id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
72,374,428 |
And In the matter of: Abhi Sarkar @ Abhik Sarkar & Ors.The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Bongaon Police Station Case No. 359 of 2013 dated 02.05.2013 under Sections 354/509/306 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have also considered the case diary.There is a direct allegation made against the petitioner No.1, Abhi Sarkar @ Abhik Sarkar.In our opinion, the Petitioner No.1, Abhi Sarkar @ Abhik Sarkar, does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.As regards the other Petitioners, we think that their custodial interrogation is not required in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) ALLOWED 2 and 3 2
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
723,828 |
R. P. Sharma for the Appellants.Hardev Singh for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave isdirected against the order of the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt in Criminal Revision No. 909 of 1977, whereby the HighCourt confirmed the order passed by the Additional SessionsJudge, Ludhiana on October 19, 1977 directing that theattendance of the two appellants (Joginder Singh and308Ram Singh be procured and they be ordered to stand trialtogether with three accused who had been committed to hisCourt to stand their trial for offences under ss. 452, 308and 323 each read with 34 I.P.C.The facts giving rise to the appeal may be stated thus:At the instance of one Mohinder Singh a criminal case wasregistered at Police Station Dakha against Joginder Singh,Ram Singh (the two appellants), Bhan Singh, Darshan Singhand Ranjit Singh on the allegation that each one armed witha "Toki" had entered his house on April 30, 1977 at 10.00a.m. and had caused a number of injuries to Ajaib Singh andBir Singh who were present in the house, with the respectiveweapons.It was further alleged by Mohinder Singh thatDarshan Singh opened the attack with "Toki" blow fromreverse side on Ajaib Singh's head whereas Ram Singh haddealt him blows with the butt of his gun and when Bir Singhtried to rescue Ajaib Singh, Joginder Singh and Ranjit Singhgave blows on his head and that on medical examination AjaibSingh was found to have four injuries by blunt weapons andBir Singh was found to have suffered one injury with a bluntweapon.During the investigation the police found JoginderSingh and Ram Singh (the appellants) to be innocent and,therefore a charge-sheet was submitted by the police onlyagainst the remaining three accused Bhan Singh, DarshanSingh and Ranjit Singh.The learned Magistrate who held apreliminary inquiry committed the three accused Bhan Singh,Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh to the Sessions Court and thelearned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, framed chargesagainst the three accused for offence:, under ss.452/308/323 read with s. 34 I.P.C. but at the trial evidenceof Mohinder Singh and Ajaib Singh was recorded during thecourse of which both of them implicated Joginder Singh andRam Singh in the incident.Thereupon at the instance ofMohinder Singh, the Public Prosecutor moved an applicationbefore the learned Additional Sessions Judge for summoningand trying Joginder Singh and Ram Singh along with the threeaccused, who were already facing their trial.Theapplication was opposed by the counsel for the accusedprincipally on the ground that the Sessions Judge had nojurisdiction or power to summon the two appellants anddirect them to be made accused to stand their trial alongwith three accused because they had neither been charge-sheeted nor committed and the Sessions Court had nojurisdiction or power directly to take cognizance againstthem in respect of any offences said to have been committedby them.The learned Additional Sessions Judge negatived thesaid contention and presumably exercising his powers unders.319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 passed anorder on October 19, 1977 directing that the attendance ofthe two appellants309be procured and further directing that they should standtheir trial together with the three accused.The appellants have come up in appeal to this Courtby special leave.The appellant was one of the 15 persons mentioned as theassailants in the First Information Report.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,392,686 |
, P.S. Hari Nagar u/s 307/498A IPC whereby the appellant was convicted for offence u/s 307 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five months.Police machinery was set in motion on receipt of DD No.6A regarding quarrel at 22/5 Prem Nagar, Double Storey, Janakpuri, New Delhi on which SI Ajay Kumar Gupta along with Constable Sita Ram went to the spot where father of the accused met the SI and informed him that his son Tarun Kant had injured his wife Seema with axe and his neighbour Gurvinder Singh had taken her to DDU hospital for treatment.The bed sheet and pillow stained with blood were lying on the floor of the room Crl.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 1 of 7 along with some hairs.After leaving the Constable for preservation of the spot, SI Ajay Kumar went to DDU hospital and found injured admitted over there.SDM Ms. Anju Mangla was informed who came to the hospital.The doctor declared the injured fit for statement.On the instructions of the SDM and in her presence, SI Ajay Kumar Gupta recorded the statement of the injured which became the bed rock of investigation.FIR was registered.The blood stained articles were taken into possession.MLC and X-ray of the report of the victim were collected.PW1 - Mr. Suraj Bhan is the father of the accused/appellant and he had deposed that the appellant got married to Seema on 26.011.2004 and it was his second marriage.Out of the wedlock, one son was born who was aged about four years at the time of the incident.The appellant and his wife were having strained relations from second month of their marriage.When the son was born in October, 2006, the appellant took his wife to DDU Hospital on motorbike, but left her outside the hospital on road.She was taken to hospital by the witness and his wife.Thereafter the appellant did not visit his wife after delivery and whole expenses of delivery were paid by the witness.He further deposed that appellant/accused was in the habit of taking liquor and used to quarrel with his wife regularly.Ten/thirteen days prior to the incident, the accused/appellant brought an axe and sword to the house.On enquiry, he replied that he had brought the same for performing pooja of Mata.He took the axe and sword to the house of his neighbour Tinku and handed the same over to him.The accused/appellant brought another axe from the market.However, he did not come to know about the same.On the fateful day i.e. 29.12.2010 at about 4.30/5 pm on hearing the cries of his grandson Govind "mere maa ko maar diya", he came out of his room and opened the room of the accused/appellant and saw that accused Crl.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 3 of 7 was attacking his wife with axe.She was trying to save herself.When he reached there, accused/appellant had already attacked 4/5 times and was still attacking her with axe.He tried to save Seema but accused/appellant pushed him.He opened the door of his house and went outside and raised noise and called for help.In the meantime, Seema also reached the main door of the house.Accused/appellant again attacked her with axe two times and ran away.Neighbours took Seema to DDU Hospital.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 6 of 7The conduct of the appellant also reflects that although grievous injuries were caused by him on the person of his wife on 29.12.2010, after inflicting injuries he fled away from the spot.After registration of FIR, he could not be arrested.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.During the course of investigation, accused was arrested.He was got medically examined.Exhibits were sent to FSL.After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.Charge for offence u/s 307 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 1 of 7In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 16 witnesses.The statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C which was one of denial simplicitor.After weighing the relevant evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for offence u/s 307 IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.Aggrieved, present appeal has been preferred.I have heard Mr. Dinesh Malik, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.M.N.Dudeja, learned APP for the State.The appellant sent an application bearing No.8317/14 from jail submitting that he is not challenging the appeal on merits.However, according to him he has remained in jail for almost 3-1/2 years and as such he be released on the period already undergone by him in jail.On the other hand learned Crl.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 2 of 7 APP for the State opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the victim is none else but the wife of the appellant to whom grievous injuries were caused by the appellant.It was by chance that she survived.However the accused had left no stone unturned to inflict so many injuries on her person with axe that she would have died.Under the circumstances, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, no leniency is warranted in the matter.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 2 of 7His testimony was substantially corroborated by the victim Seema who in addition deposed that the accused used to take her entire salary for the home expenses and quarrel with her.In the year 2008, accused gave beatings to her and damaged her ear drum for which she remained under treatment for about one month in DDU Hospital.She further deposed that accused kept on attacking her with axe till he was sure that she was finished.Despite cross examination nothing could be elicited to discredit the testimony of both these witnesses who were none else but the father and wife of the accused respectively.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 3 of 7Moreover, testimony of PW1 - Suraj Bhan that accused had brought axe and sword 10/15 days prior to the incident which he handed over to the neighbour for safe custody finds corroboration from PW3 - Parvidner Singh Gulati who has deposed that 10/15 days prior to the incident, father of accused Suraj Bhan came to his office-cum-house and handed over one sword and axe for safe custody and told him that the same had been brought by his son Tarun Kant and he was fearing that his son might not do something wrong with his daughter-in-law.After the incident, he handed over the sword and axe to the police officials which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A.Further, PW5 - Gurusharan Singh and PW6 - Gurvinder Singh corroborated the testimony of PW1 by deposing that on coming to know Crl.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 4 of 7 about the quarrel at the house of Suraj Bhan, they went there and saw Seema - wife of accused - lying on the floor and she was bleeding heavily.They were informed by father of accused that accused had hit Seema with axe and after attacking her accused had run away.They removed Seema to DDU Hospital.On receipt of information, SDM Ms. Anju Mangla reached the hospital and recorded statement of Seema Ex.PW2/A wherein she narrated the entire incident about inflicting injuries on her person by the accused.Further when the Investigating Officer of the case reached the spot, he found blood lying on the ground as well as on the bedsheet and pillow.Blood-stained axe was also lying outside the house.As such, blood stained bed sheet, pillow, axe, earth control, blood stained earth control, marble from the bedroom and outside, blood stained hair and cotton from the spot were seized.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 4 of 7Moreover, ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses find due corroboration from the medical evidence, which reflects that injured Seema was removed to hospital where her MLC Ex.PW8/A was prepared and the injuries on her person were opined to be grievous.The testimony of injured that accused kept on attacking her with axe till he was sure that she was finished shows actus reus on the part of accused and proves mens rea.Learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused was rightly convicted for offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.As regards the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant be sentenced to the period already undergone inasmuch as he has remained in jail for a period of more than three years and six months, this submission does not hold water inasmuch as Section 307 IPC provides for attempt to murder and the punishment for attempt to murder.Different Crl.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 5 of 7 punishments have been prescribed therein.A bare perusal of this section goes to show that it can be classified in three parts:(i) If the accused does any act with such intention or knowledge and circumstances that if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder then he is to be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and fine.(ii) If hurt is caused to such person then punishment is harsher and the offender is liable either to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and fine.As such, after initiating proceedings against him, he was declared as proclaimed offender.He could be arrested only on 08.04.2012 and thereafter supplementary challan was filed against him, which also goes to show that after inflicting such severe injuries on the person of his wife, the accused neither bothered to inquire about her well being, so much so, he was not even concerned with the welfare of his minor child Govind who was only aged about four years at the time of incident.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no further leniency in the matter is called for.Under the circumstances, the appeal being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed.A copy of this judgment be sent to Superintendent Jail for information.Appellant be informed through Superintendent Jail.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.The appeal stands disposed of.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE AUGUST 08, 2014 as/rd Crl.A. No. 1037/2013 Page 7 of 7A. No. 1037/2013 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,394,573 |
Process of criminal law was set into motion when at around 10.50 P.M. on March 18, 2007, SI Raj Kumar PW-8, recorded DD No.37A, Ex.PW-8/A, noting therein that an unknown person has informed over the telephone that a person is lying dead in a street behind Shadipur Metro Station.2. Being handed over a copy of DD No.37A, accompanied by Ct.Anil Kumar PW-16, SI Jitender Tiwari PW-18, proceeded to the street behind Shadipur Metro Station where a person named Mukesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Deceased') was lying unconscious.In the meantime, a PCR van reached the spot and removed the deceased to Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital where the deceased was declared brought dead as recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-23/A.A.No.356/2011 Page 1 of 17At the hospital Rajnish PW-4 met SI Jitender Tiwari who claimed to have knowledge as to how the deceased was injured.PW-3/C.The statement Ex.PW-4/A of Rajnish, in Hindi, loosely translated reads as under:-"I reside at the house bearing Municipal No.J-503, Gali No.3, Prem Nagar, Patel Nagar with my parents.Presently, I am working at RJ Credits, 8/47, first floor, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 8 and assigned the task of distribution of pamphlets.The deceased and two others persons viz. Sanju and Sanjeet work with me at RJ Credits.One month ago my friend Jona introduced us (he, Sanju, Sanjeet and deceased) to Ajay Malhtora @ Lucky in connection with some work.Ajay asked us about our remaining associates upon which I told him that I have not been able to meet his other associates.For about ten-fifteen minutes Ajay Crl.A.No.356/2011 Page 2 of 17 engaged us in some casual conversation and told us that he has informed our remaining associates and they have come in the street behind Shadipur Metro station.He further told us that we (he, Sanju, Sanjeet and deceased) should go there, he (Ajay) and his associates are also coming there and he would pay them their wages there.The four of us went to the street behind metro station.In the meantime, Ajay and his six associates namely, Sagar @ Chubu, Rajesh @ Ramka, Rahul Kumar, Karan @ Vicky, Ravi and Rahul Kohli who are residents of Shadi Khampur and New Ranjeet Nagar also came there.I have seen the aforesaid six associates of Ajay along with him on previous occasions and have also met them.On reaching the street Ajay and his associates surrounded them from all four sides and suddenly attacked them.Sagar @ Chubu had an open knife in his hand and Rajesh @ Ramka had an iron punch in his right hand.Ajay exhorted his associates to the effect that four of us should not be able to leave alive today and that we should be finished upon which all of them (Ajay and his six associates) started beating them.Rajesh @ Ramka caused injuries to me and Sanju with iron punch.Karan, Ravi and Rahul Kohli one by one gave beatings to me, Sanju and Sanjeet.While we were trying to run to save our lives Rahul Kohli snatched my mobile phone having number 9213189021 from his pocket.Rahul Kumar and Ajay @ Lucky caught hold of the deceased from right and left sides respectively and Sagar stabbed him (deceased) in his stomach with the open knife held by him whereupon the deceased fell on the ground.I, Sanju and Sanjeet fled from there.At about 2300 hours we again went to the street behind metro station and the police was present there at that time.Sanjeet Kumar went to the hospital in the vehicle of police.We (he and Sanju) also went to DDU Hospital where the doctors declared my friend deceased as brought dead.Ajay @ Lucky, Rahul Kumar, Sagar @ Chubu, Rahul Kohli, Ravi, Karan @ Bunty and Rajesh @ Ramka together with the intention of causing death had attacked and stabbed my friend deceased and caused his death.We have also sustained injuries.A legal action be taken against them."A.No.356/2011 Page 2 of 17SI Jitender Tiwari also recorded the statements of Sanju PW-5 and Sanjeet Kumar PW-20 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein they also Crl.A.No.356/2011 Page 3 of 17 indicted appellants Ajay Malhotra @ Lucky and Rahul Kohli along with Rahul Kumar, Sagar @ Chubu, Ravi, Karan @ Bunty and Rajesh @ Ramka (all juvenile) as the persons who had attacked the deceased as also Ranjish, Sanju and Sanjeet.B.N.Mishra PW-10, conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and prepared the post-mortem report Ex.PW-10/A. The external injuries found on the person of the deceased are as follows:-"(i) One spindle shaped stab wound ( 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep) present at lower part of chest at mid clavicular line with located 13 cm from left nipple 17.5 cm from left iliac crest with sharp edge with oozing of blood present.Directed obliquely upwards - backwards.(ii) One stab wound (1.2 cm x 0.7 cm x 0.5 cm) present on lateral aspect of back at the line of posterior axillary fold with sharp margins.(iii) One stab wound (0.1 cm x 0.7 cm x 0.5 cm) present on the lateral 1/3 part of left thigh with sharp margins."The post-mortem report Ex.PW-10/A of the deceased records that the cause of death is due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon laceration of pancreas and left lobe of lung followed by stab wound (vide injury No.1) and that injury No.1 is sufficient to cause death.Inspector Kapil Parasher PW-22, interrogated the appellants in the presence of SI Jitender Tiwari PW-18, Ct.Anil Kumar PW-16 and Ct.Appellant Ajay Malhotra @ Lucky made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/D, which is inadmissible in evidence because no recovery pursuant thereto was made.Appellant Crl.A.No.356/2011 Page 4 of 17 Rahul Kohli made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/E informing that he can get recovered the mobile phone of Sanjeet which he had snatched.He thereafter recovered a mobile phone from his residence and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.After fleeing from the place of occurrence, Rajnish and Sanjeet Kumar did not inform the police about the incident.They remained mum.Copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for compliance and record.Unless required in some other case, Ajay Malhotra shall be released from prison.TCR be returned.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 03, 2014 mamta Crl.A.No.356/2011 Page 17 of 17A.No.356/2011 Page 17 of 17SI Jitender Tiwari recorded the statement Ex.He handed over the same to Ct.Anil Kumar for FIR to be registered.Anil Kumar took the rukka to PS Patel Nagar where HC Amir Singh PW-3, recorded the FIR No.182/2007, Ex.We worked with Lucky in connection with a marathon race organized by Hangama TV which was held at Nehru Stadium, New Delhi and for which we boys were to be paid wages including conveyance expenses in sum of `2,200/-.We repeatedly asked Ajay @ Lucky to pay our wages but he did not do so.Two days ago we four boys again asked Lucky to pay our wages whereupon he (Ajay) along with some of his associates started abusing and threatening us.We objected to the aforesaid conduct of Ajay and asked him to pay our wages.Yesterday i.e. March 18, 2007 at about 06.00 P.M. I met Lucky and again asked him to make payment upon which Lucky told me that all the boys wanting payment of their wages should come at a park near Satyam cinema at about 8.30 - 09.00 P.M., which information was given by me to my associates Sanju, Sanjeet, deceased and we went to the park near Satyam cinema.At around 09.00 P.M. Ajay @ Lucky along with his six friends came in the park.A.No.356/2011 Page 3 of 17On the same day i.e. March 19, 2007 at about 02.00 P.M. Dr.A.No.356/2011 Page 4 of 17The appellants were sent for trial before a regular Court.The juvenile accused Rahul Kumar, Sagar @ Chubu, Ravi, Karan @ Bunty and Rajesh @ Ramka were referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial.Charges were framed against the appellants for having committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC read with Section 302 IPC.The substance of the charge framed against the appellants was that they formed an unlawful assembly with five juvenile co-accused at about 09.30 P.M. on March 18, 2007 with a common object.They armed themselves with deadly weapons at a street behind Shadipur Metro Station, for purpose of rioting and committing murder of the deceased.Apart from examining the police officers associated with the investigation, Rajnish, Sanju and Sanjeet Kumar were examined as PW-4, PW-5 and PW-20 respectively.Rajnish PW-4, deposed on the lines of his earlier statement Ex.PW-4/A with variations which we shall be highlighting a little later, but at this stage would note that he could not state with clarity as to which accused gave an exhortation to kill the deceased along with Rajnish, Sanju and Sanjeet.It would be relevant to note that as per him after the deceased was stabbed Sanju, Sanjeet and he fled and went to their respective houses.He deposed that after sometime Sanjeet came to his house and informed him that the deceased had not returned to his house Crl.A.No.356/2011 Page 5 of 17 whereupon they again went to the place of occurrence (street behind Shadipur metro station) where the deceased was still lying unconscious.He deposed that Sanjeet Kumar went to the police station at Patel Nagar and informed the police about the murder of the deceased.He stated that he was got medically examined by the police after his statement was recorded.(Pertinently, neither MLC of Rajnish is on the record nor has any police officer deposed of Rajnish being medically examined).PW-4/A, with differences regarding role attributed to the different accused, which we shall be highlighting a little later.Being relevant, questioned about his claim to be injured and what happened to his medical examination, on being suggested that his claim of being injured was wrong, during cross examination he said: It is wrong that police did not get me medically examined as I was not having any serious injury.I did not tell IO that I was having pain so I would make statement later or that I wanted to get myself medically examined.I got upset after seeing the dead body of my friend.It would be better if we note the differences between the statement Ex.PW-4/A of Rajnish and his testimony and that of Sanjeet Kumar PW- 20, regarding the role attributed by them to the accused persons in a tabular form.The same would be as under:-A.No.356/2011 Page 6 of 17The appellants pleaded false implication.A.No.356/2011 Page 7 of 17Holding that the evidence of Rajnish PW-4 and Sanjeet Kumar PW-20, inspires confidence, vide impugned judgment dated October 20, 2010 the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellants of having formed an unlawful assembly, object whereof was to cause rioting and commit murder of the deceased.Vide order dated October 25, 2010 the learned Trial judge has sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of `5,000/- for having committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC; in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.Section 141, IPC defines 'unlawful assembly' as under:-"An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -Explanation - An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."A.No.356/2011 Page 8 of 17On a first blush, the two eye-witnesses : Rajnish PW-4 and Sanjeet Kumar PW-20 have supported each other.(Though Rajnish and Sanjeet Kumar have claimed that Sanjeet Kumar had gone to the police station and informed about the Crl.A.No.356/2011 Page 12 of 17The appeal is disposed of setting aside the conviction of the second appellant Rahul Kohli who being on bail vide order dated December 13, 2011 requires it to be directed that the bail bond and surety bond furnished by him are discharged.The first appellant Ajay Malhotra is convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder pertaining to the death of Mukesh and for which offence we sentence him to imprisonment for the period already undergone.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,257,065 |
The parties are also identified by the Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Jagdish.It is stated that the FIR came to be registered due to certain differences that had arisen between the complainant and the petitioner who Crl.M.C. No.4171/2014 Page 1 of 7 happened to be living together at the relevant time.Further, on 09.06.2014, while granting bail to the petitioner, the statement of the complainant was recorded to the effect that she had settled all the disputes with the petitioner on the petitioner agreeing to pay a total sum of Rs.5 lakhs against all her claims and dues; and that, out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs is stated to have been received by the complainant earlier, and the remaining amount of Rs.3 lakhs has been handed over to the complainant in the following manner;M.C. No.4171/2014 Page 1 of 7Through Ms.Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor.Sub Inspector Jagdish.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA % SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.A. No.14343/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.185/2014 registered at Police Station Sector 23 Dwarka under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 34 IPC on 19.04.2014, on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, APP for the State, and Mr. Naveen Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2, enter appearance and accept notice.No. Bearing DD No. Dated Drawn on Amount (Rs.)M.C. No.4171/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus, which has arisen out of a personal dispute between the complainant and the petitioner, which has now been settled, and the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the matter any further.Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No.185/2014 registered at Police Station Sector 23 Dwarka under Sections 323, 406, 498- A, 34 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA Judge SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 dr Crl.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
722,577 |
JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J.By this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant seeks to challenge the conviction recorded on 21.4.1995 by the IInd Addl.Sessions Judge to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Chnindwara in Sessions Trial No. 23/94 convicting the appellant under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 250/- and undergo R.I. for 2 years and pay fine of Rs. 250/- respectively; in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months under each default.The prosecution case in brief is that within about 2 years of 1st/2nd July, 1993, the accused and his parents were harassing and maltreating the deceased Heera @ Meerabai, wife of the present appellant.According to the prosecution, the appellant and the acquitted accused persons were making demand of money for purchasing a motor pump and as the deceased was unable to arrange the money and the relations of the deceased could not meet the demand, the girl was continuously harassed and tortured which ultimately persuaded and abated the girl to commit suicide to find ultimate solace.After completion of the investigation, the prosecution agency filed the challan.Each of the accused denied the commission of the offence, therefore, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the trial.After hearing the parties the learned Trial Court acquitted Kishna and Smt. Gendabai, parents of the present appellant but, however, convicted the appellant for the offences as mentioned above.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that from the evidence available on record, a case under Section 306, I.P.C. is not made out.According to him, the statements of the witnesses suffer from the vice of contradictions, omissions amounting to contradictions and illegal developments, therefore, and as the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.Further submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that from the statements of the witnesses it does not appear that what persuaded the present appellant/ accused to make a demand almost after about 6-7 years of the marriage.According to him, present is a concocted and cooked up case, therefore, and as there is no legal evidence available on the record, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.Learned Counsel for State submits that from the statements of the witnesses specially the statement of P.W. 1 Sripat and P.W. 11 Nausain, mother of the deceased, it would clearly appear that there was a continuous demand of money and as the girl and the relations of the girl could not meet the demand, the present accused was continuously torturing the girl; was not giving the food properly; was beating her regularly and as he created a situation where the girl had no option but to commit suicide, therefore, the appellant does not deserve to be acquitted.I have heard the parties at length.From the statement of P.W. 11 Nausain, one can clearly read that the marriage was solemnised about 10/11 years prior to the date of the statement recorded by the Court.She had further stated that for about 7-8 years the couple enjoyed the marital relations, but thereafter a demand was made.From paragraph 5 of the statement of P.W. 11 Nausain it would appear that the alleged demand was made at least one year prior to the date of death.In paragraph 3 she had stated that the accused was making a demand but for what he needed the money was not known to her.In paragraph 3 she has also said that about Rs. 24,000/- were given to the accused and the accused was demanding money from her whenever he came to the in laws place.In paragraph 8, she has said that the fact of the demand was narrated to her by the deceased in presence of Sripat (P.W. 1).According to her, the demand was not for a motor pump, but the accused was demanding a sum of Rs. 20,000/- or in the alternative some agricultural land.She has further stated that her daughter did not inform her that sum of Rs. 10,000/- was demanded for purchasing the motor pump.If her statements are read with the statements of P.W. 1 Sripat, it would clearly appear that these statements cannot be conciled.In paragraph 2, P.W. 1 Sripat has stated that for a period of 1-2 years the couple lived peacefully, but thereafter the girl started complaining that her in laws and husband were not treating her properly.According to him, the deceased had informed that the in laws and the husband wanted a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing a motor pump.This statement runs contrary to the statement of P.W. 11 Nausain.In paragraph 3, the witness has stated that about 15-20 days before the date of death he was informed by the girl that her husband and in laws were treating her cruelly.According to him, he went to the in laws place collected some Panch and took them to the house of Sarpanch.According to him, the Panch and Sarpanch enquired from the girl as to what were her problems; on which she informed that she was not provided proper food and was compelled to eat Roti with salt only and she was being beaten for not bringing money from her parents.According to him, Panch Pandhari Jaiswal, Madan Dhayre, Namdeo Dhayre and Sudhakar Dhayre had gone with him to the house of Sarpanch for pacifying the matter.Out of these Panch Madan and Sudhakar Dhayre are his brothers-in-law (brothers of wife); Namdeo is also some cousin of his in laws.This witness somehow or the other tried to implicate the accused firstly by saying that his sister was murdered; "she was found in sitting posture in the well; thereafter he started asserting that the death was within seven years of the marriage and then thereafter he wanted the Court to believe that the girl was of very tender age; The witness was not ready and willing to give the correct age of the deceased.Though ordinarily these facts would not affect the merits of the matter, but on a deep scrutiny these would show that the witness P.W. 1 Sripat was bent upon taking some revenge from the appellant and his family.The statement of Nausain gives a dent to the statement of Sripat when she says that at least for a period of 6-7 years the couple lived peacefully.The witness was confronted with his police statement contained in Ex. D1 marked as 'B to B'.In Ex. D1 marked as 'B to B' the witness had stated that at least for six years after the marriage the girl did not make any complaint.This statement recorded by the police by which the witness was confronted runs with the statement of Nausain.I am unable to understand as to what persuaded the accused persons to make a demand after 6-7 years of the marriage.The prosecution has not brought on record any fact or circumstances to show that the accused suffered some financial set-back or problems, therefore, he was compelled to make demand of Rs. 10,000/-.From the statement of P.W. 1 Sripat in paragraph 13, one can clearly read that at the time of marriage the accused person did not make any demand of dowry.He has clearly stated that whatever was given to the accused and the sister of the witness was given voluntarily.The fact still is shrouded under the suspicion as to why a family which was so good, was not making any demand of dowry, would abruptly become bad and start making demand for the money.In absence of any circumstances available on record it is unpalatable to accept that the accused started making demand.From the statements of the other witnesses specifically the Panch who had gone to the house of Jagannath, it would clearly appear that when the appellant was summoned he clearly stated before them that the wife was not working properly and after the death, of the son and after she was blessed with the second daughter, she became mentally derailed.The learned Judge of the Court below has rejected this plea simply on the ground that if she was mentally derailed, she could not go to the fields for doing the regular works.I am unable to accept the said finding.The accused did not come with the case that the deceased had become mad; he had come with the case that she was mentally derailed and started suffering some degeneration.The learned Court below has not appreciated the behaviour of a psycho patient during lucid intervals.Chetram P.W. 2 on whose statement very strong reliance was placed by the learned Govt. Advocate, in the opinion of this Court, is not reliable.He is the next door neighbour who could very honestly say to the police that he was not maintaining good relations with the accused, but during the Court statements started asserting that he was not having smooth and regular relations with the accused; he thought that this amounted to bad relations.In the case diary statement, he had stated that there was some Manmatao, but in the Court statements he started asserting that there was nothing like that.He has not stated that the accused was demanding the dowry.According to him, the accused was maltreating the deceased.Looking to the conduct of this witness, I am unable to rely upon his statement.P.W. 3 Namdeo who is the relation of P.W. 1 Sripat has stated that Madan and Sudhakar came to his house and informed him that accused Kamal was maltreating his wife, therefore., they were required to go to the house of Pandhari.From the house of Pandhari each of them went to the house of Jagannath.In paragraph 1 of the examination-in-chief the witness clearly stated that the brother of deceased (P.W. 1) asked the accused Kamal as to why he was beating the deceased; on which the accused said that the deceased was behaving abnormally.According to this witness, the accused had asked Sripat to take away the deceased.In paragraph 2 the witness has said that the deceased made a complaint that she was being beaten by the accused, but according to the witness, the deceased did not say as to why she was beaten.In paragraph 6, the witness has clearly admitted that the accused made a statement before them hat for more than one month the deceased was not behaving properly; she was behaving abruptly and was not taking food regularly.In presence of the witness, the accused informed that whenever he asked the deceased to go for the treatment, the deceased refused every time.It has also come in the statement of this witness that the accused asked the brother of the deceased to take the deceased with him for the treatment.In paragraph 7, P.W. 3 Namdeo has stated that but for the maltreatment and beating, deceased Hirabai did not say anything.From these facts, it would clearly appear that in the said Panchayat nobody ever made any complaint that there was a demand of dowry.P.W. 4 Jagannath is the Sarpanch.Learned Counsel for the State wanted to say that as this witness is relation of the accused his statement must be thoroughly scrutinised.From the statement of this witness, it would clearly appear that certain queries were made from Hirabai; on which Hirabai informed the Panchayat that accused was scolding her every now and then.At that time, the accused informed the Panchayat that after the death of the minor son, Hirabai became mentally derailed and started behaving abnormally.At this stage this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecution is placing its strongest reliance upon the witnesses who are related to each other and are interested in P.W. 1, P.W. 11 and the deceased.From the statement of Jagannath, one is unable to hold that any complaint was made to the Panchayat that some dowry was demanded.From the statement, it would only appear that after the death of the only son the deceased started behaving abnormally and to control her the accused gave her certain punishments.Hirabai in reply to the query informed that proper food was not supplied to her, therefore, she was unable to work.In the meeting, according to the witness, the accused has asked Sripat that he could take away his sister.In paragraph 13, P.W. 6 Madan has clearly admitted that Kamal had informed all concerned that when he wanted to take the deceased for treatment she was not ready and willing to go.According to witness, the accused had asked Sripat to take away his sister for treatment; on which Sripat informed that he would not take away his sister.From his statement also it would not appear that the accused or his family members were constantly and continuously persuading the deceased or the relations of the deceased to pay money.The only complaint was that the deceased was maltreated and food was not supplied to her.The fact would also float on the surface of the records that the accused was repeatedly asking everybody that after the death of the son, his wife, that is the deceased, had become mentally derailed and was behaving abnormally.P.W. 7 Pandhari, in paragraph 3 of the statement, has said that the deceased only made the complaint to the Panchas that food was not provided to her.He had also stated that Kamal admitted before him that as the deceased was committing mistakes she was beaten.In paragraph 4, he has clearly admitted that the appellant asked the brother of the deceased to take his sister with him; on which Sripat informed the accused that he would take his sister after 8 days.In the statement of Pandhari, I am unable to find that demand of dowry was an issue.From the statement of Pandhari, as contained in paragraph 9, it would clearly appear that the accused was making a complaint that after the death of the son and after the deceased was blessed with another daughter, she was behaving abnormally.Regarding the other suggestions, he had no courage to say 'no', but he simply said that he was unable to remember the facts.P.W. 8 Sudhakar, another brother-in-law of P.W. 1 Sripat, also nowhere says that either Kamal or deceased Hirabai ever made a complaint regarding demand of dowry.In paragraph 2, this witness had clearly stated that on being asked as to why he was maltreating the deceased, the accused said that as she was not working properly his mother was scolding her.Deceased Hirabai made only a complaint she was being beaten and proper food was not provided to her.From his statement also it would not appear that demand of dowry was made or the deceased was being treated cruelly for non-payment of the money or for any other reason.The defence has examined Ramesh Amle s/o Vamanrao Amle, Ramesh s/o Mahadeo and Subhash as defence witnesses.Each of the witnesses had clearly stated that after the death of the son and after the deceased was blessed with another daughter, she started behaving abnormally.The question still to be considered is whether this Marpeet was a matter which could lead or persuade the deceased to commit suicide.Once the demand factor is disbelieved, then we are left with the behaviour of the accused and the complaints made by the deceased.According to witnesses, the complaint of the deceased was that she was beaten by the accused and food was not provided to her; while the complaint of the accused was that the girl was behaving abnormally and was not working properly.
|
['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.
|
72,258,742 |
29.12.14 sc+TKM Ct. 8 Item 14 CRM No. 11836 OF 2014 In the matter of: An application for bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.9.2014 in connection with Panchla P.S. Case No. 155 of 2014 dated 17.06.2014 under sections 341/325/326/307/354B/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and also under sections 3 /4 of the Explosive Substance Act.And In the matter of: Saumyajit Naskar @ Rocky & Ors...Petitioners...For the Petitioners.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,265,966 |
Shri Tausif Ahmad Ansari, counsel for the victim.This criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2018 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Jabalpur in M.Cr.As per the prosecution case, at about 2:30 p.m. on 02.03.2018, first informant Gendalal was returning home with his elder brother Suraj Choudhary.Near Kiran Shukla's house appellant Annu @ Abhay Kanojiya accompanied by Naseem came on the motor-cycle and asked Suraj Choudhary for Rs.500/- to consume liquor.When Suraj Choudhary declined to part with the money.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the victim on the other hand have vehemently opposed the application for bail mainly on the ground that the appellant has criminal antecedents and there are as many as eight cases apart from the present one, registered against the appellant.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2018.04.17 06:23:27 -07'00'
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,268,227 |
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::JUDGMENT : (Per B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) This application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.),1973, is filed by 9 respondents shown as accused in R.C.C. No. 49 of 2009, challenging the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, (JMFC) Akot, and consequential registration of FIR No. M-2/2010 dated 1.6.2010 under Sections 406, 468, 477-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Akot police station in Akola district.The proceedings before the JMFC are filed by Respondent No. 2 herein.Though there is no express interim order, this Court has in its order dated 22nd November, 2010 has stated that "Ad interim order, if any, granted earlier to continue till then." There is dispute between the parties about grant or continuation of interim order but then Respondent No. 1 State has in its reply affidavit dated 3.7.2010, in paragraph 8 stated that on 11.6.2010, while issuing notice, this Court orally directed not to arrest the petitioners till filing of reply and Respondent No. 1 was obeying that direction.The challenge as posed u/S. 482 Cr.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::P.C. was earlier looked into in Cr.W.P. 322 of 2009 & on 21 st August, 2009, learned Single Judge of this Court set aside the order dated 3.6.2009 passed by JMFC, Akot, directing that the complaint as filed be forwarded to police station to register it with further direction to investigate and to submit report.This Court set aside that direction and restored RCC No. 49 of 2009 back to file.JMFC was left free to peruse the Complaint and to proceed as per Cr.Advocate Khapre for the applicants has urged:--Thereafter, the RCC was adjourned to various dates for verification on 6 occasions.Then due to absence of complainant and his Counsel, it was kept for orders and again stage of verification was restored.Two dates thereafter.An application under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved.Complaint was made over to police for investigation.Similar order dated 3.6.2009 passed was quashed by this Court and hence, the RCC was then placed for verification.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::(II) Complaint or grievance is only on the basis of loose papers which are inadmissible and insufficient in law to fasten, even prima facie, any guilt on applicants.To demonstrate that complaint as filed does not make out any offence even prima-facie and to assail a finding to the contrary recorded in the impugned order, support is taken from the judgment of Hon.Submission is loose papers are not the account books and not admissible under S. 34 of the Evidence Act. The period of commission of alleged offence is from 1.4.1994 to 3.6.1995 and an audit for the period from 1.4.194 till 30.6.1997 is already conducted and Applicants are not found at fault.On 24.7,1997, Regional Deputy Director of Handlooms, Powerlooms and Textiles also ordered an audit-inquiry and called for report for fastening liability.After receipt of this audit report, FIR 118 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 7 dated 22.5.2001 came to be registered against the Respondent 2 and others.Thus, loose papers needed to be viewed in this background and discarded.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::(III) In view of registration of FIR 118 dated 22.5.2001 against Respondent 2 and others under Sections 406, 409 r/w S.34 IPC; there is no scope for recoding a second FIR in the matter again.AIR 2001 SC 2637-- T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerla is relied upon in this respect.As offences punishable under Ss. 468 and 477A are not made out, limitation of 3 years is attracted and RCC 49 of 2009 is not tenable.3. Submissions of Advocate A.M. Ghare :--::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::At the outset, learned Counsel submits that for past more than 15 years, the complaint lodged by the Respondent 2 has not been inquired into and the Applicants have succeeded in scuttling the prosecution.Though there is no stay to the impugned order, police have not submitted any report either u/S.169 or 173 Cr.P.C. He requested the Court to call for case diary and note the non-cooperation by the applicants.(I) On earlier judgment and directions by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.8.2009, he argues that the course adopted by the learned JMFC is in consonance therewith and also as per Cr.P.C. The police can after suitable inquiry, submit the report of "no offence" and hence, merely by an order u/s 156(3), no cause accrues to them.He relies upon the judgment reported at 2007 (5) Mah.L.J. 7 (FB)- Laxminarayan ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 9 Vishwanath Arya Vs.State of Maharashtra and Ors.looked into by the Full Bench, supra.His submission is judgment of High Court dated 21.8.2009 does not decide further course of action to be adopted by the learned JMFC and leaves it to that Court.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::Shukla considers the use of loose documents and the concept of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 10 presumption about account books when charge was being framed.Here, the loose papers in handwriting of Prabhakar prima-facie revealed manipulations and fabricated accounts.The audit-inquiry and report which lead to FIR 118 overlook these documents.Report submitted by Shri Mehandale after inspection on 28 and 30th August,1997 as also report of the auditor forwarded with letter dated 21.12.1997 show the guilt of Applicants.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::Thus, the periods are distinct and hence, there is no second FIR.However, he relies 2013 (2) SCALE 491- Surinder Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh to demonstrate that there is no absolute bar on recording such FIR.(IV) Complaint filed before the JMFC, particularly para 5 & 6 are pressed into service to show how in present facts, ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 11 the loose documents show transactions carried out in black and provisions made for money over and above the agreed sums.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::The excess amount on one occasion, was asked to be paid at Bombay where Applicant 1 resided.Said Applicant was the Chairman of the Board and also MLA.The loose documents are in the handwriting of the applicant 3 Prabhakar.Pleadings in para 9 of the RCC are read out to show how the audit-inquiry was manged and the inquiry into facts emerging from loose documents was avoided by them.After Respondent 2 was charge sheeted therein on 24.10.2008, the report of Shri Mehandale became available to Respondent 2 under RTI Act and then complaint came to be filed.As the documents are fabricated, false account books have been brought into existence, offences punishable under Ss. 468 & 477A are disclosed and there is no limitation for taking its cognizance.In the alternative, he contends that JMFC is not concerned with ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 12 limitation bar at S.156 stage and police authorities, in their report, can point out said bar to the Court.As the applicants are relying upon the provisions of S. 319 Cr. P.C which enables addition of accused, the bar of limitation is not attracted at all.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::(V) Support is taken from Mr. Panchabhai Popatbhai Butani vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) which in turn relies upon 1997 (8) SCC 476 - Madhu Bala vs. Suresh Kumar and Full Bench view of this Court in 2007 (5) Mah.7 (FB)- Laxminarayan Vishwanath Arya Vs.State of Maharashtra & ors.and 2013 All MR (Cri) 970- Shri Shyamsunder Radhyeshyam Agrwal vs. State of Maharashtra to buttress his contentions.We may mention here that the Full Bench in Mr. Panchabhai Popatbhai Butani vs. State of Maharashtra ,supra, considers the Full Bench in Laxminarayan Vishwanath Arya Vs.State of Maharashtra & ors.(supra).::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::5. Consideration.We have already noted above the submission that ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 14 order dated 3.6.2009 and the impugned order dated 25.3.2010 are identical.It is in this background, we find brief mention of both these orders essential.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::He found a diary maintained by the accused 3 Prabhakar which revealed misappropriation of the amount of Soot Girni.It also mentions representation dated 2.6.1997 sent by Complainant to Hon'ble Minister and its copy to D.S.P., Akola.Later did not take any cognizance but Hon.Minister appointed one Mehandale.Page 98 of xerox copy of said diary is where a note that amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- be sent to Mumbai appears.It then mentions contention of the Complainant that said amount was to be handed over to Accused 1 at Bombay (Mumbai).Judgment in Narayandas Hirlalji Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported at 2008 All IR (Cri) 2737 is also appreciated.Magistrate in reported matter did not examine complainant on oath but only perused complaint and documents and felt detailed investigation by police necessary into the allegations made in the complaint.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::Order of Magistrate directing police to register offence and to submit the report, being passed under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. was upheld by the High Court.Akot then finds that offence alleged is cognizable one and still police did nothing.Hence, RCC 48/2009 was forwarded to Akot police station with direction to the police inspector to register the same, investigate and to report.Impugned order dated 25.5.2010, in paras 1 to 3 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 16 only mentions said consideration, Sections of offences, only fact of S. 156(3) order passed earlier and then the judgment of High Court in Cri.It then mentions argument of Complainant that JMFC can direct investigation and support drawn from Full Bench judgment in case of Mr. Panchabhai Popatbhai Butani vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).Two paras on S.156(3) are then reproduced and notices that Magistrate exercising powers under S.156(3) can direct registration of FIR and his jurisdiction is not only limited to a direction to investigate the offence.Then, only application of mind qua the RCC No. 49/2009 is in para 8 only.It records "At the cost of repetition, I want to state that, complaint discloses offences under sections 406, 468, 477-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860."::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::In para 9, learned JMFC finds that paragraph 10 of complaint shows inaction of police.It then follows full bench judgment in Butani (supra) and directs Police Inspector of Akot Police Station to investigate into alleged offences treating complaint as report.Final report, either u/S 169 or 173 Cr.P.C. is also sought at the earliest.The complaint registered as RCC No. 49 of 2009 and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 17 documents are directed to be sent to Police Inspector, Akot Police Station.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::We will later consider the merits of the impugned order.P.C. or then to direct investigation under its S.156(3), submit a report and after hearing the complainant, orders could have been passed.Objection by petitioner as noted by this Court reads:-- "Instead of that learned JMFC directed that the complaint in question should be sent to Akot police station with directions to Police Inspector to register the same and investigate into the matter and submit the report".The learned Single Judge has accepted this challenge in ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 18 para 4 of his judgment.The order dated 3.6.2009 was set aside and JMFC was directed to consider the complainant and to attend to it in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. This Court then added that no views are expressed by it on merit and JMFC has to independently pass an appropriate order on said complaint.Thus, procedure adopted by the JMFC on 3.6.2009 was found not legal i.e. as per Cr.P.C. Later order dated 25.5.2010, however, again follows the same course of action.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::The earlier order takes note of law laid down by the Division Bench at Nagpur in Narayandas Hirlalji Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) that-- "Magistrate being of opinion that it was necessary to have detailed investigation by police into allegations made in complaint, directed police to register offence and to submit report, said order being passed under S. 156(3), can not be said to be illegal." In the face of this law as explained by the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge of this Court has on 21.8.2009 quashed that order.Thus, impugned order has been passed reiterating the same law but by quoting a Full Bench.Another Division Bench at Nagpur has on 2.7.2013 decided Cr.Apex Court concluded that there remained no doubt that on 18.6.2004, CJM had taken cognizance although he postponed issue of process by directing an investigation to be made by the police officer.The submission of the learned counsel for Respondent 1 that the CJM had not taken cognizance in the matter and the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 at the pre-cognizance stage was rejected.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::If the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the question is whether a person accused of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing in a revision application preferred by the complainant against the order of the dismissal of the complaint.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::It is important to note that on 18.6.2004, the CJM did not direct FIR to be registered and the right of accused to assail registration of FIR against him, was not required to be gone into by the Hon.Apex Court.The investigating officer had submitted a "C"::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::This order was then questioned in in criminal revision by the complainant wherein the suspect had sought impleadment.In present matter, there is an express direction to register FIR and to inquire.After ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 25 21.8.2009, the complaint was taken up for verification i.e. for recording the evidence of Respondent 2 in support of his allegations in RCC 49 of 2009 and the applicants before this Court were marked "absent" on few dates.On said date application dated 4.5.2009 under S.156(3) was already restored due to High Court orders and alive on record.In its face, after 21.8.2009, the JMFC had used discretion and adopted a particular course.Respondent acquiesced in it and after taking about 9 adjournments for verification, Respondent 2 revived his request under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. Impugned order has been passed below Ex.1 due to this application.It is no doubt true that learned Single Judge, on 21.8.2009, has not eclipsed its discretion, still the fact that identical order passed by same court is quashed can not be overlooked.Developments peculiar in the matter obliged the Trail Court to record reasons to shift from stage of verification to stage of ordering an investigation.We also note that except for mentioning that "At the cost of repetition, I want to state that, complaint discloses ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 ::: apl412.12 26 offences under sections 406,468,477-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860.", the Trial Court has nowhere else assigned any reasons.If this sentence is construed as referring to the findings in earlier order dated 2.6.2009, said order was not alive on 25.5.2010 and in impugned order, there is no express stipulation endorsing or accepting findings of his predecessor-in-office as a base to proceed further.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:55 :::At this juncture, it is not necessary for us to dwell more on this aspect.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:56 :::Whether RCC 49/2009 is within limitation or not, whether there is going to be a second FIR or then offences disclosed are distinct or pertain to some other period and have no bearing on FIR 118 or then, facts warrant registration of an independent FIR, whether loose papers can have any evidentiary value, are all questions which can not be answered effectively at this stage and must wait till stage appropriate for its determination is reached.Question whether documents on record make out a case for investigation under S.156(3) Cr.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:56 :::Impugned order dated 25.05.2010 is quashed and set aside.We, however, direct Trial Court to expedite the matter and take necessary further steps as deemed proper within 3 months from today.Criminal Application is accordingly partly allowed with no order as to costs.::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:18:56 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,269 |
The sentences have been directed to run concurrently and have been made subject to set off under Section 428, Cr.Appellant Santosh was tried for offences under Sections 302, 302/149, 323/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code while the other appellants under Sections 302/149, 323, 323/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution story, in brief, was that in relation to share in the crop, there was a dispute between accused Sitaram and Jagdish (P.W. 2), in respect whereof, accused Natwarlal, brother of Sitaram, had asked Jagdish to settle the accounts and told Jagdish that his brother Sitaram had called him for the purpose, but Arjun (P.W. 3), brother of Jagdish, had asked the accused to come to their house for settlement thereof.It was alleged that the accused Natwarlal had left the place -- quite enraged on account of the attitude of the said two prosecution witnesses and after a short while thereafter, returned with accused Sitaram, Hareram, Ramanlal and Kailash.These persons, armed with lathis, then started assaulting Jagdish and Punamchand and when Shivlal arrived, the appellant Santosh picked up a stone and threw it from the roof of his house which landed on the head of Shivlal.Shivlal fell down unconscious.On account of the assault, Jagdish and Punamchand also received injuries.Shivlal was taken to the police station Chhaigon Maklian where report Ex. P-4 was lodged by Jagdish.Since the condition of Shivlal was critical, he was referred to the District Hospital, Khandwa and thereafter to the M. Y. Hospital, Indore.Shivlal, however, succumbed to his injuries on 5-2-88 while under treatment in M. Y. Hospital.Post-mortem examination of his body was conducted by Dr. G. S. Mittal (P.W. 14), who gave his opinion that Shivlal had died on account of the head injuries sustained by him.JUDGMENT S.K. Kulshrestha, J.The above two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 2-1-1989 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Nimar, Khandwa, in Sessions trial No. 45 of 1988, by which the appellant Santosh in -- Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1989 has been convicted for an offence under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for six months, while the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1989 have been convicted under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further, R.I. for three months, and also under Sections 323/ 149 and 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three months on each count.Accused were arrested vide memorandum Exs.P-17 to P-21, sticks were seized vide seizure memo Exs. P-22 to P-26 and the -- seized articles were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory.Report Ex. P-29 was received from the F.S.L. and after examination of the prosecution witnesses and recording their statements, --charge-sheet was filed in the Court.The accused denied the charges and claimed to be innocent.The accused also examined Dr. R. P. Gupta (D.W. 1) in their defence.On trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that even if it is held that some offence has been committed by these appellants, their sentence deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by them in the facts and circumstances of the case.Learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the judgment of the trial Court and has pointed out that the eye-witness account of the incident duly corroborated by prompt F.T.R. and the medical evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the appellants and the appeals deserve to be dismissed.As per the ocular testimony projected through Jagdish (P.W. 2), Arjun (P.W. 3), Santosh (P.W. 4) and Punamchand (P.W. 5), it is clear that while the appellants Ramanlal, Kailash, Hareram, Sitaram and Natwarlal were engaged in thier riotous conduct in assaulting Jagdish (P.W. 2) and Punamchand (P.W. 5), the deceased Shivlal had arrived and the appellant Santosh, who was on the roof of the house, had picked up a stone and thrown the same on him, with the result, the stone had landed on the head of Shivlal.Shivlal was immediately thereafter examined by Dr. D. R. Ahirwar (P.W. 1) who had found a lacerated wound 3" x 1" x 1/2" over the frontal region of his skull, situated transversely 2" above the mid forehead towards the frontal region with bleeding present.According to the testimony of Dr. Ahirwar, the general condition of Shivlal was critical bad and he was vornitting blood.His pupils were dilated and considering the gravity of the injury, he was referred for treatment to the District Hospital, Khandwa.The F.I.R. Ex. P-4 lodged promptly after the incident also clearly corroborates the version of Jagdish (P.W. 2).It is, therefore, fully established by the prosecution that while the deceased Shivlal had arrived on the scene of occurrence, appellant Santosh had picked up a stone and had thrown the same on him from the roof of his house which had landed on the head of Shivlal and caused injury to which he had later succumbed.In Bhuresingh's case, a quarrel had ensued in a betrothal ceremony in which the accused had hurled a stone which had hit the head of Roomal and upon intervention by the deceased, the accused had also assaulted him.It was observed that since stone had not been seized, its size and weight could not be gathered and what emerged from the evidence was that the stone was hurled at random without being aimed at any particular part of the body.It was in these facts that it was observed that the act of the accused would fall under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.In Bapu v. State of M. P. (supra), the report of the doctor did not indicate that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the incident had occurred all of a sudden.In the present case, facts are clearly distinguishable.It has been established by the prosecution that when Shivlal had arrived, the accused had picked up a stone and dropped it on his head from the roof of his house, from which it can be safely inferred that the accused had the knowledge that he by his said act was likely to cause death of Shivlal.The seizure memo Ex. P-8 clearly indicates that it was a large stone weighing about 15 Kilograms.Thus, from the size of the stone used in causing the injury and the manner in which it was thrown from the roof of the house on the deceased, there is clear indication that the accused fully knew that he by his said act was likely to cause death of Shivlal.Under these circumstances, the trial Court, in my opinion, has in no way erred in convicting the appellant Santosh of offence under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code.The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether the other appellants could be held constructively liable for the said act of Santosh.It is clear from the prosecution evidence, indeed even from the F.I.R., that Santosh was not a member of the assembly when the other accused had gone to the house of Jagdish (P.W. 2) and Arjun (P. W. 3) armed with lathis to belabour them.The act of Santosh was clearly an isolated act unconnected with the purpose or object of the unlawful assembly formed by other appellants.There is no evidence to suggest that accused Santosh had joined the other accused persons and had participated in assaulting the other prosecution witnesses.What has been alleged against Santosh is simply that he while he was on the roof of his house, picked up a heavy stone and dropped it on Shivlal who had arrived there.Thus, no evidence has been brought on record to indicate that the common object of the assembly formed by the other appellants was to cause death of Shivlal and that it was in furtherance of the said object that Santosh had acted as a member of the assembly to cause such death.The injuries caused to other witnesses by the other appellants did not give any indication that the common object of this assembly of accused was to cause death of Shivlal or that the act of the appellant Santosh was in prosecution of any such common object of this assembly or that the members of the unlawful assembly had any knowledge about -- likelihood of such an act being committed.The learned counsel has also submitted that accused Santosh has undergone incarceration of one year as he was an under-trial prisoner from 29-1-88 till he was released on bail in this appeal on 7-1-89, and, therefore, at this distance of time, it would not be proper to send him back to prison to serve out his sentence.From the evidence of the prosecution, it is clear that the appellant had picked up a heavy stone and had thrown it down from the roof of his house on the deceased.However, keeping in view the fact that the said appellant has faced the agony of the trial and during the pendency of this appeal for a period of more than a decade, the sentence need not, at the same time, be very severe.Insofar as appellants Ramanlal, Kailash, Hareram, Sitaram and Natwarlal are concerned, since they have not been found guilty of offence under Section 304, Part II read with Section 149, I.P.C. for which they were awarded 2 years' R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- and only conviction for offences under Sections 323/149 and 148, I.P.C. has been maintained, for which under each count, they have been awarded 3 months' R.I. to run concurrently, with the benefit of set off under Section 428, Cr. P. C, they are not required to undergo any further sentence as each one of them has been in jail from 30-1-88 to 27-6-88, a period of more than 3 months.In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1989 is partly allowed and while the conviction of Santosh son of Sitaram for offence under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code is maintained, the sentence of R.I. for 5 years awarded to him by the trial Court is reduced to R.I. for 2 years and the sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine awarded by the trial Court is maintained.The appellant Santosh shall be entitled to set off under Section 528, Cr.P, C. and he shall surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining part of his sentence.Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1989 is partly allowed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,270,394 |
Heard on IA No.10679/2016, an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant- Devi Singh Appellant-Devi Singh has been convicted and sentenced as under:Default (in lieu Section Act Imprisonment Fine of fine) 302/149 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.3000/- One year R.I. 148 IPC One year R.I. Rs.1000/- 2 months R.I.325/149 IPC Two years R.I. Rs.1000/- 2 months R.I.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.Except of offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, remaining conviction and sentence has been recorded for minor offences and the appellant has remained in the custody for more than eight months.There are fair chances that sentence of remaining offences may be reduced to the period for which he remained in custody.In the present case, various eye- witnesses, namely, Bhagola (PW1) and Smt. Sarju Bai (PW3) etc. have stated that appellant along-with other co-accused assaulted deceased Ramkishore with lathi causing his death.However, Dr. Amit Arya (PW13),who performed the postmortem on the body of deceased Ramkishore and gave a report Ex.P.41, has found single injury over his right eye, one fracture of frontal bone was found and clotted blood was deposited over the brain and, therefore, he died.There is no specific allegation against the appellant that he assaulted deceased Ramkishore on his head or near the eye.Hence, when it is not proved that he assaulted deceased Ramkishore then his common intention cannot be presumed with the co-accused who assaulted over the eye of deceased - Ramkishore.The appellant cannot be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 or Section 149 of IPC.The appellant in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the appellant prays for bail and suspension of his execution of jail sentence on the ground of parity.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to accept the application of the appellant.Consequently, his application is hereby allowed.Subject to deposit of fine amount, if appellant - Devi Singh furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) along- with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of trial Court he shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 31/03/2017 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal then appellant- Devi Singh shall be released on bail and his execution of jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,270,728 |
The prosecution case is that on 18.01.2000 at about 3.05 P.M., an entry- (DD) No.38B -was made at police station Hauz Khas.The intimation was that a girl was burnt in a Jhuggi, near Avtar Taxi Stand, Green Park, Arya Samaj Road.It was further alleged that two police personnel, i.e., ASI Badami Lal and Ct.Banwari Lal reached the spot and found Jayanti, aged 14 years, lying dead inside her Jhuggi.Kali Charan Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 1 of 41 aged 8/10 years, brother of the deceased met them.ASI Badami Lal recorded his statement; he disclosed that one Prakash had come to their Jhuggi at about 12.30 P.M. in the afternoon when Jayanti was sitting on the roof.Prakash met Jayanti and both went into the Jhuggi.Prakash asked him (Kali Charan) to play outside.When he returned to the Jhuggi after some time, he saw that the door of the Jhuggi was closed and on peeping through the door, he saw Prakash lying on his sister on the cot.Prakash and Jayanti were not wearing their lower garments (pant and salwar respectively).On his knocking on the door, Prakash opened it after a delay and asked him to go out to play.He saw his sister Jayanti weeping at that time.Kali Charan further stated that when he returned after some time, he saw Prakash going out of the Jhuggi after locking it.At about 2.30 P.M., he saw smoke and fire coming out from the Jhuggi.He raised an alarm; many members of the public, including Dasha Ram, Ram Gopal and Mangla reached the spot and broke open the door.On entering the Jhuggi, they found Jayanti lying dead on the ground.Post-mortem of Jayantis dead body was conducted.Prakash was arrested from the Deer park, on 19.01.2000 and his disclosure statement was recorded.It is not in dispute that Jayanti met a homicidal death.PW-9 Dr.On 18.01.2000, Jayanti was hale and hearty and was present inside her Jhuggi where strangulation took place.PW-2 Prem Lal, her brother had gone to school at about 12.30 Noon at Sarojini Nagar No.2 Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 6 of 41 and on getting information from a neighbour about the incident, he reached the spot at about 4.00 P.M. His mother and brother (PW-4) were crying.Jayantis father, in his deposition stated having gone to his place of work and reaching the spot on getting information about the incident.PW-6 Dasha Ram and PW-11 Gore Lal, neighbours who reached the spot immediately on getting information about the incident did not find any other family member of Jayanti except PW-4 present at the spot.Statements of all these witnesses reveal that on 18.01.2000 only PW-4 and Jayanti were in their Jhuggi during the relevant time.A. 944/2011 Page 6 of 41PW-15 lady Ct.PW-15/B. PW-12 SI Ram Singh proved DD No.38B Ex.PW-12/C recorded at PS Hauz Khas at about 3.05 P.M. All these documents demonstrate that the occurrence took place in between 2.30 P.M. to 3.00(C) Presence of PW-4 Kali Charan :PW-4 gave a graphic account of the incident and named Prakash as the one present with his sister Jayanti since 12.30 Noon.The PCR form Ex. PW-15/A and Ex.Subsequently, PW-15A ASI Ram Singh, author of Ex.PW-15/B proved its photocopy, stating that original of Ex.PW-15/B was in his hand-writing.He further deposed that on 18.01.2000 at about 2.49 P.M. on receipt of a call from Telephone No.6960651 regarding burning of a Jhuggi in Green Park near Avtar Taxi Stand, he directed PCR Van E-89 to go there.On the basis of the information given by PCR officials, he recorded the information in Ex.PW-15/B. Counsel for the respondent had urged that the latter document, particularly Ex. PW-15/B is a fabrication, and was introduced later, and that the witness, PW-15 could not depose about it.He had questioned the veracity of the PCR form.These documents (Ex.PW-15/A and Ex.PW-15/B) were part of the charge-sheet from the inception.Furthermore, even though PW-15 could not say anything about Ex.PW-15/B, which, significantly bore a separate diary number, and was recorded immediately after Ex. PW-15/A, within a minute, the other witness, PW-15A, clearly deposed having recorded the original.He had brought the log book to court, in support of his deposition, and further stated that the original register had been destroyed, during the intervening period.A. 944/2011 Page 40 of 41This statement formed the basis of the rukka and an endorsement was made on it.ASI Badami Lal sent the rukka at about 4.30 P.M. and lodged the FIR in the present case.During the investigation, statements of concerned witnesses were recorded.Pursuant to his disclosure statement, the police recovered a polythene bag containing his blue pants, underwear and a key.All these articles were seized and necessary seizure memos were prepared.A. 944/2011 Page 2 of 41On the basis of the evidence collected, the Respondent was charged with the offences mentioned above.He entered the plea of not guilty and claimed Trial.The prosecution relied upon testimonies of 24 witnesses and also produced several exhibits.After considering them, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 22.05.2004 convicted Prakash for committing the offences under Sections 302/201/436 IPC.He, however, was acquitted of the charge under Section 376 IPC.Accordingly, judgment dated 22.05.2004 was set aside and Trial Court was directed to take corrective measures.On remand, the Trial Court recalled PW-4 Kali Charan and recorded his statement afresh.PW-6 Dasha Ram, and PW-11 Gore Lal were cross-examined, and the statement of Prakash was again recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After considering the material on record, the Trial Court acquitted Prakash of all charges by the impugned judgment.The State has challenged acquittal of the accused; it was granted leave to Appeal.Therefore, the present Appeal.PP for the State argued that the Trial Court fell into error in not appreciating the deposition of PW-4 in its proper perspective.He urged that this witness had seen the occurrence and had seen both Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 3 of 41 Jayanti and Prakash together inside the Jhuggi at the relevant time.The Trial Court ought not to have disbelieved him merely on the assumption that the testimony was not corroborated by any public witness and there were vital discrepancies and contradictions.There were no doubt some variations; yet the Court should have been alive to the fact that when the witness was made to depose in Court eight years after the incident, some lapses in memory were bound to occur.Yet, in all material particulars, this witness did not contradict himself, nor could the contradictions be deemed material.It was urged that Prakash was named in the PCR form where the incident was reported at the first instance.Recovery of the key at the instance of Accused was another incriminating circumstance which was ignored by the Trial Court.Furthermore, urged the APP, the Court also overlooked the fact that the testimony of PW-4 about Prakashs involvement, remained unshaken.His presence was corroborated by the testimonies of PW-6, PW-11 and PW-A. 944/2011 Page 3 of 41The FIR was recorded at the earliest opportunity, after the PCR intimation was received, and PW-4s statement was recorded.There was no question of false implication.Defence Counsel submitted that PW-4 Kali Charan gave different versions at different times and his testimony was not relied upon by the Trial Court to convict the Accused.The Accused had no motive to murder Jayanti.PW-4 Kali Charan was even not present at the spot and Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 4 of 41 his statement was fabricated subsequently to falsely implicate the Accused though he was present at his place of work with DW-1 Bagirath.Pawan Kumar & Anr.2004 (3) JCC 1652, Kalyan Vs.State of U.P. 2001 (4) RCR (Crl.) 424 and Dr.Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal & Ors Vs.State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No.891/2004, decided by the Supreme Court.A. 944/2011 Page 4 of 41It was argued by the respondents counsel, that Kalicharans testimonies could not be relied, since he contradicted himself about whether he had gone to school on the day of the incident, how he was asked to go out of the jhuggi, whether he saw his sister on the jhuggi roof, whether the accused had threatened to kill him, etc. Since the entire prosecution case hinged on the "last seen" testimony of PW-4 a child witness, the discrepancies were sufficiently grave as to cast serious doubts and suspicions about the prosecution story.It was urged, in addition, by the respondents counsel that the alleged recovery of the key from the accused was an utterly unbelievable circumstance.The very idea of someone committing a crime as serious as murder, and fleeing the spot, only to return near the locality, to enable the police to nab him, the next day, is incomprehensible, and against the normal course of human conduct.It was also submitted that the prosecutions reliance on the semen traces, allegedly found in the deceaseds clothes, was correctly disbelieved by the Trial Court, because there was nothing to prove that the articles were seized and sealed in time, Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 5 of 41 and seals given to an independent person.It was also submitted that the Trial Court findings are sound and ought to be sustained, because the evidence on record suggested that Prakash was not the only person with that name; there were three others in the vicinity, and the possibility of PW-4 not being truthful about the present Appellant was very strong.A. 944/2011 Page 5 of 41We have examined the record and proceedings in context of the submissions made before us.(B) Homicidal Death :Vandna received the message at about 2.49 P.M. in which it was reported that a girl had received burn injuries; she filled the PCR form Ex.PW-15/A. The Prosecution examined PW-15A ASI Ram Singh to prove contents of PCR form Ex.in his statement (Ex.PW-4/A) made to PW-16 ASI Badami Lal soon on his reaching the spot.Since the rukka was sent at about 4.30 P.M. without any Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 7 of 41 delay, there was hardly any possibility of fabrication of statement Ex.PW- 4/A in such a short interval.A. 944/2011 Page 7 of 41At the time of his examination before the Court on 22.01.2001, PW-4 claimed that he was present at the spot and identified Prakash residing near the locality as the one, who came to their Jhuggi.He further deposed that Prakash told him to run away after opening the door a bit and threatened him to kill in case he insisted to come inside.He further disclosed that when he returned after some time, he saw Prakash sprinkling kerosene oil and setting the Jhuggi on fire; Prakash ran away after locking the Jhuggi with the key.As the Jhuggi caught fire, people gathered and broke open the door.Jayanti was found dead and half burnt.He further testified that earlier he had seen the Accused Prakash and his sister Jayanti sitting on the cot without their lower garments i.e. pant and salwar, respectively.The Trial Court, on remand of the case, again, recorded Kali Charans statement on 09.04.2009 on oath after a gap of about 10 years.By this time he had turned 18 years old.He proved statement Ex.PW-4/A made to the police and deposed that in the afternoon only he and his sister Jayanti used to remain present in the Jhuggi.Prakash, resident of that area used to meet Jayanti on finding her alone.On that day i.e. 18.01.2000, he reached his Jhuggi as usual by 12.30 Noon after returning from school and saw Prakash inside the Jhuggi sitting without pant on the cot where his sister also sat without her salwar.He saw peeping through the entry door of the Jhuggi.When he knocked at the door, Prakash opened it and he saw his sister Jayanti weeping.Accused asked him to go away to play.After covering some distance in the gali, he saw Prakash fleeing after putting Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 8 of 41 lock on the door of the Jhuggi.He cried and raised an alarm on seeing smoke; many people gathered who broke open the door where his sister Jayanti was found lying dead on the floor.A. 944/2011 Page 8 of 41In this regard, it was urged that a close reading of the various statements of PW-4 during the investigation and subsequently his deposition in Court on 22.1.2001, his cross-examination the same day and his later examination-in-chief and cross-examination on 4.4.2009 reveal serious inconsistencies.It was submitted that PW-4 had recorded in the statement to the police that he came back after playing; yet in his deposition on 22.1.2001 as well as later on 4.4.2009 he stated having gone to School and returned around 12-12:30 PM.He mentioned about having kept his bag in the jhuggi - for the first time on 4.4.2009 - a fact which has been omitted in his previous statement and depositions.Counsel also pointed out that though PW-4 had deposed in Court earlier that the police had not recovered anything from the spot in his presence, yet on 4.4.2009, he has stated that his school bag was burnt even though the police was unable to find it.Again, counsel submitted, that PW-4 mentioned for the first time that he came to know that Prakash had been apprehended by the police.Another serious inconsistency pointed out by the counsel was that whereas in the previous deposition in Court on 22.1.2001 PW-2 mentioned that the accused had threatened to kill him in case he did not run away upon seeing him and Jayanti together; this fact was omitted in Crl.Again, for the first time, he deposed in 2009 having seen the sister Jayanti weeping inside the jhuggi and that Prakash had asked him to go away to play.A. 944/2011 Page 9 of 41Learned counsel argued that the prosecutions version could not also be believed because PW-11 Gore Lal contradicted and made improvements from his previous testimony.This witness did not name Kalicharan as the boy crying out that his jhuggi had caught fire; however, in the cross-examination conducted in 2009, he stated that Kalicharan appeared to have come back from school since he had his school bag.We find that in all the above statements made by PW-4 before the police (Ex.PW-4/A) or before the Court on both occasions, he did not deviate from his deposition about having seen the respondent, at the spot during the relevant period when he saw Prakash with Jayanti inside the Jhuggi.Lengthy cross-examination of the witness on both occasions could not shatter his testimony on this aspect.Whether PW-4 returned from school at about 12 Noon or had not gone to school on that day and was playing outside the Jhuggi is of no consequence as he claimed his presence at the spot soon after the incident and gave detailed account to police as to how and under what circumstances, he had seen Accused with Jayanti inside the Jhuggi.He even testified that he had seen both without their lower garments.A child aged about 8/10 years cannot fabricate such a story, especially to bring his deceased sister into disrepute for having a sexual relationship with someone.Since PW-4 was of tender age, possibly the accused did not fear him while having a sexual liaison with Jayanti.There is nothing improbable in the Accused trying to induce PW-4 to play outside when he was with the sister, the deceased Jayanti, Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 10 of 41 inside the jhuggi.The witness PW-4 knew the accused, and probably did not comprehend fully what was going on between the Appellant and Jayanti, when he left the jhuggi after being asked to do so.Despite having seen both in a compromising position, PW-4 did not raise an alarm.This conduct of PW-4 shows his innocence and renders the possibility of his deposing falsely, highly improbable. .A. 944/2011 Page 10 of 41The net result of this was that PW-4 had to depose de novo about 9 years after the incident.By this time, he had become a major, and was no longer a young boy.Nevertheless, his deposition was consistent vis--vis the respondents role on the fateful day.In the present case, PW-4s testimonies were consistent as to certain crucial particulars.They are:(a) Having seen Prakash in the company of the deceased Jayanti, on the day of the incident, after returning from school;(b) Prakash asking him to go out to play, and his (Prakash) staying behind to be with Jayanti, and shutting the jhuggi door;As a child, he had vivid recollections of seeing the accused with the deceased, leaving them and then seeing the jhuggi in flames, later.Even if his statements do show some inconsistencies and exaggerations, such as Prakash threatening to kill him, or that he saw Prakash setting the jhuggi on fire, or that he saw the accused and deceased Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 13 of 41 in a compromising position, in other essentials, about Prakash having visited their jhuggi, asking him to leave, and his later seeing the house in flames, have been consistently deposed to.Even if the Court were to disregard his version about having seen the accused and the deceased in a compromising position, or about the inconsistencies, the statements on the whole, are consistent about Prakashs involvement, and his having visited the jhuggi and staying with the deceased for some time, soon after which the jhuggi was on fire.He further deposed that the jhuggi was locked from outside, and that he kicked it open.This fact was later corroborated by PW-11 in his statement.He also deposed, in cross-examination, in 2009, that PW-4 Kalicharan had a school bag with him, that day.PW-23 Ct.Bhanwar Lal, who reached the spot along with ASI Badami Lal, took the rukka to the police station for registration of the FIR when ASI Badami Lal made endorsement over the statement of PW-In his cross-examination, PW-23 reiterated that no other relative of the Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 14 of 41 deceased was found at the spot except her brother i.e. PW-4, Kali Charan aged about 10 years.PW-16 ASI Badami Lal also testified on similar lines and proved statement Ex.PW-4/A recorded by him which formed basis of the FIR.He claimed that statement Ex.PW-4/A was recorded by him in his own hand writing.A. 944/2011 Page 14 of 41Testimonies of all these witnesses reveal no material discrepancies/ contradictions, to doubt PW-4s presence at the spot just before the incident, and having seen Prakash with the deceased.No ulterior motive has been attributed to these witnesses to falsely claim PW- 4s presence.Being a family member of the deceased, presence of PW-4 at the spot was quite natural and probable.A number of memos prepared at the spot bear his signatures and that supports his presence.He thereupon rushed to the spot; PW-6 saw him doing so, and also saw that children were with PW-11 when he rushed to the jhuggi which had caught fire.In all his statements, PW-4 disclosed that at the relevant time, he had seen both Prakash and Jayanti inside the Jhuggi.Even if the court were to discard the statement about PW-4 having seen Prakash and Jayanti, in a compromising position, nevertheless the surrounding circumstances point to only Prakash as the one with whom the deceased was at the time, when the incident occurred, on the relevant date.PW-4 Kali Charan attributed a specific role to Prakash whereby first he went upstairs to the roof where his sister Jayanti was sitting; both went inside Jhuggi and then sat on the cot.Significantly, neither was PW- 15 Vandana, who had produced the first exhibit, cross examined on that score; nor was PW-15A, on his assertions; he was not contradicted that the log book produced by him, contained the record of the incident.In our Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 18 of 41 view, there was no possibility of fabrication of the document, Ex.PW- 15/B subsequently as argued by Counsel for the respondent.Contents of Ex.PW-15/B reveal the Respondents name soon after the incident at about 3.15 P.M. It was also noted there that Prakash, residing in the Jhuggi was missing and the girl was lying naked.Contents of Ex.PW- 15/B are fully consistent with Kali Charans version recorded in the statement before the police and before the Court.A. 944/2011 Page 18 of 41In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Prakash at the first instance did not plead alibi; he later examined DW-1 Bagirath.The latter deposed that Prakash was with him on the day of occurrence, in his place of work near a park in Jor Bagh area.He further deposed that on 18.01.2000, he and Prakash had gone for some job in the morning and returned at about 7.00 P.M. when Prakash was whisked away by the police on suspicion at about 7.30 P.M. This defence evidence does not inspire confidence as no such plea was put to any of the prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination.Prakash too did not claim that he was with DW-1 at his place of work at the time of incident, during the course of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. DW-1 failed to specify where the construction work was on and who was his, as well as Prakashs employer.There is no doubt, that testimonies of defence witnesses are to be treated at par with that of prosecution witnesses.Yet consistency and credibility claim precedence over parity, which is given only if defence witnesses depose to a plausible story.In this case, it is noteworthy that in a bail application moved on behalf of the accused (by Sh.Additional Sessions Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 19 of 41 Judge, Delhi, it was averred that Prakash was in the company of one Munna from 1.00 P.M. to 3.00 P.M. and had gone to school with him.It was averred that after returning from school Prakash went to his Jhuggi where he heard about the incident and the police arrested him from his house at about 3.30 P.M. These pleas in the bail application (in para Nos.7 and 8) are apparently contrary to the defence taken before the Court during Trial.The Appellant perhaps failed to remember contents of the bail application and examined DW-1 Bagirath, who gave entirely different version.We are conscious that this circumstance cannot be used against the respondent, as a weighty or significant one, as a link in the chain.Yet, we note this, since it discloses shifting and varying explanations as to where Prakash was, at the relevant time.A. 944/2011 Page 19 of 41During the course of arguments, it was urged that there was more than one Prakash in the vicinity of the jhuggi, and the respondent was falsely implicated.A further argument was sought to be made that Prakash was in fact taken to the police station, the same day, as was evident from the depositions of some witnesses.The testimony of PW-4 was used, in this regard.The earliest statement of PW-4, under Section 161 itself mentioned that Prakash used to visit his house, and talk to Jayanti, for quite some time before the incident.The Court cannot obviously consider this statement; however, in his deposition PW-4 clearly mentioned that he knew Prakash since he used to live in the same locality.This assertion remained unchallenged by the defence.So far as PW-4 deposing about his having seen Prakash the same evening in the police station is concerned (another submission Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 20 of 41 made by the respondent, which was upheld by the Trial Court), in the entire evidence of PW-4, there is nothing to indicate that he saw Prakash after the incident, or that he saw him in the police station.A. 944/2011 Page 20 of 41To put it tersely both of them slept together by retiring to the room that night.Last seen together in legal parlance ordinarily refers to the last seen together in the street, at a public place, or at any place frequented by the public.But here, the last seen together is much more than that.The last seen together here is sleeping together inside the bolted room.It is in the evidence of PW-3 and PW-6 that they had dined together and the accused and the deceased were closeted in a room at about 8.30 p.m. Therefore, on the fateful day the accused and the deceased were closeted in a bedroom at about 8.30 p.m. is undisputed and it is for the accused alone to explain as to what happened and how his wife died and that too on account of strangulation."Now the question remains to be considered is who is responsible.As already noticed, the accused and the deceased were closeted inside the room.In such a situation, the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased are shifted to the accused.It is he who knows in what manner and in what circumstances the deceased has met her end and as to how the body with strangulation marks found its way into the nearby well.All the aforesaid circumstances, taken together cumulatively lead and unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused."A. 944/2011 Page 21 of 41There is no eye-witness to the incident.The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution has placed strong reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2 Wazir Khan (wrongly mentioned as Gafoor Khan by the High Court), a neighbour, who claims to have gone to the place of occurrence at the behest of P.W. 3 Thakurain alias Mehtab, also a neighbour.Weapon of assault was found from the room and was stained with blood.The High Court has rejected the evidence in regard to the discovery of this weapon at the behest of the respondent.We will assume that this weapon was found and attached in the course of investigation when the police reached the scene of occurrence.The stains of blood on the weapon have been found by the Serologist and the chemical analyser, to be of human origin.In addition thereto a banian of the accused was also attached as it was blood-stained.It was also stained with blood of human origin.The group was identified.Thus the circumstances on which the prosecution relied are (1) the accused did not open the door when P.W. 2, Wazir Khan knocked at it and even after the latter showered abuses till he had withdrawn 8 or 10 paces therefrom, (2) the accused also had three injuries on his person which have not been explained satisfactorily, (3) the accused had requested P.W. 2 Wazir Khan to pacify his mother as he apprehended that she may not be able to take the shock of loss of her daughter-in-law, (4) the father of the accused was not present at the time of occurrence and yet falsely involved by the accused, (5) find of bloodstained weapon and banian and (6) the statement made to P.W. 2 Wazir Khan that his wife was dead and he too would die.The evidence of P.W. 2 clearly establishes that shrieks were heard by Thakurain from the room, which was bolted from inside and even after he knocked at it and showered abuses, none opened the room.It was only after he withdrew 6 or 10 paces, that the accused opened the room and ran away Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 22 of 41 towards the jungle.The accused returned some time later and requested P.W. 2 to pacify and console his mother.Although P.W. 3 Thakurain does not say that she had sent P.W. 2 to the house of the respondent, we see no reason to doubt the statement of P.W. 2 in this behalf.P.W. 2 is a totally independent person who has no axe to grind against the respondent and who had visited the place of occurrence only after he was informed that shrieks of a woman were heard from the room which was bolted from within.We repeatedly asked counsel for the respondent to point out any reason why P.W. 2 should go out of his way to falsely implicate the accused.The defence of the accused is also false when he says that it was his father who killed his wife and thereafter tried to inflict injuries on him.The evidence shows that the father was not there when the incident occurred.This false explanation was rightly used by the learned Sessions Judge as an additional link to the chain of events presented by the prosecution.With respect the High Court has not tried to come to grips with the evidence tendered by the prosecution.The High Court has rejected his evidence on the following line of reasoning.A. 944/2011 Page 22 of 41A. 944/2011 Page 23 of 41 inference of this witness that the appellant was the person inside the house and he came out after opening the doors.A. 944/2011 Page 23 of 41P.W. 2 does not claim to be a witness to the occurrence nor does he say that the accused had beaten his wife in his presence and seeing.All that he says is that on being informed that a woman's shrieks were heard from the house, he went there, knocked at the door and when no one opened the door, he uttered abuses and then withdrew by 8 or 10 paces and in his full view the accused thereafter opened the door and ran out from the room towards the jungles.There were only two persons in the room viz. the accused and his wife.If accepted it clearly involves the accused in the commission of the crime.As stated earlier his evidence is further corroborated by the find of the human blood on the weapon of assault and his banian as well as the injuries on his person.The totality of the evidence and the circumstances relied on clearly establish the guilt of the accused.The learned Sessions Judge had reached the correct conclusion and the High Court, with respect, has interfered with the judgment on untenable grounds."In the present case, Prakash had intimate relations with Jayanti; she had not objected his visit; she went with him inside the Jhuggi.This too pointed an accusing finger at the accused.A. 944/2011 Page 26 of 41The evidence on record also shows that though PW-4 Kali Charan contradicted himself about whether the accused had sprinkled kerosene and set the jhuggi on Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 39 of 41 fire, he was consistent about having seen Prakash locking it, and thereafter his (the witness) having seen the flames.The fire; how the locked jhuggi had to be forced open; the discovery of the burnt body of Jayanti; and objective evidence in the form of FSL report corroborating the burning of the jhuggi, are matters of record.A. 944/2011 Page 39 of 41In this case, the accuseds act of causing mischief by setting fire, was clearly intended to result in disappearance of evidence; had the fire in the jhuggi not been detected in time, and quelled, not only could the evidence of his crime (under Section 302) have disappeared, leaving no trace of the body; even the crime of murder could well have gone undetected.However, he could not succeed on that score.Therefore, he is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 511 IPC for attempting to commit the offence under Section 201, IPC.In view of these findings, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is hereby reversed.The Appellant is convicted for the Crl.A. 944/2011 Page 40 of 41 offences punishable under Sections 302, 436 and 201 read with Section 511 IPC.For the offence under Section 302, he shall undergo imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to pay fine of ` 5,000/- or, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.For the offence under Section 436, he shall undergo RI for five years; and shall be liable to pay fine of ` 1,000/- or, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.For the offence under Section 201 read with Section 511 IPC, he shall undergo RI for one year, and shall be liable to pay fine of `1,000/- or, in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.All sentences shall operate concurrently.The period already spent by the Respondent/Accused, both pre-trial and post-trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Respondent shall surrender before the Trial Court on 22nd February, 2012, to serve the remainder of the sentence awarded to him.The appeal is allowed, to the above extent.
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
72,288,539 |
of the case, in short, are that the applicant has preferred a criminal complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the meantime, respondent has filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and his father for the offence punishable under Sections 365, 420, 406, 409, 506-B and 379 of IPC and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. The magisterial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the respondent registered the complaint for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.The revision filed by the applicant against said registration of criminal complaint was also dismissed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,494,043 |
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant Porselvi; Panchayat Union Chairman, went to her village on 18-2-1999 and when she was about to leave her house by getting into her jeep, the petitioner/accused came near her and shouted at her in filthy language and scolded her using her caste name.The first informant came to the Devakottai Police Station and gave a complaint.For the alleged occurrence took place on 18-2-1999, the first informant gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police alleging that the accused wrongly restrained the first informant and abused her in filthy language.This was registered in Crime No. 25 of 1999 under Sections 341 and 294(b) I.P.C. But, all of a sudden on 6-3-1999, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation and filed the charge-sheet for the above referred offences including the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. The charge-sheet has been filed only on the basis of the statement of the first informant that the petitioner, while abusing her in filthy language, used her caste name also.It is seen from the case diary that the first informant, agrieved over the non-registration of a case for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act, sent a petition to the Inspector of Police on 4-3-1999 giving full details of the incident.On that basis, the matter was referred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who, in turn, examined the first informant, who stated that the accused used her caste name also, while abusing her in filthy language.It is true that none of the other witnesses would speak about that.As a matter of fact, one of the witnesses would state that the petitioner did not use the caste name.However, on the basis of the statement of the first informant, the Deputy Superintendent of Police after obtaining opinion from the Public Prosecutor filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act.The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the caste name has not been used by the petitioner, while the incident took place, Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act would not get attracted.Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as under :-Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but, which may extend to five years and with fine.Admittedly, in this case, the first informant would belong to a Scheduled Caste.Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.Consequently, the connected Crl.
|
['Section 341 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.
|
1,494,059 |
JUDGMENT M.L. Pendse J.Matushree Textiles Limited is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and the authorised share capital of the company is Rs. 1,50,00,000 only divided into 15,00,000 equity shares of face value of Rs. 10 each.The subscribed capital is Rs. 89,00,000 divided into 8.90 lakhs shares.The shares of the company are listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and at the relevant time, the value quoted was Rs. 40 per share.The meeting was not convened by the company within the stipulated time.The plaintiffs instituted Suit No. 3002 of 1991 on September 21, 1991, for a declaration that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are not entitled to convene the eighth annual general meeting on September 30, 1991, or any other date as calling of the said meeting is ultra vires and null and void.The plaintiffs sought a declaration that notice dated September 2, 1991, convening the annual general meeting is ultra vires, invalid and illegal.The plaintiffs sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from holding and/or proceeding with the annual general meeting and from in any manner giving effect or acting upon in furtherance of implementation of the resolutions to be passed at the meeting.The plaintiffs are holders of 3,110 equity shares and their holding is 0.3 per cent.The notice of the eighth annual general meeting sets out that the following subjects will be transacted at the meeting :1. To receive and adopt the audited profit and loss account and the balance-sheet together with reports of directors and auditors thereon;To appoint a director in place of Mr. Vimal Kumar Poddar who retires by rotation and is eligible for reappointment;To appoint auditors and to authorise the board to fix their remuneration;To pass an ordinary resolution appointing Mr. Santosh Kumar Poddar as a director, andTo pass in ordinary resolution appointing Rajnikant Mehta as director.The plaintiffs complained that the eighth annual general meeting convened on September 30, 1991, was proposed to be held beyond the statutory period contemplated under section 166 of the Act and, therefore, the company is not entitled to call the meeting unless appropriate orders are obtained from the appropriate forum seeking extension of time.The plaintiffs further claimed that notice dated September 2, 1991, and which was deemed to have been served on September 9, 1991, for convening the meeting on September 30, 1991, does not comply with the requirement of section 171 of the Act as the duration of notice is less than 21 clear days.The plaintiffs further claimed that defendant No. 2, Santoshkumar Poddar, ceased to be a director of the company as from January 1, 1991, and his appointment as additional director pursuant to the resolution of the board of directors was bad in law.1. To receive and adopt the audited profit and loss account for the year ended March 31, 1991;2. To declare a dividend;To appoint a director in the place of Mr. Rajnikant Mehta, who retires by rotation and being eligible offers himself for reappointment;To appoint auditors and authorise the board to fix their remuneration;To consider whether the authorised share capital of the company be increased from Rs. 1,50,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,00,000 divided into 20,00,000 shares of Rs. 10 each;To issue 8,90,000 rights shares at the face value of Rs. 10 to the existing shareholders, andIn support of the submission, reference was made to a letter dated September 18, 1991, addressed to the company by attorneys of the plaintiffs.The letter demands supply of balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts.of the total equity subscribed.Defendant No. 1 is the company, while defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are the directors.The plaintiffs claimed that on retirement of defendant No. 2, the board was not properly constituted as the minimum number of directors required is three in number.The plaintiffs claimed that the resolution appointing defendant No. 2 as additional director was vitiated as there was no quorum required by the Act. The plaintiffs further claimed that if the appointment of defendant No. 2 was illegal and bad, the notice convening the annual general meeting signed by defendant No. 2 is bad in law and inoperative.The notice for convening the ninth annual general meeting sets out the following agenda :To authorise the board of directors to make loans to any body corporate from time to time and on such terms and conditions as the directors may deem fit, provided that the aggregate of the loans outstanding at any one time made to the company shall not exceed 30 per cent.of the aggregate of the subscribed share capital of the company.Suit No. 3139 of 1991 was instituted on September 30, 1991, by Arunkumar Poddar and Rajkumar Bajaj and to whom the plaintiffs in other two suits are closely related and/or are friends.Arunkumar Poddar is the real brother of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, Santoshkumar and Vimalkumar Poddar, respectively.Arunkumar Poddar and Rajkumar Bajaj claimed that initially, they were directors of the company but defendants Nos. 2 to 4 illegally claimed that they had ceased to be directors by virtue of section 283(1)(g) of the Act by operation of law.It was claimed that the contention of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 that Arunkumar Poddar and Rajkumar Bajaj failed to attend the meetings and, therefore, ceased to be directors is not correct.The relief in respect of these two meetings was based on the same averments which were made in the two companion suits.It hardly requires to be stated that the dispute between Arunkumar Poddar and his two brothers had led to the institution of the three suits.It is required to be stated at this juncture that at one stage, the dispute between the three brothers was referred to a spiritual leader in whom the brothers had confidence but the decision of the spiritual leader was not accepted by Arunkumar Poddar and the parties decided to fight out the litigation in court.The plaintiffs also sought relief restraining the defendants from implementation of the resolution and business proposed to be transacted at the said annual general meetings.Notice of Motion No. 2158 of 1991 was taken out by Arunkumar Poddar in Suit No. 3139 of 1991 for identical reliefs.The plaintiffs applied for grant of ad interim relief pending of the disposal of the notice of motion, but the learned trial judge declined to grant any ad interim relief.The plaintiffs thereupon preferred appeals before the Division Bench of this court and the Division Bench granted ad interim relief only in respect of the prayer restraining the defendants from implementing the resolutions to be passed at the two annual general meetings.Though Arunkumar had lodged proxies prior to the date of the meetings, neither Arunkumar Poddar, nor any of the plaintiffs in the three suits attended the meetings.The resolutions proposed in the meetings were passed unanimously.The notices of motion were taken up for hearing by the learned single judge after the date of the two meetings and the question which survived for consideration was whether the company should be restrained from implementing the resolutions which were passed.The contention of the plaintiffs that quorum was not available and, therefore, the appointment of defendant No. 2 is invalid was controverted and it was asserted that even though defendant No. 3 was related to defendant No. 2, there was no prohibition for defendant No. 3 to vote at the meting because the appointment of defendant No. 2 as additional director did not amount to contract or any other arrangement as prescribed by section 300 of the Act. The trial judge, by order dated October 15, 1991, found prima facie merit in the contentions urged to behalf of the defendants and held that the convening of the two annual general meetings did not suffer from any defect and it was not necessary to prevent the company from implementing the resolutions which were unanimously passed at the two annual general meetings.As a result of this finding, the trial judge dismissed the two motions.Accordingly, the prayer for continuation of interim relief is rejected.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,412,813 |
No.1/State.None for respondent No.2, though served.Present appeal has been filed under Section 14-(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 28/5/2020 passed by Special Judge, Bhind, whereby the application of the appellants under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected.Appellants are apprehending their arrest for the alleged offences registered at Crime No.113/2020 at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind, punishable under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (da), 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC & ST Act").Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the applellants have not committed any offence.They have been falsely implicated.Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that all the offences of IPC are triable by JMFC.There is no allegation against the present appellants of inflicting injury to the complainant party or 2 CRA-3350-2020 using caste related words.Hence, prayed for rejection of this criminal appeal.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.(ii) that, the appellant should first be summoned to cooperate in the investigation.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
149,414,653 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.48009/2019 (Moin @ Golu s/o Abdul Rashid Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 30.11.2019 Mr. Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.The prosecutrix has not made any allegation regarding commission of rape against the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain.The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail.The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.11.30 17:23:55 +05'30'
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,415,787 |
He has no criminal antecedents.He is ready to appear before the Trial Court and to co-operate with the trial.In such circumstances, the applicant be granted anticipatory bail.Learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.1 opposes the prayer.Applicant shall ensure that he would not commit any offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on them.It is made clear that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE ns
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,942,169 |
Case diary perused.In the morning at about 04:00 am she went to answer the nature's call at that time she saw applicant who used to come for morning tea at prosecutrix father's tea shop.On that day applicant came ot prosecutrix colony and with bad intention grabbed her hand.On this prosecutrix shouted and applicant ran away.Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time.Therefore, counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,422,386 |
08 Allowed md.CRM No. 8453 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25th September, 2018 in connection with Bhupatinagar Police Station Case No. 124 of 2018 dated 03.08.2018 under Sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Kedarnath Bera and others ... Petitioners Mr. Tapan Dutta Gupta, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Hutait, Adv.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,497,401 |
Accordingly she went to the house of Putul Sarkar in the evening and had a talk with Susama and Prakash.Prakash and Susama left the house of Putul Sarkar after some time arid she then returned home.PW 10 Putul Sarkar has also deposed that Prakash and Susama came to her house in the evening on the date of Susama's murder.JUDGMENT J N. Hore, J.The prosecution case may briefly be stated as follows:After marriage, Prakash and his wife Susama resided in the house of Prakash's father at Japur, Bongaon for 2/3 months and thereafter they lived together in a rented house at Gandhipally, Bongaon.They finally shifted to Madhyamgram where they were living together in a rented house at the time of occurrence.On 6-9-1983 Prakash and Susma came to the house of Rabi Adhikari (PW. 5), son-in-law of PW 1 Anima Adhikari, at Paschimpara, Bongaon in the morning.On the same day in the evening Prakash and Susama came to the house of Putul Sarkar (PW 10) at Japur, Bongaon where Susama's mother Urmila (PW 2) met her daughter and son-in-law and talked with them.After staying for about half an hour Prakash and Susama left the house of Putul Sarkar.Around 7.00 P.M. on the same day Susama was found on the road at Peadapara, Bongaon in front of the house of one Sub hash Paramanik with her throat cut.She was unable to speak.P.W. 4 Minati Paramanik removed her to the hospital on a rickshaw at 7.15 P.M. where she expired at 7.20 P.M.PW 1 Anima Adhikari lodged information with the Bongaon Police Station at 10.18 P.M. on the basis of which the police registered a case.PW 13, S.I. Samir Garai took up investigation of the case.He could not apprehend the appellant in spite repeated attempts.After completion of investigation he submitted chargesheet against the appellant showing him as absconder.The appellant was subsequently arrested and in the usual course, the case was committed to the Court of Session.Upon a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the victim and the accused were found in the house of PW 5 Rabi Adhikary in the morning, that they were found together in the evening in the house of PW 10 Putul Sarkar, that thereafter they were found proceeding towards Peadapara, and that shortly thereafter the victim was found with her throat slit and almost in an unconscious state around 7.00 P.M. at Peadapara.He has further found that the relation between the appellant and his wife was strained due to the fact that the appellant was unemployed and used to extort money from his wife who was doing tailoring job and sell household articles and the appellant, therefore, has some motive, though weak, for murder of his wife.He also found that the appellant absconded for a longtime after the occurrence.The learned Judge felt that these circumstances together with the absence of explanation consistent with the innocence of the appellant formed a complete chain of events which is consistent only with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.On such a view of the matter, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that there is no evidence in support of the alleged motive and the finding of the learned Judge is based on the statement of PW 8 made to the police and recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., which cannot be used as substantive evidence.He has further contended that the allged abscondence of the appellant has not been proved and that even if proved, this must be excluded from consideration inasmuch as this was not put to the appellant in his exmaination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The further contention of Mr. Dutta is that the sole circumstance that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together in the evening does not lead to the irresistible inference that the appellant committed the murder.There is no dispute that the appellant's Wife Susama met with violent death and this has been proved by the prosecution beyond any shadow of doubt.PW 4 Minati Paramanik removed Susama to Bongaon Hospital from Peadapara.The evidence of Dr. S.R. Chakraborty, (PW 11) Superintendent of Bongaon Sub-Divisional Hospital, shows that Sqsama was brought to the hospital at 7.15 P.M. on 6-9-1983 and after admission she expired at 7.20 P.M. PW 11 who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Susama on 7-9-1983 found the following injuries:One incised wound on the throat in the neck caused by a sharpcutting weapon on the left lateral part of the neck arund front of the neck up to right lateral part of the neck from left to right covering the frontal part of the throat.All vessels of the neck with trachea and oesophagus were cut completely in front of the neck.Death in the opinion of the doctor, was due to shock and haemorrhage as result of the injury mentioned above which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.According to the doctor after sustaining such injury it was not possible for her to speak or remain alive for more than an hour or so.There is, therefore, no doubt that it is a case of gruesome murder perpertrated in a most cruel arid inhuman manner.The next question - and the crucial one - is whether the appellant was responsible for the death of the deceased There is no direct evidence of eye witness implicating the appellant.The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstancial evidence.The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are as follows:(1) The relation between the appellant and his wife was strained and the appellant had motive for murder;(2) The appellant and the deceased were last seen together in the evening some time before the occurrence;(3) Absondence of the appellant after the occurrence.Before we proceed to examine the evidence in support of the alleged circumstances we may dispose of the objection raised with regard to the First Information Report (Ext. 1).The First Information Report was lodged at 10.18 P.M. on 6-9-1983 and according to PW 13, after registering a case on the basis of the First Information Report he took up investigation and left for Peadapara at 10.30 P.M. and reached there at 10.40 P.M. The consistent evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 is that before the lodging of the First Information Report some police officer came to the house of these witnesses and made enquiries regarding the death of Susama and disclosed to them that Susama had been murdered.All these witnesses including complainant PW 1 came to know about the murder of Susama for the first time from the said police officer.It is clear, therefore, that police had already received information about the murder of Susama which was a cognizable offence and started investigation.Ext. 1 is, therefore, hit by Section 162, Cr.P.C. and cannot be treated as the First Information Report in this case.With regard to the alleged motive, there is absolutely no evidence in support of it.Both PWs 1 and 2 have stated that they do not know anything about the relationship between the appellant and his wife.According to PW 1, Prakash used to sell lungis etc. PW 2, mother of the victim has stated that Prakash had a grocery shop and his wife Susama did tailoring job.PW 8 Sova Sen, mother of the appellant, also states that both Prakash and Susama had tailoring job.PW 8 has stated that the Prakash and Susama had a happy conjugal life and they had no dispute or quarrel.She was declared hostile and confronted with her statement made to the police and recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. to the effect that Prakash was not doing any work and his newly married wife was doing tailoring job and Prakash used to take money from his wife and by selling household articles he used to spend money lavishly and for all these there was strained relation between them.It is most unfortunate that the learned Judge used this statement of PW 8 made to the police and recordedunder Section 161, Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence and held that there was motive for murder though such motive was not strong.The learned Judge has observed as follows:That statement before the police should not be rejected as it is something improper to suggest that whatever police does is wrong or motivated or purposive...that considered as a whole it will not be proper to suggest that there was no motive for murder at all but such motive was weak".Such a statement can be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court, by the prosecution, only for the purpose of contradicting the witness who has made such a statement in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in the cross-examination.The prosecution has hopelessly failed to prove the alleged motive for murder.The unchallenged evidence of PW 5 Rabi Adhikari, son-in-law of PW 1 Anima Adhikari, is that the appellant and the deceased paid a visit to his house on the day of Susama's death in the morning.He left home in connection with his work and when he returned at mid-day he found that the appellant and his wife had already left his house.PW 9 Archana Adhikari, sister of PW 1 Anima Adhikari and the deceased, has also deposed that she saw the appellant and her sister Susama in the house of Rabi Adhikary in the morning on the date of her death.The appellant has also admitted in his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that he went to the house of Rabi Adhikari with his wife in the morning on the date of the occurrence.The next phase of the prosecution case is that the appellant and his wife Susama went to the house of Putul Sarkar (PW 10) at Japur, Bongaon in the evening.1,2 and 10 support this part of the prosecution case.PW 1 has deposed that on 6-9-83 she saw her sister Susama and her husband Prakash in the house of Putul Sarkar (PW 10) in the evening for the last time.She had no talk with them as she was proceeding to 'Kuthibaif where she used to work as a cook.This part of her testimony has not been challenged in the cross-examination.The unchallenged testimony of PW 2 Urmila Adhikari, mother of the deceased, is that on the day of occurrence Putul Sarkar (PW 10) called at her house and asked her to go to Putul's house to meet her daughter Susama and her husband Prakash.They stayed for about half an hour and then left her house together.Regarding the time of visit she has, however, been contradicted by her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that Prakash and Susama came to her house in the afternoon.Her testimony in court that Susama and Prakash came to her house in the evening cannot, therefore, be accepted.The evidence of these witnesses does not show precisely at what time Prakash and Susama left the house of Putul Sarkar.It has, however, been clearly established that appellant Prakash and his wife Susaraa were last seen together in the house of Putul Sarkar some time around the evening.The evidence discloses that the occurrence took place around 7.00 P.M. at Peadapara.There is no clear evidence regarding the distance between Putul's house and the place of occurrence.It cannot be said that the departure of the appellant and his wife from the house of Putul Sarkar was in close proximity as to the time and situation.In his anxiety to establish close proximity in time and situation the learned Additional Sessions Judge again fell into a grave error in using the statements of PW 3 Jagadish Dutta, PW 7 Mantu Dutta and PW 6 Kesto Paul made to the police and recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence.3, 6 and 7 have all turned hostile.All these witnesses have stated that they do not know appellant Prakash Sen or his wife.They were contradicted by their statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Both PWs 3 and 7 stated before the police that while chatting at Peadapara mohr at about 7.00 P.M. on 6-9-1983 they saw accused Prakash Sen with his wife going through Peadapara galli and some time thereafter they heard shouts of gandogol inside Peadapara and after going in front of the house of Bibhuti Paramanik they saw a woman who had covered her throat with cloth and she was unable to speak and her wearing apparel became soaked with blood.PW 6 made a statement before the police that while standing on Gandhipally road at 7.15 or 7.30 P.M. on 6-9-1983 he saw the accussed Prakash Sen leaving the place running.The learned Judge relied on such statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. as substantive evidence He has observed as follows:Mantu Dutta, Jagdish Dutta and Kesto Paul are young men of the locality and almost of the same age of the accused and as such it is most likely that accused Prakash was known to them from before.That considered in the aforesaid context, it will appear that what the witnesses Jagdish and Minati Dutta and Kesto Paul and Mantu Paramanik stated before the police are true and I.O. did not manufacture such evidence to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution case to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence by their tyes men' as I.O. recorded their statements on the particular night and nothing has ever been suggested that they had any line with the police... such evidence (the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.) itself establishes another independent subsidiary chain of circumstancial evidence to supplement the prosecution case which would unerringly show complicity of the accused with the commission of the offence." It appears that the learned Judge was greatly influenced by the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which can never be used as substantive evidence.The question whether the statements were honestly and faithfully recorded by the police officer is entirely irrelevant.The proviso to Section 162(1) imposes a complete ban on the use of the statements, however faithfully recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. for the purpose of corroboration or as substantive evidence unless the statement comes within the purview of Sub-section (2).Regarding the alleged abscondence the evidence of PW 13, the Investigating Officer, goes to show that he made searches for the appellant in the house of his father at Bongaon and the neighbouring localities but he never went to Madhyamgram in search of the appellant.The evidence of PWs 1 and 8 shows that at the material time the appellant was living in a rented house at Madhyamgram.PW 13 never went to the appellant's house at Madhyamgram.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,497,515 |
This appeal is under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 411-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appellant was tried along with three persons, Sudhir Roy alias Sudhin, Chittaranjan Das alias Chitta and Kartick Chandra Das, on a charge under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and on two other charges, both under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act -- one of these being in respect of possession without licence of one sten gun and the other in respect of possession without licence of twenty-two cartridges.The jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against all the four persons on both the charges under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act. In respect of the charge under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, the jury were divided in the proportion of seven to two and the majority verdict was that all the accused persons were guilty of that offence.The learned Judge agreed with the majority verdict in respect of the offence under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the appellant and the other accused persons under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years.In that taxi they carried with them one sten gun with magazine fully loaded with twenty-two cartridges, one bhojali, a hand-grenade, some torches, five more bombs and several other articles of gun.It is said that the sten gun and the cartridges had been packed up In cloth and paper, that the hand-grenade and the torches were Inside what is called a shoulder bag and the bhojali was also kept packed.The earthen pot which is said to have contained five bombs was also packed, the mouth of the pot being closed by paper, There was a fifth package containing some garments.The prosecution case is that the six persons had provided themselves with all these things with the intention of committing a dacoity somewhere near Howrah or further off and that they were proceeding in the taxi towards the place where they wanted to commit dacoity fully prepared for that purpose.The learned Judge also convicted the appellant and the other three persons of the offence under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act in respect of possession of the sten gun and also in respect of the possession of twenty-two cartridges without licence.He sentenced each of the accused to rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act in respect of the possession of the sten gun without licence.He passed no separate sentence for the offence under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act in respect of the possession of the cartridges.He further ordered that the two sentences would run concurrently.Of the four convicted persons, only Madhusudan Sen Gupta has appealed.The prosecution case is that on the 30th March, 1955, six persons including Madhusudan Sen Gupta and the other three accused persons, who were tried with him boarded a taxi W B T 358 -- at the crossing of the Gariahata Road and Rashbehari Avenue and proceeded in that taxi towards Howrah side.Before, however, they could effect their purpose, the police stopped them.It is said that a police party had on receipt of previous information been waiting for the accused persons near the Junction of Gariahata Road and Rashbehari Avenue and as soon as the four accused persons and their two companions got into the taxi and the taxi left, the three police officers and some plain clothed constables followed the taxi in a private car.For a considerable distance the police party in their car kept behind the taxi in which the accused persons were travelling, but it is said that when the taxi reached the junction of Clive Ghat Road and Strand Road and was held up by traffic ahead and a tram car on the right side of the taxi, the private car in which the police were travelling shot ahead by the right of the tramway and reached the crossing of the Strand Bank Road and the Strand Road where two sergeants were found on duty.These sergeants were informed by Inspector Amiya Kumar Gupta who was travelling in the police car about the position and then all of them -- the sergeants and these police officers travelling in their police car --stopped the taxi with all the seven persons in it, namely, the six passengers and the driver, in front of 221/1, Strand Bank Road.All the six persons were according to the prosecution case then brought out of the car.Some of the police officers got inside the taxi and then discovered five packages lying in the taxi, three on the rear seat and two on the floor of the taxi in front of the rear seat.It is said that after these packages were opened, one of the three which were found on the rear seat was found to contain a sten gun in three parts and a magazine loaded with twenty-two cartridges, another -- a shoulder bag was found to contain one hand-grenade while the third package on the rear seat was found to contain a bhojali in scabbard.Of the two packages which were found on the floor it is said that one contained some articles of garment, namely, a full sleeved shirt and a torch while the other contained five country made bombs.Before, however, the six persons who were brought down could be arrested, two managed to escape.The remaining four 9s also the taxi and its driver and its contents were taken to the Thana nearby, where a search-list was prepared in the presence of search witnesses who had already been secured.On the basis of information that was lodged apparently by some of the police officers, a crime-sheet entry was made in the Barabazar Thana.On the above allegation of facts the prosecution said that the four accused persons together with two, who has escaped, and made preparations to commit dacolty and thus committed an offence under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code and further that all of them were in Joint possession of the sten gun and the cartridges that were found in the taxi and as they had no licence for the possession of the same, they committed two other offences under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act.The appellant and the other three accused who were tried with him all pleaded not guilty.The defence case, as far as can be ascertained from the suggestions made on behalf of the accused persons in the cross-examination of witnesses, is that at the time the taxi in which the accused persons were travelling was stooped by the police, there was no sten gun, ammunition or any of the other articles as alleged by the prosecution inside it and that these were planted by the police in the taxi after the taxi had been taken inside the Thana compound.It was also suggested by the defence that in all there were only four persons, namely, the four accused who were tried together, besides the driver of the taxi and the story that there were six was untrue.It was suggested in the alternative that if there were two more persons, they were police informers and they could escape as the police deliberately allowed them to escape.The learned Judge rightly told the Jury that if there were only four persons, then the offence under Section 399 would not be committed, because "even if they had made preparations to commit robbery that is not an offence under the Code." He further pointed out very rightly that for committing the offence or attempting to commit the offence of dacoity there should be five persons & that, therefore, they had to consider whether these persons were accompanied by two other persons.As admittedly only four persons out of six were arrested and according to the prosecution two escaped, the important question which arose for jury in deciding whether an offence of preparation to commit dacoity had been committed was whether, in fact, there were only four persons as the learned Judge pointed out, and, in the second place, whether if there were other two, whether those two along with the four who were arrested and who were later put on trial had the common intention of committing a dacoity and made the preparations for that purpose.The defence suggestion was that the two persons who had escaped had been allowed to escape and that even if they might be men of the gang, they had turned informers and had given information to the police.The argument was that even if the other four had the intention to commit robbery, the two who had escaped did not share this common intention and therefore, in law no offence under Section 399 I. P. C. was made out."You have heard the evidence.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,497,537 |
Further the confession recorded from first petitioner is against the provisionsunder Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is inordinate delay in lodging thecomplaint and the same is not explained in the F.I.R. The alleged occurrencesbetween October 2002 and August 2003 in a single complaint is not legallysustainable.The alleged complaint would in no way attract the penal provisionsreferred to above.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Trichy.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Perambalur.The petitioners/accused 2 and 3 in crime No.1/2004 on the file of thesecond respondent have filed this petition to quash the F.I.R. registeredagainst them under Sections 420 and 477 I.P.C.The brief averments in the grounds adumbrated in the petition may beset out briefly as under:-(a) The complaint was presented before the second respondent forfurther investigation in pursuance of the sanction accorded by the Governmentand there is no record to show that the complaint was filed before the firstrespondent who in turn directed the second respondent to register the case.(b) The statement recorded from the first accused by the firstrespondent did not disclose that these petitioners were involved in the case.The respondent has not yet filed any final report in thiscase so far and therefore in view of the above mentioned grounds the same isliable to quashed.The averments in the counter filed by the respondents may be set outbriefly as under:-(a) The contentions raised in the petition are baseless.Hence the complaintpreferred before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy wasendorsed to the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I D., Perambalur for investigation.Thus, in Crime No.1/2004 under Sections 277 and 420 I.P.C., the case wasregistered and F.I.R. and copies of documents forwarded to the DeputySuperintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy.(b) Later the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichyconducted a preliminary enquiry and a report was sent to the Government.TheGovernment issued only a direction to prefer a complaint on the basis of thepreliminary report and the same has been wrongly interpreted in the petition assanction.The documents referred to in the complaint have been produced andsent for handwriting expert's opinion through Court.On the direction of thehigher authorities the investigating officer has investigated the case andtherefore the contention in the petition contrary to such fact will not holdgood.The investigation clearly proved the involvement of the petitioners inthe commission of the crime and it is a matter of evidence to be decided duringtrial.(c) The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner andthe fraudulent transaction is well known to both of them and the cement stocksand other things were sold in a shop with the knowledge of the petitioners.Theforged seals and visiting cards in the name of the second petitioner have beenrecovered.More than 117 witnesses have been examined and their statementsrecorded.5 witnesses have given statements in the presence of the JudicialMagistrate that the first accused with connivance of the petitioners cheated theGovernment funds to the tune of about Rs.9 lakhs.The petitioners were takencustody by the police through court and on interrogation, incriminatingmaterials were recovered from them.Therefore there is no illegality committedby the investigating agency in this regard.(d) The case is still under investigation.The first respondent isincharge of Trichy and Perambalur Districts and therefore he has fulljurisdiction to investigate the case as per the orders of the higherauthorities.Though the first information is one and the same, appropriatecharges will be levelled against the petitioners for the specific offences inthe final report.This petition is filed by the petitioners as an after thoughtto escape from the clutches of law and therefore the same may be dismissed.The petitioners have filed a reply counter denying the allegations madeby the respondents in the counter affidavit.Heard Mr.The other grounds raised in the petition have to be considered only atthe time of trial on merits by the concerned court after evidence adduced by theprosecution and therefore this Court is of the opinion that none of the othergrounds adumbrated in the petition has to be considered by this Court so as toexercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.For the reasons stated above, this petition is liable to be dismissedand is accordingly dismissed.Consequently, Crl.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,760,385 |
The applicant also allegedly sold same plot to number of persons.1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.34835 of 2020 (Sheikh Ismile vs. State of MP) Indore, dated :29.09.2020 Shri A. S. Garg, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Somesh Gobhuj, learned Public Prosecutor for the non- applicant - State is present in person through Video Conferencing.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.As per prosecution story, a complaint was filed against applicant and other co-accused persons who developed a land from some agriculturalists and named it as Mayur Grah Nirman Sanstha and without registering the land purchased in favour of the society, without obtaining various permissions such as, permission for diversion, layout permission, certificate regarding land not belonging to government from the concerned authority, permission for development of colony work from the Town & Country Planning etc., carved out plots in the aforesaid land, illegally sold plots to various purchasers and illegal possession was given to such purchasers on paper on the basis of forged notarized documents.The specific allegation against the applicant was that he along with his brother Sheikh Mushtaq was mainly involved in committing the aforesaid illegalities.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,767,774 |
The deceased is one Dinesh who is stated to be died on account of murderous assault on him.The allegation against the applicant is that of having disposed of the body in concert with the main accused.Learned counsel for the State has stated that the only evidence in this case against the applicant is that of having disposed of the body of deceased after having murderous assault on him.It is stated that the main accused is the wife of the deceased who was suspecting the deceased of having relation with some other women.As per the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Ritesh, there was bad-blood between husband and wife.Learned counsel for the State has also stated that by way of section 120-B IPC, the applicant has been connected with the offence u/s 302 IPC.On being asked specifically what is the evidence against the applicant which would link the applicant before the murder, no such evidence has been shown by the counsel for the State.There is no independent evidence to show that the applicant was involved in the murder of deceased.It is directed that the applicant be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE psm
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,768,752 |
Six months prior to the date of incident Farukh Shaikh marriedwith Smt. Sahista.Smt. Shahista was residing separately in a room situatedat Rajiv Nagar, Taluka-Miraj, District- Sangli.Smt. Madina (PW No.10) wasresiding along with her two children at a room situated at Nehrunagar,Taluka-Miraj, District Sangli.The appellant and co-accused Saddam (juvenile in conflict withlaw) were friends of deceased Farukh Shaikh.The appellant and co-accusedSaddam are cousin brothers.Farukh Shaikh came to know that, Saddamwas having illicit relationship with Smt. Shahista.It is also the prosecutioncase that, Madina (PW No.10) was having illicit relationship with theappellant who was residing near her house at Gandhi Colony.FarukhShaikh told the said fact to Smt. Madina and therefore the appellant andco-accused were angry with Frukh Shaikh.Prior to the date of incident i.e.26th April 2009, Farukh Shaikh (deceased) had disclosed the said fact to hisbrother Firoz Y. Shaikh (PW No.9) and this was also the reason that theappellant and co-accused Saddam were angry with Farukh Shaikh and hehad expressed his apprehension to Firoz Shaikh (PW No.9) that, co-accused 3/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docSaddam will cause grievous hurt to him.On 25th April 2009 at about 10.00 p.m, Farukh Shaikh had beento the house of Smt.Madina (PW No.10) and slept there.Shahista and Saddam came to the house of Smt.Madina and a discussion took place between Smt. Shahista and Farukh.Thesaid discussion was going on for an hour.Saddam left the said place andwent to his house.At about 8.00 a.m, Smt.Madina (PW No.10) and Farukh(deceased) were having taking tea.Madina (PW No.10), FarukhShaikh and their daughter Ipthesam (PW No.11) then aged about 14 yearswere present in the house.That time, there was a knock on the front doorof their house.Farukh Shaikh opened the door.After opening the door,Saddam entered into the house and latched the door from inside.At thesame time, from the backside of the door of their house, the appellant cameinside the house and gave a blow of wooden log on the back of the head ofFarukh.She narrated the said incident to her parents and thereafter allthe concerned persons came at the scene of offence when she was informedthat, Farukh Shaikh was admitted to Civil Hospital.4] Firoz Y. Shaikh (PW No.9) is the younger brother of deceasedFarukh.On 26th April 2009 he was ploying an auto-rickshaw when hiscousin mother-in-law stopped it and disclosed to him that, the appellantand Saddam (juvenile in conflict with law) have assaulted his elder brotherFarukh and kept him inside the house by locking door from outside.Heimmediately rushed to the house of Farukh and noticed a lock on the doorof house.He tried to break it open.The appellant who was present near thesaid spot told him that he is having key of the said lock and asked FirozShaikh (PW No.9) to take the key.Firoz Shaikh (PW No.9) took the keyfrom him and opened the lock and entered into the house.He saw Farukh,his elder brother was lying in the house with blood stream.He thereaftertook Farukh from his auto-rickshaw and admitted him in Civil Hospital.Farukh was admitted in the casualty ward of the Civil Hospital, Sangli.Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary for the Appellant.Mr. J.P. Yagnik, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.GADKARI, J.J.Pronounced On: 27th February 2019JUDGMENT (Per Shri A.S. Gadkari, J.):-1] The appellant has impugned the Judgment and Order dated 19 thNovember 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Sangliin Sessions Case No.160 of 2009 convicting the appellant for the offencepunishable under Section 302, 452 read with 34 and under section 342 ofIndian Penal Code, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for lifeand to pay a fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine to further 1/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docundergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 302 read with34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::By the same Judgment and Order, the appellant has beendirected to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine ofRs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months under section 452 read with 34 of the IndianPenal Code.The appellant is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine tofurther undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under section 342of the Indian Penal Code.The Trial Court has directed that all the sentences shall runconcurrently.2] Heard Mr. Y.M Chaudhary, the learned counsel for theAppellant and Mr. J.P. Yagnik, the learned APP for the State.Perused theentire record.3] The date and time of the incident is 26 th April 2009 at about8.00 a.m and the place of the incident was the residential premises ofFarukh Shaikh (deceased).2/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::Saddam also assaulted Farukh with wooden stick.Due to saidassault, Farukh fell down and became unconscious.Madina (PWNo.10) made hue and cry.The appellant threatened Smt. Madina with dire-consequences, if she continue to shout.It is alleged that, the appellant 4/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docpushed out Smt. Madina and her daughter Ms.Ipthesam (PW No.11) fromback side door of their house.Madina (PW No.10) alongwithMs.Ipthesam (PW No.11) therefore rushed to her parents house by an auto-rickshaw.He 5/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docthereafter lodged the present crime with Vishrambag Police Station, Sanglion 26th April 2009 at about 8.30 a.m.5] Dr. Madhuri S. Kamble (PW No.18) initially treated Farukh andgave preliminary treatment at the Civil Hospital.She noticed the followingexternal injuries on the person of Farukh Shaikh:-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::1. Contusion over occipital region of 10 c.m x 5 c.m redish.2. Contusion over left temporo Parietal region of 15c.m x 12 c.m3. Contusion over left right temporo parietal region 10 cm x 3 c.m.4. Contusion over abdomen around umbillicus of size 4 c.m x 6 c.m. size reddish along with three scrach abrassionn over it of 1 x 1 c.m size.Contusion over right thigh of 4 x 3 cm redish.Contusion over left thigh of 15 x 12 c.m redish.At Civil Hospital, Sangli Farukh Shaikh was further treated byDr.Appasaheb V. Ingale (PW No.17) a Surgon.He noticed discharge ofblood from the left ear and both nostrils.Blood Pressure of Farukh Shaikhwas 120/70 which was normal.He informed the condition of FarukhShaikh as serious to his relatives.The relatives of Faruk Shaikh were notwilling to continue with the treatment at Civil Hospital, Sangli andtherefore they got Farukh Shaikh discharged from the said hospital against 6/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docthe medical advise .The relatives of Farukh Shaikh shifted him to SanjeevNeurosurgical Centre owned by Dr. Sanjeev M. Kulkarni (PW No.16) atabout 2.00 p.m In the said hospital Farukh Shaikh was under treatment ofDr.Sanjeev M. Kukarni (PW No.16) upto 2nd May 2009.6] The appellant when was in the police custody expressed hisdesire to give recovery of wooden log used by him for assaulting FarukhShaikh.Accordingly, a wooden log admeasuring about 51 inches in lengthwas recovered at the instance of the appellant in presence of panch-witnessnamely Altaf H. Pakhali (PW No.8) by effecting a detailed panchanama(Exh.49)under Section 27of the Indian Evidence Act on 29th April 2009.7] On 2nd May 2009, at about 6.30 p.m. Farukh Shaikh developedcardiac arrest and expired at about 7.00 p.m. After the death of FarukhShaikh, the hospital administration handed over the dead body of Farukh tothe police.Dr. Vyankatrao Hulwan (PW No.15) conducted autopsy on thedead body of Farukh Shakh on 2.5.2009 between 10 to 11 p.m and opinedthat, the death of Farukh Shaikh occurred due to 'Head Injury'.Accordingly,he made an endorsement in the postmortem notes.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::8] After the death of Farukh Shaikh Section 302 of Indian PenalCode was added to CR No.81 of 2009 which was originally registered with 7/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docSections 307, 452, 342 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.After completionof investigation, the police had submitted chargesheet in the Court ofJudicial Magistrate First Class, Sangli.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::The said charge was read overand explained to the appellant to which he denied and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case, examined in all 21witnesses.The Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearingthe parties to the case, was pleased to convict the appellant by theimpugned Judgment and Orfder as noted hereinabove.9] The aforestated chronology of events are admitted facts onrecord.In view of the facts and circumstances of the present casementioned herein above, the question arises for our consideration is, as towhat offence the appellant has actually committed.8/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.doc10] Mr. Chaoudhary, the learned Counsel for the appellantsubmitted that due to the causation i.e. the shifting of Farukh Shaikhagainst medical advise from the Civil Hospital, Sangli to SanjeevNeurosurgical Centre owned by Dr. Sanjeev M. Kulkarni (PW No.16), thenature of injuries got aggravated and subsequently the applicant died dueto cardiac arrest.The injuriees received at thehands of appellant mentioned in paragraph No.5 hereinabove, whichwould at the most attract Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code.11] A minute scrutiny of the evidence on record would indicatethat, after Firoz Shaikh (PW No.9) admitted Farukh Shaikh at CivilHospital, Sangli, Dr. Madhuri S. Kamble (PW No.18) at the first instanceexamined him and gave primary treatment.As noted earlier in paragraph-5she noticed the said six external injuries on the person of Farukh Shaikhand has issued a medical certificate (Exh.75) to that effect.In hertestimony, she has stated that, the Civil Hospital informed the relatives ofthe patient that, a nuro-surgeon was not available in the said hospital andtherefore patient's relatives have to decide if they want to keep the patient 9/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docin the said Civil Hospital and continue with the treatment or they wouldlike to take the patient to a private hospital.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she had givenadvise to the patient to continue treatment at Civil Hospital, Sangli.Shefurther stated that, Dr. Ingale (PW No.17), General Surgeon attached to theCivil Hospital examined the patient.Dr. Ingale is master of surgeon andwas more experienced than her.12] Dr. Ingale (PW No.17) in his testimony has stated that, on 26 thApril 2009 at 9.45 a.m., the patient namely Farukh Shaikh aged about 36years was brought in unconscious condition by his father Mr. Yusuf Shaikh.He found the condition of the patient to be serious.That the patient wasfacing discharge of blood from his left ear and both nostrils.His bloodpressure was 120/70 which was normal.He noticed multiple abrasionsover abdomen.He advised to do CT Scan and accordingly CT Scan wasundertaken at about 10.30 a.m.. The report of CT Scan was made availableat 11.00 a.m. After receiving CT Scan report, he noticed massive cerebralodema.There was subarachonoid blood in the basal cisterns.He alsonoticed well defined blood clots in right posterior parieatal region and alsonoticed multiple fracture in left occipital region and left frontal region.10/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.doc After perusing the said report, he noticed that the condition ofthe patient was very serious and it was informed to relatives of the patient.The relatives of the patient were not willing to keep him in Civil Hospitaland therefore, the patient i.e. Farukh Shaikh (deceased) was dischargedagainst medial advise at 1.15 p.m. In his cross-examination, Dr. Ingale has admitted that thegeneral condition of the patient was quite serious.He stated that suchblood clots were not necessary to be removed.He stated that, such type ofpatient can be cured in Civil Hospital, Sangli and therefore, he gavesuggestion to the relatives of the patient that he can be cured in the CivilHospital and advised them not to remove the patient from the CivilHospital.He has further admitted that, he was having hope for this patient(Farukh Shaikh) and he asked relatives of the said patient not to removethe patient from Civil Hospital.He also admitted that, according to him,such type of patient can be cured.He has further admitted that, if patient isshifted in such condition to other hospital, it may be fatal for the patient.That if such patient is shifted, during shifting, injuries may worsen.He has 11/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docexplained that "worsen" means if the injury is minor, it may become majorduring shifting and wastage of time when patient is shifted from hishospital to other hospital.At that time there would be a break in thetreatment.He has further opined that the break in the treatment mightcause death of the patient.He has further admitted that, though thepatient's condition was serious, there was still good hope for his survival.13] Dr. Sanjeev M. Kukarni (PW No.16) in his testimony has statedthat, the patient Farukh Shaikh was brought from Civil Hospital, Sangli tohis hospital on 26th April 2009 at about 2.00 p.m. He gave treatment toFarukh Shaikh (deceased) from 2.00 p.m of 26 th April 2009 till 2nd May2009 when Farukh Shaikh died in his hospital while undertakingtreatment.He has stated that, the patient was brought to his hospital whenhe was unconscious and never conscious till his death.The conditionFarukh Shaikh was critical since beginning.That he had multiple fracturesto both side of skull bones.He has further stated that, it was difficult for thepatient to survive with those injuries.That on 2nd May 2009 at about 5.30p.m., Farukh Shaikh developed 'cardiac arrest'.That resuscitation wastried, however, he could not survive and expired at 7.00 p.m. He has statedthat in such type of patient, surgery treatment was not helpful.That after 12/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.dochis death, the body of the said patient was handed over to the police.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::In his cross-examination, he has admitted that, injuries on theperson of Farukh Shaikh were superficial injuries and were accordinglynoted on record.He noted superficial injuries of scalp.He has furtheradmitted that, usually when patient was already treated in Civil Hospital,they would have mentioned all superficial injuries.He has further statedthat, in treatment certificate (Exh.69), the cause of death in particularwords is not mentioned.That in the said certificate, he has not mentionedthe cause of death of the patient was due to 'head injury'.He has furtheradmitted that, there are many reasons for developing 'cardiac arrest'.14] Dr. Vyankatrao Hulwan (PW No.15) had performed the autopsyon the dead body of Farukh Shaikh.In his testimony, he has stated that, hewas attached to Government Hospital, Miraj as a Medical Officer.That on2nd May 2009, the dead body of Farukh Shaikh was received by MirajGovernment Hospital for postmortem at about 9.45 p.m He conducted thesaid procedure between 10.00 p.m to 11.00 p.m. He noticed surfacewounds and injuries which are mentioned in Col. No.17 of postmortemreport.That after conducting internal and external examination he foundthat the same occurred due to 'head injuries' and accordingly he put the 13/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docsaid remark in paragraph 21 under the head "opinion as to probable causeof death".He has further stated that, injuries noted by him in ColumnNo.17 of the postmortem report are probable by hard and blunt objects.15] After taking into consideration the aforestated evidence ofmedical experts available on record, it is clear that as per the assertiveevidence of by Dr. Appasaheb V. Ingale (PW No.17), that there was everyprobability of survival of Farukh Shaikh if he would not have been shiftedfrom civil hospital against medical advice and if there would not have beena break in the treatment at the said hospital.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::16] As noted earlier, Dr. Sanjeev M. Kukarni (PW No.16) has statedthat, Farukh Shaikh died due to "cardiac arrest" and there are so manyreasons for developing cardiac arrest.Dr. Vyankatrao Hulwan (PW No.15)has recorded the probable cause of death due to "head injury".However,evidence on record is silent about cardiac arrest suffered by Farukh Shaikhis the ultimate result of said head injury.The evidence on record isabsolutely silent in that behalf.In view of the evidence of Dr. Appasaheb V.Ingale (PW No.17), it is clear that it is due to the causation i.e. shifting ofFarukh Shaikh from Civil Hospital, Sangli to another hospital of Dr. SanjeevM. Kukarni (PW No.16), the patient ultimately expired due to 'cardiac 14/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 ::: CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.docarrest'.As noted earlier, there is no direct co-relation of the head injurywith the said cardiac arrest in view of admission given by Dr. Sanjeev M.Kukarni (PW No.16).::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::It is, therefore, difficult for us to hold that, Farukh Shaikh dieddue to assault by the appellant and co-accused Saddam (juvenile in conflictwith law).17] We are therefore of the view that the appellant is liable forcausing grevious hurt to Farukh Shaikh (deceased) and his act wouldtherefore fall within the ambit of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code andthe appellant cannot be held guilt of an offence under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code.Hence, the following Order:-(a) The Judgment and Order dated 19 th November 2011 passed bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Sangli is modified and theappellant is held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 326,342, 452 reead with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in defaultof payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.15/16 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::CRI.APPEAL.43-2012.doc(b) The appellant is entitled for set off as contemplated underSection 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(c) Criminal Appeal is accordingly partly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 23:45:03 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
149,769 |
The revision application was originally before Rao J. who by an order dated the 30th November 1951 referred the case for disposal to a Division Bench.The case thus comes before us under the orders of the Honourable the Chief Justice.By his order now under revision, the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul, has set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the accused (applicant before us) because in his opinion the trial Judge had acted on evidence which was not open to him.For the purpose of determining whether the action of the Additional Sessions Judge was correct or not, it Is necessary to state a few facts.That suit was instituted by him on the allegation that he had advanced Rs. 60 to one Moujilal (P.W. 2) on the 1st November 1941 and that Moujilal had executed a Chithi in his favour.The accused as plaintiff in the suit gave evidence on his own behalf and stated that Moujilal had executed the document in question.Moujilal denied that document and examined a hand-writing expert in the case and the Court decided in that suit that the document was not written by Moujilal and was a forgery.On the application of Moujilal under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Civil Judge, First Class.Betul decided to prosecute Durga-prasad (applicant) for using a forged document and also for perjury and for setting up a false claim, under Sections 471, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.A complaint was accordingly filed and the present proceedings arise out of the trial of that criminal case.The case went at first before shri Nisal Magistrate First Class, Bhainsdehi who tried the case upto the stage of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses after charge.Later the case was transferred from his file to that of Shri G.S.L. Rajput, Judge-Magistrate.Before Shri Rajput, the accused demanded a 'de novo' trial, and Shri Rajput agreed to that request.Before however Shri Rajput could do anything in the matter, the case was retransferred to the file of Shri Nisal Before Shri Nisal, the request for a 'de novo' trial was not made by the accused, nor did Shri Nisal feel called upon to try the case afresh, and acting on the evidence which he had already recorded previously together with such further evidence as was hed in the case, he came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty.He convicted him under Sections 209, 471 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.Against this sentence, an appeal was filed by the accused, and the appeal' was heard by Shri K.L. Pande.The learned Judge in his order now under revision came to the conclusion that the proceedings before Shri Nisal were 'ultra vires' and without jurisdiction and that there had been no proper trial of the accused at all.In view of the conflicting authorities and the importance of the point, the learned Judge made the present reference.We have heard the Counsel for the applicant Durgaprasad as also Shri T.B. Pendharkar who represents the State Government.Having come to this conclusion, the question before us was what we should do with the whole case.We accordingly considered whether we should send the appeal for re-hearing to the Additional Sessions Judge after setting aside his order.We felt considerable difficulty in adopting this course because of the expression of opinion already made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the order under revision.Having considered that the trial of the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, would not be feasible though we feel impelled to set aside his order we have taken this appeal on to our file, and we now proceed to decide it.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,401,720 |
it has been alleged by him that he was put under detention and was convicted and sentenced illegally and mala fide and was not given any opportunity to defend himself, it is alleged that at the Geneva Airport while he was proceeding to the aircraft through the security in enclosure two Swiss policemen abused him and some other Indians with abusive words like "Nigger Indians" etc. and at this he protested whereupon the said two Swiss policemen became very much furious and forcibly dragged him to the Airport Police Office and tock away from him the Baggage Ticket and Air Boarding Ticket.Thereafter, he was put under detention in the "Mal" without any warrant and without letting him know the reason for such detention.Before the Magistrate also, he did not get any opportunity to defend himself and the charge was also not explained to him.Hence, this appeal.Let the interim order already granted continue for a period of six weeks from date, as prayed for on behalf of the appellants.Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,172,210 |
a Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 hy of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of ad petitioner Dharamendra Singh Chouhan in crime No. 12/2016 registered by P.S. Sohagi, District-Rewa under M Sections 302, 201, 379, 304-II of the IPC & 25/27 of the of Arms Act.As per the prosecution case, on 30.01.2016, petitioner rt Dharamendra Singh Chouhan had gone in a Bolero ou vehicle along with other co-accused persons to steal C battery from a mobile tower.They were also h accompanied by deceased Tilakraj.When they reached ig the mobile tower, accused Vikram Singh who was H Watchman at the mobile tower, fired upon Tilakraj.As a result, Tilakraj sustained a gun-shot injury.Thereafter, the accused persons including the present petitioner took him in a Bolero vehicle to a private nursing home at Allahabad.However, they discovered that Tilakraj had already expired; therefore, they brought him back to village Khatiya, District-Rewa and threw his body near the bridge wherefrom, it was recovered the next day.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no allegation of committing murder has been leveled against the petitioner.Even as per the prosecution case, sh they had gone to the mobile tower to steal the battery but before they could do that, deceased Tilakraj was shot e by accused Vikram.The petitioner did not share any ad common intention with Vikram.Thus, the only offence Pr that is said to have been committed by the petitioner along with co-accused persons is that they destroyed the a hy evidence by throwing the dead body of deceased Tilakraj near Khatiya bridge.M Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that many co-accused persons have already be released on of bail.The case of the present petitioner Dharmendra is rt similar to those of co-accused persons, who have already ou been released on bail and the present petitioner has no criminal antecedents; therefore, it has been prayed that C the petitioner be released on bail.h Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the ig other hand has opposed the bail application; however, he H has conceded that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.However, it will have to be ensured that he does sh not flee from justice and does not commit any offence against the property during the pendency of this case.e Consequently, this first application under Section 439 of ad the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of Pr petitioner Dharamendra Singh Chouhan, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail a hy on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local solvent sureties of Rs.C h ig (C V SIRPURKAR) H JUDGE vai VAISHALI AGRAWAL 2017.11.07 20:57:26
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,179,209 |
ROHIT B. DEO, J.::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 08:51:14 :::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 08:51:14 ::: 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 08:51:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 08:51:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 08:51:14 :::
|
['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.
|
140,179,567 |
In the first informationreport Dr. Rajesh Talwar pointed the needle of suspicion at Hemraj, adomestic help in the household of the Talwars.On 17.5.2008 the dead bodyof Hemraj was recovered from the terrace of the same house, i.e., house no.L-32, Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 25, Noida, where Aarushi’s murder had alsoallegedly been committed.The initial investigation into the double murder was carried out bythe U.P. Police.On 29.5.2008 the State of Uttar Pradesh handed over theinvestigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referredto as, the CBI), thereupon investigation was conducted by the CBI.During the course of investigation, besides Dr. Rajesh Talwar, theneedle of suspicion came to be pointed towards Krishna Thadarai, Rajkumarand Vijay Mandal.Originallya three days’ remand was granted to interrogate him to the U.P. Police.Theother three individuals, namely, Krishna Thadarai, Rajkumar and VijayMandal were also arrested by the police.Since investigation against theaforesaid three could not be completed within the period of 90 days, theywere ordered to be released on bail.The reasonsdepicted in the closure report indicated the absence of sufficient evidenceto prove the alleged offences against the accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar, beyondreasonable doubt.A summary of the reasons recorded in the said reportitself, are being extracted hereunder:“Despite best efforts by investigating team, some of the major shortcomings in the evidence are :-i. No blood of Hemraj was found on the bed sheet and pillow of Aarushi.There is no evidence to prove that Hemraj was killed in the room of Aarushi.Dragging mark on steps only indicate that murder has taken place somewhere other than the terrace.On the clothes of Dr. Rajesh Talwar, only the blood of Aarushi was found but there was no trace of blood of Hemraj.The clothes that Dr. Nupur Talwar was wearing in the photograph taken by Aarushi in the night of the incident were seized by CBI but no blood was found during forensic examination.v. Murder weapons were not recovered immediately after the offence.One of the murder weapon i.e. sharp edged instrument could not be recovered till date and expert could not find any blood stain or DNA of victims from golf stick to directly link it to the crime.There is no evidence to explain the finger prints on the scotch bottle (which were found along with blood stains of both the victims on the bottle).As per police diary, it was taken into possession on 16th morning itself.In spite of best efforts, the fingerprint(s) could not be identified.The guards of the colony are mobile during night and at the entrance they do not make any entry.Therefore, their statements regarding movement of persons may not be foolproof.Scientific tests on Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar have not conclusively indicated their involvement in the crime.The exact sequence of events between (in the intervening night of 15-16/05/2008) 00.08 mid night to 6:00 AM in the morning is not clear.No evidence has emerged to show the clear role of Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar, individually, in the commission of crime.x. A board of experts constituted during earlier investigation team has given an opinion that the possibility of the neck being cut by khukri cannot be ruled out, although doctors who have conducted postmortem have said that cut was done by surgically trained person with a small surgical instrument.There is no evidence to explain the presence of Hemraj’s mobile in Punjab after murder.The offence has occurred in an enclosed flat hence no eye witness are available.The blood soaked clothes of the offenders, clothes used to clean the blood from the flat and stair case, the sheet on which the Hemraj was carried and dragged on the roof, the bed cover which was used to cover the view from the steel iron grill on the roof are not available and hence could not be recovered.The investigation revealed several suspicious actions by the parents post occurrence, but the circumstantial evidence collected during investigation has critical and substantial gaps.There is absence of a clear cut motive and incomplete understanding of the sequence of events and non-recovery of the weapon of offence and their link to either the servants or the parents.On the receipt of the closure report submitted by the CBI, theSpecial Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as“the Magistrate”) issued notice to the Dr. Rajesh Talwar in his capacity asthe first informant.In response to the notice received by Dr. RajeshTalwar, he submitted a detailed protest petition dated 25.1.2011, wherein,he objected to the closure report (submitted by the CBI).In the protestpetition he prayed for further investigation, to unravel the identity ofthose responsible for the twin murders of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj.On 9.2.2011, the Magistrate rejected the closure report submitted bythe CBI.The Magistrate also rejected, the prayer made in the protestpetition for further investigation (by Dr. Rajesh Talwar).Instead, havingtaken cognizance, the Magistrate summoned Dr. Rajesh Talwar (father ofAarushi Talwar) and his wife Dr. Nupur Talwar (mother of Aarushi Talwar)for committing the murders of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj, as also, fortampering with the evidence.The aforestated summoning order dated 9.2.2011, was assailed by Dr.Nupur Talwar by filing a revision petition before the High Court ofjudicature at Allahabad (Criminal Revision Petition no. 1127 of 2011).Through the instantreview petition, the petitioner Dr. Nupur Talwar has expressed the desire,that this Court reviews its order dated 6.1.2012 (dismissing CriminalAppeal no. 16 of 2011).The instant Review Petition was entertained, andnotice was issued to the respondents.Lengthy arguments were advanced atthe hands of the learned counsel representing the review petitioner.Learned counsel representing the CBI also went to great lengths, torepudiate the same.The order passed by the Magistrate on 9.2.2011 was startlinglycriticized for being unnecessarily exhaustive.The Magistrate was accusedof discussing the evidence in minute detail, and thereby, for havingevaluated the merits of the controversy, well before the beginning of thetrial.It was sought to be canvassed, that even if the Magistrate havingtaken cognizance, was satisfied that process deserved to be issued, heought not have examined the factual intricacies of the controversy.TheMagistrate, it was submitted, has the authority only to commit thecontroversy in hand, to a Court of Session, as the alleged offencesemerging out of the first information report dated 16.5.2008, and thediscovery of the murder of Hemraj thereafter, are triable only by a Courtof Session.It was submitted, that the controversy had been examined asif, the Magistrate was conducting the trial.It was asserted, that aperusal of the order passed by the Magistrate dated 9.2.2011, gives theimpression of the passing of a final order, on the culmination of trial.It was, therefore, submitted, that the order dated 9.2.2011 be set aside,as all the inferences, assumptions and conclusions recorded therein, weretotally uncalled for.In Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of WestBengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722, this Court having examined sections 227, 239 and245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concluded, that the provisions ofthe Code mandate, that at the time of passing an order of discharge infavour of an accused, the provisions referred to above necessitate reasonsto be recorded.It was, however, noticed, that there was no suchprescribed mandate to record reasons, at the time of framing chargesagainst an accused.and others, (2000) 3 SCC 745, the issue whether it was necessary forthe trial court to record reasons while issuing process came to be examinedagain, and this Court held as under:-Though the trial court issued process against the accused at the first instance, they desired the trial court to discharge them without even making their first appearance in the court.When the attempt made for that purpose failed they moved for exemption from appearance in the court.In the meanwhile the Sessions Judge, Lucknow (Shri Prahlad Narain) entertained a revision moved by the accused against the order issuing process to them and, quashed it on the erroneous ground that the magistrate did not pass "a speaking order" for issuing such summons.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, (before whom the complaint was filed) thereafter passed a detailed order on 25.4.1984 and again issued process to the accused.We may point out at the very outset that the Sessions Judge was in error for quashing the process at the first round merely on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had not passed a speaking order.(o) decides an appeal;The Magistrate could have accepted thereport and dropped proceedings.The Magistrate, however, chose not toaccept the CBI’s prayer for closure.A third alternative was alsoavailable to the Magistrate.After all, the CBI would have surely wished to know, howit went wrong.But then, there are two other important factors in thiscase, which further necessitated the recording of reasons.Firstly, thecomplainant himself (Dr. Rajesh Talwar, who authored the first informationreport dated 16.5.2008) was being summoned as an accused.Firstly, based on the statements of Umesh Sharma and Bharti recorded duringthe course of investigation, coupled with the factual position depicted inthe first information report, it was sought to be inferred, that on thenight of the incident Dr. Rajesh Talwar, Dr. Nupur Talwar, Aarushi Talwarand Hemraj only were present at the place of the occurrence, namely, houseno. L-32 Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 25, Noida.Being last seen together, theneedle of suspicion would point at the two surviving persons, specially ifit could be established, that the premises had not been broken into.Secondly, on the basis of the statement of Mahesh Kumar Mishra, recordedduring the course of investigation, who alleged that he was told by Dr.Rajesh Talwar, that he had seen his daughter Aarushi Talwar on the fatefulnight upto 11:30 p.m., whereafter, he had locked the room of his daughterfrom outside, and had kept the key near his bed head.Coupled with thefact, that the lock on Aarushi Talwar’s room was of a kind which could beopened from inside without a key but, needed a key to be opened fromoutside.And further, coupled with the fact, that the outer exit/entrydoor(s) to the flat of the Talwars, had not been broken into.It wasassumed, that there was no outside forced entry, either into the bedroom ofAarushi Talwar or the flat of the Talwars, on the night of the twin murdersof Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj.Thirdly, the Magistrate noticed from the investigation carried out, thatthe dead body of Hemraj was covered with a panel of a cooler, and on thegrill a bed sheet had been placed.Likewise, from the fact that AarushiTalwar’s body was found murdered on her own bed, yet her toys were foundarranged “as such” behind the bed and also, there were no wrinkles on thebed sheet.On the pillow kept behind Aarushi Talwar, there ought to havebeen blood stains when she was attacked (as she was hit on her head, andher neck had been slit), but the same were absent.These facts werehighlighted by the Magistrate to demonstrate the dressing up of theplace(s) of occurrence, to further support the assumption of theinvolvement of an insider, as against, an outsider.Fourthly, based on the statements of Virendera Singh, Sanjay Singh, RajKumar, Chandra Bhushan, Devender Singh, Ram Vishal and Punish Rai Tandon,recorded during the course of investigation, it was sought to be assumed,that no outsider was seen either entering or leaving house no. L-32,Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 25, Noida, on the night intervening 15-16.5.2008.This also, according to the Magistrate, affirmed the main deduction, thatno outsider was involved.Fifthly, based on the statements of Dr. Anita Durrani, Punish Rai Tandonand K.N. Johri, recorded during the course of investigation, it was soughtto be inferred, that the other servants connected with the household of theTalwar family, namely, Raj Kumar, Vijay Mandal and Krishna Thadarai, werepresent elsewhere at the time of the commission of the twin murders, andalso that, there was no material depicting their prima facie involvement ormotive in the crime, specially because, no “… precious things likejewellery or any other thing from the house of Talwars couple …” was foundmissing and further that “… no rape on Aarushi Talwar had been confirmed…”.Accordingly, it was sought to be reasoned, that no outsider hadentered the premises.Sixthly, from the statements of Deepak Kanda, Bhupender Singh and RajeshKumar, recorded during the course of investigation, it was felt that on thenight when the murder was committed, i.e. the night intervening 15-16.5.2008 the internet connection was regularly used by Dr. Rajesh Talwarfrom 11:00 p.m. to 12:08 a.m. In fact, both Dr. Rajesh Talwar, as also,Dr.Nupur Talwar themselves confirmed to the witnesses whose statementswere recorded during the course of investigation, that the internet routerwas switched on at 11:00 p.m. and Dr. Rajesh Talwar had thereafter used theinternet facility.Based on this factual position it was gathered, thatboth Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar were awake and active at oraround the time of occurrence (determined in the post-mortem report).Seventhly, from the statements of Sunil Kumar Dorhe, Naresh Raj, Ajay Kumarand Dinesh Kumar recorded during the course of investigation, it was soughtto be inferred, that the private parts of the deceased Aarushi Talwar weretampered with, inasmuch as, the white discharge was found only in thevaginal area of Aarushi Talwar indicating, that her private parts werecleaned after her death.The said white discharge was found not to beoriginating from the body of the deceased.The aforesaid inference wassought to be further supported by assertions, that the vaginal opening ofAarushi Talwar, at the time of the post mortem examination, was unusuallywide.Accordingly, a deduction was made, that evidence had been tamperedwith, by those inside the flat, after the occurrence.Eighthly, it was also sought to be assumed, that the death of AarushiTalwar and Hemraj was occasioned as a consequence of injuries caused by aniron 5 golf club (on the head of both the deceased), as also, “… injury onthe neck of both the deceased … caused by a surgically trained person …”.Since the golf club in question was not immediately produced, and since,the accused themselves were surgically trained, it was gathered that Dr.Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar were themselves responsible for the twinmurders.Ninthly, in paragraph 15 of the Magistrate’s order dated 9.2.2011 it isnoticed, that a request was made to Dr. Sunil Kumar Dhore for notmentioning the word “rape” in the post mortem proceedings.Investigationalso established, that Dr. Dinesh Talwar (brother of Dr. Rajesh Talwar),had spoken to Dr. Sunil Kumar Dhore and exerted influence over Dr. SunilKumar Dhore through Dr. Dogra who allegedly instructed Dr. Sunil KumarDhore in connection with the post mortem examination.On the basis of theaforesaid material highlighted in the order dated 9.2.2011, the Magistratefurther expressed the view, that influence was allegedly being exerted onbehalf of the accused, on the doctor who was conducting the post mortemexamination.Tenthly, based on the statements of Umesh Sharma, Kalpana Mondal, VimlaSarkar and Punish Tandon, recorded during the course of investigation, itwas sought to be concluded, that the door leading to the terrace of houseno.L-32, Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 25, Noida, had always remained open prior tothe date of occurrence.It was gathered therefrom, that the lock on thedoor leading to the terrace of the house in question on the date ofoccurrence, was affixed so that the investigating agency would notimmediately recover the body of Hemraj, so as to hamper the investigation.These facts allegedly spell out the negative role played by Dr. RajeshTalwar in causing hindrances in the process of investigation.Eleventhly, based on the statements of Rohit Kocchar and Dr. RajeevVarshney, recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,disclosing, that they had informed Dr. Rajesh Talwar, that the terracedoor, the lock on the terrace door, as also, the upper steps of thestaircase had blood stains.They also asserted, that Dr. Rajesh Talwar “…climbed up some steps but immediately came down and did not say anythingabout keys and went inside the house …”.The aforesaid narration, coupledwith the fact, that Dr. Prafull Durrani one of the friends of Dr. RajeshTalwar stated, that he was “… told by Dr. Rajesh Talwar, that the key ofthe terrace used to be with Hemraj.He did not know about the key …” wasthe basis for assuming, that Dr. Rajesh Talwar was preventing theinvestigating agency from tracing the body of Hemraj, which was eventuallyfound from the terrace, after breaking open the lock on the terrace door.Twelfthly, Umesh Sharma the driver of the Talwars, stated during the courseof investigation, that he had placed two golf clubs, i.e. irons 4 and 5 inthe room of Hemraj, when the Santro car owned by the Talwars, was given forservicing.The iron 5 club, which is alleged to be the weapon of crime(which resulted in a V shaped injury on the heads of both Aarushi Talwarand Hemraj), remained untraced during the course of active investigation.The Magistrate noticed, that the loft from whereit was allegedly found, had been checked several times by the CBI.Towhich the explanation of Dr. Rajesh Talwar allegedly was, that one golfclub might have dropped from the golf kit, and might have been left there.This factual aspect lead to the inference, that the weapon used in thecrime, was deliberately not handed over to the investigating agency, afterthe occurrence.When Dr.Rajesh Talwar was shown the body, he could not identify it as that ofHemraj.The dead body was identified by one of Hemraj’s friend.Dr. NupurTalwar confirmed, that the body recovered from the terrace was of Hemraj,on the basis of the inscription on the shirt worn by him.From the factthat, neither Dr. Rajesh Talwar nor Dr. Nupur Talwar could identify thebody of Hemraj, from its appearance, it was sought to be figured, that theywere not cooperating with the investigation.The same are not beingmentioned herein, as the expressive and weighty ones, essential to arriveat a determination on the issue in hand, have already been summarizedabove.Based inter alia on the inferences and the assumptions noticedabove, the Magistrate issued process by summoning Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr.Nupur Talwar.The facts noticed in the foregoing paragraph and the impressionsdrawn thereupon by the Magistrate, are based on statements recorded underSection 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure (and in a few cases, underSection 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), as also, on documents andother materials collected during the course of investigation.Neither theaforesaid statements, nor the documents and materials taken intoconsideration, can at the present juncture be treated as reliable evidencewhich can be taken into consideration, for finally adjudicating upon theguilt or innocence of the accused.At thepresent juncture, the Magistrate was required to examine the materialscollected by the investigating agencies, and thereupon, to determinewhether the proceedings should be dropped (as was suggested by theinvestigating agency, through its closure report dated 29.12.2010), orwhether, a direction should be issued for further investigation (as wassuggested in the protest petition filed by Dr. Rajesh Talwar), or whether,there was sufficient ground for proceeding further, by issuing process (ashas been done in the present case).Having examined the material on therecord, the Magistrate having taken cognizance issued process on 9.2.2011,and while doing so, recorded the following observations in the penultimateparagraphs of summoning order dated 9.2.2011:Prior to 15.5.2008 terrace was not locked.According to documents available on the case diary blood stains were wiped off on the staircase, both the deceased were slit with the help of a surgical instrument by surgically trained persons and shape of injury on the head and forehead was V-shaped and according to the evidence available in the case diary that appeared to have been caused with a gold stick.A person coming from outside, during the presence of Talwar couple in the house could have neither used the internet nor could have taken the dead body of deceased Hem Raj to the terrace and then locked when the Talwar couple was present in the house.On the basis of evidence available in the case diary footprints stained with blood were found in the room of Aarushi but outside that room bloodstained footprints were not found.If the assailant would go out after committing murder then certainly his footprints would not be confined up to the room of Aarushi and for an outsider it is not possible that when Talwar couple were present in the house he would use liquor or would try to take dead body on the terrace.Accused after committing the offence would like to run away immediately so that no one could catch him.On the basis of evidence of all the above witnesses and circumstantial evidence available in case diary during investigation it was expected from the investigating officer to submit charge-sheet against Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar.In such type of cases when offence is committed inside a house, there direct evidence cannot be expected.Here it is pertinent to mention that CBI is the highest investigating agency of the country in which the public of the country has full confidence.When offence was committed in side a house, on the basis of evidence received from case diary, a link is made from these circumstances, and these links are indicating prima facie the accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar to be guilty.The evidence of witness Shoharat that Dr. Rajesh Talwar asked him to paint the wooden portion of a wall between the rooms of Aarushi and Dr. Rajesh Talwar, indicates towards the conclusion that he wants to temper with the evidence.In order to canvass the primary ground raised for assailing the orderof the Magistrate dated 9.2.2011, it was submitted, that the Magistratewould have arrived at a conclusion, different from the one drawn in theorder dated 9.2.2011, if the matter had been examined in its correctperspective, by taking a holistic view of the statements and materialsrecorded during investigation.Thisinference was sought to be shown to have been incorrectly recorded, as thestairs leading to the terrace were from outside the flat, i.e., from thecommon area of the apartment complex beyond the outermost grill-doorleading into the house no.L-32, Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 25, Noida.In order to substantiate the instantcontention reference was made to the seizure memo pertaining to KrishnaThadarai’s pillow cover, and thereupon, the report of the CFSL dated23.6.2008, as also, the report of the CFSL (Bio Division) dated 30.6.2008depicting, that the blood found on the pillow cover was of human origin.Itwas the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, thatKrishna Thadarai could not have been given a clean chit, when the blood ofHemraj was found on his pillow cover.In this behalfit was submitted, that finger prints were found on a bottle of BallantineScotch Whiskey, found on the dining table, in the Talwar flat.The accused,according to learned counsel, had requested the investigating agency toidentify the fingerprints through touch DNA test.The accused had alsooffered to bear the expenses for the same.The murderer,according to learned counsel, was an outsider.Nupur Talwar as the accused, rather than the actual culprit(s).Ninthly, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the postmortem report of Aarushi Talwar dated 16.5.2008, and in conjunctiontherewith the statement of Dr. Sunil Kumar Dhore dated 18.7.2008, thereport of the High Level Eight Member Expert Body dated 9.9.2008 (of whichDr.Sunil Kumar Dhore was a member), and the further statements of Dr.Eleventhly, it was asserted, that the Magistrate ignored to take intoconsideration, the fact that the clothes of Dr. Rajesh Talwar were foundonly with the blood of Aarushi Talwar.But it was noticed, that there wasno blood of Aarushi Talwar on the clothes of Dr. Nupur Talwar.This fact isalso erroneous because the blood of Aarushi Talwar was actually found onthe clothes of Dr. Nupur Talwar also.According to learned counsel, thediscovery of blood of Aarushi Talwar on the clothes of her parents wasnatural.As against the aforesaid defences, learned counselfor the CBI has made detailed submissions.Each of the defences was contested andcontroverted, on the basis of material on the file.Dr. NupurTalwar, the petitioner herein, did not make a prayer for furtherinvestigation, when she assailed the order passed by the Magistrate dated9.2.2011 before the High Court (vide Criminal Revision Petition no.1127 of2011).Despite thesame, the Magistrate while issuing process vide order dated 9.2.2011, hadpassed a detailed reasoned order.The order brings out the basis of theMagistrate’s satisfaction.The HighCourt expressly affirmed that the order dated 9.2.2011 had been passed onthe basis of record available before the High Court, and on the basis ofthe Magistrate’s satisfaction, that process deserved to be issued.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,018,143 |
In fact, they are the subsequent purchasers.The name of petitioner No.2 has not been taken by her.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 5 of 7M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 5 of 7By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners have prayed that the complaint case no. 254/2001 titled as M/s Alaknanda Properties (P) Ltd. Vs.Balbir Singh & Others pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, as also the summoning order, be quashed.Factual matrix, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, is that the respondent filed a complaint under Sections 192/218/383/386/405/409/420/423/425/426/ CRL.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 1 of 7 427/441/447/451/463/468/503/506 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 34 IPC wherein 104 persons, including the petitioners, were arrayed as accused.On 13th August, 1995, certain persons claiming themselves to be representatives of petitioner no.2 (accused no. 8) came to the land in question and threatened to take forcible possession, therefore, respondent was compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction in this court against the accused nos. 1 to 7 wherein interim ex-parte order dated 17th August, 1995 was passed whereby parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo.This order was served on the revenue officials also.In spite of this, accused nos. 1 to 7, in connivance with accused nos. 8 to 104, entered into fraudulent and dishonest sale transactions in respect of piece of land involved in the suit.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 1 of 7It may be noted here that accused nos. 11 to 24 and 104 are Revenue Officials; whereas accused no. 8 to 10 and 25 to 103 are the subsequent purchasers of the land at one or the other stage.Petitioner no. 1 has been arrayed as accused no.It was alleged that accused nos. 1 to 10 and 25 to 103 CRL.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 2 of 7 had entered the transaction of transfer of land in pieces amongst each other in connivance with each other, in order to deprive the respondent of its valuable ownership rights in the above-mentioned immovable property as also to defeat the suit filed by the respondent.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 2 of 7One of the directors of the complainant company (respondent) entered in the witness box as CW1, at the pre- summoning stage, in support of the averments made in the complaint.Thereafter, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered that a, prima facie, case was made out for summoning the accused nos. 1 to 10 and 25 to 103 for the offences under Sections 418/420/423 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and 506 (Part-II) IPC, consequently, ordered for their summoning.It may be noted that no reasons for forming such a view had been given by the Metropolitan Magistrate in his order, which, on the face of it is clearly bereft of reasoning.That is how petitioners are before this Court.Relevant it would be to mention here that in the same facts accused no. 49 had approached this Court for setting aside of the summoning order and quashing of the complaint CRL.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 3 of 7 by way of Crl.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 3 of 7From the averments made in the complaint, gist whereof has been narrated in para 2 hereinabove, it is clear that the petitioners had no dealings with the respondent at any stage.They have come in picture much later.Respondent had not annexed any document with the complaint to substantiate this allegation.No public notice had been given by the respondent in the newspaper informing the general public at large that they had purchased the land in question from accused nos. 1 to 7 or that the same is, in CRL.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 4 of 7 fact, subject matter of the suit pending in this Court.All the allegations of connivance are presumptive, which is clear from the fact that all the subsequent purchasers en bloc have been impleaded as accused.Mere oral statement in this regard would not be sufficient, in the peculiar facts of this case.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 4 of 7In para 8 of the complaint, it has been categorically alleged that on 13th August, 1995 certain persons claiming to represent one Deepak Bhardwaj (accused no. 8) came to the site and threatened dispossession.It was further alleged that FIR No. 319/1995 dated 13th August, 1995 was registered under Sections 447/427/506/ IPC at Police Station Kapasehra regarding this incident.However, perusal of copy of the FIR shows that name of petitioner no.2 has not been mentioned therein.In the FIR, it has been alleged that one Parasram, resident of village Nathupur, along with some persons had trespassed the property on that day.As regards petitioner No. 1 is concerned, no such allegation has been made that she had extended any kind of threat to the respondent.With regard to petitioner No. 2, as already mentioned in the preceding para hereinabove, inconsistent CRL.There is nothing to indicate that a false statement had been made by the petitioners in the agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney etc. relating to the consideration regarding transfer of land.M.C. 837-38/2006 Page 6 of 7For the foregoing reasons, complaint case no. 254/2001 qua the petitioners is quashed.Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,018,746 |
Heard on the bail application.Case-diary has been perused.As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 16-07-2014 and after lapse of two days on 18-07-2014 FIR was lodged by the complainant Sharda that on account of previous FIR lodged against the applicants -Harisingh and Batanlal she was assaulted by the applicants to outrage her modesty.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that all the villagers have made a complaint against one Charan Singh and complainant Sharda that nuisance is being created by them by obstructing the public way and thereafter from the Court of Naib 2 M.Cr.C.No.7978/2014 Tahsildar on 09-06-2014 stay order was also granted in favour of applicant -Harisingh and villagers.By adopting revengeful attitude, applicants have been falsely implicated by getting the FIR lodged through Sharda and it indicates that entire game is being played by Charan Singh who is obstructing the public way in village.In this regard, one written complaint was also made by the villagers to the Superintendent of Police on 24-07-2014 when applicants were arrested by the police.Wife of Chironjilal -applicant No.3 was beaten by Sharda, Taran Singh and one Bundel Singh after committing house trespass.In that regard FIR was also lodged at crime No.54/2014 at Police Station Karariya District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 506,34 of IPC.Charge-sheet has already been filed.Final disposal of trial shall take time, hence prayed for grant of bail.2 M.Cr.C.No.7978/2014 the trial Court on the condition that they shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.P.C. and so also as imposed by the trial Court.3 M.Cr.A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.Certified copy as per rules.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,187,626 |
On account of harassment at his hands, Manjeet Kaur had walked out of the said marriage.Though it is claimed by the members of the parental family that the marriage with Raju was dissolved on account of divorce, there is no formal divorce decree produced.Be that as it may, Manjeet Kaur had had some differences with the appellant as well.She had come to the place of her brother (PW-2) on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan.She was, however, accompanied by her husband (the appellant) on the said visit.The prosecution relied on corroborative testimony of a neighbour Nizamuddin (PW-6) with regard to this sequence of events.PW-1, the sister, statedly had learnt about the burning incident from her daughter Sonu and had reached the place of her mother's residence only to find Manjeet Kaur lying in a burnt state.It is thereafter that the victim was taken by her in the TSR, they being accompanied by PW-2 and the appellant.The mother (PW-3) was not present at the time of the incident, her deposition only pertaining to the alleged harassment for dowry to which one shall advert later.Manjeet Kaur (the victim) was about 20 year old woman, married to the appellant for about three years, she being at the house of her brother Ranjeet Singh (PW-2) in Jhuggi no. 22, near Central Market, near park of block nos. 11-12 of Kalyan Puri on 28.08.2000 (the day of Raksha Bandhan festival) when sometime around 5.30 p.m. she suffered burn injuries.The indisputable evidence on record would show that she was taken to Jai Prakash Narain Hospital ("hospital") by her said brother Ranjeet Singh (PW-2), she being accompanied by her sister Babli Kaur (PW-1), and her husband (the appellant), all travelling in a three wheeler scooter (TSR).She succumbed to the burn injuries and died in the hospital, unable to Crl.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 1 of 8 make any formal statement to the police or sub-divisional magistrate (SDM).On the allegations made subsequently by her siblings and mother, Prem Kaur (PW-3) in their statements to the SDM, however, first information report (FIR) no.269/2000 was registered by police station Kalyanpuri.The investigation culminated in report (charge- sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) being submitted and, on the basis of evidence presented therewith, the appellant was summoned and sent up for trial in the court of sessions (in sessions case no. 10/2001).Appeal No.674/2002 Page 1 of 8The trial proceeded, on the basis of charges which were framed for offences under Sections 498A/304B/302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).It may be mentioned here that the accusations against the appellant were that he had intentionally set Manjeet Kaur on fire in the jhuggi which was residence of her brother (PW-2), the consequent burn injuries having brought about her death, the case, thus, being one of culpable homicide amounting to murder.At the same time, it was also the gravamen of the charges against the appellant that prior to the said incident wherein Manjeet Kaur suffered burn injuries, she was being harassed by the appellant so as to coerce her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) along with a scooter from her father, this constituting a case of cruelty to the married woman and dowry death, presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 being invoked for such purposes.The trial court, however, was Crl.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 2 of 8 not satisfied with the evidence on the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC.Though the judgment does not expressly say so, it is clear from the conclusions recorded therein that the charge under Section 302 IPC failed and, thus, the appellant stood acquitted on that score.By subsequent order dated 19.08.2002, the trial judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years and seven years for offences under Sections 498A and 304 B IPC respectively, fine of Rs. 1,000/- also having been added on the first count.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 2 of 8The appeal at hand was brought to assail the judgment and order on sentence, the appellant pleading innocence and false implication.The appellant was released on bail, by order dated 08.07.2004, the substantive sentences having been suspended pending adjudication on the appeal.The trial court record had been requisitioned by the registry and added to the file of the appeal.It is reported that the said record went missing from the registry.It may be mentioned here that similar loss of record in more than one hundred criminal appeals had been reported by the registry, such loss having been subjected to inquiries made but with no one being held accountable or responsible.Pursuant to the directions which were obtained by the registry from the Chief Justice, endeavour was made to re-construct the missing record.The said record has been partially re-constructed and has been placed before the Court.The appeal thus has come up for consideration before this Court along with partially re-constructed record, it being conceded by both sides that the contentions have to be examined Crl.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 3 of 8 primarily on its basis of the summary of evidence which has been set out in the impugned judgment.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 3 of 8Having heard the counsel for the appellant and the additional public prosecutor for the State and having gone through the record to the extent available with their respective assistance, this Court is of the view that benefit of doubts will have to be extended to the appellant and, thus, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are liable to be set aside.The reasons may be set out hereinafter.As indicated earlier, the prime charge brought against the appellant was that of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.The evidence presented in this regard primarily was the testimony of PW- 2, the brother at whose residence the burning incident took place.It may be mentioned here that Manjeet Kaur was earlier married to one Raju.The evidence shows that her father was working for gain during those days in Dubai.Her mother (PW-3), however, was living with the rest of the family.Her married sister Babli Kaur (PW-1) would live in another jhuggi in Crl.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 4 of 8 adjoining block no. 11 of Kalyan Puri, with her family that included daughter Sonu.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 4 of 8The allegations constituting the charge of murder essentially were that while PW-2 was outside the jhuggi, he saw the appellant come in with a bottle containing some substance and entering the jhuggi at about 5.30 p.m. According to his version, Manjeet Kaur was inside the jhuggi at that point of time, the appellant having entered the jhuggi had bolted the door from inside.According to PW-2, smoke had started emanating sometime thereafter from the jhuggi, whereupon he (PW-2) had rushed towards it.However, he was unable to open the door which, according to him, was bolted from inside.He claims to have gained entry into the jhuggi by removing the thatch roof only to find Manjeet Kaur in a badly burnt state, the appellant being present there in a drunken state at that point of time.The evidence presented by the prosecution also included MLC (Ex.PW-5/A), in which the incident was attributed to be an accident involving a stove inside the jhuggi over which some cooking was Crl.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 5 of 8 being done at the relevant point of time.Besides this, the death summary (Ex.PW-17/A) of the medical officer who had attended on the victim during the course of her treatment was also part of the material which was gathered during investigation.This death summary, in contrast, indicated the deceased to have confided in the medical doctor that she had committed suicide by pouring kerosene over herself.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 5 of 8The trial Judge was not convinced with the allegations of murder.He found the evidence of PW-2 on this score incredible.Similar statement had also been given by PW-1, on the basis of what she would say to be the information received by her from Manjeet Kaur on the way to the hospital in the TSR.His testimony in this regard is seriously contradicted by the neighbor (PW-6), who spoke about the door being forced open and no one except the victim being found inside at that point of time.The two contradictory versions coming in the prosecution evidence lead to a situation where the court has to prefer one over the other.It is against the above backdrop that the trial judge refused to accept the charge under Section 302 IPC.The State has not brought Crl.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 6 of 8 any appeal to assail the said finding, or conclusion, rejecting the charge of murder.Thus, the said conclusion, which even otherwise is borne out from the record to be correct, has attained finality.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 6 of 8Having rejected the evidence of PW-2, with regard to the charge of murder, the trial Judge accepted the evidence of same very witness, so as to conclude that the appellant had subjected the victim to cruelty for dowry in the matrimonial home, his word about demand of Rupees one lakh and the scooter having been believed.In the considered view of this Court, the fact that PW-1 and PW-2 have not been found reliable as to their accusations of murder, their evidence cannot be accepted on its face value.It instead requires closer scrutiny.Undoubtedly, the deceased had been married to the appellant for about three years.Without doubt, her death did not occur due to natural causes.But then, it also is to be borne in mind that in her version to the attending medical officer, the deceased had not stated anything even remotely about harassment on account of illicit demands for valuable gifts including cash or scooter.On the contrary, she had indicated that her husband was angry with her as she was refusing to go back with him to the matrimonial home and since he was reprimanding her, she had chosen to pour kerosene oil on herself to commit suicide.In the three years of marriage, no report was lodged with any authority about ill-treatment or illicit demands for valuable gifts.Manjeet Kaur had a past unhappy experience of marriage with Raju.It is not a case where she was a person who was not aware of her rights.She had not tolerated the harassment by the first husband and Crl.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 7 of 8 had chosen to walk out on him.She had preferred divorce over continuance to suffer ill-treatment at his hands.It is doubtful that if she had been subjected to similar harassment by the second husband (the appellant), she would have meekly suffered the same rather than reporting to some authority.The statements of PW-1 (sister), PW-2 (brother), PW-3 (mother) coming after the death, in the above facts and circumstances, do not inspire confidence.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 7 of 8For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.R.K.GAUBA, J.MAY 23, 2019 nk Crl.Appeal No.674/2002 Page 8 of 8Appeal No.674/2002 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,188,508 |
(24.08.2017) The instant criminal revision takes exception to the order dated 03.03.2016 passed in Session Trial No.212/2015 by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (in short call as "Act") Morena, whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant/accused under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC").The prosecution story, in nutshell, is that on 10.09.2014, at around 11:00 AM, the accused persons alongwith the applicant confronted the complainants Ashok, Prakash, Raghunath, Nathuaram, Betal, Ravindra, Bhawani, Kishanprasad, Ramroop, Dharmendra, Subedar and Sunil, by hurling abuses towards them.While hurling caste based abuses, the accused persons, by conjuring unlawful assembly, forcefully caused disharmony by-( 2 )-R.No.551/2016 carrying deadly weapons and also caused simple hurt to Ashok, Prakash, Raghunath, Nathuaram, Betal, Ravindra, Bhawani.Complainants Kishanprasad, Ramropp, Dharmendra, Subedar and Sunil were caused to serious hurt by the accused persons using a lathi.Also, the complainants, Ashok, Prakash, Raghunath, Nathuram, Betal, Ravindra, Bhawani, Kishanprasad, Ramroop, Dharmendra, Subedar and Sunil were fired upon by the accused persons using gun and a "katta".It has also been alleged that the accused persons caused mischievous damage to the tractor of one Ashok Jatav.Further, the specific allegation against the applicant is that he aided and supported the commission of the crime mention above.In this regard, the applicant has submitted various complaints and representations to the State authorities which are pending consideration.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the reasonings adopted in the impugned order and submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the same.I have carefully perused the record and considered the rival contentions advanced by the parties.The contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant though are attractive at first blush; however, the same deserves to be repealed for the reasons stated below.Firstly, the arguments at the applicant was not present at the place of incident and no bullets were recovered, are in the nature of defence that can only be consideredAt the present, this Court is only considered with the fact that whether the ingredients of the offences charged against the applicant, in the light of the allegation levelled, or prima facie made or not.Thus, on second count as well as, this application fails.Thirdly, another arguments were raised in relation to the demand of unlawful consideration by the Police Officers.In the Indian Penal Code, as originally enacted, conspiracy
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,188,524 |
(C) 882/2014 Page 2 of 5Moreover, said Dr.Tomar has been restrained from attending any meeting in the Medical Council of India in his capacity as a Member till the allegations made against him are settled.In addition, Mr. Ahluwalia has informed this Court that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has communicated him vide letter dated 30.04.2015 as under:-" In continuation of this Ministry letters dated 03.12.2014 and 28.01.2015 (copies of letters attached) and the representation with a copy of CM No.4639 of 2015 of Shri Shailendra Saini, Advocate of petitioner on the subject cited above and to say that the case of Shri B.S.Tomar was examined in this Ministry in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs and Medical Council of India.(ii) that the provision 30 A (2) (e) was provided in the IMC (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2013 (copy enclosed).A Bill to replace the said Ordinance could not be introduced in the Parliament and the Ordinance ceased to operate on 16th January, 2014 i.e. at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly Cont.(C) 882/2014 Page 5 of 5(C) 882/2014 Page 5 of 52. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court directed the respondent No.1 to consider the petition filed by the petitioner as a complaint and take a view within a period of six weeks from the said date uninfluenced by any observation made therein.Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application bearing No.4639/2015 and sought directions thereby directing the respondents to take a decision in accordance with order dated 29.09.2014 and averred Cont.(C) 882/2014 Page 1 of 5 that the petitioner has recently come to know that a fresh FIR bearing No.29/15 dated 06.02.2015 under Sections 376(c)/511/354/354(A)/ 354(B)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has been registered against B.S. Tomar at P.S. Chutia, Sadar, Ranchi, Jharkhand.(C) 882/2014 Page 1 of 5Mr.Anurag Ahluwalia, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that vide WP(C) No.6713/2014, the petitioner challenged the appointment of Dr.It was alleged that an FIR has been registered in respect of the National Institute of Medical Sciences University, Shobha Nagar, Jaipur, where certain allegations had been made against concerned official of the Medical Council of India.It was further alleged that the number of beds shown in the college hospital were misstated and said Dr.Tomar has been specifically named in that case.Accordingly, vide order dated 29.09.2014, this Court directed the respondent to consider the Writ Petition No.6713/2014 as a complaint and take a view accordingly.Vide communication dated 03.12.2014, it was informed to the petitioner that the observations and whim of the Ministry on his complaint would be conveyed to him as soon as final decision is taken on the matter.I am directed to submit the following facts:(i) that the name of Dr. B.S.Tomar was notified on 05.12.2013 as member in MCI u/s3(1)(b) of IMC Act, 1956 in pursuance of directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 02.12.2013 (copy enclosed) in WP(C) No.7557/2013 & CM Appl.No.16159/2013 filed by NIMS University & Another vs. UOI & Others.(C) 882/2014 Page 3 of 5 of Parliament in terms of Sub-Clause (a) of clause (2) of Article 123 of the Constitution.(C) 882/2014 Page 3 of 5(iii) the CBI had registered an FIR No.RC03(A)/2012-AC-III dated 19.07.2012 under section 120 B r/w 467 IPC and section 13(1)(d) r.w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Dr. B.S.Tomar, Dr. N.S. Kothari, Medical Superintendent, NIMS and unknown officials of the MCI.The CBI has filed a closure report on 01.10.2014 which is pending consideration in the court of Special Judge, CBI cases, Patiala House, New Delhi.(iv) further, as per submission of the petitioner an FIR has been registered against Dr.Tomar on 6.02.2015 in PS Chutia, Sadar, Ranchi for his alleged acts for sexual intercourse/sexual harassment/outraging of modesty/criminal intimidation of a student pursuing medicine course in his medical college at Jaipur.As these allegations are prima facie violative of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, MCI has been directed to take suitable action under the Regulations against Dr. B. S. Tomar."In view of the above noted facts, it is established that respondent has taken all due care and passed necessary orders to comply with the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by this Court.In such eventuality, proviso attached to Section 12 of the Act is relevant, which reads as under:-(C) 882/2014 Page 4 of 5"Section 12:- Punishment for Contempt of Court:-PROVIDED that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to such punishment if he proves that the contempt was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission."Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Jiwani Kumari vs. Satyabrata Chakraborty, AIR 1991 SC 326 held that a party (or person) can be committed for contempt only owing to any willful or deliberate or reckless disobedience of the order of the Court.In view of the above discussion and settled law, it is established that in the present case, the respondent has not committed any willful or deliberate disobedience of the order or direction of this Court, therefore, I am not inclined to pass any order against the respondent in this petition.The petition is accordingly dismissed.The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the aforesaid communication dated 30.04.2015, if so aggrieved, before the appropriate Forum.SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) MAY 01, 2015 sb Cont.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,188,730 |
b) The accused no. 6 and 7 in course of their employment as the Director and AGM Operation of the complainant company approached its management, jointly in connivance with each other and with a pre-planned design and made a proposal for entering into a Film Assignment Agreement with the accused company for obtaining telecast and transmission rights in respect of 70 feature films through its channel Rupasi Bangla against valuable consideration.d) The said agreement was executed on behalf of the complainant company Brand Value Communication Limited by the accused no. 6 and 7, it's Director and AGM Operation and on behalf of the accused company Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. by the accused no. 2, the petitioner no. 1 herein as it's Director.e) In terms of the said agreement, it was agreed, that the accused company would give a right to telecast total 70 numbers of feature films, to the complainant company through its entertainment channel Rupasi Bangla against payment of Rs. 25 crores being the consideration amount.f) Out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 25 crores, a sum of Rs. 9 crores each were paid on April 20, 2010 and May 31, 2010 and Rs. 4.5 crores on April 30, 2010 and thereafter a further sum of Rs. 2.5 crores were paid towards the T.D.S.However, instead of 70 feature films the accused company made over 37 films to the complainant company.g) On January 10, 2011 the accused no. 6, being the Director of the complainant company addressed a letter to it's Chairman, referring those 37 feature films which were given to its company by the accused company.h) In the meantime, the officials of the complainant company had been to the office of the accused no. 1 Shree Venkatesh Films Pvt. Ltd. for taking delivery of the rest of the films and contacted the accused no. 2 to 5, the Director of the accused company, who always assured them that the remaining feature films will be supplied shortly but actually never supplied.i) The management of the complainant company on source information came to learn as to some irregular and illegal activities of accused no. 6 and 7 and started enquiry.l) The accused no. 6 and 7 from the very beginning continuously pressed and persuaded for entering into the aforesaid Film Assignment Agreement against huge consideration with intention to deceive the complainant company.At the beginning of his argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners drew the attention of this court to the annexure P-3 to this application and pointed out, in fact, total 68 beta tape of different feature films were delivered to the complainant company in between April 29, 2010 and May 27, 2010 and same were duly received by it's authorized representatives.He then pointed out with reference to those annexures that 10 feature films each were delivered on 29th April, 2010 and on May 21, 2010, 20 feature films on May 25, 2010 and 28 feature films on May 27, 2010 respectively.He further contended according to the complainant a total sum of Rs. 22.5 crores were paid to the accused company in instalments and the first instalment on April 20, 2010 and next instalment on May 31, 2010 and April 30, 2010 respectively.He further submitted the impugned charge sheet was submitted for both the offences for commission of criminal breach of trust and cheating in respect of the self-same property, which cannot be legally sustained and it is a clear case where complainant attempted to give a cloak of criminality to a civil dispute.He lastly submitted that both the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust have been made against the accused no. 6 and 7 who are the employees of the complainant company and a case of conspiracy against the petitioners.In this regard he draws the attention of the documents which are at page 183 to 207 of the case diary and were seized by the police during the investigation on being produced by the complainant.He then drew the attention of this court to the pages from 177 to 182 and pointed out that those documents which were seized from the complainant shows that out of those 24 beta tapes, subsequently 18 were found not technically feasible for telecast and were returned to the accused company but were not replaced.He submitted those facts were not disclosed in the petition of complaint.He then submitted during investigation police also seized several papers from the custody of the accused persons which however shows the total 70 films were supplied but dispute arose when subsequently it was found some of the films were not technically feasible for telecast and were not replaced.Heard the counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.Considered their respective submissions.Perused the charge-sheeted materials and other materials on record.It is the further case that one Director of the complainant company, accused no. 6 and another AGM Operation, accused no. 7 jointly in connivance with each other with a pre-planned design made a proposal to their company to enter into the said agreement with the accused company and on being pressed and persuaded by them the complainant company entered into such agreement with the accused company.It is the further case the management of the complainant company having come to learn from source information about various irregular and illegal activities of the accused no. 6 and 7 i.e. it's one of the Directors and AGM Operation, they made an enquiry and came to learn the accused no. 6 and 7 being aided and abetted by each other entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Directors of the accused company and thereby misappropriated the said amount.b) Against this criminal revision, from the side of the complainant company, the opposite party no. 2, an affidavit-in-opposition and one vacating application were filed and both are on record.A chart also was annexed, being annexure A-4, to show after delivery total 21 films were returned to the accused company for replacement.Going through the said chart it is found that there was no mention as to when out of those 21 films 8 were returned for replacement and as far as 6 other films are concerned, no film returned acknowledgment was available and therefore on the own showing of the complainant company it may be accepted 7 films were returned but were not replaced.It is further found form the averment made in the rest of the paragraphs that the complainant company made a thorough market survey and found 61 films which were supplied to the complainant company had an average value of Rs.1 lakh each but the petitioners realized an excess amount of Rs. 14.45 crores from the complainant company by fraudulently overvaluing the same.Similarly, in affidavit-in-opposition in paragraphs 3(j), 3(k), 3(i), 3(l), 3(m) and 3(n) from the side of the opposite party no. 2 i.e. the complainant company an identical case has been made out.I further find from the documents seized from the possession of the petitioners by the police during investigation (page 183 to page 208) that in addition to 37 feature films which were admittedly delivered to the complainant company, 24 other feature films were also delivered to it and out of those films records shows 7 films found to be technically not feasible for telecast were returned to the complainant company for replacement but same was not done.Thus, the aforesaid fact, more particularly from the own showing of the complainant company, it clearly indicates the dispute was not over non-supply of the feature films but over supply of few feature films which were not feasible for telecast and although returned to the accused the same were not replaced and in the market those feature films were available for telecast at much lower rate and there is no allegation that at the time of entering into the contract any misrepresentation was made by the petitioners or even the petitioner no. 3 to 5 were present.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
140,190,441 |
"Article-I That the said Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC during the above said period had unauthorisedly sold prepaid lottery tickets of Delhi Lotteries on credit to the local dealers/agents in violation of the Scheme of Delhi Lotteries.% 18.03.2016 The petitioner-Vivekanand Singh impugns order dated 12th August, 2015 passed in OA No. 3143/2012, whereby the aforesaid OA has been dismissed.The petitioner was charge sheeted on the following Articles of charge:-Article-II That the said Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC as on W.P. (C) 2208/2016 Page 1 of 5 17.6.1987, when his Branch was inspected by the CAO, had to deposit a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- lakhs against which till 12.8.1987 he had remitted only Rs.79,500/-.The balance amount of Rs.1,75,000/- was left to be deposited by Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC which tantamounts to embezzlement of Govt. money.W.P. (C) 2208/2016 Page 1 of 5Article-III That the said Shri Vivekanand Singh, LDC during the aforesaid period in the aforesaid office did not maintain or render detailed account of sales of lottery tickets on credit.The lottery accounts were kept pending despite issue of repeated instructions from the office of Delhi Lotteries with ulterior motive.The disciplinary authority by order dated 27th July, 1990 imposed penalty of dismissal.The Appellate Authority by order dated 15th January, 1991 upheld the findings and penalty of dismissal.3.1 The two orders were challenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 990/1992 before the Delhi High Court, which was partly allowed vide order dated 9th February, 1996 as the appellate authority was directed to pass a speaking order recording reasons for its decision.3.2 In compliance, the appellate authority passed a fresh order dated 3rd May, 1996 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.In other words, the order of W.P. (C) 2208/2016 Page 2 of 5 dismissal was sustained.W.P. (C) 2208/2016 Page 2 of 5The petitioner accepted the same.The petitioner, on acquittal in the criminal appeal, started making representations seeking reinstatement.Thereafter, on 23rd November, 2011, the petitioner had sent a legal notice to which a reply dated 11 th January, 2012 was received refusing to reinstate the petitioner.In January, 2012, the petitioner filed the aforesaid OA No. 3143/2012, which as noticed above, by the impugned order dated 12th August, 2015 has been dismissed.In our opinion, the tribunal has rightly drawn a distinction between the criminal proceedings and the articles of charge on which the petitioner had faced disciplinary proceedings.W.P. (C) 2208/2016 Page 3 of 5
|
['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.
|
131,586,999 |
Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate for the State.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant namely Gopal Singh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority (Investigation Officer).The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
131,587,057 |
</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4"> Heard the learned counsel for the parties.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4"> The applicant is in custody since 17.12.2014 in connection with Crime No.404/2014 registered at Police Station Lalbarra District Balaghat for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506-II, 376(I) of IPC.</font></font></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in; font-weight: normal; line-height: 150%; text-decoration: none" align="JUSTIFY"> <font face="Bitstream Vera Serif, serif"><font size="4"> Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 22 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The prosecutrix is shown to be 21 years of age, who had lodged an FIR after delivery of a child.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
131,590,541 |
As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.The applicants have challenged the order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No.62/13, whereby the charge of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC was framed against the applicant.In this case, prima facie, it appears that a threat was given on 21.11.2012 and the deceased had committed suicide on 28.11.2012 i.e. seven days of alleged threat.There is no information as to whether he lodged any FIR against the applicants in those seven days or he told anyone about the incident of threat in those seven days.It is possible that the deceased died due to any other reason and the guilt of someone else is shifted upon the applicants.In the present case, so many options were opened to the deceased.However, he did not re-act for seven days about the threat given by the applicants then, certainly it cannot be said that he had a last option to commit suicide.He could have lodged an FIR against the applicants and he could knock the door of the Civil Court to take the possession directed to be given to him.He could also have lodged an FIR to the police or knocked the door to the higher officer of the police to get the security.The order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be perverse, which cannot be maintained.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present revision filed by the applicants Bhaiyalal Baheliya, Rajesh Baheliya and Ramswaroop Baheliya is hereby allowed.The impugned order dated 13.8.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa is hereby set aside.The applicants are discharged from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.C.C. as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE bina
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
131,594,264 |
This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of Crime No.348/2017 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 294, 308, 34 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the respondent No.2 lodged a FIR that at about 10:30 in the morning on 19/05/2017 the applicant No.1 was carrying out certain construction work by encroaching upon the land of the complainant.When the complainant objected to it, the applicants started abusing him and the applicant No.3 fired from his licensed gun for three times, but nobody had sustained any injury.It is submitted by the counsel for the parties that the applicants as well as the respondent No.2 are residents of the same locality and, therefore, with the intervention of the elder members of the society, they have resolved their dispute.Now, the respondent No.2 does not want to take any action against the applicants.This Court by order dated 10 th October, 2017 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for the verification of factum of compromise.The Principal Registrar of this Court after recording the statements of the witnesses has given the following report:-"After verifying from private parties present before me that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force.Crime No.348/2017 registered against the applicants at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 294, 308, 34 of IPC and any other consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
131,595,576 |
In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Heard, learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.This is the first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed for grant of anticipatory bail.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.198/2020 registered at Police Station Bajranggarh District Guna (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 414 of the IPC and Section 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals Act.Allegations against the applicant, in short, is that he committed theft of Gitti and was involved in its illegal transportation without paying any royalty.On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
131,597,825 |
Certified copy as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) V.Judge ps Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2018.05.29 10:21:44 +05'30'Heard on I.A. No.7836/2018, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of the appellants.Both the appellants herein have been convicted for the offences punishable under sections 420 read with 120-B (on three counts) and 468 read with 120-B IPC and sentenced to RI for three years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- on each count, with default stipulations.They have also been convicted under sections 465 read with 120-B and 471 read with 120-B IPC and sentenced to RI for two years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- on each count, with default stipulations.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the period of short sentence to a maximum of three years, I am inclined to allow the I.A. No.7836/2018 and suspend the remaining part of the sentence imposed upon the appellants Ravi Sahu and Rajkumar Rai and direct that they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.Record of the trial court be called for and list the case immediately thereafter for orders on admission.
|
['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
131,613,685 |
(a) The deceased in this case, one Arukkani, is the mother-in-law of the accused.The accused is a drunkard and used to quarrel with PW.4, frequently.Unable to bear the harassment, PW.4, along with her children, use to visit the deceased's house, frequently.Six months prior to the occurrence, PW.4, along with her children, came to the deceased's house and residing there, permanently and doing some coolie work.One week prior to the occurrence, the accused came to the deceased's house and asked her to send his wife, with children.Then on 08.12.2014, the accused once again came to the deceased's house, threatened the deceased and asked her to send PW.4 and the children with him.On the next day, viz., 09.12.2014, while the deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 were watching TV inside the house, the accused came in an intoxicated mood and quarrelled with the deceased, threatened and pushed P.Ws.2 and 3 out of the house and locked the door from inside.Thereafter, P.Ws.2 and 3 heard noise from inside.After some time, the accused opened the door, came out of the house with a knife and ran away.When P.Ws.2 and 3 went inside the house, they saw the deceased found dead, with multiple injuries.Immediately, they informed PW.1, son of the deceased.(b) PW.1 rushed back to the house.He saw the accused on his way with a bloodstained knife and the accused told him that he had murdered his mother.First Information Report is Ex.(d) PW.15 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P16) and a rough sketch (Ex.P17).He also recovered bloodstained blanket (M.O.2) and a black colour cloth (M.O.4), in the presence of witnesses.Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body, at about 3.30 a.m., and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P8).PW.7 is the photographer, who took photographs of the dead body.PW.8 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body.PW.9 - Junior Scientific Officer in Regional Forensic Lab, Coimbatore, has stated that he examined the bloodstained material objects and gave a report (Ex.P8) and sent the visceral parts of the body to the Forensic Lab, Chennai.PW.4 is the wife of the accused.She has spoken about the earlier quarrel between the accused and the deceased, one day prior to the occurrence.PW.6 is a witness to the arrest of the accused and also recovery of M.O.1 Aruval.PW.7 is the photographer, who took photographs of the dead body.PW.8 Doctor hasconducted autopsy on the dead body and gave postmortem report.PW.9 Junior Scientific Officer in the Regional Forensic Lab, Coimbatore, has examined bloodstained material objects.PW.10 Special Sub-Inspector of Police, has submitted First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate Court.PW.11 - Head Constable has accompanied the dead body for postmortem and identified the body for postmortem.[Judgment of the court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.,] The sole accused in S.C.No.58 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Fast Track Court, Erode, is the appellant herein.He stood charged for an offence under Section 302 and 506 (ii) IPC.The trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment and also found him guilty of offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment.The trial Court, however, ordered both the sentences to run concurrently.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court.Immediately, PW.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) with the respondent police.(c) PW.13 special Sub-Inspector of Police in the respondent police, on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.246 of 2014 and sent the First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Gobichettipalayam, and copies of the same to the higher officials.Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem to the Government Hospital, Gobi, through PW.11 Head Constable.On 10.12.2014, at about 12.00 p.m, PW.15 arrested the accused and on such arrest, the accused voluntarily gave a confession and based on the disclosure statement, PW.15 recovered a bloodstained knife (M.O.1), bloodstained T- shirt (M.O.6) and bloodstained lungi (M.O.7) in the presence of witnesses, under a cover of Mahazar.(e) PW.8, Assistant Surgeon, working in Gobichettipalayam Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries:-External injuries: Incised wound about 7 cm extending from right ear and breadth 5 cm, depth 6 cm, at right mandibular region.Internal carotid artery was torn.Laceration 3 x 5 x 2 cm right upper Accident Register.Laceration 7 x 3 x 2 cm at right fore arm below elbow joint.Internal examination: No # ribs, Heart 250 gm clotted blood.Left empty.All internal organs are pale.Brain normal.Ex.P6 is the postmortem report and the Doctor was of the opinion that that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to internal carotid artery.Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC against the appellant/accused, as mentioned in paragraph-1 of the judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and marked 18 documents and 12 material objects.Out of the witnesses examined, PW.1 is the son of deceased and also brother-in-law of the accused.He has spoken about the frequent quarrel between the accused and his sister, who is the wife of the accused (PW.4).According to him, the mother/deceased informed PW.1 about the previous quarrel between the accused and the deceased and on the date of occurrence, on hearing the news, he rushed back to the house and on his way, he saw the accused with a bloodstained knife and the accused informed him that he has murdered the deceased.PW.2 is the wife of PW.1 and daughter-in-law of deceased and according to her, she was in the house when the occurrence took place and she saw PW.3, her niece and the deceased watching TV inside the house and at that time, the accused came inside the house and quarrelled with the deceased and threatened them and sent her and PW.3 out of the house and locked the door from inside and after ten minutes, the accused came out with a bloodstained knife and threatened them and ran away and when she went inside the house, she saw the deceased found dead with injury.PW.3 - grand-daughter of the deceased, is a child witness and also an eye witness to the occurrence.According to her, at the time of occurrence, she, along with PW.2 and the deceased, was watching TV and the accused quarrelled with PW.2, and sent them out and after some time, the accused came out of the deceased's house and told them that he had murdered the deceased and threatened them, saying if they come near him, he would finish them of also and thereafter, he ran away and then they saw the deceased dead.PW.4 is the wife of the accused and also the daughter of deceased.She has spoken about previous day's quarrel between the accused and the deceased.She has further stated that on the day of occurrence, she came to the house at about 10.00 p.m, after the work and at that time, she was told that the accused murdered the deceased.PW.5 is a witness to Observation Mahazar and also recovery of bloodstained blanket, pillow and bed sheet (M.O.2, M.O.3 and M.O.5).PW.6 is a witness to the arrest of the accused and recording of his confession statement and also seizure of Aruval (M.O.1) and T-shirt (M.O.6) and lungi (M.O.7).PW.10 Special Sub-Inspector of Police has spoken about handing over of the express First Information Report to the Judicial Magistrate Court.PW.11 is the Head Constable, who accompanied the dead body to Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, identified the body for postmortem and recovered bloodstained clothes of the deceased.PW.12 - Head Clerk in Judicial Magistrate Court, Gobichettipalayam, has stated that he sent the bloodstained material objects for chemical examination.PW.13 - Special Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that he registered the complaint and sent the First Information Report to Judicial Magistrate Court.PW.14 - Scientific Officer in Forensic Department, Chennai, has deposed that he examined the blood group found in bloodstained material objects and gave report Ex.PW.15 Investigating Officer has deposed that he conducted investigation, arrested the accused, recovered material objects and recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.The accused neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents.Considering the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him as stated in paragraph-1 of the judgment.As against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed by the accused before this Court.PW.1 is the son of deceased and also brother-in-law of accused.According to him, after hearing the news, he rushed to the house and on his way, he saw the accused, with a bloodstained knife and the accused informed him that he had murdered his mother.PW.2 is the wife of PW.1 and daughter-in-law of deceased and according to her, she was in the house when the occurrence took place and she saw the accused quarrelling with the deceased and the accused threatened them and sent them out and locked the door from inside and after ten minutes, the accused came out of the house with bloodstained knife and threatened them and ran away.She has deposed that he also saw the accused coming from inside the house with bloodstained knife and threatening them.PW.12 - Head Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate Court, has sent the material objects to Forensic Lab.PW.13 Special Sub-Inspector of Police has registered the First Information Report.PW.14 - Scientific Officer in the Forensic Department, Chennai, has examined the bloodstained material objects to find out the blood group.PW.15 Investigating Officer has conducted investigation, arrested the accused, recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that P.Ws.2 and 3 have only seen the accused coming out of the house of the deceased and there is no evidence that they saw the occurrence and apart from that, they are closely related to the deceased and interested witnesses and therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon to convict the accused.The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that there are lot of contradictions in the evidences of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the recovery was also not proved by the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and therefore, he sought for acquittal of the accused.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and apart from that only based on the confession of accused, bloodstained knife (M.O.1) was recovered.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that there is no delay in filing the First Information Report and the prosecution has proved all the circumstances beyond any reasonable doubt and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Appeal.We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the records, carefully.According to the Prosecution, the occurrence was inside the house of the deceased.The accused is the son-in-law of the deceased.The consistent evidence of all the material witnesses is that there was frequent quarrel between the accused and his wife PW.4, who is none-other than the daughter of deceased and six months prior to the occurrence, PW.4, along with her children, came to the house of the deceased and reside there permanently.It is their further evidence that one month prior to the occurrence, the accused came to the house of the deceased and asked her to send his wife and children, along with him and on the date of occurrence, while the deceased, PW.2 and others were watching T.V., the accused came and quarrelled with the deceased and threatened PW.2 and others and sent them out and thereafter, went inside the house and locked the door inside and after some time, he opened the house, came out with a bloodstained knife and threatened P.Ws.2 and 3 and ran away.It is the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that the accused quarrelled with the deceased and went inside the house and attacked the deceased and threatened them and ran away.The presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in the house is natural and their evidence is also consistent.It is because the deceased refused to send PW.4 to his house, the accused had grievance against the deceased and in order to wreck vengeance, he had attacked the deceased with a knife and caused her death.The medical evidence has also supported the case of prosecution.Hence, We are of the considered view that the prosecution has clearly established that the accused had attacked the deceased with a knife, on her neck, and caused her death.The next question arises is what was the offence committed by the accused by the said act.According to P.Ws.2 and 3, before the occurrence, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.Even a day prior to occurrence, the accused had come to the deceased's house and asked the deceased to send his wife and children along with him.When the deceased had refused to do so, on the next day he had come to her house and quarrelled with her.During the quarrel, being provoked by the words of the deceased, the accused had lost his mental balance and attacked the deceased with a knife in her neck, vital part of the body.Even though the accused did not have any intention to cause the death of the deceased, definitely, he had the intention to cause such bodily injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Hence, it falls under the first exception to Section 300 IPC.Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished under Section 304 (1) IPC alone.So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the accused is a poor man and he has no bad antecedents and the occurrence was not premeditated and it was only out of provocation.Since his wife and children were in the house of the deceased for the past six months, the accused requested the deceased to send them with him, but the deceased refused to send his wife and children with him.Hence, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and during the quarrel, he lost his mental balance and attacked the deceased with a knife, giving a cut injury in the neck, which resulted in the death of the deceased.Considering the circumstances, we are of the considered view that sentencing the accused to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC would meet the ends of justice.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
131,617,254 |
On objection of the defacto complainant/second respondent, the said document was kept as pending document by the petitioner herein.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would raise the following ground to quash the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner/A4:The petitioner was working as Sub Registrar and while he was discharging his duty in his official capacity, the first respondent ought not to have registered the case as against the Sub Registrar and also ought not to have filed the charge sheet as against the petitioner herein.The first respondent also failed to obtain any sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. before filing charge charge from the Inspector General of Registration.It vitiates the entire investigation as against the petitioner.The petitioner, due to objection, has already made the power of attorney deed as pending document filed by the first accused and only after getting clearance from the Tahsildar, Kuliithalai with regard to issuance of patta, the petitioner has registered the said power of attorney and as such, he has no knowledge about the forged letter given by the Tahsildar and there is absolutely no conspiracy between the accused persons.Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner.3.The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant would submit that the first and second accused are brothers.The defacto complainant purchased the property comprised in S.No.457/3B, 457/4, 458/2, 458/3 admeasuringhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5.40 cents land situated at R.T.Malai village, Kulithalai 3 Taluk, Karur District from L.Ws.2 and 3 on 21.06.2012 and registered as document No.4630/12 in the office of Sub Registrar, Woraiyur.While being so, the accused 1 and 2 and their mother partitioned the above said property as if the property belongs to their ancestors on 15.02.2007 and registered as document No.735 of 2007 and also obtained patta No. 4632/2012 from the Tahsildar.While it was objected by the defacto complainant, it was kept as pending document.Therefore, even the petitioner knowingly very well that the letter given by the Tahsildar is a forged one, he registered the power of attorney deed.Therefore, all the accused conspired together and registered the power of attorney document.Therefore, the charge is made out as against the petitioner and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the quash petition.5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.6.Admittedly, the petitioner/A4 while he was working as Sub Registrar, Woraiyur a power of attorney document was presented for registration.
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
681,569 |
In order to appreciate this contention we may notice the relevant facts.The incident occurred one day after Holi i.e. on 27th March, 1975 at about 11.00 or 11.30 a.m. On that day the deceased Chhotu, Bhura and other family members were harvesting the wheat crop in their field adjacent to Bantawali Kuai (well).The accused were also in their field at some distance from the field of Chhotu and Bhura.The prosecution case is that one day before Holi accused Nos. 1 and 2 were acquitted of the charge of beating PW 18 Hazari (Mali), an incident which had taken place a couple of years back.On that occasion PW 18 was saved by Chhotu and others.Jubilant about their acquittal, the accused are alleged to have come to the field of Chhotu and Bhura armed with 'Lathis'.The accused addressing the complainant party stated that you saved Hazari but who will save you now.On receipt of injuries from accused Nos. 1 and 2 Chhotu fell down.Accused Nos. 3 and 4 who were in the field had also arrived in the meantime and they too gave stick blows to the fallen Chhotu.After seriously injuring Chhotu they turned to Bhura and caused serious injuries to him also.Injuries were also caused to PW 1 Prem, daughter of Chhotu, PW 3 Champa, wife of Bhura and PW 19 Lad, daughter of Bhura.PW 4 Hagami wife of Chhotu also claimed to have received injuries but no injury marks were found on her person.After causing these injuries the accused ran away in the direction of their field.After the accused left the place of occurrence, the women folk raised an alarm which attracted the attention of PW 8 Kana.The injured were put in his bullock cart.PW 3 Champa, PW 4 Hagami and PW 19 Lad also went along with the injured in the bullock cart.When the bullock cart carrying the injured was proceeding in the direction of Shafakhana (dispensary), accused Nos. 1 and 2 stood in the way and asked PW 8 to leave the victims to their fate.On PW 8 refusing they pelted stones at him, whereupon he ran away.The women folk saw PW 20 Govindram in his field and requested him to help them carry the injured to the dispensary for treatment.JUDGMENT Ahmadi, J.Gokul (Accused No. 3) and his three sons Kanhaiyalal (Accused No. 1), Geelaram (Accused No. 2) and Ratanlal (Accused No. 4) were charged for the murder of Chhotu and for causing injuries to his brother Bhura and other family members.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 302/34 I.P.C. for causing the death of Chhotu.Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and Section 325/34 I.P.C. for causing injuries to Chhotu, Bhura & others.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.Accused No. 3 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 years under Section 325 I.P.C. Accused No. 4 being under 21 years of age was given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and was directed to be released on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years.The accused feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence preferred an appeal to the High Court of Rajasthan.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for three months.It appears that in the meantime Accused No. 3 passed away.PW 20 obliged and drove the bullock cart to the dispensary.Unfortunately the medical officer was not available and the nurse on duty advised them to take the injured to the Kekri Hospital.A motor car was hired and the injured were brought to the Kekri Hospital.The medical officer on seeing the condition of Chhotu advised that he may be taken to the Civil Hospital, Ajmer.The injured Bhura was, however, admitted to the Kekri Hospital for treatment.Chhotu, while on his way to Ajmer, passed away.PW 20 Govindram, who had parted company after sending the injured in a motor vehicle, returned to the village with the bullock cart and then went to Kekri Hospital by the next bus.On the basis of the said report an offence was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. which was later converted to Section 302 I.P.C. on the death of Chhotu.This in brief is the prosecution case.The defence version is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had taken their cattle to the Bantawali Kuai for water.While they were there Chhotu and Bhura hurled abuses and stated that although they were acquitted in Hazari (Mali)'s case, they would not be spared.Sensing the mood of Chhotu and Bhura the accused turned to leave but Chhotu asked them to return.When accused No. 2 intervened, he too was beaten up by Chhotu and Bhura.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 tried to run away but they were chased and beaten by Chhotu, Bhura Prem Champa, Hagami and Lad.Thereupon accused Nos. 3 and 4 rushed to their help but they too were assaulted.The learned counsel for the accused, therefore, contended that in the circumstances the accused, apprehending danger to their lives, caused injuries to Chhotu and Bhura in self defence.In support of this contention the defence has led evidence.We have perused the same.The evidence of Dr. O.P. Tak reveals that Chhotu had received three injuries, namely (1) a lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" bone deep over right frontal region with bluish swelling of right eye; (2) a lacerated wound 1 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" over the occipital region; and (3) a lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/4" over the tip of the right middle finger.On internal examination it was found that the deceased had a linear fracture 2" in length over the right frontal bone.The brain was congested and there was clotting of blood.In the opinion of Dr. Tak death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of fracture of the skull bone.The injuries were ante-mortem.It is, therefore, clear that the Chhotu died a homicidal death.PW 2 Bhura deposed that he received 2 injuries on the forehead and two injuries on the left hand.There was a fracture resulting from the injury on the left hand.He was in hospital for 8 or 10 days.The prosecution evidence shows that the injury on the forehead was a serious one and had caused profuse bleeding.The injuries to other prosecution witnesses PW 1 Prem, PW 3 Champa and PW 19 Lad were of a simple nature.PW 4 claimed that she was injured but no external marks of injury were noticed.The prosecution relied on the direct testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 18 and 19 to bring home the guilt against the accused persons.We have perused the evidence of these witnesses, all of whom unfold the prosecution version regarding the incident narrated earlier.Both the courts below have found these witnesses to be reliable.The fact that Chhotu and Bhura received severe injuries in the incident cannot be doubted.So also the fact that PWs 1, 3 and 19 received simple injuries cannot be doubted.The only question is whether the accused persons were the aggressors as alleged or whether they were obliged to cause injuries in self-defence.9. Accused No. 1 Kanhaiyalal had sustained six injuries, three abrasions, one bruise and two lacerations on the left eye and right forehead.All these injuries were simple in nature except that there was bleeding from the gums which had loosened the lower front four teeth.Accused No. 2 Geelaram had one laceration on the frontal region, two abrasions on the scapular region and a linear scar on the right hand.All these injuries were of a simple nature.Accused No. 3 Gokul had four abrasions and a swelling on the left forearm, all of which were simple in nature.Accused No. 4 Ratanlal had two abrasions, one on the scapular region and another on the left little finger which were simple in nature.It will be seen from the above that the injuries suffered by the accused were of a simple nature as against the injuries suffered by Chhotu and Bhura.If the assault was opened by the complainant party, as is alleged by the counsel, we do not think that the accused would have escaped with simple and minor injuries.According to the accused they were unarmed when the assault was opened by Chhotu and Bhura and they picked up the 'Salia' from the nearby bullock cart to protect themselves.This means that there was a gap between the assault launched by Chhotu and Bhura and the accused arming themselves with 'Salia'.It is, therefore, difficult to believe that the accused would have escaped with such simple injuries if the complainant party had in fact opened the attack on unarmed persons.Both the courts below have also reached the conclusion and in our view rightly that the facts and circumstances of the case reveal that the assault was launched by accused Nos. 1 and 2, accused Nos. 3 and 4 joining a little later.There is another circumstance which betrays the revengeful mood of the accused persons.After Chhotu and Bhura were injured and the accused had left the place of occurrence, the women folk had requested PW 8 to take the injured in his bullock cart to the dispensary.PW 8 agreed and both the injured who were in critical condition were placed in the bullock cart.The bullock cart had hardly covered a distance of 4 or 5 fields when the accused appeared and told PW 8 to leave the injured to their fate if he considered his life precious.PW 8 showed initial resistance but fled on being attacked with stones.It was thereafter that the women folk requested PW 20 Govindram to drive the bullock cart to the dispensary.This part of the prosecution evidence which has remained virtually uncontested goes to show that even after the incident the accused did not permit PW 8 to take the injured to the dispensary for treatment.This is a circumstance which betrays the mood of the accused persons at the time of and immediately after the incident.The accused persons therefore, were not entitled to any right of private defence.It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report.Immediately after the incident all the members of the complainant's party except PW 1 Prem who was a minor had accompanied the injured Chhotu and Bhura in the bullock cart.On reaching the dispensary it was realised that since the medical officer was not available it was necessary to remove the injured to Kekri Hospital.PW 20 returned with the bullock cart to the village and thereafter went to Kekri Hospital by bus.It was there that PW 2 Bhura requested him to inform the police.PW 20 thereafter went to the police station and lodged the complaint.We, therefore, see no substance in this contention.It was lastly contended that the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the true facts.The appellants 1 and 2 will surrender to the bail and serve the sentence.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,157,486 |
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP, for the State.JUSTICE S.P. GARG MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT %All sentences were to operate concurrently.A.1501/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 2135/2011 Page 1The prosecution had alleged that the deceased, Biva was married to Ranjit; her niece Sundri had married his brother, the co-accused Randip.It was alleged that PCR information was received on 08.08.2007 at around noon time, about the dead body of a woman, with blood oozing from the neck.The police reached the spot and confirmed the information; the body was in a room at Chungi No. 2, Ram Pyari camp, Lal Kuan.The police conducted investigations, recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples of incriminating marerials, and after the post mortem of the body was conducted, collected the report.According to the statement of Pintoo, PW-15 (the deceased's brother) at the time of their marriage, Ranjit did not demand any dowry; three months after the event, Randip got married to Sundri, the deceased's niece.Later, the accused had demanded `50,000/- and threatened to beat up Biva in case the amount was not paid.He also revealed that the deceased used to be beaten up regularly, and was sent back to her parental house.On 06.08.2007, PW-15 sent back Biva to her matrimonial home.Thereafter, her mother-in- law and father-in-law visited him and requested him to send her back.The police recorded the statement of one Dr. Sunita Gupta (PW-11) who said she was present with the deceased on 08.08.2007, at night when she had to deliver a child; she witnessed the accused Ranjit beating her, before the delivery of the child.She also stated that Ranjit used to beat up Biva, even in her clinic whenever she was taken there, for check up.She had witnessed her Crl.Though the involvement of the niece (examined as DW-1) of the deceased and the mother in law of the deceased who are stated to be have been present at that time cannot be ruled out.However, at this stage only accused Ranjit (and his brother Randip) are facing trial before me and hence I confine my observations against these accused persons.The Crl.She received fresh injuries after these two witnesses left.She was smothered to death after these two witnesses had left.XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"This was passed on to the concerned Police Station, i.e. Pul Pehladpur, Police Station Sangam Vihar at 12.10 PM and proved through Ex. PW-2/A. PWs-5 and 20 deposed about having gone to the spot where they found Biva's body.This was on the basis of PW-15's statement; it was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, PW-17 - Sh.Alok Sharma.Learned counsel submitted that the testimonies of PWs-8 and 11 clearly proved that the appellant was at the spot in the premises, around the time Biva died.The time of death, fixed by the Post mortem and deposed to by PW-17 was around 05.00-05.30 AM in the morning of 08.08.2007 (Ex. PW-16/A).The testimony of PW-17, Sh.Alok Sharma, the SDM concerned was that he recorded statements of Pintoo (Ex. PW-15/A); Munna (Ex. PW-13/A) as well as of Dr. Sumitra (Ex. PW-11/A) and the statement of Smt. Chironja (Ex. PW-8/A).In the cross-examination, he confirmed about having Crl.A.1501/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 2135/2011 Page 7 received the intimation and reaching the spot in the afternoon, around 03.00- 04.00 PM.PW-15 deposed that after her marriage with Ranjit, he and Randeep started harassing him and demanded Rs. 50,000/- a few months after the deceased's marriage.The witness refused to pay the amount since he was unable to do so.He deposed that the deceased was beaten up by the appellant and his brother; the witness brought back his sister to his house.He also stated that another sister Sundari had married Randeep; she too was given beatings and sent back to parental house.The accused went over to his place to take back the deceased; she, however, refused to return.Thereafter, the deceased's mother-in-law, and an old man went to their house and pressurised her to return with the promise that they would be treated well.He deposed to having received telephonic intimation on 08.08.2007, that his sister Biva had been killed.He confirmed having seen cut marks on the upper lip of his sister and also noticed her bleeding from the neck and that his statement was recorded by SDM.In cross-examination, he confirmed that his sister had always alleged that Ranjit used to beat her though he did not find any signs of injury.He also admitted that PW-17 had recorded the statement of a lady doctor.The testimony of PW-8 is that she used to clean new born babies and on the night of incident, at 12.30 PM, Ranjit asked her to accompany him since she (i.e. the deceased) was in labour.He was under the influence of liquor and she did not accompany him.He went back and again requested her.This time she went with him and found that Biva, her mother-in-law and niece were at home.The deceased was fine at that time.10-12 minutes later, PW-11 reached there.She said that Biva came out, followed by the doctor Crl.A.1501/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 2135/2011 Page 8 who was telling the appellant not to give beatings to his wife and also threatening to call the police.Sometime later, Biva gave birth to a girl; the witness, PW-8 cleaned that child under the directions of the doctor and returned home after an hour.She claimed that the mother and daughter were doing fine when she left the premises.PW-11 corroborated the version of PW-8 to the extent that in her case too, she had been approached by Ranjit earlier in a drunken condition and she refused to accompany him.He again returned twice; the third time she went with Ranjit and other family members to his house around 01.00-01.15 AM.She deposed that Biva used to consult her for pre-natal treatment and also that Ranjit used to beat Biva even inside the clinic before her.PW-11 confirmed that PW-8 was in the premises along with the deceased mother-in-law, who was asked to leave the room.She claimed having seen Ranjit sitting on Biva's chest and hitting her head and alleged that she threatened to inform the police in case he continued to do so.She also deposed that at the time she was leaving the house, the deceased went-out asking her to save her life.According to PW- 11, Ranjit again beat-up Biva even after she was receiving treatment while undergoing labour pains.The time gap between when PW-11 saw the deceased alive, and when she died was very small - about 02-02.30 hours.The appellant impugns a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, dated 14.05.2011 in SC No. 319/2009, by which he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC.By an order dated 07.07.2011, he was directed to undergo imprisonment for life, in respect of the offence under Sections 302/498-A IPC; he was also directed to pay fine.A.1501/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 2135/2011 Page 2 being beaten up after the child's delivery; he stopped only when she threatened to call the police.On the basis of the statements of witnesses, and other materials, the prosecution filed a charge sheet.The accused were charged with committing offences punishable under Section 304-B/498A IPC.Ranjit was additionally charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.Both denied guilt, and claimed trial.The prosecution relied on testimonies of 23 witnesses, besides other materials.After considering these, as well as the parties' submissions, the Trial Court held Ranjit guilty in the manner described earlier, and sentenced him to undergo various prison terms.The co-accused Randip was acquitted.It was argued on behalf of the appellant, by Mr. Sumeet Verma, learned counsel that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence and consequently is untenable.It was submitted that the Court overlooked a very material and crucial circumstance, which was that according to both eyewitnesses (who saw the deceased in the premises before her death) there were other persons, viz. the appellant's mother, and the deceased's niece.Neither was examined, nor was even their role investigated.When all evidence pointed to the presence of three persons with the deceased, around the probable time of her death, the Court was not justified in singling out the appellant as the one who committed the crime.The first was that the Appellant had called the doctor to examine the deceased, soon after her delivery.If in fact Crl.A.1501/2011, Crl.M. (Bail) 2135/2011 Page 3 the prosecution was right in contending that he was the perpetrator of the crime, there would have been no occasion for him to have called the doctor.The second circumstance was that the appellant had gone out of his house, to buy milk - which was consistent with his version under Section 313 Cr.PC and the testimony of the defence witness, DW-1 who should have been, in fairness, be examined by the prosecution.Her presence was not in issue, and the testimony also confirmed the presence of the appellant's mother.All these showed that the appellant could not have been responsible for his wife's death when other people were at home.Learned counsel next submitted that the testimonies of PWs-8 and 11 established that besides the appellant, the deceased's mother-in-law and her niece were present at home.PW-8, the midwife had initially refused to accompany him since he was drunk.She relented later when he again went back to her, seeking help.It was submitted that PW-8 confirmed that the doctor - PW-11 reached the premises 10-12 minutes after she went.She also corroborated the doctor's testimony about the accused being told not to beat the deceased or else the police would be called.Learned counsel submitted that the doctor's testimony could not be relied upon since she made improvements from the version recorded by the SDM (Ex. PW-11/A).She did not state earlier that Ranjit was in a drunken condition or that he sat over the deceased's chest and that he hit over the deceased's head with the charpai leg or that he had again beaten her up after the delivery.The facts deposed, i.e. Ranjit sitting on Biva's chest and hitting her head etc. were a clear improvement and could not have been taken into consideration at all.Accused Ranjit fails to explain as to how the deceased sustained injuries and who smothered her to death.The possibility of the prosecution concoting the facts or improving the witnesses' versions did not arise in this case since the statement of PW-15 and another witness, PW-13 - the brother of the deceased - were recorded at the earliest opportunity.From the above narrative, it can be seen that the police received intimation about Biva's death on 08.08.2007 at around 12.00 PM.After delivery, the co-accused Randeep took the child and kept her on a cot.She claimed that when she was leaving, Biva caught hold of her and asked her not to leave, expressing that she would be killed by the accused persons.She remained there for 1 hours after which she left.In the cross-examination, the appellant was able to establish that PW- 11 made improvements to the previous statement recorded during the investigation by the SDM.For instance, she did not reveal in the earlier Crl.A.1501/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 2135/2011 Page 9 statement that Ranjit sat on the deceased's chest and beat her over the head or that Biva went-out crying that she ought to save her or that Ranjit again beat her up.In the cross-examination, the appellant was also shown the witness's deposition that Biva had implored her to save her or else she would be killed, had not been recorded earlier during the investigation.In the present case, the Post mortem reveals the following injuries on the deceased's body:"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX1) A lacerated wound of size 2.5 x .5 cm was present on the right side of upper lip crescentic in shape.2) Swelling was seen on both the lips.3) Contusion was present over inner side of upper lip of size 2 x 1 cm.4) Contusion was present over lower lip of size .5x .2 cm on inner surface of lip.5) Also contusion was present on the upper lip right side with laceration.6) Contusion was present on the cheek left side of size 2 x 1.5 cm.7) Contusion present on the left fore arm.8) Contusion was present on the right arm.9) Contusion was present on the upper most part of the left fore arm.10) Abrasion was present or medical aspect of left fore arm.11) Contusion was present on the fore head.12) Contusion was present on the fore head above eye brow.13) Contusion was present on the left mastoid process.XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"The report (Ex. PW-16/A) showed 13 injuries on the body of the deceased.The doctor, PW-16 confirmed that there were signs of recent and Crl.A.1501/2011, Crl. M. (Bail) 2135/2011 Page 10 fresh ante mortem injuries and was of the opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of smothering.This clearly points to Biva's unnatural death.The appellant did not dispute this aspect at all.The question, therefore, was whether the Trial Court analyzed the evidence before it correctly to convict Ranjit.PW-8's version was not seriously contested.She deposed to having reached the premises about 10 minutes earlier to PW-11, who supervised the delivery of the girl child.PW-8 testified to having proceeded to clean the child; PW-11 stitched-up the wounds of the deceased and completed the necessary post-natal procedures.She also deposed to having been with the deceased for about 1 hours.It is thus evident that both PWs-8 and 11 left the premises around 03.00 AM.The evidence also points to the presence of the appellant's mother, i.e. the deceased's mother-in-law.The deceased's sister (or niece, since PW-15 described Sundari as his sister) was also apparently at home.Although, if one examines the testimony of PW-11 and compares it with the previous statement recorded by the SDM, PW-17, there could be some dispute about the sequence of events and also whether Biva expressed her apprehension that her husband would kill her, there is no doubt that she categorically mentioned about having witnessed the deceased being beaten up earlier and even in the early hours of 08.08.2007 after the delivery of the child.Her statement, Ex. PW-11/A, which was recorded on 08.08.2007, is as follows:-Mere saamne bhi Ranjit ne delivery se pehle bhi maara tha.Biva ko is se pehle bhi mere clinic ke saamne maara tha jo ki Ranjit ne kiya tha.Ranjit ne delivery ke baad bhi Biva ko maara tha.Mere ye kehne par ki mai 100 No. Par cal karoongi tab usne maarna band kiya."Even before this, he had beaten Biva in front of my clinic.After delivery (of the child) too Ranjit had beaten Biva.He desisted from doing so only after I threatened to place a call to No.100.")PW-11's evidence clearly proves that Biva had been beaten by the Appellant Ranjit, before and after the delivery.PW-8 deposed that after the doctor PW-11 went there she asked Biva's mother in law to go out, which she did.Apparently PW-8 remained outside after she called out the mother in law, because she clearly corroborated PW-11's statement of having warned Ranjit and asked him not to beat his wife, or else she would inform the police.Thus, PW-8 actually did not witness the Appellant beating his wife; only PW-11 did so.Just before, and soon after she delivered an infant girl, Ranjit beat her.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,160,741 |
As Shobhalal and other people of the vicinity gathered, threatening to kill, he fled from the spot.She complained of pain in her wrists.Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27/12/11 passed by I Additional Judge to the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Case No.151/2008, whereby respondent no.1 Panchamlal has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 294, 458, 324, 376 and 506B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").As per the prosecution story, on 20/7/08 at about 12.55 p.m., prosecutrix intimated at Police Station Rithi that on 19/7/08, at about 10 p.m., respondent no.1, while running after her husband to beat him with a Danda, entered into her house filthily abusing and as she tried to intervene, he beat and scuffled with her.On the aforesaid information, First Information report (Ex.P/15) in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC, was registered.During investigation, on 22/7/08 at about 12.35 p.m, prosecutrix revealed that due to fear at the time of lodging report, she had not informed about commission of rape, but, in fact respondent no.1 had raped her on gunpoint.On the basis of said information, the FIR was amended to incorporate the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 376 of the IPC also.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the appellant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.After taking into consideration the evidence of Rajendra Singh (PW1), Phool Bai (PW2), Sudama Prasad (PW3), Mantobai (PW4), Brajbihari (PW5), Dr.Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,162,613 |
Petitioner-accused no. 2 is brother-in-law and 2 M.Cr.After marriage respondent no. 2 stared to live with petitioners-accused in the month of July, 2017 all the petitioners-accused demanded money.They demanded golden chain and they tortured and humiliated her.They did not give proper food, due to this she weakened.Petitioners- accused did not give proper medical aid.They through the water on the stairs due to this she fell down.They sold all the domestic articles, so she has come in the house of his brother at Bhopal.Petitioner No. 1- accused alleged that respondent no. 2 is mad.He refused to live with respondent no. 2 while petitioner no. 3 threaten her so she lodged report on 13.07.2018 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused submits that immediately after the marriage the respondent no. 2 started behaving erratically.Respondent no. 2 told the petitioners accused that she wants to go to her maternal home.Respondent no. 2 started creating trouble to the petitioners-accused and forced them that she wants to go to her maternal home else she would commit suicide.Thereafter respondent no. 2 left the matrimonial house and she never returned for few days.After some days, the petitioner no. 1-accused visited maternal home of the respondent no. 2, her family members did not call her at the first instance and it is only after much persistence the 3 M.Cr.mother of the respondent no. 2 brought her holding her hand and on seeing her petitioner-accused no. 1 asked the family members of the respondent no. 2 what has happened to her, so her family members replied that she is not keeping well.Petitioner no. 1 asked the family members of respondent no. 2 that why did they not tell about her health, he would have taken her to a good doctor, the father of the respondent no. 2 very aggressively replied that she is already treated from a good doctor and there is no need for further consultation and she would be become alright in some days and they will thereafter send her back.Thereafter respondent no.2 returned back, the petitioner found that he was consuming tablets.She did not take bath.She did not take any interest in the family affairs of the petitioners- accused.She alleged that she was not feeded properly at her in-laws house, they used to only gave one chapatti in the morning and one chappati in evening and therefore, due to less food she became unwell and she was not treated .They did not provide food due to this she become weak.They burnt her hand.They spread water on stair due to which she fell down.They doubted her character.Respondent no. 2 and her family members on being told about the disease of the respondent no. 2 refused to accept the same and further told the petitioners that the would implicate them on false case of Dowry Prohibition Act and other related offences.Then petitioner no. 1- accused filed a complaint before M.P. Human Rights Commission.On the basis of complaint of petitioner No. 1-accused an 4 M.Cr.investigation report was prepared by the Police Incharge Gandhi Nagar.On 07.03.2018 by way of counterblast, respondent no. 2 filed an application before the Mahila Thana, Bhpaol for counseling alleging various mental and physical harassment upon the respondent no. 2 in her in laws house at Raisen.Apart from that various allegations were levelled in the complaint.However, all entire cause of action took place in district Raisen.On the basis of the complaint, the counseling happened between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.2 before the Family Consultation Centre.The respondent no. 2 only alleged against the petitioner no. 1-accused in respect of the cruelty and harassment before the Family Consultation Centre, it was decided the parties should go to court.The allegation in the FIR are very vague and ambiguous.In the report 5 M.Cr.No specific allegation against the husband also.When petitioners came to know about it and informed the same to the respondent no. 2 and her family members, they realized that the petitioners have come to know about everything and therefore, they took her away.Respondent no. 2 and her family members have created so much pressure on the petitioners and gave continuous threats to the petitioners that they would implicate the petitioners on false case of 498-A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, therefore all the allegations are frivolous.Apart from that no cause of action is taken place at Bhopal.The territorial jurisdiction with respect to the allegations of harassment and cruelty was shown in Mandideep District Raisen.So in fact the offence was not depicted as a continuing offence and it is justed to bring all the cause of action within the courts of Bhopal, therefore, entire criminal proceeding shall be set-aside on this ground also.Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is prima-facie material available on record so it is not a cae in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked they prays for dismissal of this petition.In support of their contention they relied 6 M.Cr.This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice.See State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal.The Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.See Kans Raj Vs.In the light of aforesaid legal position.I would proceed to decide this petitionIt is revealed from the record that after marriage respondent no. 2 lived with petitioners- accused at matrimonial house.They demanded a golden chain as dowry.They also demanded money, due to non fulfillment, they tortured and humiliated her.Matter was also referred to Child Welfare Committee, Bhopal.Committee found that case be registered against the petitioners-accused.During the investigation statements of witnesses have been recorded.Then in prima-facie allegations about demand of dowry and torture are there.So far as the case of petitioners-accused that respondent no. 2 is suffering from idiopathic epilepsy and the said fact was being hidden from the petitioner no. 1 when petitioners-accused came to know the fact he informed the same to the family members of respondent no. 2, thereafter the family members of respondent no. 2 14 M.Cr.threatened them for dire consequences and lodged false report.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
681,652 |
(1) [ED. facts : One Jokhu Pershad's daughter who was alleged to be minor was missing and suspects were alleged to have a hand in her kidnapping etc. Tulsi Ram was alleged to be main culprit.He was taken to Police Station more than once.A lawyer applied for bail on his behalf.Report of the Sho was called for.The latter moved High Court for quashing proceedings, pointing out besides other things that during the said period, the suspect was arrested by Kashmere Gate Police and on his confession had been convicted with fine.] After detailing above facts, Judgment is :Thakur, Advocate.He further submitted that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 9.11.90 was not correct because on that date the Magistrate only called for a report from the Sho on the bail application.against Sh.Ramesh did say that he gave alt the information to Mr. Thakur about Tulsi Ram who then moved the bail application.After dinner, his wife wanting a Pan, stood along with her children at the Pan shop while the Si himself was at some distance.He noticed one boy molesting his wife.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,165,439 |
This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No. 3/2012 registered under Section 498A IPC at Police Station Dwarka North, New Delhi on 4th January, 2012 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.It is further stated that the parties were referred to the Mediation Centre by the trial Court and finally on 18th April, 2013 the parties arrived at a settlement before the Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.A copy of the settlement arrived at between the parties on 18th April, 2013 is also annexed with the petition.I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus, since the parties have resolved their differences and have obtained divorce by mutual consent; and since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished.Consequently, FIR No. 3/2012 registered under Section 498A CRL.M.C. 3871/2014 Page 7 of 8 IPC at Police Station Dwarka North, New Delhi on 4th January, 2012 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.CRL.M.C. 3871/2014 Page 7 of 8The petition stands disposed off.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,175,671 |
Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned AGA for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 and perused the record.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,175,860 |
The deceased died on the same day at 7.00 p.m. in the hospital.PW.1, who is the father of the deceased, is thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 defacto complainant and PW.2 is the mother of the deceased.PW.3 and PW.4, are the mahazar witnesses, PW.5 is the Doctor, who treated the deceased at the Vinayaga Mission Medical College, Salem and declared the victim as dead.This Criminal Appeal is filed, against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated, 31.07.2017, made in SC.No.110 of 2015, by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants/A1 to A5 for the offence under Section 498A of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 306 of IPC to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo six monthshttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 Rigorous Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.The case of the Prosecution is as follows:-The deceased and A1 fell in love with each other and due to their relationship, the deceased became pregnant and the parents of the deceased, on coming to know about the same, with the intervention of elders, had performed their marriage 2 ½ years prior to the occurrence and thereafter, the deceased was living with A1 along with A2 to A5 as a joint family.b) After marriage, the Appellants/Accused used to often subject the deceased to cruelty by harassing and abusing her, by demanding dowry.Due to the harassment, the deceased underwent an abortion and fell ill.Even then, the Appellants/Accused subjected the deceased to cruelty for not meeting out their demand of dowry.By such willful acts, the Appellants drove the deceased to commit suicide by consuming oleander seeds, which is a poisonous substance, on 9.2.2013 at about 8.15 and the deceased died on 9.2.2013 at 7.00 p.m. within seven years of her marriage in the Hospital.Hence, the Inspector of Police, Kondalampatty, Salem had laid the charge sheet against thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 Appellants/A1 to A5 for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of IPCThe case was taken on file in PRC.No.4 of 2015, by the Additional Mahila Judge, Salem and after furnishing necessary copies to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.PC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The Principal District Judge, Salem had assigned SC.No.110 of 2015 and made over the case to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court and charges were framed against the accused under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of IPC.The substances of the charges were put forth to the accused and they were questioned.The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial.In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14 and also marked Exs.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused have come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.On the side of the defence, Ex.The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the Appellants/Accused guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.He would further submit that the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC cannot be treated as a substantive evidence adduced before the Trial Court because it was not recorded in the presence of the accused and that the Prosecution has failed to prove itshttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 case beyond all reasonable doubts that the Appellants abetted the victim to commit suicide and that when there is no evidence to prove that the Appellants demanded any dowry or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry, the Trial Court erred in convicting the Appellants for the offence under Section 498A of IPC.The learned counsel for the Appellants would further submit that PW.1 and PW.2 are none other than the father and mother of the victim and that PW.1 has categorically deposed that he had supported the prosecution on being tutored by the Police and that even during RDO enquiry and examination before the Magistrate, he had deposed as tutored by the Respondent Police.He would further submit that PW.2 mother of the victim was examined in chief on the same day of examination of PW.1 and she had not supported the prosecution and she had deposed that prior to the marriage, the victim and the Appellant/A1 were in love and they had sexual relationship and that she became pregnant and since they are relatives she had got the victim and the Appellant/A1 married against the wish of her husband, PW.1 and that his daughter, the deceased used to suffer stomach pain often, due to which she had delivered a still born child and that her daughter unable to bear the stomach pain, had committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds poison.He would further submit that PW.1 father was actually antagonised and angry with PW.2 since the marriage was conducted by PW.2 against his wishes and thereby he had deposed falsely, however, during the cross examination, he has also admitted that he had supported the case of the Prosecution on being tutored by the Respondent Police and that even as perhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 Ex.P8 is the joint statement recorded from PW.1 and PW.2, which contains finger prints of PW.1 and PW.2, based on which the joint statement was stated to have been recorded from PW.1 and PW.2, which creates a grave doubt with regard to the manner in which the RDO enquiry was conducted and further though the independent witnesses have been examined during the RDO enquiry, they were not examined before the Court and that in the absence of valid and cogent evidence in support of the Prosecution, the Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the Appellants on the uncorroborated evidence and the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, who have not supported the case of the Prosecution and that the Trial Court also erred in convicting the Appellants based on 164 statements and he would seek for allowing this criminal.In support of his contentions, he would rely on the decisions reported in 2016 2 MWN Cr.Inspector of Police).10.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent would submit that though PW.1 has rescinded from his earlier statement, he had categorically deposed about the cruelty suffered by his daughter and the demand of dowry and that the Prosecution has proved itshttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 case beyond all reasonable doubts by cogent evidence and would seek for dismissal of this criminal.11.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgement of conviction.12.Though the Appellants/Accused were tried for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 of IPC, the Trial Court, while acquitting the Appellants/Accused under Sections 304B of IPC, had convicted and sentenced them for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, as stated above.13.The main grounds of attack by the learned counsel for the Appellants are that there was a delay in registration the First Information Report and the delay in the inquest report reaching the Court and that PW.1 and PW.2, who are the father and mother of the deceased have not supported the case of the Prosecution and that the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC cannot be taken into consideration as a substantive evidence to base conviction.14.The points that arise for consideration are as to whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the Appellants/ accused for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC, as stated above, for which purpose, the oral and documentary are analysed in brief in the following paragraphs.PW.7 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint and the registered the case in Cr.PW.8 is the Head Constable, who sent the body of the deceased for postmortem.19.PW.9 is the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the Hospital and enquired the inquest witnesses and gave his opinion and a report.PW.10 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the preliminary investigation.PW.11 is Additional Superintendent of Police, who conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet.20.PW.12 Doctor, Government Hospital, Salem had received the body of the deceased and made entry in the AR Register.PW.13 is the Doctor, who admitted the deceased in the Kribanandavariar Medical College and Hospital, Salem and treated her.PW.13 is the Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Salem, who prepared the accident note and made an entry in the Accident Register.P2 is the death intimation report.P3 is the postmortem certificate.P4 is the viscera report and Ex.P6 is the requisition to conduct postmortem.P8 dated 25.02.2013 is the statement and opinion of PW.9, Revenue Divisional Officer.P9 andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 Ex.P10 are the observation mahazar and rough sketch.P11 is the alteration report.P12, dated 15.04.2013 is the requisition to the Magistrate for recording 164 Cr.PC statement of the witnesses.P13 to Ex.P17 are the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC.P18 dated 10.02.2013 is the accident register copy and Ex.P19 dated 9.2.2013 is the accident register.P20 dated 9.2.2013 is the intimation to the Police.P21 dated 9.2.2013 is the accident register copy.22.DW.1 is the Appellant/A1 and Ex.D1 dated 14.3.2016 is the Government quarters allotment order copy to the accused.23.In the chief examination, PW.1, father of the deceased had deposed about the cruelty meted out to the deceased by the Appellants, but in his cross examination, he had deposed that he had deposed in chief only on being tutored by the Police and that even at the time of preliminary enquiry, RDO enquiry and examination before the Magistrate, he had deposed as tutored by the Respondent Police to make such a statement and that the deceased and the Appellant/A1 were living happily after their marriage and his daughter frequently suffered stomach pain, due to which, she consumed oleander seeds.She had even in her chief examination stated that the reason for her daughter having committed suicide is due to frequent stomach pain suffered by her.Even though PW.2 had been subjected to lengthy cross examination by the Prosecution, she stood by her deposition that her daughter committed suicide due to severe stomach pain.Even as per Ex.P7, in column 4, PW.1, mother of the deceased and sister of the deceased were said to have seen the victim alive lastly.Thus, the PW.2 has also not supported the case of the Prosecution.25.Further, immediately after the occurrence, the victim had been taken to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem and she was examined by PW.12 Doctor.At the time of admission, she was conscious and that she had not made any allegations against her husband or his relatives.Even at the time of initial admission on 9.2.2013 at 10.30 a.m. intimation had been given to the Police and thereafter she was referred to Vinayaga Mission Kirubananda Variyar Medical College and Hospital for better treatment on the same day evening at 5.00 p.m. and even from there, intimation had been given to the Respondent Police andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 thereafter, she had not responded to the treatment and she died on the same day at 7.00 p.m and death intimation had been sent to the Respondent Police.26.Though Ex.P2, death intimation report was sent to the Respondent Police on 9.2.2013 at 7.00 p.m., the Respondent Police had not registered the case immediately.Only on 10.02.2013 at 10.00 a.m. on receipt of the Ex.P1 complaint from PW.1, PW.7 Investigating Officer had registered the case under Section 174(iii) of Cr.PC.Further, though PW.9, Revenue Divisional Officer is stated to have sent the inquest report under Ex.Likewise, a statement given to R.D.O. also should not be marked.”36.Further, PW.1 had rescinded from Ex.P1, the statement given to the Police, based on which, Ex.P2, First Information Report was registered.As stated above, all the witnesses including the relatives parents of the deceased and the Panchayatars, who have been examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer, have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the Prosecution.When such being so, the report of the RDO based on the statement given by the witnesses who have turned hostile in Court, cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence.Recording of confessions and statements.(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter orhttp://www.judis.nic.in 21 under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial: Provided further x x x x x x x x (2) x x x x x (3) x x x x x (4) x x x x x (5) Any statement other than a confession made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried."We have carefully perused the entire oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution in this case.Only legally permissible evidence shall go to the record of evidence.39.A statement given by a witness under Section 164 of Cr.PC is like a 'previous statement' given during the investigation under Section 161 of Cr.PC.It is not a substantive evidence adduced before the Trial Judge, because it was not recorded in the presence of the accused and because , ithttp://www.judis.nic.in was recorded – 'res inter alios acta' – recorded behind the back of the 22 accused and because it was recorded from a witness during the investigation.40.In this case, when the statements under Section 164 of Cr.PC were marked, which have not been recorded before the Sessions Judge, but recorded before the Magistrate, at a time when the accused was not in picture, became part of the records, then the Trial Court should not have relied on such statements to base its conviction and there is the danger of the Trial Court using them as substantive evidence.41.On analysis of the entire evidence and in the light of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the the Appellants beyond reasonable doubts and that none of the basis chosen by the Trial Court to convict the Appellants has the sanction of law and the Trial Court erred in convicting the Appellants placing reliance on the untested statement recorded by PW.9, Revenue Divisional Officer and exhibits and placing reliance on the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC from the witnesses, more particularly, when the other independent witnesses, from whom the statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC had been recorded, have not been examined before the Court and thus, the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the Appellants/accused under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC and hence, conviction and sentence under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC is not sustainable and consequently, the Appellants are entitled for acquittal.42.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is set aside.The Appellants are acquitted of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 23 charges levelled against them.The bail bond if any executed by them shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by them shall be refunded to them.21.11.2019 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To:The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Inspector of Police, Kondalampatti Police Station, Salemhttp://www.judis.nic.in 24 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.Srcm Crl.A.No.509 of 2019
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
681,766 |
By an order dated 1-12-1990, he was kept under suspension dueto vigilance enquiry on the allegation of ' corruption'.By a separate orderdated 20-2-1991, the petitioner was directed to attend Office and signattendance during the period of suspension.Subsequently on 30-10-1991, thesuspension was revoked and the petitioner was allowed to perform his work.Itis stated that the Central Bureau of Investigation sought for the sanction ofthe Disciplinary Authority to prosecute the petitioner for the offencespunishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 14-12-1993, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent explaininghis assets and sources and also requesting him not to grant sanction to theCentral Bureau of Investigation.By proceedings dated 24-12-1994, the secondrespondent herein, accorded sanction under Sections 19(i)(c) of the Preventionof Corruption Act 1988 for prosecution of the petitioner for the offencespunishable under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 or any other offences punishable under other provisionsof law on the ground that there were enough material to suggest that thepetitioner acquired disproportionate assets to his income.In the mean time,there was a Departmental Promotion Committee, in which, the promotion of thepetitioner for the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), (E4) level wasconsidered and the result of the promotion was kept under a sealed cover,while his juniors were promoted.The petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal inC.A. No.552 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.The said appealwas allowed on 7-11-2001 holding that the charge of corruption levelledagainst the petitioner was not proved.In the mean time, based on theconviction made by the Special Judge, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No.4 of 1994dated 1-7-1996, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice by theDisciplinary Authority on 27-8-1996 calling upon the petitioner to explain asto why a provisional conclusion to impose the penalty of dismissal should notbe made.The petitioner is stated to have submitted his reply on14-5-19 99 requesting the Disciplinary Authority, not to pass the 'order ofdismissal', but to await the result of the Criminal Appeal.However, by orderdated 30-7-1999, the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the firstrespondent.As against the said order of the dismissal, the petitioneris stated to have filed an appeal which was also rejected on 2-2-2000 by theAppellate Authority.After the petitioner got acquitted in Criminal AppealNo.552 of 1996 on 7-11-2001 and after receiving the copy of the said order on18-12-2001, he made a representation on 19-12-2001 to the first respondent forhis reinstatement with all other benefits.Ultimately, the impugned ordercame to be passed on 4-9-2002 stating that the reinstatement order was subjectto the condition of joining, that there would be no benefits for theintervening period, that the said period would be treated as 'dies-non', hencethere would be no career growth, that his pay fixation would be made afreshwithout any increment, that his postings would be at Assam and that thepetitioner should accept the said order within 21 days or otherwise, it wouldbe treated as though he was not interested in joining duty.The petitionerreceived the said order dated 7-9-200 2 and is stated to have sent a reply on11-9-2002 requesting the respondents to reinstate with all consequentialbenefits and also to be posted at Chennai.He also sent a reminder on18-9-2002 and since there was no reply, the petitioner came forward with thepresent Writ Petition, in which, an interim order was passed on 23-9-2002restraining the respondents from denying reinstatement to the petitioner asDeputy Superintending Engineer at the Southern Region Business Centre,Regional Office at Chennai at current salary levels without imposingconditions (ii) to (vi) in the order dated 4-9-2002 issued by the thirdrespondent.Subsequently, the said order was modified by orders dated28-10-2002 and 5-11-2002 virtually directing the respondents to reinstate thepetitioner and that the petitioner should report at Assam.By virtue of the interim order, while the first respondentwas directed to release all the emoluments for which, the petitioner would beentitled to receive from the month of December 2001 till the date of hisreinstatement and also continue to pay him his future emoluments in accordancewith the existing procedure, the petitioner had not been paid his wages from30-7-1999 and that his promotions to the post of Superintending Engineer andthe subsequent promotions were also not considered.Further the benefitspayable to the petitioner during which period the petitioner was kept undersuspension i.e. from 1-12-1990 to 30-10-1991 were also not paid.While assailing the order impugned in this Writ Petition,Ms.R. Vaigai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placed relianceupon Regulation 14.3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Pay andAllowances) Regulations, 1972 (As amended from time to time, up to31-12-1987).The said Regulation 14.3(a) reads as under:Further even thoughthere is evidence to show that the father-in-law of the appellant bore theexpenditure for engineering education of the eldest son of the appellant, thecourt below failed to consider the same and further the Court below misreadEx.P-11 as Ex.D-11 and thereby landed in a wrong reasoning.For the foregoing reasons, I pass the order as under:Itis settled law that though the delinquent official may get an acquittal ontechnical grounds, the authorities are entitled to conduct departmentalenquiry on the selfsame allegations and take appropriate action.But, here,as stated earlier, the acquittal was on merits.The material on the basis ofwhich his promotion was denied was the sole ground of the prosecution underSection 5(2) and that ground when did not subsist, the same would not furnishthe basis for DPC to overlook his promotion.Mr.R.K.Garg, learned counsel for the appellant wanted usto examine the scope and ambit of Article 193 and Mr.Gujaral learned counselfor the Union of India was equally keen on the other side to do the samething.The appellant was a permanent UDC who hasalready retired on superannuation and must receive a measure of socio-economicjustice.The learned trial Judge on appreciation of factsfound that this is a case in which full amount of salary should have been paidto the appellant on his reinstatement for the entire period.We accept thatas the correct approach.The appeal is accordinglydismissed."In the said order, it has been specifically statedto the following effect:Accordingly the penalty of dismissal from service of ONGC isimposed on Shri P.Surya Rao, Dy.SE(C) with immediate effect.The period of suspension of Shri P.Surya Rao, Dy.SE(C) will betreated as non-duty period with effect from 1-12-1990 to 29-10-1999."The said order came to be passed by the second respondentherein claiming himself to be the 'competent Disciplinary Authority'.Though Ms.Therefore, in the light of the orderspassed in this Writ Petition, it will have to be stated that the respondentsshould declare the said result since as on date, nothing stands in the way ofthe petitioner claiming all other consequential benefits pursuant to hisreinstatement.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,537,996 |
JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J.The prosecution case in brief is that on 6-7-89 deceased was proceeding by riding on motor-cycle at about 11 or 11.15 P.M. near Mandi Samiti and at that time as per allegation of the prosecution, the appellants came there by boarding in a Jeep.The appellants gave a dash to the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased and in the result the deceased fell.All the appellants alighted from the said Jeep being armed with lethal weapons and started assaulting deceased.Deceased sustained injuries which resulted in his death.After necessary investigation, the appellants have been put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, who after recording evidence and appreciating it passed the Order of conviction and sentence, convicting the appellants for convicting the offence punishable under provisions of Section 148, 302/149 and 307/149, IPC.The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants to R.I. for 5 years for offence punishable under Section 307/149, IPC and inflicted fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 2 years.Under Section 148, IPC, he sentenced the appellants for R.I. to the term of one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R.I. for 6 months.For committing the offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC, he sentenced all the appellants to the imprisonment for life.He inflicted fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for 3 years.Shri Jaisingh, counsel for appellants pointed out that the learned trial Judge committed the error in appreciating the evidence on record.He submitted that the learned Judge concluded that Ex. P-25 FIR recorded at the instance of P.W. Sheru and his dying declaration Ex. P-24 recorded by Naib Tehsildar will have to be treated as admissible in evidence in view of provisions of Section 33 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'Evidence Act').He submitted that the learned trial Judge committed error of law in accepting their evidence for basing a conviction against the appellants.Shri Desai, for the prosecution submitted that the appellants adopted a tricky attitude and it is indicated by the act of their Advocate praying for adjournments when the examination in chief was over.Even if the request for adjournment of the learned counsel for the accused was accepted, the cross-examination ought not to have been deferred beyond two or three days."In this case also the learned Judge should have adopted the mandate of Section 309, Cr.P.C. and should have insisted for cross-examination of these two witnesses on the same day or should have adjourned the hearing for couple of days.That has to be done.The unnecessary adjournments are sought and granted and that causes dent to the administration of justice and also gives rise to the grievances of the victims and their relatives.The Sessions Courts should fix the Sessions cases for day to day examination of prosecution witnesses.All the prosecution witnesses should be produced before Court on those days which have been prescribed for recording of their evidence.The prosecution machinery should be free from obstacles in producing all the witnesses on those days, without any excuse.Unfortunately lapses which have been noted in this case, has left this Court with no alternative but to assess the evidence of Salim and Sabir as it is.These witnesses have not been declared hostile and prosecution has not disowned the evidence which has been given by them in the cross-examination that when the said incidence took place there was dark on the spot and they were not able to identify the persons who were involved in the said incident.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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.
|
153,808,784 |
rkd Ct.No.28 C.R.M. 5362 of 2019 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24/06/2019 in connection with Dum Dum P.S. Case No. 123 of 2018 dated 21/02/2018 under Sections 366A/370/370A/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and under Sections 4/17/21 of the POCSO Act .And In the matter of: - Debjani Poddar ....petitioner.Mr. D. Banerjee ...for the petitioner.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,810,209 |
[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.114/Goonda/2015 dated 22.07.2015, whereby the petitioner, by name, Yuvaraj, son of Eswaramurthy, aged about 25 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Goonda".2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.196/2015 for the offence under Section 294(b), 364(A), 506(ii) and 394 IPC registered by Kundadam Police Station.The detenu has not moved any bail application in the said case as on the date of the passing of the detention order.But the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu would be granted bail in the ground case by placing reliance on the similar case registered at Dharapuram Police Station in Cr.
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,538,132 |
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Heard2. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judgeof the Patna High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by theappellant.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran.He was sentenced toundergo simple imprisonment for six months and one year respectively.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.An appeal was filedand the leaned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtNo.II, Bettiah, West Champaran affirmed the conviction and sentence.Therevision filed was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that therewas no scope for interference.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutionversion has not been established.There were several infirmities which theHigh Court unfortunately did not notice.The I.O., the Doctor and theinformant were not examined.The post-mortem report was also notexhibited.PW-3, who claimed to be the son of the deceased was not the 2 informant.The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court relied upon hisevidence.Significantly, he was also not named as an eye witness in theFIR.PW-4 claimed to be an eye-witness.But, he was not examined duringinvestigation.Out of the five witnesses, who were stated to be eye-witnesses, three did not support the prosecution version.According to learned counsel for the appellant, all these factors havenot been considered by the High Court.Learned counsel for therespondent-State supported the impugned order of the High Court.We find that the High Court has, by a cryptic order, dismissed therevision petition.It has not noticed the various submissions made by theappellant, as noticed above.In the circumstances, we set aside theimpugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for freshconsideration in accordance with law.The appeal is accordingly disposed of..................................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ...............................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)New Delhi, 3 November 28, 2008 4
|
['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.
|
153,818,360 |
30 p.m. they saw one aged lady with another person about to board a Motihari bound bus.Out of suspicion they intercepted them.The suspects were carrying a red coloured cloth bag.On opening the bag they found huge quantity of currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- each.On query the male person disclosed his identity as Ram Prabesh Sah and the lady disclosed his identity as Asha Debi Sah.For the purpose of search the aforesaid persons along with currency notes were taken to DRI office.Independent witnesses also came to the office.Upon search they found six bundles of currency notes of denomination of Rs.1,000/- each numbering 599 and eight bundles of currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each numbering 798 totalling to Rs.9,98,000/-.On preliminary inspection, P.W. 2 suspected the currency notes to be fake.He issued summons upon the appellant and recorded his statement.Subsequently, he arrested the appellant.P.W. 3, Basudeb Chakraborty, seized the currency notes which were packed, sealed, labelled and signed by the appellant.The appellant was arrested but Asha Sah complained of chest pain.Accordingly, she was admitted to Siliguri District Hospital and subsequently shown arrested.He proved his signature on the seals of the seized notes.A mobile phone was also seized from the appellant.He proved his signature on the paper packet in which the mobile phone has been kept.He deposed that on 01.01.2013 the appellant produced before the learned Magistrate and on 02.01.2013 police re-seized the articles from their office.He proved his signature on the seizure list (Ext.3/1).He identified the seized articles in Court.P.W. 4, Mahesh Thakur, is the driver of the vehicle used by P.Ws. 1 and 2 to conduct the raid.He corroborated the evidence of the said witnesses.P.W. 1, Bimal Paul, and P.W. 5, Utpal Kumar Deb, are the independent witnesses of the aforesaid seizure from the appellant.P.W. 1 deposed on 31.12.2012 in the afternoon he was returning home for having lunch when D.R.I. officials requested him to join the search.He accompanied them to D.R.I. office where search was conducted and fake currency notes were recovered from the appellant.He proved his signature on the seizure list as well as on the bag in which the fake currency notes were kept.P.W. 5, a booking counter employee of Jay Maa Ambey Booking Counter witnessed the apprehension of the appellant along with Asha Devi Sah at the counter and witnessed the search and seizure of a large quantity of FICNs from the appellant at the DRI office.Analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record leaves no doubt in my mind that the appellant and one Asha Sah were apprehended in front of Jay Maa Ambey Booking Counter and subsequently upon search a large number of currency notes, suspected to be fake, were recovered from their possession.I am unable to accept the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as search and seizure had not been conducted at the spot there is every likelihood of false implication.Independent witnesses viz. P.Ws. 1 and 5 have corroborated the versions of official witnesses viz. P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 with regard to apprehension of the appellant and Asha Sah from the spot and recovery of a large quantity of FICNs from a red coloured bag carried by them at the DRI office.P.W. 2 explained due to commotion at the spot they proceeded to D.R.I. office to effect the search.Such explanation in the backdrop of corroboration from independent witnesses with regard to apprehension of the appellant with a red coloured bag containing FICNs at the spot erases all doubt from my mind with regard to their false implication.It has also been argued that witnesses did not put their signature on the labels attached to the FICNs.The aforesaid submission is also of little substance as P.W. 1 proved his signature on the paper packet in which the FICNs had been kept.After registration of F.I.R. by P.W. 2 seized FICNs were re-seized by P.W. 9, first investigating officer.He has proved the seizure list marked as "Exbt.-1".P.W.3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.9 and deposed on 02.01.2013 he had handed over the seized alamats to P.W. 9 at the DRI office.Subsequently, sample currency notes were sent to General Manager, Bharatiya Note Mudran Limited, Salboni, West Midnapore for examination.PW13, Niloy Jha attached to the Detective Department, Siliguri Police Commissionerate, took over the investigation of the case as the second I.O. He conducted raid at Bettiah, Bihar and arrested co-accused persons.He seized mobile phones and SIM Cards from them.From the aforesaid evidence on record, particularly that of PW3 and PW9 along with Exhibit 1 it is proved the currency notes recovered from the appellant by DRI Officers were re-seized by the police in the course of investigation.Serial number of the currency notes as noted in the seizure list tallied with the currency notes which were examined by the Expert as evident from his report (Ext.23).Therefore, chain of custody of the seized currency notes and those examined by the Expert has been fully established.Report of the Expert (Ext. 23) showed that the seized currency notes were fake.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Period of detention suffered by the appellant during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon him in terms of 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.I agree.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,822,334 |
Arguments heard upon both the applications filed on 13.03.2020 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail on behalf of applicants namely Ramlal Saket and Kamla Saket, both are confined in custody since 27.02.2020 in connection with the crime No.20/2020 registered at Police Station Talaiya, District Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-2, 366A, 368 of IPC and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act.It appears from the impugned order that the prosecturix came into contact with the son of both applicants and their son Atul Kumar Saket called her through video calling.When she reached Rewa, Atul Kumar Saket received her and took her in the house.The allegation against the present applicants is that they gave the shelter to the prosecutrix in their house because they are the parents of main accused Atul Kumar Saket.It is also alleged that Kamla Saket gave the threat to the prosecutrix for not disclosing the incident to anybody at Bhopal.Therefore, looking to the overall circumstances, allegations against the present applicants, their custody period and without commenting on the merits of the case, the applications are allowed.It is directed that the applicants namely Ramlal Saket and Kamla Saket be released on bail upon their furnishing bail bond worth Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Digitally signed by SHAHINA KHAN Date: 26/06/2020 15:44:51 2 MCRC-11930-2020 Thousand Only) each and personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.A t the time of releasing the applicants from custody, all the instructions issued by the Government related to COVID-19 shall also be followed by the concerned authority.Accordingly, both M.Cr.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE shahina Digitally signed by SHAHINA KHAN Date: 26/06/2020 15:44:51
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,822,996 |
Union of India) and his contention is that earlier bail was rejected as investigation was going on and now charge sheet has been filed in the matter.This Court in the case of Ravi Bilwal has passed the following order :M. Cr. C. No.24377/2018 (Ravi Bilwal Vs.Union of India) Indore, dated 16/07/2018 Ms. Anamika Sen, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent - Union of India.Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is the second bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial.First bail application i.e. M.Cr.C.No.15420/2018 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25/04/2018 with a liberty to file a fresh bail application after the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed in the matter.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M CR C No. 29763 / 2018 GIRDHARI GAWAD VS.Earlier also the applicant has filed a bail application and this Court on 25/04/2018 has granted liberty to the present applicant to file a fresh bail petition after the entire investigation is over.Now the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed in the matter.It has been argued that there is no possibility of interfering with the investigation by the applicant and the applicant shall be cooperating with the trial and shall be appearing on each and every date of hearing.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail.Applicant Girdhari Gawad is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.Certified Copy, as per Rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor Date: 2018.08.13 13:50:44 +05'30'
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,828,914 |
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.32529/2020 (Ravi @ Kuldeep Bhadoria Vs.The State of M.P.) Gwalior, Dated : 24.09.2020 Shri Kuldeep Thapak, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Vishal Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.Shri Rahul Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.Heard on I.A.No.15030/2020, an application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the Public Prosecutor in the matter.For the reasons mentioned in the said application, I.A.No.15030/2020 is allowed and Shri Rahul Kaurav, counsel is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor in the matter.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 10.08.2020 by Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.146/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss.147, 294, 323, 506, 325 and 195-A of IPC.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.32529/2020 (Ravi @ Kuldeep Bhadoria Vs.The State of M.P.) It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that a false case has been registered against the present applicant.The applicant has also shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.10000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for helping the lawyers for facing difficulty during this COVID-19 pandemic scenario.He has prayed for rejection of the application.The Hon'ble Supreme by order dated 23.03.2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No.1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall deposit Rs.10000/- in the account of High Court Bar Association, Gwalior for the purpose of assistance and rehabilitation of those members of the Bar, who are facing financial distress due to Lockdown and restrictive functioning of the courts owing to ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, within seven days from today.The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Panel Lawyer to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as the concerned Superintendent of Police who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,107,125 |
After trial, the appellant was found guilty, convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 120(b) of IPC and imposed life sentence and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.The Division Bench of this Court has set aside the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode at Gobichettipalayam, but no order was passed on the material object.Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition under Section 452 of Cr.P.C., before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobi in C.M.P.No.69 of 2018by refering the judgment of Division Bench of this Court to return the property to the revision petitioner.After enquiry, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobi dismissed the said petition.As against the dismissal order the revision petitioner herein filed a Revision Case before this Court.It is seen that the Criminal Appeals in Crl.802 of 2015, 06 of 2016 08.03.2019 Crl.A.No.540 of 2019http://www.judis.nic.in 3 and 233 of 2016 were disposed by the Division Bench of this Court.The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.However, the Division Bench has not passed any order with regard to return of properties.Further, it is seen that none of the parties challenged the above said judgments before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The petitioner also did not seek any clarification from the Division Bench.The petitioner approached the Sessions Court/Trial Court invoking the provision under Section 452 of Cr.P.C.,.Since, there is no specific order in the judgments of Division Bench the trial Court dismissed the order.In the result the appeal is dismissed.III Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,108,774 |
In the matter of : Sk.Rajib @ Sk.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.)
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,113,018 |
JuniorEngineer/Vi/Na.Nanguneri/ Ko.The brief facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner is an agriculturist, who is owning some Nanja land alongwith Well, and also having free electricity service connection foragricultural purpose.According to him, on 08.11.2013, when he was out oftown, he came to know that one boy climbed on a coconut tree nearby his landand in that process he came into contact with the electric wire and died dueto electrocution.The counter filed by TANGEDCO would show that there was an illegalloop connection of electricity, which was taken by the petitioner for thepurpose of pumping water from nearby Odai (Channel) to his land and due tothe electrocution, the boy died.The respondents also denied the allegationthat the negligence was on their part and in fact, periodical maintenancework is being conducted from time to time.This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to impugned orderpassed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Ka.Since the petitioner is the vice President of thePanchayat, on the influence of his adversaries led by the first respondent,the mother of the boy preferred a complaint stating that the accident wouldperhaps be on account of the illegal hooking of wire made by the petitioner.Hence, based on the complaint, first information report was registered inCrime No.295 of 2013, on the file of the second respondent police for theoffence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.(2.1) He would further submit that there is no single piece of evidenceto show that there was a theft of electricity committed in his field.Moreover, he would allege that due to the negligence on the part of the firstrespondent /Electricity Department in maintaining the service wires, the boydied out of electrocution and in order to suppress the Department'snegligence, the Electricity Department took action against the petitioner byusing his official capacity by way of passing the impugned order vide,proceedings in Ka.Junior Engineer/ Vi/ Na.Nanguneri/ Ko.Accident/No.431/13-14, dated 17.03.2013, by which the petitioner wasdirected to pay a sum of Rs.26,915/- as arrears and Rs.2,000/- as fineamount, failing which the service connection will be disconnected.Aggrievedby the said order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.The second respondent hasregistered a first information report against the petitioner andprovisionally assessed for the unauthorised use of electricity as perTamilnadu Electricity Act, 2003 and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.28,915/-dated 17.03.2013 for the said theft.4.Only after verification and spot inspection, the provisionalassessment order was issued to the petitioner to a sum of Rs.28,915/- fortheft of energy.When the first respondent went to the petitioner's premisesfor inspection and after verifying, they went for disconnecting theagricultural service connection with the help of the second respondentpolice.The petitioner obstructed the respondents from discharging theirduty.6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent aswell as the learned counsel appearing for TANGEDCO/first respondent.It is seen from the records that in connection with the incidentthat had taken place on 08.11.2013 in which a boy died due to electrocution,criminal proceedings are initiated against the petitioner and the same ispending before the Criminal Court.While so, this Court cannot express anyopinion as regards the correctness or otherwise of such proceedings and it isa matter of trial.Hence, this Court directs thepetitioner to deposit the balance amount within a period of four weeks fromthe date of receipt of the copy of this order and the petitioner can raiseall the grounds which he had raised before this Court, before the competentForum and prove that he did not commit theft of electricity.10.Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are is also dismissed.ToThe Inspector of Police,Nanguneri Police Station,Nanguneri,Tirunelveli District.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,113,184 |
There were totally seven accused in this case.The 7th accused Mr.Anandaraj absconded during trial.Therefore, the case against him was split up and tried separately.Thus, the appellant herein and the accused 2 to 6 faced the trial.The Trial Court framed as many as 7 charges against the accused Nos.1 to 6, as detailed below :-Charge NumberRank of Accused Penal Provision1Charge No.1Accused Nos. 1 to 6147, 148, 366 IPC2Charge No.2Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4-Accused Nos. 1 to 6Accused Nos.3, 5 and 6343, 392 read with 397 IPC --343, 393 r/w.397 r/w.109 IPC3Charge No.3Accused No.1 & Accused Nos.2 to 6354 and 506(i) IPC354, 506(i) r/w.109 IPC4Charge No.4Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6147, 148, 366 IPC5Charge No.5Accused No.1 &Accused Nos.2 to 6376 r/w.506(ii) IPC376 r/w.109 IPC6Charge No.6Accused 1 to 6 Nos.5,6&9120-B IPC7Charge No.7Accused 1 to 6 147, 148, 366, 343, 392 r/w.397, 354, 506(ii) and 376 r/w.120-B IPCBy judgment dated 23.09.2014, the trial court convicted the accused 1 to 6 and sentenced them as detailed below :Accused Nos.2 to 6Accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6Accused Nos.2 to 6Rank of the AccusedConvictionsentenceA1 to A3, A5 and A6____________A1 to A3, A5 and A6____________A1 and A2____________A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6____________A1____________A1Convicted under section 148 IPCSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.Convicted u/s.366 (2 counts) of IPCSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for each count.P.W.2 was a young girl at the time of occurrence, aged hardly 22 years.She was doing MBA Degree Course in a local institution at Coimbatore.She was residing at a place known as Red Peace.Her father and the father of P.W.1 were together working in an office and in such a way, both the families were known to each other.In due course, P.Ws.1 and 2 had become friends.P.W.1 helped P.W.2 in the preparation of her project work.On 21.11.2008, P.W.2 wanted to express her thanks to P.W.1 for his help and she had invited him to come to Coffee Day Restaurant near Red Peace in Coimbatore.P.W.1 came in his TATA Ciara Car.He parked the car in front of the restaurant.P.W.2 got into the seat on the left side of the driver's seat.P.W.1 was in the driver seat.They were engaged in some discussion for a while.(b) Around 08.30 p.m., a tall man, dark in complexion, came near the car and tapped at the door near the driver's seat.He had a wireless phone on his hand.He told that he was a policeman.He, by force, opened the door of the car near the driver's seat.He questioned P.W.1 as to what she was doing.Then, he forced P.W.2 to go into the back seat of the car.He got into the left front seat of the car.Then, he directed P.W.1 to drive the car to the police station.P.W.1, believed that he was a policeman.(c) When this was going on, 3 other persons, came to the spot.(Those 3 persons have been later on identified as the accused 1, 2 and 3).These accused 1 to 3 shouted at the dark complexed man who was inside the car and forced him to get out of the car.That was why, according to them, they forced him to get out of the car.They further told that the said man was not in fact a policeman.The 1st accused got into the car and sat on the driver's seat.He wanted, P.Ws.1 and 2 to sit in the back seat.The accused 2 and 3 also got into the car.They told P.Ws.1 and 2 not to be afraid of as they were only protecting them.The 1st accused drove the car.P.Ws.1 and 2, within a short while, became perplexed.They felt some foul play.The car proceeded through Neelambur Byepass.P.Ws.1 and 2 found that there was another car following their car.(d) Realising that there was some danger to their life, P.Ws.1 and 2 were about to cry.The car was then proceeding on the Trichy Road.The inmates of the car slapped P.Ws.1 and 2 on their cheek and wanted them to lie down behind the front seat of the car.Then, the car took a turn in a small branch road from Sulur Road and reached a building under construction.They took P.Ws.1 and 2 into the said building and kept them in two different rooms.They demanded that they would release them, if only, P.Ws.1 and 2 could make arrangement for a ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-.(e) In the room where P.W.2 was kept, the 1st accused threatened her at knife point.He enquired about her family background.The 1st accused snatched the cell phone, disconnected the communication and switched off the cell phone.P.W.2 started weeping and begging to the 1st accused to release her.The 1st accused returned the cell phone of P.W.2 and wanted her to call her father and inform him that he had gone to the house of her friend.Out of fear, P.W.2 did so.Then, he wanted her to speak to her friend and inform that in the event, her father enquired her, she should inform that P.W.2 was at her house.Out of fear, P.W.2 called her friend and informed accordingly.However, she told her friend Anbarasi that her condition was not good.She believed that her friend would realise that she was in danger.She wept and declined.The 1st accused tried to have sexual intercourse with her by force.She raised a distress call.But, the 1st accused did not stop.He undressed P.W.2, made her nude and then photographed her in his cell phone.Then, he returned her clothes to her and wanted her to wear.Then, he called the 4th accused into the room.(f) As directed by the 1st accused, the 4th accused, at knife point, snatched away a gold chain weighing 2 1/2 sovereigns with a dollar, a gold ring, another gold ring with pearl, a pen drive and a cash of Rs.2,500/- from her.The 2nd accused entered into the room.She saw the jewels at the hands of the 4th accused.Then, he kissed P.W.2 on her cheek.When the 1st accused called him by name, P.W.2 realised that he was a Christian.P.W.2 pleaded to the 2nd accused that being a Christian, he should not cause any harm to her.The 2nd accused told that his religion would not deter him from satisfying his gratification.The 3rd accused came to the room and told the 2nd accused that the girl was not important for them, but what was important for them was only money.Then, leaving the 1st accused, others left the room.Thereafter, two other persons came to the room.They wanted P.W.2 to come out from the house.She refused.They dragged her out of the building.The 1st accused also dragged her out.(g) Outside the building, it was pitch dark.There were plants and trees.The 1st accused and the other person took her to the said secluded place.There were already five other persons including the 4th accused.They lighted a candle.It was a very old Bungalow in a dilapidated condition.At that time, she noticed in the dim candle light that P.W.1 was sitting in a corner with his hands and legs tied.They attacked him demanding money from him.The 1st accused simultaneously attacked P.W.1 on his head and his cheek.P.W.1 told that he did not have such huge amount to satisfy the demand.P.W.1 begged to release them and offered to give all the jewels, he was wearing.Leaving the 1st accused alone in that old bungalow with P.W.2, all the others left.(h) Within a short while, some of the accused returned with barotta.They offered the same to P.W.2 to eat.P.W.2 declined.Then, he untied P.W.1 and brought him to the place where P.W.2 was kept.Then, the 1st accused slept for some time.Again, the 4th accused came into the room.The 1st accused and the 4th accused had a small discussion.(i) The 1st accused undressed P.W.1 also and after making him nude, he took videograph of P.W.1 in nude condition.Then, the accused 1 to 4 and 4 more persons took P.W.1 in a car to his house.P.W.2 was kept in the dilapidated building itself.The TATA Ciara Car of P.W.1 was also retained by them.The accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 took P.W.1 in an Omni Car.Around 02.30 a.m., the car reached Sai Baba Colony at Coimbatore.On the way, the 3rd accused wanted them to stop the car and he had nothing to do with the entire occurrence and he had been unnecessarily brought into the picture.He got down from the car.After returning the cell phone of P.W.1 to him, P.W.1 wanted the accused to stop the car in front of his friend by name Bharath on assuring that he would get money from him.Accordingly, they stopped the car.He went into the house of Bharath.Fearing that they were in some danger, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence along with the Omni Car.From the house of Bharath, P.W.1 informed the police over phone about the occurrence.(j) On receipt of the same, Mr.Nehru, the Inspector of Police, Sai Baba Colony Police Station, along with a group of policemen, came to the house of Bharath.P.W.1 told them about the entire occurrence.Then, they took P.W.1 to the place where P.W.2 was kept.The police rounded up the building.Inside the building, P.W.2 and the 1st accused alone were there.In the meanwhile, by force, the 1st accused had raped her.He examined P.W.2 and recorded her statement.On such arrest, in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness, he gave a voluntary confession.Then, P.W.21 visited the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness.Then, he went to the place where P.W.1 was kept and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of the same witnesses.He recovered the car bearing Registration No. TN 37 T 4737 under a Mahazar.Then, he forwarded P.W.2 and the 1st accused for medical examination.(m) P.W.9 Dr.Vatsala Devi, an Assistant Professor at Coimbatore Government Hospital, examined P.W.2 on 22.11.2008 at 07.00 a.m. She was conscious.P.W.2 told the Doctor that she was abducted by 6 persons and out of them, one person raped her.On examination, the Doctor noticed bite marks on her vagina.The hymen was found ruptured.There was also fresh bleeding through the vaginal cavity.P.W.9 collected vaginal discharge and pubic hair for the purpose of examination.The medical examination revealed that the 1st accused was sexually potent to have penile sexual intercourse with a woman.P.W.6, collected the vaginal discharge and the pubic hair gathered by P.W.9 and forwarded the same to the Forensic Lab for DNA examination.P.W.8 Doctor Bhuvana also accompanied P.W.6 when she examined the 1st accused.But the 1st accused refused to co-operate with the Doctor to give blood samples for the purpose of DNA examination.(o) P.W.21 during the course of investigation, at 11.30 a.m., arrested the 4th accused in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness.On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession.Then, at 12.30 p.m., on the same day, at the same place, he arrested the 5th accused in the presence of the same witnesses.He recovered the same (That watch was later on identified as the one snatched away by him from P.W.1).In pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the 4th accused, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced a gold chain weighing 1 1/2 sovereigns.Then, on the same day, at 04.00 p.m., he arrested the 3rd accused in the presence of the same witnesses.On his disclosure statement, a half sovereign gold ring was recovered from the place of hide out.On 24.11.2008 at 8.00 a.m., P.W.21 arrested the 2nd accused and the 6th accused at Pollachi Main Road.He took up the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the said vehicle.P.W.21 recovered the same (This was the vehicle, according to the prosecution, which was used by the accused to take P.W.1 to Sai Baba Colony lastly).(p) At the request made by P.W.21, the Finger Print Expert had come.There were chance finger prints found in the same.He enlarged the same and photographed the same.The 2nd accused produced a knife, a Cell phone with Sim Card.P.W.21 recovered the same in the presence of one Uma Shankar and Nandakumar.Then, the 6th accused produced a gold ring, a knife and an ATM Card from the car from his possession.He recovered the same.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence as we have herein above narrated.P.W.1 has further stated as to how he escaped from the clutches of the accused.He has further stated that on his information, Mr.Nehru, Sai Baba Colony Police Station Inspector along with a police party, came to the house of Bharath from where he took them to the Bungalow where P.W.2 was detained by the 1st accused.He has further stated that P.W.2 was rescued and the 1st accused was taken up into the police custody.He has spoken further about the complaint made by him.He has identified the material objects snatched away from him and from P.W.2. P.W.3 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch at both the places of arrest and also the arrest of the accused and the consequential recoveries made as already narrated by us herein above.P.W.4 was the then Deputy Director of Forensic Lab, Chennai in DNA Division.During the course of investigation, the clothes worn by P.W.2 at the time of occurrence and the clothes worn by the 1st accused at the time of occurrence were received by him for DNA Examination.She has further stated that she received a parcel containing the vaginal smear taken from P.W.2 and the pubic hair.On examination, she found spermatozoa in the vaginal smear in the pubic hair.Similarly, P.W.4 received a parcel containing Saliva and blood samples of the 1st accused collected by the Doctor at the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, who treated him.But they were found to be unfit for Serology examination.But, DNA was extracted from the blood sample of the 1st accused.The DNA drawn from the blood stains on the jetti worn by P.W.2 and the DNA extracted from the blood of the 1st accused tallied.(Thus, according to the prosecution, it has been established that the 1st accused had sexual intercourse with P.W.2).Similarly, the semen collected by the doctor from the 1st accused was also sent for examination.According to her, the 1st accused was sexually matured and he was sexually potential to have sexual intercourse with a woman.P.16 is the Accident Register.At that time, P.W.2 was conscious.She told that she was kidnapped by four persons out of whom one raped her.She found that there were bite marks on her vagina and other private parts.The hymen was found ruptured.There was fresh bleeding through vagina.He collected vaginal smear and pubic hair and forwarded the same for chemical examination to the Forensic Lab.P.W.10 Doctor Natarjan has stated that on 01.07.2009, he examined the 1st accused and he gave opinion that he was sexually potential and he was capable of performing sexual intercourse with a woman.P.18 is the Certificate issued by him.P.W.11 is a Woman Police Constable.She was the owner of the house under construction where the occurrence had taken place.According to her, the accused 1 and 4 were known to her.They pretended as though they belonged to rich families.They offered to purchase the house belonging to P.W.11 under construction.Believing them as genuine persons, she handed over the key to them.That is how the accused had utilised the house for the commission of the above crime.He has narrated the entire occurrence.P.Ws.1 and 2 have participated in the Test Identification Parade.They identified them correctly.Convicted u/s.342 IPCSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.Convicted u/s.397 IPCSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year.Convicted u/s.506(ii) of IPCSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.Convicted under Section 120-B of IPCSentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/1st accused is before this Court with this appeal.The appeal filed by the accused 2 and 6 in Crl.A.No.542 of 2014 and the appeal filed by the 5th accused in Crl.The present appeal has been filed by the 1st accused.The accused 2 to 6 and the absconding accused Anandaraj are his associates.P.W.1 Anand was residing at Thudiyalur in Coimbatore.He was already married, having a son.He owned a TATA Ciara Car bearing Registration No.She veiled and told that the 1st accused had rapped her.P.W.1 made a complaint Ex.(k) P.W.17 Sakthivel, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.1532 of 2008 under Sections 170, 147, 148, 366, 342, 392 read with 397, 354, 506(ii) and 376 read with 120-B of IPC.P.22 is the First Information Report.Then, he forwarded the accused to court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to court.The investigation was continued thereafter by his successor.P.W.22, on completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above, the trial court framed charges against the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.The accused denied the same as false.Since there was no more blood sample available from the 1st accused, no further examination could be conducted on the said DNA examination.6. P.W.5 Doctor Selvaraj has stated that on 02.12.2008, he collected blood and saliva samples from the 1st accused and forwarded the same to P.W.4 for DNA Examination.P.W.6 Doctor Sivaprakasam has stated that on 22.08.2008, when he wanted the 1st accused to give blood sample, he refused.P.W.7 Nehru was the then Inspector of Police at Sai Baba Colony Police Station.Immediately, he contacted that Cell Phone.The said Cell Phone was used by one Grade I Police Constable.Immediately, P.W.7 rushed to the house of Bharath along with yet another Head Constable by name Meganathan.When they reached the house, P.W.1 narrated the entire occurrence.He has further stated that thereafter, he took P.W.1 to the place where P.W.2 was illegally detained by the 1st accused.He has also stated that he rescued P.W.2 and took the 1st accused into custody and then, returned to Race Course Police Station and produced P.W.2, P.W.1 and the 1st accused.7. P.W.8 Doctor Bhuvana has stated that she examined the 1st accused on 22.11.2008 along with Doctor Sivaprakasam.At the request made by P.W.21, he examined the Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No.TN 07 8806 which was recovered from the possession of the accused in which he found sound finger prints which later on found to tally with the chance finger prints of the 2nd accused and the 5th accused.9. P.W.15 is a neighbour of the house where the occurrence had taken place.According to him, on 20.11.2008 around 9.00 p.m., two cars came to the house under construction.Within half-an-hour, one car left the said place.On the next day early morning, police came to the said place and arrested the 1st accused.According to him, the said house belongs to P.W.11 Police Constable.P.W.16 was a student studying 2nd year B.Com.Course during the relevant point of time.At that time, he found a car parked near Coffee Day Restaurant bearing Registration No.He found two people getting into the car.He also heard a weeping of a woman from inside.Then, the car went away.P.W.18, the then Sub-Inspector of Police has stated that she took P.W.2 to the hospital for examination.P.W.19 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.20 was a driver.He was driving a Call Taxi.He has spoken about the confession given by them and the recoveries made out of the said disclosure statement.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any documents on their side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused 1 to 6 as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.The 7th accused has been absconding and therefore, he was not tried.As we have already pointed out, the appeals filed by the accused 2 and 6 and 5 in Crl.They have vividly spoken about the part played by the 1st accused from the beginning till the end until he was arrested by the police.P.W.1 has spoken about the manhandling of him by the 1st accused.P.W.2 has spoken about the said fact and she has further stated that she was raped by the 1st accused.She was then under the captivity of the 1st accused.The medical examination conducted on P.W.2 has revealed that there were teeth bite marks on her vagina and other private parts.P.W.2 has also stated that it was done only by the 1st accused.P.W.9 Doctor, who examined her, found rupture of the hymen and there was also fresh bleeding indicating that she has been subjected to sexual intercourse recently.The vaginal smear taken by P.W.9 was found to contain spermatozoa.Thus, it has been clearly established by the medical evidence that P.W.2 had been subjected to sexual intercourse.Similarly, it was he who committed robbery of the jewels with the companion of the others.That has also been established by the recovery of the stolen articles from the possession of the accused on the disclosure statements made.Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Identification of the 1st accused made by P.W.1 and P.W.2, in court cannot be given weightage of.This argument deserves a summary rejection because it is not as if the 1st accused was noticed by P.Ws.1 and 2 for a fraction of second or a minute.Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 2 would have had complete imprint of the image of the 1st accused in their mind.Apart from that, the 1st accused was arrested by the police, when he was keeping P.W.2 in captive.Therefore, there was no need to conduct any Test Identification Parade.In such view of the matter, we reject this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant.The learned Counsel for the appellant would next contend that the TATA SUMO Car belonging to P.W.1 had not been marked.It should be mentioned that the Omni Car which was used by the accused to follow the car in which the accused, P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken and which was used to take P.W.1 to the house of his friend to collect money has been marked.The car contains the finger prints of two other accused.This would go to prove the involvement of the said car.The learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that in the FIR itself, the names of 3 accused including that of the 1st accused have been mentioned.When these accused were not known already, according to the learned Counsel, it is not known as to how P.W.1 had mentioned the names of these accused.Similarly, he wouldhave mentioned about the names of the others also.That is how P.W.1 has mentioned the names of 3 accused including the 1st accused in the FIR.Though the learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded for mercy, we find it very difficult to persuade ourselves to show any mercy on this accused.The accused deserves for the maximum punishment.In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
531,164 |
JUDGMENT Natesan, J.This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the decision of our learned brother Venkatadri, J., confirming the judgment of the court of first instance, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the appellants.The facts of the case are within a narrow compass.The suit statedly one for partition is in fact and substance an attempt by a Hindu son to free his share in the family properties from a debt incurred by his father.Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are brothers and members of a joint Hindu family.The first plaintiff is the son and the second plaintiff, the daughter of the second defendant.The third plaintiff is the wife of the second defendant while the fourth plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant.A daughter of the first plaintiff figures as the fifth plaintiff.The tenth defendant in the suit is the Official Receiver in the Insolvency of defendants 1 and 2 and the remaining defendants are creditors and decree-holders.It is common ground that defendants 1 and 2 were in possession of the properties of defendants 3 to 5 for about six years.It is stated for these defendants that by unauthorised application of their funds defendants 1 and 2 added to their own wealth and acquired the suit house and improved their dry lands, sinking a well at a heavy cost.in the suit on the promissory note defendants 1 and 2 raised various contentions; but eventually settled the claim for a sum of Rs. 16000 taking three months' time to pay.It transpires that shortly after the mediation there was a criminal complaint by the third defendant charging the present second defendant with offences under Sections 324, 325, 404 and 384 I.P.C. Actually the complaint was taken on file only under Sections 404 and 384 I.P.C. in his sworn statement then recorded the third defendant stated that the accused the present second defendant, was managing his affairs and properties after the death of his father, and that he took over the stock of timber the deceased had left and made use of it for construction of his own house.The complaint set out that at a panchayat held on 1-6-1962 the accused had agreed to execute a security bond over his terraced house and dry land in a sum of Rs. 20000 the amount being payable to defendants 3 to 5 within a year.From the calendar and judgment of the criminal case in C. C, No. 837 of 1962, on the file of the Third City Sub-Magistrate, Coimbatore, it is seen that the case was taken up for trial on 11-10-1952 and the accused discharged under Section 253(1), Crl.The complainant deposed also about the panchayat.
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,123,239 |
The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andThe applicant will mark his presence on every Monday Wednesday & Friday before the Police Station Jigna, District Datia between 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM till filing of the charge- sheet and he would not move in the vicinity and locality of area of the complainant.With consent heard finally.At best allegations under Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC can be attributable over the applicant.The investigation is pending and applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and would make himself available as and when required by the Investigating Officer.He further undertakes not to coercion, inducement, pressure and threat over the complainant and her family members.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquitted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be and would not move in the vicinity of the complainant;Any non-compliance shall be immediately informed by the Station House Officer, Police Station Jigna, District Datia to this Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge AK/-ANAND KUMAR 2018.10.30 17:28:47 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,128,556 |
All the jail sentences of each appellant have been directed to run concurrently and in default of above mentioned fine, each appellant is directed to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment additionally.According to written information received from Central Jail, Jabalpur, original appellant No.5 Shobhelal S/o Saradhya had died on 4.4.2015 during treatment in Medical College, Jabalpur undergoing his life imprisonment.Prosecution's case in brief is that before 15.8.2002, present appellant No.1 Sakharam alias Bagad had killed a dog of the family of 12 years old complainant Sunil Kumar (P.W.6).On this issue, quarrel had occurred between brothers of the complainant and appellant No.1 Sakharam alias Bagad and his friends.On the date of incident 15.8.2002 at about 4-30 p.m., when about 12 years old complainant Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) was at his house in village Chhota Jagpura with his parents and brothers, then appellant No.1 Sakharam alias Bagad and appellant No.2 Sukhlal each having tangia, appellants Madhu and Bhaulal each having an iron rod, appellant Somaji armed with axe and other appellants Baton, Sobhelal and Shivlal each having a stick in his hand came before the house of complainant and after giving abuses called the complainant's brothers to come out and appellants were saying that today you will be disposed of.Thereafter, complainant's mother Chandrakala and brothers Surendra and Gajendra came out from their house to pacify the appellants, thereafter all appellants started beating of Chandrakala, Surendra and Gajendra with their arms.After hearing crying of injured, complainant's father Sukhlal came out from his house and after looking the beating of Chandrakala, Gajendra and Surendra on the spot started running towards the hill, then all appellants chased him and surrounded Sukhlal and gave heavy beating by iron rods, stick and other arms and the appellants killed above mentioned four members of complainant's family.Complainant Sunil Kumar had seen the incident when he was near a tree of mango, but after seeing the incident, he was much frightened and thus after running had entered into his house and got himself hidden in inner room of his house and after much time, he came out from the house, then saw that his mother, father and two brothers have died, but being frightened, he got hidden in the house.On next morning, when his sister-in-law Shakuntala (P.W.11 wife of deceased Surendra) met him, then complainant informed her about the incident.The Sarpanch of Gram Jagpura, Jhankar Singh (P.W.10) and village Kotwar Devanand (P.W.7) after seeing dead bodies at 10.00 P.M. on spot informed at police station Bharveli in the mid-night that in above mentioned village, dead-bodies of Sukhlal, his wife and his two sons are lying in heavily injured conditions in front of their house and they suspected that unknown persons have committed the incident.Their information was registered at roznamcha sanha no.523 (Ex.P.47-A) on 16.8.2002 at 2-05 a.m. (mid-night).The relating S.H.O., Bharveli Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) intimated the Police Superintendent about the incident and as the area being naxalites affected and due to heavy rain in the mid-night, on the next morning, the received information was confirmed.Four dead-bodies were lying in front of the house of the deceased persons.Within some time, small boy complainant Sunil Kumar and his sister-in-law (bhabhi) Shakuntala Bai came to him.Sunil Kumar intimated him about the incident, which was recorded by the A.S.H.O. in the form of dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36), which was sent to police station Bharveli for registration of crime.In presence of complainant, Ashish Singh (P.W.14) prepared a spot map (Ex.P.6) and took photographs of the scene of occurrence by government photographer and also got videography.The above mentioned investigator prepared different inquest memos (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4) separately in relation to each deceased.He also seized differently blood stained soil nearer to each dead-body and prepared seizure memos (Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-12) and by separate applications (Ex.P-48 to Ex.P-51), all the four dead-bodies were sent to District Hospital, Balaghat for post-mortem.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) on 16.8.2002 in above mentioned hospital conducted autopsy of these dead-bodies and recorded post-mortem reports (Ex.P.31 to Ex.P.34) about deceased Surendra, Chandrakala, Gajendra and Sukhlal respectively.Investigator Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) on 17.8.2002 after receiving four sealed packets from the district hospital, Balaghat prepared seizure memos (Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15).On 18.8.2002, appellants Shivlal and Bhaulal were arrested and on disclosure statement (Ex.P.46) of Shivlal and on the basis of this information after seizing relating articles, seizure memo (Ex.P-42) was prepared.On disclosure statement (Ex.P-44) of appellant Bhaulal, and after seizing relating articles, seizure memo (Ex.P.45) was prepared.The appellant Madhu was arrested on 19.8.2002 and on the basis of his disclosure statement (Ex.P.7), a stick was seized by seizure memo (Ex.P.8).With a draft (Ex.P-52) prepared in the office of the Police Superintendent, Balaghat, the seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to F.S.L., Sagar.(2) Right arm was deformed and on its dissection, large haematoma (blood collection) was found beneath the deformity site and there was fracture in the shaft bone and humerus bone.(3) Left arm was deformed and on its dissection, large haematoma (blood collection) was found beneath the deformity site and there was fracture in upper 2/3rd portion of humerus bone.(Pronounced on 18/5/2017) Per: Ashok Kumar Joshi J.In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenge is to the conviction and sentence recorded on 19.9.2003 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.192/2002, whereby each of the original eight appellants has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302/149 (on four counts) of the IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- on each count and under Section 148 of the IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.During investigation, outline diagram (Ex.P-35) was got prepared from patwari Meghalal (P.W.5) after completing investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat, who committed the arisen criminal case to the Sessions Court, Balaghat and arisen Sessions Trial was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the above mentioned trial Court.Fourteen prosecution witnesses were examined.It was defence of the appellants/accused persons before the trial Court that they were falsely implicated in the case.An additional specific defence was taken by the appellant No.1 Sakharam alias Bagad that on the date of incident, when he returned back to his house finishing his labour work, then complainant Sunil had intimated him that his parents had been killed thereafter he gave food to the complainant and kept him in the night at his house and in the next morning, he handed over the complainant to the police.Appellant No.1 Sakharam alias Bagad and appellant No.4 Somaji also took defence under their relating examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that previously police officials were regularly visiting the house of the deceased persons and the deceased persons were informers of the police, who gave information about activities of naxalites to the police.A neighbourer of the deceased persons, Kanhaiya (D.W.1) was examined as defence witness for the accused persons before the trial Court, who deposed that he had seen that the murders of deceased were committed by eight to nine unknown persons who were wearing green coloured dress and having guns, barchhi and bhala.The trial Court after completing hearings believed on the eye witness account of complainant Sunil Kumar and evidence of investigator Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) regarding some seizures on previous disclosure statements of some appellants and convicted and sentenced each appellant as stated hereinabove.Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the statement of child witness Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) is substantially contradicted by his signed dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36) and placing reliance on the citations of Mangilal and others Vs.State of M.P. (1990 JLJ 401), Chhakki Vs.State of M.P. (1990 J.L.J 772), Ishwar Singh Vs.State of U.P. (AIR 1976 SC 2423), Ram Narayan Vs.State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1727) and Mohinder Singh Vs.State (AIR 1953 SC 514), it has also been contended that the statement of Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) is contradicted by medical evidence in relation to used weapons by some appellants and being a child witness, his statement could not have been relied on looking to material contradictions between his statement and his dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36) and material exaggerations in its Court's statement and material omissions of important facts in his alleged dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36) and his police statement (Ex.D.1).It was also argued that as according to F.S.L. report (Ex.P.53), human blood was not found on any of the articles allegedly seized from appellants, their appeal should be allowed.On the other hand, the learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State had supported the impugned judgment and contended that conduct of the child complainant Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) was natural and his evidence is totally supported by his signed dehati nalishi (Ex.P-36) and complainant's presence at his house could not be doubted, whereas the presence of the complainant is confirmed by the defence witness Kanhaiya (D.W.1).It is not disputed that all the above mentioned four deceased persons' death were homicidal.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) deposed that on 16.8.2002 on conducting post- mortem of the deceased Surendra, following external injuries were found:-(1) Abdomen of the deceased was open and intestine, liver, spleen and both kidneys were missing which might have been eaten by any animal.(2) Lacerated wound of size 7 x 2 cms.over nose horizontally placed under which nasal bone was appearing broken, maxilla bone was also fractured, both eyes were entangled in skull cavity and on dissection, it was found that nasal bone has been broken in parts and some portions of maxilla bone were dislocated and the joints of jaws were also open.(3) Lacerated wound of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm on left side of forehead into bone deep.(4) Right clavicle bone was fractured.In the opinion of doctor, all external injuries of Surendra were ante-mortem and caused by hard and blunt objects with sufficient force and on dissection of the dead-body, a laceration of 8 cm.long was found on left chest wall and ninth and tenth ribs were fractured and there was clotting of blood and the broken rib had inserted in left part of the heart and thus incised wound of size 1 x 1 cm.was found on left atrium of heart and some portions of lungs were found in thoracic cavity and heart was bloodless and there was 100 cc blood collected in thoracic cavity.In opinion of above mentioned doctor, reason of death of Surendra was assigned as shock because of injuries to vital organs and Surendra had died within a period of 36 to 48 hours before starting of post mortem.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) proved relating post-mortem report of deceased Surendra as Ex.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) found following external injuries on the dead-body of deceased Chandrakala:-(1) A stabbed wound size 3 x 1 cms.on left side of the abdomen 6 cms.below the umbilicus and on its dissection, it was found that there was a wound of 1 x 1 cm in interior portion of the abdomen where blood and food particles were mixed.(2) Right arm was found broken and deformed and on its dissection, it was found that there was a huge collection of blood.(3) There was fracture of right humerus bone in its lower two third region.(4) Lacerated wound size 5 x 3 cms on left ear pinna and on its dissection, clotting of blood was found and fracture of jaw of left mandible was found and fracture of parietal bone of skull and membrane of brain was also found inferior.In opinion of Dr.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4), all the injuries of Chandrakala were ante-mortem and caused by hard and blunt and pointed weapons and reason of her death was assigned shock due to injuries to vital organs.She had died within 36-48 hours before starting of her post-mortem.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) proved post mortem report in relation to deceased Chandrakala as Ex.According to evidence of Dr.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) on dead- body of deceased Gajendra, following injuries were found:- (1) An incised wound of size 10x7 cms, over head was obliquely placed where internal fracture was present and there was laceration over membrane of the brain and brain was oozing out and right parietal bone was fractured.(2) Lacerated wound of size 4 x 2 cms.over left eyebrow into bone deep (3) Lacerated wound of size 2 x 1 cm.above the left eyebrow into bone deep.(4) Incised and stabbed wound of size 4 x 1 cm on left side of the umbilicus and on dissection of abdomen, it was found that below stabbed wound, blood was clotted due to which a loop of the intestine had come out, over its one third portion, there was perforation.In opinion of Dr.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4), all the injuries of Gajendra were ante-mortem and were caused by different hard, cutting and pointed weapons with sufficient force and in his opinion, Gajendra had died within 36 to 48 hours before starting of the post-mortem of his dead-body due to arisen shock because of the injuries to vital organs.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) proved post mortem report in relation to deceased Gajendra as Ex.On the same date, Dr.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) found following injuries on the dead-body of Sukhlal:-(1) Lacerated wound of size 6 x 4 cms, just above the right pinna of ear with crushing of pinna and depressing underline of skull bone in an area of 10 x 10 cms.In Dr.G.R.Brahmas opinion, all the injuries of deceased Sukhram were ante-mortem and on its dissection below external injury found near right ear, there was a large haematoma and beneath it, parietal bone was fractured and brain membrane was having lacerated, through which membrane was oozing and on further dissection, fracture was found at the joint of right mandible and jaw.In his opinion, injuries of Sukhlal were caused by different hard, sharp and blunt object with sufficient force and in his opinion, Sukhlal had died within a period of 36-48 hours before starting of his post-mortem.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) also proved his post- mortem report as Ex.It is clear from the medical evidence of Dr.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) that all the four deceased persons death was homicidal and this fact has not been challenged by the appellants learned counsel.It would be significant to mention here that except Sunil Kumar (P.W.6), Dr.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4), constable Jitendra (P.W.2) patwari Meghalal (P.W.5), head-constable Indra Kumar (P.W.9) and investigator Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14), all other prosecution witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution.Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) stated before Court that he knew all the appellants.Sunil had also deposed that on 15.8.2002, he was at his home at about 4.00 p.m., then appellant Bagad alias Sakharam was abusing, then his brother Gajendra, after him his younger brother Surendra and Chandrakala went, then all the accused persons after running started beating of his brothers and mother and appellants had beaten them by rods, sticks and tangia and at that time, his father was returning to the house after answering the call of nature, then his father was also beaten by the appellants by rods and in the result of beating by the appellants, his parents and brothers had died, then the appellants chased him, but he got hidden behind his house and after much searching by the appellants, he could not be traced out by the appellants, then the appellants went away.Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) had deposed that he stayed in his house in the whole night and in the morning, police came to village with mukamdam (Patel) and dead-bodies were taken by the police through vehicles to Balaghat.Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) deposed that one month prior to the incident, their dog barked on the accused Bagad, then appellant Bagad alias Sakharam had cut all the four legs of their dog and thereafter their dog died and due to this, the quarrel had started and on the date of incident, he lodged a report to the police and after hearing Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P.36), he admitted that such report was lodged by him and he proved his signature also on it and also proved his signatures on spot map (Ex.P.5) prepared by the investigator and an another outline map (Ex.P.35) prepared by patwari.Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) deposed in cross-examination (para 4) that Kanhaiya (D.W.1) was also seeing the incident and at the time of incident, he had seen barchhi in hand of accused Shobhelal.The wife of deceased Surendra, Shakuntala Bai (P.W.11) deposed that on the date of incident, she had gone for her labour work to the place of relating farmer and after completing the duty hours at about 6:00 p.m. when she was returning to her house, in the way she was intimated that her all family members have been killed and she was advised not to return to her house, then she went to the house of mukadam Bhuwanlal (P.W.1) of village Manjara and in the whole night she stayed there and on this point, her evidence is supported by Bhuwanlal (P.W.1).Mahendra Katre (P.W.8) supported her evidence and deposed that on the date of incident, in the night at about 8.30 p.m., widowed wife of one young man intimated him after reaching to his house that four persons have been killed at her house.Mahendra Katre (P.W.8) deposed that in the same night, he reached to village Jagpura and saw the dead-bodies and thereafter sent information to the sarpanch and thereafter sent sarpanch to the relating police station.Shakuntala (P.W.11) and Mahendra (P.W.8) deposed that in next morning at 8.00 a.m., Sunil (P.W.6) met them, but Sunil did not tell them anything about the incident.Much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the appellants on the deposition of Shakuntala Bai (P.W.11), who was declared hostile by the prosecution on the ground that even the widowed wife of murdered elder brother of complainant had not supported the statement of Sunil Kumar (P.W.6)However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) stated in examination-in-chief that the appellants assaulted his family members by rods, sticks and tangias whereas in his signed dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36), it was mentioned by him that appellants Sakharam alias Bagad and Sukhlal were having tangias, appellants Madhu and Bhaolal each was having an axe and three appellants Baton, Shobhelal (now deceased) and Shivlal were having sticks (lathis), but in cross- examination (para 14), he stated that accused Shobhelal was having a barchhi and this fact was mentioned by him in his dehati nalishi report and police statement.but this fact is missing in his dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36) and police statement (Ex.D.1).Dr. G.R.Brahma (P.W.4) who conducted autopsy of all the four deceased persons deposed in his cross-examination (para 26) that two deceased persons Chandrakala and Gajendra each was having a stabbed wound, and these stabbed wounds would have been caused by some sharp edged and pointed weapons and these stabbed wounds could not be caused by an axe.Thus, it appears that to explain these stabbed wounds, Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) for the first time stated in Court that accused Shobhelal was having a barchhi, which is a pointed as well as sharp edged weapon.Thus, it appears that Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) has modified prosecution story in his Courts statement to be analogous to medical evidence to explain these stabbed wounds.In his dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36), it was mentioned that before some days from the date of incident, appellant no.1 Bagad alias Sakharam and his friends have killed their dog and due to this reason, there was quarrel among his brothers and appellant Bagad and his friends.If in consonance with his dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36) and police statement (Ex.D.1).In dehati nalishi and police statement, he stated that he remained in village after the incident, but he stated before the Court that he remained in his house in whole night, because if he would have come out from his house then the appellants would have killed him also.Taking into consideration child psychology, a lad of 6 years having seen his mother being assaulted would have raised a cry; but he says that he quietly went back to sleep.It is most unnatural even for a child that after witnessing his mother being assaulted by known persons, he would go back to sleep to wake up late in the morning only when his maternal uncle Agyaram came to fetch him and his younger brothers to his father's village Alampur.Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person.Sunil Kumar's (P.W.6) statement is not supported by his sister- in-law Shakuntala Bai (P.W.11), who was declared hostile.According to evidence of Shakuntala Bai (P.W.11), Bhuwanlal (P.W.1) resident of village Chhota Jagpura, Shakuntala Bai (P.W.11) after the incident stayed in the house of Bhuwanlal (P.W.1) who was resident of village Manjara because Bhuwanlal (P.W.1) was mukadam (Patel) of village at relevant time.Shakuntala Bai (P.W.11) deposed that on next morning, his little devar Sunil came with police to the house of mukadam of village Manjara and Sunil intimated her that his father and others were killed by anyone but Sunil (P.W.6) had not disclosed the names of murderers.Shakuntala Bai (P.W.11) was declared hostile by the prosecution, but even the departmental witness Sub-Inspector and Investigator Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14), who also recorded dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36) of Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) had not supported the statement of Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) on material points.Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) deposed that in the mid-night of 15th and 16th August, 2002, village Jagpura sarpanch Jhankar Singh and Kotwar Devanand after reaching to police station Bharveli intimated that the dead-bodies of residents of his village Sukhlal and his wife and both of their sons are lying in front of their house, but as in the night, there was heavily raining and the area was naxalite affected, received intimation was verified in next morning at about 6.00 A.M. through police constable Jai Dayal and after verification, he had reached to the scene of occurrence, where he found that in a open ground in front of house of the deceased persons, four dead-bodies were lying and within few minutes, little boy of deceaseds' family, Sunil and Shakuntala Bai came nearer to him and the boy got lodged dehati nalishi (Ex.P.36), but Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) clearly deposed in his cross-examination (para 25) that Sunil did not state to him that at the time of the incident, his father was returning after answering the call of nature and similarly Sunil (P.W.6) had not stated in his report and police statement that the appellants had chased him and Sunil did not state that the appellants had entered into his house to search him and similarly Sunil did not disclose the facts that at the time of incident, his parents and he had cried and Kanhaiya had witnessed the incident and he had seen the barchhi in the hand of accused Shobhelal.Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) clearly deposed in para 25 that he did not ask to Sunil that in the night where he remained and Sunil also did not state that where he stayed in the night.Investigator Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) clearly stated that he did not know that wherefrom Sunil and Shakuntala had come to the scene of occurrence in next morning after his reaching there, but Sunil and Shakuntala had not come out from their house.In the light of citations of Animireddy Venkataramana and others Vs.Public Prosecutor [2008 (2) MPLJ (Crl.) 561 (SC)], Badri Vs.State of Rajasthan (AIR 1976 SC 560 and Muluwa and others Vs.In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court had erred in believing Sunil Kumar's (P.W.6) statement and overlooking of above mentioned infirmitiesIn the light of the above referred citations, it is clear that the statement of child witness Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) does not appear to be of category of wholly reliable and thus in our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge erred in placing reliance on his such infirm, exaggerated, self-contradictory and his unnatural statement.In relation to recovery of various weapons and blood stained clothes of some of the appellants, on the basis of previous disclosure statements of relating appellants, the evidence of investigator Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) is not corroborated by relating panch witnesses of relating disclosure statements and seizure memo Bhuwanlal (P.W.1), Hemlal (P.W.3), Lalchand (P.W.12) and Beniram (P.W.13).All these hostile declared panch witnesses deposed that none of the appellants gave any previous information regarding any recovery and in their presence, nothing was seized by the police from any of the appellants.Thus, it is clear that on the point of relating recovery from the appellants, the solitary evidence of I.O. Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) is not supported by any of the panch witnesses.According to evidence of I.O. Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14), an axe was seized from appellant Somaji, a stick was seized from appellant Baton, a tangia was seized from appellant Sukhlal, another tangia and blood stained shirt were seized from appellant Sakharam alias Bagad, an iron rod was seized from appellant Bhaulal, a stick was seized from appellant Shivlal, another iron rod was seized from appellant Madhu and a stick was also seized from accused Shobhelal, but according to F.S.L. report (Ex.P.53) blood was not found on any of the seized sticks, iron rods, axe and two tangias.According to evidence of Dr.G.R.Brahma (P.W.4), the recovered weapons of offence were not sent to him during investigation.Thus, as blood was not found on any of the seized weapons, the evidence of investigator Ashish Singh Pawar (P.W.14) relating to recovery of these articles is unable to establish any connection between relating appellants and the incident.Thus, the circumstantial evidence in the form of above mentioned seizure is inconclusive and immaterial in the case in hand.According to F.S.L. report, blood was found on allegedly seized shirt of appellant Sakharam alias Bagad, but its source could not be identified in the laboratory.Thus, it is not clear that the blood found on the shirt of appellant Sakharam alias Bagad was human blood or blood from any other source as according to statement of Sunil Kumar (P.W.6), before some days from the incident, appellant No.1 Sakharam alias Bagad had severed all the legs of their dog and thereafter killed their dog.Thus, allegedly found blood on the shirt could not establish any connection between the relating appellant Sakharam alias Bagad and the incident as blood source and its group could not be identified in the laboratory.Thus, it is clear that the circumstantial evidence relating to various seizures was unable to establish any link between any of the appellants and the incident of murder of four above mentioned persons.In the light of the above mentioned referred citations, in our considered opinion, the learned trial Court erred in placing reliance on totally infirm, self-contradictory, exaggerated and unnatural evidence of child witness Sunil Kumar (P.W.6) and thereby convicting and sentencing all the appellants.In our considered opinion, no any framed charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt against any of the appellants.Thus, the appeal filed by the appellants is worthy of acceptance.(Ravi Shankar Jha) (Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge Judge 18.5.2017 18.5.2017 C.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,130,995 |
The Appellants in Crl.It has six plants.Plant-I is in Periyanaickkenpalayam in Coimbatore District; Plant-III is in Chinnamathampalayam in Coimbatore District; and Plant-IV is in Karamadai in Coimbatore District.The other plants are in other States.From the year 2009 onwards, one Mr.Roy J George [hereinafter referred to as the deceased] was working as the Vice President of HR Department of the said company.P.W.1 was then working as Assistant Manager in the Plant-I. P.Ws.2 to 6 were also workers in the same plant at Periyanaickkenpalayam.The office of the deceased namely, the HR Department, was in the plant premises at Periyanaickkenpalayam.It is alleged that there was a long standing labour unrest among the workers in the said company.There were five recognized trade unions consisting of the workmen of Pricol Limited.Later on, two other trade unions by name "Kovai District Pricol Employees Trade Union" was started for the workmen in Plant-I at Periyanaickkenpalayam.For the workmen in Plant-III at Chinnamathampalayam, "Kovai District Pricol Workers Trade Union" was established.Kovai District Pricol Employees Trade Union [For Plant-I] was headed by Mr.Kumaraswamy (A10).A11 to A13 were the Office Bearers of the said union.A7-Guruswamy was the President of Kovai District Pricol Workers Trade Union [For Plant-III].But, these trade unions were not recognized by the management of the company.This resulted in frequent disputes between the members of these trade unions and the management.It was at that juncture, the deceased took over as the Vice President of the HR Department of the company.There were strike calls given by these two trade unions.The deceased as the Vice President of the HR Department spoke to the workmen and as a result, many of the workmen turned in favour of management and then, returned to work.Thus, these two trade unions started to have the feeling that the deceased was responsible for the unrest among the workers and their returning to work despite the strike calls given.In that situation, a total number of 42 workmen belonging to both the trade unions were dismissed from service.Out of 42, later on, the deceased inducted 41 workmen with break in service for five years.All these orders were issued by the deceased.This further aggravated the unrest.Thus, the members of these two trade unions had strong motive against the deceased.On 20.09.2009, these trade unions held a meeting in the trade union's office near Plant-I. A10 to A12 who were leaders were on the dais.All other accused herein and few others totalling around 30 workers participated in the said meeting.It is further alleged that in that meeting, A10 to A12 spoke provocative words and told the workmen that the deceased should be killed as he was responsible for the disciplinary action taken against the workmen.It is also alleged that all the accused who participated in the said meeting agreed for the same.Thus, according to the prosecution, it amounts to conspiracy on the part of these 27 accused to do away with the deceased.On 21.09.2009 around 11.40 a.m., the deceased was in the HR Department of Plant-I at Periyanaickkenpalayam.P.Ws.1 to 6 who are also the staff of the same department, were also in the office with the deceased discussing some issues relating to the company.At that time, it is alleged that A1 to A9, who were members of the above said trade unions, suddenly barged into the office of the deceased.A1 to A9 were all armed with iron rods.So shouting, A1 commenced the attack on the deceased with iron rod on his head once; A2 attacked the deceased with iron rod on his head; and A3 to A9 attacked the deceased with iron rods repeatedly.Having sustained injuries, the deceased fell down in a pool of blood.According to him, the injury was grievous in nature.P.W.27, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Periyanaickkenpalayam, immediately rushed to Ganga Hospital.P.1 is the complaint.P.40 is the FIR.He forwarded both the complaint(Ex.P1) and the FIR (Ex.P.40) to the court which were received by the learned Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore on 22.09.2009 at 03.00 p.m. [Vide the endorsement by the learned Magistrate].In the mean time, he handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police (P.W.30) for investigation.P.W.30, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation.According to him, at 06.55 p.m. on 21.09.2009, he went to Plant-I of Pricol Limited at Periyanaickkenpalayam to check the armed reserve police on bandobast duty outside the said company premises.At that place, the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.27) handed over the FIR in the present case to him for investigation.Immediately, he proceeded with the investigation, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.14 and another witness.Between 07.00 p.m. and 07.30 p.m. he recovered movable properties damaged by the accused namely, HCL Digital Monitor, Black Metal Laptop, broken glass panes, blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.5 mahazar.Then, he examined many witnesses at the place of occurrence and recorded their statement.On going over to the hospital, he found that the deceased was still undergoing treatment in unconscious state.Then, he examined P.W.1 and others.While in custody, A1 to A6, one after the other, gave voluntary disclosure statements wherein they disclosed the place where they had hidden the respective iron rod.In pursuance of the same, they took the police and the witnesses to the respective place of hide out and produced the iron rods.P.W.30 recovered the iron rods [M.Os.1 to 6] under individual mahazars in the presence of the same witnesses.Then, he forwarded A1 to A6 to court for judicial remand.19. P.W.5 was a Senior Officer in the HR Department of Plant-I of Pricol Limited during the relevant period.He has stated that on 21.09.2009, he was very much in his office at 11.40 a.m. He has stated that A1 to A9 came, trespassed into the office of the deceased, attacked him as well as the other injured witnesses.He has identified A1 to A9 in court as the assailants.He has further stated that in Plant-I of Pricol Company Limited, CCTV camera had been erected.20. P.W.6 is yet another eye witnesses to the occurrence.He was also working in HR Department of Plant-I of Pricol Company Limited during the relevant time.According to him, at 11.40 a.m. when he was in the office, A1 to A9 trespassed into the office of the deceased, attacked the deceased as well as the injured witnesses.He has identified A1 and A9 as the assailants.P.W.7 has stated that he took all the injured to Ganga Hospital and admitted them as inpatient.P.W.8 was working in the plant-I of Pricol Limited at Periyanaickkenpalayam during the relevant time.A2 was working as Assembly Operator in the said plant.Between 11.10 a.m. and 11.40 a.m. there was a leisure time for the workmen.On 21.09.2009, according to him, A2 turned up for duty at 08.30 a.m. itself.Till 11.10 a.m. he was engaged in his work.At 11.10 a.m., he left the work spot to spend his leisure time.He should have returned at 11.40 a.m., but , he did not return.P.W.9 was working as Senior Engineer in the Machine Shock Section of Plant-I at Periyanaickkenpalayam.A6 was working in his department.On 21.09.2009 at 07.00 a.m. A6 has turned up for duty.The leisure time was between 11.10 a.m. and 11.40 a.m. A6 in order to spend his leisure time, went out of the work spot.P.W.10 was the Production Manager of Plant-I at Periyanaickkenpalayam where A3 was working.According to P.W.10, on 21.09.2009, A3 had turned up for duty at 07.25 a.m. itself.The leisure time was between 11.10 a.m. and 11.40 a.m. A3 left the work spot to spend his leisure time, but he did not return after the leisure time was over.According to them, A10 to A12 spoke in the meeting held on 20.09.2009 provoking the other accused who participated in the meeting.In that meeting , according to him, A10 to A12 told the other accused that the deceased should be killed as he was responsible for the disciplinary action taken against the workmen.They have spoken about the alleged conspiracy. P.W.3 has spoken that he took the deceased and the other injured persons with the help of P.W.7 to the hospital.A.No.85 of 2016 are Accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8; the Appellant in Crl.A.No.83 of 2016 is the Accused No.6; and the Appellant in Crl.A.No.84 of 2016 is the Accused No.9 in S.C.No.75 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore.The Appellant in Crl.A.No.93 of 2016 is the de facto complainant and the prosecution witness No.1 in the said case.Accused No.7 in this case is one Guruswamy, who is the 1st respondent in Crl.The respondents 2 to 19 in Crl.Thus, there were a total number of 27 accused in the said case before the trial court.The trial court, by judgement dated 03.12.2015, acquitted A7, A10 to A27, who are respondents 1 to 19 in Crl.Challenging their acquittal, the de facto complainant/P.W.1 has come up with Crl.The trial court convicted Accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 under various charges and sentenced them accordingly as detailed below:-Rank of the AccusedCharge under which conviction was recordedQuantum of Sentence imposedA1 to A6, A8 & A9Section 302 of IPCImprisonment for life and to fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six monthsA1 to A6, A8 & A9Section 148 of IPCRigorous imprisonment for three year A1 to A6, A8 & A9Section 449 of IPCImprisonment for life and to fine of 1,000/-each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six monthsA1 to A6, A8 & A9Section 427 of IPCRigorous imprisonment for three years A1 to A6, A8 & A9Section 3(1) of The Tamil Nadu Properties [Prevention of Damage and Loss] Act Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six monthsA1, A3 and A4Section 324 of IPCRigorous imprisonment for one yearA2Section 324 of IPC [Two counts]Rigorous imprisonment for one year for each countA8Section 323 of IPCSimple Imprisonment for six monthsThese sentences have been ordered to run concurrentlyChallenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 to A6, A8 and A9 have come up with these criminal appeals.That is how, these appeals are before this court for disposal.In the same transaction, when P.W.1 tried to rescue the deceased, A1, A3 and A4 attacked him with iron rods.He also sustained injuries.P.W.2 who was present also tried to rescue the deceased.A5 and A6 attacked him with iron rods.P.W.3 was attacked in the same transaction by A2 and A3 with iron rods.Then, all the nine accused [A1 to A9] fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapons.Thus, five persons namely, the deceased, P.W.1 to 3 and one Sankar sustained injuries in the occurrence.5. P.W.7 and P.W.13 immediately took all the injured to "Ganga Hospital" at Coimbatore for treatment.P.W.20 Dr.Madhu Periyasamy, examined P.W.1 at 03.14 p.m. on 21.09.2009 at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore.He found the following two injuries on him (1) a lacerated injury measuring 4 cm in length on the middle of the head and there was also a contusion surrounding the said injury and (2) an abrasion near the right wrist.There was also tenderness near the said injury.The injuries on him, were all simple in nature and the said injuries, according to him, could have been caused by an iron rod.P.W.22, Dr.Sanjay Rajkumar, examined the deceased on 21.09.2009 at 01.22 p.m.. He was brought by his relative by name Mr. Gerold George.He found a lacerated injury on his head correspondingly there was a fracture of skull and brain matter was protruding out.P.31 is the copy of the Accident Register.P.W.23, Dr.Balasubramanian, conducted surgery on the deceased on the same day for the head injury.From the time of his arrival in the hospital, the deceased was unconscious.After the surgery was over, he was kept in the critical care ward.P.W.19, Dr.Tamilselvi, examined P.W.3 on the same day at K.R.Hospital at Periyanaickkenpalayam.She found that there was a contusion measuring 8 x 5 cm on her left leg.P.27 is the copy of Accident Register.The said injury could have been caused by iron rod, she opined.She was treated as out patient.The injuries were, according to the doctor, simple in nature.9. P.W.24 Dr.Roy Wilson Armstrong, examined the injured Sankar at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore at 02.30 p.m. He found a contusion on the right forearm.One of the bones was found fractured corresponding to the said external injury.He opined that the said injury could have been caused by a blow with an iron rod.P.33 is the wound certificate.M.O.16 is the X-Ray taken on the fractured wound.He recovered the blood stained cloths of the injured witnesses.On receiving the intimation from the hospital, P.W.30 altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC.On the same day, between 01.30 p.m. and 03.45 p.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem.P.W.21 Dr.T.Jayasingh, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 22.09.2009 at 04.15 p.m. He found the following injuries:-"A vertical stapled laceration (7 staples) measuring 6 cm in length noted on left side forehead, 0.5 cm left to midline.The lower end is 3 cm above to inner aspect of left eye brow.On dissection , A surgical burr hole 1.5 cm in diameter and continuing downwards as a bony defect with irregular margin over the area of 2 x 1 cm noted on left lower frontal bone 1 cm left to midline through which a part of brain tissue found protruded out.The underlying dura found lacerated and laceration of brain 3 x 2 x 1 cm noted on left frontal region.(2) A curved stapled laceration (6 staples) measuring 5 cm length noted on left frontal region, 3 cm left to midline.The lower end is 5 cm above to left eyebrow.(3) A vertical stapled laceration (7 staples), measuring 5 cm in length noted on right side forehead, 3 cm right to midline.The lower end is 11 cm above to middle of right eye brow.A surgical burr hole of 1.5 cm in diameter noted on right upper frontal region, 1 cm below to right side coronary suture, and 3 cm right to midline.On dissection of scalp, skull and dura: Sub scalpel contusion of 22 x 10 cm noted on both frontal and left temporal region.Diffused sub dural and sub arachnoid hemorrhages noted on both cerebral hemisphere.Subdural clot about 100 grams noted on falx cerebri and 20 grams noted on occipital lobe.Other findings:Pleural and peritoneal cavities - empty Lungs - cut section - congested Larynx and trachea - cut section - normal Heart - right side chambers contains few cc of fluid blood.Left side chambers empty.Coronary arteries patent Hyoid bone - intact Stomach contains 100 ml of fluid blood with clot, no specific smell and mucosa - congested Liver, Spleen, Brain & Kidneys - cut section congested.Urinary bladder - empty."He further opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries on the dead body.After the postmortem was over, P.W.30, recovered the blood stained dress material from the body of the deceased and thereafter, forwarded the same to the court.While in custody, he made a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden an iron rod.In pursuance of the same, A8 took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced M.O.7 iron rod under a cover of mahazar [Ex.P.47].Then, P.W.30 forwarded A8 to court for judicial remand.But, unfortunately, he could not recover the CCTV footages kept in the company because on 21.09.2009 due to some technical fault, there was no recording.At his request, the materials objects were forwarded for chemical examination which revealed that there were human blood stains on the same.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.P.W.1 has spoken about the motive also.He has stated that around 11.40 a.m. on 21.09.2009, when he was at the Office of the deceased, A1 to A9 trespassed into the HR office.He has further stated that he and the other injured witnesses were taken to the hospital.He has identified A1 and A2 in court.16. P.W.2, yet another injured witnesses, has stated that when he was with the deceased at his Office, a crowd of people trespassed into the office, attacked the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 and another.During his chief examination, he has stated that he could not identify the assailants as he was examined after six years.Thus, his evidence is very vague in nature wherein he has stated that a crowd of people came and attacked.He has not implicated any of the accused.Therefore, he was treated as hostile by the prosecution.17. P.W.3 is yet another injured witness.She has stated that when he was in the office, a crowd of people came and attacked the deceased as well as the injured eye witnesses.But, she has identified A2 as one of the assailants.She has stated that A2 attacked her.She has not implicated any other accused.18. P.W.4 is not an injured witness.She was working in Plant-I at Periyanaickkenpalayam, during the relevant period.She has stated that around 11.40 a.m. on 21.09.2009 he was sitting on his chair in the HR Office, which was just opposite to the cabin of the deceased.He has further stated that at that time, A1 to A9 trespassed into the cabin of the deceased, attacked him as well as the other injured witnesses.But, when he was called upon by the court to identify the assailants, he had stated that except A1 and A9, he could not identify any other assailants.Thus, his evidence is only against A1 and A9 and not against the other accused.When he was asked to identify A9-Gunabalan, he wrongly identified A8-Saravanakumar, as A9-Gunabalan.P.W.14 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch by the police at the place of occurrence.P.W.15 has spoken about the arrest of A15 and the consequential recovery of the material object.P.W.16 has spoken about the arrest of A9 and the consequential recovery of iron rod.P.W.17 has stated that he took videograph of the trade union meeting that was held on 20.09.2009 in the trade union's office.P.W.22 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at Ganga Hospital.P.W.21 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.24 has spoken about the treatment given to one Sankar, who has not been examined as prosecution witnesses.P.W.25 and P.W.26 are the Head Clerks of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate concerned.They have spoken to the effect that they forwarded the material objects produced by the police on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate for chemical analysis.P.W.27, the then Sub Inspector of Police has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.28, the Head Constable has stated that he took the dead body after the inquest was over and handed over the same to the doctor for post-mortem as directed by Inspector of Police.P.W.29 has spoken about the fact that he assisted P.W.30 during investigation.P.W.30 has spoken about the entire investigation done by him in this case and the filing of charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false.On their side, A7, A9 and A10 have been examined as D.Ws.1 to 3 respectively.D.W.1 has stated that on 03.03.2007, on account labour dispute, he was transferred to the plant at Uttaranchal along with A11 and A12 and few others.P.26 is the transfer order.According to him, on 20.09.2009, there was no meeting at all held and he was not aware of the happenings on 21.09.2009 as he was not present at all.D.W.2 is A9 in the case.He has stated that his mother was seriously ill from 21.09.2009 onwards.D.7 is the leave slip.According to him, during the relevant period, he had gone to Dindigul to attend on his ailing mother at a hospital.His plea is one of alibi.He has stated that he is an Advocate by profession and also a member of a Political Outfit known as "Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist)".He has done a number of cases for the workers who are members of the above said trade unions both before the High Court as well as the Subordinate Courts.Because he was actively assisting the workmen, according to him, he has been falsely implicated.On the side of the accused as many as 14 documents have been marked.Thus, the defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the Appellants/A1 to A6, A8 and A9 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement and sentenced them accordingly.Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 to A6, A8 and A9 are now before this Court with Crl.A.Nos.83 to 85 of 2016 and challenging the judgement of the trial court acquitting A7 and A10 to A27, the de facto complainant has come up with Crl.There is no appeal preferred either by the State or by P.W.1 as against the acquittal of A1 to A6 and A8 to A9 from the other charges.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant and we have also perused the records carefully.For the sake of convenience, let us take up the case against A10 to A27 at the first.It is alleged that in that meeting A10 to A12 spoke in a provocative manner and declared that they should do away with the deceased.These two witnesses have stated that they also participated in the meeting.If that be so, though they have not been arrayed as accused, they are only accomplices.As per Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the court may presume that these two accomplices are unworthy of credit.As per the same provision, the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit and unless there is corroboration in general particulars from independent sources, it cannot be the foundation for conviction.On this legal principle, the evidences of P.Ws.11 and 12 should be rejected as the same could not form the sole basis for conviction.Apart from that, the trial court has disbelieved these two witnesses because of their conduct.From this, the trial court has come to the conclusion that these two witnesses have been planted.The learned senior counsel appearing for Accused No.7 would submit that because he was an active member of the trade union, his name came to be implicated in the FIR as an after thought.But, shockingly, Ex.P.1-Complaint and Ex.P.40 further reflects that originally there were ten named accused.These interpolations and corrections would clearly go to show that after the case was registered under Ex.P.40, as an after thought the name of A7 was interpolated in Ex.P.1 was drafted and read over to him since he found the name of A7 missing, he wanted the same to be inserted in Ex.If this version is true, there is no chance at all for any such interpolation in Ex.P.40 which was registered later based on Ex.But, as we have already pointed out, there were interpolations and corrections in Ex.P.40 also and the same would go to clearly prove that the interpolations and corrections both in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.40 were made after the case was registered.Thus, the appeal, challenging the acquittal of A7 also deserves to be dismissed.In order to substantiate his contention, the learned senior counsel would make reliance on Ex.P.1-Complaint and Ex.He would submit that there are interpolations and corrections in these two documents.We have already concluded in agreement with the learned senior counsel that there were interpolations as well as corrections in Ex.P.1-Complaint and Ex.P.40 FIR which would certainly create an initial doubt in the mind of this court.Apart from that, the learned senior counsel would submit that P.W.30 has admitted that just 50 feet away from the HR Office, which is situated in the Plant-I premises at Periyanaickkenpalayam, there were police men on bandobast duty because there was unrest among workers for a long time.P.W.30 has further admitted that he was present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence.Admittedly, it was a big rioting in which at least five persons sustained injuries and one was very seriously injured in the Office premises.Pricol Company Limited is a big establishment where there would have been a number of workers on duty including the officers.We believe that the police should have had information immediately after the occurrence because there were police men on duty near the place of occurrence and that there would have been some other information to the police.In our considered opinion that earliest information has been suppressed by the police.This creates further doubt in the case of the prosecution.The learned senior counsel Mr.Ashok Kumar would submit that Ex.P1-Complaint and Ex.We find force in the said argument also.Both Ex.P.1 and Ex.After all, the distance between Periyanaickkenpalayam Police Station and the court of learned Magistrate is hardly about 15 km. But, the FIR, which was allegedly registered at 06.30 p.m. on 21.09.2009, reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 03.00 p.m. on the next day, that is, after 21 1/2 hours.Absolutely there is no explanation for such inordinate delay.P.W.27, the then Sub Inspector of Police has nothing to say about the delay.The police constable who carried the FIR and handed over the same to court has also not been examined.Thus, the above said unexplained delay coupled with the manipulations and corrections made in the FIR and the suppression of initial information, as we have already discussed hereinabove, would all go to create further doubt regarding the case of the prosecution.Now, the question is, whether the entire case of the prosecution should be doubted and thrown out on that score? We find it difficult to do so.It is true that Ex.P.1-Complaint and Ex.But, when there are injured witnesses, who have spoken about the occurrence and if the court is able to separate the grains from the chaff, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the FIR creates doubts.Let us, now, examine, whether the grains from the chaff could be separated.He has stated when he was in the office of the deceased, a crowd of people came and attacked the deceased and the injured.He did not identify any of the accused as assailants though, he was specifically called upon to do so.He has stated that since he was examined after six years of the occurrence, he was not in a position to identify any of the assailants.Thus, his evidence would not go to prove the guilt of any of these accused, however, it would only go to prove that a crowd of people came around 11.40 a.m. with iron rods and attacked the deceased as well as the injured witnesses.40. P.W.3, the other injured eye witness has stated that a crowd of people came with iron rods and attacked the deceased as well as the injured witnesses.She identified A2 and A8 alone.there is no evidence that these witnesses knew these accused previously.According to the case of the prosecution, she knew all the nine accused [A1 to A9], but she had not chosen to identify the rest of the accused.Thus, in our considered view, she is not a reliable witness and, therefore, her evidence implicating A2 and A8 alone deserves to be rejected.Her evidence could, at the most, be believed to the extent that a crowd of people came with iron rods and attacked the deceased as well as the injured witnesses.More specifically, he has spoken about the presence of P.W.7 and participation of A9-Gunabalan.A7-Guruswamy's name, as we have already concluded, was interpolated later and, A9-Gunabalan's name does not find a place in Ex.P.1 at all.Had it been true that A9 participated in the occurrence on 21.09.2009, P.W.1 would have mentioned his name in Ex.P.1 itself.When he has stated that since after the complaint-Ex.P.1 was drafted and read over to him, he found missing of the name of A7 and, therefore, he wanted A1's name to be interpolated, he would have similarly asked the person who drafted the complaint to interpolate the name of A9 also in Ex.At the same time, he implicated A9 only during investigation.He has rendered himself only as partly believable.He has stated that during the relevant time, he was in Dindigul attending on his ailing mother in a private hospital.Though, this witness was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence.The only point taken by the prosecution is that no medical records pertaining to the treatment made to his mother at Dindigul Hospital has been produced.When the prosecution has got no explanation as to why his name was not included as stated in Ex.P.1 complaint, the evidence of D.W.2 (A9) seems to be probable and acceptable.For these reasons only, we have concluded that P.W.10 also only partly believable.Above all, according to him, A1 and A2 gave one blow each on the head of the deceased and the other accused attacked the deceased repeatedly.It is not as though he knew all the accused previously.He has further spoken that since the occurrence had taken place six years before he was not able to identify the accused.Therefore, his evidence also cannot go to prove the guilt of the accused namely, A1 to A9 and, at the most, his evidence can go only to prove that a crowd of people came and attacked.P.W.5 claims to have seen the occurrence.He has spoken only about the damages caused to the properties and he has not seen the injured and the deceased being attacked by any one.Thus, his evidence would not go to prove as to who actually attacked the deceased and the injured eye witnesses.But, his evidence is highly doubtful as he has stated that each one accused inflicted one injury either on the head of the deceased or the injured witnesses one after the other in a seriatim.He is a witness belonging to the management of Pricol Limited.His evidence also does not impress us.Thus, we reject his evidence also.From the foregoing discussion what remains is the evidence of P.W.1 against A1 and A2 alone.So far as A1 and A2 are concerned, we are of the view that the presence and participation of A1 and A2 stands proved.The learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that CCTV camera erected at the HR department of Pricol Limited, would have recorded the entire occurrence.Had the same been seized, according to the learned counsel, it would have proved the truth.But, the same has not been seized by P.W.30. P.W.3 has explained that CCTV camera that was installed had been recording the events prior to 21.09.2009 and on 21.09.2009, it did not record anything.As we have already pointed out, there is enough evidence to prove that there was an unlawful assembly of the assailants and the accused A1 and A2 were the members of the said unlawful assembly.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC, we are inclined to impose the minimum punishment of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks and for the offence under Section 148 of IPC, we deem it appropriate to impose rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 weeks.In so far as offence under Section 449 of IPC is concerned, in our considered view, sentencing A1 and A2 to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six weeks would meet the ends of justice.For four years, due to non cooperation of the accused, charges could not be framed by the trial court.The records received from the trial court would go to show that on the day of examination of these witnesses, the counsel for A1 to A11 was not present.The counsel for A12 to A23 were present, but, he refused to cross examine the witnesses.Similarly, the counsel for A24 to A27 also did not appear.The counsel for A12 to A23 cross examined him.The cross examination commenced at 10.45 a.m. The learned counsel finished the cross examination at 01.30 p.m. which runs to 15 pages.After lunch break, the counsel for A24 to A24 commenced the cross examination.It went up to 05.30 p.m. which runs to 12 pages.On that day, the learned counsel for A1 to A11 cross examined him which runs to 16 pages.Thus, the cross examination of these witnesses covers 45 pages.We have gone through the entire cross examination, line by line and word by word.We are, at a loss to find anything elicited in favour of the accused during cross examination though it runs to 45 pages.But, she was not cross examined by the defence on the same day.After chief examination on 04.05.2015, he was recalled and cross examined by the counsel for A12 to A23 on 20.05.2015 and A23 to A27 on the same day.We do not understand as to how the Judge was a silent spectator without making any intervention when the witnesses were harassed like anything.The expression of our anguish in this judgement is only to convey our hope to all concerned that the justice delivery system cannot be taken for a ride by anyone.The time tested system will withstand all such attempts in the war wagged against the system by unscrupulous peopleIn the result, (i) Crl.A.No.84 of 2016 shall stand terminated.(iii) Crl.A.No.85 of 2016: This criminal appeal is partly allowed; the conviction and sentences imposed on A3 Rajendran, A4-Sivakumar, A5-Velumurugan and A8-Saravanakumar, the appellants 3 to 5 and 6 in Crl.A.No.85 of 2016 by the trial court are set aside and they are acquitted from all the charges.Insofar as A1-Manivannan and A2-Ramamoorthy, the appellants 1 and 2 in Crl.They are, however, acquitted from the other charges.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
531,327 |
*********** An important question relating to the conflict between the fundamentalrights guaranteed under the Constitution which an accused possesses and thelarger societal interest in effecting crime detection is involved in thisCriminal Original Petition.2. Challenge in this Criminal Original Petition is to the order dated04.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur inCrl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011, declining to authorize the detention of the respondentherein in police custody during the initial period of 15 days of remand.He was formallyarrested on 01.10.2011 by the police, and thereafter, produced before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Karur, with a request for remand on theground that the investigation could not be completed within 24 hours from thetime of arrest.While so, the petitioner/State filed Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011 beforethe learned Judicial Magistrate, seeking police custody of therespondent/accused for three days for the purpose of interrogation.The learnedJudicial Magistrate directed the production of the respondent/accused before theCourt.When he was so produced, to a specific query made by the learned JudicialMagistrate in respect of the request of the police, the respondent/accusedsubmitted that he had no information to pass on to the Investigating Officer,and so, he was not willing to go to the custody of the police.Accepting thesaid submission of the respondent/accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate, byorder dated 04.10.2011, dismissed the said Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011 filed by thepetitioner/State, thereby declining to authorize the detention of therespondent/accused in police custody, as requested.2.The Inspector of Police, P.Saravanan, Inspector of Police, Vangal Police Station, Karur District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,142,513 |
It is submitted that MCrC No.49363/2018 was filed by applicant-Tinku Tiwari under Section 438 of CrPC apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No./FIR No.0267/2018 registered at Police Station Jabera, District Damoh for offence punishable under Section 452, 294, 323, 506-B and 34 of IPC.It is also submitted that this Court vide order dated 03.01.2019 has been pleased to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.It is further submitted that, inadvertently, a typographical error has crept in order dated 03.01.2019 passed in MCrC No.49363/2018; wherein, name of the applicant has been mentioned as "Mahesh Pauranik" and crime No. has been mentioned as 666/2018 registered by Police Station Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur for offence punishable under Section 294, 353, 188, 186 and 147 of IPC.A prayer is made for correction/modification in order dated 03.01.2019 passed in MCrC No.49363/2018 to that effect.Let a copy of this order be kept in the record MCrC No.49363/2018 Application is disposed of finally in above terms.Certified copy as per rules.(Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Judge anand Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2019.01.17 15:16:36 +05'30'
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
|
531,474 |
Page 2736 By the impugned orders in the first set of revisions, the Special court had directed, as a condition for grant of bail, the Petitioner-accused to deposit amounts, in one set of revision petitions.In the other set of revision petitions, the Court recorded undertakings that the petitioner-accused would deposit certain amounts.These set of orders are challenged as recording statements which were allegedly not made or made under compulsion, of circumstances.He should consider, at least prima facie, the propriety of issuing bill of a particular sum in a particular case, albeit on the presumption that there was theft of electricity.Formula for raising such bills is provided under the Act and the rules framed there under.He should consider, at least prima facie, the proprietary of issuing bill of a particular sum in a particular case, albeit on the presumption that there was theft of electricity.Formula for raising such bills is provided under the Act and the rules framed there under.In this very case, in his order dated 05.09.2006, the learned ASJ had ventured this exercise and found that normally the bill should have been to the extent of Rs. 11,95,000/-.Permitting the courts to do so, would reduce them to agencies for realization of alleged dues of the electricity companies, in the garb of granting bail.The same considerations which weigh with courts in granting or refusing to grant bail, i.e to secure the presence of the accused, and prevent his influencing the proceedings, should weigh with the Special courts; imposing conditions for liberty, while granting bail, unless justified by peculiar circumstances, only on the assumption that the liabilities are substantial, would amount to requiring the accused to comply with onerous terms which would limit liberty.Another aspect; Rajender in my opinion turned on the facts of the case; in any case the court did not consider the larger aspect of legality of imposing such conditions, in the light of the five judge decision in Sibbia, and other judgments such as Sohan Lal Juneja; U. Palaniappan; Shyam Singh and Sandeep Jain.There are other judgments too.The impugned order in Cr.Rev 287/2007 does contain reasons; the court, where the bill was Rs. 33,73,032.36, directed the petitioner accused to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- as a condition for granting bail.This is on the basis of the statements recorded on behalf of the complainant.In these circumstances, the orders in the second group of cases, i.e. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 108/07; 285/07; 75/07; 329/07; and 328/07 are set aside.The bail applications shall be heard afresh on their merits, and orders made in accordance with law.In the meanwhile, the petitioners shall be on interim bail, on other conditions relating to furnishing of personal bond and surety, as directed by the special court in the proceedings.Rev No. 292/2007The bill amount was Rs. 10,00,000/-.The petitioner had moved a revision, being Cr.R.P. No 203/2007 alleging that he had not made any statement for depositing the sum.The special judge, accordingly was asked to consider the request for waiver of the condition, on liberty being granted to the petitioner to move an application in that regard.The application, along with an application for exemption of the accused from the proceedings, was moved.Issue NBW against the accused through SHO, PS Okhla, New Delhi, for 1-5-2007?The matter did not rest here.On 1-5-2007 the report on NBW was that the accused petitioner was ill.The tenor of his orders, particularly dated 27-4-2007, 1-5-2007 and the later order of 4-5-2007 spell out a barely disguised defiance of this Court's directions.The court had granted him liberty to move the special judge to waive the condition.In this case, the BSES Rajdhani Ltd issued a?theft bill? on 3-4-2006 for Rs. 16,40,292/- to the present petitioner.However, final amount was Rs. 14,72,424/- after adjusting credit for assured period.Neither the previous order, recording the statement about depositing Rs. 5 lakhs nor the present impugned order, rejecting the application for waiver, and imposing the fresh condition of the petitioner having to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs as condition for bail, discusses the propriety of the claim in the bill (as required in Rajender) or the reason why a condition for pre-deposit was necessary.Such unreasoned orders cannot, in any case, be upheld.The impugned order is therefore, set aside to the extent it imposes a condition for deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- for granting bail.The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bond for Rs. 50,000/- and one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the special court.Bail Application No. 1042/2007The electricity company had issued a "theft bill" here to the petitioner on 27-2-2006, for Rs. 9,83,016/-; the billing load was 20.401 KW.The petitioner moved an application for reducing the amount to Rs. 50,000/-, contending that he was a poor man, unable to raise the amount.By the impugned order, the special judge held that the Act created an economic offence, where persons booked are "white collar" offenders.He held, after noting the allegations outlined in the inspection report and the materials shown to him by way of photographs, that in this backdrop that the onus to prove means read was shifted and the liability in the traditional offence on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused Page 2757 beyond reasonable doubt was not only dispensed with but onus was shifted on accused to prove that he did not commit the crime with means read or guilty intention.Considering the said position of law and shift in the said onus on the accused and considering the enormous connected load used by the accused on the allegation of theft, I am not inclined to grant him the bail on merits.Hence, his bail application is hereby rejected.Rev Petition No. 265/2007Here, the special judge had recorded that the petitioner was willing to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- as against a bill of Rs. 13,94,723/-.The petitioner had entered into a single point delivery contract with BSES Rajdhani, for supply of electricity and common billing to a number of residential units.The contract was terminated by BSES, alleging that the petitioner had failed to perform his contractual obligations in laying insulated low voltage wires on poles resulting in poor quality supply and excessive billing.Thereafter, the theft bill? was issued.242/2007 had suspended that direction and permitted the petitioner to move an application for waiver.By the impugned order dated 20-4-2007, the application for waiver was rejected; reliance was placed on Rajender's case.In the present revision, this Court suspended operation of the order requiring deposit of Rs. 3 lakh, for granting bail, while issuing notice.Accordingly the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, on his furnishing personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and a surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the special judge.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,265,206 |
counsel for the complainant Premnarayan.Heard on I.A.No.636/2016, an application on behalf of the appellant No.1 - Dalchand for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.It is further directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) alongwith one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, appellant No.1- Dalchand shall be released on bail, with a further direction to remain present before the Principal Registrar of this Court firstly on 30.06.2016 so also on all other dates as are fixed by the office in this regard during pendency of this appeal.Certified Copy.
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,268,162 |
of 2019, registered with Nilanga Police Station, District Latur, for theoffences punishable under Sections 307, 325, 149 etc. of the IndianPenal Code.The informant of FIR No.185 of 2017gave report that at 11:30 am, when he and his friends Digambar and ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 ::: 2 902 Cri.W.P.1690.2019.odtSunil were talking in front of the office of the Village Panchayat ofvillage Gour, the Accused of his village like Govardhan, Shahuraj,Avinash, Ajay and two unknown persons came there in a four wheeler.Due to dispute over agricultural land, the relations of these personswere strained.He has made allegations that one incident had takenplace on 11th July, 2017 and out of that incident, the incident mentionedin FIR No.185 of 2017 took place.According to him, all the aforesaidpersons alighted from their four wheeler and assaulted him by usingsickle on his head.Govardhan used sickle.Shahuraj, Avinash andAjay used hockey sticks and assaulted him.His elder brother, Vitthalwas assaulted by Govardhan by using sickle and Ajay gave blow ofhockey stick on the head of Vitthal.Informant sustained fracture injuryto his left hand.Threats of life were given to the informant and hisbrother.On the basis of these allegations, crime was registered for theoffences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 149 etc. of the IndianPenal Code.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 :::This statementwas given in respect of incident, which allegedly took place on the roadsituated near Nilanga at about 04:00 to 04:30 pm.Satish wasproceeding in four wheeler and as a person waived his hand andrequested to stop the car, he stopped the car.According to him, when ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 ::: 3 902 Cri.W.P.1690.2019.odthe alighted from the car, he noticed that one Tata Sumo jeep wasalready there and from that jeep the persons like Govardhan, Avinash,Ajay, Shahuraj and five unknown persons alighted.According to him,they were holding weapons like fiber sticks, iron tommy and cricket batand they first abused him and out of the previous dispute assaultedhim with these weapons.He was assaulted all over the body by thesenamed persons and also by five unknown persons.They were sayingthat he needs to be finished as he was behaving arrogantly.Accordingto him, some friends present in the car with him, rushed to the spotand after that the assailants ran away.According to him, damage wascaused to his Alto car by these persons by over turning it.His supplementary statement was recorded on 20 th July, 2017and in that statement he added the version that at the relevant time hewas proceeding to the hospital to see his brothers Chandrakant andVitthal, who were assaulted in the morning incident.5 The submissions made and record show that two separateincidents had taken place on 12th July, 2017 and in the statement givenby Satish on 15th July, 2017, he has not made any whisper about theprevious incident, which had taken place against his brothers.On thebasis of his statement and supplementary statement in Crime No.185of 2017, offence punishable under Sections 307 and 326 came to be ::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 ::: 4 902 Cri.W.P.1690.2019.odtadded and Section 120-B also came to be added.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 :::Thus, thepolice intend to file separate charge-sheet in respect of the incidentwhich took place at about 04:00 to 04:30 pm in Crime No.222 of 2019.7 The papers, which were filed in Crime No.185 of 2017show that charge-sheet is filed for the offences punishable underSections 325, 149 etc. of the Indian Penal Code and not for theoffence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.ThePherist (list) and the copies of statements show that there is statementof Satish Gharole dated 20th July, 2017 and in that statement Satishhad contended that at the relevant time he was proceeding to see histwo injured brothers.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 :::show as to how single charge-sheet could have been filed when therewere two separate incidents.Now they have corrected the mistake.Asthey were two separate incidents and role played by the Accused isshown to be different, the place of incident is shown to be different andthe person injured is shown to be different, joinder of charges couldhave given an opportunity to accused to say that it is misjoinder of thecharges and prejudice is caused to the Accused.Due to thesecircumstances, this Court holds that now proper steps are taken by thepolice and separate crime is registered in respect of the secondincident.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 :::in the past, bail was granted to the Accused in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also, but after registration of new crime they came to be again arrested and that is intentional harassment by the investigating agency.Such possibility cannot be ruled out, but that point needs to be addressed separately and it is open to the Accused to take separate steps in respect of that contention.In the present proceeding, relief is claimed for quashment of Crime No.222 of 2019 and in view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that it is not possible to grant that relief.The police had committed some mistake, but now they are attempting to correct that mistake.There is a record of injuries sustained by the informant of Crime No.222 of 2019 and in view of the contents of the statement dated 15th July, 2017, the record will contain the statements of eye witnesses also.In the result, the petition stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 01:16:49 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,271,511 |
Through Mr.Panna Lal Sharma, APP with SI Pancham Kumar, PS Saket.Respondent no.2 in person.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral)The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh.Vijay Kumar Singh for quashing of FIR No.320/2015 dated 13.03.2015, under Section 354D/506/509 IPC registered at Police Station, Saket on the basis of an amicable settlement between petitioner and respondent no.2 namely, Smt. Sangeeta.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent no. 2 present in the Court has been Crl.M.C. 39/2017 Page 1 of 7 identified to be the complainant/first-informant in the FIR in question by SI Pancham Kumar.M.C. 39/2017 Page 1 of 7The factual matrix of the present case is that on 13.03.2015, at around 12.15pm, the complainant/Respondent No. 2 was standing at T point of DDA Park, Lado Sarai to pick up her son returning from school.Thereafter, the accused/petitioner started following the complainant as she moved forward from the spot she was originally standing on kept saying something repeatedly.Respondent No.2 scolded the accused/petitioner for his act whereby the accused extended threats of killing her.The complainant/respondent no.2 stood away at a distance but the accused continued to roam around her and utter indecent words.Thereafter, the complainant along with her husband lodged the FIR in question against the accused/petitioner.In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of statement made by the respondent no. 2, the FIR in question warrants to be put to an end and proceedings emanating thereupon need to be quashed.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.320/2015 dated 13.03.2015, under Section 354D/506/509 IPC registered at Police Station Saket and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioner.This petition is accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,277,749 |
APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT :4] The prosecution case, in short is as under:-That PW1 - Somnath Pandhare complainant residing at Paranda had agreed to purchase 19 kg of gold from Ashok Vitthal Chavan (identified as accused no.2 - Jalindar during investigation), as he represented that the said gold is found as the treasure trove while digging a house.Present appellant - Balu was working as a driver with one Prabhakar Bargole i.e. brother-in-law of the complainant.Both the present appellants were always representing about finding of the gold and were asking the complainant to purchase the same.This pestering continued for about one year.Accused no.2 told that the gold can be purchased for Rs.15,00,000/-and the same is in the custody of Sushilabai Pardhin of village Padhegaon.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT Deepak went to Pandharpur Urban Bank at Barshi.The complainant collected an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the said urban Bank.The complainant alongwith brother-in-law Prabhakar came by a jeep to Kolhar, Tq.Shrirampur, District - Ahmednagar.They went to the house of PW2 - Gopi.Accused no.1 - Balu also met them there.Thereafter, alongwith accused no.1 - Balu, PW2- Gopi and PW3 jeep driver - Deepak went to village Soygaon.Thereat, accused no.1 - Balu brought accused no.2 after about one hour.All of them thereafter proceeded to Kopargaon.They reached there at about 7:30 pm.Accused no.2 asked them to wait at one square.He represented that the gold was hidden far away from the road and, therefore, he had asked one Sushilabai Pardhin to bring the gold by the side of the road.Accordingly, he went by rickshaw and returned by 10.00 pm in the night.Thereafter, he escorted all of them by the side of one canal.DATE : 10/02/2016 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 ::: (2) CR.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::Heard both sides.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.7000/- each.They alongwith other accused nos.3 to 5 were acquitted of the offences punishable under section 420, 109 r/w.120-B of the Indian Penal Code.The other accused were also acquitted of the offences punishable under section 395 r/w. 397 of the Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, these two separate appeals are preferred by the present appellants.3] Appellant - Balu in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2000 was arrayed as accused no.1 while appellant -Jalindar in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2001, was arrayed ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 ::: (3) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT as accused no.2 in the said Sessions Case.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::In the situation, on 13/2/1999, complainant PW1 Somnath alongwith PW2 - Gopi with driver PW3 -::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::About 200 feet on the dirt road, said Sushilabai Pardhin alongwith one lady was found.Said Sushilabai enquired, as to whether the amount was ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 ::: (5) CR.Both the ladies took the personal search of the prosecution witnesses by confirming as to whether they were having any weapon.About 6-7 persons from the Pardhi community surrounded the prosecution witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::In the circumstances, the prosecution witnesses anyhow went by the jeep to Shirdi.They halted there in a lodge for the whole night and when the shock of the incident worn out, on 14/02/1999, they went to Kopargaon and filed the complaint at 4.15 pm.5] The investigation in the case was started.The present appellants, being known to the complainant were arrested.From the person of the accused no.1 -Balu, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was recovered.It was having a slip of a bank.From the person of accused no.2 - Ashok Chavan @ Jalindar, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was recovered, which also had a slip of the bank.Rest of the accused were also searched.Some ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 ::: (6) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT more accused were absconding.In the circumstances, the chargesheet came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::6] Before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, in all 10 witnesses were examined.So far as the present appellants are concerned, PW1, PW2 and PW3 were examined to give the details of the earlier transactions with them and also as eye witness to the incident of looting.PW4 - Adinath is the employee of the bank, who identified the slip of the bank.PW5 - Baban was examined as the panch witness in whose presence, according to the prosecution, both the present appellants were arrested and from their person, the currency notes were seized.7] The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved the case of cheating, however, he found that the present appellants had role to play in the dacoity and, therefore, the conviction and sentences, as detailed supra came to be recorded.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT 8] Mr. Zia-Ul-Mustafa, learned counsel for the appellant - Jalindar in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2001 and Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant appointed for appellant - Balu in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2000 took me through the evidence on record.It was submitted that the charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was vague, as it was recited in the charge that all the accused with the aid of absconding accused have committed the dacoity.It was submitted that when rest of the accused nos.3 to 5 were acquitted and when it was not definitely known as to how many accused were absconding, offence punishable under section 395 or section 397 of the Indian Penal Code would not have been made out.Further, on merit, it was submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.9] On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submits that the statement of PW1 to PW5 would squarely go to show ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 ::: (8) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT that the present appellants were very much involved in the offence.He submits that since some of the accused were absconding, merely because their numbers were not detailed in the charge, since 5 accused were arrayed during the trial, no prejudice have been caused due to the defective charge.On merit, it was submitted that the evidence of the relevant witnesses has been rightly believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::10] On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination :-I) Whether the prosecution has proved that the present appellants alongwith other accused committed dacoity regarding cash of Rs.3,50,000/- on 13/02/1999 near village Padhegaon and that the dacoits were armed with weapons ?My finding to the said point is in the negative.Both Criminal Appeals are therefore allowed and the appellants are therefore acquitted of the offences for the reasons to follow.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::period of about 1 year prior to the incident of dacoity, Ashok Chavan was pestering him for the purchase of the gold.Ultimately, it was agreed that the complainant would purchase the gold for the price of Rs.7,00,000/- from the mother of said Ashok.In the complaint, however, there is no recital that accused no.2 had told that the treasure trove was with his mother.On the other hand, in the complaint, it is alleged that the said gold was with one Sushilabai Pardhin of Padhegaon.PW1 Ashok thereafter gave narration of the collection of the amount from the bank while proceeding to Kopargaon with PW3 - his driver, where PW2 - Gopi met them there.12] According to the complainant, he alongwith PW2- Gopi went at the spot, where the incident of dacoity has occurred.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT 13] PW2 - Gopalkrishna alias Gopi has corroborated this fact.It was however brought on record that in his earlier statement before the Police, he has stated that he remained with PW3 - the driver of the vehicle and did not go to the spot.Not only this, PW3 -Deepak during cross-examination has again corroborated that PW2 Gopi did not go to the spot and remained with him.14] The learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the case of cheating either by accused no.2 or accused no.1 and found them guilty for the offence of commission of dacoity.According to the prosecution, cash of Rs.25,000/- with the label of the bank fixed to the van, were seized from them.15] PW5 - Baban Sasane was examined to show that in his presence, both the appellants were arrested and from them, those bundle of currency notes were seized.His deposition would show that there were several accused persons in the Police Station and he could not ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 ::: (11) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT identify any of the accused person.To a leading question in the examination-in-chief, he admitted that amount was seized from Balu Bhosale (appellant) however in the next breath, he deposed that he can not identify accused no.1 or Ashok Chavan out of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::During Further examination-in-chief of the witness, he admitted that he signed several panchanamas prepared by the Police and the bundles of the currency notes were kept on the table by the Police.The police simply pointed him the arrested persons and asked him to sign the panchanamas.16] Thus, the very fact of seizure of currency notes from these appellants is not proved.17] There are some variances between the statements of the witnesses.While the complainant states that they proceeded by a jeep of Marshal make, PW2 Gopi deposed that they proceeded by Tata Estate car.Further, there is a contradiction, as to whether the dacoits were wielding sticks or iron bar and axe.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 13/02/1999 at about 11.30 pm in the night, the FIR came to be filed on 14/02/1999 at about 4:15 pm.The belated FIR is in the face of the admitted fact that PW1 - complainant did not return to his village Paranda after the incident but halted in a lodge at Shirdi i.e. near Kopargaon, where the FIR was to be filed.19] If all these facts are taken into consideration, in my view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have extended benefit of reasonable doubt to the accused in the present case.In the circumstances, the following order :-: ORDER :20] Both the Criminal Appeals are hereby allowed.21] The impugned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon, convicting the present appellants for the offences punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 ::: (13) CR.APPEAL 361/2000 + JUDGMENT section 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside.::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::Fine amount, if any, deposited by them be refunded to them, after a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of this order.22] Fees of Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, Advocate appointed for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.361 of 2000, is quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) and the same be paid to him by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee at Aurangabad from the appropriate funds.23] Both Criminal Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE arp/ ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 04:38:51 :::
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,279,472 |
Case diary is perused.sh Learned counsel for the parties are heard.hy According to the applicant, first bail application was dismissed ad vide order dt.16.08.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.8032/2017, second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dt.25.10.2017 in M M.Cr.C.No.17294/2017 and third application was also dismissed as of withdrawn vide order dt.21.11.2017 in M.Cr.This case has been listed after this court has been designated to hear the rt matter by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.ou It is the case of the applicant that one Nitin Tomar had taken a C loan from several persons and committed suicide.The main allegation is against Tikesh and not against the applicant.In the suicide note, it is mentioned that to return the money on saying of Rizwan he had borrowed money from different persons and therefore due to inability to return money, he decided to end his life.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,281,809 |
Thereafter, at the matrimonial home the opposite party no. 3 was subjected to harassment by the petitioners and her husband on further demands of dowry.She was not allowed to speak to any one and the petitioners used to torture her physically and mentally by assaulting her and by using filthy language.As and when her husband came to her parental house he behaved abnormally.Lastly, she was driven out from her in-laws' house in single apparel and all her stridhan articles including gold ornaments were kept by her in-laws.Santi Ranjan Chakraborty & Anr.Order dated 15th July, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah in G. R. Case No. 2324 of 2011, refusing the prayer for discharging the petitioners on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, has been assailed.The prosecution case as alleged against the petitioners who are in-laws of the opposite party no.3, wife, are as follows:The opposite party no. 3 was married on 10.5.2009 with one Rajdip Chakraborty son of the petitioners, being opposite party no.2 herein, according to Hindu Rites and Customs at 182A/2, Ramesh Dutta Street, Kolkata - 6, P. S. Jorabagan.At the time of marriage gold ornaments and other valuable articles were gifted to the opposite party no.3 as stridhan articles, which she entrusted before leaving her parental home to her husband, Rajdip Chakraborty as per direction of the petitioner no.1 and her husband.Gold ornaments and gifts given to her as srtidhan articles during 'bowbhat' ceremony were handed over to her husband and the petitioner no.2 as per direction of the other accused persons.It is alleged that the husband resigned from his employment with I.T.C. and took up a job at Pune.Pursuant to information of the opposite party no.3, Phoolbagan Police Station Case No. 185 dated 26.8.2011 under section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation.In conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and the opposite party no.2, husband, under sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners prayed for discharge before the learned Magistrate on the ground that no part of the alleged offences occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected such prayer.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,282,698 |
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) Crl.M.A.4694/2020 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.M.A.4693/2020 (condonation of delay) Keeping in view the averments in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the present petition is condoned.Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.Present criminal leave petition has been filed on behalf of the State challenging the judgement dated 2nd September, 2019 and order on CRL.L.P. 187/2020 Page 1 of 8 sentence dated 7th September, 2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, E-Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in FIR No. 505/2016 registered with Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Delhi whereby the respondent- accused was acquitted under Section 307 IPC and was instead convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to period already undergone i.e. about eight months and nineteen days.L.P. 187/2020 Page 1 of 8The relevant facts of the present case as noted by the Trial Court are as under:-Criminal law was set into motion on 08.12.2016 at 10.10 pm when a call was received regarding causing injuries with blade in a quarrel, which was recorded vide DD No.71-B at PS Jyoti Nagar pursuant to which ASI Beghraj Singh alongwith HC Bijender Singh reached at H.No.151, Gali No.3, New Kardam Puri, Delhi, where they came to know that injured was taken to GTB hospital by his cousin Haleem.Thereupon, ASI Beghraj Singh alongwith HC Bijender Singh reached at GTB hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Anees Ahmed S/o.Late Akeel Ahmed, who was opined fit to make statement.ASI Beghraj Singh recorded the statement of injured.The gist of the statement is that complainant are five brothers and his three brothers are residing with his mother Rahisa at Gali No.3, Kardam Puri, Delhi.His younger brother Nibul is drug-addict, who was asking money from his mother.He scolded his brother Nibul.Thereupon, Nibul went outside from house in anger and brought some pointed object and hit him, due to which he sustained injuries on his left hand, chest and neck and Nibul ran away from there.His cousin brother Haleem brought him to GTB hospital.On the basis of above statement of complainant, present case FIR was registered.Accused was arrested.Further investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.xxx xxx xxxInitially charge against accused was framed u/s. 308 IPC, however, later on the amended charge u/s. 307 IPC was CRL.Thus, the quarrel took place at the spur of the moment.As per injured, injuries were caused with blade.The MLC of the complainant/injured shows three injuries and as per opinion of PW-4 Dr. Shailender Patel the nature of injuries is simple.Accused as well as injured both are real brothers.These facts per se make out a case u/s. 324 IPC and not u/s. 307 IPC.In view of above discussion, accused is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 324 IPC.Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence."Further, Dr. Shailender Patel (PW-4) had deposed that the injuries caused to the victim were simple in nature.
|
['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.
|
54,286,469 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.191 of 2018 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC, as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 Crl.O.P.No.4124 of 2020The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.191 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2018, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.191 of 2018 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.28.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order kvhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.4124 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.The Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.Crl.O.P.No.4124 of 2020 28.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.
|
54,287,585 |
This bail application under section 439 of CrPC is in connection with crime number 173/2017 U/s 302, 201/34 of IPC registered at Police Station-Tanda, District-Dhar.They are ready to furnish adequate security.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.According to the prosecution case, a dead body was found on 22.10.2017 in decomposed condition, which was identified by the complainant Suversingh as body of his son.The same was sent for post mortem and it was found that there was an injury on abdomen caused by some penetrating article and an injury with haemotoma on the skull which was caused by some heavy blunt object.During investigation, the police recorded the statement of one Sanju on 31.10.2017, who revealed that prior to the incident twice Dharma committed rape with her and threatened her.When he again tried for the same, she disclosed the incident before her brother Veer Singh and Brother- in-Law (Jija) Kailash (present applicants).The police took them in custody on 10.11.2017 and on the basis of their disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recovered a HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE MCr.C No.11154/2018 bow and arrow from the possession of Kailash Bhil and Aadhar Card and wallet of the deceased from the possession of Veersingh.This is the sole evidence available against the present applicant.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,288 |
The prosecution story may be summarized as under:(a) On 29.11.1991 at about 5.00 p.m., Rambharat was sleeping in his residence at village Sipur.Appellant No. 3 Chittar Singh (for short 'A3') woke him up by knocking at the door.As he opened the door, all the four appellants entered into the house.Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 namely Kunjansingh, Harnamsingh and Devisingh (hereinafter referred to as 'A1, A2 & A4') were armed with axes.A3 asked Rambharat as to why he was goading his cattle to trespass on their agricultural fields.This led to scuffle during which Rambharat raised alarm.At this point of time, A2 gave an axe blow causing injury over his forehead just above the right eye; A4 also struck his head with an axe.In the mean while, Arjun (PW3) came there and prevented further assault on his son Rambharat but A1 hit him with axe resulting in an injury on left wrist.(b) After departure of the appellants from the scene, when Arjun and his elder son Rambabu were taking Rambharat to Police Station, the appellants obstructed their way and assaulted both of them with lathies.JUDGMENT R.C. Mishra, J.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 7/5/1993 by the ASJ, Khurai, Distt.Sagar in S.T. No. 42/1992, whereby each one of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under:with the directions that all the sentences shall run concurrently and further that the fine amount, if recovered shall be distributed in the proportion of 1/2, 1/4 and 1/4 to Rambharat, Rambabu and Arjun respectively.The occurrence were witnessed by Rambabu's wife namely Kaushalya (PW6) and also by Bati Bai (PW7), the wife of his younger brother Ramcharan.(c) Ultimately, upon the FIR (Ex. P/5), that could be lodged at 11.50 a.m. by Rambharat, a case under Sections 452, 324, 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants.All the injured were sent to the District Hospital at Sagar, where they were examined by Dr. B.R. Agrawal (PW12).The injuries on the persons of Arjun and Rambabu were found to be simple in nature, whereas one of the incised wounds noticed on right side of Rambharat's forehead was characterized as grievous as well as dangerous to life.Although, he was twice subjected to radiological examination yet, none of the experts namely Dr. A. Kastwar (PW11) and Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW1) could notice any bony injury on his skull.(d) ASI Dharamchand Dubey (PW8) seized bloodstained kurta from Rambharat.Rest of the investigation was done by ASI Manjeet Singh (PW10).On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was put up before the JMFC Khurai, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.On being charged with the offences punishable under Sections 307, 450, 324 read with Section 34 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC the appellants abjured the guilt.According to them, Rambharat in collusion with Dr. B.R. Agrawal (PW12), had created false evidence as to injuries.To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses including Rambharat (PW2), Arjun (PW3), Rambabu (PW4), Kaushalya (PW6) and Bati Bai (PW7).The defence called upon three witnesses including an Orthopedist, Dr. A.K. Verma (DW3).On consideration of the entire evidence, and for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge believed the prosecution case and rejected the defence.Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated given above.Legality and propriety of the impugned convictions have been assailed on the following grounds:(1) In absence of corroboration from independent source, evidence of complainant Rambharat (PW2), and other injured Arjun (PW3) and Rambabu (PW4) could not be accepted particularly in view of material contradictions and improvements in their statements.(2) Even accepting the prosecution case as presented, no offence under Section 307 was made out.However, the learned Govt. Advocate, while making reference to various incriminating pieces of evidence, has submitted that the convictions in question are well merited.Before proceeding to appreciate the merits of rival contentions, it would be profitable to advert to the medical evidence on record.Dr. B.R. Agrawal (PW12) testified that on 29/11/1991 he had noticed the following injuries, as described in the report (Ex. P/23), on the person of Ram Bharat:(1) Incised wound on right side of forehead just above the right eyebrow, obliquely placed, size 2" x 1" x Brain deep.Fracture of right frontal bone present.Brain tissue seen from wound.Profuse bleeding present.Margins cleancut and even.(2) Incised wound on right parietal region of skull, size 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep; Direction longitudinal; Margin clean cut and even; Bleeding present.In his opinion, the Injury No. (1) was grievous and might have proved fatal to life and both the injuries were caused by hard, sharp and cutting object within 24 hours.According to him, he not only advised X-ray examination of skull, but, taking note of poor general condition, also suggested recording of Rambharat's dying declaration.However, as pointed out already, finding of Dr. B.R. Agrawal as to existence of fracture in the right frontal bone was in conflict with a concurrent opinion of Dr. A. Kastwar (PW11) and Dr. V.K. Mishra (PW1), that was given on the basis of radiological examinations conducted on 29.11.1991 and 07.12.1991 respectively.Dr. A.K. Verma (DW3), produced in defence, also opined that no fracture in right frontal bone was discernible in the corresponding X-ray plates (Ex. P/2 & P/4).(1) Incised wound - lower part of left forearm (anterior aspect), size 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep.Transversely placed.Margins clean cut and even.Bleeding present.(2) Contusion - upper part of left upper arm size 3" x 1" anterolateral aspect.(3) Abrasion - middle part of left forearm (dorsal aspect), size 1" x 1/2" x skin deep.According to him, the injury No. (1) could be caused by hard, sharp and cutting object whereas the other injuries appeared to have been caused by hard and blunt object.As opined by him, all the aforesaid injuries were simple.However, in his cross-examination the medical expert clearly admitted that the injury No. (1) could be inflicted by Arjun himself.Dr. B.R. Agrawal also proved existence of the under mentioned simple injuries caused, as per his opinion, by hard and blunt object on the body of Rambabu:(1) Pain, swelling and tenderness on lower part of left forearm (dorsal aspect), size 3" x 2".(2) Pain and tenderness on right shoulder region.Size 2" x 1".(3) C/o pain and tenderness on upper part of right forearm (dorsal aspect), size 2" x 2".Nothing could be brought in the cross-examination of Dr. B.R. Agrawal (PW12) so as to discard his expert evidence as to injuries on the bodies of Arjun and Rambabu, as described in the corresponding reports (Ex. P/26 and Ex. P/24).The proof of abovementioned injuries on the person of Rambharat, Arjun and Rambabu, brings to the most crucial point for consideration as to whether each one of the appellants was, in any way, involved in the assault resulting in these injuries.Rambharat (PW2) has substantially reiterated the allegations recorded in the FIR (Ex. P/5) at his instance by SI, Manjeet Singh.According to him, after awakening him at about 5 in the morning, A3 entered in to his house along with the other appellants, who were armed with axes.He further deposed that A3 was catching hold of him at the time when incised wounds on his forehead and scalp were inflicted by A2 and A4 respectively.Explaining delay of nearly 5 hours in lodging the FIR, Rambharat has stated that when he, along with Arjun and Rambabu, was proceeding towards the Police Station, appellants had assaulted his companions with lathies.Assertion of Arjun (PW3) that he had witnessed the joint assault on Rambharat was not consistent with the corresponding recitals of FIR (Ex. P/5) and his case-diary statement (Ex. D/2) to the effect that he could reach the spot only after the injuries on the person of his son Rambharat had already been inflicted.His elder son Rambabu (PW4) also described as to how blood flowing from Rambharat's injuries and gushing from his mouth spread all over the courtyard.However, the Investigating Officer Manjeet Singh (PW10) did not recover any blood stained earth from the place of first occurrence viz the courtyard.Moreover, in the spot map (Ex. P/10) he also failed to indicate the second scene of incident where Arjun and Rambabu were allegedly assaulted with lathies by all the appellants.These deficiencies in the investigation provided ground to doubt the prosecution version regarding the spots of assaults on Rambharat, Arjun and Rambabu.Moreover, as admitted by Dr. B.R. Agrawal (PW12) incised injury on left wrist of Arjun could be self-inflicted.Strictly speaking, the statement of Arjun, that despite being aroused from sleep by Rambharat's cries only, he was able to witness as to how the injuries were caused to his son was intrinsically incredible.Further, Kotwar Birju (PW5), who, admittedly, took all the injured to police station, emphatically denied existence of any bleeding injury on Arjun's body.As Birju was not declared hostile by the prosecution, the defence could also rely on his evidence.In these circumstances, conviction of appellants No. 1, 3 and 4 from the offence under Section 324 of IPC for causing the incised wound to Arjun was not sustainable.Rambabu (PW4) Kaushlya (PW6) and Batibai (PW7) were not specifically named in the FIR as the eyewitnesses to the first incident.Evidence of Kaushalya and Bati Bai is omnibus in nature.Both of them claimed to have witnessed both the incidents.However, their presence at the places of occurrence did not find mention in the statements of Rambharat, Arjun and Rambabu.It was, therefore, not possible to hold that they had the occasion to witness assault on any one of these persons.Regarding the latter incident, the defence was able to elicit contradictions in the cross-examination of Rambharat, Arjun and Rambabu as to location of spot and number of lathi blows dealt by the appellants.According to Rambharat the place where the appellants assaulted Arjun and Rambabu was situated at a distance of only 2 feet from the main door of his house, whereas Rambabu clearly admitted that the said distance was 25 to 30 feet.Arjun was emphatic in stating that all the appellants inflicted in all 2 or 4 blows on him but Rambabu asserted that as many as 12 or 13 blows were given by the appellants on the person of his father whereas Rambharat's version was to the effect that only A1 had hit his father's arm with lathi only twice or thrice.Further, as per his admission, only A2 had dealt 2 lathi blows on Rambabu whereas Rambabu spoke about complicity of all the four appellants in the alleged assault on him comprising of 7 or 8 blows in all.Although, all of them unequivocally deposed that Kotwar Birju (PW5) was instrumental in taking them to the Police Station yet, his evidence lent support to the plea of defence.Moreover, on one hand, the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness despite the fact that the second incident had taken place in broad day light in an inhabited area and on the other, Jagbhan Singh (DW1) and Shri Ram (DW2), residing in the vicinity, came forward to substantiate the defence version.These contradictions on material points were sufficient to characterize the prosecution version as to the alleged second assault by the appellants as untrue.The learned Judge, therefore, committed serious error by relying upon such untrustworthy evidence.Consequently, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 323 of IPC is liable to be set-aside.Further, as pointed out already, the defence that these injuries were caused by a stone thrown by A3 was also inherently improbable.Further, the injury No. (1) could also not be designated as grievous for the reasons assigned already.This apart, in absence of cogent evidence, it was also not possible to hold, with reasonable certainty that the injuries found on the body of Rambharat were inflicted inside his house.Describing the backdrop leading to incident, Rambharat (PW2) clearly stated that the only grievance the appellants had against him concerned trespass by his cattle into their field.He fairly conceded that had the appellants so desired they would have killed him.In these circumstances, the axe injuries on forehead and parietal regions, though material, were not conclusive to prove intention or knowledge as contemplated under Section 307 of IPC.Accordingly, the acts of A2 and A4 for which the other appellants were constructively liable would fall under Section 324 of the IPC Pashora Singh v. State of Punjab relied on.Thus, from the prosecution evidence re-appreciated above, charges for offences punishable under Sections 450, 326, 324 (for causing incised injury to Arjun) and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.Accordingly, they deserved acquittal of these offences.Further, on facts, learned ASJ could not have convicted them under Section 307 of IPC as the overt act of A2 and A4 constituted offence punishable under Section 324 only making other appellants jointly liable under Section 34 of IPC.The appellants have already suffered imprisonment for more than 2 months.Thereafter, a period of nearly 16 years has elapsed.In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served by sending them back to jail.Taking into consideration seriousness of their acts and consequences thereof interest of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and amount of fine is suitably enhanced for being paid to the complainant Rambharat as compensation Ramesh v. State of U.P. referred to.Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part.Conviction of appellants No. 2 and 4 namely Harnam Singh and Devi Singh under Section 307 is altered to one under Section 324 and that of other appellants No. 1 and 3 namely Kunjan Singh and Chittar Singh for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC is converted to one under Section 324 read with 34 of IPC and instead of consequent custodial sentences for various periods, each one of them is sentenced to imprisonment for a term already undergone by him and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.The amounts of fine already deposited by each one of them shall be adjusted accordingly.The convictions for all other offences in question and consequent sentences passed against the appellants are hereby set-aside and instead they are acquitted of the remaining charges.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
542,906 |
He borrowed the bicycle from one Mahadeo.When he came out be found the bicycle missing and was informed by some persons that a carpenter named Ram Nagina had taken the bicycle.Upon this in-formation being received, he went to his superior officer, B. N. Railway, at Shalimar, and inform-ed him of the incident.ORDER Sen, J.1. for Opposite Party.-- This rule has been obtained by the petitioner who has been convicted by Sri R. C. Sen, Magistrate, First Class, Howrah, of having committed an offence punishable under Section 500, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.An appeal was taken to the Sessions Judge and it was dismissed.There-after this rule has been obtained.The facts briefly are as follows: The accused Bishan Singh went to a Grain Shop on a bicycle and leaving the bicycle outside he entered the Grain Shop.A document was written out and signed by Bishan Singh and it was taken to the Government Railway Police where it was treated as a first information report.The Police investigated the case and returned a charge sheet against Ram Nagina.He was tried and acquitted.Bishan Singh was tried.The prosecution examined five witnesses, the defence examined none.The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,858,195 |
The application for interim bail is hereby allowed.Applicants - (1) Nitesh @ Nitin Nilkhant Ingle ; and (2) Nilesh Shivcharan Ingle, who are arrested in connection with Crime No. 31/2020 registered with Police Station, Patur, Dist.Akola for the offence punishablel under Sections 376(2)(i)(n), 354-B, 109, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 16 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, be released on bail on they executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each with one solvent surety of the like amount by each of them.The applicants shall not try to contact the victim or any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.Criminal Application for interim bail is disposed of.JUDGEDiwale ::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2020 05:18:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2020 05:18:11 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,866,649 |
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Mitwa was married to appellant no.2 Budhsen about 10-12 years prior to the date of incident.However, Mitwa 2 Cr.A. No.607/2004 having developed illicit relationship with Pushpraj Singh, had deserted Budhsen for the last three years, and leaving her matrimonial home at Village Rajdiha had started residing at her parental Village Madariya and due to this, Budhsen was nurturing grouse against her.On 26/7/2001, Budhsen, along with his cousin appellant no.1 Shriman alias Rajje came to the house of Mitwa at Village Madariya and insisted upon taking their daughter with him, leading to bitter arguments between them.At that time, Mitwa, her daughter Savitri, younger brother Kallu and Pushpraj Singh were also present in the house of Mitwa along with Budhsen and his cousin.Next day, Budhsen and his cousin were not seen in the Village.On 27/7/2001, Sukharjua Bai (PW6) along with Shankar Singh, father of Pushpraj, informed at Kotwali, Sidhi that door of Mitwa's house was not getting opened and on peeping through a hole in the door, blood was seen inside.Shankar also informed that Pushpraj Singh was missing since yesterday.After recording the said information in the Roznamacha Sanha, M.L.Tiwari, Assistant Sub Inspector reached the spot and found that dead bodies of Pushpraj Singh, Mitwa, Savitri and Kallu were lying inside the house of Mitwa.Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/47) and Morgue intimation (Ex.P/46) were recorded.Against this backdrop, prima facie it appeared that Budhsen along with his cousin Rajje, had committed the aforesaid murders in the night by a sharp edged weapon, and, accordingly, First Information Report (Ex.P/50) was registered.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.2 Cr.A. No.607/2004Autopsies were conducted by Dr. Ajay Shrivastava (PW1), who opined that deceased persons had died mainly due to coma and hemorrhagic shock caused by excessive external bleeding through the neck wounds cutting the major blood vessels.Sukharjua has deposed that a day prior to the date of incident, at 4 p.m., appellants were quarrelling with Mitwa for taking her to her matrimonial home at Rajdiha, while Mitwa was not interested.As she tried to pacify the appellants, they rebuked and misbehaved with her.B. D. Rathi, J. This appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10/2/2004 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No.159/01, whereby the appellants have been convicted, on four counts, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 449 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") for committing the murders of Mitwa, Savitri, Kalloo and Pushpraj Singh and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine stipulation for each count.Besides this, head injury was also noticed on the dead bodies of Kallu and Pushpraj Singh.According to him and, admittedly, the deaths were homicidal in nature.During investigation, on 30/7/2001 a Tangi and an Iron Rod were seized at the instance of appellant no.1 Shriman alias Rajje vide seizure memo (Ex.P/18), while his clothes were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/19).These articles, along with those seized from the spot, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for examination.Corresponding FSL report is Ex.3 Cr.A. No.607/20043 Cr.A. No.607/2004On 20/9/2001, a Mangalsutra and Payal of Mitwa, were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/22) at the instance of appellant Budhsen.Their test Identification was conducted on 18/10/2001 by Ramgopal (PW15) and the same were identified by Kalibai (PW12).Premiya (PW7) was also examined to prove the factum of extra judicial confession.However, the prosecution could not prove the aforesaid facts.The appellants abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire case of the prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete.According to him, conviction of the appellants, which was based upon the evidence of interested witnesses viz. Sukharjua (PW6) and Premiya (PW7) and recovery of blood stained articles allegedly seized at the instance of appellant no.1 not proved by independent witnesses, was bad in law and, accordingly, the judgment of conviction deserved to be interfered with.He further argued that the finger prints were not lifted from the seized articles and tallied with those of the appellants.He, therefore, prayed that the appellants deserved to be acquitted.On the contrary, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction is well merited.She had gone with Ramnath to Mitwa's house next day only and was not aware of the happenings during the intervening period.Trial Court found her evidence to be credible.Premiya (PW7) is the elder sister of Mitwa and sister-in-law of the 4 Cr.A. No.607/2004 appellants.According to her, on the fateful day, Mitwa was residing at her parental home at Village Madariya.On 25/7/2001, Budhsen had come from Mirzapur to Rajdiha and on 26th had gone to Village Madariya.From, the deposition of the above two witnesses, it is proved that the appellants had reached Madariya in the evening of 26th and had quarreled with Mitwa in the presence of Sukharjua.Non corroborative evidence of other witnesses is immaterial in view of the fact that there was no reason for Sukharjua and Premiya to falsely implicate the appellants, who were also their relatives.4 Cr.A. No.607/2004Investigating Officer Vijay Singh Parihar (PW16) deposed in paragraph 5 of his evidence that on 30/7/2001, appellant no.1 was interrogated and at his instance a Tangi and an Iron Rod were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/18) and his Pant and Shirt were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/19).The seizure has been proved by Anup Singh (PW3).The said articles were sent to Forensic Science Lab, Sagar for examination vide Ex.Corresponding report (Ex.P/53) indicated that human blood was found on them.Factum of illicit relationship between Mitwa and Pushpraj Singh is well established from the prosecution evidence brought on record.Accordingly, the learned trial Court, taking into consideration the factum of illicit relationship between Mitwa and Pushpraj, occurrence of a quarrel between the parties just prior to the incident, seizure of blood stained articles at the instance of appellant no.1 and unusual departure of appellant no.1 immediately after the incident from Village Rajdiha against his usual practice of staying for 10-15 days as deposed by Premiya (PW7), rightly held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and the offences of murders were committed by the appellants only.Non lifting of finger prints from the seized articles or non examination of certain witnesses, cannot be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, as prosecution cannot be compelled to adopt a particular course of action for proving its case and it is the sole choice of the prosecution how to prove its case.Moreover, minor irregularities during the course of investigation are immaterial.Further, non examination of independent witnesses also does not render the prosecution case doubtful as now-a-days, people avoid getting embroiled in legal proceedings.5 Cr.A. No.607/2004In the aforesaid premises, we are of the considered view, that the impugned judgment was based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and, accordingly, no interference is called for.Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,868,505 |
C.R.M. 6127 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09/08/2018 in connection with Ghoksadanga P.S. Case No.86 of 2018 dated 03/07/2018 under Sections 457/427/379/324/307/506/34 gd of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Maheswar Roy & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. Somnath Banerjee Mr. Pronojit Roy ...for the petitioners.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) 2
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,869,437 |
/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Defence counsel submits that out of eight accused persons- one was arrested and enlarged on regular bail.Five others were granted anticipatory bail.Two others, whose application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the court below, have filed this application.They have been falsely implicated.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
548,771 |
p.m., all the accused formedthemselves as unlawful assembly, with the common object of committing riot andin pursuance of the same they have wrongfuly restrained some of theprosecution witnesses, as well as one Kuppan; that with an intention to commitmurder they have assaulted Kuppan @ Kuppusamy with deadly weapons, therebycausing his death and that they have also inflicted injuries to some of theprosecution witnesses, in this view they should be dealt with accordingly.(a) Tmt Muthulakshmi, P.W.6 is the wife of one Kuppusamy whosesons are Ashok(P.W.1) and Prakash (P.W.8) and their daughter is Anitha(P.W.7).The accused/appellants and the abovesaid persons are the residentsof Thengaithittu Village, Pondicherry State.Subramanian (P.W.2.), Mannan @Abimannan(P.W.3) are related to Kuppusamy.Thiru Kuppusamy (P.W.4), ThiruThangalan (P.W.5) are the brothers of A 6 and A 4 respectively.ThiruKuppusamy husband of P.W.6 was working as a Watchman in a coconut grove.On5.10.94 during night hours, the accused/ appellants had stolen some tendercoconuts from the said coconut thope.Kuppusamy knowing the same questioned A1 about his conduct on 6.10 .94 at 5.00 p.m.and slapped A 1 also, on his leftcheek, which caused annoyance to him and his relatives.(b) The mother of A 1, in order to have redress for the act doneby Kuppusamy, lodged a complaint to Mudaliarpet police station resulting thepolice summoning Kuppusamy and his relatives.The police warned both theparties, not to indulge in any assault, directing them to meet theSub-Inspector, on the next day.(c) On 7.10.94 at about 6.00p.m.Kuppusamy, Abimannan,Subramanian and Thangalan went to the police station, where they were warnedby the Sub-Inspector of Police.Thereafter, while P.Ws.1,2 and 3 werereturning in cycles, they were waylaid and wrongfully restrained by A 1 to A6, armed with weapons near the junction of the road leading to graveyard.A 1to A 3 pushed down the cycle driven by Abimannan in which the deceased whereaswas a pillion rider, A 4 and A 5 pushed the cycle driven by Subramanian.Unexpectedly, and all of a sudden, the accused assaulted Kuppusamy, P.W.2 andP.W.3 with deadly weapons, causing various kinds of injuries.However, P.W.1escaped from the assault.Only through P.W.2 0, during the cross-examinationExs.D3 and D4 were exhibited.In the absence of any such case considering the fact that the matterwas placed before the Sub-Inspector of Police for further action, acceptingthe oral evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 3, we are constrained to conclude that thedeceased and his men might have gone to the police station, on 7.10.94, asdirected by the police, is supported by Ex.P 1, which came into existence,immediately after the incident, without any loss of time.In Ex.It is the further case ofP.W.1, that the police have warned them, not to indulge in any such act, toassault and while returning the incident had taken place.It is clarifiedfurther from P.W.1, how they had been to the police station on 7.10.94, tohave some recommendations, by using the influence of one Muruganandham.P.W.2, though failed to give detailed account, how they were returning fromthe police station, during the examination in chief, it is elicited duringcross-examination, in detail.Accused A1, A2 & A6 are directed to surrender before the trial Courtwithin 15 days from today, failing which the trial Court is directed to securethe accused to serve out the remaining period of sentence.The other accusedviz., A3 & A4 need not surrender as they have already undergone the imposedperiod of sentence.sal/kvToThe Principal Sessions JudgePondicherryThe Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,Pondicherry.3. -do- thro' the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Pondicherry.The Officer in Charge, Central Jail, Pondicherry.The District Collector, Pondicherry.The Public Prosecutor, PondicherryThe Inspector of Police, Mudaliarpet Police Station,Pondicherry.The challenge under this Criminal Appeal is the conviction andsentence imposed upon the accused by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherryin S.C.No.46/95 for various offences.The learned Principal Sessions Judge satisfying himself toframe charges, originally charged all the accused under Sections 148, 302 and324 I.P.C (three counts).Later on revised charges were framed against A 1 toA 6 under Section 148 and 341 I.P.C., in addition framing a charge underSection 302 I.P.C. against A 1, A 2, A 5 and A 6, Further a charge against A3 and A 4 was framed under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. For the grievousinjuries caused to one Abimannan, a charge under Section 326 I.P.C. is framedagainst A3, A4, A6 and roping A1, A2, A5 under Section 3 26 read with 149I.P.C. In addition for causing injury to one Subramaniam, against A3, A4 andA6 charge under Section 324 I.P.C.is framed whereas against A1, A2 and A5 acharge under Section 324 read with 1 49 is framed.For the injuries said tohave been caused to Muthulakshmi, against A1 a charge is framed under Section323 I.P.C. whereas A 2 to A6 were charged under Section 323 read with 149I.P.C. In the incident one Anitha also sustained injuries, for which A4 wasdirected to face the charge under Section 323, whereas A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6were directed to face the charge under Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C. OnePrakash also sustained injuries, along which A 3 was directed to face thecharge under Section 323 I.P.C whereas other accused were directed to face thecharge, under Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C.All the accused have denied their involvement and in this viewthey pleaded not guilty, thereby compelling the prosecution to march as manyas 21 witnesses armed with 71 documents and 28 material objects.To castcloud upon the prosecution evidence thereby to create doubt, on behalf of theaccused, through prosecution witnesses, D 1 to D 4 have been exhibited.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, while evaluating theabove materials and evidencing value, had come to the conclusion that nooffence is made out against the accused, under Section 148 I.P.C. andconsequently, he came to the conclusion, that the read with offence, underSection 149 I.P.C.is not sustainable, whereas he came to the conclusion, thatthe accused are liable to be dealt with, the substantial offence read withSection 34 I.P.C. In this view, he sentenced A 1 to A 6 to undergo 3 monthssimple imprisonment, for the offence under Sections 341 read with 34 I.P.C.The accused/appellants were directed to suffer life imprisosnment, for theproved offence under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C., in addition imposing afine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonsment for onemonth.For the offence under Sections 326 read with 34 I.P.C., all theaccused have been directed to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment pluspayment of a sum of Rs.50/- as fine each, in default, to undergo rigorousimprisonment, for one month.All the accused were sentenced, each, to undergorigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 324 read with 34 I.P.C. andfor the offence under Sections 323 read with 34 I.P.C. they were directed tosuffer simple imprisonment, for six months further ordering that the sencenteof imprisonment to run concurrently, and the default sentence for thenon-payment of fine, consecutively.The facts leading to the conviction as disclosed by theprosecution witnesses in brief:After the brutal attack, all the accused ran awayfrom the scene of crime, towards Thengaithittu village.Kuppusamy whosustained multiple injuries died in the spot itself.The accusedwho had assaulted Kuppusamy, P.Ws. 2 and 3, went to the house of P.W.6 ,where A 1 beat P.W.6, A 3 beat P.W.8 and A 4 twisted the left hand of P.W.7,causing fracture.After assaulting P.Ws.6 to 8, all the accused ran towardsNaicker's thope, declaring " Fg;gid btl;or; rhfoj;J tpl;n;lhk;/@(e) P.W.1 returned to the scene of crime after the accused ranaway and noticed his father, in a pool of blood dead, in addition P.Ws.2 and 3with severe bodily injuries.Immediately, he informed the police, who rushedto the scene of crime, admitted Kuppusamy and other injured for treatment bytaking them, to the Government Hospital, Pondicherry.(f) At about 8.30.p.m., P.W.1 narrated the entire incident to theSub-Inspector of Police-P.W.20 who recorded Ex.On the basis of Ex.P.1, acase was registered against all the accused in Crime No.81/94 .On receipt ofthe copy of the first information report, P.W.21 took the case forinvestigation, reached the scene of occurrence, along with P.W.20 where he hadprepared the observation mahazar as well as sketch in addition to recovery ofcertain material objects, such as blood stained earth etc. On 7.10.94 itselfP.W.21 conducted inquest over the body of Kuppusamy and prepared the inquestreport.The doctor who conducted autopsy also opined that Kuppusamy dieddue to shock and haemorrhage caused by multiple injuries.In continuation ofthe investigation P.W.No.21 arrested the accused, examined them, obtaineddisclosure statements.On that basis some of the material objects have alsobeen recovered.The material objects recovered were sent for chemicalanalysis which brought in, the serologist report as well as the chemicalreport.In this way, seeking appropriate punishments for the actscommitted by the accused, a final report was filed leading to trial, ending inconviction, as aforementioned which is under challenge before us.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants 1, 3 4& 6 , Mr. Sankara Subbu and Mr. N.G.L. Sankaran for the appellants 2 & 5and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry.The deceased Kuppusamy was working as Watchman in a coconut thope is spoken byhis son P.W.1, not under challenge.It is the case of the prosecution that on5.10.94 during night hours, the accused had stolen away the tender coconuts,from the coconut thope in which Kuppan @ Kuppusamy was working as Watchmanwhich was questioned by him on 6.10.1994 at about 5 p.m. leading to slappingof A 1 by the deceased.Bygoing through the oral evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 3 and the recitals found inExs.D3 and D4that the dispute between the accused and the deceased were finally closed.P1, P.W.1 has stated that in pursuance of the complaintgiven by A1's mother, the father had been to police station and thereafter on7.10.94, he along with others had been to Mudaliarpet informed Muruganandhamabout the police case and were returning at about 8.30 .p.m.The time appearsto be incorrect.Accordance with this statement alone, P.W.1 has stated thaton 7.10.94 at about 6.00 p.m. he had been to police station, along with hisfather, Abimannan, Susbramanian and Thangalan.He has stated, on 7.10.94 about 6.30.p.m.theSub-Inspector advised them not to indulge in any more assault, and thereafter,they were proceeding in the cycle.Nothing is elicited to discredit the oraltestimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, which is well supported by Ex.P.l also regardingtheir return from the police station when the incident had taken place.Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that thestory of the prosecution that the incident had taken place, while the deceasedand others were returning is unacceptable; is not acceptable to us in view ofthe overwhelming evidence, pointed out supra.In this view of the matter, wecome to the cconclusion that the incident might have taken place while thedeceased, P.Ws.1 to 3, were returning from the polices station and that is whyimmediately the police had also rushed to the spot, on information andquickly, acted in apprehending the accused, preceded by investigation.Subramanian-P.W.2 was admitted in the Government Hospital on7.1 0.94 at about 8.30 p.m. He reported to the police, that he was assaultedby known six persons on 7.10.94 around 7.30.p.m.near Mudaliarpet SudukaduPathai thereby indicating the involvement of six accused/ appellants.Thedoctor-P.W.16 who attended P.W.2 noted the following injuries as seen fromEx.P.22 and they are(1)Cut injury Left forearm about 10 cm X 4 cm x 2 cm x semicircular cut injury(2)Linear abrasison in the left scapular area about 15 cm in length extendingupto left shoulder.The injuries sustained by P.W.2, is simple in nature and it could have beencaused by deadly weapons.Therefore, if this injury was caused by any of theaccused they should be convicted under Section 324 I.P.C.The doctor N.L.Thandapani (P.W.15) admitted Abimannan (P.W.3)for treatment on 7.10.94 at about 7.30.p.m.On examination he had noticed thefollowing injuries:'Incised wounds over the scalp ( 10 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm), Left forearm (frontalregion) (4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm ), Right shouler 4cm x 3 cm x 2 cm )'as indicated in Ex.Considering the Expert's Report which disclosedfracture of frontal bone, the doctor opined that P.W.3 sustained grievousinjuriy.Acceptingthe oral evidence of P.W.15, we conclude that P.W.3 sustained grievousinjuries, in the incident narrated in the final report.Abimannan has reported to the doctor, as if some unknownpersons had assaulted him near Thengaithittu at about 7.00 p.m.on 7.10.94.Taking advantage of the same, the learned counsel for the appellants contendedthat the oral evidence of P.W.3 could not be accepted and acted upon, since hehad stated to the doctor, as if he was assaulted by unknown persons.It isnot known under what circumstances, the doctor had written so.When P.W.3 hadspoken about the identity of the accused, it is not the case of the accused,that he is a stranger and he could not identify them.In this view, ignoringthe entry in Ex.P.21, we proceed that P.W.3 would have sustained injuries, inthe hands of the known persons, and if it is proved that one of the accused orsome of the accused are responsible for the grievous injuries caused to P.W.3,then they should be dealt with under Section 326 I.P.C. as did by the trialCourt.1.Multiple Incised wounds present all over back of head over an area of 22 X18 cms exposing fractured skull and brain matter.2.Incised wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms over right side of right eye.3.Incised wound 12 x 2 x 2 cms over right side of face between right ear andmouth.4.Incised wound 6 x 1 x 1 cms below lower lip on right side cutting bonepartly.5.Incised wound 10 x 2 x 2 cms over left side of face cutting left ear partly.6.Incised wound 10 x 2 x 3 cms over left side of face extending upto angle ofmouth.7.Incised wound 8 x 2 x 1 cms over middle of left forearm.8.Incised wound 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms over chest hear right axilla.9.Incised wound 5 x 1 x 2 cms over right hand below thumb.10.Incised wound 6 x 1 x 1 cms over right side of lower abdomen.11.Incised wound 2 x 1 x 1 cms over left side of lower abdomen.12.Incised wound 8 x 1 x 1cms over back of neck (Transversely placed)13.Parallel linear contusions 11 x 9 cms present over back of right leg.14.Contusion 10 X 1 cmsa present over left side of neckInternal Examination : Skull - comminuted fracture of vault of skull present.Brain - Extensively lacerated.He had opined on the basis of the external injuries, as well as internalexaminations of the deceased, considering the effect of injuries, thatKuppusamy died of shock and haemorrhage, which caused due to multipleinjuries.During the cross-examination he has stated that the fractureof the skull, as such alone cannot cause death, adding that it can causedeath, if it is associated with internal bleeding.The first injury isdescribed as multiple incised wounds, all over back of head, over an area anarea of 22 X 18 cms exposing fracture of skull and brain matter and theinternal examination also revealed, comminuted fracture of vault of skull.Depending uponthe common intention, and the susbsequent overtacts the accused could be dealtwith.P.W.16 examined Muthulakshmi (P.W.6), Anitha (P.W.7) andPrakash (P.W.8) on 7.10.94 itself at about 9.40 p.m. He has opined in Ex.P.1, all thenames of the accused were mentioned indicating their presence, at the firstinstance. As far as A5 is concerned, no overt act is attributed, against him,at the first instance, for the assault of Kuppan @ Kuppusamy.As seen fromthe original of Ex.P.1, the name of "Kesavan" (A5) is inserted, at later pointof time.There is nothing wrong, if the insertion had taken place, before thecase is registered against the accused, and it could be easily explained, thatmistake was noticed, then rectified.Here, as seen from the original printedF.I.R., when the case was registered, against the accused, no overt act isattributed, for the death of Kuppusamy against A5. Only thereafter, probablyat the intervention of interested persons, "Kesavan" is inserted, byinteraliation as if he had assaulted Kuppusamy, contributing his might also,for the death.In Ex.P.1 ,for causing the death of Kuppusamy, A1, A2 and A5are blamed.When we come to the evidence, A1, A3 & A6 were implicated, as ifall of them had assaulted the deceased.This inconsistent evidence, coupledwith material alteration, in the complaint, as well as in the printed F.I.R.,unhesitatingly prompts us to think, that A5 might have been implicated atlater point of time, even without his actual involvement, in the incident,narrated in the final report. Thus, an indelible doubt had arisen reasonably,spontaneously, on going through the document, as well as the evidence, andtherefore, the 5th accused is entitled to the benefits of the same, and inthis way, he is entitled to an acquittal, though an attempt is made by theprosecution witnesses, to speak that A5 also involved in the incident.The way in which P.Ws.1 & 2 have narrated theincident, inspires us, to accept their testimony, to the maximum extent,giving the benefits of doubt, to some of the accused, to the extent, they havenot been properly implicated with the crime.As seen from the observation mahazar, all the cycles wererecovered, from the scene of crime and identifying the same, P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 hadspoken about the fact of their cycling, from the police station to theirhouse. P.W.1 had specifically stated, in Ex.P.1 that he was the pillion riderin the cycle driven by Abimannan, and P.W.2 was the pillion rider in the cycledriven by P.W.5, though it is not supported by P.W.5, being the relative ofone of the accused.In conformity with the averments found in Ex.P.1, P.Ws.1to 3 had categorically deposed about their return, in the cycles.In Ex.Therefore, it could be safely concluded that A5 had not participated, inattacking Kuppusamy, though he was present and that is why his name is notspecifically given, while describing the overt act.P.W.1 had given evidence,as if A1 to A3 alone assaulted his father, with the knife and face and allover the body, causing cut injury.It is not the case of P.W.1, that A5 alsoca used injuries to the deceased, whereas it is the case of P.W.1, that A5chased him with a knife and at that time, he ran away.Thus, it is seen, theoral evidence of P.W.1 fails to implicate the involvement of A5 as well as A4,attributing any act.P.W.2 also would state that A1 to A3 alone assaulted thedeceased, with knives and caused cut injuries on the head, face, mouth and allover the body.In Ex.P.1 also the involvement of A3, in attacking the deceasedis not stated.P.Ws.1 & 2 though had stated before the Court, as if A3 hadalso participated in the assault, as admitted by the investigating officer, itis not their evidence, while recording the statements.Under the above saidcircumstances, the involvement of A3 is doubtful, though he was present at thetime of the incident.If A3 had been present, nothing would have preventedP.W.1, from mentioning his name in Ex.P.1, as the person who assaulted hisfather and in the same way, nothing would have prevented P.Ws.1 & 2 also togive statement before the investigating officer stating that A3 also assaultedKuppusamy.Thus, A4 & A5 are also entitled to the benefits of doubt and theresult should be their acquittal.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also unable tosubstantiate the finding of the guilt against A3 to A5, on the basis of thematerials available on record.The incident had taken place on 7.10.1994at about 6.30 p.m. or so.Immediately a complaint was given to P.W.20, atabout 7.00 p.m. resulting registration of case under Sections 147, 148, 341,302, 307, 324, 323 r/w 149 I.P.C. against all the accused, since their namealso does find place in Ex.We find no delay of any kind, either inrecording the information or in sending the printed F.I.R. to the courtconcerned.However, at later point of time, A5's name is inserted and that iswhy, we have given the benefit of doubt to A5, from the charge under Section302 r/w 34 I.P.C. In Ex.The contention of the learned counsel for theappellants that P.W.1 could not be the eye witness, is against the reality.As spoken by P.Ws.1 to 3, consistently, when all of them were returning fromthe police station, they were waylaid by the accused.P.W.1 ran away from thescene of crime, only after seeing the accused armed with weapons.Therefore,he must have noticed the presence of the accused at least, and the overt actalso, standing elsewhere, out of curiosity.Hence, the fact A5 chased P.W.1or P.W.1 ran away from the scene of crime, will not take him way, from thedefinition of eye witness.The fact somesnap answer is elicited from P.W.2 , as if there was no light at the place,where Kuppusamy was assaulted will not eclipse the inspiring evidence ofP.W.2, considering the time of the incident.The incident had taken placearound about 6.30 p.m. or so and at that time, there will be natural light,to identify the accused, who are already known to P.W.2 In fact, during thecross examination, the individual act of A1 and others also elicited.The answer elicited during the cross examination from P.W.3, that heand the deceased were at the scene of crime and other persons ran away fromthe scene, is not sufficient to exclude P.Ws.1 & 2 from the definition of eyewitnesses, reading the said isolated answer alone.Subsequently, he says,that the deceased shouted at P.W.1 to ran away from the scene and he rantowards the police station, further confirming that he was lying at a distanceof about five feet, from the place where the deceased was lying.Theinspiring oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P.1 proves beyond allreasonable doubt, that A1, A2 & A6 have assaulted Kuppusamy, with an intentionto commit murder, because of the previous motive, and in that process, sharingthe common intention, and in furtherance of the same, assaulted the deceased,and their act squarely attracts 3 02 r/w 34 I.P.C.The learned counsel for the appellants submits, that the actof the accused namely A1, A2 & A6, if accepted, the same will not come underSection 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., whereas that should come under Section 304 (ii)I.P.C., placing reliance on certain decisions.Admittedly, at the time of theincident, there was no sudden provocation or heat of passion, in order to saythat the acts of the accused would come within the meaning of culpablehomicide, not amounting to murder.In that view, considering the facts andcircumstances of that case, the Apex Court ruled that 304(ii) I.P.C. would beattracted, even in the absence of exception (1) to Section 300 I.P.C.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this ruling is of no use,for the accused, to escape from the arms of 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Asaforementioned, there was strong motive and A1's mother preferred a complaintto the police, apprehending some danger from the deceased, and the result wasthe warning by the police, not only on 6th but also on 7th.On 7th, while thedeceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 were returning, all the accused joined together,waylaid, wrongfully restrained, by pushing them from the cycle and these actsmust be with a predetermination, with an intention to commit murder and thiscase cannot be compared with the case, involved in the above decision, at anystretch of imagination.Therefore, the proved offence, against A1, A2 and A6cannot be scaled down to any extent.The learned counsel for the appellants also invited ourattention to State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deshraj and others (2004 (1) Supreme745, in order to claim benefits under Section 304(ii) I.P.C., excluding 302r/w 34 I.P.C. In the case involved in the above decision, it seems there wasno definite material, which injury was inflicted by which accused.Furthersome of the accused had also sustained injuries in the fight, thereby givinglever to the accused, to plead 304(ii) I.P.C., such as sudden provocation orheat of passion.Under the facts andcircumstances of the case, and in the light of the above observation, we areinclined to confirm the findings of conviction and sentence as far as A1, A2and A6 are concerned under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., relieving the otheraccused from this charge, giving them acquittal.29. A1 to A6 convicted by the trial Court under Section 326 r/w 34I.P.C. directing them to suffer 10 years R.I. in addition fine, for thegrievous hurt caused by them to Mannan @ Abimannan.A3, A4 and A6 weredirected to face the charge under Section 326 I.P.C., for causing grievoushurt voluntarily, to Mannan @ Abimannan.The other accused were charged underSection 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. However, the trial Court convicted all the accusedunder Section 326 r/w 34 I.P.C., imposing 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.50/-each, for which we are unable to see substantial evidence.Even as per thecase spoken by P.W.3, while A3 and A6 caught hold of him, he was attacked byA5, inflicting cut injuries on his left arm, nearby left ear and also over hisbody, including the right upper arm.But as seen from Ex.P.21, he sustainedthree injuries alone and all the injuries appear to be grievous hurt.We havealready concluded, that the involvement of A5, in assaulting the victim is notproved.During the cross examination, he had stated, that A3, A5 &A6 assaulted him with knives, while A1 pushed the cycle, which was driven byhim.The injuredhimself was not certain, who actually assaulted him and caused which injury.The very fact that P.W.1 sustained some grievous hurt alone could not be takenas the positive proof, to convict all the accused.If P.W.3 had spokenconsistent with Ex.P.1, corroborated by other witnesses, as well as accordingto the charge, then only the conviction could be sustained.On the otherhand, we are unable to find a consistent and uniform evidence, regarding theperson, who caused injuries to P.W.3, though he sustained grievous hurt in theincident.30. A3, A4 & A6 were called upon to answer the charge underSection 324 I.P.C., for causing hurt to Subramanian (P.W.2), while otheraccused were called upon to answer the charge under Section 324 r/w 149 I.P.C.Subramanian (P.W.2) had deposed that A3 & A4 armed with knives, assaulted him,on his left arm and on the right shoulder, while A6 beat him with M.O.5, allover the body.This evidence is, to certain extent, confirmed by otherevidence, as well as the first information report.It is not the case ofP.W.2 that A3 & A4 had attacked him, the other accused prevented him frommoving or they had also assaulted him, causing injuries.In this view, A1,A2, A5 are not liable to be dealt with under Section 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. andthey are entitled to an acquittal.Considering the proved motive and otherovert acts, A3, A4 & A6 alone are liable to be convicted, under Section 324 I.P.C. and we are constrained to relieve the remaining accused, from thischarge.In the light of the above observation, the appeal is to be allowed tothe above said extent.(3) A3, A4 & A6 are found guilty and convicted under Section 324I. P.C. instead of 324 r/w 34 I.P.C., maintaining the sentence, acquittingthe remaining accused.(4) A1, A3 & A4 are found guilty and convicted under Section 323I. P.C. instead of 323 r/w 34 I.P.C., maintaining the sentence, acquittingthe remaining accused from this offence and (5) All the accused are acquitted from the charge under Section326 r/w 34 I.P.C., ordering to refund the fine amount paid by them.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,877,788 |
C.No.14262/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Amol Singh and others) 'maarpeet', as a result Jaswant and Vijayram fell from the motorcycle, at that moment Siyaram with an intention to kill fired at Vijayram with country made pistol which had hit at his temporal region of forehead and hips.Then, Nilesh with an intention to kill Jaswant fired from his country made pistol which hit on his forehead.As a result whereof, both of them died on the spot.At that moment Ajad Yadav and Mahadevi Yadav also came at the scene of crime and saw the incident.The culprit ran away from the spot after firing in air.Police came on spot.On report being lodged by Arvind, dehati nalishi at 0/16 was registered for offence under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 341 IPC.Thereafter FIR at Crime No.458/16 was registered after necessary investigation challan was filed.The case was committed for trial.1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.14262/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Amol Singh and others) Gwalior, Dated:-16.8.2019 Shri M.S. Rawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the applicant/State.Heard on admission.(1) State of Madhya Pradesh seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3/12/2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.230/2016; whereby, the Trial Court while indicting the accused Siyaram and Vimlesh for the offence under section 25 (1-B) (a) of Arms Act and acquitting them for the offence under sections 341, 148, 302/149 (two counts), 120-B Indian Penal Code and acquitting other accused, viz., Phool Singh, Bundel Singh, Sunil, Amol, Rambabu and Jahendra for the offence under section 341, 148, 302/149 (two counts), 120-B Indian Penal Code.(2) These accused were charged for committing murder of Vijayram and Jaswant by causing gun shot injury resulting in their death, on the prosecutions story that on 28.7.2016 at 5:00 PM complainant Arvind (PW.1) deceased Vijayram, Jaswant and Bhaiyyasaab, Sunil etc. while coming back from Court attending the case from Pichhore relating to murder of Rajendra Yadav resident of Patsera via Neemwari on motorcycle, their way was blocked by Siaram, Nilesh, Sunil, Rambabu, Phool Singh, Jahendra Singh, Amol Singh and Bundel Yadav who came on motorcycle indulged in 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Accused persons abjured their guilt.Prosecution to bring home the charges examined 17 witnesses.(3) Dr. R.B. Sharma, (PW.11), who performed autopsy of Vijayram and Jaswant on the basis of injuries sustained ascertained the cause of death of Vijayram was due to neurogenic shock and hypovolemic shock and of Jaswant was due to neurogenic shock and hypovolemic shock.Both the deaths were found to be homicidal.Arvind Yadav (PW.2), the complainant was examined as eye-witness; however, did not support the prosecution story.This witness even 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.14262/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Amol Singh and others) denied of having reported the incident to the police vide Dehati Nalish Ex.Similarly Sunil (PW.1) who was examined as eye- witness also did not support the prosecution.Ajad (PW.3) stated that some unknown person had killed his father Vijayram and brother Jaswant.Similar statement was made by Bhaiyasaheb (PW.4), Mahadevi (PW.7).(4) The State Forensic Science Laboratory in its report Ex.P.50 revealed:315**@8mm cksj ds dkjrwl dks Qk;j fd;k tk ldrk gS] ;s pkyw gkyr esa gS] budh cSjy esa buls Qk;j fd;s tkus ds vo'ks"k ik;s x;s] blls vafre ckj Qk;j fd;s tkus dh laHkkfor vof/k oSKkfud fuf'prrk ls crk;k tkuk laHko ugha gS] buls Qk;j dj izk.k?kkrd pksaVs igqapk;h tk ldrh gSA izn'kZ EC1 ls EC4 rd pkj 0-315**@8mm cksj ds pys dkjrwl ds [kks[ks gSaA budh ckMh cYt gSA bUgsa Qk;fjax fiu bUizs'ku@czhp Qsl ekDlZ gsrq dEisjhtu ekbkLdksi }kjk vkil esa o VsLV QkW;j dkjrwl TCA1/TCA2 ds lkFk feyku djus ij ik;k x;k fd izn'kZ EC1 o EC2 dks fdlh ywt pSEcj ds ,d gh Qk;j vkeZ ls Qk;j fd;k x;k gS rFkk izn'kZ EC3 o EC4 dks fdlh vU; ywt pSEcj ds ,d gh Qk;j vkeZ ls Qk;j fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq izn'kZ EC1 o EC4 rd esa ls fdlh dks Hkh fiLrkSy izn'kZ A1/A2 ls Qk;j ugha fd;k x;k gSA izn'kZ EB1 ,d 0-315**@8mm cksj dkjrwl dh vkaf'kd :i ls fod`r pyh gqbZ dkWij tSdsfVM lkWQ~V ukst cqysV gSaA bls cSjy ekDlZ gsrq dEisjhtu ekbksLdksi }kjk VsLV Qk;MZ cqysV TB-A1/TB-A2 ds lkFk feyku djus ij miyC/k cSjy ekDlZ dk MkVk VsLV fu.kkZ;d feyku gsrq i;kZIr ugha ik;k x;kA vr% fu.kkZ;d feyku ds vHkko esa ;g crk;k tkuk laHko ugha gS fd bls fiLrkSy izn'kZ A1/A2 ls gh pyk;k x;k gS vFkok ughaA izn'kZ LR1 ls LR3 rd rhu 0-315**@8mm cksj ds thfor dkjrwl gSaA izn'kZ LR1 o LR2 dks e'k% fiLrkSy izn'kZ A1 o A2 ds }kjk ;gka ij VsLV Qk;j fd;k x;kA izn'kZ LR3 dks Hkh fiLrkSy izn'kZ A1/A2 ds }kjk Qk;j fd;k tk ldrk gSA 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.14262/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Amol Singh and others) dqrkZ izn'kZ C3 ij fpfUgr fNnz H1] /kksrh izn'kZ C5 ij fpfUgr fNnz H1 o H2] rFkk v.Mjfo;j izn'kZ C6 ij fpfUgr fNnz H1 xu'kkV fNnz gSaA ;s fNnz izn'kZ EB1 tSlh lkWV ukst dkWij tSdsVsM cqysV ds yxus ls cus gSaA dqrkZ izn'kZ C3 ij fpfUgr fNnz H1 ds vklikl CySdfuax dh mifLFkfr ds vk/kkj ij] fiLrkSy izn'kZ A1/A2 tSls Qk;j vkeZ ls Qk;j fd;s tkus dh n'kk esa] Qk;j djus dh nwjh yxHkx 3 QhV ds Hkhrj jgh gksxhA vkfVZdy th],p]vkbZ]ts]ds],y],e],u]vks]ih]D;w]vkj dqy 12 dks jDr ,oe~ vko';d ijh{k.k gsrq bl iz;ksx'kkyk dh ck;ksykth 'kk[kk dks Hkstk tk;sxkA (emphasis supplied) which stand corroborated with the statement of eye-witness who stated in cross-examination that they did not see anyone cause fire arm injury to the deceased person.(5) The said evidence led the Trial Court record the following findings:"32- mijksDr lk{; foospu ds vk/kkj ij ?kVuk ds izR; {kn'khZ lk{khx.k }kjk ?kVuk dk leFkZu ugha fd;s tkus rFkk vjksihx.k }kjk tCr ykBh o dVVksa dk mi;ksx e`rdksa dh gR;k dkfjr fd;s tkus esa gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksus ls vkjksihx.k }kjk fnukad 28-07-16 dks 'kke djhc 05-00 cts xzke uheojh dk jkLrk ekStk iVlsjk varxZr Fkkuk fiNksj esa Qfj;knh vjfoan ;kno] HkS;klkgc] lquhy] e`rd fot;jke o tloar dks ,d fuf'pr fn'kk esa vkxs tkus ls jksddj lnks"k vojks/k dkfjr fd;k tkuk ,oa lg vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk e`rdx.k dh gR;k ,oa migfr dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls ?kkrd vk;q/k ykBh dVVk ls lqlfTtr gksdj fof/kd teko dk xBu fd;k vkSj teko ds lkekU;mn~ns'; ds vxz'kj.k esa cy o fgalk dk iz;ksx dj cyok dkfjr fd;k tkuk rFkk vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk e`rd 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.14262/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Amol Singh and others) fot;jke o tloar dh gR;k dkfjr djus ds fof/k fo:) dk;Z djus gsrq lger gksdj vkijkf/kd "kM~;a= fd;k tkuk fd;k tkuk ,oa mDr "kM;a= ds ifj.kke Lo:i fof/k fo:) teko ds lnL; jgrs gq, e`rd fot;jke o tloar dh gR;k dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls ykBh ls ekjihV dj ,oa dV~Vs ls Qk;j dj e`rdx.k fot;jke o tloar dh gR;k dkfjr fd;k tkuk ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs izekf.kr ugha gS] ysfdu vkjksih fl;kjke ls ,d dVVk o ,d dkjrwl o uhys'k ls ,d dV~Vk o nks djrwl pkyw voLFkk esa fcuk oS| vuqfKIr ds tCr gksuk ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs izekf.kr gSA vr% vkjksihx.k fl;kjke o uhys'k dks /kkjk 251&ch , vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr nks"kfl) djrs gq;s 'ks"k vkjksi Hkk0n0l0 dh /kkjk 341] 148] 302@149 nks 'kh"kZ] 120&ch ,oa 'ks"k vkjksihx.k Qwyflag] cqansyflag] lquhy] veksy] jkeckcw] tgsUnz dks Hkk0n0l0 dh /kkjk 341] 148] 302@149 nks 'kh"kZ] 120&ch ds vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA" (6) Taking us through entire evidence on record and not disputing the fact that prime witnesses, viz., Sunil (PW.1), Arvind (PW.2), Ajad (PW.3), Bhaiyyasahed (PW.4) and Mahadevi (PW.7), who were examined as eye-witness did not support the prosecution story of sharing common intention they caused death of Vijaram and Jaswant with fire arms, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that other circumstances such as recovery of weapon at the instance of the accused person goes to establish their involvement in the 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.14262/2019 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Amol Singh and others) commission of offence.The ballistic report Ex.P.50, however does not support the contention.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,877,867 |
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Darjeeling in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2001 affirming the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Darjeeling dated 18.10.2001 in G.R. Case No. 205(1) of 1998 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted for committing offence under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code and his prayer for releasing him on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.The petitioner was in Darjeeling jail in connection with an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code.While he was in judicial custody in Darjeeling jail in connection with that case, he succeeded to escape from the custody and, ultimately, was apprehended.He was found not guilty in the trial of murder case subsequently, but a separate trial was initiated against him for committing offence under Section 224 of the 2 Indian Penal Code.The learned Trial Court, i.e., the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Appellate Court found him guilty of offence under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him thereto.He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months.In the appeal against that order, the learned Appellate Court while affirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court observed:"It is clear from Ext. 1/1 that the accused/appellant was admitted in the prisoners' cell of the Darjeeling Sadar Hospital in connection with Sukhia Pokhri P.S. case no. 22/98 dated 21.7.1998 under sec.302/201 I.P.C. i.e., murder and causing disappearance of evidence of offence and later on he again committed an offence u/sec.224 of I.P.C. and while in custody he was allowed by the concerned police personnel on duty to attend his nature's call, he exploited the liberty in a cool brain and put the concerned police personnel to imminent danger of suspension from the service and departmental proceeding.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,882,901 |
Present criminal revision is directed against judgement and order dated 20.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Varanasi, in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2003 (Rajendera Kurmi and others Vs.State), whereby aforesaid appeal arising out of judgement and order dated 29.3.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III Varanasi, has been dismissed.Vijaee Kurmi.Instant revision came up for admission on 30.10.2003 and this Court passed following order:-"Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the entire record.The revision is admitted on the point of sentence.Issue notice.The revisionists Rajendra aias Mahendra alias Fagadi Kurmi and Vijaee Kurmi shall be released on bail in criminal appeal no. 39 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 1807 of 2001) on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned."In view of order dated 30.10.2003 passed by this Court, the findings recorded by Court below in awarding conviction and sentence to revisionists therefore, cannot be reviewed.The Trial Court i.e. IIIrd A.C.J.M., Varanasi, vide judgement and order dated 29.3.2003 convicted the revisionists under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. and consequently, sentenced them to two months rigours imprisonment.However, revisionists were acquitted of the charges under Sections 325/34, 504 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid judgement and order, revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2003 (Rajendra Kurmi and another Vs.State) which was dismissed, vide judgement and order dated 20.10.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Varanasi.Thus, feeling aggrieved by aforesaid judgements and orders, revisionists have now come to this Court by means of present criminal revision.When present revision was taken up on 1.5.2019, counsel for revisionists did not appear.Consequently, non bailable warrants were issued against present revisionists.Apart from above, the Court finds that pursuant to judgement and order dated 20.10.2003, passed by Appellate Court, revisionists were taken into custody on 20.10.2003 and they have been released on bail only after order dated 30.10.2003 was passed by this Court.On aforesaid factual premise, this Court finds that while revisionist No. 1 Rajendra alias Mahendra alias Fagadi Kurmi has remained under detention for substantial period, accused No. 2 Vijaee Kurmi has remained under detention for at least 12 days.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 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.
|
548,845 |
The case for the prosecution is as follows: There is a firm known as 'Mahanand Bajoria & Bros,' in Shahjahanpur.It deals in kerosene oil and holds an agency from the Standard Vacuum Kerosene Oil Importing Company.Basudeo, Mahanand and Kedar Nath are the proprietors of the firm.Under the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1942, made by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred upon him by Rule 81 (2), Defence of India Rules, no person can sell, store for sale or carry oh business in kerosene in U. P. except under a license granted under the order by the District Magistrate.The Mahanand Bajoria firm was given a licence under the order by the District Magistrate.The terms are printed on the licence itself.According to them, the licensee must maintain a stock register showing correctly the opening stock, the quantity received from the Oil Company, the quantity sold, delivered or other-wise disposed of, and the closing stock at the end of each day.Rule 10 entitles a person authorised by the District Magistrate to enter upon and inspect any premises in which he has reason to believe that the purchase, sale or storage for sale of kerosene is taking place contrary to the pro-visions of the Order.At that time Basudeo was present in the shop.He saw the stock register of the big godown which showed a closing balance of 601/2 tins against the actual stock of 62 tins.The small godown which was open at the time of the inspector's arrival had been hurriedly locked by Basudeo.There is also a chaukidar's hut and he found it empty.He then made a report about the matter at the police station.Next morning when he went to inspect the seals of the godowns he found the chaukidar's hut locked and was told that some kerosene tins had been brought by Basudeo from his house and stored in it.He demanded the key from the chaukidar, who replied that it was not with him but with his master.The inspector sealed the hut.JUDGMENT Desai, J.This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Shahjahanpur for enhancement of the sentence passed on Basudeo under Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Bales, read with Rule 9, U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1942, and Section 353, Penal Code.Basudeo has been fined Rs. 500 for the offence of Rule 81 (4), Defence of India Bales, and Rs. 100 for the offence of Section 353, Penal Code.He was prosecuted along with his brother Mahanand, father Kedar Nath and Munim Shankar Lal, but Mahanand, Kedar Nath and Shankar Lal were acquitted by the Magistrate.Basudeo appealed from his conviction to the Sessions Judge, who on 16-7-1948 declined to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence.In reply to the notice given by this Court for enhancement of the sentence Basudeo has appeared and challenged the legality of his conviction.There is practically no dispute about the facts and we were not addressed at all on the question of believing or not believing the evidence produced against Basudeo.I have gone through the prosecution evidence and see no justification for disbelieving it.When the inspector asked him to open it, he refused pleading that his father had prohibited him from letting any one go inside it.The inspector told him that if he was not allowed to go inside he would seal the godown, whereupon Basudeo told him that he would go and consult his father at home and would probably bring him to the shop and went away on a cycle.He returned within half an hour and told the inspector that his father had told him that it was the order of the Standard Vacuum Kerosene Oil Importing Company not to let any one go inside the godown and that the inspector could find out from Qaim Ali, who was the previous agent of the Company, that such an order existed.The inspector, who had taken possession of the stock registers, left them in the charge of his peon and went to inquire from Qaim Ali.Qaim Ali told him that the Company had issued no such order.During his absence Basudeo took away the registers from the custody of the peon and went away on a cycle.So when the inspector returned to the shop he found Basudeo absent.Thereupon he sealed the small godown.He made a report about all the facts to the District Supply Officer on which an enquiry by the police was ordered.He promised to file, but did not file, a written statement.He denied having snatched away the stock register from the inspector's peon and pleaded malice on the part of the inspector and Qaim Ali.
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,488,837 |
A.No.139/1995 Page 1 of 10The Constable on duty at GTB Hospital conveyed the information to the Police Station Seelampur which was recorded as DD No.8A (Ex.PW5/A).Copy of the DD report was assigned to SI Bishambar Dayal who reached GTB Hospital along with Constable Iqbal Ahmed.He recorded the statement of injured Meena Kumari Ex.PW13/DA/PW14/A and it was duly attested by Dr. Yogesh Mittal, the Chief Medical Officer, GTB Hospital.In the aforesaid statement Meena Kumari disclosed that she had set herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her because of continued harassment meted out to her at the hands of her sister-in-law, respondent Raj Rani who had picked up a quarrel and abused her on the fateful morning also.She further disclosed that Raj Rani used to harass her by imputing allegation against her character that she was having sexual relationship with one Pappi.The deceased was referred by GTB Hospital to JPN Hospital where her MLC Ex.PW7/A was prepared.In the said MLC, the sister of the deceased PW10 Yug Rani gave the history that the deceased had attempted to commit suicide as a result of some internal family clash.Meena Kumari ultimately succumbed to her injuries on 22.04.88 at 3.00 PM.Inquest proceedings were conducted by the SDM, Shahdara Crl.A.No.139/1995 Page 2 of 10 wherein he recorded statements of the relations of the deceased as well as the respondents and Baldev Raj and his wife Indu Bala, the brother and sister-in-law of the respondent Kishan Lal.SDM came to the conclusion that a prima facie case of commission of offence was made out, accordingly, he instructed for registration of the case.Through: Mr. N.K. Prajapati, Advocate & Mr. S.P. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 Kishan Lal with Respondent No.2 Kishan Lal in person.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKEWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.(ORAL)This is a State appeal directed against the judgment acquitting the respondents Raj Rani(since deceased), Kishan Lal and Krishanwanti (since deceased) in Sessions Case No.421/88 arising out of FIR No.130/88 under Sections 498A IPC and 304B IPC both read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Seelampur.A.No.139/1995 Page 1 of 10On the basis of the statement of PW1 Vidya Wanti, mother of the deceased, formal FIR was registered under Section 498A/304B read with Section 34 IPC against the respondents.A.No.139/1995 Page 2 of 10On completion of investigation, respondents were sent for trial for having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and 304B IPC both read with Section 34 IPC.Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.Learned trial Judge on appreciation of the evidence, did not believe the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding dowry demand or dowry harassment.He also did not believe the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding oral dying declaration of the deceased Meena Kumari that she had been set on fire by the respondents and acquitted the respondents on both the counts.The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide out of frustration because her husband had not given any heed to her request for living in separate house.A.No.139/1995 Page 3 of 10A.No.139/1995 Page 3 of 10It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeal, respondents Raj Rani and Krishanwanti have expired, and as such the appeal qua them stands abated.Learned counsel for the State has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Trial Court has erred in relying upon the purported dying declaration of the deceased Ex.PW13/DA/PW14/A alleged to have been made to the Investigating Officer at GTB Hospital as against the overwhelming evidence to prove the oral dying declaration of the deceased implicating the respondents.PW10 Yug Rani, the sister of the deceased, has stated in her examination-in-chief that on getting the information about the burning of Meena Kumari, she along with her husband had gone to the house of the deceased's in-laws.From there, they took her first to a private hospital and when the Doctor concerned refused to attend, she was taken to GTB Hospital and from there she was referred to the LNJP Hospital.Similarly, PW12 Som Crl.A.No.139/1995 Page 4 of 10 Nath, brother-in-law of the deceased, has also stated that he along with his wife Yug Rani had taken Meena Kumari in a three-wheeler scooter to GTB Hospital and he saw Kishan Lal and his brother in the hospital.He has also stated that Police came and recorded the statement of Meena Kumari in presence of Kishan Lal.From the aforesaid version, it stands established that Inspector SI Bishambar Dayal had recorded the statement of injured Ex.PW13/DA/PW14/A which is attested by Dr. Yogesh Mittal, PW7, who has confirmed this fact in his testimony.Therefore, in our view, the recording of aforesaid statement of the deceased Meena Kumari, by the Investigating Officer cannot be doubted.A.No.139/1995 Page 4 of 10The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has fallen in error in failing to consider the fact that respondent Kishan Lal had accompanied the deceased to the hospital, therefore, a possibility of his having influenced the deceased or tutored the deceased cannot be ruled out.We are not impressed with this argument because under law, onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is always on the prosecution.The prosecution cannot take advantage of some suspicious circumstances against the accused as suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.Even otherwise, perusal of the dying declaration Ex.PW13/DA/PW14/A reveals that the deceased had made allegations Crl.A.No.139/1995 Page 5 of 10 against her sister-in-law Raj Rani, respondent, which rules out a possibility that the aforesaid dying declaration is the result of tutoring or inducement by the respondent Kishan Lal.A.No.139/1995 Page 5 of 10The learned counsel for the State has submitted that PW1 Vidya Wanti, mother of the deceased, PW6 Om Prakash, brother of the deceased, PW9 Dr. Sarla Devi, cousin of the deceased, PW10 Yug Rani, sister of the deceased and PW12 Som Nath, brother-in-law of the deceased have stated in the court that the deceased told them that she had been set on fire by the accused persons.He has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in not accepting the testimony regarding the oral dying declaration of the deceased.A perusal of the record reveals that PW1 Vidya Wanti has stated that Meena Kumari, deceased, told her that she had been burnt by the accused, whereas according to PW6 Om Prakash, the brother of the deceased, Meena Kumari told him that she had been burnt by the accused persons.PW9 Dr. Sarla Devi has come out with a different version by stating that the deceased told her that she had not burnt herself but she has been burnt by her husband, sister-in-law and mother-in-law.PW10 Yug Rani, who at the time of recording of MLC Ex.PW7/A had given the history of the deceased having attempted to commit suicide because of some family clash, has given a version contradictory to the version of PW1 Vidya Wanti that Meena Kumari told her mother that she was burnt by her in-laws and she told that her husband secured her hands Crl.A.No.139/1995 Page 6 of 10 whereas her sister-in-law Raj Rani poured kerosene over her and lighted the match and the mother-in-law was standing nearby.PW12 Som Nath has stated that when they reached the house of in-laws of Meena Kumari she was screaming that accused persons had burnt her.It would be seen from the above testimonies that the version about the dying declaration given by the above referred witnesses who are all relatives of the deceased is not consistent.Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the testimony of the above referred witnesses regarding oral dying declaration purported to have been made to them by the deceased, particularly when there is a contradictory dying declaration Ex.PW13/DA recorded by the Investigating Officer and attested by the Doctor concerned of GTB Hospital.From the record, it transpires that none of the above referred witnesses took initiative to inform the Police about the oral dying declaration of the deceased implicating the respondents for seeking action against them and the FIR was registered only after the instructions for registration of case was given by the SDM on conclusion of the inquest proceedings.Had the version of these witnesses regarding oral dying declaration been correct, under natural course of circumstances it was expected of them to immediately inform the Police and seek action against the accused.Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the reasoning of the trial Judge of not relying upon the version of the prosecution witnesses regarding the Crl.A.No.139/1995 Page 7 of 10 oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased to them.A.No.139/1995 Page 6 of 10A.No.139/1995 Page 7 of 10The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in not relying upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the dowry demand and harassment.The aforesaid aspect of the evidence has been dealt by the learned trial Judge in paras 30.1 to 30.7 and para 31 of the judgment wherein he has discussed the testimony of relevant prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Vidya Wanti, PW2 Sunder Lal, father of the deceased, PW6 Om prakash, brother of the deceased, PW9 Dr. Sarla Devi, cousin sister of the deceased, PW10 Yug Rani, sister of the deceased and PW12 Som Nath, brother-in-law of the deceased and found their testimony unreliable.He has rejected their testimony regarding dowry demand and harassment on the ground that aforesaid evidence is vague and devoid of specific instances of demand.We do not find any infirmity in the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Judge while disbelieving the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the dowry harassment and demand and acquitting the respondents on charges of Section 498A IPC as also Section 304B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered that even as per the Crl.A.No.139/1995 Page 8 of 10 dying declaration of the deceased Ex.PW13/DA/PW14/A, charge under Section 498A IPC was established.He has drawn our attention to the dying declaration Ex.PW13/DA/PW14/A wherein the deceased has stated that her sister-in-law Raj Rani used to harass her for the last about two years by making allegation against her character that she was having sexual relationship with one Pappi.She has also stated that she had set herself on fire on being harassed by her sister-in-law Raj Rani, who had picked up quarrel and abused her even on the fateful morning.A.No.139/1995 Page 8 of 10The above argument is also of no avail to the prosecution because perusal of dying declaration Ex.PW13/DA would show that the deceased in her aforesaid statement held only the respondent Raj Rani responsible for harassing her to such an extent to push her in taking the extreme step of committing suicide.Respondent Raj Rani has since expired and the appeal against her has, therefore, abated.A.No.139/1995 Page 9 of 10In view of above, we do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,162,075 |
MP 11 MH 3397, belonging to petitioner No.2-Kalu, has been taken by deceased-Babloo without his permission.Deceased-Babloo went on this motorcycle to his in-laws house.There was some damage to the motorcycle.After Babloo came back on 26/11/2016, he was beaten and assaulted by Bhim Singh, Kalu and Rajesh, who also threatened him that they will lodge a report against him in police and will see that he is 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.This revision petition preferred under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 16/02/2017 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.03/2017, whereby the charge for offence u/s. 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC has been framed against the petitioners.As per prosecution, one Babloo, aged about 21 years, son of Mohan Bhil, committed suicide on 26th November, 2016 by jumping into a well.A merg, in this regard was registered.On enquiry, it was found that motorcycle bearing registration No.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
551,622 |
It was further ordered that the securities furnished against the said bank guarantees be released.The brief facts which led to the presentation of the present petitions are as under : that the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 2 for the sake of brevity) filed a suit (No. 34 of 1995) for perpetual injunction on February 8, 1995, with the allegations that respondent No. 2 is the sales manager of Hanumant Sales Corporation, Inderpuri, New Delhi.He is as such fully competent to sign and verify the plaint for and on behalf of the firm.Defendant No. 2 in the said suit (petitioner herein) was holding the lotteries till the month of December, 1994, when the same was finally closed.The petitioner in connection therewith used to appoint stockists in Delhi and other parts of the country.The petitioner as per their practice used to supply lottery tickets to their stockists for selling the same in the market.Hanumant Sales Corporation was appointed a stockist for the State of Punjab in the month of February, 1993, on the condition that the above said firm would furnish a conditional bank guarantee.The said firm furnished two bank guarantees for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs as per the said conditions the same were to expire on January 18, 1993, and February 3, 1995, respectively.Except the above bank guarantees no other agreement/undertaking was executed by the firm.In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the winning tickets no lottery tickets for the next day were to be given to them.Respondent No. 2 till date has not been served with any notice in regard to the arrears, if any, due from the firm since the closure of the business.The bank guarantees furnished by respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3 are conditional.Hence, the same cannot be encashed by the petitioner till they show fulfillment of the said condition.Respondent No. 2 has never been served with any notice of default and as such the petitioner cannot encash the bank guarantees in the absence of the default.Furthermore, the period of the said guarantees has expired and the same as such cannot be invoked.After the closure of the lotteries respondent No. 2 made all possible efforts for the return of the securities furnished against the said bank guarantees, but to no avail.All his efforts ended in fiasco.JUDGMENT Mohd. Shamim J.This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Delhi Lottery (hereinafter referred as the petitioner in order to facilitate the reference) against the judgment and order dated March 9, 1995, whereby defendant-bank/respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 3 for the sake of convenience) was restrained from allowing the encashment of the bank guarantees (BG No. 1 of 1994, dated January 18, 1994, and BG No. 2 of 1994, dated February 4, 1994).The petitioner extended the threat on February 7, 1995, for encashment of the bank guarantees.Respondent No. 2 would suffer irreparable loss and damage in case the petitioner is not restrained from encashing the said bank guarantees.Hence, arose the necessity for the institution of the present suit.Respondent No. 2 along with the suit moved an application before the learned lower court for ad interim injunction restraining the petitioner from encashing the bank guarantees, alluded to above.Respondent No. 2 also moved an application dated March 7, 1995, under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the release of the securities furnished against the said bank guarantees.The petitioner put in contest, inter alia, on the following grounds that respondent No. 2 was not competent to file the suit.As per the averments in the plaint Hanumant Sales Corporation was a proprietorship concern.Respondent No. 2 is only the sales manager thereof.He is neither the proprietor nor a power of attorney holder.Respondent No. 2, Vijay Kumar, is as such not competent to bring forward the present suit as the sales manager of the said firm.The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union@ of India.Delhi Lottery is simply a department of the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and hence proceedings, if any, are to be initiated against the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.Shri Sanjay Kumar, proprietor of Hanumant Sales Corporation, was appointed as stockist by the petitioner vide their letter dated March 7, 1994, for the sale of lottery tickets of Delhi Lotteries in the State of Punjab.The terms and conditions of the said agreement have been suppressed.As per the said terms and conditions the above said firm were required to render detailed accounts of the sale of lottery tickets of each draw and to remit the sale proceeds of the tickets to the petitioner after each draw.The said firm have failed to clear the amount which fell due from them on account of the sale of tickets.They are liable to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 33,91,851 on account of the arrears of the sale proceeds of the lottery tickets'Since the above firm failed to clear the said arrears consequently the petitioner were compelled to invoke the said two bank guarantees on December 15, 1994, which were furnished by way of security by the said firm.The said act of the petitioner is thus legal, valid and justified.The said firm, vide their letter dated January 5, 1995, informed the petitioner that they had suffered heavy losses and were thus unable to pay the arrears on account of paucity of funds.A perusal of paras.A close scrutiny of sections 191, 192 and 193 shows that they deal with false evidence.The question in the instant case, which falls for determination, in view of the above, is as to whether the affidavits placed on the file of this court are tantamount to evidence under section 3 of the Evidence Act ? My answer to the above question is an emphatic no. An affidavit can be termed to be an evidence within the ambit of section 3 of the Evidence Act only in those cases when the same is filed at the instance and under the direction of the court.Admittedly, the affidavit alluded to above are not such affidavits.They were filed by the petitioner suo motu and not under any direction from this court.This view was given vent to in Smt. Sudha Devi v. M. P. Narayanan, , (headnote 3) : "affidavits are not included in the definition of 'evidence' in section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as evidence only if for sufficient reasons the court passes an order under Order 19, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,164,669 |
The prosecution story, as emerged during trial, briefly stated, is as under :Cr.A. No.180/2014 2Deceased Laxminarayan, resident of village - Fundia, Police Station - Khujner, Distt.Rajgarh had three sons namely, Satyanarayan (appellant), Bhanwar Singh (P.W.8) and Nand Kishore (P.W.9).The appellant alongwith his wife Sheelabai (P.W.10), daughter Rajani (P.W.11) and younger son Brajesh was residing with his father Satyanarayan while his two brothers were residing separately in the same locality.Appellant Satyanarayan was suspicious of her wife Sheelabai (P.W.10) having illicit relations with his father Laxminarayan.On 22.04.2013 around 10 p.m., the appellant after consuming liquor started quarrelling with Sheelabai (P.W.10).He complained to her that his father Laxminarayan instead of being father is his enemy as he has taken, his wife as a result of which she keeps on quarreling with him.As per prosecution, during this quarrel, when appellant's daughter Rajani (P.W.11) tried to intervene, the appellant assaulted her by nails.He further put Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) inside the room of the house and bolted the door of the room from the outside and thereafter, repeatedly assaulted his father Laxminarayan, who was sleeping in the courtyard of the house, by a iron 'Danta' (a semi-inverted iron blade fixed at the lower part of the plough).As per prosecution, Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) witnessed the incident from the slit of the door.Allegedly, the appellant thereafter opened the door of their room and then fled away from the spot.Bhanwar Singh (P.W.8), who was sleeping outside the house on a nearby Otala (platform) reached there on hearing the cries raised by Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11).He Cr.A. No.180/2014 3 saw the appellant running away from the main door of the house and was also pushed away by the appellant.In the meantime, Nand Kishore (P.W.9), Anil Kumar (P.W.2), Manohar (P.W.3), Durga Prasad (P.W.4), all residents of the same village, also reached the spot to whom Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) narrated the incident.All of them found Laxminarayan lying in his bed in an unconscious state in a pool of blood having injuries over his head and other parts of the body.He was immediately taken by Bhanwarsingh (P.W.8) and Nand Kishore (P.W.9) to government hospital, Khujner situated at a distance of four kilometers from village Phundiya, where on examination, he was declared dead by the concerned doctors.In the meantime, Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15), the then Sub-Inspector, Police Station - Khujner, also reached the hospital and recorded 'Dehati Nalishi' (Ex.P/9) and 'Merg' report (Ex.P/10) at the instance of Bhanwarsingh (P.W.8).He also conducted inquest over the dead body and, vide inquest report (Ex.P/3) found that Laxminarayan died because of his head injuries.The dead body of deceased Laxminarayan was sent for postmortem examination.Same day, Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12) also examined Rajani (P.W.10) and as per report Ex.P/14 found following two injuries on her body.a) Abrasion " x " skin deep over right forearm.b) Abrasion 1 " x " skin deep over left elbow.Cr.A. No.180/2014 5As opined by Dr. Gosar (P.W.12) both the aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and sharp object within 12 hours of examination and were simple in nature.First Information Report Ex.Investigation was set in motion.Sub-Inspector Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15) visited the place of occurrence and prepared site map Ex.Simple and bloodstained pieces of stony floor were also seized by him from the spot, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5).Same day, vide arrest memo (Ex.P/1), the appellant was arrested around 7 a.m. from a nearby village Grondi.On the basis of disclosure statement made by the appellant, vide memo (Ex.P/4), same day at around 8.15 a.m. an iron blade having stains of blood over it was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house.Apart this, 'Banyan' and 'Pyazama' worn by him having blood like stains were also seized and sealed, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6) from him.The bloodstained clothes worn by the deceased received from hospital in a sealed cover were also seized, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/8).The witnesses were interrogated.The seized articles including iron blade, 'Banyan' and 'Pyazama' said to have been recovered from the appellant were sent, vide memo Ex.P/17 to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Gwalior for forensic examination.The Assistant Chemical Examiner, vide report Ex.P/18 found presence of human blood on all the articles except simple pieces of stony floor (Article-B).Documents Ex.(Delivered on 07th day of April, 2017) Per : Ved Prakash Sharma, J.This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 08/01/2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in S.T. No.193/2013, whereby the appellant has been held guilt under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') for committing murder of his father Laxminarayan and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.He has further been found guilty under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple hurt to her daughter Rajani (P.W.11) and has been sentenced to one month's R.I.Same day at around 9.00 a.m. Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12) conducted autopsy on the dead body.He, vide postmortem report Ex.P/13 found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased :Cr.A. No.180/2014 3* Lacerated wound over the forehead near the eyebrow (left side), size 1 " x " x bony deep.* Lacerated wound over the forehead 1" above 1"above the (I) wound, size 1 " x " x bony deep.Cr.A. No.180/2014 4* Lacerated wound over the skull in frontal bone region, size 1 " x " x bony deep.* Lacerated wound over the skull in frontal bone region, size 2 " " x bony deep.* Lacerated wound over the skull coupled with fracture of parietal occipital bone joint size 4" x " x bony deep.* Lacerated wound over occipital region the skull of back side, coupled with depressed fracture of skull bone.Brain matter had come out at the fracture side of skull.Size 3" x " x bony deep.* Contusion over the right shoulder.Size 2" x ".On internal examination fracture of occipital bone was found with brain matter coming out of the same.Brain membrane was found congested.As per Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12), Laxminarayan died due to injuries caused to vital organ brain and resultant excessive haemorhhage and shock.It was further opined that the death was homicidal in nature and occurred within 12 hours of the autopsy.Cr.A. No.180/2014 6After usual investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant was laid before the Court of Competent Magistrate, who in due course, committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions.Charges under Section 302 and 323 of IPC were framed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant who denied the same and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in order to bring home guilt examined as many as 15 witnesses during trial including Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11), who are said to be the eye-witnesses.Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12) is the autopsy surgeon while Sub-Inspector Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15) had conducted the investigation.P/1 to Ex.P/18 were also marked in evidence.The appellant choose not to adduce any oral or documentary evidence, however, Ex.D/ and Ex.D/2 respectively, the police statement of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) were marked as exhibits.The incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the appellant were put him in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant either denied the circumstances or pleaded innocence except for his arrest by police.Pleading unsound state of mind he stated that the witnesses have deposed against him on account of past enmity and that his brothers and wife have falsely implicated him so as to get rid of him.As stated herein above, the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence, vide the impugned judgment Cr.A. No.180/2014 7 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 & 323 of IPC.Cr.A. No.180/2014 7In this appeal preferred through Superintendent of Jail, under Section 383 of Cr.P.C. the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding of conviction primarily on the following grounds:a) The learned trial Court manifestly erred in placing implicit reliance on the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) which suffered from material omissions and contradictions.b) The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the investigation sufferred from serious lapses.c) The trial Court miserably failed to appreciate that the appellant, as per Sheelabai (P.W.10) was a person of unsound mind ('Pagal'), hence he was not liable to be convicted.d) The trial Court further seriously missed in not considering that at the time of alleged occurrence the appellant, as per prosecution, was in an inebriated condition i.e. under influence of liquor and, therefore, unable to understand the nature and consequences of his act.Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the evidence on record clearly established that the appellant committed murder of his father Laxminarayan.It is urged that the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) inspired confidence, Cr.A. No.180/2014 8 therefore, the learned trial Court was very much justified in placing implicit reliance on the same.Cr.A. No.180/2014 8We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar.We have also carefully perused the record.The learned trial Court on the basis of testimony of Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12), who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and the autopsy report (Ex.P/13) prepared by him in this regard, has held that the death of Laxminarayan was homicidal in nature.From the autopsy report Ex.P/13, it is clear that as many as six lacerated wounds were found over skull of the deceased.Apart this, there was a depressed fracture in the skull bone and the brain matter had come out of the skull.Dr. Gosar (P.W.12) has denied the suggestion that Cr.A. No.180/2014 9 the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused due to tumbling down of the deceased.Indeed, no specific defence was raised on behalf of the appellant that the deceased fell down or tumble down on the ground and thereby sustained injuries on head under the parts of the body.In such premises, there is no reason to discard the opinion given by Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12), that Laxminarayan died because of injuries on head - a vital part of the body and consequent haemorrhage and shock and that the death was homicidal in nature.Accordingly, we concur with the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court in this regard.Cr.A. No.180/2014 9In the aforesaid premises, the next question obviously would be whether the aforesaid injuries were caused by the appellant? In this regard, the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) respectively, the wife and daughter of the deceased, is clinching because both are said to be the eye-witnesses of the incident.The occurrence allegedly, took place in the courtyard of the appellant's house, where the deceased was sleeping at the relevant time.The testimony of Sub-Inspector Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15), who visited the place of occurrence on the very next day of the incident is relevant in this regard.As per Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15) he prepared spot map (Ex.P/11) and also seized plain and simple slab stone from inside the house of the deceased.The slab stones so seized was sent for forensic examination.The forensic expert, vide his report Ex.P/18 had opined about presence of human blood on the slab stone (Article-A) which Cr.A. No.180/2014 10 indicates that the incident occurred inside the courtyard of the house of the deceased.Cr.A. No.180/2014 10As the incident is said to have occurred at around 11 p.m., hence, presence of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11), who were residing in the same house along with the deeased and the appellant cannot be treated as unnatural, particularly, in the absence of any defence plea that they were not present on the spot at the time of alleged incident.Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) have clearly deposed about complicity of the appellant in assaulting the deceased with iron blade ('Danta') and thereby causing multiple injuries to him.As per Sheelabai (P.W.10) the appellant after beating her and her daughter Rajani (P.W.11) had put both of them inside room and bolted the same from the outside and thereafter, assaulted her father-in-law by iron blade ('Danta') which was witnessed by her from the slit of the door.As per Sheelabai (P.W.10) the appellant after assaulting the deceased had opened the door of their room and fled away from the spot.Rajani (P.W.11) has also deposed in a identical manner.Both these witnesses had been subjected to elaborate cross-examination.Firstly, on the point that the appellant raised the volume of the TV which is missing in her police statement Ex.D/1 and secondly, that the appellant opened the door of the room and thereafter, fled away from the spot.Obviously, these two omissions are about the peripheral details regarding incident and not about Cr.A. No.180/2014 11 substantive facts.It is not the plea of the defence that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of alleged occurrence and that the death of his father Laxminarayan occurred in some different manner.Being the son of the deceased, residing with him in the same house, the appellant was also Cr.A. No.180/2014 12 supposed to know about the manner in which Laxminarayan was put to death.It has come in the prosecution story that Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) while inside the room witnessed the occurrence from the slit of the door.Both these witnesses have clearly deposed that they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
551,660 |
a)In the instant case, there were six persons murdered, namely Lalitha (D1), Sudalai (D2), Ravi (D3), Sampath (D4), Mohan (D5) and Govindaraj (D6).One Sankar @ Gowri Sankar is the prime crime mover-cum master mind for the whole occurrence.Originally, the said Sankar @ Gowri Sankar has been eking out his livelihood as a painter and then, he was running an Auto.Later, he moved to illicit arrack business.Later, he was doing brothel business.In 1987, the first deceased-Lalitha entered into brothel business of Sankar, and he kept her in the portion of one Bommi Ammal at Kalachetra.The second deceased-Sudalai was also residing in another portion of the same house.The first and second deceased developed illicit intimacy.b)The first and second deceased fled away taking the cash of Rs.7300/- and a Camera of Sankar.Sankar made all attempts to trace them with the help of his associates.Thereafter, Sankar gave a complaint to P.W.51, the Inspector of Police, Tiruvanmiyur, against them.The first deceased was nabbed and brought to Thiruvanmiyur police station.The first deceased refused to live with Sankar.P.W.51 sent the first deceased with a police constable to board her to Bangalore.But, Sankar took the custody of the first deceased.Frustrated over her betrayal, on 28.10.1987, Sankar strangled her neck with his hand.Eldin held her hands and Shivaji also held her both legs.A-1 closed her mouth and nose, as a result of which the first deceased died.Sankar took her golden anklets, ear studs and golden neck chain, which he has given to her out of love and affection.All the four accused took the dead body near the liquor godown of A-1 and buried the same.c)Sankar also decided to finish of the second deceased.On 28.02.1988, he also took the second deceased in the car to the arrack shop of A-1 and all reached the house of Sankar.P.W.1, on the signal given by Sankar, pressed around the neck of the second deceased with M.O.13, towel.Eldin caught hold of both his legs and A-1 closed his mouth and nose with his hands.Shivaji caught hold of both his hands and Sankar kicked him at his vital parts, as a result of which the second deceased died.Sankar removed the golden ring and golden neck chain, which were presented by him, from the dead body.Then, Sankar set fire to the dead body.Later, they bundled the dead body in a bed sheet and threw the same in the sea back water beneath Muttukadu bridge.d)The third deceased Ravi enquired Sankar about the first and second deceased and was also blackmailing and extracting money from Sankar.Aggrieved over the conduct of the third deceased, Sankar decided to kill him.On 14.3.1988 at about 9.00 p.m., while Sankar was consuming liquor with P.W.1, A-1, Eldin and Shivaji at Door No.126/A, Ranganathapuram, Thiruvanmiyur, the third deceased came and joined them and also demanded an Auto from Sankar.At that time, Shivaji slapped him and third deceased tried to escape from there.Sankar pressed his mouth and nose with his hands.A-1 caught hold of his both legs and Eldin caught hold of both of his hands and P.W.1 pressed his chest by sitting on his chest, as a result of which, the third deceased died.Thereafter, with the help of one Thoppai Maistry and painter Munusamy and P.W.1, a pit was dug near the bath room of the said house.After sending the said Thoppai Maistry and Munusamy, the dead body of the third deceased was buried.e)The fourth, fifth and sixth deceased used to come to Taj Mahal Hotel where prostitutes from Sankar's brothel house used to entertain the customers and make all sorts of nuisance.On 29.05.1988 at about 4.00 p.m., they were coming in an auto in a drunken mood and saw one Anitha, a prostitute of Sankar's brothel house.They caught hold of her and pulled her.The same was brought to the notice of Sankar.Then, Sankar collected all the accused and attacked the deceased Nos.4 to 6, but the firth deceased ran from there.All the accused have beaten and assaulted deceased 4 to 6 with M.O.22 (series) casuarina sticks and M.O.23 (series) wooden reapers indiscriminately.The deceased 4 to 6 were kept at Door No.142, Gandhi Street, Periyar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur and the said deceased were in a dungeon store room.Later, the accused found D-4 and D-5 dead and D-6 was groaning and moaning.Since Sankar felt as unsafe to leave the sixth deceased alive, he asked all other accused to finish him off.A-1 pressed and closed the nose and mouth of D-6. P.W.1 held his both legs and Sankar held the neck of D-6 by one hand and kicked him on his chest and abdomen, as a result of which, the sixth deceased also died.In the midnight of 29.5.1988 and wee hours of 30.5.1988, the dead bodies of deceased Nos.4 to 6 were buried by Sankar, A-1, Eldin, Shivaji and P.W.1 in the trenches of the foundation of a building under construction at Plot No.122-A, Ranganathapuram, Thiruvanmiyur.f)P.W.6, the elder brother of D-4, gave a written complaint Ex.P10 on 31.5.1988 about the missing of his brother before F-4 Abiramapuram Police Station and a case in Crime No.736 of 1988 for man missing came to be registered.The F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P.W.3, the auto driver, in whose auto D-4 to D-6 travelled on 29.5.1988, also preferred a written complaint Ex.P8 before Thiruvanmiyur Police Station on 8.6.1988, and a case came to be registered under Section 341, 342 and 323 IPC and the F.I.R. in this regard was marked as Ex.The mother of D-3 also gave a complaint Ex.P114 is the F.I.R. in this regard.He made an inspection in the scene of occurrence for Crime No.802 of 1988 and prepared Ex.P116, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P117, the rough sketch, in the presence of witnesses.Then, he proceeded to the second scene of occurrence of the same crime number and prepared Ex.P118, the observation mahazar and Ex.P119, the rough sketch, in the presence of the witnesses.Then, he proceeded to the rear side of Sri Nagathamman Koil and recovered the material objects under a cover of mahazar, and he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.He came forward to give a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.Pursuant to the same P.W.1 pointed out Sankar and Jayavelu.Sankar gave a confessional statement.The Investigator recovered M.O.6 motorcycle from him.i)The Investigator took up investigation in Crime No.963 of 1988 and altered the provisions in both the crime numbers as Sec.302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC and sent special reports under Exs.P123 and 124 respectively.On 7.7.1988, he recovered the material objects pointed out by P.W.1, under a cover of mahazar.Then, both of them pointed out to the Tahsildar, P.W.42, the place of occurrence where the dead bodies of D4 to D6 were buried.Then, the dead bodies were exhumed.P.W.53 prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.j)Both Sankar and P.W.1 pointed out the place where the dead body of D3 was buried.Then, it was exhumed.P.W.53 prepared Ex.P130, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P131, the rough sketch.P.W.42, the Tahsildar, prepared inquest reports, Exs.P75 to 78, in respect of D3 to D6 respectively.It was exhumed, and P.W.42 prepared an inquest report Ex.Then, P.W.53 prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.On receipt of the same, P.W.31, the Medical Person, conducted autopsy on the dead body of D1 and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P51, opining that the deceased would have died of sudden violent attack and unnatural death due to asphyxia and strangulation.Then, he suo moto drew a FIR, Ex.He gave requisitions for sending the material objects to the Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysis.Accordingly, they were subjected to.m)The entire case was transferred to CB CID, Madras, for further investigation.P.W.55, the Inspector of Police, attached to the CB CID, took up further investigation.He took Sankar, P.W.1 and Jeyavelu under police custody.The gold ring M.O.25, produced by his wife, was recovered under a cover of mahazar.He has accompanied the prime accused Shankar and abducted D1 Lalitha from Korattur to Shankar's house through an auto.He gave advice to bury the dead body of Lalitha in his arrack godown.He along with the accused Eldin brought P.W.11, a Mason, to dug a pit.After the removal of the gold chain from the body of D1, A-1 Mohan, the appellant herein, obtained the same from the prime accused Shankar.He accompanied the main accused Shankar in M.O.7, Car, and took D2 Sudalai from his place.This appellant joined with all other accused.They attacked them in a public street at Ranganathapuram.When D5 attempted to escape through P.W.2's firewood shop, this appellant along with Edlin chased him and brought him back.Then D4 to D6 were brutally attacked on the cement floor of his arrack godown.This appellant was also seen along with others, and it was he who pressed and closed the mouth and nose of D6 when he was strangulated by the prime accused.For Appellants : Mr.A.Natarajan Senior Counsel for M/s.A.Madhumathi for A1 : Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi for A2 For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) These two appeals have arisen from the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Court, Madras, in S.C.No.232 of 1996, whereby the appellants who were ranked as A-1 and A-2 respectively, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:AccusedChargesFindingsSentenceA-1120(B) r/w S.302 and 201, 302 r/w 34 (6 counts), 201 (4 counts) and 147 IPC302 r/w 34 (6 counts), 201 (4 counts) and 147 IPCLife imprisonment for each count, 5 years R.I. for each count, 2 years R.I. respectively.The life imprisonment for murders of D-1 and D-4 to D-6 and imprisonment for offence under S.201 and 147 IPC are ordered to run concurrently and the life imprisonment for the murders of D-2 and D-3 stands distinctly and separately.The total 3 life imprisonments are ordered to run consecutively.A-2120(B) r/w 302 and 201, 147, 302 r/ 34 (3 counts) IPC302 r/w S.34 (3 counts) and 147 IPCLife imprisonment for each count, 2 years R.I. respectively.The life imprisonment and two years R.I. are ordered to run concurrently.Both of them were arrested by the Investigator.Then, the requisitions Exs.The Doctor has issued the postmortem certificates Exs.P46 to P49 respectively in their regard, opining that the deceased would have died of sudden violent attack and unnatural death due to asphyxia and strangulation.l)During the course of investigation, P.W.53 recovered some material objects on 8.7.1988 under a cover of mahazar.He applied for police custody in respect of Sankar, P.W.1 and Jeyavelu, and it was ordered.He recovered the material objects produced by P.W.1, under a cover of mahazar.He volunteered to give a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part of the said confession is Exs.He also produced material objects which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.Then, a requisition, Ex.He also took steps to have A-1 under police custody.He recovered material objects under a cover of mahazar.On requisitions, the statements of Sankar and A-1 were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C.n)On 9.8.1988, P.W.54, the Inspector of Police, attached to the CB CID, arrested A-1 and Ravi and recorded the confessional statements given by them.He recovered M.O.10, TVS 2183, under a cover of mahazar.o)On 15.8.1988, P.W.55 arrested Eldin and recorded the confessional statement given by him.On 29.8.1988 he arrested Shivaji.He gave a requisition Ex.As per the requisition, 14 items were subjected to chemical analysis.P59 is the biological report, while Ex.P60 is the serology report.On a requisition, P.W.43, the Judicial Magistrate, recorded the statements of Ragu, Perumal and Devendran under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. As per the requisition, the Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram, recorded the statement of Anitha under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, P.W.55 filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 57 witnesses and also relied on 181 exhibits and 127 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The lower Court after hearing the arguments advanced, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case, found the appellants guilty under the above provisions of law and awarded imprisonment as referred to above.Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant/A-1 in C.A.No.204 of 2006, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.7.It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the said judgment of the Apex Court cannot be applied to the present facts of the case; that as per sub clause 2(a) of Sec.31, the maximum imprisonment shall not be longer than 14 years; that in Chatar Singh V. State of M.P. (2007 CRL.L.J. 796), the Apex Court has held that as per Sec.31 of Cr.P.C., an accused cannot be sentenced for a longer period than 14 years; and that equally, the Apex Court in Saibanna V. State of Karnataka (2005 SCC (CRL.) 1094), has held that in the teeth of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is doubtful whether a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life can be visited with another term of imprisonment for life to run consecutively with the previous one.8.Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Ranjit Singh V. Union of India (AIR 1991 SC 2296), the learned Senior Counsel would submit that a person having only one life span, the sentence on a subsequent conviction of imprisonment for a term or imprisonment for life can only be superimposed to the earlier life sentence and certainly not added to it since extending life span of the offender or for that matter anyone is beyond human might.9.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that the Apex Court in the parent case appeal, has modified the death sentence awarded to A-3 Shivaji into life imprisonment and though he was involved in all six murders, there was no consecutive life imprisonment awarded to him for any of the murders; that he has simply undergone 14 years in the prison and thereafter, in view of the remission by the Government he was released; that since the case of the appellant in all aspects as regards the involvement, allegations and overt acts attributed to him, were similar to that of Shivaji, the imposition of 3 consecutive life sentences against the appellant by the trial Court without assigning any reason is liable to be modified, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be modified.10.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant in C.A.No.148 of 2007, who was ranked as A-2 before the trial Court, the learned Counsel would submit that the trial Court has not considered the defence put forth by the appellant on a proper perspective; that since he was also tried along with the other accused who were actually involved in six murders, the trial Court was thoroughly prejudiced and has found him guilty even though the prosecution case did not carry any merit; that as far as the appellant/A-2 was concerned, even as per the prosecution case, he was only involved in the commission of murder as against D4 to D6; that it is pertinent to point out that even as per the prosecution case, he assaulted three persons; but, he has not murdered any of them; that the appellant had used only wooden reaper; that the cause of death of D4 to D6 was only by suffocation and not by physical assault; that the stick was found in the scene of occurrence, and the same was also recovered; that the appellant had never intended to cause the death of any one of them; that even as per the prosecution case, his part was only in respect of the assault with stick and that too, without any motive; that the three deceased persons were teasing the girl known to the prime accused Auto Shankar with whom the appellant has joined; that even as per the evidence of the so-called witnesses namely P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 9, 14 and 20, they saw D4, D5 and D6 teasing a girl and in protest, the occurrence has taken place; that all the three were drunken and teasing the girl known to Shankar; that the appellant has been in prison for nearly 16 years; and that the fact that the appellant has escaped from the prison has caused much prejudice in the mind of the trial Court and hence observed he did not deserve any set off which was against law and also caused prejudice to the appellant.11.Added further the learned Counsel that the other accused having similar footing of causing injury to D5 and D6, have been sentenced to life imprisonment and the remand period has been set off and confirmed by the Apex Court; that the case of the appellant is not in any way different, and thus the discrimination was unfair in the eye of law; that even assuming that the prosecution has proved its factual position of the case, it would not attract the penal provision of murder, but would be a culpable homicide not amounting to murder; that under the circumstances, the conviction under Sec.302 read with 34 of IPC and the life imprisonment awarded are more high; that utmost he could be found guilty under Sec.147 of IPC only, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.12.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.On 25.9.1988 in the afternoon hours, D4 to D6 were coming in an auto in a fully drunken mood.The auto was driven by P.W.3, who has spoken to the fact that they all travelled in his auto.When they were coming near 29th Cross Street, Ranganathapuram, Tiruvanmiyur, those three persons on seeing one Anitha, who used to visit Shankar's brothel home, caught hold of her.The entire incident was conveyed to Shankar at about 4.00 P.M., who along with P.W.1 the approver, and the other accused Shivaji rushed to the place.On the way they took A7 and A-8 also.The appellants herein have also joined them.On seeing D4 to D6, all the accused surrounded and attacked them with wooden sticks.On knowing the fact that D5 attempted to escape through the firewood shop of P.W.2, immediately A-1 and P.W.1 the approver, brought him back.All the three with bleeding injuries were taken to the cement floor at the backside of A-1's arrack shop.There again they were severely and indiscriminately beaten with casuarina sticks and wooden reapers respectively.The prime accused Shankar realising the situation that it was witnessed by the public, removed all the three to his house situated in Gandhi Street, Periyar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, and kept all of them in a closed dungeon room in a semi conscious state.Sometime later, when they opened the room, D4 and D5 were found dead.D6 was found screaming.They thought it would be highly unsafe to allow D6 to go.Then the accused Eldin dragged D6 from the said room to the hall, and A-1 had strangled the neck of D6 and pressed his nose and mouth and in that process P.W.1 held his hands firmly and facilitated the crime and the accused Shivaji also held his legs.The main accused Shankar kicked him upon his chest and abdomen and D6 also died.During the week hours of 30.5.1988, the accused Shivaji brought M.O.26 spade and dug a pit, and A-1, P.W.1, Eldin and Shivaji brought the body of D6 and buried him.Equally D4 and D5 were also buried.Before doing so, M.O.25, golden ring, worn by D4, and M.O.24 wrist watch, worn by D5, were removed.14.It is pertinent to point out that this entire occurrence was seen by P.Ws.3 to 5, 9, 14 and 20 who were all examined as eyewitnesses.The scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.5 would clearly indicate the entire incident.P.W.4 has seen D4 to D6 near the arrack shop of A-1 lying with blood injuries all over the body and has also deposed that all of them had reapers and wooden sticks.P.W.9 who was ironing clothes in the push cart, also narrated the occurrence and what had taken place in the public street.Apart from the evidence of these witnesses, the prosecution has marched the evidence of P.W.1, the approver, whose statements were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. marked as Exs.The prime accused Shankar and Eldin have also narrated the occurrence in their statements recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. According to the evidence of P.W.53, the Investigating Officer, on arrest of the approver P.W.1, on 6.7.1988, he gave a confessional statement narrating the entire incident as to the attack and the death of D4 to D6 and the place of burial, and when he arrested Shankar, he gave a confessional statement.The admissible part of the confessional statement given by Shankar, is marked as Ex.Following the confessional statement, it was P.W.1 who identified and produced the reapers, M.O.22 series and wooden sticks M.O.23 series, which were all recovered by the Investigating Officer under Ex.P11, the mahazar.He also produced the bloodstained lungi M.O.33, half shirt M.O.37 which were all recovered under a cover of mahazar.The witnesses examined in this regard have clearly identified these material objects recovered from P.W.1 pursuant to his confessional statement.From the evidence, it would be quite clear that P.W.1, the approver, and the main accused Shankar on arrest and following the confessions, pointed out the place where the dead bodies of D4 to D6 were buried.15.It remains to be stated that all the three dead bodies were exhumed by P.W.42, the Tahsildar, in the presence of witnesses, and he prepared Exs.P75 to P77 inquest reports.All the three dead bodies were subjected to postmortem on requisitions made by the Investigator.The postmortem certificates issued by the Doctor, P.W.31, who conducted autopsy, are marked as Exs.P46, P47 and P48 respectively.The Doctor has opined that all the three deceased would appear to have died of sudden violent attack and unnatural death.As far as D6 was concerned, the opinion was recorded to the effect that he would appear to have died of sudden violent attack and unnatural death due to asphyxia and strangulation.The evidence of the approver, P.W.1, before the Court and his statements recorded under Sec.164, as rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge, were all corroborated in all material particulars.The contention put forth by the appellant's side that the descriptions in respect of D4 to D6 were not given in the complaints given in their regard cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that all hose complaints were to the effect that D4 to D6 were found missing.There was cogent evidence put forth by the prosecution commencing from the time where they attacked the accused Eldin, and following the same, the main accused Shankar accompanied by all other accused including the two in these appeals, attacked all with sticks and reapers, carried them to the house of Auto Shankar and pushed all the three in the dungeon store room in a semi conscious state during which D4 and D5 died, and finding D6 alive, they have also brought him to the main hall and caused his death in which A-1 and A-2 who are the appellants herein, had a direct role to play.Apart from that, the appellant/A-2 stood charged under 302 read with 34 of IPC in respect of all the three murders along with the other accused.Hence, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant have got to be rejected either factually or legally.He along with Eldin brought petrol which was poured on D2 and set fire.He along with Eldin took the dead body of D2 to Muttukadu where the dead body was thrown in the sea back water.Then, the appellant brought a Maistry and Painter to effect plastering and fresh painting at the room where D2 was burnt.Then D3 was murdered.It was this appellant who caught hold of both the legs of D3 and facilitated the crime.On request by the prime accused, this appellant sent Ex.P2, an inland letter, addressed to D3's mother as if written by D3 from Bombay, in order to keep her silent.Then, D4 to D6 were brutally attacked with sticks and reapers.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
551,683 |
The list is revised from time to time.The answer sheets are also sent to the Commissioners of the Division which are required to be distributed at the time of examination.The correct answers are never disclosed to anyone.Manuscript question paper is returned by the printer to the Commission and is kept in double lock.On receipt of the complaints, the question papers and the key answers are sent to the experts who after going through the complaints and the key answers send back the same to the Commission along with their opinion for taking final decision regarding the correctness of the key answers.The Controller, in the instant case, after receiving the complaints and the suggestions of the expert, found eight questions to be not correct and the Commission took a decision to give one mark to each of the candidate irrespective of the fact whether the question was tried or not.(B) The Prime Minister can remove any Minister who refuses to co-operate with him.(C) The Prime Minister and his Ministers are responsible to the Lok Sabha.Q. No. 105 - With intention to cause injury, A hit B with a Lathi.He gave six blows.One of them hit B on his head.B became unconscious.B accepts.ORDER M.V. Tamaskar, J.This order shall govern the disposal of Misc.Petition Nos. 2540/93, 2766/93, 2767/93, 2883/93, 2441/93 and 2987/93 also.The petitioners who are law graduates and some of whom are practising Advocates having been enrolled in the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, applied for appearing in the competitive test held by the M. P Public Service Commission for appointment to the State Junior Judicial Service.Advertisement No. 0292 was issued on 21st August, 1992 and published in all local news papers and the 'Rojgar Aur Nirman' published by the M. P. Public Service Commission.Under the advertisement, there were 108 seats for the general category, 25 for Scheduled Tribes and 10 for Scheduled Castes.Clause 10 of the advertisement is important in order to show as to what would be the nature of examination and procedure for selection.It was stated that a written examination will be held on 31-12-1992 (Sunday).The examination was to be held in the subjects of law and general knowledge and it was also mentioned that in the attached schedule, the syllabus for the same was given.There would be only one question paper of 200 marks of the duration of three hours.The Schedule to the advertisement has, however, not been filed along with the petition.The Public Service Commission had indicated the mode of examination in the application form itself.There was only one paper both for general knowledge and law.Total marks were 200 for 200 questions out of which 75 were for general knowledge and 125 for the subject of law.Every candidate appearing in the test-examination was handed over a question paper and an answer sheet.The questions were objective and not descriptive in nature.For every question there were four proposed answers out of which only one was correct.The candidate was required to mark one answer out of four which according to him was correct.The question papers were to be collected from the candidates before they leave the examination hall.The answer book, which was a single sheet, contained all the two hundred questions and showed different answers in circles A,B,C,D and the candidates were required to mark them by hard black pencil, pointing the correct answer according to him.No other sign was required to be made as the mode of feeding the computer was only by darkening the circle.A diagram was given how to mark the answer i.e. darkening only one circle for each question as shown at the reverse of the answer sheet under the heading 'Instructions for Marking'.The said instructions are reproduced hereunder :-USE HB PENCIL ONLY1. Do not use ink or ball point pen, otherwise the answer sheets will not be evaluated.2. Mark your answer only in the appropriate space against the number corresponding to the question you are answering.3. Darken only one circle for each question as shown below.Wrong Wrong Wrong Correct 000 0000 000 000Mark should be dark and completely fill the circle.5. Make the marks only in the spaces provided.Please do not make any stray marks on the answer sheet.Rough work must not be done on the answer sheet.Use the space for rough work given at the end of the question paper.Information regarding Roll No., category and Post serial No. below, should be filled only with pencil.The said document is ANNEXURE R3, dated 29th November, 1991, The advertisement was approved by the High Court.After stating as to how the centres were to be set up for holding examinations, appointment of commissioners of the Divisions for arrangement and supervision, sending of the instructions and reading out of the instructions at the time of the examination, other minor instructions to be observed by the examinees are also given.It is stated that after the examination, answer books are given to the Centre Superintendent who would put all the answer sheets in an envelope and seal the envelope and the said envelopes would be forwarded to the Commission in sealed registered parcel.It is also stated that the commission maintains a list of experts for all subjects for examining the complaints with regard to correctness of questions and answers.In the said list, besides Professors and Teachers, the names of Sr.The question paper and model answers are sealed in order to keep secrecy.After the said question papers and model answers are received, they are placed before the Chairman.He picks up at random a set of envelopes containing question papers and sends it for printing to the press.No member of the Commission knows anything about the question papers except the Chairman who also picks one set of question papers and does not know regarding the contents therein, in order to keep secrecy.Since the Commission itself has considered eight key answers as wrong and in respect of one question two answers were possible, the Commission has awarded equal number of marks to all the candidates for the said questions.The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners was that according to them 30 questions were either vague, ambiguous, totally wrong or two answers were possible and as such the whole examination is vitiated.(B) An order remanding a suit for fresh disposal.(C) An order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court.Q. No. 196 - Revision in revenue matters lies against an order passed by Collector to -The key answer accords with the provisions of the Act and as such we do not find any infirmity in the same.Thus, we have examined all the questions pointed out by the petitioners and found that the key answers in respect of only questions Nos. 20, 31, 141, 158, 182 and 194 are wrong.The Public Service Commission is, therefore, directed by a writ of mandamus that it shall award equal number of marks to each of the candidates appearing in the examination as they would have been entitled in respect of six questions declared to be wrong, and if they are found to be coming within the zone of consideration such candidates shall be interviewed by the Commission.It is all the more necessary in view of the fact that the merit of the candidates is required to be fixed by taking into consideration the marks obtained in written as well as oral test.The P.S.C. is also directed to issue the mark-list to each of the candidates in order that they may know their position in the order of merit.Denial of the same by the P.S.C. is rather unfortunate.The mark-list shall be issued at an early date.We do not think that examination held by the P.S.C. is vitiated on any count that the examination was not conducted according to the rule of fair play, or that the question papers set and the answer sheets given were prejudicial rendering the whole examination as void.We have also enquired from Shri Saxena, learned Additional Advocate General, regarding the number of persons succeeding in the examination from Delhi.He stated that only six persons have qualified from Delhi.Thus, the allegation that 100 persons from Delhi have qualified because of the manipulations and leakage of question paper is nothing but far cry and totally baseless.There shall be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.