id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
551,729 |
ORDER Narain Singh 'Azad', J.On 8th October, 2001, Shri P.K. Verma, ASJ Jabalpur, framed charge for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306, 498A and 494, IPC against petitioner Suryabhan Singh and a charge for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 494 read with Section 109 of the IPC against Mithlesh alias Mona, giving rise to this petition.It is found stated in police statement of Saheb Singh and Yashoda, the parents of deceased Sandhya that when the fact of marriage between Suryabhan Singh and Mona alias Mithlesh come to the knowledge of Sandhya, she could not tolerate and committed suicide.Shri Singh has pointed out that on the basis of affidavit alone, which purports to have been sworn in by petitioner Mithlesh on 30-7-1999, the fact of marriage between the petitioners cannot be prima facie taken to have been proved and hence the learned ASJ was not justified in framing the charge for the offence punishable under Section 494, IPC.It is also submitted that there is no evidence about the demand of dowry and hence, charge for offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC, could not have been framed against Suryabhan Singh.The law on framing the charge is settled.Even on the basis of grave suspicion about commission of offence, the charge may be framed.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,173,153 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest relating to Crime No.142/2016 registered at Police Station Sironj District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Section 354-A, 506 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who is a Government servant and if he is arrested then he may loose his job.Case is registered for offence under Section 354-A of IPC and the Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail application on the ground that offence is non-bailable.The offence under Section 354-A of IPC (M.P. Amendment) is not bailable, which is relating to disrobing the prosecutrix.In the present case, there is no such allegation against the applicant and, therefore, overt act as against the applicant falls within the purview of Section 354-A of IPC (Parliament amendment) which is bailable.The Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant for the bailable offences.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application.C.No.5911/2016 (Sayeed Nazir Hussain v. State of M.P.) Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE (ra)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,176,430 |
DATED : 7th FEBRUARY, 2019 Order :-The points to be determined in all these applications are centered on the issue of suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicants-accused and to enlarge them on bail pending the appeal, therefore, all these allied applications are dealt with simultaneously for its adjudication on merit by this common order.::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::2 927-CriA-353-19Pursuant to FIR of Mr. Kulkarni, Police of Jawahar Police Station registered Crime No. 145 of 2011 under section 489-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and set the criminal law in motion.The concerned Investigating Officer carried out the investigation.He recorded statements of witnesses acquainted with facts of the case.Investigating Officer apprehended the applicants-accused including one more accused, namely, Nihal Ahemad::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 ::: 3 927-CriA-353-19 Iliyaj Khan for the sake of investigation.After completing investigation, Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet bearing Sessions Case No. 61 of 2012 for trial of the applicant/accused within ambit of law.::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::In order to bring home guilt of the accused, prosecution adduced evidence of in all eight witnesses in this case.The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of oral and circumstantial evidence on record held the applicants-accused guilty for the charge under section 489-B of the IPC.The another co-accused No. 5 Nihal Ahemad Illiyaj Khan was exonerated from the charges pitted against him.Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge, passed the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and resultant sentence, which is the subject-matter of present appeals preferred by the applicants-accused under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for "Cr.P.C.").Meanwhile, pending the appeals, the applicants - accused moved these applications seeking relief of suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment and to enlarge them on bail.Learned Counsel Mr. A. P. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. N. Dhorde and learned Counsel Mr. M. W. Khan appeared for the respective applicants and vehemently submitted that the applicants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case.There was no any iota of evidence to prove the offence of using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes by the applicants/accused.According to learned counsel all the applicants were on bail pending the trial before learned Sessions Court.There was no allegation of misuse of liberty granted in favour of the applicants.The applicants are ready to deposit::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 ::: 4 927-CriA-353-19 the fine amount before the learned trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel, further assailed that the applicant-accused Shri.Vedpathak was the employee of Secru Trance India Pvt. Ltd. He has collected the amount from the Branch Office of India Bulls Pvt. Ltd., and as usual deposited the same in the current account of India Bulls Pvt. Ltd. maintained and presented in the ICICI Bank, Branch at Tilaknagar.He has no mens rea or knowledge that there were "18" counterfeit and fake currency-notes in the cash of Rs.2,22,000/-.The learned counsel Mr. Bhandari gave much more emphasis that mere possession of the fake currency-notes would not sufficient to attract very ingredients of section 489-B of the IPC.According to him, the counterfeit notes recovered in this case were of such a nature or description that a mere look at them would not convey any person of average intelligence that these notes were counterfeit or fake notes.He submit that required material circumstances to prove the crime are lacking in this prosecution case.The applicant-accused has an every hope of success in the appeal.Therefore, he requested to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment and admit him on bail.Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate also raised similar issue in regard to intention and knowledge of the applicant-accused Mr. Yadav Lahane, who was one of the employee of India Bulls Pvt. Ltd.. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Dhorde explained the circumstances that financial assistance was provided to one Mr. Shaikh Mukhtyar Ali for purchase of vehicle truck.Thereafter, Mr. Shaikh Mukhtyar Ali sold out the vehicle Truck to accused No. 5 Nihal Ahemad without prior permission from::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 ::: 5 927-CriA-353-19 India Bulls Pvt. Ltd. The vehicle-truck was sold out through mediator accused No. 3 - Shaikh Akbar Gulam Nabi Qureshi and accused No. 4 Shaikh Aslam Shikh Isaq.According to prosecution, the accused No. 3::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::- Shaikh Akbar Gulam Nabi Qureshi and accused No. 4 Shaikh Aslam Shikh Isaq deposited the amount of Rs.2,02,290/- for repayment of loan shown outstanding in the account of Shaikh Mukthyar Ali maintained in the office of India Bulls Pvt. Ltd.. The applicant Shri Yadav Lahane by way of abundant precaution accepted the cash amount of Rs. 2,02,290/- from accused No. 3 Shaikh Aslam and prepared the list maintaining serial number of currency notes on the paper and obtained the signature of accused No. 4 Shaikh Aslam on it, with his cell number.The applicant Mr. Yadahv Lahane being employee of India Bulls Pvt. Ltd. accepted the amount from concerned accused, namely, Shaikh Akbar and Shaikh Aslam towards repayment of loan shown outstanding towards Mr. Shaikh Muktyar Ali.Thereafter, entire cash amount was forwarded through accused Mr. Vedpathak for its deposit in the current account of India Bulls Pvt Ltd. According to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhorde, the attending circumstances on record are not sufficient to draw adverse inference that applicant Shri Yadav had an "knowledge" or that he had "reason to believe" that currency notes were forged or counterfeit one.The learned Senior Advocate added that the mens rea which is essential ingredient of section 489-B of the IPC is absent in the present case.There is no cogent evidence on record to nail the present applicant-accused.Therefore, there is no propriety to keep the present applicant behind bar pending the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::6 927-CriA-353-19Mr. M. W. Khan, learned counsel for applicant also stepped into the shoe of learned counsel Mr. Bhandari and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhorde.He contends that the applicants- Shaikh Akbar and Shaikh Aslam both have no concern at all with the alleged crime.They did not visit to the office of India Bulls Pvt. Ltd for depositing the amount nor they put signature on any paper at the instance of accused Shri Vedpathak.They are falsely implicated in this case.There are material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.Therefore, it would unjust and improper to curtail valuable liberty of the applicant- accused for the sake of appeal in this case.The learned APP raised objection and submits that the learned trial Court considered the entire aspect on the anvil of merits and convicted the accused.Therefore, there is no propriety to grant any relief in their favour pending the appeal.I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced at length on behalf of respective learned counsel for applicants.I have also delved into record and proceedings of Sessions Case No. 61 of 2012 as well as factual score of the matter.At this juncture, I find the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants-::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::prosecution witness convicted the applicant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 489-B of the IPC and imposed substantive sentence of imprisonment and fine on them.It is to be noted that in order to invoke provision of Section 489- B of the IPC, it is incumbent on the part of prosecution to establish that applicants-accused had either "knowledge" or they had "reason to believe" that currency notes were fake, forged or counterfeit one.It is the rule of law that, the mens rea on the part of accused is the essential ingredient to constitute the offence under Section 489-B of the IPC.Learned counsel appearing for the applicants-accused harped on the circumstances that mere possession of the counterfeit notes by applicants is not sufficient to foist charges on the applicants.On scrutiny of entire evidence adduced on record, I find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel Mr. Bhandari that impugned currency notes recovered being an counterfeit and fake notes all are of such nature or description that a mere look at them would not itself convey any person of average intelligence for conclusion that these notes are counterfeit or fake notes.In the matter in hand, it is also worth to mention that the alleged currency notes recovered being counterfeit notes were not forwarded to any expert or to Currency Note Press, Nashik Road, Nashik for opinion of expert to ascertain that these notes are counterfeit, fake or forged notes.Moreover, the signature of accused Shaikh Aslam obtained by applicant-accused Mr. Yadav on the paper of list of currency notes also::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 ::: 8 927-CriA-353-19 not referred to any handwriting expert for opinion.As pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Khan, it appears that there are material discrepancies on record in the evidence of star witnesses of the prosecution.In such circumstances, at this initial stage, prima facie, I find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of applicants- accused in regard to some sort of legal infirmities in the prosecution case.Therefore, I do not find it justifiable to curtail the valuable liberty of the applicants-accused for the sake of present appeal.::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::It is to be noted that all the applicants were on bail pending the trial before learned Sessions Judge.There were no allegations about misuse of liberty extended to them.Therefore, there is no impediment to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicants-accused pending the trial.In case, short term sentence of imprisonment is allowed to run during pendency of appeal, the very purpose of appeal itself would become, for all practical purposes, infructuous one, so far as appellants are concerned and the valuable right of appeal would to be an exercise in futility by efflux of time.It is also admitted fact that the proceeding of appeals preferred by appellants-accused practically could not be disposed of on merit expeditiously at the earliest.Therefore, it is essential in the interest of justice to suspend short term sentence of imprisonment of applicants- accused pending the appeal.In the result, applications stand allowed.The substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicants-accused is hereby suspended pending the appeal subject to condition that the applicants- appellants shall deposit the entire fine amount awarded being part of::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 ::: 9 927-CriA-353-19 sentence before the learned trial Court.After depositing the fine amount, applicants-appellants be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousands Only) each with one solvent surety of like amount.Bail before the learned trial Court.Accordingly, criminal applications stand disposed of in above terms.::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::Record and proceedings of the concerned Sessions Case No. 61 of 2012 be remitted back to the concerned trial Court to facilitate for compliance of procedural formalities pertains to enlarge the applicants-accused on bail pending the appeal.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2019 02:14:43 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,184,266 |
No.355/2016 Page 1 of 6The present case is registered at the instance of one Anshul Agrawal (complainant herein), who informed that on 10.03.2015 at about 3.30 PM, he received a called from his friend Nidhi Agrawal informing him that a boy had mercilessly beaten her in her house and blood is oozing from her head.She called him immediately and thereafter, he rushed to Panchsheel Vihar, where he saw his friend Nidhi in an injured condition and blood was oozing from her head.It was further informed by the complainant that a boy was caught hold by the crowd whose name was Sajid Ali (petitioner herein) and the injured - Nidhi Agrawal told him that the said boy had beaten her mercilessly and he also snatched away money from her.Thereafter, he called the police and took the injured to Max Hospital.Investigation started and statement of the injured - Nidhi under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which she has corroborated the allegations against the petitioner.Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and also prepared the site plan; scene of crime was inspected by the Crime Team and exhibits were collected from the spot and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Chankya Puri, Delhi for expert's opinion.The petitioner - Sajid Ali was interrogated and arrested in the present case.% P.S. TEJI, J.M.A. No.2759/2016 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.Application stands disposed of.BAIL APPLN.Petitioner seeks bail in an offence registered as FIR No. 457/2015 under Section 307/397 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) at Police Station Malviya Vihar, Delhi by filing the present bail application under Section 439 read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.).Bail Appl.Ms. Rakhi Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not involved in the commission of the offence and the petitioner had reached the rented room of the injured only after the incident of assault and robbery had been committed by unknown and unidentified person.The petitioner, in Bail Appl.No.355/2016 Page 2 of 6 fact, had given a helping hand to the injured and brought her down to the basement so that the injured may be taken to hospital.Bail Appl.No.355/2016 Page 2 of 6Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that nothing has been recovered from the accused.It is further contended that Ankur Aggrwal, Sanjay Narula and Jagat Singh Nagar have hatched a conspiracy against the petitioner.A different version of the story is narrated on behalf of the petitioner, stating that the petitioner worked as a helper to his father who is a skilled technical hand in the work of fabrication and making grills and iron gate etc. A huge amount of about Rs.7.5 lacs to 8 lacs was due on Ankur Aggarwal, Sanjay Narula and Jagat Nagar and they were not paying the dues of petitioner's father and in this regard a complaint under Section 156 Cr.P.C. and a notice is also sent to the aforesaid persons.The petitioner has no role to play in the incident in question.In such a situation, the petitioner ought to be granted bail in the present case.Mr. Rajat Katyal, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the statement of the complainant - Anshul Agarwal finds corroboration from the statement of the injured - Nidhi Bail Appl.No.355/2016 Page 3 of 6 Agrawal regarding the incident in question.Apart from the above, six other independent witnesses have deposed against the petitioner herein and the injuries suffered by the injured are opined by the doctor of Max Healthcare Super Specialty Hospital to be grievous in nature.The State has also filed a status report raising apprehension about the fact that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then there is every possibility that the petitioner may jump the bail and may influence the witnesses, therefore, the petitioner ought not be granted bail in the present case.Bail Appl.No.355/2016 Page 3 of 6I have heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides and gone through the material placed on record.No.355/2016 Page 4 of 6 notes that the petitioner is charged with the serious offences of attempt to murder and robbery, punishable with life imprisonment and the doctor of Max Healthcare Super Specialty Hospital has opined the injuries being grievous in nature.This Court also observes that the statement of the complainant is duly corroborated with the statement of the injured - Nidhi and apart from their statement, there are six independent witnesses who had deposed against the petitioner.This Court has also gone through the statement of the injured - Nidhi Agrawal (PW-1), who had narrated the whole story and she had also identified the petitioner in court.Bail Appl.No.355/2016 Page 4 of 6After going through the contents of the petition as well as FIRs duly corroborated by the injured witness - Nidhi Agrawal (PW-1), specifically assigning the role of the petitioner in committing the offences and the fact that injuries suffered by the victim are also opined to be grievous one, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.Accordingly, the present bail petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.Before parting with the order, this Court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner.Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial.Bail Appl.No.355/2016 Page 5 of 6With aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.P.S.TEJI, J MARCH 16, 2016 pkb Bail Appl.No.355/2016 Page 6 of 6Bail Appl.No.355/2016 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,188,851 |
i. Criminal Application No.1491/2020 stands allowed.Prabhawatibai Aatmaram Patil, legal representative of deceased Ravindra Aatmaram Patil, is hereby allowed to compound the offence registered against the present revision petitioners in view of Settlement Deed/Compromise arrived at between the parties, marked at Exhibit"X" for identification.v. The Criminal Revision Application and Criminal Application No.854/2020 stand disposed of accordingly.(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.) BDV::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2020 02:49:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 25/09/2020 02:49:51 :::
|
['Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
532,017 |
(2) The Deputy Commissioner of Police District, New Delhi served the petitioner with a notice under section 50 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed from the union Territory of Delhi for a period of 2 years under section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, (3) The relevant part of the notice is as follows :"You are found to have been involved in the following cases committing offences punishable under Excise Act. Arms Act and committing offences of keeping/receiving stolen property, there are reasonable grounds for believing that you are engaged in the commission of offences punishable under Chapter Xvii of Indian Penal Code.Your movements and acts causing or are calculated to cause alarm danger and harm to the persons and property :- FIR No. 874/69 u/s. 61/1/14 Ex. Act, Fir No. 357/70 u/s. -do- Fir No. 173/71 u/s. -do- Fir No. 378/72 u/s. -do- Fir No. 657/72 u/s. -do- Fir No. 554/73 u/s. -do- F'IR No. 622/74 u/s. -do- Fir No. 720/74 u/s. -do- Fir No. 856/74 u/s. -do- Fir No. 857/74 u/s. 25/54/59 A. Act. Fir No. 512/75 u/s. -do- Fir No. 102/78 u/s. -do- Fir No. 107/82 u/s. 411 1PC.Fir No. 108/82 u/s. 25/54/59 A. Act. P.S. Pahar Ganj, Delhi.P.S. Mandir Marg.P.S. Original Road.P.S. Sarai Rohilla.P.S. Delhi Cantt.P.S. Moti Nagar.P.S. Sarai Rohilla.P.S. Moti Nagar.P.S. Moti Nagar.P.S. -do- P.S. -do- P.S. Rajouri Garden.All that has been mentioned above makes out a case under section 47(a)(b) D.P. Act, 1978 against you."(4) On 8th December, 1982 the Deputy Commissioner passed an order externing the petitioner for period of one year from the date of issuance of the order.(5) The petitioner has by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the legality and vires of the aforesaid orders.(7) The Deputy Commissioner in the additional affidavit dated 2nd August 1983 has not disputed that out of 14 cases the petitioner was either acquitted or discharged in 9 cases.We may add that out of the 14 cases 9 cases are under the Excise Act. 4 cases under the Arms Act and one case under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner was convicted in the cases under the Excise Act (FIR No. 874/69 and Fir No. 357/70) in the year 1969 and 1970 and in these two cases he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150.00 and Rs. 100.00 respectively.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,202,902 |
He submits that the same does not amount to cruelty of a nature which could lead an ordinary prudent person to commit suicide.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner of ever having demanded any dowry or money from the deceased or her family.Investigation has been complete and charge-sheet has already been filed.BAIL APPLN.1439/2018 Page 2 of 3The petitioner shall not do anything, which may either prejudice the trial or the prosecution witnesses.The petitioner shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Trial Court.Petition is disposed of in the above terms.BAIL APPLN.1439/2018 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,320,592 |
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.,] Appellant, sole accused, in the case in SC.No.110/2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandram, [Fast Track Mahila Court], Erode, Erode District, was tried for offences u/s.449, 302 and 307 [Part II] IPC.[a] Deceased Valliammal is the wife of P.W.2-Karuppusamy and in-law of the appellant/accused P.W.1-Arunachalam is the son of P.W.2 and the deceased.P.W.3-Saraswathi is the wife of P.W.1/daughter of P.W.4 and the appellant accused.P.W.4-Sundarambal is the wife of the appellant/accused and mother of P.W.3. P.W.3 was given in marriage to P.W.1 and they were residing at Tiruppur.P.W.1 was running a Banian Company at Tiruppur.P.W.1's parents, viz, P.W.2 and the deceased were residing at Orathupalayam, Paaraikattu Thottam and were owning a Poultry Farm.The appellant/accused being the husband of P.W.4, used to torture her and also beat her under the influence of alcohol, due to which, P.W.4 used to leave her matrimonial home very often and go to her parental home at Ponnapuram.However, her daughter [P.S.3], son-in-law [P.W.1] and father of P.W.1 [P.W.2] used to pacify P.W.4 and effect compromise between P.W.4 and the appellant/accused and leave P.W.4 at her matrimonial home.This happened for many times.Four months prior to the occurrence, P.W.4, as usual, on account of the torture meted out by the appellant/accused, left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home.When the appellant/accused went and requested P.W.4 to join him, she refused.The efforts of P.Ws.1 to 3 to pacify her proved futile.This decision of P.W.4, was informed by P.W.1 to the appellant/accused.Thinking that P.Ws.1 to 3 are in favour of P.W.4, the appellant/accused went to Ponnapuram and threatened his wife, P.W.4 that if she does not return to her matrimonial home, he will do away not only her, but also their daughter, son-in-law and grandson.[b] When the matter stood thus, on 21.03.2014, at about 7.00 p.m., P.W.1 went to his parental home along with his wife P.W.3, to see his parents, viz., P.W.2 and the deceased Valliammal.P.Ws.1 and 3 were cleaning the Poultry Farm.The deceased was cooking at her residence.P.W.2 was also present in the house.At that time, the appellant/accused entered into the house and cut the deceased on her head and left forearm with a sickle.She raised hue and cry.On hearing the same, when P.Ws.1 and 3 rushed to the house, they saw the appellant/accused coming out of the house with Sickle [M.O.5].At that time, P.W.2 attempted to catch hold of the appellant/accused.The appellant/accused cut P.W.2 on his left hand, right hand, neck indiscriminately and as a result, he sustained injuries.Both P.W.1 and P.W.3 raised alarm.The appellant/accused fled away from the scene of crime.Neighbours gathered.When they went inside the house, they saw the deceased lying dead on the floor with cut injuries on her head and left forearm.She had succumbed to the injuries.[c] P.W.5-Nataraj, a neighbour of P.W.2, on hearing the noise at about 7.00 p.m., on 21.03.2014, rushed to the scene and found the blood stains and seen P.W.2 with injuries.P.W.1 immediately called Ambulance and sent his injured father/P.W.2 to hospital.Thereafter, he went to Chennimalai Police Station and lodged the complaint under Ex.[d] P.W.17-Pankajam, Sub Inspector of Police, at the relevant time, after the receipt of the complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 on 21.03.2014 at about 9.00 p.m., registered the crime in Cr.No.79/2014 u/s.302 and 307 IPC.P.22 is the First Information Report.He despatched the originals of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.22 to the jurisdictional Court, viz., District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, through P.W.13-Muruganandam, Grade-I Police Constable and copies to the higher officials.[e] P.W.18-Subramanian, Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station, at the relevant point of time, on receipt of FIR in Cr.No.79/2014 on 21.03.2014, went to the place of occurrence at 10.15 p.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P.23] in the presence of P.W.6 and one Somasundaram.He recovered blood stains from the dead body of the deceased in a thread [M.O.1] ; blood stained earth [M.O.2] ; sample earth [M.O.3] and a pair of chappals [M.O.4] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.3].He recorded the statements of the witnesses.On On the same day, at about 11.00 p.m., he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.24-Inquest Report.He also took the photographs of the dead body as well as the scene of crime in his mobile phone.Photographs and CD are marked as Ex.P.25 series.Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem through P.W.14-Saravanakumar, Head Constable, along with a requisition to the hospital.[f] P.W.8-Dr.Arthi, Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Kangeyam, examined P.W.2 on 21.03.2014 at about 8.35 p.m., and P.W.2 had informed her that a known person had attacked him with a sickle at his residence.[1] Laceration of right forearm 3x2x2cm [2] Laceration of left side of neck 5x3x2cm.She also noted partial amputation of left elbow/forearm.P.6 is the Accident Register issued by her.[h] P.W.12-Dr.Malliga, Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital at Perundurai, at the relevant point of time, received the requisition sent by P.W.18 and commenced the postmortem on 22.03.2014 at 10.35 a.m., and found the following injuries:-[1] Deep and cut injury over the internal aspect of left upper arm size about 3x3.[2] A deep, sharp, cut injury over the scalp in between the line of frontal and parietal bones running from left temporal bone to right temporal bone, brain matter seen through the cut injury size about 28cm x 2cm.[3] Lacerated injury over the left parietal region size about 2x1cm.Ex.P.16 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by him, wherein he had stated that the deceased would appear to have died of 14 to 16 hours prior to autopsy.P.17 is the Final Opinion, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhage and shock due to the injuries sustained. [i] The material objects collected from the dead body of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and P.W.1Venkateswaran and P.W.15-Bhavani, Scientific Officers, on examination of such material objects, issued Ex.P.9-Serology Report and Exs.P.19 and 20 Chemical Report and Grouping Test Report [Biological Report].P.W.16-Velmurugan, Scientific Officer examined the Viscera and issued Ex.P.21-Viscera Report, stating that no poison was detected.[j] P.W.18, the Investigating Officer, in continuation of investigation, on 22.03.2014 at about 2.00 a.m., arrested the appellant/accused at his residence in the presence of P.W.7 and one Govindaraj and the appellant/accused came forward to give a voluntary confession statement, admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.4, pursuant to which, P.W.18 seized M.O.5-sickle and M.O.6-Shirt and M.O.7-Shirt, in the presence the said witnesses under Mahazar-Ex.He examined P.W.2 in the hospital and recorded his statement.He handed over the Case Diary to his successor for further investigation.The Trial Court, under impugned Judgment dated 28.03.2017, found the appellant / accused guilty of the above said offences and sentenced him as follows:-Conviction under section Sentence Awarded449 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment.302 IPCTo undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment.307 [part II]To undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentences, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/accused.She noted the following injuries on him:-She referred P.W.2 to CMCH for further treatment.[g] P.W.19-Dr.Periasamy, Surgeon in the Plastic Surgery Department in Ganga Hospital, examined P.W.2 on 21.03.2014 at about 10.19 p.m. He found the following injuries on P.W.2:-Examination of Left Upper Extremity:-[1] Lacerated wound of 14x10cm over posterior aspect of left elbow exposing the dislocated elbow with bone fragments and crushed muscles.Bony tendernes/crepitus/abnormal mobility left elbow.Active finger movements normal.Radial artery pulsation well felt.No distal neuro vascular deficit.Examination of left shoulder/left wrist/left hand-Normal.Examination of right rupper extremity:-[2] Sutured wound of 6cm over dorso ulnar aspect of left distal forearm.Hand deviated palmo ulnarly as wrist.Active finger movements normal.Radial artery puslation well felt.Examination of right shoulder/right elbow/LS spine normal.Sutured wound of 6cm over lower nectk present.P.26 is the Wound Certificate issued by him, wherein he had opined that above injuries are grievous in nature.[k] P.W.20-Velumani, Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of the Case Diary pertaining to Cr.No.79/2014 from P.W.18, commenced the investigation and after receipt of the medical reports and other documents and on completion of investigation, filed the Final Report u/s.450, 302 and 307 IPC against the accused before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, who took it on file in PRC.No.7/2015 and issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, furnished him copies of the documents u/s.207 Cr.P.C. and having found that the case is exclusively tried by the Sessions Court, committed the same to the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode, u/s.209 Cr.P.C., who in turn had made over the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandram [Fast Track Mahila Court], Erode, who took it on file in SC.No.110/2015 and on appearance of the appellant / accused, had framed the charges u/s.302 IPC and questioned him.The appellant / accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him.[l] The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and marked Exs.[m] The appellant/accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false.D.W.1-Sivakumar, Inspector of Police was examined on the side of the appellant/accused and Ex.D.1-Complaint given by one Pappathi ; Ex.D.2-written statement of P.W.2 and Ex.D.3-Endorsement made in the Records produced from the Inspector of Police, Special Cell for Prevention of Land Grabbing, Tiruppur District, were marked.[n] The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as above stated and hence, this appeal.3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire occurrence occurrence took place due to sustained provocation as P.Ws.1 and 2 got the property in their name from P.W.4-wife of the appellant/accused.In fact, the above transfer was obtained only in order conduct the cases which were pending between P.W.4's family and others.However, despite repeated request made by the appellant/accused, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not re-conveyed the property.D.1 also clearly establishes the said fact and this has led to provocation, which culminated into sustained provocation and as a result, the occurrence had taken place.Even assuming that Ex.D.1 said to be true, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2014 and the version of the eyewitnesses clearly shows that the appellant/accused trespassed into the house of the deceased and cut her indiscriminately while she was in the kitchen and cooking.When P.W.2 made an attempt to prevent the appellant/accused from escaping, he was also not spared and he also sustained grievous cut injuries.The evidence of the Medical Officers, viz., P.Ws.8 and 19 coupled with the Certificates issued by them, as well as the evidence of P.W.12-Medical officer who conducted autopsy and Ex.P.16-Postmortem Certificate clearly shows the nature of injuries on the deceased caused by the appellant/accused.Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the theory of sustained provocation is not all applicable in the instant case and it is a clear case of murder.Hence, he submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court warrants no interference at the hands of this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.5 We have perused the entire materials and evidence on record.6 In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt.If so, whether the act of the appellant/accused would fall under any of the exception to section 300 IPC?P.Ws.1 and 3, husband and wife, in their evidence have categorically stated that the appellant/accused used to ill-treat his wife - P.W.4, which made her to leave the matrimonial home frequently.Though compromise has been effected by P.Ws.1 to 3, the same has not been fructified.8 When the matter stood thus, on 21.03.2014, at about 7.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 3 came to their native to meet P.W.2 and the deceased/parents of P.W.1 and while they were cleaning the Poultry Farm, they heard the noise of the deceased Valliammal.When they rushed to the house, they saw the appellant/accused cutting the deceased as well as P.W.2 indiscriminately using M.O.5-Sickle.P.W.2-injured eyewitness to the occurrence has spoken about the occurrence in categorical terms and stated that the appellant/accused entered the house and inflicted cut injuries on the deceased using sickle, while she was in the kitchen and also cut him on his neck and shoulder.P.W.5, a neighbour of P.W.1, on hearing the hue and cry, rushed to the spot immediately and saw blood stains on the ground.He also saw P.W.2 with bleeding injuries.The Grouping Test conducted on the materials seized from the appellant/accused, viz., Blood-stained lungi and shirt, also confirms the presence of human blood - "O" Group.This scientific evidence also clinchingly prove the complicity of the appellant/accused with the crime.9 P.W.4-Sundarambal, wife of the appellant/accused has also corroborated the version of P.Ws.1 to 3 about the motive aspect.P.W.17-Inspector of Police also registered the crime on the same day.P.6 also reveal a lacerated injury on P.W.2 besides a defensive injury found on the right forearm.In fact, there was a partial amputation on the left elbow/forearm on P.W.2, as noted by P.W.8-Medical Officer.P.W.19, yet another Medical Officer who treated P.W.2 in Ganga Hospital at Coimbatore has also spoken about the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.2 and stated that the injuries No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature.P.26 issued by him, also substantiates the said fact.The evidence of the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has vividly spoken about the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased which has resulted in her death.Hence, from the evidence of P.W.12 coupled with Ex.11 Now turning to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the appellant/accused do not attract the ingredients of the offence u/s.302 IPC, the materials placed on record, in particular, the Postmortem Certificate-Ex.P.16, would clearly reveal the nature of injuries caused on the deceased.In fact, the appellant/accused had an intention to cause the death.The intention can be gathered from the nature of injuries.There arose the dispute.Then he drove his wife and children to a cinema, left them there, went to his ship, took a revolver on a false pretext, loaded it with six rounds, did some official business there, and drove his car to the office of Ahuja and then to his flat, went straight to the bedroom of Ahuja and shot him dead.Between 1.30 p.m., when he left his house and 4.20 p.m.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,207,855 |
who revealed before the police that on 03/10/2009, when she had gone to school, the appellant allured her on promise to marry and asked her to sit on his motor-cycle and took her to Shani Maharaj, Rajasthan.From Shani Maharaj, he took her to Kapasan by Bus, thereafter took her to Ratlam by Train.They stayed at Ratan Shri Lodge, Ratlam, where he raped her.(Delivered on 05/05/2018) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28/06/2012 passed in S.T. No.109/2009 by I ASJ, Neemuch whereby the learned trial Court has held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 3 years, 3 years and 10 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively, in default on payment of fine further to go six months, six months and two years RI.According to the prosecution case on 03/10/2009 between 10:30 to 18 hours, the prosecutrix went missing from her house.Her father intimated the fact to the police and police registered missing person report No.19/2009 at Police Station - Jawad and started inquiry.On 08/10/2009, the prosecutrix was recovered, Cr.A. No.1082/2012 2 Shankarlal S/o Shyamlal vs. State of M.P.Cr.A. No.1082/2012 2Police registered crime No.286/2009 under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and sent the prosecutrix for medical examination, collected document regarding her age, arrested the accused and seized the motor- cycle and after completing usual investigation, filed the charge- sheet.The accused was charged, tried and convicted for the offence as stated in para 1 above.Cr.A. No.1082/2012 3On the contrary, she has admitted that she was with the accused on her own will, therefore, there was no doubt that prosecutrix was consenting party.Now, the only question remains as to what was the age of the prosecutrix on the date of the incident.In this regard, the prosecution has only produced certificate - Ex.P/21 issued by Principal of Government Girl's Middle School, Nayagaon, District-Neemuch certifying her date of birth as 20/10/1995, on the basis of scholar register of the school but neither the Principal was examined before the trial Court nor original scholar register was produced or proved by the prosecution.This document is exhibited by the Investigating Officer - Avinash Shrivastava - PW/11 who has only stated that he obtained certificate from the Principal.Equally important fact is that the father and mother or any elder member from the family of the prosecutrix has not been examined by the prosecution before the trial Court.Cr.A. No.1082/2012 5In her statement the prosecutrix (PW5) states that she was sleeping between her mother and Cr.A. No.1082/2012 6 Shankarlal S/o Shyamlal vs. State of M.P.The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."It appears that substantial evidence has been withheld by the prosecution for reasons to the best of their knowledge but certainly it makes the case of prosecution suspicious and benefit of suspicion or doubt will definitely go to the accused.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
532,093 |
ORDER Amitabha Dutta, J.This revisional application is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore in Case No. C-1406 of 1980 on the 25th April, 1981 rejecting the application of the petitioner to dismiss the complaint case under Section 188 I.P.C. filed against him for alleged disobedience of an order made under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Shri A. Mukherjee, Executive Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas, on the ground that the complaint was filed by Shri A. K. Chakravorti, Executive Magistrate who as successor in office of Shri A. Mukherjee, Executive Magistrate, was not competent to file the complaint against the petitioner.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,209,315 |
Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel filed Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No. 2, is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Complaint Case No. 4131 of 2018 (Saheb Alam Vs.Munesh & others), under section 452, 323, 504, 506, 392, 120B IPC, P.S. Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr including summoning order dated 17.10.2018 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No. 1, Bulandshahr.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 2 Shiv Shankar has lodged an FIR on 10.4.2018 under section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against O.P. No. 2 and his family members and one FIR was lodged by the mother of applicant no. 3 Shivam on 14.7.2018 under section 323, 504, 506, 354Ka IPC against O.P. No. 2 and two others.In those cases charge-sheet has been submitted by the I.O. A Civil Suit with regard to the alleged sale deed is also pending before the civil court.In that suit injunction order has been passed by the court concerned.Only to make pressure in counter blast the O.P. No. 2 who is an advocate has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the applicants.In fact, no such incident has taken place.The present prosecution has been instituted for the purposes of harassment.On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. argued that O.P. No. 2 has purchased a house from one Kunta Devi due to which the applicants have lodged false FIR against O.P. No. 2 and his family members.Due to which on 21.6.2017 at 9.00 P.M. the applicants entered into the house of O.P. No. 2 hurled abuses and committed marpit with O.P. No. 2 and also snatched Rs. 5,200/- from his pocket.There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order and there is no ground to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned case.A perusal of the record shows that there is dispute in between the applicants and O.P. No. 2 with regard to house of one Kunta Devi which was purchased by O.P. No. 2 by registered sale deed and due to dispute of house it is alleged in complaint that on the date of alleged incident the applicants entered into the house of O.P. No. 2 hurled abuses and committed marpit with him and snatched Rs. 5,200/- from his pocket.The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face the trial.The learned Magistrate has passed the summoning order on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,210,815 |
Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.248/2018 registered by Police Station Mangalwara, District Bhopal for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 511 of the IPC.The case of the prosecution is that, the applicant used to harass his wife for dowry.On not fulfilling the same, he used to beat her.As a result of which, she consumed poison.Thereafter, she got admitted in the hospital.After her discharge from the hospital, she lodged a report against the applicant under aforementioned Sections.She has also alleged that her husband kept another wife at Raisen.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence.He is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the.It is further submitted that other co-accused persons have already enlarged on bail.The applicant is in judicial custody since 08.10.2018 and conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 479/2019 (Faizan Hasan Vs.The State of M.P.) 2 Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant Faizan Hasan , stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.01.10 14:33:20 +05'30'
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,218,938 |
1 58 14.08.2015 rpan Ct.And In Re: Rakesh Ram @ Rakesh Kumar Ram- Petitioner Vs.The State of West Bengal- Opposite Party Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin Mr. Nasir Quasimuddin ... for the Petitioner.Mr. Prasun Dutta Mr. Subrata Roy ... for the State.The petitioner, being arrested in connection with Shyampur Police Station Case No.396 of 2014 dated 14.11.2014 under Sections 366B/368/370/370A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4/5/6/9 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 and Sections 16/17, POCSOA, has filed this application for bail.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.We have seen the case diary and other material on record.The Petitioner claims to be similarly circumstanced as the accused person who has already been granted bail.Rejected A custody trial is necessary in respect of the Petitioner.Hence, the application for bail is rejected.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Tapash Mookherjee, J.) 2
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,219,884 |
Brief facts:The accused was married to PW2 / Rosiammal about 12 years back and they had two children by name Yuvanesh (aged about 11 years) and Nitishkumar (aged about 9 years).The deceased was earning his livelihood byengaging himself in cutting leaves.Though it was a love marriage, there hadbeen frequent quarrels between both of them.The wife left the company of herhusband on account of one such quarrel and went to her parents' house.At theinitiative of PW4 / Prakash and his friends, the wife was again brought back.Again, the wife and children were not looked after properly and the wife wentfor a job in a mosquito net company and the husband objected to the wifegoing for employment.Thereafter, she was driven out of house and fearingdanger to life, she went out of the house with two children and was protectedby her parents.The husband also attempted to take away his own life bycommitting suicide and he was given medical treatment and his life was saved.S.VIMALA,J The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- indefault to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.Challengingthe same, this appeal is filed.Thereafter, the husband and the wife, from the separatetrack, attended a marriage and in the marriage premises, the husband wantedhis wife to join him.When the children refused to come along with him, thehusband threatened the wife saying that he would commit suicide by takingpoison.The elders intervened and fearing humiliation, the wife took awaythe children and was waiting at the Mahadanapuram Bus stop.The deceased came there and he wanted the children to come along with him and when the childrenrefused, he dragged the children and at that point of time, the brother ofthe wife, namely, the accused, took the knife from the pocket of the deceasedand inflicted a cut injury on the right hand wrist of the deceased.Thedeceased was admitted at Kulithalai Hospital and thereafter, he was referredto Karur hospital, where he was declared dead.The Investigating Officer received the complaint of thebrother of the deceased, namely, PW1 / Manikandan and after investigation,laid the final report against the accused under Section 302 IPC.The prosecution relied upon the evidence of 22 witnesses,marked 19 documents and produced 3 material objects, to substantiate thecharge.The defence relied upon the evidence of Yuvanesh / son of thedeceased.The contention of the prosecution is that the death of thedeceased was on account of murder, but the case of the defence is that thedeath of the deceased was on account of suicide.The postmortem report under Ex.P5 describes the vital injury,namely, cut injury 10cm x 5cm x muscle depth over the 10 cm proximal to rightwrist joint horizontally extending dorsal to ventral side in lateral aspectof forearm with clear cut margins.The Doctor would state that the death wasdue to vital injury to the blood vessels.With regard to the exact cause ofdeath, the Doctor would state that the injury as such is not an injurysufficient to cause death and the death is only on account of consequences,which arose on account of the injury, namely, the loss of blood.The Doctorhas further stated that had there been a timely medical treatment, the lifeof the deceased would have been saved.Having regard to the opinion of the Doctor, the issue is, towhat extent the person who has allegedly caused the injury is responsible forthat? Whether the accused will be responsible for the injury caused or hewill be responsible for the death caused is the crucial issue.Given the circumstances of the case, whether the accused wouldbe responsible for homicide amounting to murder or homicide not amounting tomurder, is yet another issue.It is the case of the prosecution that the accusedintentionally caused the death of the deceased and therefore, it amounts tohomicide.The case of the defence is that the deceased had suicidaltendencies, had exhibited the suicidal tendencies by attempting to commitsuicide on earlier occasions and even on the date of occurrence, he wasthreatenng to commit suicide and finally, he died on account of suicide.The defence relies upon the evidence of the wife of thedeceased and son of the deceased, who would categorically state that thedeath was on account of the suicidal injury caused by the deceased himself,though the wife has stated so, as a witness for the prosecution and the sonhas stated so, as the witness for the defence.The evidence of both the witnesses have to be carefullyscanned as there had been previous dispute between the deceased and his wife and that the entire family, namely, wife and two children are under the careand custody of the accused.This analysis may require the consideration ofcumulative circumstances as established in the trial.The complaint has been laid by none other than by the brotherof the deceased, who was in cordial terms with the deceased.Therefore, muchreliance can be relied upon the complaint laid by PW1 / defacto complainant.In the complaint itself, he would state that he was informed that thedeceased threatened to commit suicide by taking poison, when the wife refusedto join the husband.The complaint would also disclose that in the bus stopalso, the deceased made a similar demand and on the refusal of the wife, hewas attempting to snatch the children from the custody of the wife.Duringthis altercation, the accused appears to have taken the knife from the pocketof the deceased and caused this fatal injury; for this occurrence, Prakash(PW4) and Udayakumar (PW5) are the witnesses.It is also stated that he was informed that the deceased was taken to hospital by PW4 / Prakash and the mother of the deceased.The learned counsel for the accused would submit that noreliance can be placed upon the complaint, as the entire version in thecomplaint is not based on the direct knowledge, but based on hearsaystatements.This contention cannot be accepted, as even though they arehearsay statements, they are the statements made immediately after theoccurrence having the value of res gestae.This Court has also opportunity tofind out whether the statement made in the complaint is corroborated by theevidence adduced on the side of the prosecution.The prosecution relies uponthe evidence of PW2 to PW5, out of whom, PW2 and PW3 have been declared as hostile witnesses and PW4 & PW5 are the relatives of the deceased.The learned counsel for the accused would term the evidenceof PW4 & PW5 as unnatural evidence, abundant in mistakes and contradictions and therefore, the evidence of PW4 & PW5 have to be rejected.On the otherhand, learned APP would submit that they are independent witnesses, havinghad first hand knowledge regarding the nature of relationship between thedeceased and his wife and also they having been eyewitnesses to theoccurrence.It is pointed out that it is only PW4/ Prakash, who had admittedthe deceased in the hospital, thus confirming his presence in the place ofoccurrence.This statement takes us to the Accident Register copy, which aremarked as Ex.P7 dated 22.02.2015 and Ex.P15 / AR copy.In the AR copy issued by Kulithalai Government Hospital, it is stated that the deceased had beenbrought in an Ambulance with the history of the deceased attacked by knownperson with knife.This earliest statement confirms that the death was not onaccount of suicide, but was on account of alleged homicide.One can expectthat nobody would be inclined to give a false statement to a Doctor, as itwould affect the line of treatment.Moreover, at the earliest point of time,the version could be true, as at that point of time, nobody would have thoughof embellishment or implicating somebody through active planning.There is yet another AR copy issued by Karur Hospital, inwhich also it is stated that it is a case of assault and the deceased hadbeen brought to hospital by PW4/Prakash and the mother of the deceased.This AR copy is timed as 09:20pm.The complaint has been timed at 23:00hrs in the night.The statements in the complaint is corroborated by the statements madein the two Accident Register copies through the recordings of the Doctor.Whether the evidence of so called eyewitnesses PW2 and DW1 is to be believed or the evidence of PW4 & PW5 has to be believed is the critical issue.Though PW2 and DW1 are closelyrelated to the deceased, their evidence has to be taken with a pinch of saltas they are under the custody of the accused and the deceased has left theworld already.Even while living, the deceased had not maintained cordialrelationship with the wife and children and it was only the accused, who wasextending his protective arms to the wife and children of the deceased.The conduct of the husband as established through the crossexamination have to be taken into account while judging the conduct of theaccused.Apart from that, the nature of the injury caused and the context inwhich the injury is caused and the place from which the weapon of attack hasbeen taken will provide sufficient indication as to the cause for theaccused, to cause injury to the deceased.There had been sufferings for the wife and the children onaccount of the conduct of the deceased.He is stated to be a drunkard andalso not providing any maintenance to the wife.When the wife wanted tosupport the family by getting a job, even for that, the deceased had strongobjections.Unable to bear the cruelty, the wife has left the company of thedeceased with the children.The harassment and cruelty had continued whereverthe wife went outside the home.When theharassment and humiliation continued in public premises, the brother of thewife might have entertained sudden and grave provocation and in order toprevent the occurrence, he might have caused injury to the deceased.It isrelevant to point out that though deadly weapon has been used, the weapon isfrom the pocket of the deceased and not from the pocket of the accused, thusindicating that there had been no preplan to cause either injury or to causedeath.Moreover, the brother (accused) would not have been inclined to causedeath, when there are two children.The cumulative circumstances onlyindicate that the intention might have been to cause injury and not to causedeath.This evidence has to be looked into along with the evidence of Doctor,where he states that the injury per se is not sufficient to cause death inthe ordinary course of nature and it is only non availability of timelymedical intervention, the deceased had suffered death.The Indian Penal Code recognises two kinds of homicides,namely, 1) culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 300 and 302 IPC),The Indian culture puts more burden upon brothers to lookafter the deserted sister.The Inspector of Police, Lalapettai Police Station, Karur District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
543,704 |
JUDGMENT Malik, C.J.The appellants have been convicted under Section 396, Penal Code, and while the appellants 1 and 2 have been sentenced to death the other appellants have been sentenced to transportation for life.On the night between 28 and 29-12-1949, a number of dacoits visited village Kadhla and went into the house of one Piru Teli.The villagers, however, on hearing the alarm that dacoits had come to the house of Piru Teli, surrounded the house and there was a free fight between the dacoits and the villagers.As a result one villager Azimullah died and four of the villagers Basanta, Mahfuz Khan, Ibrahim and Manohra received injuries.The other accused, Sirajuddin, admitted that he was caught in village Kadhla.According to him he left his own village Kawal at 10 o'clock in the morning and was going to his wife's sister's house at Rasulpur when he was suspected of being a dacoit, was beaten and later arrested on the night between 28th and 29th of February.No evidence was given that Sirajuddin's wife's sister was at Rasulpur and it is very unlikely that he would be travelling at night in December if he was merely on a visit to the house of his sister-in-law.Two of the dacoits Sirajuddin and Abbu were caught on the spot.The first information report was lodged at the thana, which is at a distance of seven miles from the village, by the village chaukidar at about 12-15 A.M. In it, however, it is not mentioned that any of the dacoits were known to the village people from before nor are the names of witnesses given.All that is said is that the village people had collected and offered resistance and had caught two of the dacoits.The police started investigation.Sirajuddin on 1-1-1950, made a confession to a Magistrate which, however, he subsequently retracted.The fact that Sirajuddin and Abbu were caught in the village at the time of the dacoity cannot be disputed.The story given by Abbu was that he was not caught at night but in the morning in front of Piru's house and he had gone there to have his cow recovered but the cow had strayed into the sugarcane field.One pair of new shoes and a cap which had been recovered by the police, he admitted, were his.The story given by the two appellants for their presence in the village at that time of the night is not at all satisfactory.The suggestion, therefore, that the two might have been arrested merely on suspicion cannot be believed especially as specific parts were assigned by the witnesses to these two accused.The fact that they were arrested in the village is not denied.There is no reason why the witnesses for the prosecution should implicate them falsely and we agree with the reasons given by the lower Court for believing the evidence against the two appellants and for holding them guilty.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,440,088 |
P.550/2007 Page 3 of 19Each of these bills bear the signatures of A-2 Amita Puri.On behalf of A-3 Vinesh Vyas arguments have been addressed by counsel Mr. Sidharth Aggarwal.We, therefore, confirm the High Court's direction, but on a different ground as indicated.The appeal is dismissed.Thus, the petition succeeds.However, liberty is granted to the complainant to file an application before the concerned Special Judge in accordance with Section 195 Cr.P.C., if they so decide or to the Special Judge to take cognizance suo moto, if he is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the complaint is required to be made against the petitioner, he may do so in accordance with law.With this liberty, the present revision petition is allowed.The order dated 27.10.2006 framing charges against the Crl.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,459,925 |
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Chandannagar Police Station Case No. 123 dated 24.7.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/325/ 326/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioners claim that an altercation between the parties turned violent.However, the nature of injuries suffered by the victim appears to be serious.Considering such injuries it is evident that the motive may have been to kill the victim.The petitioners say that the first petitioner is aged about 63 years and none of the petitioners may have been directly involved in the incident.1 2 Considering the statements attributed to the victim and the witnesses, it appears that both the petitioners were involved.However, considering the age of the first petitioner, he may be excused from custodial interrogation; but no anticipatory bail can be granted to the second petitioner herein.The first petitioner must meet the investigating officer whenever called for, till the completion of the investigation.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed so far as the first petitioner is concerned subject to the conditions as indicated above.The prayer for anticipatory bail in respect of the second petitioner is rejected.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,505,741 |
Shri Harish Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.Case diary perused.This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C filed by the applicants, who apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.274/2019, registered at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.), for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State as well as counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the prayer and has contended that the applicants entered into house of the complainant uttering abusive language caused injuries and there are specific allegations against the present applicants.It is submitted that the incident have taken place on the same day i.e. 12.7.2019 and after inquiry into the matter the authorities have registered the FIR.Therefore, they have prayed for dismissal of the application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.(Vishal Mishra) Judge vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2019.09.18 10:46:54 +05'30'
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,537,402 |
DATE :29.11.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT:::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::3 The case of the prosecution, as is unfolded during the course of trial, is that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") Kewalram Yerne nurtured a suspicion that the injured Rahul Bhajipale is in a illicit relationship with Bhavika, the wife of the accused.The accused asked the injured Rahul to accompany him to Tumsar Railway Station to receive Bhavika and the children.Rahul and the accused proceeded to the Railway Station on two wheeler of Rahul.Bhavika and the children of the accused were not seen at the Railway Station, Rahul and the accused decided to return.After proceeding for some time, the accused asked Rahul to stop the two wheeler near hotel Muskan situated on Tumsar - Dewhali road.Rahul stopped the motorcycle, the accused got down and all of a sudden whipped out knife from pocket and inflicted 2 - 3 blows under the left rib of injured Rahul.4 Bleeding profusely the injured Rahul rushed towards hotel Muskan and collapsed near the door of the hotel.The staff of hotel Muskar who rushed to help the accused were asked by the::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 ::: apeal337of2010.odt 3 injured Rahul to inform his family members of the incident.Rahul wrapped towel provided by one of the waiter to stop or control the bleeding, was shifted to Government Hospital, Tumsar and thereafter, to the General Hospital, Bhandara.The injured Rahul was then admitted to Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, for further treatment.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.05.2010, in Sessions Trial 17 of 2007, delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, by and under which, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs. 5000/-.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 ::: apeal337of2010.odt 2 2 Heard Shri.K.R. Lambat, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri.A.M. Kadukar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State.5 The incident was reported by Samir Bhajipale (PW 1), the brother of the injured and on the basis of the report offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC was registered.Clothes of the injured Rahul were seized in presence of the panchas, spot panchanama was prepared, blood mixed soil sample was seized from the spot, the accused was arrested on 1.10.2006 and the clothes of the accused were seized.The clothes, knife and the blood sample were sent for Chemical Analyzer and reports Exh. 60, Exh. 61 and Exh. 62 were obtained.The culmination of investigation led to submission of chargesheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tumsar, who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 ::: apeal337of2010.odt 4 6 The learned Sessions Judge framed charge for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC, the accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The defence, as is discernible from the trend and tenor of the cross- examination and the statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is of total denial and false implication.The suggestion given to the injured and other material witnesses, is that since the injured Rahul nurtured a suspicion that the accused and the wife of the injured Rahul were in a relationship, the accused is falsely implicated.7 Shri.K.R. Lambat, the learned counsel for the accused submits that the evidence on record is grossly insufficient to bring home the charge.The seizure and discovery of knife is attacked on the ground that the knife was seized from the road, concededly, with unhindered and open public access two days after the incident.The panch to the seizure and discovery did not support the prosecution and it is only the Investigating Officer who has deposed as regards the seizure and discovery.The submission is,::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 ::: apeal337of2010.odt 5 that the discovery of the knife, as an incriminating material, must be discarded.The learned counsel Shri.The learned counsel would then submit, that the evidence of the material witnesses including the informant who is examined as PW 1 and the injured who is examined as PW 2, is marred by inter-se contradiction and inconsistency.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::8 Per contra, Shri.The marshalling of evidence on record can not be faulted, is the submission.The finding recorded by the learned Sessions judge, that the prosecution has established the offence under section 307 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt, is the only finding which could have been reached in the teeth of the evidence on record, is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecution.9 I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, the submissions canvased by the learned counsel for the::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 ::: apeal337of2010.odt 6 accused and the learned Additional Public prosecutor and the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, and having done so, I am not persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the accused that the judgment impugned is against the weight of evidence on record.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::10 Concededly, PW 2 Rahul suffered serious injuries.The defence, that the injuries suffered by Rahul were minor or were self inflicted is noted only for rejection.The submission of the learned counsel for the accused that the two injury reports Exh. 32 and Exh. 34 dated 28.9.2006 and 28.12.2006, respectively, render the evidence of the injured PW 2 or the medical evidence suspect, is again without substance.The author of the injury certificates Exh. 32 and Exh.34 is examined as PWThe second injury certificate dated 28.12.2006 is only clarificatory in nature and is not inconsistent with the injury certificate dated 28.9.2006 (Exh. 32).Concededly, the injuries suffered by PW 2 Rahul, are grievous as would be evident from nature of the injuries, which in the words of PW 6 were:(i) One incised wound vertically placed of size 3 x 1.5 cm, 2 cm anterior to mid clavicular line, bleeding was present, depth could not be ascertained;::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::(ii)One incised wound vertically placed of size 4 x 2 cm.posterior to injury no.1 by 2 cm, depth omentum and small intestine protruding;(iii)One curved incised wound about 10 cm above injury no. 1 of size 5 x 1 cm in mid axillary line, depth, could not be ascertained, bleeding was present.Nothing is brought out in the cross-examination of PW 6 to render the medical evidence suspect.PW 2 - Rahul is an injured witness.His evidence has gone virtually unchallenged in the cross examination, on core and material aspects and facets of the incident.It is well settled position of law, that the evidence of an injured witness, is on a higher pedestal than the evidence of other witnesses.The fact that the witness is injured lends an assurance to the prosecution version that the witness was indeed on the spot of the incident.An injured witness, ordinarily, is not likely to exculpate the guilty and inculpate the innocent.The prosecution has established beyond any shadow of doubt, that the injured PW 2 suffered serious injuries in the assault.Nothing is brought on record, in the cross-examination of the material witnesses, or otherwise, to probabilize the defence that the accused is falsely implicated, even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.I do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 ::: apeal337of2010.odt 8 the injured Rahul.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::Even after keeping out of consideration the discovery of the weapon, there is sufficient evidence on record to bring home the charge.12 The assault, was not on the spur of the moment.It is axiomatic, that the assault was planned meticulously.The injured was made to accompany the accused under the pretext that the wife and children of the accused were to be received at the railway station.The accused was armed with a weapon and the manner of assault leaves no doubt in once mind that the intention was to kill the injured.In view of the evidence on record, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions judge that the prosecution has established the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC is again unexceptionable.On a holistic appreciation of evidence on record, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment impugned.The appeal is sans merit and is rejected.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 ::: apeal337of2010.odt 9 Bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.The accused be taken in custody to serve the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::JUDGE RS Belkhede::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2017 02:04:48 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,620,791 |
This appeal has been filed by the appellants for allowing the appeal and to set aside the order passed in bail petition in Crl.The facts of the case is that on the complainant lodged by one Vijayakanth, the respondent Police have registered a case in crime No.246 of 2018 for the offence under Section 302 IPC @ 302 IPC 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC / ST POA Amendment Act, 2015 against the petitioners herein and that after investigation, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.3.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appellants approached before the Court below in Crl.M.P.No.3573 of 2018 seeking for enlarge on bail.He would further submit that the appellants are under incarceration for the past 70 days.Therefore, he prays for grant of bail.S.Thankira, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the appellants are still under judicial custody viz., for a period of 70 days.Considering the fact that the appellants are in judicial custody for a long period of 70 days, I am inclined to grant bail with stringent condition to the appellants.Accordingly, the appellants are ordered to be released on bail on executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each, of whom, one should be a blood related surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiatham and on further condition that:(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(b)the appellants shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiatham, daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,813,652 |
The Act defines the term 'food' in a very comprehensiveway so as to cover any substance intended for humanconsumption and open the window to include any article declaredas food by notification in the Official Gazette the CentralGovernment may declare.The FSS Act defines the FoodAuthority and provides for establishment of Food SafetyAuthority of India, a body corporate, cast with the duty toregulate and monitor the manufacture, processing, distribution,sale and import of food so as to ensure safe and wholesome food.The Authority is empowered by regulations to specify thestandards and guidelines in relation to articles of food can specifythe mechanisms and guidelines for accreditation of certificationbodies engaged in certification of food safety managementsystems for food businesses.It also empowered to providescientific advice and technical support to the Central Governmentand the State Governments in matters of framing the policy andrules in areas which have a direct or indirect bearing on foodsafety and nutrition.The said Authority is responsible forenforcing of the FSS Act. The Commissioner of Food Safety andthe Designated Officer are empowered to exercise the powerssimilar to the powers exercised by Food Safety Officer.It isimperative on the State Government to appoint a Commissionerfor Food Safety for the State for efficient implementation of foodsafety and standards and other requirements laid down under theAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 15/37 903 Cri.- (1) The Food Safety Officer shall be responsible for inspection of food business, drawing samples and sending them to Food Analyst for analysis.(2) The Food Analyst after receiving the sample from the Food Safety Officer shall analyse the sample and send the analysis report mentioning method of sampling and analysis within fourteen days to Designated Officer with a copy to Commissioner of Food Safety.JUDGMENT:- [Per: Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.]The tobacco epidemic is one of the biggest public healththreat the world ever faced, killing 8 million and the Report of theWorld Health Organization dated 26/07/2019 brings out thatmore than 7 million of those deaths, are the result of the directuse of tobacco.Good monitoring tracks the extent and characterof this tobacco epidemic and indicates how to evolve best policiesto deal with this menace.The steps taken throughout the worldin the form of bans imposed on tobacco advertisement andpromotion, pictorial health warning and the high rate of taxesdealing with illicit trade of tobacco, has yielded some positiveresults.The scale of human and economic tragedy that tobaccoAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 3/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::It has currently 185 parties covering morethan 90% of the world population.There is a fundamental andirreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industries' interest onthe one hand and public health industries' interest on the otherhand.The present writ petition is an illustration depicting such aconflict in the form of transportation and sale of Gutka and PanMasala, the former being a chewing tobacco, preparation made ofcrushed areca nut, tobacco, catechu, paraffin wax, slaked lime andsweet or savory flavourings.It contains carcinogens, which isidentified to be a cause for oral cancer and other severe negativehealth effects.Pan Masala on the other hand, is a combination ofbetel leaf and areca nut and may contain tobacco.Both theaforesaid products are highly addictive in nature.The primary duty of every State in terms of the DirectivePrinciples of the State Policy as enshrined in Article 47 of theConstitution being to improve public health which implicitlyincludes the concept of provision of measures to be taken forprevention of deterioration of citizen's health.The Food SafetyCommissioner of Food & Drug Administration, Government ofMaharashtra in exercise of his power to be discharged in the formAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 4/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::WP3607.19(J).docof duty under Section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety & StandardsAct, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the FSS Act, 2006") inorder to prohibit in the interest of public health, has issued ordersfrom time to time in exercise of said power and has identifiedtobacco as one of such article of food listed at Sr.No.40 in tableunder sub-regulation 2.3.1 and has made tobacco, whetherflavoured, scented or mixed with other ingredients such asnicotine, menthol, etc. and in terms of the Food Safety &Standards (Prohibition & Restriction on Sales) Regulations 2011has imposed a complete prohibition for a period of one year, onthe manufacture, storage, distribution, transport or sale of tobaccoin whatsoever form and name being available in the market.Theregime in which the present writ petition emanated had theexistence of order issued by the Commissioner of Food Safety on20/07/2018 and here we deem it appropriate to note that suchnotifications have been issued in the past prior to the presentnotification.The Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused in FIRbearing No.87 of 2019 registered with Samta Nagar PoliceStation on 02/03/2019 for the offences punishable underSections 179, 188, 273 and 328 of the IPC read with Section26(2)(p) read with Section 3(1)(zz)(A) read with Section 59along with Section 26(2)(4) read with Section 27(3)(d) andSection 27(3)(E) of the FSS Act, 2006 have approached thisAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 5/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::WP3607.19(J).docCourt for quashing and setting aside the said FIR.The FIR is registered on the basis of complaint receivedfrom the Food Safety Officer i.e. Respondent No.4 recording thatwhen the residents and godown of the Petitioners was raided,Gutka and Pan Masala pouches were found to be stored and thisstorage contravened to the Notification dated 20/07/2018 issuedby the Food Safety Commissioner, State of Maharashtra.Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the Petitioners came to bearrested on 02/03/2019 and were released on bail on 05/03/2019.It is in the backdrop of this limited facts, the petition poses achallenge to the action initiated against them by registering theFIR and invoking and applying Section 328 and Section 188 ofthe IPC.The arguments advanced by Mr. Ponda, the learned counselappearing for the Petitioners is enlaced around the Food Safety &Standards Act, 2006 which according to him is a complete Codein itself empowering the Food Safety Officer to take necessarysteps and regulate the manufacture, storage, distribution and saleand import of food products to ensure that safe and wholesomefood is available for human consumption.Mr. Ponda has invitedour attention to the gamut of the litigation revolving around theFSS Act and the provisions of the IPC, in specific, Section 328and Section 188 of the IPC and would submit that in the State ofAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 6/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::The leanred counsel at the outset submits that none of theAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 7/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::TheFSS Act, 2006 which came into force in August, 2006consolidates the laws relating to food and aims to establish theFood Safety & Standards Authority of India for laying downscience based standards for articles of food and to regulate theirmanufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensureavailability of safe and wholesome food for human consumptionand for matters connected therewith.The said enactment isbased on international legislations and envisages an overarchingpolicy framework and contains a single window to guide andregulate persons engaged in manufacture, marketing, handling,importing and sale of food.It contains provision for gradedpenalty depending upon the gravity of offences and prescribe civilpenalty for minor offences and punishment for serious violations.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::Thus what is to be noted is that the contravention contemplatedunder the enactment would be dealt with by two distinctmethodology and needless to say that those contraventions whichAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 18/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;AJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 19/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::On perusal of the entire scheme of FSS Act, it wouldemerge that it is a self contained enactment taking care of suchAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 20/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::The Apex Court did not find favour with the findings ofthe High Court which had held that the non compliance of thenotification issued by the Food Safety Commissioner can beAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 21/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::After making the aforesaid observations, the point as towhether the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272, 273and 328 of the IPC have been made out or not, the matter wasremanded to the High Court to be decided afresh by permittingboth the sides to raise all their contentions.The AurangabadBench of this Court proceeded to deal with the said arguments onthe applicability of the relevant provisions of the IPC in the caseAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 23/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::Thecriminal appeals placed before the Apex Court arose out of aphase of sporadic incidents referred to as "Punalur LiquorTragedy" where certain persons died and others received injuriesdue to consumption of poisonous adulterated arrack, ethylalcohol adulterated with methyl alcohol.Cases under Sections272 and 328 of the IPC and Section 57(a) of the Kerala AbkariAct were registered.On recording a finding of guilt against A-1and A-4, the Sessions Court imposed sentence.The remainingaccused were found guilty of offences punishable under theAbkari Act and were imposed nominal sentences of fine only.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::Now on that basis it has to be seen whether A-1 had any role to play in directly administering to or causing to be taken the poisonous liquor by SreedharanAJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 ::: 25/37 903 Cri.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::WP3607.19(J).doctherefore, his conviction under the Abkari Act came to bemaintained.Lord Goddard, C.J., by referringto the Regulation penned his verdict in the following manner 'ifany person uses or causes or permits to be used on any road amotor vehicle or trailer in contravention of or fails to comply withany of the preceding regulations contained in Part III of theseregulations, he shall for each offence will be liable to a fine' heldthat the expressions 'causes or permits' in contrast or juxtaposition'permit' means giving leave and licence to somebody to use thevehicle, and 'causes' involves a person, who has authority to do so,ordering or directing another person to use it".The distinction issuccinctly brought out in the following word of Lord Goddard,C.J. - "If I allow a friend of mine to use my motor car, I ampermitting him to use it.Thegoods will have to be moved beyond the store to be sold - ' to bepurchased for consumption' and mere storing a food item wouldnot pose the intended danger to human life.The gap betweenthe storage and the consumption by a consumer will have to bebridged before the danger or the hurt contemplated underSections 328 and Section 188 of the IPC get attracted and it isonly when the prosecution proves that it is the Petitioners who arethe one who did it, their prosecution would be a success.(SMT.BHARATI DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)AJN ::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2019 02:15:00 :::
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,918,785 |
The revision petitioner herein / C-party viz., M/s. Infovision Private Limited, has filed the above revision against the order passed in M.C.No.The Inspector of Police / complainant, who is attached to the S-1, St.Thomas Mount Police Station had registered a criminal case in Crime No.1128 of 2009, dated 24.10.2009, stating that the 'A' party viz., Mr.Thirumaniselvam, S/o.Kuppusamy Naddar, on 16.10.2009 at about 10 a.m., had preferred to raise a wall in the property in Survey No.16/7, an extent of 18 cents in Alandur Village.The 'B' party viz., Mr.S.B.Velayudham, S/o.Sabapathi and his men came to the said property and threatened the 'A' party's Security Guard, one Mr.Vetriselvam.Hence, said Vetriselvam had given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, S-1 Police Station, St.Thomas Mount, to take action against the 'B' party.On receipt of the said complaint, the Inspector had issued C.S.R.No.512 of 2009 and taken the complaint for enquiry.The said complaint further reveals that on 16.10.2009, the 'A' party had prevented the 'B' party and his 11 men to enter into the property and had driven them out.Hence, the 'B' party had levelled a criminal case before the Inspector of Police and requested him to take action against the 'A' party and his men and the 'B' party have prayed to give adequate protection to them.The 'D' party viz., Mr.M.Farooq, had lodged a complaint on 16.10.2009, stating that the Survey Nos.16 to 21 an extent of 150 grounds and door No.24, G.S.T.Road, Guindy, Chennai - 32 is in his possession and his being enjoyed by him for the past 20 years.Hence, he urged the Inspector of Police to give protection to his life and property and protection to his men.Each of the four parties have stated that they are the owner of the property and that they possess title deeds.Under these dire circumstances, the Inspector of Police had cautioned all the parties not to breach the law and order prevailing in and around the said property.Besides this, each of the four parties had attempted to trespass into the properties with their men respectively.Hence, the Inspector of Police had requested the Revenue Taluk Tahsildar, Tambaram to conduct enquiry and verify the respective party's document and also requested him to give his findings regarding the actual owner of the property.While so, a tense situation was prevailing over the said property.No.30 of 2009 - S.R.O., Alandur.(5) Agreement of Sale dated 29.12.2008 between R.Pankajammal and S.Ravichandran registered as Doc.No.31 of 2009 - S.R.O., Alandur.(6) Power of Attorney dated 26.02.2009 executed by R.Pankajammal in favour of Mr.P.Nagaraj and Mr.B.Murali registered as Doc.No.184 of 2009 - S.R.O., Alandur.(7) Agreement of sale dated 02.03.2009 between R.Pankajammal rep. by her Power Agents Mr.P.Nagaraj and Mr.B.Murali and Mr.K.Thirumaniselvam, registered as Doc.No.436 of 2009 - S.R.O., Alandur.(8) Lease Agreement dated 05.03.2009 between R.Pankajammal rep. by her power agents Mr.P.Nagarajan and Mr.B.Murali and Mr.P.Ravikumar."(viii) (f) that a perusal of the various documents executed by Mrs.R.Pankajammal mentioned above, claiming to be the owner of the disputed extents would clearly show that the same have been created for the purpose of grabbing C-party's valuable properties.In fact, in February 2009, the said R.Pankajammal, Mrs.Ramani and H.S.Anand (the agreement holder) with the help of rowdy elements and Gundas, attempted to trespass and take possession of the disputed properties by breaking open a gate of facing the G.S.T.Road and the same was prevented by them by lodging a complaint with the S-1, St.Thomas Police Station.K.P.Sriramulu Reddiyar filed a return before the Urban Land Ceiling authorities declaring that the total extent of lands held by him and his family in Alandur Village is only 1.87 acres, (In R.S.Nos.16/20 36 cents, 18/2 44 cents, 18/5A 58 cents, 19/2 14 cents, 19/4 26 cents and 21/3 9 cents) apart from a house property and that a partition deed entered into between himself and his five sons is pending registration with the Sub-Registrar of Alandur (Annexure - 28).(9) The said K.P.Sriramulu Reddiyar died on 23.09.1979 and thereafter on 07.10.1980, his son K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar received back the partition deed from the S.R.O., Alandur, after making payment of the deficit stamp duty, registered as Doc.No.2124 of 1980 (Annexure-29).Further, even the father of K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar viz., K.P.Sriramulu Reddiyar himself was owing only 1.87 acres of land in Alandur Village during the year 1977 at the time of the partition as declared by him before the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities.Further, the sale consideration shown in the said sale deed is sham and nominal since the Guide Line Value of the properties on the date of registration is shown as Rs.157 crores where as the sale consideration paid by V.Amar is shown as Rs.5 crores.Therefore, the sale deed is nothing but a fabricated document created for the purpose of grabbing the properties.(ix) (m) that thereafter, the said V.Amar, S/o.S.P.Velayutham, executed a settlement deed dated 13.10.2008 in respect of the said properties in favour of his father, S.P.Velayutham himself, registered as Doc.At the time of purchase the lands were low lying with water stagnation throughout.The same was developed by the M.V.R. Group by earth filling, leveling and raising the level of the land about the road level by spending huge amount of money and proposed to develop the properties into Commercial / Residential buildings.The 'B' party further stated that the 'A' party and his 60 men had made a wrong entry and threatened the 'B' party's security and driven him out of the property and had brought materials to raise the wall.The 'B' party further stated that one Sriramulu, S/o.Thereafter, the said Sriramulu had executed a settlement deed, to and in favour of his son, Deena Dayalan Reddy and his daughter-in-law, Lalitha @ Lalitha Manohari.The said Lalitha @ Lalitha Manohari had expired on 03.11.1972, without issues.Subsequently, Deena Dayala Reddy had become absolute owner of the property and is enjoying the same.The 'B' party had also paid a sum of Rs.9,02,350/- as urban land tax to the Government.Subsequently, the said property had been settled to and in favour of the 'B' party.The 'B' party had paid urban land tax again on 30.03.2009, for a sum of Rs.1,06,180/- to the Government.Actually, the said Pankajammal has no right over the said property.The said Pankajammal had herself exposed that she is the owner of the property and had received advance from various persons for sums varying from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- for sale of property.As such, the 'A' party also had obtained power of attorney from the said Pankajammal and based on this the 'A' party has also claimed rights over the property.The said Pankajammal and her so-called power agent and one Nagarajan and Murali have no rights over the said property.The said Nagarajan and Murali had also made an agreement in favour of 'A" party alleging that they are owners of the said property.The 'B' party further stated that on his complaint dated 16.10.2009, the Inspector of Police had conducted an enquiry and closed the gate, which is located in the property, brought the key, and also informed the parties that no one should enter into the property till the enquiry was over.Under the situation, the 'C' party viz., Mr.Ravikumar, with the support of 'A' party had entered into the property on 07.11.2009, with about 40 persons, after breaking open the gate and occupied the property illegally after putting old materials and erected a hoarding titled as "JR Scrape and Plastics".Immediately, the 'B' party went to the police station on 07.11.2009 and informed the said unlawful activities.The Inspector replied that an enquiry was going on before the Revenue Divisional Officer.In order to grab the said property illegally, the 'A" party and the said Ravikumar and others have attempted to enter into the said property.They damaged the gate of the property.The 'B' party further stated that while the proceedings were pending on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 'A' party viz., Thirumaniselvam and Ravikumar had attempted to enter into the property, with deadly weapons, and had raised a wall in the property.P.Nagarajan and B.Murali, who had executed the sale agreement, to and in favour of him.As such, he is the agreement holder of the said property, and he is running the tea stall for more than one year, as a tenant.He further stated that he had purchased the property from the said Pankajammal and her brother Pakkirasamy under registered sale deed.As such, he is the owner of the property.He further stated that till now, no one has claimed the property, since he is the owner of the property and has purchased the same after paying sale consideration of a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-.Late P.Perumal, residing at door No.434, 5th Cross, Petthal Nagar, Injambakkam to an extent of 18 cents in survey No.16/7, Alandur Village, Tambaram Taluk and in survey No.16/8, an extent of 50 cents in the same village.The said Pankajammal had succeeded the property from her father-in-law, viz., Deva Reddiar.The said Deva Reddiar had remitted tax to the Government.After his life time, his legal heir Ramasamy Reddiyar had succeeded the property.After his life time, the said Pankajammal had succeeded the property as legal heir of Ramasamy Reddiar.Thomas Mount for police protection, in order to safeguard the life and property of 'D' party and his men.The said complaint is pending investigation.The Inspector of Police, after studying the tense situation over the said property, has filed a report before the Revenue Divisional Officer for maintaining public peace.The learned counsel further submits that the 'D' party has rights over the said property and is possessing valid title deeds for claiming civil rights of the said property.Under the said sale deed, the fourth respondent intentionally and knowingly made a wrong co-relation of the PIMASH numbers of the properties with survey numbers of the lands held by M.V.R.Group including the revision petitioner with a view to encumber the said properties.(f) The Paimash numbers of the properties mentioned in the power of attorney does not co-relate with the survey numbers mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of V.Amar.The family of K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar was holding only 1.87 acres of lands in Alandur Village at the time of entering into the partition in 1977, the breakup of which is given below:-SURVEY NUMBEREXTENT16/2036 cents18/244 cents18/5A58 cents19/214 cents19/426 cents21/309 centsTotal187 cents(g) by virtue of the partition, K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar received only 31 cents in Survey Nos.18/2, 19/2, 18/5A and 16/20 as his share of the property.Thereafter, in 1985, the predecessors in title of the M.V.R.Group purchased the entire extent of 1.87 acres from the respective owners including K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son K.Venkatakrishnan who had both executed the sale deeds.Further, using the said forged, fabricated and concocted documents, the fourth respondent also managed to fraudulently obtain Town Survey Pattas in his name even while the petitioner as well as the other owners are holding Revenue Pattas for the entire extents and Town Survey Pattas for a substantial extent of lands owned by them.The fourth respondent also manipulated the Revenue Records pertaining to the property in collusion with the concerned officials so as to include his name in the said records in a fraudulent manner.In any event, since the fourth respondent cannot and has not obtained any title over the properties by virtue of the settlement deed / sale deed executed between himself and his son V.Amar, all the other documents like Town Survey Patta and other Revenue Records relied on by him will not confer any title upon him in respect of the disputed properties.(i) similarly the third respondent claims possession over the disputed extent comprised in Survey No.16/7, Alandur Village admeasuring 18 cents on the strength of an agreement of sale dated 02.03.2009 entered into with one R.Pankajammal who has been claiming title over the said extent of 18 cents from the year 2006 onwards by way of "Enjoyment Rights" as the alleged daughter-in-law of one Deva Reddiyar, son of Venkatarama Reddiyar.The said R.Pankajammal surfaced only in the year 2008 and started executing power of attorneys, agreements of sale, settlement deeds, revocation of settlement, lease agreements and such other documents in favour of different persons with a view to encumber the said properties.A mere perusal of the said document would show that the same is nothing but a fabricated and forged document and that during the year 1969 or subsequently, no such office called "Udhavi Aanaiyar Aluvalagam" was functioning in Tiruvannamalai.On the contrary, the petitioner along with other co-owners had purchased the said extent of 18 cents comprised in Survey No.16/7 during the year 1988-1990 from the four sons of V.Devarajulu Reddiyar @ Deva Reddiyar and has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said extents, ever since the date of purchase.(k) the third respondent, R.Pankajammal and other persons claiming through her as well as the fourth respondent repeatedly attempted to grab possession of the property from the year 2007 onwards.In the first week of February 2009, an attempt was made by Mrs.R.Pankajammal and her group to grab possession of the disputed extent in Survey No.16/7 and the same was effectively thwarted due to the timely intervention of the Police.An F.I.R.No.72 of 2009, dated 05.02.2009 was also registered by the first respondent against some of the accused persons.Similarly, an attempt made by the fourth respondent to hold a political rally in the property was prevented by an order passed by Hon'ble DRT-II, Chennai, on 25.02.2009 wherein it has been categorically stated that the properties in question were mortgaged to Indian Bank / ARCIL and the police was also directed to take action on the complaints lodged by the owners / ARCIL against the land grabbers.(l) thereafter, another F.I.R.No.41 of 2009 dated 18.04.2009 was registered against the fourth respondent as well as other persons and is pending investigation on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Chennai Suburban Police.Thereafter, the fourth respondent and his son V.Amar recently filed Crl.The petitioner and other de-facto complainants have filed a petition seeking to implead themselves in the said proceedings and the same is pending.In spite of registration of the F.I.R's, the respondents 3 to 5 relentlessly pursued their attempts to grab illegal possession of the disputed extents and the same created frequent law and order problems in the property.(m) that on 16.10.2009 and 17.11.2009, the third respondent and his group accompanied by some rowdy elements once again broke open the gate of the property and attempted to grab possession.(i) The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate / Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram had not decided the title and ownership of the property.The learned Revenue Divisional Officer invoked Section 145 of Cr.P.C., to maintain peace over the property situated in Survey No.16/7 of Alandur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District on the request of the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount and passed orders to maintain law and order and peace in the said location.The area comes under his jurisdiction.He is the competent authority, to decide the issue on the basis of the request made by the Inspector of Police, who is also equally responsible to ensure law and order in the area, under his command.As on date, no interim order has been passed favouring any party.Under the circumstances, the parties concerned have created a tense situation over the said property, for claiming physical possession, on the strength of the titles being possessed by them.Therefore, both the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram and the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount are equally responsible to maintain law and order and ensure that peace prevails in the area.(iii) 'A' party had lodged a complaint against 'B' party on 16.10.2009 stating that the 'B' party and his men threatened the 'A' party and his men, while 'A' party and his men were in the process of raising a compound wall over the property.The said complaint in C.S.R.No.512 of 2009 is pending on the file of Inspector of Police.(iv) On the very same day, the 'B' party had filed a counter complaint against 'A' party and his men stating that 'A' party and his men, prevented the 'B' party and his men from entering into the property and threatened and drove them away.This complaint had been lodged before the Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount (Law and Order) registered as C.S.R.No.513 of 2009, on the file of Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount.(v) The 'C' party men, one Rajakumar and his power agent viz., Gobichandran against Pankajammal, Ramani, Kesavamurthy and a few others had attacked one Chakrapani with deadly weapons and damaged the gate.This happened during the night hours.Thomas Mount.Therefore, the Inspector opined that there was an imminent possibility for disturbance of law and order and that this would cause breach of peace to the public.Therefore, the Inspector had made the petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram to conduct enquiry with all the parties and verify their documents and decide the issue.The said petition was filed on 24.10.2009, along with first information report.After receipt of the petition from the Inspector of Police, and on perusing the F.I.R., which was pending on the file of Inspector of Police, the R.D.O. felt that due to the tension situation prevailing over the property due to the dispute among the parties, peace of the public would be disturbed.Therefore, the Revenue Divisional Officer had decided to conduct an enquiry.Hence, he issued summons to 'A' 'B', 'C' and 'D' party, and asked them to appear before him on 24.11.2009, at 11 a.m., with necessary documents and written statements.On the very same day, status quo order was also passed. 'A' party, 'B' and 'C' party had submitted counter statements and also had produced their supporting documents. 'D' party had neither filed written statement nor cross-examined the rival parties.The 'C' party had filed statement before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalput, Kancheepuram District.The contentions made by them are that:-(i) they along with one M/s.Satyam Foods Ltd., and M/s.S.N.J.Properties Management Pvt. (Ltd.,) (Group Companies) are the absolute owners of an extent of 18 cents of land comprised in S.No.16/7 of Alandur Village, Tambaram TK, Kancheepuram District.The above properties also forms part of a larger extent of land in all admeasuring 150 grounds or thereabouts purchased in the names of various individuals / companies of the MVR Group during the period 1988-1990, (Annexure-1).(ii) that in 1996, Indian Bank filed suits against the borrower companies as well as the owners of the 120 grounds (mortgagors) before the DRT-I, Chennai for the recovery of the amounts due to them.In pursuance thereof, the Indian Bank had published a "Public Notice" in the leading news papers in 1997 informing the General Public that the said properties were under mortgage to them (Annexure-2).From 2002, on wards, the Indian Bank had appointed their security personnel in the property to safe guard the same.In January 2005, Indian Bank initiated proceedings against the mortgaged properties (120 grounds) under the SARFAESI ACT by publishing a "Demand Notice" under Sec.13(2) in the leading news papers (Annexure-3).Subsequently, Indian Bank took possession of the mortgaged properties in March 2005 under Sec.13(4) of SARFAESI ACT by publishing a "Possession Notice" in the leading news papers, (Annexure-4).(iii) that thereafter, by an Assignment Agreement dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure-5), Indian Bank assigned the Secured Financial Assets including the mortgaged properties admeasuring 120 grounds (inclusive of 14 cents comprised in S.No.16/7) to the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., (ARCIL), Mumbai under the provisions of SARFAESI ACT.ARCIL being a Securitization and Asset Reconstruction Company registered under Section 3 of the SARFAESI ACT, has stepped into the shoes of Indian Bank as a Secured Creditor and a mortgagee of the said properties.ARCIL was also put in possession of the mortgaged properties by the Indian Bank in pursuance of the said assignment and they continue to be in possession thereof till date, jointly with the respective owners.ARCIL has also appointed M/s. ITCOT Consultancy Services, a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking as the custodian of the said properties and the security personnel appointed by ITCOT are available in the property along with the security of the owners.The claims made by the said parties are frivolous claims made on the strength of bogus, concocted and fabricated documents.(v) (a) that virtue of the final decree passed in the partition suit in O.S.No.73 of 1947, Plot Nos.4 and 5 admeasuring 3.52 cents (1535 sq.ft) each was allotted to D.Venkatrama Reddiyar and D.Sriramulu Reddiyar sons of V.Devarajulu Reddiyar respectively.The above persons subsequently sold their respective extents to and in favour of one Rafeek Erikil Thavath vide sale deeds dated 28.09.1988 bearing Doc.Nos.3620/1988 and 3621/1988 before the SRO, Alandur (Annexure-7 series).The said Rafeek Erikil Thavath sold the said extents to one H.Arul Manaian and V.Rajkumar vide registered sale deeds dated 12.10.1990 and registered as Doc.No.3152/1990 and 3153/1990 before the SRO, Alandur (Annexure-8 series).Subsequently the said H.Arul Manalan sold his extent of 1535 sq.ft (3.52 cents) to M/s.Infovision Pvt. Ltd., vide sale deed dated 04.04.1994 and registered as Doc.No.2924/1994 before S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-9).Thus Mr.V.Rajkumar and M/s.Infovision Pvt. Ltd., are the absolute owners of the said extents of land and are in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof.(v) (b) that an extent of 3.52 cents formed part of the properties allotted to the share of D.Ananthasayana Reddiyar S/o.The said D.Ananthasayana Reddiyar died intestate on 20.05.1982 leaving behind his wife and 6 children as his legal heirs.The said legal heirs of late D.Ananthasayana Reddiyar sold the said extent to one Mrs.K.Malarovium (MVR Group) on 30.01.1990 and registered as Doc.No.9/1990 before the Sub Registrar of Alandur (Annexure-10).The said Mrs.Malarovium subsequently executed a sale deed in favour of M/s.Infovision Pvt. Ltd., dated 04.04.1994 and registered as Doc.No.2926 of 1994 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-11).Thus M/s.(v) (c) that an extent of 3.44 cents (1500 sq ft) was allotted to the share of D.Purushothama Reddiyar, S/o.Subsequently D.Purushothama Reddiyar died leaving behind his legal heirs P.Santhanakrishnan and P.Ramamurthy.The said persons sold the above extent to one Sethuraman by a sale deed dated 29.08.1990 and registered as Doc.No.2614/1990 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-12).The said M.Sethurman subsequently sold the above extent to M/s.Satyam Foods Pvt., Ltd., by a sale deed dated 04.04.1994 and registered as Doc.No.2927 of 1994 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-13).Thus M/s.The said V.Devarajulu Reddiyar sold the above extent to Tmt.Govindammi by a sale deed dated 24.08.1973 and registered as Doc.No.1430/1973 (Annexure-14).Govindammal executed a last Will and Testament dated 15.02.1984 bequeathing the above property in favour of Mr.A.Balasundaram, her nephew and foster son Tmt.Govindammal died issueless on 18.02.1994 and Mr.A.Balasundaram became the absolute owner of the above property.He subsequently sold the above extent to one S.Srinivasa Raghavan by a sale deed dated 28.08.1995 registered as Doc.No.2466/1995 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-15).The said Srinivasa Raghavan subsequently sold the said extent to M/s.Model Electronics Technik Pvt. Ltd., by a sale deed dated 17.01.1997 and registered as Doc.No.74/1997 before the S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-16).The said company subsequently sold the above extent to M/s.S.N.J.Properties Management Pvt. Ltd., by a sale deed dated 09.01.2008 and registered as Doc.No.59 of 2008 before S.R.O., Alandur (Annexure-17).Thus M/s.Under the recovery suits filed by the Indian Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai against these companies O.A.No.12 and 14 of 1996 on the file of D.R.T-II, Chennai, the aforesaid extent of 14 cents mortgaged to them is shown as a security in the hands of the bank (Annexure-18 series).(vii) that it is also penitent that the respective owners of the entire 160 grounds of land (including the extents in S.No.16/7 of Alandur Village) are holding, joint Revenue Pattas in their names and have also obtained Town Survey Pattas for almost 70 Grounds (Annexure-19 series).(viii) (a) that the A-party K.Thirumaniselvam, S/o Karuppaiah Nadar claims to be in possession of the disputed extent comprised in S.No.16/7 of Alandur Village on the strength of an Agreement of Sale dated 02.03.2009 entered into with one R.Pankajammal W/o.Ramasamy Reddiyar, represented by her Power Agents P.Nagaraj and B.Murali.The said Mrs.R.Pankajammal is a land grabber who has been attempting to grab C-party's property by creating forged and fabricated documents for the past two years.The said Mrs.R.Pankajammal is claiming title over the 18 cents comprised in S.No.16/7 by way of "Enjoyment Rights" as the Daughter-in-law of one V.Deva Reddiyar, S/o.Venkatachala Reddiyar who is said to be the original owner of the properties.However, the actual owner of the property was one V.Devarajulu Reddiyar @ Deva Reddiyar son of one Lakshmana Reddiyar and the said V.Devarajulu Reddiyar had four sons viz., (1) L.Venkatrama Reddiyar, (2) L.Ananthasayana Reddiyar, (3) L.Purushothama Reddiyar and (4) L.Sriramulu Reddiyar who are the C-party's predecessors in title to the said property.(3) The authority who had purportedly issued by the said certificate was not vested with the power or the authority to issue such a certificate to any person;(4) During the year 1969 or subsequently, no such office called "Udhave Aanayar Aluvalaham" was in existence at Tiruvannamalai.(5) Subsequently, only an office of the said Assistant Settlement Officer was established in Thiruvannamalai in the year 1974."(viii) (d) that it is therefore evident that the aforesaid "Enjoyment Certificate" is nothing but a fabricated and forged document created by the said Mrs.R.Pankajammal to set up a false claim over our properties.Apart from the above fabricated certificate, the said R.Pankajammal is not in a possession of any other title documents pertaining to the property nor was she in possession and enjoyment of the same at any point of time.On the contrary, the extent of 18 cents was purchased by C-party during the year 1988-1990 from the four sons of V.Devarajulu Reddiyar @ Deva Reddiyar who is the real predecessor in the title to the said properties as enumerated in para 5 above which would clearly establish that they along with the two other co-owners are the absolute owners of the said extents.Therefore, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer should ascertain the genuineness of the said "Enjoyment Certificate" and can direct criminal action to be initiated against the said persons for forging and fabricating a Government document and attempting to use the same as genuine, based on which the claim of possession made by the said persons can be rejected.(viii) (e) that the said Mrs.R.Pankajammal started executing various agreements and power of attorneys in favour of different persons starting from February 2008 in respect of the 18 cents of the land in S.No.16/7 of Alandur Village with a view to grab the valuable properties.Since the disputed properties are facing the G.S.T.Road and is the main access to the larger property of 15 grounds owned by their Group, they had constructed a compound wall facing the G.S.T. Road and had also put up a gate facing the G.S.T. Road, in the month of August 2008 with a view to protect the property (Annexure-24)."(1) Power of Attorney dated 20.02.2008 executed by R.Pankajammal in favour of Mr.Kesavamurthy and Mrs.Ramani registered as Doc.No.328 of 2008 - S.R.O., Alandur.(2) Agreement of sale dated 04.03.2008 between R.Pankajammal rep. by her power agents Mr.Kesavamurthy and Mrs.Ramani and Mr.H.S.Anand, Coimbatore, registered as Doc.No.764 of 2008 - S.R.O., Alandur.(3) Settlement Deed dated 14.10.2008 executed by R.Pankajammal in favour of her brother P.Pakkirisamy registered as Doc.No.2942 of 2008 - S.R.O., Alandur.(4) Deed of Revocation of Settlement dated 29.12.2008 executed by R.Pankajammal registered as Doc.An F.I.R.No.72 of 2009, dated 05.02.2009 is also registered and pending investigation on the file of the S-1, St.Thomas Police Station against the said persons (Annexure-25).They also filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.551 of 2008 against Mrs.At the same time, the said Mrs.R.Pankajammal executed a fresh power of attorney in favour of one P.Nagaraj and B.Murali on 26.02.2009 who in turn fabricated an agreement of sale dated 02.03.2009 with Mr.K.Thirumaniselvam (A-party).It is pertinent that while executing the power of attorney dated 26.02.2009, the earlier power of attorney executed by Mrs.R.Pankajammal in favour of Kesavamoorthy and Mrs.Ramani on 20.02.2008 and the sale agreements entered into with H.S.Anand of Coimbatore on 20.02.2008 and one S.Ravichandran on 29.12.2008 were not cancelled.The claim of S.P.Velayutham (B-party) can be proved to be false on the basis of the following facts:-(3) The said K.P.Sriramulu Reddiyar revoked the settlement on 02.03.1949 by a deed of revocation of settlement, registered as Doc.(5) On 26.05.1969, the said K.P.Sriramulu Reddiyar gifted an extent of four cents out of the said lands to Alandur Municipality for road development vide a Gift Deed bearing Doc.No.437 of 1969 and was left holding the balance extent of 1.99 acres.(6) On 16.06.1969 K.P.Sriramulur Reddiyar sold 12 cents of land to one P.Thiruvengadam vide sale deed bearing Doc.No.67 of 1969 and was left holding an extent of 1.87 acres.(7) On 02.12.1977 K.P.Sriramulu Reddiyar and his five sons entered into partition in respect of the remaining 1.87 acres of land in Alandur Village, whereunder one of his sons, K.S.Deenadayalur Reddiyar received a total extent of 31 cents out of the said property towards his share.The said partition deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Alandur on 02.12.1977 itself and admitted execution by all the parties and the same was kept as a pending document for payment of deficit stamp duty.(8) On 14.09.1978, the said Mr.Thereafter, the said K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venakatakrishnan started entering into Sale Agreements with various parties falsely claiming to be the owners of the said property in Alandur Village with a view to encumber the same.(ix) (d) that while this is so, in 2006, the said persons in collusion with S.P.Velayutham S/o.Sabapathi (B-party) fabricated a power of attorney dated 23.08.2006, registered as document No.2115 of 2006, empowering the said S.P.Velayutham to maintain an extent of 6.3.11 1/2 Cawnies of lands (approximately 8.29 acres) purportedly owned by K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar in Alandur Village (Annexure - 32).The said power of attorney does not contemplate any power to sell or alienate the property had only empowered the attorney to maintain the property, to negotiate with prospective purchasers and for entering into agreements in respect thereof etc. Further, the said K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son have fraudulently executed the power of attorney in respect of properties not owned by them which also included the extent of 1.87 acres sold by the said K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiar and his brothers in 1985 to the predecessors in title of the M.V.R. Group.The said extent of 108 cents covered by the aforesaid survey numbers have been purchased by their group during the period of 1988-1989 from the respective predecessors in title, the details of which are already enumerated herein before.(ix) (g) that it is further pertinent that in the said 108 cents of lands covered in the aforementioned survey numbers, K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan had title only in respect of an extent of 23 cents which formed part of the 31 cents received by them under the partition entered into between his father and brothers in the year 1977, K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan did not have any right, title or interest in and upon the balance extent of 77 cents at any point of time, either prior to or after the partition.Therefore, the sale deed executed by the said S.P.Velayutham as the power of attorney holder of K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar and his son Venkatakrishnan in favour of his own son Amar is also null and void.(ix) (i) Subsequently, the said S.P.Velayutham representing the said K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar and D.Venkatakrishnan fabricated a fraudulent sale deed in favour of his own son V.Amar on 05.07.2007, registered as Doc.No.2179 of 2007 before the S.R.O, Alandur (Annexure-33) purportedly conveying an extent of 9.92 acres of land in Alandur Village for a sale consideration of Rs.5 crores.A perusal of the said sale deed would show that the same has been executed by S.P.Velayutham on the strength of the registered power of attorney bearing Doc.This document is also a fabricated and concocted document created for the purpose of land grabbing, by virtue of which S.P.Velayutham (B-party) is now claiming title to the entire 100 grounds of lands owned by their Group in S.Nos.16 to 19 & 21 of Alandur Village including the disputed extents in S.No.16/7, apart from certain other properties owned by various third parties.The said S.P.Velayutham, in collusion with the certain officials of the Alandur Municipality and the Revenue Department has managed to obtain Town Survey Patta for the properties in his name without notice to any of the existing Pattadhars or their predecessor in title and by manipulating the records and has also managed to remit the tax in respect of the property.Indian Bank had also addressed a letter dated 08.10.2007 addressed to the Tahsildar, Tambaram with a copy marked to the District Collector requesting them not to issue patta to the said S.P.Velayutham (Annexure-37) as the patta obtained by S.P.Velayutham is through fraudulent means and the same is illegal.They have also submitted their written objections to the same to the learned Revenue Divisional Officer on 28.04.2009 itself (Annexur-38).The lands were also assessed under the "Land Ceiling Act" in the hands of the respective owners.As stated earlier, the owners are holding joint revenue pattas covering the entire extent as well as Town Survey Pattas for almost 70 grounds.The names of the owners also entered into the Chitta, Adanga, and other Revenue Records pertaining to the properties.(x) (b) that the M.V.R. Group availed loans from the Indian Bank originally in 1988 and subsequently in 1995 for developing the properties for which 120 grounds was offered a mortgage.The said project could not materialize due to the other business losses suffered by the M.V.R.Group in its Export / Import business which resulted in the Indian Bank recalling these loans also.As stated earlier, in March 2005, Indian Bank took possession of the properties under the SARFAESI ACT and had deployed security guards along with their security guards in the property.The said M.Farook (D-party) is only a mere trespasser who trespassed into the property recently to assist the said S.P.Velayutham to grab the property.(x) (c) that in fact, M.Farook is carrying on business as a Scrap Dealer adjacent to the property of the M.V.R. Group, facing M.K.N.Road, Alandur.He was never in possession and enjoyment of the properties belonging to the M.V.R Group at any point of time and his claim that he has been enjoying the said properties from the day of his father is nothing but false.Therefore, the claim of M.Farook (D-party) is nothing but a false and frivolous claim and the same has to be rejected intoto.The 'B' party had filed a written statement and denied the allegations made by 'A' party.The 'B' party stated that the said property was under his occupation and enjoyment.The contentions of the 'A' party stating that he tried to raise the compound wall around the property and that at that time on behalf of the 'B' party, one Vetriselvam and his men threatened the 'A' party was denied.As such, the 'B' party had become owner of the property and enjoying the same.Hence, the 'B' party had lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police.But the same complaint was sent to the Inspector by R.P.A.D. In order to prove the illegal activities of 'A' party, photographs were taken and sent to the Inspector of Police, along with the complaint.The 'B' party further stated that the said Pankajammal had created false documents and executed power of attorney to various persons.Subsequently, it were cancelled.The said Pankajammal further stated that the said property was owned by one Deva Reddy and as such, she has claimed ownership over the property.The said Pankajammal had created about 8 false documents over the said property viz.,(ii) On the strength of the registered power of attorney, the said Ravichandran had executed a sale agreement to and in favour of one Sampath Kumar.(vi) Again the said Pankajammal executed a power of attorney in favour of one Mr.Nagaraj and one Mr.The said power agents viz., P.Nagaraj and Murali had executed a sale agreement in favour of Mr.K.Thirumaniselvam.(vii) Another agreement was executed by the said Pankajammal, in favour of Ravichandran on 20.05.2009 vide registered document No.1099 of 2009, on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Alandur and(viii) Another unregistered agreement has been made between Mr.H.S.Anand and Mr.Ravikumar.As such, they have created a law and order problem.Again, on 20.12.2009, on the instigation of Tirumaniselvam, the said Ravikumar had demolished the compound wall and put a tea stall.The same was informed to the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount, who closed the said tea-stall, after showing the order.Again on 01.02.2010, the said Tirumaniselvam had opened the tea-stall, illegally and has violated the Revenue Divisional Officer's order.The 'B' party further stated that the 'A' and 'C' parties had created problems over the said properties and have violated law and order.Hence, the 'B' party has entreated the Sub Divisional Magistrate to declare that the 'B' party is in physical possession and enjoyment of the property.The 'A' party viz., Mr.Tirumaniselvam had filed a written statement stating that he is running a tea-stall at No.16, G.S.T. Main Road, Alandur, Chennai - 32, in the name and style of 'Sri Mutharamman Tea Stall'.He further stated that the property originally belonged to one Mrs.Pankajammal, who had executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of one Mr.The said 'A' party had further stated about the history of the property, and has stated that Mrs.R.Pankajammal, D/o.Late P.Perumal, residing at Radhanallur Village, Keevalur Taluk, Nagapattinam District had executed a settlement deed in favour of P.Pakkirisamy, S/o.All the rival claimant's are having money power and muscle power and disturbing the law and order by illegally trespassing into the property.Hence, the 'D' party had lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, St.The 'C' party has filed reply statements to the 'A' party as well as 'B' party.The 'B' party had also filed reply statement to the 'C' party.The 'C' party had also filed reply to the 'D' party.The Tambaram Taluk Tahsildar has submitted a report stating that the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar had inspected the property in survey No.16/7, Alandur Village and land survey No.6, Ward 'H', block 20, of Alandur Municipality, an extent of 1.014.0 sq metre, which is in the name of S.P.Velayutham, S/o.Sabapathy, as per land survey register.At the time of physical inspection, the said Velayutham had constructed a wall and put iron gates, on the said property.The Northern side of the said property, an extent of 0.878.0 Sq.metre land alone is the property in dispute.The Deputy Tahsildar came to know about the said fact after spot enquiry.The Deputy Tahsildar further found that the 'B' party, viz., Mr.S.P.Velayutham had no access to reach his property through G.S.T.Road.Mr.S.P.Velayutham had put up a guard room, on the southern side of the newly constructed wall, wherein an electricity service connection had been disconnected.One more newly constructed guard room is adjacent to the G.S.T.Road, which is in front of the newly erected compound wall, and in front of the newly erected compound wall, the hoarding of "J.R.scrap and Plastics" had been erected.The same had also been struck out and then the name had been written as V.Amar, S/o. S.P.Velayutham.This name had also been struck out and the 'B' party name i.e., Mr.S.P.Velayutham had been entered.The said order was passed in M.C.No.N.4761/2009-C, on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer.The Revenue Divisional Officer further directed the Inspector of Police, St. Thomas Mount to monitor the said property and directed him to take action for any breach of peace, as per law.In the said order dated 24.11.2009, there was no mention regarding 'C' party, but a copy of the order was sent to them.As such, the order dated 16.04.2009 is not maintainable without recording 'C' party's statements.As such, the Revenue Divisional Officer's order is a pre-determined and an erroneous one.(b) The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the only material available to the police was that the complaint was lodged by the revision petitioner, C-party against Pankajammal and others (A-party).As such, the dispute was only between 'A' and 'C' parties.The preliminary order was passed only for the disputed area of land in S.No.16/7, Alandur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District.(c) The learned senior counsel for revision petitioner further pointed out that no hearing was given and no written statements had been filed and the 'C' party was not given an opportunity to lead evidence.Further, this report of the Deputy Tahsildar was not disclosed to the revision petitioner herein.Therefore, the order has been based on un-communicated material, which is grave violation of the principles of natural justice.The learned Executive Magistrate directed the impleading petitioner's representatives to file written submissions and documents regarding the rights of the impleading petitioner.Accordingly, on November 27, 2009, the impleading petitioner had brought the aforesaid facts including of its possession of the Petition Schedule Property under the SARFAESI ACT to the notice of the learned Executive Magistrate and requested for an opportunity to present its case prior to any order that may be passed therein.He further submitted that aggrieved by the impugned order dated April 1, 2010 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, the impleading petitioner herein filed Crl.O.P.No.27317 of 2010 and the same is pending on the file of this Court.24 (g) The impleading petitioner further submitted that the subject matter and the issues in Crl.O.P.No.27317 of 2010 and the present revision are the same and therefore any order passed in the Criminal Revision will have a direct implication on the rights of the impleading petitioner herein.A verification of the co-relation of the PIMASH numbers with survey numbers made by the fourth respondent would reveal the fact that the fourth respondent had intentionally made an erroneous co-relation for the purpose of including the survey numbers of the properties owned by the petitioner as well as M.V.R. Group in the schedule to the said sale deed.Therefore, the very sale deed in favour of Mr.V.Amar and the subsequent settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent are void, nonest in law and does not confer any right, title or interest upon them.(h) the said V.Amar, executed a settlement deed in favour of the fourth respondent on 19.10.2008 and registered as document No.2881 of 2008 before the Sub-Registrar, Alandur.Numerous complaints were lodged both by the petitioner herein as well as the other co-owners and ARCIL with the first respondent herein as well as the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Suburban Police against these land grabbers.The petitioner had lodged two complaints dated 19.10.2009 and 07.11.2009 with the police.A Crime No.1178 of 2009 under Section 145 Cr.P.C., dated 24.10.2009 was registered by the first respondent and the same was referred to the learned R.D.O. and S.D.M., Tambaram for adjudication.On the said date, the petitioner filed a letter with the second respondent stating that ARCIL is in possession of the property along with the co-owners and therefore any adjudication without hearing ARCIL would vitiate the proceedings.Simultaneously, ARCIL's counsel was also present, made a plea to be impleaded as a necessary party in the Sec.145 Proceedings.The fourth respondent was represented by his counsel and nobody appeared for the second and fifth respondents.Ka.4761-C of 2009 directing the claimants to maintain status quo during pendency of the proceedings with a further direction to the first respondent to continuously monitor the situation and take appropriate action as contemplated under law against any person who violates the said order.The second respondent also directed the parties to file their respective statement of claims with the supporting documents and the next date of hearing was to be notified.In spite of the said order of status quo the third respondent completed the construction of a wall on the Eastern side barring access to the larger extents of the property and a small shed on the Western portion of the disputed property facing the G.S.T.Road by breaking open a portion of the existing compound wall, admeasuring approximately 100 sq.ft and had set up a shop in the same.The petitioner brought the same to the notice of the first respondent Police and immediately the first respondent police directed the fourth respondent to close the shop.(o) in the first week of February 2010, the third respondent reopened the shop and commenced business.Even though the same was immediately brought to the notice of the first respondent police that they failed to take any action.In the meanwhile, on 07.02.2010, first respondent informed the petitioner that the hearing in the adjudication proceedings was scheduled to be held before the second respondent on 08.02.2010 at 11 a.m. The petitioner along with his advocate went to the office of the third respondent and was informed that the hearing was postponed to 3 p.m. at Tambaram.The petitioner's Director D.Gobichandran appeared in person at 3 p.m. and filed a detailed statement of claim along with all supporting documents before the second respondent.Copies of the same were also furnished to the other claimants by the petitioner.No advocates appeared for the third and fifth respondents and were sought to be represented by some persons claiming to be their representatives.The second respondent directed either the party or the counsel alone should appear in the matter.No statement of claim or documents were filed on behalf of the third and fifth respondents on the said date.Thereafter, the third respondent, through Mrs.R.Pankajammal attempted to obtain an electricity service connection to the shed in the disputed extent.The petitioner filed W.P.No.5738 of 2010 and obtained an interim injunction restraining the TNEB from granting any service connection to the premises and the same is pending.(q) thereafter no hearing was held by the second respondent in the matter.The petitioner was awaiting notice of further hearing and the copies of claims filed by the third and fifth respondents were never served the petitioner.Further, the reply filed by the fourth respondent to the claim of the petitioner was also not served on the petitioner.When the matter was adjourned on 08.02.2010, the pleadings were yet to be completed by the parties.It is pertinent while adjourning the matter on 08.02.2010, the second respondent had categorically stated that the date of the subsequent hearing would be intimated to the parties and thereafter no notice of hearing was given to the petitioner.(r) while this was so, the petitioner was shocked and surprised to receive the impugned order dated 01.04.2010 by post on 23.04.2010 and the revision petitioner is unable to understand as to how the second respondent has passed the said order without affording a proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in the above matter.It is also pertinent that the under the said order, respondents 3 to 5 are shown to be represented through their counsel, whereas the petitioner herein is not shown to be represented by any person.As stated earlier, the petitioner had appeared on 24.11.2009 as well as on 08.02.2010 and the same is clearly evidences by the Letter / Memo / Statement of Claim filed by the petitioner on the said dates.However, the third and fifth respondents were not represented through their counsel nor did they appear in person on the said dates and therefore the petitioner is not aware as to when and how the third and fifth respondent's counsel had appeared before the second respondent and pleaded their case.(s) the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent without proper application of mind and without adverting to the statement of claim or documents filed by the petitioner.Further the second respondent has also traversed far beyond the scope of reference while adjudicating the issue before her.It is pertinent that the dispute which has referred for adjudication before the second respondent pertain only to an extent of 18 cents of land comprised in Survey No.16/7 in Alandur Village.The third and fifth respondents did not file their claim petitions even on the said date.In the first hearing held on 24.11.2009, the parties were merely directed to file their statements of claim.The Tahsildar who is expected only to make a survey of the physical condition of the property in his so called report has proceeded to give a certificate of title to the fourth respondent for an extent of 150 grounds in Alandur Village, based on which the second respondent blindly proceeded to give a finding that the fourth respondent is the absolute owner of more than 150 grounds of the properties including the disputed extent of 18 cents and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.The revision petitioner was never put on notice about the so called survey said to have been conducted on 20.12.2009 nor were they given any opportunity to assail the contents of the said report at any point of time.In fact the petitioner became aware of such a survey report only after perusing the impugned order.(w) the non application of mind on the part of the second respondent is evident from the fact that as per the report of the Tahsildar, the entries in the patta register shows that the patta for survey No.16/7 was originally standing in the name of one V.Deva Reddiyar which was mutated in the name of K.S.Deenadayalu Reddiyar and subsequently in the name of V.Amar.On the contrary, the petitioner herein had purchased the said extent from four sons of V.Deva Reddiyar as stated earlier and this in itself is a clear proof of the fact that the fourth respondent, with the help of various government officials have falsely mutated the revenue records pertaining to the property, so as to include the name of his son and himself as the owners of the said properties.(x) the second respondent, without adverting to any of the said facts or any of the documentary evidences filed by the petitioner and without affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, has proceeded to pass an arbitrary order holding the fourth respondent to be the owner of almost 150 grounds of lands in Alandur Village, even though the dispute which was referred for adjudication pertains only to an extent of 18 cents comprised in Survey No.16/7 and the same is entirely vitiated.Similarly, the findings given by the second respondent under the said order are also wholly erroneous, perverse and contrary to the facts and documentary evidences on record and made without proper application of mind.On considering the foregoing discussions, and on perusing the typed set of of papers, this Court opines thatHence, the said Chakrapani, who is the watchman of the property had levelled a criminal case before the Inspector of Police, St.The Inspector of Police has registered the case in Crime No.72 of 2009 for the offence under Section 147, 148, 341, 324, 427, 506(2) of I.P.C. The case is pending investigation.(vi) The 'D' party viz., M.Farooq had filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount stating that the property situated in Survey No.16 to 21, an extent of 150 grounds, door No.24, G.S.T.Road, Guindy, Chennai-32, is being occupied and enjoyed by him for the past 20 years.Hence, he has requested the Inspector of Police to give police protection in order to protect the life and property of himself and his men.(vii) Even after lodging of complaints by all the parties, the parties are taking law in their hand and disturbing public peace over the property.Therefore, the necessary action has been taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, on the basis of the 4 criminal complaints, which are pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount, and he had also collected report from his subordinates i.e., the Deputy Tahsildar, Tambaram, who had conducted the physical verification.On the basis of the reports submitted by two responsible officers of the State, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned order to maintain peace.(viii) The Revenue Divisional Officer, in his impugned order mentioned that 'A' party, 'C' party and 'D' party have to sort out their remedy, regarding their civil rights over the property, through a civil Court and till such time, the 'B' party should not be disturbed.This order will not be prejudicial to the interests and rights of the 'A', 'C' and 'D' parties.This order has been made purely to maintain peace and ensure that law and order prevails over the said property, which is under the command of the Revenue Divisional Officer.(ix) The impleading petitioner viz., Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., had financed the Indian Bank, Chennai, who is the mortgagee of the property, to an extent of 120 grounds including the disputed property.The impleading petitioner's civil rights and physical possession of the property can be established only before a civil Court.This impugned order has been made only to maintain law and order and had been passed according to criminal procedure code.As such the rights of the impleading petitioner will not be in any away affected by the impugned order.(x) If the impugned order is an erroneous one or not sustainable under law, then the revision petitioner can file an administrative appeal against the impugned order before the District Revenue Officer.The impleading petitioner had not participated in the proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer.Therefore, he has no locus standi to file the impleading petition to establish his civil rights before this Court.On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel, Mr.B.Kumar, for the revision petitioner and arguments advanced by the learned senior counsels, Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy and Mr.A.Ramesh for Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsels for the fourth respondent and arguments advanced by Mr.Muthappan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent and on scrutinizing the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein, viz., Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, in his proceedings in M.C.No.Ka.4761 of 2009, dated 01.04.2010, and this Court's findings listed as (i) to (xi), this Court dismisses the revision along with impleading petition and confirms the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein.Thirumaniselvam was shown as the 'A' party in the R.D.O. Proceedings.He has not filed any revision before this Court.However, one Mr.Ravikumar claiming through Thirumaniselvam filed Crl.R.C.No.613 of 2010 before this Court.He withdrew the revision as not pressed, which was also ordered accordingly.Resultantly, the above revision is dismissed.Consequently, the impugned order passed in M.C.Na.Ka.4761 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, dated 01.04.2010 is confirmed and the impleading petition in M.P.No.1 of 2012 is dismissed.Accordingly ordered.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
54,977,676 |
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri B. Patel, Advocate for the respondent, as amicus curiae.********** CRA.No.8818/2019 Honey @ Kakku S/o.Rajesh Atwal, Age - 23 years, Occup.Labour, Permanent Address :- Atwal Mohalla, Malhargarh, Plice Thana Malhargarh, Distt.Mandsaur (M.P.) Present Address - 3608, Sudamanagar, Sector - E Police Thana Dwarkapuri, Distt.V/s.State of M.P.Through - Police Station - Dwarkapuri, Distt.Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned Addl.Advocate General with Shri L.S. Chandiramani, Advocate for the respondent/State.********** (JUDGMENT) (Indore Dt.03.3.2020) Per Shailendra Shukla, J:-The present reference and appeal arise out of judgment dated 30.9.2019, pronounced in Special Case No.2147/2018 by the 15th A.S.J. and Special Judge, Indore whereby,--2-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.In default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI.Section 376 AB of Life Imprisonment till natural death with fine IPC of Rs.4000/-.In default of payment of fine 3 months additional RI.Section 5(n) read Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.4000/-.In with Section 6 of default of payment of fine 3 months POCSO Act. additional RI.In default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI.In default of payment of fine 4 months additional RI.The prosecution story in short was that on 25.10.2018 Ashu (PW2) had left his daughter 'A' aged about 4 years to the coaching classes run by Anamika (PW7) at Sudama Nagar, Indore at about 5.00 PM and when he came back to fetch his daughter he was told by Anamika (PW7)--3-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 appellant - Honey has already taken his daughter half hour back.Ashu (PW2) came back and he along with his wife Nitika (PW1) searched for their daughter but when they could not find her, a missing person report Ex.P/2 and FIR Ex.P/1 were lodged.The FIR was registered as Crime No.539/2018 under Section 363 of IPC.Next day, ie., 26.10.2018 witness Premnath (PW12) discovered body of a girl child at a spot where Premnath (PW12) had gone to relieve himself.Premnath (PW12) gave an intimation, in M.G. Road Police Station which is Ex.Police arrived at the spot and prepared spot map Ex.The body of the girl child was found in naked condition.Its hands and legs were visible but trunk was covered with stones.Merg was registered.On receiving such information, the scientific officer Dr. B.L. Mandloi (PW30) arrived at the spot along with photographer and prepared a report Ex.P/70 and photographs of the spot and the deceased were taken.The identification proceedings were initiated and the father Ashu (PW2) identified the body as that of his daughter.The identification memo was drawn and a panel of doctors performed postmortem in order to determine the cause of death.As per their report, the death was on account of culpable homicide and the girl child was found to have been sexually violated.Appellant - Honey was nabbed on the basis of statements of Anamika (PW7).He was arrested on 29.10.2018 and his memorandum statements were recorded on the basis of which his clothes, clothes of the deceased girl child and the stone piece which was allegedly used by the--4-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 appellant to bludgeon the girl child to death were recovered.The question as to why Ashu (PW2) himself brought his daughter to the coaching class of Anamika and came back to fetch her as well when this task was usually performed by the appellant only, has been answered by Nitika (PW1).She states that the appellant earlier used to stay in her house only and used to work with her husband and was also used to run errands such as carrying her daughter to the coaching and fetching her from there but on the morning of the incident, ie., 25.10.2018, appellant - Honey had come in inebriated condition and had cast an evil eye upon her which disturbed the witness and the witness then told her husband to take the appellant out of the house and then her husband took appellant to the house of the sister of the appellant namely Bhoomi.Although these statements have not been recorded in FIR Ex.P/1 but as has already been laid down by the Apex court in various judgments, FIR is not an encyclopedia of facts and is barely a means to initiate investigation.The prosecution has not examined the sister - Bhoomi of the appellant.As far as Ashu (PW2) is concerned, he has alsoAshu (PW2) states that on 25.10.2018 appellant - Honey had come to his house in inebriated condition and did not exhibit hon'ble intentions towards his wife which trend was being displayed by him since last 2-3 days and his wife told him that the appellant should be made to leave the house and then the witness took the appellant and left him at the house of his sister - Bhoomi.The witness also states that prior to this the appellant was residing in the house of the witness.As per this witness also, the appellant used to perform house hold chores which also involved carrying the daughter of witness to the coaching class and school and bringing her back from there.The reason for keeping appellant in the house of the witness was that appellant belonged to the community of the witness (both were Sweepers) and used to work with him because the appellant had been turned out by his Aunt.These statements of the appellant have not been controverted in cross examination.In para 14, the witness has been cross - examined as to whether the witness has received any complaint against the appellant during the period appellant stayed with him.The witness has given the answer in negative.Thus, from the evidence of Ashu (PW2) and Nitika (PW1), it is proved that the reason for Ashu (PW2) to leave his daughter at the coaching class and also coming back to fetch her was due to the reason that the appellant had been turned out by Ashu (PW2) due to dishonorable intention of the appellant towards Nitika (PW1).--10-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.Thus, it is proved that on the date of the incident there was a bad blood created between the appellant and the parents of the deceased 'A' and despite such circumstances, the appellant had come to fetch 'A' not once but twice ie., at 5.30 P.M. and at 6.30 PM which again points out at some ominous planning of appellant.As already pointed out, when Ashu (PW2) came to know that his daughter had been taken away by appellant and after searching he could not found her, Ashu (PW2) and Nitika (PW1) got panicked and lodged missing person report as also FIR.The missing person report Ex.P/9 from 'd' to 'd'.The witness responds in affirmative but again states that one can make out that it was the appellant and 'A' only.(Ashu PW2) and Nitika (PW1) have also stated that they have identified both in CCTV footage.Nitika (PW1) denies that she could not identify both and no question in cross examination has been posed to Ashu (PW2).It is clear that while Nilesh Patidar (PW5) did not know 'A' and appellant, both Ashu (PW2) and Nitika (PW1) had already known the appellant and 'A' was their daughter only.Hence, they would have immediately identified these two shown in CCTV footage which may not have been possible for Nilesh Patidar (PW5).Hence, apart from previous evidence of Ashu (PW2) and Anamika (PW7), appellant was also seen along with 'A' in CCTV footages which corroborates the prosecution story that Ashu (PW2) only had kidnapped 'A'.--13-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.After the daughter 'A' of Ashu (PW2) went missing and it was found that she was taken away by the accused Honey, her search continued.The report is Ex.He also drew the outlines of the 'Bogda' on a paper which is Ex.The instructions which he passed on to S.I. were recorded vide Ex.He also had prepared a draft in relation to the items seized from the accused for being sent to FSL as per Ex.This witness admits that no blood trail was found on way to 'Bogda' No.19 where the body was found and no foot prints of animals were--16-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.20. R.K.Chaturvedi (PW35) states that a Naksha Panchnama of the body intending to note injuries and status of body was then carried out by him.This is Ex.In this document the injuries on body as described by Dr. B.L. Mandloi (PW30) have been noted.This witness further states that he prepared an application for conducting postmortem of the body which is Ex.P/34 which carries his signatures and then the body was sent to M.Y. Hospital, Indore through constable Ramkrishna (PW19).Ramkrishna (PW19) states that on application Ex.P/34 his signatures are from A to A part and he had brought the dead body to M.Y. Hospital as per instructions received.Dr. A.K. Lanjewar (PW16) states that he was posted in MGM Medical College at Indore in Department of Forensic Medicine as a guide on 27.10.2018 and on that day constable Ramkrishna had brought the body of 'A' D/o. Ashu (PW2)--17-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 aged 4 years for postmortem.The body was identified by Ashu (PW2) and Ramkrishna (PW19).The postmortem was conducted by a penal consisting of the witness Dr. S.K. Soni (PW17) and Dr. Swati Bhargava.Duration of death was within 24-48 hours since post mortem examination.The report Ex.P/35 carry the signatures of the members of the penal doctors including that of the witness.His evidence has been corroborated by doctor Sunil Kumar Soni (PW17) who has made identical statements.Dr. A.K. Lanjewar (PW16) states that the internal organs of the body called viscera were preserved in two bottles.The vaginal smear swab and 3 vaginal smear slides were also preserved.The swab of the internal thighs were also preserved for histological examination.These items were sealed and labelled and given to constable Ramkrishna (PW19).It is thus proved from the evidence of Dr. A.K. Lanjewar (PW16) and Dr. Sunil Kumar Soni (PW17) opined that death of daughter 'A' of Ashu (PW2) was a result of culpable homicide.It was also proved that 'A' had been subjected to penetrative sexual assault.Ramkrishna (PW19) states that sealed and labelled items were given to him by doctor at M.Y. Hospital which he handed over to Head Constable Shri Brajmohan Singh Bais (PW21) who drew the seizure memo Ex.P/35 which carries his signature from A to A part.Brajmohan Singh Bais (PW21) states that after seizure memo Ex. P/39, he had handed over the same to ASI Malkhana.Sham Sunder Tiwari (PW31)There is no reason to discredit this witness who is having no enmity with the appellant.Dinesh Sharma (PW3) states that he knows appellant - Honey as appellant works as a sweeper at Surya Center situated nearby his restaurant which he runs in the name of Mauji Hot Food.He states that on 25.10.2018 at about 10.00 PM to 10.30 PM, appellant - Honey had come to his shop--23-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 along with a girl child who was about 4 to 5 years old and had purchased a 'Samosa' and then went towards Municipality and 4 to 5 days later he read in news paper that appellant - Honey had murdered a girl after committing rape upon her and has thrown the body in the 'Bogda'.He states that police has come to his shop and had shown him the photo of the girl child and he had recognized the child's photo as the same who had been brought by appellant - Honey to his shop.The identification memo was drawn by police which is Ex.P/8 which carries his signatures.The photograph Article A/1 has also been identified by this witness.In cross examination this witness states that he knows Honey as he had come to his shop 4 to 5 times and he used to come alone to his shop.He admits that he did not himself go to the police station but police had come to his shop.He states that police had been carrying the photograph of the girl child and were asking persons about her whereabouts from number of persons from the locality.Sunil Sharma (PW36) states in para 14 that he had shown the photograph of the girl child to Dinesh Sharma (PW3) and Dinesh Sharma (PW3) after seeing this photograph, told him that sweeper Honey had come with a girl child to his shop on 25.10.2018 and the photograph is of the same girl child.Witness states that thereafter, he executed an identification memo in the presence of Kapil and Manoj.Kapil Kadam (PW14) has corroborated the statements of Sunil Sharma (PW36) and states that he has appended his signatures on the Ex.P/8 from B to B part.In para 16 he denies the suggestion that he and the police men--24-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 never went to Mauji Food run by Dinesh Sharma (PW3) and also denies that Ex.She states that the child is body was found by her husband Premnath (PW12).In her cross - examination she admits that appellant - Honey used to work as sweeper but had started selling socks about a year and half ago.She denies the suggestion that it was dark in the night when she saw appellant - Honey.She states that she could see in light.A perusal of the evidence shows that she knew appellant from before and her statements to have seen appellant and 4 to 5 years girl child in the night of the date of the incident has notThe prosecution story is that somewhere in the intervening night between 25.10.2018 and 26.10.2018 a girl child 'A' was done to death.Witness Indu (PW11) can thus be credited as witness of last seen.As already found that few hours earlier Deepak Yadav (PW22) has also found the appellant and 4 to 5 years old girl child in his magic van as passengers and so has Dinesh Sharma (PW3).As far as the evidence pertaining to memorandum and seizure from memorandum of the appellant and seizure of items in pursuance to such disclosure are concerned, Sunil Sharma (PW36) is relevant witness.The then Superintendent of Police constituted a team to look into the investigation.He states that accused - Honey was arrested by Shri R.N.S. Bhadoriya and then he questioned the appellant in presence of the witness Vikas Kadam and Nikhil Haade.The accused - Honey was arrested by Ramnarayan Singh Bhadoriya (PW34) whose arrest memo is Ex.Sunil Sharma (PW36) states that Honey told him that on the date of the incident the clothes which he had been wearing were the same clothes he was wearing on the date of incident also.His memorandum Ex.P/19 was recorded which carries--26-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 signatures of Sunil Sharma (PW36) from B to B part.The clothes of appellant - Honey were thereafter seized.The seizure of T-shirt and pants carrying some stains is as per seizure memo Ex.P/20 carrying the signatures of Sunil Sharma (PW36) from B to B part and both Ex. P/19 and Ex.P/20 also carries signatures of appellant - Honey.The witness states that Honey revealed that he had committed the offence and identified the place where such offence was committed.On the basis of this information a Tasdik Panchnama Ex.P/22 was prepared and a spot map Ex.P/23 was also prepared by the witness.Witness further states that thereafter appellant - Honey was sent for medical examination to District Hospital at Indore and the medical report Ex.P/18 was received thereafter.Witness further states that the police remand of appellant - Honey was sought from the court and on 30.10.2018 appellant - Honey was questioned further.He thereafter gave information regarding the place where the clothes of girl child were hidden by him.The memorandum statements are Ex.P/27 carrying signatures by the witness and on the basis of such memorandum a light pink color T-shirt, a black capri, a violet underwear and a pair of sandals blue color were taken out from below the stones and soil inside 'Bogda' No.9 by appellant - Honey in presence of the witnesses.The same was seized as per Ex.P/28 and the appellant signatures were also taken by the witness.The witness Sunil Sharma (PW36) states that he prepared the spot map of 'Bogda' No.9 which is Ex.In this report, it has been found that Article F/1, which is the slide drawn from the victim's fluids, contained sperms and the same was the situation in the underwear of the deceased which is Article P. The piece of stone which is Article D was also found to have contained human blood.The same witness states that he also received analysis report from FSL Rau, Indore on 26.12.2018 which is report No.269/18 which is Ex.As per this report, in the underwear of accused - Honey, semen and sperms were found.(ii) It has been found proved that the appellant went to the coaching class where 'A' used to study and took her away from the coaching class at 6.30 PM and the evidence of Anamika (PW7) and CCTV footage is important in this regard.(iii) Appellant and 'A' were seen together at 6.30 PM, 10.00 PM and 11.00 PM by witnesses which has been found proved.(v) The body of the deceased was found absolutely naked and the clothes of daughter 'A' identified by her father were recovered at the instance of appellant which amounts to discovery of fact.Shri Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned Addl.Advocate General with Shri L.S. Chandiramani, learned Public Prosecutor for the Appellant/State.********** Shri Avinash Sirpurkar, learned Senior Advocate with Shri B. Patel, Advocate for the appellant (CRA.No.8818/2019) as amicus curiae.No.8818/2019 appellant - Honey @ Kakku has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376AB, 302, 201, 376A of IPC and under Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. The accused has not been sentenced separately under Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, in view of Section 42 of POCSO Act which provides for sentencing under the provisions of IPC, if such provision provides for stiffer sentence and therefore was sentenced under Section 376AB in place of Section 5(n) read with Section (6) of POCSO Act. Ultimately, the appellant has been sentenced under various provisions as under :-of payment of fine 2 months additional RI.Section 366 of IPC 7 years RI with fine of Rs.3000/-.Section 302 of IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.4000/-.In default of payment of fine 3 months additional RI.201 of IPC 3 years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-.Further evidence was collected which involves CCTV footages showing appellant along with the deceased girl child at about the time when the deceased went missing.The investigating agency thereafter went on to establish as to whether the clothes of deceased contained DNAs of appellant and whether other specimen of the deceased also contained the DNAs of appellant.For this purpose the blood sample of appellant was taken and its DNA was isolated in FSL and the same was sought to be matched with DNAs present in the source of the deceased and it was revealed that the clothes of the deceased and her specimen samples show presence of DNA of appellant.The age of the deceased was also determined by the prosecution.Her school bag was also recovered by the prosecution.After investigation charge sheet was filed under the provisions of Section 363, 366, 366A, 367A, 376AB, 376E, 376(3), 302, 201 of IPC as also under Section 3/4, 5(n) read with Section 6, 5(m) read with Section 6, 5i and 5t of POCSO Act. The presiding officer framed the charges under the provisions of Section 363, 366, 376AB of IPC, Section 5(n) read with Section 6, Section 5(m) of POCSO Act, Section 302, 201 and Section 376A of IPC,The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence in his accused statement and showed inclination to lead defence evidence.However, no defence evidence has been led by him.The appellant in his appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C has controverted the impugned judgment passed byThe questions for consideration are whether in view of the ground contained in the appeal, the appellant deserves to be acquitted.There are various stages of investigation which though considered by the trial court will have to be perused and deliberated upon by us in order to see as to whether the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in respect of each of these stages are appropriate or not.The first question is whether the girl child was below 12 years or not.The prosecution has examined parents of the girl child Ashu (PW2) and Nitika (PW1).Both of whom have stated that the daughter was 4 years old.Her date of birth has been shown as 27.6.2014 by Nitika (PW1).She states that daughter 'A' of Ashu (PW2) was got admitted in her school on 21.6.2018 in KG-I Class by her father Ashu (PW2) only and the date of birth was recorded as 27.6.2014 and she has also brought scholar register along with herself showing that at Serial No.A 1074, the date of birth of 'A' has been recorded.The concerned entry is Ex.This witness further states that the police had seized these documents from her and had also sought the date of birth of the deceased in writing from her which she had given to police on her letter pad which is Ex.These documents have been seized by investigating officer by Sunil Sharma (PW36) and the seizure memo is Ex.Dr. A.K. Langewar (PW16) who had--7-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 conducted the postmortem has also found the deceased to be of 4 years old.The next question is whether the daughter 'A' of Nikita (PW1) and Ashu (PW2) had gone missing and was taken out of the lawful guardianship of her parents by the appellant.Ashu (PW2) has stated that his daughter used to study in the coaching class of Anamika Madam (PW7) and on 25.10.2018, he had left his daughter at the house of Anamika Madam (PW7) at around 5.00 PM and time of coaching was from 5.00 PM t o 7.00 PM and when he came to fetch his daughter at 7.00 PM, he was told by Anamika Madam (PW7) that 'A' had already been taken away by the appellant - Honey at about 6.30 PM.Ashu (PW2) states that Anamika knew appellant who used to bring his daughter to the coaching classes and used to take her back also from the classes.Anamika (PW7) has corroborated these statements of Ashu (PW2).She states that on 25.10.2018, Ashu (PW2) had brought his daughter 'A' to her house for coaching at 5.00 PM and thereafter at 5.30 PM, appellant came to fetch the daughter of Ashu (PW2) to which the witness refused saying that the daughter had come just now and the appellant left her house and then came again at 6.30 PM and at that point of time Anamika sent the daughter of Ashu with appellant and--8-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 thereafter Ashu (PW2) came at 7.00 PM and Anamika (PW7) told him that appellant Honey had already taken his daughter.P/2 and FIR Ex.P/1 were recorded by Ankit Sharma (PW33).A perusal of FIR Ex.P/1 shows that it contains the name of the appellant as person who had taken the daughter 'A' from the coaching class.Thus from the very inception the appellant has become the chief suspect.P/2 the original passport photograph of the daughter 'A' has been affixed.However, these discrepancies are very unsubstantial in nature.It can be seen that the missing person report was lodged soon after the daughter went missing and time record in Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/1 is 9.17 PM and 9.23 PM on 25.10.2018 respectively.The statements of these witnesses have already been corroborated by Anamika (PW7) whose statements are--11-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 to the effect that the appellant had come to fetch 'A' at 5.30 PM and then at 6.30 PM and that on the second occasion 'A' was allowed to be taken by the appellant by the witness and such statements have not been challenged and thus, it is found proved that the appellant had taken 'A' out of lawful guardianship of her parents on 25.10.2018 and thereby kidnapped her.The witness to this effect is Nilesh Patidar (PW5) who had CCTV cameras installed in his office situated above his house.During investigation it was found that the CCTV footage has depicted appellant accompanying 'A' at the relevant point of time and the police sought these CCTV footages from the witness and the witness asked Shekhar Patidar (PW4) to prepare DVDR from DVD and the CCTV footages were given to the investigating officer vide seizure memo Ex.Witness Shekhar Patidar (PW4) though admits that the DVDR was prepared from the pen drive in which the CCTV footages were first uploaded from DVR and he also admits that the aforesaid pen drive has not been seized.However, the lapse on the part of the prosecution in not seizing the pen drive has been admitted to be not major lapse by the trial court in view of the evidence of Ashu (PW2) and NitikaThe next day ie., on 26.10.2018 the school bag which was seen in the CCTV footage carried by the girl child was discovered from Kanji compound.SHO police station Dwarkapuri Ram Narayan Bhadoriya (PW34) states that he had been searching for girl child along with her parents and on 26.10.2018 when they reached Kanji compound they found school bag of daughter 'A' which has been identified by his father.Inside the bag there was handbook on which name of 'A' was written and her photograph along with photograph of her parents was also found in the handbook.The seizure memo of the same was made in presence of Ashu (PW2) and Nitin (PW8) which carry the signatures of the witnesses.Nitin (PW8) has corroborated this statement and has identified his signatures on Ex.P/12 from B to B part.Ashu (PW2) has also identified his signatures of Ex.P/12 from A to A part.No.8818/2019 daughter 'A' but in para 12 he states that father of 'A' had called him on telephone and stated that he had found the bag.Whereas Ram Narayan Bhadoriya (PW34) has stated in cross examination that Ashu (PW2) informed him on phone that the bag of 'A' has been found, Ashu (PW2) himself has stated in para 18 that the bag of 'A' was found by the police and then he was called.Nitin (PW8) also states that it was police who had intimated Ashu (Pw2) that the bag was found.Thus, there are discrepancies between the statements of Ashu (PW2) and Ram Narayan Bhadoriya (PW34) as to whether Ashu (PW2) first found the bag or police found the bag in the first place.Further, it has not been explained as to how seizure memo Ex.P/12 contained the particulars of provision of IPC a day prior to the discovery of the body of the deceased.Due to these discrepancies, evidence pertaining to finding of bag of deceased is not found proved.The next piece of evidence is the recovery of body of the deceased.On 27.10.2018, Premnath (PW12) saw hands and legs of a girl child, whose trunk was covered with stones.Such sighting was a chance discovery by witness when he had gone to relieve himself at a 'Bogda' which is a cave like place below a culvert.Witness Premnath (PW12) states that he intimated police at M.G. Road police station which is Ex.This witness states that police thereafter came and prepared spot map Ex.P/25 which also carries his signatures.Ex. P/24 was recorded by ASI Jaiprakash Choubey (PW24).--15-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 of merg which is Ex.P/24, Suryaprakash Sharma (PW27) who was posted as a Head Constable in control room at Indore and was assigned the job of photography reached the spot along with Dr. B.L. Mandloi (PW30) who was a scientific officer posted at scene of crime mobile unit.This witness states that he found a naked body of a girl child and he took the photographs which are Ex.P/54 to Ex.Dr. B.L. Mandloi (PW30) has corroborated these statements.He states that on inspection of the dead body, he found that blood like liquid had emitted from the private part of the deceased and a piece of stone ('Pharsi') was lying besides the private part on which a spot likely that of semen was visible.There was a deep gash on the right cheek extending up to chin through which jaw bone was visible.Blood also oozed out of nostrils.As per this witness, signs of sexual assault followed by murder were visible and an attempt had been made to hide the body with stones.What followed next was the identification of the body.R.K. Chaturvedi (PW35) who was S.I. at M.G. Road on 27.10.2018 states that he issued Safina Form Ex.P/4 and the body was identified by Ashu (PW2).Such identification memo is Ex.Ashu (PW2) states that he identified the body of his daughter and has appended his signature from A to A part in Ex.His signatures on Safina Form which is in fact the notice for identification ie., Ex.P/4 from A to A part has also been admitted by Ashu (PW2).The outer examination show that the rigor mortis had passed off and there was hypo- stasis on the back of the body.There was coagulated blood on the whole body and the face and soil particles were also visible and red blood had oozed out of the nostrils and the right eye had turned black.Following injuries were noted on the body vide Ex.P/35 :-Contused lacerated wound of size 9.0 x 3.5 cm x bone deep present over right side of chin situated 1.7 cm below the mid of lower lip & 4.2 cm front of right ear.2. Contused lacerated wound of size 1.5 x 1.2 cm present over root of nose situated 3.0 cm below to the glabella, just below the mentioned injury nasal cartilage was found crushed, flattened & exposed.Contused lacerated wound of size 1.0 x 0.5 cm present over lateral side of upper eyelid of right eye.Reddish colour Contusion of size 6.4 x 6.0 cm present in and around right eye.cm present over right shoulder joint, situated 3.0 cm front of tip of right shoulder joint.cm present over antero-lateral aspect of right shoulder joint, situated 3.5 cm from tip of right shoulder joint.Contused abrasion of size 3.5 x 1.7 cm present over right side of chest over anterior axillary line, situated 10.0 cm below to the right axilla.cm present over extensor aspect of right forearm situated 10.0 cm below right elbow joint.Lacerated wound of size 5.7 x 1.6 cm x bone deep present over postero-medial aspect of left elbow joint.Reddish abrasion of size 2.3 x 1.0 cm present over anterior aspect of right side of abdomen, situated just above to the right anterior superior iliac spine.Contused abrasion of size 4.0 x 2.2 cm present over anterior aspect of left thigh situated 4.0 cm above left knee joint.--18-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.x 1.0 cm to 0.7 x 0.5 cm.cm below to the C6 vertebrae & 5.5 cm right lateral to midline.Multiple scratch mark as abrasion (04 in number) present over lateral aspect of right arm nearly horizontal line in an area of 3.5 x 3.0 cm varying from 0.5 to 0.1 cm to 0.3 to 0.1 cm curvilinear in shape with concavity upward appeared to be nail marks.Contused abrasion of size 6.0 x 0.5 cm present over right side of neck situated 5.0 cm below to tip of right mastoid process.Scratch mark contused abrasion of size 0.7 x 0.1 cm present over left side of neck situated 2.7 cm below to tip of left mastoid process, curvilinear in shape with concavity downward obliquely appeared to be nail mark.x 0.1 cm present over left side of neck situated 1.8 cm back to the above mentioned (injury No.17) wound, curvilinear in shape with concavity downward obliquely placed, appeared to be nail mark.Scratch mark contused abrasion of size 0.3 x 0.1 cm present over left side of neck situated 9.0 cm below to tip of left mastoid process, horizontal idented mark appeared to be nail mark.Scratch mark contused abrasion of size 0.7 x 0.1 cm situated 7.4 cm below tot he mid of chin, obliquely placed indented mark appeared to be nail mark.Lacerated wound of size 2.0 x 2.3 cm present over left side of forehead situated 4.0 cm above lateral canthus of left eye, underneath contusion of size 4.0 x 2.0 cm was found.Contusion of size 4.0 x 4.0 cm present over left parietal region of scalp situated just left lateral to midline.Meninges was found tense & congested, on opening the meninges, SDH & SAH present all over brain at places.Brain was found soft.Compound fracture of size 3.0 x 1.7 cm present over left parieto-occipital junction situated 4.2 cm left lateral to midline, effusion of blood present surrounding the fracture.Contusion of size 6.0 x 2.0 present over right side of anterior peritoneal fold near urinary bladder, surrounding perineal muscles & tissue was found ecchymosed.--19-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.Multiple reddish colour abrasion present over back in an area of 21.0 x 17.5 cm situated 10.0 cm below to the C6 vertebrae, on cut ecchymosis was found.Pale multiple abrasion present over buttock region & over upper part of sacrum in an area of 25.0 x 19.0 cm, appeared to be ant bite mark, margins of wounds and base found irregular & crenated at places.Injury was postmortem in nature.Pale abrasion of size 3.7 x 2.5 cm present over left shoulder joint situated 3.0 cm below to the tip of left shoulder joint.Injury was postmortem in nature.Pale abrasion of size 10.0 x 4.0 cm present over left shoulder joint situated 8.5 cm below to the tip of left shoulder joint.Injury was postmortem in nature.Pale lacerated wound of size 1.8 x 1.0 cm present over antero-medial aspect of left forearm situated 4.0 cm below to the left elbow joint.Injury was postmortem in nature."Witness states that he also conducted examination of vagina of the body and found that :-"31. Vagina:- In whole of the vaginal opening circumference reddish colour contusion of size 4.0 x 2.0 cm was found with torned hymen, edema was found surrounding the tissue, contused abrasion with bruise present over posterior fouchette and posterior junction of labia majora and labia minora.Tearing of skin present over right perineal region.Vaginal opening was widened & patuluos, hymen was found torn and destructed in posterior half & remnant on anterior part visible.Urethral orifice displaced upward.Dust particle found adherent all over the perineal region at places."He also examined anus of the body and found that :-"Anus:- In whole of circumference of anus reddish colour contusion of size 3.6 x 3.0 cm was found with torn anal sphincter.Tearing of skin present over anal region, anal opening was widened & patulous, dust particle found adherent all over the anal region at places."The witness states that he conducted internal examination of the body and gave his opinion as follows :-Opinion :---20-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.Death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury.2. Evidence of penetrative sexual assault present.--21-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 states that while he was posted as Head constable in police station Rajendra Nagar, he received a sealed packet containing the internal organs of the deceased along with letters Ex.P/74 and Ex.P/75 and he deposited these at FSL Rau, Indore and receipt of which Ex.Having found proved that daughter 'A' was kidnapped by the appellant and also having found proved that her death was on account of culpable homicide and was subjected to penetrative sexual assault, the next question was identification of the person responsible for committing such ghastly act.The needle of suspicion was already on the appellant.The investigating agencies were collecting further evidence and the agency came by such evidence against the appellant in the form of last seen evidence, memorandum statements of the appellant on the basis of which the clothes of the daughter 'A' were recovered and lastly on the basis of DNA examination and matching of body fluids of the deceased with that of the appellant.As far as last seen evidence is concerned, the witnesses are Deepak Yadav (PW22) and Indu (PW11).The witness states that 4 to 5 days later, he read in the news-paper about the incident of kidnapping and murder of a girl child.He saw the photograph of the child and found that it was theNo.8818/2019 same child who had boarded his vehicle along with the person and the person's photo in the news paper also was same as that of the appellant.The witness has been shown the appellant via video conferencing and has identified him to be the same person.The witness has been shown the news paper cutting Ex.P/41 and states that he had read this news paper cutting as well.The witness has been cross examined and he admits that on a given date he transports 100 to 150 passengers and he does not recollect the facial features of such passengers.Regarding appellant he states that he had seen him when the appellant was sitting in his vehicle and further when appellant given him the fare.It is true that in general a passenger is not likely to be recognized by such a person who carries 100 to 150 passengers every day.However, the witness was able to recollect the appellant and the deceased girl child as having sat in his vehicle.When he saw the news-paper report 4 to 5 days afterwards, he could place them.It cannot be stated that Deepak Yadav (PW22) is a planted witness.He also states that he knows police posted at Dwarkapuri police station, but he is not shown as pocket witness of police.P/8 was made in police station.There is no cause of suspicion on the statement of Dinesh Sharma (PW3), Sunil Sharma (PW36) and Kapil Kadam (PW14).PM to 6.30 PM to 10.00 PM has been found proved from the above statements.It was within specific knowledge of the appellant as to what happened to girl child 'A'.Thus, onus was upon him under Section 106 of the EvidenceIndu (PW11) states that she resides in a 'Bogda' along with a husband Premnath and on the date of incident at about 11.00 PM, she saw appellant - Honey roaming with a girl child aged about 4 to 4 years.She asked the appellant as to where he was roaming and appellant did not give any reply and went towards the petrol pump.The witness states that appellant - Honey used to sell socks at Sanjay Sethu Bridge about a year and a half ago and therefore, she knows him.He thereafter wrote a letter to SDM Rau for--27-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 conducting identification of the clothes of the deceased.Witness Vikas Kadam (PW10) and Kapil Kadam (PW14) have corroborated the statements of Sunil Sharma (PW36).They have appended their signatures on Ex.P/27, Ex.These witnesses have been extensively examined and there are no statements in their cross examination which would impeach their credibility.Sunil Sharma (PW36) has also been cross examined.He states in para 45 that when appellant - Honey took out his clothes, he was given other clothes to wear.Although he admits that no bill showing purchase of other clothes has been presented by him, but he states that in seizure memo, it has been mentioned that he was given other clothes to wear.This witness has already stated that as per this witness the clothes of the deceased were subjected to identification.Manish Shrivastava (PW13) states that he, in his capacity as Naib Tehsildar, had received a letter sent by SHO Rajendra Nagar, Indore requesting for identification of certain items and such letter is Ex.Witness states that thereafter he conducted identification proceedings on 31.10.2018 at Prashaskiya Sankul Bhawan Indore in room No.G-7 and in the identification proceedings, Ashu S/o.Ashu (PW2) has also corroborated these statements and has also admitted his signatures on Ex.P/7 at A to A part.Rajesh Atwal was brought before him for medical examination by constable K.C. Sharma and he conducted examination of appellant - Honey and found him capable of performing intercourse.His pubic hairs were--29-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.No.8818/2019 sealed and his underwear was also sealed.He admits that he could not collect the semen from appellant as he has not been able to ejaculate and in cross examination he states that a person affected with anxiety neurosis may not be able to ejaculate.From the evidence of this witness it is found proved that the appellant was capable of performing sexual intercourse.The witness states that thereafter the police remand of accused - Honey was again taken and he was sent to M.Y. Hospital for conducting DNA examination.Dr. R.S. Chouhan (PW15) stated that on 1.1.2018, he was posted as CMO in M.Y. Hospital at Indore and had received a letter sent by SHO Rajendra Nagar for taking blood samples of accused Honey Atwal for conducting his DNA examination.As per this witness, an OPD Ticket was drawn (Ex.P/31) in order to conduct blood sampling of accused - Honey who had been produced by the constable Krishna Chandra and SHO Sunil Sharma.Thereafter 3 Ml.Blood of accused - Honey was drawn and was collected in E.D.T.A. Tube and Identification Form Ex.P/32 was filled up which carried the photograph of accused - Honey, verified by the witness, signed by the witnesses and thumb impressions of both the hands of accused - Honey were taken on it along with his signatures.The blood sample was then preserved inThis witness further states that the blood sample was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/99 and the same was submitted before the court vide letter of SHO Dwarkapuri Ex.This DNA analysis report runs into 8 pages and the ultimate analysis is recorded in last page which is as follows :-(i) The DNA profile of male 'Y' chromosome developed from the vaginal smear swab of the victim (Article 'F') was found to be consistent with DNA profile of male 'Y' chromosome found in blood sample of accused (Article 'Q').(ii) The DNA profile of male 'y' chromosome developed from the anal smear swab and slide of the victim(vi) The autosomal STR DNA profile was found to be same in the T-shirt of accused ('L') and victim source (Article 'R').(vii) The DNA profile of victim developed from the T- shirt of the appellant matched with DNA profile of victim developed from the blood soil.Summarily speaking, the vaginal smear swab, anal smear swab, thigh swab and underwear swab of the victim contained DNA of a male and the DNA profile of 'Y' chromosome found in these items were found to have matched with the DNA profile of the appellant drawn from his blood sample.P/81 substantiates the evidence of doctor Dr. A.K. Lanjewar (PW16) who had stated that the deceased was subjected to sexual assault.The DNA report--34-- CRRFC No.12/2019 & CRA.The mother of the deceased has deposed that the wife and daughter of the appellant came to her house and demanded the return of the money which she had borrowed from them but failed to mention that she suspected the appellant of committing the crime initially.On revisiting the evidence available on record, it appears that there are few lapses in the evidence gathered by the prosecution and the circumstances obtained in the case and these are as follows :-a) While sending the appellant for his examination, a query was made to the concerning physician to see as to whetherd) As already stated, the prosecution has failed to substantiate the newspaper cuttings regarding the criminal antecedents of the appellant by submitting proper proof thereof.In view of the above, "standards of residual doubt" has not been satisfied by the prosecution although, the prosecution has been able to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt".The sentences imposed in respectparties Chandiramani, Advocate for the Appellant/State.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,115,606 |
The prosecution case as it is unfurled is as under:(i) Sachin Matte (PW6) was attached to Police Station, Sitabuldi as Police Sub Inspector on 21.12.2015 and his duty was as Day Duty Officer.In between 4.00 to 4.30 p.m., victim along with her employer Ruplekha and her husband came to the Police Station.One lady by name Minakshi was also with them.The victim was working as maid servant at the house of Ruplekha.It was disclosed to PSI Matte that when she took the victim to Doctor for treatment of her illness, it was revealed that the victim was pregnant.Therefore, Sachin (PW6) asked them to contact Woman Police Sub Inspector Madhuri Waghade (PW9).Printed FIR is at Exh.10-A.(iii) Investigation was handed over to PSI Waghade.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::She sent appellant to Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur (GMC) for his examination.(v) Since she was on leave, PSI Waghade handed over investigation to Mr. Gajendra Raut, API.After being entrusted with investigation.DNA kits were received on the very same day.He took the accused to GMC Nagpur for collecting his blood samples for DNA test.The victim girl was already admitted in the said hospital.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::of victim girl and also accused for DNA test and handed over the DNA Kits.Along with the said, he also sent identification forms of accused as well as the victim, duly filled in by respective Medical officers i.e. Exhs.-28 and 12 respectively.Both the DNA kits received from the Medical Officer in sealed condition and those were remitted to the CA Laboratory in sealed condition.On 05.01.2016, victim girl was discharged from the hospital.She was produced before the Child Welfare Committee for recording her statement.Thereafter, PSI Waghade (PW9) resumed her duties.Therefore, investigation was again handed over to her.According to the oral report as well as evidence of the victim, originally she is resident of Jharkhand State.DATED :- 24.01.2019 ORAL JUDGMENTBy the present appeal the appellant is challenging his conviction for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).For this conviction, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.In default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.For an offence punishable unde Section 506 of the IPC, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.In default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month respectively.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::(ii) PSI Waghade (PW9) recorded oral report of victim.On the basis of said oral report, PSI Matte (PW6) registered crime vide Crime No.492/2015 for an offence punishable under Section 376 (1) and 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against the present appellant.After receiving case diary from API Raut, PSI Waghade recorded statements of witnesses from time to time.On 08.01.2016, victim delivered a female child in Mure Memorial Hospital, Nagpur.Therefore, PSI Waghade collected medical certificate about the said delivery.(vii) On 12.02.2016, PSI Waghade sought DNA kit from CA, Nagpur for collecting blood samples of baby girl for DNA::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 ::: 5 apeal302.18.odt test.After receiving the DNA kits along with identification form, she sent the same to Medical Officer under requisition for collecting the blood sample of newly born baby girl.PSI Waghade received DNA report from the office of Chemical Analyser.As per the DNA report, victim is biological mother and appellant is biological father of the newly born girl.Upon completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::After charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court, the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act, Nagpur framed charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n), 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant abjured his guilt.The prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses and also relied on various documents duly proved during the course of trial including various requisitions, medical certificates and DNA reports.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::6 apeal302.18.odt The defence of the appellant before the trial Court was that of total denial, false implication, though remotely suggestive of consensual sex.(d) of Section 2 of the POCSO Act and therefore acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, convicted him for an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) and 506 of the IPC.I have heard Mr.S. G. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pathan, learned A.P.P. for the State.Both the learned counsel took me through the notes of evidence as well as various proved documents.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court below has committed error in convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 ::: 7 apeal302.18.odt IPC inasmuch as according to his submission the victim girl was a party to consensual sex.Therefore, submitted that appellant be freed from jail by allowing the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.Though, charge was framed against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, prosecution has utterly failed to prove date of birth of victim.Learned Judge of the Court below, therefore, recorded a finding, relevant part of is reproduced hereinbelow.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::8 apeal302.18.odt "There are material lacunae in the investigation itself on the aspect of the age of the victim girl being child.There is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to hold that at the time of alleged crime, the victim girl was below 18 years of age.From the facts and circumstances as above, there is reason to believe that the victim girl may be above 18 years of age at the time of crime, more particularly from the admission given by the prosecution witnesses about the employment of the victim girl at the house of Ruplekha Roy.On this aspect, the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act would not help the prosecution."Thus, the Court below recorded a finding that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would not be helpful to the prosecution.Exh.-10 is oral report lodged by the victim (PW1).Reading of the oral report would disclose that report was lodged only after the victim was found to be pregnant by Dr. Kate when the victim was taken to her hospital by employer of victim.She was sent::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 ::: 9 apeal302.18.odt to Nagpur to work as maidservant in the house of Ruplekha by her father.Ruplekha resides at Bhagwaghar Layout, Dharampeth, Nagpur.Evidence of the victim (PW1) would show that she was sent to Nagpur in the year 2013 and from the said date and time, she was working as maidservant in the house of Ruplekha for taking care of the children of Ruplekha.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::Appellant-Rajkumar Chakravarti was working as servant in the house of Ruplekha and Siddharth as their Watchman.Evidence of the victim would further disclose that she used to prepare daughter of Ruplekha and Siddharth, for her school at 9 O'clock and it was the duty of the present appellant Rajkumar to reach her to school and to bring back her at 1.00 O'clck.During this period, as per the evidence of victim, she used to take bath and used to do remaining works when owners used to go out.Her evidence shows that appellant-Rajkumar used to talk with her.According to the victim, in the month of May,2014, on 3-4 occasions, appellant forcibly established physical relations with her whenever::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 ::: 10 apeal302.18.odt their owners used to remain out of house.It is also her evidence that he used to extend threats that the victim should not disclose the fact of intercourse with anybody.He used to press her mouth when she used feeling like screaming.According to the evidence, when first sexual intercourse took place, that time when she was shouting her mouth was pressed.It is her evidence that due to threat she did not disclose the fact to anybody.In the month of June, her menstrual cycle stopped.It is also her evidence that after her physical relations, discord took place in between her employer and the present appellant and therefore appellant was removed from the job.Thereafter, the victim started vomiting.Therefore, in the month of December, her employer took her to the hospital of Dr. Kate where it was informed that the victim is carrying 8th month of pregnancy.Therefore, victim, along with her employer approached to police Station and lodged the report.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::The victim was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant.During the course of cross-examination, a suggestion was given that appellant did not have forcible intercourse with her.However, the suggestion is denied by the victim.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::Paragraph 2 of the said report, which is relevant, reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::Such a wrong approach, therefore, by both the Courts below has resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice to the accused calling for our interference in these appeals."(Emphasis is supplied)::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 ::: 13 apeal302.18.odt From the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that accused is not bound by his pleadings.It is always open for the accused to prove his defence even from the admissions made by prosecution witness or circumstances as brought on record.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::As per the evidence, first sexual bout in between victim and the appellant took place in May-2014 and that continued for 3-4 times.It is to be noted here that victim girl was not residing separately from her employer.She was residing with her employer.She has done matriculation and therefore one can readily presume that she can write and/or can use other modes of communication to communicate the happening to her at the hands of the appellant to her parents.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::The prosecution has examined Mrs. Sangeeta Dhomne (PW2).This witness acted as pancha.She was called at Bhagwaghar layout by police.Her evidence shows that she went with one Gouri Bhalerao.House of the employer is situated at plot no.1, Bhagwaghar Layout.Her evidence would show that the victim herself has shown the spot of incident in presence of pancha witness.According to the evidence of pancha witness Sangeeta, spot of incident is guard room underneath the staircase.This oral evidence of pancha witness shows that it is duly corroborated by Exh.-16, spot panchanama.The relevant recitals from the said proved documents are reproduced hereinbelow."सदरचच घटननसथळ हच पप.ससतनबरर, हदसतसल पललट न. १, भगवनघर लचऊट, धरमपचठ ननगपपर, यचथसल रपलचखन रनय यनयचच घरनचच जजनयनचच खनलसल गनरर रम मधसल असपन घटननसथळ दनखववणनरस वफयनरदस मवहलन वह सवतत घटननसथळस हजनर रनहह न घटननसथळ दनखवसत आहच."Exh.-16 is also having sketch map and it is at page 25 of the compilation of paper book, which also shows that the spot panchanama of the spot of incident is not the main house of the employer of victim but it is beneath the staircase.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::It is to be noted here that the victim is conspicuously silent in her evidence that at any point of time she was sexually assaulted inside the house of her employer.From the aforesaid, now it is clear that at no point of tine, the incident of forcible sexual intercourse took place inside the house but on every occasion, it took place in the guardroom.If that be so, unless and until victim is taken forcibly, either under any threat or by dragging her from the main house of her employer to the spot of incident or when it is not the version of victim that she was enticed by the accused to follow him in the guardroom on giving any promises, the presence of the girl could not be fixed in the guardroom.Evidence of victim (PW1) does not disclose that at any point of time under threat she was taken from main house, where she used to work, to the guardroom or at any point of time physically by applying physical force she was taken::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 ::: 18 apeal302.18.odt to the guardroom when sexual assault took place.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::In the very same judgment, at one breathe in paragraph no.21, the learned Judge observes that presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would not help the prosecution and in another breathe, the learned Judge observes that this Court has to take into consideration the presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act.There is also one reason as to why the learned Judge::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 ::: 19 apeal302.18.odt has committed mistake in applying statutory presumption.Section 29 presumption is available only when the accused person is tried for an offence punishable under the POCSO Act. In the present case, learned Judge himself has acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for which he was charged.In that view of the matter, no provision of said Act can be applied with its full vigour for convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::The conspectus of the aforesaid discussion shows that victim girl (PW1) was party to the consensual sex.Therefore, though the appellant is found to be putative father of the female child delivered by the victim girl, as per Exh.-60 DNA report, in my view, that cannot be the incriminating circumstance against the present appellant for convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.On reappreciation of the entire prosecution case, I am of the view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Hence, I pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::(POCSO) Case No.92/2016 passed by Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicting appellant-Rajkumar Biralal Chakravarti for an offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.JUDGE kahale::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 27/03/2020 05:34:30 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,189,007 |
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
55,205,544 |
The detenu, namely, Krishna, male, aged 23 years, S/o.Anbu, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.Page 5 of 6Page 6 of 6The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.Page 2 of 64.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:"5.I am aware that Thiru.Krishna was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I am aware that Thiru.Krishna has filed a bail application before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore in ground case in Ariyur Police Station Crime No.368/2019 u/s 294(b), 341, 392, 506(ii) IPC in Crl.As far as the ground case concerned in a similar case registered at Vellore North Crime Police Station Crime No.200/2017 under Section 294(b), 394, 397, 506(i) IPC bail was granted to the accused Thiru.If he enlarge himself on bail, he would indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace.........."Page 3 of 65.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the similar case registered in Vellore North Crime Police Station Crime No.200/2017 under Sections 294(b), 394, 397, 506(i) IPC and bail was granted to the accused Thiru.Nandhu @ Nandhakumar by the Court of Principal District Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.2714/2017 on 07.07.2017 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 394, 397, 506(i) IPC in Vellore North Crime Police Station Crime No.200/2017 whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Sections 294(b), 341, 392, 560(ii) IPC.Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction.Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2672 of 2019C3/D.O.No.125/2019 dated 18.11.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,683,704 |
This application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Indrajit Chatterjee, J. )
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,690,564 |
And In the matter of: Tipu Mondal Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Prabir Majumder Mr. Sudip Guha For the Petitioner Mr. Debajyoti Deb For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No. 298 of 2013 dated 22.4.2013 under sections 448/376/511/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have considered the case diary and other relevant material.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) 2
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,696,579 |
The first information report (FIR) No.582/2013 was registered by Police Station Hari Nagar on 29.11.2013 on the complaint of the second respondent (the complainant), it involving allegations against the petitioners of they having committed offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).As per the case set out in the said FIR, the complainant had been induced, pursuant to false representation made by the petitioners, to part with money in the total sum of Rs.20,60,000/- fraudulently and with dishonest intention by the petitioners acting in concert with each other, the case statedly now pending trial before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate.M.C. 4590/2015 Page 1 of 6By the present petition invoking inherent power and jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India prayer is made for the proceedings arising out of the said FIR to be quashed.The State has submitted its status report, while the second respondent has submitted reply, both opposing the prayer for quashing.It appears that on 08.01.2014, the complainant on one hand, and the first and second petitioners, on the other, had executed a document styled as "compromise deed".At that stage, bail application (No.155) of the first and second petitioner was pending before the court of sessions.It appears that, as per the terms of the said compromise deed, the complainant had agreed to amicably settle the dispute with the first and second petitioners upon consideration of they paying to her a total amount of Rs.8,50,000/-, out of which Rs.2,50,000/- was to be paid at the time of hearing on the bail application and the balance in equal four installments after every 45 days, the complainant agreeing to co-operate for seeking quashing of the FIR or for compounding of the case, clarifying that she would not demand any further money from them, i.e., first and the second petitioners.Reference to the said compromise was made before the court of Sessions on 09.01.2014 and, on that basis, protection against arrest with prior notice of fifteen days was granted disposing of the application for anticipatory bail.It is pointed out that the third petitioner also moved an application for anticipatory bail (application No.467) which came up Crl.M.C. 4590/2015 Page 2 of 6In the said documents, she acknowledged having received total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- by various modes, from the first and second petitioners, also adding the name of the third petitioner and submitting that the balance amount payable was Rs.1,00,000/- only.On above noted facts, a petition (Crl.M.C.3546/2014) was filed earlier under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the FIR to be quashed on the ground of settlement.The petition was, however, withdrawn and disposed of accordingly by order dated 23.09.2014, it having been submitted that the matter was compoundable, charge sheet having already been filed.The petitioners, thereafter, moved the Metropolitan Magistrate by an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. which was not entertained because the complainant was not agreeable to the compounding.This disposes of pending application as well.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,700,872 |
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 1.6.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 254/2017 by Sessions Judge, Gwalior affirming the order dated 3.5.2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 4546/2009 by JMFC, Gwalior.It appears from the documents filed by the applicant that an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant, in his complaint case, for requisition of the record of the Criminal Case No. 10711/2006 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.It appears that the said application was allowed by the Magistrate by order dated 18.1.2013 by making the following observations:-^^fookn dk leqfpr ,oa lai.w kZ fujkdj.k gks lds bl n`f"V ls ewy vfHkys[kksa dks ryc fd;ktkuk leqfpr izrhr gksrk gSA^^ 2 MCRC No. 7598/2017 The Criminal Revision against the order dated 18.1.2013 was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.2 MCRC No. 7598/2017Accordingly, the record of the Criminal Case No. 10711/2006 was sent to the Court of JMFC, Gwalior trying the criminal complaint filed by the applicant.It appears that the Magistrate trying the complaint filed by the applicant, in his return refused to send back the record of the Criminal Case No. 10711/2006 as the same is required.It is submitted by the applicant that again a letter was received by the Magistrate for returning the record of Criminal Case No. 10711/2006 and accordingly by order dated 3.5.2017, the Magistrate directed for returning the record of the Criminal Case No. 10711/2006 on the ground that the said record is not required and shall be requisitioned again if it is so required.Heard the applicant as well as counsel for the respondent No.1/State.3 MCRC No. 7598/2017If the Magistrate was of the view that certain documents forming part of the record of a Criminal Case No. 10711/2006 are necessary/ essential for the just disposal of the criminal complaint filed by the applicant, then the Magistrate could have directed the applicant to obtain the certified copies of those documents but should not have requisitioned the record of another pending criminal case.4 MCRC No. 7598/2017
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,703,970 |
He has been sentenced vide order dated 23.11.2012 as follows:A. 833/2012 Page 1 of 35The convict Anil Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 (Ten) years and fine to the tune of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 Indian Penal Code.In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.He is also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 (Ten) years and fine to the tune of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code.He is further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life with the direction that he shall not be considered for grant of remission till he undergoes an actual sentence of 20 (Twenty) years and fine for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.Further the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week."The case of the prosecution - as noticed by the Trial Court, and which is borne out from the charge sheet is that on 10.05.2010 - DD No. 15 (Ex.PW-10/A) was received at PS Keshav Puram pursuant to which SI Sanjeev Verma, PW-25 along with other police officials reached Gali No. 7, Kanhaiya Nagar, Tri Nagar where Sandeep Kumar (PW-22) produced the appellant along with a pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant.It was informed by Sandeep Kumar that the appellant had fired upon one Krishan Kumar Bansal (deceased) and Nitin Bansal (PW-21) (son of the deceased) who was severely injured.The victims were brought to Maharaja Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 2 of 35 Aggarasain Hopsital.SI Sanjeev Verma after handing over the appellant and the recovered pistol to ASI Mohd. Swaley reached the hospital and obtained MLC of Krishan Kumar Bansal (Ex.PW-27/L) who was declared dead while the injured Nitin Bansal was admitted in the operation theater.A. 833/2012 Page 2 of 35SI Sanjeev Verma thereafter returned to the spot and recorded the statement of the complainant Sandeep Kumar who in his statement said that he had worked with the deceased Krishan Kumar Bansal for around 14 years in the department of Accounts at the office located at 2021/159, Ganesh Puri, Tri Nagar, Delhi.He stated that on the day of occurrence i.e. 10.05.2010 , around 11:45 am, he along with the injured Nitin Bansal went to Axis Bank, ND Block, Pitampura to withdraw a sum of 2,00,000/- and kept it in a carry bag of red and blue colour.Thereafter, on reaching their office the appellant entered the office after them, and on the point of pistol snatched the bag containing money from his hand and threatened them to stay away.Thereafter, the appellant ran away and tried to start a black coloured motorcycle make Pulsar bearing no. DL 8S AW 455 on which the word Police was found inscribed on the front number plate.Sandeep Kumar along with both the victims ran towards the appellant and apprehended him.During the tussle that followed, the appellant managed to release his hand holding the pistol, and fired 3-4 shots towards them.In the meantime, Sandeep Kumar had already snatched the bag from the hand of the appellant.However, he got distracted as soon as he realized that one bullet had hit the right arm of Nitin Bansal, whereas another bullet hit the stomach of Krishan Kumar Bansal.Sandeep Kumar further informed the police that at this time Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 3 of 35 that the appellant ran towards Gali no.1, Kanhaiya Nagar along with the pistol, and he raised an alarm.Consequently, the appellant was apprehended by some people along with the pistol and beaten up.Rakesh Mehra (PW-12) - who is a resident of the same area, deposed that on 10.05.2010 around 12.00-12.15 pm he was passing through the area when he found many persons gathered in the street and also found a person an in injured condition.He stated that on coming closer he found that some person had caused injuries by bullet to Krishan Kumar Bansal and his son Nitin Kumar Bansal.He subsequently made a PCR call on the number 100 from his mobile bearing no. 9136244442 and left the spot.During cross-examination, PW-12 deposed that on his way home he saw a crowd and hence proceeded to the place of incident.He further stated that his statement was recorded after two-three days of the incident when he was called in the police post Shanti Nagar.PW-19 Rahul Gupta was also a public witness.He stated that he was running a readymade garments shop in the area.He state that he could Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 4 of 35 identify the victims as they were his regular customers.He identified the appellant in court as the person beaten up by the public, and handed over to the police.He further deposed to having witnessed the appellant commit the offence.He further stated that the accused was apprehended by the public near Gali No.1, Kanhiya Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi.Further, his statement was recorded at noon time after two days.He further deposed that there was a crowd of around 100-150 public persons at the spot.He further deposed that the public ran behind the accused till Gali No. 1, where he was apprehended.He further deposed that he did not go to Gali No.1 - where the accused was apprehended by public persons, and stated that he had only seen the accused at the place of the incident.Public witness, PW-20 Hemant Mehra, also a resident of that area, running a business of computer hardware, deposed that on 10.05.2010 while coming out of his house, he heard the sound of a fire shot.Consequently, he rushed towards the spot and found the appellant running with a pistol in his hand.He noticed Nitin Bansal suffer a bullet wound on his hand, whereas Krishan Bansal suffered a bullet shot to his stomach.He further stated that Krishan Bansal, Nitin Bansal and Sandeep Kumar informed him that the person who was running from there had fired bullet shots on them.He further testified that he immediately brought his Santro Car and took Krishan Bansal to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital.According to him, the PCR van also came there which took Nitin Bansal to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital.During the recording of his testimony in court, PW-20 correctly identified the appellant as the person running away from the place of incidence.During cross-examination, PW-20 deposed that the accused was not known to him and he had never seen the accused in the area previously.He further stated that he did not follow the accused since he felt that it was his duty to first rush the injured to the hospital.He stated that both the injured were bleeding and, apart from blood, some liquid and bubbles were also coming out from the injury of Krishan Kumar Bansal who had been hit on the stomach.He stated that he had physically lifted the injured into his car and some blood had come on his clothes during this process, but the police did not seize the said clothes nor did they ask him to hand over the same.He further stated that there was not much blood which had come on the car when he took the injured to the hospital and added that more of the liquid Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 6 of 35 and air bubbles were coming out from the injury of Krishan Kumar Bansal, than blood.Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 6 of 35He further deposed that he had informed the PCR officials that he was shifting the injured to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital.He deposed that after the incident a large number of public persons had gathered at the spot.He testified that due to this large gathering in the Gali it became difficult for him to move his car out of the area.He further stated that Nitin was brought to the hospital by a police official.He deposed that it took him about half an hour to reach Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and he reached at about 11:45- 12:00 noon.He stated that his statement was recorded on 11.05.2010 at the police chowki.He stated that he had only seen the accused running with the pistol in his hand.He stated that he had not seen the accused actually firing upon the injured Nitin Bansal and the deceased Krishan Kumar Bansal.The accused had already fired by that time.He further deposed that he saw the face of the accused, when he was at a distance of about 20 steps away only once, as he had turned around to see if anybody was following him.He denied that the accused had been shown to him outside the Court and that he had identified him on the pointing out of the Investigating Officer.He further denied that he had never seen the face of the accused, or that he was not present at the time of incident and came out of his house much later after the entire incident was over, only to shift the injured to the hospital.He further stated that the appellant succeeded in freeing his hand and fired two-three times, as a result of which one bullet hit him on the right arm and the other bullet hit his father in the stomach.He further deposed that PW-22 had by then snatched the bag off the appellant, and seeing no option the appellant left the motorcycle at the spot and tried to escape.PW-21 states that they raised an alarm and some public persons overpowered him at some distance.He stated that PW - 20 took his father to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital in his Santro car and the PCR van took him to the same Hospital.A. 833/2012 Page 8 of 35In his cross-examination, PW-21 deposed that the accused had never come to their office previously, and the date of the incident was the first time that they had seen the accused.He stated that he did not help his father when he was shot, or follow the accused because he was himself injured with the pistol shot injury.He deposed that the accused was apprehended by some public persons at a distance of about 20-30 feet.He further deposed that the PCR came to the spot only after about half an hour to 45 minutes.Therefore, he was shifted to a doctor's clinic located nearby by some public persons.He stated that he was taken to the hospital only after the PCR van arrived.He deposed that he did not tell the Investigating Officer that he was first taken to the local doctor by the public persons since the doctor did not give him any treatment.He further deposed that his statement was recorded in the hospital at about 10:00-10:30 the next morning, since he was under treatment and had been operated upon, and was declared fit for statement on the next morning only.He further stated that when the accused had come to their office, he was wearing a helmet and that the helmet came out in the scuffle which followed when they tried to resist and snatch their money bag back.He denied that the person, who had committed the robbery and was wearing a helmet, had run away from the spot and the accused has been falsely implicated.He further denied that he had never seen the face of the accused as he was wearing a helmet.He further denied that the Investigating Officer had shown him the photographs of the accused later, or that he had deposed falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.During his examination he stated that on the day of the incident i.e. 10.05.2010 he along with the injured Nitin Bansal had gone to Axis Bank, ND Block, Pitam Pura on his two wheeler scooter to withdraw money.He further deposed that Nitin Bansal had withdrawn Rs.2,00,000/- from the bank and was already in possession of the amount of Rs.50,000/- after which Nitin Bansal kept the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in a carry bag of red and blue colour.According to him, as soon as they entered their office, the accused entered their office with a pistol in his hand and snatched the bag from his hand on the point of pistol.He further deposed that the accused threatened them to keep away otherwise he would kill them.He further stated that the accused, thereafter, shut the door of the office and ran towards his pulsar motorcycle but they pushed the door and came outside and ran towards the accused who was trying to start his motorcycle bearing no. DL 8S AW 455, which he could not start.He stated that the witness the word "Police" was printed on the front number plate of the motorcycle.He deposed that Nitin Bansal caught held of the hand of the accused in which he was holding the pistol, whereas he snatched the bag from his hand, and the deceased - Krishan Bansal held the accused from the back.He further stated that the accused succeeded in releasing his hand from Nitin Bansal and fired two-three times during which one bullet hit on the right arm of Nitin Bansal and one bullet hit in the stomach of his father Krishan Kumar Bansal; blood started oozing from the right arm of Nitin Bansal and Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 10 of 35 the stomach of Krishan Kumar Bansal.He deposed that, thereafter, his attention got diverted towards Krishan Kumar Bansal and Nitin Bansal.A. 833/2012 Page 10 of 35He deposed that the accused started running towards Gali no.1, Kanhaiya Nagar along with the pistol.He raised an alarm by saying "Pakro- Pakro" after which some public persons came and apprehended the accused and started beating him.He further deposed that Hemant Mehra PW-20 reached the spot and took Krishan Kumar Bansal to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital in his Santro Car and after some time a PCR Van also came there which took Nitin Bansal to the same hospital and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer SI Sanjeev Verma.PW - 22 further deposed that he handed over the pistol snatched by him from the hands of the accused Anil Kumar to SI Sanjeev Verma who examined the pistol and found it to contain four live cartridges in the magazine and one live cartridge in the chamber.He deposed that SI Sanjeev Verma prepared the sketch of the pistol and cartridge which was recovered and that after measuring the pistol and cartridges, the same were wrapped in a cloth and taken into possession.He further testified that SI Sanjeev Verma filled in the form of CFSL and at the same time Inspector Ashok Kumar had also come to the spot who prepared the site plan at his instance.He deposed that the accused Anil Kumar was interrogated, arrested and personally searched during which Rs.210/, one mobile phone make Nokia and one silver coloured Kara (Ring) were recovered.He further deposed that he again joined the investigations with IO Ashok Kumar and handed over one carry bag i.e. one red and blue colour Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 11 of 35 bag with the words "With Best Complements PLOP" written on the same, in which they had brought the money from the bank, which was snatched by the accused.Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 11 of 35During his cross-examination, PW-22 stated that he saw the accused only when the accused snatched the bag from his hand.He further deposed that the distance between the motorcycle and their office was about seven to eight paces and they got scared on seeing the pistol in the hand of accused.Therefore, after snatching the bag they immediately shouted Oye Oye.He testified that the accused was overpowered by the public persons at a distance of about 25-30 yards from the office.He further stated that the accused was not brought back to the place where his motorcycle was parked but was kept at the same place where the accused was apprehended.He further deposed that he did not go to the hospital with Krishan Kumar Bansal or Nitin Bansal and remained at the spot itself, where his statement was recorded by SI Sanjeev Verma.He further testified that he saw the face of the accused after he reached the spot where the accused was apprehended.He further deposed that the helmet of the accused came off during the scuffle.He further stated that he had no knowledge of the whereabouts of the helmet.During examination, DW - 1 deposed that he was working as a Training Supervisor in Hans Security Services, at House No. 154, Sector 2, Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi and his duty hours were 10 AM to 7 PM.He stated that on 10.05.2010, while he was at his office some police officials came in around 5:30 PM and took their Managing Director, the appellant, Anil Kumar with them for some inquiries.He stated that it was only on the next morning that he found out that the police had falsely implicated the appellant in a murder case.He testified that the appellant was present in the premises of his office on 10.05.2010 until 5:30 PM when the police officials came.DW - 2 made a similar statement that on 10.05.2010 while he was working at Hans Security Services, where the appellant was already present, some police officials came in around 5:00-5:30 PM and took the appellant away with them.He further stated that he too found out only on the next day that the appellant had been falsely implicated.(i) Even though PW-21 Nitin Bansal had received injuries at about 11:45 am, he only managed to reach the hospital at about 12:45 pm, which is around one hour post the time of the incident.Further, no credible evidence and explanation has been shown to justify the delay of one hour;(ii) The statement that an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was withdrawn from the Axis Bank account has been denied by the Manager of the Bank.Further, none of the police officers had made a statement that the appellant made an attempt to rob Rs. 2,50,000/- from the victims.The amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 14 of 35 not shown to be recovered or handed over to the police except the red color bag;A. 833/2012 Page 14 of 35(iii) No blood stains were recovered from the clothes or the car of PW-20 Hemant Mehra, hence, making the story false.Statement of PW-20 shows that he had carried only the deceased Krishan Kumar Bansal to the hospital.Thus, the name of PW-20 on the MLC of the injured Nitin Bansal shows that the document, i.e. MLC of Nitin Bansal is false and fabricated;(iv) No burn injuries were caused either on the clothes or the skin of both the injured and the deceased by the bullets alleged to be fired by the appellant;(v) The assailant was wearing a helmet at the time of the incident but the same was not found.Further, the identity of the assailant could not have been established since he was wearing the helmet.The same are exhibited as Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C as proved by PW-18 HC Dharamveer in his testimony.There are several independent public eye-witnesses to the incident, as they were present at the spot, and they are reliable and credible.Their testimonies have not been dented in their cross-examination.The evidence on record including the photographs Ex.PW9/A6, Ex.PW9/A7, Ex.PW9/A9, Ex.PW9/A11, Ex.PW9/A12, Ex.PW9/A14 and Ex.He even managed to snatch the money bag at gunpoint and fled from the office of Krishan Kumar Bansal and Nitin Bansal.VIPIN SANGHI, J.The present appeal has been preferred to assail the judgment dated 16.04.2012 whereby the learned ASJ-II (North-West) Rohini Courts in SC No. 1231/2010 arising out of FIR no. 153/2010, registered at PS Keshav Puram, convicted the appellant under Section 392/397/ 307/302 of IPC.The trial court also found the appellant guilty of offences committed under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days.The deceased Krishna Kumar was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital in a Santro car by one Hemant Mehra (PW-20), while the injured Nitin Bansal was taken by a PCR van to the same hospital.A. 833/2012 Page 3 of 35On the basis of the said statement of Sandeep Kumar (Ex.A. 833/2012 Page 4 of 35During cross-examination, PW-19 stated that he did not know the accused prior to the incident.He denied that the accused was shown to him outside the Court by the Investigating officer and it was for this reason he had identified him in the Court.He further deposed that he had seen the accused at the spot committing the offence and it was for this reason he could identify him.He denied that the public persons had apprehended some other person who was released by the police.He further denied that the accused was lifted from his office and falsely implicated in the present case on account of his animosity with one SI Jagdish Dahiya - posted at Police Station Rohini, and one Subhash - posted at Police Station Keshav Puram.He also denied that the accused was not involved in the incident and he had wrongly identified him at the instance of the local police.A. 833/2012 Page 5 of 35He deposed that on the day of the incident i.e. 10.05.2010, he along with PW-22 went to Axis Bank, ND Block, Pitampura, Delhi, to withdraw money.He stated that he had withdrawn an amount of 2,00,000/- from the bank and was already carrying the sum of 50,000/-.He further stated that the total amount of 2,50,000/- was kept in a bag and he proceeded towards his office.He further deposed that at about 11:45 AM when they entered their office - where his father Krishan Kumar Bansal (deceased) was already present, the appellant while holding a pistol came into their office and pointed the said pistol at them.The appellant snatched the bag containing the money from the hand of PW-22, and threatened and asked them to stay inside the office premises.He stated that he caught the hand of the appellant in which he was holding the pistol, while PW-22 Sandeep Kumar caught the bag, and the father of PW-21 - Krishan Kumar Bansal (deceased) caught him from behind, on which the appellant threatened to let him free else he would fire.He denied that he had never seen the face of the assailant, or that the assailant had run away from the spot, and the accused had been falsely implicated.A. 833/2012 Page 12 of 35The Appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the evidences put forth before him.He stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case since he had differences with one SI Jagdish Dahiya - posted at Police Station Rohini and one Subhash - posted at Police Station Keshav Puram.He further stated that he was forcibly taken from his office by the police officials due to which he sustained injuries.In his defence the appellant examined two witnesses - Ashok Kumar (DW-1) and Rajpal (DW-2).A. 833/2012 Page 13 of 35After considering the testimony of the prosecution and defence witnesses, and other evidence on record, the learned Trial Court held the Appellant guilty of offences under Section 392 r/w 397 Indian Penal Code for having committed robbery of Rs.2,50,000/- on the point of pistol; under Section 307 Indian Penal Code for having caused grievous injuries upon Nitin Bansal with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he caused the death of Nitin Bansal, he would have been guilty of murder; under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Krishan Kumar Bansal; and under Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act for having been found in possession of pistol containing one live cartridge and also having used the same.Arguments of the AppellantMr. Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant, has challenged the conviction on mainly the following grounds:Furthermore, the personal search memo has revealed that no driving license was recovered from the possession of the appellant thus it cannot be established that he was driving a motorcycle;(vi) There are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the eye witnesses with regard to the time and place of occurrence of the incident.A. 833/2012 Page 15 of 35(vii) The locations at which the fired bullets were recovered belie the story of the prosecution.Learned counsel for the appellant has, thus, contended that no case is made out against the appellant under Sections 392/397/ 307/302 of IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act.Arguments of the StateIt was the case of the prosecution that the motorcycle used by the appellant to commit the offence was a stolen property, and the theft was recorded FIR No. 138/2010 registered at PS South Rohini (Ex.PW-8/A).Numerous calls were made and recorded by the PCR staff.Mr. Katyal, the learned APP refers to the testimony of PW-1, Dr. V.K. Jha, who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased- Krishan Kumar Bansal.PW-1 in his deposition has stated that the range of fire arms was near range beyond the flame effect but within the Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 16 of 35 powdering range.Hence, there was no flame effect or burning on the clothes of the victims.A. 833/2012 Page 16 of 35Mr. Katyal also places reliance upon the testimonies of PW 17- L. Babyto Devi, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL Rohini & PW 23- Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer-cum-Ex-Officio Chemical Examiner GNCTD FSL Rohini.The forensic evidence corroborates the testimonies of the eye witnesses with regard to the use of the recovered fire arm for commission of the offences in question.Discussions and DecisionWe have heard the submissions of learned counsels and carefully perused the record.We now proceed to deal with the contentions advanced by the learned counsels.The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW-21 reached the hospital after an inordinate delay of about one hour, post the incident.He places reliance on the MLC of PW-21, wherein the time of arrival has been recorded as 12:45 PM.A perusal of the cross- examination of PW-21 reveals that the PCR van in which he was brought to the hospital arrived at the scene of crime only after about 30-45 minutes post the time of the incident.Meanwhile, he was shifted to a nearby clinic by certain public persons.Further, PCR call at 12:30:52 pm from PCR Van C17 recorded that Jis larke ko goli lagi hai Yadav clinic se uske parents Aggarsain hospital le jana chahte hai, injured ko hospital le jaa rahe hai.Thus, PW-21 Nitin Bansal who was injured on account of gun-shot had been shifted to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital from Yadav Clinic where he was Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 17 of 35 initially taken.We, thus, find no merit in this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.There was no inordinate delay, and the so- called delay stands sufficiently and convincingly explained.A. 833/2012 Page 17 of 35Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW-21 had not withdrawn Rs. 2.50 lakhs from Axis Bank.The withdrawal of money on 10.05.2010 had been denied by the manager of the Axis Bank.Ajesh Gupta (PW11) Deputy Manager, Axix Bank in his testimony has stated in reply to the notice dated 06.07.2010 sent by police officials that "Further, no transaction of the said amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- is appearing in the account on 10.05.10".Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was never recovered from the appellant, nor any cash amount has been shown to be handed over to the police except one red color bag in which the amount was kept.We do not find any merit in this submission, for the reason that the money was not recovered from the accused.It has come in evidence that during the scuffle, the bag containing the money was snatched back from the Crl.It was a case of failed robbery, since the robbery did not succeed.The money was, therefore, rightly not made case property.It has come in the testimony of Nitin Bansal PW-21 that the money was used in the treatment of Nitin Bansal and towards the last rites of the deceased Krishan Kumar Bansal.The medical bills placed on record by the prosecution clearly show that the amount of Rs.2,03,435/- was used for the treatment of Nitin Bansal vide Ex.21/A. The rest of the amount was used to perform the last rites of the deceased, Krishan Kumar Bansal.A. 833/2012 Page 18 of 35The submission of Mr. Sethi that non-recovery of blood stains from the clothes, or the car of PW-20 Hemant Mehra, discredits his entire statement, and makes PW-20 a false witness, has no merit.He has further contended that the statement of PW-20 shows that he had carried only the deceased Krishan Kumar Bansal to the hospital.However, the name of PW- 20 is also found on the MLC of the injured Nitin Bansal.This belies the story of the prosecution.The learned ASJ has adequately dealt with this submission of the appellant in the impugned judgment.Since we accept the reasoning of the trial court, we would like to reproduce the observations made by the trial court on the said aspects.The same read as follows:"71 ...............I have considered the submissions made and I may observe that Firstly the witness Hemant Mehra has explained that there was not much blood coming out from the wounds of the injured and in fact there was liquid and bubbles oozing out from the wound which explained why his clothes were not soiled.Secondly the the MLC of the deceased Krishan Kumar Bansal which is Ex.PW27/L proves that he had been brought to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital by Hemant Mehra.In Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 19 of 35 fact Hemant Mehra (PW20) has also explained that Nitin Bansal had been brought to the hospital later on by the PCR.He has proved that PCR officials came to the spot when he was in the process of shifting the injured to the hospital and therefore when the PCR brought Nitin Bansal to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital it was he who had given the details to the hospital.The presence of Hemant Mehra (PW20) is also reflected from the MLC of Nitin Bansal which is Ex.PW2/A. Lastly the Postmortem Report Ex.PW1/A of Krishan Kumar Bansal proves that the gun shot injury received by the deceased was on spinal cord i.e. Lumber 4 and 5 and he died on account of spinal shock as a result of bullet injuries consequent to fracture Lumber4 and 5 vertebrae which explains why there was less blood and more of the liquid fluid oozing out from the wound of the deceased."A. 833/2012 Page 19 of 35He has stated that he felt it was his duty to take the injured to the hospital, since both the injured had received gunshot injuries.Thus, he chose not to follow the accused.He further stated that he had carried Krishan Kumar Bansal (deceased) in his car and thereafter shifted him to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital.He further testified that he reached Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital after about half an hour, since a huge crowd had gathered in that gali and he found it difficult to move his car out of the area.PW-20 has in his examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination testified that there was more liquid and bubbles coming out from the injury of the deceased - who had been hit on the stomach.Consequently, not much blood had come on the car.He further stated that some blood had also come on his clothes but the same were not seized by the police officials.Further, Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 20 of 35 PW-20 was in the process of shifting the injured inside the hospital when the PCR arrived with the injured PW- 21 Nitin Bansal.It was PW-20 who had given all the personal details of PW-21 at the time of his MLC and, therefore, the presence of the name of PW-20 on the MLC of PW-21 - when the latter had been brought to the hospital in a PCR van, stands justified.Mr. Sethi has further contended that no burn injuries were caused either on the clothes or the skin of both the injured and the deceased by the bullets alleged to have been fired by the appellant.PW-1, Dr. V.K. Jha, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased - Krishan Kumar Bansal, in his testimony stated that the cause of death of Krishan Kumar Bansal was spinal shock as a result of bullet injuries consequent to fracture Lumber 4 and 5 vertebrae.He further testified that the firearm injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Furthermore, he deposed that the range of firearm was 'near range beyond the flame effect but within the powdering range'.A. 833/2012 Page 21 of 35The opinion of the medical officer is corroborated by the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, who stated that the bullets were fired from a close range.Hence, there was no possibility of a flame effect or burn injuries on the clothes or skin of the victims...................I have considered the submissions made before me.At the very outset I may observe that in so far as the aspect of the witness not having seen the accused is concerned, it is unbelievable because the witness has repeatedly asserted that there was a scuffle when the accused had snatched the bag from his hand on the point of pistol but thereafter the injured Nitin Bansal caught hold the hand of the accused in which he was having the pistol whereas he (witness) snatched the bag from the hand of the accused and Krishan Kumar Bansal also apprehended the accused from the back side but the accused succeeded in releasing his hand from Nitin Bansal and fired two to three times on which one bullet hit on the right arm of Nitin Bansal and other bullet hit in the stomach of Krishan Kumar Bansal on which blood started oozing out from right arm of Nitin Bansal and the stomach of Krishan Kumar Bansal.The victim Nitin Bansal and witness Sandeep have explained that it was during this scuffle that the helmet of the accused Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 22 of 35 had come off.The witness Sandeep has specifically explained that on this his attention was diverted and the accused started running away towards gali no.1 Kanhaiya Nagar along with pistol.He has specifically stated that he had seen the accused when he snatched the bag from his hand and immediately did not raise an alarm because they were shocked and initially no public persons came to their rescue as nobody could understand as to what had happened and the whole incident took place within two-three minutes.The witnesses Rahul Gupta and Hemant Mehra who had witnessed the firing of shots and seen the accused running along with a pistol in his hand, with public chasing him after which he was apprehended, have also specifically explained the above sequence.Further, the witness Sandeep Kumar has proved that it was he who had taken the pistol from the hand of the accused which he later handed over to the police.Merely because the police has failed to recover or seize the helmet in question, cannot be a ground to disbelieve the witness.It has come on record that a large number of public persons had gathered in the street in hundreds and the entire attention of the eye witnesses was on the injured and in rushing the injured to the hospital in an attempt to save their lives.The possibility of someone picking it up and keeping it - since it lay unclaimed (as the accused was apprehended and handed over to the police), cannot be ruled out.A. 833/2012 Page 23 of 35As far as the credibility and reliability of the witnesses produced by the defence is concerned, the learned trial court has found the same to be untrustworthy, as no documentary proof was placed on record by the defence witnesses to prove that they were employees of the appellants.The learned trial court while finding the claim of the appellant and the witnesses produced false, observed as follows:I may observe that both the witnesses are highly untrustworthy.They have not been able to produce any documentary record to prove that they were the employees of Anil Kumar.Further, this claim of the accused Anil Kumar and the defence witnesses that Anil Kumar was present in his office at House No. 154, Sector 2, Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi on 10.5.2010 and lifted by the police at 5:30 PM stand falsified on three counts.Firstly the record of the Police Control Room in the form of PCR forms Ex.PW18/A, PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C as discussed herein above, which is an official record being maintained in the ordinary course of business proved by HC Dharamveer (PW18) and presumed to be correct and has not been duly controverted establishes that on 10.5.2010 at 12:26:59 when the PCR Van C-16 reached the spot the accused had already been apprehended by the public persons along with pistol; at 12:37:58 he disclosed his name as Anil Kumar S/o Roshan Lal R/o Bahadurgarh, Haryana and at 12:23:49 information was received from PCR Van T-53 that the weapon which was used by Anil Kumar was a Chinese pistol.Secondly the MLC of the accused Anil Kumar dated 10.5.2010 which is Ex.PW27/K establishes that he was taken to BJRM hospital at about 3:30 PM for his medical examination with the alleged history of being beaten by public persons where he was treated Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 24 of 35 by Dt. Sumit Arora and Dr. Anil after which the accused Anil Kumar was taken to the FSL Rohini where swabs of both his hands were taken.This out rightly defeats the claim of the accused Anil that he was lifted at 5:30 PM and falsely implicated after the actual person was left.Lastly all the independent eye witnesses who were public persons and had personally witnessed the incident, have identified the accused Anil Kumar as the assailant and the person who had been caught at the spot and there being no history of animosity, there is no reason why they would have falsely implicated the accused.In view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the entire defence of the accused is sham and hereby rejected."A. 833/2012 Page 24 of 35We find no reason to take a different view than that of the learned ASJ.The identity of the appellant was established beyond all reasonable doubt.We find it highly unbelievable that the appellant was present in his office premises at the time of the incident.The appellant was apprehended by many public persons.Public witnesses have identified him as the one who fired bullets at the deceased Krishna Kumar Bansal and injured Nitin Bansal.It has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses that the appellant was the person running away from the spot with a pistol in his hand.His defence that he was picked up from his office on 10.05.2010 at 05:30 p.m. is belied by the fact that the contemporaneous PCR record, as well as the MLC of the appellant show that he was apprehended from the spot of the incident and taken to the hospital for his medical examination.Pertinently, in the PCR record, one of the entries recorded at 12:37:58 (from PCR Van C16) is that the identity of the assailant is Anil S/o Roshan Lal, Age 27 years, R/o Gali No.1, Patel Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.The aforesaid is a contemporaneous record.The name and particulars Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 25 of 35 of the assailant and the make of the pistol used by him could not have been imagined at the spur of the moment.They were disclosed by the appellant upon his apprehension.We therefore find no reason to believe the testimonies of the defence witnesses.A. 833/2012 Page 25 of 35The firearm used in the crime has been connected to the crime.The forensic evidence also establishes the use of the same by the appellant.The learned court has marshaled the said evidence in the following manner:After the recovery of the pistol the same had been sent to FSL Rohini for examination along with the cartridges and cartridge cases and one metallic piece recovered from the body of the deceased at the time of postmortem.PW23/A and has proved that the pistol (Ex.P2) was the same which had been examined by him as F1 and the cartridges (Ex.P3) were the same which had been sent to him for examination.He has also identified the test fired bullets and the cartridges which were sent to him for examination and the test fired cartridges.The witness has further proved that the improvised pistol was a firearm and the cartridges, cartridge cases, fragment of jacket of bullet and bullet were ammunition as defined in Arms Act. He has conclusively proved that the cartridge cases which had been recovered from the pistol Ex.P3 had been fired through the improvised pistol Ex.P2 which he has opined since the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on the said cartridges were found identical when compared with the test fire cartridges under microscope examination.PW23/B shows that gunshot residue particles (GSR) were detected around the hole on the half sleeves shirt marked exhibit 'C2' (belonging to the Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 26 of 35 injured Nitin Bansal).However, no opinion could be given on the swabs due to insufficient data.A. 833/2012 Page 26 of 35Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that two bullets had been fired from the pistol snatched from the hand of the accused Anil Kumar by Sandeep Kumar.Further, as per the FSL reports which are Ex.PW17/A & Ex.PW17/B show that human blood of 'B' Group was detected on gauze cloth piece exhibit 2 (lifted from the spot); human blood of 'AB' Group was detected on gauze cloth piece exhibit 3 (lifted from the back tyre of motorcycle); human blood was detected on cemented piece exhibit 4 (blood stained earth); blood was detected on control cemented piece exhibit 5 (earth control); human blood was detected on shirt exhibit 12 (shirt of accused Anil Kumar); human blood of 'AB' Group was detected on Baniyan exhibit 13a (Baniyan of injured Nitin Bansal); human blood of 'AB' Group was detected on shirt exhibit 13b (shirt of injured Nitin Bansal); human blood of 'AB' Group was detected on pants exhibit 13c (pants of injured Nitin Bansal); human blood of 'AB' Group was detected on handkerchief exhibit 13d (belonging to injured Nitin); human blood of 'B' Group was detected on Baniyan exhibit 14a (belonging to deceased Krishan Kumar); human blood of 'B' Group was detected on pant exhibit 14c (belonging to deceased Krishan Kumar; human blood was detected on shirt exhibit 14d (belonging to deceased Krishan Kumar) and human blood of 'B' Group was detected on gauze cloth piece exhibit 15 (blood sample belonging to deceased Krishan Kumar).It therefore stands established that the blood group of deceased Krishan Kumar Bansal was of 'B' Group and of the injured Nitin Bansal was of 'AB' Group.The presence of the blood groups belonging to the injured and the deceased on the various exhibits lifted from the spot conclusively establishes that the incident had taken place at the spot from where the exhibits were lifted.I hereby hold that the forensic evidence Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 27 of 35 corroborates the oral testimonies of the various eye witnesses and injured." (emphasis supplied)Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 27 of 35We agree with the above findings, and no argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant to persuade us to take a different view.Thus, it is fairly established by the testimony of PW- 23 Puneet Puri that the death of Krishan Kumar Bansal and the injury of Nitin Bansal was a result of the bullets fired upon them by the appellant by use of the same firearm which was recovered.The bullet recovered from the seized pistol and that retrieved from the body of the deceased are of the same origin and fired from the seized pistol, as established by the ballistic reports led in evidence by the prosecution.Mr. Sethi has laid much emphasis on the point that the places at which the pellets/ empty case of the fire bullets were found, renders the case of the prosecution doubtful.He submits that one pellet was found just outside the staircase of the premises where the accounts office of Krishan Kumar Bansal was located.The same is shown as Point-B in Ex. PW-6/A. At Point-C, which is at a distance of 655 cms i.e. 6.55 mtrs from Point-B towards Gali No.7/pucca road side, an empty case was found.Point-D in Gali No.7/pucca road side is the point where Sandeep Kumar, Nitin Kumar Bansal and Krishan Kumar Bansal overpowered the accused when he was trying to start his motorcycle, and where he fired upon Nitin Kumar and Krishan Kumar Bansal, and injured them.Around this point, blood was found at the spot.Point-H, which is at a distance of about 800 cms i.e. 80 Crl.A. 833/2012 Page 28 of 35 mtrs from the place where the motorcycle was parked (which is marked as Point-E in the site plan), is the point where the empty case was found.Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 28 of 35The submission of Mr. Sethi is that the location of the pellets and the empty cases belies the story of the prosecution.He particularly emphasizes that the pellet could not have been recovered from Point-B, as it is not explained as to how the same reached Point-B, i.e. outside the staircase of the office premises of the deceased/ injured, if it was fired at Point-D, which was about 10-12 mtrs.away from the point where the incident allegedly took place.It has come in evidence that the accused fired a few shots, including those which injured Nitin Bansal and caused the death of Krishan Kumar Bansal.The distance between the place where the incident occurred and the places at which the pellets/ cases were found is not so large as to create any doubt with regard to their placement.Pertinently, PW-23 Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer- cum-Ex-officio Chemical Examiner, FSL Rohini, Delhi, who examined the pistol and the bullets/ cartridges was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused, and it was not suggested to him that the empty case/ pellets could not have been found at the locations and they were actually found and shown in the scale site plan Ex. PW-6/A, in the natural course.It goes without saying that when a fire arm is used in a situation of the kind arising in the present case, the direction in which the pellets/ empty cases/ cartridges may fall need not result in a predictable pattern.Thus, we find no merit in this submission of Mr. Sethi.Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 29 of 35Finally, while addressing the contentions regarding contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of eye witnesses as raised by the learned counsel for the defence, the learned trial court while relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. Vs.Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that at the time of the incident it was Krishan Kumar Bansal, Nitin Bansal and Sandeep Kumar who were together in the shop.The whole incidenst must have lasted for hardly around a minute while they were in the shop when the accused snatched the bag containing money on the point of pistol.It is natural that the victims must have been taken by a surprise and were in a state of shock to have reacted immediately and it took them time to realize what was going on after the bag was snatched on the point of a pistol and the accused was going away to start his motorcycle when they actually followed the assailant/ accused while he was trying to start his motorcycle and also caught hold his hand in which the accused was having the bag and the hand in which he was holding the pistol.A. 833/2012 Page 30 of 35 thereafter 'Pakropakro' on which public persons started chasing the accused and after a distance of about 20-30 feet they were able to apprehend him and also thrashed him before the police reached the spot.The witnesses Rakesh Mehra, Hemant Mehra and Rahul Gupta were the witnesses who were standing in the gali and had heard the gun shots when they saw the accused firing shots and running away.In fact Hemant Mehra (PW20) had come out of his house when the scuffle was going on and it was for this reason that he was able to see the face of the accused Anil Kumar.The distance and the directions from which the witnesses had witnessed the incident was different and this explains the difference in perception and how each public witness has perceived the incident from a different angle and in a different manner.It is normal that eye witnesses are often overtaken by events and occurrences which they could not have anticipated which has an element of surprise and therefore, the mental faculties cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.Further the powers of observation differ from person to person and what one may notice, another may not and therefore, by and large it is not expected of a public witness to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident as a tape recorder more so when the incident is such that the sequence of events took place in rapid succession or in a short time span as has happened in the present case and hence, the contradictions & discrepancies found in the statements of the public witnesses namely Hemant Mehra, Rahul Gupta, Nitin Bansal and Sandeep Kumar as highlighted by the Ld. Defence Counsel [Ref.: Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs.State of Gujarat (Supra)].Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 30 of 35A discrepancy in the number of the motorcycle mentioned by the various eye witnesses has been duly highlighted by the Ld. Defence Counsel.I may note that this discrepancy stands validly explained.PW9/A15 show that the motorcycle was in fact bearing an incomplete number plate i.e. bearing no. DL4SAW455 mentioned on the back side of the number plate.It is unrealistic to expect that Crl. A. 833/2012 Page 31 of 35 public persons should make a precise or reliable statement and to recall exact number of the motorcycle as seen by them since usually people make their reliable estimates on the basis of what they had seen at the spur of the moment.A. 833/2012 Page 31 of 35Therefore, under these circumstances, I hold that the discrepancies as pointed by the Ld. Defence Counsel if any, are not material and have been explained.The documentary/ circumstantial evidence in the form of wireless messages recorded in PCR forms Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW18/B and Ex.PW18/C and the Forensic Evidence in the form of FSL and Ballistic Reports, corroborate the oral testimonies of the witnesses who I hold are reliable and trustworthy and also established the incident having take place and the witnesses having been present at the spot and witnessed the same.Even otherwise, none of the public witness was previously known to the accused or any history of animosity between them and hence, there is no reason why they would falsely implicate the accused only to assist the local police in working out the case as alleged by the accused.In view of the above, I find the argument raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel devoid of merit."Lastly, Mr. Sethi seeks to advance an alternate argument that as per the MLC record of the appellant, it was found that the appellant was tested positive for having consumed alcohol.He states that the appellant had no intention to commit murder or cause grievous hurt since he was under the influence of alcohol.We notice that there was no previous animosity between the appellant and the deceased.On the day of incident, they all were present at their place of work to worship tools.They had performed the customary pooja and there was no annoyance.Only when they were enjoying drinks, minor tiff occurred between the accused and the deceased over making larger peg for the deceased.Even that matter was pacified and settled.Thereafter, PW-6 and PW-8 left.When Pritam went out, there was no animosity left between the two.We further note that there was no pre meditation to inflict injury to the deceased as the appellant was not armed with any weapon.Only a single fatal blow was inflicted on the neck of the deceased.Both the accused and the deceased were in an inebriated condition.The appellant had no criminal antecedents and was not involved in any such criminal activities.The weapon used in the occurrence was an ordinary Rapi (used for cutting clothes/leather) and was available at the spot.The consumption of liquor apparently impaired mental faculties and the appellant lost power of self-control.In the initial altercation, no physical harm was caused by the appellant to the deceased.The appellant did not take undue advantage and victim was given a solitary fatal stab blow in a sudden fight, in a fit of rage and under the influence of liquor.It ruled out his intention to murder Vinod."A. 833/2012 Page 32 of 35When the deceased and the injured along with Sandeep Kumar tried to foil his attempt to flee with the money on his motorcycle, he did not hesitate to use his weapon and to shoot at Krishan Kumar Bansal and Nitin Bansal.Even after shooting them, he attempted to flee from the spot.Thus, it was a premeditated and planned act of the appellant inasmuch, as, he was Crl.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
517,099 |
In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 9-2-1990 at 8.30 p.m. accused bought betel from the shop of deceased's wife Lachhi Bai, which was not found palatable to him.He asked for another betel which she refused.Consequently accused hurled filthy abuses.Lachhi Bai called her husband-Ramdayal to whom the appellant gave a knife blow which landed on his chest.The matter was reported to the police by Phuiwar Singh (P.W. 4) in form of FIR (Ex. P-5) and accordingly the criminal law was set in motion.The dead-body of Ramdayal was sent for post-mortem.The autopsy surgeon Dr. C.S. Chauhan (P.W. 1), found a single penetrating wound 1" x 0.2" x 3-1/2" on the right side of the chest.The autopsy surgeon opined that deceased died on account of syncope precipitated by the extensive injury on the right lobe of the liver.The police after investigation filed the charge-sheet and the Committal Court committed the case to the Court of Session.The learned Trial Judge framed charges against the appellant punishable under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of Ramdayal and further framed charge under Section 324, IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon to Mahesh.In order to bring home the charges the prosecution examined Dr. C.S. Chauhan (P.W. 1), who conducted autopsy of the dead-body, and Dr. Asif Khan (P.W. 2), who examined the injured Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 3).The eye-witnesses are Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 3), Phuiwar Singh (P.W. 4) who had lodged the FIR (Ex. P-5) and Lachhi Bai (P.W. 5), wife of the deceased, Satya Narayan (P.W. 6) is the witness of seizure of knife (Ex. P-7) and Gajraj Singh (P.W. 7) is the witness, who had reduced the FIR into writing.It will be relevant to mention that in the incident appellant also sustained two injuries, they are: (i) contusion below the left eye 1" x 1/2"; and (ii) lacerated wound on the back of his head measuring 1/2" x 1 /4".The injury report is Ex. D-4 which has been proved by the defence witness Dr. P.C. Khichroliya (D.W. 1).The defence of accused is that due to non-providing of second betel, a heated altercation took place between him and Lachhi Bai, as a result of which Ramdayal intervened and inflicted a lathi blow on his head.The blow ensured in bleeding and thereafter Ramdayal gave the second blow.At that juncture the accused inflicted a knife blow.According to him he narrated this fact to the Police Station Officer who avoided to notice the same.The Trial Court found that appellant did commit the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC by committing murder of Ramdayal and he also committed the other offence by voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon like knife to Mahesh.The Trial Court consequently passed the sentence mentioned hereinabove.In this appeal Shri Vijay Nayak, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that no case is made out tor the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, at the most appellant could be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I, IPC, and as the appellant is languishing in jail for last 12 years, he may be set at liberty forthwith.According to him the appeal, being devoid of any substance, deserves to be dismissed.After hearing the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed in part as no case is made out for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, but the prosecution has been able to prove its case under Section 304, Part I, IPC.The prosecution has examined three eye-witnesses, namely, Mahesh Kumar (P.W. 3), Phulwar Singh (P.W. 4) and Lachhi Bai (P.W. 5).Thereafter, Lachhi Bai went inside and called Ramdayal, who arrived at the spot.When Ramdayal asked why the appellant was giving filthy abuses, the accused gave a knife blow which landed on the right side of the chest of Ramdayal.When Mahesh intervened, he also sustained one simple injury upon right middle finger.In cross-examination suggestions were given to these witnesses that deceased Ramdayal had inflicted lathi blows upon the person of the accused, but the said suggestions were denied.However, on a perusal of the injury report, Ex. D-4, it is manifest that appellant did sustain two injuries as stated hereinabove.From the testimony of the eye-witnesses, it is gathered that the incident occurred in a heat of passion, it was not pre-meditated and according to the prosecution's own case, heated exchange of words had taken place between Lachhi Bai and the appellant.Knife injury was dealt by the accused/appellant only when Lachhi Bai went and called the deceased Ramdayal.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
534,412 |
The sister of A-1 and A-2, by name Mahalakshmi, fell in love with the deceased Surendran and married him 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence.Often, the deceased exercised cruel treatment over her and she used to go to parental home and A-1 and A-2 used to pacify and send her back.At the time of occurrence, she was staying in her mother's house.On 20.06.2005 at ab out 4.00 p.m., the deceased accompanied by P.Ws.1 and 2, who are his friends, went to the house of A-1 and A-2 and called his wife to come to his house, but she was refusing.In that process, A-3, who was present, also joined with her daughter.The deceased used filthy language and beat both of them.At that time, A-1 and A-2 also came over there and there was exchange of filthy language.Then, the deceased left the place along with P.Ws.1 and 2 in his TVS Suzuki bearing registration No.b)Immediately, A-1 and A-2 took the auto of P.W.11 and were chasing the deceased at the road junction. A-1 and A-2 dashed the auto on the TVS Suzuki and all the three fell down.The deceased, in order to escape, was running, but A-1 and A-2 chased him and near the house of one Selvam, A-1 stabbed him with the knife on his back and A-2 also stabbed him with the knife on his chest and they also stabbed him indiscriminately and they left the place.c)The severely injured Surendran was taken to the hospital and on the way, he died and he was declared dead by the Doctor at Government Hospital, Pollachi.P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station at about 19.00 hours and gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.22, the Inspector of Police.On the strength of Ex.P.24, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court.Then, he took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.8, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.26, the rough sketch.The place of occurrence was photographed through P.W.14, the photographer.The negatives and photos were marked as M.O.11 (series).P.W.22 recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.He also recovered M.O.6, TVS Suzuki under a cover of mahazar.M.O.5, auto was also recovered under a cover of mahazar.On 21.6.2005 at about 8.00 a.m. he went to the Government Hospital, Pollachi and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.28, the inquest report.Following the same, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore for the purpose of autopsy.d)P.W.21, the Doctor attached to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.23, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries sustained by him.e)Pending investigation, the Investigator came to know that A-1 and A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.3, Coimbatore.Then, P.W.22 applied for police custody and accordingly, the same was ordered.On 8.7.2005, both A-1 and A-2 were taken to police custody and they were interrogated.They came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily and the same were recorded in the presence of the witnesses.The admissible part of the confessional statements of A-1 and A-2 were marked as Exs.(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional district and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore made in S.C.No.184 of 2006, whereby these two appellants along with the third accused stood charged as follows:A-1 and A-2 - Sections 302 r/w S.34 IPC and 506 (ii) (2 counts) IPC.A-3 - Section 201 IPC.On trial, A-1 and A-2 were found guilty under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo 3 months S.I. each, and A-1 and A-2 were found not guilty under Section 506(ii) IPC and A-3 was also found not guilty under Section 201 IPC and they were acquitted of the said charges.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus:P.11 and P.12 respectively.Pursuant to the same, they produced two knives, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.Then, the accused were again sent for judicial remand.All the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department and the reports were also received.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and also relied on 28 exhibits and 19 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.Hence this appeal has arisen at the instance of the appellants.5.Added further the learned counsel that the occurrence has taken place in front of the house of one Selvam, but the said Selvam was not examined; that the prosecution theory as if A-1 and A-2 gave confessional statements after they were taken to police custody and the M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from them on production, has got to be disbelieved, since it was only created to suit the prosecution story; that M.Os.1 and 2 were subjected to chemical analysis, but so far as M.O.2 was concerned, no human blood was detected and insofar as M.O.1, group test was found to be disintegrated and thus, the recovery of those M.Os.were not only not proved, but also were not useful to the prosecution case and hence the prosecution has not proved its case.6.The learned counsel in his second line of argument would contend that even assuming that the court has agreed with the factual position that it was A-1 and A-2 who stabbed the deceased to death, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder; that it is an admitted position that it was the deceased who went to the house of the accused at the time of occurrence and he called his wife back, but she refused and at that time, he beat not only his wife, but also A-3, who is his mother-in-law and under these circumstances, A-1 and A-2, who are the sons of A-3, naturally got provoked and questioned the same; that the deceased has also spoken in filthy language and left the place and that being provoked by the same, immediately both A-1 and A-2 followed the deceased and attacked him and under these circumstances, the act of the accused was neither deliberate nor wanton, but it was only due to quarrel which has arisen inside the house and sudden provocation and under these circumstances, this aspect has also got to be considered by this court.7.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.8.It is not in controversy that Surendran, the husband of one Mahalakshmi, who is the sister of A-1 and A-2, was done to death in an incident that has taken place at the time and place as put forth by the prosecution.Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.21, the Doctor, who has given his categorical opinion as a witness before the court and also in Ex.P.23, the post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries sustained by him.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants at the time of trial or before this court and hence it has got to be recorded so.It is true, P.Ws.1 and 2 were close friends of the deceased, but on that ground, their evidence cannot be discarded.Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 rushed to the police station and has given the entire narration of the incident.Further, at the time when he has given Ex.P.1, the report, his bloodstained pant and shirt were recovered by the police and were sent to the court.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 stood as corroborative piece of evidence to each other.From their evidence, it would be clear that they accompanied with the deceased to the house of the accused and thereafter, they were all returning in TVS Suzuki.At that time, A-1 and A-2, who came in the Auto, dashed on the vehicle of the deceased and both P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the deceased fell down.The deceased in order to escape, was running, but A-1 and A-2 chased and stabbed him to death.Despite cross examination, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 remained unshaken.Their evidence is natural, cogent and convincing and the trial court has rightly accepted the same.10.Apart from their evidence, the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the post-mortem Doctor stood in full corroboration with the ocular testimony.Yet another circumstance is the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 pursuant to the confession statements given by A-1 and A-2 at the time when they were taken to police custody.The recovery of weapon of crime consequent upon the confessional statements made by A-1 and A-2 would be pointing to the nexus of the accused with the crime.Thus, all put together, in the considered opinion of the court, would be sufficient to indicate that it was A-1 and A-2 who stabbed Surendran to death.In view of the same, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants do not carry any merit whatsoever and they are liable to be rejected and accordingly, they are rejected.The lower court was perfectly correct in recording that it was A-1 and A-2 who stabbed the deceased to death at the time and place of occurrence.11.So far as the second line of contention that both the accused have acted due to sudden provocation and hence the act of the accused cannot be termed as murder was concerned, the court has to necessarily agree with the learned counsel for the appellants.Even as per the prosecution case, during the relevant time, the wife of the deceased was actually staying in the house of A-1 to A-3 and it was the deceased who took P.Ws.1 and 2 and went to her house and called her back, but she refused.At that time, it was the deceased who not only beat his wife, but also his mother-in-law, who is A-3 in the case.Thus, it is quite natural for A-1 and A-2 to get provoked on seeing his mother/A-3 being beaten by the deceased.Further, the deceased also uttered filthy language on A-1 and A-2 and under these circumstances, A-1 and A-2 were provoked naturally and when the deceased went along with P.Ws.1 and 2 in the TVS Suzuki, A-1 and A-2 followed them in the Auto and dashed on the vehicle and when the deceased fell down, the A-1 and A-2 chased and stabbed him.Thus, the incident what has taken place inside the house, in which the deceased beat his wife and also A-3 and also uttered filthy language on A-1 and A-2 and the incident in which A-1 and A-2 stabbed him were continuing one.Under these circumstances, it would be quite clear from the evidence that both A-1 and A-2 have acted due to sudden provocation and hence the act of the appellants was neither intentional nor premeditated, but the act of A-1 and A-2 would be one culpable homicide not amounting to murder and hence it would attract the penal provision of Section 304(I) IPC and awarding punishment of 7 years R.I. would meet the ends of justice.12.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC are modified and instead the appellants are convicted under Section 304(I) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. each.The period of sentence already undergone by them is ordered to be given set off.The fine amount and default sentence imposed on the appellants under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC by the trial court will hold good.2.The Inspector of Police, Pollachi West Police Station, Coimbatore District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,446,483 |
BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 3 of 12"Arguments were heard on the point of summoning of accused.It is mentioned in the complaint that M/s. DSM Health Care Private Limited is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of disposable syringes and had its factory in Gurgaon and warehouse in Vishwas Nagar.It is further mentioned that the complainant and his mother, the investors in the company, were having combined shareholding of 50% in the company and accused Mr. Sumeer Misri, the Managing Director of company, had complete day to day management and control over the affairs of the company.Further, it is stated that in the year 2002, the mother of complainant invested a sum of Rs. 24 Lacs and the complainant invested Rs. 52 Lacs and at all time the accused represented that the company is in sound financial shape and complainant was shown audited balance sheet of company for the financial year 2002-03, in which it was shown that the company had outstanding receivable amounting to around one crore rupees.In May, 2004, accused informed the complainant that the company is facing cash flow problem as a result of outstanding monies not being received from dealers of the company.It s further stated that the complainant again arranged a loan of Rs. 35 Lacs and invested in the company.It is further stated that on 15.06.2004, a resolution was BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 5 of 12 passed that from now on only the complainant would be the authorized signatory to the bank accounts of the company and financial decisions would be taken by him and thereafter an investigation was launched and an independent chartered Accountant was hired with the consultation of Managing Director.During investigation, it was found that in 2003-04, the company produced a total of 2.51 Crore syringes, but out of these only 1.77 Crore syringes were accounted for.Further, it was found that the dealers claimed that they have cleared all the dues and further that the representatives of the company had directly collected that money from the retail shops including the sales tax amount, which should gone to the dealer.Further, it was reported by Chartered Accountant that the books of the company have not been maintained properly.When the accused was asked to furnish an explanation qua above mentioned disclosures, he removed all the representatives of the complainant from the company and started operating the bank accounts of the company.Further, it is mentioned that 70 Lacs syringes are missing and accused had falsely claimed that these were distributed free of cost as samples.It is further mentioned that all these syringes were sent from the factory to the warehouse and these did not go to doctors or sales representatives as samples and these were sent to various dealers of surgical items, making it clear that these were sold in cash and money was not deposited and was siphoned off by the accused.BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 5 of 12During the pre-summoning evidence, complainant entered into witness box as CW1 and deposed on the line of complainant.Further, he placed on record that the report of hired Chartered Accountant Mr. Lavlesh Ex. CW1/A, summary of his findings qua challans of syringes Ex. CW1/B, resolution dated 02.08.04 Ex. CW1/B1 whereby the earlier resolution dated 10.05.04 Mark A BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 6 of 12 was cancelled by accused at his back, copy of company petition CW1/C, stock register of Vishwas Nagar Ex. CW1/D, list of dealer to whom goods were sent Ex. CW1/E1, order dated 03.02.10 passed by ICAI against earlier Chartered Accountant Mr. Avdesh Kumar Ex. CW1/E2, complaint made to EOW Ex. CW1/F and order of High Court dated 13.03.09 Ex.CW1/G.BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 6 of 12CW2, Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, deposed that he was appointed Chartered Accountant in EOW Cell vide order dated 22.12.2011 to conduct verification in the case of Raj Kachroo Vs.05.02.2018 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) CRL.M.C.2973/2014 & CRL.M.A.10303/2014(stay)The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.02.2014, whereby the petitioner has been summoned in a case filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) alleging commission of offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC.The respondent - complainant is a 50% shareholder in a Company - M/s. DSM Healthcare Private Limited (hereinafter BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 1 of 12 referred to as the Company), of which the petitioner was the Managing Director.BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 1 of 12A complaint was filed by the complainant with the Economic Offences Wing (Crime Branch), Delhi Police, under Sections 403/406/420/34 IPC.It was alleged by the complainant that there was siphoning of funds.The complainant also filed a petition before the Principal Bench, Company Law Board alleging oppression and mismanagement as well as siphoning of funds.The Company Law Board, on the petition filed by the petitioner, in its order dated 21.12.2006, noticed the following observations of the Auditor on the Accounts of the Company, as under:-"10(iii) Discrepancy was noticed in the number of needles dispatched from the factory as per the challan/delivery books and the sales recorded.The difference between the dispatch records and the sales records is of the order of about 1.77 crore needles valued at Rs.85.93 lacs.This difference, according to the petitioner would indicate siphoning of funds.The 2nd respondent has explained that in the pharmaceutical business supply of free samples is unavoidable and according to him it could vary from 15% to 30% of the production.This stand has not been contested or controverted by the petitioner.If it were to be the correct position, then, I find that the discrepancy noted accounts for roughly about to 28% of the production and therefore no c large of siphoning of funds could be made on the basis of this shortage."BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 2 of 12The Company Law Board, by its order dated 21.12.2006, after noticing the above Auditor's observation, held that the allegation of siphoning of funds based on Special Audit Report had not been established.The Company Law Board thereafter noticing that the Company remained closed for over two years and the machinery stood re-located and the respondent therein (petitioner herein) had offered the complainant to take over the Company along with the machinery, without any consideration, held that an option was available to the complainant to either take over the Company or file a petition for winding up.Noticing this option, the Company Law Board was of the view that no further relief could be granted in the facts of the case, like asking the petitioner (second respondent therein) to pay back the investment made by the complainant in the business venture.The petition was disposed of.By order dated 13.03.2009, the said Writ Petition filed by the respondent - complainant was found to be without any merit.The Court observed that the Company Law Board had given clean chit to the petitioner as the complainant could not prove on record that there was any siphoning away of fund of the Company by the petitioner.This Court was of the view that once the complainant approached the Company Law Board and was not successful, then, for the complainant to approach the Economic Offences Wing is not appreciable.This Court, however, keeping in view the provisions of the Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noticed that despite the Company Law Board rejecting the petition of the complainant, the complainant was not remediless.The Court, further held that if the complainant had any grievance, which is left out and which could be substantiated by the complainant by examining himself and leading other evidences, which is in his power and possession and if the Magistrate was satisfied, then process could be initiated under Section 203 Cr.P.C.The complainant - respondent, after the order of the Writ Court, initiated the process under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. by filing the subject complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant thereafter led the evidence and the Trial Court, after examining the evidence led by the complainant and hearing arguments by the BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 4 of 12 impugned order dated 05.02.2014, took cognizance and summoned the petitioner.It is this process, which is sought to be interdicted by the petitioner in these proceedings.BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 4 of 12By the impugned order dated 05.02.2014, the Trial Court held as under:-BAIL APPLN.2973/2014 Page 7 of 12420 and 406 IPG is made out against the accused Sumeer Misri.Accordingly, he be summoned for 04.04.2014 on filing PF and RC by complainant within seven days."Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the Writ Court, by its judgment dated 13.03.2009, gave only limited liberty to the respondent - complainant i.e. to initiate proceedings with regard to any grievance, which was left out, no complaint could have been filed.Further the order dated 13.03.2009 of the Writ Court declining to entertain the petition of the complainant for a direction to the Economic Offences Wing to register an FIR was in the context of whether a direction could be issued to Economic Offences Wing to register a case and as to whether the complainant had made out a cognizable offence.Even if a complainant has not been able to show, by his complaint made to the Economic Offences Wing, that a cognizable offence has taken place, it cannot be said that the complainant is precluded from approaching the Court of the Magistrate under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and establishing by leading evidence that an offence has taken place.In the present case, the complainant has exercised the right conferred on the complainant under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,448,470 |
P. BAIL APPLN.Brief facts of the case, as stated in the petition, are that on 13.03.2007, INX Media Pvt. Ltd. filed an application seeking approval of the FIPB for permission to issue by way of preferential allotment in one or more tranches, (i) up to 14,98,995 equity shares of 10 each, and (ii) up to 31,22,605 convertible, non-cumulative, redeemable preference shares of 10 each collectively representing approximately 46.216% of the issued equity share capital of INX Media.It was also mentioned therein that INX Media, subject to provisions of the applicable law, has an intention to make a downstream financial investment to the extent of 26% of the issued and outstanding equity share capital of INX Media.However, this matter was not placed before the FIPB.On 18.05.2007, meeting of FIPB (comprising of 6 Secretaries to the Government of India) was held.FIPB recommended the proposal of INX Media in respect of the proposed issue of shares up to 46.216% of the issued equity.The allegations against the Petitioner is that contrary to the approval BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 2 of 47 of FIPB, INX Media deliberately and in violation of the conditions of the approval:BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 2 of 47(a) made downstream investment to the extent of 26% in the capital of INX News without specific approval of FIPB which included foreign investment by the same foreign investors; and(b) brought in 305 Crores FDI in INX Media by issuing shares to the foreign investors at a premium of more than 800/- per share.Accordingly, from February to April, 2018, three complaints were received by the Petitioner against INX Media/ INX News, all of which were marked to the then Revenue Secretary who in turn marked the said complaints to various authorities for enquiry.In addition, pursuant to certain complaints received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, the then Under Secretary, IFPB wrote to INX Media on 26.05.2008 sought clarifications regarding the downstream investment and the amount of FDI inflow.In response thereto, INX Media wrote to FIPB on 26.06.2008 intimating that the downstream investment will be as per approval of FIPB, the inflow of funds are including premium and are within the given limit of 46.216% approved by FIPB.It was further stated that till 26.06.2008, 305.36 Crores have been received by INX Media as FDI.However, on 09.07.2008 and 21.08.2008, FIPB wrote to INX News to submit fresh application for BAIL APPLN.BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 3 of 47He was formerly Union Minister of Finance (1996-1998, 2004-2008 and 2012-2014) and Union Minister of Home Affairs (2008-2012).He is a member of the Indian National Congress, which is the principal Opposition party in Parliament.The Petitioner is also a senior spokesperson of the Congress party as well as a prominent and widely-read columnist.Thus, he has deep roots in the society.BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 4 of 47Every day in custody in an interference with the liberty of the citizen.Regarding flight risk and cooperation with Investigation, learned Senior Counsel submitted that Petitioner was summoned only once on 06.06.2018 by CBI and the CBI has neither recovered nor elicited anything incriminating from the Petitioner so far, despite having undergone custodial interrogation for the maximum permissible period of 15 days.The BAIL APPLN.As per normal procedure, the FDI proposal of INX Media was processed by several officers in the FIPB Unit.However, the contemporaneous evidence is collected from Hotel BAIL APPLN.BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 20 of 47(a) Allotment of 14,98,995/- Equity shares of 10 each.(b) Allotment of 31,22,605/- convertible preference shares of 10/- each.This is how foreign direct investment of 403 crores came to India from three companies whose credentials are found during investigation.The said reliance is wholly untenable as it applies only to contingencies mentioned therein which is not in existence/were attracted to the present case.BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 21 of 47He further submits that a part of this amount came to be invested by INX Media Pvt. Ltd. into INX News Pvt. Ltd. by way of down-stream investment.This excess FDI and the investments in INX News Pvt. Ltd. triggered various written complaints being made to the Finance Minister, which were received by him personally, and were sent to different agencies under his ministry for probing.He further submits that an Application is made by INX News Pvt. Ltd. for "fresh approval" of downstream investment and not for post facto approval (as suggested by the petitioner).The Board was not informed about the complaints received by Finance Minister and sent only to the Revenue Secretary.The Revenue Secretary who is Member of the FIPB chose not to attend FIPB meeting in which this "fresh proposal" was BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 22 of 47 decided to be granted and his representative remained present and gave a dissent note.It has come on record that illegal gratification has been paid by and through other companies by Indrani Mukherjee and Peter Mukherjee to the companies controlled and owned by the co-conspirator and co-accused Karti P. Chidambaram viz. son of the petitioner.It has come on record that large sums of money has come into the companies owned and/or controlled by the co-conspirator Karti P. Chidambaram during the relevant period for the favours shown by the petitioner to INX Media.Sufficient evidence to prove that some of the payments were illegal gratification and for rest, investigation is in progress.It has also come on record that no services were rendered by these companies owned and controlled by the petitioner and Karti P. BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 23 of 47 Chidambaram to the companies from where the huge sums of money is received.Investigation has also revealed that contemporaneously large number of emails were exchanged between the representatives of INX Media and the company controlled by petitioner and Karti P. Chidambaram which pertained to grant of FIPB approval to INX Media.She further clarified while referring Press Note 7 of 1999, the prior approval of FIPB or government would not be needed for increasing amount of foreign equity as long as the percentage is within the approval obtained.Regarding the second point which was about the downstream investment by Inx Media, Ms. Khullar stated that recently FIPB had received an application by the company which is under consideration.BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 40 of 47BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 40 of 47(a) allotment of 14,98,995/- Equity Shares of 10/- each(b) allotment of 31,22,605/- convertible preference shares of 10/- each.Instead of 4.62 Crore, INX Media brought a FDI of 403 Crores without their being any approval for the same.The reliance is contrary to the material on record.It applies only to the contingencies mentioned therein, which is not in existence attracted in case of INX Media.It is further important to note that a part of the amount mentioned above came to be invested by INX Media into INX News Private Ltd. by way of down-stream investment.BAIL APPLN.The Revenue Secretary who was Member of the FIPB chose not to attend FIPB meeting in which "fresh proposal" was decided to be granted and his representative remained present and gave a dissent note.During investigation, as per Sealed Cover it is revealed that Indrani Mukherjee and Petter Mukherjee (accused) met the petitioner even before the filing of application before FIPB Unit during which the petitioner assured them regarding the FIPB approval and in lieu thereof, directed that the business interest of his son Karti Chidambaram, who is also an accused, should be taken care of and certain overseas transactions should made in his favour.It is also on the record that illegal gratification has been paid by and through other companies by Indrani and Peter Mukherjee controlled and owned by the co-conspirator and co-accused Karti P. Chidambaram viz. son of the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.It is fact that the entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book as such offences affects the very fabric of democratic governance and probity in public life.A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passing being aroused.However, an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community.2270/2019 Page 45 of 47 interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest...." as observed by the Honble Supreme Court in the State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (Supra).Vide the present bail petition, the Petitioner/accused herein Sh.Accordingly, on 21.08.2008, INX News submitted fresh application for downstream investment.Thereafter, on 02.09.2008, relying on Press Note No. 7 (1999 series) dated 01.04.1999, the then Additional Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance wrote letter to the CBDT that investment of 305 Crores was within the approval percentage of 46.216% of issued equity.Thereafter, on 24.10.2008, FIPB meeting was held and recommended the proposal for downstream investment.However, on 15.05.2017, after 10 years later, CBI registered an FIR alleging commission against Sh.Karti P. Chidambaram [arraigned as accused No. 3 in the said FIR under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC), Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to PC Act) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.]Mr. Kapil Sibal and Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocates appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and submitted that the Petitioner is a citizen of India, resident of New Delhi and a law-abiding citizen.The Petitioner is a Senior Advocate practicing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 4 of 47 India.Currently, he is a Member of Parliament (RS).At the outset, it is submitted that the Petitioner is neither named as an accused nor as a suspect in the subject FIR.There is no allegation against the Petitioner in the body of the subject FIR.Further, the allegations in the subject FIR pertain to the grant of an FIPB approval in 2007-08, for which the subject FIR came to be registered after a period of almost 10 years based on alleged 'oral source' information.After more than a year of the registration of the subject FIR and despite the fact that the Petitioner was not named as an accused, the CBI issued a notice dated 28.05.2018 bearing no. '01/4406' under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. directing the Petitioner to appear before the CBI on 31.05.2018 at 11.00 hours.Apprehending his arrest, the Petitioner was constrained to prefer a petition (being B.A. No. 1316/2018) before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 5 of 47 bail.Vide Order dated 31.05.2018, this Court was pleased to issue notice in the abovementioned anticipatory bail application and was also pleased to grant interim protection to the Petitioner, which interim protection continued for a period of over 15 months.During the course of the proceedings in the said anticipatory bail application, on 03.07.2019, the CBI filed a 'Short Reply' to the said anticipatory bail application.During the pendency of the above bail application, the Petitioner was summoned by the CBI to appear on 06.06.2018, on which date the Petitioner duly appeared and answered all questions.On 20.08.2019, this Court was pleased to dismiss the Petitioner's abovementioned anticipatory bail application at around 15:15 hours.At around midnight BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 6 of 47 on 20.08.2019, while the Petitioner was preparing his challenge against the Order dated 20.08.2019 with his lawyers, it came to the Petitioner's knowledge from media reports that the CBI, in a completely mala fide and illegal manner, and after a period of almost 15 months from the last summons, affixed a notice outside the Petitioner's residence directing him to appear before the CBI within 2 (Two) hours.Pertinently, the notice failed to mention the provision under which it was issued.BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 5 of 47The Petitioner duly responded to the said notice vide email dated 21.08.2019 sent through his counsel wherein it was inter alia stated as under:"I am instructed to state that your notice fails to mention the provision of law under which my Client has been issued a notice at midnight calling upon him to appear at a short notice of 2 (Two) hours.Furthermore, kindly note that my client is exercising the rights available to him in law and had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.08.2019 seeking urgent reliefs in respect of the Order dated 20.08.2019 dismissing his anticipatory bail application no.1316/2018 in the captioned FIR.BAIL APPLN.On 21.08.2019, the Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Crl.) No. 7525/2019 impugning the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by this Court dismissing the Petitioner's anticipatory bail application, which upon urgent mentioning, was directed to be listed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for urgent hearing.Despite the above, on 21.08.2019, the CBI, without any notice to the Petitioner, approached the Ld. Trial Court for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants against the Petitioner and the Ld.Trial Court was pleased to direct the issuance of the NBW's.Pertinently, in the application filed by the CBI before the Ld. Trial Court, the Petitioner's reply vide Email dated 21.08.2019) to the notice dated 20.08.2019 was not mentioned.Furthermore, a perusal of the order sheet of 21.08.2019 of the Ld. Trial Court whereby the NBW's were issued, shows that the CBI did not inform the Ld.Trial Court that the Petitioner's SLP was directed to be listed for urgent hearing on 21.08.2019, despite a specific query by the Ld. Trial Court, as recorded in the said order sheet.As such, the CBI misled the Ld. Trial Court to issue the NBW's against the Petitioner.Despite the pendency of the abovementioned SLP, the CBI, in a completely illegal and mala fide BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 8 of 47 manner, came to the Petitioner's residence at around 9.30-10 PM on 21.08.2019 and arrested the Petitioner in pursuance of the said Non-Bailable Warrants.The Petitioner was thereafter produced before the Ld. Trial Court on 22.08.2019 and the CBI preferred an application seeking 5 days police remand.On 26.08.2019, the Petitioner's SLP being SLP (Crl.) No. 7525/2019 was listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which dismissed it as infructuous in view of the subsequent arrest of the Petitioner.Vide Order dated 27.08.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to clarify the above order dated 26.08.2019 and directed as under:BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 8 of 47In the meantime, on 26.08.2019, the Petitioner was produced before the Ld. Trial Court and the CBI sought further 5 days police remand and the same was granted and thereafter, continue up to 05.09.2019, pursuant to the orders passed by the Ld. Trial Court.Thereafter, on 05.09.2019, the Petitioner was produced before the Ld. Trial Court and the CBI sought judicial custody of the Petitioner.Thereafter, it was BAIL APPLN.The Petitioner approved the file on the same day.The Petitioner approved the file on the same day.Further, a complaint from the then Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was referred by the then Revenue Secretary to the Minister of Corporate Affairs.Eventually, all the aforesaid four complaints/ references reached the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and culminated in an SFIO Report.The CBI is deliberately withholding the file in which the complaints were referred to the Ministry of Company Affairs and to SFIO.In the said cases, the Petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Special Judge.The Petitioner is 74 years old and has age related issues such as Krohns, Dyslipidemia, hypertension, etc. The Petitioner has an unimpeachable record of service and integrity throughout 40 years of public life.Thus, the present petition deserves to be allowed.2270/2019 Page 17 of 47BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 18 of 47BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 19 of 47On the other hand, Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent CBI submits that INX Media Pvt. Ltd. (an Indian Company) enters into a share subscription agreement with three foreign entities.On 09.03.2007, Indrani Mukherjee and Pratim but known as Peter Mukherjee along with some third person met the petitioner in his office.On investigation, the visitors register is stated to be destroyed because of lapse of time.2270/2019 Page 20 of 47 Oberoi which corroborates the statements of Indrani Mukherjee, that she and Peter Mukherjee were staying in Hotel Oberoi, New Delhi between 06.03.2007 and 09.03.2007 and they having used the Hotel vehicle for internal travel on 09.03.2007, which was used for travelling to the petitioners office where the meeting was held.After the meeting dated 09.03.2007, the INX Media applied for FIPB approval vide application dated 13.03.2007 requesting for the following approval for FDI in the form of:Learned Solicitor General further submits that despite an already existing share subscription agreement for bringing 403 crores, deliberately an application was made showing FDI of 4.62 crores.2270/2019 Page 21 of 47 an FDI of 403 Crores without there being any approval for the same.BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 22 of 47In the said bail application, this Court was pleased to pass an interim order protecting the petitioner from arrest.The only application which was moved by the petitioner was the application for grant of interim bail which was also subsequently withdrawn by him.Heard learned counsel for the parties in length and perused the material produced before the Court and material in Sealed Cover.Moreover, to understand the material on record, this Court interacted wth Shri.In my considered view, INX Media Ltd (an Indian company) does not come under the aforementioned (a) & (b) category.Had INX Media Pvt. Ltd was in that category, there was no occasion for the said company to seek approval of FIPB/Government of India.Regarding clarification dated 02.09.2008 of Ms. Sidhushree Khullar, the then additional Secretary, , department of economic affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, in reference to D.O. letter no. 291/5/2008/IT (Inv.BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 39 of 47Ms. Khullar further mentioned in communication dated 02.09.2008 that said the position was explained to Sh.It is not in dispute that FDI approval was granted by FIPB therefore, the reply to the D.O, letter dated 29.07.2008 of above named member, CPDT was to be decided by the FIPB.Thus it seems the aforementioned communication dated 02.09.2008 was without jurisdiction and has no relevance.After the meeting dated 09.03.2007, INX Media applied for FIPB approval vide application dated 13.03.2007, requesting for approval for FDI in the form of:Despite an already existing, Share Subscription Agreement of bringing 403 Crores, an application was made showing FDI of 4.62 BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 41 of 47 Crores, but not placed the agreement dated 26.02.2007, due to the reasons best known to them.This excess FDI and the investments in INX News Private Ltd. triggered various routine complaints being made to the Finance Minister which were received by him personally (as per the record produced by the CBI in sealed cover) and were sent to different agencies under his Ministry for probing the complaints and the follow up action taken by the petitioner.As per the investigation, an application was BAIL APPLN.2270/2019 Page 42 of 47 made by INX News for fresh approval of downstream investment and not for "post facto" approval as argued by counsel for the petitioner.A disregard for the BAIL APPLN.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
53,460,165 |
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 18.12.2015, passed in No.1266/BCDFGISSSV/2015, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Ganesan @ Burma Ganesh, Son of Duraisamy and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, M5 Ennore Police Station, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:M5 Ennore Police Station, Cr.No.1432 of 2015 under Sections 147, 148, 307 r/w.109 of the Indian Penal Code.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 26.09.2015, one Saravanan, son of Kasi, has lodged a complaint against the detenu and others in M5, Ennore Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.1436 of 2015, under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, read with Section 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The detaining authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as a 'Goonda' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the detenu himself, as petitioner.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,346,282 |
2 Applicant is accused in Crime No. I-346 of 2016 registered with the Kalyan Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short).This crime was registered at the instance of M/s. Nidhi Developers.3 Applicant is the flat purchaser and M/s. Nidhi Developer ('Developer' for short) is the builder promoter.It is alleged that Developers arrange for the loan.It is alleged that the applicant obtained loan on one flat from two finance institutions namely, Indiabulls HousingAjay 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2019 00:36:08 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2019 00:36:08 :::18.BA.614.19.doc Finance Limited and Mannapuram Housing Finance Limited.Intervener appears for Mannapuram Home Finance Limited ('Respondent No.2' for short).It is submitted that, as on today approximately amount of Rs. 24 lacs is due to Mannapuram Home Finance Limited.4 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the developer had filed the civil suit and wherein vide decree on 06 th February 2019, agreement to sale executed by the developer with the applicant has been declared ''cancelled''.6 In view of the statement made by counsel for the applicant, the applicant is directed to file an affidavit indicating the schedule of payment.Affidavit shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today and he shall serve a copy of the affidavit in advance to the advocate for the intervener.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2019 00:36:08 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
534,694 |
Two children were born out of this wedlock.petitioner No. 1 and Pratima Johri deceased along with their children were living at C-4-B/13/151, Janakpuri, New Delhi.On the night of 26th January, 1987 Pratima Johri burnt herself in order to commit suicide.She was removed to hospital by her husband and got her admitted there.The doctor on duty certified that Smt. Pratima John was in a fit condition to make a statement.in the presence of the doctor who also signed the same as an attesting witness.On the basis of the statement so recorded, DDNo.SA dated 26.1.87 was recorded on the basis of which Fir No. 34/87 was registered against both the petitioners.After investigation, both the petitioners were sent for trial for the offences punishable under Section 498A/34 and Section 306/34 IPC.(2) Learned Addl Sessions Judge by his order dated 22.1.1991, charged both the petitioners under Section 498A/34 and Section 306/34 IPC.(3) Aggrieved, both the petitioners have filed this revision petition.(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is not an iota of evidence against petitioner No. I When Pratima Jain was admitted in the hospital, she made a statement before the doctor and the police officer.She did not involve petitioner No. I either as an abettor to commit suicide or a person who had treated, her cruelly at any time.Even in the statements of Bhim Narain Saxena Pwi who is father of the deceased Sudhir Saxena PW2 brother of the deceased, and Snit.Saria Sixena, PW3, mother of the deceased nothing has come against petitioner No. I implicating him in the said crime.According to the learned counsel, there is no material for framing charge against petitioner No. I either under Section 498A or under Section 306 IPC.(5) Regarding petitioner No. 2, learned counsel submitted that she always treated the deceased with love and affection but she has been falsely implicated.Petitioner No. 2 was not present in the house at the time of this unfortunate incident.She could not have abetted the suicide committed by the deceased.There is no evidence of any neighbour that petitioners in any way tortured or harassed the deceased.They have been falsely implicated at the behest of the brother of the deceased who is an officer in Delhi Police.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,080,419 |
Learned counsel for the objector has also submitted that the present applicant is a habitual offender, as recently the applicant has been convicted vide judgment dated 15.2.2018 by the JMFC Harda in Criminal Case No.1246/2013 under Sections 452, 323, 323/34, 506 (Part-II) of IPC, however the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal Appeal No.22/2018 vide judgment dated 26.6.2018 he has modified the same and has convicted the applicant under Sections 323 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced him to fine of Rs.1000/- only.Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer of the applicant and has 3 reiterated the grounds raised by the complainant and has submitted that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as also the documents filed by the objector, this Court finds that at the time of consideration of bail application (MCRC No.30099/2018) of co-accused Rameshwar no objection was filed by the objector, and as such the injuries suffered by him could not be brought to the knowledge of this Court, which are, though not grievous in nature as defined in IPC and may be simple in nature but surely are of such nature, which would not entitle the applicant to be released on anticipatory bail.The injuries are apparent from the photographs filed by the complainant in this bail application.Under these circumstances, the ground of parity is also not available to the applicant when the notice to the other applicant for cancellation of his bail has also been issued by this Court.Accordingly, the present application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Digitally signed by MANZOOR AHMED Date: 2018.10.30 13:42:11 +05'30' Ansari.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,082,518 |
The criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedingsin C.C.No.110 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.VI,Madurai.2.The petitioner, who was working as the Chief Manager, Indian Bank,Anna Nagar Branch, Madurai, was arrayed as A4 in the final report.Based onthe complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent policeregistered an FIR in Crime No.495 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 468and 420 IPC as against two persons namely, Panneer Selvam and Balamurugan, who were arrayed as A1 and A2 respectively, in the final report.The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice of thisCourt 161 statement recorded by the police wherein, the defacto complainanthas stated as follows:NkYk; ,e;jpad; tq;fp mz;zhefh; fpisapypUf;Fk; Nkyhsh; jpU.Kj;ijahvd;gth; kz;ly mYtyfj;jpypUe;J te;j epge;jidia rhptu filgpbf;fhky; A.gd;dPu;nry;tj;jpw;F cle;ijahf Nghypahd tPl;L tup urPJ fl;bl xg;Gjy; Nghd;wNghypahd Mtzj;jpw;F tPl;Lf;fld; U.15,00,000/- nfhLg;gjw;F cle;ijahf,Ue;Js;shh;fs;.5.A plain reading of the statement made by the defacto complainant evenif it is taken as it is, at the best, can only be said to be a dereliction ofduty on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be said to haveacted with criminal motive at the time when the loan was sanctioned by him.8.In the considered opinion of this Court, this petitioner has beenunnecessarily roped in as an accused in this case.In fact, the prosecutionshould have made this petitioner as one of the witnesses in order tosubstantiate their case against the other accused persons.The addition ofthis petitioner as an accused in this case is a clear knee-jerk reaction.9.In the result, the proceedings as against the petitioner inC.C.No.110 of 2017 is hereby quashed.It is made clear that the proceedingsshall stand quashed only in so far as this petitioner is concerned and theCourt below is directed to proceed further with the criminal proceedings inC.C.No.110 of 2017, as against the other accused persons.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,092,151 |
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and the deceased Latha were residing in the same village.Four years prior to the occurrence, the 1st petitioner was in relationship with the deceased Latha, taking advantage of the relationship, the 1st petitioner received money from the deceased and entrusted the same to his sister Malar for construction of her house.Subsequently the deceased and her husband viz., Manoharan settled at Tiruppur for his employment.Thereafter, the deceased Latha came back to her native.On 06.03.2020 at 9.00 a.m. the deceased Latha went to the house of Malar, where, Malar and one Rajathi, who is the wife of the second petitioner, were there.On seeing them the deceased shouted and asked them to return the money, for which, a wordy altercation arose between them, during which, Malar and Rajathi joined together and abused the deceased Latha in filthy language and beaten her with hands.The deceased went tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 her house and committed suicide by hanging.On 07.03.2020, the Village Administrative Officer lodged a complaint for the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. subsequently it was altered into Sections 294 (b), 323 and 306 IPC Hence, this complaint.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners, the respondent had proceeded on a wrong premise against them.He would also submit that the Village Administrative Office, who informed about the suicide of Latha, had not stated anything with regard the petitioners and no incriminating materials were found in the scene of occurrence.Further he would submit that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 16.03.2020 and seeks bail for the petitioners.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the first petitioner taking advantage of the relationship with the deceased Latha, received money from her and entrusted the same to his sister Malar for construction of her house.Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioners in the FIR and also taking note of the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 16.03.2020, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions :O.P.No.7665 of 2020 in Crime No.26 of 2020When the deceased Latha went to the house of Malar and asked for return of money, Malar and Rajathi, wife of the secondhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioner joined together and abused the deceased Latha in filthy language the petitioners joined with them and beaten and assaulted her, which was witnessed by the entire villagers, which led to the suicide of the deceased Latha.Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners.(a) the petitioners shall execute their own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) each before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioners have been confined on their release;(b)the petitioners shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate, on or before 01.07.2020, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate, may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(f) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;19.05.2020 nsd Index: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking orderThe Judicial Magistrate No.I, Attur.The Inspector of Police, Veeraganur Police Station, Salem District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 M.NIRMALnsd Crl.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 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.
|
175,097,682 |
1 08.2.2019 Item No. 24 Court No.40 A.B.Item No. 24CRR No. 307 of 2019 In the matter of: Joydeb Debnath Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal & anr.Opposite Parties Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal For the Petitioner The impugned order No. 6 dated 18.1.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore in Criminal Misc.case No. 4348 of 2018 in connection with Sonarpur Police Station Case No. 492 dated 31.03.2018 Under Sections 498A/307/427/506 of the Indian Penal Code cancelling the prayer for bail is a subject of assail in this case.Two G.D. entries, dated 20.04.2018 and 04.7.2018 had to be lodged by the defacto-complainant wife in such a situation.Upon consideration of the G.D. entries, learned Sessions Judge, South 24Parganas was pleased to cancel the bail with direction upon the learned Magistrate to issue non- bailable warrant of arrest against the revisionist.Thus according to revisionist, a new dimension with a new horizon has come up before the Court 1 2 below with the submission of charge sheet against the revisionist accused under Section 498A/427 of the I.P.C. Offence complained of is a matter of grave significance, while making consideration of the prayer for bail.The parameter for consideration of the bail and the parameter for cancellation of the bail is not same and identical, but such parameter has to be decided in context with the offence complained of.In a situation like this the revisional application can be disposed of giving suitable direction to this case.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,108,904 |
He further submitted that he does not want to press this appeal on merit; and seeks leave of this Court to with- draw the appeal.Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1603/2015 is dismissed as withdrawn.5. Let a copy of this order / judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for information along with record of the trial Court.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.07.29 11:52:28 +05'30'
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,751,094 |
JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2003 seeks to challenge judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2002, arising out of FIR No. 555 of 2001, registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, whereby learned Judge vide his judgment dated 7-8-2003 has held the appellant, Shaukat Ali alias Bechan, guilty under Section 302, IPC for murder of Shamshad.Further, vide separate order dated 7-8-2003, has sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for three months.Brief facts of the case as have been noted by learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows:...that one Shamshad was admitted in AIIMS hospital by one Javed, a tea vendor, R/o D-637, Indra Kalyan Alla Mohalla, Phase-I, Okhla, in injured condition.On examination, Shamshad was declared dead.This information was passed on to P.S. Okhla Industrial Area (O.I.A.) on 7-10-2001 at about 9.50 p.m. On the basis of this information, IO visited the AIIMS and clothes of the deceased were taken into possession, dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.In the post-mortem report, doctor opined the cause of death as haemorrhagic shock due to stab injury No. 2, i.e., stab wound over the left side of lower chest 2.5 x 1.4 cm in size, vertically placed, elliptical in shape, exposing subcutaneous fat.It was opined that the wound has gone deep through 6th inter coastal space with diffuse muscular haematoma around, piercing the pericardium and gone into the right ventricle of the heart on the anterior aspect.On the basis of said information, a case was registered and investigation commenced.10 is deposed to have reached the place of incident and ultimately could find out the alleged eye-witness, namely, Javed.He recorded statement of Javed, Jainnuddin, Vijay, Nasruddin and Qaumuddin, who disclosed the involvement of present accused in the murder of the deceased.On 10-10-2001, accused is disposed to have been arrested on the basis of secret information from H.N. 114, Alla Mohalla, Okhla.He was allegedly interrogated and he is alleged to have made disclosure statement regarding whereabouts of knife allegedly used by him in this incident and subsequently got recovered the knife which was taken into possession.Accused is also alleged to have disclosed about the whereabouts of cloths which were worn by him at the time of incident.He allegedly took the police party towards the heap of garbage and produced one polythene bag which was found containing blood stained jeans which was taken into possession by the police.Samples handed over by the doctor at the time of post mortem examination and other samples were seized by the police.Statements of the witnesses were recorded.After investigation of the case, police came to the conclusion that prima facie a case Under Section 302, IPC was made out.against accused, accordingly, challan was filed.3. Prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 15 witnesses.Of these, P.W. 1, Javed, is the eye-witness.P.W. 2 is Vijay, the neighbourer.P.W. 3, Dr. Arun Kumar Agnihotri, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, proved MLC of deceased, Shamshad, Exhibit P.W. 3/A. P.W. 4, Head Constable Hoshiyar Singh, was working as a Duty Officer on 7-10-2001 and proved DD No. 34-B, Exhibit P.W. 4/A, rukka, Exhibit P.W. 4/B and copy of FIR, Exhibit P.W. 4/C. P.W. 5, Constable Yogesh Kumar, accompanied SI Lokesh Sharma (P.W. 9A) to AIIMS Hospital.P.W. 6 is Constable Dilawar Singh.P.W. 7, Dr. Varun Dixit, Junior Resident, AIIMS, conduced postmortem examination on the dead body of Shamshad and proved his reports Exhibit P.W. 7/A and P.W. 7/B. P.W. 8 is Constable Dharmender Kumar, who took the dead body for post-mortem examination, received the samples and handed over the same to the IO vide memo Exhibit P.W. 8/A. P.W. 9 is Jainnudin.P.W. 9A is SI Lokesh Sharma.P.W. 10, SI Nirbhay Sharma, proved application for opinion, Exhibit P.W. 10/A. P.W. 11 SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman, Crime Branch, prepared site plan, Exhibit P.W. 11/ A.P.W. 12, Mohd. Gunni, father of the deceased, identified the dead body and proved his statement Exhibit P.W. 12/A. P.W. 13, Mohd. Kamal, identified the dead body and proved his statement, Exhibit P.W. 13/A. P.W. 14 is Constable Pramod Kumar.P.W. 15 is Head Constable Sompal Singh.Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no material on record which positively proves that the appellant has committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt.He contends that except for P.W. 2, Vijay, who states that he saw the accused running away with the knife in his hand, there is no other evidence to link the accused with the crime.Learned Counsel for the State contends that P.W. 2, Vijay, is an eye-witness who has seen the accused fleeing from the place of incident armed with a knife from which it can safely be deduced that he saw the perpetrator of the crime.Having heard counsel for the parties, we have perused the material on record with great care.We find the prosecution's case rest on the testimony of P.W. 2, Vijay, as also the recoveries made at the instance of the accused, namely, the knife and a pair of jeans, P.W. 2, Vijay, in his deposition states that on 8-10-2001 at about 7-30 p.m. he was present near the temple as he was neighbour of Jainnuddin.Accused Shaukat Ali and deceased Shamshad also used to reside in the same place and were from the same village.Accused Shaukat Ali and deceased Shamshad had some money dispute.Shaukat Ali used to demand payment from Shamshad.On the date of incident, a quarrel had ensued between Shaukat Ali and Shamshad and later on Shaukat Ali killed Shamshad with a knife.The witness did not see Shaukat Ali actually stabbing Shamshad but saw Shaukat Ali running with a knife and after that he heard noises.He does not remember whether Shaukat Ali uttered any words while he was running.In cross-examination by Additional Public Prosecutor, this witness admitted that he saw Shaukat Ali running with a knife behind Shiv Mandir on 7-10-2001 at about 7.30 p.m. and at that time, he was standing outside his jhuggi.He denied the other suggestions except that there was a dispute of Rs.3,500/- between the appellant and the deceased.From the analysis of evidence of this witness, we can safely come to the conclusion that even though the police came to the spot soon after the occurrence, the witness did not join the investigation.He did not tell the police or any other person that he had seen the appellant running from the spot with a knife in his land.It is only after four days of the occurrence that this witness makes a statement to the effect that he saw the accused running from the spot with a knife in his hand.Obviously, this witness is not steadfast nor a reliable witness even according to the prosecution.The trial Court, while appreciating the evidence of P.W. 2 has held that it is true that DD No. 34-B, Exhibit P.W. 4/A in respect of this incident was recorded on 7-10-2001 at about 9-50 p.m. There is no mention of the person as to who had stabbed and caused injuries but in the absence of any motive on the part of P.W. 2 to falsely implicate appellant in this case, his version that "the accused was running from the spot with a knife in his hand" cannot be disbelieved.There is no explanation forthcoming as to why this witness did not inform the police for four days as to what he claims to have seen.It is difficult to believe that in a jhuggi cluster locality where a murder has taken place, the eye-witness would be oblivious of the investigations being conducted by the police.Even though P.W. 9, Jainnudin, who was the neighbour of P.W. 2, Vijay, has participated in the investigation inasmuch as he took the deceased to the hospital.P.W. 2 does not tell him anything.Surely, neighbours would exchange notes on a sensational incident such as a murder next door.The other independent witness of recovery, P.W. 9, Jainnudin, also does not support the prosecution.The dagger as also the jeans were sent for Chemical examination where it was found that the dagger does not have any remains of blood on it, while jeans had blood of 'A' group which was similar to that of the deceased.Interestingly, however, no witness says that the accused was wearing jeans at the time when the crime was committed.There is no admissible piece of evidence on record to link the jeans purportedly recovered at the instance of the accused.Besides the nature of evidence adduced and discussed above, there is no other material adduced by the prosecution to establish its case.The trial Court went wrong in assuming that the jeans belonged to the deceased when there being no material on record to suggest such a connection.Consequently, judgment and order on sentence dated 7-8-2003 cannot be sustained.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,751,098 |
This appeal has been filed by Islam Molla against the judgment and order dated 29-4-1994 passed by an Additional Session Judge, 9th City Sessions Court, Calcutta convicting him and two others viz., Batul Biswas and Dulal Saha under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.The prosecution case is that on 3-7-1990 at about 7.20 P.M. a group of dacoits numbering six entered into the jewellery shop of Gobinda Ram Soni at 41 Shibtala Street, Police Station Burrabazar.Four of them were carrying revolvers in their hands, one had a pipe gun and the other was carrying a Nepala and after entering the shop they closed both the entrance doors from inside.Two of them showing their revolvers directed the informant P. W. 3 Om Prakash Soni not to shout or else he would be shot at.They at first took 3 sets of gold ornaments.Then they demanded key of the iron chest from P.W. 8 the father of the informant and assaulted him by the blunt side of the Nepala on his neck and was forced by the dacoits to open the lock of the iron chest.The dacoits picked away various valuable articles such as 50 silver coins, various gold ornaments, silver pots, cash 10,000/- wrist watches etc. from the iron chest, and thereafter they left the place closing the door from outside.P.W. 6 Bijoy Joshi, son of one Dr. Joshi who was in the chamber at 41, Shibtala Street and P.W. 7 Ghanashyam Soni, brother of the informant who came to their jewellery shop were detained by some of the dacoits in the dispensary located on the opposite side of the jewellery shop.Police came after receiving a telephone call and on the basis of statement of the informant started the case.Charges were framed against accused Paresh Haider, Batul Biswas, Dulal Saha and Islam Molla under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and after trial Paresh was acquitted and others were convicted on the basis of identification evidence and evidence of recovery of the ornaments.The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted before us that the learned judge has not considered the vairous infirmities in the prosecution case and evidence and arrived at a wrong conclusion and on the basis of the materials on record the accused appellant ought not to have been convicted.The learned Advocate for the State could not support the impugned order of the Court below.It is to be seen as to whether the Court below was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant.We have gone through the materials on record carefully.We are afraid, we are unable to support the order of conviction and sentence passed in this case.The question of identification of the accused appellants is taken up first for consideration.P.W. 3 Omprakash Soni - the informant of this case, his brother P.W. 4 Anand Swarup Soni, P.W. 5 Barun Adak and artisan who came to supply gold ornaments manufactured by him as per order given by P.W. 8 Gobinda Ram Soni were present in the shop at the time of dacoity.P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 identified the accused appellants at the T. I. Parade held on 6-3-1991 at Presidency Jail, Alipore.P.W. 8 Gobinda Ram Soni, owner of the shop, who was also very much present in the shop at the time of dacoity was not, however, cited as an identifying witness, though he had all the opportunities to see the dacoits who assaulted him and forced him to open the iron chest.P.W. 16 Birendranath Das, a Metropolitan Magistrate held the T. I. Parade.According to him, the suspect at the time of T.I. Parade, told that he was introduced to the witnesses by showing his scar mark near the left eye and he asked the Magistrate to note that.The Magistrate admitted in his evidence that he noticed such a scar mark on the accused but he did not agree.When it was suggested to him from the defence that this scar mark facilitated identification by witnesses.We are, however, constrained to think that existence of such scar mark by the side of left eye renders the identification suspicious.It is well settled that T. I. Parade should be held at the earliest possible opportunity.It appears from the evidence of the I.O. P.W. 21, Samir Kumar Kar that the accused while in custody of police at Lal Bazar in connection with Section 'D' Case No. 239 dated 6-6-90 under Section 392 I.P.C. made a statement involving him in this case and accordingly he was shown arrested in this case.He at first stated that on 4-2-90 this accused made a statement while in police custody at Lal Bazar.This officer then stated that on 15-2-91 this accused made a statement that he had some stolen articles in his possession, but that is not correct as is seen from the remand petition filed before the Magistrate on 4-2-1991 that this accused was in police custody from before that date and on 4-2-1991 he made a statement regarding his possession of a portion of the booty and whereabouts of other culprits.It appears from the evidence of P.W. 21 that on 22-8-90 receiving information that dacoits will assemble, he arrested Batul, Paresh and Dulal, the other accused of this case, near Beck Bagan crossing along Circus Avenue and after examining them while in custody came to know about this case, but the appellant was then absconding.It is in evidence that P.W. 3 met the I.O. after the occurrence in connection with this case when he gave the list of the ornaments taken away by the dacoits and also when he was called for identifying the ornaments and it is not unlikely that the appellant may be shown to this witness.P.W. .3 during identification before the Magistrate asserted that this accused abused him filthly and hurled shoe at him at the time of dacoity, but neither while giving first information nor in his evidence he did say so.From the evidence of the witnesses, from the First Information Report and their statement to the police it is also seen that the special features of the miscreants such as their stature, complexion and characteristic marks were not given.The accused was in police custody for a long time and he was not placed in T. I. Parade promptly and there is no explanation for not placing him in the Parade earlier.It is needless to say that memory of witnesses fades away with the passage of time and it is necessary that the suspects should be identified at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence.Accordingly, considering all this we are unable to place any reliance upon such identification evidence.As regards the recovery of some gold ornaments from custody of the appellant, P. W. 18 Dharam Prakash Jaiswal claims to be the witness.He was a hawker at Manicktolla area, Calcutta and on 15-2-91 while he was standing at Bistupurmor, Jainagar he was taken by the police officers to the house of the accused at Lalpur which was 2/3 kms.off from the place and according to this witness the accused Islam started digging in the corner of the house and brought out one plastic bag containing two gold bangles, two pieces of golden churis, two golden earrings and also one golden locket and other gold looking ornaments.According to the I.O. he requisitioned for local police help but only one home guard was given to him.This is highly improper.There is no explanation by the I.O. as to why he did not comply with the mandatory provisions of search and seizure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not take respectable inhabitants of the locality as witnesses.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,110,680 |
The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Nilendra Narayan Ray For the Petitioners Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Chinsurah Police Station Case No. 98 of 2013 dated 18.04.2013 under sections 376/306/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and have considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,110,734 |
PW-14/B) and prepared a rukka (Exhb.PW-14/C).He had also gone to the scene of the crime and inspected the same.He had taken the blood stained shirt and vest of the injured-Jitender Nath Sachdeva into his possession (vide Exhb.PW-14/D).SI Jitender Tiwari (PW-15) has stated that he had prepared the site plan (Exhb.The boy showed him knife and kept it on the stomach and then on the neck and asked him to handover the cash and the key of the almirah.He put his finger inside his mouth and caught hold of his hands behind his back.He gave him fist blows and pushed him.Jitender Nath Sachdeva hit the door and teetered.The boy went to another room.Jitender Nath Sachdeva closed the door of his room and came to the window and started shouting that robbers had come inside the house and they required help.The three boys after hearing Jitender Nath Sachdeva shout ran away.Jitender Nath Sachdeva telephoned number 100 and PCR came and he was taken to the hospital.The finger print report was proved by SI Jitender Tiwari (PW-15) and is marked Exhb.CRL.A.Nos.779-789/2009 Page 6 She had identified the appellant-Subhash but did not state his actual role, though she has stated that one of the boys went into the room of Jitender Nath Sachdeva and had beaten him up and the third boy was checking goods in the house.She did not specifically state whether the appellant-Subhash is the one who had injured Jitender Nath Sachdeva.Rajni (PW-13), in her statement under Section 161 of the Code, has stated that the boy who caught me, had threatened me with knife but she had not given any description of the boys.As noticed above in the cross-examination Rajni (PW-13) had stated that she cannot tell the age of the two boys and tell their height even by approximation.The TIP proceeding is in respect of the appellant-Vikram and the appellant-Subhash have been proved as Exhb.Arvind Kumar Gupta, APP.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNAWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?The appellants Vikram @ Vicky and Subhash @ Birju by the impugned judgment dated 8th September, 2009 stand convicted under Sections 394/34 and 397/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short).By the order on sentence dated 9th September, 2009, both appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine suffer simple imprisonment of 3 month for the offence under Section 394/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment of 7 years for the offence under Section 397/34 IPC.As per the prosecution case the two appellants along with Santosh, (a juvenile and therefore facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board) and Ameena @ Meena had committed robbery by using a CRL.A.Nos.779-789/2009 Page 1 knifes, a deadly weapon at house No.6/4, 1st Floor, West Patel Nagar, Delhi(hereinafter referred to as property/house, for short) on 2nd May, 2005 at 3 about P.M. They had injured Jitender Nath Sachdeva, who was stabbed.At the outset it may be observed that in the impugned judgment dated 8th September, 2009 it has been noticed that Jitender Nath Sachdeva was not examined in the court.It is stated that he had expired and therefore could not be produced as a witness.As far as robbery or attempt to commit robbery is concerned, there is ample evidence in the form of Statement of Const.Pradeep Kumar (PW-1) who has stated that on 2nd May, 2005 on receipt of DD no. 34B, he along with ASI Sant Lal (PW-14) had reached house and saw that the household articles were scattered.The injured had been taken to DDU hospital in a PCR.At about 3.13 p.m., after receiving a call he reached the property where he found Jitender Nath Sachdeva in an injured condition.We also have the statements of ASI Sant Lal (PW-14) and SI Jitender Tiwari (PW-15).SI Jitender Tiwari (PW-15) has stated that he had gone to the property but Jitender Nath Sachdeva had been shifted to DDU Hospital in a PCR.Subsequently, he recorded the statement of Jitender Nath Sachdeva (Exhb.PW-15/A).Her statement has been examined in detail in the subsequent portion of the judgment.The next question which arises for consideration is whether the two appellants were involved and parties to the said crime.Statement of Jitender Nath Sachdeva (Exhb.In this statement, Jitender Nath Sachdeva has stated that he has two maid servants, one Elina, who prepares food in the morning and in the evening and the second Rajni who stays in the house.At about 3.00 p.m. on 2nd May, 2005 somebody knocked at the door and when Rajni asked, the person replied that he was a courier.Rajni opened the door and three boys came into the house.One of the boys caught hold of Rajni and another boy came inside his room after him.The third boy started looking for money and articles in the house.All three of them had knives in their hands.The boy who came inside his room was about 5'5 tall, strong built and having oval face and between 25-28 years of age.He spoke in a bihari accent.Jitender Nath Sachdeva could recognize the three boys.With regard to the CRL.A.Nos.779-789/2009 Page 3 stolen articles he had stated that he would verify and thereafter would make a statement about the missing articles.Jitender Nath Sachdeva had made a subsequent statement under Section 161 of the Code that .2000/- and two wrist watches were stolen.However, he did not appear in the witness box and his statement was not recorded in the court.She has stated that articles were stolen but no description and details of the articles have been stated by her.The prosecution case heavily relies upon the statement of Rajni (PW-13) who was the maid servant.In her statement Rajni (PW-13) has stated that she was present in the house along with Jitender Nath Sachdeva on 2nd May, 2005 when at about 3.00 p.m., somebody knocked on the door and on an enquiry stated that he was a courier.She opened the door and three boys entered the house.One of the boys caught hold of her and threatened her with a knife which he was carrying.Another boy entered the room of Jitender Nath Sachdeva and had beaten him up.The boy who had beaten Jitender Nath Sachdeva had a knife.The third boy checked/searched for goods in the house and in the almirah.Rajni (PW-13) identified both the appellants in the court as the persons who had come to the house on the said date.She identified Vikram (appellant in Crl.A. No. 789/2009) as the boy who had caught hold of her and threatened her with a knife.Rajni (PW-13) was cross-examined by learned counsel appearing for Vikram and was not cross-examined by the learned counsel for Subhash.The court recorded that Rajni (PW-13) was the only material witness whose presence was procured after much difficulty and she cannot be recalled.It was noted that the appellant-Subhash was on bail whereas the other accused was in judicial custody and the application under Section 311 of the Code was filed only to delay the trial.Court also noted that the appellant- Subhash had not made request for adjournment on the ground that his counsel was not available, when Rajni (PW-13) was examined.She was not a willing witness and had appeared in the court after repeated attempts.It is submitted that Rajni (PW-13) was tutored and her evidence is not reliable specially in view of her statement that she cannot tell the age of the boy who has caught hold of her and two other boys or the height of the boys even by approximation.Statement of Rajni (PW-13) was recorded on 17th January, 2009 nearly four years after the date of the incident.She is a maid servant and might not have been able to recollect minute details as to what had happened.The presence of Rajni (PW-13) at the spot cannot be doubted in view of the FIR as where she is mentioned.As far as the appellant-Vikram is concerned, his presence in the house on 2nd May, 2005 is established in view of the chance finger prints which were lifted and photographed and the identification with the palm prints of the appellant-Vikram.HC Ram Niwas (PW-12) had stated that he had taken four photographs of chance finger prints and had sent them to the finger prints experts.Similarly, Ins.Devender Singh (PW-7) has stated that under his supervision, the crime team has taken photographs and lifted four chance finger prints.He has prepared the report (Exhb. PW-7/A).HC Vijay Singh (PW-8) had stated that on instruction from the Investigating Officer-Ins.Devender Singh (PW-7) he took four chance finger prints from the spot and the Investigating Officer has given the report (Exhb.PW- 7/A).PW-15/B. The chance finger prints- Q1 was found identical to left palm portion S1 of the appellant-Vikram.PW-5/A and 5/B respectively.Both the appellants had refused to join the TIP on 18th May, 2005 and had made a statement that their photographs were taken and shown to the witnesses.The application for conducting TIP shows that both Jitender Nath Sachdeva and Rajni (PW-13) had been called for TIP.The appellant-Subhash had reiterated the aforesaid statement under Section 313 of the Code and had stated that on 9th May, 2005 at about 9.00 a.m. one old man aged 75 years along with a lady come to the police station and he was shown to them and were informed that they were the robbers who had entered their house.Later on, the said lady turned up before the court and had made a statement as a witness.CRL.A.Nos.779-789/2009 Page 7Failure to participate in the TIP is a factor against the appellant-Subhash.However, statements of the other witnesses create doubt about the involvement and presence of the appellant- Subhash.Mohan Kumar (PW-4) has stated that on the basis of secret information the Investigating Officer had arrested both the boys/appellants from the rock garden vide arrest memo Exhb.PW- 4/A and 4/B. From the appellant-Vikram, a wrist watch was recovered and seized (Exhb.PW-4/E) and then sealed.But he could not identify the wrist watch.He, in the later part of the statement, had stated that there was one more boy with the two appellants.Learned APP was allowed to cross-examine the said witness.In the cross-examination Const.Mohan Kumar (PW-4) has stated that two wrist watches were recovered from the appellant-Vikram on the basis of his statement from a jhuggi near the Railway Line, Kathputli Colony, Delhi.He has stated that from the appellant Subhash, a wrist watch which he was wearing and a purse were recovered.Mukhtiar Khan(PW-9) has stated that on 8th May, 2005, on information provided by the informer and on pointing of the informer, they had arrested two boys sitting in the Guru Teg Bahadur Park at Kirti Nagar, namely, Vikram and Santosh (a juvenile).The two of them made disclosure statements and have disclosed involvement of Subhash, Ram Ratan and Ameena.However, subsequently, in his examination-in-chief he has stated that in fact three persons were arrested from the Guru Teg Bahadur Park at Kirti Nagar and the third person was Subhash and from the appellant- Subhash, one wrist watch and one leather purse were recovered from his jhuggi and then on pointing out by the appellant-Vikram, a lady CRL.A.Nos.779-789/2009 Page 8 namely Ameena @ Meena was arrested.He has stated that from the accused-Vikram two wrist watches were recovered.However, the said case property i.e the wrist watches and the leather purse were produced in the court and it was found that they were not sealed.In the cross-examination, Const.Mukhtiar Khan(PW-9) has stated as under:-It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at Kirti Nagar Park when accused Subhash was arrested.Nothing was recovered during the personal search of accused Subhash.....ASI Sant Lal (PW-14) has stated that on 8th May, 2005 on the basis of an information given by a secret informer, they had raided Guru Teg Bahadur Park at Kirti Nagar and had arrested Vikram, Subhash, Santosh, Ameena (whose names were learnt on enquiry).He has stated that on the basis of disclosure statement made by appellant-Subhash they had taken possession of one leather purse with a visiting card and one wrist watch which were seized vide Exhb.PW-9/E. The leather purse and the wrist watch were produced in unsealed condition and shown to the said witnesses.SI Jitender Tiwari (PW-15) has stated that he along with others had reached the Guru Teg Bahadur Park at Kirti Nagar on 8th May, 2005 and had apprehended three boys and one girl, namely Vikram, Subhash, Santosh and Ameena.He has further stated that from the appellant-Subhash they had recovered one leather purse with visiting card of daughter-in-law of the victim and wrist watch and these were seized by seizure memo Exhb.PW-9/E. However, he has admitted CRL.A.Nos.779-789/2009 Page 9 that he did not get TIP of the recovered articles conducted and receipt of the purchase of the wrist watch was not produced by the victim.Learned counsel for the appellant-Subhash has pointed out that the victim-Jitender Nath Sachdeva in his subsequent statement under Section 161 of the Code had not stated that any purse was stolen.Therefore the so called recovery of the purse from the appellant-Subhash is planted.With regard to the recovery of the wrist watch it is submitted that as per the victim-Jitender Nath Sachdeva, two wrist watches were stolen and Jitender Nath Sachdeva had also produced a receipt dated 12th April, 2005 of Arora Electronics (Exhb.PW-15/D) for purchase of two lancer quartz watches.It is stated that these two lancer quartz watches were recovered on the disclosure statement made by the appellant-Vikram.Thus, the alleged recovery of one wrist watch from the appellant-Subhash is also planted by the police.It is submitted that the appellant-Subhash has been falsely implicated as the police required arrest and prosecution of 3 males in view of the FIR.My attention is also drawn to the disclosure statement of Ameena (Exhb.PW-14/G).She has stated that she used to work on the first floor of the house no. 6/4, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi of Mr. Pankaj Sachdeva.She had got married with the appellant-Vikram against the wishes of her father.In March, 2005 she left work in the said property and thereafter the employer had kept another maid.She went twice to the property/ premises but was not allowed to enter.She informed her husband-Vikram that during day time only one small maid and their old father were in the house.She had informed that during day time couriers come to deliver mail and the maid opens the door to receive the mail, while the old man keeps lying in the back room.On the basis of this information, CRL.A.Nos.779-789/2009 Page 10 Vikram, Subhash, Santosh and Ram Ratan had decided to commit robbery in the said house.Thereafter at about 4.30 p.m. they met and informed her that they had beaten up the old man and robbed him of two wrist watches and 3000/- which were distributed.As noted above, Jitender Nath Sachdeva in his statement (Exhb.PW-14/B) had mentioned that they have two maid servants Rajni and Alina.It is submitted that Alina is Ameena the co-accused, who has been acquitted.The said contentions/defence was not clearly and specifically raised in the cross examination.When the chargesheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate, a detailed order dated 26th July, 2005 was passed and five questions were asked.The police was asked to file a supplementary chargesheet with regard to Ram Ratan.Supplementary chargesheet was filed with respect to Ram Ratan but no steps for investigation, trace out and arrest were taken.As per the prosecution version, three persons were present in the house.He has drawn my attention to the findings of the learned trial court in para 43 of the impugned judgment dated 8th September, 2009 which reads:-The stolen articles were produced in the court in unsealed condition although ASI Sant Lal and LO/SI Jeetender Tiwari deposed that the stolen articles had been sealed in a pullanda.As noticed earlier, Jitender Nath Sachdeva had stated in his statement (Exhb.PW-14/B) which form the basis of the FIR that he shall verify and give details of the stolen property.Jitender Nath Sachdeva had expired and did not appear in the witness box.Trial court has disbelieved and has not relied upon the purchase receipt of lancer quartz watches (Exhb.PW-15/D).This receipt was filed after direction of the Metropolitan Magistrate.Jitender Nath Sachdeva in his statement on basis of which FIR was registered had stated that he had closed the door and had shouted from the window and thereafter the three boys ran away.He has given the same opinion in the MLC (Exhb.PW-2/A and 2/B).He has stated that the injury no.1 could have been caused by knife or a sharp edged object though in the cross-examination he has stated that it was possible that the said injury could have been caused by a person falling on a sharp-edged weapon.No such suggestion was given in the cross examination of Pw13 Rajni.No such weapon was recovered from the site.
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,114,982 |
M.A. 8974/2018 (Exemption) in Crl.M.C. 2524/2018 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.CRL.M.C. 2524/2018 & 2529/2018 Page 3 of 4CRL.M.C. 2524/2018 & 2529/2018 Page 4 of 4M.C. 2524/2018 & Crl.The petitioner, in Crl.M.C. 2524/2018, seeks quashing of FIR No. 6 of 2011 under Sections 324/326 of the IPC registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi and the petitioners, in Crl.M.C. 2529/2018, seek quashing of FIR No. 5 of 2011 under Sections 324/326/34 of the IPC registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi, based on a settlement.The subject FIRs were registered consequent to a quarrel that took place between the parties over trivial issues.The petitioners as well as complainants work in the same area.They submit that they have settled the disputes with each other and are agreeable to the settlement and do not wish to press the criminal charges against each other any further.In view of the fact that the disputes between the petitioners and respondents have been settled, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.It would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.In view of the above, the petitions are allowed.FIR No. 6 of 2011 under Sections 324/326 of the IPC registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi and FIR No. 5 of 2011 under Sections 324/326/34 CRL.M.C. 2524/2018 & 2529/2018 Page 3 of 4 of the IPC registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar, Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are, accordingly quashed.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,116,165 |
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/ Additional Session Judge, Rampur in Bail Application No. 290 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 406 of 2019, under Sections 294, 354ka, 354kha, 506, 452 IPC and 3(1)(Ke) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Milak, District Rampur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the first information report was lodged after about three months from the alleged incident and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that a civil dispute regarding encroachment of pathway is pending between the victim's husband and family members of the applicant thus the present criminal case is an outcome thereof.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court.The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length.He is languishing in jail since 11.12.2019 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer.I have perused the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, the appeal has substance hence this appeal as also the bail application are allowed and the order dated 20.12.2019 is hereby set aside.Let the appellant ? Ibrahim be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,119,987 |
Heard on the bail application.Case-diary has been perused.Applicant has been arrested on 12.06.2014 in connection with Crime No.45/2014 registered at Police Station Indar, District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 506-B, 147, 148 and 294 of IPC.As per the prosecution story, the incident occurred on 05.04.2014 at about 9:00 PM when complainant Ranveer came to his house by a tractor and when he reached, all of a sudden, the present applicant Dhanpal, Kalla @ Ravindra, Brijesh, Dhruv and Bhaijee came over there and thereafter Ranveer and Rajdhar both were assaulted by the accused persons.The allegation against the applicant is that he fired on Ranveer and due to that one entry wound and one exit wound was caused on the left leg of him.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that prior to this, FIR was lodged by Satyendra Singh who is brother of Dhanpal on 03.04.2014 and Crime No.44/2014 was registered against Ranveer.Later on Crime No.45/2014 was registered on the basis of FIR lodged by Ranveer who is accused in Crime No.44/2014 registered under Sections 307, 294, 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC.Prayer was opposed by learned counsel for the State on the ground that near about four criminal cases were registered against the present applicant and therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail.Looking to the facts of the case that other four co-accused persons were enlarged on bail, previous criminal cases were registered in the year of 2010 and in absence of evidence in regard to the conviction, application is allowed.Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his regular appearance before the trial Court on the condition that he 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.A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,121,900 |
A. No.103/2010 Page 1 of 16Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 02.05.2005 at about 6:25 pm, complainant Adabmir Khan (PW2) was brought to SDN Hospital by his mother Shafeena with alleged history of stab injury.This information was conveyed to the police post Old Seelampur, P.S. Krishna Nagar by the duty constable.Information was recorded as DD No.20 dated 02.05.2005 P.S. Krishna Nagar and copy of the DD report was entrusted to SI Anil Kumar Sharma (PW13).On the receipt of the DD report, SI Anil Sharma (PW13) reached SDN Hospital and obtained the MLC of the complainant.He recorded statement of the complainant Ex.PW2/A wherein the complainant stated that he had taken a loan of `450/- from the appellant Fareed @ Babloo about two months back.On 02.05.2005 at around 5:50 pm, the appellant came to his house and called him outside.When he came outside, he noticed that the appellant was carrying a "churi" (knife) in his hand.The appellant asked as to why he had not repaid the loan and why he was troubling him by calling again and again at his residence.He also said that "Aaj Tujhe Tapaka Kar Hi Dam Loonga".Complainant further claimed in his statement that he tried to pacify the appellant, but the appellant, while abusing, attacked him with the "churi".When he raised alarm, several public persons collected at the Crl.A. No.103/2010 Page 2 of 16 spot and on seeing them, appellant ran away with the churi.His mother and one Hawaldar who was passing through the place of occurrence took him to the Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter.Complainant stated that he had sustained injuries on his face, nose, back of neck and chest.The Investigating Officer thereafter visited the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan Ex.PW13/B. He, however, did not find blood-stains at the spot of occurrence.After some time, SI Anil Sharma came to know that the appellant has been apprehended by PW4 Neeraj Sharma and PW9 Constable Pawan Kumar at Maharana Pratap Park, Gali No.12, West Kanti Nagar with a dagger in his right hand.SI Anil Sharma measured the dagger and prepared its sketch Ex.PW4/A and took it into possession after converting the same into a sealed packet vide memo Ex.PW4/B. During investigation, Investigating Officer also took into possession the blood-stained clothes of the complainant, which were handed over to Constable Jai Prakash by the Doctor concerned in a sealed packet with the seal of CMO, SDN Hospital.PW2 Adabmir Khan, in his testimony, has fully supported the version in the complaint.He testified that he had borrowed a sum of `450/- from the appellant.On 02.05.2005, the appellant came at his house at 5:50 pm and called him outside.He was carrying a "churi" in Crl.A. No.103/2010 Page 4 of 16 his right hand and said that you have not returned my money and harassed me by calling me again and again, so I will kill you today. "(Aaj Tujhe Tapaka Kar Hi Dam Loonga)".PW2 further testified that he tried to pacify the appellant, but the appellant started abusing him and attacked him with the churi and inflicted several stab injuries on his person.He raised alarm on which people from locality gathered and on seeing them, the appellant fled away with the churi.His mother also came downstairs on seeing the incident and she, with the help of one Constable, removed him to the Hospital in a three-wheeler scooter.He further stated that he sustained injuries on his head, knee, left cheek, chest and neck.Police visited the Hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. He claimed that his T-Shirt was stained with blood which was seized in the Hospital.He identified his aforesaid T-Shirt as well as the churi with which he was stabbed.PW1 Shafeena has also deposed to almost similar effect.A. No.103/2010 Page 4 of 169. PW9 Constable Pawan Kumar has testified that on 02.05.2005, he was posted as a Constable in police Post Old Seelampur, P.S. Krishna Nagar.On that day, one public person visited the police post and informed him that one person had been injured near House No.4929A, Old Seelampur.He, therefore, reached there and met an eye witness Neeraj Sharma, who informed him that the appellant, after inflicting injuries to the complainant had gone towards Kanti Nagar.Thereafter, he along with Neeraj Sharma went to Maharana Pratap Park in search of the accused and found him there with a blood-stained churi in his Crl.A. No.103/2010 Page 5 of 16 hand.He apprehended the accused and sent one public person to the police post to inform the police officials about the apprehending of the accused in the park.On this, SI Anil Kumar along with Constable Jaibeer reached there and he handed over the appellant and the churi to SI Anil Kumar.SI Anil Kumar prepared a sketch of the knife and took the churi into possession after converting it into a sealed packet vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Witness stated that the appellant was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.In the instant case, PW2 Adabmir Khan @ Gabbar has fully supported the case of the prosecution by reiterating the facts narrated in his complaint Ex.PW2/A, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the day of occurrence within two hours of the incident.It is accordingly dismissed.(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE JANUARY 24, 2011 pst Crl.A. No.103/2010 Page 16 of 16A. No.103/2010 Page 16 of 16This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2009 and the consequent order on sentence dated 25.11.2009 in Sessions Case No.48/09 FIR No.182/05 under Section 307 IPC P.S. Krishna Nagar, whereby the appellant Fareed @ Babloo has been convicted of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 Crl.A. No.103/2010 Page 1 of 16 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, failing which to undergo SI for further period of three months.A. No.103/2010 Page 2 of 16SI Anil Sharma, after obtaining signatures of the complainant on his statement Ex.PW2/A, sent it to the Police Station along with his endorsement Ex.PW13/A for registration of the formal FIR.Statements of the witnesses were also recorded and on completion of formalities of the investigation, the appellant was Crl.A. No.103/2010 Page 3 of 16 challaned for the offence of attempt to commit murder of the complainant and sent to the court.A. No.103/2010 Page 3 of 16Learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC.Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses.PW9/B. He also stated that he took the appellant to SDN Hospital and on his medical examination, he collected the MLC and handed it over to the Investigating Officer.A. No.103/2010 Page 5 of 16Appellant Fareed, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution story in totality.He claimed that PW4 Neeraj was having an affair with the sister of PW2 and therefore, he has falsely deposed against him.He also claimed that the complainant had borrowed ` 450/- from him and when he demanded the money back from him, the complainant quarrelled with him and inflicted a lathi blow on his head.He was also given beating by other persons accompanying the complainant.Subsequently, he sustained fractures on his left hand and in the back portion of his left knee.As a result of the beating, he fell down and one witness Momin took him to an STD booth from where he telephoned his mother to call her.A. No.103/2010 Page 6 of 16A. No.103/2010 Page 6 of 16He has stated that on 02.05.2005 at around 04.00/05.00 p.m., he was going to his house along with his wife on a rickshaw.When he reached near pulia of Kanti Nagar, he noticed a crowd and saw one Gabbar hitting the appellant with a wooden fatti and the appellant fell down and he took the appellant to an STD booth from where the appellant made a call to his house.Thereafter, he went to his house along with his wife.Witness stated that the appellant had sustained injuries at the hands of Gabbar and his associates.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of the evidence on record, found the evidence of prosecution witnesses reliable and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him accordingly.Learned Sh.He has assailed the impugned judgment on several counts.A. No.103/2010 Page 7 of 16 collected at the spot of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by the complainant.Despite that, there is no independent witness to corroborate the version of the complainant (PW2) and his mother Shafeena(PW1), who are interested witnesses and this circumstance make their testimony suspect.A. No.103/2010 Page 7 of 16I am not impressed with this argument.This is evident from the rukka Ex.PW13/A, which records that the incident took place on 02.05.2005 at 5:50 pm and the rukka based upon the complaint Ex.PW2/A was sent to the Police Station for registration of case at 7:50 pm.Further, version of PW2 Adabmir Khan is fully corroborated by his mother Ms. Shafeena (PW1).Both these witnesses have been cross- Crl.A. No.103/2010 Page 8 of 16 examined at length, but the appellant has not been able to point out any material inconsistencies in their testimony which may cast aspersions on their credibility.Not only this, the version of the complainant stands corroborated by his MLC (though proved by PW6 Dr. Manoj Kumar, exhibit mark has not been put on the document).This MLC records that the complainant was brought in injured condition to the Hospital by his mother Shafeena on 02.05.2005 at 6:35 pm with alleged history of stab injury.According to PW6 Dr. Manoj Kumar, CMO, SDN Hospital, he had examined the complainant on 02.05.2005 and found following injuries on his person:A. No.103/2010 Page 8 of 16"Injury No. 1 CIW 10 to 15 cm, extending from left nose to left submandibular area.Nose injury is through and through, buccal mucosa intact bleeding from margin present.Injury No. 2 CIW of 3 cm x .5 cm upto periosteal deep parallel to injury No. 1 in left side of cheek bleeding from margin present.Injury No. 3 CIW of 1.5 cm x 1 cm upto rib deep on left side of chest, 8 cm below the left mid clavicle bleeding present.Injury No. 4 CIW of 10 cm x 1 cm upto periosteum deep over occipit and vertex bleeding present.Injury No. 5 CIW of 3 cm x .5 cm upto periosteum deep in transverse direction in occipital region bleeding present.Injury No. 6 CIW of 3 cm x 2 cm upto muscle deep in right hand near base of thumb, palmar aspect."It is unconceivable that the complainant would have self inflicted aforesaid six injuries on his person.There is no explanation as to why Crl.A. No.103/2010 Page 9 of 16 the complainant would falsely implicate the appellant only with a view to avoid repayment of `450/- taken as a loan from him and allow the real culprit to go scot free.Thus, I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the version of the complainant which stands corroborated by the testimony of his mother PW1 Shafeena as well as his MLC Ex.Actually, apart from PW1 and PW2, the prosecution had also cited one Neeraj Sharma as an independent witness.He was examined as a witness on 07.04.2006, but he had to be discharged without cross-examination as learned counsel for the appellant, during trial, left the court room without cross-examining him.The appellant did not care to move an application for recalling said witness for the purpose of cross- examination till the trial came to an end and the matter was listed for final arguments.Despite that, on the application of the appellant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Judge allowed his request for recalling PW4 Neeraj Sharma for cross-examination, but unfortunately he could not be produced for cross-examination as he had shifted his residence and his whereabouts were not available with the prosecuting agency.Under these circumstances, the prosecution cannot be faulted for non-production of independent witness Neeraj Sharma (PW4) for cross-examination and it is the consequence of the negligent conduct of defence on the part of the appellant.Thus, the Crl.On this, he reached at the spot of occurrence where he met Neeraj Sharma (PW4), who informed that the accused, after causing injury to the victim had fled away towards Kanti Nagar.On this, he along with Neeraj Sharma went to Maharana Pratap Park, Kanti Nagar and found the appellant there with bloodstained churi Ex.P-2 in his hand.Learned counsel contended that aforesaid version of PW9 is highly unnatural to be believed.He contended that if Constable Pawan Kumar is to be believed, then the appellant, till he was apprehended by Constable Pawan Kumar, was carrying the weapon of offence Ex.P-2 in his hand, which is not expected of a normal person.Thus, the evidence of the prosecution regarding the arrest of the appellant with the weapon of offence is suspect and a possibility of fabrication of case against the appellant cannot be ruled out.A. No.103/2010 Page 11 of 16There appears to be merit in this contention.Above story of the prosecution as given by PW9 Constable Pawan Kumar is highly unnatural to be true.Under the natural course of circumstances, first instinct of an offender after committing an offence like stabbing is to get rid of the incriminating evidence i.e. the weapon of offence.A. No.103/2010 Page 12 of 16He has a family, to look after, comprising of his aged parents and children.In view of this and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, I do not find any reason for reducing the sentence of the appellant only on the ground of his medical condition, particularly when as per the report sent by Senior Medical Officer, Central Jail Hospital, Tihar, the appellant is undergoing treatment at DDU Hospital, HIV Clinic and G.B. Pant Hospital as well as Lok Nayak Hospital and his condition is improving with all the prescribed medication.A. No.103/2010 Page 15 of 16Result of above discussion is that the appeal fails.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,123,421 |
Three toes have been amputated in the left foot.Due to the accident, he could not concentrate in studies.To prove the nature of injuries and treatment, the respondent/claimant has marked Ex.P2 Accident Register, Ex.P3 Discharge Summary, Ex.P5 Photographs along with CD, showing amputation of toes in the left foot, Ex.P6 X-Rays and Ex.P8 Receipt for X-Rays.4. PW.2, Doctor, who clinically examined the respondent/claimant, found that three toes were amputated in the left foot.He has assessed the extent of disablement at 35% and issued Ex.P7 - disability certificate.skmC.M.A.No.504 of 201416.04.2014However, the Claims Tribunal has reduced the extent of disablement to 25% and fixing the monthly income of the injured as Rs.3,000/-, applied '16' multiplier and thereafter, by deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the injured, awarded Rs.90,000/- towards loss of future earning to the extent of 25% permanent disablement.In addition to the above, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- each for transportation, nutrition and loss of amenities, respectively.Though Mr.S.Sambath, learned counsel for the appellant-Transport Corporation contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in adopting multiplier method, for the purpose of computing the loss of future earning, at the outset, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, for the reason that the quantum of compensation is not grossly excessive, considering the fact that three toes have been amputated in the left foot, on the contra, in the opinion of this Court, it is less.At the time of accident, ie., on 22.07.2003, the respondent/claimant was in the 2nd year, B.E. (I & CE) course in Bharath Engineering College.On account of amputation, he would find it difficult to wear the normal slippers or shoes, available in the market.He may have to cover his foot, with socks or arrange for any special slippers or shoes, to avoid people staring at this foot.As a young student, aged about 19 years, he would have lost his opportunities to participate in sports and other physical activities.In the year 2003, at the time of accident, the respondent/claimant was aged 19 years.After seven years, ie., at the age of 26 years, before the Claims Tribunal, he has deposed that he has lost his marriage prospects.By this time, he would have completed his engineering course.Assessment of future loss of earning capacity does not merely depend upon the employment or avocation, in which, the injured was engaged, at the time of accident, but it can also be made, with reference to the nature of work, which, in the near future, the injured is likelihood to be engaged and earn a reasonable income.Though an argument has been addressed that amputation of three toes would not result in loss of earning capacity, for the reason that he was a student, at the time of accident, this Court is of the view that amputation would certainly affect his capacity to have the maximum utilisation of the limb, and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that amputation of toes would not result in future earning.Weight of the body rests on the foot.Amputation of toe may result in change of gait and pace, due to decreased push off from the foot.Extensive physiotherapy or rehabilitation, are not offered, so as to enable the amputee to cope with the emotional and physiological disorders of amputation.He cannot have grip.Climbing a stair case, would be difficult.The functional disability would affect the whole body.In the competitive field of engineering, where several thousand candidates pass out every year, not many disabled find suitable jobs.Though PW.2, Doctor, has assessed the functional disability at 35%, the Claims Tribunal has reduced it to 25% for the purpose of assessing the loss of future earning.Monthly income of the respondent/claimant, fixed at Rs.3,000/-, cannot be said to be manifestly illegal, considering the educational qualifications of the injured.Perusal of the award shows that he was hospitalised between 22.07.2003 and 31.07.2003, in Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai.For a 19 year old boy, who underwent amputation of three toes, in the left foot, pain would have been momentary, at the time of accident and treatment, but likely to continue, when his whole body has to stand with the remaining frame.Due to amputation, suffering may continue for long time.While assessing the loss of earning capacity, the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the injured.Application of multiplier to the age group of persons below 20 years is '18'.However, the Claims Tribunal has taken '16' multiplier for computing the compensation.On point:Apparently the first respondent claimant was satisfied with the Tribunal's Award as he did not file any Appeal there against to the High Court.Nonetheless, being aggrieved by the Single Judge's judgment, the claimant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.Towards loss of amenities, Rs.1,000/- alone has been awarded.In the light of the explanation "loss of amenities" and discussion, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation awarded under the head, loss of amenities to Rs.30,000/-.A conventional damage of Rs.500/- is awarded under the head damage to clothes.In view of the above, the respondent/claimant is entitled to Rs.2,35,500/-, with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation, as apportioned hereunder:Loss of Future Earning : Rs.1,62,000/-Pain and Suffering : Rs. 30,000/-Loss of amenities : Rs. 30,000/-In view of the above, the respondent/claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation Rs.1,27,500/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim till the date of realisation.Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.The respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount, by making applications before the Tribunal.No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.16.04.2014Index: YesInternet: YesskmToThe Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District and Sessions Court, Dharmapuri.
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,126,055 |
This Revision, under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (In short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by Jay Prakash and five others, with a prayer for setting aside impugned summoning order, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat, in Complaint Case No. 514/2018 (Smt. Pushpa vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others), under Sections, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC'), Police Station-Khekra, District-Baghpat.Learned counsel for revisionists argued that a case crime number 309/187 was got registered against the revisionist for offences, punishable, under Sections 147, 323, 354-Kha, 504 and 506 of IPC, wherein, investigation resulted in submission of final report.Thenafter, a protest petition was filed and it was treated as a complaint, wherein, applicants have been summoned for above offences, whereas, enmity, in between the parties and a proceeding, under Section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. was also there.Investigation found accusation false, even then, this summoning order was passed, wherein, the Magistrate failed to appreciate evidence placed on record and, thereby, acted beyond jurisdiction.Hence, this Criminal Revision, with above prayer.Learned AGA, appearing on behalf of the State of U.P., vehemently opposed this Criminal Revision.From very perusal of the impugned summoning order, it is apparent that this was not passed on the basis of investigation made in above case crime number, rather, protest petition was treated as a complaint, wherein, complainant was examined, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and witness, Dhanpal Sing @ Dhan Singh was examined, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.Contention of the complaint was that the complainant, Smt. Pushpa Singh, who is resident of Village-Basi, Police Station Khekra, District Baghpat and there is enmity in between the parties owing to which on 15.4.2018, at 7.40 PM, Sanjiv, Krisnapal, Jai Prakash, Jai Singh and Sani did obscene act with her, outraged modesty, with abuse and threat of dire consequences.In between her husband reached at the spot from his filed, who intervened and saved her.This incident was instantly reported to the Station House Officer of Police Station concerned, through telephone, but to no avail.Hence, this report.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed and it stands dismissed accordingly.Order Date :- 7.1.2020 bgs/
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
175,127,110 |
1 31.05.2016 Item No.3 ad/rrc C.R.R 1750 of 2016 Sri Jayanta Saha Vs.The State of West Bengal & Anr....... For the de facto complainant /O.P No.2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and the de facto complainant/O.P No.2 does not wish to proceed with the matter.Learned counsel for the de facto complainant/O.P No.2 supports such contention.Liberty to pray for extension, modification, variation and/or vacation upon notice to the other side.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,585,365 |
According to the petitioners, respondent No. 1 is a Non-resident Indian.The Income-tax Department forwarded to the Enforcement Directorate for further proceedings certain diaries and documents which had been seized by the Income-tax Department from the premises of respondent No. 1 Ramesh Nanji Shah during their investigation.Respondent No. 1 had admitted in correspondence that the said diaries and documents belonged to him and are in his hand-writing.According to the petitioners the said diaries and documents revealed illegal transactions in the nature of 'havala' on a large scale running into crores of rupees.The said havala transactions were carried out by the respondent and his brother Dhirubhai Nanji Shah.According to the petitioners, in pursuance of the said documents, the Enforcement Officers recorded the statements of a number of persons who include Anwar Gulam Hussain Lalan, Suresh Dayalal Chablani of M/s. Rose Travels, Chimanbhai Ramji Savla and Velji G. Shah both of Benzer Departmental Stores, Bharat Shah of M/s. Roopam Departmental Stores, Rishi Kapoor, a well-known Cine star and various other persons and all of them were interrogated and admitted to have been beneficiary of large scale hawala racket run by respondent No. 1 from outside India and his brother Dhirubhai Shah, who was operating as his counter-part in India.According to the petitioners, summons were issued under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 to the respondent No. 1 and his brother Dhirubhai Shah in order to give evidence and produce documents.The Income-tax people had carried out search of his premises in Mumbai and some jewellery, foreign exchange etc. were seized, and his statement was recorded.He had come to India in normal course.He admits receipt of summons from the Enforcement Directorate but since the purpose of being summoned was not mentioned, he addressed letters to the Enforcement Directorate and also wrote letters to the Revenue Secretary.He came to know that his brother had been interrogated by the Enforcement Directorate.He offered Enforcement Directorate to make himself available for interrogation but he wanted that the interrogation to be done in the office of the Indian High Commission at Dubai.He did not get response to the correspondence from the Enforcement Directorate.He was also willing to compensate loss of foreign exchange, if any suffered by the Government.The officers of the Enforcement Directorate wanted to confirm their conclusions which they had already reached which were unjust and baseless and wanted to harass him.Therefore, they wanted that he should come to Bombay office.He had voluntarily admitted the documents which had been recovered by the Income-tax Department.Although the Enforcement Directorate had commenced investigation, against him, his brother Dhirubhai has been dragged in by the Enforcement Directorate who has no concern with the same and if there was some violation of the FERA he would compensate the Government of India, but the officers of Enforcement Directorate were not interested in knowing the truth and with ulterior motive they were harassing him.His brother Dhirubhai was subjected to tremendous torture and coercion to give certain confessional statement regarding some cheques.In the anticipatory bail application moved by his brother, the Enforcement Directorate has stated that there was no necessity of further interrogation of his brother but on the other hand they were coercing the present respondent No. 1 to involve his brother.Some persons were arrested on 13-10-1995 and were produced in Court.He has also made a grievance that he has been severely beaten.He came to know that number of persons were interrogated and their statements were recorded by the Enforcement Directorate and all those statements were obtained by coercion and duress.He therefore apprehended that he too would be coerced in the similar manner.All the efforts of the Department was to pressurise him and it is for this reason that he was assaulted in order to extract some statement suitable to the officers and their purpose.He admitted that the hand written documents were all in his handwriting and he was willing to give proper explanation.He had come to Bombay on 1-4-1996 for some religious ceremony and he resided in Mumbai in his flat and when he went to the Airport for boarding a flight he was arrested.He was accosted and when asked as whether he was brother of Dhirubhai, he replied in the affirmative and he was taken to the cell at the Airport and thereafter to the Enforcement Directorate Office for interrogation and he was beaten in an inhuman manner.He was slapped, beaten up with kick blows and sticks and belts and stripped upto undergarments and was given electric shock by 8 to 10 officers.This assault has left permanent mark of injury on his body and therefore, he succumbed to the pressure and wrote down the statement dictated by the Enforcement Officers.The summons was duly served on the respondent No. 1 through the Indian High Commission in Dubai.However, instead of responding to the summons and appearing before the Enforcement Directorate, the respondent No. 1 sent a letter dated 20-12-1995 informing the Directorate that it will not be possible for him to appear before the Directorate due to his business in Dubai and also called upon the Directorate to give reasons for requiring his presence before the Enforcement Directorate.By another letter dated 20-1-1996 he informed the Directorate that he is not in a position to help the Directorate in the investigation as the Directorate had failed to inform him the reasons requiring his presence before the Directorate and in case his statement is to be recorded, it should be recorded in the Indian High Commission in Dubai on a date convenient to the parties concerned.He was also sending copies of the letters to the higher authorities.He had also informed the Revenue Secretary, Government of India about the same and by letter dated 25-1-1996 he informed the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India that he was ready and willing to compensate the loss of foreign exchange suffered by the Government of India.Thereafter by another letter dated 10-2-1996, respondent No. 1 informed the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India that the flat at Vile Parle belonged exclusively to him.By another letter dated 8-3-1996 the respondent No. 1 informed the Revenue Secretary that he had been advised by his Doctor not to undertake any travel as he was not keeping well.According to the petitioners, all their attempts to summon the respondent No. 1 and his brother Dhirubhai for the purpose of interrogation proved futile.Dhirubhai Shah who was operating as respondent No. 1's counter- part in India had absconded and therefore, an order of detention passed against him under the COFEPOSA could not be served and as a last resort the Enforcement Directorate was constrained to issue a red alert throughout the country for the apprehension of respondent No. 1 and his brother Dhirubhai.Respondent No. 1, who had informed on 8-3-1996 that he had been advised by his Doctor not to undertake any journey on the ground of ill-health, had in the meanwhile surreptitiously entered India and while trying to escape out of the country, he was accosted on 9-4-1996 at Sahar International Airport, Mumbai, by the Officers of the Immigration Department on the basis of the red alert issued by the Directorate.The Immigration authorities immediately apprised the Enforcement Directorate about respondent No. 1 and he was searched and some documents and currency were seized.His statement was thereafter recorded on 10-4-1996 wherein he gave clear and detailed admissions of illegal hawala transactions.He was served with arrest memo on 10-4-1996 and thereafter produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 11-4-1996 in Remand Application No. 77 of 1996 and prayer was made for judicial custody of respondent No. 1 for 14 days in order to facilitate further investigation.Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the Medical Officer to examine the respondent No. 1 and report about the age, seriouness and probable cause of the injuries that may be found on his person.On 15-4-1996 when respondent No. 1 was produced before the learned Magistrate, he made a false statement that he was assaulted by 8 to 10 officers, who slapped him, inflicted stick blows and gave electric shocks and stated that he knew the names of two officers and he disclosed the names of the present petitioners.The medical examination certificate date 14-4-1996 disclosed that there were some minor abrasions and bruises on the body of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 was well oriented, his blood pressure was normal and his general health condition was satisfactory.The injuries found on his person were simple in nature and may have been caused due to hard and blunt object within a week's duration preceding the examination.According to the petitioners, on the basis of the said statement of respondent No. 1, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered issue of summons to the present petitioners to answer the charge under sections 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian Pena! Code.The said order of granting bail to respondent No. 1 was challenged before this Hon'ble Court by Criminal Application No. 1064 of 1996 and learned Single Judge of this Court (Lodha, J.) by order dated 2-5-1996 as an interim measure directed respondent No. 1 to attend the office of the Investigating Officer for a period of 15 working days.By the present petition, the petitioners seek to quash the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the petitioners for answering the charge under sections 343 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code as the complaint of the respondent No. 1 was completely false and concocted.Petitioner No. 1 was not present in office on 11-4-1996 when the respondent was examined.Petitioner No. 2 took personal search of respondent No. 1 on the night of 9/10-4-1996 and seized certain documents and therefore the respondent No. 1 knew his name and thereby he named the two petitioners in his complaint to the Magistrate regarding the assault.The entire aim of respondent No. 1 was to affect the morale of the Investigating Officers and defeat the investigation.The so called injuries were minor in nature and that the same could be self-inflicted.Even otherwise, the petitioners being public servants, were noting in the discharge of their duties and therefore the learned Magistrate should not have proceeded against them in the absence of a valid sanction order and could not take cognizance of any offence.It is on these grounds that the petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Magistrate and have prayed that the criminal case, being No. 4/S of 1996 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd sic Court, Esplanade, Bombay, on the basis of the complaint of respondent No. 1 be quashed and set aside.On being served with the notice, respondent No. 1 appeared through his Advocate Shri M.B. Sabnis and filed his affidavit-in-reply.in his reply, respondent No. 1 has denied the allegations made in the petition and it is his case that the officers were pressursing him in order to involve his brother Dhirubhai who has no concern with his business as the businesses of two brothers is different and separate.When produced before the Magistrate in criminal complaint, he retracted the same.According to him, this petition is filed in order to frustrate the action taken by the Magistrate against the officers and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.It is pertinent to note that on being served with the notice, the respondent No. 1 appeared through his Advocate Shri M.B. Sabnis, who filed his appearance in the matter.By this letter dated 7-8-1997 the respondent No. 1 was informed by his Advocate that since he had stopped contacting the Advocate after 1987 and all his efforts to get in touch with him had proved futile.The learned Advocate could not appear during the hearing in the absence of instructions from respondent No. 1 and therefore applied for withdrawal of appearance from the case with the permission of this Court.I have heard the argument of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned P.P. for the State.The learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 inspite of applying for withdrawal of his appearance, also made submissions on legal points involved in this case, which I will be discussing in the following paragraphs.The aforesaid facts clearly shows that respondent No. 1 was all the while attempting to evade arrest and investigation and he had the audacity to inform the Enforcement Directorate and the Revenue Secretary that he will not be in a position to appear before the Enforcement Directorate and his statement be recorded in the office of the Indian High Commission at Dubai.In his correspondence with the Department, he had clearly admitted that the entries in the diary and other documents seized were in his handwriting.His brother Dhirubhai was absconding and could not be arrested and after his release on bail by the learned Magistrate, respondent No. 1 has also jumped the bail and has not cared to appear in the case registered against him before the Investigating Officer and even in the present complaint initiated before the learned Magistrate against the present petitioners.Even the persons interrogated in pursuance of the entries in his diary have admitted the facts and therefore, there was no question of the Officers of Enforcement Directorate compelling him to give any statement under coercion or duress or to assault him for that purpose.The respondent No. 1 did not even file a private complaint making detailed statement regarding the manner of assault and merely made a complaint to the learned Magistrate that he was assaulted when his statement was recorded in order to compell him to disclose certain thing.The medical certificate disclosed only one minor abrasion on left chin and swelling abresion on right lower leg and a bruise on left thigh and further stated that the health of respondent No. 1 was otherwise normal.The said certificate falsified the earlier version of respondent No. 1 that on the ground of ill-health he was advised by the Doctors not to undertake any journey.In his statement recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the respondent No. 1 went to the extent of saying that 8 to 10 officers had assaulted him, some of them were slapping and other inflicting stick blows on various parts of his body and he was also given electric shocks.The injuries found on his person were not at all in consonance with this allegation of assault by 8 to 10 officers, some of whom were holding sticks and belt.Not a single stick blow was noticed on his person and therefore, the learned Magistrate had committed a serious error in taking cognizance of offence under section 323 r/w. 34, I.P.C. on the basis of such statement.The petition must therefore succeed.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,538 |
JUDGEMENT1996 SUPP.(2) SCR 165The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.THOMAS, J. Thirteen persons were arraigned in the trial court to faceCharges for offences including Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC,out of which Sessions Court convicted only four of the offences underSection 304 Part 1 of IPC and Section 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act. Otherswere acquitted.The convicted persons were sentenced to rigorousimprisonment for 5 years each on the first count and rigorous imprisonmentfor 6 months each on the second count.They filed appeal before the PatnaHigh Court.The State of Bihar Filed another appeal challenging acquittalof 9 accused as well as the order exonerating the convicted persons of theoffence under Section 302 IPC.At the appellate stage there was reversal offortune for all the arraigned persons as the High Court found all of themguilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Hence the presentappeals by the accused persons by special leave.We are informed that during the pendency of these appeals two of the.Appellants, (Sheonandan Choudhary and Ram Ishwar Choudhary) have expired,it is also reported that appellant Ganesh Choudhary has become insane andhas gone out of his house and his whereabouts are not known.The incident which led to the prosecution of all the 13 appellants happenedduring the morning hour's on 15.10.1974, in which three persons.Hit Narain) died.All the deceased hailed from avillage called Malpura which is situate a little north of Kusi Village.Awater stream staring form another village (Parsar Ahar - situated south ofKusi Village) flowed north wards reaching upto Kusi.Appellant are in-habitants of Kusi Village.As there was acute drought condition, people ofMalpura were in need of water.Prosecution case, in short, is thus: this three deceased visited.KusiVillage on the eve of the occurrence and cut open a bund which blocked thewater flowing further north.This act of the deceased was questioned bysome of the appellants.But their protestations were not heeded to by thedeceased.On the morning of 15.10.1974, situation further deteriorated withexchange of words between the two factions when those hailing from.Malpuraforcefully resisted the attempt of the appellants to restore the bund.Allthe appellants gathered up with guns, lathis, etc. The four Appellants, Whowere convicted by the trial court used guns to fire down one or the otherof the three deceased and consequently the deceased died of gun shotinjuries.The remaining persons who came from Malpura Village retreated andfled from, the Scene.Learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution succeeded in establishingthat the four convicted persons fired gun at the deceased.However, learnedSessions Judge took the view that appellants had right of private defenceof property as deceased committed mischief by cutting open the bund toblock the water flow.But the trial Court further found that -the fourconvicted persons who used firearms had exceeded their right of privatedefence and hence they were convicted only of the offence under Section 304Part I of l PC.The High Court, in reversal of the above findings, concluded that all the13 accused had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the commonobject of murdering [he three deceased and that none hat the right ofprivate defence at the relevant time;We have no reason to disturb the finding that four appellants had used gunsand shot down the three diseased.So the only question for ourConsideration is whether, the High Court was justified in denying initial.right of private defence to these appellants.
|
['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.
|
158,542,632 |
Having heard the learned counsel on all sides, as also the additional public prosecutor for the State, it is directed that the amount offered to be deposited by the Bail Appl.870/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 2 of 8 petitioner, if tendered in court, shall be received and retained in an interest bearing fixed deposit receipt by the Registrar General, initially for a period of six months with provision for auto renewal.The amount, it has been undertaken, shall be deposited within two weeks hereof.The complainant, during the pendency of these matters has come up with Crl.The person who was statedly improperly approached himself has not come up with any grievance.(iv) Prior to their release, they shall give the telephone numbers of self and of at least one other responsible family member besides that of the surety to the investigating officer;Bail Appl.The first captioned petition of Jaspal Singh Batra had come up before this court on 18.05.2017 with the following order being passed:-Bail Appl.870/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 2 of 8Dasti."The second petition of Jaspreet Singh Batra came up before this court on 30.05.2017 when the following order was passed:-"BAIL APPLN.1058/2017 and Crl. M.(Bail) 1050/2017 The petitioner is a son of Jaspal Singh Batra, a co-accused, who was granted interim protection against coercive action by order dated 18.05.2017 on bail application on.In these circumstances, while the investigating officer has confirmed that the petitioners have been co- operating with the probe agency, there is no good ground why the interim protection be withdrawn or the anticipatory bail application be rejected.In the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, and also on parity, both the petitions for grant of anticipatory bail are hereby allowed.Both the petitions and the pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,548,594 |
He further contends that even otherwise no offence as alleged is made out from the materials available on record.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of this Court, G.O.Ms.The Notification reads thus :"Under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act 67 of 1957) and in super cession of Industries Department Notification No.319 published at page 1 in part II section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extra Ordinary, dated June 22, 1994 the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby authorises the District Forest Officers and the Police personnel not below the rank of Inspector of Police, to make complaint in writing to the Court of competent jurisdiction for any offence punishable under the said Act or any rules made there under, in respect of cases falling within their jurisdiction."Therefore, on 02.02.2009, the Inspector of Police has also been authorised to prefer complaint in writing for the offences under the Act.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records from the file of the respondent police in Crime No.28 of 2009 and quash the same.It is averred in the petition that the respondent police at 15 hours on 21.01.2009 found that the unnamed accused were loading sand into the lorries by damaging the Banks of Attur palar river and the police seized the lorries under mahazar.The unnamed accused fled away from the scene of crime on seeing the police.In this case on hand, the occurrence took place on 21.01.2009 and FIR was registered by the respondent police on the same day.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the earlier notification of the Government in G.O.Ms.Thus, as per the said G.O issued in 1994, the authorised person has been named as District Forest Officer by the Tamil Nadu State Government.Only on 02.02.2009, the Government included the Inspector of Police as authorised person to prefer complaint under the Act.On the date of registration of the complaint, the respondent police has no authority under the Act to prefer complaint.The present complaint has not been filed by the District Forest Officer.Under the Special Enactment, namely Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, when power is conferred on a particular officer only such authorised officer alone can prefer complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate.In this case, the officer, who is having no authority as stipulated under Section 22 of the Act registered the case and therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed.In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the Cr.No.28 of 2009 on the file of the Inspector, D-2 Chengalpet Taluk Police Station, Chengalpet is hereby quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.11.2016Index : Yes / NotsvnP.KALAIYARASAN, JtsvnToThe Inspector D-2, Chengalpet Taluk Police Station, Chengalpet.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.O.P No.10844 of 2010 04-11-2016http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,410,921 |
Both the sides are heard.2) Deceased Bapu Mote was son of uncle of first informantBandu Mote.Accused No. 2 Mangal is the widow of deceased Bapu.Accused No. 2 is daughter of maternal uncle of accused No. 1 Popatand the deceased and the deceased was related to accused No. 1 as acousin from maternal side.Mother of the deceased and mother ofaccused No. 1 were real sisters.3) For about two years prior to the incident, accused No. 1Popat had illicit relations with accused No. 2 Mangal.Popat used tovisit residential place of Bapu situated in village Motewadi frequentlyand due to that there used to be quarrels between the deceased on ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 3one side and accused on other.The deceased had disclosed to thefirst informant (Bandu) and also to other brother (Bansi) that therewere quarrels on aforesaid count.He had also disclosed that Popathad given threat to him when he had asked Popat to remain awayfrom his residential place.The deceased was having two issues at therelevant time, but they were kids.Accused No. 1 Popat is resident ofvillage Gavhanwadi, Tahsil Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::4) On 8.8.2001 Bapu visited residential place of firstinformant situated at the distance of 50 ft.from the house of Bapuand there, he took dinner.He left for his house at about 9.00 p.m. Atabout 11.30 p.m. on the night between 8th and 9th of August 2001when first informant was sleeping in the courtyard of his house, heheard shouts of Bapu coming from his house.The first informantthought that probably thieves had entered the house of Bapu and so,after informing his wife, he went towards the house of Bapu.Whenhe gave calls to Bapu from outside, initially nobody responded.Another neighbour also came there by name Dina and both gave callsto Bapu and then without opening door, accused No. 2 informed thatnothing had happened between her and the deceased and there wasno problem.Due to this, the first informant and Dina returned to theirrespective houses.The first informant went to his other brother Bansito inform him about the incident, but Bansi also expressed that ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 4quarrel between the deceased and accused No. 2 was not a new thingand he should ignore it.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::5) On 9.8.2001 at about 5.30 a.m. to 6.00 a.m. the firstinformant again went to the house of Bapu.This time, he noticed thatthe door of the house was open.When he inquired about Bapu,accused No. 2 informed that Bapu had just left home after puttingclothes and nothing had happened between them on previous night.6) The first informant then went to the field for work and inthe noon time, when he again visited the house of Bapu, he noticedthat Bapu was not at home.He learnt that accused No. 2 had gone tovillage Andhalgaon to attend a function.As Bapu was not seen by himfor quite some time, he went to village Dhok Sangavi, to the house ofsister Kantabai to see as to whether Bapu had gone there, but Bapuwas not in Dhok Sangavi also.7) On 10.8.2001 Kantabai, her husband and two brothers ofBapu viz. Bandu and Bansi started searching for Bapu.They broughtaccused No. 2 to Motewadi from Andhalgaon.They informed to PolicePatil of village Hingli that Bapu was missing.Police Patil advised togive missing report to police and so, the two brothers of Bapu tookaccused No. 2 to police for giving missing report and due to ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 5insistence of the two brothers of Bapu, accused No. 2 gave report topolice.8) On 12.8.2001 during inquiry of missing report, policecalled accused No. 1 to police station.The two brothers of Bapu alsowent there.In the presence of panch witnesss and brothers of Bapu,accused No. 1 admitted that on the night between 8th and 9th ofAugust 2001 at about 11.30 p.m., he and accused No. 2 hadmurdered Bapu in the house of Bapu.He disclosed that he hadcarried the dead body of Bapu after keeping it in a plastic bag andgunny bag on his bicycle first to a field and from there he had shiftedthe dead body on motorcycle of Gulab Pavade to the place situatednear village Nira and he had kept the dead body in a dilapidatedhouse.9) Police, panchas and two brothers of deceased went withaccused No. 1 to the place where the dead body was kept by him.Heshowed the Wada and then the dead body which was found to bekept in plastic bag and then in a gunny bag.The first informantidentified the dead body.The dead body was in decomposedcondition.16) Bandu (PW 1) has given evidence that on the day ofincident (Wednesday) at about 11.30 p.m. when he was at home, heheard shouts and so, he woke up.He has deposed that he thoughtthat thieves had entered the house of Bapu and after informing hiswife that he was proceeding towards the house of Bapu, he went tothe house of Bapu.He has deposed that afterwards accused No. 2informed to him that nothing had happened between them and sheasked him to return to his house.He has given evidence that anotherneighbour Dina Mote had also come there and he had also given callsto Bapu.His evidence shows that Bapu had not given response tothese calls.His evidence shows that on that occasion, the door of the house ofBapu was in open condition and accused No. 2 faced him andinformed that Bapu had left the house after wearing shirt.He hasdeposed that he then left the residential place for work.He hasdeposed that at about 6.00 p.m. when he returned from the place ofwork, he made inquiry about Bapu with his wife and the wife told thatshe had not seen both Bapu and Mangal.1 had given statement to police and then he had taken police andothers to the said house, dilapidated Wada where the dead body ofBapu was found.The Wada was not in use.24) The evidence of Bandu (PW 1) given as against accusedNo.2 is of the nature of last seen or the custodial death, if it isconsidered along with the information supplied by accused No. 2 toBandu as per the version of Bandu (PW 1).In that regard, themissing report given by accused No. 2 to police also need to beconsidered.25) In the missing report at Exh. 30 dated 10.8.2001 which isadmitted by the defence following things were informed by accusedNo.(i) On 9.8.2001 at about 6.00 a.m. accused No. 2 had left Motewadi for Andhalgaon, Tahsil Shirur, for function and at that time, the deceased was at home in Motewadi.(ii) The deceased had informed to accused No. 2 that he wanted to go to Mumbai on that day i.e. 9th to collect money from Rangnath Pandhare.(iii) On 10.8.2001 persons from Motewadi had come to accused No. 2 and they had insisted her to give missing ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 16 report to police.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::(iv) Accused No. 2 had told to the persons including brothers of the deceased that the deceased had gone to Mumbai, but the persons from Motewadi were not convinced and they had insisted her to give missing report to police, andHe has givenevidence that they noticed some blood stains on wall of the house ininside portion and this portion was just touching the floor of thehouse.He has given evidence that one axe with handle on whichthere were blood stains was recovered and one bed-sheet was alsorecovered from this house.It washuman blood, but the group of blood could not be determined.He has given evidence that on Wednesday the accused hadrequested him to allow to take his motorcycle as he wanted to bringshoes for his son from Shirur and he had allowed him to take themotorcycle at 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. and on Wednesday and at 6.00 p.m.the motorcycle was returned by the accused.He has deposed that on ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 22next day, his wife informed that accused No. 1 had again taken themotorcycle and that was done at about 6.00 to 6.15 a.m. (on9.8.2001).RESERVED ON : 28/11/2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 14/12/2017 ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 2JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::1) Both the appeals are filed against judgment and order ofSessions Case No. 165/2001, which was pending in the Court oflearned 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahemadnagar.The respondentfrom the Criminal Appeal No. 591/2002 was accused No. 2, but she isacquitted of the aforesaid offences and so, the decision of acquittal ischallenged by the State.However, she informed that Bapu had probably gone toMumbai.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::On 12.8.2001 itself Bandu gave report against accusedNos.1 and 2 and the crime at C.R. No. 164/01 came to be registered ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 6in Shrigonda Police Station for the offences punishable under sections302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::10) During the course of investigation, police recordedstatements of witnesses, who include Bansi, brother of the deceased,the person from whom motorcycle was collected by accused No. 1and other persons.The panchanama of the spot where dead bodywas found was prepared and panchanama of the house of Bapu wasalso prepared.Blood was found in the house of Bapu on wall justadjacent to the floor.One axe with handle which was having bloodstains was recovered and one Chaddar having blood stains wasrecovered from the house of Bapu.These articles came to be sent toC.A. office and blood was found on the articles taken over from thehouse of Bandu.The death had taken place due to strangulation.After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed foraforesaid offences against both the accused and the charge wasframed.The accused pleaded not guilty.They took the defence oftotal denial.Prosecution examined in all nine witnesses.No defencewitness is examined.The Trial Court has believed the evidence givenas against accused No. 1, but the benefit of doubt is given to accusedNo.The inquest panchanama onthe dead body was prepared in dilapidated Wada from where deadbody was recovered.Dr. Shantinath (PW 4), who conducted the P.M.examination on the dead body is examined by prosecution to provethe homicidal death.He found following injuries on the dead body.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::(i) C.L.W. on left side of the head at the junction of temporal parital and occipital region of size 4x3/4cm.x scalp deep.(ii) Groove mark on neck between chin and thyroid cartilege around the neck 1cm.bteadth, circular.According to Dr. Shantinath (PW 4), on internal examination, hefound following injuries.(i) CLW on left side of the head at the Junction of temporal parietal and occipital region of size 4x3/4 cm.x scalp deep obilige.Brain liquified.Meningases patechical haemorrhage present.odematious, fluid of blood and congested foot (illegible word).Right side heart full and left side empty.Shantinath (PW 4) has given evidence that in addition to aforesaid ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 8injuries, he found petachical haemorrhage in pleura.He found rightside of heart full of blood and left side empty and the bucal cavity nadtongue prosteded.On the basis of aforesaid things noticed by him,the doctor has given opinion that it is a case of homicide and thedeath took place due to strangulation.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::12) Dr. Shantinath (PW 4) has given evidence that the injuriesfound on the head can be caused by stick.He has given evidence thatthe injury found on the neck can be caused by rope and injury is ofsuch nature that two ends of rope must have been pulled by twopersons after circling of rope on the neck of the deceased.Doctor has not given specific evidence as to how much hours or howmuch days prior to P.M. examination the death had taken place.It isalready observed that the defence has not disputed that it is a case ofhomicide and in the statement given under section 313 of CriminalProcedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short) both theaccused have given answers like "I do not know" when the aforesaidevidence was confronted to them.In view of these circumstances, ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 9this Court holds that the prosecution has proved that Bapu diedhomicidal death.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::Other evidence :-The relation that themother of the deceased was real sister of mother of accused No. 1 isnot disputed.It is also not disputed that accused No. 2 is daughter ofmaternal uncle of accused No. 1 and the deceased.The marriagebetween the deceased and accused No. 2 had taken place 10 yearsprior to the date of incident, but their issues were kids.14) Bandu (PW 1) has given evidence that his house issituated at the distance of 50 ft.from the house of deceased.He has given evidence thatdeceased had warned accused No. 1, not to visit the residential place.Bansi (PW 3), other brother of deceased has also given similarevidence.It appears that his house is situated at longer distance, atthe distance of 100 ft.Thus, the evidence is given by thesewitnesses, real brothers of deceased on motive.15) The evidence of Bandu (PW 1) and Bansi (PW 3) and the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 10circumstances mentioned in the spot panchanama and also the crossexamination show that Bandu could have heard shouts of deceased, ifhe was awake on the night between 8th and 9th of August 2001.Further, it was possible atleast for Bandu (PW 1), first informant tonotice the incidents of quarrel which were taking place in the house ofBapu as he was immediate neighbour of deceased.Further, thedefence itself has brought on the record that accused No. 1 used towork in the field of deceased in the past, though he was working inthe fields of other farmers also from Motewadi.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::He has given evidence that he then went to the house of ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 11Bansi situated at the distance of 100 ft. from his house and heinformed about the incident, but Bansi said that there used to bequarrels between the deceased and his wife and so, he should notpay attention to it.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::17) Bandu (PW 1) has deposed that at 5.30 a.m. on the nextmorning i.e. on 9th August 2001 he again went to the house of Bapu.He has given evidence thathe learnt from his wife that accused No. 2 had gone to Andhalgaonfor performing Pooja.His evidence shows that he could not see Bapufrom the night between 8th and 9th August 2001 and also on theentire day of 9th.18) Bandu (PW 1) has given evidence that on the next day, on10th, Bansi and others brought accused No. 2 from Andhalgaon toMotewadi and there, they made inquiry with her about Bapu.He hasdeposed that accused No. 2 simply informed that he had left the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 12house after wearing shirt and so Police Patil was called and afterinquiry, Police Patil advised them to give missing report to police.Hehas given evidence that due to this, accused No. 2 gave missingreport in police station.He has given evidence that Kantabai and herhusband Manik had also come there to make inquiry.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::19) Bandu (PW 1) has given evidence that during inquiryaccused No. 2 informed them that her husband had gone to Mumbaito one Rangnath Pandhare for collecting money.The evidence ofBandu (PW 1) shows that on 10th, they had left accused No. 2 in thepolice station.Bandu has given evidence that on Sunday when hewent to police station, accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave confession aboutthe crime.He has given evidence that they informed that they hadkept the dead body in gunny bag and they had left the dead body atvillage Gulung.Though such evidence is given, he has given specificevidence that it is accused No. 1 Popat only, who had taken the policeand brothers of Bapu to show the dead body.20) Bandu (PW 1) has given evidence that accused No. 1 tookpolice and them to the place which was dilapidated Wada and there,the dead body was found.He has given evidence that he then gavereport against the accused persons.He has given evidence that he identified the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 13dead body.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::21) In the cross examination, Bandu (PW 1) has admittedthat the deceased and accused No. 2 were happy in married life.It issuggested to Bandu (PW 1) in the cross examination that accused No.1 was helping this family by working in the field.Suggestions aregiven to Bandu (PW 1) in the cross examination that the relationsbetween Bapu and his brothers were strained over sharing of water ofcommon well, but those suggestions are denied.Some suggestionsare given to create a probability that there were houses of othervillagers, nearer to the house of the deceased, than to the house ofBandu (PW 1).But, those suggestions are not admitted directly.Further, the documents like spot panchanama need to be consideredin that regard.The evidence of Bandu (PW 1) shows that he isilliterate and does not understand the distance in feet and even inrespect of time, he has given evidence that he had collectedinformation that the time of incident of 11.30 p.m., after makinginquiry with others.It is brought on the record in his crossexamination that he gave statement to police that on 9th at 5.30a.m.This circumstance is not that relevant as inordinary course, he was not expected to see carefully the thingsinside even if he had entered the house.He has fairly admitted that ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 14on the next morning the door of the house of Bapu was open andaccused No. 2 faced her to give him information.In the crossexamination, he has admitted that the relatives of Bapu had askedthe deceased and then the deceased had given missing report.Theevidence as a whole of Bapu (PW 1) needs to be considered.Thoughhe has admitted that Bapu was happy in married life, there is specificevidence about the illicit relations between accused Nos. 1 and 2 anddue to the isolated admission, this evidence given on motive cannotbe discarded.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::22) In the cross examination of Bandu (PW 1), he has givenevidence that after giving of missing report, they had left accused No.2 in the police station.It is brought on the record that on the nextday they had gone to police station with accused No. 1 and at thattime, they had noticed that accused No. 2 was in custody of police.Itis brought on the record that police made inquiry with accused No. 1in his presence and he was in company of police for entire day whenaccused No. 1 was showing the places to police.23) Exh. 29, the F.I.R. given by Bandu (PW 1) is consistent onmaterial points with the substantive evidence given by Bandu (PW 1).::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 15The substantive evidence and contents of Exh. 29 show that accusedNo.(v) When the deceased left, he was having clothes like black full open shirt, black pant and he had left Motewadi on 9.8.2001 at about 7 to 8 a.m. for Mumbai.However, she contended that she had left for Andalgaon at about 6.00 a.m.26) The contents of Exh. 30 show that the informationsupplied by accused No. 2 is little bit different from the version givenby Bandu (PW 1).However, one thing needs to be kept in mind thataccused No. 2 admitted in the missing report given by her on 10ththat on the night between 8th and 9th the deceased was at home.This report is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act.27) The evidence of Bansi (PW 3), other brother of deceasedis similar to the evidence of Bandu (PW 1).Bansi has given evidencethat he was present in the police station when accused No. 2 gavemissing report.He has given evidence that he was present in the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 17police station when accused No. 1 gave statement to police (thestatement which can be used under section 27 of the Evidence Act).The evidence of Bansi (PW 3) shows that accused No. 1 had informedto police that he had kept the dead body of Bapu in Wada from villageGulunj.He has deposed that it is accused No. 1 who had taken policeand others to aforesaid Wada and from there dead body of Bapu wasrecovered which was found to be kept in gunny bag.He could givedescription of said Wada.Thus, his evidence is on motive and also thecircumstances which are relevant under sections 8 and 27 of theEvidence Act. He has given specific evidence that Bapu had informedhim about the illicit relations between accused Nos. 1 and 2 and thisevidence is admissible under section 32 of the Evidence Act. Hisevidence remained ushattered in the extensive cross examination.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::28) Bapu Sonalkar (PW 7) is the panch witness, who isexamined to prove the statement made by accused No. 1 to police(under section 27 of the Evidence Act).He has deposed that on12.8.2001 accused No. 1 gave statement to police in his presencethat he had kept the dead body of Bapu in a big house from Gulung.After giving evidence on the statement, Bapu Sonalkar (PW 7) hasgiven evidence that accused No. 1 took police and panchas to villageGulung.He has given evidence that the said house was not in use ofanybody and police and panchas followed the accused when he went ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 18and the spot was discovered.He has given evidence that inside of thedilapidated house, there was a tree and near the tree, there wasgunny bag containing dead body.He has given evidence on theposition of the dead body which was in tied condition.Thepanchanama is proved as Exh.47 and in this document, there is notonly the statement of accused No.1, but there is also the incident ofseizure of the articles which were found with the dead body.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::29) Exh. 47 contains the statement of accused No. 1 and it isof following nature.(ii) The accused then narrated the incident of murder committed in the house of deceased.(iii) The accused then narrated the incident of shifting the dead body on bicycle in a sack to the field and then to the aforesaid Wada(iv) The accused specifically stated about the place as follows :-"The dead body was kept in Wada constructed in stones and Wada is situated before village Nira and it is situated on barren land, Malran and he was ready to show that spot." ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 19In view of the object behind the provision of section 27 of theevidence Act and limitations mentioned in it, the last mentioned paraviz.para (iv) from Exh. 47 can be used as a statement under section27 of the Evidence Act. The challenges raised to this evidence arebeing considered at later stage.30) Gopinath (PW 8), PSI, to whom statement under section27 of the Evidence Act was given has deposed that on 12.8.2001accused No. 1 gave statement in the presence of panch witnessesand he informed that he had kept the dead body at village Gulungsituated on Supa-Nira road.Gopinath (PW 8) has deposed thataccused No. 1 then took them towards Gulung and then to hilly areawhere there was dilapidated house.He has deposed that in thathouse accused pointed out a gunny bag containing the dead body.Gopinath (PW 8) has given evidence that Bandu (PW 1) and Bansi(PW 3) were present with him when accused showed the spot andthese brothers identified the dead body of Bapu.31) In the present matter, there is the evidence of aforesaidnature of Police Officer to whom the statement was made and also ofthe panch witness in whose presence the statement was made.Further, there is the evidence of two brothers of the deceased on thestatement given by accused No. 1 under section 27 of the Evidence ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 20Act.In Exh. 47, the names of these two brothers are mentioned.Therecord of the case shows that no probability is created by the defencethat the aforesaid place was known to police or any other person hadgiven this information prior to the information given by accused No.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::32) Panch witness Bapu Sonalkar (PW 7) has given evidencethat on 13.8.2001 he was again called by police, but this time to thehouse of deceased Bapu from Motewadi.He has given evidence thatsearch of this house was taken on 13.8.2001 and it was noticed thatthe house was cleaned recently by using cow dung.These articles were taken over and earthsample mixed with blood and also ordinary sample of earth from thehouse was collected and they were closed and sealed in separatepackets.The document is consistent withoral evidence of Sonalkar (PW 7).::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 2133) From the record, it can be said that accused No. 2 hadgiven incorrect information about the clothes of deceased.Theaforesaid record shows that on the dead body, there was whitebaniyan and white Payajama.34) Gopinath (PW 8), Investigating Officer has given evidencethat he arrested the accused on 12.8.2001 after the discovery of thedead body.The F.I.R. was given by Bandu (PW 1) after discovery ofthe dead body.TheC.A. reports at Exhs.60 and 61 show that human blood was detectedin earth sample collected from the house of deceased, on axe andalso on Chaddar taken over from the house of deceased.He has deposed that at about 1.00 p.m. his motorcyclewas found parked at his house.In the cross examination, it is suggested tothis witness that accused used to take his motorcycle frequently.There is the evidence on seizure of motorcycle, but nothingincriminating was found on the motorcycle.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::36) Suryakant (PW 5), Revenue Circle Officer is examined bythe prosecution to prove the map of the house of accused showingthe location of the houses of witnesses.Exh. 44, the map shows thatfrom the house of deceased the house of Bandu (PW 1) is situated atthe distance of 40 ft.The houses of deceased and Bandu (PW 1) werehaving country tiles and roof of wooden structure, having slope ontwo sides.Though there was one more house of Sopan Mote in thevicinity of the house of deceased, the house of Sopan was in R.C.C.construction and so, there was little possibility of hearing of noise bySopan.Exh. 44 shows that there was road in front of houses of ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 23deceased and Bandu (PW 1) and there was no other house in thevicinity.Thus, Exh. 44 shows that if there was noise of shoutingcoming from the house of deceased, Bandu (PW 1) could have heardthose shouts.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::37) The evidence of spot panchanama prepared about thehouse of deceased shows that human blood was found in this housein the earth sample.Human blood was found on Chaddar and on thehandle of the axe.In ordinary course, these circumstances can beused against accused No. 2, widow of deceased as admittedly shewas cohabiting with the deceased in that house.However, in view ofthe other circumstances, it was necessary for prosecution to provethat the murder had taken place in that house and at the time whenaccused No. 2 was present in that house.Thus, fixing of time ofincident was necessary for prosecution and on that there is oralevidence of Bandu (PW 1) of aforesaid nature.38) Dr. Shantinath Kamate (PW 4), who conducted the P.M.examination has given evidence in cross examination that the deathtook place after 6 hours of the last meal.There is such mention in theP.M. report at Exh. 41 also.Bandu (PW 1) has not given evidence onthe time when the deceased had taken last meal, though he wasexpected to do so.In view of evidence of Bandu (PW 1) that on that ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.If the deceased had taken the last mealbetween 8 and 10 p.m. of 8th, it does not look probable that he diedat about 11.30 p.m. in view of the opinion given by the doctor.Thus,the time given by Dr. Shantinath (PW 4) does not match with the oralevidence given by Bandu (PW 1) which can be used against accusedNo.Due to the evidence given by Dr. Shantinath (PW 4), the caseas against accused No. 2 has become week.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::39) Admittedly, on 9.8.2001 accused No. 2 left forAndhalgaon and that was done in the early morning.The prosecutionwitnesses have admitted that accused No. 1 used to visit the house ofdeceased and that too frequently.Accused No. 1 is the close relativeof deceased.The description of dead body given in inquestpanchanama and P.M. report shows that it was decomposed.P.M. wasconducted on 12.8.2001 at about 16.45 hours.It can be said thatapparently, the death had taken place more than 3 days prior to thetime of P.M. examination.The missing report was given on 10th andit was informed by accused No. 2 to police that at 6.00 a.m. whenshe left Motewadi, the deceased was alive.In view of thesecircumstances and the opinion of the doctor, it has become difficult tofix the time of death of Bapu.As accused No. 1 used to visit the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.There is no other circumstantial check inrespect of the case as against accused No. 2 and even blood stainedclothes of accused No. 2 are not recovered.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::40) The aforesaid evidence shows that there is the evidenceas against accused No. 1 of following nature.under section 27 of the Evidence Act and also under section 8 of the Evidence Act.41) For the State, reliance was placed on some reported casesto show that the aforesaid evidence given as against accused No. 1can be used to base conviction.The cases are as under :-(i) (2006) 10 SCC 151 [Deepak Chandrakant Patil Vs.State of Maharashtra],(ii) (2009) 14 SCC 582 [Ningappa Yallappa Hosamani and Ors.State of Karnataka and Ors.].In the second case cited supra, the Apex Court upheld the convictionfor the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC whenthe dead body was recovered on the basis of statement given under ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.Appeal Nos. 489, 591/02 26section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the first case cited supra, there wasevidence on 'last seen' and the conviction given for the offencepunishable under section 32 of IPC was upheld.There was alsoevidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act due to which there wasthe discovery of dead body.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::In the casereported as 2011 CJ (SC) 1429 [Wakkar and Anr.State of Uttar Pradesh], the scope ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.If in the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::45) Ordinarily, Police Officer to whom statement is made isexpected to prepare memorandum of statement in some form likementioned above and if the memorandum is prepared in the presenceof panch witnesses, by examining panch witnesses the statement canbe proved by the prosecution.The statement can be proved byexamining Police Officer also to whom statement was made.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::Utter Pradesh Vs.In the present matter, the ::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 ::: Cri.It can be said that as soon as he gaveinformation regarding commission of the offence by him, he hadsurrendered himself before police.Thus, in the present case, thoughthe crime was not registered against accused No. 1, when he gaveaforesaid statement to police, the provision of section 27 of theEvidence Act became applicable against him.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::50) The aforesaid discussion shows that only due to thestatement given by accused No. 1, the dead body of Bapu came to berecovered and that circumstance was within the knowledge ofaccused No. 1 only.In view of provision of section 27 of the EvidenceAct and also section 8 of the Evidence Act, this circumstance needs tobe considered against the accused.Further, there was motive for thecrime.Thus, there is legally admissible evidence as against accusedNo.1 and inference is easy on the basis of that evidence that it is theaccused No. 1, who committed murder of Bapu and it is accused No.1, who had shifted the dead body from the place of murder to theaforesaid dilapidated Wada.Due to the circumstances alreadydiscussed, this Court holds that the benefit of doubt needs to begiven to accused No. 2, though she had also motive for the crime.In the result, boththe appeals stand dismissed.The accused No. 1 - Popat s/o.LaxmanTikhole is to surrender to his bail bonds for undergoing sentence.::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2017 01:27:28 :::
|
['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.
|
158,417,427 |
For the sake of convenience, accused numbers are referred according to their serial numbers as mentioned in charge (Exh.20).Trial against accused no.17 Raju Tukaram Gaikwad could not be conducted since he is absconding.The case of prosecution can be briefly stated as under :Deceased Pintu alias Swapnil Dilipsingh Shirke (hereinafter referred to as `deceased Pintu'), Hitesh Uike (P.W.27) and Pappu Malviya (P.W.28) were facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code in respect of alleged assault by them on accused no.1 Vijay Mate on 18/7/2001, which was pending in the Sessions Court, Nagpur.Accordingly on 19/6/2002, deceased Pintu, Hitesh Uike (P.W.27), Pappu Maliviya (P.W.28) and Gajraj Mahato (P.W.16), ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 ::: 16 apeal569.13 who was accused in some other crime, were brought in the Court by Head Constable Prabhakar (P.W.21), Head Constable Deepak Trivedi (P.W.22), Police Constable Deepak Deshbhratar and Gunman Pramod Kalaskar from Jail.Deceased Pintu and Pappu Malviya (P.W.28) were in the custody of Head Constable Deepak Trivedi (P.W.22) and Hitesh Uike (P.W.27) and Gajraj Mahato (P.W.16) were in the custody of Police Constable Deepak Deshbhratar.Around 11 a.m. they reached the main gate of Court building and after making necessary entries in the register, they came near the lift to go up on 6th floor.Head Constable Prabhakar, Police Constable Deepak Deshbhratar, Gunman Pramod along with Gajraj Mahato (P.W.16) and Hitesh Uike (P.W.27) boarded the lift.As there was no space in the lift, other escorting Police and deceased Pintu along with Pappu Malviya (P.W.28) went by lift thereafter upto 5th floor as the lift did not use to stop on 6 th floor and from 5th floor, reached 6th floor by staircase.When they were being taken to Court, it is alleged that all the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 ::: 17 apeal569.13 accused persons having armed with deadly weapons like knife, gupti and sword assaulted deceased Pintu as well as Head Constable Deepak Trivedi (P.W.22) and Pappu Malviya (P.W.28) when they tried to intervene.It is the case of prosecution that accused no.1 Vijay Mate at that time was instigating assailants by saying "Maro Saloko, Jinda Nahi Bachana Chahiye".Due to shouts raised by deceased Pintu and commotion, Police Constable Deepak Deshbhratar, Head Constable Prabhakar (P.W.21) and Hitesh Uike (P.W.27) rushed to the spot when assailants ran away from the spot.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 :::Due to severe assault on deceased Pintu, he sustained number of bleeding injuries and as such, he along with injured Pappu Malvi and Head Constable Deepak Trivedi was referred to Mure Memorial Hospital where Pintu was declared dead on admission while medical treatment was provided to both the injured persons.Head Constable Prabhakar (P.W.21) informed ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 ::: 18 apeal569.13 about the incident to Dhantoli Police Station by wireless message.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 :::On the basis of information received as above, P.I. Yeshkhede (P.W.36) attached to Sadar Police Station immediately visited the spot of incident on the 6th floor of the Court building and found blood accumulated on the floor and from the spot, he seized one mobile, one knife cover, five pairs of chappals and sleepers lying on the spot and drew spot panchanama (Exh. 613) in presence of panch witnesses - Nitin Domne (P.W.1) and Shankar Shirke.P.I. Yeshkhede then visited Mayo Hospital and recorded statement of Deepak Trivedi (P.W.22) (Exh. 455).Yeshkhede then visited the spot and found one gupti, which was lying near the staircase on the 5 th floor of the Court building, which came to be seized vide ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 ::: 19 apeal569.13 seizure panchanama (Exh. 621) in the presence of panch witnesses - Raju Nagtode (P.W.3) and Dhiraj Wasnik.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 :::PSI Chaudhary (P.W.31) then visited Mayo Hospital and prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body of Pintu vide Exh. 563 and under requisition (Exh. 564) forwarded the same for post mortem.On the day of incident, PSI Paul (P.W.35) having learnt about involvement of accused no.1 Vijay Mate and accused no.2 Mangesh Chauhan in the present crime, effected their arrest on the same day, i.e. at 3.30 p.m. under arrest panchanama (Exhs.603 and 604).Accused no.3 Sachin Gawande (now deceased), accused no.4 Umesh Dahake and accused no.5 Ritesh Gawande came to be arrested on the same day under arrest panchanama (Exhs. 606, 607 and 559 respectively) while Yeshkhede, P.I. recorded statements of Pappu Malviya (P.W.28), Gajraj Mahato (P.W.16), Hitesh Uike (P.W.27), Police Constable ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 20 apeal569.13 Prabhakar (P.W.21) and Police Constable Deepak Deshbhratar.On the same day, at about 7 p.m. by visiting Mayo Hospital, he recorded supplementary statement of Head Constable Deepak Trivedi (P.W.22) wherein he disclosed names of accused no.1 Vijay Mate, accused no.2 Mangesh Chauhan, accused no.4 Umesh Dahake, accused no.5 Ritesh Gawande and accused no.16 Maroti Walake.On recording said statements, Investigating Officer seized blood stained clothes of Deepak Trivedi under seizure panchanama (Exh. 458) in the presence of panch witnesses - Deepak Gajbhiye (P.W.2) and Ajil Rashid Khan.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::On 21/6/2002, P.I. Yeshkhede (P.W.36) effected arrest of accused no.6 Mayur Chauhan and accused no.7 Pandurang Injewar under arrest memos (Exhs. 628 and 629) and on the same day, recorded statements of Vijaya (P.W.26) and Shefali (P.W.33), mother and sister of deceased Pintu respectively.On 22/6/2002 P.I. Yeshkhede, Investigating Officer ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 21 apeal569.13 (P.W.36) seized clothes of deceased Pintu as well as those of accused nos.1 to 5 under separate seizure panchanamas (Exhs. 631 to 633).On 23/6/2002, P.I.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::Nitnaware (P.W.37) attached to Crime Branch, Nagpur carried further investigation, during the course of which, he collected blood sample and nail clippings of accused no.6 Mayur Chauhan and accused no.7 Pandurang Injewar under seizure panchanama (Exhs. 656 and 657) and on 24/6/2002, effected arrest of accused no.8 Rajesh Kadu under arrest panchanama (Exh. 658) and on the following day, collected his blood sample and nail clippings vide seizure panchanama (Exh. 660).On 26/6/2002, PSI Gadhwe attached to Crime Branch effected house search of accused no.6 Mayur Chauhan, accused no.7 Pandurang Injewar and accused no.8 Rajesh Kadu and seized their clothes, which were stated to be on their person on the day of incident under seizure panchanamas (Exhs. 549, 547 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 22 apeal569.13 and 548 respectively).::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::On 26/6/2002, PI Nitnaware (P.W.37) recorded memorandum statement of accused no.1 Vijay Mate (Exh. 663) and effected recovery of gupti (article 1), which came to be seized under panchanama (Exh. 664) at his instance.On 28/6/2002, PSI Kadu (P.W.38) arrested accused no.9 Kiran Kaithe, accused no.10 Kamlesh Nimbarte, accused no.11 Ayub Khan and accused no.12 Mahesh Bante.On 1/7/2002, PI Nitnaware (P.W.37) seized clothes and articles C-18 and C-19 of accused no.9 Kiran Kaithe and one big knife at his instance under his memorandum statements (Exhs. 667 and 673 respectively) and in pursuance thereof, effected recovery of the said articles, which came to be seized under panchanama (Exhs. 666 and 670) at the instance of said accused.Said Police Officer under memorandum statement (Exh. 671) seized motor-cycle Yamaha of accused no.1 Vijay Mate.On 2/7/2002, PSI Gadhwe (P.W.30) ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 23 apeal569.13 recorded memorandum statement of accused no.13 Dinesh Gaiki (Exh. 552) and in pursuance of his statement, seized blood stained blade of spear from the tool box of scooter bearing Registration No. MH 31/B-9971 at his instance under seizure panchanama (Exh. 551).::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::On 3/7/2002, P.I. Nitnaware (P.W.37) recorded memorandum statement of accused no.2 Mangesh Chauhan vide Exh. 675 and effected recovery of one knife (Article 3), which came to be seized (Exh. 676) in the presence of panch witnesses - Dinesh Maldhure and Ganesh Hande (P.W.32).On 4/7/2002, statement of Sagar Jain (P.W.20) was recorded by P.I. Nitnaware (P.W.37).On 5/7/2002, P.I. Nitnaware (P.W.37) recorded memorandum statements of accused no.10 Kamlesh Nimbarte (Exhs. 681 and 682) and seized gupti (Article 4) and clothes of said accused under seizure panchanama (Exhs. 683 and 684).On 6/7/2002, said Investigating Officer collected sample of ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 24 apeal569.13 nail clippings of accused persons and on 7/7/2002, on visiting house of accused no.12 Mahesh Bante and accused no.11 Ayub Khan seized their clothes being Articles C-22 to C-25), which were alleged to be on their person on the day of incident and seized under seizure panchanama (Exhs.693 and 694 respectively) in presence of panchas Bhola Chahande and Shankar Shahu.On the same day, accused no.14 Sandeep Sanas was arrested under arrest panchanama (Exh. 557).The Investigationg Officers from time to time forwarded seized muddemal property for its analysis to Chemical Analyser's Office.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::On 10/7/2002, P.I. Nitnaware (P.W.37) effected arrest of accused no.15 Raju Bhadre under panchanama (Exh. 697) and on the following day, effected house search of accused no.14 Sandeep Sanas under house search panchanama (Exh.699) and seizure panchanama (Exh.700).On 12/7/2002, accused no.16 Maroti alias Nawwa came to be arrested ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 25 apeal569.13 under arrest panchanama (Exh. 701) and on the same day, seized blood stained clothes of Hitesh Uike (P.W.27) and Pappu Malvi (P.W.28) under seizure panchanama (Exhs. 528 and 529).::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::On 15/7/2002, said Officer recorded memorandum statement of accused no.16 Maroti alias Nawwa (Exh. 710) and in pursuance of the same, seized one knife (Article 8) and his clothes under seizure panchanama (Exh. 711).On 16/7/2002, the Investigating Officer by requisition memo made query to Dr. Dhawne, who had performed post mortem, with reference to possibility of injuries sustained by deceased Pintu by the weapons seized in the present crime.According to Medical Officer, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrage due to injuries, ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 26 apeal569.13 which were possible by sharp edged weapons like gupti, sword and knife and accordingly submitted his report (Exh.497) to the questionnaire sent by Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::On 25/7/2002, requisition letter (Exh. 717) was issued to Shri Somkuwar, Special Judicial Magistrate (P.W.39) for holding test identification parade, which was held on 21/8/2002, 22/8/2002 and 23/8/2002 according to memorandum panchanamas (Exhs. 718, 719 and 720).Map of scene of offence (Exh. 759) was got prepared from Shri Kadu, Maintenance Surveyor and Chemical Analyser's reports (Exhs. 725 to 747) were received from the office of Chemical Analyser...............I can identify the assailants.As the incident had occurred 10 years back, so I will try my level best to identify the assailants.The witness pointed point finger towards accused Vijay Mate and identified him and stated that he was having Gupti in his hand.The witness pointed out the finger towards accused [Mahesh Bante] and identified him and stated that he was having Gupti in his hand.The witness pointed out the finger towards accused Ritesh Gawande and identified him and stated that he was having Gupti in his hand.Witness pointed out finger towards accused Umesh Dahake and identified him as [Mangesh Chauhan].The witness pointed out the finger towards accused [Mayur Chauhan] and identified him and stated that he was having knife.The witness pointed out the finger towards accused [Maruti Nawwa] and identified him and stated that he was having big knife in his hand.The witness pointed out the finger towards accused Dinesh Gaiki and identified him and stated that he was having knife in his hand.The witness pointed out the finger towards accused ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 85 apeal569.13 Raju Bhadre and identified him and stated that he was having kukari in his hand.The witness pointed out the finger towards accused Kiran Kaithe and identified him and stated that he was having knife in his hand.The witness pointed out the finger towards accused Kamlesh Nimbarte and identified him and stated that he was having knife in his hand.The witness pointed out the finger towards accused [Pandurang Injewar] and identified him and stated that he was having big knife in his hand.The witness stated that last person she has to identify by name and pointed out the finger towards accused [Mangesh Chauhan] and identified him and stated that he was having Gupti in his hand.I know rest of the accused person by their faces."[Names of acquitted accused are indicated in bracket]In so far as her evidence about identification in the parade is concerned, she deposed in para 8 as under:-Thereafter I was sent out and after some time, I was again called to the place of for T.I. Parade and in second round, I identified two person as assailants.The four person to whom I identified in T.I. Parade as assailants, today they are present in the Court.In first round, two person which were identified as assailants, witness pointed out the finger towards accused Sachin Gawande and Rajesh Kadu and identified them in the Court.In the second round, two persons which were identified as assailants, witness pointed out the finger towards accused Sandeep Sanas and Ayub Khan and identified them in the Court.She stated, she saw the incident from a distance of about 10 to 15 feet.She is B.A. In English Literature and was married in the year 1971 and is fully conversant with Nagpur and its geography.Now turning to the evidence of PW 33 her daughter Shefali Shirke, her evidence is similar to the evidence as deposed by her mother PW 26 Vijaya Shirke.After describing preliminaries to the actual ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 87 apeal569.13 incident that took place, she deposed that Vijay Mate and his 12 to 15 associates rushed upon her brother Swapnil alias Pintu and started assaulting him.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused - Vijay Mate and said that he was having Gupti in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused - [Mahesh Bante] and identified him and said that he was having Gupti in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused - [Mangesh Chauhan] and identified him and said that he was having Gupti in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused Ritesh Gawande and identified him and said that that he was having Gupti in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused - Kiran Kaithe and identified him and said that he was having Knife in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused - Dinesh Gaiki and identified him and said that he was having knife in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused - Banti Chauhan and identified him and said that he was having knife and his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused Raju Bhadre and identified him and said that he was having Kukari in his hand.Witness pointed ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 88 apeal569.13 out the finger towards accused [Maroti Nawwa] and identified him and said that he was having Big Knife in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused - Umesh Dahake and identified and said that he was having Katyar in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused [Pandurang Injewar] and identified him and said that he was having Big Knife in his hand.Witness pointed out the finger towards accused Kamlesh Nimbarte and identified him and said that he was having Knife in his hand.11.15 am, that too in most violent and grisly manner and both these ladies were looking at the assault from a distance of 10-15 feet.When they tried to go nearer, the assailants rushed towards them along with weapons and both these ladies had to run away from the spot.JUDGMENT [Per Court] :::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 :::By the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, accused no.1 Vijay Kisanrao Mate, accused no.4 Umesh Sampatrao Dahake, accused no.9 Kiran Umraoji Kaithe, accused no.10 Kamlesh Sitaram Nimbarte, accused no.13 Dinesh s/o Devidas Gaiki and accused no.15 Raju Vitthalrao Bhadre came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302, 120-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 ::: 13 apeal569.13 imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(b) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 :::Accused no.5 Ritesh s/o Hiramanji Gawande and accused no.11 Ayub s/o Amir Khan are convicted for the offences punishable under Section 147 and 302, 120(b) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 ::: 14 apeal569.13 Sections 302, 120(b) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 :::Accused no.1 Vijay Kisanrao Mate, accused no.4 Umesh Sampatrao Dahake, accused no.5 Ritesh Hiramanji Gawande, accused no.9 Kiran Umraoji Kaithe, accused no.10 Kamlesh Sitaram Nimbarte, accused no.11 Ayub Amir Khan, accused no.13 Dinesh s/o Devidas Gaiki and accused no.15 Raju Vitthalrao Bhadre are acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 353 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, under Section 4 read with Section 25 of Arms Act and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.Accused no.2 Mangesh Shivajirao Chavan, accused no.6 Mayur alias Banti Shivajirao Chavan, accused no.7 Pandurang Motiram Injewar, accused no.8 Rajesh Dayaramji Kadoo, accused no.12 Mahesh Damodhar Bante, accused no.14 Sandip Nilkanthrao Sanas, accused no.16 Maroti alias Navva Santoshrao Walake are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 120(b), 332, 353, 307, ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 ::: 15 apeal569.13 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:19 :::Trial against accused no.3 Sachin Arunrao Gawande came to be abated since dead.Few statements of witnesses were then recorded by L.T. Tighare, Deputy Superintendent of Police and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::In the course of time, case came to be committed for its trial to the Court of Sessions.Charge was framed against accused as per Exh. 20 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 186, 353, 332, 307, 302, 120(b) read with Sections 34 and 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 read with Section 25 of Indian Arms Act and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act. Accused denied all the charges and claimed to be tried.The defence of accused persons is of total denial and of false implication as according to some accused, they had deposed against deceased Pintu in the cases conducted against him and as such, are falsely implicated.In defence, accused no.15 Raju Bhadre had examined D.W.1 Ajay Dhurve and accused no.8 Rajesh Kadu had examined D.W.1 Akhtar Hussain to rule out possibility of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali being present on the spot of incident at the relevant time and on the plea of alibi respectively.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::Learned Trial Judge thereafter recorded the evidence of as many as thirty-nine witness.The defence counsel stated before us that the trial could not commence for all these years because of stay thereof as per the prohibitory provision in the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999, in which some of the accused persons were under trials in that case.PWs 1 to 13 and PW 32 are the Panch witnesses.PW 16 Gajraj Mahato, PW 17 Umesh Shriram Raut, PW 22 HC Deepak Trivedi, PW 26 Smt. Vijaya Shirke, PW 27 -Hitesh Uike, PW 28 Pappu Malviya, PW 29 Jugendra Shukla and PW 33 - Shefali Shirke are the eye witnesses.PW 30 Dattatraya Gadhawe, PW 31 PSI Choudhary, PW 34 PI Narendra Wankhede, PW 37 PI Nitnaware and PSI Kadu are the Investigating Officers.The Trial Court framed in all eight points for ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 29 apeal569.13 determination and recorded the findings against them.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::For convenience, we reproduce below those points as well as findings:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::Hence, all these criminal appeals came to be preferred as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::No.73/2014 filed by State against acquittal of accused nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 16, which was replied by learned Counsel appearing for the respective accused.We have then heard learned Counsel for all the accused in their criminal appeals against conviction, which was replied by learned Public Prosecutor and lastly heard appellant in person, namely, Smt. Vijaya, mother of deceased Pintu, in Criminal Appeal Nos.55/2014 and 56/2014 preferred against acquittal of accused nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 16 and for enhancement of sentence of convicted accused.Smt. Dangre, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that to substantiate the charges levelled against accused, prosecution in all examined 39 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 32 apeal569.13 witnesses, out of which P.W.1 to 13 and P.W.32 Ganesh are panch witnesses, P.W.16 Gajraj, P.W.17 Umesh, P.W.22 Head Constable Deepak, P.W.26 Vijaya, P.W.27 Hitesh, P.W.28 Pappu alias Narendra, P.W.29 Jugendra and P.W.33 Shefali are eye witnesses while P.W.18 Anil and P.W.19 Ramesh are Carriers and P.W.30 Dattatraya, P.W.31 Kumar, P.W.34 Narendra, P.W.35 Radheshyam, P.W.36 Yeshkhede, P.W.37 Nitnaware and P.W.38 Kadu are the Investigating Officers.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::To establish involvement of accused, who came to be acquitted, learned Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to material evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya, P.W.33 Shefali, P.W.22 Deepak along with his report (Exh. 455), P.W.25 Dr. Dhawane, who performed autopsy and issued post mortem report (Exh. 495) so also report (Exh. 497) in reply to query made by Investigating Officer vide Exh. 496, P.W.36 Yeshkhede and P.W.37 Nitnaware, both Investigating Officers and has contended that evidence of all these ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 33 apeal569.13 witnesses establish involvement of accused, who are acquitted and their involvement is further stated to be established by other corroborative evidence of recovery of weapon gupti from accused no.2 Mangesh, knife from accused no.3 Sachin (now deceased), knives from accused no.6 Mayur and accused no.7 Pandurang, gupti from accused no.12 Mahesh, knife from accused no.13 Dinesh and knife from accused no.16 Maroti along with their clothes consisting of full shirt/T-shirt, full pant, etc.. She has further invited our attention to report of P.W.25 Dr. Dhawane (Exh. 497) and has contended that injuries sustained by deceased Pintu were possible by weapons like gupti and knives.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::To establish involvement of accused no.2 Mangesh, Smt. Dangre, learned Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the specific evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya, who has identified this accused with his name though had identified accused no.4 Umesh as accused no.2 Mangesh.By referring to evidence of P.W.22 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 34 apeal569.13 Deepak, it is submitted that his evidence clearly establishes involvement of accused no.2, but he has not identified said accused in test identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::By referring to the evidence of P.W.33 Shefalli, it is submitted that involvement of accused no.2 Mangesh is established from her evidence as her evidence is not shaken at all in the cross-examination and in fact, corroborates version of P.W.26 Vijaya.Evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W. 33 Shefali is also relied by the learned Public Prosecutor to establish involvement of accused no.7 Pandurang, accused no.8 Rajesh, accused no.12 Mahesh, accused no.14 Sandeep and accused no.16 Maroti and it is submitted that in view of above available evidence, there are no cogent reasons given by learned trial Court for acquitting them.Before concluding her submissions, it is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that evidence of P.W.16 Gajraj, P.W.17 Umesh, P.W.21 Prabhakar, P.W.27 Hitesh, P.W.28 Pappu alias Narendra and P.W.29 Jugendra establish the incident of ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 35 apeal569.13 assault, which took place on the sixth floor of the Court building on 19/6/2002 though P.W.17 Umesh, P.W.27 Hitesh, P.W.28 Pappu alias Narendra and P.W.29 Jugendra did not support the case of prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::The learned Counsel by referring to evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali has contended that accused no.8 Rajesh was known to them even prior to the incident.In support of plea of alibi raised by accused no.8 Rajesh, evidence of D.W.1 Akhtar examined by him is also relied and it is contended that in view of evidence of this witness, it is impossible to hold that at the time of incident, said accused was present on the spot.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::Learned Counsel Shri Avinash Gupta on advancing submissions on behalf of accused no.12 Mahesh has contended that his identification before the Court by P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali as having been armed with gupti at the time of incident is false as there is nothing to establish that on what basis, these two witnesses were aware of name of said ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 37 apeal569.13 accused.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::On the case of prosecution about seizure of clothes of said accused, it is contended that there is no blood found on his clothes as per Chemical Analyser's reports (Exhs. 53 and 54) and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali against said accused.Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for accused no.2 Mangesh, has submitted that admittedly said accused was not put to test identification parade and on evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali, has contended that since said accused was one of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 38 apeal569.13 witnesses in a case tried against deceased Pintu in respect of the incident of firing on accused no.1 Vijay Mate, he is falsely implicated by them.It is submitted that on the basis of copy of judgment placed on record in the said case, it is established that accused no.2 Mangesh was examined as one of the witnesses against accused in that case.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::Shri Tiwari, learned Counsel for accused no.7 Pandurang, on similar lines, has contended that P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W. 33 Shefali have falsely implicated him and no recovery of weapon is effected from said accused, but for his clothes, which had no blood stains and even otherwise, he came to be arrested on 21/6/2002, i.e. after two days of incident.By referring to the evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya, it is contended that she was admittedly not knowing said accused personally and thus, it was necessary to put this accused in test identification parade.However, there was no test identification parade.It is further ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 39 apeal569.13 contended that presence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W. 33 Shefali on the place of incident itself is doubtful as other witnesses, who are relied by prosecution to establish the incident, have not deposed about presence of any of these witnesses.By referring to the evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya, it is pointed out as to how she is not an eye witness as it was not possible for her to reach the Hospital even before deceased Pintu was brought to Hospital had she been present on the spot on the day of incident.Evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali is further commented upon with reference to their alleged visit to the Office of Commissioner of Police, Nagpur.It is submitted that conduct of both these witnesses rather establishes that they had never visited the said Office.It is also pointed out that though shirt and pant of said accused came to be seized, no blood is detected on his clothes.By referring to the copy of judgment placed on record before trial Court in respect of trial, which was held against deceased Pintu for attempt to commit murder ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 ::: 40 apeal569.13 of accused no.1 Vijay Mate, it is submitted that trial Court has rightly acquitted accused no.7 Pandurang.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::C.R. (Cri.)::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::580) and on delay in recording statements of P.W.26 Vjaya and P.W.33 Shefali, has relied upon judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Abdul Kadar @ Raj Mohd. Kadar Badshah and others (1997 Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 820).Shri Trivedi, learned Counsel for accused no.16 Maroti, by referring to the evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali, has contended that their evidence does not establish involvement of said accused and that evidence of P.W.22 Deepak establishes that he has wrongly identified said accused in test identification parade.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:20 :::Heard Shri Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in reply for State.On concluding hearing in above criminal appeal of State of Maharashtra, we have heard criminal appeals preferred by accused against their conviction.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::With reference to involvement of said accused, on referring to the evidence of P.W.33 Shefali, it is contended that her evidence is full of material omissions and as such, cannot be acted upon against said accused.It is also contended that test identification parade was conducted without observing the guidelines of this Court referred in Criminal Manual and for that purpose, has relied upon evidence of P.W. 39 Prakash, Special Judicial Magistate, who had held the test identification ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 44 apeal569.13 parade.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::786).It is further submitted that on the contrary, possibility of his false implication cannot be ruled out, particularly when he had appeared in the case against deceased Pintu when he was tried for attempt to commit murder of accused no.1 Vijay Mate and copy of judgment in the said case is placed on record by P.W.26 Vijaya herself.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::Shri Jaltare, learned Counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 573/2013 filed by accused no.10 Kamlesh, has contended that name of said accused is not mentioned in the first information report.However, P.W.27 Hitesh identified said accused as one of the assailants in the case against deceased Pintu and, therefore, for this reason, identification as above does not inspire confidence.It is also contended that alleged memorandum statement of said accused does not bear his signature and for this proposition, learned Counsel has relied upon the decision in Jackaran Singh vs. State of Punjab (1995 DGLS (Cri.) Soft 892).It is further contended that even in the seizure panchanama of weapon, there is no mention as to from which place in the house, it came to be recovered.Shri Gaikwad, learned Counsel for accused ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 47 apeal569.13 no.5 Ritesh in Criminal Appeal No.573/2013, has submitted that there is no seizure of any weapon from said accused and though shirt of said accused seized is certified to have stained with human blood of Group `A', panch has not supported prosecution on this aspect.By referring to the evidence of P.W.22 Deepak, it is contended that he has not identified said accused in test identification parade and by referring to the evidence of P.W. 26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali, it is contended that said accused was already known to these two witnesses by name and face and as such, no test identification parade was held.It is further pointed out that statement of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W. 33 Shefali came to be recorded after two days of incident and though it is the case of prosecution that these two witnesses after the incident had visited the Office of Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, statement of said Officer is not recorded and for this proposition, learned Counsel has relied upon judgments in Ashraf Hussain Shah vs. State of Maharashtra (1996-EQ (BOM)-0-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::183) and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jaggo alias Jagdish (1971-EQ(SC)-)-219).It is prayed by learned Counsel that said criminal appeal may be allowed.Shri Dable, learned Counsel for accused no.4 Umesh in Criminal Appeal No.573/2013, has submitted similar arguments and pointed out that though accused no.4 Umesh was arrested on the day of incident and knife is alleged to be seized from him, his clothes came to be seized on 22/6/2002 having no blood stains as mentioned in seizure panchanama.On the point of ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 49 apeal569.13 identification of accused no.4 Umesh, by referring to the evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya, it is contended that her evidence does not inspire confidence as she failed to identify accused no.4 Umesh as she had pointed out finger towards accused no.2 Mangesh claiming him to be Umesh Dahake.The learned Counsel for accused no.4 Umesh, in the background of above submissions, has relied upon decisions in Mohd. Hussain Babamiyan Ramzan vs. State of Maharashtra (1994 Cri.L.J. 1020) and Gopal Singh and another vs. The State of M.P. and another (AIR 1972 SC 1557).::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::Shri Avinash Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for accused nos.9 Kiran and 13 Dinesh in Criminal Appeal No. 564/2013, with reference to accused no.9 Kiran has submitted that apart from involvement of said accused by P.W. 26 Vijaya and P.W. 33 Shefali, prosecution has relied upon collection of nail clippings of said accused and recovery of knife ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 50 apeal569.13 at his instance along with seizure of clothes being T-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::shirt, full pant.It is contended that no blood is detected in the nail clippings nor on the knife and full pant.However, on T-shirt, human blood of group 'A' though is certified to have been detected, it is of no consequence in view of the fact that own blood group of said accused could not be determined.Similarly, while referring to evidence against accused no.13 Dinesh, it is contended by learned Counsel Shri Gupta that even on obtaining nail clippings, no blood is detected therein while his own blood is of Group `O' and no blood is detected on his clothes (Articles 37 and 38) and though on spear blade (article 37) human blood is certified to have been detected, no grouping of blood is done.It is further contended that as per evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali, knife is attributed to accused no.13, however, according to alleged discovery statement and seizure of weapon, spear is shown to be recovered at ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 51 apeal569.13 the instance of said accused.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::On the aspect of identification of accused no.13 Dinesh by P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali, it is submitted by learned Counsel Shri Gupta that during the course of prosecution though deceased Pintu had pointed out said accused to these witnesses along with accused no.1 Vijay Mate and other assailants in the Court, there is no convincing evidence on this aspect.In that regard, it is further contended that in view of evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali to have witnessed the incident for 2-3 minutes only in a crowded place, identification of accused no.13 Dinesh by said witnesses in test identification parade was necessary.However, no such parade was held and as such, identification by P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali first time in the Court after lapse of about 10-12 years cannot be accepted.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::submitted with reference to presence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali at the spot of incident that though prosecution has examined other witnesses, whose evidence establish incident of assault on deceased Pintu, none of those witnesses deposed about presence of either of these witnesses.It is also contended that according to P.W.26 Vijaya, prior to incident, she made a phone call to P.S.I. Bhese seeking protection for deceased Pintu, which was claimed to be received by said Officer, however, prosecution has not placed on record Station diary entry in respect of such phone call received by said Officer nor has collected mobile phone from P.W.26 Vijaya to carry out investigation referring to her location at the relevant time on that day.It is also contended that Investigating Agency has failed to record statement of Driver of P.W. 26 Vijaya nor said witness has disclosed full name of her Driver Ajay though worked with her from 2001 onwards, but has given names and surnames of accused, who are stated to be shown to her by deceased Pintu prior to ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 53 apeal569.13 incident in the Court along with accused no.1 Vijay Mate and has thus referred to evidence of D.W.1 Ajay and has submitted that his evidence establishes that at the time of incident, P.W.26 Vijaya and PW 33 Shefali were in the house wherefrom they directly went to Hospital.On the alleged visit of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali to the Office of Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, it is submitted that nothing is brought on record like visitor's register, etc. to establish their visit.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::It is further contended that neither P.W.27 Hitesh nor P.W.28 Pappu Malvi, who on the day of incident, were produced in the Court by Police Constable Prabhakar and are alleged witnesses, had named P.W.26 Vijaya or P.W.33 Shefali though both of them claimed to know above witnesses.It is also submitted that evidence of P.W.21 Prabhakar in fact establishes that when he reached the spot, incident of assault was already over.It is also pointed out that evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali suffered from material omissions as four unknown assailants are not stated in their ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 54 apeal569.13 statements recorded by Police, which omission is duly got proved by P.W.36 Yeshkhede, Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::On commenting evidence of P.W.33 Shefali, it is submitted by learned Counsel Shri Gupta that this witness is unable to state any date when any of the assailants or unknown accused were shown to her in the Court by deceased Pintu nor said witness has stated all the dates when she had attended the Courts.With reference to evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya, it is also submitted that though this witness thoughtfully states minor details in her examination-in-chief, she did not remember anything and forgets everything while she was under cross-examination.It is also contended that possibility of substitution of statement of P.W. 33 Shefali recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Investigation Officer cannot be ruled out as she claims to have duly signed the said statement while no such signature is found on her statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::On recovery of gupti at the instance of said accused on 22/6/2002, it is contended that said weapon as per Chemical Analyser's report is stated to have stained with human blood on its handle and not on its blade.It is further contended that no specimen of seal is obtained on proforma sent to the Chemical Analyser and the seal used at the time of seizure of articles.It is further contended that said evidence is, even otherwise, not convincing as muddemal articles were sent to Chemical Analyser on 22/7/2002, i.e. after one month, of which no explanation is on record.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::Learned Counsel Shri Gupta has further contended that from the evidence, it has also not come on record that gupti alleged to have been seized at the instance of accused no.1 was immediately deposited in Malkhana.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::Lastly, we have heard Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel in Criminal Appeal No.561/2013 preferred by accused no.15 Raju Bhadre.He has pointed out that said accused was arrested on 10/7/2002 though was never absconding and at his instance, weapon kupri came to be seized on 14/7/2002 along with his full shirt and pant.However, on neither of these articles, blood stains are said to have been found.On the point of availability of accused no.15 after the incident, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon judgment in Dinkar Bandhu ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 58 apeal569.13 Deshmukh and another vs. State (AIR 1970 Bombay 438).It is further contended that though test identification parades are held after arrest of accused no.15, he was not put in test identification parade, which was necessary as the event of alleged assault on deceased Pintu lasted for 2-3 minutes in crowded place involving 12-15 assailants.ig On the count of test identification parade, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon judgments in Siddanki Ram Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh {(2010) 7 SCC 697}, State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdev Singh and another {(1992) 3 SCC 700} and George and others vs. State of Kerala and another {(1998) 4 SCC 605}.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::It is thus contended that there is no investigation on this aspect and for this purpose, for appreciation of evidence of P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali, learned Senior Counsel Shri Dharmadhikari has relied upon judgments in Kailash Gour and others vs. State of Assam {(2012) 2 SCC 34}, Jagjit Singh alias jagga vs. State of Punjab {(2005) 3 SCC 689}, Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel vs. Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel and others {(2004) 10 SCC 583} and Sunil s/o Chokhoba Shambarkar and another vs. State of Maharashtra (2008 (2) Mh.L.J. (Cri.)::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::244).To counter the submissions of learned Counsel for accused, Smt. Dangre, learned Public Prosecutor with reference to evidence of hostile witnesses relied upon judgment in Paulmeli and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu, through Inspector of Police {(2014) 5 SCC 573}.To establish presence of eye ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 60 apeal569.13 witnesses, P.W. 26 Vijaya and P.W. 33 Shefali, our attention is invited by learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Dangre to limited evidence of P.W.16 Gajraj, P.W. 27 Hitesh, P.W. 29 Jugendra and P.W. 22 Deepak, which establish incident and in the background of above, has further referred to evidence of P.W. 26 Vijaya.It is submitted that P.W.26 Vijaya ig knew accused no.1 Vijaya Mate and from her evidence, she is found to be aware of all the facts including of Court cases, which were pending against deceased Pintu.Her presence in the Court on the day of incident is submitted to be most natural since she arrived in the Court to meet her son, who was to be produced on that day in the case in which he was being prosecuted.It is further contended that from her evidence, it is clear that she identified accused nos.3 Sachin (since dead), 8 Rajesh and 14 Sandeep in test identification parade and accused no.11 Ayub Khan in the Court since she was knowing them by their faces.It is also contended that from the evidence of P.W. 26 Vijaya, it is proved that she was ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 61 apeal569.13 conversant with criminal cases pending against deceased Pintu, which is claimed to be another factor to establish her presence in the Court on the day of incident.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::On the aspect of evidence of D.W.1 Ajay, it is submitted that he is a got up witness as earlier summons issued were not served and thereafter he was served and examined and his evidence, even otherwise, is not convincing in view of the fact that he could not depose anything of his previous employer, however, while working with his subsequent employer having tourist business has knowledge of all minor details of incident.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::On this, learned Public Prosecutor relied upon judgment in the case of Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra (2002 (4) Mh.L.J. 266).::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::It is also contended that ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 64 apeal569.13 suggestions given to this witness also establish her presence on the spot and, therefore, merely because both these witnesses are close relations of deceased Pintu, their evidence cannot be discarded on this count.On the issue of appreciation of evidence, discrepancies in the evidence and related witnesses, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon judgments in State represented by inspector of Police vs. Saravanan and another (AIR 2009 SC 152(1), State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Master and others {(2010) 12 SCC 324} and Waman and others vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2011 SC 3327).The learned Public Prosecutor has then relied upon the judgment in Abdul Karim Mohammed Shaban vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2006 Cri.L.J. 3658) to the effect that there is no necessity of eye witnesses to mark presence of ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 65 apeal569.13 other witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::On involvement of accused no.1 Vijay Mate, it ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 66 apeal569.13 is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that at his instance weapon gupti came to be recovered, which is stated to have stained with human blood and according to medical evidence, injuries sustained by deceased Pintu are possible by such weapon, which is also identified by P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali.On the aspect of accused no.4 Umesh, it is pointed out that he is involved by P.W.33 Shefali and was arrested on the same day and knife came to be seized, which is certified to be stained with human blood and to specific question put to him under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he has simply denied it saying false without giving explanation on this aspect.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::On involvement of accused no.5 Ritesh, it is contended by learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Dangre that he was also arrested on the same day and his blood stained full pant is certified to be stained with human blood of group `A', which is of deceased Pintu for which no satisfactory explanation is given by said ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 67 apeal569.13 accused and he is also involved by eye witnesses P.W.26 Vijaya and P.W.33 Shefali.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::On involvement of accused no.9 Kiran, it is contended by learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Dangre that he is stated to be arrested on the following day of incident and knife is seized from his possession along with his full shirt pant upon which human blood of group `A', which is of deceased Pintu is found.Similarly, according to medical report of P.W.25 Dr. Dhawane, 25 injuries sustained by deceased Pintu are certified to be possible by such knife.No explanation is given by this accused, who is also involved by eye witnesses.On involvement of accused no.10 Kamlesh, who was arrested on the following day of incident and weapon gupti is seized, learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Dangre has submitted that though no blood is detected on his clothes, his involvement is established by eye ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 ::: 68 apeal569.13 witnesses.It is further contended that involvement of accused no.11 Ayub Khan is based on version of eye witnesses, who came to be identified in test identification parade.On involvement of accused no.13 Dinesh and accused no.15 Raju, it is contended by learned Public Prosecutor Smt. Dangre that evidence on record is recovery of weapon from said accused though no blood is found on Kukri recovered at the instance of accused no.15 Raju.It is also contended that according to Medical Officer, injuries are possible by such weapons like knife and kukri and these accused are also involved by eye witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::The learned Public Prosecutor by mentioning aforesaid aspects of the case, concluded her submissions praying that criminal appeals of convicted accused may be dismissed.She has adopted submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for State.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:21 :::We have heard all the learned counsel for the parties appearing before us in all these criminal appeals at length.The learned counsel for the parties to these appeals were asked to address on all the points as framed by the learned Trial Judge, so also the points they wanted to canvass before this Court.For convenience we proceed to determine the appeals filed by the convicted accused persons by the Trial Judge before taking up the appeals against acquittal filed by the State of Maharashtra and the private appeal by Smt. Vijaya Dilipsingh Shirke, mother of the deceased Pintu.For convenience, we quote the details of the Criminal Appeals by the convicts-appellants before us:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::appellant Vijay Kisanrao Mate [Accused No.1].Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2013 by Raju Vitthalrao Bhadre [Accused No. 15].Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2013 by [1] Kiran Umraoji Kaithe [Accused No.9] and [2] Dinesh Devidas Gaiki [Accused No.13].Criminal Appeal No. 573 of 2013 by [1] Umesh Sampatrao Dahake [Accused No.4], [2] Ritesh Hiramanji Gawande [Accused No.5], and [3] Kamlesh Sitaram Nimbarte [Accused No.10].All the above Criminal Appeals against conviction, except Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2013 by Ayub Khan Amirkhan Pathan [Accused No.11], are being decided hereunder.We have gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of learned Counsel for the rival ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 71 apeal569.13 parties.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::It is not in dispute and rather the defence has not disputed that deceased Pintu died homicidal death on sixth floor in the District Court complex with several injuries on his person.The learned Trial Judge has not recorded a categorical finding based on the evidence and reasons as to whether the conspiracy was proved or not.As a matter of fact, we find from the impugned judgment that there is no discussion about the proof of conspiracy by the accused persons on the basis of evidence led in the Court nay even by drawing any inference.It would be appropriate for us to quote the relevant portion from the Judgment of the Trial Judge in that behalf beyond which there is no discussion.We quote paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 as under:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::The prosecution alleged that the conspiracy had been hatched by the assailants to eliminate deceased Pintu, therefore the essential features of the offence of conspiracy need to be noted.Sec. 120-A of I.P.C. defines criminal conspiracy and sec.120-B provides for punishment for an offence of criminal conspiracy.The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are : (1) an agreement between two or more persons, ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 73 apeal569.13 (2) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act, or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.Therefore, it is plan that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing so causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::Therefore, the meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such inference is possible.The prosecution need not necessarily prove that perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done the illegal acts.The existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the assailants."We, however, find from reading of paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Trial Court Judgment that the Trial Judge has mixed up the issue of conspiracy with the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 74 apeal569.13 common object as specified in Section 141 of Indian Penal Code.We have, therefore, gone through the entire evidence tendered by the prosecution to find out whether is any satisfactory evidence on record to prove the offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code for which eight accused persons have been convicted.It is true that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and that is the reason why we have also made attempt to find out whether there is any satisfactory indirect evidence to bring home the charge of conspiracy.We, however, find that there is no evidence about the requirement for proof of conspiracy as required by Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code.Section 120-A, Indian Penal Code, reads thus;-It is not enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object at the same time and in the same place, but it is necessary to show prior meeting of minds ' actus reus.' The evidence in this case nowhere shows any meeting of minds or agreement prior to the actual incident of assault that took place.But the evidence is about sudden appearance of the assailants on the scene like a tidal wave moving towards the deceased Pintu in tandem with deadly weapons showing 'common object' namely to kill him.Thus, there is a marked distinction between 'conspiracy' and 'common object.' We, therefore, hold that the finding holding the accused ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 76 apeal569.13 persons guilty of offence punishable under Section 120-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::B, Indian Penal Code, is illegal and will have to be set aside.Gajraj Mahato, when, as a matter of fact, the Trial Judge has ignored the cross-examinations in which they have denied that they had seen the assailants or the accused persons making assault.The further submission advanced by the defence that PW 26 -Vijaya Shirke and PW 33 - Shefali Shirke, the two eye-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::77 apeal569.13 witnesses, on whom reliance has been placed by the prosecution were held to have been seen on the scene of offence by these hostile witnesses which is again in ignorance of the cross-examination of these witnesses.For that purpose, the defence counsel took us through the cross-examination of these witnesses.Upon reading of the ig entire evidence, including cross-examinations of these hostile witnesses, we find merit in the submissions made by the learned defence counsel in that behalf.All these hostile witnesses in their cross-examination clearly denied what they had stated in favour of prosecution in the Examinations-in-Chief point-wise.The next question is about the evidence of the eye-witnesses accompanying the deceased Pintu who were examined before the Trial Judge by the prosecution.We regret to find that the police escorts, in whose custody deceased Pintu was brought to the District Court building complex, so also other accused ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 78 apeal569.13 persons with deceased Pintu, have not supported the prosecution at all and have turned hostile.There is one witness by name PW 17 Umesh Raut, who is said to be the cousin of deceased Pintu.He also turned hostile.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::We need not reiterate here the tendency of the witnesses, eye-witnesses to keep away from such type of incidents, instead of speaking the truth before the Court.This is one of such cases.But then fact remains that all these hostile witnesses have refused to identify a single accused person before the Court as assailant.With the above preface, it is necessary to go to ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 79 apeal569.13 the evidence of PW 26 Vijaya Shirke and PW 33 -::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::Shefali Shirke, her daughter.Obviously, forceful arguments hve been made by the defence that they are interested witnesses being the mother and sister of the deceased Pintu and that, therefore, their evidence cannot be accepted.But then, none supported the prosecution.Since defence counsel in all these appeals have objection in accepting the evidence of these two interested witnesses, namely PW 26 and PW 33 Vijaya and Shefali respectively, we have kept in mind after going through several decisions of the Apex Court the trite law that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with full care and ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 80 apeal569.13 caution and to be careful that they are not allowed to take revenge against innocent accused person.It is with this settled legal principles, we now proceed to scrutinize, analyze and marshal the evidence of these two eye-witnesses - PW 26 Vijaya Shirke and her daughter PW 33 Shefali Shirke.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::PW 26 Vijaya Dilipsingh Shirke deposed about the motive in the instant case.We have seen her evidence on the point of motive and we have also seen the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge on the aspect of motive in para 44 which we quote hereunder:-It has come on record that there is property dispute between the family of deceased Pintu and Accused No.1 Vijay Mate.However it is well settled that when there is direct evidence regarding the offence committed, the evidence regarding the motive will not pale into significance.Certainly the proof of motive in such a situation helps the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 81 apeal569.13 prosecution and supports the eye witnesses.The case at hand rests upon the deposition of eyewitnesses to the occurrence.Therefore, even absence of motive, would not by itself make any material difference."::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::By and large, we find that the above finding regarding motive is legal, correct and proper.PW 26 Vijaya Shirke then deposed in para 4 of her evidence that on 18th July, 2001, some unknown had opened fire on Accused No.1 - Vijay Mate, but he expressed suspicion on her son and two others.An offence was registered against her son and as such Pintu remained in jail till the incident took place.She stated that on 5th June, 2002, when her son Pintu was brought in custody to attend the marriage of her other elder daughter Rajashree, Jitu Gawande and his three associates opened fire towards her son, in which he got injured about which complaint was lodged with Police Station and offences were registered against them.She then deposed that on the date of incident, namely ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 82 apeal569.13 19th June, 2002, as usual, she along with her daughter PW 33 Shefali went to the Court since her son Pintu was to be brought for attending the criminal case with two friends of her son by names Umesh Raut and Jugen Shukla, and reached in the particular court room between 10.30 and 10.45 a.m., and asked the concerned clerk as to when her son's case would come up and she was told that the case would come up between 12.30 and 1.00 p.m., and she then along with her daughter and others came out of the court room and started waiting near a corner.She noticed Accused No.1 - Vijay Mate and his associates and sensing some danger, she made a phone call to Sakkardara Police Station, when Mr. Bais, Police Inspector received the phone call to whom she informed about the presence of Accused no.1 - Vijay Mate and others and, therefore, she requested him to provide security to her son.Mr. Bais stated that the concerned Police Station was Sadar Police Station and to seek security from Sadar Police Station, but she had ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 83 apeal569.13 no contact number of Sadar Police Station and, therefore, she started writing an application.By that time, around 11.15 a.m., she heard Vijay Mate shouting "Maro Sale Ko Zinda Nahi Bachana Chahiye".. She then saw Accused No.1 and his associates numbering around 14 to 15 assaulting her son Swapni alias Pintu with sharp weapons.He son fell down and Police Constable Deepk Trivedi and another accused Pappu Malviya were trying to rescue her son, but they were also assaulted by accused no.1 Vijay Mate and his associates.She knew some of the assailants by names and some by faces, because whenever she used to attend the Court, Vijay Mate along with those assailants used to come to the Court and her son used to tell her about them and she was always seeing them in the Court.She and her daughter along with two friends of her son then rushed to save her son, but three to four boys with weapons came towards them running and, therefore, all of them ran away from back side and then came down.Thereafter, she went to ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 84 apeal569.13 Mure Memorial Hospital and asked the doctor as to where was her son and she saw him dead on a stretcher.She stated that she could identify the assailants and then in the Court, she was asked to identify.We reproduce the relevant para of her evidence as under:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::On 21-06-2002, Police recorded my statement.On 21-08-2002, I was called in Jail for T.I. Parade.First I was made to sit alone in the room.Thereafter I was called out and taken to place where the boys were standing in one row.One Magistrate was there.I was told to identify the assailants to whom I know by face.In first round, I had identified two person as ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 86 apeal569.13 assailants.The said signatures are now marked at Exhs.508 and 509. "::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::She then pointed out and identified the accused persons before the Court, also describing the weapons with them.We quote para 11 from her evidence which reads thus:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::The witness pointed out the finger towards four accused person and identified them by their faces as assailants.On being asked the names from the said accused persons.Their names are Ayub Khan, [Sandeep Sanas], Sachin Gawande, [Rajesh Kadu]."[Names of acquitted accused are indicated in bracket].As regards Identification Parade that was held, she stated about it in para 13 of her oral evidence.We quote Para 13 as under:-On 21st of August, 2002, I was called for T.I. Parade in Jail.My mother was also called in Jail for T.I. Parade.During T.I. Parade in two round, I identified two assailant in each round.The said four assailants to whom I identified as assailants during T.I. Parade are today present before the Court.The witness pointed out the finger towards Ayub Khan, ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 89 apeal569.13 Sandeep Sanas, Sachin Gawande, Rajesh Kadu and identified them.The T.I. Parade dated 21-8-2002 now shown to me.I put these signatures in the Central Jail at the time of T.I. Parade."::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::The cross-examination of both these witnesses is almost same, so also the arguments and criticism levelled by the defence counsel before us for all the accused persons.Counsel for the appellants in all these appeals have argued that the statements of both PW 26 Vijaya Shirke and PW 33 Shefali Shirke were recorded two days late for which there is no explanation and that they being the interested witnesses, there is a reason to believe that manipulations were made for bringing all these accused in the fold for describing them as the assailants.This Court should, therefore, treat the late recording of statements of both these witnesses as a strong doubtful circumstance.We have carefully considered this submission.What we find is that the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 90 apeal569.13 incident took place on 19th June, 2002 at about 11.00-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::Thereafter, they went to hospital.The body was sent for post-mortem.Several formalities were completed and thereafter the dead body was handed over to them.The funeral was held on the next day, i.e., 20th June, 2002 in full Police Bandobast.Thereafter, their statements were recorded on 21st June, 2002, i.e., immediately on the next day of the funeral.It is further noteworthy that PW 36 PI Vinod Yeskade specifically deposed and which evidence has gone unchallenged that he having visited them, found their mental status not so sound till their statements were recorded and that he could not have insisted for recording their statements.The Trial Court has accepted this explanation.We also agree with the said ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 91 apeal569.13 finding that both these ladies must not have been in such mental status that they would have given their statements on 19th June, 2002 or on 20th June, 2002, on which day, the funeral was held.At any rate, according to us, in this factual background, in no case, it can be said that the statements recorded on 21st June, 2002 were belated statements so as to look at their evidence with any suspicion or doubt.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is about the identification of the accused persons in the Court after the lapse of period of about ten years.In the first place, one must keep in mind the factual background regarding the motive about which we have quoted the evidence of PW 26 Vijaya earlier and then her acquaintance with almost all the accused persons also when the criminal case was being attended by PW 26 Vijaya Shirke and her daughter [PW 33 - Shefali] for over a period of one year when several dates were given in the Court and ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 92 apeal569.13 deceased Pintu was brought in the Court in custody.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::These witnesses describe that on or about ten to eleven occasions, they had been made aware by deceased Pintu about the accused persons whenever these accused persons used to visit the Court and Pintu used to point out the details about these accused persons to them.ig The evidence that these two witnesses were attending the Court whenever the deceased Pintu was brought in custody for appearance in the Court is trustworthy and we believe it.The evidence that Accused No.1 Vijay Mate and his associates used to make rounds in the Court on the dates of appearance of deceased Pintu while he was brought in custody is equally trustworthy.Further, as a natural conduct, we have no doubt that deceased Pintu used to tell his mother and sister about Accused No.1 -Vijay Mate and his associates including the accused persons who used to make rounds in the Court.Consequently, we have reason to believe that both these witnesses very well knew the names and faces ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 93 apeal569.13 of the accused persons who they named at the first blush when their statements were recorded on 21st June, 2002 and also as described by deceased Pintu.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::The next question is about the passage of ten years when the evidence began.State of Punjab & another with Harminder Singh Vs.State of Punjab [(2014) 14 SCC 619], there is no reason to discard the identification even if it is made after ten years.We rely upon the said decision by quoting following paragraphs from the said judgment.We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission that it was impossible for these two witnesses to identify the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 ::: 94 apeal569.13 accused persons in the Court when they knew after ten years and that the Court should not rely upon such identification in the Court:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:22 :::In short, the memory possessed by the witness at some later point (e.g., when the witness testifies in court) can be quite different from the memory that the witness originally formed at the time of the event.involves errors introduced at the time of retrieval, i.e., at the time the person is trying to remember what he or she experienced.Such problems include biased tests and leading questions.Thereafter, they had fired at PW-2 as well.Not only that these witnesses are got up witnesses with a view to rope in as many as accused persons as possible.Further, the conduct of these two witnesses was criticized that though they had gone to the Commissioner of Police, they had not disclosed to the Commissioner of Police that they were the eye-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::witnesses to the incident.The Commissioner of Police would have caused recording of their statements immediately when they had visited him immediately after the incident nor did they lodge First Information Report to the Police Station.Neither the Commissioner of Police was examined, nor anybody from his office was examined to corroborate their version that they had really visited the office of Commissioner of Police immediately after the incident.This is, therefore, a clear lie on their part and it is impossible that the Commissioner of Police would not cause recording of their statement or get the FIR registered immediately, ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 100 apeal569.13 they being the alleged eye-witnesses.We have carefully considered these submissions.The non-mention about the presence of these two witnesses by the hostile witnesses by itself would not make any difference while testing their evidence or the case of prosecution.At any rate, the Trial Court on the anvil of Section 145 of the Evidence Act tested this submission and given sound reasons with which we agree.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::The submission that the Commissioner of Police was not cited as a witness and further that these two witnesses are telling lie about their visit to the Office of Commissioner of Police does not appeal to us.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::101 apeal569.13 In the first place, there is no need of recording of statement of Commissioner of Police that these two ladies had visited his office.Secondly, the law was already set in motion immediately after the incident when the police came to know about it and to say that these two ladies did not lodge FIR immediately thereafter is too idle.Consequently, the submission that their presence on the spot is doubtful or they are got up witnesses does not appeal to us looking to their sworn testimony before the Court which inspires confidence and is trustworthy.The criticism levelled by the counsel for the Accused No. 2 - Mangesh Chavan, Accused No. 7 Pandurang Injewar and Accused No.11 - Ayub Amir Khan that these accused were the witnesses in the prosecution launched against deceased Pintu and had deposed in that trial and, therefore, they were being falsely involved in the present crime also does not ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 102 apeal569.13 appeal to us.We do not think that this could be a reason to involve these accused in such a serious charge of murder.We think these two witnesses would never allow the real culprits to go scot free and involve innocents.Further, the statements of these two witnesses were recorded immediately on 21st June, 2002 and the name of accused persons were disclosed as assailants.There was no scope left for any manipulations, since the statements were immediately recorded.We, therefore, do not agree with the submission in that behalf.Accused No. 2 - Mangesh Chavan, Accused No. 7::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::The counsel for the appellants in these appeals in respect of the Identification Parade that was held were critical about holding of the parade on the ground that it was a farce and in total violation of the guidelines given in the Criminal Manual of the Bombay High Court.Right from the beginning of parade, the guidelines were violated.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::No respectable person was brought for witnessing the parade.The age group of the accused persons was not considered and the dummies were not properly selected.It was not verified whether the accused were seen by the witnesses earlier.There was a reason to believe that the photographs of Accused No.11 Ayub were shown before the parade was held and the descriptive particulars of the parade were not mentioned or recorded.In this connection, we have gone through all the relevant documents regarding holding of the parade.We have also seen the evidence of the witness holding the parade.We have also seen the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge in relation to the criticism about holding of the parade.It would be important to note that accused persons who ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 104 apeal569.13 were named in 161 Statement, were known to the witnesses.But for those four not named, Identification Parade could be relevant.Trial Court has recorded findings in following paragraphs of its Judgment which we reproduce below:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::He prepared Test Identification Memorandum (Exh.718 to 720) but he admitted that he did not ask the identifying witnesses whether they were shown either accused person or their photographs before conducting Test Identification Parade and he did not mention the said facts in these Memorandum Panchanamas.The said cases were appears to be squarely rest upon the evidence of test identification parade.It is true that T.I. Parade has to be held at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the investigation is proceeding on right line and memory of the witnesses does not fade away.But there is no exact timing is ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 105 apeal569.13 mentioned within which the investigating agency has to conduct the T.I. Parade.However, when the witness had plenty of time to see the accused in the broad day light, identification of the witness in the court even for the first time is acceptable.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::However it is pertinent to note that (PW 26) Vijaya Shirke and (PW 33) Shefali Shirke have categorically deposed that they knew some of the offenders by their names and some of the offenders by their faces.Therefore, if the witnesses knew the offenders since prior to the incident, it may not be necessary to hold test identification parade.As such identification parade do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by sec.162 of code of criminal procedure.Test Identification Parade is conducted with a view to strengthening the trustworthiness of the evidence.Such a TIP then provides corroboration to the witness in the court who claims to identify the accused person.On the contrary reading of entire testimonies of these two eye witnesses discloses that they knew the accused even ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 106 apeal569.13 prior to the incident.The crime was perpetrated in broad daylight and witnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the features of the accused persons.This is not a case where the witnesses had only a fleeting glimpse of the assailants on a dark night.The witnesses had reason to remember their faces as assailants had committed ghastly crime.Now what weight should be attached to such an identification is a matter which will have to determine in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case."::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::We, however, do not want to dilate on this issue any further as we would discuss later about the trustworthiness of substantive evidence of these two eye-witnesses as regards accused Nos. 6,8,11 and 14 ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 107 apeal569.13 who were not at all named in 161 statements.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::The next submission that was made before us was that in order to find out whether PW 26 Vijaya was really a truthful witness who claimed that she had made a mobile phone call to Sakkardara Police Station for providing security to her son when she saw the assailants marching towards her son, her mobile phone should have been seized and call details record ought to have been produced by the Investigating Officer .Similar is the submission regarding non-examination of Mr. Bais, the Police Inspector at Sakkardara Police Station who is said to have received her phone call and advised her to contact Sadar Police Station for security.We are unable to agree with this submission, since the so called admission to collect such additional evidence would not necessarily adversely affect the case of the prosecution in the wake of substantive evidence which we have already discussed.There may be some pieces of evidence, minor or major, not collected by the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 108 apeal569.13 prosecuting agency; but then omission to do so cannot result into the prosecution case being thrown out.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that it is impossible that these two witnesses could remember the names of the accused persons or their faces and the weapons which they had allegedly used for committing the crime.It is important to note that statements of these two witnesses were immediately recorded on 21st June, 2002, and in those statements, there is absolutely no omission about the names and identification of the assailants - accused persons, so also about the weapons.The minor variations about the weapons here and there in those statements would make no difference in view of the attack in tandem by a large number of persons armed with various types of weapons.At any rate, we have already found that these two witnesses were knowing the assailants for the reasons already given by us.The submission that ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 109 apeal569.13 the witnesses have not given the details as to how they knew the assailants, why they knew the assailants, is not disclosed by them is nothing but a faint attempt.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::These witnesses have asserted in their evidence about identification of the assailants and also about the weapons they had used.We are, therefore, unable to accept the submissions to that effect.The criticism on the testimony of PW 26 Vijaya Shirke and PW 33 Shefali Shirke about their conduct and the manner in which they behaved at the time of incident and thereafter is not based on any pragmatic foundation.The Trial Court has given answer to this criticism on well settled norms of human behaviour.Instead of repeating or putting the same in different words, we would like to quote the following paragraphs from Trial Court's Judgment with which we fully agree:-Individual reaction to any incident depends upon various factor.Merely because one person ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 110 apeal569.13 reacts in a particular situation, it does not necessarily mean that all others persons would all the time react in the similar nature in similar situation.In the instant case, it has come in the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses that they rushed and tried to save deceased Pintu but at the relevant time, 3 to 4 assailants armed with the weapons rushed towards them, they ran away from the back side.Admittedly, PW 22 HC Deepak Trivedi and PW 28 Pappu Malvi had sustained the injuries in the incident as they were not armed with the weapons, therefore, the aforesaid witnesses felt apprehension that they also would be assaulted as they were un-armed with the weapons, hence they took back.It is trite to say that criminal courts should not expect a set reaction from any eye witness on seeing an incident like murder.It is fallacious to suggest that eye witness would have done this or that on seeing the incident.A doubt was also thrown by defence about the veracity of the aforesaid eye witnesses on the ground that entire incident took place within 2 to 3 minutes and these witnesses could not have seen what was happening in such short time.This argument, in my opinion, is apparently misconceived.When 10 to 12 persons armed with weapons attacked a single individual in the broad day light and even the incident took place in a very short span of time, it odes not mean that eye witnesses could not have observed the same.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::Albeit their testimony will have to be scrutinized carefully and it has to be ascertained whether the testimony finds corroboration from other material on record."::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::Now, turning to the specific submissions in relation to the convicted accused persons separately, arguing for Accused No. 11 - Ayub Khan, Mr. Tiwari, learned Adv., argued that PW 26 and PW 33 stated by way of omission that deceased Pintu used to tell them about the names of the accused persons and was pointing out their faces on the dates of appearance of Pintu.He then submitted that no details about colour, built up, complexion etc., of this accused or others who were said to have been made known by deceased Pintu to them were even described by these witnesses.We have checked up the submission about the omission ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 112 apeal569.13 about which learned counsel made the submission before us.We find from page 414 of the paper book that there is no such omission in the evidence of PW 26 Vijaya, so also in the evidence of PW 33 Shefali.The only omission appears to be that of last portion of para 11 of Shefalii's evidence where she pointed out finger towards four persons and identified them by their faces as assailants and also gave the names.This act of pointing out a finger was made in the court and we do not think that in law the same could be treated as omission in the statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, which could be asked to the Investigating Officer.The submission about colour, built up, complexion made by Mr. Tiwari does not appeal to us, as no cross-examination was made in that behalf.We would, however, deal with the substantive evidence about Accused No.11 Ayub Khan, as said earlier at a later point of time and the evidence about Test Identification Parade may become insignificant.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::eyewitnesses did not describe specifics about the overt act by Accused No.11 Ayub Khan, as to what weapon he had and what role he played and that there is no corroboration will be considered at a later part of this judgment.Arguing for Accused No. 10 Kamlesh Nimbarte, learned counsel Mr. A.M. Jaltare submitted that neither the name of Accused No.10 Kamlesh nor of any accused appears in FIRs [Exhs.106 and 614] when the eye-witnesses claim to know all of them, including Accused No.10 Kamlesh.He then pointed out that there was omission in holding of knife by Kamlesh and, in fact, a Gupti was recovered by the police from the house of his uncle which shows falsity of the prosecution case.We have considered the submission and we find no merit therein, since FIR was lodged by PW 22 HC Deepak Trivedi and had turned hostile, though he had, according to prosecution, given names of all the accused persons in the supplementary ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 114 apeal569.13 statement.The description of knife in his hand as a weapon and recovery of Gupti is not a material anomaly, as several accused had different types of weapons.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::Mr. R.V. Gaikwad, learned counsel then argued for Accused No.5 - Ritesh Gawande and submitted that no weapon was seized from him though the clothes were recovered and his shirt was having stain of 'A' blood group, but then Panch was not examined and, therefore, it was not safe to rely on the evidence of blood stains on clothes.No Test Identification Parade of Ritesh was held and, therefore, prosecution case against him was not proved.We find that there is substantive evidence of two witnesses - PWs 26 and 33 against him about his role and there was no need to hold parade because he was known to the witnesses.Arguing for Accused No. 4 - Umesh Dahake, learned Adv.Mr. Dable submitted that he was arrested ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 115 apeal569.13 on 19th June, 2002 and his clothes though seized on 22nd June, 2002, no blood was found thereon.The knife was seized on the same day, but there is no blood found thereon.He, therefore, submitted that there is no corroborative evidence in relation to Accused No.4 -::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::Umesh Dahake.PW 26, according to him, failed to identify Accused No.4 - Umesh Dahake and she also did not say about any weapon with him.The seizure of knife and clothes will have to be rejected and the evidence thereto will have to be discarded in the absence of proper sealing etc. We find that in the substantive evidence of PWs 26 and 33, Accused No.4 has been named as assailant who actually participated in the assault that was made and at any rate CA report shows blood on Exh.14 - knife and Exh.15 clothes, which is the corroborative evidence apart from the substantive evidence.Mr. A.V. Gupta, learned Senior Adv., for Accused No. 9 Kiran Kaithe and Accused No.13 Dinesh ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 116 apeal569.13 Gaiki, submitted that the police had seized nails, knife T-shirt, full pant from Accused No.9 and T-shirt shows blood of Group 'A' while no blood is detected on knife and nails.In the absence of proper sealing of the articles, it cannot be said that the C.A. Report could be reliable.He then submitted with reference to Accused No.13 Dinesh Gaikee that his nails were also seized and the spear blade was seized from him shows to have human blood, while the clothes had no blood.But both eye-witnesses described that accused no.13 was having knife and they do not speak of any spear blade which was seized by the police.All this shows, according to Mr. Gupta, that there is falsity in the evidence of these witnesses and the seizures made.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::He then submitted that Identification Parade was necessary for these two accused persons, but PWs 26 and 33 were not called to identify them.We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Gupta and we find that the T-shirt seized from Accused No. 9 Kiran Kaithe had stains of Blood Group 'A' while the spear ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 117 apeal569.13 blade seized from Accused No.13 had human blood.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::While the Blood Group of Accused No.13 is 'O', that of deceased is 'A'.Whether the witnesses have described spear blade as 'knife' would make no difference looking to the incident that took place in a short time with several assailants making assault.However, the witnesses have ig clearly identified these accused persons - Accused Nos. 9 and 13 and given their names also immediately on 27th June, 2002, about which there is no omission in their evidence before the Court, apart from the fact that they identified them in the Court.Since their names were already given and they were known, question of holding the parade did not arise and their identification in the Court as a substantive evidence was good enough.Mr. A.V. Gupta, learned Adv., further criticized the evidence of PWs 26 and 33 and submitted that cross-examination about details about the driver engaged by her was made and it is noteworthy that ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 ::: 118 apeal569.13 these witnesses were unable to tell the surname of the driver.He submitted that it was impossible that the surname of the driver, who was working with these witnesses, was not even known to them.Taking us through the evidence of driver Ajay, Mr. Gupta argued that his evidence is trustworthy and it is a well settled legal position that the evidence of a defence witness should be given the credibility at par with the evidence of prosecution witnesses.He, therefore, submitted that the evidence of DW 1 - Driver Ajay will have to be accepted and if his evidence examined, it is clear from his evidence that at the time of incident, both the eye-witnesses -::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:23 :::PW 26 and PW 33 had not even reached the District Court building complex from their house much less had at all seen the incident.We have carefully considered the submission as well as the evidence of DW 1 Ajay.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::119 apeal569.13 The learned Trial Judge has given reasons in paragraph no. 116 at page 1476, which we quote hereunder:-Now, so far as the defence witness DW-1 Ajay Dhurve is concerned, the accused person submitted that defence witness is entitled for equal treatment.No doubt, I do not agree with their submission but before looking to his testimony, I must mention the material fact that one Ajay was the driver of [PW 26] Vijaya Shirke, she did not mention his full name.Defence had first issued witness summons to one Ajay Dasture as driver, who was resident of Sahkar Nagar, near Gajanan Mandir, Nagpur, but report Exh.858 shows that he had left the place 8-10 years back.Thereafter, on the request of accused person, defence witness summons was issued to another person namely Ajay Bhanudas Dhurve, r/o Vidiya Layout, Plot No. 117, Beltarodi, Nagpur.He was examined by the accused person in their defence.According to him, on the day of incident, he took the (PW 26) Vijaya Shirke and (PW 33) Shefali Shirke from their house directly to the hospital.However, the manner in which he had given the evidence is very difficult to believe.He did not place any document on record to show that he was working as driver with (PW 26) Vijaya Shirke.Even the accused persons did not feel it necessary to place his driving licence on record.He did not know the dates of material events occurred in his family.Even he do not know the date of marriage of his brother.Now, he is working as a Travels Agent since couple of years with one Guddu Pathan but he do not know family ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 120 apeal569.13 background of Guddu Pathan.Therefore, the incident which occurred around 11 years back, how would he recollect it, without noting that fact at any where that is very crucial aspect.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::The criticism was levelled on the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge that it was impossible to have documentary evidence ig about his employment as nobody keeps such documentary evidence.We have ourself carefully perused the evidence of DW 1 Ajay Dhurve.At the outset, we find from the evidence of this witness that this witness did not at all give any details about his employment/engagement as a driver, about his house where he was engaged, when he was engaged and what salary or on what terms and conditions he was engaged, how he was paid in cash or by cheque and in what manner, i.e., weekly, biweekly or monthly and what was the amount of salary that was paid to him, who paid the salary.As a matter of fact, on reading of Examination-in-Chief and cross-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::He has not shown any satisfactory material to say so.He never went to police to give his statement.Thus, we find that the evidence of this witness is full of falsity and as a sequel, we agree with the trial court.We, therefore, reject the evidence of DW 1 - Ajay.We are then unable to accept the submissions made by Mr. Gupta that both the eye-witnesses were not able to give surname of the driver or his address etc. We do not find anything surprising in this, as such drivers are engaged and the women like PWs 26 and 33 are not expected to know the surname of the driver or his address, particularly when it is the case of the defence that the driver was engaged by deceased Pintu himself and not by these women.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::Arguing for Accused No. 15 Raju Bhadre, Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Adv., submitted that the Accused No.15 was arrested on 10th July, 2002 and what is said to have been discovered by him is Kukri having no blood stains so also on clothes seized by the police.No Identification Parade was held and there was no evidence, whatsoever, that Accused No.15 was any time absconding.The prosecution did not bring any evidence about abscontion of this accused.The vague evidence about association with Accused No.1 Vijay should not be accepted to involve Accused No.15 and, therefore, the evidence of PWs 26 and 33 is required to be rejected as against this accused.We have considered the submissions made by learned Sr. Adv., Mr. Dharmadhikari and we find that the reason given by the learned Trial Judge that Accused No.15 was arrested quite late and, therefore, it cannot expect to find blood stains on the weapons or the clothes.At that point of time, there was no reason for the witnesses to falsely name this Accused No.15 in the statement under Section 161 and there was no scope for any manipulation.The description about the associates of Accused No.1 - Vijay will have to be read in the context of entire evidence that was ultimately tendered.Both the eye-witnesses have given full details about the incident, including the names and identification made in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::Learned counsel for rival sides cited before us decisions of the Bombay High Court as well as the Supreme Court.We have seen those reasons.We have still gone through each and every decision cited before us.We have, thus, thoroughly refreshed our memory about the extant legal position.Keeping in mind the legal pronouncements on various points, we have written the Judgment.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::To sum up, we find that the appellants-accused persons, except Accused No.11 - Ayub who have been convicted by the Trial Judge, had formed an unlawful assembly and with the common object of committing the murder of Pintu, had entered the District Court premises, ensnared him and assaulted him, causing about 44 injuries.The ocular evidence of PW 26 Vijaya Shirke and PW 33 Shefali Shirke understood in juxtaposition appeals to our conscience as natural, trustworthy, honest and without any ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 125 apeal569.13 infirmities.We believe the said evidence, and we find no reason to have any doubt in our mind about the evidence of these eye-witnesses.They have had no enmical feeling about the accused persons.The same inspires confidence and particularly when their statements were immediately recorded, leaving no scope for any manipulation or adding the names of any innocent.The common object of the unlawful assembly is clearly proved, though we have held that the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy within the meaning of Section 120-A of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::However, Accused No.1 Vijay Mate clearly led the unlawful assembly by making his propitious choice of choosing the place, namely District Court Complex with full disdain for the 'temple of justice' and created terror and trepidation.The upshot of the above discussion is, all these Criminal Appeals filed by the convicted accused persons, except Accused No.11 Ayub Khan, must fail ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 126 apeal569.13 and, therefore, will have to be dismissed which we do herein.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::-0-0-0-0-Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2013 [Ayubkhan Amirkhan Pathan Vs.State of Maharashtra] Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2014 :Learned Public Prosecutor Mrs. B.H. Dangre submitted that the learned Trial Judge has recorded reasons which are clearly perverse in recording the acquittal of these accused persons.Referring to the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 127 apeal569.13 entire evidence that was read over to us by the counsel for both the parties, she submitted that on the same evidence on which eight accused persons have been convicted, these accused have been acquitted for the reasons which are perverse, flimsy and has, thus, caused miscarriage of justice to the State.She then submitted that in the substantive evidence of PW 26 and PW 33, these accused have been specifically named and even then learned Trial Judge has for no good reasons recorded the order of acquittal.The Public Prosecutor relied on the arguments made by her in reply to the appeals filed by the convicted accused.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::Per contra, learned counsel appearing for these accused persons, who have been acquitted, vehemently opposed these appeals against acquittal and submitted that this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal looking to the settled legal principles in relation to the appeal against acquittal.All the defence counsel then submitted that it is not that the acquittal was recorded by the learned Trial Judge for any flimsy reasons and on the contrary as specifically pointed out by Mr. A.V. Gupta, learned Adv., for the defence, that the acquittal was recorded by the learned Trial Judge for want of other material and corroborative evidence and circumstances, since, according to Trial Court, testimony of PW 26 and PW 33 was not supported by other material circumstances or corroborative evidence.All the learned Counsel for the respective respondents - acquitted accused, therefore, prayed for dismissal of these appeals against acquittal.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::We have considered these appeals against acquittal and the grounds raised therein.We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties.It is important to point out at this stage that the Accused No.3 - Sachin Gawande died during trial and, therefore, we are concerned with the acquittal of Accused Nos. 2,6,7,8,12,14 and 16 who are now seven in number.The Trial Judge recorded the following reasons for making an order of their acquittal:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::........................................................ ..............Similarly her evidence against A/7 Pandurang Injewar, A/12 Mahesh Bante, A/14 Sandeep Sanas and A/16 Maroti Walke does not inspire confidence."In the case in hand, accused nos. 1,4,5,9,10, 11, 13 and 15 along with some other un-identified assailants armed with deadly weapons came on the spot and belaboured the deceased Pintu on account of previous enmity.The facts and circumstances of the case unequivocally prove the existence of their common object forming unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased Pintu.The evidence so far as against rest of accused persons in question creating doubts to reveal their complicity in the alleged crime and hence, I record my finding accordingly against point no.5."We find from the careful reading of the entire Judgment that except the above reasons, no reasons ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 130 apeal569.13 appear in the Judgment for recording the order of acquittal of these accused persons.In fact, it is paradoxical.We have already discussed the evidence of the witnesses including the witnesses PW 26 and PW 33 and also indicated the names of these acquitted accused in bracket for emphasis.We have discussed in detail about the trustworthiness of the evidence of these two eye-witness in so far as convicted accused persons are concerned.Upon careful perusal of the entire evidence over and again for the purposes of deciding the appeals against acquittal and keeping in mind the set principles in the matter of appeal against acquittal, we find that from the evidence which we have carefully pondered over while deciding the criminal appeals filed by the appellants-accused persons, Trial Judge has recorded no reasons as to why he recorded the order of acquittal of these accused persons.There is, thus, a clear perversity in our opinion and, in fact, the High Court is entitled to interfere if there is perversity on the part of Trial Judge ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 131 apeal569.13 in recording order of acquittal, or rather High Court is under a duty to interfere when there is voluminous evidence against these acquitted accused persons.We find in the instant case that as we have already extracted evidence in our judgment while deciding the criminal appeals filed by the accused persons from which it is clear that out of these acquitted accused persons, except Accused No.6 - Mayur Chauhan, Accused No.8 Rajesh Kadu and Accused No.14 - Sandip Sanas, all the others, I.e., Accused Nos. 2 - Mangesh Chavan, 7 - Pandurang Injewar, 12 - Mahesh Damodhar Bante, and 16 - Maroti alias Navva Walake have been duly named, identified on 21st June, 2015 itself by PW 26 and PW 33 whom we have believed as the eye-witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::In so far as Accused No. 6 - Mayur Chauhan, Accused No. 8 - Rajesh Kadu and Accused No.14 -Sandeep Sanas are concerned, their acquittal by the Trial Judge deserves to be confirmed for the following reasons:-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::132 apeal569.13 PW 26 Vijaya named Accused No.6 - Mayur Chauhan in her evidence before the Court, but the Investigating Officer - PW 36 Vinod on page No. 419 of the paper-book stated that she had not stated the name of Accused No.6 - Mayur Chauhan when he recorded her statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and, thus, proved the said omission about him.PW 33 Shefali did not state the name of Accused No.6 - Mayur Chauhan, but stated the name as "Bunti Chauhan", which nickname was never admitted by anybody, nor proved by the prosecution.But then she admitted that she did not state [paper book page no. 351] about him in her statement recorded by police as assailant which omission was duly proved by PW 36 - Vinod on page no. 414 [para 21 of the paper-book].In so far as Accused No. 8 - Rajesh Kadu is concerned, PW 26 - Vijaya in her substantive evidence before the Court did not at all name him as assailant, and also admitted that she had not stated his name when her statement was recorded by Police vide ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 133 apeal569.13 page 228 para 36 of the paper book and accordingly the Investigating Officer proved the said omission.PW 33 Shefali took the name of Rajesh Kadu in her substantive evidence before the Court, but then admitted in the cross-examination that she did not state his name when her statement was recorded by police [page 364 of the paper-book].::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::ig As regards Accused No.14 Sandeep Sanas, PW 26 Vijaya did not say a word about Accused No.14 as assailant in her evidence before the Court.PW 33 Shefali, however, named Accused No.14 Sandeep Sanas in her evidence.It is, thus, clear that in so far as Accused No.6 Mayur Chavan and Accused No.8 Rajesh Kadu are concerned, the evidence of both these eye-witnesses suffers from serious infirmity and we think it is risky to convict them.In so far as Accused No.14 Sandeep Sanas is concerned, Vijaya has not named him at all in her substantive evidence before the Court and PW 33 Shefali has only named him, resulting into want of corroboration for Accused No.14 Sandeep Sanas from ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 134 apeal569.13 PW 26 Vijaya.We feel it risky to convict Accused No.14 Sandeep Sanas on the singular testimony of PW 33 Shefali who identified him before the Court for the first time and her evidence not being corroborated by her mother about him.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::In so far as other acquitted accused persons, i.e., Accused Nos. 2,7,12, and 16 are concerned, we find that so far as Accused No. 2 - Mangesh is concerned, initially PW 26 Vijaya had stated by pointing out Umesh Dahake as "Mangesh".But then at the end of same paragraph, she again identified Mangesh Chavan as the assailant.Similarly, both these eye-The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents -acquitted accused persons that the weapons seized from them or the clothes seized from them did not ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 135 apeal569.13 have any blood stains and, therefore, order of acquittal is justified does not appeal to us.In the first place, the evidence regarding finding of blood on shirt or weapon is in the form of a corroborative evidence and is not the substantive evidence.We, therefore, find that there is a clear perversity on the part of Trial Judge in recording the order of acquittal in relation to all these accused persons who were acquitted, except Accused No.6 Mayur Chavan, Accused No. 8 Rajesh Kadu and Accused No.14 - Sandeep Sanas.That being so, we have no other alternative, but to reverse the Judgment and Order of acquittal of the above accused [Accused Nos. 2,7,12, and 16] persons which we do herein and convict them of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 136 apeal569.13 Penal Code and under Section 4 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act and u/s 135 of the Bombay Police Act.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::In so far as four accused by names Sachin Gawande [Accused No.3] [dead], Rajesh Kadu [Accused No.8], Sandeep Sanas [Accused No.14] and Ayub Khan [Accused No.11] ig [convicted] are concerned, their names were never given by PW 26 - Vijaya and PW 33- Shefali when their statements under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, were recorded.They were identified in Test Identification Parade held on 21st August, 2002, i.e., after two months of the incident.Both these witnesses have not said a word about these four persons as to whether they had any weapon in their hands and it was vaguely stated that they were assailants.The relevant portion from the evidence of PW 33 - Shefali in this contest is reproduced below:-........................................................ ..............The witness pointed out the finger towards four accused person and identified them by their faces as assailants.On being asked the names from the said accused person.Their names are Ayub Khan, ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 137 apeal569.13 Sandeep Sanas, Sachin Gawande, Rajesh Kadu."::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::On 21st of August, 2002, I was called for T.I. Parade in Jail.My mother was also called in Jail for T.I. Parade.During T.I. Parade in two round, I identified two assailant in each round.The said four assailants to whom I identified as assailants during T.I. Parade are today present before the Court.The witness pointed out the finger towards Ayub Khan, Sandeep Sanas, Sachin Gawande, ig Rajesh Kadu and identified them.The T.I. Parade dated 21.08.2002 now shown to me.I put these signatures in the Central Jail at the time of T.I. Parade."This is the evidence of both these witnesses.In other words, the prosecution is relying only on the evidence of identification of these four persons in the Test Identification Parade and there is no other evidence against them.Evidence in the Test Identification Parade, as stated earlier, is not a substantive evidence but is corroborative collected during investigation of a crime.In the substantive evidence, the identification of these four persons is on the basis of Test Identification Parade without any description about the weapons they had overt act, or, ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 138 apeal569.13 as the case may be, as these witnesses specifically described about the weapons in respect of other accused persons.That apart, in so far as these four persons, who are said to have been identified as assailants by faces are concerned, the evidence of PW 26 Vijaya is infirm, examined in the light of one of them, namely Accused No.8 - Rajesh Kadu.We quote the following portions from paras 35 and 36 of PW 26 -::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::Vijaya's evidence:-It is true Rani Annapurnadevi was residing in Chhota Tajbag area till her death.It is true some time, I also resided in the area of Chhota Tajbag.My both brother-in-law are still residing in Chhota Tajbag Area.I was visiting Rani Annapurnadevi and my both the brother-in- law after leaving the said area.Even after the death of Rani Annapurnadevi, I was visiting Chhota Tajbag area.It is true Dayaram Kadu was the servant of Rani Annapurnadevi.He used to look after the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 139 apeal569.13 work of Rani Annapurnadevi and used to sit with her.I was having good relation with Dayaram Kadu as he being servant of Rani Annapurnadevi.It is true at the time of marriage of my elder daughter, I had invited Dayaram Kadu.It is true I had also invited him at the time of marriage of my son Swapnil.It is true the children of Dayaram Kadu used to call me and my husband as maternal Uncle and Aunt.I do not remember if accused Rajesh Kadu had attended the marriage of my son - Swapnil."::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::It is true I did not state to the Police while recording my statement the number of the assailants to whom I identified by faces.I cannot assign any reason as to why the said fact is not recorded by the Police in my statement.I did not state the name of the accused Rajesh Kadu to the Police while recording my statement.I did not state age, colour, built, complexion, height, clothes worn and the weapons possessed by the assailants of which I did not give names to the Police while recording my statement. ....."It is, thus, impossible to believe that Accused No.8 - Rajesh Kadu was not known to the mother and daughter [PWs 26 and 33 respectively] when Dayaram Kadu was their servant looking after Rani ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 140 apeal569.13 Annapurnadevi and the children of Dayaram Kadu, namely Rajesh Kadu and others used to call PW 26 Vijaya and her husband "Mama and Mami." It is in this background, we find it very risky to convict Accused No. 8- Rajesh Kadu, Accused No.11 - Ayub Khan, and Accused No. 14 - Sandeep Sanas, In so far as Accused No.11 Ayub Khan is concerned, he was, however, convicted by the Trial Court and, therefore, as a result of this discussion, the benefit of doubt will have to be extended to Ayub Khan and consequently Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2013 filed by him will have to be allowed and he will have to be acquitted, which we do hereunder.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::Having, thus, decided to allow Appeal against Acquittal against the above accused persons, except Accused No.6 - Mayur Chavan, Accused No.8 Rajesh Kadu and Accused No.14 - Sandip Sanas for the reasons recorded by us, we will have to hear the accused persons [Accused No.2 - Mangesh Chavan, ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 141 apeal569.13 Accused No. 7 - Pandurang Injewar, Accused No. 12 -::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::Mahesh Damodhar Bante, and Accused No. 16 - Maroti alias Navva Walake] on the question of sentence to be awarded to them.Counsel appearing for them shall address the Court on the above date.ig -0-0-0-0-Criminal Appeal No.56/2014 :This appeal has been filed by Smt. Vijaya wife of Dilipsingh Shirke, complainant, i.e., mother of deceased Pintu Shirke, for enhancement of sentence by converting life imprisonment into death for the convicted accused persons - the appellants.We have heard Mrs. Vijaya Shirke in person who was present in the Court on the date of hearing along with learned Public Prosecutor Mrs. Dangre.Mrs. ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 142 apeal569.13 Vijaya Shirke submitted that by making a diabolical plan, her son was murdered in broad daylight in the District Court building complex which terrorized one and all.According to her, punishment of death sentence is the only punishment they deserved in order to have deterrence for such type of accused persons who dared to ig enter District Court premises for attacking the deceased who was in the Magisterial Custody brought by the police for production before court and who was helpless having no means to resist the attack.She, therefore, submitted that this is the most heinous crime committed in the public place, that too in the temple of justice and, therefore, the punishment of death is required to be awarded to the convicted accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::The defence counsel for all the convicted accused persons have opposed the appeal for enhancement of sentence and submitted that there is no element of rarest of rare case as contended by her.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::Upon hearing Mrs. Vijaya Shirke, the appellant in person before us and the defence counsel and having given our careful thought to the entire matter, we think that the act of the accused persons was dastardly creating trepidation in the temple of justice in a broad daylight by committing the murder of the person in custody of the court.But it cannot be said that it is the rarest of rare case for awarding the sentence of death to the convicted accused persons.In the result, her appeal will have to be dismissed which we do.As a sequel, we make the following order:-ORDER ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 144 apeal569.13 [a] Criminal Appeal No. 569 of 2013 filed by Vijay Kisanrao Mate is dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::[b] Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2013 filed by Raju Vitthalrao Bhadre is dismissed.[c] Criminal Appeal No. 564 of 2013 filed by [1] Kiran Umraoji Kaithe and [2] Dinesh Devidas Gaiki is dismissed.[d] Criminal Appeal No. 573 of 2013 filed by [1] Umesh Sampatrao Dahake, [2] Ritesh Hiramanji Gawande and [3] Kamlesh Sitaram Nimbarte is dismissed.[e] Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2014 filed by Smt. Vijaya Dilipsinghraje Shirke is dismissed.[f] Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2014 filed by State of Maharashtra and Smt. Vijaya Dilipsinghraje Shirke respectively, both are partly allowed, and the following respondents-accused persons, namely :-::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::are hereby convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, except for offence punishable under Section 120- B of Indian Penal Code.These appeals are, however, dismissed against other respondents - Accused No. 6 - Mayur alias Banti Shivajirao Chavan, Accused No. 8 - Rajesh Dayaramji Kadu and Accused No. 14 - Sandeep Nilkanthrao Sanas.[g] Those accused persons who are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and all the convicted accused persons are given eight weeks to surrender.[h] Criminal Appeal No. 570 of 2013 filed by Accused No. 11 - Ayubkhan son of Amirkhan Pathan against State of Maharashtra is allowed and the impugned Judgment and Order convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 120(b) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is set aside only qua him, and he is acquitted of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 ::: 146 apeal569.13 charges for which he was convicted by the learned Trial Judge.He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other crime.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:24 :::Friday the 26th June, 2015 at 3.00 p.m.This Court had partly allowed Criminal Appeal No.73/2014 filed by the State of Maharashtra and Criminal Appeal No. 55/2014 filed by Smt. Vijaya Shirke and pronounced the order of conviction of accused no.2-Mangesh Shivajirao Chavan, accused no.7-Pandurang Motiramji Injewar, accused no.12-Mahesh Damodhar Bante and accused no.16-Maroti alias Navva Santoshrao Walake.Today, counsel for these accused ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 ::: 147 apeal569.13 persons told that all of them are present in the Court and hence they were called upon to advance their submissions on the quantum of sentence.Mr. Dhatrak, learned counsel h/f Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for accused no.2, Ms Gaoli, learned counsel for accused no.7, Mr. Shedame, learned counsel for accused no.12 and Mr. B. R. Trivedi, learned counsel for accused no.16 submitted that this is not the rarest of rare case for attracting capital punishment.The learned counsel then submitted that these accused persons have to support their family members and, therefore, lenient view should be taken in awarding the sentence.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 :::Per contra, Mr. Doifode, learned A.P.P. and Smt. Vijaya Shirke, in person were heard, who urged this Court to impose similar sentence as has been imposed to the other convicted persons.We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for rival parties ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 ::: 148 apeal569.13 and the entire history of the case.In our considered opinion, there is not case namely; rarest of rare; made out for imposing death penalty on any of the convicted accused persons.Since, the conviction has been recorded for the offence of murder coupled with the other offences, the sentence of imprisonment for life will have to be awarded.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 :::(a) Accused no.2-Mangesh Shivajirao Chavan, accused no.7-Pandurang Motiramji Injewar, accused no.12-Mahesh Damodhar Bante and accused no.16-Maroti alias Navva Santoshrao Walake are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 ::: 149 apeal569.13 simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 :::(b) Accused no.2-Mangesh Shivajirao Chavan, accused no.7-Pandurang Motiramji Injewar, ig accused no.12-Mahesh Damodhar Bante and accused no.16-Maroti alias Navva Santoshrao Walake are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.(c) Accused no.2-Mangesh Shivajirao Chavan, accused no.7-Pandurang Motiramji Injewar, accused no.12-Mahesh Damodhar Bante and accused no.16-Maroti alias Navva Santoshrao Walake are sentenced to undergo ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 ::: 150 apeal569.13 rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 :::Bante and accused no.16-Maroti alias Navva Santoshrao Walake are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 4 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 :::Bante and accused no.16-Maroti alias Navva Santoshrao Walake are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.(f) The sentence shall run concurrently.(g) The accused persons be given set off under Section 428 of the Cr.(h) Accused nos. 2, 7, 12 and 16 are given time of 10 weeks to surrender.::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2015 19:40:25 :::
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,429,739 |
John Peter, who is none other than the husband of the 2nd respondent/complainant.The petitioners herein are his parents.It is revealed that after the engagement, there was a demand on the part of her husband saying that unless and until a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was given, the marriage would not be performed.His demand was fulfilled by depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name of the 2nd respondent by her parents.Besides this, the 2nd respondent's father had incurred the entire marriage expenses to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-.In the year 2000, she had been to her mother's house for delivery.While the 1st accused was studying in America, the parents of the complainant used to send Rs.8000/- per month to him for his monthly expenses.Thereafter, the 2nd respondent had delivered a female child by name Khezia.After coming back to India from U.S.A., the 1st accused had demanded her to part with him a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for running a computer centre.This amount was also paid by her after borrowing the same from her father.Invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have filed this petition to quash the criminal proceedings of the calender case in C.C.No.10824 of 2009, pending trial against them on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The petitioners herein are the 2nd and 3rd accused in the above case.3. Heard Mr.C.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr.After their marriage, the 1st accused John Peter had received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant for pursuing software course.Thereafter, the 1st accused had expressed his willingness to go to United States of America, for studying computer course, and for this reason, she had parted with a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to her husband.Thereafter, for purchasing a mini bus, her father had helped the 1st accused and thereafter, he had begun to torture the 2nd respondent, pestering money often.It is also revealed that on one occasion during night time, when her husband was found chatting with somebody through phone, the 2nd respondent had questioned.While so, she was severely beaten up with shoe and due to the tortuous act of the 1st accused, she had sustained injury over head and subsequently, she was taken into hospital.On 08.11.2008, her husband was found missing.On enquiry, she was informed that he had developed illicit intimacy with his colleague, one Ms.Raja Rajeswari, who is also working along with him in K.C.G.Engineering College.Based on her complaint, a case in Crime No.1629 of 2008 was registered and subsequently, after the completion of the investigation, further action of the case was dropped.Ultimately, her husband, who is the 1st accused in the above said case which is sought to be quashed, had been to Libya on 15.11.2008 along with the said Raja Rajeswari with whom, he developed illicit intimacy.It is the specific allegation as against the petitioners, who are the parents of the 1st accused, that they had helped their son Mr.John Peter, to go to Libya along with the said Rajarajeswari.In this Connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that except the said allegation that the petitioners being the parents of the 1st accused had allowed him to go abroad along with the said Rajarajeswari, no other allegations to attract the provisions of Sections 498(A), 406 and 342 of I.P.C., were levelled and therefore, he has urged to quash the criminal proceedings in the case in C.C.No.10824 of 2009 in respect of the petitioners, which is pending trial on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.V.M.R.Rajentren, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has emphatically denied the submissions made by Mr.C.Vijaya Kumar, and contended that the trial proceedings were yet to begun and therefore, the prosecution would definitely prove the case as against the petitioners beyond all reasonable doubts as sufficient grounds were available to proceed against the petitioners.I.Jinkins William, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has also urged that the 2nd respondent must be given an opportunity to substantiate her case and that at the initial stage no necessity was arisen to quash the proceedings of the above said case as against the petitioners.While advancing his arguments, Mr.C.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that the 1st petitioner Thangasamy, who is the 2nd accused in the case had passed away.The 2nd petitioner, who is the 3rd accused, alone is available.In this regard, he would submit that the case in C.C.No.10824 of 2009 had been foisted against the petitioners and since no specific over-tact was attributed as against them, by the 2nd respondent, no purpose was going to be served in keeping alive the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.10824 of 2009 pending against the petitioners, on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai are quashed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,430,410 |
According to the prosecution case, on 23.09.2017 when 37 years old prosecutrix and about 60 years old her mother were harvesting Soya crops in their field, appellant Arjun along with his father and 15-20 other persons reached there.They objected for harvesting of the crops as there was some dispute regarding ownership of the said land between them.They hurled abusive words in the name of their caste and on objection raised by the prosecutrix, all the persons started beating the prosecutrix and her mother with belt.They dragged them and threatened them to kill.The prosecutrix and her mother sustained injuries on legs, thigh and other parts of the body.The police recorded statement of prosecutrix and also her mother on the same day.Son of the prosecutrix Prahlad and Suresh Dodkar immediately dialed 100 number and called the police.The police reached on the spot, took the injured to the hospital.FIR was also HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.4924/2018 (Arjun Singh Vs.State of MP) lodged on the same day.They reiterated the incident mentioned in the FIR.Thereafter, on 06.10.2017 the prosecutrix was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for recording her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. This is the first time when the prosecutrix made allegation regarding rape.She stated in her statement that at the time of incident, the appellant and his father dragged her towards the bank of river and there on the instigation and provocation of his father the present appellant committed rape with her.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and prays for rejection of the appeal.In view of the aforesaid and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the appellant on bail.Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the appeal is allowed.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set- aside.It is directed that the appellant Arjun Singh S/o Dule Singh be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required further subject to the following conditions:(i) The appellant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments on frivolous grounds to protract the trial;HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE CRA No.4924/2018 (Arjun Singh Vs.(iv) In case of his involvement in any other criminal activity or breach of any other aforesaid conditions, the bail granted in this case may also be cancelled.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Accordingly, Cri.A. No.4924/2018 stands disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(Virender Singh) Judge Sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2018.07.12 12:32:40 +05'30'
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,430,472 |
Item No. 24And In the matter of: Kamal Mahato & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Prabir Adhya For the Petitioners Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta Mr. Subir Saha For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Nabadwip Police Station Case No. 584 of 2014 dated 11.10.2014 under Sections 341/326/307/427/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Samapti Chatterjee, J) 2
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,431,648 |
Shri Pradeep Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant.Shri Prakhar Dhengula, Panel lawyer for the respondent/State.(Delivered on 19th April, 2017) This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C arising out of the judgment dated 16.4.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad District Bhind in Sessions Trial No.222 of 2011 by which, the trial Court while deciding the Sessions Trial has directed that as the appellant had not supported the prosecution case, therefore, it appears that he had given false evidence, accordingly, cognizance was taken under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and it was directed that the complaint be filed before the Court of JMFC, Gohad District Bhind.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that appellant lodged an FIR against accused Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav on the allegation that by misrepresenting, they had fraudulently taken an amount of Rs.1,91,800/- from the appellant.Accordingly, the police filed charge-sheet against accused Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav for the offence under Sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 506 Part 2 of IPC.The charges were framed against accused persons for above mentioned offences.trial, appellant entered into a compromise with accused Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav and filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C seeking permission to compound the offence.As the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC was compoundable, therefore, the application was partially allowed and the accused persons namely Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav were acquitted for the said charge.However, as the offences punishable under under Sections 467/34, 468/34 and 506 Part 2 of IPC were not compoundable, therefore, application in respect of those offences was rejected.It appears that as the appellant had compromised his dispute with the accused persons, therefore, he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.Being aggrieved by the said direction, appellant has filed present appeal before this Court.Consequently, the complaint filed against the appellant and the further proceedings pending before JMFC, Gohad, Bhind are also quashed.The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,432,635 |
2017 dated 1.4.2017 under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.Petitioner has been notified by the investigating agency to meet the investigating officer of the said case.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,950,352 |
At the time of marriage, complainant/respondent No.2 was posted as Constable at Police Station Gondiya.Accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5 are also sisters-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2 and they are already married.After her marriage, the family members were treating her properly.Soon after two months of her marriage, accused/petitioners started humiliation.They prevented her to go out of matrimonial home, started beating her and tortured her mentally.They pressurized her to leave her job.Due to her job, accused/petitioners humiliated and tortured her.Complainant/respondent No.2 tried to solve that problem, but she was unable to do so.In the month of June 2015, accused/petitioners abused, beat her and pressurised her to leave her matrimonial home otherwise she would have to leave her job.She informed this fact to her parents.Thereafter, her parents reached her matrimonial home.They tried to solve the problem, but accused/petitioners also humiliated them.Thereafter, accused/petitioners demanded a four wheeler from her or to give amount.Complainant/respondent No.2 refused to accept this proposal, then accused/petitioners tortured and humiliated her.She was already having a daughter.Due to second daughter, they tortured and humiliated her.Accused/petitioner No.1 3 is heavy drinker.He tortured and humiliated complainant/ respondent No.2 due to non-fulfillment of dowry.Other accused/petitioners instigated to demand dowry and committed cruelty with her.Accused/petitioner No.3 himself also told her that complainant/respondent No.2 have only daughters, so he will mutate all the properties.He also abused filthily.On 2.3.2018, accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5 advised accused/petitioner No.1 for second marriage.On 5-6.3.2018 and 7.5.2018, accused/petitioner No.1 beat her.Other accused/petitioners co-operated accused/petitioner No.1, then she informed all the incident to her brother, her brother reached her matrimonial home on 8.3.2018, she left her matrimonial home.Accused/petitioners threatened her and they mentally tortured and humiliated her, therefore, criminal proceeding is initiated against the accused/petitioners.Accused/ petitioner No.2 is running 5 nursing colleges for girls situated at Hudkitola, Balaghat, Seoni, Mandla and Waraseoni as well as he is having his own school-Nursery Gokul English.Accused/petitioner No.1 used to develop illicit relations with girls of Nursery College taking benefit of their poverty.He is habitual in consuming liquor.He enjoyed his life in the company of other ladies.Accused/petitioner No.3 used to check mobile phone of complainant/respondent No.2, in order to see as to whom she had talked during the day.Accused/petitioners were not allowing the complainant/respondent No.2 to go out of the house.They were not allowing her to attend her duties as Police Constable.Accused/petitioners used to say that Police Constable is degrading their family status, so there is prima facie case against all the accused/petitioners.(9.6.2020) Accused/petitioners have filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (in short ''the Code'') to quash the FIR No.0269/2018 registered at Police Station Waraseoni, District Balaghat (MP), of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for short) for offence under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and discharge the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.3: Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits that complainant/respondent No.2 was short tampered and her behaviour was characterized by her tendency to pick up fights and she used to enter into heated arguments with accused/petitioner No.1 on trivial issues.Accused/petitioner No.1 is physically disabled and for this reason, complainant/respondent No.2 did not want to lead her marital life with him.Complainant/respondent No.2 left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, so accused/petitioner No.1 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.Complainant/respondent No.2 was informed to appear in the petition.Thereafter, as a counter blast and an after though, complainant/ respondent No.2 lodged FIR against 4 accused/petitioners.Accused/petitioner No.5 also married sister-in-law of complainant/respondent No.2 and she is residing at different places since 2004, which includes Jammu & Kashmir, Hyderabad, Hongkong and other places.Accused/petitioner No.3 is also residing at Nagpur.So, these facts make it amply clear that these accused/petitioners have been roped in for oblique motive in this case.There is general allegation about demand of dowry and cruelty against her.It is a global tendency to falsely implicate nearer and dearer of husband in such type of cases to pressurise him.There is no material in this case on the basis of which it can be said that accused/petitioners demanded dowry from the complainant/respondent No.2 and committed cruelty with her.Complainant/respondent No.2 also filed a case under Domestic Violence Act without any basis.So, this is a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked.Learned counsel for accused/petitioners prays to quash the FIR registered against them.Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners relied upon the decisions in the cases of Swapnil and others Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh 5 [(2014) 13 SCC 567, Varala Bharath Kumar and another Vs.State of Telangana and another [(2017) 9 SCC 413], Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2012) 10 SCC 741], , Preeti Gupta and another Vs.State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], Sunder Babu and others Vs.State of Tamil Nadu [(2009) 14 SCC 244], Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs.State of Punjab and others [(2011) 8 SCC 438], Sandeep Singh Bais @ Anshu & ors Vs.State of M.P. and another (M.Cr.C.No.3658 of 2016, decided on 9.3.2017).In arrest memo of accused/petitioner No.5, it is mentioned that she is residing in Ward No.5 Lalbarra Road, Waraseoni.Although, it is alleged against these accused/petitioners that they cooperated in the act of accused/petitioner No.1 and also instigated personally and told to kill her to commit cruelty with complainant/respondent No.2, but all these facts are general in nature against accused/petitioners No. 4 & 5 with regard to demand of dowry and cruelty.Since these accused/petitioners are married, living separately, so there is no opportunity for them to make any demand of dowry from complainant/respondent No.2 and mother and father of complainant/respondent No.2 also did not allege any specific act of demand of dowry and cruelty in regard to these accused/petitioners.It came in experience that there is tendency to involve the entire family members of husband in such type of cases.16 : It is evident from the record that accused/petitioners No. 1, 2 & 3 are residing altogether.After marriage, complainant/respondent No.2 lived with these accused/ petitioners at her matrimonial home.It is alleged by her that at the time of her marriage, she was employed as Police Constable at Maharashtra Police and was posted at Gondiya.After the marriage, these accused/petitioners pressurised her to leave the job.She tried to sort out the dispute, but she was unable to do so.Apart from this, there is allegation of demand of dowry, torture and humiliation.Although, accused/petitioner No.1 submits that complainan/respondent No.2 is short-tampered and she used to fight on trivial matters.She did not marital life due to disability of accused/petitioner No.1 and before her marriage, it is told by him that complainant/ respondent No.2 will leave her job and reside with accused/ petitioner No.1 at her matrimonial home, so there is no question to pressurise her to leave the job, but all these facts will be investigated during the trial.Complainant/ respondent 14 No.2 lived with accused/petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 at matrimonial house.Complainant/respondent No.2 alleged demand of dowry and cruelty against these accused/ petitioners, so all these facts will be investigated during the trial.So this is not a proper case in which inherent jurisdiction can be invoked with regard to these accused/ petitioners and to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings against them.17: Accordingly, the M.Cr.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
158,986,191 |
SK Court No.26 CRM 7049 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29.08.2016 in connection with Park Street Police Station Case No. 510/2014 dated 26.12.2014 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 120B/354A/384/363/342/376D of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,033,031 |
Certified copy, as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE praveen PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK DN: c=IN, o=DISTRICT AND SESSION COURT INDOR, postalCode=452005, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e98f729464903facdd39c454715d6eccc5a350c KUMAR NAYAK 9111fb019b34dace6d05b8fd5, cn=PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2019.05.02 14:03:29 -07'00'Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.3405/2019, first application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence.The appellant has been convicted as under:Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.It is also submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence as mentioned here- in-above.There are fair chances of success of this appeal and there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future.If the remaining custodial sentence of the appellant is not suspended then appeal 2 filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.The appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount.Under these circumstances, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail to the appellant.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellant.Accordingly, I.A.No.3405/2019 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicants after being enlarged on bail, he shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 13/08/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,590,925 |
The facts, in brief, leading to the present appeal are as follows :-The appellant along with his wife Kalabai and two children namely Jitendra and Mahendra reside in Gautamnagar locality at Tumsar, District Bhandara.In the said house, the Nimkar family resides in three parts.In one part PW 8 Fulchand elder brother of the appellant resides along with his family, in middle portion the present appellant along with his family used to reside while in another part younger brother of the present appellant used to reside.The part of the house is in possession of the present appellant consists of Kitchen room, bed-room and varanda.The door faces towards the south.Marriage of deceased Kalabai was performed with appellant about 18 years' back and the appellant having two sons namely Jitendra, aged about 15 years and Mahendra, aged about 10 years.The alleged incident took place on 24.10.1998 at about 4.00 p.m. deceased Kalabai was at her house while the present appellant came to the house at about noon time.He was working at the relevant time as meson.Since 2-3 days' prior to the alleged incident, there was quarrel between deceased and the present appellant on account of payment of some electricity bill and on the day of incident when he returned to the house at noon time, it is alleged that there was quarrel between the appellant and deceased Kalabai on account of payment of electricity bill.The accused at that time took a pot of tin containing kerosene and thrown on the person of Kalabai and thereafter set her on fire and due to which she sustained burn injuries.She made hue and cry for the help.PW 8 Fulchand Gangaram Nimkar the brother of the present appellant was at the relevant time in another part of the said house immediately came there.Mahendra the younger son of the appellant also came there.Some other neighbours including Antaram, Yashoda, Ashok Rokde also came there and tried to extinguish the flames.Jitendra the elder son of the present appellant immediately came there, who called auto-rickshaw and took Kalabai in the Government hospital at Tumsar.Dr. Ramteke (PW12) who was on duty at the relevant time immediately gave information as regards burn injuries sustained by Kalabai to the Police Station, Tumsar.Kalabai was thereafter referred to the Civil Hospital, Bhandara for further treatment.When Kalabai was in the hospital for treatment, she disclosed about the incident and cause of injury to mother Sarswatibai and son Jitendra (PW 3).She accordingly disclosed that the accused poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.PW 8 Fulchand the brother of the accused immediately made a report to the police station in respect of the said incident and on the basis of said report Crime No. 230/98 was registered against the present appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution, to connect the accused with the above said Crime, examined near about 16 witnesses.PW 2 is Sarswatibai Rajaramji Bhajipale, the mother of the deceased Kalabai.According to him, his younger brother Mahendra had been to him informing about the burn injuries sustained by his mother.He therefore, returned to the house.He thereafter brought one auto-rickshaw and took his mother to the hospital on 24.10.1998 at about 4-15 p.m. Evidence of PW 1 Hansraj further makes it clear that on 24.10.1998 he was attached to the Civil Hospital, Tumsar as a Ward boy.The first dying declaration is at Ex. 54 i.e. on 24.10.1998 when Kalabai was admitted in the Civil Hospital at Tumsar for treatment on account of burn injuries sustained by her.The said dying declaration is recorded by PW 15 Mohd. Iqbal Mohd. Hussain PSI attached to Police Station, Tumsar.On perusal of evidence of PW 15 on 24.10.1998 at about 4.15 p.m. he was in the police station.Fulchand PW 8 the brother of the present appellant had been to the police station and lodged report.PW 15 accordingly reduced the report in writing, which is at Ex. 51 and on the basis of said report, he registered crime No. 230/98 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.He immediately then visited to the spot and thereafter prepared spot panchanama and some articles were seized.Thereafter he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Tumsar and recorded the statement of Kalabai.In his statement he has stated that Kalabai was in a position to give statement.On perusal of said statement, it is further seen so far as regards the cause of burn injuries and she disclosed in the said statement that the accused who is her husband poured kerosene on her person set her on fire; she then raised shouts; Fulchand PW 8 came there; Fulchand along with some neighbours then tried to extinguish the flames and thereafter she was taken to the hospital.Evidence of PW 14 Deonath Meshram, Naib Tahsildar attached to Turnsar sufficiently makes it clear that on 24.10.1998 he received a letter from PSI Tumsar about recording dying declaration of Kalabai Baburao Nimkar.His evidence further makes it clear that he accordingly proceeded to the hospital at about 8.25 p.m. The Doctor who was on duty examined Kalabai and the Doctor accordingly informed that she is in fit condition to give statement and even the Doctor has put the endorsement to that effect on the said dying declaration.JUDGMENT P.B. Gaikwad, J.1. Accused Baburao Nimkar being dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Case No. 139 of 1998 dated 6.1.2001 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default R.I. for six months filed present appeal.Kalabai while she was under treatment at Bhandara succumbed to the bum injuries and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was accordingly added.PW 13 Ashok Sonwane after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.As the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was accordingly committed to the Court of Sessions at Bhandara.The same was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara who accordingly framed charge against the accused as per Ex.7 on 20.11.1999 for the offence punishable Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the accused, however, he pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.She visited the hospital where Kalabai was admitted due to burn injuries to her and Kalabai accordingly disclosed that the present appellant poured kerosene on her person on fire.PW 3 is Jitendra Baburao Nimkar son of the appellant who took Kalabai to the hospital in auto-rickshaw after she sustained burn injuries and before whom there is a oral dying declaration about the cause of burn injuries.PW 4 is one Antaram Vithoba; PW. 5 is Yashoda Antaram Thakre; and PW 7 is Ashok Kisanji Rokde and all these witnesses are neighbours residing by the side of the house of present appellant and on the day of incident they tried to extinguish the fire, however, these three witnesses turned hostile.PW 6 is panch witness on the spot panchanama, attachment of clothes from the place of incident and the arrest panchanama.Panchanama as regards the seizure of certain articles and arrest panchanama and the attachment of clothes on the person of the accused at Ex.27, 28 and 29 are accordingly got proved.PW 8 Fulchand is the brother of present appellant who made a report to the Police Station, Tumsar and on the basis of it Crime was registered, however, this witness is turned hostile.PW 10 Vimal Ramchandra Desai police Constable, a formal witness who deputed for carrying papers of accidental death No. 0/98 to police station, Tumsar and she accordingly took papers to Police Station, Tumsar.PW 11 is Kachru Nathuji Lunde, ASI attached to police station Tumsar and on 24.10.1998 he made a request to the Doctor to examine Kalabai.Doctor accordingly examined and given certificate about burn injuries sustained by Kalabai to the extent of 70%.PW 12 is Dr. Padmakar Sukhram Ramteke, who was on duty at the Government Hospital, Tumsar.On 24.10.1998 when Kalabai was admitted in the hospital at about 4.15 p.m. he noticed near about 70% burn injuries over neck, upper limb thorax and abdominal wail up to public symphysis and other pans of the body.PW 13 is Ashok Sonwane PSI attached to Police Station, Tumsar, who investigated the above said crime referred the attached property from Crime to C.A. along with requisition letter (Ex. 41).C.A. report is at (Ex.42).PW 14 is Deonath Marisaram Meshram, Naib Tahsildar attached to Tahsil office, Tumsar, who was on duty on 24.10.98 and recorded dying declaration of Kalabai.The printed FIR.He then visited the place of incident and prepared spot panchanarna, attached certain articles, arrested the accused and the clothes which were on die person of the accused were also attached.PW 16 is Banwarilal Netlal Lilhare a police constable with whom the attached property of Crime No. 230/98 is referred to C.A. that is with the requisition letter (Ex. 41).Along with above oral evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon certain other documents, which is not disputed by the defence i.e. Ex. 11 requisition letter issued by PSI to the Medical Officer for performing post mortem.The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the above oral as well as documentary evidence on record, concluded that deceased Kalabai met homicidal death and the present appellant being the author of bum injuries sustained by Kalabai and accordingly, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The said order of conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 139/98 dated 6.1.2001 is challenged by filing the present appeal.In appeal, we heard Mr. Daga, the learned Advocate for the appellant-accused and Mr. Jichkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State at length.It is submitted by Mr. Daga, Advocate for the appellant that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara dated 6.1.2001 in Sessions Case No. 139/98 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not proper and justified.Firstly, according to him, the material witnesses examined by the witnesses i.e. PW3 Jitendra, PW 4 Antaram, PW 5 Yashoda, PW 7 Ashok and PW8 Fulchand turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.Inspite of this, the Court below wrongly convicted the appellant.He further submits that PW 8 Fulchand brother of the complainant who made a report and on the basis of which crime was registered turned hostile and, therefore, FIR remained to be proved.Inspite of this, the Court has wrongly relied upon the dying declarations made by deceased Kalabai.Thirdly, according to him, the evidence of PW 2 Sarswatibai and PW 3 Jitendra about oral dying declarations and evidence of PW 14 Deonath Meshram and PW 15 Mohd Iqbai about the dying declarations (Ex. 46) and (Ex.54) being inconsistent on material particulars about the mental condition of the deceased, about the cause of burn injuries as disclosed by Kalabai to them and even though the Court below has wrongly relied upon that the said dying declarations which suffer from basic infirmities.According to him, the Court below has not properly scanned the evidence on record and misdirected himself in concluding that the said dying declarations being truthful and acceptable.He, therefore, submits to set aside the order of conviction and sentence.Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties to the appeal, it is now necessary to scan the evidence on record so as to consider whether the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is in conformity with the evidence on record; whether the dying declaration of Kalabai being truthful version and whether the Court below has rightly relied the same.Firstly, it is necessary to see whether Kalabai met homicidal death and for which a reference to Ex. 49 i.e. inquest (Ex.15) post mortem report.Evidence of PW 12 Dr. Padmakar Ramteke and Ex. 20 and 39 is necessary.On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Jichkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that the order of conviction and sentence is proper and justified.Dr. Ramteke was on duty.The injured was admitted in the hospital.Dr. Ramteke gave information accordingly in that respect to the Police and the letter was written, which is at Ex. 20 and this witness has handed over the said letter to PSO, Tumsar.Evidence of PW 12 Dr. Ramteke further makes it clear that he was on duty as Medical Officer at Tumsar and at about 4-15 p.m. on 24.10.1998 Kalabai was brought to the hospital for treatment on account of burn injuries sustained by her.He informed to the police to that effect gave treatment to Kalabai.On examination Kalabai, he noticed 70% burn injuries arid smelling kerosene.He further makes it clear that the requisition letter (Ex. 37) received by him from the Police Station, Tumsar to examine Kalabai and on her examination, he noticed the following injuries: -1. Burn over neck and face including bom ears.2. Burn over both upper limb thorax and abdominal wall upto public symphysis.3. Complete back up to upper glueal area.Both thighs anterior or posterior.He also gave opinion that the bum injuries were fresh within three hours prior to his examination and also caused due to direct flame burns.He accordingly issued certificate (.Ex. 39).Evidence of this witness further makes it clear that Kalabai was thereafter referred to the Civil Hospital, Bhandara for further treatment on 27.10.1998 and till 29.10.1998 she was an indoor patient, and she succumbed to bum injuries.The cause of death given by Medical Officer in the post mortem at Ex. 15 is Septicemia.If the above evidence on record if read together with the evidence Ex. 15, Ex. 39 and Ex. 49, we find that the finding given by the Court below that Kalabai the wife of the present appellant met homicidal death on 29.10.1998 is proper and justified.In the said statement, she made clear that her husband poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire on 24.10.1998 at about 4.30 p.m. approximately.The said statement (Ex.46) also bears endorsement at the top before recording the statement about her condition at about 8.30 p.m. being satisfactory and she being fit to give statement and also bears endorsement of the Doctor at the end of the said statement at about 9.00 p.m. that she was in fit condition.Evidence of PW 12 Dr. Ramteke sufficiently makes it clear that Naib Tahsildar, who had been to the hospital for recording dying declaration asked him the condition of the patient.He accordingly examined Kalabai and found that she was in fit condition to give statement and accordingly he made endorsement on the statement on the top and after recording at the end of the said statement.Evidence of these witnesses PW12 Dr. Padmakar and PW 14 Deonath if read together with dying declaration (Ex. 46) we find that the said dying declaration is truthful version.Even evidence of these two witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity and the said dying declaration cannot be said to be out-come of tutoring, prompting or product of imagination.The above two dying declarations Ex. 54 and Ex.46 and evidence of PW 14 Deonath Meshram is again sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 Sarswatibai and PW 3 Jitendra.PW 2 Sarswatibai is the mother of deceased Kalabai.She also resides at Tumsar at a distance of some half kilometre from the house of the present appellant and after knowing that Kalabai sustained burn injuries; and taken to hospital she accordingly visited the hospital.It is further from her evidence that she made inquires with Kalabai about the cause of burn injuries and as to how she sustained burn injuries and in reply Kalabai discloses that her husband poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.Even she discloses about the cause of said incident as quarrel on account of payment of electricity bill.Evidence of PW 3 Jitendra, who is equally related to the present appellant and deceased as he being the son of appellant and deceased.Though this witness has not supported to the prosecution, however, his evidence cannot be discarded as a whole.As from his , evidence which is consistent with the prosecution case can safely be relied and in that respect from the evidence of this witness according to him, Mahendra had been to him informing that his mother sustained burn injuries, he returned to the home; took the mother in auto-rickshaw and in his evidence he has also made clear that since 2-3 days' prior to the incident quarrel used to take place between his father and mother and the same is on account of electricity bill.Even the deceased disclosed to this witness about the cause of burn injuries sustained by her on his inquiry and in cross-examination on behalf of the State he specifically admitted to the following effect :-"It is true that my brother told me that Dada set mother on fire.1 used to call my father as ' Dada'.When I came to house at that time my father was holding Temba in his hand and it was not burning.It is true that my mother told me that father set her on fire."Thus, the above two dying declarations Ex. 54 and Ex.46, one recorded by PSI and another recorded by 'Naib Tahsildar are consistent with the oral dying declarations made by the deceased before PW 2 Sarswatibai and PW 3 Jitendra.So far as regards the condition of Kalabai at the time of recording of dying declaration,, it is clear from the evidence of Naib Tahsildar, Dr. Raniteke and PSI that she was in fit condition to give statement.Even the cause of death is septicemia as clear from the post-mortem report (Ex.15) and thus on close scrutiny of the evidence on record referred above, we find that the Court below is justified in relying the dying declaration.There are some other circumstances on record in respect of which a reference is necessary.PW 6 Bhaurao Bawane in this respect is material.He is panch witness on the spot panchanama (Ex. 26).As referred above in detailed about the place of incident which consists of one part of the house including kitchen one room and varanda.From the place of incident certain articles were attached that is one plastic can containing kerosene, one kerosene lamp, one stick wrapped with clothes which is being used to set on fire Kalabai, a match-box, burn pieces of gunny bags.The present appellant was arrested on 24.10.1998 and the arrest panchanama was prepared (Ex. 28) and one full-pant, one shirt which was on the person of the accused was accordingly attached.The burn pieces of clothes which were on the person of the deceased were also attached under panchanama (Ex.29).Those articles were sent to the C.A. along with requisition letter (Ex.41) and the C.A. report is on record (Ex.42) and on perusal of the said report Articles 7 and 8 i.e. full-pant and shirt which were on the person of the accused found kerosene residues.This aspect is again give additional link to connect the accused with the said crime.Thus, we find that the Court below has rightly relied upon the dying declaration as the same inspires confidence as it being truthful and correct version about the cause of burn injuries sustained by Kalabai and it is not outcome of tutoring or prompting or product of imagination.Even we also find that there is satisfactory evidence that the deceased was in a fit state of mind when her statement was recorded physically and mentally and all those four dying declarations; one recorded by PW 15 Mohd. Iqbal Mohd. Hussain and another recorded by PW14 Deonath Meshram and two oral dying declarations before PW 2 Sarswatibai and PW 3 Jitendra being consistent with the material particulars, the Court below is definitely justified in convicting the accused relying upon the said dying declarations.The last aspect will be about the offence.As it is submitted by Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the appellant that no requisite intention can be safely gathered on the part of the accused does not fall under clause "Thirdly" of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.After considering the evidence on record, we find that submissions made by Mr. Daga in that respect in this particular case seems to be justified.Firstly, for the reason that the prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer, who performed post-mortem on the ground that correctness of post-mortem is not disputed.On perusal of post-mortem report (Ex.15), it is seen that the Medical Officer attached to General Hospital, Bhandara has performed post mortem.The Doctor while performing the post mortem has not referred the percentage of burn injuries and in a casual manner only shown diagram about burn injuries without referring details.Even column No. 18 is also kept blank and the Doctor does not feel it necessary whether those injuries are ante-mortem and post-mortem.Even the Doctor has also not given other particulars nor referred the cause of death in proper manner and only referred as cause of death as "septicemia".The second aspect as it will be seen that the burn injuries sustained on 24.10.1998 while the death is on 29.10.1993 and that of "septicemia".The third aspect as it will be seen from the evidence on record that the act on the part of the accused cannot said to be calculated, predetermined and the alleged incident being at a spur of moment on account of electricity bill and, therefore, analyzing the evidence on record, the conduct of the accused, manner in which the incident took place, reason behind the said incident, we find that the intention on the part of the accused that those burn injuries likely to case death of deceased can sufficiently be gathered and, therefore, the act on the part of the accused is fall under clause (B) of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code.We thus find that the order of conviction and sentence needs to be modified and the appellant-accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 instead of 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.The order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code, and he is directed to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default R.I. for six months.The accused is entitled to set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, The order as regards the disposal of the property passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, is maintained.With the above modification in the order of conviction and sentence, the appeal is accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,121,041 |
The report produced by Shri Venugopal shall be put in sealed cover andhanded over to the counsel instructing Shri Venugopal.The needful hasbeen done.To be taken up at 3.30 P.M."During monitoring of the investigation of CBI CaseNo.However, on 31.01.2002, a note was put up by Mr. J.R. Guptamentioning therein that a consensus had emerged after discussion thatadditional spectrum to the extent of 1.8 MHz (paired) beyond 6.2 MHz in1800 MHz band might be released on case to case co-ordination basis to theOperators by charging additional 1% of revenue after customer base of 4-5lacs was reached.On this note, Mr. Shyamal Ghosh agreed to the reducedsubscriber base from 9 lacs to 4/5 lacs for allocation of additionalspectrum and recommended to allocate additional spectrum beyond 6.2 MHzupto 10 MHz by charging only additional 1% of AGR.The Arguments: RespondentsMr.A.K. SIKRI, J.Leave granted.In the year 2008, during the tenure of the then Minister ofTelecommunications, Unified Access Services Licenses ("UASL") were granted.After sometime, an information was disclosed to the Central Bureau ofInvestigation (CBI) alleging various forms of irregularities committed inconnection with the grant of the said UASL which resulted in huge losses tothe public exchequer.It isnow widely known as "2G Spectrum Scam Case".The case was registeredagainst unknown officers of the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) aswell as unknown private persons and companies.While the investigation into the said case was still on, a writ petitionwas filed by an NGO known as Center for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL)before the High Court of Delhi seeking directions for a Court monitoredinvestigation.Delhi High Court dismissed the petition.Challenging the order of the Delhi High Court, CPIL filed Special LeavePetition before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.At that time, another petitioner, Dr.Subramanian Swamy, directly approachedthe Supreme Court by way of a writ petition under Article 32 of theConstitution of India seeking almost the same reliefs on similar kinds ofallegations.Leave was granted in the said SLP, converting it into a civilappeal.Said civil appeal and writ petition were taken up together foranalogous hearing.On 16th December, 2010, a detailed interim order waspassed in the civil appeal inter alia giving the following directions:"a.The CBI shall conduct thorough investigation into various issueshighlighted in the report of the Central Vigilance Commission, which wasforwarded to the Director, CBI vide letter dated 12.10.2009 and the reportof the CAG, who have prima facie found serious irregularities in the grantof licences to 122 applicants, majority of whom are said to be ineligible,the blatant violation of the terms and conditions of licences and huge lossto the public exchequer running into several thousand crores.The CBIshould also probe how licences were granted to large number of ineligibleapplicants and who was responsible for the same and why the TRAI and theDoT did not take action against those licensees who sold theirstakes/equities for many thousand crores and also against those who failedto fulfill roll out obligations and comply with other conditions oflicence.After registering the said RC, the CBIstarted investigation into the allegations contained therein.As alreadypointed out above, since the matter was being monitored by this Court,progress reports of investigation were filed from time to time in sealedenvelopes.RC-DAI-2009-A-0045 (2G Spectrum Case), this Court vide its order dated16.12.2010 directed CBI to investigate the irregularities committed in thegrant of licences from 2001 to 2007 with partial emphasis on the losscaused to the public exchequer and corresponding gain to theLicensees/Service Providers.Accordingly, in compliance to the said order,a Preliminary Enquiry vide No. PE-DAI-2011-A-0001 was registered on04.01.2011 at CBI, ACB, New Delhi.During inquiry of the said PE, it waslearnt from reliable sources that vide a decision dated 31.01.2002 of thethen MoC&IT, on the recommendation of certain DoT officers, the allocationof additional spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz upto 10 MHz (paired) was approvedwherein only 1% additional revenue share was charged thereby causingrevenue loss to Government exchequer.As pointed above, on the basis of the outcome of the aforesaid inquiry, aregular case was registered on 17.11.2011 for the offences punishable underSections 120-B IPC r/w 13 (2) and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act').The main allegation is that additional spectrumbeyond 6.2 MHz upto 10 MHz (paired) was approved at an additional revenueshare at the rate of 1% only, meaning thereby the said additional revenueshould have been at a higher rate.As per the investigation, CellularOperators Association of India (COAI) had made a request to DoT, in theyear 2001, for allocating additional spectrum particularly in Delhi andMumbai service areas.On this, Technical Committee was constituted whichgave its report on 21.11.2001 recommending therein that 6.2 MHz spectrumwas sufficient for a subscriber based out of about 9 lacs per operator inservice areas like Delhi and Mumbai for another 24-30 months.TheCommittee also recommended to levy incremental charges for additionalspectrum.This note was approvedby the then Minister of Communications and Information Technology on thesame day i.e. 31.01.2002 itself.It resulted in issuance and circulationof General Order on 01.02.2002 to all Cellular Mobile Telecom Service(CMTS) Operators.As per the allegations in the FIR, the accused publicservants entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused beneficiarycompanies in taking the aforesaid decision which caused undue cumulativepecuniary advantage of Rs.846.44 crores to the beneficiary companies andcorresponding loss to the Government Exchequer, by charging an additional1% AGR only for allotting additional spectrum from 6.2 MHz upto 10 MHz(paired) instead of charging 2% AGR, as per the existing norms.Thus, the allegation, in nutshell, is for grant of additional spectrum bylowering the condition of 9 lacs subscribers to 4/5 lacs subscribers, byonly charging additional 1% AGR instead of charging additional 2% AGR whichhas caused losses to the Government Revenue.Shyamal Ghosh and the then Minister as well as the accused CellularOperator Companies.The decision was taken in haste on 31st January, 2002itself inasmuch as note was prepared by Mr. J.R. Gupta on that day whichwas agreed to by Mr. Shyamal Ghosh and thereafter approved by the Ministeron the same day.As per the charge-sheet, investigation has alsorevealed that all this was done in haste to help M/s Bharti CellularLimited which had come out with Initial Public Offer (IPO) that was openedand it was not getting good response from the public as it had remainedunder-subscribed.The moment such a decision of allocating additionalspectrum was taken on 31.01.2002, on the very next day, the issue got over-subscribed.It would be pertinent to mention that in the charge-sheet filed, Mr.J.R.Gupta was not made accused as no material of any conspiracy or being a partof decision is attributed to him.In this charge-sheet, CBI named Mr.The Impugned OrderThe matter was taken up by the Special Judge on 19th March, 2013 for thepurposes of issuance of summons to the accused persons in the said charge-sheet (CC No.101/12).The learned Special Judge passed orders dated 19thMarch, 2013 recording his satisfaction to the effect that there was enoughincriminating material on record to proceed against the accused persons.At the same time, the learned Special Judge also found that Mr.Sunil BhartiMittal was Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharti Cellular Limited, Mr.Asim Ghosh was Managing Director of Hutchison Max Telecom (P) Limited andMr.Ravi Ruia was a Director in Sterling Cellular Limited, who used tochair the meetings of its Board.According to him, in that capacity, thesepersons, prima facie, could be treated as controlling the affairs of therespective companies and represent the directing mind and will of eachcompany.They were, thus, "alter ego" of their respective companies andthe acts of the companies could be attributed and imputed to them.On thispremise, the Special Judge felt that there was enough material on record toproceed against these three persons as well.Thus, while taking cognizanceof the case, he decided to issue summons not only to the four accused namedin the charge-sheet but the aforesaid three persons as well.Two of the aforesaid three persons are before us in these appeals.Feelingaggrieved, they have challenged the order insofar as it proceeds toimplicate them as accused persons in the said charge-sheet.The impugned orderdated 19th March, 2003 reads as under:"I have heard the arguments at the bar and have carefully gone through thefile and relevant case law.I have carefully gone through the copy of FIR, chargesheet, statement ofwitnesses and documents on record.On the perusal of the record, I amsatisfied that there is enough incriminating material on record to proceedagainst the accused persons.I also find at the relevant time, Sh.Sunil Bharti Mittal was Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bharti Cellular Limited, Sh.Asim Ghosh was ManagingDirector of Hutchison Max Telecom (P) Limited and Sh.Ravi Ruia was aDirector in Sterling Cellular Limited, who used to chair the meetings ofits board.Issue summons to all sevenaccused for 11.04.2013."It will also be pertinent to mention that the appellants were notimplicated as accused persons in the charge-sheet.Accordingly, thecivil liability was only raised as against Samsung, Dubai.For the said purpose, a legalfiction has to be created.(H.L. DATTU) .............................................(MADAN B. LOKUR) .............................................Leave granted.The appeals arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2961 of 2013 and 3161of 2013 are allowed.The appeals arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3326-3327of 2013 are dismissed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,173,853 |
3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-One Mr.Palanisamy was working as an Inspector at Jolarpet Police Station in Vellore District.One Mr.Murugesan and Mr.Yesudass were working in the same Police Station as Head Constable and Police Constable respectively (these three persons are hereinafter referred to as D.1 to D.3 respectively).One Mr.Masilamani (P.W.1) and Mr.Unnikrishnan (P.W.2) were also working as Police Constables in the same Police Station.One Mr.On enquiries, those five persons disclosed their identity as (1)Anbu; (2)Chinnathambi; (3)Selvam; (4)Perumal and (5)Rajappa.Since, D.1 Inspector of Police, Mr.Palanisamy, was convinced that these people were involved in criminal offences, he took them all to the Car.In the Car, Mr.Masilamani (P.W.1) was made to sit on the right hand side of the back seat; Mr.Unnikrishnan (P.W.2) was made to sit on the left side and in between four accused viz., (1)Anbu; (2)Perumal; (3) Rajappa and (4)Selvam were seated.In the front seat of the Car, on the left side, the Inspector of Police Mr.Palanisamy (D.1) was seated and beside him, the Constables Mr.Muthusamy and Mr.Yesudass were seated.P.W.4 Dr.Selvaraj, has spoken about the fact that he treated D.3 Mr.Yesudass at the Government Hospital, Tirupathur.He has further stated that he treated Mr.Murugesan (D.2) and he found a number of injuries on him.D.2 also died in the hospital while on treatment.On the same day, he examined D.1 - Mr.Palanisamy, the Inspector of Police.He found a number of injuries on him.He has further stated that D.1 also died subsequently, due to the injuries.He has further spoken about the treatment given to P.Ws.1 & 2 who were also brought to him for treatment.Subramani, has spoken about the treatment given by him to Mr.Rajappa one of the deceased in the case.P.20 & P.21 are the Accident Register and Wound Certificate respectively pertaining to Mr.P.22 & P.23 are the accident register and wound certificate respectively pertaining to Mr.He has further spoken about the post mortem conducted by him on the body of Mr.Selvam.13.P.W.7 Dr.Michel, has spoken about the post mortem conducted by him on the body of Mr.Rajappa on 06.08.1980 who also died succumbed to the injuries.He has further spoken about the post mortem conducted on the body of Mr.Perumal.In fact, the post mortem on the body of Mr.Perumal was conducted by one Mr.Jetti.Since, he was not available, this witness has spoken about the post mortem conducted by Mr.Jetti on the body of Mr.Perumal.He has stated that as many as 8 injuries were found on the body of D.1 and he died due to the extensive blast injuries.14.P.W.8 has stated that when he was sleeping at his house, he heard about the noise of blast.He immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and found the injured and he helped them to be taken to hospital.P.W.9, the then Inspector of Police, Tirupathur Police Station has spoken about the registration of the case and the investigation done by him.He has further stated that he had collected the broken pieces of the Car at the place of occurrence and the other material objects and forwarded the same to Court for being sent for chemical analysis.He has further stated that since, the investigation was thereafter transferred to CB-CID, he handed over the case diary to them.The appellant in Crl.A.No.216 of 2016 is the sole accused in S.C.No.145 of 2010 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.He stood charged for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., (6 counts).2.As against the acquittal of the accused from the 6th count of the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., the State has come up Crl.That is how both the Criminal Appeals are before this Court for disposal.Muthusamy was working as a Driver in the Police Department.On 06.08.1980, D.1 to D.3, along with P.Ws.1 & 2, and the Driver Mr.Muthusamy went to Elagiri Hills in Vellore District, on official duty, in the Car bearing Registration No.Muthusamy drove the Car.At that time, they found 5 persons climbing down from the Elagiri Hills in a suspicious circumstances.Therefore, D.1 Inspector of Police Mr.Palanisamy directed the other Police officials to surround those five persons and take them into custody.Accordingly, all the officials surrounded the five persons who were climbing down from the Elagiri hills and the Inspector of Police, Mr.Palanisamy, took them into custody.The accused Selvam was made to sit at the foot step of the front side of the Car.Muthusamy (Driver) was in the Driver's seat.Then the Car started its journey to Tirupathur Police Station.When it was nearing Anna Nagar junction, unexpectedly and suddenly, there was a blast in the Car.The Car suffered extensive damage due to the said blast.D.1 to D.3 and P.Ws.1 & 2 sustained injuries.So far as the persons in their custody are concerned, Mr.Selvam, who was sitting in the front seat of the Car sustained injuries and died.The appellant, Mr.Sivalingam (according to the prosecution also known as Anbu) escaped from the scene of occurrence.P.Ws.1 & 2 caught hold Mr.Perumal; Mr.Rajappa and Mr.Then, all the injured were taken to the hospital and admitted in the Government Hospital at Tirupathur.Chinnathambi were taken to the Tirupathur Taluk Police Station.On the request made by P.W.9, the then Investigating Officer, the then Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur went to the Hospital and recorded the statements of D.1 Mr.Thereafter, P.W.9 registered a case on the complaint of P.W.1 - Mr.D.1 to D.3, succumbed to the injuries.So far as the persons in the custody of the Police are concerned, as we have already pointed out, Mr.Selvam died and Mr.Perumal, Mr.Rajappa & Mr.Chinnathambi, who were brought to the Police Station escaped from the Police custody and they were not immediately traced.Chinnathambi, who escaped from the custody as soon as the blast occurred, has not been so far secured.Anbu, who also escaped from the scene of occurrence, also could not be traced immediately.During the course of investigation, the dead bodies of the deceased were sent for post mortem and the reports revealed that all the six persons died due to the blast injuries.Mr.Perumal and Mr.Rajappa who were escaped from the police custody were secured on the same day at 11.45 am and they died out of the blast injuries.The Doctors, who conducted post mortem on these dead bodies, have opined that the said persons would have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to extensive blast injuries, on their bodies.The investigation was later on transferred to CB-CID.In the final report, Mr.Anbu and Mr.Chinnathambi were shown as accused.But, as we have already pointed out, neither Mr.Anbu nor Mr.Chinnathambi could be traced immediately.He was produced before the Court with the statement that he is Mr.Sivalingam @ Anbu who was involved in the crime.The final report was filed against him but his name was mentioned as Mr.Sivalingam.6.According to the prosecution, the appellant Mr.Sivalingam has got a nickname as Mr.Anbu and that is why, his name was mentioned in the F.I.R., as well as in the other connected records as "Anbu".The accused/appellant disputed the same.According to him, he was never known as Mr.Anbu as he was known always only as Mr.Sivalingam.He further took the plea that he never involved in the crime.7.Thereafter, wisdom dawned on the Police to include the charge under Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act also.Sanction was therefore obtained from the District Collector on 28.03.2012 (vide Ex.P.41).Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges as against the accused/appellant as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused/appellant disputed the identity by pleading that he is not the one who is the accused in the case and by mistaken identity, he has been brought to the Court.In other words, he pleaded that he was never known as Mr.Anbu against whom final report was filed as he was known only as Mr.Sivalingam.However, the trial Court went on to frame charges against the accused/appellant to proceed with the trial.8.During the trial, in order to prove the charges on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and 57 documents and two material objects were marked.M.O.1 series are the photographs of the Car which was damaged in the blast and M.O.2 is the C.D containing the photographs of the Car.(no other material object whatsoever was marked).9.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 & 2 are the injured eye witnesses.P.W.1 has stated about the fact that five persons namely, (1)Anbu; (2)Chinnathambi; (3)Selvam; (4)Perumal and (5)Rajappa were taken into custody and they were carried in the Car driven by Mr.Muthusamy (Mr.Muthusamy has not been examined as a witness).He has further stated that when the Car was nearing Annanagar junction, there was a sudden unexpected blast.He has not stated anything incriminating the accused/appellant except saying that the accused/appellant also travelled in the Car and after the blast, he escaped from the scene of occurrence.He has further identified the accused/appellant as the one who escaped from the Car.He has also stated that the appellant is known as Mr.Anbu @ Sivalingam.10.P.W.2 Mr.Unnikrishnan, yet another Constable, who also sustained injuries in the blast, has stated that he was also in the Car.He has further stated that when the Car was nearing Anna Nagar Junction, the accused/appellant made a mild bodily movement and took out a hand grenade and when it was in his hands, it suddenly blasted.He was also stated that the appellant is known as Mr.Anbu @ Sivalingam.11.P.W.3 was a Constable attached to the Tirupathur Taluk Police Station.He has stated that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing about the occurrence and took the injured to the hospital.They also had extensive blast injuries on their body.12.P.W.5, the then Sub Inspector of Tirupathur Police Station, has stated that on the day of occurrence, he heard about the occurrence, went to the place of occurrence and took all the injured to the hospital.P.W.6 Dr.He found as many as 6 injuries on his body.On the same day, he examined the other injured Mr.Perumal.He also had as many as 6 injuries on his body.15.P.W.10 was then working as a Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupathur Police Station and he has stated that on intimation, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses.P.W.11, the then District Collector Villupuram District, has spoken about the sanction given by him for the Prosecutor to prosecute the case for offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substance Act also.16.P.W.12 - the Forensic Expert has spoken about the 17 material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and he found that there were neither nitrocellulose nor ammonium nitrate and the chemical used for manufacturing matches alone were found.P.W.13 is the then Deputy Director of Forensic Science Lab.He has stated that he examined the material objects and found that the remains of ammonium nitrate and gun powder were found on all the material objects.P.W.14 has spoken about the further investigation done by him and the final report filed.17.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.The specific plea of the appellant/accused is that, he is not Mr.Anbu and he is only Mr.Sivalingam and he has got no such nickname as Mr.Anbu.He has further stated that he was never involved in the crime.In order to prove the same, on his side, he has examined three witnesses including himself.D.W.1 is the brother of the accused/appellant and he has stated that the accused/appellant is known only as Mr.Sivalingam and never he was known as Mr.D.W.2 has also stated about the same facts.The appellant has examined himself as D.W.3 wherein, he has stated that he was never known as Mr.Anbu and he has not involved in the crime at all and he was mistakenly taken into custody.A book authored by Mr.Sastri Ramaiah and other, it has been recorded that Mr.Anbu who is actually the accused in this case was killed later on by the Police.The said book has been marked as Ex.D.1 is the Transfer Certificate of Ms.D.4 is the xerox copy of the requisition given by the accused to this Court.D.5 is yet another requisition given by the accused wherein, he has claimed that he is only Mr.Sivalingam and he is not Mr.D.6 is the certificate issued by the school where the accused/appellant studied wherein, his name was mentioned as Mr.Sivalingam.18.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused under both the charges however, acquitted him from the 6th count under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the appellant/accused is before this Court with Crl.As against the acquittal of the accused from the 6th count of the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., the State has come up Crl.That is how these two appeals are before this Court.19.As we have already narrated, in this case, there are two eye witnesses to the occurrence.From their evidences, it is crystal clear that five persons by name (1)Anbu; (2)Chinnathambi; (3)Selvam; (4)Perumal and (5)Rajappa were taken into the Car.Apart from these five, there were 6 police personnel in the Car.When the Car was nearing Anna Nagar Junction, there was a sudden blast, in which, six persons died and P.Ws.1 & 2 sustained injuries.Thus, the presence of P.Ws.1 & 2, at the time of occurrence, cannot be doubted.From their evidences, it has been established by the prosecution that there was a blast, in which, six people died.The medical examination conducted and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased as spoken by the Doctors would also go to prove that the occurrence was on account of a blast of some chemicals.20.Now the question is, Who was responsible for the said blast? According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant whom according to the prosecution is known as Mr.Anbu @ Sivalingam, who was in the Car took out a hand grenade from his pocket which blasted.That apart, so far as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, he has not at all stated that the accused/appellant took out a hand grenade which blasted.He has only stated that when the Car was moving, there was a sudden blast.He has not stated anything incriminating the accused/appellant and he has only stated that the appellant escaped from the Car immediately after the occurrence.21.P.W.2, the other eye witness has stated that the accused herein took out a hand grenade which suddenly blasted.But, he has been confronted with his earlier statement made.In none of the earlier statements, he told that the appellant took out a hand grenade which blasted.He had not stated during this period that the accused took out the hand grenade which blasted.This silence was for a period of 33 years.Thus, for the first time, after 33 years, when he was examined as eye witness in the Court, he came out with the statement that this appellant took out a hand grenade while he was in the Car which blasted.When he was confronted with the same, he has no explanation to offer.Therefore, we are unable to give any weightage to this witness.22.Apart from the same, on the side of the prosecution, the dying declaration said to have been made by D.1 to one Mr.S.Narayanan, the then learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, No.2, Tiruppur has been marked as Ex.Palanisamy (D.1) nor the learned Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration from D.1. has been examined.Curiously and strangely, the dying declaration has been marked through the Inspector of Police.The contents of the dying declaration, thus, does not stand proved by the mere marking the same through the Investigating Officer.Thus, the contents of the dying declaration cannot be considered for any purpose, as evidence, as the same has not been proved.Therefore, Ex.P.45 also deserves to be rejected.23.The learned counsel for the appellant would further point out that though, it is stated that number of material objects were recovered from the place of occurrence, which were also subjected to chemical examination, none has been marked in evidence during trial.The Investigating Officer has stated that these material objects were not at all sent to the Court.When that be so, it should be explained as to why the same were not sent to the Court and why they were not marked in evidence.In a case of this nature, serious attention should have been bestowed by the Police to see that there is no loophole in the investigation since, it will give room for the real culprits to escape from the clutches of law.But unfortunately, the dying declaration of D.1 has not been duly proved by the prosecution at all and the material objects also have not been marked in evidence.The trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellant from the 6th charge under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., in respect of causing of death of Mr.Yesudass.When we posed a question as to why the post mortem certificate pertaining to Mr.We directed the Inspector of Police, CB-CID to atleast trace out a copy of the post mortem from the original records of the hospital.The Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Tirupathur by his letter dated 29.09.2016, has stated that the post mortem certificate pertaining to Mr.It is really shocking that in such a serious case, which shocked the entire state of Tamil Nadu, the investigation was not done thoroughly and even the material documents have not been produced in Court to prove the guilt of the accused in accordance with law.25.So far as the identity of the accused/appellant is concerned, Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused was never known as Mr.The learned counsel would further submit that a Writ Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.62/1982 alleging that Mr.Anbu against whom final report has been filed in this case was killed by the Police in an encounter.The investigation was therefore, sought for in respect of the alleged killing of Mr.Anbu.The Hon'ble Supreme Court by a common order in W.P.Nos.55,62 & 68 of 1982, dated 29.03.1989, has directed the Government as follows:-6.Having given the matter careful consideration we think these three writ petitions relate to matters which properly fall with the domain of the State Governments, and that in the first instance the State Government should be petitioned.27.In the result, Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,592,072 |
During therelevant period, Ashabai was living with her father.Laxmibai (PW7) ismarried daughter of Abhiman.Village Mandurne is divided in threeportions, namely, old village, Indiranaqar and Beghar Vasti.During therelevant period, A1, 5, and Abhiman were living at Indiranagar and thedeceased was living at Beghar Vasti.A-6 was serving as a truck driver andwas living with his wife at Nasik.A-5 had a plot of land which adjoins theplot of deceased on the north.There were disputes between the brothers,dividing them in two groups, one of A1 and A5 and the other of Abhimanand the deceased.The deceased was not on speaking terms with A1 and A5for about seven years.Some time prior to the incident, A-5 startedconstruction of house on his plot in Beghar Vasti by committing 3 encroachment on the plot of the deceased.As a consequence about a monthprior to the incident, the deceased had filled up portion of the plinth dug byA-5 on his plot.In addition on 11.7.2003, PW 7 had been to the house of A-5 with her father for demanding repayment of Rs.500/- borrowed from herby A-5 on the occasion.A-5 his wife Bayjabai and A-4 assaulted her.On12.7.2003, PW 7 went to Police Station.Mehunbare, with PW 3 lodgedreport against A4, A-5 and Bayjabai.On the basis of this report (Exh.59)non cognizable offence came to he registered and PW 7 was directed toapproach the Court of Judicial Magistrate for redressal of her grievance.After the quarrel with PW 7, A-6 was called from Nasik.On 13.7.2003 members of the family of deceased got up at 5.30 a.m.as usual.At about 6.30, PW 3 finished his bath and the deceased wasbrushing his teeth on the ota (raised platform) outside his house.At thattime, all the accused came to the house of the deceased and stated abusinghim because PW 7 had lodged report against A-5 and members of hisfamily.A-6 was armed with axe, A-4 was armed with handle of axe and A-5was armed with handle of hoe.The accused entered the house and statedkicking and fisting the deceased. A-1 was inciting them to eliminate thedeceased, assuring them that he would take the responsibility for the 4 consequences.As a result, the deceased sustained bleeding injury and fell down.When PW 3 and 10 tried to intervene A-5 dealt blow on the head of PW3and A-4 dealt blow on the head of PW 10 causing bleeding injuries.Accused no.2 was pelting stones at the victims.A-3 kicked and fisted PW 8and her mother.He was pushing them backwards and was preventing themfrom intervening in the quarrel.On the arrival of the neighbours, theaccused ran away.PW 10 then brought a Jeep of one Razakseth.Thedeceased was then taken to the Hospital of Dr. Deore (PW.9) at Chalisgaonfor the treatment ofcompound fracture over frontal region.The Doctor informed ChalisgaonPolice Station that a patient has been admitted with the history of assault.However, the Doctor on duty certified in writing that the deceased isunconscious.Therefore, statement of the deceased could not be recorded.He found that the deceased hadsuffered compound fracture over central part of the frontal region of thehead, of the dimension of 5 cms x 1/2 c. x brain deep, oblique in directionand an abrasion over the elbow joint measuring 2 x = cms, oblique indirection, by way of external injuries and internal injury in the form oflaceration of frontal region of the brain.The Medical Officer found that thedeath was caused due to head injury within 4 to 6 hours of the last meal, asthe stomach was empty.Accordingly, he issued post-mortem Report (Exh.43).Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of theBombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench.So far as petition in respect of appellant No.3-Suresh is concerned the same was dismissed by order dated7.4.2008 and notice was issued only in respect of other two petitioners.The accused were sentenced to suffer - (i) RI for one month andfine of Rs.100/- each, in default of suffer RI.Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:Lotan Shrawan Patil (A-1), Jagan (A-5) Abhirnan and Bapu (Sincedeceased) are brothers.Khushal (A-3) and Sayaji (A-2) are sons of Lotan.Suresh (A-6) and Bharat (A-4) are sons of Jagan.Gorakh (PW 3) andMacchindra (PW 10) are sons and Ashabai Mahajan (PW8) is married to thedaughter of Bapu (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased').During the assault, A-6 dealt an axe blow on the head of thedeceased.The deceased succumbed to the injury about 10.45 a.m. The Police officerthen took PW 3 and 10 to the Police Station and recorded complaint of PWOn the basis of this complaint (Exh. 48), offence came to be registeredagainst the accused at zero number as the incident had taken place withinthe 5 jurisdiction of Mehunbare Police Station.The Police officer of ChalisgaonPolice Station held inquest on the dead body, prepared Panchnama ofInquest (Exh. 86) and sent the dead body for the post mortem.The injuredwere also sent to the Municipal Dispensary where Dr. Devising Chavan(PW 2) examined them and issued injury certificate (Exh.45).PW 2 alsoconducted post-mortem on the dead body.At the mortuary, clothes of the deceased were attached in presence ofPW 1, under Seizure Memo (Exh.41).After completing the preliminaries,papers of the investigation conducted by Chalisgaon Police were sent toMehunbare Police Station where offence came to be registered at CrimeNo.59/2003 for offence punishable under sections 143, 144, 323, 324, 302read with Sections 149, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 135 of the BombayPolice Act. A.P.I. Yogiraj Shevgan (PW14) took over the investigation of 6 the offence.On completion of the investigation the accused were charge-sheeted.Accused persons pleaded innocence.The trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record recordedthe conviction as noted above.The primary stand before the High Court was that the evidence onrecord was not sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused and in any eventSection 34 has no application to the facts of the case.The High Court didnot accept the stand.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,260,796 |
A.[MD]No.204 of 2016 For Appellant : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar For Respondent : Mr.A.[MD]No.458 of 2016 For Appellant : Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent No.2 : Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar For Respondents 1 & 5 : No appearance :COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.] The Accused Nos.1 to 4, 5&7 and 9, on the file of the learned SessionsJudge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, have come up with Crl.The State has come up with Crl.A[MD]No.458 of 2016, challenging the acquittal of Accused Nos.6 to 10 u/s.302 r/w.149 IPC.The Trial Court framed as many as six charges, as detailed below.Charge No. Accused No. Penal Provisions11 to 10120(B) IPC 21 and 10148 IPC 31 to 10449 IPC 41 to 56 to 10302 IPC 302 r/w.The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:The deceased Doctor Sedhu Lakshmi, was a Chief Medical Officer in E.S.A. hospital.She was residing with her husband ThirugnanaSambantham [P.W.12] at Door No.97G/3A, New No.9, Kamaraj Nagar, Medical College Road, Thoothukudi.Adjacent to the above house, she was also runninga hospital in the name and style 'Subam hospital'.P.W.12, a retiredProfessor of Geology is residing with the deceased and helping her.On 30.12.2011, one Mahesh [A1] brought his wife Nithya, who was six months pregnant by then to the hospital.On examination, the deceaseddoctor Sedhu Lakshmi informed A1 that Nithya's condition was critical as thechild in the womb has died.The same was also informed to A1's familymembers.The deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi has therefore advised them to take Nithya to some other hospital for better treatment.However, A1 and hisfamily members, as they know the deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi and have taken treatment for many years, expressed their inability to spend money in otherhospitals.They further requested the deceased doctor to provide treatmentfor Nithya.In order to prevent danger to the said Nithya, the deceased doctorperformed surgery to remove the dead foetus from the womb.However, aftersuch surgery, the condition of A1's wife Nithya became worsen.Immediately,doctor Sedhu Lakshmi took Nithya to A.V.M. hospital, for further treatment.However, in the A.V.M. hospital, without responding to the treatment, Nithyadied.Immediately, A1 and his family members agitated and shouted at thedeceased doctor Sethu Lakshmi and indulged in violence in front of Subamhospital.P.W.12, immediately gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Thoothukudi South Police Station [P.W.27].Pursuant to the complaintgiven by P.W.12, P.W.27 called A1 and warned him not to create any quarrel inthe hospital and advised him to take legal action.When the matter stood thus, on 02.01.2012, at 08:30 p.m., thedeceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi was in her chamber attending her out-patients.P.W.12 was also in the hospital campus.At that time, the Accused No.1 came in an Auto bearing Reg.TN 69 M 4268, along with sixth and ninth accused.Similarly, Accused No.4 came in another Auto bearing Reg.TN 69 B 9831 along with second and third accused and Accused No.7 came in another auto bearing Reg.TN 69 C 0103, along with fifth and eighth accused.At about09.30 p.m., four of the accused stood outside the hospital and the AccusedNos.1 to 4 barged into the consultation room of doctor Sedhu Lakshmi withAruval, knife and other deadly weapon.P.W.12 rushed to the room of thedeceased only after hearing the noise of broken glasses, where he saw A1indiscriminately cut the deceased.A2, A3 and A4 also indiscriminately cutthe deceased and A5 stabbed the deceased on her chest.On seeing the gruesome attack, the nurses and other patients turned into sculptures.P.W.12 was also self shocked.P.W.12 immediately rushed to the police station with his friendMurugesan [P.W.10] and lodged the complaint [Ex.P.2], with P.W.26, the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi Police Station at the relevant point oftime.Later,P.W.26 forwarded the First Information Report to the learned JudicialMagistrate No.I, Thoothukudi and gave a copy to his superior officer.P.W.28, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and went tothe place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.4] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P.32], with the help of witnesses Jeyavel, Village AdministrativeOfficer [P.W.16] and one Periyanayagam and collected blood stained granitepieces and glass pieces in the presence of the witnesses.Thereafter,P.W.28, conducted inquest over the dead body on 03.01.2012 between 00:15 hours to 02:30 a.m., and prepared Inquest Report [Ex.P.33] and sent the deadbody to the Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital for post-mortem withrequisition letter [Ex.P.19].P.W.21, the Medical Officer attached to the Thoothukudi MedicalCollege Hospital, after receipt of the post-mortem requisition letter[Ex.P.19] conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following:?Moderately nourished body of a female.Finger and toe nails are pale.P.20].P.W.21finally opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due tomultiple cut and stab injuries.The Viscera Report, Chemical Report andSerological Report were marked as Exs.P.21, P.35 and P.36, respectively.& 364 of 2015 and 8, 13 & 204 of 20163.Vettrivel @ Samundi5.Nagaraj @ Lingaraj... Respondents in Crl.A.[MD]No.458 of 2016COMMON PRAYER in Crl.A.[MD]Nos.313, 322 & 364 of 2015 and 8, 13 & 204 of 2016: Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, praying to call for the records in S.C.No.85 of 2013, on the file ofthe learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District and set aside the judgment dated 04.09.2015and acquit the appellants of the charges levelled against them.PRAYER in Crl.A.[MD]No.458 of 2016: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the judgment dated04.09.2015 passed in S.C.No.85 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi Ditsrict in acquittingA6 to A10 u/s.302 r/w.149 IPC and convict the respondents / accused [A6 toA10] for the offences under Section 302 r/w.149 IPC.A.[MD]No.313 of 2015 !For Appellant : Mr.P.Gopinath, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor Crl.A.[MD]No.322 of 2015 For Appellant : Mr.S.Manoharan For Respondent : Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor Crl.A.[MD]No.364 of 2015 For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramasamy For Respondent : Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor Crl.A.[MD]No.8 of 2016 For Appellant : Mr.A.Joseph Jawahar For Respondent : Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor Crl.A.[MD]No.13 of 2016 For Appellant : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Counsel for Mrs.A.Banumathy For Respondent : Mr.K.Chellapandian Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor Crl.R.Anandharaj Additional Public Prosecutor Crl.149 IPC51324 IPC 61 to 10506 IPC By Judgment dated 04.09.2015, the Trial Court acquitted all the ten accusedfrom some of the charges, as detailed below.Accused No. Penal Provisions1 to 10120(B) and 506(ii) IPC6 to 10302 r/w.149 IPC1324 IPC However, the Trial Court convicted all the ten accused and sentenced them, asdetailed below:-Accused Section of LawSentence Fine amount 1 to 10148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one [1] year.No fine.1 to 5449 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten [10] years.Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one [1] year.1 to 5302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life.Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one [1] year.P.W.26, received the complaint [Ex.P.2] from P.W.12 at 22:45 hours andregistered the crime in Crime No.1 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 449, 324,302 and 506(ii) IPC under Ex.P.31, the First Information Report.Dried blood stains seen over the face and hands.Tuft of hair seen in theright hand.The following ante mortem injuries are noted on the body.(1) Missing of scalp over an area of 10 cms x 7 cms x cranial cavitydeep seen in the right frontal region.8 cms long linear cut injury seenextending from the frontal bone along the parietal bones.Margin of thewound regular.Loss of a piece of frontal bone in the above wound noted.(2) A cut wound of size 12 cms x 1 1/2 cm x nasal cavity deep seenextending from the right cheek to left cheek.Nose found hanging as a flap.(3) A vertical cut wound of size 9 cms x 1 cm x bone deep seen in theright temporal region.A cut of length 7 cms seen in the right temporalbone.(4) A cut wound of size 3 cms x 1/2 cm x bone deep seen behind the right ear.(5) A cut wound of size 22 cms x 6 cms x vertebra deep seen in theright side of neck.The underlying major vessels, nerves and muscles foundcut.(6) A cut wound of size 11 cms x 5 cms x vertebra deep seen in thefront of neck.(7) A cut wound of size 4 cms x 1 cm x bone deep seen at the root ofright index and middle finger.(8) A cut wound of size 2 cms x 1/2 cm x bone deep seen in the rightlittle finger.(9) A cut wound of size 3 cms x 2 cms x bone deep seen in the left ringfinger.(10)A stab wound of size 5 cms x 1 cm x 5 cms seen at the right side ofback of neck.(11) A stab wound of size 5 cms x 2 cms x 8 cms seen in the back ofright upper chest.(12) A stab wound of size 5 cms x 2 cms x 8 cms seen in the back ofleft upper chest.Left collar bone, ribs 1 and 2 seen in the left chest found cut.Twooblique cuts seen in the 6 and 7 vertebra.On dissection of Scalp, Skull and Dura-Dura matter in the right frontalregion found torn over an area of 5 cms x 3 cms.Sub arachnoid haemorrhageseen over the right temporal lobe and cerebellum.?The post-mortem certificate was marked as [Ex.P.W.28, in continuation of his investigation, on 03.01.2010, arrested A1,while he was driving auto bearing Reg.TN 69 M 4268 and also arrested A6.Similarly, P.W.28 has also arrested A4 & A3 and A7 & A8 and seized vehicles bearing Reg.TN 69 B 9831 and TN 69 C 0103, respectively.On the same day, P.W.28 recorded the voluntary confession of A1 in the presence ofwitnesses P.W.16 and Periyanayagam, which was marked as Ex.In pursuant to the confession statement of A1, P.W.28 recorded the disclosure statementsof A4, A7, A10, A5 and A2 and they were marked as Exs.Based on the disclosure statements of the said accused, P.W.28 seized the material objects such as M.Os.16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 undermahazar Exs.P.7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 29 and 30, in the presence of the witnesses.After examining the witnesses, he recorded the statements of thewitnesses.P.W.19, the Medical Officer stated that on 03.01.2012, he treatedP.W.1, Valli and noted 4 x 1 x 1 cm cut injury on her left hand and issuedAccident Register, Ex.He further stated that he also referred the deadbody of doctor Sedhu Lakshmi to mortuary, on the basis of the requisitionletter of the Inspector of Police.The accident register in respect ofdeceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi is Ex.P.W.15, one Zahir Hussain, has given a statement that while he was in the TASMAC shop, he heard the confession of A1 and others to eliminate the deceased.P.W.20, Doctor Ganesan Marimuthu has also given a statement that Nithya was admitted in A.V.M.hospital on 30.12.2011, in a critical stage and she was accompanied by doctorSedhu Lakshmi.P.W.13, one Nithyanantham, also stated that he heard the confession of the accused to eliminate the deceased.P.W.28, in continuationof his investigation, forwarded all the materials to the Court below forsending them to forensic lab.P.W.29, the successor of P.W.28, after receipt of the labreports, namely, Biological Report [Ex.P.35], Serological Report [Ex.P.36]and after examining the medical officer, took steps to record the statementof P.W.12 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. On 07.03.2012, P.W.29 arrested A.10 and seized the knife [M.O.33] and altered the crime by alteration report[Ex.P.37] and finally filed the final report against the accused underSections 120(B), 147, 148, 449, 302, 324 and 506(ii) r/w. 149 IPC.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges asdetailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.In order to prove the case,on the side of the prosecution, as many as 29 witnesses were examined, 37documents and 23 material objects were marked.The learned Trial Court after analysing the entire evidence heldthat the charge under Section 120(B) IPC against all the accused were notproved.Similarly, the trial Court acquitted A1 under Section 324 IPC, forcausing injury to P.W.1, Accused No.6 to 10 under Section 149 IPC and Accused Nos.1 to 10 under Section 506(ii) IPC.However, all the accused were foundguilty under Section 148 IPC.Having held so, the trial Court convicted A1 toA5 under Sections 449 and 302 IPC but imposed punishment to A6 and A10 only for the offence under Section 148 IPC.Aggrieved over the same, the presentappeals came to be filed.The State has also preferred appeal againstAccused Nos.6 to 10 for enhancement of punishment in Crl.It is curious to note that neither the State nor the de-factocomplainant has filed any appeal as against the acquittal recorded by thetrial Court in respect of the charge under Section 120(B).Learned SeniorCounsel Mr.P.Gopinath for Mr.P.Andiraj, appearing for A1 and learned Counselappearing for other appellants submitted that the entire prosecution rests onthe sole evidence of P.W.12, the husband of the deceased.Though, allegedoccurrence took place on 02.01.2012, at 09:30 p.m., the FIR has been filedbelatedly and the same has reached the Court with inordinate delay whichremains unexplained.In the First Information Report, P.W.12 gave a specificovert act only against the four accused.Similarly, there are lot of contradictions between FIR and P.W.12's164 statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the evidence.A2was implicated for the first time only in evidence.P.W.12's entire evidenceis highly improved and create serious doubt about the prosecution.No testidentification parade was conducted and in the First Information Report,there is interpolation in order to add many number of accused at that pointof time.The corrections in the documents remain unexplained and even in theFIR, the names of A5 and A7 are not mentioned.Therefore, the entireevidence of P.W.12 is highly doubtful and creates serious doubts in theprosecution.The further contention of the learned Counsel is that presenceof P.W.12 in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and the delay in FIRand different version in the FIR fortify the same.Hence, the learnedCounsel submitted that the entire prosecution is doubtful since the otherwitnesses have not supported the prosecution and the sole evidence of P.W.12is full of contradictions and improvements.Therefore, the learned Counselsubmitted that the prosecution as against A1 to A10 is highly doubtful andthe identification parade has not been conducted.Hence, the learned Counselsubmitted that all the accused are entitled for acquittal.Countering the above arguments, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submitted that the occurrence and time are not disputed.Similarly,the presence of P.W.12 in the hospital is quite probable and the same is alsonot disputed by the accused.There was no motive for P.W.12 to implicate allthe accused.Minor discrepancies in the First Information Report is not aground, since FIR is only a piece of information and it is not anencyclopedia.Therefore, P.W.12 has clearly identified all the accused andhence submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.Merely because other eye witnesses turned hostile including the injured,P.W.12 cannot be disbelieved.Krishna Master & Others.In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be analysedwhether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all thesedoubts.At that time, the deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi conducted surgery and removed the dead child from the womb, which deteriorated the health of Nithya.Thereafter, immediately she took Nithya tothe nearby A.V.M. hospital.However, the said Nithya did not respond to thetreatment and died.Therefore, the accused and his family members agitatedand wanted to take revenge on doctor Sedhu Lakshmi.On the very same day, they also indulged in violence in the hospital run by the deceased doctorSedhu Lakshmi.In this regard, the evidence of P.W.25, the mother of A1clearly establishes the said motive.It is not in dispute that on30.12.2011, Nithya was admitted in the hospital run by deceased doctor SedhuLakshmi, Nithya became serious and that she was immediately taken to some other hospital in ambulance, where she died.In fact, P.W.20, doctor GanesanMarimuthu, working in A.V.M. hospital has also clearly spoken about the factthat on 30.12.2011, at about 08:00 p.m., Nithya was brought to their hospitalin critical condition and she was accompanied by doctor Sedhu Lakshmi.However, Nithya died in the hospital, without responding to the treatment.P.18, the treatment history maintained by A.V.M. hospital is also filed bythe prosecution.It is the further contention of the prosecution that agitated overthe death of the said Nithya, A1, his family members and others indulged inviolence and caused damage to the hospital of the deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi on the same day.In respect of which, a complaint is also said tohave been lodged to the Sub Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South PoliceStation [P.W.27].P.W.27 in his evidence has also clearly spoken about theabove aspects and he has also spoken about the fact that he warned A1 not toindulge in such violence and advised him to proceed legally for any suchmedical negligence.Apart from the above, P.W.12, in his evidence has clearlyspoken about the incident that occurred on 30.12.2011 in their hospital.Itis also not denied by the accused in the cross examination.From theundisputed facts, the motive aspect projected by the prosecution is clearlyestablished.P.W.14, one Annalakshmi has also clearly spoken about said Nithya visiting the hospital of the deceased Sedhu Lakshmi.The evidence ofP.W.25, mother of A1 also clearly shows that only after the surgery conductedby doctor Sedhu Lakshmi on 30.12.2011, said Nithya died.From the above undisputed evidence placed on record, the motiveprojected by the prosecution has been clearly established.Though, theprosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses namely, P.W.1 to P.W.9 as eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who were at the hospital at the relevantpoint of time they have not supported the prosecution.In fact, P.W.1 toP.W.5, who were working in the hospital also not supported the prosecution.P.W.6 to P.W.9, who were in the hospital at the relevant point of time alsonot supported the prosecution.Though, they have not supported the case ofthe prosecution, from their evidence, it can be easily seen that they ranaway after the group entered the hospital and caused the death of thedeceased.In the above background, now the prosecution is left with theevidence of P.W.12, who is the husband of the deceased.P.W.12 is a retiredProfessor.He was residing with the deceased and it is also not in disputethat the hospital run by the deceased is adjacent to the place where theywere living.P.W.12 has also clearly spoken about the motive aspect in theevidence which is not in dispute.P.W.12, in his further evidence has clearlyspoken about the fact that A1 and his wife Nithya were frequent visitors totheir hospital.However,Nithya died.Thereafter, there was violence in the hospital on the same dayby A1 and others.With respect to the occurrence, it is the evidence of P.W.12 thaton 02.01.2012, at about 08:30 p.m., he and his wife were talking to eachother and as it was informed that a patient has come to the hospital, thedeceased left to hospital.At that time, when P.W.12 was in the hospitalcampus, the accused came in three Autos and A1 to A5 barged into the room of the deceased and A1 to A4 indiscriminately cut the deceased.Besides, A5also stabbed her.Other accused guarded outside the hospital.Despite thedeceased pleaded them, they cut her indiscriminately.P.W.12 was selfshocked.Immediately, with the help of his friend P.W.10, he went to thepolice station and gave a report [Ex.P.2].If the entire evidence of P.W.12 in the chief examination iscarefully seen, it clearly shows that only A1 to A5 entered the room of thedeceased and other four accused have guarded outside the hospital.He neverwhispered about A10 in this case.Normally, a relative witness cannot bealways construed as interested witness.A relative witness is one mostlyunreluctant to leave the real culprits go out free.Whereas, the interestedwitnesses are always interested to see that the accused are convicted inorder to derive some benefit out of such conviction.In the above settledposition, the evidence of P.W.12 also to be seen with care and caution.Admittedly, as per Ex.D.1, an earlier complaint was lodged by A1 against thehospital and the deceased doctor Sedhu Lakshmi for her negligence which resulted in the death of his wife.Therefore, the entire evidence of P.W.12,who is the sole eye-witness, requires careful scrutiny.P.W.12 was the informant to lodge First Information Report.Mere omission or inconsistencies, which areminor in nature can be ignored to unravel the truth.At the same time, whenthe earlier statement in the FIR is totally contradictory to the evidence ofthe informant, the evidence of such informant requires careful scrutiny.P.2] that on the date ofoccurrence only A1 came in single auto along with Gurumuthu [A6] and Raja @ Maharajan [A3] and the said auto was driven by one Abbas Maraikayar [A4].Itis the further version of P.W.12 in his FIR that A4 remained in auto and henever entered into the hospital at the relevant point of time.It is alsothe specific version of P.W.12 in the FIR that only A1 and A6 entered thedoctor's room and A1 cut her indiscriminately and came out of the doctor'sroom.A2 also came out from the doctor's room.On a careful scanning of theFIR, it clearly appears that except attributing specific overt act as againstA1 and A6 entering into the doctors room, no other overt act whatsoever isattributed against any of the accused.It is curious to note that Ex.P.1 mentions about only one auto inwhich four of the accused A1, A6 A3 and A4 came to the hospital and A4 remained in the auto.A1 and A6 alone entered the doctor's room and causedthe death of the deceased.A3 guarded at the hospital gate.Despite the specific number of accused inthe Ex.P.2, in the printed FIR registered against four accused and others,the word 'Silar' [meaning 'others'] has been specifically inserted in adifferent font.This aspect remains unexplained by the prosecution.P.W.10, in his evidence has spoken that he haswritten Ex.In the cross examination, hehas given a contradictory stand to the effect that he has written thecomplaint in the police station as instructed by the Sub-Inspector of Police.Therefore, Ex.P.2 and evidence of P.W.12 requires careful scrutiny.Though, the occurrence is not disputed and the motive was alsoestablished, now this Court has to see whether the version of P.W.12 as suchspoken before the Court is true or the same is mixed with truth and false.It is well settled that the doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omni bus'cannot be applied merely because the witnesses are disbelieved in certainaspects.Their entire evidence need not be disbelieved.The trial is avoyage for the truth.It is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff fromthe grain to unravel the truth with the available materials.The specificevidence of P.W.12 before this Court is that on 02.01.2012, 9 accused came inthree different Autos and A1 to A4 barged into the room of the deceaseddoctor Sedhu Lakshmi and A1 to A5 cut her indiscriminately and other fouraccused stood at the entrance of the hospital.His evidence is totallycontradictory to his earlier version in Ex.It is the specific versionof P.W.12 in Ex.This version is highlydoubtful and totally contradictory to his earlier version.In his 164 statement, he has neverwhispered about A2 coming to the hospital at the relevant point of time.It is further curious to note that on the date of P.W.12'sexamination, A5, A6 and A9 were in fact absent before the Court.Therefore, P.W.12'sidentification of all the other accused in the trial even if three of theaccused were absent on that day is highly improbable and creates a doubt.Admittedly, he is acquainted only with A1, since A1 and his wife are frequentvisitors to his hospital.All these facts create a serious doubt about hisversion as against all the other accused.Admittedly, P.W.12 has allegedlyseen A2 to A9 for the first time in the occurrence.However, he has notgiven a complaint about all other accused.Though P.W.12 has given a different version, hispresence in the hospital is not disputed.Similarly, motive aspect is alsoclearly established as against A1 and P.W.12's evidence in the earlierversion though appears to be exaggerated and improved as far as the otheraccused are concerned, the participation of this accused A1 is clearlyestablished.Admittedly, A1 was arrested by P.W.29 and not only the billhook wasseized from him but also the blood stained shirts.M.Os.22 to 28 were seizedby the investigation officer from A1 along with the Billhook.Human blood was detected in othermaterial objects seized from the other accused also.In view of the Blood Group being not established from othermaterial objects seized from other accused, merely on the basis of biologicalreport and serological report, we are not in a position to conclude thatother accused also participated in the trial.He is well known to P.W.12 and the motiveagainst him is also clearly established by the prosecution and P.W.12evidence and earlier version clearly prove the participation of A1 in theoccurrence on that particular day.Though, we disbelieve the evidence ofP.W.12 in respect of other accused, in view of the serological report whichcontained deceased blood group in the material objects seized from A1,coupled with the evidence of P.W.12, we hold that scientific evidence isconclusive to establish the complexity of A1 with the crime.No doubt, thepost-mortem doctor's evidence clearly shows that the deceased succumbed injuries due to various cut and stab injuries.The nature of injuriesinflicted on the deceased is nothing but gruesome.The injuries inflicted onthe deceased prove that more number of persons are involved in theoccurrence.To substantiate the medical evidence, the possibility ofincluding more accused by the police at later point of time cannot be ruledout.P.W.12 was also in the state of shock at the relevant point of time.Though he has given some earlier version, he had to stick on to the versionof the police during trial to see that justice is rendered to him.So,merely because he had to stick on to the police version in his evidence andhis evidence appears to create doubt about the other accused, we are of theview that his entire evidence cannot be disbelieved.Accordingly, we hold that conviction rendered by the trial Court asagainst A2 to A10 under various charges is not in accordance with law andliable to be interfered with.Trial Court in fact having held that some ofthe accused are guilty under Section 148 IPC, failed to apply the legalprinciples.Once unlawful assembly is established, then the member of suchassembly is also liable for any offence committed by any member of suchunlawful assembly.At any event, since the charges against the other accusedhave not been established by the prosecution, we hold that they are entitledfor acquittal.In the result,(i) the appeal filed by Accused No.1 in Crl.A.[MD]No.313 of 2015is dismissed and the conviction and sentences imposed on Accused No.1 by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 148, 449 and 302 IPC are herebyconfirmed.(ii) the appeals filed by Accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 5&7 and 9 inCrl.A[MD]Nos.8 of 2016, 364 of 2015, 322 of 2015, 13 of 2016 and 204 of 2016are allowed and the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court onthese appellants namely, A2, A3, A4, A5, A7 and A9 are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges.(iii) the appeal filed by the State in Crl.1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.2.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,357,252 |
By a judgment dated 08.08.2011 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.197/2008 arising out of FIR No.57/07, Police Station Kanjhawala, the appellant Naresh @ Pappu was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 308 IPC for inflicting injuries to his wife PW-1 (Sushila).By an order dated 10.08.2011 the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine `5,000/-.Aggrieved by the said findings, the present appeal has been filed.During the course of arguments, the appellant opted to give up challenge to the findings recorded by the Trial Court on conviction.He Crl.A.1050/2011 Page 1 of 4 urged that lenient view be taken as the matter has been settled/compounded with the injured/complainant.A.1050/2011 Page 1 of 4I have examined the file.Several injuries were inflicted by the appellant on the person of PW-1 (Sushila), his wife on 29.03.2007 by a sharp weapon.The prosecution was, however, unable to establish as to what was the appellant's motive to cause injuries to his wife.It has come on record that both the appellant and the victim were living together at the matrimonial home and were blessed with two sons who have since been married.The children live with the appellant in the village.Presently, the victim is living with her father.When the matter was listed for disposal, the complainant appeared in person and urged to take lenient view as the matter stood settled with the appellant.The court was not satisfied with the settlement arrived at with the appellant.With the assistance of the counsel for the complainant as well as the appellant, various attempts were made to reunite the parties.Even the victim's sons were called to participate.They too supported their father; the parties could not be reunited.Again, the complainant along with her counsel prayed to release the appellant for the period already undergone; she was not interested for his further incarceration.The appellant was asked to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the victim as she would have to maintain herself while staying with her father.Again, settlement talks continued between the parties.By an order dated 29.07.2016, the appellant agreed to pay `1,00,000/- to the complainant by way of demand draft in her name within a week through Investigating Officer without prejudice and subject to future adjustment (if any) to show Crl.A.1050/2011 Page 2 of 4 bona-fide.It was informed that the parties were exploring the possibility of final settlement of all the disputes including divorce; the said sum of `1,00,000/- was paid to the complainant.A.1050/2011 Page 2 of 4Subsequently, the matter was settled and both the parties filed petition to seek divorce by mutual consent.The divorce has since been granted by the court.This, however, finds mention in the statement of victim's son who appeared as DW-1 (Ajay Shokeen).He has suffered the ordeal of trial and appeal for about ten years; he is 54 years old now.The matter has been settled/compounded with the complainant amicably.Divorce between the parties has taken place; an amount of `4,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant in full and final satisfaction of the claims.The complainant has no objection for reduction of the sentence.Of course, he shall pay the unpaid fine (if any) before the Trial Court within fifteen days.The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.Trial Court record along with the copy of this order be sent back forthwith.S.P.GARG (JUDGE) DECEMBER 19, 2017/sa Crl.A.1050/2011 Page 4 of 4A.1050/2011 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,453,610 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is 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.1 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 494 and 506(i) of IPC., as against the petitioner.Hence, he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Additional Public Proseuctor would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.O.P.(MD)No.21221 of 20189. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21221 of 2018 However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.26.11.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No vsd1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Paramakudi.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.O.P.(MD)No.21221 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9810 of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21221 of 2018 26.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,530,765 |
th ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : ROHIT B. DEO, J.) The appellants - accused are taking exception to the::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 ::: 2 apeal566of06 judgment and order dated 13.9.2006 rendered in Sessions Trial 19 of 2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, by and under which, the accused are convicted for offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to payment of fine of Rs.500/- and are further convicted for offence punishable under section 304-B read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to payment of fine of Rs. 1000/-.The accused are acquitted of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::Heard Shri K.S. Narwade, learned counsel for the accused and Smt. S.Z. Haidar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.Pushpa suffered burn injuries on 23.10.1999 and expired on 1.11.1999 while undergoing treatment at the Yavatmal Government Hospital.Pushpa's father PW 1 Gangadhar Gore lodged report Exh.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::Initially an accidental death inquiry was registered under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 ("Code" for short) and on the basis of the report Exh. 59, Mahagaon Police registered offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.Upon culmination of investigation, Final Report under section 173 of the Code was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahagaon, who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 ::: 4 apeal566of06 (Exh. 38) for offence punishable under section 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with section 34 of the IPC.The accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The defence, as is discernible from the statements of the accused recorded under section 313 of the Code, is of total denial.However, the trend and tenor of the cross- examination reveal that the further defence is that Pushpa suffered accidental burn injuries.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::The prosecution examined father of the prosecutrix Gangadhar Gore (PW 1), a neighbour and family friend Indirabai Dongaonkar (PW 2) and Investigating Officer (PW 3) Nivrutti Dambalkar to substantiate the charge.The learned Sessions Judge, was pleased to record a finding that the death was not accidental.The learned Sessions Judge relied on the oral dying declarations in the nature of disclosures made by Pushpa to PW 1 Gangadhar and PW 2 Indirabai and having done so, inexplicably recorded an incongruent finding that homicidal death is not proved.Irrefutably, as is admitted by the Investigating Officer Shri Nivrutti Dambalkar, a written dying declaration was recorded in which Pushpa absolved the accused of any complicity and stated that she suffered accidental burns while boiling water.The written dying declaration was not produced alongwith the::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 ::: 5 apeal566of06 chargesheet.The learned Sessions Judge has brushed under the carpet the written dying declaration on the premise that the written dying declaration is not true and voluntary statement of Pushpa.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::The version of PW1Gangadhar is that dowry of Rs.25,000/- and 5 gm gold ring was to be given to the accused Anil in marriage, however, Rs.5,000/- and gold ring remained to be given.This led to the accused ill-treating Pushpa and the accused used to quarrel with her, beat her and deprive her of food.The evidence that Rs.5,000/-::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::12 apeal566of06 was not paid, that the accused used to quarrel with Pushpa and beat her, is an omission.PW 1 has deposed that before the festival of Panchami accused 4 Bali pushed Pushpa in the well in an attempt to kill her.The only other witness examined to prove cruelty is PW 2 Indirabai who was residing in the neighbourhood of PW1 before shifting to Nanded.PW 2 states that Pushpa disclosed to her that she was pushed in the well by Bali.PW 2 further states that Pushpa disclosed to her that her husband and family members are ill-treating her on the issue of balance dowry.The evidence that before Panchami accused Bali attempted to kill Pushpa by pushing her in the well is neither implicitly reliable nor confidence inspiring.An attempt to murder going unreported is highly improbable.Equally improbable and unnatural is the conduct of PW 1 of permitting Pushpa to reside in the matrimonial home despite the alleged attempt on her life.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the alleged disclosures made by Pushpa to PW 1 and PW 2 to the effect that accused Parbatabai poured kerosene and accused Bali set her ablaze.We are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the learned Sessions Judge.PW 1 admits that he did not inform either the hospital doctors or the staff that such a disclosure was made to Pushpa.The report Exhibit 59 is lodged four days after Pushpa's death.PW 2 Indirabai, who claims to have visited the hospital three to four days after the incident, admits that she did not report the alleged disclosure made by Pushpa to police although police were present in the hospital.Concededly, the written dying declaration which absolves the accused of any wrong doing is suppressed.We find it inexplicable that a written dying declaration which is suppressed is held as untrue and unreliable by the learned Sessions Judge only on the premise that the disclosures made by Pushpa to PW 1 and PW 2 implicate the accused Parbatabai and Bali.The Investigating Officer admits that statements of some persons of Dongaon were recorded, and the said persons stated that Pushpa's flames were extinguished by one Kesharbai.The said::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 ::: 14 apeal566of06 statements are not produced on record nor is Kesharbai examined although the Investigating Officer asserts that he did record her statement.We have already held that the statutory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is not activated.In the teeth of the evidence on record, or rather the lack thereof, we are inclined to hold that the prosecution has not proved the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::Fine paid by the accused be refunded to them.The appeal is allowed and disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/05/2018 00:24:14 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
159,630,057 |
The second appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.2007 made in A.S.No.80 of 2006 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udhagamandalam, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2006 made in O.S.No.124 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Kothagiri.The unsuccessful plaintiff before the trial court is the appellant herein.The suit was filed by the appellant / plaintiff, before the trial court, seeking damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the respondent / defendant with costs, on the ground that the defendant had sent a petition to the District Collector, Nilgris, containing false and defamatory averments.The appellant / plaintiff has stated in the plaint that he was serving as Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Konavakorai village, as a post-graduate, having sufficient means and reputation in the village.The village to which he belongs is the revenue village of Naduhatty and there are many Revenue villages within the territory of Kaigar at Pedthala of Nilgris District.According to the appellant / plaintiff, the respondent / defendant had migrated from Kalinganatty village to Byangi village few years prior to the filing of the suit and the defendant's father had been in Government service.However, for reasons best known to him, the respondent herein had sent petition, making false allegations against the appellant with a view to tarnish the image of the appellant before the authorities, with the malafide intention, to the District Collector, Nilgris with a copy to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu against the appellant without any justification or excuse.The appellant has stated that the said petition contained derogatory and defamatory averments and the respondent herein, Knowing fully well that the petition would be opened and read by many officials and be circulated to other officers to ascertain whether the allegations are true or otherwise.According to the appellant, the petition contained malicious and defamatory words against the appellant / plaintiff.The officers, authorised to hold enquiry on the petition, enquired many villagers and ascertained about the allegation made in the petition on 03.10.2001 against the appellant / plaintiff.It was further stated in the plaint that for no fault of him, the plaintiff had to suffer severe mental agony for many days and the villagers started suspecting the credentials of the appellant.The authorities concerned, having conducted enquiry, sent a report to the District Collector with the allegation made in the petition, dated 03.10.2001, as false and baseless.The Tahsildar, Kothagiri, who made enquiries on the allegations has stated that the defendant, who is the author of the said petition did not come forward to speak about the petition, in spite of opportunity being given to him.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri in C.M.P.No.2737 of 2003 against the respondent / defendant.With the above pleadings, the appellant herein filed the suit, relating to this second appeal, seeking damages to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the respondent / defendant.The respondent / defendant filed his written statement, disputing the averments made against him in the plaint and stated that there was no defamatory statement made by him, as stated in the plaint.the respondent / defendant has stated that there was no defamatory statement made in his petition, however, he has admitted that the petition was sent by him to the District Collector, Nilgris and enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer,Coonoor with regard to the proceeding in Na.No. 12880/2001 and in the enquiry, according to the respondent, the appellant was orally warned by the RDO, stating that the appellant was taking law into his own hands and if he continue the same, he would be suspended.Since the matter is pending before the appropriate authority, the appellant is not entitled to file the suit, based on the earlier report sent by the Tahsildar.Hence, according to the respondent, the suit was liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable.After the trial, the suit was dismissed with costs by the trial court.The appellant herein was also directed to pay exemplary cost of Rs.2,500/-, as per Section 35 A of the Code of Civil Procedure.Aggrieved by which, the respondent / plaintiff herein preferred an appeal before the Sub-Court, Udhagamandalam.Having gone through the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court, the evidence available on record and the arguments advanced by both sides, the first appellate court, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court, dismissed the appeal with costs.Aggrieved by which, this second appeal has been preferred.The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :Substantial Questions of Law 1 and 2 :The appellant has raised the first substantial question of law on the ground that defamation is different from malicious prosecution, however, the Courts below have not understood the difference between defamation and malicious prosecution.In the pliant, the appellant / plaintiff has stated that the respondent / defendant had sent a petition with false and defamatory allegation to the District Collector, Nilgris against the appellant / plaintiff, to tarnish the image of the plaintiff, in the eye of general public and the fellow officials of the appellant / plaintiff.It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein had sent a petition against the appellant / plaintiff, to the District Collector, Nilgris, since the appellant / plaintiff was working as VAO, under the District Collector, Nilgris.The learned counsel for the respondent / defendant submits that the genuineness of the complaint could be decided only by the concerned authority, namely, the District Collector, Nilgris, hence, before the disposal of the petition by the Authority, the appellant / plaintiff was not entitled to file a suit, seeking damages on the ground that the said petition / complaint was containing false and defamatory statements.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the complaint sent by the respondent herein against the appellant is defamatory in nature, however, the Courts below have not considered the same properly, even without knowing the difference between defamation and malicious prosecution, the Courts below have dismissed the suit.It is an admitted fact that the petition, dated 03.10.2001 had been sent by the respondent herein to the District Collector, Nilgris at Udhagamandalam, wherein the respondent has raised certain allegations against the appellant herein.It has been averred in the plaint that as per the petition, dated 03.10.2001 sent by the respondent / defendant to the District Collector, Nilgris, there were certain defamatory allegations against the appellant / plaintiff and a copy of the same was also sent to the Tahsildar, Kothagiri.In the copy of the complaint, dated 03.10.2001, the respondent herein had stated that he was a member in a particular political party and one Devaraj, s/. Madian Biyangi was contesting in the panchayat election of the village, as a candidate of the other political party.The appellant / plaintiff, N.Hiriyan, s/o.Nanja Gowder Biyangi, though he was the VAO of the village, spent money and keeping the village people under his control and was paying Rs.25,000/- as loan to various employees and also conducting unauthorised village panchayat on sundays and on other Government holidays in the village.Accordingly, on 02.10.2001, during Gandhi Jayanthi day, he conducted a panchayat and put certain conditions to the village people, whereby instructed the village people not to have relationship with certain families, who were condemned in the earlier meeting of the panchayat and they should not be permitted to enter into the committee hall and that milk, provisions and other essentials should not be given to the said 5 families.If anybody comes for canvassing for the election, the village people should not speak with them and anybody violates the aforesaid condition, a fine of Rs.1,101.25/- would be imposed on them and thus the village people were prevented by the appellant, in order to support a candidate of a particular political party in the Election.The appellant / plaintiff has raised a substantial question of law that the Courts below have not understood the difference between defamation and malicious prosecution, though the petition was sent by the respondent / defendant herein to the District Collector, Nilgris, raising certain false and defamatory allegations against the appellant / plaintiff.As per the cause of action, alleged in the plaint, the appellant / plaintiff has stated that the defendant had sent the petition with false and defamatory allegations against the appellant herein.A perusal of the copy of the petition, dated 03.10.2001 shows that the respondent herein alleged that the appellant had convened village panchayat and made certain instructions to the villagers in the panchayat that they should not have any dealings with certain families and also certain other allegations stating that the appellant had sold a land, measuring 60' x 30' in S.No.912 of the village in public auction for Rs.500/- and appropriated Rs.35,000/- and also collected Rs.1000/- each from the villagers for the purpose of constructing water tank and the total amount collected was Rs.7,000/- for which there was no account given by the appellant.When the petition had been addressed by the respondent / defendant to the District Collector, against the appellant / plaintiff, an employee working under the said authority, it cannot be construed as a defamatory statement before the same is decided by the said authority.It is an admitted fact that the suit was not filed based on the findings of the District Collector, Nilgris, as false or defamatory by the authority, to whome the petition was addressed.Had the averments of the petition been based on facts, which cannot be construed as defamatory statement to maintain the suit, seeking damages.The appellant cannot dispute the authority of the District Collector, in passing an order for verifying the genuineness of the petition by conducting enquiry through Tahsildar or any other competent officer, subordinate to him, which cannot be disputed by the appellant / plaintiff, directly or indirectly by filing the suit.On such circumstances, it would be the endeavour of the appellant / plaintiff to raise his defence before the concerned authority or the enquiry officer and plead that it was a petition sent with false and defamatory averments against him.The provision for costs is intended to achieve the following goals : (a) It should act as a deterrent to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations or defences.The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such, as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious, frivolous or speculative claim or defence.(c) Costs should provide adequate indemnity to the successful litigant for the expenditure incurred by him for the litigation.This necessitates the award of actual costs of litigation as contrasted from nominal or fixed or unrealistic costs.(d) The provision for costs should be an incentive for each litigant to adopt alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes and arrive at a settlement before the trial commences in most of the cases.In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent had sent a petition to the District Collector, Nilgris, against the appellant / plaintiff, as he was working as V.A.O in the District.Having considered the petition, the District Collector, referred the matter to the Tahsildar, Kothagiri, for conducting an enquiry.It is seen that the appellant / plaintiff, even without waiting for the result or finding of the District Collector, his Superior Authority, in deciding the petition, has rushed to the District Munsif Court, Kothagiri, by way of filing the suit seeking damages.Even as per Article 19 (1) of the Constitution, freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed as a Fundamental Right, though a defamatory statement could not be construed as a right, within the meaning of freedom of speech and expression, in view of Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.On the said circumstances, based on the averments made in the petition given by the respondent / defendant against the appellant / plaintiff to the District Collector, the averments could not be construed as a false and defamatory statement, based on which, the appellant / plaintiff would not be entitled to file the suit, seeking damages before the trial court.It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant that the suit was filed at the premature stage, without any bonafide intention.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
967,933 |
The brief facts of the case relevant for deciding this appeal are that on 5.8.1997 at about 6.30p.m., the accused with an intention to cause murder of the victim Ganesan had assaulted him with hands on the nap, stomach and chest repeatedly which resulted in the death of the victim on the next day ie., on 6.8.1997 at 6.00p.m.,Exs P1 to P 10 were exhibited and, M.Os 1 to 4 were marked.4. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Ganesan.According to her, her husband Ganesan was working under one Perumal as a watch man in his Mango garden for a salary of Rs.1500/- per annum and subsequently, in the place of her husband, the accused was employed by Perumal and that some arrears in the pay was due to her husband.The accused had promised her husband to get the arrears from Perumal but he has not stick to his promise which resulted in a grudge between her husband and the accused and on the date of occurrence, the accused took her husband victim Ganesan under the pretext of getting the arrears of salary took along with him and that she ,P.W.2 and P.W.3 along with one Venkataraman followed them at a distance of 10 feet.While going, the accused abused her husband and suddenly they picked up quarrel inspite of she , Venkataraman,and Muniratnam intervened, the accused had assaulted her husband on the nap repeatedly with his hands and also kicked her husband on the chest and at that time, when she(P.W.1) intervened she was also assaulted by the accused on the head and she and her daughter raised hue and cry which attracted a few public.On seeing the public approaching, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence and that she gave some water to her husband to drink,but he could not.Immediately, she brought her husband to the house in a cycle with the help of Venkataraman and Muniratinam(P.W.3) and that since she has no sufficient money to take her husband to the hospital, immediately on the following day, her son Moni went to his grand mother's house(P.w.1's mother) and brought some amount with the help of that she hired an auto-rickshaw in order to take her husband to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri but on the way her husband breathed his last.Immediately she rushed to the Village Administrative Officer, Krishnagiri preferred Ex P1 complaint.She has identified M.O.1 to M.O.3 are the wearing apparels of her husband.M.O.4 is the waist rope of her husband.P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1 who has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that on the fateful day at about 6.00p.m., accused took her father in order to get his arrears of salary and that she along with her mother and P.W.3 followed them and when they were nearing mango garden of Perumal, the accused abused her father in filthy language and caught hold of his nap gave two or three blows and also the accused kicked her father on the chest.He would admit that after the occurrence,he and Venkataraman took the victim Ganesan in a cycle belonged to one Chenrayan and that he heard on the next day that the victim is no more.P.W.4 is Chenrayan who had helped the victim to remove in his cycle from the place of occurrence to the victim's house.P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer who had took up investigation in this case which was registered under Krishnagiri Police Station Crime No.1102 of 1997 under Section 302 of IPC.Ex P7 is the first information report.On 7.8.1997 at about 6.00p.m., he had prepared observation mahazar Ex P2 in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness Perumal.Ex P8 is the rough sketch drawn by him.Thereafter he came to the place where the corpse of the deceased was kept and prepared another mahazar and also had drawn another rough sketch ExP9 in the presence of the same witnesses.He had conducted inquest under Ex P10 in the presence of panchayatars.The corpse was sent for autopsy through P.W.8 head constable who had identified the corpse to the Doctor P.W.6 who had conducted post mortem on the corpse of the victim.P.W.6 conducted the postmortem on 7.8.1997 at about 2.00p.m.The internal examination , he could see blood clot near C4 and C6 bone in the vertebral column.H had seen twisting (torison) to C4 and C6 bone in the vertebral column of the deceased.Ex P5 is the post mortem certificate.Set off is ordered under Section 428 of IPC.The trial Court is directed to secure the accused by issuing N.B.W and after securing the accused , he shall be sent to prison to spend the unexpended portion of the sentence.The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri.This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in S.C.168 of 1999 on the file of Principal Session Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.The learned Judicial Magistrate , on appearance of the accused on summons had furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and since the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions had committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge on appearance of the accused had framed charges under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.Before the trial Court, P.Ws 1 to 9 were examined .P.W.3 and Venkataraman also intervened but they were also pushed by the accused on the side.When passers by like Kaliyappan, Jaya and Murugan came to the rescue of her father, the accused ranaway from the scene of occurrence and that her father became unconscious and he was brought to the house in a cycle with the help of P.W.3 and Venkataraman and since her mother was not having sufficient money to take her father immediately to the hospital on the next day, her brother brought some amount from her grand mother with the help of that , they removed the victim in an autorickshaw to the Government Hospital Krishnagiri and that her mother has preferred a complaint.He also speaks about the attack made by the accused on the victim on his nap and also on his chest with the hands and legs.P.W.9 has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.He had arrested the accused on 8.8.1997 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand.He had seized M.O.s 1 to 4 under Form 95 from P.W.8.After completing the formalities,P.W.9 has filed the charge sheet against the accused.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has denied his complicity with the crime.After going through the evidence both oral and documentary let in before the learned trial Judge, the learned trial Judge has held that the offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC has been made out against the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment which necessitated the accused to prefer this appeal.The point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence by the trial Court under Section 304(ii) of IPC is sustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the appeal?.I heard Mr. V.Raja Mohan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and carefully considered their rival submissions.The Point:P.W.1,P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence.The occurrence had occurred on 5.8.1997 at about 6.30p.m., The victim died on 6.8.1997 at 6.00p.m.,Ex P1 is the complaint preferred on 6.8.1997 at 23.45 hours.The reason for delay, according to P.W.1 wife of the victim is that since she had no sufficient money to take her husband to the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri which is situate 7 k.m away from the place of occurrence, after securing money on the following day, she took her husband in an autorickshaw on 6.8.1997 at 6.00p.m., but her husband breathed his last on the way and immediately she had contacted the Village Administrative Officer ) along with him went to the Krishnagiri police Station and preferred Ex P1 complaint.P.W.7 also corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that on 6.8.1997 at about 10.00p.m., P.W.1 met him and he took her to the police station and the complaint was preferred by her and that Ex P6 is the special report.the complainant.The facts of the above said dictum is that both the deceased as well as the accused were of the same age group of 23 years and while they proceeded together as usual to the gymnasium for their regular exercise on the fateful day, there arose a quarrel between them and immediately the accused had took out a stick and beat the victim on his head which caused internal injuries.The victim was brought to the house of his sister and after some time, the victim was removed to the hospital and inspite of treatment given at the nursing home without responding to the same, he died on the next day morning.The Sessions Court convicted the accused for an offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced to under go three years rigorous imprisonment which was challenged before the High Court of Bombay.But the said facts of the case will not be applicable to the present facts of the case because even though the accused has assaulted the victim with the hands, according to the Doctor, P.W.6 who conducted the post mortem on the corpse of the deceased, the injury on the vertebral column sustained by the victim is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of the victim which will squarely come within the definition of "grievous hurt" under 8 of Section 320 of IPC which runs as follows: The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous"" firstly. .. . . .fourthly. . . .. . .sixthly. . . .seventhly. . ..Eightly: Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits".According to P.W.6, the doctor who had conducted post mortem on the corpse of the deceased had issued Ex P5 post mortem certificate for the injury sustained by the victim on the vertebral column is sufficient to cause death of the victim ie., hurt on the victim is sufficient to cause the death .Under such circumstances, the accused is liable to be convicted only under Section 325 of IPC and not under Section 304 (ii) of IPC.The motive attributed against the accused in this case , according to P.W.1 is that with a promise to get his arrears of the salary from one Perumal, the employer , the accused had taken the deceased along with him on the fateful day.Admittedly, Ganesan, the deceased was previously employed as a watchman for his mango garden and was given yearly salary of Rs.1500/- but subsequently, the victim was replaced by the accused by Perumal and that the victim had requested the accused to use his good offices to get his arrears from Perumal and on the date of occurrence also, the victim has accompanied the accused with a fond hope that he will get his arrears of salary from Perumal and while they were proceeding near the mango garden of Perumal , there arose a quarrel between the accused and the victim and the accused had abused the victim who began to assault him with hands and legs.The blows received by the victim at the hands of the accused on the nap, resulted fatal which had taken away the life of the victim.Under such circumstances, an offence under Section 325 of IPC alone is attracted against the accused and not an offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC.The point is answered accordingly.In fine, the appeal is dismissed but the conviction and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.168 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, at Dharmapurai is modified to one under Section 325 of IPC instead of Section 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.The Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri3. -do- through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, KrishnagiriThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
967,942 |
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on a complaint filed by the respondent herein, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and the four other witnesses, the case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 114, 120 (b), 148, 392 (1) and 448 IPC read with Sections 34 & 39 of the IPC and thereafter the complainant filed C.M.P.No.744 of 1987 under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code alleging that there are allegations against the petitioners herein in the body of the complaint though their names were not mentioned in the cause title and in the sworn statement the names of the petitioners have been mentioned.In the petition it was further alleged that the complainant and the witnesses have stated on oath that the petitioners have committed offence along with the other accused during the course of the same transaction and hence sought for arraying them as accused.Consequently, the connected Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,798,557 |
The Indian Bank refused to extend further credits to this company on the ground of RBI restrictions.Thereafter the company switched over to Punjab & Sind Bank and it falsified its accounts and presented the same before Punjab & Sind Bank in order to obtain various credit limits & other facilities from this bank.The company showed lesser liabilities and concealed the facts regarding true liabilities.Due to this concealment of the facts, the company and its officials induced the Punjab & Sind Bank to sanction credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 618.51 lacs.W.P. (Crl.) No. 65 of 2010 Page 2 of 6In Assistant Commissioner Vs.As regards company, the W.P. (Crl.) No. 65 of 2010 Page 5 of 6 court can always impose a sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment can be ignored as it is impossible to be carried out in respect of a company.This appears to be the intention of the legislature and we find no difficulty in construing the statute in such a way.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,799,466 |
Shri Achyut Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and Hon'ble the Chief Justice 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.I.A. No.6152/2020, an application under section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.Case diary perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is third application, under section, 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31/1/2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4606/2020, while the second application was rejected on merits vide order dated 29/2/2020 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Morar, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.46/2020 registered in respect of the offences punishable under sections 307, 498A, 506, 379 read with 34 of the IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that the applicant along with co-accused were involved in subjecting the victim to harassment and cruelty, due to non-satisfaction of demand HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 17281/2020 (Durgesh Tiwari Vs.On the basis of aforesaid, crime has been registered against the applicant.From a bare perusal of dying declaration, it can be seen that the victim herself has stated that the applicant was downstairs when the offence was being committed.Applicant has no criminal antecedents.There is no possibility of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence and he is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and prays for its rejection.It is submitted that except filing of charge-sheet there is no HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 17281/2020 (Durgesh Tiwari Vs.The prayer of the applicant has already been considered and rejected on merits vide order dated 29/2/2020 (Supra).
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,805,039 |
Navi Mumbai.2 The FIR was lodged by Prakash MadhukantChandebhamar.The complainant is the Finance Manager withA.P.M. Terminal India Pvt. Ltd. The head ofice of the Company issituated at Lower Parel, Mumbai.The CFS of the Company issituated at Plot No. 100, Sector 2, Dhronagiri, Uran and Plot No.5/18, Sector 6, Dhronagiri, Uran.Since 2012 to 2019Yogesh Agarwal was working as Head of Finance Division of theCompany.The containers of import and export of the Companyare kept after custom clearance of the goods C.H.A. on paymentof charges.The goods are delivered by persons working in both ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 ::: Ethape 3/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docxthe Departments of the Company.There are various departmentslike import and export, admin, security, fnance etc. in thecompany.Some of the workers are outsourced from anotherCompany.Documents are annexed to the interventionapplication.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 ::: Ethape 4/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docx5 Learned counsel for the Applicant in Anticipatory BailApplication No. 260 of 2020 submitted that, the Applicant hasbeen falsely implicated in this case.The FIR mentions that, thealleged irregularities were prior to his joining.The Applicant hasnot participated in this crime.The Applicant has not played anyrole in the misappropriation.The Applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation.The custodial interrogation of theApplicant is necessary.Misappropriation is to the tune of crores ofrupees.The accused are involved in forgery of documents.It is submittedthat, the transaction involved huge amount.The documentsrelating to PDA adjustment entries were also produced to showthe complicity of the accused.8 Learned counsel for the intervener placed reliance onthe documents annexed to the intervention application andcertain documents tendered during the course of his submissionswith regard to pre-deposit, advances etc. It is submitted that, inDecember 2018 the complainant carried out internal audit anddiscrepancies were identifed in Container Management andAccounting System.Thus, the payment were received in the form of cash or incheques.DATE : 20th FEBRUARY 2020PC.1 The Applicants are apprehending arrest in connectionwith C. R. No. 277 of 2019, registered with Uran Police Station,Dist.Navi Mumbai, under Sections 408, 465, 467, 468, 477 Aread with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").First Information Report (for short "FIR") was registered on 11 thDecember 2019 with Uran Police Station, Dist.Applicant Sharukh Shaikh, Yatin Kadam and others areworking in the Company.It was noticed that, the accused hadacted in connivance with M/s. Shubham Clearing andForwarding Agency and by way of false advances, huge amountis siphoned.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::4 The complainant has intervened and preferredInterim Application No. 01 of 2020 opposing grant ofanticipatory bail.The cash amount was collected by the co-accused.It was not stated that Applicant has collected the cash.Statement made to the Chartered Accountant incriminating theApplicant is not admissible in evidence.Itis submitted that, co-accused has admitted that he used user IDof Applicant and other persons.The co-accused has takenresponsibility of fraudulent activities committed by him in theletter to APM Terminal India Pvt. Ltd.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::6 Learned counsel for the Applicant in Anticipatory BailApplication No. 328 of 2020 submitted that, the interventionapplication and its connected documents relied upon by theintervener is based on audit and internal inquiry.It is allegedthat the confessional statement, during the inquiry, was notrecorded in free atmosphere.The confessional statement runsinto 20 pages.It cannot be considered as incriminating evidenceagainst him.It is not admissible in evidence.The Applicant iswilling to produce bank statement.The provisions of theInformation Technology Act were not invoked.The Applicant is ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 ::: Ethape 6/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docxwilling to explain the entries and transaction by appearingbefore the investigating oficer.The ofence is of technicalnature.The Applicant would be in a position to tenderexplanation to the investigating oficer.Adverse inference cannotbe drawn against him on the basis of allegation withoutunderstanding the scope of nature of allegation.The Applicantneed not be subjected to custody.The Applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation.No ofence is made out in the FIR.7 Learned APP submitted that, ofence is serious innature.Both Applicants have played vital role inmisappropriation of amount.The Accused had acted in connivancewith each other.The crime was committed during the tenure ofthe Applicants.Bank statement of the ApplicantSharukh Shaikh for a period between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2015is produced for perusal.Learned APP pointed out the transactionin the said account.Similarly the bank statement for a period of ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 ::: Ethape 7/9 926-ABA-260-320-2020 aw IA-1-20 .docx01.01.2017 to 31.12.2017, 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018 and01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 were also produced.Statements of witnesses recordedduring the course of investigation were pointed out.The saidwitnesses have disclosed the involvement of the Applicants andthe manner in which the transaction is executed.Theinvestigation conducted by the Police refects complicity of theApplicant.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::The cash component was never deposited by Applicantsand others in the bank and was siphoned of.It was suspectedthat, the accused had forged the entries and misappropriated thefunds of the Company.The accused had confessed the crime.Upon conducting a thorough analysis of the containermanagement system.Auditors have identifed that around 314customers invoices have been adjusted against forged and fakeadvance entries amounting to Rs.6,33,00,000/- by fve cashiersincluding the Applicants, in collusion with the Clearing HouseAgents.It is further submitted that the Auditors conducted aninquiry and the cashiers were interrogated and afterinterrogation the Applicants admitted that cash was siphonedaway with the help of Clearing House Agents.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::9 I have perused the documents and also perused theinvestigation papers.Thorough investigation is required to beconducted.Prima facie it appears that, fraud has beencommitted by the Accused.::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 260 of 2020and Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 328 of 2020 arehereby rejected.Interim Application No. 01 of 2020 is disposed of.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. ) ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2020 21:20:36 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,821,872 |
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate, with Shri Y.M. Tiwari for the applicant.Shri Rahul Jain, Government Advocate, for the State.This is a repeat application filed by the applicant.The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order-dated 30.1.2014, passed in M.Cr.Applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.570/2013 registered at Police Station Adhartal, District Jabalpur for offence under sections 328, 376(G) and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 67(a) of the IT Act.It is the case of the applicant now that the applicant and the prosecutrix were known to each other, they were friendly with each other and as prosecutrix is a married lady, when the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was made known to the husband of the prosecutrix, it is stated that she has falsely implicated the applicant.On the ground of false implication, this application has been filed seeking bail.However, learned Government Advocate brings to the notice of this Court the material available in the case diary - namely the First Information Report lodged by the prosecutrix herself, her statement and various other documents available on record, which goes to show that the prosecutrix was being black-mailed by the applicant.Allegation of committing the offence under section 376(G) is made against the applicant that 2 after drugging the prosecutrix, a video has been made and based on which the prosecutrix is being blackmailed.Keeping in view the statement of the prosecutrix and the material available in the case diary, for the present no case is made out for enlarging the applicant on bail.Serious allegations are leveled against the applicant by the prosecutrix with regard to the offence committed on her, not only of rape but of making video film of the entire incident and blackmailing her.Taking note of all these factors, I see no reason to enlarge the applicant on bail.Accordingly, the application is rejected.(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,826,739 |
This Writ Petition is filed praying to direct Respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 01.10.2010, and constitute thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 review committee.The contention of the Petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in a case in Crime No.160/1990 and remanded on 11.01.2010 before the TADA Court.So far 31 witnesses were examined out of 61 witnesses and appropriate action will be taken to dispose the case at an early date.Today, when the matter is called, the learned Government Advocate has placed the subsequent developments in thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 case and produced the status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q Branch, CID, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein.It is stated that based on the opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor of the Designated Court, the then Inspector of Police, laid a charge sheet on 03.09.1993 against the accused (A-1 to A-14) for offences under Section 120(B) IPC r/w.The Court of V Additional Special Court, [Presiding Judge, Designated Court-I under TADA (P) Act, 1987], Chennai, after due trial, convicted and sentenced the Petitioner/accused viz., Chidambaram, vide C.C.No.1 of 2010 dated 19.07.2012 as under:-Section of law Conviction and sentence 120-B IPC r/w.Section 3(3) of TADA Life Imprisonment.120-B IPC r/w.Section 4(1) of Life Imprisonment TADA(P) Act, 1987 120-B IPC r/w.Section 5 of Explosive Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years.It is further stated that during the course of undergoing the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the Petitioner/accused moved the Supreme Court of India and filed an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.81/2013 during February, 2013 and the said appeal is still pending before the Honourable Supreme Court.No costs.25.01.2019 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking nvsri To2.State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Q-Branch C.I.D Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5 D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.nvsri WP.21273 of 2011 25.01.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,402,029 |
(536)C. R. M. 8330 of 2014 In the matter of : An Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.07.2014 in connection with Bhagwangola Police Station Case No. 282/2013 dated 31.08.2013 under Sections 448/325/326/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Soleman Ali & Ors .Accordingly we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousands Only) each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.)
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,407,422 |
It is not a matter of dispute that Farida Bee (P.W.3), resident of Geeta Nagar, Indore had two daughters namely, Famida Bee (P.w.12), married to appellant Ashfaq and 2 Cr.A. No.1275/2005 younger one Tarannum (P.W.6) married to deceased Sheikh Arif, resident of Hyderabad.Appellant Mohd. Juber Hussain is son of Farida Bee (P.W.3).Prosecution story as having emerged during trial, briefly stated, is that sometime in February, 2003 Farida Bee (P.W.3) during her visit to Ajmer Sharif had an introduction with Sheikh Arif s/o Sheikh Hamid, resident of Yakutpura, Hyderabad.As per prosecution Sheikh Arif, on being requested by Farida Bee (P.W.3), came with her from Ajmer Sharif, (Rajasthan) to Indore and stayed for a couple of days at the house of Farida Bee (P.W.3) situated at Chandan Nagar, where he got introduced to her daughters Famida Bee (P.W.12) and Tarannum (P.W.6).After his brief stay at Indore, Sheikh Arif left for Hyderabad.Thereafter, on 11.09.2003 Famida Bee (P.W.12) along with her sister Tarannum (P.W.6), without informing the family members, went to Hyderabad and stayed there with Sheikh Arif for a couple of weeks.Regarding this incident, a missing persons report bearing No.82/2003 at the instance of Farida Bee (P.W.3) was registered on 19.09.2003 at Police Station - Chandan Nagar, Indore.Later on, coming to know that Famida Bee (P.W.12) and Tarannum (P.W.6) are at Hyderabad, Farida Bee (P.W.3) along with her son appellant Mohd. Juber Hussain went to Hyderabad to bring back both of her daughters.During her stay at Hyderabad, Tarannum (P.W.6) developed intimacy 3 Cr.A. No.1275/2005 with Sheikh Arif, which led to their marriage on the following Eid festival.As per prosecution, because of the incident of running away of Famida Bee (P.W.12) and Tarannum (P.W.6) to Hyderabad, appellant Mohd. Ashfaq was entertaining doubt about fidelity of her wife Famida Bee (P.W.12) and had the suspicion that she was having illicit relations with Sheikh Arif.Due to this some quarrel also took place between Famida Bee (P.W.12) and appellant Mohd. Ashfaq, regarding which a report was lodged on 1st of March, 2004 at Police Station Chandan Nagar.The further case of the prosecution is that in the last week of February, 2004 Sheikh Arif along with his wife Tarannum (P.W.6) came to Indore to celebrate 'Muharram' festival.He stayed at the house of Farida Bee (P.W.3).There was also some quarrel between Sheikh Arif and Mohd. Ashfaq.Allegedly, Mohd. Ashfaq threatened Sheikh Arif that he will not be allowed to go back alive.On 5th of March, 2004 in the late evening Sheikh Arif was having headache.Around 9 p.m. appellant Mohd. Juber Hussain took him with himself pretending that he will fetch some medicine for him and will also provide tea.As per prosecution, Sheikh Arif thereafter did not return.As per prosecution, on the fateful day, Head Constable, Dhiraj Singh (P.W.7) was on his "Ilaka" duty in 4 Cr.A. No.1275/2005 Chandan Nagar area.He, on receipt of information that a person was lying injured near betel shop, immediately went to the stated place and found a young man lying in the pool of blood in an injured state.Dhiraj Singh (P.W.7) immediately took him in the Auto of Hasmat Ali (P.W.5) to the casualty ward of M.Y. Hospital, Indore.Allegedly, while being taken to the hospital, the injured person on being interrogated by Dhiraj Singh (P.W.7) told him that his name is Sheikh Arif and that he has been assaulted with knives by Mohd. Ashfaq and Mohd. Juber Hussain, who are his brother-in-law and co- brother.Sheikh Arif was admitted by Dhiraj Singh (P.W.7) in the Hospital, however, he succumbed to the injuries and expired soon thereafter.A "Merg" in this regard was registered at Police Station - Chandan Nagar.below & 4 cm.left nipple.Incised wound present over lower part of the left side of chest, anteriorly just above the middle of upper border of injury No.10, obliquely vertical 2.5 X 0.6 X 1 cm.As opined by Dr. P.S. Thakur (P.W.8), Sheikh Arif died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple wounds and that the death was homicidal in nature, caused within 24 hours of postmortem examination.On the basis of "Merg" enquiry, First Information Report (Ex.p/10) was registered on 06.03.2004 at Police Station - Chandan Nagar.The investigation was set in motion.The spot map (Ex.P/11) was prepared.J UD G E M E N T (Delivered on 28/06/2017) Per: Justice Ved Prakash Sharma This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 06.10.2003 passed by X Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No.266/2004, whereby the appellants have been found guilty under Section 302/34 of IPC for committing murder of one Sheikh Arif, husband of Tarannum (P.W.6) and each has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Inquest proceedings were conducted.The dead body was sent for postmortem examination.Dr. P.S. Thakur (P.W.8), vide postmortem report (Ex.P/5), found following 11 ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased.i. Incised wound present over palm of right hand, two in number, one over proximal part of palm, 3.0 cm.distal to wrist, vertical 1.5 X 0.2 X 0.2 cm., another over distal part of palm 3 X 0.2 X 0.2 cm.Incised wound present over lateral knuckle of proximal & middle phalanx of right index finger 3 X 0.6 cm.Incised wound present over knuckle of left index finger transverse 3 X 0.7 X 0.5 cm.Incised wound present over knuckle of left thumb transverse 2.5 X 0.7 X 0.3 cm.and over back of proximal phalanx left thumb, transverse 1 X 0.2 X 0.1 cm.v. Incised wound present over left supra clavicular region, 3 cm.above left clavicle, 3.2 X 0.1 X 0.1 cm.Incised wound present over middle of left shoulder region, obliquely vertical 3.5 X 0.1 X 0.1 cm.Incised wound present over back of abdomen at left lumber region, 12 cm.left to middle shoulder, transverse 0.3 X 0.2 X 0.1 cm.Incised wound present over adjoining part of right side face and upper part of nose transverse 9 X 1 X 2 cm.steep cut present over nasal bone and right muscular bone under wound.Stab wound present over left surface of abdomen, 18 cm.left & 3 cm.above umbilical, obliquely vertical, lower and narrow 3 X 0.7 X 5.5 cm.x. Stab wound present over lower part of left side of chest and 11.0 cm.Apart this, plain and simple earth was also seized from the spot.On the basis of disclosure said to have been made by him, vide memo (Ex.P/7) a knife measuring 15" having blood like stains over it was recovered, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/8).The witnesses were interrogated.After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against appellant Ashfaq before the Competent Magistrate in 7 Cr.A. No.1275/2005 which appellant Mohd. Juber Hussain was shown absconding.The learned Magistrate after complying with formalities stipulated under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions.The appellants were charged under Section 302 and in alternate section 302/34 of IPC.They abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 14 witnesses before the trial Court.Apart this, document Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/15 were also marked in evidence.The incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellants were brought to their notice in their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellants either denied or claimed innocence regarding most of the incriminating circumstances and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case.However, they chose not to produce any oral or documentary evidence except Ex.D/1, D/2 & D/3 respectively, the police statement of Farida Bee (P.W.3), Tarannum (P.W.6) and Dhiraj Singh (P.W.7) which were marked during their examination.The learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced before it, vide the impugned judgment found each of the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.The contention is that the deceased was taken to hospital not by Dhiraj Singh (P.W.7) but by one Ramkaran Shinde in a dead state and, therefore, the question of making any dying declaration did not arise.The further submission is that the learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the evidence, has recorded the conviction which is liable to be set aside.Per contra, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court on due appreciation of evidence pertaining to dying declaration has found the same to be reliable and has recorded the conviction.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by rival counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the record.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,409,123 |
The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:We have heard Mr.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,411,019 |
Petitioner no.1 is thenilegaonkar 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 23:40:17 ::: 16-wp-2894-4159.2019.odthusband.Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are his parents and petitionerno.4 is his sister.DATE : FEBRUARY 07, 2020P.C.:Respondent no.2 in WP No. 4159 of 2019 is complainant inFIR registered under sections 498A, 406, 504, 506 read with 34IPC against the petitioners therein.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 23:40:17 :::Petitioner no. 4, sister of petitioner no. 1 has filed FIR on thebasis of which crime under sections 452, 354 of IPC came to beregistered against the brothers of respondent no.2complainant/wife.One brother has approached this court inCriminal Writ Petition No. 2894 of 2015 for quashing it.3. Learned APP appears for the State Government in both thematters.The dispute between the parties is arising out of thematrimonial discord.In Petition No.The parties areaccordingly getting their marriage dissolved by mutual consent.Respondent no.2 wife has in court orally accepted thenilegaonkar 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 23:40:17 ::: 16-wp-2894-4159.2019.odtconsent terms and given no objection.The complainant in theother matter has also given no objection.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 23:40:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 23:40:17 :::
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,413,772 |
... ... Petitioners W I T H In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29.05.2018 in connection with West Port Police Station Case No. 88 of 2018 dated 16.05.2018 under Sections 419/420/409/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Pawan Kumar Didwania ... ... Petitioner Mr. Sandipan Ganguli .. Sr.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,414,645 |
The complaint lodged by the second respondent alleging that when the victim girl was alone in her home on 11.10.2018, her relative namely, the first accused had sought hammer from her.While, the victim girl requested him to adjust T.V channels, the first accused mis-behaved with her and as such, she felt ashamed and poured kerosene on her and set fire to herself.Therefore, she sustained grievous injurious and admitted into the Government Medical College Hospital, Assaripallam.Even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners have no overt act in the occurrence.The entire allegations are only as against the first accused, since he only mis-behaved and as such the victim girl herself set fire.On the allegation that when the victim girl was alone in her house on 11.10.2018, the first accused had sought hammer from the victim.While the victim requested him to adjust the T.Vhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 Channel, the first accused mis-behaved with her.Therefore, she felt ashamed and poured kerosene on her and set fire on her.Therefore, she sustained injuries and taken to Government Medical College Hospital, Assaripallam.Thereafter, on 19.10.2018 she was succumbed due to the burnt injuries.They have given shelter to the first accused after the occurrence.There are material to attract the offence under Section 212 of IPC.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.301 of 2018 on the file of the firsthttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 respondent police for the offence under Sections 451, 354 (A) and 309 of IPC.Subsequently, altered into offence under Sections 452, 354 (A), 376, 306 and r/w 34 and 212 of IPC.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are totally three accused.On the confession of the first accused, the petitioners have been implicatedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 as an accused for the reason that they provided shelter to the first accused after the occurrence.Therefore, there is absolutely no prima facie case to attract any of the offence as alleged by the prosecution as against the petitioners.Insofar as the offence under Section 34 IPC is concerned, the petitioners happened to be the relative of the first accused, except that no other intention commonly to do the offence.He further submitted that insofar as the offence under Section 212 of IPC is concerned, the petitioners never gave any shelter to them and never helped him to escape from the scene of crime and as such the entire proceedings are initiated nothing but clear abuse of process of law.He further submitted that the petitioners along with first accused committed serious offence and as such he prayed for dismissal of the petition.Heard, Mr.S.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.301/2018 for the offence under Sections 451, 354 (A) and 309 of IPC.Subsequently, the victim died due to burn injuries onhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 19.10.2018 and as such, the offences were altered into Sections 452, 354 (A), 376, 306 and r/w 34 and 212 of IPC.Asfaras the allegations as against the petitioners are concerned they provided shelter to the first accused and also allowed him to escape from the scene of Crime.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.10.2018, when the victim was alone in her house, the first accused requested hammer to adjust the T.V Channels as requested by her.At that juncture, the first accused mis-behaved with her and as such, she felt ashamed and poured kerosene on her.Thereafter, she set fire on her and sustained grievous injuries.Immediately, she was taken to the Government Hospital and given treatment to her.Unfortunately, on 19.10.2018 she succumbed to grievous injuries.According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners happened to be the relatives of the first accused have allowed the first accused to escape from the scene of crime and also given shelter to him after the crime committed by him.To substantiate this charges, the prosecution examined the second respondent and she stated that the petitioners have allowed the first accused to escape from the scene of crime and also they had common intention to give shelter to him after the crime.Except this allegation, no otherhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 allegations are there as against the petitioners to attract the offence as alleged by the prosecution.While pending this petition to quash the FIR, the first respondent completed investigation and filed a final report and the same has been pending for trial in PRC.No.39/2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Kulithurai.In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and another Vs.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 Crl.Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR.Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Singly Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made our from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc., or not.”The petitioners happened to be the relatives of the first accused, they have been falsely implicated as an accused with the simple allegation that they provided shelter to the first accused and also allowed him to escape from the scene of crime.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused mis- behaved with the victim girl and as such, she felt ashamed.Thereafter, the victim herself poured kerosene on her and set fire on her own.Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioners and the entire proceedings are nothing but clear abuse of process of law.In view of the above discussion, the proceedings in Crime No.301 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police, Puthukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari District, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners herein.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.10.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No dsshttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.1.The Inspector of Police, Puthukadai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6275 of 2019 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4146 of 2019 03.10.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,421,846 |
Applicant Vinay Kumar Shukla was arrested on 03.01.2019 in connection with Crime No.762/2018 registered at Police Station Civil Line District Rewa for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506-II of IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act.Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.03.2019 passed in M.Cr.As per the prosecution case, applicant made sexual relation with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and thereafter sexually exploited her and also blackmailed her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.The prosecutrix was major and was a consenting party.Although earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits but thereafter the statement of prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial Court.Although earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.03.2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge mn Digitally signed by MANOJ NAIR Date: 03/03/2020 18:45:19
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,642,368 |
The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant was in the habit of voyeurism whereby he used to observe women and also used to record their images in his mobile camera without their consent and knowledge on account of which the abovesaid case has been registered against him.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the mobile recovered from the applicant has photographs of women in denuded state which were taken without their knowledge and consent.
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,424,307 |
It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 is an RTI activist.Defendant ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 4/37 NMS1086.14 no. 3 is engaged in the business of broadcasting news channel in Hindi and regional languages who has alleged to have produced the programme "Azab MP Gazab Ghotala" telecasted on its 'Focus News Channel'.Defendant no. 7 and 8 are Group Editor in Chief of 'Focus News channel' and a reporter of the said channel respectively.It is averred by the plaintiffs that on 9 th May, 2014 before the scheduled Press Conference, a Press Release which was already typed in English was released by defendant no. 1 in connivance and collusion with defendant nos. 2 to 9 with an information that the defendant no.1 would address the press conference on 9th May, 2014 at 3.30 pm.It is averred by the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 does not know English and can only speak and write in Hindi.It is averred that the defendant no. 3 to 8 appears to have drafted the Press Release and were the ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 5/37 NMS1086.14 persons behind organizing the press conference.It is averred by the plaintiffs that in the said Press Release, defendant no. 1 and 2 made very false imputations and defamatory allegations which are mentioned in paragraph 18 of the plaint.The said press conference was attended by journalists of various Print and Electronic Media including the correspondents of Zee News and Zee Business (Essel Group Entities).It is averred by the plaintiffs that in connivance and in collusion with defendant no.1 defendant no. 3 to 9 with a criminal intent and in order to achieve Ghotala" on Focus TV channel their illegal motive, on 13th May, 2014 telecasted a programme "Azab MP Gazab which contained false, baseless and highly defamatory contents to defame and cause injury to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs, its officials and its promoters.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the allegations made in the said program were similar to defamatory allegations made in the press release and press conference held on 9th May, 2014 at Press Club of India New Delhi.It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the conclusion of the press conference held by the defendant no. 1, the plaintiffs and its officials started receiving calls from other media and public at large enquiring as to why the plaintiffs were engaged in such kind of illegal activities and making unwarranted gains at the cost of the public.The staffs and officials of the plaintiffs were embarrassed.The morale and confidence of the employees of the group companies including that of the plaintiffs were diminished.It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the period between 9 th May, 2014 and 13th May, 2014 the said Focus TV Channel time and again telecasted the clippings of the press conference which was held by defendant no. 1 and projected the plaintiffs company as well as its promoters to be land grabbers and scammers ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 6/37 NMS1086.14 which caused immense damage about the image or reputation of the plaintiffs, its promoters and non executive chairman Dr. Subhash Chandra in the eyes of the public at large.At this stage the court can consider the substance in those allegations based on one of the ex facie case of favour alleged to have been shown by the Madhya Pradesh Government to the plaintiffs.In support of this submission, learned senior counsel invited my attention to some of the documents annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by defendant no. 3 which documents are not disputed by the plaintiffs highlighted hereinafter.Some time in the year 2005, M/s. PAN India Paryatan Limited (Original ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 32/37 NMS1086.14 name of the plaintiff) had approached the Chief Minister of the Madhya Pradesh and had sought allotment of 60 acres of Government land for establishment of a water park/amusement park.On 11th November, 2005, the Collector informed the Principal Secretary that the Director, Veterinary Services had objected to the allotment on the ground that if the land was taken away, then there would be a shortage of suitable land for the production of dry green fodder and would have an adverse impact on the health of animals.It was mentioned that the premium/value of the land at the rate of 112 per sq. ft. was at Rs.24.73 Crores and annual rent @ 7.5% would be Rs.1.86 Crores.It was also mentioned that at the minimum rent of Rs.60/- per sq. ft., the value of the land would be at Rs.13.25 Crores and the annual rent at the rate of 7.5% thereof would be at Rs.99.38 lacs.If he value was taken as 3.89 Crores, the annual rent at 7.5% would be Rs.29.24 lacs.On 28th March, 2006, the said land was allotted at Rs.3.89 Crores with the annual rental at 7.5% of Rs.29.24 lacs to the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs were required to deposit the premium amount and annual lease rent within six months.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Kvm 33/37 NMS1086.14 On 7th September, 2007, the plaintiffs deposited Rs.40 lacs only and did not deposit the balance amount.The Revenue department of the Madhya Pradesh Government informed the Collector that as the amount had not been deposited as required, the allocation order dated 28th March, 2006 stood automatically cancelled.By this notice of motion plaintiffs seek temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their servants and agents from further uttering/repeating/writing/publishing/telecasting any programme or news item thereby making defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs or tending to defame or harm the plaintiffs' business and its reputation in any manner whatsoever and also seeks a mandatory order and injunction against defendant no.1 and 2 to remove the Press Release or any other information/messages/articles relating to the plaintiffs and its Non-executive chairman/directors or any other officers of their website or any other Website or media of defendant no.1 and 2 and seeks injunction from displaying the Press release or any defamatory information/message/articles relating to the plaintiffs and their non-executive chairman/directors or any other officers in their website.Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this notice of motion are as under :The plaintiffs have filed the suit for damages in the sum of Rs.200 Crores with interest against all the defendants and seeks permanent order and injunction from writing/publishing/telecasting/airing any program of news items thereby making defamatory allegations against the plaintiffs or tending to defend or harm the plaintiffs' business and its reputation.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have undertaken large number of road development projects, power projects, urban infrastructure projects.The net worth of the plaintiffs for the year 2014-2015 was Rs.3251.62 crores.The turn over of the plaintiffs for the said period is Rs.192.40 crores.The plaintiffs have work force of about 8000 employees.It is the case of the plaintiffs that Essel Group is in diversified business which include media/technology /entertainment packaging/infrastructure /education etc and has pioneered in number of businesses.It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 in connivance of defendant no. 2 to 9 hatched a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance thereof the defendant no. 1 was called to New Delhi to make false imputations against the plaintiffs, its officials and promoters by holding a Press Conference which was arranged by active involvement of defendant no.2 to 9 on 9th May 2014 at Press Club of India, New Delhi.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Some time in the year 2014 plaintiffs filed a Criminal Complaint bearing No. 176/01 of 2014 against the defendants in the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi for the offence alleged to have been committed under section 420, 499, 500 read with section 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The said complaint is pending for hearing and final disposal.On 18th July, 2014 the plaintiffs filed the suit.The plaintiffs have annexed a copy of the Press Release dated 9th May, 2014 to the plaint.In para 25 of the plaint the plaintiffs have tabulated the allegations made in the Press Release and the factual position according to the plaintiffs which are alleged to be false and defamatory allegations leveled against them.Plaintiffs have also annexed copy of the CD which according to the plaintiffs contains the recording of the press conference dated 9th May, 2014 and also annexed copies of the transcript of the press conference in Hindi along with English translations.Plaintiffs have also annexed copy of the CD which according to the plaintiffs is CD of the programme telecast on Focus TV Channel along with transcript of the said programme in Hindi and its English translation.Along with the summary of the allegations and the alleged correct factual position referred in paragraph 25 of the plaint the plaintiffs have also annexed some of the photographs of the building in support of the alleged factual position that the building on the plot which was not a school but a training centre belonging to the developer was in a dilapidated condition and the same was renovated by the plaintiffs.The plaintiffs have also annexed photographs showing ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 7/37 NMS1086.14 the alleged present situation of the Kerwa Road in support of the plea that the same was very much in operation and still used by public even today.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Mr. Godbole learned counsel for the plaintiffs invited my attention to various allegations made in the press release and from the transcript of the programme in Hindi and English translations telecast on Focus TV Channel and would submit that the Focus TV News Channel has violated the established norms and also various provisions of the Cable Televisions Network Regulations Act 1995 as prescribed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India as a part of broadcast permission granted to the channel under uplinking/downlinking guidelines.Learned counsel placed reliance on sub clauseThe learned counsel invited my attention to various clarifications averred in the plaint on each of the allegations made by the defendants and would submit that the same were false and defamatory.Learned counsel submits that the M.P. High Court has already fined ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 8/37 NMS1086.14 the first defendant to the tune of Rs.5 lacs by order dated 28 th Nov. 2013 in WP No. 1967 of 2006 in the writ petition filed by him against the State of MP and Ors in view of his habit of raising false accusations on corporate houses.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Learned counsel invited my attention to the material on the website of defendant no. 2 under heading "Lands Scam by Government in Corporate House".One of the item mentioned therein is about 'Assem Infra Project'.It is submitted that if the website of defendant no. 2 is opened, it reflects the defamatory allegations made by defendant nos. 1 and 2 on the said website against the plaintiffs and their board of directors.Defendant no. 2 has also downloaded two pages from the Website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs giving the Master details of the plaintiffs' company.It is submitted by the learned counsel that Plaintiffs have sufficiently described the defamatory allegations in the plaint.The documents which contain such defamatory allegations are already on record and forms part of the plaint which are not disputed by the defendants.Since the telecast has taken place all over India, even this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.It is submitted that there is no delay in filing the suit.Learned counsel submits that the defendant nos. 3 to 9 have not denied the telecast of programme on the Focus News Channel, though those defendants have only denied that the telecast was with an intention to defame the plaintiffs.Defendants nos. 3 to 8 have confirmed the allegations of the defendant no.1 and 2 as correct.It is submitted ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 9/37 NMS1086.14 that various allegations are made against the present Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh who was not even the Minister when the land was allotted to the plaintiffs.The government had as a matter of fact rejected the allotment granted in favour of the plaintiffs.The committee appointed by the government after considering all the aspects in the matter had thereafter approved the said allotment.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::In so far as various documents referred to and relied upon by defendant nos.It is submitted that the topics tabulated in paragraph 25 of the plaint are not such defamatory statements which would disclose any cause of action against the defendants.It is submitted that if there is any justification available on record to decide prima facie that the articles and/or telecast was justified, no injunction can be granted against the defendants.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::The said allotment was cancelled and was surprisingly restored subsequently with waiver of interest.Though under the terms of allotment, the plaintiffs were supposed to complete the work within two years from 29th September, 2008, the work has not been started at all.My attention is invited to the averments made at page 11 of the plaint which discloses that the said project is closed due to financial reasons.None of the documents placed on the website of defendant nos. 1 and 2 have been disputed by the plaintiffs.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Kvm 17/37 NMS1086.14Learned senior counsel invited my attention to e-mail dated 2 nd May 2014 from defendant no.3 to the plaintiffs summarizing the allegations made by the residents of Madhya Pradesh against the plaintiffs and required the version of the plaintiffs over those allegations made by the residents of the Madhya Pradesh.The defendant no.3 requested the plaintiffs to give them time for television interview over those allegations as early as it could be.The plaintiffs also did not come forward to give their version over the allegations made by the residents of the Madhya Pradesh and though invited to spare some time for television interview over those allegations, plaintiffs did not bother to reply to the said e-mail or to agree for television interview for expressing their version over the allegations made by the residents of Madhya Pradesh.It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the defendants nos. 3 to 8 have not only denied the allegations of the plaintiffs that the telecast on Foucs News Channel by defendants nos. 3 to 8 against the plaintiffs were defamatory in any manner whatsoever but have justified the same which justification is shown more than prima facie and the material produced is more than adequate.In so far as the loan applied by the plaintiffs on the plot of land allotted to the plaintiffs at the thrown away price is concerned, it is submitted that whether such loan was ultimately received or not by the plaintiffs is not relevant.The plaintiffs have not denied that the plot of land which was obtained by the plaintiffs from the government for the sum of Rs.3.49 crores, on that plot of land, the plaintiffs have applied for loan of Rs.17 crores.It is submitted that the plaintiffs have not explained in rejoinder as to why the plaintiffs did not avail of the opportunity to ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 18/37 NMS1086.14 offer their version over the allegations made by the residents of Madhya Pradesh though defendant no.3 had called upon the plaintiffs to do so.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Kvm 19/37 NMS1086.14Hakani learned counsel for the defendant nos.1 and 2 submits that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had obtained copies of various documents from various departments of the government under the provisions of Right to Information Act and scrutinized and verified the same.Plaintiff to pay costs to the defendants of this application.The application is made on behalf of the plaintiff for the stay of this order.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Kvm 20/37 NMS1086.14 However, it needs to be clarified that the Court as such has not granted any ad-interim relief, but certain statement was made on behalf of the defendants themselves before the Court that they will not publish any articles concerning the plaintiff in their newspaper.At the request of plaintiff's advocate issuance of certified copy is expedited.Defendant no.3 has not denied that there was telecast of program on Focus News Channel as its own programme.The defendant no.3 has not produced the correct CD for perusal of this court.It is submitted by the learned counsel that what has been pleaded in the plaint is more than sufficient.Keeping in mind the aforesaid statement of law declared by the Supreme Court and this court, I will now consider whether in the facts of this case how far both the parties have satisfied the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court and this court on the requirement of pleading in a suit based on tort and the effect on justification with material sought to be pleaded by the defendants in opposition to the grant of relief for injunction.A perusal of the averments made in the plaint indicates that the plaintiffs have not particularized the alleged defamatory portion from the press release and also the telecast.The plaintiffs have generalized the allegations of defamation in the plaint and has basically relied upon the entire press report and the telecast on the news channel.At the bottom of the said press release a note is provided by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 stating that 'all documents received under RTI on the above expose can be accessed on www.janadhikarmunch.com.' It is also mentioned that the 'White Paper on the serial breaches had been attached with media release'.It is also mentioned that the request for additional information could be made to the defendant no.1 at his office address mentioned therein and at mobile number or office number including e-mail at the e-mail ID mentioned therein.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::It is the case of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the affidavit in reply that each and every statement made in the press release is based on their honest belief and on the facts verified from the documents which they had received under the provisions of Right to Information Act. The defendant no.1 had approached various government bodies and agencies and prima facie violations were emerging on the basis of the findings from documents procured under RTI.It is also the case of the defendant no.1 that there were about 8 journalist from different channel of Zee Media present in the said press conference to counter and embarrass the defendant no.1 and has repeatedly made attempts not to allow other media persons to ask him questions.The officials of the plaintiffs were also present at the press conference venue and distributed their statement to the attending journalists from various media houses.A perusal of the rejoinder on this issue indicates that except bare denial, the plaintiffs have not raised any specific plea.The defendant no.1 also has averred that copy of the website at Ex.F is the copy of the introduction of the plaintiffs from its website and copies of other documents at page 130 and 131 are the copies of the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs which information is in public domain and cannot be defamatory.It is also the case of the defendant no.1 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 29/37 NMS1086.14 that he had approached the media house including Zee TV prior to holding press conference in respect of the said issue amongst other issues.Reporter of the plaintiffs also was present and participated.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::A perusal of the text of the news telecast on the Focus News Channel by the defendant no. 3 which is annexed by the plaintiffs to the plaint itself indicates that various professionals were interviewed by defendant no. 3 on 13.5.2014 such as Mr. Buch, an Environment Expert, Mr. Ajay Dubey, Activist/Lawyer, Mr.Babulal Gaur Ex Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Mr. Manak Agarwal, Vice President, Madhya Pradesh Congress.A perusal of the email annexed to the affidavit in reply of defendant no. 3 indicates that defendant no. 3 had brought to the knowledge of the plaintiffs about the allegations made by residents of Madhya Pradesh alleging violation of basic land allotment norms/rules against the plaintiffs company and more particularly Essel Infraaproject.It was also brought to the notice of the plaintiffs that the allegation of the residents was that the land allotment to the plaintiffs company in different areas of Madhya Pradesh was major threat to wild life and water resources of country and those who were raising voice against the plaintiffs regarding their upcoming projects, were being threatened by the officials of Zee and Essel.By the said email the defendant no. 3 informed the plaintiffs that as a responsible news network Focus TV required the version of the plaintiffs over allegations made by the residents of Madhya Pradesh and requested the plaintiffs to give them time for television interview over those allegations as early as the plaintiffs could.The plaintiffs however, did not come for television interview nor made any comments over those allegations.A perusal of the rejoinder on this issue indicates that except bare denial, there is no positive explanation of the plaintiffs on this issue.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Kvm 30/37 NMS1086.14In the affidavit in reply, defendant no. 3 to 8 and in particular in paragraph 15, the defendant no. 3 has contended that the allegations made in column 2 of the tabular statement in para 25 of the plaint, does not record any words/statements made in the telecast or programme, the plaintiffs have not placed the facts in their correct perspective and have suppressed material facts and documents.The defendant no. 3 also included the contents of the response of the plaintiffs while broadcasting the news report/programme which was distributed/circulated by the plaintiffs at the press conference.It is submitted by the defendant no. 3 that in the said TV news programme the facts stated were accurate and true and were clearly borne out by the documents and facts set out therein.It is contended that the comments made in the said TV programme were fair comments on the matter of public interest.It is submitted by the defendant no. 3 that the news report was in the form of questionnaire/opinion and was based inter alia on the press release of defendant no.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::The defendant no.3 had taken steps to verify the authenticity of the facts stated in the news report and only thereafter had telecasted the same on the Focus News Channel.Based on such documents, the plaintiffs have not made any positive statements or have not tendered any explanation in respect of such documents.Mr. Chinoy learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant no. 3 to 8 submits that the defendant no. 3 can even at this stage prima facie prove the correctness of the contents of the news telecast on the basis of the documents annexed to the affidavit in reply which were verified by the defendant no. 3 before telecast.At a meeting of the Reservation Committee held on 16th June, 2005, it was decided to reserve 58.23 lake front land registered in the name of State Dairy Veterinary Department.It was provided that the reservation order would be issued on payment of 10% of the value of the land to the Collector.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::On 6th September, 2005, the Chairman of the Essel Group had a meeting with the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh regarding the allotment and sought a 90 years lease at 50% of the market value.In the month of October, 2005, the Madhya Pradesh Government issued a reservation/allotment order for the said land and provided that the work shall be started within one year of getting possession of the land.On 26 th October, 2007, the plaintiffs forwarded cheque for Rs.3,49,85,870/- towards the balance premium amount to the Government.In the meeting of the Project Clearance and Implementation Board under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary on 14th December, 2007, it was decided to continue /reallot the said land to the plaintiffs and to accept the balance premium amount of Rs.3,49,85,780/-.On 3rd January, 2008 the Madhya Pradesh Government decided to extend time for deposit of amount till 31 st January, 2008 and directed that interest at the rate of 15% should not be charged to the plaintiffs.On 29th September, 2008, the agreement for transfer of the land at the premium of Rs.3.90 Crores and annual lease rental of Rs.29.25 lacs.for 30 years, with a right of renewal for a further period of 30 years was executed between plaintiffs and MP Government.In the said agreement it was provided that plaintiffs shall start the work within six months and shall complete the same within two years.It is the case of the plaintiffs that on 8th July, 2009 the plaintiffs had created an equitable mortgage with the State Bank of India by deposit of title deeds of the said land allotted to the plaintiffs by the MP Government bearing Khasra Nos. 8, 11 to 19, 22, 23 and 33, area 50.70 acres as a security of grant of loan of Rs.17.34 Crores.The plaintiffs also executed a declaration to that effect.On 12 th December, 2013 the plaintiffs had applied to the Collector, Bhopal for permission to take loan against mortgage ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 ::: Kvm 34/37 NMS1086.14 of the said land allotted by the Government.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::A perusal of the rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs in so far as allotment of the land and the mortgage alleged to have been created in respect of the said land by the plaintiffs for obtaining loan of Rs.17.34 Crores is concerned, the plaintiffs have annexed a copy of the letter addressed by State Bank of India dated 8 th July, 2014 in support of their submission that no loan was disbursed to the plaintiffs.A perusal of the record prima facie indicates that (i) the plaintiffs have not denied about the contents of all these documents showing the application for allotment of land by the plaintiffs, (ii) objection raised by the Director, Veterinary Services to the allotment of land to the plaintiffs, (iii) though the valuation of the plot was at much higher amount determined by the officers of the Government, allotment of the land to the plaintiffs at a cheaper rate, (iv) non payment of the premium within time, (v) cancellation of allotment by the Government, re-allotment of the land without charging any interest, (vi) application made by the plaintiffs for mortgaging the said property allotted at the rate of Rs.3.90 Crores for loan amount of Rs.17.34 Crores and sanction of loan for Rs.17.34 crores (vii) though work required to be commenced within one year of the date of the allotment which was in the year 2006-07, work had not even commenced till today.A perusal of the letter dated 8th July, 2014 which is annexed by the plaintiffs to rejoinder dated 16th October, 2014 itself indicates that the plaintiffs were sanctioned term loan of Rs.17.34 Crores as far back as on 27 th February, 2009 for setting up a family recreation center on the said plot of land.The said term loan however, was not disbursed as NOC from Collector of Bhopal to mortgage of the lease land was not obtained by the plaintiffs company.No charge on the land was created by way of mortgage.A perusal of the said letter indicates that the said letter is now obtained in the month of July, 2014 after publication of the Press release and telecast of the alleged defamatory material on the news channel against the plaintiffs.It is thus not in dispute that the land which is allotted to the plaintiffs at the premium of Rs.3.90 Crores in the year 2008-09, the plaintiffs had been sanctioned loan of Rs.17.34 Crores as far back as on 27 th February, 2009 against equitable mortgage.The plaintiffs have not denied all these documents or the contents thereof.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Defendant no. 3 has also placed reliance on MOU dated 22 nd December, 2012 between the MP Trade and Investment Facilitation Corporation and the plaintiffs for allotment of 5000 acres of land at Morena Gwalior District for setting up a Knowledge based Industry (Knowledge City).::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::Though the plaintiffs had an opportunity to seek amendment to the plaint and to particularize the defamatory words, if any, from the press release and from the telecast, plaintiffs did not choose to seek amendment to the plaint.::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::In my view the Notice of Motion is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.No order as to costs.[R.D. DHANUKA, J.] ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2014 23:47:41 :::
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,424,379 |
(Order of the Court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.) The detenu himself is the petitioner herein and challenging the impugned order of detention dated 28.06.2019 passed by the second respondent, branding him as a 'Goonda' under the provisions of Section 3[1] of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), he has filed the present habeas corpus petition.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 28.06.2019, passed by the second respondent herein, would show that the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:-It is further stated in the grounds of detention that on 14.05.2019, at about 07.00 hours, when the defacto complainant, namely, Satheesh, a resident of Indira Colony, Suchindrum, was standing at Suchindrum bus stop, the detenu and three others has waylaid and abused him with filthy language and asked to part him with money.When the defacto complainant refused and raised an alarm, the detenu took an Aruval, criminally intimidated him and snatched away a sum of Rs.500/-.When the persons nearby came to rescue, they were threatened by the detenu and his associates with dire consequences by brandishing the Aruval and taking advantage of the situation, they fled away from the scene of occurrence.This shows the non- application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, while deriving the subjective satisfaction and this vitiates the order of detention and hence, prays for quashment of the impugned order of detention.The Detaining Authority has merely stated that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing such applications, but, to derive such a subjective satisfaction, no material or whatsoever has been produced by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is taking steps to file bail applications.Moreover, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance on a similar case like that of the ground case, where bail was granted by the concerned Court to the accused therein.However, the incarceration of the detenu in connection with the third adverse case has not at all been taken into consideration.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 H.C.P(MD)No.633 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.and B.PUGALENDHI, J.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.H.C.P(MD)No.633 of 2019 22.01.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,424,837 |
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The first accused is the son of the second accused and the thirdaccused is the wife of the second accused.They were residing at KilavipattiVillage in Kovilpatti Taluk.The deceased, in this case, was oneMr.PW-2 is the brother of PW-1.PW-3 and PW-4 are the neighbours and relatives of the deceased.They were also residing in the same village.According to him, one Alagurani, thedaughter of the first accused was abducted for the purpose of marriage by oneof the relatives of the deceased.On account of the same, both the familiesstarted living apart with enmity.While so, on 27.01.2009, at about 03.00 PM, in front of the houseof PW-1, when PW-1 to PW-4 were present, all these three accused came there armed with sticks.They wrongfully restraint PW-2 and scolded him in filthylanguage.Then, they attacked PW-2 with stick on various parts of his body.On seeing the same, the deceased suddenly intervened.The accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked him with stick.He fell on the ground.PW-1 intervened.He wasattacked by the third accused with stick.All the accused, then, intimidatedPW-1 to PW-4 and ran away from the scene of occurrence.The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Kovilpatti.PW-7, Dr.Sankar attended on PW-1 at the Government Headquarters Hospital at Kovilpatti on 27.01.2009, at 04.10 PM.He noticed the following injuries onher.A contusion measuring 5 X 3 CM on the left thigh.An abrasion measuring 1X 1/2 CM on the left palm.According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased wasinitially taken to the Government Hospital at Kovilpatti, where from he wastaken to the Government Hospital at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli and then tothe Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai.EX-P1 is thecomplaint and EX-P14 is the First Information Report.He forwarded both thedocuments to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti and then handed overthe case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.Taking up the case for investigation, PW-15, the then Inspector ofPolice, on 27.01.2009, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared anObservation Mahazer at 07.15 AM in the presence of PW-6 and another witness.According to him, at that time, there was enough light.He also prepared arough sketch showing the place of occurrence.Then, he recovered thebloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under amahazer at 08.15 PM.Then, on the same day, he proceeded to the Government Headquarters Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli and examined thedeceased.Then, he recovered the bloodstained cloth worn by the deceased inthe presence of the witnesses, on 28.01.2009, at 01.00 AM.Due intimation regarding the death of the deceased was given tothe Police Station, at Nalattinputhur from the Outpost Police Station atGovernment Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.Left Pleural cavity contains50 ML of flukd blood.Peritoneal cavity - empty; pleural cavity - described; Pericardium -contains 15 ml of straw colour fluid; Heart - Right side fluid blood; leftside empty; coronary vessels - patent; lungs - cut section congested; Liver,spleen and kindneys - cut section congested, Larynx & trachea - normal; Hyoidbone - intact; Stomach - contains 100 ml brown colour fluid, nil specificsmell, mucosa normal; small intestines - contains 20 ml of brown colourfluid, nil specific smell, mucosa congested; Bladder - empty; Brain - surfacevessels congested, cut section congested".He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries.Continuing the investigation, on 30.01.2009, at 08.00 AM, hearrested all the three accused at Railway Feeder Road.On such arrest, thefirst accused gave voluntary confession, in which he produced a motorcyclebearing Registration No.TN-69-T-2488, which was seized under a mahazer.Then, he forwarded all the accused forjudicial remand.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheetagainst all the three accused.[JUDGMENT of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.177 of 2009, on the file ofthe learned Principal Sessions Court, Thoothukudi.The Trial Court framed asmany as seven charges against the accused as detailed below.By Judgment dated 31.08.2010, the Trial Court convicted all the three accused under allthe charges and sentenced them as follows:-Accused Charge Under Section Convicted/ AcquittedSentenced to under go/toNos.1 and2 No.3 294(b) IPC341 IPC 323 IPC 302 IPC 506(ii) IPC294(b) IPC341 IPC 323 IPC and 506(ii) IPCconvictedconvictedconvictedConvictedconvictedconvictedconvictedconvictedconvictedrigorous imprisonment for three monthssimple imprisonment for one month rigorous imprisonment for six monthslife imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergorigorous imprisonment for one yearrigorous imprisonment for one yearrigorous imprisonment for three monthssimple imprisonment for one month rigorous imprisonment for six monthsrigorous imprisonment for one yearAs against the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up withthis Criminal Appeal."Then, on the same day, he examined PW-2 and found the following injuries:-A contusion measuring 5 X 4 CM with abrasion on the right side ofthe head.A contusion measuring 10 CM on the left elbowA lacerated injury measuring 3 X 1 CM on the right knee.A cut injury measuring 1 X 1/2 X 1/2 CM on the left side of hishead".On receiving intimation from theHospital Authorities, at Kovilpatti, PW-11, the then Head Constable attachedto the Nalattinputhur Police Station went to the Hospital, on 27.01.2009 andrecorded the statement of PW-1 at 05.00 PM.On returning to the PoliceStation, at 05.45 PM, he registered a case in Crime No.33 of 2009 underSections 294(b), 341, 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.Then, he proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital at 01.45 PM and altered the case into one under Sections294(b), 341, 323, 506(ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.He forwarded thealteration report under EX-P21 through PW-11 to the learned JudicialMagistrate.Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased,during which he examined PW-1 to PW-4 and recorded their statements.Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.2.6. PW-14, Dr.He found the following injuries:-"Bending of left upper arm.On dissection underlying bone is foundfractured with surrounding bruising.Bending of right upper arm.On dissection underlying bone is foundfractured with surrounding bruising.Partly healed abrasion 10 X 3 CMs noted on the back of left lowerarm.Intercostal drainage wound in left mid axillary line at 6thintercostals space.Fracture 4-8 ribs on left side with surrounding bruising.Contusion 5 X4 CMs on interior of left anterior chest wall.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriatecharges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment.When theaccused were questioned in respect of the charges, tbey pleaded innocence.Inorder to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and 23 documents were exhibited, besides eight Material Objects.Of the said15 witnesses, PW-1 to PW-4 are the eye witnesses, who have spoken vividly about the occurrence including the overtacts.PW-5 is the Auto Driver, whohad taken the injured to the Government Hospital at Kovilpatti on 27.01.2009.He has spoken to the said fact.PW-6 has spoken about the Observation Mahazer prepared by the Inspector of Police.PW-7, Dr.Sankar, has spoken about thetreatment given to PW-1 and PW-2 at the Government Hospital at Kovilpatti.PW-8 is the Head Clerk of the Court, who has spoken about the forwarding ofthe Material Objects for chemical examination.According to PW-8, the clothmaterials contained human blood.PW-9 is the Constable, who carried thealteration report and handed over the same to the learned JudicialMagistrate, on 28.01.2009, at 11.00 PM.PW-10 is the Head Constable, who forwarded the dead body for postmortem.PW-12 is theConstable, who received the death intimation on 28.01.2009 at 10.00 AM, atNalattinputhur Police Station.PW-13 is the Village Administrative Officer inwhose presence, according to him, all the three accused were arrested and onthe confession, the sticks were recovered.PW-14, the doctor, who conductedautopsy on the body of the deceased, has spoken about his final opinion.PW-15 is the Investigating Officer, who has spoken about the investigation doneby him.When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidencesavailable against them, they denied the same as false.However, they did notchoose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellants, asdetailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished themaccordingly.That is how, the appellants are now before this Court with thisCriminal Appeal.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and also perused the recordscarefully.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in thiscase, there is enormous delay in preferring the First Information Report anddespatching the same to the Court.He would further point out that the deceaseddied on 28.01.2009, at 09.45 AM, about which intimation was received at thePolice Station at 10.00 AM itself.Absolutely, there is no explanation offered for the said delay.This creates doubt in the case of the prosecution, he contended.The learnedcounsel would further submit that though PW-1 to PW-4 are injured eye-witnesses, even then, on account of such enormous delay, their evidences arenot believable and therefore, they are to be rejected.The learned counsel would further submit that the medicalrecords relating to the treatment given to the deceased at the GovernmentHospital at Kovilpatti and at the Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, havenot been proved in evidence.The learned counsel would also point out thatthe statements made by the deceased, when in the hospital at Kovilpatti andthen he was in the hospital at Tirunelveli are all dying declarations.Thelearned counsel would further submit that since these documents have beensuppressed by the prosecution, there has to be a presumption that they areadverse to the case of the prosecution.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however, oppose thisCriminal Appeal.According to him, PW-1 to PW-4 are the injured witnesses,whose presence cannot be doubted at all.PW-1 to PW-4 have vividly spoken about the occurrence.He would further submit that the medical evidence dulycorroborates the eye-witnesses account.The learned Additional PublicProsecutor would further submit that though there is a delay in preferringthe First Information Report, that by itself would not cause any harm to thecase of the prosecution.We have considered the above submissions.Even according to the case of the prosecution, the allegedoccurrence was on 29.01.2009, at 03.00 PM, and the First Information Reportis stated to have been registered at 05.00 PM.However, the First InformationReport has reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate only, on29.01.2009, at 06.00 PM, at Kovilpatti.After all the Police Station and theQuarters of the learned Judicial Magistrate are situated only within thesmall town, namely, Kovilpatti.Absolutely, there is no explanation for thesaid delay.No witness has been examined as to why the First InformationReport has not reached the hands of the Judicial Magistrate immediately.Thedeath intimation was received, on 28.01.2009, at 09.45 PM,.Even thereafter,there was no effort made to forward the First Information Report to the Courtand the First Information Report has reached the Court, long after the demiseof the deceased.In the meanwhile, the case was altered at 01.45 PM on28.01.2009, as a murder case.Thereafter, the body was sent for postmortemand autopsy was also conducted on the body of the deceased and thereafter only, the First Information Report had gone to the hands of the Court.In this case, since there are more than oneaccused and since the entire family of the accused has been roped in, theunexplained delay assumes much importance.Above all, the prosecution has suppressed the medical records pertaining to the deceased relating to thetreatment given at the Government Hospital at Kovilpatti as well as theGovernment Hospital, at Tirunelveli.It is not known as to whether thedeceased was in a position to speak when he was in these hospitals.It isalso not known as to whether there was any statement made by the deceased regarding the injuries sustained by him.If really any statements were madeby the deceased, when he was in the hospital, such statements would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as adying declaration.Absolutely, there is no explanation as to why theserecords were not collected and produced in evidence.for the same.Though theInvestigating Officer has stated that he examined the deceased while he wasin the hospital, that document has also been suppressed.From the evidence ofPW-15, it is clear that the deceased was in a position to speak until he wasin the Government Hospital at Tirunelveli.It is not explained to the Courtas to why no attempt was made to utilize the services of a learned JudicialMagistrate to get a dying declaration recorded.Thus, there are serious flawscreating doubt in the case of the prosecution.For the reasons stated above, we find that the prosecution hasfailed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts.Thus, the appellants areentitled for acquittal.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants by Judgment dated 31.08.2010, made in S.C.No.177 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Thoothukudi, is set aside and the appellants are acquitted.Fine amount, ifany, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.Bail bond and thesureties executed by the appellants shall stand terminated.1.The Inspector of Police, Keela Colony, Kilavipatti, Pandavarmangalam Post, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District.2.The learned Principal Sessions Court, Thoothukudi.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,427,516 |
SB:- Hon'ble Shri Justice G. S. Ahluwalia CRR 707/2010 Girwar vs.State of MP And CRR 59/2011 Dharmendra Vs.State of MP ================================== Shri Rajiv Sharma, counsel for the applicants.Shri RK Awasthi, Public Prosecutor for the State. ==================================== Order (Passed on 26/10/2017) This common order shall also dispose of Criminal Revision No.59/2011 filed by applicant- Dharmendra.(2) These criminal revisions under Section 397/401 of CrPC have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 18/08/2010 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Appeal No.106/2010, thereby confirming the judgment and sentence dated 28/05/2010 passed by JMFC, Lahar, District Bhind in Criminal Case No.1213/2006, by which the applicants have been convicted for offence under Sections 147,353/149,332/149 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of six-six months and a fine of Rs.100- 100/- for offence under Sections 147 and 353/149 of IPC and the rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.300/- with default imprisonment for offence under Section 332/149 of IPC respectively.2 CRR 707/2010 & CRR 59/2011 (3) The charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and other co-accused persons for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 506-B of IPC.During the pendency of trial, the applicants did not appear before the trial Court and accordingly, their bonds were cancelled and they were declared absconding and trial was concluded against fourteen accused persons and they were held guilty for committing the offence under Sections 147, 353/149 and 332/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.100/-, six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/-with default imprisonment respectively.The convicted co- accused persons filed Criminal Appeal No.84/2005 and Criminal Appeal No.91/2005 which was allowed by the appellate Court by judgment dated 02/12/2005 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gohad, District Bhind and the conviction of the co-accused persons was upheld, however, they were sentenced till rising of the Court and the fine amount was enhanced to Rs.1000/- Rs.1500/ and Rs.1500/- for the offence under Sections 147, 353/149 and 332/149 of IPC respectively.It appears that thereafter, the applicant Dharmendra was arrested in execution of the perpetual warrant of arrest and was produced before the trial Court on 19/07/2005 i.e. prior to the disposal of the criminal appeal filed by the co-accused persons.Since the applicant Dharmendra had absconded prior to the recording of evidence before the trial Court, therefore, the case was fixed for recording of evidence.Before any prosecution witness could be examined, the applicant Girwar also surrendered before the trial Court and he was released on bail under Section 437 of CrPC by order dated 15/02/2008 itself.Thus, it is clear that according to the certificate issued by the trial Court under Section 428 of 3 CRR 707/2010 & CRR 59/2011 CrPC the applicant Dharmendra has remained in jail for days during the pendency of the trial whereas the applicant Girwar did not remain in jail even for a single day.(4) The counsel for the applicants made a solitary submission that for the same offence, the appellate Court by judgment dated 02/12/2005 passed in Criminal Appeals No. 84/2005 and 91/2005 had reduced to the jail sentence of the co-accused persons and they were sentenced till rising of the court and the fine amount was enhanced.The bus was forcibly stopped at Gorai and when the complainant Keshari Singh and other police 4 CRR 707/2010 & CRR 59/2011 personnel came from the bus down, then they saw that the applicants and other co-accused persons had stopped the bus and they were armed with lathis and when they were tried to pursue the applicants and other co-accused persons, then all the accused persons assaulted the complainant Keshari Singh and when he fell down, he was assaulted by shoes and chapals.When the police personnel tried to intervene in the matter, they were assaulted.The FIR was lodged on 09/05/1992 at about 09:45 at Police Station Raun, District Bhind and accordingly, the charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 506 of IPC was filed by the police after completing the investigation.The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 506 of IPC.(6) The applicants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.(7) The trial Court after recording the evidence of the witnesses convicted the applicants for the offence under Sections 147, 353/149, 332/149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.100/-, the rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.100/- and the rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.300/- with default imprisonment respectively.(9) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that as the applicants jumped the bail and did not appear before the trial Court at the first instance and accordingly, they were tried later on and, therefore, by their conduct they have made themselves dis-entitled for the similar sentence awarded to the co-accused persons.(10) Heard the counsel for the parties on the question of sentence.(11) The incident is alleged to have taken place on 09/05/1992, that means more than 25 years have passed.Even the co-accused persons were convicted by the trial Court by judgment dated 07/03/2005 i.e. after ten years of the incident and, their appeal was decided by the judgment dated 02/12/2012 i.e. after near about 13 years of the incident.It is clear that although the applicants are also entitled for lenient sentence awarded to the co-accused persons but not entitled for the same sentence which was awarded to the co-accused persons.The enhanced amount is directed to be deposited within three months from today, otherwise the jail sentence awarded by the trial Court shall automatically get restored and the applicants shall be required to undergo the remaining jail sentence.(12) So far as the applicant Dharmendra is concerned, he is already in jail.He shall be released after depositing the entire fine amount.(13) The bail bonds and surety bonds of the applicant Girwar stand discharged.(14) Both the revisions are partly allowed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,436,291 |
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.616/2020, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.Appellants No. 2, 5, 4 and 1 stands convicted for an offences punishable under Section 32 R/w 34 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/-.Appellants No. 2 to 6 have also been convicted under Section 325 R/w 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.The default stipulation has also been imposed to the appellants.The prosecution story in short is that on 18.08.2014 at about 8:00 am, complainant was preparing tea, her parents and brother was present in the house, at that time petitioner Nos. 3 and 6 came there and started abusing to her father and uncle and also entered in the house and they committed marpeet and took her father in back side of her house where petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were already standing, they also inflicted him by stick and fist.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that they are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this case.The learned trial court has not appreciate the evidence properly of the prosecuiton witnesses which is full with the omissions and contradiction.The accused/appellants have no criminal antecedent.They are not previously convicted.It will take time for final disposal.With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this application.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the said prayer.Considering the contention of the both the parties and looking to the evidence and this fact that the Learned trial court has already suspended the sentence and granted the bail to the appellants.The custodial sentence awarded to the appellants shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Appellants be released from custody subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each with one solvent surety each of the same amount to the satisfaction the trial Court.They shall appear and mark their presence before the trial Court on 24.04.2020 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Akm Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA Date: 02/03/2020 11:06:20
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
494,465 |
This revision application is directed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Bombay (Shri S. A. Merchant,) discharging the respondents-accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 366A, 372 and 373 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and further directing the appellant-State to put up a separate charge-sheet against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Ss. 5 and 6 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Act").The Antop Hill Sub-Police-Station filed a charge-sheet against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 366A, 372 and 373 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and under Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act. The accused No. 5 was shown in the charge-sheet as an unknown person and absconding.The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the respondents in this revision application.The prosecution alleged that two minor girls, namely, Munni alias Banu and Santanlaxmi alias Saroja, were kidnapped from their native places to Bombay and they were kept at the place of the accused No. 1 at Mahim.It was also alleged that the accused No. 1 used them for the purpose of prostitution.The accused No. 2 also used the girls for the same purpose.The girl Saroja was being taken by the accused for disposal at Antop Hill and at that time one social worker, Pandurang Bala Mandavkar, noticed that the girl was being taken for the said purpose.He contacted the girl later on at the brothel and obtained in writing from her wherein she expressed her willingness to get out of the brothel and requested the social worker to make efforts for her release from the brothel.Pandurang Mandavkar reported the matter to the police.Ultimately the girls were rescued from the brothel and the police recorded the F.I.R. of the victim Saroja.The statements of witnesses were recorded and after completing the necessary investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offences mentioned above.While the case was pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.30th Court, Kurla, Bombay, for commitment to the Court of Session, as some of the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Counsel for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 submitted an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for discharge of the accused on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence against them for committal to the Court of Session.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 2, discharged the accused Nos. 1 and 2, for the offences publishable under Ss. 363, 366, 366A, 372 and 373 read with S. 34, I.P.C. He also ordered that a separate case should be put up against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the State has preferred this revision application.The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, was wrong in discharging the appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also in directing the police to put up a separate charge-sheet for the offence under the Act against those accused.According to her, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate should have followed the procedure laid down in S. 209, Cr.P.C. as some of the offences alleged against the accused were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.She submitted that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to enter into the appreciation of the evidence and to reach the conclusion that there was no evidence against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence mentioned above.The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the copies of the documents filed along with the charge-sheet.These documents contain copies of medical certificates.The evidence regarding the age recorded in the medical certificates is on the basis of the ossification test.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,446,820 |
It is the case of the prosecution that Balaraman [P.W.1] was an Ex-Congress MLA and that he belongs to Vanniya Kula Kshatriyar Community.It is alleged that by his efforts, one Seenu Gounder and his son Chandrasekaran belonging to Pattali Makkal Katchi [for short "PMK"] defected and joined the Congress party in the presence of P.Chidambaram, former Union Minister and other Senior Office bearers of the Congress party, on account of which, the members of PMK were enraged.This being the motive, it is alleged that, on 09.11.2010, around 11.00 a.m., when Balaraman [P.W.1] was sitting in Vanniya Kula Kshatriyar Educational Trust Office that was located in the ground floor of his house, PMK activists, viz., Vannai Sathya [A1], Harikumar [A2], Sasikumar [A3], Gaja @ Gajendran [A4], Baskar [A5], Madhan [A6] and Vaigai Saravanan [A7] barged into his room, threatened him and abused him for engineering the defection of Seenu Gounder and Chandrasekaran from PMK to Congress.In the quarrel, Vannai Sathya [A1] exhorted others to attack Balaraman [P.W.1], on account of which, Harikumar [A2] took out a billhook and attacked Balaraman [P.W.1] on the left side of his head, due to which, his left ear got severed.Balaraman [P.W.1] fell down and when Chellappan [P.W.2] came to his rescue, he was also attacked by the group and they ran away.Hearing the alarm raised by Balaraman [P.W.1], public gathered and he was carried to Apollo Hospital, where he was admitted as an inpatient.No.772 of 2010 was registered on 09.11.2011 at 12.30 hours under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 452, 307, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC against all the 7 accused, who were named in the complaint of Balaraman [P.W.1] and the same was received by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 09.11.2010 at 7.50 p.m. as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.[b] On 09.11.2010, around 12.45 p.m. the police arrested Vannai Sathya [A1], Harikumar [A2] and Sasikumar [A3] and their confession statement was recorded.From the possession of Vannai Sathya [A1], a knife [M.O.1] was recovered under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.7], which was kept hidden in his bag.This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.02.2013 in S.C.No.244 of 2011 passed by the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Court of Sessions, Chennai.[a] On receiving intimation, Ramesh Babu [P.W.9], Inspector of Police, went to the Apollo Hospital and recorded the statement [Ex.P.1] of Balaraman [P.W.1], which was treated as a complaint, based on which, a case in H3 Tondiarpet Police Station Cr.The Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of Dilli Babu [P.W.5], prepared an Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.10] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P.3].The arrested accused were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for judicial custody.The Investigating Officer arrested Gaja @ Gajendran [A4], Baskar [A5], Madhan [A6] and Vaigai Saravanan [A7] on 11.11.2010 at 5.00 a.m. On the disclosure statement of Gaja @ Gajendran [A4], the red colour Pulsar motorbike that was used by the accused for the commission of the offence was seized.He recorded the statement of the other witnesses, including the Doctor who treated Balaraman [P.W.1] and after completing the investigation, filed the Final Report in PRC No.151 of 2010 before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, for offences under Sections 147, 452, 294(b), 323, 427, 336, 307 read with 149 and 506(ii) IPC.On the appearance of the accused, they were furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents u/s 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.244 of 2011 and was made over to the X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, for trial.When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, marked 12 exhibits and 4 material objects.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.On behalf of the accused, one Suresh Kumar [D.W.1] was examined and bail order copies [Ex.D.1] were marked.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court acquitted Vannai Sathya [A1], Gaja @ Gajendran [A4], Baskar [A5], Madhan [A6] and Vaigai Saravanan [A7].Sasikumar [A3], had died in the mean time and therefore, the charges against him abated.Harikumar [A2], was acquitted for the charges under Sections 148, 452, 294(b), 307, 323, 427, 336 and 506(ii) IPC and was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-,in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment, challenging which, this appeal has been filed.Heard Mr.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted:[a] that the prosecution have not proved the motive properly, inasmuch as, Balaraman [P.W.1] has stated in his cross-examination that Seenu Gounder was already a Congress man and that his son did not belong to any party.[b] that at the time of admission in the Apollo Hospital, it is stated in the Accident Register copy [Ex.P.8], "assault by unknown persons with knife" and therefore, Balaraman [P.W.1] has falsely implicated the accused.[c] that in the complaint [Ex.P.1], Balaraman [P.W.1] has stated that Harikumar [A2] took out a knife and attacked, but the police have recovered only a billhook [M.O.1] and that too from Vannai Sathya [A1].[d] that Muthuvel, the friend who admitted Balaraman [P.W.1] in the Apollo Hospital was not examined.[e] that the Investigating Officer had registered the FIR [Ex.P.9] at 12.30 p.m. and by 12.45 p.m. he has arrested the accused, which is improbable.There are contradictions in the evidence of Balaraman [P.W.1], Chellappan [P.W.2] and Gopi [P.W.3] with regard to the incident.At the outset, it should be seen as to whether an incident of this nature had occurred at all.The fact that there was an attack on Balaraman [P.W.1] on 09.11.2010 around 11 O'clock has been established beyond cavil by the prosecution, through the evidence of Balaraman [P.W.1], Chellappan [P.W.2] and Gopi [P.W.3].That apart, immediately, he was rushed to the Apollo Hospital, where he was admitted.Even in the cross-examination, the accused have not denied the incident, but they have only stated that they have been falsely implicated.When this was put to Balaraman [P.W.1], he denied and said that he had not stated so at the time of admission.Balaraman's [P.W.1] ear got severed and he was bleeding profusely.He was taken to the Apollo Hospital by one Muthuvel, who was not examined.The said information to the duty Doctor was not provided by Balaraman [P.W.1], because he has specifically denied that in the cross-examination.In fact, Suresh Kumar [D.W.1], who was examined by the accused as defence witness, has stated in his evidence that the accused belong to the PMK.Therefore, it is natural for Balaraman [P.W.1] who is a local politician to know, the prominent members of a rival political party.As regards the alleged delay in sending the FIR [Ex.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,449,591 |
The applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Panel Lawyer/Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.Since the applicant was working in the clinic of his father, who is working as Jeevan Swasthaya Rakshak, therefore, it is expected from the applicant that he shall work as Corona Warrior and would involve himself with the Tahsildar, Porsa,District Morena as Corona Health Warrior and would cooperate in fighting against Corona to spread awareness about social distancing and importance of sanitization.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 27/9/2020 by Police Station Porsa, District Morena, in connection with Crime No. 657/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 50B of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that he is suffering confinement since 27/9/2020 on false pretext.Even otherwise, applicant has learnt the lesson hard way and would mend his ways to become a better citizen.Learned counsel for the applicant referred the affidavit of brother of prosecutrix to indicate that it was a monetary dispute which was converted into this allegation.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as the fact that applicant has suffered sufficient period of custody and intends to reform himself, therefore, he be given a chance for reformation and therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.It is hereby directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) along with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court and that he will have to install Arogya Setu App, if not already installed.The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 M.Cr.C.No.41052/2020 ( Shivraj Vs.State of M.P.) Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.5 M.Cr.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-JAI PRAKASH Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya SOLANKI Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f 4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2020.10.22 10:40:52 +05'30'
|
['Section 354 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.