed by the appellant/accused no.10 - Sau.Anjali @ Arati is partly allowed.The appellant/accused has already undergone sentence of three years and eight months and therefore the said sentence is sufficient.The sentence passed against her of four years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to already undergone sentence by her.The appellant/accused is also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for nine months.The in default sentence of nine months is reduced to two months simple imprisonment.The appellant/accused is on bail and therefore, she is required to undergo the in default sentence of two months simple imprisonment and therefore, she will have to be surrendered for the said sentence to be served.(iii) The order regarding disposal of muddemal, except paragraph no.15 in the operative part of the judgment, is confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::(iv) So far as the disposal or confiscated property in paragraph no.15 of the judgment is concerned, the applicant - Khandelwal Jewellers is directed to file an application before the Special Judge for claiming the said property.The learned Special Judge, after hearing all concerned, shall dispose of the said application after giving opportunity to all parties.Criminal Application (APPA) No.1057/2017 stands disposed of.(v) Criminal Appeal Nos.480/2014 and 481/2014 are disposed of.(vi) Fees payable to the learned Counsel appointed for the appellants are quantified at Rs.5,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/10/2018 02:21:18 :::
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,872,587 |
17.09.2014 MUKTA GUPTA, J.Death Sentence Reference 5/2013 has been sent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to Sunil and Sudhir.By Crl.The case of the prosecution unfolds from the statement of PW-3 Neeru, mother of the deceased Ex. PW3/1 on the basis of which FIR was registered.Neeru has stated that she had three daughters and one son.On 20 th July, 2009 at 11.30 PM she and her daughter were standing outside their house when Sunil named goon and his younger brother Sudhir, who lived in the same locality, came there and created nuisance.They started passing lewd remarks and obscene gestures towards her daughter N. She and her son Subhash came out and objected to their wrong doing.Her son told them to D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 3 of 66 get away from in front of their house.Sunil and his brother while hurling abuses to them said that they would teach them a lesson shortly.About twenty minutes later, Sunil, Sudhir, Rajkumar @ Danny, Suresh@Phullu, Surender @ Sonu Punjabi came there.Sunil was carrying a baseball bat in his hand, Sudhir a knife, Sonu Punjabi iron rod and Phullu and Danny were having empty bottles of liquor in their hands.They started challenging her son Subhash.On seeing them her son ran away towards the street.They all ran after him saying "this bastard must be killed, he has challenged our hooliganism." They caught hold of her son in the street of Shiv Mandir.Sunil attacked her son with baseball bat on his head, Sonu Punjabi with iron rod and Phullu and Danny with empty bottles of liquor.Her son became unconscious and fell down.She and her daughter followed them while crying and shouting for help.Hearing their screams her nephew Naresh and neighbour Samir @ Kale followed them in order to intervene.The assailants also caught hold of her and her daughter.Sudhir stabbed Naresh with the knife he had been carrying and Sunil, Sonu Punjabi, Danny and Phullu also inflicted injuries on them.The empty bottles of liquor which Danny and Phullu were carrying in their hands were broken and their glass pieces got scattered in the street.In the scuffle Sunil fell on the glass pieces due to which he also sustained injuries.Thereafter Sunil and his accomplices ran from the spot leaving behind the baseball bat and iron rod etc. Sunil and his accomplices caused fatal injuries to her son while attacking them murderously with the common intention.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.The version of PW-21 Constable Rupesh is contrary to that of Inspector Yash Pal Singh.The recoveries are doubtful.There is no seizure of the keys of the motorcycle.Further the motorcycle had no blood stains though as per the case of the prosecution, Sunil was taken on the motor cycle.Raj Kumar has been tried to be linked with the motorcycle of red colour from the spot.The motorcycle is not shown in the site plan.Moreover the Appellant resides in the house adjoining the place of occurrence.Complainant Neeru has deposed that on 20th July, 2009 at about 11.30 PM she along with her daughter was standing outside their house and at that time Sudhir and Sunil, both real brothers were passing through the Gali.While passing, they stopped for a while in front of her house, started eve teasing her daughter and also made indecent gestures.She tried to make Sunil understand not to do the same.In the meantime, her son Subhash came there from inside the house, who also asked Sunil to refrain from the said act on which he uttered that they had challenged his ruffianship (Badmashi).After uttering abuses both Sunil and Sudhir left the place and Neeru and her family went inside the house.After D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 10 of 66 20-25 minutes, accused Sudhir, Sunil, Sanjay, Sonu Punjabi, Phullu and Danny again came there.Sudhir was having a knife in his hand, Sunil was having a base ball bat, Sonu Punjabi was having iron rod, Phullu and Danny were having empty liquor bottles and Sanjay was having bat of baseball.They called her son and challenged him.On this, being frightened her son ran away towards Shiv Mandir in gali.All the accused chased him and started beating her son Subhash with the said weapons due to which he became unconscious.She, her daughter, one Samir and her nephew Naresh after raising alarm rushed towards the said spot.Sudhir gave a knife blow to Naresh.She, her daughter and Samir also sustained injuries during intervention.Her neighbours took Subhash, Naresh and Samir to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where her son was declared brought dead.She called the police from the mobile of her nephew but by mistake the police recorded the name of her husband.The police reached the spot and recorded her statement first in the hospital Ex.PW3/A which bears her signature at point A and then again at the spot.From the spot, the police lifted two bats of baseball, one iron rod and broken pieces of glass bottles.One bat of baseball was having black tape on it and on the other something was written in red colour.These articles were seized, kept in Pullanda and sealed.Site plan was prepared.In the incident one of the accused Sunil fell down on the broken pieces of glasses and sustained injuries.The accused on the said date came on two motorcycles out of which one disappeared from the spot and the other of red colour was seized by the Police.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.Though she identified the case property, however, she stated that she did not remember the date of incident.She further stated that the accused were not present at the spot and she did not know who caused injuries to her son, to her and her daughter.On a Court question as to which of her depositions whether of 20th May, 2010 or 7th March, 2011 was correct, this witness stated that her deposition made on 20 th May, 2010 was the correct version.This witness further stated that the accused persons present in Court killed her son in the manner deposed by her on 20th May, 2010, however, she had three daughters and she was residing with her husband and three daughters in the neighborhood of the accused.Though there was no pressure on her mind, she wanted the accused to be set free.This witness also admitted that she had gone to meet the accused in jail.She further stated that she met one person Shakir in the Central Jail where Appellants were also present.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 11 of 66The two other eye witnesses who were injured as well PW-23 Naresh and PW-12 Mohd. Samir @ kale have turned hostile.As per the MLC Ex.PW- 4/A of Mohd. Samir, he reached the hospital at 12.35 AM and the investigating officers name mentioned in the MLC is ASI Rawal Singh of PS Sultanpuri.The complaint is described as quarrel.The place of the incident is given as 6/4 Friends Enclave, Sultanpuri.In a column below, the incident information is noted as "quarrel me chaku churi chal rahi hai".On the right side of the PCR Form, the report received from the PCR Van which reached the spot is noted.The time when the local police reached the spot is noted as "21-Jul-2009 D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 37 of 66 0:34:29".The report reads: "jhgra may 3 aadmi ko chaku lagay batalaya jo U/K Hosp.ja chukay jankaro ka ladaki chadanay par jhgra tha 21/07/2009 00:36:16 M/CY N. DL4SBN 4120 ko chodkar bhag gaya 21/07/2009 00:38:26 ladaki chhedane par jhgra huaa tha".The name and rank of the police official of Police Station (PS) Sultan Puri is indicated as "ASI Rawal Singh" (PW-19).D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 37 of 66The person who recorded the call at the PCR was Lady Constable Sangeeta (PW-6) who confirmed that the address given in the information was "6/4 Friends Enclave, Sultan Puri".What happened next is to be found in the deposition of ASI Rawal Singh (PW-19) who was posted at PS Sultan Puri when D.D. No. 3A was received.He along with Constable Vijender Singh (PW-18) and Constable Roopesh Kumar reached 6/4 Friends Enclave, Sultan Puri.PW-19 stated: "At the spot no eye-witness met us and I was informed by the people present there that the injured have been taken to SGM Hospital." PW-19 left Constable Roopesh Kumar at the spot and along with PW-18 went to the SGM Hospital (SGMH).There he met Neeru @ Guddo (PW-3).She told them that her son Subhash had come to the hospital in an injured condition and was declared as "brought dead" by the doctor.He then obtained three MLCs, i.e., of the deceased Subhash and two other injured persons.The dead body was shifted to the mortuary.PW-19 recorded the statement of PW-3 (Ex. PW-3/A) on which he made an endorsement (Ex. PW19/A).He sent the pulandas containing the clothes of the deceased and a rukka through PW-18 to the PS to be handed over to a senior officer.He then returned to the spot with PW-3 and on her pointing out prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-19/B).D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 38 of 66The first statement of PW-3PW-3 stated that at around 11.30 p.m. on 20th July 2009 she and her daughter N (PW-27) were outside their house when Sunil (A-2) and his younger brother Sudhir (A-5) living in the same locality came there and started passing lewd remarks and making obscene gestures at PW-27. PW-3 and her deceased son Subhash came out and objected.Subhash told them to go away. A-2 and A-5 are stated to have hurled abuses.They said that Subhash would be taught a lesson shortly.Twenty minutes later, A-2, A-5, Raj Kumar @ Danny (A-3), Suresh @ Phullu (A-4) and Surender @ Sonu Punjabi (A-1) came there.A-2 was carrying a baseball bat; A-5 was having a knife; A-1 was having an iron rod and A-3 and A-4 were having empty bottles of liquor.They challenged Subhash who on seeing them ran into the street.They all ran after him saying "this bastard must be killed, he has challenged our ruffianism".They then caught hold of Subhash in the street opposite Shiv Mandir.Subhash then became unconscious and fell down.46. PW-3 stated that she and PW-27 followed the accused while crying and shouting for help.On hearing their screams, Naresh (PW-23) a nephew of PW-3 and their neighbour Samir @ Kale (PW-12) followed in order to intervene.The accused then caught hold of them as well.A-5 stabbed PW-23 with the knife he had been carrying and the other four accused, i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 also inflicted injuries on them.The bottles of liquor being carried by A-3 and A-4 got broken and the glass pieces got scattered on the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 39 of 66 street.In the scuffle, A-2 fell on the glass pieces due to which he also sustained injuries.A-2 and his accomplices ran away from the spot leaving behind the baseball bat, the iron rod etc. Investigation at the scene of occurrenceD.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 39 of 66After sending the rukka through PW-18, PW-19 came back to the place of occurrence with PW-3 and on her pointing out prepared the site plan.The scaled site plan (Ex. PW2/A) shows the path supposed to have been taken by the deceased Subhash around a vacant plot, then down another street.It shows the distance between 6/4 Friends Enclave and the Shiv Mandir (opposite 6/28 Friends Enclave) to be about 58.70 m.Inspector Yashpal Singh (PW-28) with some police officials reached the spot and further investigation was entrusted to him.PW-28 lifted two baseball bats (Ex. P1 and Ex. P2), the broken pieces of glass (Ex. P5) and one iron pipe (Ex. P3) from the spot.They were kept in separate pulandas and sealed with the seal of YP and seized under memo (Ex. PW-3/B).The liquor bottles (Ex. P8 and Ex. P9) and the broken glass pieces were seized under memo (Ex. PW-3/C).A red-coloured motor cycle DL4SBN-4190 of Pulsar make (Ex. P4) was also seized from the spot under memo (Ex. PW3/D).PW-3 and PW-27 were taken to the hospital for their MLCs in the police vehicle.PW-28 prepared the brief facts (Ex. PW7/B2) in which he noted that at the SGMH, PW-19 had obtained MLCs of PW-12, PW-23 and of A-2 who were undergoing treatment.The deceased Subhash had no knife injuries.Subhash was shown as brought to the SGMH by PW-19 and was declared brought dead.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 40 of 66The Mobile Crime Team Report (MCTR) (Ex. PW-5/A) described the place of the offence as "In front of house of Ram Chander......H. No. 6/28 West Friends Enclave (between Shiv Mandir and above said address)".It noted the articles seized by the Investigating Officer (IO) as: (i) Two wine bottles (empty); (ii) broken pieces of bottles; (iii) one baseball stick broken and (iv) another baseball stick (v) one iron rod (pipe) (vi) wooden stick (size 1 feet).It advised photographs to be taken of the scene of crime, recording of the statement of the victims relatives, exhibits be sent to the CFSL/FSL for opinion, recording statement of eye-witnesses (if any), opinion of the doctors and details to be taken from the place of offence.This MCTR was prepared by Sub Inspector Sanjay Gade (PW-5).He was smelling of alcohol and was referred to the Safdarjung Hospital.The MLC had an endorsement: fit for statement.The injuries noted were: "fresh abrasion (0.10 x 0.1 cm, scratch mark) over left side of frontal region + scalp".The MLC of Neeru (PW-3) (Ex. PW-4/C) showed mild tenderness and erythma in the upper neck.An identical statement is recorded of PW-9 Sanjay who incidentally lives in 6/4 Friends Enclave, i.e., the house of Subhash.He too had earlier stated (Mark B) that all the accused had killed deceased Subhash.The other two eye-witnesses were the injured cousin Naresh (PW-23) of the deceased, who also turned hostile.PW-23 stated that some boys came and started teasing PW-27 and that Subhash objected to the acts of those boys.He states that he received a call from Subhash after those boys left the spot and then he reached the spot.While he was talking to Subhash, 7-8 boys came there and started beating Subhash and he too was given beatings by them.He stated that no accused present in the court was part of the boys who attacked Subhash.He stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital.The fourth eye-witness was Md. Samir (PW-12) who was injured in the incident.However, he too turned hostile.He stated that at around 11/11.30 p.m. some 12/13 kanwarias and other public members were present and heard the noise "bachao bachao" and suddenly a stampede started.The evidence of PW-3In her examination-in-chief, she stuck to what she stated in her first statement to the police (Ex. PW3/A) but added the name of Sanjay (A-6) as also having come back with A-2 and A-5 to the house when they started chasing Subhash.She now stated that A-6 also had a baseball bat.She stated that neighbours took her son Subhash, PWs 12 and 23 to the SGMH and that she had called the police from the mobile phone of her nephew but by mistake police recorded the name of her husband from whose mobile she had called the police.She further added that the accused had come on two motorcycles out of which one disappeared from the spot and the other of red colour which was seized from the spot by the police.The trial Court not only failed to insist upon her presence and continuation of examination-in-chief but even the learned APP made no effort to point this D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 45 of 66 out to the trial Court.In the meanwhile interim bail was being granted to many of the accused.When she was first examined by the police on 21st July 2009 she stated (Ex. PW27/A) that on 20th July 2009, PW-23 (her cousin) had come from Haridwar with kanwar and offered the holy water of Ganga at Shiv Mandir in the area and the persons who had brought the said kanwars were dancing opposite Shiv Mandir.PW-27 stated that she was watching PW-23 dancing and many ladies, boys and gents were present at the Shiv Mandir.Thereafter, she returned home.While she was standing outside her house with her mother PW-3 at about 11.30 p.m., A-2 and A-5 passed through the gali in front of her house.They passed lewd comments at her and made indecent gestures.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 49 of 66After about 20 minutes, they both came along with many other boys namely Sonu Punjabi, Fullu, Sanjay, Sudhir, Sunil and Danny.The witness is asked to see if all the accused persons are present in the court or not to which she had identified each and every accused present in the court by their names.They all started saying my brother to come out of the house.Thereafter, we all went to hospital with my brother where he was declared dead by the doctor.I, my mother, Naresh and Sameer were also medically examined in the SGM Hospital."D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 51 of 66Appeal No. 1219/2013 Appellants Sunil and Sudhir have challenged the judgment of conviction dated 31st July, 2013 convicting them for offence punishable under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 27th August, 2013 awarding them sentence of death for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC.The appeal also challenges the conviction and sentence awarded to Sudhir for offences under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act. By Crl.Appeal Nos. 1362/2013, 1463/2013, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 the Appellants Suresh, Surender, Raj Kumar and Sanjay have challenged the impugned judgment convicting them for offence punishable under Sections 302/307/34 IPC and sentence dated 27 th August, 2013 directing them to undergo imprisonment for life.2. Learned APP for the State has taken us through the evidence on record.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 3 of 66D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 4 of 663. Learned APP contends that the eye witnesses are the natural witnesses and despite there being social pressure, they have deposed in the court.He further states that the two incidents took place in succession and form integral part of the chain.The place of occurrence starts from the house of the deceased, Neeru and PW-27 N, sister of the deceased and ends at the Mandir.The witnesses have identified the spot as the one in front of Shiv Mandir where the deceased died.The seizures have been also effected from the said spot.PW-28 Inspector Yashpal Singh has admitted that PW-19 ASI Rawal Singh informed him that Naresh, Sameer @ Kale and Sunil were admitted in the hospital however he could not find Sunil there as he was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital.The plea of alibi taken by the defence was required to be proved by them however the same has not been proved.In the statement under Section 313 Cr PC, Sunil has admitted his presence at Mandir in the night.There is no requirement that in the brief facts, names of the assailants should be mentioned.Learned counsel for Sunil and Sudhir contends that a perusal of the PCR entries and the place of occurrence show that there were two distinct incidents.As per the first PCR call, the incident was allegedly at the house of the Complainant whereas the son of the Complainant died in front of Shiv D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 5 of 66 Mandir.The gap between the two incidents shows that they were two distinct incidents and material facts have been concealed by the prosecution.Though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was given knife blows however, as per the postmortem report and the MLC there is no injury by knife on the deceased.Hence, the eye witnesses are planted witnesses.Neeru and N reached the hospital later and thus they were not the eye witnesses.Further the factum of Sunil being admitted in the hospital was sought to be concealed by the prosecution.The Investigating Officer PW-28 Inspector Yashpal Singh has deposed falsely when he stated that he did not know as to where Sunil had gone.There is no explanation to the injuries on Sunil.From the MLC, it is clear that the injuries to Sunil were from knife.The finding of the learned Trial Court that Sunil got injured due to the fall on the glass pieces is unfounded as no blood stains were found on the glass pieces recovered.Though Sunil was fit for statement however, his statement was not recorded by the investigating officer.The plea of alibi of Sunil has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.The witnesses stated that all the accused ran away after the incident however, as per the MLC Sunil was admitted by ASI Rawal Singh in the hospital.Hence the version of the eye witnesses is incorrect.From the site plan and the seizure memo it is evident that four baseball bats were at the spot.This is contrary to the version of the eye witnesses.There are contradictions in the testimony of police witnesses.PW-21 Constable Rupesh has stated that the knife was blood stained however, Inspector Yashpal Singh stated that the knife was not blood stained.Though it is alleged that there was recovery at the instance of Sudhir however, his disclosure statement was recorded later on.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 5 of 66It is further contended that ASI Rawal Singh has not supported the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 6 of 66 prosecution case and has even stated that the Complainant did not inform that her daughter was abused.Neeru admitted having visited the jail for meeting the Appellants.It is thus evident that Neeru was trying to extort money from the appellants.N does not allege that there was any threat from the accused but she states that she was under pressure from her mother and PW-23 Naresh.Even under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act only those questions can be put as leading questions in cross- examination which questions can be put by the opposite party.PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra in his cross-examination has admitted that cerebral damage may be caused by dashing of head against a hard surface or a wall or any standing hard object.As per the eye witnesses all the accused were armed with weapons and had beaten the deceased however, there were no corresponding injuries on the body of the deceased.The entries in the malkhana register have not been proved in accordance with law.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 6 of 66D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 7 of 66The Appellant had examined defence witness who stated that Sanjay was sleeping in his house and was taken away by the police.However, this aspect has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.The Appellant has been falsely implicated and thus be acquitted.Learned counsel for Suresh @ Phullu while adopting the arguments of learned counsel for Sunil and Sudhir further submits that manipulation is writ large in the prosecution evidence from the very beginning.Though Neeru stated that she made a PCR call however, as per the PCR call the informant is Pravesh Kumar, her husband.Thus Neeru was not present at the time of the incident rather her husband was present.In cross-examination Neeru admits that though she called from the mobile of her nephew but police recorded the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 8 of 66 name of her husband.Recording of the FIR was deliberately delayed.Local police reached at the spot around 12.35 hours in the night however, FIR was registered only at around 2.30 a.m. The version of Neeru and N is highly improbable as in a melee no person can see much less remember the weapon in the hand of each person and which blow was given by whom.The motorcycle alleged to be involved in the incident has been planted.It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the Appellant was residing near the house of the Complainant and hence there was no necessity of going on the motorcycle.N had also appeared as a witness in another murder case.The Appellant has been falsely implicated and be acquitted.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 8 of 66Learned counsel for Surender @ Sonu Punjabi and Rajkumar @ Danny contends that the incident did not take place as projected.There is no common intention shared by the Appellants to either murder or commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Though the MLC of Neeru and N were prepared after registration of the FIR however, still the FIR number has not been mentioned.Hence the FIR is ante timed.Though iron rod was recovered from the spot however, PW-1 Constable Ravi Malik from the Crime Team did not inform about it.The crime team took photographs of 6/28, West Friends Enclave where the alleged incident took place.It is not the case of the prosecution that any police officer was left behind to guard the place of incident, thus the scene of crime was tampered with.The FIR is a computer generated document and has not been proved in accordance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-10 has not proved the rukka.The application for postmortem does not state as to when the dead body was received and when papers were received.It does not give the time of conducting the postmortem.The site plan does not show the presence of D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 9 of 66 Neeru and N. As per the case of the prosecution when Surender @ Sonu Punjabi was arrested he was wearing his blood stained shirt and pant.This is highly unnatural.Though recoveries were made at different time, however, the seals were not given to independent witnesses.Inspector Yashpal Singh stated that he deposited the case properties with MHCM, however the case properties were deposited in three installments and he did not sign the Malkhana register.Thus motorcycle was naturally to be there.Salamat Ali vs. State, 2010 (174) DLT 558, Ravinder Singh vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2013 (197) DLT 99 (DB).D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 9 of 66Heard learned counsel for the parties.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 10 of 66Since the case property was not available, further examination-in-chief of Neeru was deferred and on 7th March, 2011 when she was examined again, D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 11 of 66 she did not support the prosecution case.Thus, the prosecution sought permission to declare the witness hostile.Learned counsels for the Appellants have sought to assail the testimony of this witness on the ground that this witness had in fact gone to demand the money from the Appellants in the jail and was thus vacillating in her statements.She denied the suggestion that she had gone to bargain with the accused for extracting money for the acquittal.It may be noted that Neeru visited Suresh in Jail on 28th April, 2010 however, despite the said meeting she stood by her version in the FIR on 20th May, 2010 when she deposed against the Appellants.It is only in the deposition dated 7 th March, 2011 that Neeru stated that the accused be set free.From the testimony of N the pressure on the family of the deceased in favour of the appellants is evidence.PW4/A shows two sharp incised wounds on Samir at the chin and left lumbar region.Similarly, Ex.PW-4/D MLC of Naresh also shows the name of investigating officer as Rawal Singh of PS Sultanpuri.PW4/D shows two sharp incised wounds on Naresh at the right hand and left side lower chest besides tenderness at the parietal region.Even though Naresh and Mohd. Samir have turned hostile, the fact that they were present at the spot, were injured in the incident and taken to the hospital is sufficient to corroborate the version of Neeru and N.13. N the daughter of Neeru, when appeared as a witness before the Court on 23rd February, 2012, was highly perplexed and stated that she was stopped by the family members from coming and deposing in Court.She further had the apprehension that if she would speak the truth then legal action may be taken against the mother.This witness was pacified and counseled by the Court whereafter she stated that about 2 or 3 years ago in the month of July, she along with her mother was standing outside her house.Sudhir and Sunil were going in front of gali of their house.They both started passing obscene gestures and commenting on her.Her mother objected to it and D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 13 of 66 asked them to go away from there.On hearing the noise of her mother, Subhash her brother who was inside the house came out and objected to the act of the accused on which they started arguing with him and went away saying that they will see him after sometime.After about 20 minutes, they both came along with many other boys namely Sonu Punjabi, Phullu, Sanjay and Danny.She identified all the accused persons in the Court.They called her brother out of the house.Her brother came out of the house and after seeing the accused persons armed with weapons he ran towards Shiv Mandir in the gali.They all apprehended her brother and started giving beatings with baseball bat, iron rod, glass bottles and knives.She stated that she cannot tell which of the accused was hitting with which weapon.On hearing the noise, her neighbor Samir and cousin Naresh came out who were also given beatings by the accused persons.Naresh and Samir sustained injuries in that quarrel.Even she was given beatings by accused Sudhir by iron rod.Her brother fell on the ground.She along with her mother went towards her brother who was almost dead.Thereafter, they went to hospital with her brother where her brother was declared brought dead by the doctor.She, her mother, Naresh and Samir were also medically examined at the hospital.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 13 of 66Though this witness has deposed about all the main contours of the prosecution case, however in her examination-in-chief she failed to give details as to which of the accused inflicted particular injury and by which weapon.Thus, learned APP sought permission to put leading questions to this witness as she had substantially deposed about the incident but she escaped details.This request was opposed by the defence counsels which request was thus rejected.However, learned APP was permitted to put questions by way of cross-examination in order to establish the facts D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 14 of 66 forgotten by this witness.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 20 of 66N was also examined as SW-1 by the Court wherein she stated that Naresh her cousin and Samir her neighbour tried to save her brother in the incident and also received injuries but during trial they have been pressurized by the accused and thus both turned hostile.She reiterated that after the incident they have been receiving threats from the family of the accused.The Court also examined Inspector Ram Kishore as SW-2 who placed on record the details of involvement of other family members of Sunil and Sudhir, involvement of Surender and Sanjay.The victim was examined on several dates within the period of two years and she had been consistent throughout, that rape had been committed upon her.However, her father died during the trial and it may be because of his D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.Thus, a reasonable inference can be drawn that defence had an opportunity to win her mother."20. N has stated that she was given beatings by Sudhir by iron rod when she went after her brother.This witness was medically examined and PW-4 Dr. Binay Kumar, proved her MLC Ex.PW4/B. As per the MLC, she suffered fresh injuries in the form of abrasions over left side of frontal region of scalp.Dr. Binay Kumar in cross examination also clarified that the injury on the person of N could be caused by the iron pipe or a blunt object.The witness being an injured witness, her presence at the spot cannot be doubted.Further, the version of this witness is also corroborated from the PCR record.The PCR received the information at 23.56 hrs on 20 th July, 2009 vide Ex. PW6/A. After the PCR reached on the spot it noted that 3 men have received knife injuries and the quarrel was on teasing a girl.This noting is made at 00.36 hrs.on 21st July 2009 and by that time four persons namely Mohd. Samir, Subhash, Naresh and Sunil had been sent to the hospital.A perusal of the MLC of Mohd. Samir Ex PW4/A shows sharp incised wound.Even MLC of Naresh Ex. PW4/D shows sharp incised wound.MLC of Sunil also shows incised wound vide ExPW28/D. Merely because post mortem report of Subhash shows that there was no incised wound, the same would not belie the version of the prosecution witnesses, who have stated that one of the accused was armed with knife as knife injuries have been received by two other witnesses i.e. Mohd. Samir and Naresh though they may have turned D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 23 of 66 hostile.However, this Court can look into their MLCs to find corroboration to the version of Neeru and N. PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra in his testimony has stated that injuries to Mohd. Samir, Naresh and Sunil were possible with broken glasses and the knife corroborating the version of the eye witnesses.The contention of defence is that Neeru is not a truthful witness as she stated that Sunil fell down on the broken pieces of glasses and sustained injuries, however the broken glass pieces were not blood stained.This contention is contrary to the evidence on record.Dr. Manoj Dhingra noticed the glass pieces to be blood stained.Even as per FSL report Ex.PX and Ex.PY the broken glass piece was stained with human blood.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 23 of 66In Kuria (supra) their Lordships further held that the position of law in cases of contradiction between the medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis--vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of evidence.Learned counsel for Sunil has tried to urge that Sunil was not present at the spot and he received injuries in a different incident.The case of Sunil in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC is that he had gone to temple on the fateful night to meet Kanwarias where some unknown person attacked him D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 24 of 66 and gave him knife blows with which he suffered injuries to his different parts of body however no statement of Sunil was recorded by the police.Thus Sunil has taken a plea of alibi of not being present in the incident but involved in another incident.This was required to be proved by Sunil.Despite Neeru having deposed that Sunil received injuries by fall on glass pieces she has not been cross-examined on this aspect.As a matter of fact, this witness has not even been cross- examined on behalf of Sunil.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 24 of 66Learned counsels for the Appellants have also assailed the prosecution case on the ground that the FIR was registered belatedly and thus there was sufficient time for manipulating the same.A perusal of Ex.PW6/A PCR form shows that the local Police reached the spot at 00.34 hrs by which time injured Mohd. Samir and Naresh had been taken to the hospital, who were examined in the hospital at 00.35 AM and 1.00 AM respectively.Further Subhash and Sunil were admitted at 00.45 hrs and 1.05 hrs.on 21st July, 2009 by ASI Rawal Singh.It is thus evident that ASI Rawal Singh immediately on D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 25 of 66 reaching the spot went to the hospital whereafter he recorded the statement of Neeru in the hospital and sent the same by Constable Bijender to the Police Station at about 2.15 AM.The time between reaching the hospital, recording of statement of Neeru and thereafter sending the same to the Police Station at 2.15 AM for recording of FIR cannot be said to be unreasonable time which could have given time to Neeru to have manipulated the facts.The genesis of the quarrel being on account of teasing a girl is even noted in the PCR report.Moreover PW-10 HC Sat Narain the duty officer deposed that on 21 st July, 2009 he received the rukka at about 2.25 AM on the basis of which he registered the FIR.This witness has not been cross-examined and thus his testimony has gone unchallenged.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 25 of 66As per the seizure memo three baseball bats have been recovered, one baseball stick/bat with black coloured tape wrapped on it, one black colored baseball stick/bat RAPTOR written on it by red color and the handle of the same being broken and a white coloured baseball bat/stick with the lower portion missing.From the photographs, learned counsel for the Appellants have sought to state that in fact there were four baseball bats however, none of the photographs show four baseball bats.Moreover this fact was required to be put to the witnesses, however the same has not been put to them.In State of U.P. Vs.The report noted as under:-The oft quoted observation of Lord Herschell, L.C. in Browne v. Dunn, (1893) 6 The Reports 67 clearly elucidates the principle underlying those provisions.It reads thus:A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 26 of 66"I cannot help saying, that it seems to me to be absolutely essential to the proper conduct of a cause, where it is intended to suggest that a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, to direct his attention to the fact by some questions put in cross-examination showing that imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged, and then, when it is impossible for him to explain, as perhaps he might have been able to do if such questions had been put to him, the circumstances which, it is suggested, indicate that the story he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is a witness unworthy of credit.My Lords, I have always understood that if you intend to impeach a witness, you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but it is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses."Much of the debate of learned counsel for the appellants was centered towards the spot of incident.According to them, there were two spots of incident.Since PCR call was made from the house of the deceased and the Police also reached there, the same had no connection with the incident which took place at Shiv Mandir.This argument deserves to be rejected at the outset.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 27 of 66Learned counsels for the Appellants have also assailed the recoveries on the ground that though they were made at different times however, pullandas were all deposited together.He has explained that after the spot inspection, he went to the mortuary, prepared the inquest papers, got the dead body identified and moved an application for conducting the post-mortem of Subhash.Thereafter, he came back with Constable K.N. Goud to the Police Station and deposited the exhibits with MHCM.With regard to motorcycle being recovered at the instance of Suresh @ Phullu on which Sunil was taken to the hospital, and the blood stained shirt of Surender @ Sonu Punjabi, he deposited the same with MHCM after coming back on the same day in the evening.This witness does not clarify that at around 12.00 to 1.00 Oclock when the alleged incident took place, Sanjay was at home or not.Further, he admits that he made no complaints in this regard to either any authority.Sanjay also assails his conviction on the ground that he was not named in the FIR.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 28 of 66As per PW-7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, the deceased was brought dead to hospital at about 12.45 am on 21st July, 2009 and he conducted his postmortem and prepared the report vide Ex.PW7/A. He noted that the deceased received the following injuries:-"EXTERNAL INJURIES:Contusion, reddish 6 cm x 2.5 cm present on right side of the face, 2.5 cm in front of ear and 5.5 cm outer to outer angle of right eye with abrasion over the area 2 x 1 cm within the lower third of the contused area with a spread area of 1 cm x 0.5 cm within the abrasion and laceration 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm into subcutaneous tissue deep present at upper end of contused area.The contusion is obliquely placed on right side of face.2. Contusion, reddish 6 cm x 2.5 cm on right side of the neck, 6 cm below right ear low with a semi circular abrasion in the middle of the contused area.Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on back of the left elbow.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 29 of 66Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on middle back of left forearm, 10 cm above wrist joint.Brain matter meninges - brain weight is 1500 gms, diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage all over the brain.Cause of death is cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head.All injuries are antemortem in nature, fresh in duration and caused by blunt object.Time since death is approximately 12 hours... "Dr. Manoj Dhingra also stated that total inquest papers were 11 in number and he exhibited the same vide Ex.PW7/B-1 to Ex.PW8/B-8 which bear his signature at point A and Ex.PW4/E i.e. MLC of deceased Subhash which bear his signature at point B. This answers the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the application for postmortem did not state about documents sent to the doctor.The documents having been sent along with the application stand duly exhibited.After 20-25 minutes, they came back along with the other co-accused and exhorted Subhash to come out.When Subhash came out of the house, they followed him and all of them assaulted him resulting in his death.As per N when the Appellants came back, they exhorted her brother to come out of the house and when he came out of the house, the Appellants ran after him with different weapons in their hands.As regards order on sentence, since the appellants have been held guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the appellants are directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 8 years each and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Sunil and Sudhir will also pay a compensation of Rs.1 lakh each to the deceaseds family and in default will undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.The sentences for offences under Section 307 IPC qua all the appellants and under Sections 25/27 Arms Act qua convict Sudhir shall remain the same as directed by the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 36 of 66 learned Trial Court and run concurrently.The appellants will be granted the benefit of sentence undergone under Section 428 Cr PC.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 36 of 66The Death Sentence Reference is answered in the negative.The appeals are accordingly disposed of.Copies of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, for his record and for the Appellants.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.I concur with the judgment of Justice Mukta Gupta both as regards conviction and sentence.However, I wish to supplement her reasons with some of my own.A call was made to the Police Control Room (PCR) on 20th July 2009 at 23:56:24 hours regarding a quarrel at Block F-3 Sultanpuri, Delhi.The PCR Form-I (Ex. PW6/A) filled in by the Wireless Staff of the Delhi Police gives the name of the informant as Pravesh Kumar with the address as Block F-3, Sultanpuri, Delhi.The contact name is given as "Neeru".The MLC of PW-23 showed that he had a sharp incised wound.The MLC of PW-12 revealed that he too had sharp incised wounds on the lumbar region.All these MLCs noted the alleged history of physical assault.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.The MLC of A-2 Sunil (Ex. PW28/D1) for some reason was not produced by the prosecution at the time of filing the charge-sheet.It was marked as an exhibit during the cross-examination of PW-28 during the trial.There was a fresh incised punctured wound of 2.5 cm x 1 cm over right lateral lower part of the chest.There was another punctured wound of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the lateral part of right upper thigh.A-2 was referred to surgery.She was examined at 3.30 am at the SGMH.An MLC was also prepared for Subhash (Ex. PW 4/E).It notes that the patient was declared brought dead and the dead body was shifted to the mortuary.The evidence of PWs 8 and 9The central issue concerns fixing the presence of the accused at the spot of incident.The prosecution tendered two eye-witnesses to the incident.They were Hari Singh (PW-8) and Sanjay (PW-9).PW-8 turned hostile.He claimed that no statement of his was recorded by the police and that he only D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 42 of 66 identified the dead body of Subhash.The previous statement made by this witness is Ex. PW7/B6 which purportedly identifies the deceased.The statement of PW-8 (Mark A) claims that Subhash was murdered by the accused who lived in the same locality.But in the trial Court he too resiled from his statement.The evidence of the injured witnesses PWs 12 and 23He was hit by something on the left side of his waist due to which bleeding started and he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital by someone.He denied the following statement made by him earlier to the police.With the four eye-D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.She explained that she had missed out the name of A-6 in the first statement "due to nervousness and hopelessness" in her mind.The record of proceedings of the trial Court on 20th May 2010 shows that on that date a further examination-in-chief was deferred "for want of case property".The case was adjourned to 19th and 31st July 2010 for the remaining prosecution evidence (PE)".On 2nd June 2010, A-6 was admitted to interim bail for a period of two months.The proceedings of 19th July 2010 gives no indication that PW-3 was present for continuation of her examination-in-chief.The APP who was present failed to point out this to the trial Court.On 31st July 2010, again PW-3 was not present and the APP did not point this out to the trial Court.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 44 of 66On 11th August 2010, the bail application of A-1 was rejected.The interim bail application of A-4 was rejected.PWs 5 and 6 were examined and discharged.On that date, the interim bail of A-3 was extended and the next date was fixed for 2nd and 8th November 2010 for PE.On 8th November 2010 PWs 8, 9 and 10 were examined and discharged.The above orders have been referred to only to highlight the fact that despite being the star prosecution witness, PW-3 was not bound down so that her examination-in-chief could be completed in a time-bound manner.Till 7th March 2011, by which time 17 prosecution witnesses were examined, the further examination-in-chief of PW-3 did not take place.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 45 of 66Although this visit does not appear to have had an impact on her examination-in-chief on 20th May 2010, between that date and her subsequent examination-in-chief on 7th March 2011 many of the accused were released on interim bail.On 7th March 2011, the Presiding Officer (PO) changed.In response to a question by the counsel for A-3 "What comments were passed against your daughter by the accused?", the observations of the PO read as under:Immediately thereafter, PW-3 made the following statement:"I saw Kanwariyas at the spot of incident but I do not remember the date of incident.It is correct that I have not seen anything or any person and accused present in the court.It is correct that I do not known as to who has caused injuries to my son and to me and my daughter.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely."PW-3 was next cross-examined by counsel for A-1 and A-6 and stated as under:"It is correct that lot of people around 100/200 had gathered at the spot.I do not know if police had recorded my statement on the same D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 46 of 66 day or the next day.Police had taken into possession the baseball bat etc. in my presence.Police had prepared some documents at the time of taking into possession the baseball bat and other articles from the spot.I cannot tell the number of papers signed by me which were prepared by the police.Some of those were blank and some were written.It is correct that contents of the papers were not read over to me by the police.It is correct that I have seen the accused first time in the court.I had made the statement in the court on 20.5.10 on the instructions of police officials.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 46 of 66The APP at that stage sought permission to cross-examine the witness.This is followed by the statement of the witness (PW-3) which is recorded as under:It is correct that I have got three daughters and I am residing with my husband along with said three daughters.It is correct that all the accused persons present in the court are residing in my locality and are my neighbours.I have no pressure on my mind and I want that accused be set at liberty and no action should be taken against the accused as I want that I should live with my three daughters peacefully in the same locality.PW-3 was again cross-examined by counsel for A-3 and she said:"Today I have deposed without any coercion or pressure from anyone.Neither I nor my husband and daughters have been threatened to be killed.It is correct that I am living with my family peacefully in my house."PW-3 was finally cross-examined by counsel for A-1 and A-6 when she again stated as under:It is correct that I have no fear from the accused persons either at present or in future and there was no fear in the past also.It is correct that I have not made any statement to the police either on the day of incident or the following day."An application was filed under Section 311 Cr PC on behalf of A-5 pursuant to which PW-3 was recalled for further cross-examination on 12th August 2011 when she admitted that she had gone to meet the "accused in jail".She now mentioned that she had gone to meet one Shakir at Central Jail along with Shakirs mother.She denied the suggestion that she went to the jail to cut a deal and extract money for the D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.The evidence of PW-3 reveals a constant flip-flop and she obviously did not speak the entire truth.Apart from the fact that she is both a related and interested witness warranting a more careful scrutiny of her evidence, it is difficult to trust a witness who keeps prevaricating on the version of events.I am unable to agree with the conclusion of the trial Court that since PW-3 gave "valid and plausible explanation" for not mentioning A-6 in the first instance that would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.PW-27 was first examined in the trial Court on 23rd February 2012, more than two years and seven months after the incident.The learned trial judge found her bitterly weeping.When asked the reason, PW-27 stated that her family members had prevented her from coming to the Court.The learned trial judge noted that on being consoled, PW-27 stated that she wanted to depose against the accused but PW-23 and her mother had stopped her from deposing.PW-27 stated that she was being treated for a neuro ailment at Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute, Paschim Vihar and she was in a dilemma whether she should depose truthfully.The trial Court thereafter proceeded to record the deposition of PW-27 who stated as under:"About two and half years or three years back, in the month of July, I along with my mother was standing outside our house.From the gali of our house, accused Sudhir and Sunil present in the court today were going.They both started giving obscene gestures towards me and started commenting upon me.My mother objected to it and she asked them to go away from there.On hearing the noise of my mother, my brother Subhash who was inside the house came out and objected on (sic to) the act of both the accused persons, on which both the accused started arguing with my brother and went away from there by saying that they will see my brother after sometime.My brother came out of the house and after seeing all the accused persons with different weapons in their hands, ran towards shiv mandir in the gali.They all apprehended my brother and started giving beatings with baseball bat, iron rod, glass bottles and knives.I cannot tell which of the accused was hitting with which weapon.On hearing the noise, my neighbor Samir and my cousin Naresh came out who D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 50 of 66 were also given beatings by the accused persons.There were other persons along with the accused persons whom I did not know.My brother fell on the ground, I along with my mother went towards my brother who was almost dead.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 50 of 66The trial Court recorded as under:"Ld. APP wants to put some leading questions as the witness has substantially deposed the incident but she is forgetting the details.The said request is opposed by the Ld. Defence counsels.PW27/A to the police, I had stated that on 20.07.09, my cousin Naresh had come from Haridwar with kanwar and offered the holy water of Ganga at Shiv Mandir of our area and the persons who had brought the said kanwars were dancing opposite Shiv Mandir in the gali.It is correct that I was watching my said cousin dancing and there were many ladies, boys and gents were present and after some time, I came back at my home.It is correct that it was 11.30 p.m. when I was standing outside my house with my mother.It is correct that after watching the dance, accused Sudhir and Sunil were going from my gali when they had commented upon me and made indecent gestures towards me.It is correct that I had stated to the police that I know all the accused persons as they are resident of the same locality.Accused Danny is residing just behind my house.It is correct that accused Sunil and Sanjay were having base ball bat in their hands and accused Sudhir D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 51 of 66 was having knife in his hand and accused Sonu Punjabi was having iron rod in his hand and accused Phullu and Danny were having glass bottles in their hands.(court observation:- The weapons i.e. iron rods and glass bottles in the respective hands of the said three accused were uttered by the witness voluntarily even prior to putting the question in complete sense by the Ld.APP) It is correct that when the accused persons were chasing my brother when he was running towards mandir, accused Sunil was uttering that "is saley ne hamari badmashi ko chunoti di hai, is saley ko khatam karna hai" (the said deceased had challenged their ruffianism so he should be killed).It is correct that accused Sudhir had caught hold of my brother Subhash opposite Shiv Mandir in the gali and accused Sunil and Sanjay hit on the head of my brother with baseball, accused Sonu Punjabi hit on his head with iron rod and accused Danny and Phullu gave blows on the head of my brother with empty liquor glass bottles.It is correct that when I, my mother, my cousin Naresh and neighbor Sameer raised alarm of bachao bachao then accused Sudhir inflicted knife blows on Naresh and Sameer.She only stated: "...my brother Subhash who was inside the house came out and objected on (sic to) the act of both the accused persons, on which both the accused started arguing with my brother and went away from there by saying that they will see my brother after sometime." This assumes D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 58 of 66 significance for the aspect of motive and the absence of an express intent to kill.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 58 of 66The evidence of PW-27 can be taken to support the case of the prosecution to the extent that as an injured eye witness PW-27 has in her examination-in-chief identified the accused, spoken about their chasing and beating Subhash with base ball bats and an iron pipe, and as a result of the injuries Subhash met with his death.The medical evidenceThe post-mortem report of Subhash (Ex. PW7/A) described the external injuries as under:"1. Contusion, reddish 6 cm x 2.5 cm present on right side of the face, 2.5 cm in front of ear and 5.5 cm outer to outer angle of right eye with abrasion over an area 2 x 1 cm within the lower third of the contused area with a spread area of 1 cm x 0.5 cm within the abrasion and laceration 0.1 cm x 0.1 cm into subcutaneous tissue deep present at upper end of contused area.The contusion is obliquely placed on right side of face.2. Contusion, reddish 6 cm x 2.5 cm on right side of the neck, 6 cm below right ear low with a semi circular abrasion in the middle of the contused area.Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on back of the left elbow.Abrasion 1 x 0.5 cm on middle of back of left forearm, 10 cm above wrist joint.The internal examination noted "brain weight is 1500 gms, diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage all over the brain".The cause of death was as under:D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 59 of 66"Cause of death is cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head.Total inquest papers are 11."The post mortem report showed no knife injuries on Subhash.It stated that the death was homicidal.The opinion was not that the death was as a result of the cumulative effect of the external injuries.The opinion was that death was due to "blunt force impact to the head".And yet, there were no external injuries noticed on the head.In his cross-examination by counsel for A-1, Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-7) who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased [along with Dr. J.V. Kiran (PW-11)] on 21st July 2009, stated that "Cerebral damage may be caused by dashing of head against a hard surface or a wall or any standing hard object".The first parcel contained a baseball bat with black tape wound around with one end knobbed with a crack, the second one contained a broken black coloured baseball bat with the words RAPTOR written at the distal end.A third pullanda contained a white coloured baseball bat with the distal end broken and a crack on the knob of the bat and a crack at the upper part of the bat.The fourth pullanda contained a hollow iron pipe and fifth pullanda contained a broken stick.In his cross-examination, PW-11 stated that he did not use any scientific instrument for examining the articles shown to him.He admitted D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 60 of 66 that there was an overwriting on the number of parcels received.He did not suggest which weapon could have caused which injury.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 60 of 66As regards Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-7), he stated that the glass pieces sent by him were having blood stains.With reference to the MLC No. 9519 (the MLC of A-2), PW-7 stated that the injuries might be possible with broken glass and also with knife.No fracture of bones was noticed on the right side of the face of the deceased.There was, however, contusion, laceration and abrasion.In the case on hand, the evidence of PW-27 and the medical evidence may be said to establish the presence of the first two elements but not the third viz., there was an intention to inflict any particular type of injury on the deceased.D.S.R. No.5/2013, Crl.A. Nos. 1219, 1362, 1463, 1464/2013 and 345/2014 Page 65 of 66A copy of this judgment be circulated to the District and Sessions Judges of all the Districts for wider dissemination amongst the Courts of the learned ASJs.
|
['Section 300 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 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,169,457 |
They constitute a joint Hindu family and residing in house No. 25 on Gandhi Road, Chhatarpur.They own Gupta Lodge and New Gupta Lodge near bus-stand, Chhatarpur.They also own some agricultural land.The petitioners 1 and 2 settled down at Chhatarpur in the year 1948-49 and they had a modest beginning by running a grocery shop in the year 1951 and then they started a sweetmeat shop known as Gupta Mishthan Bhandar.They were also taking forest contracts in partnership with others.The adjacent plot was purchased in 1965 and they constructed New Gupta Lodge later on.In the year 1970 the petitioners purchased one house on Gandhi Road, Chhatarpur and then constructed their present residential house thereon.was promulgated on 20-4-1981 specifying certain offences in the dacoity infested areas of the Stato, providing for more stringent punishment and speedy trial and making provision for attachment and confiscation of properties acquired through the commission of specified offences.The definition of specified offences was enlarged to include cases of kidnapping also.It appears that the District Magistrate received certain reports and forwarded the same to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for enquiry.He then passed the impugned order that the petitioners own Gupta Lodge and New Gupta Lodge in bus-stand and house No. 25 at Gandhi Road, Chhatarpur, but they were unable to account for the same satisfactorily and, therefore, these properties have been attached under Section 13(1) of the Adhiniyam.They have acquired valuable properties within the last 25 years, the acquisition of which have not been satisfactorily explained.The petitioners' case is that they are permanent residents of Chhatarpur doing business there and owning buildings and agricultural lands.They started a Kirana shop in the year 1951 and thereafter a sweetmeat shop known as Gupta Mishthan Bhandar.They also started doing business in forest contracts in partnership with others.The Lodge was opened by the ex-President of the Municipal Council.Further they acquired adjacent plot in the year 1965 for Rs. 7,000/- and then constructed New Gupta Lodge by investing Rupees 46,955/-.They have been maintaining regular accounts and the same were scrutinised from time to time by the sales-tax, income-tax and weaith-tax authorities.They have been paying taxes regularly amounting to thousands of rupees.The Executive Engineer has calculated the present valuation of these properties at rupees five lacs while the petitioners have given an explanation to the extent of Rs. 2 1/2 lacs only.There is a common talk in the town of Chhatarpur that the famous dacoit Muratsingh had very thick relations with the petitioners and even after his death his son Ramsingh is maintaining the same relations with the petitioners.These lodges were constructed by the amounts invested by Muratsingh and his son Ramsingh though they are standing in the name of the petitioners.A report was received from the Town Inspector that dacoits are being given shelter in these two lodges.Statements of Laxmiprasad and Gorelal were recorded by the police.On the basis of the report and statements recorded, the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the petitioners were unable to explain how they have acquired these properties and so the same have been attached.The rules framed under the Adhyadesh did not survive after the Adhiniyam came into force.It is denied that they have been giving shelter and help to these dacoits.It is false that these two lodges have been constructed out of the money given by Muratsingh and Ramsingh.Ramsingh is a municipal councillor and owns a big house in Ward No. 20, Chhatarpur, while Muratsingh also owned a house in that ward.Since they had their own living houses at Chhatarpur, there was no question of their taking shelter in these two lodges.A false report was given by the Town Inspector for ulterior purposes.On 25-7-1980 in room No. 15 of Gupta Lodge a police Sub-Inspector committed rape on a woman.A report of the incident was lodged by the employees which led to public agitation.It does not appear that the District Magistrate looked into the statements of petitioners 1 and 3 Gorelal and Laxmiprasad giving account of the properties acquired.ORDER C.P. Sen, J.Under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the District Magistrate.Chhatarpur, dated 7-12-1981 attaching the properties of the petitioners under Section 14 of M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan Pra-bhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam).Petitioner No. 1 Gorelal is the husband of petitioner No. 2 Mannubai and father of petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 Laxmiprasad and Deviprasad.In pursuance thereof, the Tahsildar attached the properties on the same day but the petitioners were permitted to reside in the portion of house No. 25 in their occupation on execution (of) a supratnama and the management of the two lodges were given to the Municipal Council, Chhatarpur.The petitioners made a representation against attachment on 27-1-1982 explaining how these properties were acquired and submitting that their business is being regularly assessed to sales-tax and income-tax purposes and regular accounts are " being maintained.However, by order dated 27-4-1982 the petitioners were permitted to manage the two lodges on their executing supratnamas during pendency of the petition.The lodges are being managed by the petitioners.By further order dated 3-6-1982 the District Magistrate opined that he was under the impression that reasons were not to be given as the rules framed under the Adhyadesh lapsed after the enactment of the Adhiniyam but on reconsideration it appeared that the same rules continued under the Adhiniyam in the absence of fresh rules being framed and so he is disclosing the reasons for attachment of the properties of the petitioners because the same were acquired out of the funds supplied by dacoit Muratsingh and his son Ramsingh.They have taken necessary licences for running the two lodges.In these two lodges tourists from India and abroad come and stay.The petitioners are not at all connected with any activities relating to the specified offences as defined in the Adhiniyam, They have no connection with any dacoit nor they are in any way involved in any case of dacoity or kidnapping.Before passing the impugned order, the District Magistrate did not ask the petitioners to produce their accounts and documents to explain acquisition of these properties nor any notice was given to them.Without any application of mind, the District Magistrate has passed the order attaching the properties.The petitioners were arrested under Section 12 of the Adhiniyam but they were granted bail by Special Judge on 6th and 8th of December 1981 as he found that there is no prima facie case to connect the petitioners with any specified offences.In their return, the respondents contended that the petitioners owned no property worth the name.Earlier the family was living in a rental house and running a grocery and sweetmeat shop with investment totalling Rs. 7,000/- to 8,000/-.It is not necessary that the declaration of the District Magistrate under Section 13(1) has to be in a particular form, The petitioners have filed their representation and also submitted their account-books which are being examined by the District Magistrate.There is no delay and the final orders will be passed in a month or so.The petitioners in their rejoinder contended that the District Magistrate has acted on rumours and imaginary tales.The petitioner No. 1 has been paying income-tax from 1962 and thereafter the firms have also been assessed to income-tax.The valuation of Rs. 39,500/-for Gupta Lodge given by the petitioners has been accepted by the income-tax authorities while the valuation of Rs. 71, 600/- for New Gupta Lodge is under dispute, since the Income-tax Officer has assessed the same at Rs. 1,03,586/-but that valuation has been accepted by the Wealth-tax Officer.Their residential house has been valued at Rs. 1,21,200/-and the same has not been disputed by the income-tax authorities.The valuation of the Executive Engineer is inflated in order to support the order of the District Magistrate.The petitioners had no connection with dacoit Murat Singh and his son Ramsingh.If he had looked into them, he would have further probed into the matter by asking the petitioners to produce their account books and documents to find out the truth.Surprisingly, there is no report prior to this against the petitioners.A telegram of the Superintendent of Police dated 25-7-1980 was also annexed.Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.Besides, in the additional return the respondents have produced two more reports dated 3-12-1981 and 4-6-1982 of the Superintendent of Police that these properties were acquired benami in the name of the petitioners by Muratsingh and his son Ramsingh who were taking shelter in these lodges.The District Magistrate after getting the representation of the petitioners, has recorded statements of Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer about valuation of the properties.According to them, their present value is five lacs while the petitioners have given the costs of construction at 2 1/2 lacs and naturally the value of property has increased during all these years.He has also recorded statements of Town Inspector and the S.D.O. who have no personal knowledge in the matter.The petitioners in their representation dated 27-1-1982 have explained as to how they acquired these properties supported by documents and entries from account-book.They are regularly assessed by the Sales Tax and Income-tax authorities.In their return dated 3-4-1982 it was said that the District Magistrate will pass final order within a month or so but although about 2 years have passed, nothing has been done by the District Magistrate.We have no option but to hold the orders of attachment dated 7-12-1981 and 3-6-1982 are ultra vires and illegal.
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,903,410 |
PW-4/A) dated 25.07.2011 before Chairperson SC / ST Commission, Khan Market implicating the accused for commission of rape upon her.She further informed that thereafter the accused established physical relations with her several times on the promise to marry as a result of which she became pregnant.When she informed the accused about her pregnancy, on 24.07.2011 at around 07.30 p.m., his father - Ved Prakash Sharma, brother - Gopal Sharma and mother arrived at her residence and gave her severe beatings.She was threatened to abort the child.On the intervention of one Manvir Singh Kohli, the assailants left the spot threatening her to abort the child within a week.Undisputably, 'X', a permanent resident of Shiv Nagar, Rudrapur (Uttrakhand) and was pursuing LL.B. from Chankya Law College, Rudrapur, while the accused was doing MBA.It is also not in dispute that both the prosecutrix and the accused were acquainted with each other for the last about three years before the incident and used to have conversation on phone.In 2010, the prosecutrix came to Delhi and lived in a rented accommodation at Shiv Nagar.A.135/2014 Page 3 of 21 accused started visiting her at her Friends Colony residence and 'one' day after putting her in fear and pressing her throat, he committed rape upon her.Thereafter, he established physical relations with her several times after enticing her on promise to marry her.In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-4/A), she disclosed that the accused was well known to her since 2010 as he lived as a tenant in their house.She got a job in Delhi.In January, 2011, the accused called her at New Delhi Railway Station.When she went there, the accused intended to take her to a hotel which offer she declined and returned to her residence.The accused followed her to her house and noted her residence.On that day, in December, 2010 or January, 2011, the accused entered inside her house and attempted to caught hold of her.When she raised alarm, the accused pressed her neck.He, thereafter, put off her salwar and forcibly established physical relations with her, as a result of which she became unconscious.When she came to senses, the accused took an 'oath' that he would marry her.The accused often used to visit her and they had consensual sex.The accused, however, did not perform marriage with her.On 22.07.2011, she came to know that she was pregnant.On 23.07.2011, his parents and brother came and gave beatings to her with fists and blows.A.135/2014 Page 3 of 21A.135/2014 Page 4 of 21In her Court statement as PW-4, 'X', deposed that after she came to Delhi in 2010, the accused remained on regular contact with her on phone.In December, 2010 or January, 2011 the accused after coming to Delhi called her on phone at New Delhi Railway Station on the pretext that he had a message for her from her family and also wanted to talk about his job.When she went to New Delhi Railway Station and talked with the accused, he offered her to go to some hotel to take tea together.They went to a hotel near the railway station, took tea and she returned to her house by taking a bus.She further deposed that on that evening, the accused came to her house, knocked at the door and she opened it.After the accused entered inside the house, he started forcing upon her.She pushed him aside and he fell down.As he got up, he strangulated her by hands.He, thereafter, opened her salwar by opening the string and did forcibly intercourse with her as a result of which she lost her senses.When she regained senses, she found the accused present there.He informed her that as he wanted to marry her, he had committed sexual intercourse with her.He undertook to marry her and remained with her in the house for 2/3 days.During this period, physical relations were established.When she asked the accused to marry her, the accused told her to come to Rudrapur so that they could marry there.After about Crl.A.135/2014 Page 5 of 21 fifteen days, she went to Rudrapur and insisted the accused to marry her.The accused told her that he wanted to get fee and other expenses from his father to complete MBA.Despite her insistence, the accused did not marry and promised to marry after MBA was complete.She returned to Delhi.The accused used to visit her there.They used to stay at hotels in between and had physical relations.The accused used to beat her whenever she did not obey his instructions.A.135/2014 Page 5 of 21In her further statement, she deposed that on 22.07.2011 over phone, she informed the accused and his father about her pregnancy.On 23.07.2011, the accused accompanied by his parents came to Delhi at about 04.00-05.00 p.m. and she was given beatings resulting in her fall.The assailants went away after bolting the door from outside.She went to the police station next day to lodge complaint but the police did not accept it.She sent a copy of the complaint to SC / ST Commission and Women Commission.Since she was bleeding profusely she went to Dr.Kukreja at Bharat Nagar where her pregnancy was finally aborted.In the cross- examination, she admitted that she had two brothers and two sisters.She admitted to have gone to see the accused at New Delhi Railway Station on her sweet will.She also admitted that she wanted to marry the accused after the incident.She disclosed that abortion took place on 24.07.2011 Crl.A.135/2014 Page 6 of 21 after she took medicines from Dr.It is unclear when the prosecutrix became pregnant and when the pregnancy was aborted / terminated.PW-10 (Dr.Kiran Kukreja), General Physician, informed the Court that on 22.07.2011 'X' had come to her clinic with the complaint of bleeding from vagina and delayed menstruation.She got her urine tested for pregnancy at her clinic and it was found 'positive' vide report (Ex.PW-10/A).On her advice, the patient had also undergone an ultrasound examination vide report (Ex.PW-10/B).As per ultrasound report, 'X' was found to have ruptured ectopic pregnancy.She was referred to gynaecologist for further management to any hospital of her choice.PW-2 (Dr.Saloni Bansal) medically examined the prosecutrix on 29.08.2011 vide MLC (Ex.PW-2/A).From there, they had gone to a hotel and had taken tea together.The alleged incident of rape took place at around 07.30 p.m. soon after return to her room.She alleged that the accused entered inside her room and started forcing upon her.PW-4/A), she had claimed arrival of Manvir Singh Kohli and not his servant.In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement (Ex.PW-4/A), she claimed that when the appellant called her at New Delhi Railway Station, he wanted to take her to a hotel to which she declined.However, in her Court statement, she admitted that they had gone to a hotel and had taken tea together.The appellant - Hari Mohan Sharma has preferred the instant appeal to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 25.11.2013 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.33/2013 arising out of FIR No.197/2011 PS New Friends Colony by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.By an order dated 13.12.2013, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine `5,000/-.Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that in December, 2010 or January, 2011 at House No.102, Bharat Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, the appellant committed Crl.A.135/2014 Page 1 of 21 rape upon the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) during night time.The complainant lodged complaint (Ex.During investigation, 'X' recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C; she was medically examined.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of the offence under Section 376 IPC.The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove its case.In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.No evidence in defence was produced.The trial resulted in Crl.A.135/2014 Page 2 of 21 his conviction as mentioned previously.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.A.135/2014 Page 1 of 21A.135/2014 Page 2 of 21I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.The friendship between the two continued even thereafter.In her complaint (Ex.PW-4/A), the prosecutrix did not reveal the exact date when for the first time, she was sexually assaulted by the accused at Delhi.She merely stated that after her coming to Delhi, the Crl.On 24.07.2011, she decided to lodge complaint with the police.Kukreja's clinic.She volunteered to add that the doctor had advised her for abortion or else it could be a risk for her life.No sample for DNA from foetus was preserved.A.135/2014 Page 6 of 21On scanning the various statements given by the prosecutrix at various stages of investigation / trial, it reveals that she is not consistent.She has made vital improvements at different stages of investigation / trial.Admitted position is that both the prosecutrix and the appellant were well acquainted with each other before the incident and had friendly relations.Both were aged about 30 years and belonged to different 'castes'.The prosecutrix attempted to implicate the appellant's parents and brother accusing them of giving beatings to her on 24.07.2011 at around 07.30 p.m. She even alleged that the appellant's mother had kicked on her stomach with an intention to abort the pregnancy and all of them had left the spot threatening her to abort the pregnancy within a week.Soon thereafter on 25.07.2011, a written-typed complaint was lodged by her before SC / ST Commission, Khan Market.The Trial Court did not accept X's version regarding this incident.The prosecutrix did not produce cogent evidence if the appellant's parents and brother had visited on 24.07.2011 Crl.A.135/2014 Page 7 of 21 at around 07.30 p.m. as alleged in the complaint (Ex.PW-4/A).She did not get herself medically examined that time for the beatings allegedly given to her; she did not lodge any complaint with the police; no PCR call was made that time.Even after the departure of the alleged assailants, the prosecutrix did not report the incident to the police.In the complaint (Ex.PW-4/A), there is mention that on hearing her cries, Manvir Singh Kohli residing in her neighbourhood at D-807, New Friends Colony arrived at the spot and intervened in the incident.He rather informed the police that he had declined to give a false statement at the asking of the prosecutrix.Manvir Singh Kohli in his deposition before the Court as PW- 7 did not state if any incident whereby 'X' was given beatings by the appellant's relatives or he had intervened to save the prosecutrix that time had taken place in his presence.He introduced a different story alleging that in June, 2011, the prosecutrix and the appellant had come to him disclosing their intention to marry and he had advised them to bring all the materials needed for performing marriage on that day itself.The prosecutrix in her deposition did not state these facts.The fact remains Crl.A.135/2014 Page 8 of 21 that X's statement regarding incident dated 24.07.2011 has remained uncorroborated.A.135/2014 Page 7 of 21A.135/2014 Page 8 of 21PW-10 did not reveal if she had prescribed any medicines to abort the pregnancy.The prosecutrix did not produce on record any medical document to show on any specific date the pregnancy was aborted at a particular hospital.Contents of statement (Ex.PW-4/A) reveal that till the lodging of the complaint on 25.07.2011, no such abortion had taken place.In the cross- examination, she admitted that at that time there was no sign of recent abortion.The prosecutrix had not shown her any medical record in Crl.A.135/2014 Page 9 of 21 relation to any abortion.It is thus unclear if the prosecutrix became pregnant due to sexual relationship with the appellant or that the pregnancy was aborted / terminated.No DNA of the foetus was preserved. 'X' did not give plausible explanation as to why she had undergone abortion.A.135/2014 Page 9 of 21The prosecution has further failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt if at the time of first encounter in December, 2010 or January, 2011, the prosecutrix was raped 'forcibly' by the appellant against her wishes inside her house.As per X's version, she had gone to meet the appellant at New Delhi Railway Station on that day.She pushed him aside as a result of which he fell down.Thereafter, he got up and strangulated her by hands and committed forcible intercourse with her. 'X' did not raise any alarm at that time and no person from the neighbourhood collected.She did not lodge any report with the police for the forcible rape committed upon her; she did not get herself medically examined.Her plea that she did not lodge the report with the police as the appellant had promised to marry her does not appeal to mind.The Crl.A.135/2014 Page 10 of 21 appellant had not made any such promise to marry with the prosecutrix before having alleged physical relationship.If the prosecutrix was not a consenting party, there was no occasion or reason not to report the incident to the police or her family members for the heinous crime committed by the appellant to have physical relations forcibly against her wishes that time.It has come on record that the accused did not abscond from the spot and remained with the prosecutrix in her house thereafter for 2/ 3 days.During this period also physical relationship took place between the two.Thereafter, she returned to Delhi.The accused continued to visit her and they stayed at hotels in between and had sexual intercourse.Apparently, the prosecutrix had no reasons to have physical relationship with the accused once she had come to know that there was no intention of the appellant to marry her.A.135/2014 Page 10 of 21No cogent evidence has emerged on record to show that the physical relations were established with the prosecutrix on the false promise or assurance of marriage.At no stage, the prosecutrix brought it to the notice of her brothers and sisters and never prompted them to approach the appellant and his family members for the marriage.Where was the compulsion for the prosecutrix to have physical relationship repeatedly without ensuring that the appellant and his family members were willing to perform marriage with her? She was mature enough to fully understand as to what was happening between the two.There is nothing in her evidence to demonstrate that she was incapable of understanding the nature and implications of the act which she consented to.Her consent for physical relationship (if any) was an act of conscious reason.If a fully grown up lady consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise to marry and continues to indulge in such activity for long, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact.At no stage, 'X' approached the appellant's family members to apprise them his intention to marry her.A.135/2014 Page 11 of 2111. 'X' is not believed to allow the appellant to have physical relations repeatedly without first ensuring authenticity of the alleged Crl.A.135/2014 Page 12 of 21 promise to marriage particularly when they both belonged to different castes.A.135/2014 Page 12 of 21In her deposition before the Court, she stated that Manvir Singh Kohli's servant had arrived by chance at the spot when she was being beaten by the appellant's relatives.No such servant has been named or examined.In complaint (Ex.Instead of reporting the matter to the concerned local police station promptly, on 25.07.2011, the prosecutrix approached SC / ST Commission, Khan Market.It is unclear as to what proceedings were conducted at the said Commission.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,906,961 |
In the panchnama prepared on 19.06.2020, the name of Vikas Patel, Ritesh Patwari and the driver Raja were mentioned.Due to prevailing Covid-19 situation, trial is not likely to conclude early in the near future.Heard through Video Conferencing.His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 30.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 23205/2020 and his second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 10.09.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 30664/2020 with liberty to revive the prayer after six weeks.As per prosecution story, the Mining Officer alongwith team of police officials of Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore had found illegal mining activities in progress on spot and accordingly seized two dumpers viz No. MP 09 HJ 2647 and MP 09 HJ 4310 and one Pocland machine.It is also alleged that while officials were performing duties, they were obstructed and the applicant alongwith the co-accused and others had pelted stones and caused damage to the public property viz., police vehicle etc. Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant as mentioned above.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.Under such circumstances the prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper.P e r contra, Ms Poorva Mahajan, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent opposes the bail application supporting the order impugned inter- alia contending that applicant alongwith co-accused Chetan was found indulged in illegal mining through their associates.Besides, they have pelted stones and damaged the police vehicles while mining officials and police authorities were discharging their duties.Therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.I n rejoinder, Shri Bagadiya controverts the contention related to criminal antecedents with the submission that besides the case in hand, there were four cases registered against the applicant, out of which in one case registered for offence punishable u/S 294, 323, 427, 506/34 IPC, the applicant has been acquitted on 06.12.2019 (annexed at Pg. 28-31 of the bail application).The Collector, Indore is also directed to maintain a separate account (for production of the record as and when directed for).(iv) the applicant shall mark his presence before the concerned police station on every 2 n d and 4 th Saturday between 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon till pendency of the trial.(v) the applicant shall submit an attested photocopy of the receipt before the Principal Registrar of this Bench, for placing the same on record of this case.The Principal Registrar shall produce the same as and when required by this Court in the form of PUD.If not, the applicant shall be released on bail in terms of the conditions imposed in this order and shall also be given pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence;(viii) violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to send an e-copy of this order to all the concerned including the concerned Station House Officer of the Police Station for information and necessary action.Registry is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.E-certified copy as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE sh SEHAR Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH HASEE INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=900ec6fc757798eaeb3df7a3286 0bd3298415a4d1c2d91436213f2568c8f2 7da, serialNumber=e7dbba955b262c04b8413 N 251ce7fb6f0b7dba610c57f1559c08bf6c6f 5dd40d4, cn=SEHAR HASEEN Date: 2020.11.03 12:43:41 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 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 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
77,911,575 |
DATED : 17th JULY, 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT :::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::The sentence imposed is as under :Offences Sentence Section 341 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for one Code month and payment of fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.The case of the prosecution as is unfolded during the trial is thus :(i) The informant (PW 1), who was aged 20 years at the time of incident, was studying in 12th Standard in College at Shahapur, Tahsil and District Bhandara.She used to travel to the college on bicycle.On the date of the incident i.e. 24-8-2016, she was proceeding::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 ::: 3 apeal437.19 to the college at 7-15 a.m. or thereabout.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::(ii) When the informant reached at Pindakepar-Korambi road, the accused accosted her on motorcycle and forced her to stop.The accused abused the prosecutrix, asked her to accompany him and then lowered his pant and flashed his private organ.The accused said "hepuka" (the broad translation would be 'shall I ravish you').The accused threatened the informant with knife attached to the keychain of the motorcycle.The accused then proceeded towards village Pindakepar and the informant, who was traumatized, proceeded towards Shahapur via Pindakepar.(iii) One Ishwarilal Gadhave (PW 3), who was proceeding to his farm on motorcycle, stopped to ask the informant as to what happened.The informant narrated the incident to Ishwarilal Gadhave who conveyed the incident to some persons at Pindakepar on mobile phone.Ishwarilal Gadhave then followed the accused and stopped him at village Pindakepar.People gathered.The informant reached at the scene after sometime.(iv) Two other girls, PW 2 and PW 5, who were minors, also reached the scene.PW 2 and PW 5 used to travel via Pindakepar road regularly on their bicycles.When PW 2 and PW 5 came to know of the incident, they disclosed that some days prior to the incident the accused misbehaved with them in similar fashion by demanding sexual favour::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 ::: 4 apeal437.19 and flashing private organ.This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 30-5-2019 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Bhandara in Special Criminal (Child) Case 41/2016 whereby the appellant is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii), 509 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 ::: 2 apeal437.19 Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).Section 354-A(ii) of the Indian Rigorous imprisonment for three Penal Code.years and payment of fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.Section 506 of the Indian Penal Rigorous imprisonment for one Code.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::(v) The informant went to the Bhandara Police Station and lodged report (Exhibit 25), on the basis of which Crime 222/2016 was registered against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 341, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii), 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.(vi) API Lalita Todase (PW 6) investigated the crime.She recorded statements of the informant and the two minor victims (PW 2 and PW 5).The accused was arrested, spot panchanama was recorded, the motorcycle used by the accused was handed over to the Investigating Officer by the Police Patil, Pindakepar village.The motorcycle and the knife attached to the keychain of the motorcycle was seized.After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the special Court.(vii) The learned Special Judge framed charge Exhibit 17 under Sections 341, 354-A(i), 354-A(ii), 354-D(i), 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The defence of the accused is of total denial as is discernible from the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Code).The accused admits that he was stopped by Ishwarilal Gadhave.However, the version of the accused is that he did nothing as::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 ::: 5 apeal437.19 is alleged.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::The prosecution examined PW 1, who is the informant, PW 2-the child victim, PW 3-Ishwarilal Gadhave, PW 4-Sudhakar Lute, the panch witness to the spot panchanama and seizure of motorcycle and knife, PW 5 the other child victim and PW 6-Lalita Todase, the Investigating Officer.The learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforestated.Heard Shri B.M. Kharkate, learned Counsel for the accused and Shri Amit Chutake, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.I was not inclined to suspend the sentence and when the application for suspension of sentence was to be dismissed, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that if the sentence is temporarily suspended for two weeks to enable the accused to effectively exercise the right of appeal, the appeal shall be finally argued without insisting on preparation of paper-book.The learned Counsel for the accused filed on record copies of the depositions and the record and proceedings were summoned.I have scrutinized the entire record and the reasons articulated by the learned Special Judge, with the able assistance of the learned Counsel.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::Shri B.M. Kharkate, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the provisions of the POCSO Act were erroneously invoked since the first informant was admittedly aged 20 years.This submission is noted only for rejection.The other two victims PW 2 and PW 5 were minors.The birth certificates issued under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 are duly proved.The evidence on the age of the two minor victim has gone unchallenged.PW 3 - Ishwarilal Gadhave who according to the prosecution apprehended the accused is not an eye witness.Shri M.B. Kharkate, the learned counsel would submit that the accused was apprehended by PW - Ishwarilal Gadhave only on suspicion.In the light of these submissions, the evidence may now be scanned.The defence is not disputing the presence of the accused in::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 ::: 7 apeal437.19 the vicinity.In the statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused states that he was testing the sound of the motorcycle and was therefore, riding the motorcycle on the Ganeshpur to Pindkepar road.The defence is further not disputing that the accused was apprehended by PW 3 - Ishwarilal Gadhave.However, the defence is that the accused did not do any overt act as is alleged.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::PW 1 - the informant deposed that on 24.8.2016 at 7.15 a.m. she was travelling on bicycle from Korambi to Ganeshpur.The spot of the incidents is situated between the Pindkepar and Korambi.The accused abused PW 1 and forced her to stop.The accused disembarked from motorcycle, flashed his male organ and demanded sexual favour.PW 1 has further deposed that the accused threatened her with the knife attached to the motorcycle key- chain.She then states that PW 3 - Ishwarilal Gadhave arrived at the scene and the accused fled.She narrated the incident to PW 3 - Ishwarilal Gadhave who chased the accused and apprehended him at Pindkepar.PW 1 reached Pindkepar, PW 3 - Ishwarilal Gadhave had detained the accused and people gathered.Ishwarilal Gahdave had summoned the brother of PW 1 Hitesh who was also present at the spot.The accused disclosed his name as Vishal Sukhram Lanjewar.PW 1 then states that PW 2 and PW 5 disclosed that they faced similar::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 ::: 8 apeal437.19 harassment from the accused.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::The cross examination is not very effective and no attempt is made to bring on record any satisfactory reason for PW 1 to falsely implicate the accused.The bare suggestion is given that PW 1 lodged the report at the behest of the villagers.It is suggested to PW 1 that there was heavy traffic on the road concerned, which suggestion is denied.PW 2 has deposed that 8 to 10 days prior to the incident, she was returning home from tuition class at 8 a.m. PW 2 states that the accused stopped her, removed his full pant, flashed his male organ and asked her for sexual favour.She states that she was threatened by the accused with knife.She further states that while she was leaving the scene in a frightened state, the accused again approached her on motorcycle, caught hold of the handle of the bicycle which she was riding and uttered obscene words.PW 2 states that since she feared defamation, she did not lodge report.She is suggested that she gave false statement to the police due to mob pressure, which suggestion is denied.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::PW 5 is the other minor victim who has deposed that the accused accosted her 1½ to 2 months prior to the incident at 2 p.m. and flashed his male organ and demanded sexual favour.She deposed that she did not lodge complaint fearing defamation.The other material witness is PW 3 - Ishwarilal Gadhave who has deposed that on the date of incident, he was travelling to his farm between 7 a.m. to 7.15 a.m. on motorcycle.He was stopped by a girl who was frightened.The girl disclosed that the person who just left is of dubious character and that he had harassed her sexually.PW 3 states that he saw the person riding his motorcycle towards Bhandara.PW 3 then states that he chased that person and apprehended him at Pindkepar.PW 3 - Ishwarilal Gadhave states that on interrogation that person disclosed his name as Vishal Lanjewar r/o.Ganeshpur, Bhandara.PW 1 reached the spot where the accused was detained and disclosed that the person detained was the same person who had harassed her sexually.It is elicited in the cross-examination, that he apprehended the rider of the first motorcycle which he saw while giving chase.It is::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 ::: 10 apeal437.19 further elicited that the person detained expressed that he did not do anything objectionable.It is also elicited that the motorcycle was being driven at a moderate speed.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::The evidence of PW 3 - Ishwarilal Gadhave is relevant to the extent that PW 1 disclosed that she was sexually harassed.The fact, that PW 3 apprehended the accused per se may not be very significant and indeed, the defence is not disputing that the accused was apprehended by PW 3 Ishwarilal Gadhave.However, the PW 1 who reached the spot where the accused was detained categorically identified the accused as the molester.The evidence of PW 1 is natural, truthful and confidence inspiring.She has deposed that she was restrained, abused, that accused flashed his male organ at her, demanded sexual favour and threatened with knife.It is not even a defence that there was any reason for PW 1 to falsely implicate the accused.No attempt is made to even suggest that the implication of the accused is due to mistaken identity.I do not see any reason to disagree with the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of PW 1 must be accepted without insisting on any corroboration or assurance short of corroboration.It is but natural that there would be no independent eye witness.PW 2 and PW 5 who were irrefutably minors are in unison in attributing to the accused similar::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 ::: 11 apeal437.19 acts.PW 2 and PW 5 have deposed that the accused restrained them, threatened them and flashed his male organ at them.The failure to lodge report cannot be given undue importance.The explanation that PW 2 and PW 5 feared defamation and therefore did not lodge police report is a reasonable explanation which is accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and I agree.The evidence of PW 2 and PW 5 is not shaken in the cross-examination.The fact that PW 5 is related to PW 1 is of no significance.The fact that she is related to PW 1 does not made her an interested witness.PW 5 is herself a victim.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::I do not see any reason to disbelieve PW 1, PW 2 and PWThe victims did not have any reason or motive to falsely implicate the accused.PW 1 identified the accused as the perpetrator of the crime, the moment she reached the spot where the accused was detained.The incident must have left a lasting impression on the mind of the traumatized victim.The accused accosted her, made her stop the bicycle, demanded sexual favour after flashing his male organ at her and threatened her.It is inconceivable that PW 1 would err in identifying the accused as the person who heaped such indignities on her.::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::If the accused does not surrender within 72 hours, the Police Station Officer, Bhandara shall take the accused in custody and produce him before the Sessions Court.The Police Station Officer, Bhandara shall file a compliance report in the Registry of this Court within seven days.JUDGEadgokar/RSB ::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 05:32:18 :::
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,791,824 |
CC as per rules.Shri Vasant Daniel for the appellant.Shri S.S. Chouhan, Government Advocate, for the State.Shri S.A. Wakil for the objector.Heard on I.A. No.23524/2016, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Indra Kumar @ Dalla.This is repeat bail application on behalf of the appellant seeking suspension of sentence.Even though his earlier bail application was rejected on 10.3.2014, but now after rejection of the aforesaid bail application, the actual period of sentence undergone by the appellant is more than 7 years.That apart, the deceased succumbed to the injury caused on account of firing by a Katta, by co-accused Rehmat @ Guddu; and the opinion given by PW/3 Dr. Abhishek Singh in his medical report Ex.P/10 indicates that cause of death is haemorrhage caused due to rupture of a blood vessel (popliteal artery) in the thigh.As far as the present appellant is concerned, he was riding the motor-cycle.Keeping in view the aforesaid principle and the facts and circumstances of the present case, possibility of the offence being reduced to a lesser one and the fact that the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of more than 7 years till date, we allow this application.Accordingly, it is directed that jail sentence of appellant Indra Kumar @ Dalla shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21.3.2017, and on such other dates as may be directed in that behalf.I.A. No.23524/2016 stands allowed and disposed of.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
779,197 |
This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) filed against the judgment of the Designated Court, Amritsar.I.P.C. 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 3 read with Section 34 of TADA.Both of them were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.Sukhwinder Singh, alone has filed this appeal.The prosecution case is as follows :On 6-10-88 when PW-3, Rachhpal Singh and his father PW-4, Sohan Singh were present in their farm house situated in the area of Village Udhonangal, three young men came on motor cycle and after parking the same one out of them remained at the motor cycle.The two accused entered the farm house.The accused Sukhwinder Singh, appellant herein, was armed with a revolver.He took out the same and demanded Rs. 50,000/- from Sohan Singh and Rachhpal Singh at the point of pistol failing which both the accused threatened them that they would be killed.Both Sohan Singh and Rachhpal Singh told them that they had no ready cash.Thereupon, the appellant fired a round after taking an aim at PW-3, Rachhpal Singh but he managed to save himself by laying down on the ground.Both of them raised hue and cry and the persons working in the nearby fields ran towards the farm house.When the accused started running they were chased and caught redhanded and were taken into custody.A report was sent to the police and the Assistant Sub-Inspector came to the place of occurrence with a police force and arrested the two accused.The revolver along with the empties and the missed cartridges were taken into possession and after completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed.The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they were in police custody four days back of the occurrence and they have been falsely implicated.The Designated Court, accepting the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 convicted both the accused as stated above.The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions of Section 3 of TADA are not attracted and the appellant was charged only Under Section 511 read with Section 397, I.P.C. but ultimately convicted Under Section 397 simpliciter which is contrary to the very charge that was framed and that at any rate 10 years sentence awarded to the accused is highly excessive.At this stage we arc not impressed with the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 who tried to support the version of the accused that he was already in the custody of the police.So far as PW-3 and PW-4 are concerned, we do not find anything significant in their cross-examination which affects their veracity.Both the witnesses deposed that the appellant and the other convicted accused came to their farm house, demanded Rs. 50,000/- and when their payment was not met with the appellant with his pistol fired.These averments in their evidence specifically made against the appellant also find corroboration from the fact, namely, recovery of the pistol along with the empties and the missed cartridges.Accordingly, we confirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 25, Arms Act to one year R.I. and the fine thereunder.The conviction Under Section 3 of TADA Act is confirmed but the sentence of 10 years is reduced to 5 years.Subject to this the appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,792,259 |
The matter has been placed today in the additional cause list, in Chambers.2. Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Ghanshaym Kumar, learned AGA for the State through video-conferencing.Sri Chandra Sen Pal, learned counsel for the informant, has not been able to join the video-conference, however, the copy of the counter affidavit is on record and the same has been considered.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Smt. Sushila with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2019, under Sections-304-B, 316, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station - Nai Mandi, District - Muzaffarnagar during pendency of trial.5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections-304-B, 316, 498A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act;(ii) against FIR lodged on 10.05.2019, the applicant, who is mother-in-law of the deceased, is in confinement since 13.05.2019, i.e. for more than one year;(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the fact that the co-accused Manish Pal, who had been similarly made accused, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc.(vii) the prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 2.6.2020 Shubham
|
['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.
|
56,087,049 |
By way of present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.), the petitioner Aruna Chadha seeks bail in case FIR No.178/2012 under Sections 306/304/34 IPC registered at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi.Notice of the application was given to the State.Status report has been filed by the State.I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General for the State.B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 1 of 10On completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences under Sections 306/506/201/120B/466/467/468/469/471 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 66A of the I.T. Act was filed.Another application filed by the petitioner before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.9.2012 with a liberty to file a fresh application before trial court.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed Special Leave to appeal before Honble Supreme Court i.e. CrlMP.While disposing of the said application, Honble Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial court to seek regular bail immediately, after the charges being framed by the trial court.It was urged that the learned trial court passed an order on charge on 10.5.2013 for framing of charges for the offences under Sections 120B IPC, 466/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, Sections 468/469 IPC read with Section 120B IPC, Section 306 IPC read with B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 2 of 10 Section 120B IPC, Sections 376/377 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 66 of the I.T. Act, 2000 read with Section 120B IPC.B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 2 of 10The petitioner preferred revision petition against the said order bearing Crl.Vide order dated 25.7.2013, this Court set aside the order of framing the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 376/377/109 IPC.The petitioner moved an application for seeking clarification of the order dated 25.7.2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.11.2013 and it was also observed that the trial court shall conduct the trial of the case expeditiously and conclude the same at an early date.But the trial is not proceeding due to the fault on the part of the prosecution and in view of that it would take several years to complete the trial.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was an employee of MDRL Group in which co-accused Gopal Goyal Kanda was the Chief Managing Director.He pointed out that according to the case of prosecution the petitioner had visited Dubai only once on 14.7.2010, which is clear from the chart filed by the prosecution with the chargesheet.Another submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the deceased went to Mumbai for fashion show.The petitioner made the last call to the deceased on 26.7.2012 and had a word with B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 3 of 10 her mother and requested to send the deceased for signatures on various documents like a complaint which was lodged by the deceased at Police Station Goa regarding theft of her laptop which was compromised later on.A petition for quashing of the said FIR relating to theft was filed at High Court at Mumbai and at that time Mr. Ankit Ahluwalia, Advocate advised that the signature of the complainant (deceased) on the said petition was required.B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 3 of 10Further an educational institution in the name of Sundale Education Society was floated wherein the deceased was the President, the petitioner was the Secretary and Khushboo was the Trustee and some documents were required to be signed by the deceased in relation to the said society.Also for clearing the dues of the deceased for the period she was working for MDLR, some documents were required to be signed.The said last conversation was about 16 days prior to the incident.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the only evidence against the petitioner is that on 9.3.2012 i.e. much prior to the incident, she accompanied the deceased to Dr. Vishakha Munjal who was already known to the petitioner, and no talk between the deceased and the doctor took place in the presence of the petitioner.Doctor prescribed some medicines on the choice of the deceased.The petitioner had neither suggested to go for MTP nor suggested anything else to the deceased.According to him there is no evidence against the petitioner that she abetted the deceased to commit suicide.Another submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that there is no element of abetment and, therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out.According to him both the suicide B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 4 of 10 notes are highly doubtful.Both the suicide notes are on both sides of one page of the same note book which was issued by the institution wherefrom the deceased was pursuing MBA.B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 4 of 10It was also submitted that co-accused Chanshivroop Singh was released on bail by the police and deliberately the passport of the said accused was not obtained.The said accused Chanshivroop Singh is Proclaimed Offender.According to him the statement of Chanshivroop Singh recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence, as per provisions of Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act.Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgments in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750; Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana (2008) 11 SCC 215; Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (GNCT Delhi) (2009) 11 SCALE 24; Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 2 SCC 659; Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujrat & Anr.(2003) 1 SCC 632; Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors.vs. Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240; Prahald Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr.(2001) 4 SCC 280, State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40; Sharad Kumar vs. CBI (2011) 184 DLT 193; State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 and H.B. Chaturvedi vs. CBI Bail Application No.572/2010 & Crl.B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 5 of 10Lastly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is a woman and single parent of her female child aged about 9 years.The parents of the petitioner are old and ailing.Her father has undergone heart surgery and her mother cannot walk without help or support.The petitioner was admitted to interim bail with effect from 2.9.2013 to 15.11.2013 and she did not misuse the liberty of interim bail granted to her.On the other hand, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General for the State, submitted that the deceased left the job of MDLR, of which co-accused Gopal Goyal Kanda was the CMD and she went to Dubai.The petitioner went to Dubai and put pressure on the deceased to rejoin the office of MDLR.The investigation unit of Emirates Group Security conducted an investigation and the deceased gave a statement on 11.1.2008 wherein she had stated that due to tremendous pressure and unwanted interference in her personal matters, she decided to step out from the company.Learned ASG for the State also submitted that the deceased left two suicide notes.In both the suicide notes the deceased has implicated the petitioner as well as co-accused Gopal Goyal Kanda.According to him the chargesheet has already been filed.The supplementary chargesheet was filed in January, 2013 and the third chargesheet was filed in month of August, 2013 and the charges have been framed, the prosecution evidence is being recorded by the trial court and material witnesses are yet to be examined.B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 6 of 10It was further submitted that the mother of the deceased, Smt. Anuradha Sharma ad brother of the deceased have made a statement against the petitioner.Moreover co-accused Gopal Goyal Kanda did not challenge the order on charge.Learned ASG for the State also submitted that the statement of co-accused Chanshivroop Singh was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and he has implicated the petitioner and co-accused Gopal Goyal Kanda.Both of them have broken my trust and misused me for their own benefits.He is a cheat, and a fraud man.These two should be punished for their wrong deed and malicious intentions towards me and my family.They have made my life abnormal.I love my mom, dad and my bai.B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 8 of 10Sd/- (Geetika Sharma) 4.8.2012"The petitioner, Aruna Chadha be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 9 of 10 Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, subject to the condition that she will not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court and shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner.B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 9 of 10Needless to say that nothing stated herein above shall amount to expression of opinion on merits of the case.Since, at this stage application of co-accused Gopal Goyal Kanda is not before this Court, therefore, his application has to be seen on its own merits as and when the same would be filed.The application stands disposed of.(VED PRAKASH VAISH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 10th 2014/aj B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 10 of 10B.A. No. 2191/2013 Page 10 of 10
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 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 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,087,662 |
CRM No. 8034 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 17th September, 2018 in connection with Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 1543 of 2018 dated 14/09/2018 under Sections 365/384/506/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Sri Timir Baran Das ... Petitioner Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee Ms. Namrata Mukherjee Das ..for the Petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 1543 of 2018 dated 14/09/2018 under Sections 365/384/506/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,089,476 |
Rev. P. 39 of 2009 Page 1 of 7 his non-examination is fatal to the prosecutions case.In the absence of the Investigating Officer being examined, the site plan too stands not proved.It is further stated that the truck was not being driven at a high speed and even if it was being driven at a high speed, it cannot be said that the same amounted to rash and negligent driving.It is further contended that although the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW1/A shows that the brake system was not O.K. but the same cannot help the Petitioner because there is nothing on record to show that the brakes were not working prior to the accident and even if it was not working properly whether the Petitioner was not aware of such a failure prior to accident.Lastly, the Learned APP contends that there was no emergency brake in the offending vehicle.I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.Briefly the prosecution case is that on 28th January,1997 at about 10:20 a.m. at T Point Mukerba Crossing, Jahangir Puri, the Petitioner while driving the truck bearing No. DEL 7751 in a rash and a negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others caused death of one Harpal.Rev. P. 39 of 2009 Page 2 of 7PW5 Sunil Kumar deposed that he was running a Chola Raidy at Mukerba Chowk By Pass.He does not remember the exact month but it was in the year 1997 and probably the date was 28th.At about 10:20 a.m. Harpal who too used to sell chole kulchai on a raidy was coming from the side of Rohini alongwith his raidy.When Harpal Singh reached near Mukerba Chowk one Nissan Truck, number of which he was unaware of, driven by the Petitioner came from Rohini side and struck against Harpal from behind.After hitting Harpal as well as raidy of Harpal, the truck ran over the patri and halted after striking the wall built behind the patri.The accused was driving the truck at a very fast speed.He deposed that as a result of accident, Harpal received grievous injuries and was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital by a PCR van.The Petitioner was apprehended and handed over to the Police by him along with the public.He further deposed that the accident was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Petitioner and that the accident was also witnessed by Raja Ram, PW6 herein.Police recorded his statement on the spot and took into possession the raidy vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B which bears his signature at point A. Photographs of the spot and also seizure memo of truck Ex. PW5/C also bear his signature.PW6 Raja Ram has deposed that although he could tell the exact date, month and year of incident, however, it took place about 6 years ago.During those days one Sunil used to sell chole kulche on rehri at the bypass.He stopped at the red light signal.At about 10:30 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. all of a sudden, one truck Nissan number of which he does not know came from Rohini side and despite red signal did not stop on the signal and hit against rehri and ran over the Rehriwala.He further deposed that the driver stopped his truck at some distance and ran away from the spot leaving away his truck.By this petition, the Petitioner lays a challenge to the judgment dated 16th January,2009 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge upholding the conviction of the Petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide judgment dated 13th March,2008 and the order on sentence dated 17th March,2008 whereby the petitioner was sentenced to undergo RI for two months along with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine two days SI for offence u/s 279 IPC and one year RI along with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, five days SI u/s 304A IPC.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order has not appreciated the evidence on record and wrongly upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to the Petitioner.Learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that the Investigating Officer of the case was not examined and Crl.The oil pipe of the brake of his truck broke, thus he could not control the truck.Learned counsel in the alternative prays that the Petitioner be released on probation.Rev. P. 39 of 2009 Page 1 of 7FIR No.52/1997 was registered under Sections 279/304A IPC.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.Learned Metropolitan Crl.Rev. P. 39 of 2009 Page 2 of 7 Magistrate after recording the statement of prosecution witnesses and the Petitioner, convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him as mentioned above.Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and order on sentence, the Petitioner preferred an appeal.The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgement of conviction dated 16th January, 2009 dismissed the appeal.On the Crl.Rev. P. 39 of 2009 Page 3 of 7 day of occurrence, one rehri wala who used to sell Chola Kulcha, was coming from the side of Rohini.He stated that he could not see the driver.One Police Constable took the injured rehriwala to some hospital.He further stated that the police had arrived after about half an hour and noted down his particulars and did not record his statement.Rev. P. 39 of 2009 Page 3 of 7PW1 J.S. Pawar deposed that he has conducted the mechanical inspection of the truck and prepared his inspection report Ex. PW1/A. PW2 Anil Kumar Photographer took the photographs of the spot at the instance of Investigating Officer and has proved the same as Ex. PW2/A to C.From perusal of the testimony of PW5 and photographs of the spot, the fact that the Petitioner was driving at a very fast speed stands proved.PW5 in his testimony has stated that the truck was driven at a very fast speed and only came to stop after it had crushed the deceased and his rehri , ran over the patri and halted after striking the wall built behind the patri on the other hand.On the perusal of photographs of the spot and especially Ex. PW 2/B one can easily infer the speed of the truck and the impact with which it hit the said rehri to leave it completely crushed.Further, although PW6 has failed to identify the Petitioner as the driver of the truck on the date of incident, he has described the incident.He has also deposed that the driver of the truck did not stop at the signal and hit the rehri and ran over the rehri wala and stopped after some distance .Rev. P. 39 of 2009 Page 4 of 7However, it cannot be inferred whether such a damage to the brake oil pipe occurred prior or post the accident.The Petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that such a damage occurred prior to the accident and that the said damage was to such an extent that he could not control his vehicle.These facts were in the special knowledge of the Petitioner under Section 106 Evidence Act; the onus was on the Petitioner to prove the same.Seizure memo of the rehri of the deceased has been proved as Ex. Pw5/B, seizure memo of the truck proved as Ex. PW5/C, Photographs as Ex. PW2/A to C, mechanical inspection report as Ex. PW1/a, MLC proved as Ex. PW4/A, post mortem report as Ex. PW7/A and lastly rukka as Ex.This would not be fatal to the prosecution case as the other documents stand proved from the testimony of other witnesses.
|
['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.
|
56,090,493 |
These are Anticipatory Bail Applications under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by accused Nos.5 and 6 respectively in Crime No.40 of 2018 registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station for the::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 ::: 3 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 463, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::I have heard both the sides.State of Maharashtra and another ; 2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 687 and particularly the following observations in paragraph No.13 :When an application for anticipatory bail is considered, the police may not place all factual details before the Court as the investigation in most::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 ::: 4 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt of such cases is at a preliminary stage.Therefore, some role can be played by the complainant by pointing out factual aspects.In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that the first informant or the complainant cannot be heard in an application for anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::5 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt In the process, reliance has also been placed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Chandrakant Chandulal Bhansali Vs.Shrikant Shrikrushna Joshi ; 1992 Bom.Therefore the applications filed by the informant in both these Anticipatory Bail Applications deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed.In sum and substance, the allegations as are levelled by the informant in the FIR are to the effect that in the year 2010 accused Nos.1 to 6 approached him and offered to allot shares to him personally and to his company by name and style 'Rakh Hospitals Private Limited', Jalna having currently the name as 'Deepak Hospitals Health and Wellness Limited' of which he is the Managing Director.They promised to make him Director of Kadwa Goda Khore Sugar Manufacturing Company Limited having the current name as 'KGS Sugar and Infra Corporation Ltd'.At that time, accused Nos.1 to 5 were the Directors of the company whereas accused No.6 who is the present applicant in::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 ::: 6 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt Anticipatory Bail Application No.194 of 2019 was the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Director.Believing in their words during the period from 2010 to 2014 he and his company invested around Rs.65,00,000/- in the company of the accused persons.During that time he also in the capacity of a Director of that company signed on the bank documents pertaining to a loan which was to the tune of Rs.74.38 crores.However, during the period 2012 to 2017 all the accused persons which include the officers of the banks obtained a huge loan which in aggregate was for more than 350 crore.However, while furnishing a guarantee in his name his signatures were forged, when he had never agreed to stand as a guarantor.After such revelation he demanded documents from the bank and realized that his signatures were forged.Thus he alleged that the accused persons have indulged in misappropriation, cheating and forgery and have::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 ::: 7 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt used the forged documents for obtaining the loan from the bank.The crime was registered as mentioned herein above.The applicants are now seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::He would also point out that though the Canara Bank issued a statutory notice to all the Directors on 18.09.2017, he was not served with any::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 ::: 8 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt such notice since he was an Independent Director.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::On a query as to how his status as an independent Director would have any relevance when he is alleged to have, in connivance with the other accused, indulged in cheating and forgery, the learned senior advocate submits that he is pointing out these aspects to buttress his submission that being an Independent Director he has had no opportunity to indulge in the alleged cheating and forgery.He would point out that in view of the reply by the Canara Bank in response to the query put by the Investigating Officer the Bank has informed that as per the usual practice, these documents including deed of guarantee have to be executed personally by approaching the bank and similarly the other documents are also executed by going to the office of the bank.Therefore being an Independent Director he was neither the signatory to the loan agreement nor the deed of guarantee.As far as applicant Debasish Krishnapada Mandal is concerned, the learned senior advocate would submit::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 ::: 9 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt that he is merely a Chief Executive Officer of the Company and in that capacity has merely acted for and on behalf of the Company and cannot be roped in for the alleged forgery and cheating.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::Thus according to the learned senior advocate, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not at all necessary for completing the investigation.Many other accused have been granted bail or anticipatory bail.Accused No.1 has been released on regular bail whereas accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the Directors and accused No.7 who is the Chartered Accountant of the Company have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, whereas the accused Nos.8 to 10 who are the bank Managers at the relevant time have also been granted regular bail and therefore not only on merit but even on the ground of parity the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::10 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odtThe learned APP duly assisted for the learned advocate for the informant strongly opposes both the applications.In the process they have referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Investigating Officer in Criminal Writ petition No.1614 of 2018 preferred by the informant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the manner in which the investigation was being done.The learned APP would submit that as far as accused No.5 Anil Mishra is concerned, he has not been appointed under Section 149 of the Companies Act but has been appointed as an Additional Director under Section 161 and point out and refer to the certified true copy of the resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company dated 23.06.2014 whereby he was appointed as an 'Additional Director (Independent)'.For that purpose, the official capacity of the applicants-accused Nos.5 and 6 as the Additional Director or Chief::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 ::: 11 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt Executive Officer is in-consequential.In what manner they were involved in the crime is a matter to be investigated and is being investigated which is independent of their position in the Company.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::The learned APP would further point out that there is a report of the hand writing expert to whom sample signatures, admitted signatures as well as the disputed signatures on the Deed of Guarantee were forwarded and an opinion was sought.The hand writing expert has clearly opined that the sample signatures of the informant do not tally with the questioned signatures on the Deed of Guarantee.Therefore, there is prima facie material to substantiate the allegations about there being a forgery.The investigation being in progress and since the applicants were holding different positions touching the day-to-day affairs of the company, their custodial interrogation is necessary and even applying the principles laid down in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs.State of Maharashtra; (2011)1 SCC 694 and Gurbaksh::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 ::: 12 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt Singh Sibbia Vs.State of Punjab; (1980) 2 SCC 565, the applicants are not entitled to claim anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::At the outset the most important thing that needs to be borne in mind is that a huge loan has been obtained by getting executed a Deed of Guarantee under the purported signature of the informant from a nationalized bank.There is a report of the hand writing expert which clearly corroborates the allegations of the informant that the signatures on this Deed of Guarantee purported to be his are in fact forged ones.This much of material, in my considered view, is sufficient to infer that the Directors and Officers of the Company have been able to obtain the loan under a shoddy document and even the bank officials have obliged them.The investigation is being at a nascent stage, no inference need to be drawn at this juncture.However when the matter has been examined by a hand writing expert, which prima facie corroborates the allegations, this much of material is sufficient to reveal complicity of the accused persons in commission of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::13 ACB.193-19 & 194-19.odt::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::The applications for anticipatory bail are therefore rejected.(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) ...::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:50:25 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,098,947 |
The applicant AnilAgrawal and one S.K. Gupta were witnesses to the same.(c) On 29.8.2008, Shankarlal Gunwani executed Memorandum OfUnderstanding in favour of respondent no.2 Damaji Gokul Patel.Itshows that out of consideration of Rs.20 lakhs, Rs.12 lakhs were paid.(d) The disputed property was standing in the CIDCO record in thename of Paritosh Marketing Pvt. Ltd., but the taxes from the year2011 onwards are paid by respondent no.2 - Damji.1. Rule.With the consent of parties,the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashingF.I.R. registered at C.R.No.418/2017 at CIDCO Police Station,Aurangabad for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465,468, 471 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 ::: 2::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 :::The facts relevant for deciding the present application may bestated as follows :(a) By lease agreement dated 21.11.1996, Plot No.6 fromCannaught Place, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad was leased to ParitoshMarketing Private Ltd., for a period of ninety years.The said companyconstructed structures thereon.Hall Nos.1 and 2 admeasuring 1797Square feet from building 'Ellora Complex' situated thereon is thesubject matter of dispute.(b) on 11.5.2001, Suryakant Gupta, as a Director of ParitoshMarketing Pvt.Ltd. executed agreement to sell of hall nos.1 and 2 infavour of Shankarlal Gunwani.Out of total consideration ofRs.6,26,200/-, Rs.4,26,000/- was advanced by Shankarlal Gunwani andremaining amount of Rs.2 lakhs was to be advanced at the time ofregistration.This agreement was unregistered.The applicant's contention that itmerged with Star Wire company is not supported by documents.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 ::: 3::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 :::(e) Surendrakumar Gupta, on 20.1.2016, executed registered deedof assignment of the same property on behalf of Paritosh Marketingcompany in favour of the applicant Anil Agrawal.It shows that entireconsideration of Rs.20 lakhs was paid at the time of agreement.(f) As per investigation papers, Suryakant Gupta was Director ofParitosh Marketing Pvt. Ltd., up to 25.7.1998 and thereafter, he hasresigned.Thus, he had no authority to sell the said property.Sincethe applicant was attesting witness to the transaction betweenParitosh Marketing company and Shankarlal Gunwani, he was awarethat the property was not belonging to Surendrakumar Gupta nor hewas Director of the company.Before the agreement, the applicantAnil had issued a public notice dated 10.5.2007 and respondent no.2Damaji had replied the same vide paper publication dated 14.5.2017and had raised objections, still the deed of assignment was executed.The impugned F.I.R. was lodged on 3.6.2017 and it is registered forthe offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 readwith sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.Mrs Rashmi Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the applicant soughtquashing of F.I.R. on following grounds :and 420 of Indian penal Code.There is delay of one and half years inlodging the F.I.R. This is an attempt to obtain specific performancethrough criminal machinery.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 ::: 4::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 :::It is a title dispute which canbe decided by civil Court.Learned Advocate for the applicant relied on InternationalAdvanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and NewMaterials (ARCI) and others, (2016) 1 SCC 348, wherein it isdiscussed when provisions of Sections 420 are attracted.She relied on Asoke Basak Vs.State of Maharashtra &Ors., 2010 ALL SCR 2494 showing when provisions of Sections 405and 409 of Indian Penal Code are attracted.She also relied on Dalip Kaur and ors.It is held in this case that if thedispute between the parties was essentially civil dispute resultingfrom breach of contract, same would not constitute offence ofcheating or criminal breach of trust.Learned A.P.P. and learned Advocate for respondent no.2 haveopposed the application.They have contended that SurendrakumarGupta had no authority to enter into any transaction with respect toproperty of Paritosh Marketing Pvt. Ltd., and the applicant was awareof it.Still they have entered into agreement, which is a forgery.Theyhave cheated respondent no.2 and they are trying to disturb hispossession.Therefore, it is essential to investigate the::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 ::: 5crime and find out the real facts.Therefore, no interference by way ofinvoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is called for.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 :::We have carefully considered the papers of investigation andrulings cited.The applicant was attesting witness to the agreement executedby Suryakant Gupta who was Director of Paritosh Marketing Pvt. Ltd.The fact that the said agreement to sell was unregistered will notmake the said agreement non est.If the respondent no.2 is inpossession of the suit property under the said agreement, he will haverights under the doctrine of 'part performance' of Section 53-A of theTransfer of Property Act.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 ::: 6::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 :::If Paritosh Marketing Pvt. Ltd through Director Suryakant Guptawould have entered into agreement with the petitioner, it would havebeen a civil dispute, but here the agreement is executed bySurendrakumar Gupta, who had no authority on behalf of ParitoshMarketing Pvt. Ltd. and in spite of objections of respondent no.2 andin spite of knowledge about the previous agreement, the presentapplicant has purchased the said property.For the reasons stated above, we cannot accept that it is civildispute simplicitor.Hence, we hold that the petition deserves to bedismissed.Hence, the following order :ORDER The Criminal Application is rejected.The observations made herein above are prima facie in natureand confined to adjudication of th present writ application.::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2017 02:29:27 :::
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,099,770 |
BRIJESH SETHI, J (oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 401/2018, under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at P.S.: Tilak Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom.The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 submitted that they have settled their disputes on their own free will, without any force or coercion, for the sake of their children.Respondent no.2 states that she does not want to pursue the matter.Accordingly, in the interest of justice, FIR No. 401/2018, under sections 498-A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), registered at P.S.: Tilak Nagar and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.Petition is disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,101,207 |
Such witnesses were not examined by the "police officials" during the course of investigations so as to record their statements as provided under Section 161 of the Code.It is the duty of the police official to record statement, supply copy of such statement, as part of the report under Section 173 of the Code, so as to enable the defence to contradict a witness while stepping into witness-box.But it is not necessary for the empowered Officer to record statements of the witnesses contemplated under Section 161 of the Code, as such statements can be recorded only by a Police Officer during the course of investigation.In the present case, the empowered Officer produced a list of 40 documents sought to be relied upon to prove the charges against the appellants including the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act as well furnished list of witnesses to be examined.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
561,066 |
This is second application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 11/5/2017 in connection with Crime No. 110/2017 registered by Police Station Tyonda, District Vidisha for offence under Sections 363, 376, 354-B of IPC and 3/4 and 5/6 of POCSO Act.The application is accordingly rejected.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR JUDGE Date: 2018.07.03 17:36:49 +05'30' AKS
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,884,572 |
under Sections 147/148/149/151/186/332/333/353/307 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Ansuman Bera.. . . .For the petitioner.Mr. Soumik Ganguly ... .For the State.Accordingly, we refuse such prayer and reject this application.( INDIRA BANERJEE,J.) (KANCHAN CHAKRABORTY,J.)
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
558,894 |
The aforesaid order has been challenged by two of the accused, namely, Ashok Kumar and Kuldip Kumar.(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that deceased Raj Kumar and one Ravi were in the employment of petitioner Ashok Kumar, who was running a chit fund company.After the aforesaid amount was returned to the petitioner Ashok Kumar, he gave a statement to the police on 22/03/1990 that he did not want to press the case and accordingly the case was filed.(3) If is alleged that petitioner Kuldip Kumar visited the house of the deceased on 15/06/1990 and introduced the co-accused Anoop Singh @ Bittoo and told the deceased that said Bittoo wanted to get his vehicle financed and he should help him for the said purpose.It is further alleged that co-accused Bittoo had been visiting the house of the deceased thereafter, and on 28/06/1990 when the deceased was getting out of barbar's shop he was stabbed by three persons including Bittoo.He further submitted that no role has been assigned to petitioner Ashok Kumar even in the state ment of the wife of the deceased.He further submitted that the role assigned to petitioner Kuldip Kumar was only to the extent that be had introducedBittoo on 15/06/1990 and that too for the purpose of financing a vehicle through the deceased.He, therefore, contended that no charge could be framed against the petitioners.(5) Mr. Bahri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, fairly conceded that in the present case disclosure statements of the petitioners could not be relied upon as no recovery has been made pursuant to the said disclosure statements under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the EvidenceAct.He also could not point out any role assigned to the petitioner AshokKumar in terms of the statement of the wife of the deceased.He, however,submitted that petitioner Kuldip Kumar had brought the co-accused Bittoo to the residence of the deceased on 15/16-6-1990 and on the next day also and as such, prima fade, a case is made out against petitioner Kuldip Kumar.(6) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and I have also perused the statement of Smt. Ramwati, wife of the deceased.From the said statement I find that no role has been assigned to the petitioner Ashok Kumar.As regards the petitioner Kuldip Kumar, from the said statement, it is clear that he had'brought co-accused Bittoo thrice to the residence of the deceased Raj Kumara few days before the date of occurrence.In her statement Smt. Ramwati has also alleged that on 27-6-1990 when deceased had gone to the house of Kuldip Kumar and told Kuldip Kumar as to why he was sending Bittoo and other persons to his house again and again, Kuldip Kumar was foundperplexed.(7) In view of the above discussion, the revision petition in respect of petitioner Ashok Kumar is allowed and the impugned order for framing charge against him under Section 302/120B Indian Penal Code is set aside.As regards petitioner Kuldip Kumar, the revision petition is dismissed.(8) However, it is made clear that the observations made here in above will have no bearing on the merit of the case.The lower Court records be sent back forthwith.
|
['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.
|
558,925 |
ORDER Dipak Misra, J.Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 30-4-1998 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Murwara, Distt.The facts; as have been unfolded, are that the petitioner's mother Shyambai filed a civil suit for eviction of the respondents and certain other persons.Along with the plaint map of the suit house No. 76 and 112, Subhash Ward, Katni was filed and this was shown by red colour in the said map.This civil suit No. 20-A/77 was decreed by the Second Civil Judge, Class-II, Murwara Distt.Against the above decision the respondents feeling dissatisfied preferred S.L.P. No. 2233 (N)/81 before the Apex Court wherein leave was granted and the matter was converted into an appeal.The Apex Court by order dated 22-2-1989 directed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn and granted some time to vacate the suit premises.Being constrained the decree-holder filed a contempt petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The Apex Court clarified that the suit property bearing house Nos. 76 and 112 was situated at Subhash Ward, Katni.It was further directed that the possession be taken forthwith and delivered to the decree-holder and the matter was directed to be listed after four weeks.Eventually the matter was disposed of and cost was awarded.After the matter came to end as far as the possession is concerned the judgment-debtor, Shrikant Nigam filed an application under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the decree-holders' agent had changed the map in the execution proceedings so that the possession of the entire house could be given.In the said proceedings the present petitioner was not noticed and evidence was recorded behind his back and eventually vide order Annexure P-8 directing to file a complaint against the petitioner in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was passed.The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Murwara, Distt.Katni, against the said order.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,898,596 |
hy Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, counsel for State of Madhya ad Pradesh through STF Bhopal.M Shri Kapil Sharma, counsel for the objector.Since all of three miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen of from the same Crime No.07/2017 registered by STF Bhopal, rt they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of ou by this common order.In addition thereto, the victim, at the ad behest of Sunil Jain, also paid an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- to the petitioners.He also gave Rs.21,00,000/- in cash to the M petitioners after borrowing the same from his relatives.The of victim was told that he has been made Director of company J S Wisher Apparels Private Limited with 45% share.rt Remaining 45% share would be allotted to Sunil Jain and 10% ou share would be allotted to petitioner Atul Anand.When the C victim inquired about the operations of the company he was taken to Gurapurva, Chhatarpur and was shown machines h ig and work in progress; however, the victim later learnt that H though he was major share holder of the company with 60.86 stakes, petitioners Atul Anand, Sunil Jain and Rajesh Kapoor ran the company arbitrarily without ever consulting him.The victim was never invited to attend any meeting of the company; however, the minutes of the meetings and signatures of the victim on those minutes were forged and the victim was shown present in all the meetings.The petitioners did not purchase any mine and no operations were commenced.The sight that was shown to the victim, belonged to some other person and later, the machines that were shown to him were also taken away.The company cannot as per law and did not receive any amount in cash from the victim.The share holding pattern shows that he is not even the shareholder in the company.The petitioners are prepared C to buy all shares of the victim at the rate of more than Rs.10/- per share.In the alternative, they are also prepared to h ig deposit Rs.15,50,000/- in the Court or with the Investigating H Officer, in cash.They have not made vailable ad minutes of all the meetings held by the company.Statement of one witness Abhishek Malavi, who is associated with M petitioner Sunil Jain in another company, reveals that the of petitioners are part of an organized crime syndicate, which cheats innocent person by getting large sum invested in rt fictitious ventures.After giving initial statement, Abhishek ou Malavi disappeared under threat and is no longer cooperating C with STF.After publication news items regarding the present case, several persons contacted Investigating Officer with h ig similar allegations againsts the present petitioners.The H petitioners have business interest in Dubai.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-19491-2017 sh (SUNIL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) e 2 ad Jabalpur, Dated : 09-11-2017 Pr Shri Manish Datt, Senior Counsel with Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi and Shri Manoj Pandit, Advocates for the a petitioners.Petitioners Atul Anand, Sunil Jain and Rajesh Kapoor are C apprehending arrest in Crime No.07/2017 registered by STF, h Bhopal under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the ig Indian Penal Code.H The petitioners were granted interim bail for a period of 15 days by Shri V.A. Raut, Additional Sessions Judge for Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon East, Bombay in CR.As per the prosecution case, Petitioner Atul Anand was acquainted with victim Sanjay Chouhan.In December, 2011, he introduced Sanjay Chouhan to co-accused petitioner Sunil Jain, who told the victim that they had a company named J. S. Wisher Apparels Private Limited and proposed to diversify into mining business in Madhya Pradesh; therefore, the victim could join that company.Trusting Sunil Jain, victim Sanjay Chouhan invested Rs.5,00,000/- for purchasing shares of the company.As such, the victim suffered a Pr loss of Rs.2,20,000/-.Against aforesaid amount, the a petitioners allotted him shares in the year 2014 at the rate of hy Rs.70/- per share.In spite of several notices to attend the meetings, the victim did not attend any meeting.He was not shown as present in the minutes of the meetings.Therefore, the petitioners demanded their money back.In the result, this Pr first information report has been lodged in order to avoid a making payment.The petitioners are cooperating in the hy investigation.They gave all documents to the Investigating ad Officer including the minutes of the meeting on 15.09.2017, through their counsel Shri Manoj Pandit.The STF which was constituted by a notification published in M. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 26.12.2008 for the purpose of combating offences relating to antinational, disruptive and unlawful activities of extremists, terrorists, anti-social elements and organized crime syndicate.As such, STF exceeded its jurisdiction by registering FIR in the present case which ought to have been registered and investigated by ordinary police.Even since registration of the e ad offence, the petitioners have locked their office and have gone incommunicado.They were directed to appear before Pr STF and produce documents; however, they are trying to a mislead the STF by filing unwarranted documents and that hy too through their advocate.
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,899,195 |
ap 118 C.R.R. 2823 of 2019 Biswajyoti Chatterjee Vs.The State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Apurba Kumar Datta ... For the petitioner.The petitioner prays for transfer of G.R Case No. 3434 of 2015 arising out of Haldia (Woman) Police station Case No. 13 of 2015 dated 14th December, 2015 under Sections 376/417/516 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur, to any other court outside the district of Purba Medinipur, on an allegation of biased attitude on the part of the learned court.The petitioner submits that he remained present before the learned court on every date of hearing.21st August, 2019 was fixed for taking the specimen signature and handwriting of the petitioner/accused by the Investigating Officer before the learned court.On the said date, the Investigating Officer did not turn 2 up before the court for which his personal appearance was called for by the Court.The prayer for adjournment filed by the petitioner before the court was considered and rejected by the court and warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.Instead, the petitioner complied with the said order, voluntarily surrendered before the court and was granted bail.So the petitioner is debarred from praying for transfer of the case on the basis of the said order.It transpires that the petitioner was supposed to remain present in court on 21st August, 2019 for his specimen signature and handwriting to be taken by the Investigating Officer.On the said date the Investigating Officer was found absent and so also the petitioner.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
559,027 |
When complainant Rafees Ahmad and hisbrother Munne raised alarm, the accused-revisionist Suresh and histhree companions are alleged to have given beating to them with lathisand thereafter they ran away from there.The occurrence waswitnessed besides the injurerd also by PW Rafiq Ahmad.RaziMohammad and Rupa.(1) Suresh the accused/revisionist, preferred this revision against thejudgement and order dated 14.06.1983 passed by Sri PradumanKumar HJS 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Badaun in Criminal AppealNo.286/1982 (Suresh vs. State) whereby the learned Lower Courtdismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 06.10.1982 passedby learned Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Badaun in Case No. 791/1982(State vs. Ram Autar and Others) in which the accused/revisionist wasconvicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year for the offence u/s458 IPC and RI for 6 months for the offence u/s 323/34 IPC with thedirection that both the sentence shall run concurrently.(2) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGAon behalf of the State of U.P. The respondent and perused the record.(3) It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that no case u/s 458and Section 323/34 IPC was made out against the revisionist and thejudgement of the courts below are bad in law.There is no independentwitness to support the prosecution case.The witnesses produced bythe prosecution are related to the complainant.Even independent 2witness have not supported the prosecution case.They have onlystated that they had seen accused persons from behind of themrunning from the place of occurrence.The injury on the person of theinjured persons speak to falsity of the prosecution case as were foundmerely five superficial injuries on two persons.There were materialcontradictions too in the statements of the prosecution witnesses andeven then the court below placed reliance on such witnesses therebycommitting manifest error in passing the impugned order.It is alsosubmitted that this Revision may be allowed thereby setting aside thejudgement and orders of both the courts below thereby acquitting therevisionist for the offences and sentences awarded to him.(4) The learned AGA contended that there is no error either on thefacts of the case or on any point of law in the impugned orders whichhave been passed by both the courts below thereby convicting theaccused/revisionist and sentencing them for the offence u/s 498,323/34 IPC, well proved on record through the reliable prosecutionevidence.It is also contended that there is no force in this revisionbeing no error in concurrent findings of both the courts below.(5) In the light of the contentions of both the parties, I have gonethrough the facts and circumstances on record.Briefly stated, the factsof the case are that in the night of 13/14.07.1980 accused-revisionistSuresh along with his companion Ram Autar and two other persons isalleged to have committed lurking house tress pass by entering into the 3house of Rafees Ahmad who was sleeping along with his brotherMunne in the courtyard.A report of the incident was lodged at PoliceStation Kotwali by complainant Rafees Ahmad next morning.In supportof the case of prosecution, seven PWs in all were examined in lowercourt.Nafees Ahmad complainant PW 1, his injured brother Munne PW2, Razi Mohammad PW 6, Rupa PW 3, Rafiq PW 4 are eye witnesses.N.P. Singh PW 5 conducted medical examination of Nafees Ahmadand his brother Munne on 14.07.1980 and he proved their injuryreports Exts.
|
['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.
|
55,906,376 |
Mr. Vishnu Kumar Patel, Advocate appearing on behalf of the objector.The present bail application has been filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that considering the age of the applicants and also taking note of the fact that at present there is an Signature Not Verified SAN outbreak of pandemic, it is appropriate that their application for grant of Digitally signed by DEVASHISH MISHRA Date: 2020.09.28 17:17:28 IST 2 MCRC-33472-2020 anticipatory bail may be considered and allowed.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail made by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that the application is liable to be rejected.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the objector submits that as per the allegations levelled against the applicants, they are not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail.Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties; as also looking to the age of the applicants and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to consider and allow this bail application.
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,906,599 |
A. 689/2000 Page 1 of 35It appears that during the pendency of the appeal, Feroz @ Shanti Devi, appellant no.2 died on 10th March, 2003 and the appeal qua her abated.The present appeal is, therefore, pressed on behalf of Ami Lal-appellant no.1 and his daughter Anju-appellant no.3, i.e. the father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased.Deceased Meenu was married on 1st November, 1990 to Shri Manohar Lal, son of Ami Lal (appellant no.1) and Smt. Feroz @ Shanti Devi (appellant no.2).After their marriage, this couple was residing in a room on the first floor of House No. 759, Chabi Ganj, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.It is also in evidence that the couple was living separately from the in-laws of the deceased and maintaining a separate kitchen.The in-laws were living separately from the couple on a different floor of the same premises and were maintaining their own kitchen.The site plan Exh.PW4/A proved by the prosecution on record shows that the first floor of the said property consisted of two rooms, kitchen, bathroom, toilet and open terrace.One of the two rooms was occupied by the deceased and her family while the second room was in possession of one Om Prakash who is not identified on record nor examined by the prosecution, though his occupancy is mentioned on Exh. PW4/A.So far as the incident is concerned, police intervention in the matter commenced upon telephonic information being received by SI Shambu Dayal (PW-25) from the duty officer at the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital to the effect that at about 5 p.m., one Meenu who was resident of 759, Chabi Ganj, Kashmiri Gate, had been admitted in Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 3 of 35 the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, Ashok Vihar in burnt condition and that some officers should be sent to the hospital.On receipt of this information, SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) proceeded to the premises at 759, Chabi Ganj, Kashmiri Gate where he found nobody.It is in his testimony that in the room of the deceased, they found one iron stove (Exh.P3), one parat (pan used for making dough out of flour) having wet atta (dough); one tava (griddle) on the stove having an uncooked chapatti (bread) on it and the chakla (rolling board) with atta loi (dough) for making a chapatti.They also found two match boxes, one empty and another having some match sticks (Exh.P1) lying on the bed room on the first floor of the house, some bangle pieces (Exh.P2) lying on the floor.Outside the room, these police officials found some burnt clothes lying which included a salwar (Exh.P4) alongwith ladies undergarments and an under shirt having embroidery.SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) seized these articles, converted them into a sealed parcel which was sealed with the seal of JL and took it into possession vide seizure memo Exh.PW9/A which was duly signed by him as well as Ct.Ravinder Kumar (PW-9) who was accompanying him.On the requisition of the investigating officer, Ct.Sunil Kumar (PW-18) had also gone to the spot in the intervening night Crl.He had taken photographs of the spot from different angles and had developed positive photographs (Exh.PW18/C, 18/D and 18/E).Leaving Ct.Ravinder Kumar (PW-9) at the spot, SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) proceeded to the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital where Meenu was found admitted.SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) also informed the SDM, Shri Dharmender Sharma (PW-16) about his being required at the hospital to record the statement of the deceased.He has stated that Sh.Dharmender Sharma (PW-16) recorded Meenu's statement in his presence.As per Sh.On this statement, PW 16 made an endorsement that the statement was recorded from 2 pm to 2.30 pm on 14th November, 1991 after certification by the doctor on duty that she was fit to make a statement Exh.PW16/D.We find that an endorsement to this effect has been obtained (Exh.PW14/B) from Dr. Subhash Aggarwal (PW-14) at the end of the statement.The statement was handed over to SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25).As per the prosecution, the statement (Exh.PW16/C) disclosed commission of offences under Section 498A/307/34 IPC.After receipt of the statement, on the direction from the SDM, SI Crl. A. 689/2000 Page 6 of 35 Shambhu Dayal endorsed the tehrir at mark A which was sent to the police station through HC Jagbir Singh and gave the rukka to HC Jagbir Singh (PW-7) for getting the case registered.HC Jagbir Singh brought the rukka to the police station and got a case registered as FIR No. 441/91 under Section 498A/307/34 of the IPC at the Police Station Kashmiri Gate.The registration of the case was logged at 3.40 p.m. on 14th November, 1991 as DD No. 8A (Exh.PW12/A) at the police station.The original rukka and copy of the FIR was delivered to SI Shambhu Dayal at the spot.A. 689/2000 Page 6 of 35It appears that after registration of the case, Ami Lal (appellant no.1) was arrested on 14th November, 1991 from his house and his personal search was conducted vide memo Exh.PW6/A.Inspector Jagbir Singh (PW-3) was posted as an SI at Police Station Kashmiri Gate on 15th November, 1991 when the investigation of the case was handed over to him.He had sent the seized articles in the sealed pullandas to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Lodi Road, New Delhi through Ct.Satpal who also searched for accused persons Anju and Feroz @ Shanti Devi but they could not be arrested, as they were not traceable.Ravinder Kumar (PW-9) proved on record the photographs taken of the crime scene as Exh.PW18/C, 18/D and 18/E. The site plan Exh.A. 689/2000 Page 7 of 35It is in the testimony of SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) that he had also conducted investigation from the parents of Meenu, Shri Nawab Singh (PW1) and Smt. Rani (PW2) at the police station and that their statements Exh.PW16/E and Exh.PW16/B were recorded by Sh.Dharmender Sharma (PW-16) in his presence.On 3rd December, 1991, injured Meenu died at the hospital and investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector Chandra Mohan, SHO of the Police Station.As per this MLC, Meenu had reached the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital at 7.38 p.m. Upon her arrival, the doctor has noted the history as "alleged H/O burn while pt was working in kitchen.She was cooking food".The doctor has observed in the MLC that upon arrival, the "pt is conscious and well oriented with time, place and persons.It makes completely general allegations.It was also the stand of the deceased that her husband Manohar Lal loved her deeply and that he had taken her to the hospital.The MLC notes that Manohar Lal had got the deceased admitted to the hospital.Meenu's family was living as a nuclear household having a separate kitchen, independent of the in-laws, though in the same premises.GITA MITTAL, JThe appellants before us assail the judgment dated 31 st October, 2000 whereby Ami Lal, his wife Smt. Feroz @ Shanti and their daughter Anju were held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in Sessions Case No. 49/94 which arose out of FIR No. 441/91 registered under Section 498A/302 read with Section 34 IPC by the Police Station Kashmiri Gate.The appellants also assail the consequential order of sentence dated 2 nd November, 2000 whereby the trial court sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 1 of 35 default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for the commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.The appellants are represented by Mr. K.B. Andley, learned senior counsel and Mr. M. Shamikh, advocate before us while Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP appears for the State, all of whom have carefully taken us through the available record.In an incident on 13th November, 1991, Meenu, daughter of Nawab Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Rani (PW-2) suffered burn injuries in her matrimonial home.This unfortunate incident resulted in her demise on 3rd December, 1991 after almost three weeks of hospitalisation and the incarceration of her father-in-law Ami Lal, Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 2 of 35 mother-in-law - Feroz@Shanti Devi and sister-in-law Anju of the deceased and has led to the present case.A. 689/2000 Page 2 of 35This information was logged as DD No. 15A at 8.50 p.m.A. 689/2000 Page 3 of 35We may note at this stage that Meenu had been rushed to the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital by her relatives and her MLC No. 1164 (Exh.The original negatives were also produced on record.A. 689/2000 Page 4 of 35Dharmender Sharma (PW-16), upon reaching the Hospital on 13th November, 1991, he confirmed that the patient was fit for statement from the doctor who was on duty and thereafter at about 10:15 p.m. recorded her statement in his own handwriting in vernacular (Exh. PW16/B).The statement shows that it is not a narrative but PW16 put questions to the deceased and noted the question as well as the answer given by the deceased.It appears that Meenu thereafter had a change of mind.At about 10.50 am on the next day i.e. the 14th of November, 1991, Shri Nawab Singh (father of the deceased Meenu) telephonically informed the police control room from room no. 107 in the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, that the girl who got burnt at Chabi Ganj had given a statement under pressure and that she wanted to give another statement.Shri Nawab Singh had requested that an officer Crl. A. 689/2000 Page 5 of 35 be deputed for this purpose.This information was sent by the duty officer from the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital to the police control room which was recorded by L/HC Renu as DD No. 112A, proved on record as Exh.PW25/B.A. 689/2000 Page 5 of 35This information was further conveyed to the police station, Kashmiri Gate and logged by the duty officer HC Kali Charan (PW-21) at the police station as DD No. 17B (Exh.PW21/A).Copy of DD No. 17B was furnished to SI Shambhu Dayal who thereupon again proceeded to the hospital.SDM Sh.Dharmender Sharma (PW-16) was also again informed to record the statement of Meenu again.Accordingly, Shri Dharmender Sharma (PW-16) reached the hospital and after confirming from the doctor on duty that patient was fit for statement, PW-16 recorded Meenu's second statement in his own handwriting.This statement (Exh.PW16/C) was also in a question and answer format.PW4/A was proved on record by HC Balbir Singh (PW-4) who had prepared the same on requisitioning of the Investigating Officer.After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed on 1st February, 1992 under Section 173 of the CrPC.The metropolitan Magistrate committed the proceedings to the sessions court.The appellants pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined 25 witnesses.Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC.The appellants did not lead evidence in their defence.We have heard Mr. K.B. Andley, learned senior counsel and Mr. M. Shamikh, learned counsels for the appellants as well as Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State and scrutinised the record with them.We find the prosecution has rested its case primarily on the two dying declarations recorded by the SDM (PW16).In fact, the learned trial judge has passed the impugned judgment on a consideration of these two statements.We consider the evidence on record hereafter.A. 689/2000 Page 8 of 35First statement (Exh.PW16/B) recorded by the SDM, (which was in fact her second dying declaration)Shri Dharmender Sharma (SDM) (PW-16) has submitted that at the hospital, at 10.10 p.m. on 13 th November, 1991, Meenu was declared fit for statement by the doctor who was on duty and that he has recorded her statement (Exh.PW6/A).This statement was recorded in the vernacular language in question and answer form.In answer to question no.2 as to how she had got burnt, the following answer has been recorded by the SDM in vernacular and reads as under :"Today, at about 4.30 p.m. in the day while I was lighting the stove for cooking food and to heat water for my mother-in-law to take bath, some wood were downstairs while some were upstairs.I was wearing a nylon suit with a cotton chunni.I got up to get the wood when my suit suddenly caught fire.I screamed whereupon my mother-in- law, father-in-law, husband's paternal aunt (husband's chachi) and others together poured water on me.While trying to save me, my husband's hands also got burnt."(Emphasis supplied)From the above, it would appear that the deceased was cooking food when she decided to light a wood fire to heat water for her mother-in-law's bathing.She was getting up from her cooking to get the wood for this purpose when her synthetic clothes caught fire.So far as the statement that she was cooking at the time when her clothes caught fire is concerned, the same is amply Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 9 of 35 supported by the testimony of the investigating officer SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) who has unequivocally stated that when he reached the spot he had found an uncooked chapatti on the tava (griddle) on the stove; atta (dough) on the chakla obviously to be used for rolling out the next chapatti as well as uncooked dough in the parat, which obviously had to be used for making the chappatis for her family.The narration of the unfolding of events in Exh.We find that, in answer to the third question by the SDM (PW16) as to who else were present in the house at that time, the deceased Meenu has listed her father-in-law, mother-in-law, both sisters-in-law, husband, husband's younger brother and others (not legible) and others as being on the ground floor at that time.When questioned at serial no. 4 as to whether her in-laws used to trouble her, Meenu answered that there were no major fights other than the normal differences as in any other household.She refers to a minor squabble over articles received at the Diwali festival but clarifies that there was no major issue.We find that Meenu has categorically stated in answer to question no. 4 that she was happy in her marriage.Finally as answer to question no.5, Shri Dharmender Sharma (SDM) (PW-16) has read out the statement to Meenu and asked her if she wanted to say anything else.Meenu in response had confirmed that the statement was correct.A. 689/2000 Page 10 of 35SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) has stated that Sh.Dharmender Sharma handed over the detailed statement to him and since this statement dated 13th November, 1991 made by the deceased, did not make out any offence, the investigation was kept pending.Consequently, he took Ct.Ravinder from the spot and returned to the police station.So far as Meenu's statement that she was rising from her cooking to get wood so as to heat water for her mother-in-law to bathe and her nylon suit catching fire in the process, is also a plausible course of events and quite believable.Second statement allegedly recorded by the SDM, which was her third dying declarationSo far as the contents of the second statement (Exh.PW16/C) recorded on 14th November, 1991 are concerned, it is at material variance with the previous statement Exh.PW16/B. This time, in answer to the question no. 2 as to how she had suffered the injury, the deceased gave the following narration (translated herein) :"Yesterday morning (13th November, 1991) I wanted to visit my mother.My mother-in-law Shanti and my sister-in-law (nanad) Anju told me not to leave the house.They always did like this.They abused me ever since.I was also bent upon going("zid") and I complained to my husband Manohar and thereafter I took my daughter and left my maternal home in a rickshaw.I told my mother about fights in the last days.My mother told that she would accompany me and would talk to my mother-in-law.At 1.30 p.m., my mother and I returned to my maternal home.Both sisters-in-law Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 11 of 35 (nanads) were there.They were not prepared to speak to either my mother nor to me.My mother returned home.I went back to my room and lay down.At 3.30 p.m. my father-in-law came and at 4 p.m. my mother-in-law and then quarrelling ("kalesh") started.My mother-in-law abused me that everybody at my maternal home are loafers ("awara").You are more towards them ("tu zyada hi unki ho rahi hai, saali ko iss baar achchi tarah theek karte hain") and this time, you should be properly set right.Father-in-law said that today my whole family should be called and we will decide today and gave abuse.She does not work.I kept quiet.I came out in anger and went up to my room.My mother-in-law and father-in-law followed me upstairs and said that they would neither leave me nor would they leave me in such a state that I could not get married again.In the meantime my sister-in-law Anju also came upstairs.My mother-in-law grabbed my plait.I pushed her.At that, my mother-in-law and Anju held me.My mother-in-law grabbed my plait.Anju lifted a plastic can containing kerosene oil and poured it over me.My father-in-law grabbed my feet and then my sister-in-law Anju threw a burnt match stick on me.I screamed.These three persons ran outside.I also came out.In the meantime, my husband also returned.Thereafter they have brought me here.My mother-in-law had told me to remember that my daughter was with her and if I gave a statement against them to the police, they would chop her into pieces.I was really scared.I told mummy not to worry and that my daughter should be kept properly.A. 689/2000 Page 11 of 35A. 689/2000 Page 12 of 35As question no. 3, the SDM (PW-16) asked the deceased for an explanation as to why she had not given such statement the previous night.The deceased Meenu had replied that her mother-in-law was very clever who had clearly stated that she would kill her daughter of which she was capable.38. PW-16 has further queried Meenu as question no.4 as to why she wanted to change her statement.In response, Meenu had stated that she was now sure that she would not survive and that she was confident that after this statement, the SDM and others would save her daughter.She added that her husband really loved her (deceased) and that he would handle everything; that only her sister-in-law and mother-in-law should be kept away from her daughter.As question no.5, PW-16 asked Meenu as to how she was living in her in-laws house.In response, Meenu confirmed that though her husband was very nice however, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to harass her a lot; that Anju was after her for everything - dowry and gifts on festivals; gifts from her parents etc Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 13 of 35 that they used to trouble her on everything.The deceased went to the extent of stating that Anju used to often beat her as well.A. 689/2000 Page 13 of 35Shri Dharmender Sharma (PW-16) put a further question no.6 to Meenu to relate a specific instance of the beating, Meenu answered that when she was seven months pregnant, Anju and the mother-in-law had substantially beaten her; kicked her in the stomach resulting in injury to her head and that she had visited Dr. Ramesh on this occasion.She, however, told the SDM that she had not informed Dr. Ramesh about this incident.Dying declaration on the MLC(which was her first dying declaration)Her parameters were also within limit." The doctor observed that she had suffered about 9% burns on her face; about 9% burns on each of her upper limbs; chest and abdomen (Exh.PW22/A).A. 689/2000 Page 14 of 35Thus, in the first statement in time, made by the deceased has categorically informed the doctor that she suffered burns when she was working in the kitchen and was cooking food.Truthfulness and reliability of the dying declarationsIt is to be noted that the father of the deceased has confirmed that they received information on the night at 9 p.m. itself that Meenu stood admitted in the Sunder Lal Jain Hospital.It would be the normal reaction of the parents to visit their daughter and to support her during her critical sickness.We also find it is Nawab Singh, father of the deceased who has telephoned the police control room that she wants to give another statement (Exh.PW17/B).This fact clearly shows that the deceased was in the company of her relatives shortly after she suffered the injuries.In any case her father was with her at the time that she had a change of mind as is manifested by his above call to the police.SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) has categorically confirmed that Meenu's parents were found present there when he visited the hospital on both days.In this statement Meenu attributes antipathy against two sisters in law Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 15 of 35 without naming them at one place.She makes strong allegations against one sister-in-law namely Anju and goes on to attribute her burning to her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law Anju.A. 689/2000 Page 15 of 35The deceased was young and healthy and would have resisted any attempt to take away her life.We have the ocular evidence of the investigating officer SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) as well as Ct.Ravinder Kumar (PW-9) which would show that they did not find any kerosene in the room where the incident occurred and wherefrom the exhibits were lifted.There were also no signs of struggle or violence or of burning, if two persons held the deceased and the third poured kerosene over her.The sequence of events disclosed in Exh.Despite the categorical statement as contained in the third statement Exh.PW16/C to the effect that kerosene was poured from a plastic can, though the police reached shortly after the deceased was removed to the hospital, no plastic can of any kind was also found at the spot.These three documents Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 16 of 35 have noted the extent of her burns as well as the part of the body which was burnt.These records note that her face, upper limbs, chest and abdomen only had suffered 9% burns each.There is no evidence that any other part of her body was burnt.The hair on her head was intact.Meenu's back as well as the lower part of her body was completely untouched.Clearly, this would not have been the position if somebody had poured kerosene over her.A. 689/2000 Page 16 of 35If the events had unfolded in the manner alleged in Exh.PW 16/C, the deceased would have burns over all her body and the deceased would not have burnt from her front alone.We also find that there is nothing on record which would suggest that there was deterioration in the condition of the deceased between the night of the 13th November, 1991 (when she made the first statement Exh.PW16/B to the SDM) and the morning of 14 th November, 1991 when her father conveyed her desire to make another statement.So the explanation given by the deceased in answer to the question no. 3 regarding the alleged threat and to question no. 4 that she was now sure that she would not survive is also not supported by record and completely unreliable.In any case, the evidence shows that the parents of the deceased had reached by 9 o'clock and reached the hospital shortly thereafter.He was present in the hospital.A. 689/2000 Page 17 of 35Any fear because of the alleged threat by the mother-in-law as well as any apprehension in the mind of the deceased would have stood assuaged by the presence of her near and dear ones which included a husband who loved her deeply as well as her parents.PW16/B to the SDM on account of fear because of a threat which has been attributed to the mother-in-law in Exh.PW16/C.Multiple dying declarations have been considered by the Supreme Court in (2004) 13 SCC 314 State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay wherein it was observed thus:When there is more than one dying declaration genuinely recorded, they must be tested on the touchstone of consistency and probabilities.They must also be tested in the light of other evidence on record.Adopting such approach, we are unable to place implicit reliance on the dying declarations, especially when the High Court felt it unsafe to act on them."(Emphasis supplied) Crl.On 30-9-1979 Ext.PD was recorded in the presence of three doctors, PW 7, PW 3 and CW I wherein she stated that she turned to the store and she heard her mother-in-law and father-in-law talking behind her and suddenly they poured kerosene oil and they set her on fire...A. 689/2000 Page 20 of 35The witnesses have failed to explain as to why the signatures or the thumb impression of the deceased Meenu were not obtained in the present case.This in our view was a major lapse on the part of the prosecution and casts doubt on the reliability of the two statements.A. 689/2000 Page 24 of 35A. 689/2000 Page 28 of 35The prosecution has examined only the father of the deceased namely Shri Nawab Singh (PW-1) and mother Smt. Rani (PW-2).Meenu's mother Smt. Rani (PW-2) denied making the statement (Exh.Similarly, Nawab Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased also does not make a single allegation against the appellants or any other family member in the in-laws of his daughter.In the witness box, he even denies that his daughter ever told him that she wanted to make a third statement to the SDM or that he informed the police about this request! The witness denied having made the Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 29 of 35 statement (Exh.PW16/B) which was attributed as having been made by him to the police.A. 689/2000 Page 29 of 35We may note that on the request of the prosecution, the parents were both declared hostile and cross examined by the learned prosecutor but the same was of no avail so far as its case was concerned.In these circumstances, there is no oral or ocular testimony to support the allegations made in Exh.PW16/C. As discussed above, the evidence led by the prosecution, in fact, goes contrary to the allegations contained therein.The in-laws were even living on a separate floor.It has been pointed out by Mr. M. Shamikh, learned counsel for the appellants that there is not even a whisper of a complaint by the deceased or any relative on her behalf with regard to ill Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 30 of 35 treatment at the hands of the husband or in-laws to any person or authority.On the contrary, in both statements (Exh.PW16/B and PW16/C), the deceased has referred to the deep affection that her husband had for her.Though the deceased was living separately with her husband in a single room on the first floor of the premises no. 759, Chabi Ganj, it is in the statement given by the deceased Exh.PW16/B that several other relatives were present in the premises at the time of the incident.In her third statement (Exh.PW16/C) as well in answer to the third question, Meenu has disclosed the presence of the accused persons in the house as well as another sister-in-law, husband, husband's brother-in-law.None of them have been examined by the prosecution.The site plan Exh.PW25/C shows that Sh.Om Prakash was an occupant of the room immediately adjacent to the room of the appellant on the first floor of the premises.He would be a vital witness so far as the incident on the same floor is concerned.In his cross examination, SI Shambhu Dayal (PW-25) has disclosed that he had met neighbours of the appellant and learnt from them that the appellants had gone to the Sunder Lal Jain Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 31 of 35 Hospital when he reached the house.It is also in his testimony that about 7-8 families were residing in that lane and that the house of one family is visible from the house of another family.The investigating officer, when cross-examined, declared that he made no inquiries from any of the neighbours about the said incident as he had to rush to the hospital.A. 689/2000 Page 31 of 35The prosecution was bound to have made inquiries and recorded the testimony of independent public witnesses in order to place the true unfolding of events before the court.This has not been done.This is an unfortunate case where even the statement of the husband Manohar Lal, in whom the deceased had full confidence as per both her statements, was not even examined by the investigating officer and has been kept out of the witness box.Valuable material evidence which would have shed light on the unfolding of events on that fateful evening and enabled determination of the truth has not been produced in the witness box.A. 689/2000 Page 32 of 35 completely unreliable without considering the same in the context of ocular evidence with regard to the position on site.A. 689/2000 Page 32 of 35In view of the above, we are of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the case with which the appellants and deceased Feroz @ Shanti Devi were charged.The conviction of the appellants is not sustainable in view of the evidence established on record and has to be set aside.Before parting with the case we record our deep appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. M. Shamikh, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State in the present matter.The record contains an application dated 30th November, 2000 (Crl.M.C.No.3065/2000) noting that in the last week of November, 2000, Feroz @ Shanti had suffered a severe paralytic stroke necessitating her removal to the G.B. Pant Hospital by the jail authorities and her suspension of sentence was sought.A. 689/2000 Page 33 of 35As per the nominal roll of appellant no.1, received from Central Jail No.3, Tihar, New Delhi, as on 24 th January, 2001, he was of 60 years age.Anju who is appellant no.3 was the married sister of Manohar Lal (i.e. a nanad of the deceased).462/2001 was filed in this appeal by her contending that her son Master Ankit, then aged about 1 years, was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and crying hoarse for his mother (Anju).On this application, the sentence imposed upon her was suspended by an order dated 14th March, 2001 for a period of four weeks.2908/2000 stood filed alongwith the appeal for suspension of the sentence imposed on the appellants.It was only by an order dated 3rd May, 2001 the sentence imposed on the appellants was suspended.These few facts set out the grave suffering that the appellants and their family members have faced because of their prolonged incarceration.The trauma and suffering of over 25 years which commenced on 13th November, 1991 has not ended in as much as this appeal has remained pending and the uncertainty of the outcome must be haunting these appellants and their family members would have left indelible scars and is irreparable.The judgment dated 31st October, 2000 passed in Sessions Case No.49/94 arising out of FIR No. 441/91 registered under Section 498A/302 read with Section 34 IPC by the Police Station Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 34 of 35 Kashmiri Gate and the consequential order of sentence dated 2 nd November, 2000 are hereby set aside and quashed.A. 689/2000 Page 34 of 35In terms of section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the appellants and on their behalf shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.Copy of this order be supplied to the police and be also sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi for compliance.Copy of this judgment be also sent to the trial court alongwith the trial court record.GITA MITTAL, J ANU MALHOTRA, J NOVEMBER 22, 2016/kr Crl.A. 689/2000 Page 35 of 35
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,908,167 |
The prosecution story is that the informant Raghuveer Singh gave a written report on 02.09.1996 at Police Station Jaitpur stating that he is resident of District Itawah.His daughter told him one year before that she was being harassed for motorcycle and television and for this reason, the accused persons have committed murder of his daughter along with her one year child.He was informed by his nephew on 30.08.1996 at about 08:00 P.M. and he was told that the child was sick and he died in the hospital and because of the shock due to death of child his daughter also died.According to capacity, he gave dowry but the accused-appellant and his family members were not satisfied and were demanding television and motorcycle and for that they started harassing and beating his daughter.Whenever the deceased came to her parental house, she used to tell about that.The informant tried to convince Pooran Singh the father-in-law of the deceased that he will give television and motorcycle on money being arranged but the accused persons were not convinced and they continued harassing the deceased.On 30.08.1996 at about 08:00 P.M., his nephew, Kalloo informed him that his daughter and her child have died.Then he reached there on 31.08.1996 but he did not get the dead body of the deceased.Bhupendra, Brijpal and Shree Krishna are not his relatives but they are only local villagers.Similarly, DW-2 Anita has stated that she knows Mukesh and his family.The deceased was her sister-in-law in relation.Her husband was mediator of the marriage of Mukesh and the deceased.Mukesh and his family are very courteous and civilized.The accused and his family members never demanded any dowry.The real brother of the deceased Jitendra was living with Mukesh in Delhi and was learning tailoring.Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that there is no evidence that the death of the deceased took placed in an unnatural or abnormal circumstances.She died naturally due to shock because of the death of her son and a funeral took place in the village publicly.This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2018, passed by XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1997, arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 1996, under Sections 302/201 IPC, Police Station Jaitpur, District Agra, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of fine three months additional rigorous imprisonment and under Section 304B IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of fine one year additional rigorous imprisonment.The informant reached there on 31.08.1996 and he was informed that both killed themselves by burnt themselves.At the time of incident Pooran Singh, father-in-law of the deceased, his wife, his daughter and his son Mukesh and Dharmendra were in the house and they all killed his daughter and her child and caused disappearance of the dead bodies.On the basis of written report, the first information report was registered against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 201 IPC and it was investigated by police and thereafter charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons namely Mukesh, Bhupendra Brijpal and Shree Krishna for the offences under Sections 302/201 IPC.The learned trial court however framed charges under sections 304B/498A/201 IPC and in the alternative, under Section 302 IPC.The prosecution examined PW-1 Raghuveer Singh, PW-2 Satish Singh, PW-3 Naresh Singh, PW-4 Jitendra Singh Chauhan, PW-5 S.I. R.K. Singh Yadav and PW-6 Constable Clerk Gajraj Singh.The statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have stated that the statements of the witnesses are false and the case has been falsely registered.They have stated that they never demanded any dowry nor they committed murder of the deceased.Accused Brijpal has stated that he has no relationship with accused-appellant Mukesh and he has no concern with the said crime.Similar is the statements of accused Bhupendra Singh and accused Shree Krishna.DW-1 Mukesh, the present accused-appellant and DW-2 Anita Devi were examined in defence.After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.Bhupendra Brijpal and Shree Krishna have been acquittal from all charges whereas, accused-appellant has been acquitted under section 201 IPC.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the accused-appellant has filed the present criminal appeal challenging the impugned judgment on the ground that the same is against the weight of evidence on record.There was material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.The judgment has been passed on surmises and conjectures and awarded sentence is too severe.The conviction is bad in the eyes of law.The demand of dowry and harassment was not proved by the prosecution.The statements of defence witnesses have been ignored by the learned trial court, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled for acquittal.Heard Sri Bal Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri L.D. Rajbhar and Sri Prem Shanker Mishra, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.He tried to search her in the hospital as he was informed that the child of the deceased was admitted in the hospital and expired and in that shock his daughter also died.When he collected the information from the local villagers, he came to know that the accused persons caused the death of his daughter and her child both and removed their dead bodies.PW-2 Satish Singh has been declared hostile as he stated ignorance about the incident.PW-3 Naresh Singh has also been declared hostile who has further stated that he heard that the child of Mukesh was ill and due to illness the child died.After the death of the child, the wife of Mukesh also died.PW-4 Jitendra Singh Chauhan is the brother of the deceased, who has supported the prosecution version and has stated that due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry, the accused persons used to harass the deceased and finally they killed her by setting her ablaze.The information of her death was given by Ram Karan.PW-5 is S.I. R.K. Singh Yadav is IO who has proved site plan and charge sheet.14. PW-6 is Constable Clerk Gajraj Singh of Police Station Jaitpur, who has proved chick FIR and GD.The accused-appellant Mukesh has also got examined himself as defence witness DW-1, who has admitted the date of marriage with the deceased and has stated that after two years of marriage a son was born, who fell ill after his birth.After one year, due to illness, the child died in a hospital, whereas he was always under treatment.At the time of incident, he was working as tailor in Delhi and the brother of the deceased Jitendra was also working with him and learning tailoring.Because of the death of the son, the deceased came in shock and fell ill and after about one month, she also died.Her funeral took place publicly in the presence of local villagers.On the information of the death of his wife, he and the brother of the deceased Jitendra also came to the village from Delhi.Jitendra remained present in funeral.They never demanded motorcycle and television nor they caused any harassment to the deceased.She died due to illness but the informant lodged false FIR.But the prosecution is not absolved from the responsibility to prove that the death was unnatural and it happened pursuant to cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.Therefore, it is to be seen what other evidence is available on record to show that the death occurred in suspicious circumstances.The F.I.R. version in respect of cause of death appears to be inconsistent.The first version is that the accused committed murder and removed the dead body by throwing the same in the river.This has been negatived by the learned trial court itself as the accused has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 302/201 I.P.C.. The second version is about demand of dowry and harassment.The accused persons were demanding motorcycle and TV and the deceased told a year back that she was being harassed by accused persons.It is also admitted fact that a year before she gave birth to his son as, as per F.I.R., at the time of death of the deceased, the son was about one year old when he died.Therefore, it goes to show that till the birth of son, their married life was normal.It has been nowhere stated that after birth of son, the accused ever demanded dowry and harassed the deceased.PW-4 Jitendra is brother of the deceased and he has also stated similarly regarding dowry demand and harassment.There is no statement by him that after the birth of son, the deceased ever complained about dowry harassment.There is no evidence of any panchayat on this account between the parties nor there is any evidence that because of dowry demand and harassment, the deceased ever came to her parents and stayed there showing her unwillingness to go back, whereas these are common eventualities in such cases.It is also important to note that PW-5 IO has stated that during investigation, he did not find any evidence regarding dowry demand and harassment.The learned trial court has criticized this this part of the statement on the basis that F.I.R. itself contains the allegation of dowry demand and harassment.But that allegation is based on what the deceased said to them one year before from her death.According to F.I.R., the informant got information of the death on 30.8.1996 at 8 P.M. The incident took place on 29.6.1996 in the night.The FIR has been lodged on 2.9.1996 at 7 PM.Even then the F.I.R. was lodged on 2.9.1996 at 7 P.M. and it shows that from the date of incident , on the 5th day, and after information on 30.8.1996, on 4th day the F.I.R. was lodged.So, there is delay of 4 to 5 days in lodging the F.I.R., whereas, in the F.I.R., at the very out set, it has been stated that accused persons have killed the deceased and her son.The first allegation is that the accused person killed the deceased and her son.No witness examined by prosecution has established this fact nor any of them have seen accused persons causing death or murder.Another allegation is that the nephew of informant Kallu informed him about the death and informed that the son was ill and died in hospital and out of shock, his daughter also died.Kallu has not been examined though he was nephew of informant and has been shown in the list of witness in the charge-sheet.Thus prosecution has withheld a very important witness and adverse inference will be drawn against prosecution.The third allegation is that both died by burning themselves.The fourth allegation is that the accused persons killed both daughter and son and this has been further improved by informant in his on oath statement that they so did because of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.In the F.I.R., one version is that both died by burning themselves but PW-1 has not supported it in his statement and has said that the accused persons killed them and caused disappearance of the dead bodies.He has stated that he did not see any accused burning them or killing them.In respect of death of son, PW-4 has stated that he does not know whether he was ill and died out of illness.He has not categorically denied it but has expressed his ignorance only.This is a very important contradiction and creates doubt on the credibility of both the witnesses.PW-4 has further stated that he did not see any one killing his sister.They reached Police Station on 2.9.1996 at 11 A.M. and F.I.R. was lodged within one hour after reaching there in which it was written that the son of her sister died out of illness in hospital and his sister also died out of that shock.This contradicts the time of lodging F.I.R. which has been lodged at 7 P.M.. It appears that the learned trial court, for no reason recorded in the judgment, has ignored this material discrepancy and delay in lodging F.I.R. There is one more fact demonstrating that the relationship between him and appellant was very good which is not possible if his sister and accused were not happy with each other.The accused in his statement as DW-1 has stated that Jitendra was living in Delhi with him and was learning tailoring with him.DW-2 Aneeta Devi has stated on oath that the brother of deceased, Jitendra (PW-1) was working with accused Mukesh in Delhi from the last two years from the date of death of her sister.DW-2 is sister in law of deceased and her husband settled the marriage of deceased with accused and she resides one and half km away from the house of the accused.PW-4 has stated that he lived in Delhi in 1994 prior to death of his sister and was learning tailoring.He and accused Mukesh were living there with his sister.After 15-20 days, Mukesh started doing some other work in Delhi.He has stated that Mukesh was working in Delhi till his sister died.This also shows that the relationship between the two was normal.This also shows that if the accused was living in Delhi there could be least opportunity for him to cause dowry harassment.When they all lived in Delhi, it has been nowhere stated by PW-4 that she was harassed by the accused.There is one more fact to be noticed that PW-4 has stated that he came to know that in the funeral of his sister, village people participated.This further demolishes the prosecution version that the accused caused the dead body to disappear.This also shows that the funeral took place publicly which is not possible if the death had been unnatural and in abnormal circumstances.According to defence as stated by DW-1, after the death of her son out of illness, after about one and quarter month, the deceased died out of shock and illness.DW-2 has also stated the same thing.In Anil Sharma Vs.State of Jharkhand, (2004) 5 SCC 679, it has been held that an accused can examine himself u/s 315 Cr.P.C. as a defence witness and equal treatment should be given to the evidence of prosecution and defence.Standard and parameter for evaluation of evidence is the same whether it is a prosecution witness or defence witness.Unfortunately, the learned trial court has applied different yardstick for evaluation of defence witness and has expected that everything should be proved by defence by producing documentary evidence.When the accused himself as DW-1 and DW-2 have stated on oath that the son was sick and died out of illness more than a month before the death of deceased and in that shock the deceased fell ill and started suffering from fit attacks, the trial court has desired the same to be proved by treatment slip etc., whereas the F.I.R. contains the fact of death of son out of illness and thereafter death of deceased out of shock.There is no suggestion put by prosecution that the son did not die due to illness.In respect of treatment slip of wife (deceased), DW-1 has stated that the same was submitted in the High Court.There is no reason to disbelieve the witnesses on this point.No suggestion has been given to the witness on this point that no such treatment slip has been filed in the High Court.It is admitted case of prosecution that none of the witnesses were present on spot at the time of death of the deceased or her son.PW-1 and PW-4 have admitted that they did not see the deceased dying and they cannot say who killed her or how she died.Prosecution version is not consistent regarding cause of death.The learned trial court has disbelieved the prosecution case on the point that the deceased was killed by accused and he caused the dead body to disappear.No witness who informed the informant or his family regarding death of deceased has been examined by the prosecution.There is no evidence that the death of deceased took place in unnatural circumstances.It is pertinent to mention that there is no presumption in law of unnatural death and there is always a presumption in favor of natural death unless those circumstances are established which lead to inference that death was unnatural and the victim died in abnormal circumstances.It has been stated by the informant that when he reached to the village of victim, he gathered information from the local people that they died by burning themselves.No such witness has been examined who gave such information to the informant.No sign have been found by I.O. during investigation of such burning in the house in terms of burn spot or consequent ashes or blackening nor it was shown by the complainant.Moreover, two witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 who have been examined have not supported the prosecution case have turned hostile.PW-3 who happens to be Village Pradhan has stated that the son of accused was sick and died and in that shock his wife also died.He has further stated that he never heard about dowry demand and harassment by accused.PW-2 has also stated that Mukesh used to live in Delhi prior to his marriage and used to come to village sometimes.He heard that his wife died out of illness.Thus these to witnesses give support to defence version.It is true that in all cases it is not necessary that the dead body should be recovered and as such postmortem may not be possible.But in such kind of situation, evidence, direct or circumstantial, must be produced by prosecution which could lead to inference that some offence was committed in respect of dead person by accused.No witness who saw accused taking, handling or carrying the dead body in suspicious way has been examined to show that some offence was committed.There is variation in FIR version in respect of manner and cause of death and the statement of PW-1 and PW-4 on this point is based on hearsay, speculation and suspicion only.The fact that PW-4 was living with accused in Delhi and learning tailoring also shows normal relation.It has been no where stated by witness that they were not informed about the death.It has been admitted by PW-4 that a public funeral took place and this fact has not been categorically denied by PW-1 when asked in cross-examination.The delay of 4-5 days in lodging F.I.R. is very fatal in such case as it prevented the opportunity of postmortem which was so necessary for determination of cause of death.There is no evidence that the victim was put to cruelty and harassment soon before her death nor there is any evidence that dowry was demanded or cruelty was committed after the birth of son.The police did not find a case of dowry demand and dowry death and no charge-sheet was submitted for any such offence.On the basis of same evidence other accused persons have been already acquitted by the learned trial court.Where the basic ingredients of the offence of dowry death necessary for invoking presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act was not proved, it was not valid for the court to shift burden on accused-appellant or use section 106 of the Evidence Act to hold him guilty.In absence of any credible evidence, the conclusion of guilt against accused cannot be said to be justified under law.The appeal is allowed.Judgment and order dated 31.08.2018, passed by XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1997, arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 1996, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant Mukesh under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C., Police Station Jaitpur, District Agra, is set aside and the accused-appellant Mukesh is acquitted from the said charge under section 304-B/498-A IPC.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,918,643 |
Thereafter, they went to the house of the applicant at village Bemhouri and started living there as husband and wife.No doubt she was a minor, aged about 17 years, but at present she has become major and is living with the applicant as his wife on her own will.He further submits that no purpose will be served by arresting the applicant.He again submits that trial will take long time to conclude.This is first anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the sh applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with e ad Crime No.851/2017 registered at Police Station Budhar, District Shahdol (M.P.) for an offence punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. Pr a As per the prosecution case, a missing report was lodged by one hy Muneshwar Dubey, who is the grandfather of the prosecutrix, at ad Police Station Budhar, district Shahdol, and on that basis, during investigation, the prosecutrix has been recovered from the possession M of the applicant.Thereafter, the offences punishable under Sections of 366 and 376 of the IPC have been added against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an rt innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this case.He also ou submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section C 164 of the Cr.P.C. she has stated that the applicant and herself were known to each other.On 03.11.2017, when she was on way to the h ig house of her grandfather, the applicant met her and took her to Korba H on his motorcycle.Thereafter, he took her to Ambikapur by train and stayed there in a lodge and so also at different places for about 20-25 days.Thereafter, on 03.12.2017 they went back to Korba and started residing there in a rented house and there on 03.01.2018 they solemnized their marriage in a temple and after that they went to the Court at Korba and got executed a document (marriage certificate) before the Notary.The applicant is ready to furnish bail bond as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by the Court.On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent-State opposes the bail application.After hearing arguments of both the parties, looking to the whole facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of the prosecutrix sh recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the fact that no specific e allegation in respect of committing rape is made out against the ad applicant, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to Pr enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,928,590 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.On this score, she was quite frustrated and disappointed and instead of accepting the situation, she hanged herself at Mainpuri.There is no provocation or abetment on the part of the applicant and she was never instigated by the applicant to commit suicide.Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 30.9.2020 Sumit S
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
239,300 |
Appellant State has filed this appeal against the impugned of judgment of acquittal dated 21-11-1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. No. 61/89, whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Balram, Hariram, Ram Kumar, Gyandas and Shriram, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the Trial Court under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC.At the trial, the above charges were sought to be proved against the accused persons on the evidence of P.W. 1 Saligram, P.W. 2 Komal Singh s/o Jai Singh, P.W. 3 Komal Singh s/o Saligram, P.W. 4 Churaman Tiwari, P.W. 5 Narbada Prasad, P.W. 6 Nayeem Khan, P.W. 7 Kader Khan, P.W. 8 Shriram, P.W. 9 S.C. Jain, P.W. 10 Arvind Samadhiya and P.W. 11 Dr. S.L. Multani.The Trial Court on the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial though found it proved that injured Saligram sustained injuries in the night of 16-4-89, but in view of the serious infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court found it quite unsafe to act upon their evidence and, therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents accused persons of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC.Shri Patel, the learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds.Of the 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial P.W. 1 Saligram, P.W. 2 Komal Singh s/o Jai Singh and P.W. 3 Komal Singh s/o Saligram were examined as eye-witnesses of the alleged incident of assault on Saligram.P.W. 3 Komal Singh, son of injured Saligram, categorically stated in Para 6 of his statement, that in the night of the incident itself the matter was reported to the police through some Circle Inspector.For the reasons best known to the prosecution neither the said earliest report was produced before the Trial Court, nor the said Circle Inspector was examined as a witness.The other eye-witnesses P.W. 2 Komal Singh, son of Jai Singh, admittedly was examined by the police for the first time on 8-6-89, i.e., after about 1-1/2 month of the incident.On due consideration of the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General; the findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents accused persons; and, the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, in general, and that of P.W. 1 Saligram, P.W. 2 Komal Singh s/o Jai Singh and P.W. 3 Komal Singh s/o Saligram, in particular, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.The infirmities pointed out by the Trial Court in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are borne out from the record.The learned State Counsel could not point out any such piece of legal evidence which was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court, while recording the impugned judgment of acquittal.The findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents are based on appreciation of the evidence on record.Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not, by itself, be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
239,303 |
(a) PW.1 is the wife of Sekar since deceased in the incident.Husband ofthe fourth accused was murdered.There was accusation against the said Sekar onthat count. A-4 was aggrieved over the said Sekar and hatched up a conspiracy.(b) On 28.10.2003 at 6.00 p.m., when PW.5 and PW.6 were coming for washingtheir clothes towards, a newly Pillaiyar Temple, being constructed, they heard anoise and they found that A-4 was instructing to A-1 to A-3 to finish the saidSekar as he had killed her husband, for which, they assured her to finish himof.(c) On 29.10.2003, PW.1 and her husband Sekar went to Keeizhapattam forseeing a bride for her cousin.At about 4.30 p.m., they reached a workshop ofPW.8, after a while both them were returning to their house by bicycle and atabout 6.30 p.m., when they were coming near "Theneerkulam Water Tank" all thesethree accused armed with Aruval waylaid and pushed them down from the bicycle.Atthat time, when PW.11 was on patrol duty at Annasalai of Thatchanallur, he wasinformed by a third party that one person was lying in a pool of bloodstruggling for his life with serious injuries near the place of occurrence.(d) On coming to know about the same, PW.11 reached over the place andfound the injured with severe injuries and he asked about his name and hisfather's name and phoned over to the respondent police.Immediately, he tookthe injured in an auto of PW.4, to the Tirunelveli Medical College and Hospital,where PW.12 was the Doctor on duty at 7.10 p.m.,.He medically examined theinjured Sekar and noted the injuries sustained by the injured Sekar and preparedWound Certificate, which was marked as Ex.(e) In the mean time, PW.1 to PW.3 came to the place of occurrence andthey were informed that the injured was taken to the Highground Hospital andthey returned to the hospital.(f) Thereafter, an intimation was sent to the respondent police from thehospital and accordingly, PW.19, the Sub Inspector of Police, proceeded to theTirunelveli Government Hospital and also recorded the statement from PW.1 andthe same was marked as Ex.(g) Apart from that, on receipt of death intimation of the injured Sekar,which was marked as Ex.P.5, PW.19, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a casein Crime No.1516/2003 under Section 342, 302 and 120 (b) IPC.The F.I.R. isEx.P.14, which was despatched to the Court.(h) On 29.10.2003, PW.21, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copyof the First Information Report, took up investigation in the crime andproceeded to the scene of occurrence, made inspection and prepared anObservation Mahazar Ex.P.16 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.17 in the presence ofwitnesses and he recovered the material objects found in the place of theoccurrence.Thereafter, on 30.10.2003, he went to the Government Hospital andconducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an InquestReport, which was marked as Ex.Following the same, the dead body of thedeceased was sent for the purpose of autopsy.(i) On receipt of the requisition, PW.13 the Doctor, attached to theGovernment Hospital, Tirunelveli conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased and found injuries.The doctor issued post-mortem Certificate,which was marked as Ex.P.6 wherein he opined that the deceased would appear tohave died of shock and haemorrhage due to cumulative effect of heavy cutinjuries in the region of face, head, neck and both upper limbs.Allthese three accused came forward to give confessional statements in the presenceof witnesses and the same was recorded separately and the admissible portion ofthe confessional statements were marked as Ex.P.20, Ex.P.21 and Ex.The appellants, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3, stood charged, tried forthe offences under Sections 120(b), 341 and 302 r/w 109 IPC and found guiltyunder Sections 341 and 302 IPC and awarded one month simple imprisonment underSection 341 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and the sentence torun concurrently in a case in S.C.No.42 of 2004 by judgment dated 28.02.2005by the Sessions Division, First Additional District Court, have brought-forththese appeals seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on them.The fourth accused in the said Sessions Case has been acquitted of allthe charges levelled against her.The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals can be statedthus:Pursuant to the admissible portion of the statements, A-1produced MO.10, A-2 produced MO.11 and A-3 produced MO.13 and they wererecovered under Mahazars Ex.P.11, Ex.P.12 an Ex.P.13 respectively.(k) On completion of investigation, final report was filed against theaccused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessarycharges were framed against the accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution marched 21 witnesses, marked 22 Exhibits and 12 MOs.On completionof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questionedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in theevidence of the witnesses.The accused denied them as false.No defencewitness was examined.Learned counsel appearing for the first accused/1st appellant inCrl.A.No.131 of 2005, inter alia submit that, in the instant case PW.1 was theonly eye witness and even according to the prosecution, PW.1 could not have seenthe occurrence at all and hence her evidence should have been rejected.If PW.1had actually scene the occurrence and, that too, in an occurrence in which herhusband was brutally attacked, she would have gone to the police station orshould have taken the injured to the hospital but she had not done so.Kms far awayfrom the scene of occurrence, by boarding a bus and though she went across thepolice station either in the course of going to her native place or going tothe hospital, she had not informed the same to the police.Even PW.2 and PW.3who were informed of the crime, though came across police station, in the courseof going to hospital, no one had entered the police station and informed thesame.All would raise a doubt that whether theoccurrence had taken place at all in that area at that time as put-forth by theprosecution.When the occurrence had taken place in a busy locality, it wouldhave been witnessed by a number of persons.If it be so, no independent witnesswas examined.Apart from that, the trial Court was not prepared to accept theevidence of the same witness in respect of the conspiracy.In the instant case,conspiracy was also connected to the motive.When the trial Court had rejectedthe evidence of PW.1 as to the conspiracy, the entire evidence edifies the caseof the prosecution as failed and hence, the trial Court should not have acceptedthe evidence of PW.1 and on the basis of the same, should not have found theaccused guilty.7. Added further the learned counsel that, Ex.As could be seen that, it was the Constable PW.11, who hadadmitted the deceased Sekar in the Hospital.According to PW.11 Constable, whenhe was in patrol at Annasalai of Thatchanallur, in the evening on the date ofoccurrence, he was informed of the occurrence by a third person and then, PW.11went to the scene of occurrence and took the deceased Sekar to the HighgroundHospital and he informed to the Doctor about the occurrence.The person whoinformed about the incident to PW.11, should have been examined but he was notexamined in the instant case.These are nothing but a drama enacted for thepurpose of prosecution case, which should have been rejected outrightly by thetrial Court.Added further the learned counsel that it is also highly doubtfulwhether the F.I.R would have come into existence as put-forth by theprosecution.The person who informed about the occurrence to PW.11 was notexamined.Even according to PW.11, he informed the incident to PW.19, the SubInspector of Police, who was coming on the way, when PW.11 was proceeding tothe Hospital.If it be so, a case could have been registered immediately afterthe information was given by PW.11 but the case was not registered.All wouldgo to show that the case came to be registered only after arrival of PW.1 toPW.3 and with all embellishments, the case registered against A1 to A4 on thebasis of the complaint given by PW.1 as if she had witnessed the incident.9. Added further the learned counsel that A1 to A3 had no motive.Thelower Court rejected the case of conspiracy and if it be so, the only person whohad got the real motive was A-4 because according to her, her husband was killedby the deceased Sekar and she was acquitted.In such circumstances, the trialCourt should have rejected the prosecution case outrightly as there was nomotive to the occurrence.Thus, A-1 is entitled for acquittal in the hands ofthis Court.Advancing his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the thirdaccused, would submit that, the name of the third accused does not find place inthe F.I.R. and even according to PW.1, A-3 caused injury on the left side of thechest with Aruval but there was no corresponding injury either in AccidentRegister Copy Ex.P.4 or in the post-mortem Certificate Ex.P.6 and further PW.1has not correctly accounted for the injuries sustained by the deceased and thus,PW.1 could not have seen the occurrence at all or A-3 could not haveparticipated in the occurrence.Added further the learned counsel that no injury was attributedagainst A-3 and even as per the post-mortem Certificate, injuries sustained onthe head, neck, face and arms were fatal.As could be seen, A-3 had inflictedinjury on the left chest, which was not fatal and this point has got to beconsidered by this Court.Added further the learned counsel that A-3 had nomotive to cause the death of the deceased Sekar.Advancing his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the secondaccused, would submit that all the blood stained weapons and Material Objectswere not subjected to chemical analysis, which would be fatal to the prosecutioncase.Insofar as A-2 is concerned, he had no motive to commit such crime andthe prosecution has failed to prove the same.Added further the learned counsel that under Section 313 Cr.P.C., A-2had stated that he was taken from his house at 2.00 a.m. and that his part ofstatement was not free from force before the Court.Under the circumstances, A-2 is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing forthe State on the above contentions.The accused havealso not disputed the cause of death of the deceased either before the trialCourt or before this Court.On the medical evidence, this Court holds that thedeceased died on account of homicidal violence.It i also true,she is the wife of the deceased Sekar.It is a well settled proposition of lawthat merely on the ground relationship, the evidence of eye witness, who is arelative cannot be discarded but where the eye-witness is a close relative ofthe deceased, the court has to exercise great care and caution and on carefulscrutiny of the evidence, this Court thoroughly satisfied with the evidence ofPW.1 and the evidence of PW.1 has inspired the confidence of the Court.PW.1has categorically narrated that on the date of occurrence at 4.30 p.m., both ofthem left their house for seeing a bride for her cousin and they went to aworkshop of PW.8, after a while both them were returning to their house, at thattime, all these three accused were waylaid and pushed them down from the cycle.Immediately, A1- cut the said Sekar on the neck, A-2 cut on the face and A-3 cuton the chest and when PW-1 intervened, they threatened her and she escaped witha grip of fear and proceeded to the village and informed to PW.2 and PW.3 andtook them to the spot.The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellantsthat PW.1 could not have seen the occurrence, if considered, it remains only forthe purpose of rejection.At the place of occurrence, PW.1 and her husbandSekar were only two persons.The place of occurrence was a road leading to themain road from Tirunelveli to Thatchnallur.The contents what is contained inthe Rough Sketch was never disputed; on one side of the road was Kanmoi andother side was agricultural fields.It would be quite clear that at the time ofoccurrence PW.1 and her husband were waylaid and the accused attacked thedeceased with deadly weapons and when she intervened she was also threatened.kms distance from their village.At thisjuncture, it is pertinent to note the evidence of PW.8, which says that PW.1 hadaccompanied her husband the deceased Sekar.In his evidence PW.8 says that thedeceased Sekar came inside his workshop and he informed him that his wife waswaiting outside and after a while, he came out of the shop and took her withhim.The contention of the learned counsel that immediately after theoccurrence she should have gone to the police station, which was situated on theway and even PW.2 and PW.3 had not gone to the police station cannot becountenanced for the simple reason that already she was under a grip of fear andterror and nobody was to help her and hence she went to her village to bring herrelatives to the spot and accordingly, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 came to the spot butthey were informed that the injured was taken to the hospital and immediately,they rushed to the hospital.In his evidence of PW.11 Constable, he has deposedthat on the date of occurrence when he was on patrol duty, was informed by athird person that one person with serious injuries was lying in a pool of bloodat the place of occurrence.Immediately, he came to the spot, saw the injuredin a serious condition and asked his name and his father's name and he took himto the hospital.The injured said his name as Sekar and his father's namealternatively as Anthony, Rajamani.P.4 the A.R.Copy, which was prepared byPW.12 Doctor, who examined the injured in the hospital at the time of admitting,also finds the name of the injured and name of his father as deposed by PW.11.Naturally, the wound Certificate Ex.Thereafter, PW.1 brought PW.2 and PW.3 to the place of occurrence andimmediately, they returned to the hospital where the injured was admitted andthe Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement from PW.1, which is the basisfor the whole case and the case case came to be registered straight away for theoffence u/s.302 IPC since the said Sekar already died.According to PW.1, the first accused attacked thedeceased Sekar on the neck, the second accused on the face and the third accusedon the chest.P.4 as well as in the post-mortem Certificate Ex.With regard to thecontention that PW.1 did not account for all other injuries, it is pertinent tonote that in a given situation when her husband was attacked by the threeaccused armed with aruvals and her husband was unarmed, no reasonable man orprudent man would expect her to count the attack and injuries sustained.Shehas naturally spoken about the attack and the injuries sustained by thedeceased.The medical evidence canvassed by PW.12 and the post-mortemcertificate would clearly in support of the prosecution case.The evidence ofPW.1 has inspired the confidence of the Court.Added further the learned counsel for the appellants that the arrestof the three accused and their confessional statements Exs.P.20, 21 and 22respectively and pursuant to their confession, recovery of MOs.10, 11 and 12 aresubsequent introductions in the case and the Material Objects recovered were notsubjected to chemical analysis, which is fatal to the prosecution case.In theinvestigation process, the prosecution has proved that the accused had waylaidthe deceased and attacked him with aruvals and caused his death.Coming to the question of act of the accused, the contention put-forthby the learned counsel for the third accused that the accused had no motive andthe third accused inflicted injury on the chest and this injury is not fatal,has got to be considered by this Court.The Court is of the considered opinionthat, in the instant case, all the three accused waylaid the deceased, armedwith aruval attacked him in a common intention to cause death and thus, theyshared the act of committing the crime.The question of grievous injury or simple injury, fatal or non-fatal,vital or not vital organs will not arise in this case, when all the threeaccused, who were the appellants herein gathered together and shared the commonintention of causing death and so caused the death of the deceased Sekar.The trial Court has perfectly correct in finding the three accusedguilty and awarding the punishments referred to above.The Court withoutdisturbing the judgment of the trial Court either on facts or legal propositioncan confirm the same and accordingly confirmed.Both the appeal fail and thesame are dismissed.1.The 1st Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.2.Inspector of Police,ThatchanallurTirunelveli District.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,931,307 |
Fine collected shall be paid to the parents of deceased Sanjeev Tyagi as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. in short).The appellant Virender has been also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of five years, fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for seven months for the offence under Section 27 Arms Act. The sentences are to run concurrently and Section 428 Cr.P.C. would apply.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 1 of 21It has not been disputed and is not under challenge that the deceased Sanjeev Tyagi had suffered firearm injuries on 14.05.2007 at about 7:30 PM at his shop located at RBZ-81, Nihal Vihar, Delhi.Post-mortem on the dead body of Sanjeev Tyagi was performed by Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-2) on 15.05.2007 at about 2:00 PM.PW-2 has deposed that Sanjeev Tyagi aged about 28 years was brought to the hospital by Inspector Ishwar Singh on 14.05.2007 at about 8:15 PM and was declared as brought dead.As per the post-mortem report (Ex.PW-2/A) and the deposition of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-2), the deceased had suffered the following injuries:"1. Lacerated wound over left temporal region above ear 8x5 cm with fractured underlying bones exposing brain matterStar shaped lacerated wound over occipital region 1.5x1.5cm in size with fractured underlying bones edges everted.Oval shaped entry wound over right iliac region 2x.15 cm in size with bruising of surrounded edges, cavity deep."PW-2 opined that the cause of death was carnio-cerebral damage as a result of firearm injuries and the time of death was approximately 18 hours.The primary and the core issue raised in the present appeal relates to the credibility and truthfulness of the testimony of Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1), who has indicted the two appellants as the perpetrators who had committed the said offence, along with others.Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) has deposed that he had three children and the deceased Sanjeev Tyagi was his second son.After arrest of his son Ajeet, the present appellants had started threatening them stating that they shall take revenge ("khoon ka badla khoon se lenge").They would come with others at night on motorcycles and extend threats.Mahender Pal Tyagis (PW-1) deceased son Sanjeev Tyagi used to run a Kiryana store opposite their house and on 14.05.2007 at about 7:30 PM, he alongwith his wife Kiran Devi, was present and sitting on a cot while Sanjeev Tyagi was sitting in the shop.He had noticed that the appellants Virender and Kamal alongwith 2-3 others had come from 50 Ft. Road, fired shots at Sanjeev Tyagi who was sitting in his shop and then they ran towards the transformer side.They were brandishing the weapons and avowing that "whatever they had to do, they have done." PW-1 Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 3 of 21 immediately rushed to the shop and found that Sanjeev Tyagi had fallen down from a chair and was in a pool of blood.He had made a call to the police on number 100 and Sanjeev Tyagi was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital (SGM Hospital) in a PCR Van but he expired on the way.Many public persons had also gathered at the spot.His statement (Ex.PW-1/A), which was signed by him at point A was recorded and on the next day site plan (Ex. PW18/C) was prepared at his instance and statement of his wife was also recorded.PW1/A).It is noticeable even the name and details of his son are not mentioned in Ex.PW-14/A. Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) in his statement (Ex.This is the objet and purpose.What is clearly noticeable and apparent is the fact that Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) had witnessed the occurrence, having seen three boys come and fire shots at his son sitting in the shop and thereafter they had crossed him when he was sitting on a cot outside his residence.PW-1 had made a telephone call to the PCR and informed that three boys had fired shots at his son.PW-1 had identified and named the two appellants in his statement Ex.The time difference between 7:30 PM and 10:45 PM is not too distant or long to accept the contention.ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) has deposed that on 14.05.2007 he was marked DD No. 23-24 Ex.PW-12/A and PW-12/B for verification and he alongwith Ct.Sukhbir (PW-10) and Ct.Subhash had reached RZB-115, Nihal Vihar and came to know that injured had already been taken to the hospital in a PCR Van.Blood was scattered at the spot.He had recorded the statement of Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) which was signed by him at Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 8 of 21 point A. He had left Ct.Subhash to guard the spot and proceeded to the hospital with Ct.He collected the MLC of Sanjeev Tyagi who had been declared as brought dead.He made necessary endorsement, prepared the rukka and had sent it to the police station for registration of the FIR with Ct.Thereafter, he came back to the spot.Subsequently the investigation was taken over by Inspector R.S. Malik, who had also filed the charge-sheet.Inspector R.S. Malik had appeared as a witness before the trial Court on 26.07.2012 and his examination-in-chief was partly recorded.However, Inst.R.S. Malik died and his deposition could not be completed.In these circumstances, the deposition of ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) has assumed significant importance for he has deposed as to the police investigation.ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) in his cross- examination has stated that he had reached the spot at about 8:00 PM and had reached the hospital at about 9:20 PM, where he did not find any public or family member.The said form records that at 7:51 PM the PCR Van had communicated to the PCR that one person who had suffered the bullet injury was being taken to the hospital.Local police had reached the spot as per form Ex.PW14/A at 8:10 PM.Thereafter, there is an endorsement at 8:23 PM which records details of the deceased; he had Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 9 of 21 two bullet wounds on the head and the thigh and one Brijesh and ASI Jai Prakash from PS Nihal Vihar, were together and the names of the assailants had not been ascertained.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 9 of 21The aforesaid noting in the PCR at 8:23 PM, indicates that ASI Jai Prakash had proceeded to the hospital after he came to know that the deceased Sanjeev Tyagi had been taken to SGM Hospital in the PCR Van.The form Ex.PW-14/A records that the Van had reached the place of occurrence in question only at 7:51 PM and thereafter the deceased was taken in the PCR van to the hospital.The details mentioned in Ex.As far as presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence is concerned, it was natural and normal as his residence was situated at a distance of about 25-30 Feet.and it was late evening.PW-1 had not gone to the hospital in the PCR van.In the brief facts, it is recorded that at about 7:45 PM on 14.05.2007 PCR was informed about the firing and ASI Jai Prakash alongwith others had reached the spot.The PCR Van had already taken the Crl.After the bullet presses through, the skin tends to return to its former size and the margins of the wound contract when the range is short, the perforation or the entry hole is enlarged due to pressure of gases."A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 13 of 21Virender was arrested on 15.05.2007 by the Haryana police from a place near Jhajjar and FIR No. 202/2007 was registered.A country made pistol Ex.P-3 was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.The judgment under challenge dated 03.01.2014 convicts Virender @ Viru and Kamal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") for murder of Sanjeev Tyagi @ Sanjay.By order on sentence dated 13.01.2014, Virender and Kamal have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 1 of 21 payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 2 of 212 testified that he had received 11 (Eleven) inquest papers/ documents.He had sealed and handed over the recovered bullet lead to the Investigating Officer (IO).We shall be referring to the testimony of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-2) and the port-mortem report (Ex.PW-2/A), subsequently, when we examine the contention raised that the report Ex. PW2/A records that the injuries were a result of "rifled firearm" as this contradicts the eye-witness testimony of Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1).Subsequently, scaled site plan (Ex. PW 9/A) was prepared.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 3 of 21Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) was extensively cross-examined on 13.01.2011, 20.04.2011, 17.12.2011, 03.03.2012 and 23.05.2012 by different counsel who had appeared for the accused including the present appellants.In response to one of the questions, PW-1 accepted the suggestion that the appellant Kamal is the real brother of Pawan for whose murder his son Ajeet has been arrested and was facing trial.He denied the suggestion that the appellant Kamal had been named because PW-1s son was in custody and facing trial in the murder case of Pawan.Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) also accepted it as correct that one Brijesh, his neighbour and relative, was present when the PCR van had arrived, but, he did not know whether Brijesh had accompanied his injured son to the hospital in the PCR Van.No police complaint regarding threats extended by appellants Virender and Kamal was made.He voluntarily added that PW-1 had not paid any heed to the said threats.The challenge to the testimony of Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) is primarily based upon the information recorded in the Police Control Room (for short "PCR") vide form Ex.PW-14/A. This exhibit refers to a call Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 4 of 21 made by Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) from telephone No.9210014170 at 7:34 PM that three boys had shot his son.The form also gives address, RBZ-115, Nihal Vihar.The aforesaid communication to the Police Control Room was proved by W/Ct.Sushma (PW-14), who was then posted as a call attendant in the police headquarter.She had deposed about the call received by her from Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) at 7:34 PM.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 4 of 21It was not necessary for Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) at that stage to name these culprits nor was it necessary and required for the person receiving the call to enquire and question Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) about the names of the perpetrators.The call was made to the control room to inform that crime had been committed and police should immediately visit the spot.On the other hand, the aforesaid communication by Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) from his mobile phone No.9210014170 reflects and indicates that PW-1 had possibly seen the occurrence and he was an eye-witness as he had informed that three boys had fired at his son, as a fact stated in his statement (Ex.PW-1/A) has specifically identified and named the two appellants i.e. Virender and Kamal as the persons who alongwith others had come from the 50 Ft. Road, shot his son and then ran away brandishing the weapons and stating Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 5 of 21 that they had done, what they wanted to do.We have gone through the examination-in-chief of PW-1 and his extensive cross-examination over two years and we do not find any reason or ground to disbelieve or discard the core version given by him implicating the appellants.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 5 of 21We have examined the scaled and un-scaled site plan marked Ex. PW-18/C and PW-9/A respectively.The site plans specifically indicates the location of the residence of Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) and the shop where Sanjeev Tyagi was sitting when he was killed.It indicates the movement of perpetrators and the route taken by them to run away from the spot.They had come from the north direction and after shooting and killing Sanjeev had proceeded and passed in the front of the house where PW-1 and his wife Kiran were sitting on the cot.PW-1 has stated that the distance between his house and the shop where Sanjeev Tyagi was killed was about 25-30 Ft.(cross-examination of PW-1 on 23.05.2012).Similarly, the fact that Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) did not accompany and take his son Sanjeev to the hospital in the PCR Van, cannot be a ground to hold that his testimony is make belief and an eye-wash.PW-1 in his cross- examination has accepted the fact that at that time he was perplexed, agitated and was behaving like a mad person.This is understandable and should be accepted.ASI Ratan Lal (PW-13) has deposed that on 14.05.2007 he was posted with the PCR Van West Zone and at about 7:45 PM, had received a message that at RBZ-115, Nihal Vihar three boys had killed the callers son, and had reached the spot.However, the Van could not enter the street as it was narrow and the van had to be parked outside.Persons present had brought the injured, who was then taken to SGM Hospital where the doctors had declared that he had died.Thereafter, PW- 13 came back to the spot and his statement was recorded.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 6 of 21During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants had relied on State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Punati Ramulu and Ors., 1993 CrL.J. 3684, to urge that the information/ communication by Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) recorded in the PCR form Ex.PW-4/A should have been treated and recorded as an FIR.Subsequently, when PW-1 returned to the police station alongwith a written complaint, an FIR was registered.Referring to specific facts, the Supreme Court observed that the FIR should have been registered on the basis of the information which had been given to PW-22 by the Constable who was first present and had furnished details on the basis of which the Circle Inspector had proceeded to the spot for the purpose of investigation.In the facts of the present case, Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) had made a telephone call to the PCR i.e. the police control room to inform that three boys had shot his son.This communication to the PCR was then communicated to the PCR Van, and subsequently to the local police who reached the spot and recorded the statement of PW-1 (Ex.PW-1/A) and thereafter, the FIR was registered.In the statement Ex.PW-1/A, PW-1 has certainly referred and named both the appellants Virender and Kamal as one of the perpetrators who had come to the spot alongwith the firearms.Noticeably the identity of the victim and his status after the firing were not indicated.FIR could not have been registered on the call made to the PCR, for requisite details were to be gathered and the factual assertion had to be confirmed.PW1/A which was recorded shortly after the occurrence.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 7 of 21Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is delay in recording of the FIR (Ex.PW-3/B).The FIR was recorded at 10:45 PM on 14.05.2007 after the statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded and rukka was sent at about 10:30 PM by the ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) through Ct.Sukhbir Singh (PW-10).He had collected the MLC of the deceased Sanjeev Tyagi, sealed parcel containing the clothes with the seal of SGM vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/A and had then prepared the rukka.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 8 of 21Learned counsel for the appellants has questioned the aforesaid narration of the facts and time by ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) and Ct.Sukhbir (PW-10) by making the reference to the PCR information form Ex.PW- 14/A. We have already referred to the initial information which was recorded by W/Ct.PW14/A communicated and recorded contemporaneously would be the correct and true narration of the events and reflect movement of the local police including ASI Jai Prakash.Thus, the recording at 8:23 PM in the PCR form (Ex.PW14/A) that the details of the assailants were yet be ascertained.It is apparent to us that ASI Jai Prakash was still to interact and meet Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1), the eye-witness who had communicated the first information to the PCR as is recorded in the Ex.PW-14/A. The time gap between 7:51 PM when the PCR Van reached the spot and had taken Sanjeev Tyagi alongwith Brijesh to the hospital and the visit of ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) at the hospital at about 8:23 PM is rather short.It is apparent and would be fatuitous to hold that ASI Jai Prakash after reaching the place of occurrence at about 8 PM and then the SGM Hospital by 8:23 PM had an opportunity and chance to interact and ascertain facts from Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1).This small diversion and variation according to us would not affect the testimony of Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1).After the occurrence and information was communicated to the local police, events were taking place at a fast pace with the deceased being taken to the hospital in an injured condition as he was still alive.It was reasonable and Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 10 of 21 proper for ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) to first proceed to the hospital and ascertain facts.Only thereafter he did meet the family members, who had remained at their residence.PW-30, it is apparent from Ex.PW14/A, had almost immediately left for the SGM Hospital and returned to the place of occurrence to ascertain details and had then interacted with Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1).A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 10 of 21His presence is duly corroborated and supported by the factum that he is the person who had made a telephone call to the PCR, a fact which is mentioned in the form Ex.PW-14/A. We have also noted the contents of the details given by Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) that three boys had fired the shots.Thus the narration in the rukka Ex.PW1/A, that ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) had visited SGM Hospital after recording statement of Mahender Pal Tyagi Ex.PW1/A, should not be taken as sacrosanct.For ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) had first visited the hospital at about 8:23 PM is clearly indicative that subsequently he had spoken and got details from Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1).This factual position gets corroborated from the rukka, as the endorsement was made at 10:30 PM and thereafter FIR was registered at 10:45 PM.Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the inquest papers in the form of death report Ex.PW-30/C and brief facts (Ex. PW-30/B).A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 11 of 21 injured to the hospital, thereafter the local police reached the SGM Hospital hospital and found that Sanjeev Tyagi had died.On the basis of the statement of eye-witness and MLC, a case vide FIR No.429/2007 was registered.The post-mortem report mentions and gives number of inquest papers as 11 (Eleven).The Ex.PW-30/B specifically refers and mentions to the FIR and does not reproduce or narrate what was stated in the FIR.The contention that Ex. PW30/B does not mention names of the appellant, falters for it refers to the FIR number 429/2007 wherein names of the appellant are mentioned.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 11 of 21Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the page numbers 396 to 401, 386 to 389 and 391 of the compilation.Similarly overwriting can be seen on some other pages where page 4 has been correct/ overwritten as page 5, and 5 to 6 etc. It is submitted that the aforesaid pages numbers refer to the eleven pages which were sent alongwith inquest papers with the request for post- mortem.The change of pages numbers from 4 to 10 to 5 to 11 does not reflect and show any interpolation or foul play.The argument is also irrelevant and presumptuous.It is difficult to appreciate and understand the argument.There is a contradiction in the contention raised for paper No. 1 consists of the rukka which includes the statement made by Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1), which specifically named that appellants Virender and Kamal and Page Nos. 2 and 3 is the FIR which again narrates and records the names of the perpetrators as Virender and Crl.The appellant had full opportunity as well as the right to cross-examine Dr.Manoj Dhingra (PW-A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 12 of 212) as he had received the inquest request along with relevant papers.Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-2) was not questioned on the said aspect and no suggestion that he had not received the copy of FIR along with the inquest papers, was given.The post-mortem report (Ex.PW 2/A) records that Inspector Ishwar Singh had brought the dead body of Sanjeev Tyagi with the alleged history of gun-shots.The entry and exit wounds as well as the track was recorded.In his court testimony, Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-2) opined that the cause of death was cranio-cerebral damage as a result of firearm injury.Learned counsel for appellants has drawn our attention to Ex.PW2/A which records that the cause of death was cranio-cerebral injury as a result of rifled firearm injury.In brief history as per the inquest papers, Ex.PW2/A records that the deceased had alleged history of gun-shot injury.The latter noting is obviously incorrect as the papers or documents do not ascribe history of gun-shot injury.Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-2) in his cross- examination testified that it was not possible to opine on the bore of weapon used for the commission of offence nor he could be opine as to the distance from which the shot was fired.The report Ex.PW2/A confirms that Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 13 of 21 the deceased had suffered two fire arm injuries as a result of firearm projectile wounds.One bullet had made an exit wound as is apparent from the post-mortem report.Second projectile was recovered and handed over to the IO with the sample seal and sent for CFSL examination.The ballistic report was taken on record by the trial court, without any objection, under Section 293 Cr.P.C. The report is not under challenge.Report records that individual characteristic of striation mark on the fire bullet Ex.EB-1 were insufficient for comparison and opine whether it was discharged through country made pistol of .315 bore or not? Thus, as per the ballistic report striation marks on the lead bullet were not sufficient for comparison and opinion.The ballistic expert pertinently on examination of the lead did not opine that the lead/ projectile was fired from a rifled firearm or a gun, and could not have been fired from the weapon/ fire arm which was sent for examination.We would, therefore not place reliance on the opinion of Dr.Manoj Dhingra (PW-2) as recorded in Ex.PW-23/E. This pistol Crl.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 14 of 21 was sent for forensic examination and as per ballistic report admissible under section 293 Cr.P.C, it was found to be in working order.A mis-fired cartridge recovered from the spot (mark Ex.A-1) was also sent for ballistic forensic examination.However, the ballistic report opines that due to insufficient data no opinion could be given whether the cartridge A-1 had been fired through the pistol Ex.P-3 recovered from the appellant Virender.No rifle cartridge was recovered from the scene of crime.A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 14 of 21On behalf of Kamal, our attention was drawn to the averments made in the charge-sheet which refers to the disclosure statement of co-accused including Virender to the effect that Kamal was not involved and had not participated in the occurrence.We do not find any force in the said contention for several reasons including the bar and prohibition created by Section 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act. This apart, Mahender Pal Tyagi (PW-1) in his testimony has specifically identified Kamal and aforesaid affirmation cannot be rejected or erased due to the purported statement of co-accused including Virender before the police.In fact the statement could be a result of a consented and collective effort to save Kamal, brother of Pawan who had earlier suffered homicidal death.The statement can be attributed to an attempt to neutralise the motive i.e. revenge for the death of Pawan.Learned counsel for the appellant Kamal submits that no recovery or disclosure statement is attributed to Kamal.It is not mandatory or required that every person accused of an offence must make a disclosure statement etc. This would not affect the ocular and eye witness account given by PW-1, who had seen the occurrence.We have already referred to the two site plans Ex. PW-9/A and PW-A. Nos.267/2015 & 269/2015 Page 15 of 2118/C. As per the scaled site plan, the distance between the two spots was 10.27 meters.PW-1 in his cross-examination has given the distance as 25- 30 Ft.ASI Jai Prakash (PW-30) was cross-examined on the said aspect and has stated that the house of PW-1 was at a distance of 10-15 steps away from the shop i.e. the place of occurrence.The occurrence had taken place in the month of May at about 7:30 PM.We, therefore, reject the contention that the PW-1 could not have seen the occurrence because of the distance at which he was sitting.We also reject the contention that PW-1 being about 65 years of age suffering from bad eye-sight, could not have possibly seen and recognized the perpetrators.Submission that the prosecution relies upon a single or solitary eye- witness and it would not be safe and proper to convict two appellants on PW-1 testimony as he was inimically deposed, is devoid of substance and merit.The Supreme Court noticed that seven shots were fired and three shots had hit the deceased.There was evidence that one gun was used.The empties recovered did not match and could not be connected with the gun allegedly used.Referring to the factual matrix, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, one in number, whose conviction had been upheld by the High Court, recording that the High Court had not analysed the evidence who had fired/ caused the fire arm injury, and six out of seven particularly those who had direct enmity had been acquitted.In the said case two bullets were recovered from the spot, and an empty cartridge was found in the barrel of the country made pistol.They were sent for ballistic opinion but individual characteristic striation marks were insufficient for comparison.The said co-accused, and two other acquitted accused were identified as present at the spot with the appellant.PW2/A) in detail above and have rejected the plea relying on the said report.The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
239,344 |
JUDGMENT Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J.There were four charges for which the three appellants were tried.The fourth charge was against the 3rd appellant, for voluntarily causing hurt with a deadly weapon to P.W. 2, The offence was punishable under Section 324, 1 P. C, and the sentence imposed was one year rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution story is that there was family quarrel between the appellants and the family of P.W. 3 and the feelings were bitter as confessed to by P.W. 1 herself.The appellants as well as P.Ws. 1 to 4 are all related.P.W. 3 is the father of the deceased.P W. 2 is the mother of the deceased and also P.' W. 1- P- W. 4 is another brother of the deceased.The first appellant is said to have used a overstock when he stabbed the deceased.The third appellant is said to have been armed with a spade.The second appellant Is also said to have been armed with a spear.On 30-3-1956 at about 7-30 a. m. when P.W. 1 sent for her younger brother the deceased and directed him to water the bulls which belonged to her and which were tied in the kitten opposite the house, the third appellant is said to have first attacked the deceased when he was in a bent position on the nape of the neck with a spade and caused an injury which is said to be simple according to the doctor, who gave the post-mortem certificate.who was an eye-witness to the occurrence.Then the first appellant is stated to have come when the deceased had fallen down having received the injury from the third appellant and the first appellant is said to have caused a spear injury on the chest of the deceased.This injury is opined by the doctor to have proved to be a fatal one.The further prosecution story is that the 2nd appellant then came to the scene from another side and when the deceased turned having already fallen down ho caused an injury on the left flank with a spear.This injury is also stated by the doctor P.W. 5 to be a grievous injury.No doubt P.W. 11 would have it that this injury was caused by the 2nd appellant when the deceased was just moving in a staggering fashion after he received the injury from the first, appellant.We shall advert to the evidence of P.W. 11 at a later stage.The evidence is that all these injuries were caused to the deceased when he was just outside the house of P.W. 1 near a tub when he was watering the cattle among which was included a goring bull.Reference to this goring bull seems to be necessary in view of the fact that the case of the appellants was that it was the goring bull that caused the injuries to the deceased as a result of which he died and not that they used any weapon which caused the injuries which ultimately resulted in his death.After receiving the injuries, the deceased got up and ran into the house of P.W. 1 and there he fell down.According to P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 the village massif was sent for.He came to the scene of occurrence and saw the corpse and recorded Ex. P 1 at about 9 a. m. But according to the village munsif, P. W 1 accompany tiled by P.Ws. 3 and 11 and 4 went to the village munsif's house and there Ex. P, 1 the fhv3C information report was recorded.After the first information was recorded the police were duly informed and they arrived on the scene at about 2-30 p. m. They made the necessary arrangement for the inquest and also sent the body for post mortem examination and made the necessary investigation and charge-sheeted the appellants.No weapons were recovered and blood-stained clothes either are recovered from the appellants.It is also the prosecution story that the 1st appellant caused three injuries to P.W. 3 and of the three injuries the second injury on the finger is seated to be grievous by the doctor.The first and third injuries stated in Ex, P, 3, the wound certificate issued by P. W, 3 were simple ones.They might have been caused by a felsitic was the opinion of the doctor.According to Ex. P. 4 issued for the injuries found on P.W. 2, there was only a contusion and it was stated to be simple.When the doctor examined this P. W 2 ho was informed that the injury was due to violence with the handles of a velkambu.The evidence is also to the same effect in the sessions court.This injury is stated to have been caused by the third appellant.The evidence is that the third appellant had a spade, when he attacked the deceased.P.W. 11, who also claimed in the Sessions Court to have been an eyewitness, was not examined in the committal court.In considering the examination of this witness in the Sessions Court, a strange view has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge, as could be seen from paragraph 19 of his judgment.He has gone to the extent of saying that if this fact had been brought to his notice earlier, he would not have permitted the examination of that witness before the Sessions Court and for these observations he has relied upon Section 173, Criminal P.C.The real section that should have been referred to in this connection was S, 207-A, Clause (4).But the learned Sessions Judge has not made any reference to that section.We do not want to make any further observations in this regard with reference to the views expressed by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 19 of his Judgment.The prosecution case depends mostly on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and P.W. 11 and Ex. P. 1, the first information report.Taking Ex. P. 1, the first information report, in the first instance, as already observed, it was recorded at 9 a. m. when the occurrence had taken place at 7-30 a. m. When it was recorded by the Village Munsif, P W. 13 it transpires that P W. 3, the father of P.W. 1, P.W. 4 another brother of P.W. 1 and P, w. 11, who is said to be a disinterested witness, were all present.After narrating what all appellants 1 and 2 did to the deceased and to P Ws. 2, 3 and 4, Ex. P. 1 records the names of the three witnesses, namely, Muthukaruppi.Perianachi and Kandasami Thevar who are said to be witnesses to whom the occurrence is known.No doubt Ex. P. 1 also stated that; some others also knew.But no other names were given except the names of these three witnesses as eye-witnesses to the occurrence.Muthukaruppi and Perianachi did ' not mention anything about the occurrence.They were absolutely of no use as witnesses to the occurrence.But when examined in the committal court he went back even on that statement and he was treated as hostile in that court itself.The result was that in the Sessions Court none of these three witnesses whose names were prominently given in Ex. P. 1 were put forth by the prosecution.Another feature which is worth noticing with regard to Ex. P. 1, the first information report, is the manner in which it was recorded.But that is not a very serious matter and nothing turns upon the place rip; to where Ex. P. 1 was recorded except to show that the witnesses are not speaking the truth when they were contradicting each other.P. W, 13 was positive when he stated that Ex. P. 1 was recorded in his house; and when questioned as to why P.Ws. 1 and 3 were stating to the contrary, he stated that they must of doing so out of forgetfulness.But the more serious thing that has to be stated in connection with the recording of Ex P. 1 is that notwithstanding the denial of P. "W. 11 and P.W. 1, P.W. 13 was positive when he stated that when P.W. 1 came to report to him and when Ex P. 1 was about to be recorded, P.Ws. 11 and 3 and others came there.He went on to say further that when he went inside his house to bring paper, pen and ink, to write the reports and came out, he saw P.Ws. 1, 3 and 11, talking to each other and that when P.Ws. 3 and 11 wanted to supply information to p_ W. 1 in giving the report, he dissuaded them from giving the report as he had started writing Ex. P. 1 saying that P.W. 1 alone should give information about the occurrence.Not merely this.Till Ex. P. 1 was written up P. Ws, 3 and 11 were there.A suggestion was made to' P.W. 13 that there was a preliminary report taken at the instance of P.W. 1 and that it was not found suitable and thereafter it was destroyed, another report was made up.P.W. 13 no doubt repudiated this suggestion when it was made to him.Whatever that may be, the fact that when Ex. P. 1 was recorded P.Ws. 3 and 11 prompted P. W, 1 to implicate the second appellant, art from the supply of information to make up that report, is sufficient to reject this Ex. P. l as not representing the true state of affairs as they occurred.This Ex. P. 1 cannot be of any great value. ' If P.Ws. 3 and 11 could go to the extent of prompting P.W. 1 to implicate ft person who was not really an offender, and if p, W 1 were a party to such prompting, we can attach very little weight to such record as Ex. P, 1 in the present case.Nor could we attach much weight to the evidence of a person like P.W. 3 or P.W. 11 for the matter of that.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,393,776 |
It is alleged that thedeceased was in the courtyard of said Farukh and was enquiring abouthis health, at which time these three Applicants and others assembledin the courtyard and started abusing and assaulting said Mohiddin.The first informant had stated that the Applicants and the othersassaulted him and his father Mohiddin by kicks and blows.These are the applications filed under Section 439 of CriminalProcedure Code by the aforesaid applicants, who have been arrested in 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:44 ::: P.H. Jayani 06, 07 AND 12 BA2516 WT 2517 WT 2532.18.docC.R.No.29/2018 registered with MIDC Police Station at Mahad, DistrictRaigad for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 323,504 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:44 :::2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Sorankar, learned counsel for the applicants,Mr.Rajan Salvi, Mr. S.S. Pednekar, Mr. S.R. Agarkar, learned APPs forthe State and Mr. Amin Solkar, learned Intervenor.I have perused therecords and considered the submissions advanced by the learnedcounsels for the respective parties.The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the firstinformation report lodged by one Samir Mohiddin Hurjuk, son of thedeceased Mohiddin Hurjuk.The first information report prima faciereveals that on 01.05.2018 at about 10:00 p.m. deceased Mohiddin hadgone to the house of Farukh, who was ailing.It is alsoalleged that co-accused Kamal pelted a stone at his father and the other 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:45 ::: P.H. Jayani 06, 07 AND 12 BA2516 WT 2517 WT 2532.18.docco-accused Taufik strangulated him.Said Mohiddin expired as a resultof the said incident.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:45 :::The post mortem report prima facie reveals that the saidMohiddin had sustained some abrasions and contusions.None of theinjuries were of grievous nature.The Medical Officer had opined thatthe death of Mohiddin was due to "intracranial bleeding secondary tocaridopulmonary arrest secondary to assault."The records reveal that by letter dated 12/05/2018, theInvestigation Officer had sought further opinion from the MedicalOfficer as regards the date and time of death of Mohiddin and furtherwhether the injuries found on the body of the deceased could havebeen caused by kicks and blows.The Medical Officer has opined thatthe time of death was about 11:00 p.m. The Medical Officer hasfurther certified that the injuries which were noticed on the body of thedeceased could have been caused by the wooden sticks.The material on record does not prima facie indicates that theseapplicants were involved in inflicting any injuries by means of sticks.The allegations against these applicants are that they had assaulted the 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:45 ::: P.H. Jayani 06, 07 AND 12 BA2516 WT 2517 WT 2532.18.docdeceased by kicks and blows.The material on record also indicate thatone of the applicants i.e. Muajjam Hussain Dhanse had himself takenthe deceased to the hospital.As regards the applicability of vicariousliability as contemplated under section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,the same will have to be decided on merits of the matter.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:45 :::Considering the fact that the investigation is completed andcharge sheet has already been filed, in my considered view, thepresence of the applicants is no longer required in custody.Furthermore, the co-accused Smt. Mubarak Ajgar Dhanse and Smt.Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my consideredview, this is a fit case for grant of bail.Hence, Bail ApplicationNos.2516/2018, 2517/2018 and 2532/2018 are allowed on thefollowing terms and conditions :-(a) The applicants who have been arrested in C.R.No.29/2018registered with MIDC Police Station at Mahad, District Raigad areordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:45 ::: P.H. Jayani 06, 07 AND 12 BA2516 WT 2517 WT 2532.18.doc(Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one or two solvent sureties in thelike amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:45 :::(c) The applicants shall not change their residential address withoutprior intimation to the concerned Court and the Investigation Officer.(d) The applicants shall not interfere with the witnesses in anymanner and shall not tamper with the evidence.(SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 00:55:45 :::
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
23,937,925 |
1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Shamli as well as all consequential proceedings of Case No. 4602 of 2019 (State Vs.Nadim & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 519 of 2017, under Sections 323, 354-B, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kandhla, District-Shamli pending in before the Judicial Magistrate, Shamli.This is the second application filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The first application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants being Application U/S No. 482 No. 3563 of 2018 has been been disposed of vide order dated 7th February, 2018, a copy of which is at page-39 of the paper book.The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment.He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs.P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.The prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs.With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Sushil/-
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
21,926,837 |
Vires of the judgment passed by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed in Sessions Case No. 90/2004, whereby the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C."), is challenged by the State of Maharashtra by filing the present appeal.Respondent is the original accused.Prosecution case in brief is that three months after the marriage of victim (PW-1) when she came to her parental home, she::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:42 ::: (2) Cri.Appeal No.813/2006 had stomach-ache, and therefore, her husband took her to the hospital at Manwat.That time it was noticed that the victim was carrying pregnancy of five months.Therefore, her husband left her at her parental home.When the parents of the victim inquired with her, that time for the first time victim disclosed that prior to five months when she was alone in the field at about 10.00 to 11.00 a.m., that time accused dragged the victim in the hut situated in the said field and had forcible sexual intercourse with her.Accused also threatened the victim to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anybody.Five to six months thereafter again accused raped the victim at her residence when in the morning hours she was alone in her house.Due to threatening by the accused, victim did not disclose the incident to anybody.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:42 :::In the result, Crime No.42/2004 was registered against the accused at Police Station Manwat under Sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. Police Officer Anil Patil (PW-4) conducted the investigation of this crime, prepared spot panchnama (Exh.17).After delivery of the victim, blood samples of victim, her baby and the blood sample of accused were obtained and it were referred for D.N.A. Test.D.N.A. Report (Exh.33) discloses that the accused was putative father of the baby of victim.After completion of investigation,::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:42 ::: (3) Cri.Appeal No.813/2006 charge-sheet was submitted against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pathri for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:42 :::Offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case was committed to Sessions Court, Gangakhed.5. Charge (Exh. 2) was framed against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of I.P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Accused admitted D.N.A. Report (Exh.33).After considering the evidence of four prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court pleased to acquit the accused.Therefore, this appeal arises.Heard strenuous arguments submitted by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned Counsel Shri S.J. Salunke for the respondent.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:42 :::(4) Cri.At the stage of argument, it is not disputed by both the Counsels that the sexual intercourse was done by the accused with victim with her consent.Otherwise also, from the testimony of the victim (PW-1) it emerges that after occurrence of the alleged incident of rape, she did not disclose this occurrence even to her parents.Had the victim kept mum due to threatening by the accused, definitely after some reasonable period when there was no pressure from the accused, the victim would have disclosed the occurrence to her parents.Thus, total silence of the victim and unexplained delay of five months in lodging F.I.R. from the date of occurrence, creates probability that the victim and accused had sexual intercourse with consent of each other.In this appeal the only point agitated in between the parties is regarding the age of victim at the relevant time of the occurrence.If the prosecution can establish that at the time of the occurrence in the year 2004 the victim was below the age of 16 years, then the sexual intercourse by accused with the victim even with her consent would be the offence of rape punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C.Learned A.P.P. for the State placed heavy reliance on birth entry in the School Admission Register (Exh.37) proved by::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 ::: (5) Cri.Appeal No.813/2006 Headmaster of the Primary School, Kinhola Balaji Gunjkar (PW-3) and School Leaving Certificate (Exh.38), which show that the date of birth of victim is "10.03.1991".If the prosecution can establish that date of birth of victim is 10.03.1991, then in the year 2004 at the time of occurrence, certainly the victim would be below the age of 15 years.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 :::Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the birth entry in the School Admission Register (Exh.37) is not supported by date of birth entry in Grampanchayat Office or in any other public record.He pointed out that the School Admission Register (Exh.37) does not indicate that the information recorded therein was given by the parents of victim.In the case at hand, D.N.A. Report (Exh.33) is admitted by defence which indicates that the accused was putative father of the baby of victim.Thus, this evidence is sufficient to hold that the accused had sexual intercourse with victim.But as discussed above, that sexual intercourse was with consent of the victim.No doubt, from the medical examination report (Exh.41) of the victim it emerges that age of the victim was in between 14 to::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 ::: (6) Cri.Appeal No.813/2006 17 years.Therefore, the medical evidence on record is of no help to the prosecution to prove that at the relevant time of the incident, the victim was below the age of 16 years.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 :::Even from the cross-examination of victim (PW-1), it emerges that at the time of lodging report she probably disclosed her age as '19 years' as in the F.I.R. (Exh.25) her age is mentioned as '19 years'.The damaging blow to the prosecution case is that, though much reliance has been placed on School Admission Entry Register (Exh.37) proved by Balaji Gunjkar (PW-3), does not disclose that at the time of admission in the school of the victim, her date of birth was given by her parents.Even the School Admission Register (Exh.37) is not signed by the parents of the victim.From the cross-examination of Balaji Gunjkar (PW-3) it becomes clear that birth certificate issued by Village Panchayat or Hospital is not available in the school record.Even this witness cannot tell which relative of the victim informed the school about the date of birth of victim.In the School Admission Register (Exh.37) and School Leaving Certificate (Exh.38) the identification mark on the body of::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 ::: (7) Cri.Appeal No.813/2006 the victim is noted as "mole on the neck".However, medical examination certificate (Exh.41) does not indicate the same identification mark on the body of victim.Medical Certificate (Exh.41) shows that the identification mark on the body of victim is noted as "mole on the left side of the cheek and mole on the right arm".Thus, otherwise also, entry in the School Admission Register (Exh.37) about date of birth of victim cannot be treated as reliable document to hold that the date of birth of victim is "10.03.1991".Father of the victim namely Kishan Kadam (PW-2) has also admitted in his cross-examination that date of birth of victim was not recorded in Birth Register of the Rural Hospital or in Grampanchayat Register.In the circumstances, in absence of birth entry of the victim, only on the basis of doubtful entry in the School Admission Register (Exh.37) on the basis of which School Leaving Certificate (Exh.38) is issued, the prosecution cannot be establish beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of the occurrence of incident, the victim was below the age of 16 years.On the other hand in view of the age of victim mentioned in F.I.R. (Exh.25) and in medical examination certificate (Exh.41), the possibility cannot be ruled out that at the time of occurrence of the incident the victim was above the age of 16 years.Thus, when such two probabilities arise, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 :::It follows that this appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.Hence, the following order.ORDER Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2006 is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2018 01:04:43 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,959,721 |
This petition has been filed seeking to call for the entire recordsrelating to the FIR in Crime No.12 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondentand its consequential proceedings and quash the same.It is seen that a case in Crime No.12 of 2016 for the allegedoffences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC and Section3(1)(r)(s) and (3)(2)(5a) of Amendment Act (POA) 2015, has been registeredagainst the petitioners / Accused.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners/Accused andthe second respondent, appeared in persons and their identifications werealso verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identityof the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) through therespondent Police, namely, Mr.A.Muthiah, Special Sub-Inspector of Police,Maniyatchi Police Station, Tuticorin District.The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo ofcompromise dated 07.04.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrivedat an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.12 of 2016pending on the file of the first respondent.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by theaccused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.Theantecedents ofthe accused have also to be taken into consideration before accepting thememo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.?Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated07.04.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matters pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inCrime No.12 of 2016 on the file of the 1st respondent police in respect ofall the accused are hereby quashed including those who are not before thisCourt.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memo dated 24.04.2016 shall form part of this order.The Inspector of Police, Maniyatchi Police Station, Tuticorin District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,030,562 |
18 In Vedprakash Bhaiji Vs.1 This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 28-1-2003 passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc, Asst.Sessions Judge, Karad,acquitting respondents (accused) of offence under Sections 498A ( Husbandor relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 306(Abetment of suicide), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breachof the peace) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) read withMeera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 ::: 2/21 apeal-504-04(203).docSection 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of commonintention) of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 :::The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision.We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption ofinnocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened bythe order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court.5 The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs.State of Gujarat 3has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded thatthe order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Courtfinds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrablyunsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at itsown conclusions.In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there wasnothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, theAppeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its ownconclusions.This, apart from the factthat both Jayshree and Accused no.1 lived together for almost 12 years andalso had three children, in my view, shows the allegation of cruelty andharassment is vague and untrustworthy.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 :::8 It is also stated by PW-1 that Jayshree had disclosed to her thataccused no.1 had a concubine by the name Suvarna and on that ground alsoaccused no.1 was harassing Jayshree.Therefore, this evidence is notbelievable.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 :::9 Dying declaration Exhibit 26 recorded by PW-3 started at 7.00p.m.Magistrate (PW-5) recordeddying declaration Exhibit 37 on the same day between 7.30 p.m. and 7.55p.m.According to prosecution when Exhibit 26 and Exhibit 37 was beingrecorded, one Dr. Ankolikar, Medical Officer (PW-6) was present.TheMedical Officer, in his examination-in-chief says when dying declaration wasrecorded by PW-5, he had checked B.P. and pulse rate of Jayshree.PW-6 also says that there is noentry in the record with him that dying declaration Exhibit 37 was recorded.PW-5 says he was not aware that any earlier dying declaration wasrecorded.I find that a bit difficult to accept because, PW-6 was presentwhen Exhibit 26 was recorded and was also present when Exhibit 37 wasrecorded.It would be but natural for the doctor to inform the Magistratethat just five minutes prior to Magistrate's arrival Police Head Constable(PW-3) had recorded the statement.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 :::p.m. on 4-7-2001 in her matrimonial home and she was brought to KrishnaHospital by accused no.1 in an auto rickshaw.Thereafter, in the evening,Exhibit 26 and Exhibit 37 came to be recorded one after the other with agap of maximum five minutes between two.Still there are materialinconsistencies between the two dying declarations.As perExhibit 26, Jayshree asked her husband whether she should set herself onfire as he was otherwise quarreling with her and accused no.1 had said toher that she should set herself ablaze and it would make no difference tohim.But in Exhibit 37, it is recorded that Jayshree told to her husband thathe should not receive the money in advance as he would spend the same, towhich accused no.1 replied saying Jayshree was being an obstacle always.As per Exhibit 37, accused no.1 then threw utensils in the house, at whichtime, Jayshree said he should not throw utensils but he may beat her if he sodesired.Jayshree is further said to have told accused no.1 that she herselfwould die, on which, accused no.1 said that she should die by goinganywhere.As per Exhibit 37, thereafter Jayshree poured kerosene on herMeera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 ::: 8/21 apeal-504-04(203).docperson and set herself ablaze with a burning wood.Further in Exhibit 26Jayshree stated that her in-laws were residing separately with their otherson.In Exhibit 37, Jayshree stated that she was residing in the matrimonialhome with accused nos.1 to 3 and brother of her husband.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 :::In Exhibit 26, Jayshree had stated that she has set herself ablazeand accused no.1 tore her gown so that she would not injured seriously.InExhibit 26, Jayshree stated that her husband has also sustained burn injuriesto his hands and accused no.1 brought her to the hospital in an autorickshaw.State of Madhya Pradesh 6, the facts ofthe prosecution case were that the accused Vedprakash and others hadadvanced a loan to the deceased Ramesh Kumar and that on the day prior tothe incident, the accused had filthily abused Ramesh Kumar and haddemanded an amount of Rs. 30,000/ from him, threatening that otherwisehe would be killed.Again, in the night of the same day, demand was madefrom Ramesh Kumar for the repayment of the loan advanced.RameshKumar was abused and threatened repeatedly.On the next day, RameshKumar wanted to lodge a report in Police Station against the accusedperson; but instead committed suicide by consuming some poisonoussubstance.In the suicide note left by him, he blamed the accused persons,who were charged of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPCand were prosecuted.In that case, the allegation against the accused/appellantbefore the Supreme Court was that he had abetted the commission ofsuicide of his sister's husband one Chander Bhushan.The facts show thatthere were matrimonial disputes between Neelam, sister of theappellant/accused and her husband and that, in connection with thesedisputes, the appellant had allegedly threatened and abused the saidChander Bhushan.Chander Bhushan committed suicide and the suicide wasattributed by the prosecution to the quarrel that had taken place betweenthe appellant and the said Chander Bhushan, a day prior.It was alleged thatthe appellant had used abusive language against said Chander Bhushan andhad told him "to go and die".The appellant, who had been chargesheetedfor an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, fileda Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, forquashing the proceedings against him, but his Petition was dismissed by theHigh Court.The petitioner had, therefore, appealed to the Supreme Court.While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court, inter alia, observed as follows :19 A Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Cyriac, S/oMeera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 ::: 16/21 apeal-504-04(203).docDevassia and another Vs.On reaching home, he divulged hisembarrassment to his wife and on the same night, committed suicide byconsuming poison.According to the prosecution, it was because of thewords uttered by the accused persons and the manner in which the deceasedwas dealt with by them in public, that the deceased had committed suicide.The accused were being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section306 of the Indian Penal Code and had approached the Kerala High Court forquashing the proceedings initiated against them.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 :::The prosecution againsthim had been initiated on the basis of the FIR lodged by one Harshidaben,widow of Deepakbhai Joshi.The substance of allegation against the accusedwas that her husband Deepakbhai was serving as a driver in AhmedabadBharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., in the Microwave Project Department.He hadundergone bypass surgery and was advised by the doctor to avoid liftingheavy weights.The accused - Madan Mohan Singh, who was the superior ofDeepakbhai, used to use Deepakbhai to run his private errands and hadbeen harassing him.Though Madan Mohan Singh was transferred, he kepton continuously using the services of Deepakbhai.Madan Mohan Singh wasthen again transferred in the Microwave Project department.On the veryfirst day, he told Deepakbhai to keep the keys of the vehicle on the table.Deepakbhai however, did not listen to him on account of which MadanMohan Singh was angry and had threatened him of suspension.He had also9 (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 628Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 ::: 18/21 apeal-504-04(203).docthreatened Deepakbhai that if he did not listen to him, he would createdifficulties for him.Madan Mohan Singh had told Deepakbhai, as to how hewas still alive, inspite of the insults.On 21.2.2008, Deepakbhai left hishouse as usual, but did not return in the evening.A missing report waslodged with the police.Ultimately, Deepakbhai's dead body was found lyingin a vehicle.Madan Mohan Singh approached the High Court at Gujarat and laterSupreme Court of India for getting the prosecution against him quashed.Supreme Court of India while quashing the proceedings in questionobserved in paragraph 12 as under :::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:27 :::"In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,065,717 |
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State through Video Conferencing.The petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report No. 173/2020, dated 22.07.2020, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., related to Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow.We have considered the stand of learned counsel for the State.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,263,878 |
Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Phulchandra @ Vinod Panika in Sessions Trial No.153/2015 under sections 363 & 366 of the Indian Penal Code.A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court on 26.04.2016, when the witnesses were present.On that date also, the witnesses were present.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the has opposed the application on the ground that the petitioner habitually abstains, when the witnesses are present.However, keeping in view the fact that the trial is under sections 363 & 366 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner has been in custody for more than 2 months, it may be expected that he would have learnt his lesson.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Phulchandra @ Vinod Panika, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE b
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
224,238 |
All these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.According to the prosecution, the complainant Vyankati Pocham Kampelli (who died during the pendency of the trial) was retired foreman and was residing at Rayatwari Colliery, Wasekar Layout, Chandrapur, along with his two sons, daughter-in-law and wife Narsamma.On 4-8-1994, after the family had their meals in the night and went to sleep, the persons who were present in the house, were his wife Narsamma (P.W. 9) his son (P.W. 1), daughter-in-law Rubirani wife of Hemant (P.W. 8).At about 11 O'clock in the night, the complainant heard sound of knocking of his door and, therefore, he opened the door and asked who was there.The persons who were found outside the door told him that they had come from Kagaznagar to give some message.On this, Vyankati opened the door and about five persons entered their house.When he enquired from them about the news they told him that they were Annas and asked him to give an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and that they would go.But as the complainant expressed that he had no money, one of them caught hold of the complainant by his shoulder.By this time all the members of the family had woken up.Amongst the five persons, three were holding knives in their hands and the persons who had caught hold of Vyankati, had a small size gun which was kept concealed at his waist and he was threatening them by taking out the gun at intervals.One of them inspected all the articles kept in two rooms, but as they did not get anything, they demanded the keys of the almirah from his wife Narsamma and with the help of the keys, they opened the show case almirah which was kept in the third room and from it they took out and opened a tin box containing ornaments belonging to the family of the following description :1. Four golden bangles having simple design weighing 5 tolal valued at Rs. 25,000-.Two golden bangles having design of bricks weighing 4 tolal valued at Rs. 20,000/-.Golden Phoe Har (a kind of necklace) having four folds weighing 5 tolas valued at Rs. 25,000/-.One golden chain having golden locket, weighing one tola valued at Rs. 5,000/-.Two golden chains each weighing 1 tola, thus total two tolas valued at Rs. 10,000/-.One golden chain weighing 1 and 1/2 .tolas valued at Rs. 7,500/-.Three pairs of Birya (ear ornaments) having pendants, each pair weighs 1/2 tola, thus total weight 1 and 1/2 tolas, valued at Rs. 7,500/-.One golden ring having longish red stone, weighing 1/4 tola, valued at Rs. 1250/-.One golden ring weighing 1/4 tola, valued at Rs. 1250/-.Three small golden Nathni (Nose ornaments) weighing 1/4 tola valued at Rs. 1250/-.Two golden earrings having white bead, weighing 1/4 tola, valued at Rs. 1250/-.Small golden ring weighing 2 grams, valued at Rs. 200/-.Golden ring having Navrang stone, weighing V2 tola valued at Rs. 2500/-.One broken golden chain weighing 1 and 1/2 tolas valued at Rs. 7,500/-.Broken pieces of golden chain weighing one tola valued at Rs. 5,000/-.Silver Kamarpatta (ornament for the waist) having hook, weighing 26 tolas, valued at Rs. 2080/-.Silver waist-string (Kardoda) weighing 25 tolas valued at Rs. 2,000/-.Silver bracelets weighing 12 tolas valued at Rs. 960/-.Silver chain weighing 2 tolas valued at R. 160/-.Silver chain weighing 3 tolas valued at Rs. 240/-.Two pairs of silver anklests having a design of Graid weighing 20 tolas valued at Rs. 1600/-.And, therefore, according to the complainant Vyankati, five unknown persons robbed him and took away gold ornaments weighing 24 tolas and 2 grams valued at Rs. 1,20,200/-and silver ornaments weighing 88 tolas valued at Rs. 7,040/ - and in all property valued at Rs. 1,27,240/- was taken away by the culprits.While leaving the house, they threatened them that they were Annas and if they would disclose the said incident to anybody, they would kill the complainant and cut them into pieces.According to the complainant and his family members, the persons who committed dacoity at their place, were speaking Hindi in Telgu tone and that they would be able to identify these persons.The gold ornaments which were stolen, were got prepared from one Harijeevan Uddhoji Sarafa Line, Chandrapur and the silver ornaments were prepared by Telgu goldsmith at Rajura Colliery, Tahsil Wani, District Yavatmal and that the wife of the complainant and other members of the family can identify the ornaments.According to the prosecution, the complainant Vyankati and his family members did not lodge any report with the police as they were threatened by the dacoits in the name of Naxalites.Immediately after the arrest of the appellants-accused, when the police made enquiries from Vyankati and his family members, Vyankati lodged a report, of the incident of dacoity.He was able to identify the suspect Chakrapani by touching him.Similarly Rubirani (P. W. 8) was called to witness the parade.She also identified the suspect.The prosecution has examined Shri Bagade (P. W. 10) Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, who conducted the test identification parade.JUDGMENT J.N. Patel, J.The appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, vide judgment and order dated 18-3-1997, under which the appellant Chakrapani, Ashok, Wasudeo and Babu alias Prabhakar came to be convicted for having committed offences under Section 395 read with Section 398, IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year.Appellant Rajababu and Mallesh came to be convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years each.They came to be acquitted of the charge under Section 395 read with Section 398, I.P.C. One of the co-accused in the case namely Laxman was acquitted of all the charges.Appellants Rajababu s/o Buchayya Adluri and Mallesh s/o Ankush Gundetti have filed Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1997, appellant Wasudeo s/o Vyankuji Kohapare, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1997, appellant Chakrpani s/o Laxman Siddhala has filed Criminal No. 165 of 1997 and appellants Ashok s/o Bhumayya Kudali and Babu alias Prabhakar s/o Rajyellayya Buka have filed Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1997, to challenge their conviction and sentences.Thus, the accused were arrested and put up for trial.At the instance of appellant-Rajababu, the original accused No. 2, they have recovered piece of gold weighing 10 grams 250 miligrams and a piece of silver weighing 100 grains.At the instance of original accused No. 3 Ashok, a piece of silver weighing 100 grams, two gold rings were recovered.At the instance of the appellant Mallesh, the original accused No. 5, they could recover 17.400 grains gold and 158 grams of silver and at the instance of appellant-Wasudeo, the original accused No. 6, 10 grams of gold and 100 grams of silver were recovered.At the instance of the appellant-Babu alias Prabhakar, the original accused No. 7, silver sticks weighing 59 grams were recovered.The Police were not successful in arresting one of their associates by name Anjayya who is reported to be still absconding.After conclusion of the investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandrapur, vide Regular Criminal Case No. 102 of 1996, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.The learned Sessions Judge on 17-12-1996 framed the charge against all the accused Nos. 1 to 7 for having committed offence under Section 895, I.P.C. and also under Section 395 read with Section 398, I.P.C. All the appellants-accused pleaded not guilty and submitted that previously they were working as informant for Police against the Naxalites and one of their friends namely Purushottam who was also working as informant against Naxalites, was attacked by the Naxalites and, therefore, they had stopped giving information to the Police because of which the Police got annoyed and falsely implicated them in this case.They have stated that they were shown to identifying witnesses before they were taken to the Tahsil Office for holding the test identification parade and that the alleged recovery of the property is not made on the basis of the information given by them.In support of their case, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses.The complainant Vyankati Pocham Kampelli having expired, remaining members of his family, namely his son Hemant (P.W. 1), Rubirani wife of Hemant (P. W. 8) and Narsamma (P. W. 9) wife of the complainant Vyankati, who are the victim of the incident, were examined.The prosecution also examined various witnesses as panchas as regards the recovery of gold and silver ornaments at the instance of the appellants-accused, but they all turned hostile.The prosecution examined Shri Vishwanath s/o.Upasrao Bagade who conducted the test identification parade in the case.The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has proved that on 4-8-1994 at about 11 a.m., dacoity was committed by five persons at the house of Vyankati Kampelli, in which gold and silver ornaments worth Rs. 1,27,240/- were taken away.He also found that the prosecution has proved that the accused Nos. 1,3,6 and 7 along with one absconding accused have committed offence of dacoity whereas in case of original accused Nos. 2 and 5, he found them guilty of the offence of receiving the stolen property punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced them accordingly.We have given patience hearing to the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned A. P. P. in the matter.It is also their case that the identification of the suspects by the identifying witnesses is unreliable for the reason that there has been a long laps of time between the date of occurrence of the crime and the arrest of the suspects which would fade away the memory of the identifying witnesses and it was almost impossible for the identifying witnesses to have remembered and correctly identified the suspects in the test identification parade.The learned counsel have relied upon the cases of Manepalli Ankjaneyulu v. State of A.P. 1999 Cri LJ 4375 (Andh Pra); Vilas Vasartrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 1 Mah LJ 27; Habal Shaikh v. The State 1991 Cri LJ 1258 (Cal); Govind v. State of U.P. 1996 Cri LJ 445 (All); Chaman v. State of U.P. and Tahir Mohammad, Kamad Girendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh .The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recovery of the properties from the respective appellants as none of the panch witnesses have supported the prosecution case and in absence of any independent evidence led by the prosecution to support the alleged recoveries made at the instance of the accused, makes the prosecution case unreliable and untrustworthy.It is submitted that the Investigating Officer being interested person and responsible for prosecuting the appellants, his sole testimony to prove various recoveries would be most unsafe for convicting the appellants.It is further submitted that except for two gold rings recovered from the appellant-accused Chakrapani, none of the other items of gold and silver were identified by the prosecution witnesses as the stolen propety and, therefore, whatever evidence relating to recovery of gold and silver ingots or pieces relied upon by the prosecution, does not corroborate its case to justify their convictions.Let us first examine the evidence against each appellant-accused showing their complicity in the crime.In the last Narsamma wife of Vyankati (P. W. 9) was called and she identified the suspect Chakrapani as an accused.Shri Bagade prepared a memorandum to this effect.When the case came up for trial, the complainant Vyankati had already expired.Therefore, the prosecution examined Hemant (P. W. 1), Rubirani (P. W. 8) and Narsamma (P. W. 9) as eye-witnesses to the incident.Before the Court, all these witnesses have identified Chakrapani as the person who had come to their house and committed dacoity.Therefore, the prosecution could established that Chakrapani participated in committing the offence of dacoity at the residence of Vyankati.In addition to the evidence of identification led by the prosecution, the prosecution has also been able to lead the evidence for recovery of stolen ornaments at the instance of the appellant-accused Chakrapani.The first recovery relates to 7 tolas of gold in the form of ingot at the instance of the appellant-accused Chakrapani, vide Exh. 67 which came to be seized under the seizure memo Exh. 68 from the shop of one Prakash Pallela situated near Ashok Cinema Talkies.The jeweller who was present in the shop by name Prakash Kotayya Pallela had identified the appellant-accused as the person from whom he had purchased gold weighing 7 tolas about 1 and 1/2 years ago and gave to the Police gold weighing 7 tolas.The pancha in the case namely Sadashio Aaoba Jadhao turned hostile when examined in the Court and, therefore, memorandum Exh. 67 and the seizure panchnama Exh. 68 came to be proved by the prosecution by examining P. S. I. Premraj Wasudeo Lanjewar.The appellant-accused is supposed to have led the police party to his own house consisting of two rooms situated in the locality for Beghar and produced articles concealed by wrapping in the plastic between the tiles and wooden poles at the corner of the wall towards south in the kitchen.Two gold rings articles 5 and 6 have been duly identified by Hemant (P. W. 1) and Rubirani (P. W. 8) as belonging to them.In respect of this seizure also the pancha-Kashinath Salunke (P. W. 6) turned hostile and it was proved by examining P. S. I., Lanjewar.The appellant-accused Rajababu son of Bachayya Adluri is convicted for having committed an offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. by the trial Court, as the only evidence led by the prosecution against him is in the form of recovery of property at his instance of which the memo came to be written which is Exh. 70 and the appellant-accused is supposed to have led the police party to Somnalhpura, Rajura, where he is residing with his brother Hanumant Adluri and took out one gold piece weighing 10 gms.After the appellant-accused' Chakrapani was put in the parade and identified by the identifying witnesses, the identification parade was reconstituted and the appellant-accused Ashok Bhumayya was brought in the identification parade.He has been identified in the parade by Hemant (P. W. 1), the complainant Vyankati, Rubirani (P. W. 8) and Narsamma (P. W. 9), of which memorandum was prepared by Shri Bagade.These identifying witnesses who are the members of the family of the complainant Vyankati have also identified the appellant-accused Ashok Bhumayya before the Court as one of the person who committed dacoity in the house of the complainant on the unfateful day.Mallesh son of Ankush Gundetti has been convicted only on the ground of being receiver of stolen property and having committed offence under Section 411 of I.P.C. The evidence led by the prosecution to support their case against this appellant-accused was that of recovery of gold weighing 17.400 grams and silver weighing 158 grams.Thereafter the appellant Mallesh is supposed to have led the police party to his house from where he produced one solid mass of gold and one solid mass of silver which was kept concealed in the upper compartment of the cement rack in kitchen.Except for this recovery of stolen articles, no other evidence was led against this appellant.The appellant Wasudeo Vyankuji Kohpare has been convicted for having committed offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 of I. P. C, by the trial Court.The prosecution has led evidence of the witnesses who have identified him as one of the culprits who committed dacoity in the house of the complainant Vyankati by examining Hemant (P. W. 1), Rubirani (P. W. 8) and Narsamma (P. W. 9).The appellant-accused Wasudeo came to be arrested on 31-12-1995 as suspect.The test identification parade came to be held on 3-1-1996 at 4 p.m. in the office of Tahsildar by Shri Bagade the then Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate.The appellant Wasudeo was placed in the parade which was constituted of 5 dummies and was identified by Hemant (P. W. 1) and Rubirani (P. W. 8).Narsamma (P. W. 9) was not present for participating in the test identification parade.This appellant Wasudeo has also been identified by these identifying witnesses, as one of the culprits, before the Court.In addition to the evidence of identification by the witnesses, the prosecution has also led evidence on the point of recovery of stolen properties at the behest of the appellants/accused.The appellant/accused Wasudeo came to be arrested on 31-12-1995 and on 2-1-1996, he made a statement in presence of the panchas that one piece of gold and one piece of silver is concealed by him in the tiles of his house, which came to be recorded under the memorandum Exh. 80 and thereafter, the appellant-Wasudeo is supposed to have led the Police party to Somnathpura area at Rajura to a new house constructed with bricks, mud and cement plaster provided with roof of red Bangalore tiles consisting of two rooms and chhapari, and took out and produced one piece of gold weighing 10 grams valued at Rs. 5,000/-and one piece of silver weighing 100 grams.He also produced one knife having round brass handle measuring 17 and 1/2 cms.in length and iron blade measuring 15 and 1/2 cms.Babu alias Prabhakar s/o.Rajyellayya Buka has been convicted for having committed offence under Section 395 read with Section 398 of I.P.C. In order to prove their case against the appellant/accused-Babu, the prosecution has led evidence to show that this appellant-accused was identified in the test identification parade as well as before the Court, by Hemant (P. W. 1), Rubirani (P. W. 8) and Narsamma (P. W. 9).The test identification parade in the case of this appellant/accused, came to be held on 2-1-1996 at the office of the Tahsildar, Chandrapur, between 4.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. in the evening.He was placed amongst 5 dummies and identified by the witnesses including Vyankati Pocham Kampelli.In their evidence before the Court, Hemant (P. W. 1), Rubirani (P. W. 8) and Narsamma (P. W. 9) have also identified this appellant as one of the dacoits who committed dacoity.The seizure in the case has been made at the instance of the appellant/accused.He made a statement that he sold a bracelet weighing about 5 tolas to the goldsmith making the silver and golden ornaments, in order to treat his wife who was ill, for Rs. 400/-, and then led the police party to the houses of the goldsmith by name Singarao Ramayya and Shrihari Narsayya Kondaparti of Arandamallatam, Police Station Manthani, district Karim Nagar who was found present in the house, and handed over one silver stick weighing 59 grams to the Police by informing them that the appellant-accused Babu had sold them one silver bracelet which he melted and prepared a' silver stick.The witnesses were the inmates of the house when the dacoity took place and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony.Similarly, relying on the evidence of recovery at the instance of the appellants/accused, the learned trial Court was satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants/accused beyond the shadow of doubt as the evidence of identification of the culprits by the eye witnesses is well corroborated by the recovery of stolen articles, and proceeded to convict the accused.First of all, we would like to take up the contention of the learned counsel that the case of the prosecution suffers from delay in lodging the First Information Report which is fatal and on this count alone, the appellants/accused deserve to be acquitted.What has been tried to canvass before us is that considering the background that the complainant Vyankati failed to lodge the First Information Report immediately after the incident though he was residing at a distance of 1 km, from the Police Station, itself goes to show that no such dacoity took place at his house.Secondly, it could not be ruled out that the Police has tried to falsely implicate the appellants/accused in the case of dacoity as they had stopped co-operating with the Police as informant relating to activities of Naxalites in the area and, therefore, after the appellants/accused were falsely arrested by the Police, they got the report lodged from Vyankati.The evidential value of the First Information Report will be reduced if it is made after such delay which is unexplained particularly when it creates a suspicion that the informant had sufficient opportunity to concoct a story and falsely implicate the accused.Therefore, what is sufficient explanation for delay would depend on various circumstances.A detailed complaint came to be lodged by Vyankati on 18-12-1995 with the Police narrating the manner in which the incident took place on 4-8-1994 at his house which was during the night and that while the culprits left his house after robbing them of the gold and silver ornaments, they threatened him to be killed in the name of the Naxalites and, therefore, he did not lodge the report.But, when questioned about it, in his evidence before the Court, he has given the explanation for not lodging the report with the Police which is convincing and goes along the line taken by the complainant Vyankati when he lodged the report with the Police and, therefore, this cannot be considered as an omission on the part of Hemant (P. W. 1).The trial Court has considered the delay in lodging the First Information Report in its proper perspective and on taking judicial notice of the fact that Chandrapur district is infected with Naxalites and one can accept that because of the fear of retaliation of the culprits that they were Naxalites, the complainant or his family members could not gather courage to lodge the report.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,507,730 |
This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Premshankar Sahni in Case Crime No. 265 of 2019 under Section 3(1), U.P. Gangsters Act and Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1986 Police Station Dohrighat, District Mau.Heard Sri Karunesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA along with Sri A.K. Upadhyay appearing on behalf of the State.Learned counsel for the applicant has taken the Court through the bail order passed in the substantive offences, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 13.04.2019, that is to say, a period of 11 months and a little more.Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the substantive offences, the fact that prima facie there is no evidence to show that the applicant is a member of a criminal gang or its leader, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.Let the applicant Premshankar Sahni in Case Crime No. 265 of 2019 under Section 3(1), U.P. Gangster Act and Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1986 Police Station Dohrighat, District Mau be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,690,089 |
At the time of incident, when she went to cut the grass for cattle the applicant was there in the field.The prosecutrix was cutting 2 Cr.R.No.3252/2019 the grass at her own field.The applicant, who is the member of the same society, came near the prosecutrix, grabbed her behind and asked for sexual favour.The prosecutrix managed to rescue herself from the clutches of the applicant.She went back to her house, uttered the whole story to her daughter.Prosecutrix (PW-1) categorically stated that the place of incident is agricultural field situated in village Nandgaon.In the evening at 5 o'clock, she was cutting the grass and applicant was also cutting the grass near water passage.When she went to pick up the bundle of grass to carry her home, the applicant came behind her, hold her and tried to drag her and said that his wife is dead and intended for sexual favour.The prosecutrix guess the intention of the applicant, got released herself and went back at her home and uttered the whole contents to her daughter.Then daughter phoned to son of the prosecutrix who was out of home.(04-09-2019)Then her daughter made a call to her brother, who was out of City.When he came back at home, the prosecutrix went to lodge the report at police station Satai, on the basis of that, Crime No.201/2016 was registered against the applicant.2 Cr.After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC, Bijawar.Charge has been framed against the applicant.He abjured the guilt.The prosecution examined five witnesses.PW-1 Prosecutrix, PW-2 daughter of prosecutrix, PW-3 Dr. Umesh Shrivastava, PW-4 I.O. Dharmendra Tripathi and PW-5, the son of the prosecutrix.The appellant took the defence that on account of previous enmity he has falsely been implicated by the prosecutrix and none was examined in defence by the applicant.Learned Court of JMFC after hearing both the parties, delivered the judgment on 18.05.2018 acquitting the applicant 3 Cr.R.No.3252/2019 of the charge under Section 506-II of the I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 354 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, applicant filed appeal, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.168/2018 and vide judgment dated 13.05.2019, learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Bijawar District Chhatarpur dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Court of JMFC.3 Cr.Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.05.2019, the applicant filed this revision on the ground that all witnesses are near relatives of prosecutrix.There are no reliable evidence against the applicant warranting his conviction under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Learned trial Court not appreciated the evidence correctly and not considered the defence raised by the applicant before the trial Court.Both the Courts below committed an error in convicting the applicant under Section 354 of the I.P.C. Therefore, it has been prayed to set aside the judgment dated 13.05.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.168/2018 and set aside the conviction and sentence and the applicant may be acquitted of the offence.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State submitted that there is sufficient evidence available against the applicant.No animosity has been proved.The applicant did not led any evidence to substantiate his defence.Learned Court of JMFC as well as learned Appellate Court did not commit any error in convicting the applicant and sentencing 4 Cr.R.No.3252/2019 him as aforementioned.Hence, prayed for dismissing the revision.4 Cr.While invoking the jurisdiction in criminal revision, there is a limited scope remain left to re-appreciate the evidence because as per Section 393 Cr.P.C. if Appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, the order is final.Next day in the morning, when the son came over there then the prosecutrix went to lodge the report at police station, Satai.5 Cr.Perused the cross-examination of prosecutrix.The prosecutrix again reiterated the same facts as mentioned in examination-in-chief of her statement.In para 4 she categorically stated that on the spot of the incident, there was no other person present except the applicant.She denied all suggestions made on behalf of the applicant.In para 6, she admitted that the applicant belonged to her society having distant relation as father-in-law.In this para, she also stated that she narrated the story to the village Sarpanch.The Sarpanch called the applicant but when applicant did not reach then Sarpanch told to report the matter to the police.12. PW-2, daughter of the prosecutrix, also stated that her mother came at home weeping and told the whole story that applicant caught hold of her and wished for sexual favour.Then she released herself and came back home.In her cross- examination, she admitted that applicant is uncle in relation of this witness.Kailash (PW-5) is the son of the prosecutrix.He stated that at the time of incident he was in Delhi.He received the phone call of his sister.She narrated the whole story.He immediately proceeded and in the next morning reached at home.His mother narrated the whole story to him.Then he took her mother for lodging the report at police station.After perusal of the statement of PW-1 Prosecutrix, PW- 2 her daughter and PW-5 her son, it appears that there is no animosity between the prosecutrix and applicant reflected from their statements.When the applicant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he raised a defence that owing to animosity, he has falsely been implicated.R.No.3252/2019 examined any person to substantiate his defence nor anything has come in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that there was any previous dispute between the prosecutrix and the applicant nor both having any inimical relation with each other.It is supported by the statements of PW-2 daughter and PW-5 son of the prosecutrix to whom she uttered the story.The prosecutrix narrated the incident immediately to her daughter PW-2 who supported the incident.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,791,913 |
1 Serial No.346(M/L).SG Allowed CRM 8927 of 2018 In Re.An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In the matter of:Goutam De @ NupaThe State of West Bengal Mr M. Chatterjee Mr B. Hutait Mr G.N. Imrohi ... for the petitioner.Ms Kakali Chatterjee ... for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Keshpur Police Station Case No.120 of 2018 dated September 1, 2018 under Sections 448/354A/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code.The petitioner says that the complaint is utterly false and it was lodged some 20 days after the alleged incident.There is no medical report to corroborate any attack on the complainant and the complainant bears a grudge against the petitioner because of local disputes.Considering the material against the petitioner and the statement of the alleged victim, it may not be necessary to take the 2 petitioner into custody at this stage as long as the petitioner does not come anywhere near the victim till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) ( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) 3
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,793,435 |
(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.520 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143,188 and 341 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 2The case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2017 at about 18.00 hrs the petitioner along with others raised slogans against Modi Government for not considering the farmers and agitated without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.Further he submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioner and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioner and others.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 4Heard Mr.Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143,341 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner and others.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioner.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143,341 and 188 IPC.He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.520 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, is quashed insofar as the petitioner alone and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, DindigulThe Inspector of Police Town North Police Station DindigulThe Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court CRL.O.P.(MD) No. 17073 of 2019 and CRL.M.P.(MD) No.10095 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,812,058 |
at about 5:00 p.m. the victim girl was alone in her house, the appellant came to the house of the informant and attempted to commit rape on the victim girl by force and disrobed her.At that moment informant came back to her residence and found appellant was trying to commit rape on her daughter and seeing the incident the informant raised alarm, then the appellant/accused left the victim girl and fled away.After sometimes, the accused/appellant and his son Bikash Roy came to the house of the informant and threatened them.PW.No.2(informant) lodged an F.I.R. with Bamongola, P.S. on 24.04.2013 at about 19:15 hours.After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against appellant/accused and his son.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda.Learned Sessions Judge framed charge against accused Bikash Roy for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376/511/109/506 of the I.P.C.Both the accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.Defence case as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the examination of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that the informant (P.W.No.2) took a loan of Rs.5,000/- from the appellant/accused and when the appellant/accused demanded the said amount of Rs.5,000/- from the informant then the informant falsely implicated them in order to avoid payment of money.Learned Trial Judge upon evaluation of the materials on record convicted the accused/appellant for committing the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(f)/511/506 of the I.P.C and under Sections 4,6,8,12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine.Accused Bikash Roy was acquitted by the learned Trial Judge.Accused/appellant has preferred the present appeal against the said and order of conviction and sought for acquittal.When the appeal was called on for hearing on 22.11.2018 nobody was present for the appellant.Mr. Partha Pratim Das who was requested to appear as amicus curiae has made his submissions regarding the merit of the present appeal.Impugned judgment and order of conviction have been assailed on the grounds that learned Sessions Judge had failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in its true perspectives.He has further contended that learned Trial Judge overlooked the contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.No.5 and 9 which go to the very root of the prosecution case and makes the same doubtful.His further submission is that P.W.No.4 Sudhangshu Das and P.W.No.5 Bablu Mondal did not corroborate the prosecution case.According to his contention the P.W.No.s 4 & 5 deposed that they had found accused/appellant to flee away from the house of defacto complainant and that evidence was not sufficient to draw conclusion that the appellant committed rape on victim girl.On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the accused/appellant committed the crime of rape on a girl aged about only 9/10 years when she was alone in her house.Testimony of the victim girl herself, her mother and medical evidence go to show that victim girl was subjected to rape.The defence had not led any evidence to show that appellant/accused was falsely implicated.He has stated that the guilt of the appellant/accused was established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Before I note and appreciate rival contentions, it will be better to see the impugned and order of conviction along with the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record.P.W.No.2, the mother of the victim girl who lodged the F.I.R, in her examination in chief stated that on 23.04.2013 she was coming back from the market and at that time she had noticed that accused Bibhuti Bhusan Roy disrobed her daughter and tried to commit sexual assault on her.When she entered her house Bibhuti Bhusan Roy fled away.From her deposition it came out that on being asked, her daughter told her that on 02.04.2013 accused/appellant had sexually assaulted her daughter and her daughter sustained severe pain.P.W.No.2 further deposed that after a while on that date both the accused persons had come to their residence and threatened them with dire consequences.During her examination in chief the said P.W.2 further deposed that she had told the incident to her brother Ananda Majumder and her neighbours namely Sudhangshu and Bablu.The said Ananda Majumder, Sudhangshu Das and Bablu Mondal were examined by the prosecution as P.W.No.s.3,4 and 5 respectively.From her deposition it appears that on the next day she lodged F.I.R. with the Police Station and one Dilip Babu wrote the said F.I.R. P.W.No.6 is Dilip Barman.Exhibit No.5 is the said F.I.R lodged by P.W.No.2 before the Police Station against the accused/appellant making allegation of rape, and attempt to commit rape on her daughter on 02.04.2013 and 23.04.2013 respectively.Exhibit-5/1 is the endorsement made by P.W.9 in this regard.The F.I.R. lodged by P.W.No.2 disclosed the occurrence of two separate incidents on two different dates.So far first incident dated 02.04.2013 is concerned, P.W.No.2 had not seen that incident but she had been informed by her daughter who was the victim of the incident.P.W.No.2 in her F.I.R. as well as in her deposition before the Court specifically stated that she had been told by her daughter that the latter was subjected to sexual assault by the accused/appellant and she had sustained severe pain.Before recording her evidence the learned Trial Court ascertained her capability for giving rational answers as at that time she was aged about 10 years.On being satisfied, the learned Trial Court recorded her evidence.Regarding the first incident dated 02.04.2013 she deposed that on the date of the alleged incident she was alone in her residence and accused/appellant came to their house and disrobed her and he undressed himself and began to rub his penis over her vagina.From the deposition of P.W.No.2, it appears that at the time of the commission of the alleged incident something was attached to the penis of the accused/appellant.The victim girl also deposed that she sustained severe pain for such act of the accused.From her deposition it also came out that she could not disclose the incident as she was threatened with dire consequences by the accused/appellant.Regarding second incident dated 23.04.2013, P.W.No.1 deposed that in the evening when her mother and sister went to the market and she was alone in her residence accused/appellant tried to do the same thing which he had done on 02.04.2013 and in the mean time her mother came back and then the accused fled away.P.W.No.1 stated that she narrated the entire incident including the incident dated 02.04.2013 to her mother.In her deposition before the Court the victim girl gave a vivid description of both the incidents.The statements of the victim girl and her mother were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. immediately on the next date of lodging of F.I.R. Those statements are consistent with their depositions before the Court.P.W.No.3 who is the brother of P.W.No.2 and maternal uncle of P.W.No.1 (victim girl) deposed he had heard about the incident from his sister (P.W.No.2).P.W.No.4 Sudhangshu Das and P.W.5 Bablu Mondal, deposed that on the date of the incident they found the accused/appellant was coming out from the residence of the de facto complainant and they were told by P.W.No.2 that accused/appellant committed rape on her daughter.P.W.No.7, the Medical Officer of Malda District Hospital examined accused/appellant on 26.04.2013 and found that he was capable of performing sexual act.P.W.No.8 is another Medical Officer who examined the victim girl.From his deposition it appears that he examined the victim girl on 25.04.2013 and at relevant point of time the victim girl was aged about 9 to 10 years.Exhibit no.2/1 is the Medical Examination report of the victim girl.On examination he found that the hymen of the victim girl was torn and slightly parted.During cross-examination a specific suggestion was given to the Doctor that hymen of a girl might be torn and slightly parted for many reasons.This type of suggestion is very common in rape cases.In a criminal trial where no enmity between the parties is established by cogent and reliable evidence, then the question which arises in the mind of the Court is why the accused would be falsely implicated by the victim? In the instant case the defence had tried to establish that the mother of the victim girl (P.W.2) had taken a loan of Rs.5,000/- from the appellant/accused and when the appellant/accused demanded that amount then he was falsely implicated.Specific suggestions were given to prosecution witnesses during their cross- examinations in this regard, but those suggestions were denied by the witnesses.Mere suggestion in cross-examination unsupported by defence evidence has no evidentiary value.It has been submitted that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence P.W.No.3,5 and 9 and as such no reliance should be given to their evidence and the same should be discarded.It is true that there are minor discrepancies in their evidence.From the evidence of P.W.No.s 3,5 and 9 it appears that their statements before the Police and their evidence on oath before the Court are not so inconsistent with each other as to be discarded & disbelieved.Moreover, the evidence of prosecution witnesses require to be read as a whole and their veracity are to be considered in the totality of the circumstances of the case.While appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the root of the prosecution case, should not be taken into consideration as they do not form grounds to reject the evidence as a whole.The discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as pointed out by learned amicus curiae are minor in nature which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses and as such I am of the view that undue importance should not be given to the minor discrepancies as they are not fatal to the prosecution case specially when the statement of the victim girl is corroborated by injuries on her private part.From the materials on record it appears that during investigation the original birth certificate of the victim girl was seized by the I.O. on the basis of a seizure list.The Exhibit no.4, is original birth certificate of the victim girl.That means at the relevant point of time the victim girl was under 12 years of age.Delay in lodging the FIR regarding the first incident of rape on 02.04.2013 has been properly explained by the prosecution witnesses as the victim girl was under threat to be killed by the accused/appellant.At the time of commission of second incident her mother fortunately arrived at the place of occurrence and she herself saw the incident.Thereafter the victim girl got the courage to disclose the previous incident to her mother.On the very next date, the mother of the victim reported the entire matters to the police.The entire materials on record prompts me to hold that the victim girl aged about 9/10 years was sexually assaulted by the accused/appellant in her residence on 02.04.2013 and she sustained injury in her private part.The medical evidence corroborated the said injury of the victim girl.The prosecution has also succeeded in proving the second incident of attempt to commit rape on the victim girl by the accused/appellant on 23.04.2013 when the victim girl was alone in her residence but appellant/accused could not commit rape due to sudden arrival of the mother of the victim girl.The learned Trial Judge rightly came to his conclusion, that the accused/appellant was guilty for commission of the offences in respect of which he (Accused/Appellant) had faced trial.I do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge regarding the guilt of the accused/appellant in respect of the offences for which he had faced trial.
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,815,525 |
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Girish Kumar Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record carefully.By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants applied for quashing the impugned order dated 3.2.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 / Special Judge (Gangster Act), Hardoi in Criminal Revision No. 272 of 2013 (Raj Pal Singh Vs.State of U.P. and others) and also to quash the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 2 / Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi in Case No. 961 of 2013 (Smt. Sushila Devi vs. Ram Sagar and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 379 I.P.C., P.S. Pachdevara, District Hardoi and subsequent proceeding thereof.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that no offence against the applicants is made out.They have been falsely implicated in the present case for harassment and humiliation.It is further contended that there was no evidence on record so as to justify the summoning of applicants for trial, therefore, entire proceeding in lower court is liable to be quashed.After commencing some arguments, learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants want to apply for discharge and they may be permitted to do so under the Code of criminal procedure.Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of proceedings.In Criminal Appeal No.675 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1151 of 2018) (Md. Allauddin Khan Vs.In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
728,205 |
The accused in Crime No. 15 of 2006 registered on the file of Vigilanceand Anti-corruption Wing, Trichirapalli has come forward with this petitioninvoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,praying for an order calling for the records relating to the First InformationReport in the above said case registered on 01.11.2006 and quash the same.According to the petition averments, since the saidoffence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC is cognizable and bailable, theabove said Srinivasan was released on bail by the petitioner himself,immediately after registration of the case, but aggrieved by the registration ofthe said case against him, the above said Srinivasan (de facto complainant inthe case on hand) lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Vigilance andAnti-corruption Wing, Trichy/the 4th respondent herein on the next day(01.11.2006) making a false allegation that the petitioner demanded a sum ofRs.6,000/- as illegal gratification for registering the case for apetty/bailable offence punishable under Section 294(b) instead of a graveroffence.The further contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the abovesaid complaint on the file of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing of thepolice, they enacted a stage managed trap operation in which the petitioner wasforced to receive a sum of Rs.6,000/- and that thus a case for the offencespunishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 happened to be registered as Crime No.15 of 2006.Contending that the above said case was foisted by the de facto complainant, whowas in the habit of intimidating the officials by giving similar complaintsagainst the officers, who do not budge to his intimidating tactics; that thepolice officials in the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing had also helped himin foisting the case and that the very registration of the case, the trapoperation conducted and the arrest of the police were nothing but misuse ofprocess of law, the petitioner contended that the interest of justice requiredquashing of the said proceedings.On the other hand, it is the clear case of the respondents that inconnection with a scuffle between the two groups during the last Local BodyElection at Perakambi Village on 13.10.2006, one Sathiyakumar of the saidVillage lodged a complaint in writing at 8.30 hrs.on 14.10.2006 itself with theStation House Officer of Siruganur Police Station against the de factocomplainant Srinivasan and his uncle Rajagopal; that the same was registered aspetition No.309 of 2006 even though, the said petition disclosed the commissionof offences of (1) causing annoyance by uttering obscene words in or near publicplace, punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, (2) criminal intimidation to causedeath, punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC and (iii) voluntarily causing hurt,punishable under Section 323 IPC, the petitioner herein wanted the de factocomplainant and his uncle Rajagopal to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe forregistering a case for a lesser offence alone under Section 294(b) IPC; that thede facto complainant Srinivasan was holding out that he had not done anythingwrong and questioned why should a case be booked against him unnecessarily; thatthe petitioner/accused replied that in case of registration of the case forgrave offences, the de facto complainant would have to incur an expenditure ofRs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- towards litigation expenses including advocate's fee;that at that juncture, the de facto complainant pleaded he had no sufficientmeans to arrange for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and hence the petitioner reduced hisdemand of bribe from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.6,000/- and directed the de factocomplainant to bring the said amount the next day and that after directing thede facto complainant to bring the above said amount the next day, the petitionersuo motu registered a case in Crime No.513 of 2006 on 31.10.2006 at 14.00 hrs onthe file of Siruganur Police Station for an offence punishable under Section294(b) IPC on an imaginary occurrence against the de facto complainantSrinivasan and made a false entry in the docket sheet of the petition No. 309 of2006, as if action had been taken by registering a case in Siruganur PoliceStation in crime No.513 of 2006 under Section 294(b) IPC alone.According to the respondents, the de facto complainant Srinivasanlodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruptionWing, Trichy on 01.11.2006 at about 11.00 hrs, based on which immediately CrimeNo.15 of 2006 was registered for an offence punishable under Section 7 ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alone (an offence of attempt to obtaingratification other than legal remuneration).With the above saidcontentions made in their counter statement, the respondents have prayed for thedismissal of the petition for quash.The arguments advanced by Mr.The learned counsel pointed out the allegation found in the FirstInformation Report that the petitioner had, on another occasion, preferred sucha complaint against one Muthukaruppan, Village Administrative Officer ofPerakambi, with the allegation that the said Village Administrative Officerdemanded bribe.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) argued thatthe petition averments had been wrongly coined, as if the case was registeredfor offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after conducting the trap operation; that onthe other hand, the case was registered initially for an offence punishableunder Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alone based on thecomplaint of the de facto complainant; that after successful conduct of the trapoperation, the same was altered by including Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by virtue of a subsequent alterationmemo and that the allegation of mala fide made by the petitioner did not haveany basis at all, as no motive could be alleged against the police in theVigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Trichy for falsely enacting a trap.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,821,468 |
i) Bail Application Nos. 1103 of 2019 and 1104 of 2019 are allowed;::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:59:37 ::: Sajakali Jamadar 6 of 6 903-BA-1103-1104-19.doc::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:59:37 :::ii) The applicants are directed to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 7 of 2019 registered with Karmala Police Station, Solapur on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;iii) The applicant shall report concerned police station once in a month on first Saturday between 10.00 am.to 12.00 pm.v) Observations made in this order are prima facie for grant of bail and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same.vi) Bail Applications stand disposed of accordingly.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:59:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2019 20:59:37 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,824,321 |
The car admittedly was driven by the appellant, he also being its owner.It is his claim, and his word is supported by that of Mukesh Kathuria (RW2), a relative, that the latter (RW2) was also travelling as a passenger in the car at the relevant point of time.MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 1 of 7The dependant family members of Shashi Kant Kiran (the deceased) brought an accident claim case (no.635/2014) before the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal) on 21.08.2009 seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act), impleading the appellant as the sole respondent, he being the driver and owner of the car, it admittedly not being covered by any insurance policy against third party risk for the period in question.The two witnesses examined by claimants, PW2 and PW3, were passengers in the car with the deceased and have affirmed on oath the sequence of events leading to the collision.R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):On 29.09.2008, a motor vehicular accident took place at about 11:30 PM involving two motor vehicles, one being a three wheeler scooter bearing registration no.DL-1RE-6546 (TSR) and the other a Maruti Zen car bearing registration no.DL-9CD-0225 (the car) at a point of time, when both vehicles were moving in the same direction over Tilak Nagar flyover.Three persons were travelling as passengers in TSR, they concededly including Sachin (PW2), Sushil Kumar (PW3) and Shashi Kant Kiran, (he having MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 1 of 7 consequently died).In the claim case, the dependant family members of the deceased, hereinafter referred to as the claimants (first to third respondents) alleged that the accident had occurred due to rash driving of the car by the appellant since it had come at fast speed and had hit the TSR from behind turning it turtle and resulting in injuries suffered by the said three persons, one of whom died in the consequence.It may be mentioned here that the local police had also registered a first information report (FIR) no.367/2008 which was taken up for investigation for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338 & 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The police submitted a detailed accident report (DAR), Ex.PW1/F, before the tribunal on the basis of evidence gathered during the investigation into the said FIR.On being served with the notice, the appellant submitted written statement seeking to contest the claim case, inter-alia, on the ground that the accident had occurred due to negligence on the part of the TSR driver since MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 2 of 7 it was he who had suddenly changed lane coming in the way of the fast extreme right lane and thus in the path of the car which was moving there resulting in the collision.MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 2 of 7The tribunal held inquiry during which the claimants examined, inter- alia, PW2 and PW3, the two other passengers in the TSR who had also suffered injuries and were eye witness to the sequence of events.The appellant, on the other hand, examined himself (RW1) and also relied on the evidence of Mukesh Kathuria (RW2), the sum and substance of their evidence being along the lines of defence taken in the case noted above.The tribunal considered the evidence on record and returned a finding that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the car by the appellant.It proceeded to award compensation in favour of the claimants, in the sum of `15,77,381/- with interest.By the appeal at hand, the appellant seeks to assail the view taken by the tribunal in the judgment dated 17.05.2014 holding him at fault and responsible for the accident, his prime grievance being that the evidence on record has not been properly considered or appreciated.Having heard arguments on both sides and having gone through the tribunal's record, this court agrees with the appellant to the extent that the tribunal has actually not discussed the evidence in entirety before reaching a finding adverse to the defence taken by him (appellant) in the claim case.The tribunal has generally discussed the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and thereafter proceeded to refer vaguely to the documents filed by the claimants MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 3 of 7 to conclude that the accident had indeed occurred due to rash/ negligent driving of the car by the appellant.MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 3 of 7The appellant has relied on Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 758 and Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284 to argue that rash or negligent driving on his part has not been brought home.Unlike the criminal case where the guilt of the person accused of causing accident (and damage) due to rash or negligent driving of a motor vehicle is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, in an inquiry into a claim petition, based on liability in tort, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities.Undoubtedly, the tribunal has short-shifted the issue and has not considered the evidence in entirety but given the fact that this court is the first appellate court and, therefore, the final forum on facts, the evidence on record can always be re-appreciated by this court to reach proper findings.Their respective affidavits (Ex.PW2/A & Ex.PW3/A) show that while the TSR was moving across the flyover, the car had suddenly come from behind at a very high speed, its driver changing lanes and hitting the TSR from its rear side causing the collision.Both the witnesses were cross-examined at length.The effort during cross-examination essentially was to demonstrate that they being passengers in the rear portion of the TSR were not in a position to look behind or to be able to gauge the speed or manner in which the car was approaching the scene.PW2 met the said challenge squarely as he explained that since the car was blowing horn, he had looked behind and seen it coming.Similar is the answer given by the PW3 to identical query during his cross-examination.What is pertinent to note is that the defence did not refute or challenge the evidence of PW2 and PW3 with regard to their statements that the car was also changing lanes when approaching the TSR from behind before the collision took place.As mentioned above, the appellant had also examined himself (as RW1) and relied on the word of his relative Mukesh Kathuria (RW2).Though their versions in their respective affidavits (Ex.RW1/A & Ex.The defence taken by the appellant, however, stood punctured beyond repair when his witness RW2 conceded during his cross-examination that the TSR was ahead of his vehicle in which he was travelling when it was hit from behind.Noticeably, he would not say that TSR was ahead because it had suddenly changed lane at that stage.MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 5 of 7The copy of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW1/F collectively) includes the site plan (page 331 of tribunal record) and copies of the mechanical inspection reports of the two vehicles (pages 343-347 of the tribunal's record).The extent of damages suffered by the two vehicles noted in said documents tell their own story.There is no doubt that the TSR was hit by the fast moving car from behind.The site plan shows that the car was found stationary, after the accident close to the central divider, the evidence showing clearly that the car had hit the divider also after the collision.In the given sequence of events, the burden of explaining as to why the appellant was not in a position to avoid collision against a motor vehicle moving in front was on the appellant.He has clearly and miserably failed to discharge his burden.In these facts and circumstances, the finding returned by the tribunal as to the negligence on the part of appellant does not call for interference.The appeal is, therefore, unmerited and is dismissed.MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 6 of 7The statutory amount, if deposited, shall be refunded.R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) APRIL 19, 2016/ssc MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 7 of 7MAC APP.No. 740/2014 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,828,420 |
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal seems to be arguable, hence admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.3543/2018, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court as under:default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months u/s 467 of IPC RI for 4 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months u/s 468 of IPC RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 6 months Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is aged about 72 years and he is old and infirm person.It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail and the appeal would take considerable time to be disposed of finally, therefore, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, I.A. No.3543/2018 is allowed.Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant-Govind Prasad Goutam shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17.09.2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.Certified copy as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2018.05.10 13:12:45 +05'30'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,834,238 |
The multiple electric contact injuries were suggestive of electric torture and the death was thus opined to be homicidal in nature.LP No.252/2010 Page 2 of 11* Crl.M.A No. 12818/2010 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 122 days in filing the leave petition to appeal.For the reasons stated in the application it is allowed and the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is condoned.L.P No. 252/2010The state has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 21st October, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in S.C. No. Crl.LP No.252/2010 Page 1 of 11 516/2006 titled State Vs.Gajender Kumar Mehta in FIR 485/2005, PS Adarsh Nagar under Section 302/34 and 376(2A) of IPC acquitting the respondent/accused of the said charges.LP No.252/2010 Page 1 of 11The case in brief of the petitioner is that a sweepress got electrocuted on 20th September, 2005 in House No. C-60, First Floor, Rajan Babu Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi from electric wire hanging in the bathroom which had fallen down on the floor.After the sweepress was injured by electrocution Sushil Kumar, younger brother of the accused called Dr. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal, PW-2 who advised him to remove her to some Government hospital.On the advice of said doctor, brothers of the accused/respondent, namely Sushil Kumar and Rupesh @ Rinku, who were present in the house went to a nearby Govt. school to call Smt. Meena, PW-4 another sweepress who came with another sweeper Santosh, PW-5 and removed Babbal, who had been electrocuted, to Dharmatma Hospital from where she was removed to BJRM hospital, however, she was declared brought dead at the said hospital.3. Information regarding the death of Babbal was sent to police station, Adarsh Nagar and after preliminary investigation, a case for the offence under Section 304A of IPC was registered and thereafter Gajender, alleged owner of the house where the sweepress Babbal was electrocuted, was arrested.Since Section-304A of IPC is a bailable Crl.LP No.252/2010 Page 2 of 11 offence, Gajender/respondent was released on bail.The post mortem of the body of the sweepress Babbal, however, revealed 18 external injuries on her body, out of which 14 were electric contact wounds and her body also had injuries on the inner surface of left side and also on right side of labia majora which were ante mortem.The injuries on labia majora, injury no. 17 and 18 were found to be on account of blunt force being used being consistent with forcible sexual intercourse prior to her death.Certain hairs were also found on the chest of the dead body which were taken into possession by the doctors.The cloths of the dead body as well as scalp hair sample besides the vaginal swap from orifice and walls were also taken.On the basis of the postmortem examination report, the initial offence under Section 304A of IPC was replaced by offence under Section 302/376 of IPC and the respondent/accused was re-arrested.On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge for offences under Section 302/376 IPC was framed, however, respondent/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.During the trial, prosecution examined 30 witnesses whereas after the statement of the accused/respondent under Section 313 of Crl.Procedure Code, four Crl.LP No.252/2010 Page 3 of 11 witnesses were also examined by the accused/respondent in his defence.LP No.252/2010 Page 3 of 11After considering the testimonies of the witnesses and the documents established on record, the Trial Court has held that the factum of Babbal being electrocuted and dying in the house of the respondent is not disputed.The report of the autopsy surgeon that the deceased Babbal was also raped has also not been disputed.What has been disputed is whether the respondent has done it or not.In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge considered two points, i.e., whether the respondent was the owner of the premises in question whether the offense was committed and whether he was present in the house at the time of the incident.The Trial Court noticed that the prosecution witnesses namely, PW-4 Meena, PW-5 Santosh, PW-7 Kalawati, PW-13 Naveen, PW-14 Deepak Jain and PW-19 Vishal Goel have not supported the case of the prosecution about the presence of the respondent/accused at the time of incident.The Trial Court rejected the plea of the prosecution that under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to explain that the respondent was not present at the time of incident was on the respondent.Instead the trial Court reiterated that it was for the prosecution to prove the same.LP No.252/2010 Page 4 of 11LP No.252/2010 Page 4 of 11The evidence of the respondent's witnesses was also considered whose testimonies supported the plea of the respondent that he was admitted to BSA Hospital at the time of incident.The Trial Court also based its inference of respondent not being present at the place of incident on account of the mobile phone record of the respondent which was proved by DW-4 Anuj Bhatia, the Nodal Officer.The mobile phone record unequivocally reflected that the cell phone of the accused/respondent was in the area of Rohini where BSA hospital is situated.LP No.252/2010 Page 5 of 11The Trial Court also noticed that the brothers of the accused, namely, Sushil Kumar and Rupesh could not be arrested by the police and are still absconding but since the accused has been able to establish that he was not present at the time of incident and the prosecution has failed to establish his presence, it cannot be held that the respondent had raped the deceased and murdered her.The learned Sessions Judge has also held that no ownership document of the House No. C-60, First Floor, Rajan Babu Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi has been produced by the prosecution.However, even if it is established that the respondent/accused is the owner, mere fact that he is the owner would not lead to the conclusion that the respondent is guilty of offence of rape and murdering the deceased Babbal.The mere statement of PW-6 Charan Pal that his wife told him a few days ago that people in the house bearing No. C-60, First Floor, Rajan Babu Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi were having an evil eye on her, does not point to the guilt of the accused/respondent nor on the basis of such a testimony any culpability can be inferred against the respondent.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,349,298 |
1 In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas and The Hon'ble Mr Justice Asim Kumar Ray C.R.M. No.10344 of 2013 Miltan Sk & Anr.Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J : The two petitioners accused of offences under ss.302/34 IPC and in custody from June 10, 2013 and June 17, 2013 respectively are seeking bail under s.439 CrPC.Advocate for the petitioners has submitted as follows.The charge-sheet has already been submitted.Hence the petitioners' detention is not necessary for investigation.They are local people and there is no question of absconding.Out of six charge-sheeted accused four have been granted bail.The petitioners stand on the same footing as the accused on bail.The case stated in the FIR does not implicate the petitioners.Advocate for the State has produced the case diary and has disputed the correctness of the submission that the petitioners stand on the same footing as the accused on bail.He has said that the wife of the deceased gave information leading to registration of the FIR.The eyewitnesses clearly stated how the petitioners with the other accused had murdered the defacto complainant's husband.The first bail was granted by this court on February 7, 2012 in CRM No.1714 of 2012 (p.22).By the order one Mojid Sk. was granted bail on the grounds that the materials in the case diary did not reveal his involvement.The eyewitness statement dated September 12, 2011 does not reveal Mojid's direct involvement, though his name was mentioned by the other eyewitnesses.Then this court granted bail to one Bhuttu Sk. @ Serajul Sk.on December 19, 2012 in CRM No.16607 of 2012 (p.26).The order is quoted below:-"The Petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Heard the parties.It is needless to state that the Petitioner must co-operate with the trial on each and every date and in the event there is non-cooperation, the prosecution shall be at liberty to pray for cancellation of this bail.The bail application is disposed of."Thereafter this court granted bail to one Jamat Sk. @ Ali and one Ali Hossain on May 28, 2013 in CRM No.7392 of 2013 (p.31).The order is quoted below:-"Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties.Perused the Case Diary.Considering the above fact and the case diary produced before us, we allow the prayer for bail made by the petitioners.Let the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount one of whom must be local subject to the satisfaction of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Murshidabad.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM.(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) (Asim Kumar Ray, J) sb
|
['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.
|
72,350,889 |
Inother words, Tribhuwan Singh and Chandra BhawanSingh are real brothers being the two sons of Smt.Makoi Devi.The deceased-Satyawati was the wife ofTribhuwan Singh.Satyawati stayed in her matrimonial homewith her husband for 8 days and then returned to herparents’ house.It is the case of the prosecution that the membersof Satyawati in-laws family, which included the fouraccused named above, were harassing her while shewas staying in her in-laws house for not bringing anydowry in her marriage.The family members had beendemanding "motor cycle" in dowry.Due to constantharassment given to her by the aforementioned four 5 accused persons, it had become unbearable for her tostay in the house and, therefore, she returned to herparents’ house and started living with her parents.On 15.03.1984, Jwala Singh and ChandraBhawan Singh went to Satywati's parents’ house andbrought Satyawati back to her in-laws house.On18.03.1984 (after 3 days), Satyawati was found deadin her in-laws house.She died due to gun shotinjuries.Chandra Bhawan Singh-the elder brother ofTribhuwan Singh lodged a FIR in the Police Station,Kishanpur on the same day, i.e., 18.03.1984,informing therein that Satyawati committed suicide inthe house by gun shot injuries and that her dead bodywas lying in the courtyard of the house.One FIR wasalso lodged by village Pradhan.It was registered as FIRNo.30/1984 (GD No. 14/84) at PS Kishanpur.Thebrother of the deceased-Rajender (PW-1) lodged the 6 FIR on the same day stating therein that all the fouraccused named above have killed his sister because ofnon-fulfillment of their demand for dowry.On 19/20.04.1984, all the four accused personswere arrested.In the investigation, the police recoveredthe Gun at the instance of Tribhuwan Singh from hishouse, which was alleged to be used in commission ofthe offence.The post mortem of the dead body wasperformed which disclosed that Satyawati wasmurdered.Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.These appeals are filed by the accused persons against the final judgment and order dated 20.05.2014Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by passed by the High Court of Judicature at AllahabadASHA SUNDRIYALDate: 2018.05.0117:54:04 IST in Criminal Appeal No.1114 of 1986 whereby the HighReason:In order to appreciate the issues involved in theappeals, it is necessary to set out the facts of the case.Four persons, namely, (1) Tribhuwan Singh(appellant), (2) Chandra Bhawan Singh (appellant) (3)Smt.Makoi Devi and (4) Jwala Singh were prosecutedfor committing murder of one lady by name"Satyawati".The Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur by hisjudgment dated 07.05.1986 in Sessions Trial No. 291of 1984 acquitted one accused-Jwala Singh butconvicted the remaining three accused.TribhuwanSingh was convicted under Section 302/34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 2 “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment forlife and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default ofpayment of fine, to further undergo rigorousimprisonment for one year.Smt. Makoi Devi wasconvicted under Section 302/34 IPC and wassentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.ChandraBhawan Singh was convicted under Section 32/34 IPCand was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for lifeand further convicted under Section 201 IPC and wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fiveyears.All the sentences of Chandra Bhawan Singhwould run concurrently.The aforementioned three-convicted accused feltaggrieved of their respective conviction and sentenceawarded by the Additional Sessions Judge filed appealin the High Court.The High Court, by impugnedjudgment, allowed the appeal in respect of oneaccused – Smt. Makoi Devi and accordingly acquitted 3 her from the charges leveled against her but dismissedthe appeal in respect of remaining two accusedpersons, namely, (1) Tribhuwan Singh and (2)Chandra Bhawan Singh and accordingly confirmedtheir conviction and the sentence awarded by theAdditional Sessions Judge.The remaining two accused felt aggrieved by theirrespective conviction and award of sentence filedseparate special leave petitions in this Court.So far as SLP(Crl.) No. 7049 of 2014 isconcerned, it is filed by Chandra Bhawan Singhwhereas SLP(Crl.) No. 7664 of 2014 is concerned, it isfiled by Tribhuwan Singh.In both these special leave petitions, thechallenge is to the impugned judgment of the HighCourt, which has confirmed their conviction andsentence.The police then made further investigation,collected evidence, obtained ballistic report from theexperts and recorded the statements of the accusedpersons and other witnesses.On 09.06.1984 the police filed Challan.The casewas committed to the Additional Sessions Judge,Fatehpur for trial.The Additional Sessions Judgeframed charges against the four accused persons forcommission of the offences punishable under Sections 7 302/34 and 201 of IPC read with Section 4 of the DPAct.The prosecution examined six witnesses to provetheir case.By order dated 07.05.1986, the AdditionalSessions Judge acquitted Jwala Singh finding noevidence against him but convicted Tribhuwan Singh(husband), Smt. Makoi Devi (mother-in-law) andChandra Bhawan Singh (brother-in-law) andsentenced them to undergo life imprisonment forkilling Satyawati.Thribhuwan Singh, Smt Makoi Devi and ChandraBhawan Singh felt aggrieved and filed appeal in theHigh Court at Allahabad against their conviction andsentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge.By impugned judgment, the High Courtdismissed the appeal filed by Tribhuwan Singh andChandra Bhawan Singh and accordingly upheld theirconviction and sentence.However, the High Court 8 acquitted Smt. Makoi Devi (mother-in-law) from all thecharges finding no evidence against her.It is against this judgment, the accusedTribhuwan Singh and Chandra Bhawan Singh havefiled the present two appeals by way of special leave inthis Court.He was the complainant.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
723,679 |
The appellants being aggrieved by their convictions under Sections 392 and 397, I.P.C. have preferred this appeal before this Court.They have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, and on default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months.As per the prosecution case, on 2nd June, 1986 the accused persons had entered the shop of Babulal while he was in the process of closing.One shutter was already put and one shutter was still to be put.They entered the shop at about 9.15 p.m. and asked for a sum of Rs. 1001/- from the injured Babulal and asked him the reason why he had offered only two 'Ilachis' when the three persons had come to the shop the previous day.At the relevant time injured Babulal and his brother Munnalal (PW 4) were present and they were settling the account.Babulal was having Rs. 400/- in his hands.Ramsahay and Niranjan asked to hand over Rs. 1000/-.On refusal of the complainant Babulal, Ramsahay inflicted one injury on his right arm with a knife.Another injury was caused on left side of chest by knife.Rs. 400/- which the complainant had in his hands were snatched by Niranjan Singh.It is alleged that one more boy was accompanying the accused persons whose name was not known.The incident was witnessed by Santosh Kumar (PW 3) and Jinendra Kumar.Injured Babulal was referred for medical examination to Dr. Anand Singhai (PW 7) who found two injuries.One injury 1" x " was found on the left side of chest below the nipple and the other injury " x " was on the left arm.ORDER Arun Mishra, J.Both the injuries were caused by hard and sharp weapon.The clothes of Babulal were seized which carried corresponding sign of insertion of knife.From the possession of accused Niranjan as per information given by him, a knife was recovered.Accused Sitaram was put up for identification parade by Mulle Singh (PW 2) who was Sarpanch of the village.The identification parade was allegedly held near the paper mill.The money which was allegedly looted could not be recovered from the accused.The accused abjured the guilt.Accused Sitaram contended that he was falsely implicated in the case.Accused Niranjan took the defence that he was standing in front of the shop of Munnalal and accused Rarrisahay was demanding money from Babulal which was due from him.On that altercation took place between Munnalal and Ramsahay and there was a scuffle.The accused intervened and separated the two.As the accused (Niranjan) sided Ramasahay, his name was also mentioned in the array of accused.Ramsahay took the plea that Rs. 1050/- were due from Babulal on account of purchase of 'Ghana' which was payable to his uncle and when money was demanded an altercation took place.No incident of robbery took place.Knife was not recovered from him.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is a case where no offence under Section 392 or 397 of I.P.C. is made out.It is submitted that no property was seized which goes to indicate that the accused persons have been falsely implicated.No grievous hurt was found, therefore, Section 397, I.P.C. was not attracted.His further submission is that from the evidence it is clear that identification parade was not conducted.According to the prosecution identification parade was conducted by Mulle Singh (PW 2) but he has not supported the prosecution case.Suresh Kumar (PW 5) witness to the alleged identification parade has also not supported the alleged holding of identification parade.Another witness to the identification parade has not been examined.The first information report alleged to have been lodged by Babulal (PW 1) was in fact not lodged by him but by his brother Munnalal (PW 4).Learned counsel placed reliance on Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1980 SC 638 : (1980 Cri LJ 446) and Bandi Mallaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1160 : (1980 Cri LJ 914).Learned counsel appearing for the State Shri Rajiv Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, has submitted that there is nothing to disbelieve the version of injured witness Babulal (PW 1) supported by his brother Munnalal (PW 4) and also by another witness Santosh Kumar (PW 3).He submitted that offences Under Sections 392 and 397 are clearly made out and the judgment and finding recorded by the learned trial Court call for no interference.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as it is not proved that any grievous hurt was caused offence under Section 397, IPC is made out, is taken up first for consideration.He stated that two injuries were found on the person of injured Babulal -- one on the right side of chest below the nipple 1 cm x cm and the other on the left arm cm x cm.The depth of the injuries was not mesured by the doctor.In the absence of measurement of depth and other evidence to show that the injuries were grievous in nature, it cannot be held that any grievous hurt was suffered by injured Babulal.However, it is found from medical evidence that he had suffered two incised wound and one of them was on the chest.It is clear that attempt was made to cause grievous hurt.The second submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with respect to identification of Sitaram.It may be seen that identification memo Ex. P/2 is on record.The identification parade was held on 28-7-1986, i.e. after about two months of the incident.No doubt about it that there is over-writing in column No. 2 of the date of holding-of the identification parade.Whatever that may be, identification parade was allegedly held in the presence of two witnesses Sureshchandra and Abhaykumar.Suresh was examined as P.W. 5 but he has not supported the holding of identification parade.Another witness Abhay Kumar ought to have been examined by the prosecution but the prosecution has not chosen him to support the identification particularly when Mulle Singh (PW 2) who is said to have conducted the identification parade himself has not supported the said fact.As per identification memo (Ex. P/2) it was mentioned that it was conducted near the paper mill.Exact place is not mentioned in the memo.Santosh (PW 3) has stated that the identification parade was conducted inside the paper mill.Babulal (PW 1) has deposed in paragraph 4 of his evidence that identification parade was conducted in the police station itself.Thus, holding of identification parade near paper mill is totally false and it is apparent that prosecution has failed to prove that identification parade was properly conducted.There is no satisfactory evidence on the point of holding of identification parade with respect to accused Sitaram.Question arises is whether for want of proper identification parade accused Sitaram is entitled for acquittal.In the first information report it was mentioned that three persons came within the shop.Name of one person was not known to complainant Babulal (PW 1).Munnalal (PW 4) has stated in para 11 of his deposition that only two of the accused persons had entered inside the shop.He has stated that Ramsahay and Niranjan had entered the shop.Thus there is contradiction with respect to whether the third accused person, namely, Sitaram had entered the shop.For the said reason, accused Sitaram is entitled to benefit of doubt and he deserves acquittal as his identification has not been proved coupled with the fact that it is doubtful whether the third person had entered the shop.In MarudanalAugustiv.The High Court reversed the acquittal.In the said case the incident took place on 23-6-71 at the report was lodged in the mid-night.The police station was at distance of about 20 k. ms. from the place of occurrence.The names of P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 were not mentioned in the F.I.R. Even though P.Ws. 2 and 3 have been mentioned in the F.I.R. as having given first aid to the deceased it was not mentioned that these two witnesses were present when the deceased was actually assaulted.He has lodged the first information report and has admitted his signature on the F.I.R. (Ex. P/ 2).May be that he has stated in para 6 of the deposition that owing to the injuries caused he was taken to the Police Station and at that time his brother Munnalal had accompanied him to the Police Station.He has also mentioned that his brother had lodged the report.He was not further cross-examined whether his signature was obtained or not or whether the FIR was reduced in writing in his presence.When he has owned the F.I.R. and has owned his signature, he should have been cross-examined further by the defence so as to destroy the veracity of the F.I.R. It has not been suggested that F.I.R. was not lodged when it was written.There is no evidence to show that the F.I.R. was lodged subsequently.Thus merely because in the particular portion of deposition of the complainant he stated that his brother had accompanied him and lodged the report, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. is an unreliable piece of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants particularly in view of the version in the F.I.R. and the fact that it contains the signature of the complainant.Whether offence of robbery is made out or not is another submission addressed at the bar.Babulal (PW 1) has clearly mentioned that the accused had stated that when they had come on earlier occasion only two 'Ilachis' were given whereas they were three in number and they had raised a demand for Rs. 1001/-.He also clearly stated that a sum of Rs. 400/- was snatched away.It is amply proved from his evidence that injuries were inflicted on his arm and chest by means of knife.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was dispute with respect of the payment of money.Even if there was some dispute as suggested by the learned counsel, it was not open to the accused persons to enter into the shop and take away money at the point of knife.The evidence of Babulal (P.W.-1) has been supported by Santosh Kumar (PW-3) who was standing outside the shop at the relevant time and also supported by Munnalal (P.W.-4) and there is no infirmity in the evidence of these witnesses.Thus, the offence under Section 392,I.P.C. is clearly made out against the tw.o accused persons, namely, Niranjan Singh and Ramsahay.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Santosh (PW-3) has deposed on the basis of what was informed to him by complainant Babulal.A close scrutiny of the deposition of P.W. 3 Santosh Kumar it is clear that he was standing in front of the shop at the relevant time.He has clearly deposed that he has seen Ramsahay and Niranjan Singh in the shop along with another person Sitaram.Ramsahay and Niranjan both have inflicted injuries on Babulal by knife and thereafter the accused persons ran away.No doubt the witness has stated that the fact of snatching away Rs. 400/- was told to him by Babulal but merely for this reason it cannot be said that he did not witness the incident.He has clearly stated that while causing the inj uries he was at some distance and had thus seen the incident.He has not deposed that he had seen snatching the money but he deposed , that Babulal had informed him about the same.Thus, his evidence cannot be said to be hearsay so far as causing of injuries to the complainant is concerned.The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is no common intention for committing the offence under Section 397, I.P.C. In this respect, F.I.R. mentions that Ramsahay and Niranjan both had entered the shop and asked for a sum of Rs. 1001/- and stated that in the event of non-payment the complainant would be killed.Further, the complainant Babulal (PW-1) has stated that Niranjan and Ramsahay were carrying knife at the relevant time.He further stated that both Ramsahay and Niranjan had inflicted injuries with knife.Knives have been recovered from both.Santosh (PW-3) also stated that Ramsahay and Niranjan both had inflicted injuries.Munnalal (PW-4) has stated that Ramsahay and Niranajan were carrying knives and both had inflicted injuries.In these circumstances, convictions of both the appellants under Sections 397 and 392, I.P.C. and sentence of R.I. for seven years on both counts do not call for any interference.In the result, the appeal in so far as it relates to appellant Sitaram is allowed.His conviction and sentence Under Sections 392 and 397, I.P.C. are set aside and he is acquitted.The appeal is dismissed so far as appellants Niranjan Singh and Ramsahay are concerned.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,368,027 |
[2] As per the prosecution story, the prosecutrix (PW-6) is a resident of Sehore and her husband is a labour.The appellant was her neighbour since last 5 years.On 27.11.2011 he took her to Nagjhiri by train and bus for the purpose of Which-craft.Thereafter he took her to a forest inthe night at 2.00 AM and committed rape on her.He has also assaulted her by Iron Chimta and due to which she received injuries on her head, hand and back.The prosecutrix lodged the report Ex.P/8 in the Police Station Mohan - Badodiya.She was sent for medical examination and the usual investigation was completed and accused was arrested and Iron Chimta was recovered from his possession.The clothes were sent to FSL and after completing the investigation, challan was submitted.The trial was committed to the Sessions Court and the appellant was tried under Sections 376, 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC.The appellant has denied the charges, therefore, the trial commenced.By judgment dated 18.03.2013 the learned Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced him as stated above.Hence, the present appeal before this Court.[3] By order dated 24.062013 the appeal was admitted for final hearing.In the year 2016 the appellant filed an application for suspension of jail sentence.By order dated 09.05.2016, this Court has rejected the application.During pendency of this appeal, the appellant remained in the jail and completed the sentence.Vide letter dated 21.03.2018 the Deputy Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Shajapur has informed that the appellant has been released on 18.07.2017 after undergoing the entire sentences including the period of remission.Since the appellant has already undergone the sentences, therefore, this appeal is not required to be considered on the ground of sentences.[4] So far as the conviction is concerned, Shri Manish Sankhala, learned counsel for the appellant hasargued that appellant and the prosecutrix were known to each other and the appellant was giving treatment to her husband.There was omission and contradiction in the statement of the prosecutrix and she has not correctly disclosed the name of her husband and color of her petticoat.Independent witnesses have turned hostile.Therefore, the appellant was entitled for the benefit of doubt.[5] Shri R. Joshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/State argued in support of the judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.[6] The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Sunil Sharma (PW-5) who gave his medical report (Ex.P/7) and according to which the prosecutrix sustained number of injuries on her body.The prosecutrix was examined as PW-6 who has stated that the appellant took her to Nagjhiri on the ground that he is having some medicines for her husband.They reached Berchha near about 5.00 PM in the evening by Taxi.The appellant consumed liquor and took her to forest and gave a blow of Iron Chimta and thereafter he committed rape on her entire night and thereafter he ran away.Then she met with one stranger who took her to the Police Station where she lodged the FIR and thereafter medically examined by Dr. Geeta Rewadiya (PW-7) who gave indefinite opinion about commission of rape.Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the judgment.The learned Sessions Court has duly appreciated the evidence which came on record.The version of the prosecutrix remained unchanged.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,374,033 |
The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 5.9.2014 passed by Third ASJ, District Guna in Cr.Appeal No.93 of 2013 affirming the judgment dated 21.2.2012 passed by learned JMFC, Guna in Cr.Case No.946 of 2012 whereby, the applicant has been convicted under section 452 and 354 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year's RI with fine of Rs.200/- and one year's RI with fine of Rs.200/- respectively with default stipulation.As per prosecution case, on 10.4.2012 at about 9 PM applicant- accused entered the house of complainant, caught her hands, pressed her breasts and outraged her modesty.On raising alarm, son of prosecutrix, Chandu came for her rescue and seeing him, the appellant fled away from the spot hurling filthy abuses to them.He has been facing trial since 2012 and he has already undergone jail sentence for about seven and half months.Hence, prayed that while awarding sentence, a lenient view may be adopted and he may be sentenced to the sentence already undergone by him.Learned counsel for the state has formally opposed the prayer.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and the recorded evidence, it is concluded that the findings recorded by both the courts below in convicting the applicant-accused under section 452 and 354 of IPC are based on proper reasonings.Hence, the prayer made by the applicant appears to be reasonable.With the above modification, this revision stands disposed of.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 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.