id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
49,450,689 |
The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed about his involvement in the criminal case registered against him in Cr.No.67 of 2016 by the Puducherry Traffic East Police Station for the alleged offence under Sec.279 and 338 of I.P.C. in column No.15, 16, and 18 of the application submitted for the post of Grade II Police Constable.As per G.O.Ms.Pursuant to the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, the petitioner had applied for the post of Grade II Police Constable.The petitioner successfully completed all the tests conducted by the respondent Board including written examination, physical test, etc., and qualified for the said post.Under these circumstances, the impugned order, dated 10.10.2017 has been passed by the second respondent stating that the petitioner's selection was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had involved in a criminal case registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.67 of 2016 by the Puducherry Traffic East Police Station for the alleged offence under Sec.279 and 338 of I.P.C. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court.The alleged offence made out in the charge sheet is not a serious in nature.The petitioner received summons from the judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry only after submission of the attestation form and there is no wilful suppression of the material facts.Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that a case has been registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.67 of 2016 by the Puducherry Traffic East Police Station for the alleged offence under Sec.279http://www.judis.nic.in 2/12 W.P.No.33288 of 2017 and 338 of I.P.C. The aforementioned offence is bailable offence.Therefore, the impugned order, dated 10.10.2017 passed by the second respondent is liable to be quashed.No.101 Home (Police X) Department, dated 30.01.2003 and Rule 14(b) (ii) & (iv) of Tamilnadu Special Police Subordinate Service, a candidate being selected for the post of Grade II Police Constable should not involved in any criminal case and having good character.Further, in the judgment, dated 28.2.2008 of this Court in W.P.No.39298 of 2005, it is held that a person who is discharged on benefit of doubt or due to the fact that the complainant turned hostile shall be treated as person involved in a criminal case and be considered as disqualified for selection to the Police Service and shall not be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment.Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, the impugned order, dated 3.10.2017 has been passed by the third respondent.(i) The impugned order, dated 3.10.2017 passed by the third respondent is quashed.(ii) The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai is directed to consider afresh, the petitioner's selection for appointment to the post of Grade II Police Constable, in the light of aforesaid discussion and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,945,227 |
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
494,566 |
The State of Haryana calls in question grant of bail to accused Hasmat(respondent herein) by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.Criminalmiscellaneous No. 14069/2003 was filed in Criminal Appeal No. 100/2002purportedly under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (inshort the 'Code') with a prayer that the substantive sentence imposed i.e.imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000 should be suspended and therespondent be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal filed.Theaccused-respondent along with twenty two others faced trial for allegedcommission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307, 324 readwith Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') andSections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act').- respondent along with some others was found guilty of offences punishableunder Sections 302, 307, 148 read with section 149 1PC.The High Court by the impugned order granted bail primarily on the groundthat after the conviction the accused respondent had been granted parole onthree occasions and there was no allegation of any misuse of liberty duringthe period of parole.According to learned counsel for the appellant-State it was the accusedrespondent who was the key figure in a gruesome murder and there was directand unimpeachable evidence establishing the commission of the crime by him.The Appellate Court is duty bound to objectively assess the matter and torecord reasons for the conclusion that the case warrants suspension ofexecution of sentence and grant of bail.In the instant case, the onlyfactor which seems to have weighed with the High Court for directingsuspension of sentence and grant of bail is the absence of allegation ofmisuse of liberty during the period the accused-respondent as grantedparole.The learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by a judgment dated 24.10.2001 hadfound the accused respondent guilty.Criminal Appeal No.lOODB/2002 wasfiled by the respondent.Learned counsel for the respondentvehemently urged that though application for suspension of execution ofsentence and grant of bail was filed containing several reasons and notonly absence of mis-use of liberties during the period of parole, the HighCourt has not touched those aspects.The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
494,573 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Through this writ petition, the petitioner has sought tochallenge the departmental enquiry initiated against him after alapse of about ten years.Against the said judgment, the petitionerpreferred Criminal Appeal No. 3063 of 2005 before the High Court.This Court vide a judgment dated 8.9.2005 disposed of the CriminalAppeal setting aside the conviction of the petitioner under Section302 and 318 IPC and remanded back the matter to the Trial courtfor retrial for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304, 318 and 201IPC.TheHon'ble Apex Court has passed an order dated 3.1.2006 issuingnotice to the parties and stayed operation of the judgment of theHigh Court directing for retrial of the case.Thereafter on 22.11.2007, leave was granted and interim order datred 3.1.2007was confirmed.As a result of the First Information Report, lodged against thepetitioner, he was detained in custody and as such he was putunder suspension from 17.2.1997, though he was enlarged on bail.His suspension was revoked after about three years vide an orderdated 6.3.2000, but neither any departmental enquiry was initiatednor he was served with any chargesheet.On receiving the representation of thepetitioner, the respondent no.2 has issued a belated charge-sheeton the basis of criminal case after about a lapse of ten years.It ispertinent to mention here that after institution of criminal case, trialand the judgment of the High Court, no departmental proceeding,whatsoever, has been initiated against the petitioner.Only aftermaking representation claiming promotion on the post of ReviewOfficer, the respondent no.2 has issued chargesheet.Sri V.C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri VivekMisra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that afterregistration of First Information Report, the petitioner was detainedin custody as a result of which he was put under suspension, but nodepartmental proceeding was instituted.The conviction awarded bythe Trial court to the petitioner under Sections 302 and 318 hasalready been set aside by this Court and the matter has beenremanded back for retrial under Section 498-A, 304-B, 318 and 201IPC and that too has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia and as such the charge sheet issued by the respondent no.2after a lapse of about 12 years without explaining inordinate delay 3is liable to be quashed.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has furthersubmitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the FirstInformation Report dated 17.2.1997 as a result of which he wasarrested on the same day, but subsequently he was enlarged onbail.Therespondent no.2 did not initiate any departmental proceeding norissued any chargesheet against him.All of a sudden, after about 12years' inordinate delay, that too on receiving representation ofpetitioner for promotion on the post of Review Officer, the impugnedchargesheet has been issued ignoring the orders of this Court andthe interim orders granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court.The petitioner has been afforded several opportunitiesto file reply to the chargesheet, but he failed to file reply to thechargesheet.Instead of filing a reply to the chargesheet issued tothe petitioner, he had filed a representation before the RegistrarGeneral of the High Court for quashing of the chargesheet, whichwas rejected by means of the order dated 18.3.2008 against whicha departmental Appeal was also filed, which too was dismissed.The chargesheet has been rightly issued to thepetitioner.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusedthe materials on record.In the present case, a First Information Report came to beregistered on 17.2.1997 and the petitioner was detained in custodyin consequence thereof.Lateron, the petitioner was released onBail.The petitioner was put under suspension, but after about threeyears, suspension was revoked.The trial concluded in conviction ofthe petitioner.Against the judgment and order of the Trial Court,the petitioner preferred an Appeal in the High Court.The HighCourt in Appeal has set aside the conviction of the petitioner underSection 302 and 318 IPC, but remanded the matter for retrial.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,552,164 |
On that day, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid as advance and the sale price was agreed as Rs. 2,60,000/- and the balance of sale price was agreed to be paid within three months from the date of the agreement.The complainant went to the house of the Ist accused and waited for him; but he was not available.On 4-11-1986, the Ist accused sold the said St. Peters R. C. Primary School and the appurtenant site to accused 2 to 4 by executing a sale deed in the Sub Registrar's Office.The Ist accused in C.C. No. 944 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in the abovesaid calendar case and quash the same.The respondent has filed a private complaint against four accused and the petitioner herein is the Ist accused.The allegations in it are briefly as follows :On 12-9-1986, the Ist accused entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of St. Peters R. C. Primary School and the appurtenant site and that agreement was reduced into writing.On 14-11-1986, the Ist accused sent word through Soman to the complainant to pay the remaining sale price amount and complete the sale.Thus he has committed the offence punishable under section 420, I.P.C. and the other accused are liable to be punished under section 420 read with Section 34, I.P.C.Mr. V. Sai Ram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the prosecution regarding the other accused persons were quashed already.Mr. Sai Ram learned counsel would contend that the date of complaint was 18-11-1987, that the complainant had filed a civil suit a 16-11-1986 against accused 1 to arraying them as defendants 1 to 4 along with sme other defendants in O.S. No. 67 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram for specific performance of the agreement of sale and in that plaint, he has not made any whisper about the cheating, dishonest representation or dishonest intention at the inception.He would further contend that this dispute is purely of a civil nature and the petitioner has given a criminal colour for the same, just to fasten criminal liability and the question is who had failed to perform their part of the contract and that matter can be decided only in a civil suit.Per contra, Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend for the purpose of this proceeding, we have to confine ourselves to the allegations made in the complaint and that the allegations made therein do make out an offence punishable under section 420, I.P.C. In Delhi Municipality v. Ramkishan, , the apex court has held that the proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted.In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of the powers under section 482, Cr.P.C. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 12-9-1986, the agreement was entered into by the Ist accused with the complainant as per which the Ist accused agreed to sell St. Peter R. C. Primary School and the appurtenant site for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- and had received a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as advance.On 3-11-1986, the complainant sent a telegram to accused No. 1 informing him that he would come with the required remaining amount and the sale should be completed.It is alleged that on 10-11-1986, the date on which Ist accused asked the complainant to come, the complainant went to the house of the Ist accused and waited.But the Ist accused made himself scarce.In the meanwhile, the Ist accused had sold the very same school and the appurtenant site to the other accused on 4-11-1986 by executing a sale deed in the Sub Registrar's office in Kerala.It is alleged that on 14-11-1986, the accused No. 1 had sent word through a person to the complainant asking him to come with cash and complete the sale.Hence that cannot be taken into account at this stage.His further contention is that only in the civil suit, a decision can be arrived at as to who failed to perform the contract is correct.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,221,346 |
They are alloriginal residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh.It is the case ofthe prosecution that Appellant No.1 - Salauddin had proposedmarriage with the victim Ms. X. The proposal was turned down byher mother.That in the month of February, 2014 i.e. on 5 thFebruary, 2014, the Appellants had asked the victim to accompanythem to Mumbai for attending Hajimalang Baba Urus.The victimwas staying with them at Mumbai.In the Urus, Appellant No.1 -Salauddin was working as a cook.On 18 th February, 2014,Appellant No.1- Salauddin was missing for the whole day.On 19 thFebruary, 2014, he had asked the victim to sit near a temple.He::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 ::: 3 205 Apeal 57 of 2016had brought one child, which was about three months' old.Thevictim -PW2 was not aware as to whose child it was.TheAppellants had informed the victim that they were visiting thedoctor for treatment as the child was not keeping well.Within ashort while, the police had been to the spot.The Appellants weretaken in the custody by the police.They were also accompanied bysome other people.Upon seeing the police, PW2, the victim wasscared.She was hardly 19 years' old.She was seeing the police assaulting the accused, shefelt sympathy for them as she had been not been harassed by theaccused person during her stay at Mumbai.In order to save theAppellants from police torture she had also gone to the extent ofclaiming that she happens to be the mother of the said child.Thereafter, victim-PW2 was taken to the shelter home at Deonar.She had contacted her family members telephonically.It is the case of the prosecution that on 19 th February, 2014when PW4 and PW5 were having tea in Hotel Nagori, AppellantNo.1- Salauddin, who knew the profession of PW5, hadapproached her and had asked her as to whether anybody wouldpurchase the victim.Thereafter, PW4- PW5 had realized thatAppellant No.1 has defrauded a young girl and was attempting tosell her and, therefore, had approached the police station withoutthe knowledge of the Appellants.The Appellants herein are convicted vide judgment andorder dated 3rd February, 2015 passed by the Additional SessionsJudge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 317 of 2014 for theoffence punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-each, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one month.The police had taken her tothe police station.Due to fear of police, she had disclosed to thepolice that she happens to be the second wife of Accused No.1::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::It is the case of the prosecution that the victim has learntfrom the police that the accused Salauddin had wanted to sell herto PW4 - Seema Ghosh and PW5- Mumtaz Shamim Ansari.The::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 ::: 4 205 Apeal 57 of 2016profession of PW4 and PW5 was prostitution.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::The police had apprehendedaccused No.1 Salauddin and his wife -accused No.2 and, thereafter,they had learnt that the victim girl was sitting near the temple.Thevictim girl was rescued at the earliest point of time.On the basis ofthe information given by PW4 and PW5, PW1 Haripal Modak hadlodged a report at the police station.On the basis of which, CrimeNo.70 of 2014 was registered at Nagpada Police Station againstthe Accused for the offences punishable under Section 370 r/w.34of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution examination eightwitnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.PW1 Haripal Modak was attached to Nagpada Police Station::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 ::: 5 205 Apeal 57 of 2016as Head Constable.He was informed by PW4 Pooja Ghosh andPW5- Mumtaz Shamim Ansari about the attempt being made bythe accused Salauddin and his wife to sell the girl.PW1 has proved the contents of the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::PW2 has categorically deposed before the Court that she wassurprised to find herself in a situation of this kind and, therefore,she was flabbergasted.She was not prepared for the said situation.However, she had sympathy for the couple.She has seen thepolice beating them and, therefore, she was constrained to lie tothe police that she was second wife of Accused No.1-Salauddin.Tosave the Appellants, she had gone to the extent of saying that thecomplaint is false and that she personally has no grievance againstthe accused persons.An inference can be drawn that in fact, shehad no inkling about the intention of the Appellants to sell her.They had behaved properly with her and kept her safe and finallywanted to sell her.She was not prepared to accept that they wereindulging in trafficking, but, unfortunately, the evidence wasotherwise.It is the presence of mind and the courage of PW4 and::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 ::: 6 205 Apeal 57 of 2016PW5 due to which the victim was rescued.The deposition of PW4and PW5 inspires confidence for the simple reason that they hadno reason to implicate the accused persons falsely.In fact,theyhave candidly admitted that they were indulging in prostitutionand that they were staying at Kamathipura.They had admitted/that trafficking is rampant in the said area and they neverexpected that the girl in distress, should be trafficked in such amanner.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::It is pertinent to note that PW7 Ahmed Usman Pathan, whohappens to be the investigating officer of Crime No. 70 of 2014,has candidly deposed before the Court that he had not inquired, asto, from where the child had come with the victim.There areserious laches in investigation as well as in the prosecution.There ismaterial to show that the Appellants herein have committed an::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 ::: 7 205 Apeal 57 of 2016offence punishable under Section 370 Fourthly of the Indian PenalCode.The Section 370 Fourthly reads as follows:::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::Trafficking of person.- (1) Whoever, for the purpose of exploitation (a) recruits, (b) transports, (c) harbours, (d) transfers, or (e) receives, a person or persons by -The learned counsel has submitted that in fact, the Appellantshad not actually indulged into trafficking but had attempted fortraffick and, therefore, the charge ought to have been framedunder section 370 r/w. 511 of IPC.It is submitted that failure toframe the charge accordingly has caused grievous prejudice to theAppellants.The trial was conducted by providing legal aid to theAppellants.In view of this, the conviction of the Appellants for theoffence punishable under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code ismaintained.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment - Whoever attempts to commit an offence 1 punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such 2 attempt, be punished with [imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same;::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflictgreater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the accusedhas committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence bythe Court passing the order or sentence under appeal."The Learned counsel appointed for the Appellant has put inthe best of her efforts to espouse the cause of the Appellant, hence,she is entitled for her professional fees as per Rules, to be paid byHigh Court Legal Aid Committee.The following order is passed:::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 17:26:05 :::
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,552,221 |
ORDER C.A. Rahim, J.The fact which is for consideration of the present application, is that the opposite party No. 1 lodged one first information report on 23-5-1982 under Section 395/397, I.P.C. naming the applicants and 22 others as accused with the allegation that in between the night of 22/23-5-1982 the accused persons removed the goods by demolishing the boundary wall of the house of the complainant.A case was registered but the Investigating Officer after investigation submitted a final report.On 7-6-1982 the opposite party No. 1 filed a protest petition with the allegation that the final report has been submitted without proper investigation and as such it should not be accepted and sent back for re-investigation.Since the complainant was pursuing the matter, he took initiative to file a protest petition for re-investigation.
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,226,348 |
MP.No.17920 of 2019 12.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.438 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) and 434 of IPC, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.438 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(i) and 434 of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.K.B.Vivekanandhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the Crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.438 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not alreadyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No. 32536 of 2019 filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.12.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order drl ToThe Inspector of Police, Periyapalayam Police Station, Tiruvallur District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.32536 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.drl CRL.O.P.No.32536 of 2019 and Crl.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,552,300 |
JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.This revisional application has been filed by the accused petitioner assailing the order dated 7.6.05 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Arambagh in Case No. C.R. 245 of 1998 thereby directing production of the original marriage register from the office of the Birth, Death and Marriage Registrar, West Bengal for proving a marriage certificate allegedly issued by P.W. 9 Mira Mukherjee, the Marriage Registrar who refused to identify her signature on the Marriage Registration Certificate produced in Court.This Court directed that there is no material to frame charge against the other accused Abhijit Das under Section 406 or 420 of Indian Penal Code (in short 1PC) but elements of Section 494/ 107 of IPC are against him and in view of order of this Court the learned Magistrate altered the charge and framed charge under Section 494/107 of the IPC against the accused Abhijit Das.Charge under Section 494/406/120B of IPC framed against the present accused petitioner was maintained and was not altered.During the trial that followed the Marriage Registrar Smt. Mira Mukherjee did not appear to give evidence in Court.Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by judgment and order dated 13.6.02 acquitted the accused persons.The Hon'ble Justice G.C. De, by his judgment and order dated 23.2.04, set aside the order of acquittal and sent back the case on remand for retrial.Mr. Mukherjee submitted that this Court at the time of remanding the case for retrial directed that after keeping the evidence on record the learned Magistrate shall give opportunity to the complainant to prove the documents which are already on record and to mark those as exhibits in accordance with law.The learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps found necessary under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short Code) for just decision of the case.Appropriate opportunity is to be given to the defence for adducing defence witness, including document, if found necessary.If any of the witness produced for further evidence liberty is to be given to the parties for cross-examination and on completion of evidence and after examination of accused under Section 313 of the Code and after production of witnesses under Section 311 of the Code and after defence evidence, argument is to be heard and thereafter learned Trial Court shall pronounce judgment.This Court in C.R.A. No. 232/02 made it clear that opportunity should be given to the complainant to prove the documents which are already on record and there was no scope to introduce any new document.But the complainant now wants to introduce a new document, that is, original Marriage Register.Mira Mukherjee is a new witness and she cannot be examined and this Court while disposing of C.R.A. No. 232/02 did not give any liberty to complainant to examine any new witness-After order of acquittal and on the basis of order of this Court remanding back the matter to Trial Court for fresh decision, the witness Mira Mukherjee cannot be examined during retrial.She is completely a new witness and cannot be permitted to be examined by complainant for filling in lacuna of prosecution case.The order of the learned Magistrate is wholly illegal and against the direction of this Court.The said order should be set aside and the evidence of Mira Mukherjee should be expunged and the order of the learned Magistrate directing production of original marriage register should be set aside.Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that marriage certificate is one document and its description and classification is different, marriage register and marriage register book are different documents and these are not the same documents like marriage certificate.The order dated 20.1.05 passed by the learned Magistrate was not challenged.In the order dated 20.1.05 the learned Magistrate after considering the direction of this Court in C.R.A. No. 232/02 and C.R.A.N. No. 1800/04 passed the direction that the certificate of alleged first marriage requires to be proved by examining the Marriage Registrar Mira Mukherjee.In the said order it was also indicated that this accused petitioner affirmed an affidavit on 26.1.96 before Notary Public Tapan Bera where she declared herself that after conversion to Islam she became Ruksar Habib in place of Sharmistha Gon.In the said affidavit Advocate Anil Kr.Bera identified her.Accordingly, the learned Magistrate issued summons against the Marriage Registrar Mira Mukherjee, the Advocate Anil Bera and Notary Public Tapan Bera for their examination in Court as witnesses.The petitioner instead of challenging the said order dated 20.1.05 has now challenged a much later order and accordingly the revisional application has no legal force.The marriage certificate was produced by the complainant and it was in the record but, due to inadvertence or non-application of mind of the learned Magistrate it was not admitted in evidence and was not marked exhibit.In order to prove the said marriage certificate the evidence of the Marriage Registrar is necessary.This Court in C.R.A. No. 232/02 passed the direction for giving opportunity to complainant to prove the documents which are already on record.The marriage certificate which was on record was shown to the Marriage Registrar Mira Mukherjee but, for reasons unknown to the complainant, she to some extent declined to identify her signature on the marriage certificate.The Marriage Registrar Mira Mukherjee in her evidence stated that unless the original marriage register is produced it is difficult for her to identify her signature on the marriage certificate.Accordingly, the learned Magistrate was compelled to pass order on 7.6.05 for production of the original marriage register from the office of the Birth, Death and Marriage Registrar, West Bengal.In order to prove the marriage certificate which is already on record, Marriage Registrar is to be examined and when she declined to identify her signature on the marriage certificate production of original marriage register is necessary.The order of the learned Magistrate being correct, legal and proper requires no interference.After hearing the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, I find that the O.P. No. 1 Habib Ahmed lodged the complaint against the petitioner and one Abhijit Das arraying them as accused persons for alleged offence under Section 494/406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC).Thereafter, the accused Sharmistha Gon left his house misappropriating jewellery and other valuables and started mixing with the other accused Abhijit Das and thereafter, she married Abhijit Das on 18.9.97 under the Special Marriage Act. When the complainant came to know about second marriage of his wife Sharmistha Gon, he lodged the complaint against both the accused persons.Against the order of framing charge by the learned Magistrate the accused petitioners moved this Court.This Court in a revisional application bearing No. C.R.R.2390/01 indicated that there is no material for framing charge against accused Abhijit Das under Section 406 or 420 of IPC but indicated that there are materials of Section 494/107 of IPC against him.Charge under Section 494/ 406/ 120B of IPC against the present accused petitioner was maintained.It is evident that challenging the order of acquittal the O.P. complainant filed Criminal Appeal No. 232/02 in this Court.Liberty was granted to the complainant to prove the documents which are already on record and to mark the documents as exhibits in accordance with law.There was also indication in the order that the accused would be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses.The complainant earlier during trial produced both the marriage certificates showing his marriage with the present accused petitioner and also the marriage certificate showing marriage between accused petitioner and Abhijit Das.If the accused petitioner gave consent that the marriage certificates may be admitted in evidence without objection, the present problem could have been avoided and no question of examination of Marriage Registrar would have been there before the learned Magistrate.In order to prove the marriage certificates there was need of examination of Marriage Registrar Mira Mukherjee.Mira Mukherjee was a witness for complainant but during the trial she did not appear in Court for giving evidence.The marriage certificate was in the record but, the learned Magistrate did not mark it as exhibit and did not admit the said document into evidence.In order to prove the marriage certificate showing the marriage between complainant and accused Sharmistha Gon evidence of Marriage Registrar Mira Mukherjee was necessary.For that purpose P.W. 9 Mira Mukherjee, one of the Marriage Registrars was examined and the marriage certificate issued by her was produced before her in Court at the time of her evidence.But, for the reasons best known to her P.W. 9 declined to identify her signature on the marriage certificate which she herself issued after registering the marriage.She stated categorically that unless the original marriage registers are produced before her she cannot properly identify her signature.The learned Magistrate thereafter rightly applied his mind and very rightly exercised jurisdiction to summon for production of the original marriage register to prove the marriage certificate.There was one affidavit affirmed by the accused petitioner before the Notary Public and that affidavit was in the record of the learned Magistrate, but it was not admitted in evidence.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,552,347 |
The informant Shivling Ganpat Patil was a member of the Village Panchayat.There is a Society called Murale Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society.The election to the society was held two months after the Panchayat election.In that election party men of acquitted accused Anandrao and those of Shivling Patil contested.Shivling Patil was elected as Chairman of that society.The deceased Babasaheb Dhondiram Hingmire was one of his supporters.Anandrao was instigating some of the members of the society not to pay the due of the society.On account of elections pertaining to the Society the relations between Shivling Patil on the one hand and Anandarao on the other became strained.It is alleged that the festival of Bendur was being celebrated in the month of Ashadh, on full moon day.On that day bullocks and other cattle are taken in a procession in Murale village.Since the last 2 to 3 years prior to the incident the informant's bull and that of the deceased were taken together in a procession.On 15-7-1981 whilst the festival of Bendur was being celebrated in Murale at about 5 p.m. the bulls of the informant were taken in procession.Both the informant and Anandrao had taken out the procession of their bulls.The informant came across the procession of Anandrao at the corner of the road.At about 8.30 p.m. both the processions came near the society office.They were to go further to Rudrappa.The informant suggested to Anandrao that he should take his procession by one side and they would take their procession by the other side.Since the beating of drums was going on one bull from the procession of Anandrao got scared and started running helter, skelter.The informant asked Anandrao and appellant Dadasaheb to control the bull but they pleaded their inability.At that time appellant Dattatraya Ramchandra Patil and the deceased Babasaheb Hingmire were also there.Anandrao and Dadasaheb told the informant that they were responsible for the bull running helter, and accused him of becoming conceited.The informant replied as to what was the basis on which he said that.On that appellant Anandrao is alleged to have assaulted Babasaheb with a stick and to have given one blow by stick to the informant.Thereafter appellant Dattatraya Patil inflicted a scythe blow on the left knee of Babasaheb Hingmire and Dadasaheb Patil inflicted an axe blow on the right upper arm of the informant.On receiving the scythe blow Babasaheb fell down in front of the society office.This incident is alleged to have been seen by P.W. 9 Yashwada, the mother of the deceased and Subhadra P.W. 10, the wife of the deceased.Some other witnesses also saw it but during the trial they became hostile.The incident is said to have been seen by them in the electric light which was near the society office.After the incident was over the informant ran to his house.At his house Maruti Magne and Jagannath Burgale, P.W. 12 came to see him.He told them to send information to his brother Sadashiv at Sangli for sending a truck.Maruti and Jagannath brought back the bull of the informant and also told the informant that Babasaheb Hingmire who was lying unconscious in front of the society office had been removed to his house by Kaka Burgale P.W. 7 and others.Thereafter Maruti and Jagannath went away.At about 9.30 p.m. the truck came to the informant's house and on the same the informant and Babasaheb Hingmire came to Tasgaon.On the way the informant's brother Sadashiv met them and sat in the same truck with them.2-A. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Shivling Ganpati Patil on 16-7-1981 at 1.30 a.m. at Police Station Tasgaon.The F.I.R. is at Exhibit 21 and in the same the appellants and the acquitted accused have been named.On the basis of the F.I.R. Police Head Constable Bhupal Kamble registered an offence under section 307/326 read with 34 I.P.C. He sent both Shivling Patil and Babasaheb Hingmire for medical administration to the Medical Officer of Tasgaon.P.W. 15 Dr. Dattatraya Kadam medically examined both Shivling Patil and Babasaheb Hingmire.The following injuries were found on his person:"Stab incised wound oblique over left leg, over left popliteal fossa, postero laterally 61/4 c.m. x 5 c.m.x 7 c.m.Lateral condyl of the lower end of left femur exposed, muscles exposed, blood clots present inside and around the wound."At 2.15 a.m. on the same day he examined Shivling Patil and found on his person one incised wound, oblique 5 c.m. x 11/2 c.m. muscle deep over right arm, accompanied by profuse bleeding and spouting of blood and blood-clots inside the wound.He also noticed severe tenderness.He took it into possession.He thereafter recorded the statements of some witnesses.P.S.I. Mahadeo Dixit on 16-7-1981 himself took over the investigation from Jamadar Patil.Appellant Dadasaheb Anandrao Patil is also on bail.He shall continue to remain on it.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Vide judgment and order dated 27th May, 1982 passed in Sessions Case No. 87 of 1981, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated hereinafter:(i) Appellant Dattatraya Ramchandra Patil under section 302 I.P.C. to suffer R.I for life; and(ii) Appellant Dadasaheb Anandrao Patil under section 324 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo R.I. for 1 month.Hence this appeal.It may be mentioned that vide the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge acquitted accused Anandrao Ramchandra Patil.The appellants and the acquitted accused on one hand and the prosecution witnesses Shivling Ganpati Patil P.W. 3, Yashwada Hingmire P.W. 9, Subhadra Hingmire P.W. 10 and the deceased Babasaheb Dhondiram Hingmire were residents of a common village viz. Murale.The elections to the Village Panchayat Murale were held about 2 years prior to the incident.Acquitted accused Anandarao was elected as a sarpanch at that time unopposed.It appears that Babasaheb Hingmire was already dead when he was examined by Dr. Kadam.The said doctor performed autopsy on 16-7-1991 between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. He found that the deceased had suffered the following injuries:"(1) Stab incised wound, oblique over right leg, over right popliteal fossa, postero laterally 61/4 c.m. x 5 c.m.x 7 c.m.deep, lateral condyl of the lower end of left femur exposed, muscles exposed, blood clots present inside and around wound.On dissection - Capsule had been cut laterally of the left knee, joint muscles has been cut obliquely, probable age within 24 hours and probable cause sharp cutting object."In his opinion the deceased died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to cutting of left popliteal vessels and due to injury over poplitial fossa.In the morning of 16-7-1981 Ananda Patil went to Tasgaon dispensary where he prepared the inquest panchanama and took into possession the blood stained clothes of the deceased.He thereafter went to the place of the incident and prepared the spot panchanama.In front of the society office and on the road leading to the house of Shivajirao Patil he found pool of blood and blood stained earth.The same day he arrested the acquitted accused Anandrao and took into possession his blood stained clothes.On 20-7-1981 he arrested the appellants under a panchanama.On 23-7-1981 on the pointing out of appellants Dattatraya Patil and Dadasaheb Patil he recovered a scythe and axe respectively and on that of Anandrao a stick.He sent the recovered articles to the chemical analyst.On 16-9-1981 he received the report of the Chemical Analyst.After receiving the report of the chemical analyst on 18-11-1981 P.S.I. More submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and the acquitted accused Anandrao.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner.In the trial Court the appellants and Anandrao were charged under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and 326 read with 34 I.P.C. An alternative charge against the appellant Dattatraya Ramchandra Patil was also framed under section 302 I.P.C.In the trial Court, apart from tendering sizable documentary evidence the prosecution examined as many as 30 witnesses.In defence no witness was examined.The learned trial Judge after considering the evidence on record and hearing submissions of learned Counsel for the parties acquitted co-accused Anandrao on the ground that he had been assigned the part of assaulting the deceased and the injured with a stick but the medical evidence did not disclose on their person any injury attributable to stick.He however, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above.Hence this appeal.We have heard Mr. Nitin Pradhan for the appellants and Mr. I.S. Thakur A.P.P. for the State of Maharashtra at considerable length.We have also perused the material exhibits tendered by the prosecution, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; the statements of the appellants recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the impugned judgment.After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we feel that this appeal partly deserves to be allowed.In our view, appellant Dattatraya Ramchandra Patil deserves to be acquitted under section 302 I.P.C. and should be convicted under section 304 Part I.P.C. We are also of the view that the conviction of appellant Dadasaheb Anandrao Patil under section 324 I.P.C. warrants to be confirmed but instead of sending him to jail to serve out the residual portion of his sentence, the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if he is ordered to pay some fine.Mr. Nitin Pradhan, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the learned trial Judge faulted in convicting and sentencing the appellants and instead should have acquitted them because on the person of acquitted accused Anandrao there was an injury on the head which was promptly examined and which had not been explained by the prosecution.He further urged that the failure of the prosecution to explain the injury of Anandrao should persuade us to hold that he was a victim of aggression at the hands of the deceased and if at all, he and the appellants, in self defence assaulted the prosecution party.Mr. Pradhan also urged that with respect to the same incident Anandrao lodged an F.I.R. on the basis of which a case under section 337/325 I.P.C. etc. was registered at Police Station Tasgaon at 4 a.m. on 16-3-1981 and there is evidence to show that a charge-sheet in the same has been submitted.Mr. Pradhan invited our attention to the statement of Dr. Kadam P.W. 15 who had medically examined Anandrao and also brought to our notice the injury report of Anandrao prepared by the said doctor.It appears from a perusal of material on record that Anandrao was medically examined at 12.30 a.m. on 16-7-1989 and three C.L.Ws of the dimensions of 2 cm.x 11/4 cm., 11/2 cm.x 1/4 cm.and 21/2 cm.x 1/4cm., all bone deep, were found on his parietal region.The two fold question which arises in this appeal is firstly whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses is credible or not and secondly whether the failure of the prosecution to explain the injury of Anandrao would give rise to the inference that if at all the appellants participated in the incident they acted in their right of private defence of person or not.We would first examine the question as to whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is credible or not and if the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.In paragraph 2 of the judgment we have given in great detail the prosecution version of the incident and we do not wish to reproduce the same verbatim.Broadly speaking the prosecution case is that when the bull of the appellants and of the acquitted accused Anandrao started running helter skelter, the informant reprimanded them and on that they launched an assault on him and the deceased Babasaheb Hingmire.In the instant case although Anandrao lodged an F.I.R. but he did not state in the same that after a stone was hurled at him by the informant Shivling Patil P.W. 3 he and the appellants assaulted him and the deceased in exercise of the right of private defence of person.Firstly the incident was the off-shoot of a sudden quarrel which erupted on account of an altercation taking place between the informant Shivling Patil on one hand and the appellants and the acquitted accused Anandrao on the other when the bull of the latter ran helter-skelter.(a) that the incident took place nearly 15 years ago; (b) it was an off shoot of a sudden quarrel; (c) only one injury and that too on a non-vital part of the body of the deceased, namely, left leg was inflicted; and (d) there is nothing to indicate that either of the two appellants are previous convicts or have any criminal antecedents.In our view the ends of justice would be squarely satisfied if the appellant Dattatraya Ramchandra Patil is sentenced to undergo two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years R.I. under section 304, Part II I.P.C. and the jail sentence of appellant Dadasaheb Anandrao Patil under section 324 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him and in lieu of the remaining portion of his sentence he is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.If the total fine of Rs. 25,000/- imposed by this Court is paid by the appellants the whole of it shall be paid as compensation to P.W. 10 Subhadra Babasaheb Hingmire, the widow of the deceased and in case she is not alive then to such other legal heirs of the deceased who are entitled under law to receive it.In the result this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed.We set aside the conviction of the appellant Dattatraya Ramchandra Patil and his sentence of life imprisonment under section 302 I.P.C. We acquit him on that count.As soon as the appellants deposit the fine the trial Court shall inform Subhadra Hingmire P.W. 10, about this compensation.He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentence.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,239,921 |
Exhibit 1 is the inquest report.Therefrom it appears that regarding family disputes between the husband and wife, there was altercation in the morning of 3.4.1992 when the incident took place and owing to that the deceased felt morosed, lost her self- confidence and consumed unknown poison and committed suicide.P.W. 1 is the de-facto complainant, the father of victim.A suggestion was given to P.W. 1 that the deceased had love affairs with the accused no. 1 who was "dozbor" by marrying second time and having a son also.It was denied.Further it was suggested to P.W. 1 that as he was very poor, he did not present anything at the time of marriage as dowry.She completely corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 and added that on the fateful day Tarak who is son of accused Sukumar informed her about the precarious condition of Sulekha and she went there and on query her daughter reported to her that accused persons tortured and instigated to commit suicide after giving her a container of poison.He stated that on query P.W. 2 reported that victim told her that she was tortured by the accused persons and accused husband gave her a container of poison and asked her to commit suicide.P.W. 4 is also another local resident.He stated almost what P.W. 3 said.As per direction ofP.W. 1 he along with Madhab, Madhu and Ram Kamal went to Kaliganj Police Station.P.W. 5 is also the resident of the same area.He went to the house of the accused.He found Sulekha lying dead and her mother was crying by saying that as they failed to give the dowry money she committed suicide.He also signed the inquest report.passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Nadia in Sessions Case No. 12 of June 1993 convicting thereby the appellants under section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.During pendency of the appeal, Jamini Mahaldar, the appellant No. 4 died and as such the case against him stands abated.In the background of this appeal, the fact in a nutshell is as follows:-The first daughter of the complainant viz., Sulekha was married to accused no. 1 Sukumar in the last part of Falgoon 1396 B.S. At the time of marriage the complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- out of Rs. 15,000/- in cash and also presented other articles, viz., gold ornaments , beddings etc., to his son-in-law.It was the further case of the prosecution that after 3-4 months of marriage the accused persons started torture both mentally and physically on the victim for bringing balance amount of Rs. 5,000/-.The complainant could not collect the said amount and requested the accused nos. 1 to 3 to stop torture on his daughter and took time to pay the said money upto the month of Aswin .In the month of Chaitra again merciless torture was inflicted on the victim.On the date and time of incident, the complainant was out of the house in the field.At that time the son of accused no. 1 by his first wife, Tarak came to the house of the complainant at about 12 noon and informed the wife of the complainant that Sulekha was vomiting.The wife of the complainant rushed to the house of the accused.She found her daughter dead.On investigation, the police submitted charge sheet.The case was committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, Nadia.On hearing of both sides, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code.The contents of the charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To contest this case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses, while none was examined on the side of the defence.However, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The defence case, as appeared from the trend of cross- examination of the witnesses as well as the replies given by the accused persons at the time of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is denial of offence with a plea of innocence.On trial, the learned trial court convicted the present appellants by the impugned judgment.The point for consideration is if the impugned judgment suffers from any material irregularity and calls for any interference or not.304B. Dowry death.(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death".To appreciate the case in a better way some pieces of evidence are required to be considered.It appears from the materials on record that after the incident, the relations and villagers informed the police station.Instead of lodging the case under heading as above, police started an unnatural death case.Thereafter the complainant finding no other alternative lodged a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnanagar, Nadia.Therefrom, it appears that in Falgoon 1395, the victim was married to accused no. 1 and financially poor petitioner had given all that he could viz., bed and bedding, utensils, a gold ring and cash of Rs. 10,000/- out of Rs. 15,000/- as demanded, but as the balance sum could not paid so the accused persons inflicted torture and ultimately, in the house of the accused person, the victim died.Further it was alleged therein that on the fateful day of the incident in the morning her husband along with her elder sister-in-law(husband's elder brother's wife) and her mother-in-law had all together held her by hair and had assaulted with slaps and blows and the accused no. 1 had kept a small container of poison and had told her, "if I see that you are still alive when I return home in the afternoon I shall cut you in pieces and throw you into the Ganges".Accused No. 3 also told "so many people die, why don't you die, for what happiness are you still remaining alive".It was alleged that owing to all these provocations and on finding no other alternative and unable to give remaining amount of dowry, the daughter of the complainant consumed poison and died.He reproduced his allegation as were made in the complaint in his evidence.He appears to have successfully suffered the pressure of cross- examination.He has stated there was "Haichoi" in the house of accused persons and many other persons were present in their house.He found his wife there and on query her wife reported that when she asked her daughter, her daughter told her that at the instance of the accused persons she committed suicide by taking poison.The P.W. 1 did not find any accused persons present there.It was his allegation that the police did not take any steps.Thereafter he filed the criminal case in court.She denied.Further she denied that only to create pressure on the accused persons, the case was filed.P.W. 3 knows both sides.He is a local man.He has stated that after getting information about her precarious condition, he went to her in-law's house and found that her condition was serious and "Ganjla" was found coming out from her mouth.He did not see the accused persons there.At late hours of night police came and prepared inquest report.He signed the inquest report.When he went to the house of the accused, he did not find any of them.He identified the accused persons.On his interrogation P.W. 2 reported that in that morning all accused persons assaulted her and accused Sukumar gave poison container and then she committed suicide.P.W. 7 is a formal witness.a) the deceased was married to accused no. 1b) the deceased died at the place of her husband within a span of seven years.c) she died an unnatural death.The accused persons were examined thoroughly under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It has come from the evidence that soon after incident when the parents of the deceased had been to the house of in-laws' place, the accused persons were not found there.Even the local witness did not find the accused persons present at the place of occurrence.This gives rise to a question why the accused persons were not found in the house? While the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no explanation was given by them to the effect that they were not present on the fateful day at their house.Nor it has been explained where they had been that day.This fact established that the onus of rebutting the presumption lies not on the prosecution but on the accused persons who even did not adduce any D.W.Now the question is whether the oral evidence on the prosecution witness can be relied on.In this regard, there is no direct eyewitness.So, apparently whether reliability on prosecution witness can be made or not is to be considered.The learned counsel for the appellant cited before me the following decisions:i) Mungeshwar Prasad Chaurasia & Anr.The learned trial court dealt with all the relevant facts in a reasoned way.The case appeared to have been proved by prosecution.Accordingly, the appeal has got no merits.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,240,328 |
Shri S.S. Dhakad, Advocate, for the complainant.Heard on I.A.No.3554/15, an application under Section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting the prosecution.Counsel for the applicant has no objection in this regard.Counsel for the complainant is allowed to assist the prosecution.This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants.The applicants are in custody since 22.03.2015 in connection with Crime No.29/2015 registered at Police Station Pahargarh district Morena(M.P.) for the offence under Sections 294, 307, 323, 506-B/34 of IPC.It is alleged that the complainant Mohar Singh was attacked by the applicants armed with axe.Mohar Singh sustained several injuries and three injuries on the head.His wife Ramvilasi and mother Ramkunwar Bai when tried to intervene, they were also attached.They also sustained injuries.2 M.Cr.Therefore, they be given the benefit of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application.Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the application on the ground that injuries received by the complainant party are in vital part, therefore, prayed for rejection of this application.On perusal of the MLC report, C.T. Scan, X-ray report and the Police diary, no grievous injury has been found.More so, the doctor has not opined that the injuries are dangerous to life in normal course of nature.Considering the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the application for regular bail is allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on thier furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of 3 M.Cr.C.No.3913/2015 the following conditions by the applicants:-3 M.Cr.If at all the applicants are found to breach any of the above conditions, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,240,841 |
They have been falsely implicated.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,241,393 |
G. FIR No. 65/2014 dated 03/04/2014, registered at Purna Police Station, Purna, Dist.H. FIR No. 64/2014 dated 03/04/2014, registered at Purna Police Station, Purna, Dist.I. FIR of Crime No. I-267/2014 dated 21/10/2014, registered at M-Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, isUmesh Malani Page 37 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.Heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.It would not be out of place to state here that in all thesepetitions and applications an identical/common issue is involved, as such,the petitions and applications are tagged together and accordingly aretaken up for hearing and disposal.By consent of the parties CriminalWrit Petition No. 1027 of 2015 is taken up as lead petition.Brief facts giving rise to the petitions and applications andUmesh Malani Page 9 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docthe sequence of facts are briefly stated as below:-a.The police authorities have lodged first information reportsagainst the Petitioners/applicants at respective police stations forcommission of offences under the provisions of Food Safety andStandards Act, 2006 (for short "Act of 2006") as well as under theprovisions of Sections 272, 273, 188 and 328 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short "IP Code").It would not be out of place to state here thatfirst information reports are sought to be quashed initially, butsubsequently as the charge-sheet was filed in the Competent Court, theproceedings arising out of the charge-sheet are also sought to be quashedby seeking leave and by amending the petitions and applications.b.The sum and substance of the first information report is aninformation received by the officers of Respondent No. 5 herein aboutapprehend of certain vehicles, namely, Tempo/Trucks.The driver of thevehicles fled away from the spot and it revealed that those vehicles werecarrying large quantity of gunny bags containing the packets of Gutkaand Pan masala and the packets of tobacco.The bags were unloaded inthe office of Joint Commissioner of Food and Safety Department,Osmanabad.One Mr. S K Shaikh approached the Respondent authoritiesUmesh Malani Page 10 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docdisclosing that he is resident of Hyderabad and is possessing State permitfor transport.On finding that Mr Shaikh escaped, who was possessingthe State permit having the registration number of vehicles apprehendedwas carrying the articles which were prohibited under the notificationissued by the State of Maharashtra.Offences, namely, Sections, 26(2)(4)and 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and underSection 272, 273, 188 and 328 of Indian Penal Code were registeredagainst Mr S K Shaikh.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::c. Various grounds were raised in the petitions and applicationschallenging the action of registration of offences.The petitions and applications were extensively heard and byjudgment and order dated 04th March, 2016, the Division Bench of thisCourt (Coram : A V Nirgude and Indira K Jain, JJ) was pleased to allowthe writ petitions and applications.The action initiated against thepetitioner by the police authorities in the nature of complaints/reportsUmesh Malani Page 11 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docwas declared to be illegal and resultantly, the complaints/reports werequashed.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::e. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order in Writ PetitionNo.1027 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as in the matter of GaneshPandurang Jadhao and Others Versus The State of Maharashtra andothers for the sake of ready reference) and other connected petitions andapplications, the State of Maharashtra preferred special leave petitionbefore the Hon'ble the Apex Court.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::g. The Hon'ble the Apex Court by order dated September 20,2018 was pleased to grant leave and the parties were permitted toapproach before this Court for considering the contentions afresh whichwere not argued before this Court.Resultantly, the matters were remittedback to this Court.WP.1027.2015+.docon 18th July, 2013, the prohibitory order issued by the authority,judgment and order passed by the Division bench of this Court in thematter of Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao and Others Vs.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::Learned Counsel Mr Mantri vehemently submitted that thejudgment of the Division bench at principal seat in Criminal WritPetition No. 3607 of 2019 in clear and unambiguous words hold thatSection 328 of the IP Code is not at all attracted and lodgment of FIR forthe offences under Section 328 and 188 of IP Code against thepetitioners is an abuse of process of law.The Division bench in orderUmesh Malani Page 15 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docdated 29th November, 2018 also referred to the order of the Apex Courtin the matter of State of Maharashtra and Ors V/s.Syed Hassan andOthers and ultimately Criminal Applications were dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::It is also submitted by the learned Counsel Mr Mantri thatthe statement of object and reasons for repealing the old Act by the newAct is mainly the achieve an objective of controlling the trade andintroducing / fixing civil or penal liability.Mr Mantri invited ourattention to section 30 to submit that as per the provision under Section30, Commissioner of Food Safety is a competent authority to performvarious functions and is the competent authority to issue necessaryorders or notifications.The orders issued by the competent authoritydated 18th July, 2013 and notification dated 15th July, 2014 are placed onrecord at annexures C and D respectively.Learned Counsel Mr Mantri then submitted that Act of 2006provides various compliance, such as, food articles be tested fromlaboratory so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the food article isharmful or substandard or adulterated.It is the submission of learnedUmesh Malani Page 16 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docCounsel Mr Mantri that the Respondent authorities have not forwardedthese food articles for any laboratory test and only on assumptions andpresumptions the offences are registered against the petitioners.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::It was an attempt of the learned Counsel Mr Mantri tosubmit before this Court that order dated 29th November, 2018 is perincuriam.Mr Totla, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicantsadopted submissions of learned Counsel Mr Mantri.Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed petitions andapplications.By inviting our attention tothe relevant clauses i.e. D and E of the order dated 18 th July, 2013 alsoclauses of notification, learned APP vehemently submitted that foodarticles which were found in the vehicle apprehended were bannedarticles and there was a prohibitory order for storage, distribution or saleof these banned articles i.e. Gutka or Pan Masala.Learned APP byinviting our attention to the notification dated 15 th July, 2014 submittedthat under the scientific research and study it clearly revealed that thetobacco and other products like Gutka or Pan Masala consumption ofsuch articles is seriously harmful and leads to serious ailment like cancer.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::Learned APP then submitted that a scientific studies further revealed thatconsumption of the banned articles i.e. Gutka or Pan Masala lead to oralsub-mucous fibrosis and there is constant increase in numbers of suchpatients.It was furthersubmission of learned APP that as the prohibited articles were to be soldin open market for the consumers and as such the activity of sale andtransport was done by the petitioners/applicants within the stipulatedperiod of the order issued by the respondent authority and thenotification issued by the State of Maharashtra, as such the petitioners /applicants have committed offence under Section 188, 328, 272 and 273of the IP Code.We find considerable merit in the submission of learned APPthat competent Authority had issued the order dated 18 th July, 2013 andas per clause G of the order the activities, such as manufacture, storage,distribution or sale of Gutka or Pan Masala, containing either tobaccoand/or nicotine or Magnesium Carbonate as ingredients, by whatsoevername these are available in the market and any other products marketedseparately to constitute as Gutka or Pan Masala etc. as final products.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::We find considerable merit in the submissions of Mr Mantrithat even by taking the facts on fact on it as referred to in the firstinformation report no offence under Section 328 is made out against thePetitioners.Mr Mantri was also justified on placing heavy reliance on theUmesh Malani Page 20 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docjudgment of the principal seat.The Division bench at principal seat dealtwith all the relevant factors coming in play for attracting Sections 188and 328 of IP Code.We may refer to these relevant observations of theDivision bench at principal seat as under:::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.--Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with Section 328 of the IPC in case of Joseph Kurian Philip Jose (supra).The criminal appeals placed beforeUmesh Malani Page 21 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.doc the Apex Court arose out of a phase of sporadic incidents referred to as "Punalur Liquor Tragedy" where certain persons died and others received injuries due to consumption of poisonous adulterated arrack, ethyl alcohol adulterated with methyl alcohol.Cases under Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC and Section 57(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act were registered.On recording a finding of guilt against A-1 and A-4, the Sessions Court imposed sentence.The remaining accused were found guilty of offences punishable under the Abkari Act and were imposed nominal sentences of fine only.The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of A-1 and conviction of A-4 came to be set aside and he was convicted under Section 109 for abetting the offences punishable under Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC.In the backdrop of these facts, the Apex Court was called upon to decide the applicability of Sections 272 and 328 of the IPC against the said Accused.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::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 Sreedharan Pillai deceased, who had purchased and consumed liquor from a retail shop, with intent to cause hurt to him or knowing it to be likely that it would cause hurt to him.This has to be solved remaining cognizant that Sections 272 and 328 are separate offences described in the Indian Penal Code."::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::There was no question of licence of any kind with the applicants and from the huge quantity which is recovered, it can be said that they had the intention to sell these articles as food articles."::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::In Writ Petition No. 3607 of 2019, the Division bench atPrincipal seat was pleased to observed that the first information reportlodged against the petitioners leads only storage and there is nothing inthe first information report attributes any other act to the petitioners i.e.of manufacture, distribution or sale.The Division bench at Principal seatthen further observed that disobedience of the promulgated order underSection 188 of the IP Code if it causes or tends to cause danger to humanlife.The section do not use the term 'likely to cause', conveying thatthere has to be a positive evidence of causing or tends to cause danger tohuman life and in absence, Section 188 is not attracted.The good willhave to be moved beyond the store to be sold.We may state here that, we are in respectful agreement withthe view expressed by the Division Bench at principal seat in so far as theapplicability of Section 328 of IP Code against the petitioners in theUmesh Malani Page 32 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.WP.1027.2015+.docpresent matter.As stated above, in WritPetition No. 3607/2019 the Division bench at principal seat was pleasedto observed that the Writ Petition only refers to the storage of food articleGutka or Pan Masala but in the present matters the first informationreports specifically refers to transportation of large quantity of theprohibited articles i.e. Gutka or Pan Masala.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::It would not stand for either reason or logic that such a largequantity referred to in the first information report i.e. nearly 200 gunnybags of the Gutka or Pan Masala was for the personal consumption of thepetitioners.The report further refers to approach of Mr S K Shaikh to therespondent authorities disclosing that he is possessing transport permitand is the claimant of the articles, meaning thereby large quantity ofarticles loaded in the vehicles was for the sale purposes.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::In so far as the other offences, namely, Sections272 and 273 of the IP Code is concerned, Sections 272 and 273 boththe provisions referred to sale of prohibited articles.As stated above,there is positive material against the petitioners/applicants to show thatthe large quantity of prohibited articles were being transported from oneplace to another and statement in first information report on face of itconstitutes offences under Sections 188, 272 and 273 of IP Code.In so far as Writ Petition No. 1183 of 2015 is concerned, it isfiled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and generaldirections have been sought for in prayer clauses B and C. The prayerclauses B and C reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::C) By issuing of appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature that, authorized officer under the Food Safety standards act 2006 be directed to Act strictly according to the provisions of the Act and not to filed any prosecution, unless confirmed by the appropriate lab that, the sample seized by the authority is ban in Maharashtra under this act.Though the petitioners have placed on record copy of thefirst information report dated 05th February, 2013 lodged at RahuriPolice Station and copy of charge-sheet, there are no specific prayersseeking quashment of the same.In other companion petitions whereinquashment is sought for and separate order has been passed.In the backdrop of above facts, there is no need to pass anyorder in this Petition.Hence, Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.On hearing of the learned Counsel appearing for therespective parties and on going through the judgment delivered at theprincipal seat in Writ Petition No. 3607/2019, we are of the opinion thatlearned Counsel for the petitioners and applicants made out case forallowing the Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications partly.Hence, wepass the following order:::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::A. Criminal Writ Petitions and Criminal Applications are partly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::K. Proceedings of Sessions Case No. 14 of 2015 pending before the Ld.L. Charge-sheet bearing No. 06 of 2014 arising out of the FIR vide Cr. No. B-1/14 dated 09.01.2014 registered with Police Station Railway, Nanded (Dist.M. Respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed against the Petitioners/Applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 188, 272 and 273 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 26 and 30 of the Food Safety and StandardsUmesh Malani Page 38 of 39 ::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 ::: Cr.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::The State ofMaharashtra and Ors.(Criminal Writ Petition No. 3607/2019) was thesubject matter in a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.8224/2020 preferred before the Hon'ble the Apex Court and an interimorder is passed in the said special leave petition.In view of this fact, MrYawalkar learned APP prayed for sometime to take appropriate steps andalso prayed for an interim order in the nature of stay to this order for aperiod of 8 weeks.Considering the oral submission made by the learned APPthat above mentioned special leave petition is pending before theHon'ble the Apex Court and stay has been granted therein, we, therefore,grant stay to this order for a period of 6 weeks only.::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 07:02:11 :::
|
['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.
|
155,241,738 |
Panaullah (A-1) and Mohd.The sentences were to operate concurrently.Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that in between eight or nine months, before 09.10.2010 the appellants sexually assaulted X (assumed name) aged around 13 years after administering poisonous substance to her on various dates and criminally intimidated her.It is relevant to note that A-1 is Xs father and A-2 was acquainted with her before the occurrence being A-1s friend.On 08.10.2010, at A-1s residence, marriage of his elder daughter Majida Khatun was to take place.Many relatives including PW-2 (Afsana), PW-6 (Akhtari) and PW-8 (Mohd.Bilali) had participated in the said marriage.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 2 of 8 PW-2 (Afsana) suspected that A-1 was concealing real facts about ill health of her daughter X. She became suspicious and forcibly touched Xs abdomen and felt that she was pregnant.She immediately called PW- 1 (Nageena) working as counsellor for NGO known as "STOP".One mid- wife was called at the spot who confirmed that X was pregnant.People from the locality gathered and A-1 was beaten.Intimation was given to the police.X disclosed that she was sexually assaulted by the appellants.Daily Diary (DD) No.14A (Ex.PW-4/A) was recorded at PS Narela.The investigation was assigned to SI Mohd. Yaqub Khan, who went to the spot.After recording victims statement (Ex.PW-5/A), he lodged First Information Report.X was medically examined and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.During investigation, Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts.The accused persons were arrested and medically examined.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 8 of 8A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 8 of 8Aggrieved by a judgment dated 04.09.2012 in Sessions Case No. 05/11 arising out of FIR No.415/10 PS Narela by which Md.Mumtaz (A-2) were convicted for committing offences under Sections 328/376(2)(f) IPC, they have preferred the appeals.By an order dated 06.09.2012, A-1 was awarded RI for ten years with fine ` 10,000/- under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC and RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 328 IPC. A-2 was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine ` 10,000/- under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC.After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both of them in the Court.The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to prove their complicity in the crime.In 313 Cr.P.C., they denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication at PW-2 Afsanas behest.The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have filed the instant appeals.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 2 of 8A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 3 of 8I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.Initially, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-5/A) and under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-5/B), X had implicated A-1 for committing rape upon her for the past one year.PW-1 (Nageena), PW-2 (Afsana), PW-6 (Akhtari) and PW-8 (Mohd.Bilali) also deposed that on 08.10.2010, during their presence at A-1s house, X had informed A-1 also to be the perpetrator of the crime.It enraged the public and A-1 was beaten at the spot.However, when X was examined as PW- 5, in her Court statement, she completely exonerated A-1 and specifically deposed that he did not commit any wrong act with her.She alleged that her statement given to the police was incorrect and was under pressure.The Trial Court, however, based A-1s conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence noting unnatural and unreasonable conduct of A- 1; that of the prosecutrix X; her sisters; behaviour of the crowd coupled with the deposition of public witnesses including PW-1 (Nageena) and PW-2 (Afsana).The Trial Court was of the view that due to her sister (Majida)s intervention who used to visit her in Nirmal Chaya, X opted not to support the prosecution case.Apparently, A-1s conviction is based upon mere conjectures, surmises and possibilities.None of these witnesses was witness to the Crl.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 4 of 8 incident of sexual assault upon X at any stage.No medical or scientific evidence emerged on record to infer if at any time, A-1 administered poisonous substance to her daughter X and sexually assaulted her.In her Court statement, X was very categorical and certain that A-1 was not the author of the crime.It is significant to note that DNA test conducted during investigation did not connect A-1 with the birth of female child born to X subsequently.There is no other medical / FSL findings against A-1 to connect him with the crime.Under these circumstances, A-1s conviction merely on the basis of alleged circumstantial evidence and suspicion is unsustainable and is set aside.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 4 of 8Regarding A-2, X had implicated him in her statement (Ex.She gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances A-2, who lived in D-Block and worked with her father, committed rape upon her in a factory against her wishes on various dates.In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also she reiterated her version and named A-2 to be the rapist.In her Court statement she exonerated her father but was certain about A- 2s involvement in committing rape upon her.She deposed that A-2 had committed sexual intercourse with her twice or thrice in the afternoon in her house.She further revealed that A-2 had called her in his factory Crl.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 5 of 8 (Karkhana) in JJ Colony, Bawana in the evening and had sexually assaulted her there.Elaborating further, she deposed that A-2 was alone there at that time; he closed the door from inside and forcibly raped her.He had told her not to disclose the incident to anyone as it was a routine and general thing.In response to Court question, X disclosed that an aged man also used to ravish her repeatedly in the park.The police, however, did not conduct any investigation on this aspect to find out the said rapist.Xs statement inspires confidence in this regard as DNA report No. 2011/DNA-0740/420 dated 07.04.2011 did not connect A-1 and A-2 with the pregnancy of the child and they were not responsible for the birth of the female child.Apparently, someone else had also sexually assaulted X and had made her pregnant.Investigation on its face is defective and no sincere efforts were made to find out as to who was the father of the child born to X. It, however, does not dilute the nefarious act committed by A-2 with X. She was aged about 13 years on the day of occurrence and had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate him for the heinous offence.There was no previous enmity or ill-will forcing X to level serious allegations against him.A-2 did not give plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances proved against him and did not offer believable reason for his false implication.His name emerged Crl.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 6 of 8 even in the statements of PW-1 (Nageena) and PW-2 (Afsana) on the very day when the matter came to the knowledge of A-1s relatives.Simply because she has opted not to implicate her father for reasons known to her, it does not efface the crime committed by A-2 with an innocent child.In fact, as per school certificates (Ex.PW-7/A to Ex.So innocent she was that she was unaware of her pregnancy for about seven months.She had to remain in Nirmal Chhaya as per CWCs order where she delivered a female child.A-2 taking advantage of Xs innocence ravished her repeatedly.Her innocence is apparent as despite being sexually assaulted repeatedly by an unknown aged person, she did not report the incident to her father or anyone else.Since she was below 16 years on the day of incident, even her consent for physical relations was insignificant.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 5 of 8A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 6 of 8Nothing Crl.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 7 of 8 more can be expected from a child aged about 10 / 12 years who did not know the consequences of physical relations established by A-2 and others with her making her pregnant and forcing her to deliver a child.A.Nos.1448/2012 & 514/2013 Page 7 of 8In the light of above discussion, appeal preferred by A-1 is allowed and conviction / sentence recorded by the Trial Court qua him is set aside.A-1 is on bail.His bail bond and surety bond stand discharged.Appeal preferred by A-2 lacks merit and is dismissed.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 06, 2015 / tr Crl.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,242,967 |
Heard with the aid of case diary.This is third bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.Applicant Uma Shankar Sharma was arrested on 10/7/2019 in Crime No.03/2019 registered at Police Station Udaypura, District Raisen (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC & also U/s 25/27 of the Arms Act.The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 19/9/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.34055/2019 and the second bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 3/2/2020 passed in M.Cr.As per the prosecution case on 02.01.2019 complainant Suresh lodged a report at Police Station Udaypura averring that he drove Pawan Rajput's vehicle bearing registration No.On 01.01.2019 at 08:00 PM when he was passing from the front of applicant Umashankar's office with the same vehicle along with Pawan Rajput and Ramesh Rajput, on the way, when they reached in front of Rathi's shop, they saw that 15-20 persons were standing armed with stick, spears (farsa) and gun in front of applicant Uma Shankar's office.On seeing them, he slowed down the vehicle.On that, these persons ran towards his vehicle, so he turned back the vehicle meanwhile some of the persons fired on the vehicle, in which one bullet, piercing the rear glass of the vehicle hit Ramesh Rajput.They took Ramesh Rajput to hospital, where doctor declared him dead.A dispute is going on between applicant Uma Shankar and Pawan Rajput over money transactions, due to which applicant Uma Shankar got such deadly attack done on them.It has been learnt that the bullet was fired by co-accused Manish.On that police registered Crime No.3/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B, 34 of IPC read with Section 25, 27, 30 of Arms Act, 1959 against applicant Umashankar and co-accused Manish and other unknown persons and investigated the matter.During investigation, Police recorded the statements of Pawan Rajput and other witnesses and also Signature Not Verified SAN collected the CCTV footage of camera fitted at the applicant Umashankar's Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.10.12 16:25:37 IST 2 MCRC-25124-2020 office and nearby Pawan Khatik's Shop.From that it was found that on the date of incident at around 6 PM, when Pawan Rajput demanded his money due on applicant Umashankar from him, applicant and his employee co- accused Mohit and Manish abused Pawan on phone and also threatened to kill him.Thereafter said incident occurred when Pawan Rajput was going to Prem Nagar.It was also found that applicant Uma Shankar and co-accused Rahul Sharma, Raghvendra Sharma, Subhash Sharma @ Aditya Sharma, Mohit, Raju @ Rajendra Rajput, Anil, Rajesh @ Collector, Mansingh, Raman Sharma and Mahesh Chaudhari were included in group of persons, who had gathered on spot at the time of incident.They were present on the spot armed with weapons.It is further submitted that although earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 19/9/2019 passed in M.Cr.During custody the applicant was effected from corona virus, due to which there is a serious threat to the applicant's life in jail.Charge-sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, hence it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.10.12 16:25:37 IST
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,243,277 |
Due to spread of COVID-19, the trial will take time for final 2 MCRC-24254-2020 disposal.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody since 6.7.2017, in connection with Cri me No.174/2017 registered at Police Station Dhanpuri, District Shahdol (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 327, 294, 393 and 506-II/34 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 5.7.2017, complainant Puja Singh lodged a report at concerned Police Station that when she was alone in her house, then at about 3:00 P.M., applicant and other co-accused came into her house and demanded money of Rs.1,000/- for drink, they abused her and threatened on the point of knife and pushed her due to which she sustained some injuries on the foot.Thereafter, case has been registered against the applicant in the concerned Police Station for the aforesaid offence.He has been implicated in the case only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused and suspicion.The co-accused of this case has been released on bail vide order dated 05.08.2019 and the case of present applicant is akin to case of him.The applciant has already suffered about three years detention period whereas the offences are punishable with maximum seven years of jail sentence.The applicant has not assaulted the complainant.Due to some previous enmity, the applicant has been impleaded as an accused.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned P.L. opposes the bail application submitting that the applicant has criminal past and 16 cases are registered against him.With the aforesaid, he has prayed for dismissal this bail application.Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.
|
['Section 34 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.
|
155,250,453 |
Mr. Manoj Badgujar, i/b Satish B. Patil, for the Petitioners.Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State.CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and thelearned APP for the State.The petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for quashing FIR bearing C.R. No.130 of2016, registered with Mangaon Police Station, Pune, at theinstance of Respondent no.2 for the offences punishableunder Section 435, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Codeand under Section 3(1)(v), (x) and 3(2)(iii) of SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocity)Mr. Saste, the learned APP on instructions of the Investigating Officer, Mr. Datta Kisan Nalawade, who is present before the Court, makes submission that investigation in the aforesaid crime is already completed and pursuant thereto decision is taken to file "B" Summary before the concerned Court.The statement is accepted.In the light of above, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly concede that the grievance raised in the petition no more survives.The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,552,564 |
JUDGMENT V.D. Gyani, J.On going through the record, it was found, that it is connected with other criminal appeals arising out of the same judgment.They were sent for and heard together.All these appeals are, therefore, decided by a common order.The points raised are common to all these appeals.The appellants have been convicted Under Section 366 read with 511, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years.The appellant Ida, has also been found to be guilty Under Section 354, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. appellant Nanka has also been convicted Under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' R.I. for causing hurt to Alma.2. Prosecution case as disclosed by the F.I.R. Ex.P.1 was that on the date of incident i.e. 30-10-1982, Alma, aged 18 years had gone to work in the field of one Bhalu Bheel.Around 12.00 in the noon the date of incident while she was harvesting paddy alon gwith Thavli, Subsingh and Shaila, the accused came there.Ida caught hold of her by her hand and dragged her.The other accused exhorted him by saying 'DHARLE' (catch hold of her).Alma shouted for help; she was beaten by appellant Nanka; who thrust an arrow in her wrist while he raised cries.Hearing her cries, her father who was grazing cattle in a hearby field, came there, along with Bhootsingh and Subsingh.It is alleged that Nanka shot an arrow hitting Nathu Alma's father in his left elbow.Others pelted stones injuring Subsingh.The accused thereafter ran away.F.I.R. Ex.P.1 was lodged at Police Station, Ambua the same day around 11.00 p.m. A case Under Section 354, 324/34, Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused.Nanka, was arrested on 31-10-1982 vide arrest Memo Ex.P.7 while others were arrested on the same day vide Arrest Memo Ex.All the accused were charged with and tried for offences punishable Under Sections 366 read with 511, Indian Penal Code.Accused Ida was also charged Under Section 354, Indian Penal Code for attempting to outrage the modesty of Alma.Nanka was charged Under Sections 323 and 324, Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to Alma and her father, Nathu.The trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants, as stated above; hence this appeal.Shri Jain learned counsel for the appellants raised the following points :Alma has categorically stated that she did not disclose to the police the names of the accused while lodging the F.I.R. Ex.She maintained in her evidence that it was Bhurla Patel who had given her the names of the accused.No test identification parade was held during investigation.Nathu P.W.2 has also admitted that the accused were shown to him at the Police Station and he was asked to identify them; which he could not, in the first instance do.It was Navadiya Tadvi who gave the names of the accused who were called by the Police to the P.S. and the report was written thereafter.These infirmities create a serious dent in the prosecution case and renders it doubtful.Alma alleged dragging at the hands of appellant Ida; she had fallen to the ground and as stated by her, she was dragged like a 'DHOR' an animal in a harvested field yet surprisingly enough she had not even a scratch or an abrasion on her body as admitted by her in her evidence, although her injury report mentions four contusions and an abrasion on her right wrist joint, attributed to Nanka who is alleged to have assaulted her with an arrow.Nanka has been acquitted of the charge Under Section 324, Indian Penal Code of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to Nathu.Although Nathu in his evidence has denied the suggestion that negotiations were on with Ida for his marriage with Lama and his brother-in-law who lived in the same village Hardaspur where accused Ida lived was acting asintermediary.But his son Subsingh P.W.4 has admitted that had the accused settled the dowry-dispute, they would not have reported the matter to the Police.He admits the custom prevalent amongst the tribals - the bhils it is the girl who extends invitation and the groom by holding her hand indicates his intention acknowledging her as his wife.It is in this background that the statement made by Ida as recorded Under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code needs to be appreciated; his stand is that he was implicated in the case because he failed to pay the dowry as demanded.Even Thavli P.W.2 mother of Alma has admitted this custom prevalent amongst tribals.She has further deposed that accused Ida, while holding Alma's hand had declared that he by holding her hand made her his wife and asked her to accompany him.She has categorically stated none of the accused who were standing at a distance had indulged in any beating.Before dealing with conviction Under Section 366 read with 511, Indian Penal Code other convictions Under Sections 354 and 323, Indian Penal Code are taken for consideration first.Taking up conviction Under Section 354, Indian Penal Code, as recorded against Appellant Ida, by the trial Court, learned counsel pointed out from the impugned judgment that the basic requirement of offence is not made out by the prosecution.In order to make out a case Under Section 354, Indian Penal Code, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that an assault was made or criminal force was used against any woman and secondly, to prove that it was with intention to outrage or knowing that it was likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,257,005 |
Petitioner-accused has filed this Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for grant of four weeks time to surrender the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Cr.A. No. 2029/1997 was filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Section 304-II & 324 of IPC and was finally decided by this Court vide judgment dated 29.07.2020 and the petitioner was granted two weeks' time to surrender for undergoing imprisonment for remaining sentence for offence under Section 304-II of IPC.He has further submitted that the intimation of the order in appeal was communicated to the petitioner by his counsel's office by speed post dated 13.08.2020, which was received by the petitioner only few days back; much after two week time granted by this Court to surrender has already been lapsed.Hence, he prays for further four weeks time to surrender the petitioner before the trial court.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the interest of justice, further two weeks' time is granted to the petitioner to surrender before the trial court.Accordingly, this M.Cr.C stands disposed of.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,262,957 |
Heard finally with consent.He has also pointed out that petitioner was not present when the order dated 1/6/12 was passed and thereafter he had gone out of station to do the work of labourer hence he could not deposit the compensation amount and comply with the direction.In this background he has made a prayer for increasing the compensation amount awarded under Section 5 of Act and extension of time.The prayer has been opposed by counsel for State.Having regard to the secondary role of petitioner in the commission of offence, the circumstances which have been pointed out by counsel for petitioner and the fact that petitioner is in custody for last about 2 months and also considering that petitioner had agreed for enhancement of compensation amount ~3~ and had assured of his good conduct for a period of one year in terms of order dated 1/6/12 and undisputed position that from the date of judgment dated 1 st June 2012 till now the petitioner has not been involved in any criminal activity, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by petitioner deserves to be and is accordingly allowed and petitioner is permitted to comply with the conditions imposed by order dated 1/6/12 within two weeks from today with the modification that instead of Rs. 4,000 petitioner will deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 5 of Act. The petitioner will be granted the benefit of order dated 1st June 2012 and period of one year of maintaining good conduct will commence from the date of deposit of the compensation amount and furnishing security and bond in terms of the above order.The M.Cr.By this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. petitioner has prayed for extension of time to deposit compensation amount in terms of order dated 1st June 2012 passed by Sessions Judge Jhabua.The petitioner alongwith co-accused Nanuram was prosecuted for offence under Sections 341, 294, 324 and 506 B of IPC.Trial court by judgment dated 2/12/2011 had acquitted the petitioner for offence under Sections 294, 506 B of IPC and had convicted him alongwith co-accused for offence under sections 341 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced them to fine of Rs. 300 each for offence under Section 341 and one year RI for offence under Section 324/34 of IPC.In appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 1/6/12 had set aside the conviction and sentence of petitioner for offence under section 341 of IPC and had affirmed the conviction of co-accused Nanuram under Section 324 and petitioner under section 324 read with 34 of IPC and had given them the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act by directing them to furnish competent security of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of trial court and bond of same amount for maintaining good ~2~ conduct for next one year and further directing them to deposit Rs. 4,000-4,000/- each under Section 5 of the Act failing which they were required to undergo the sentence awarded by trial court for offence under sections 324 and 324/34 of IPC.Co- accused Nanuram had complied with the said condition but petitioner had not complied with said condition and therefore, he was taken in custody.Petitioner had filed application before the Sessions Court seeking permission to comply with the said condition on 26/4/19 which has been rejected by Sessions Court by order dated 6/5/2019 observing that petitioner had not enclosed necessary documents in support of the plea taken in the application.(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2019.07.04 11:21:46 -07'00'
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,263,867 |
Non- production of X-rays is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.5/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013The learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State would submit that four persons alleged to have attacked PW.1 to PW.4, when they were in the house.A1 to A4 came to the house of PW.1 and stood outside the house and called PW.1 to come out of the house.PW.1 and PW.2 came out of the house.Immediately, A1 attacked PW.1 with bill-hook on the left shoulder and PW.1 fell down.Immediately, A2 stabbed PW.1's leg with punching needles on the right ankle.PW.2, wife of PW.1 intervened to stop the assault in PW.1. A1 again attacked PW.2 on the right hand.A3 handed over the stick to A4, to attack them.At that time, PW.3 and PW.4, who are sons of PW.1 came there to stop the assault and A4 assaulted them with stick.Immediately, PW.1 asked his sons to run away from there.PW.10 taken all the injured persons to the hospital and admitted them.ii) Abrasion of ½ x ½ cm right foot over medial maliolusiii) # upper end of humerus left.The respondent police, after investigating the matter laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, Salem District.After framing the charges and completing the trial, learned Judicial Magistrate, found A1 to A4 not guilty of offence under Sections 448 and 506(ii) IPC; found A2 not guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC; found A3 not guilty for the offence under Section 324 read with 114 IPC; found A4 not guilty for the offence under Section 324 (2 counts) of IPC; and had convicted A1 for the offence under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and 2/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 IPC and further sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 324 IPC and directed to undergo all the sentences concurrently.In Appeals, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, made over the case to the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Salem, for disposal.The learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments advanced on either side, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned 3/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the Appeal.Challenging the said judgment of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.171 of 2010, the appellant therein has filed the present Revision before this Court.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there is an inordinate delay in registration of First Information Report and the occurrence had taken place on 02.12.2007, whereas the First Information Report was registered only on 05.12.2007 at about 8.50 p.m. and this inordinate delay in registration of First Information Report has not been explained by the prosecution and both the Courts below failed to note that this inordinate delay has been taken advantage of prosecution to embellish the case.The learned counsel would also submit that when four accused have been charged under Sections 324 and 326 IPC and except A1/revision petitioner herein, all the other three accused were acquitted since the prosecution has failed to prove 4/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 the offence against other accused, the very same benefits would have been extended to the present revision petitioner also.The medical evidence and ocular evidence with respect to types of injuries alleged to have been inflicted on PW.1 and PW.2 are mutually contrary and therefore, the Courts below ought to have considered the same and acquitted the revision petitioner also.Both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence of Radiologist, the Doctor, who examined the X-ray and the said X- ray has also not been produced before this Court.Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, when especially four accused alleged to have involved in this case and three of them were acquitted and no specific overt act has been pointed out by both the Courts below for the revision petitioner, hence the judgments of the Courts below warrant interference.PW.9, duty Doctor of Mettur Government Hospital, admitted PW.1 brought by PW.10 and made an entry in 6/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 the Wound Certificate - Ex.P5 and noted the following injuries :-i) A small incised injury of ½ x ½ x ½ cm over left shoulder.On the same day, PW.9 Doctor examined PW.4 and issued Ex.P7-Accident Register and noted the following injuries:-PW.9 Doctor examined PW.3 and issued Ex.P8-Accident Register in respect of PW.3 and noted the following injuries:-PW.9 Doctor examined PW.2 and issued Ex.P9-Accident Register and noted the following injuries:-Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below.6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.Though the prosecution has laid charge sheet against 8/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 four accused and the trial Court also framed charges against four accused, the trial Court acquitted A2 to A4 and only convicted A1 alone for the offence under Sections 324 and 326 IPC.Against the total acquittal of A2 to A4 and also the acquittal of A1 for other offences, neither the prosecution nor the defacto complainant has filed any appeal and this Court cannot go beyond the scope of the Revision.On reading of the evidence of PW.1, he has clearly narrated the incident on 02.12.2007 and stated that when PW.1 was doing agricultural work in the land of his brother, which is adjacent to his land, during that time, A3 Sampath was grassing his goats in the lands belong to PW.1; Hence, PW.1 objected 9/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 about the grossing of goats in his land; Due to that, A3 quarreled with PW.1 and threatened and thereafter, gone away from there; On the very same day, at about 10 p.m, P.Ws.1 to 4 were in their house; and at that time, A1 to A4 came to the house of PW.1 and they stood outside the house and called PW.1 to come out of the house; PW.1 and PW.2 came out of the house; immediately A1 attacked PW.1 with billhook.Though the time of occurrence was at 10 pm infront of the house of PW.1, the presence of PW.1 to PW.4 are natural.Though all the witnesses are interested witnesses and further the injury sustained by other witnesses are not tallied, both the Courts below disbelieved the injury sustained by other witnesses and the prosecution failed to prove the specific overt act against the other accused, however, neither the prosecution nor the defacto complainant has not filed any appeal against the finding 10/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 of acquittal of other accused.The injury sustained by PW.1 was tallied with the evidence of Doctor – PW.9 and she has clearly stated that when she was on duty on 03.12.2007 at about 12.05 a.m midnight, PW.10 brought PW.1 to the hospital and it was reported to her that on 02.12.2007 at about 10 a.m, PW.1 was assaulted by four known persons, by using knife and stone, and on examination of PW.1, she has noted the following injuries:-i) A small incised injury of ½ x ½ x ½ cm over left shoulder.ii) Abrasion of ½ x ½ cm right foot over medial maliolusiii) # upper end of humerus left.She has also issued Ex.P5-Wound Certificate, in this regard.Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.9 and also the wound certificate and copy of the Accident Register, clearly show that A1 caused injury to PW.1 and the prosecution has also examined other witnesses PW.5 and PW.7 regarding the preparation of Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P11) and after 11/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 investigation, laid the charge sheet.Though the First Information Report was registered two days later, the evidence of prosecution shows that PW.10 came to the spot and took the injured witnesses to the hospital and admitted them on the same day at 12.15 a.m itself and an entry was made in the Accident Register on the very same day that the occurrence took place at about 10 p.m and the injured were admitted at 12.15 a.m itself and the copy of the Accident Register also shows that PW.1 was attacked by four known persons with knife and therefore, subsequently, based on the same, police came to the hospital and recorded the statements of injured witnesses and thereafter, they went to the police station and registered the case.The first available document is the official copy i.e., copy of the Accident Register.R.C.No.123 of 2013 First Information Report is not fatal to the prosecution.In this case, the injured was admitted in the hospital on the same day by PW.10 before PW.9 – Doctor.Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 9 and 10 and entry in the Accident Register show that the occurrence has taken place on 02.12.2007 at about 10 p.m and PW.1 was admitted in the hospital at 00.15 a.m and PW.9 – Doctor, who admitted PW.1, and also at that time, had taken X- ray and given treatment and found that the injury sustained by PW.1 is grievous in nature.13/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013As the Revisional Court cannot reassess and re- appreciate the entire evidence and cannot exercise the power of appellate Court, this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, has to see as to whether any perversity in appreciating the evidence by both the Courts.On reading of the entire material and judgment of the trial Court and the lowoer appellate Court, this Court does not find any perversity in appreciating the evidence insofar as against the revision petitioner is concerned.The lower appellate Court, as final court of fact finding, rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.Though the other accused, who involved in that occurrence, were acquitted, the prosecution has not filed any appeal.Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court and no merit in the Revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case stands 14/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2010 dated 08.11.2012, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, in C.C.No.108 of 2008 dated 29.10.2010, is hereby confirmed.The period of sentence already undergone, if any, by the revision petitioner / A1 shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The trial Court is directed to secure the revision petitioner / A1 to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur, Salem District.The Sub-Inspector of Police Mecheri Police Station Mettur Taluk Salem District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.16/17http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.123 of 2013 P.VELMURUGAN, J.R.C.No.123 of 2013 20.08.2019
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,981,854 |
Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of aforesaid petitioner Rakesh Singh, Shailendra Singh and Rahul Singh, in Crime No.169/2018 registered by P.S. Sikarpura, District- Burhanpur under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of the Arms Act.As per the first information report lodged by complainant Tausif, there was previous enmity between the complainant party and the petitioners with regard to possession of agricultural land.At about 09:30 a.m. on 15.05.2018, petitioners Rakesh Singh, Shailendra Singh and Rahul Singh accompanied by co-accused persons Krishnapal Singh, Dravindra, Dilip, Baldev Singh, Akash, Giriraj Rathore, Naveen Saxena, Gajendra Singh and Solanki etc and went to the disputed land to cultivate the same.Co-accused persons Krishnapal Singh, Solanki and petitioners Rakesh and Rahul were armed with .315 bore guns and petitioner Shailendra was armed with a revolver.When victim Tausif and 8 other persons resisted the petitioners, co-accused Krishnapal Singh and others filthily abused them and Krishnapal Singh fired upon victim Tausif with intent to kill.As a result, he sustained injuries to his calf muscles of the 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR M.Cr.C.No.28302/2018 (Rakesh Singh and another Vs.State of M.P.) right leg.Rahul Bais beat Shahid with the butt of the gun.As a result, Shahid sustained injuries to his right palm and wrist.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an order of S.D.O. dated 24.02.2016 in respect of the disputed land in their favour; therefore, they had gone to the field to cultivate the same but they were assaulted by the victim and his accomplices.As a result, petitioner Rakesh and co- accused Krishnapal Singh had sustained injuries.They had lodged a counter case, which was registered as crime no.170/2018 by P.S.-Sikarpura, District-Burhanpur under Sections 323, 294, 147, 148 and 506 (Part-II) of the I.P.C. It has further been submitted that though petitioners Rakesh Singh, Shailendra Singh and Rahul Singh were armed with firearms, none of them fired their weapons.An overt act is attributed only to petitioner Rahul Singh, who is said to have beaten Shahid with butt of the gun.All the injuries were sustained on his right palm and wrist.They have been in custody since 15.05.2018 and the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that petitioners be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application mainly on the ground that the petitioners were armed with firearms; therefore, they can be implicated with the aid of Section 34 of the I.P.C.C.No.28302/2018 (Rakesh Singh and another Vs.State of M.P.) learned counsel for the petitioners; in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioners Rakesh Singh, Shailendra Singh and Rahul Singh, are allowed.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 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.
|
154,992,379 |
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)A. 504/2019 has been filed by appellant-accused Shiv Kumar @ Shibu and Crl.A. 819/2019 has been filed by appellant-accused Sunil @ Annu challenging the judgment and order dated 26th March, 2019 convicting them under Sections 302, 341 and 34 IPC as well as the order on sentence dated 27th March, 2019 whereby appellant-convicts Rohit and Shiv Kumar @ Shibu were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and in Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 2 of 49 default of payment of fine to undergo nine months simple imprisonment and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 341/34 IPC.Appellant-convict Sunil @ Annu was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year simple imprisonment as well as rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 341 IPC and in addition he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 IPC.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 2 of 49Brief facts, as stated in the chargesheet are that on 05.04.2014, DD No. 19A regarding causing stab injuries to the brother of caller was received whereafter, SI Ved Prakash alongwith Ct.Nitin went to the spot i.e. at in front of G-1670, Jahangir Puri, where it was revealed to them that injured person had already been shifted to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri.Accordingly, SI Ved Prakash alongwith Ct.Nitin went to BJRM Hospital, where SI Ved Prakash had collected MLC No. 76272/14 of Mohan S/o Kanhaiya, wherein doctors had mentioned Brought by Bharat (Mama) for medical examination, alleged history of physical assault, patient was declared brought dead.The dead body of Mohan was handed over to the police officials and was shifted to the mortuary of the said hospital.SI Ved Prakash also collected MLC No. 76402/14 of injured Rakesh S/o Gulab Chand, wherein doctor mentioned Brought by self, alleged history of physical assault, patient is conscious, simple injuries.That I am a resident of H. NO. G-1670, Jahangir Puri and I have been selling clothes at Janpath, Delhi patri.Today on 05.04.2015, at about 10:30 am, I was sitting as a pillion rider on my motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SBP-3669 being driven by my nephew (bhanja) Mohan and were going for my work.When we reached near dhobi ghat, Jahangir Puri, there Annu, who had been residing in his neighbourhood and son of Munna, whom he identifies by face, but not by name came there and Annu called Oye and made our motorcycle stopped and Annu after coming near to us caught hold of the handle of the motorcycle and he took out one sua (icepick) from the side of his pant and struck the said sua over the left leg of Mohan, upon this Mohan after putting the motorcycle on a stand ran towards 1600 wali gali towards his house, but from the front side the brother of Annu namely Rohit came there, who had caught hold of Mohan, when Mohan entered in the gali and the said Rohit started assaulting Mohan with legs and fists.I also rushed to the said place and tried to rescue my nephew Mohan, but Annu had also reached there and struck sua over the chest of Mohan.While rescuing Mohan, the button of his shirt were opened and one blow of sua struck towards the left side of my chest and the son of Munna gave a fist blow over my left eye.When Annu was assaulting Mohan with sua, then Mohan raised his left hand in order to save him, but the said sua also struck over the left hand of Mohan.In the meantime, public persons started gathering there and Annu, Rohit and son of Munna ran away.My nephew Mohan fell in 1600 wali gali in front of house of Satbir.Me and my brother Bharat took him to BJRM hospital, where doctor had declared my nephew Mohan dead.I was also medically examined in the said hospital.The sister of Mohan namely Kavita was taken away /abducted by Rohit from her house around three years ago.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 4 of 49Both of them had performed marriage without the consent of the family members and there was a tension between both the families due to the said marriage.It is not that the prosecution is only relying upon oral testimonies of above witnesses, but same is duly corroborated by the testimony of PW13 ASI Lekh Raj, who on 04.04.2014 was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as ASI and on that day on receipt of DD No. 38A he along with constable reached at G-1686, Jahangir Puri, where caller Mohan S/o.Kanhiya Lal met them and told that he had quarrel with Sunil @ Annu S/o.Basant Lal and Rohit @ Basant Lal regarding spitting.Thereafter, on the intervention of neighbours and relatives, they had settled the matter as Mohan had informed him that he did not wanted to take any legal action.The said DD No. 38A has been proved by PW8 HC Dev Dutt as Ex. PW8/A.Therefore, the testimonies of PW2, PW7 and PW16 with regard to prior quarrel with Mohan with the accused Sunil @ Annu and Rohit one day prior to the day of occurrence i.e. 05.04.2014 has been duly proved which shows that the ego of the accused persons had been bruised badly and they were looking Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 10 of 49Challan Close Time : 05-Apr 2014 11:55:09 (PART III) (PART IV-A) (PART IV-B) CATS :Informed CATS Time 05-Apr 2014 10:47:23 Call Sign ALFA-1 Location Info A==10 INFORMED Informed by HC JAI KARAN SINGH (28881794) SMS SMS From NORTH WEST 2 SMS toCMD 02A Time Stamp 05-Apr 2014 10:46:50 SMS By HC SATBIR SMS 9971729206 G BLOCK HNO-1670 JAHANGIR PURI - CALLER KE BHAI KO CHAKU MAR DIYA HAI SMS From NORTH WEST 2 SMS toCMD 02A Time Stamp 05-Apr 2014 11:36:40 SMS By HC SATBIR SMS BJRM HOSP.MAI MOHAN LAL S/O KANYA LAL AGE 25 YRS.R/O. 1696 JAHANGIR PURI KO DOC NE BROUGHT DEAD DECLARE KIYA HAI DOCTOR NE BATAYA MOHAN LAL KO LEFT THAI PAR AUR RIGHT HAND KE THUMB PAR U/K NUKILI CHEEJ SE CHOT HAI CHAKU NAHI LAGA HAI.MOKA PAR ABOUT 50 KI GATHRING HAI.Page 16 of 49side of chest Adv.:- - Admt- Inj.TT (.ml) in stat.He contends that the production of Jeans of deceased Mohan by Bharat Kumar (PW-16) before the police officials which had been found to have stains of A Blood Group fortifies his presence at the hospital.He points out that the shirt of the deceased Mohan which had been handed over by the post-mortem Doctor to the police officials was also found by FSL to have A Blood Group stains.He contends that Bharat Kumar (PW-16) in his PCR call had mentioned the use of knife mistakenly as he was not an eyewitness and did not know about the exact weapon of offence.He refers to the testimony of Bharat Kumar (PW-16) wherein he had explained as to why he had initially mistakenly mentioned the use of knife as the weapon of Crl.At this stage, learned APP for State has handed over two charts indicating the involvement of appellant-convicts Sunil @ Annu and Rohit in different criminal cases.The said charts are reproduced hereinbelow:-A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 26 of 49THE THREAT EXTENDED TO THE DECEASED MOHAN ON 04th APRIL, 2014 IS RELEVANT AS IT ESTABLISHES A MOTIVE FOR THE CRIME.The English translations of D.D. Entry No.38-A as well as the testimonies of HC Dev Dutt (PW-8) and SI Lekh Raj (PW-13) are reproduced hereinbelow:-A) English translation of DD Entry No. 38A DD NO. 38 A dated 04.04.14, P.S. Jahangir Puri Information received from PCR Call from intercom and Handing over(?) To The DO Time 10.55 PM.At this time the operator of the aforesaid Police station informed through intercom that W/Ct.Ruchi, No. 8281/PCR has informed through phone No. 9268179977 that a quarrel was in progress at G-1686, Dhobi Ghat, Jahangir Puri.The information so received through telecom was entered into the Rojnamacha.Page 28 of 49 B) Statement of HC Dev Dutt (PW-8) On 04.04.2014 I was posted at PS Jahangirpuri as duty officer/DD writer and on that day at about 10.55 p.m. on receipt of information on wireless about quarrel at G-1686, Jahangirpuri, Dhobi Ghat, I recorded DD No.38A dated 04.04.2014 and the same was sent to ASI Lekhraj for further necessary action.I have brought the original DD register containing the aforesaid entry which is in my handwriting (OSR).The attested copy of the same is Ex.PW8/A. (emphasis supplied) C) Statement of SI Lekh Raj (PW-13) On 04.04.2014, I was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as ASI.On that day, on receipt of DD No.38A, I alongwith Ct. reached at G-1686, Jahangir Puri, Delhi where I met caller Mohan S/o Kanhaiya Lal, who informed me that he had a quarrel with Sunil @ Annu S/o Basant Lal and Rohit S/o Basant Lal regarding spitting.Thereafter, on the intervention of neighbours and relatives they had settled the matter.Mohan further informed me that he did not want any legal action.Thereafter, I came back to PS and lodged my arrival entry vide DD no.19B dated 05.04.2014 and on 07.07.2014 my statement was recorded by the IO in this regard.(emphasis supplied)On 05.04.2014 the Saturday, I alongwith deceased Mohan (my Bhanja) at about 10:30 am were going to Janpath, New Delhi in connection with our work as we used to sell clothes on Patri there.The said motorcycle was driven by deceased Mohan.When we reached near Kushal Cinema, Dhobi Ghat, Jahangirpuri, in front of G- 1670, accused Annu, present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) gave a call (Oye Karke awaz mari).Accused Shibu present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) was accompanying accused Annu.Accused Shibu came in front of the motorcycle and accused Annu caught hold the handle of the motorcycle.Injury no.2 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature.Time since Death about - 24 hrs.While Crl.A.500/2019 has been filed by appellant-accused Rohit, Crl.SI Ved Prakash recorded the statement of Rakesh S/o Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 3 of 49 Gulab Chand which is reproduced as under:A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 3 of 49Even yesterday night also, I and Mohan had an altercation over spitting with Annu and Rohit, but we entered into compromise, but today Annu, Rohit, who are brothers and son of Basanta alongwith son of Munna with common intention had wrongfully confined us and attacked us with sua in order to kill us, as a result of which, my bhanja Mohan had expired in the hospital.I want legal action against the said three persons.My statement has been recorded in BJRM hospital.SI Ved Prakash on the basis of said statement and contents of MLC, prepared rukka for offence(s) punishable u/s 302/307/341/34 IPC and handed over the said rukka to Ct.Naresh Kumar, who accordingly went to PS, got FIR No. 269/14 registered.... xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxPage 5 of 49 for an opportunity to teach lesson to the deceased Mohan and were having a feeling of rancour towards him, despite the fact deceased Mohan had chosen not to take any legal action against them on the call made by him.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 5 of 49IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED PERSONSFurther, as per the testimony of PW2 Kanhiya Lal who was the father of Mohan the accused Rohit was residing in the house next to their adjoining house.Therefore, all are the residents of same place and block i.e. G Block, Jahangir Puri and the daughter of PW2 and the sister of deceased Mohan had eloped with accused Rohit, who is the brother of accused Sunil @ Annu and other accused Shibu is also relative of these accused persons.Therefore, there could not have been any doubt in the mind of PW7 with regard to the identity of the accused persons, involved in this case.Further, as per the prosecution story, the incident took place as per the testimony of PW7 in broad day light on 05.04.2014 at 10:30 am, therefore, there was sufficient sun light and elimination to clearly see the faces of all of them on the date and time of the incident.Therefore, the identity of the accused persons has clearly been established in this case.Merely because his MLC had been prepared at 12:35 pm Ex. PW3/A does not show that he was not present at the spot or was not the eye witness, as he has deposed that when the injured was removed to the hospital, he followed PW16 on the motorcycle.There is no reason to doubt the said part of statement, as he would have been arranging other things including informing the other relatives and other friends about the incident and these things may have taken time, in any case his priority at that time Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 6 of 49 was to give medical aid to deceased Mohan, who was seriously injured and since he had only suffered superficial wounds, so he could have waited for medical aid and preparation of his MLC at a later stage after emergency, medical aid had been imparted to the injured / deceased Mohan.There is nothing on the record to infer that the above testimony of PW7 is inherently improbable, unreasonable, inconsistent with the facts, circumstances or presumptions in the case, because of suspicious circumstances.Therefore, his testimony as a whole remains in the range of being highly trustworthy.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 6 of 4924. .......PW16 had seen accused persons running away from the spot after the transaction of killing the deceased Mohan.Counsel for the accused persons had attacked his testimony on the ground that he could have not been present there or near the spot, as there was no reason that the very family member of the deceased would also be present at the spot despite the fact that incident had taken place much away from the place of residence of PW7 and the deceased.The said contention of Ld. Defence without any substance, as possibility of PW16 reaching the place of the incident is not doubtful, as he was also residing nearby at G1670, whereas the incident finally ended near G1647, which would be quite near to his place of his residence, therefore, his presence at that time near the said spot cannot be said to unnatural, as he was also the resident of same G Block.Further the deceased was brought to the hospital at around 11:15 am, as per the MLC of deceased Mohan Ex. PW3/B, this also shows that PW16 was very much present at the spot after the transaction or thereabouts that is how he had immediately brought the deceased / injured to the hospital after the first PCR call, which was made to the police with regard to the incident, which took place at around 10:30 AM vide DD No. 19A Ex. PW1/A, which was made at 10:50 am, if he would not have been at the spot, it was not possible for him to make a call at 10:50 am to the police which he did from his mobile and thereafter took the injured / deceased to the hospital by 11:15 am.This fact corroborates that he was very much present at the spot after the transaction was in the process of being over.Though PW16 brought the deceased to the hospital at Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 7 of 49 around 11:35 am and the MLC of the PW7 was prepared at 12:35 pm that does not mean that PW7 was not present at the spot, as PW7 has explained in his cross examination that when his brother i.e. PW16 reached the spot, then only accused persons ran away, his brother and younger brother came there and they hired rickshaw and took injured to the hospital, whereas he followed on the motorcycle.Page 7 of 49The blood stained clothes of PW7 which he had handed over to the IO also shows that he would have tried to save deceased Mohan and would have also been associated with PW16 to remove him to the hospital in that process his clothes would have been blood stained.Further, the blood stained pant of the deceased Mohan which was seized vide seizure memo PW7/C also shows that there was a cut mark on the pant which also gels with the testimony of PW7 that Mohan was given several blows by Sunil @ Annu including on his leg.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx27. .......Merely because the said lady could not be found and examined during the investigation by the IO does not affect the case of the prosecution at all in the circumstances as discussed above, as the case of the prosecution as a whole is quite trustworthy in view of the testimonies of PW7 and PW16, it is also settled law that merely faulty investigation on the part of the IO with regard to the non examination of certain witnesses cannot affect the case of the prosecution, if it is otherwise credible and trustworthy even bereft of the same.He points out that while as per the first PCR Form, the caller was one Naresh Yadav, who stated that his brother had been stabbed, the second PCR Form records the name of the caller as Seema, who stated that her brother was fighting.MAI SIMRAN MILI HAI JISNE BATAYA MAI MOHAN LAL KI MAAMI HUN.MOHAN LAL KE SAATH ROHIT AUR ANNU JHAGDA KARKE BHAG GAYE THE.HUM MOHAN LAL KO HOSP.LE KAR AAYE THEY. 05/04/2014 11:54:52 SITUATION NORMAL HAI.A.500/2019 & Ors.COMMAND ROOM INF. 05/04/2014 11:34:32 HOSP.MAI ASI NARESH I.P. SE WITH STAFF AA GAYA HAI.SITUATION NORMAL HAI.(PART V-A) Address Resolution Group (PART V-B) Comment Time 05-Apr 2014 11:58:34 Supervisor Comment Signature of Inspector : PA100(28822713) B. PCR Form 2 "DELHI POLICE CONTROL ROOM FORM I Cell Received and Transmitted by WCT/GAYATARI DEVI /3692/Date Dispatch Extn CPCRDD No 05 Apr 2014 10:43:51 05-Apr 2014 No. 05 Apr 10:47:42 112 141120109Informant (i) Name SEEMA (Female) (ii) Phone No 9899811549(iii) Address 1687 G BLK, JAHANGIR PURI Delhi Alternative Contact Name Alternative Contact No Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 11 of 49 Complaint Type QUARREL Priority HIGH Incident Address H.NO.-G 1686 JAHANGIR PURI DHOBI GHAT WALI GALI Incident Information LADY KAH RAHI H KI BHAI JHAGRA KAR RHA H PS Name JAHANGIR PURI District NORTH WEST 2 Shift Shift B (PART II) Transmitted to VAN by HC/SATENDER/1183/C72798 Total Queue of Unattended calls at the lane call arrived at Dispatcher H 0 M 0 L 0 MPV Message At (Time) MPV MPV MPV Free Selected Transmitte reaching Report Time Times d to MPV time at the Time spot 05-Apr CMD-56 05-Apr2014 2014 10:51:55 10:51:43 New Situation Found Time Stamp New Situation Found Now Priority Report Received from MPV : DCR=12=== 05/04/2014 11:43:38 SAME CHALLAN NO. 1080095 Challan Close Time : 05-Apr 2014 11:43:42 (PART III) (PART IV-A) (PART IV-B) HELPLINE:A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 11 of 49Local Police Time Stamp 05-Apr 2014 11:50:12 Local Police DCR 22 Local Police Informed ____ Location Police Informed Officer WSI Local Police DCR==21== 05/04/2014 11:00:06 INJ.PAHALE HI BJRM HOSP.JA CHUKA HAI.WAIT DETAIL JANKARO KA JHAGDA HAI T96 Time Stamp 05-Apr 2014 11:50:12 T96 DD No.______ T96 informed __ T96 Informed Officer ___________________ T96 informed _____ Informed by SHASHI GUPTA (28890006) SMS SMS From NORTH WEST 2 SMS toCHD 02A Time Stamp 05-Apr 2014 10:52:03 SMS By HC SATBIR SMS 9899811549 H NO G-1686 JAHANGIR PURI Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 12 of 49 DHOBI GHAT WALI GALI- LADY KAH RAHI HAI BHAI JHAGRA KAR RHA H (PART V-A) Address Resolution Group (PART V-B) Comment Time 05-Apr 2014 11:55:56 Supervisor Comment Signature of Inspector : PA100(28822713)A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 12 of 49According to learned counsel for appellant-convicts Shiv Kumar @ Shibu and Rohit, there was a serious lapse in the investigation as the prosecution had not bothered to interrogate the callers and none of the informants had been made witnesses.Learned counsel for the appellant-convicts Shiv Kumar @ Shibu and Rohit points out that as per the list of seizure of miscellaneous exhibits, some red coloured pieces of broken bangles were recovered from the site of incident and were sealed.He states that the police did not investigate this fact, despite one of the PCR callers, namely, Seema stating that her brother was fighting.He contends that the investigating authority neither pondered upon the possibility of the involvement of any lady/ladies in the entire incident (which could have provided a plausible explanation with regard to the presence of broken bangles at the crime scene) nor was there any effort made on the part of the prosecution to examine Seema.He further contends that the theory of stab injury on the chest had been introduced by the post-mortem report (Ex.PW-24/A) (wherein it had been stated that the cause of death was due to injury on the left side of the chest of the deceased Mohan), whereas the MLC (Ex.PW-3/B) of the deceased does not mention any chest injury.He emphasises that MLC of the deceased-Mohan mentions that an ECG had been conducted.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 13 of 49Therefore, according to him, it was improbable for any doctor not to mention a chest injury in the MLC.The MLC of deceased Mohan is reproduced hereinbelow:-BABU JAGJIVAN RAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DELHI-110033 MLC REGISTER No. Name Mohan Father's /Husband Name Kanhaiya Lal 78272 Age 22 yrs Sex M Religion ___ Occupation __ Residence G-1686, Jahangirpuri Delhi Name of relative of friend B/b Bharat (Mama) 997172........ Date of examination ____ Date and hour of arrival PARTCIULARS OF INJURIES OR 05/04/14 11: 15 am SYMPTOMS, IN CASE OF POISONING No. and date of police docket B/B Bharat (Mama) for Medical 19A Examination No. and name of Constable A/H/O Physical assault SI Ved Prakash, PS Jahangirpuri O/E - Patient is in deep commatose unresponsive state In Admitted __ { Date of admission LH (1) stab injury at left lower thigh laterality (2 cm x 1.5 cm) (2) C/w on pt.Thumb (1 cm x 0.5 cm) (3) C/w on bare Rt.Index Finger (1 x Date of Discharge __ 9.5 cm) Chest - No respiratory effect- Breath sound absent- B/L __ entry absent- Pulse not palpableHence on above mentioned finding and after thorough clinical examination, Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 14 of 49 pt.was declared brought dead.Dead body handed over to I/O for further _ to mortuary.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 14 of 49Space for particulars as to Name of injuries Sd/- Bharat 05/04/14 further reference to the case-He also laid emphasis on the fact that the weapon of offence had not been recovered in the present case.He points out that there are three different versions regarding the weapon of offence, namely:-i) As per Rakesh Kumar (PW-7), the weapon of offence was a Sua (Ice pick).ii) As per DD No. 19-A, the weapon of offence was a knife.iii) As per the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Bhim Singh (PW-24), the weapon of offence was a screwdriver or a like object.Learned counsel for the appellant-convicts Shiv Kumar @ Shibu and Rohit contends that the two alleged eyewitnesses of the present case, namely, Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) and Bharat Kumar (PW-16) are interested witnesses since both of them are the relatives of the deceased i.e. maternal uncles and have a personal enmity with the appellant-convicts as the sister Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 15 of 49 of the deceased Mohan had married appellant-convict Rohit against the wishes of her family.He further states that Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) is a planted witness, whose testimony does not inspire any confidence as his MLC belies his presence in the hospital at the time of admission of the deceased Mohan.He states that though as per the testimony of Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) he was being treated simultaneously with deceased Mohan at Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "BJRM Hospital") as mentioned in MLC, yet Rakesh Kumars arrival time at the hospital is 12:35 p.m. in contradistinction to deceased Mohans arrival time of 11:15 a.m. He points out that Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) and Bharat Kumar (PW-16) had not mentioned the name of the assailant to the doctor at the hospital.In support of his contention, he refers to the MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) of Rakesh Kumar (PW7), which is reproduced hereinbelow:-BABU JAGJIVAN RAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DELHI-110033 MLC REGISTER No. Name Rakesh Father's /Husband Name Gulab ____ Chand Age 32 yrs Sex M Religion ___ Occupation __ Residence G-1670, Jahangirpuri Delhi Name of relative of friend Self (9990476820) Date of examination ____ Date and hour of arrival 5/4/14 PARTCIULARS OF INJURIES OR 12 : 35 pm SYMPTOMS, IN CASE OF POISONING No. and date of police docket Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 16 of 49 DDN-19A B/B Self No. and name of Constable A/H/O Physical assault SI Ved Prakash, PS H/H/O __ seizures, vomiting, ____ Jahangirpuri O/E - Pt.Is ___ and ___ with T/P/P In Admitted { Date of admission __ Date of Discharge __ BP - 114/74 mmHg PR - 84/m RR - 16/m Temp.- afebrile L/E - Abrasion present over the lt.A.500/2019 & Ors.He emphasises that the prosecution had neither recovered the weapon of offence nor made any public person a witness to the incident despite the fact that the incident had occurred on a busy road in broad daylight.Consequently, according to him, the credibility of the eyewitnesses in the present case is highly questionable, both due to their relationship with the deceased and due to the previous enmity with the appellant-convicts.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 17 of 49ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT-CONVICT SUNIL @ ANNUMr. S.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for appellant-convict Sunil @ Annu emphasises that there had been no seizure of bloodstained clothes from any of the appellant-convicts.Consequently, according to him, the allegation that a threat had been meted out by the appellant-convicts to the deceased Mohan on 04th April, 2014 (a night prior to the murder) is a make-believe story.According to him, howsoever strong the motive be, it cannot form the basis of conviction of an accused.In support of his submission, he relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Arun & Ors.Whatever record/computer generated salary sheets were produced, the same do not support the prosecution version.Similarly, as per the prosecution version, appellant Arun Kumar himself stopped coming to work whereas appellant Rani was still serving.Thus, there could not be a motive strong enough for appellants Arun Kumar and Rani to have entered into any conspiracy to commit the gruesome crime as alleged.Otherwise also, it is very well settled that motive, however, strong is not enough to base conviction of the accused.In Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, (2012) 4 SCC 124 while referring to N.J. Suraj v. State, (2004) 11 SCC 346, Santosh Kumar Singh v. State, (2010) 9 SCC 747 Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 18 of 49 and Rukia Begum v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 SCC 779, the Supreme Court observed that motive alone can hardly be a ground for conviction.... ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED APP FOR STATEA.500/2019 & Ors.Page 18 of 49Per contra, Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned APP for the State states that one of the PCR Forms mentions the mobile number of Bharat Kumar (PW-16) under the column of Informants Phone number.He states that the said PCR Form contemporaneously records that the appellant-convicts Rohit and Sunil @ Annu had fought with the deceased Mohan and had run away.He further states that though the second PCR Form records Informant Seemas complaint saying, Bhai Jhagar Raha Hai, yet the same does not absolve the appellant-convicts in any manner.Learned APP for the State points out that Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) in his testimony had clearly stated that he was treated simultaneously in the hospital at the time of admission of the deceased Mohan.He states that as the MLC of Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) records that he had suffered only a simple injury, his whole endeavour at the time of admission would have been to provide medical aid to deceased Mohan, who had suffered serious injuries.He emphasises that the presence of Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) at the BJRM Hospital at the time of admission of the deceased Mohan has been confirmed by Constable Naresh Kumar (PW-15), ASI Brij Bhushan (PW-20), SI Ved Prakash (PW-21) and Inspector Jai Prakash (PW-22).He emphasises that Rakesh Kumar (PW-7), who is an eyewitness, had consistently maintained that the weapon of offence was a Sua/Ice Pick.He contends that his testimony had been corroborated by the post-A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 19 of 49A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 20 of 49 offence.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 20 of 49Learned APP for the State states that efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to examine independent witnesses, but none came forward.In support of his contention, he relies upon the testimony of the Investigating Officer Inspector Jai Prakash (PW-22) wherein he had deposed as under:-.......I made efforts for recording the statement of public persons who found gathered at both the spots, but no such public witness agreed to make statement to me.I had not recorded the statement of any person from the said houses.I made efforts for recording their statements, I had also enquired their names and mentioned their names in the Inner Case Diary....He points out that the appellant-convicts had failed to cross-examine Dr. Avnish Tripathi Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 21 of 49 (PW-3), who had proved the MLC of the deceased Mohan, on this aspect.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 21 of 49Learned APP points out that with regard to recovery of broken pieces of bangles, the Investigating Officer, Inspector Jai Prakash (PW-22) had deposed as under:-During investigation, it was revealed to me that the broken bangle pieces, which were seized from the second spot, belonging to some lady who tried to intervene and separate the victim from the offenders.During investigation, I could not meet the said lady and accordingly, her statement could not be recorded.It is correct that the complainant had not disclosed about any lady who had intervened in the occurrence.It is correct that I had not made any enquiry from Rakesh as well as from Bharat, about the said lady.....There is no denial of the fact that the marriage between the deceased Murugan and accused--About a month after her marriage, Accused No. 4 came out of her matrimonial home and due to that fact, the other accused persons (brothers of A-4) developed grudge against Murugan and his sister-- Poomari, who was alleged to be the root cause of disturbances between the couple.Further there was no test identification parade conducted which was imperative as there were some members who were stated to be outsiders.PW 1 and PW 3 are not consistent in their depositions.3) also throw considerable light on this aspect.The doctor's opinion about the weapon, though theoretical, cannot be totally wiped out.In that view of the matter the appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 324 IPC.THOUGH MOTIVE IS NOT A SINE QUA NON FOR THE CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED, YET IT IS A RELEVANT FACTOR.SI Lekhraj was informed through telephone for initiating proper action in the said regard.Scribed by: HC/DO.DO/HC Dev Dutt No. 40/NW Attested by:The fact that there was a quarrel on 04th April, 2014 between deceased Mohan and appellant-convict Rohit as well as appellant-convict Sunil @ Annu is corroborated by the testimonies of Kanhaiya Lal (PW-2)- father of the deceased Mohan, Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) and Bharat Kumar (PW-16) - the two maternal uncles of the deceased Mohan.The relevant portion of the testimony of Bharat Kumar (PW-16) is reproduced hereinbelow:-A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 29 of 49....On 04.04.2014 at about 10:30-10:35 pm when I reached my house, at that time Annu and Rohit both the accused present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) came there and started abusing my Bhanja Mohan.I asked both of them why they were abusing to Mohan, on this they have replied that after seeing to us, Mohan spat towards them.After my intervention, both of them continued to abuse Mohan while saying "Mata rani ki kasam, kal ka suraj Mohan to dekhne nai denge".After the intervention by the public persons to make understand both the accused even then both of them again repeated "Mata rani ki ksam, Kal ka suraj Mohan to dekhne nai denge".At that time, my Bhanja Mohan made a call at 100 number.PCR officials reached at the spot.Police officials told both the accused if they had any grievance, they would visit the police station in the morning even then both of them again repeated "Mata rani ki ksam, Kal ka suraj Mohan to dekhne nai denge" in the presence of PCR officials.PCR officials left from the spot.Both the accused also went to their house and we also went to their house.In the present case, the incident of murder of the deceased Mohan on 05th April, 2014 has been vividly described by the injured eye-witness Rakesh Kumar (PW-7).This Court is of the view that Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) is a natural witness as both the deceased Mohan and Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) used to work together and it was normal for them to go together to their place of business.It is pertinent to mention that the deceased Mohan was driving the motorcycle of the brother of Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) at the time of the incident.Accused Annu had taken out one sua meant for pricking ice from the side of his pant (pocket) and gave blows to Mohan.I got down from the motorcycle.Mohan after Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 31 of 49 leaving the motorcycle fled.Accused persons Annu und Shibu chased Mohan.Accused Rohit present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) came from the lane of Gali No.1600 and caught hold Mohan.All the three accused persons had caught hold Mohan and accused Annu gave several Sua Blows to Annu including on his leg, on the side of his chest.... xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ....My brother Bharat reached at the spot.All the three persons Sunil @ Annu, Rohit and Shiv Kumar @ Sibu fled away from the spot and the family members (four ladies) were beating Mohan.Deceased Mohan was shifted to hospital in a battery rickshaw accompanied by my brother Bharat and I also followed them to the hospital on my motorcycle.(emphasis supplied)A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 31 of 49This Court is of the opinion that injuries on the body of Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) confirms his presence at the time of murder and his blood- stained clothes also corroborate his presence not only at the place of murder, but also in the hospital.In fact, the presence of Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) at BJRM Hospital at the time the deceased arrived at the hospital (around 11:15 a.m.), is confirmed by the testimony of Constable Naresh Kumar (PW-15), wherein he has deposed as under:-I left from the police station at 11:20 a.m for BJRM Hospital and reached there within 5 minutes.When I reach the hospital, only Rakesh was there.It is wrong to suggest that when I reached the hospital, Rakesh was not present there and came there much later.... (emphasis supplied) Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 32 of 49A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 32 of 49It is settled law that the testimony of an injured witness has to be accorded a special status.The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that injury to a witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and no witness wants his actual assailant to go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party.The Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 has held as under:-"Injured witnessPage 33 of 49Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness.He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell.HE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED IN HIS TESTIMONY AS TO WHY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE HE HAD MISTAKENLY MENTIONED THE USE OF KNIFE AS THE WEAPON OF OFFENCE.HIS PRESENCE AT THE SCENE OF CRIME IS CONFIRMED BY THE PCR CALL AND THE MLC OF THE DECEASED MOHAN.Though not an eye-witness to the murder, yet Bharat Kumar (PW-16) has deposed consistently with regard to the events subsequent to the stabbing of the deceased Mohan.The relevant portion of the testimony of Bharat Kumar (PW-16) is reproduced hereinbelow:-....On 05.04.2014 at about 10:30-10:35 am in the morning, my Bhanja Mohan and my younger brother Rakesh left the house for their work.At that time, I was at my house.I also came out from my house to visit the temple.When I reached in front of H.No.G- 1647, I saw my bhanja was lying there in a pool of blood and my brother Rakesh was standing there.When I reached there, accused persons Sunil @ Annu, Rohit and Shiv Kumar @ Shibu left from there while giving the abuses.Page 35 of 49I immediately took my bhanja Mohan to BJRM Hospital in a battery rickshaw while my brother Rakesh followed us in a motorcycle.... (emphasis supplied)Further, Bharat Kumar (PW-16) has explained in his testimony as to why he had in the first instance mistakenly mentioned the use of knife as the weapon of offence.I informed the police that accused Annu and Rohit had stabbed my stabbed my bhanja and my brother Rakesh with knife.However, later I came to know from my brother Rakesh that they had been stabbed with ice pick (Sua).(emphasis supplied)Bharat Kumars (PW-16) presence at the scene of crime immediately after the incident of stabbing is confirmed not only by the fact that he had made a PCR call, but also by the MLC of the deceased Mohan which records the presence of Bharat Kumar (PW-16) as brought by.Further, from the record, it is apparent that the jeans of the deceased Mohan had been handed over by Bharat Kumar (PW-16) to the police officials and the said jeans were found to have the same blood group as on the shirt of the deceased.The English translation of the memo showing taking over possession of pants of the deceased Mohan by the police from Bharat Kumar (PW-16) is reproduced hereinbelow:-CASE FIR NO. 269/14 DATED 05.04.14 UNDER SECTIONS 302/307/341/34 IPC, P.S. JAHANGIR PURI, DELHI MEMO REGARDING TAKING PANTS OF (MOHAN) INTO POSSESSION In the presence of the witnesses mentioned hereinafter, Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 36 of 49 Bharat S/o Late Sh.Gulab (-sic-) R/o.G-1670, Jahangirpuri, Delhi produced a dark blue colored Jeans Pants bearing a tag of B-6 Basix' to me, the Inspector, and told that he had removed the pants of Mohan, the aforesaid, during his medical treatment in the presence of the doctor at BJRM Hospital.The aforesaid pants of Mohan is stained with blood and there is a cut near the pocket of pants towards left foot and there is a hole (hole/cut) in between the stains of blood.The aforesaid pants were taken into Police possession as a piece of evidence by means of this memo and the same was converted into a parcel with the help of a white cloth piece and sealed with the seal of JP'.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 36 of 49The seizure memo has been prepared.Sd/- (Bharat Kumar) (In Hindi) Sd/- Illegible SI Ved Prakash No. 4462/D P.S. Jahangir Puri, Delhi Sd/- Bhushan (In English) No. 262/NW P.S. Jahangir Puri, Delhi Attested by:Sd/- Illegible 05.04.14 Insp.J.P. Meena P.S. Jahangir Puri Delhi (emphasis supplied) JUST BECAUSE RAKESH KUMAR (PW-7) AND BHARAT KUMAR (PW-16) ARE MATERNAL UNCLES OF DECEASED MOHAN, THEIR TESTIMONIES CANNOT BE REJECTED.THE APEX COURT HAS MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN INTERESTED WITNESS' AND A RELATED WITNESS'.FURTHER, NON-EXAMINATION OF Crl.On 06.04.2014, I was working as Incharge Mortuary, MD Forensic Medicine/Jr.On that day, I had conducted post-mortem on the body of Mohan S/o Sh.Kanhaiya Lal with the alleged history of brought dead on 05.04.2014 at 11:15 am.After conducting post-mortem, I had prepared PM report no.281/14 which is in my handwriting and is now exhibited as Ex.PW24/A which bears my signatures at point A.I had also opined that injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.... (emphasis supplied)A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 41 of 49Built of the Body & Weight: Average built, adult male Rigor Mortis: Present in both upper and lower limbs Post Mortem Staining: Present over back Eyes: open, Conjunctivae: NAD Cornea: NAD Mouth: Open, Tongue: NAD, Nails: NAD Any Discharge From Natural Orifices: NIL EXTERNAL INJURIES:Punctured stab wound, 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x cavity deo left side of chest, 3 cm lateral (outer) to left nipple, margins abided of confused.Punctured stab wound, 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x 2 cm front of left thigh middle part.Lacerated wound, 1.5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm, inner side of right thumb base.Confusion redish in colour, 4 cm x 3 cm over right side of forehead.Shows through & through (Hole) in left - 4th intercostals space, enters into pleura, base of upper lobe, pericardium to left side base of ascending aerta, Pleural cavity and pericardial cavity full of blood about 02.5 litres.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 43 of 49OPINION:- Death was due to Haemorrhage shock, consequent upon stab injury to left lung and heart.All the injuries were ante mortem and fresh and injury no.01 to 04, could be caused by pointed weapon, like screwdriver or like weapon.Injury no.6 could be caused by blunt force impact.Total Inquest Papers - 10 Ten.ARTICLES/SPECIMEN PRESERVED & HANDED OVER TO POLICEa) Clothes sealedb) Blood i.e. Gauge piecec) Scalp Haird) Any other Specify Sd/-Dr. Bhim Singh M.D. (Forensic Medicine) Jr. Specialist, B.J.R.M. Hospital Govt. of NCT Delhi Signature Chief Medical Officer (emphasis supplied) Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 44 of 49A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 44 of 49Consequently, all the above factors go to establish that there was intent on the part of appellant-convicts to kill the deceased Mohan.RAKESH KUMAR (PW-7) IN HIS TESTIMONY HAD DEPOSED WITH REGARD TO THE STAB INJURY ON THE CHEST.FURTHER, IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NON-MENTIONING OF THE NAME OF THE ASSAILANT TO THE DOCTOR IS NOT FATAL TO CASE OF THE PROSECUTION.In fact, this Court is of the view that the presence of broken bangles of ladies at the scene of crime has been explained by Rakesh Kumar (PW-7) in his deposition inasmuch as he has deposed that when the appellant-convicts fled from the scene of crime, their family members, namely four ladies, started beating the Crl.A.500/2019 & Ors.Page 47 of 49 deceased Mohan.MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JULY 26, 2019 rn/js Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,997,579 |
During this period for almost one month she was residing at Ms. Rekha who is sister of Rajesh and Dharmendra, it is highly unlikely that two brothers would keep a girl at her sister's place who herself is a married woman residing peacefully with her family members and how she would permit them to do this job of debauchery with the prosecutrix.He lastly submitted that the applicants are in jail since 04.07.2018, 25.07.2018 and 21.08.2018 respectively is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA and Sri Pankaj Santsangi vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforementioned facts.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants with regard to the mode of committing the offence, inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR, and the venue of committing the offence, as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicants- Rajesh, Dharmendra and Sanjeev be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 396 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376D IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Bahjoi, District Sambhal with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL.IN CASE OF THEIR ABSENCE , WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST THEM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANTS FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,999,063 |
Heard on the bail application.First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn in M.Cr.Applicant has been arrested on 29-12-2013 in connection with Crime No.333/2013 registered at Police Station Radhogarh District Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 302, 307, 323, 341, 506B of I.P.C.Dehati Nalisi was recorded.As per allegations made in the Dehati Nalisi, applicant is alleged to have dealt with Danda which hit near the pinna because of that Gunsagar had died.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that charge sheet has already been filed and final disposal will take time.The applicant has been falsely implicated.It is contended that during merg intimation it was informed by the Dr. Deepak Kulkarni from Gokuldas Hospital Indore that Gunsagar (since deceased) was admitted in the hospital as he was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently died.Certified copy as per rules.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Prachi
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,550,033 |
ORDER [1] This criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioners bashir Hussesin Peshimn against the order passed by the learned presidency Magistrate 28th Court, Esplanades, Bombay on 5t February 1965, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application of petitioners for a direction that the special prosecutor or the collectors of the central Excise be directed to furnish him with copies of certain statements and documents in their possession or in the alternative to issue a summons under S. 94 of the Criminal procedure code, directing the special prosecutor or the collectors, of central excise to produce such statement, nd documents for his inspection before the inquiry started.[2] The facts giving rise to the application made by the petitioner to the learned magistrate and the order passed by the learned Magistrate thereon may be state, on 3rd August 1964, Shri H.R. Jokhi Assistant collectors of central Excise Marine Preventive Division Central Excise Bombay filed a compliant [being Criminal Case No. 203/W/64] in the court of the learned presidency Magistrate [28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay] Charging the petitioners Bashir Hussesin peshimam [being Accused No.1] and 8 others under S. 120B of the I.P.C. read with S. 167[81] of the Sea customs Act 1878 as amended, under Ss. 167 [81] of the Sea custom and Ss. 109 and 114 I.P.C. under 8[1] and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and under S. 120-B I.P.C. read with Ss. 8[1] and 23 of the Foreign Exchanges Regulation Act reset of 77,600 tolls of gold brought into India at Bombay from pales outside India between July 1960 nd March 1962, in pursuance's to conspiracy it appears that prior to the legging of this implant against the petitioners and 8 others under directions of Shri H.R. Jokhi investigation had been carried on the several customs officers and during the course of such investigation, statement of various persons including those of caused were recorded.Similarly those several documents and papers were seize under panchanamas.Inter alia on 10th February 1962 the houses of the Accused No.1 and seized from the houses of accused NO.2 while a motor car bearing Registrant by Mr. Gumaste was seized from near the house petitioner had No documents as such were seized from either of them or from any other accused during the investigation.If further appears that during the course of this investigation reports of the from time to time and notes or notes - sheets in respect thereof submitted by the interior officers to their superior officers.Accused Nos., 6 and 7 were required to remain present in court on 3rd August 196, when the complaint was filed and they were put under arrest on that day.Accused Nos. 8 and 9 are still absconding.It further appears that before filling the complaint, adjudication proceedings for confiscation of the gold were undertaken for shows causes notices were issued and served open some of the accused and in particular upon the petitioner, in which diverse allegations up were made against the petitioners and in the correspondences that ensued between the petitioner and / or his Advocate on the one hand and the Customs Authorities and / or their Advocate on the one hand the customs Authorities and / or their Advocate on the others, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner that he should be on furnished with copies of all the statements of person that had been seized during the course of investigation to ennoble him to show cause why the gold or the motor car should not be confiscated but that request was not acceded to.It further appears that even after his compliant was filed the petitioner through his Advocates letter dated 17th September 1964 inter alia requested for furnishing of copies of all the statements of persons recorded and of documents and papers seized including the reports and nothings made by the Customs officers and offered to pay the necessary charges therefor.By his reply dated 22nd September 1964, Shri Adi. P. Gandi the learned advocate [whose appears as the special prosecutor in the case] stated that the petitioners was not entitled to the copies of any statements, documents etc. At that stage but without prejudice to that contention it was made clear in the said reply that the statements of such of the witnesses on which the prosecution would reply, would be tendered in evidence by way of the corroboration at the time when the evidence would e lad an that such of the statement of the witnesses called, on which the prosecution would not reply byway of corrobation would be made available to the petitioner on his asking the for the same at the that the documents on which the prosecution would reply would be tendered at the time of leading evidence and it would be open to the petitioners to see those documents at that time for the purpose of cross - examination.In other words, the request for copies of statement and documents beforehand was turned down.[3] Thereafter on 4th January 1965, the petitioner made an application to the learned Magistrate for two reliefs viz.:[a] to direct the special Prosecutor or the collectors of central Excise him with the copies of the statements o various witnesses whom the prosecution was going to examine and of the documents of which the prosecution was going to rely including the statement of accused persons as well as the nothings, note sheets and report of central Excise officers made during the course of the investigation.The petitioner has come in revision against the said order.[4] At the out set I may state sine I was informed at the Bar that he question involved in this revision application has been constantly arising in several customs of cases and since several case involving this point as case still pending in the Magistrates courts below apart and from Mr. J.N. Gandhi who argue the revision application on behalf o the petitioners herein with ability I also permitted Mr.Conceivably such inspection may be necessary at times as for instance to enable be necessary at times, as for defendants to prove a forgery of a signature.The application was therefore rejected.Against his order a revisional application was preferred to the Punjab High Court.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,003,738 |
(Passed on this 20th day of June, 2019) The petitioner has preferred this petition un- der Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 05.01.2019 passed by Special Judge (under POCSO Act), Ratlam (MP) in Sessions Trial No.124/2016, whereby an application filed by the peti- tioner for transferring the case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam has been rejected.Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of report lodged by the prosecutrix, First Information Re- port bearing Crime No.91/2019 for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (d) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 5 read with Sec- tion 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Kalukheda, District Ratlam (MP).It is al- leged that on 04.06.2016 around 12:00 O'clock in the af- ternoon, when the prosecutrix was returning from tem- ple, the present petitioner and his brother came on mo-MCRC No.13106/2019 torcycle and forcefully made the prosecutrix to sit on the motorcycle and took her way to village Kalsi at the place of their relatives, where the petitioner committed rape upon her.Thereafter, the accused persons again took the prosecutrix to different villages for 2-3 days and on 08.06.2016, parents of the prosecutrix traced her, and then she come back to home with them.After comple- tion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Competent Court.During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner moved an application before the Special Judge (under POCSO Act), Ratlam, claiming that at the time of incident, his age was below 18 years, therefore, he prayed that his case should be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board, Ratlam.An enquiry was conducted by the learned Spe- cial Judge, Ratlam on the issue; and after due enquiry, it was found that Scholar Register of Class-I of the peti- tioner has not been produced.Hence, the application filed by the peti- tioner was dismissed.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submit- ted that trial Court has committed an error in disbeliev- ing mark sheet of Class-III and Scholar Register of the said Class as well as the Certificate given by the Principal, Government Primary School, Bhavta, Janpad Piploda, 3 MCRC No.13106/2019 District Ratlam (MP) regarding the age of the petitioner.Mother of the petitioner and In-charge Principal of Prin- cipal, Government Primary School, Bhavta, Janpad Pi- ploda, District Ratlam (MP) were examined before the trial Court and both the witnesses have categorically stated that at the time of incident, the age of the present petitioner was 17 years, and therefore, he was juvenile.Even as per Voter ID Card dated 11.02.2019 of the peti- tioner issued by the Election Commission of India, date of birth of the petitioner is 03.11.1998, which also estab- lished that at the time of alleged offence, the petitioner was minor.Now, after passing of the impugned order, the petitioner sought information under Right to Infor- mation Act, 2005 regarding copy of Scholar Register of his admission to Class-I; and as per the said Scholar Reg- ister, date of birth of the petitioner is 03.11.1998, which clearly indicates that on the date of occurrence, the age of the petitioner was seventeen years and five days only and he was juvenile.Therefore, it is prayed that the case of the petitioner should be sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for further trial.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh has supported the findings given by the learned Special Judge regarding the age of the petitioner and he prays for rejection of the petition.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as record of the case.From perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the petitioner claims that his date of birth is 03.11.1998, and therefore, on the date of incident i.e. 04.06.2016, he was below 18 years of age.Hence, he should be tried before the Juvenile Justice Boaord.To substantiate the aforesaid fact before the trial Court, the petitioner filed copy of mark sheet for the year 2004-05 of Class-I of Government Primary School, Bodiyakuwa, Jaora, District Ratlam (MP) [Ex.D-3] and certificate [Ex. D-2] issued by Headmaster of Govern- ment Primary School, Bodiyakuwa, Jaora, District Rat- lam (MP).Now, the petitioner has filed copy of Scholar Register and certificate of Government Primary School, Lalakheda, Block Jaora, District Ratlam (MP).In this regard, statement of Badri- lal Panwar s/o Heeralal, Headmaster, Government Pri- mary School, Lalakheda, District Ratlam has also been recorded.He verified the date of birth of the petitioner as "03.11.1998", according to the school record.Under these circumstances, the matter is re- mitted back to the trial Court with direction to conduct a fresh enquiry regarding age of the petitioner, after giving him opportunity to file relevant document (s) and after conducting afresh enquiry, pass order regarding his claim of juvenile at the time of occurrence.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.13106/2019 is allowed.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.06.21 17:36:41 +05'30'
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,550,088 |
In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.Prosecution story, as stated in the F.I.R. by Rajendra Tiwari (PW-1), is that on 14.3.2001, when he and Guddu Sharma (deceased) were in the house of Kanhaiyalal Naveriya (PW-5) in Barginagar, on the insistence of Guddu Sharma, they went to the house of accused Balram, as Guddu had to take money from him.When Balram was not found at his house, Guddu Sharma told to his wife to tell Balram that he should return his money otherwise he knew how to recover it.They went back to the house of Kanhaiyalal Naveriya.While he, M.I.Khan, Ramkumar (PW-2) were talking, at about 9:00 p.m. Balram Patel came there shouting, calling Guddu Sharma out.He was shouting that he had become a big Bully, to pressurise his family members, if he had courage he should come before him.Hearing this, all the persons came out.Balram was wielding a gun.Accused Gudda Patel was also with him.When Balram approached towards Guddu Sharma, he caught hold of his gun and scuffled with him.All the persons tried to intervene and in the course of quarrel, they reached near Tirgadda.In the meanwhile, Gudda Patel took gun from Balram and fired it in the air whereupon (3) Cr.A.1569/2002 Guddu Sharma told to them that he would get a case under section 307 I.P.C. registered against them.Hearing this, accused Balram again took gun from Gudda Patel and fired at Guddu Sharma.The shot hit Guddu Sharma on his chest, he fell down and died.Accused persons then ran away.Rajendra Tiwari then went to police station Bargi and lodged first information report Ex.Station Officer C.R.Patel (PW-16) after recording the information in Roznamcha reached at the spot and after conducting inquest, sent the dead body of Guddu Sharma for postmortem examination to Medical College, Jabalpur where Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (PW-15) conducted postmortem examination and gave P.M. report Ex.Before the postmortem examination, the dead body of Guddu Sharma was examined by Assistant Surgeon of Barginagar viz. Dr.A.K.Agnihotri (PW-6).Report Ex.P/13 was prepared.The facts as narrated by Kanhaiyalal appeared strange.It is quite strange that deceased came out of the house and suddenly grabbed the barrel of the gun wielded by accused.There was a scuffle when Guddu Sharma held the barrel of gun.It was quite easy for Balram Patel to have fired the gun when deceased held the gun from the barrel side, but he did not do it even in the circumstances when deceased assaulted accused Balram and went about 20 metres away from the house where the quarrel started.According to Kanhaiyalal (PW-5), the place of incident was about 86 metres away from his house.Deceased and Balram scuffled for about 20 metres distance then deceased felled accused Balram to the ground and snatched his gun.The quarrel was then pacified and deceased returned the gun to accused Balram.When both of them parted and proceeded in different directions, a gun shot was fired.When they looked back, accused Balram who was standing at a distance of about 20-25 paces fired the gun at deceased.According to him, he saw both the accused persons and the deceased quarrelling in front of his house.Balram had a gun.All these persons went towards "Tiraha".Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.This judgment will govern the disposal of both the above appeals.Appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment dated 16.8.2002 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.472/2001 convicting appellant Balram Patel under section 302 and appellant Gudda @ Vijay Patel under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/-.Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for examination and reports Ex.P/21, P/22 & P/23 were received.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court and the case was committed for trial.Trial Court framed the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Balram and under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Gudda Patel.Both the accused abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.In the statement recorded by Court under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Balram contended that prosecution witnesses were relatives of deceased, therefore, they spoke false against him.In fact while he was returning from his field, in front of the house of Kanhaiyalal Naveriya, deceased stopped him and demanded money.When he did not give money, at that time, Guddu Sharma abused and assaulted him.In the scuffle, they went ahead of the house.In the course of altercation, deceased picked him (4) Cr.A.1263/2002 Cr.A.1569/2002 up and dropped on the ground due to which suddenly his gun went off accidentally and hit the deceased.To substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses, however, relying mainly on the evidence of Kanhaiyalal (PW-5), Ku.Vineeta Naveriya (PW-7), Lokesh Naveriya (PW-12) as eyewitnesses and on the medical evidence of Dr. A.K.Agnihotri (PW-6) and Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (PW-15), trial Court held the accused persons guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, accused have filed these appeals.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.It was no longer disputed that deceased Guddu Sharma died of gun shot injury.It is also reflected from the evidence of Dr. A.K.Agnihotri (PW-6) that body of Guddu Sharma was brought to him by constable Iqbal Hussain.There was a wound on the left side of his chest.It appeared that it was a gun shot wound.His report is Ex.Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (PW-15) who was posted as Assistant Surgeon in Medical College, Jabalpur deposed that he conducted postmortem examination of the body of Guddu @ Basant Sharma.He found one round gun shot wound, 4 cm in diameter on the left side of chest of the body.Margins of the wound were tattooed.3rd 4th & 5th ribs were fractured and there was an exit wound on the left shoulder on scapular region.On internal examination, he saw laceration of both the lobes of lung.Pleura was ruptured.Pericardium on the left side of heart was also ruptured.There was one through and through laceration in the left ventricle of heart.Entry wound and exit wound were connected by a track.A plastic cap of cartridge was also found in the soft tissues of pleura.In his opinion, these injuries were caused by gun shot which was fired from a very close range.The cause of death was shock to the heart.His postmortem examination (5) Cr.A.1263/2002 Cr.A.1569/2002 report was Ex.Investigating officer C.R.Patel (PW-16) also stated that he conducted the inquest and prepared memorandum Ex.He kept the dead body in the jeep and sent the same for postmortem examination to Medical College, Jabalpur.There was a gun shot wound on the left side of chest of the body.A wad like article was thrusted in the wound.It was, thus, clearly evident that deceased Guddu Sharma died of gun shot injury.Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the findings which have been recorded for convicting the appellants are bad in law, perverse and based on no evidence and are contrary to the material on record.Trial Court has gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of relative eyewitnesses and has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has committed error in convicting the appellants.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the findings recorded by the trial Court and contended that no interference was called for in these appeals.We have gone through the entire evidence on record.Complainant Kallu @ Rajendra Tiwari (PW-1), Ramkumar Patel (PW-2) and Shankarlal (PW-4), who were examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution case, therefore, they were declared hostile.The case, therefore, mainly rests on the evidence of eyewitnesses viz. Kanhaiyalal (PW-5), Ku.Vineeta (PW-7) and Lokesh (PW-12).Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) deposed that in the evening of 14th March, 2001 at about 6:30 p.m., Guddu Sharma and Kallu Tiwari had come to his house at Barginagar.After sometime Guddu Sharma left his house saying that he would go to the house of accused Balram for applying vermilion (Tika) to him.After about half an hour he came back.While they were sitting, at about 8:45 p.m. Balram Patel came (6) Cr.A.1263/2002 Cr.A.1569/2002 in front of their house and extended threats to Guddu Sharma.He shouted calling him out of the house.When they went out of the house, they saw Balram wielding a gun.Accused Gudda Patel was also with him.Guddu Sharma grabbed the barrel of the gun and indulged in scuffle with him.Thereafter, Guddu Sharma assaulted accused Balram Patel with fists and kicks and snatched his gun.Balram then apologised whereupon Guddu returned his gun.Thereafter, when he and Guddu Sharma proceeded back to his house they heard sound of gun fire.On looking back, they saw that accused Balram pointed his gun towards Guddu and fired it.The shot hit on the left side of chest of Guddu.Guddu fell down.Kanhaiyalal further deposed that accused also put barrel of the gun on his neck, but the gun was empty.Thereafter, both the accused ran away.Kallu Tiwari (PW-1) went to police chowki to lodge the report and informed the wife of deceased.Learned counsel for the appellants urged that Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) was the brother-in-law of deceased.It is true that in his evidence, he merely deposed that accused Gudda Patel was present at the time of incident, however, he did not assign any act to him to indicate that he shared the intention of accused Balram Patel.He denied that accused Gudda Patel had snatched gun from Balram Patel and fired at the deceased.However, his evidence was clear with respect to Balram Patel that he fired at deceased.In fact it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for accused Balram that deceased suffered gun shot injury by the gun wielded by Balram, but,according to him, that was an (7) Cr.A.1263/2002 Cr.A.1569/2002 accidental fire when deceased himself scuffled with him and threw him on the ground.From the evidence of Kanhaiyalal (PW-5), it is revealed that relations between deceased and accused Balram were quite cordial before the occurrence.There was absolutely no dispute between them even before the occurrence.Deceased had told to Kanhaiyalal about his going to the house of accused for applying Tika to him as it was the day of "Rang Panchmi" celebration.There appeared no apparent cause why accused Balram should have come to the house of Kanhaiyalal and extended threats to deceased.It appears strange that Kanhaiyalal did not ask the deceased as to why Balram abused him and extended threats to him.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that this part of the evidence of Kanhaiyalal was belied by the medical evidence of Dr.A.K.Jain (PW-15), who conducted the (8) Cr.A.1263/2002 Cr.A.1569/2002 postmortem examination.A.K.Jain categorically stated that the gun shot injury found on the body of deceased was caused by firing from a very close distance.Even the plastic cap of cartridge was found in the soft tissues of the entry wound.In para 7 of his evidence, Dr. Jain clarified that at the time of fire either the barrel of the gun must be in contact with the body or about 6" away from it.According to Kanhaiyalal, accused had fired gun from a distance of about 20-25 paces i.e. 60-70 feet from the deceased.In our opinion, this is a material inconsistency between the evidence of Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) and the medical evidence.From the postmortem examination report Ex.P/17, it is revealed that there was a rounded wound of gun shot 4 cm in diameter.It had tattooed margins and underneath ribs 3rd 4th & 5th were fractured.These circumstances clearly indicate that the gun shot injury was caused to deceased from a very close range, in any circumstances, not from a distance of about 40-50 feet.Evidence of Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) that accused Balram fired gun at deceased finds support from the evidence of Ku.Vineeta Naveriya (PW-7) and Mahendra Tripathi (PW-8).Though Vineeta Naveriya stated that there had been an altercation between deceased and accused Balram and accused Gudda accompanied Balram, but she admitted that when she was inside the house she heard the sound of firing.When she went out of the house, she saw deceased lying on the ground.Her father i.e. Kanhaiyalal told to her that Balram shot at Guddu.She, however, denied that there was any scuffle between accused Gudda Patel and the deceased.Similar was the evidence of Lokesh Naveriya (PW-12).When he was standing in front of his house he heard two sounds of (9) Cr.A.1263/2002 Cr.A.1569/2002 firing.When he went on the spot, he saw deceased lying on the ground.According to him, his father Kanhaiyalal told him that Balram shot at Guddu.Though he stated that he himself saw Balram firing the gun but this fact was found missing in his police statement Ex.Apart from the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, there is evidence of investigating officer C.R. Patel (PW-16) who seized an empty 12 bore cartridge from the spot and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for comparison with the gun seized from the possession of accused.According to F.S.L. Report Ex.P/23, the empty cartridge seized from the spot was fired from Article "G" 12 bore gun recovered from the accused.Thus, it has been established that deceased died of gun shot injury fired from the gun of accused Balram Patel.It is true that according to Dr. Ashok Kumar Jain (PW-15), margins of gun shot wound were tattooed and a plastic cap of the cartridge was found inside the wound which in his opinion indicated that gun was fired from a close range, but at the same time it is established from the evidence of Kanhaiyalal that accused went at his house and abused and extended threats to deceased.Though it was said that relations between them were cordial but from the first information report lodged by Rajendra Tiwari (PW-1), it is indicated that deceased went at the house of accused Balram to get his money back from him and on not finding him at his house, he intimidated his wife that he knew how to recover the same.Though Kallu @ Rajendra (PW-1) disowned the first information report Ex.P/1, but admitted his signatures on it.F.I.R. Ex.P/1 was proved by the head constable Dashrath Singh Thakur (PW-17).It gives some indication why accused Balram Patel went at the house of Kanhaiyalal in enraged mental condition and abused the deceased.Though Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) denied that deceased was a person with criminal (10) Cr.A.1263/2002 Cr.A.1569/2002 antecedents, yet it was established by the evidence of head constable Laxmi Prasad (DW-1), who proved criminal record of deceased by producing copies of crime register (Ex.D/4 to D/11) of police station, Lordganj that number of criminal cases under sections 307,506,323,452,426,376, I.P.C. etc were registered against him.He was so desperate that he caught hold of the gun of accused and assaulted him by fists and kicks and snatched his gun.It appears that when deceased returned the gun to accused Balram, he fired the same at deceased.It seems to us that neither prosecution witness nor accused gave wholly truthful description of the occurrence.It does not stand to reason that accused would go away for about 25 paces then fire.Evidence of Kanhaiyalal with respect to distance of the deceased from the accused does not appear trustworthy, however, it has been clearly established from his evidence that Balram Patel fired gun at deceased as a result of which he died.It is revealed from the evidence of Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) that immediately before Balram fired, his gun was snatched and he was beaten by deceased.In these circumstances, in our opinion, it cannot be held that he had motive to commit murder of deceased.Had he intended it, he could have fired at deceased at the very moment he came out of his house hearing his threats.But he fired gun shot at deceased without any premeditation in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel, his act, in our opinion, fell within the ambit of Exception 4 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, appellant Balram Patel was liable to be convicted unde section 304 Part I and not under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.From the evidence of eyewitnesses, it cannot be held with certainty that accused Gudda @ Vijay Patel shared common intention with accused Balram Patel.(i) Criminal Appeal No.1263/2002 preferred by appellant Gudda @ Vijay Patel is allowed.His conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.(ii) Criminal Appeal No. 1569/2002 preferred by appellant Balram Patel is partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,009 |
ORDER (1) The petitioners are two police constables who were formerly attached to the Jaisingpur Outpost.On 7-9-1962, one Bhupal Anna Chougule was murdered.Two persons were persecuted in connection with that offense, but they were acquitted.The allegation against the petitioners was that they had taken some illegal gratification of and had tried to shield the culprits and that that they had thereby committed offenses under Ss. 193, 201, 204 and 217, Indian Penal Code.They were arrested and released on bail.These offenses were investigated by the police but after the acquittal of the accused who were tried on the charge of murder ,the police come to the concussion that it would be difficult to obtain a conviction of against petitioners.They therefore sent a report of judicial magistrate concerned under S. 173, criminal procedure code and asked for a non - cognizable summary in respect of the offenses alleged the petitioners.The learned Magistrate, however, granted "A" Summary.Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed a revisions application of the sessions court at Kolhapur.That was rejected.Thereafter they have filed the present revision application of in this courts.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,009,438 |
Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1073 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.(ssm) H.C.P. No.1073 of 2019 08.08.2019 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Vinoth @ Arch Vionth, son of Venkatesan, male, aged about 30 years.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.2.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.3.The main argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the case relied on by the detaining authority is not Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1073 of 2019 similar in nature and the offences in the ground case are totally different.Therefore, the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is not there and the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not proper.Page 2 of 64.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 3 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:He has not moved any bail application for T3 Korattur P.S. Cr.No.210/2019 so far.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Vinoth @ Arch Vinoth is taking action to take him out on bail by filing a bail application for T3 Korattur P.S. Cr.No.210/2019 before the appropriate court.Further, in a similar case, registered at F1 Chintadripet P.S.Cr.No.809/2014,u/s 147,148,341,307 IPC @ 302 IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.Hence, i infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in T3 Korattur P.S.Cr.No.210/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time.If he Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1073 of 2019 comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to be maintenance of public order......."Page 3 of 65.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration in a similar case, registered at F1 Chintadripet P.S.Cr.No.809/2014,u/s 147,148,341,307 IPC @ 302 IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17395/2014 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 147,148,341,307 IPC @ 302 IPC whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Section 302 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.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention BCDFGISSSV No.235 of 2019 dated 08.05.2019, Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1073 of 2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu, namely, Vinoth @ Arch Vionth, son of Venkatesan, male, aged about 30 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.Page 4 of 6(M.M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 08.08.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 0093.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,550,261 |
(2) It is undisputed that there was a space 6' x 4' in area in between Stall No. 12 and 13 at Janpath known as Piao area (hereinafter called the PIAO').In 1977, the Piao was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of his earlier allotment of space No. 83 at R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi (Annexure A).This allotment was confirmed vide letter dated 23.2.1979 (Annexure B) on payment of monthly licence fee Rs. 15.00 per sq. ft. by the petitioner.On 2.2.1984, the respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to the petitioner containing a proposal to construct 3 mini stalls at the site allotted to the petitioner.It required petitioner to hand over the allotted site to the respondent for construction of 3 mini stalls out of which one stall of about 140 sq. ft.in area was assured to be allotted to him.The petitioner vacated the site for the proposed construction.Thereafter, three stalls namely stall Nos. 12.A, 12.B and 12.C were constructed by the respondent.Area of stall No. 12.B was increased from 140 sq. ft. to 279 sq. ft. and correspondingly area of the stall No. 12.A allotted to the petitioner and the area of the third stall bearing No. 12.C was reduced to 68 sq. ft. each.However, it is clear that Shri P.S. Gupta could claim only area for area which he has been given and the separate transaction with the Women's Association has nothing to do with it.Ndmc should give this firm and final reply to Shri P.S. Gupta and proceed with action against the Women's Association in the normal manner.That action also need not wait for completion of the Cbi inquiry.(P.K. DEVE) Lt. Governor, Delhi".(6) It is significant that on 9.11.1992, the respondent No. 1 had issued following notice for renewal of the petitioner's licence.Notice for Renewal of Licence Whereas Stall No. 12.A situated at Municipal Market, Janpath, New Delhi is owned and possessed by the New Delhi Municipal Committee (hereinafter called the Committee) and was licenced to you tor a period of one year commencing from 28.4.1984 for carrying on the trade of readymade garments.On the contrary, the respondent No. 1 accepted payment of the enhanced licence fee from the petitioner in respect of the premises in question.Stall No. 12.B was allotted to the All India Rural Women Upliftment Association (for short the 'AIRWUA').Rejecting the petitioner's representation, the respondent terminated the petitioner's licence w.e.f. 28.4.1985 and directed him to vacate the Stall No. 12.A within 10 days from the receipt of the communication (Annexure J).The petitioner is in possession of the said stall.(3) Briefly stated the petitioner's case is that the Piao was meant to be used as a stall/shop and was in fact allotted to the petitioner for running the trade in readymade garments.After construction of the mini stalls, the Stall No. 12-A was allotted to the petitioner.According to the petitioner, Airwua, a bogus organisation of Smt. Prem Devi and Smt. Sarojini Devi, in collusion with some senior officials of the N.D.M.C., got the stall No. 12.B allotted in its favour.The area of stall No. 12.B was arbitrarily increased from 140 sq. ft. to 279 sq. ft.and correspondingly the area of the petitioner's stall No. 12.A and the area of stall No. 12.C was reduced to68sq.and the petitioner was coerced to accept the allotment of 68 sq. ft. stall, which was less than half of the area which had been assured for allotment.The petitioner, however, continued to represent to the respondent from time to time, highlighting the hardship and illegality, with regard to reduction of his stall area, and also against the illegal allotment of stall No. 12.B to AIRWUA.On 14.12.1992, the allotment of stall No. 12.B in favour of Airwua was cancelled by the then Administrator Sh.Ramesh Chandra, on the basis of various complaints made in this regard.Later on, the present Administrator Sh.According to the respondents, the petitioner, with a view to creating a ground for artificial malice against the respondent No. 1, addressed a complaint against the officials of the respondents to the Cbi with regard to the allotment of Stall No. 12.B in favour of the AIRWUA.The petitioner with a view to evading the penal consequences for non-conforming with the terms contained in the notice dated 9.11.1992 had taken a false plea in his reply to show cause notice dated 22.12.1995 that on receipt of the said letter, he allegedly approached the Director of Estate for renewal of licence who advised him that it was not necessary to do so for reasons mentioned in the said reply.Lastly, it is alleged that the respondent had initiated proceedings for the petitioner's eviction from the Stall No. 12.B before the Estate Officer who is the Competent Authority to adjudicate the legality of the cancellation order.It is undisputed that in 1977, the Piao was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of earlier allotment of space No. 83 at R.K. Ashram Marg, New Delhi, that on 2.2.1984, the respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to the petitioner containing a proposal to construct 3 mini stalls at the site allotted to the petitioner and that it required the petitioner to hand over the allotted site to the respondent No. 1 for construction of the said stalls out of which one stall of about 140 sq. ft.in area was assured to be allotted to the petitioner, (Annexure C).The petitioner vacated the site for the proposed construction and after construction stall No. 12.A was allotted to the petitioner.It is also undisputed that one of the stalls namely, stall No. 12.Bwasallotted to the Airwua and the area of the said stall was increased from 140 sq. ft. to 279 sq.ft.and correspondingly the area of the remaining two stalls i.e. stall Nos. 12-A and 12.C was reduced to 68 sq. ft. each.B in favour of the Airwua, he therefore, made a complaint to the Lt. Governor.In addition to this, the petitioner also took up the matter with the Cbi as a result where of a criminal case under Sections 120-B/420/468/471, Indian Penal Code and Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against the Administrator Shri Baleshwar Rai, Shri Sanjay Saxena, Director ofEstate,Shri L.R. Bhakhri Assistant Director of Estate, Smt. Prem Devi and Smt. Sarojini Devi.However, when the petitioner's complaint came up for consideration before the Lt. Governor, he made the following observations on 2.2.1985 : "SHRIR.B. Maurya, Director (Estates), Ndmc has given me details of the case.The Ndmc story is that Shri P.S. Gupta was allottee of a Piao in between Stall Nos. 12-13 Janpath, and in 1984 he was required to hand over possession of the Piao for construction of 3 mini stalls; he was told that he would be allotted one of the new stalls on Tahbazari and that-the carpet area of the new stall was likely to be 140 sq. ft.The Committee vide its Reso.No. 49 dated 12.9.1991 decided that the licence fee of such premises be enhanced by 200% with effect from the next date of renewal after 12.9.1991 for a period of five years.The term of licence granted in your favour will expire on 28.4.1992 and as such in case you are interested to have the licence renewed for use and occupation of the Public Premises for another period of 5 years you are hereby advised to give your consent for renewal of licence within 10 days of receipt of this letter.In case no consent for renewal of licence is received within the specified period, it will be presumed that you are not interested in the renewal of licence and your occupation of the premises w.e.f. 28.4.1992 is unauthorised and as such liable to hand over the vacant possession of the above mentioned premises to the Executive Engineer (North) Civil Engg., Ndmc under intimation to Estate Deptt.Assistant Director (Estate) (7) The aforesaid notice clearly shows that the Stall-No. 12.A was licenced to the petitioner for a period of one year commencing from 28.4.1984 for carrying on the trade of readymade garment? and as per policy of the Committee the licence in respect of the said premises was to be renewed on year to year basis without execution of fresh lease deed.Admittedly, the respondent did not take any action against the petitioner on the basis of the said notice.The petitioner submitted his representation (Annexure 1) against the said show cause notice.No order as to costs.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,660,615 |
(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)Petitioner, wife of the detenu by name Anandaraj @ Anand @ Anandan, who was detained as immoral traffic offender under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, challengesthe same in this petition.The order of detention has been passed on thebasis of ground case in Crime No. 175 /2005 on the file of Inspector ofPolice, Anti Vice Squad, Chindadripet Police Station for offences underSections 3 (1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of I.T.P.Act and Section 366 I.P.C.The allegation against the detenu is that on 5-9-2005 at 17.15 hours, the SubInspector of Police proceeded on rounds to watch whether any prostitutionbusiness is going on at Vadapalani, Arcot Road in Chennai City.While he wasproceeding at Vadapalani, Arcot Road near Avichi School, the detenu who wassitting in a red colour Maruthi car bearing Registration No. TN-07-J-772 anddoing prostitution business.The detaining authority has also taken note of 3adverse cases wherein the detenu involved in prostitution business.Theoffences under Sections 3 (1), 4(1), 5(1), 6(1), 7(1) ITP Act and 366 IPCrelate to keeping a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution,procuring, inducing for the sake of prostitution, detaining women in premiseswhere prostitution is carried on and doing prostitution in the vicinity ofpublic place and abducting a women for prostitution as such punishable underI.T.P. Act and I.P.C. The investigation disclosed that the detenu Anandarajused to get young innocent and poor girls who were under poverty from thenearby Andhra State under the guise of getting employment and induced andforced them to indulge in prostitution business and also took out a house atNo.3/120, Krishna Nagar, 2nd Street, Madhanandhapuram, Porur, Chennai and by keeping the procured young girls in the said premises and at times took themto different places in Chennai City in cars and compel them into prostitutionand earn huge money with the help of his associates and living in the saidearnings.The investigation further disclosed that the detenu and hisassociates are doing prostitution in Chennai City at Vadapalani, Arcot Roadnear Higher Secondary School and spoiling the lives of young youths.Takingnote of all these aspects and materials that the activities of the detenu areprejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and that recourse to normalcriminal law would not have the desired effect in preventing him fromindulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance ofpublic order, the detaining authority passed the impugned order declaring thedetenu as an 'immoral traffic offender', detained and kept in custody at theCentral Prison, Chennai.The said order is under challenge in this petition.2. Heard Mr. R. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.According to the counsel, the saidrepresentation neither placed before the Advisory Board nor the Government,hence the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority is liable to be setaside.Learned Government Advocate by placing the entire records, contendedthat all the 6 representations submitted by the detenu/his relatives wereplaced before the Advisory Board as well as the Government and all of themwere duly considered and rejected.He also contended that even thepredetention representation dated 15-9-2005 was duly considered.We verifiedthe records.It discloses that the pre-detention representation dated15-9-2005 was considered and six representations made by the detenu and hisrelatives were duly placed before the Advisory Board as well as before theGovernment.All those representations were duly considered and rejected.Even though it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority/Governmentto consider all the representations, in view of the fact that totally 7representations have been made and were duly considered by the detainingauthority/Government, in the absence of information that in the representationdated 25-9-2005 the detenu has made new points, merely because the same was not considered by the Government, the detention order cannot be faulted with.We are satisfied that since the seven earlier representations of the detenuwere duly considered, the detenu was in no way prejudiced; accordingly wereject the said contention.Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that inasmuch as thefirst adverse case relates to a graver offence, namely, Section 22 of N.D.P.S.Act and the ground case relates to offences under I.T.P. Act and Section 366I.P.C., the detaining authority ought to have considered the graver offencefor imminent possibility of coming out of bail.It is true that though thefirst adverse case is said to have taken place on 7-4-2004, the detenu wascharged under Section 4 (1), 5(1)(a), 6(1), 7(1)(b), 8 (a) of ITP Act and hewas also charged under Section 22 of NDPS Act. As rightly pointed out, thepunishment under NDPS Act depends upon the quantity of the material and in the absence of those details, it cannot be claimed that the offence in the firstadverse case is graver in nature than the offences in the ground case.On theother hand, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, theoffence under Section 366 IPC is also graver in nature liable for imprisonmentfor 7 years and fine.In such a circumstance, we are satisfied that thedetaining authority is well within his powers in describing the detenu as an 'immoral traffic offender' and detained him under Act 14 of 1982 based on theground case; accordingly we reject the said contention also.On goingthrough the details/materials furnished in the grounds of detention, we areunable to accept the said contention.It is seen from the details ofinvestigation, the detenu Anandaraj used to get young innocent and poor girls,namely Bhavani and Vijaya who were under poverty from the nearby Andhra State under the guise of getting employment, induced and forced them to indulge inprostitution business.It is stated that some of the publicalso wrote letters to the Inspector of Police, Anti Vice Squad to take sternaction against the said Anandaraj, who spoil the young innocent boys therebyleading to the spreading of sexual diseases in an epidemic proposition.Thepaper book supplied to the detenu contains all the complaints and statementsof various persons.He also satisfied that the said Anandaraj is not onlyspoiling the young innocent boys and poor girls but his activities are pavingway for spreading sexual deceases in an epidermic proposition which willcertainly affect the maintenance of public order and health.Internet:- Yes.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,606,183 |
PG Court C.R.M. 4823 of 2019 No.3 Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Saraswati Roy @ Jhliya Roy ........petitioners Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury .........for the petitioners Mr. Arijit Ganguly Mr. Sanjib Kr.Dan.............for the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Raiganj Police Station F.I.R. No. 847 of 2018 dated 23.12.2018 under sections 447/341/325/326/307/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary including the statement of one of the eye-witnesses recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter the Code).It appears that the petitioners are not named by such eye-witness to have inflicted any blow on the victim leading to his death.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the court below.The application is, thus, disposed of.(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.) (DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,062,129 |
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.27078 of 2013Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed byANITA MALHOTRA whereby the High Court allowed the CriminalDate: 2019.04.1517:00:10 ISTReason:Miscellaneous Application filed by respondent Nos.2 1 1 & 3 herein and quashed the complaint filed by theappellant herein.A few facts need mention hereinbelow for thedisposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.By impugned order, the High Court quashedthe order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the JudicialMagistrate 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in ComplaintCase No.21/2012 whereby the Judicial Magistratetook cognizance of the complaint filed by theappellant herein against respondent Nos. 2 and 3for commission of the offences punishable underSections 323, 379 read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) by holdingthat a prima facie case was made out againstrespondent Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of allegationsmade in the complaint.Heard Mr. Binay Kumar Das, learned counselfor the appellant, Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, learnedcounsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr.Devashish Bharuka, learned counsel for respondentNo.1State.The High Court examined the case in para 6,which reads as under:On perusal of complaint petition, I find that the complainant has asserted that firstly, he had contracted for purchasing the shop premises from the land owner, but the petitioners offered more money and got the document registered in their favour.There is no chit of paper on record to support the agreement of sale or payment of any amount to the land owner.The petitioners claim to be bona fide purchaser of the shop premises, which was in tenancy of the complainant.The petitioners have filed an Eviction Suit No.10 of 2012, in which the complainant has filed his written statement admitting tenancy in the said shop premises.The dispute between the parties appears to be a civil dispute.The relationship of landlord and tenant stands admitted by the complainant in the eviction suit.I further find that there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses on the point of occurrence.The criminal prosecution of these petitioners in the above background appears to be an abuse of process of Court.”On perusal of the impugned order, we find thatit suffers from two errors.First error is that the High Court did notexamine the case with a view to find out as towhether the allegations made in the complaintprima facie make out the offences falling underSections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC or not.Instead the High Court in Para 6 gaveimportance to the fact that since there was adispute pending between the parties in the CivilCourt in relation to a shop as being landlord andtenant, it is essentially a civil dispute between theparties.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,066,968 |
This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. First bail application has been granted by this Court vide order dated 14/07/2015 passed in M.Cr.As per the prosecution case, on 14/06/2015 the complainant/Up-Van Mandal Adhikari, Bhind at 02:30 PM alongwith Forest Official/N.K. Ravi has gone for inquiry, at that time one Canter without having registration number was found in front of Pedhi at Village-Kamai loaded with fresh cut Babool trees.Driver of the vehicle was not present there.When inquired from the neighbours, they informed that after seeing the Forest Officials, the person who brought the wood on Canter has ran away.The 2 M.Cr.C. No.8054/2015 aforesaid wood and vehicle were seized and Panchnama was also prepared, thereafter when Forest Officials were bringing the aforesaid wood alongwith vehicle to Police Station-Phoof, then, near the Village-Dulhagan owner of Canter vehicle, Ranglal alongwith Manoj Ojha, Rajpal, Inderpal forcibly stanched the Canter pointing weapons and given threats.2 M.Cr.It is submitted that after rejection of first bail application charge-sheet has been filed and no recovery has been made from the applicant.It is submitted that Canter does not belong to the applicant.Conclusion of trial will take some time.Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.The application is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer on the ground that no new ground has been made out after rejection of first bail application and prays for dismissal of this application.I have perused the case-diary and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.The allegation against the applicant is that the Forest Officials seized the Canter loaded with wood brought from Forest Area.The applicant alongwith co-accused abused the Government Servant and also 3 M.Cr.C. No.8054/2015 threatened to kill them.They also took away the vehicle which was seized in discharge of public duty by the Forest Officials.3 M.Cr.Taking into consideration the manner in which the incident has been committed with the Government Officials while they were discharging their Official duties and the period of custody, I find that no new ground is made out after rejection of the first bail application.Accordingly, M.Cr.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,660,698 |
He had a younger brother namedGulabkhan Husseinkhan.The victim of the occurrence is thesaid Gulabkhan.Both the brothers had their houses adjacentto each other in this lane facing east.The northern onewas in occupation of and belonged to the deceased and thesouthern one was of Allarakha.There are a number of otherhouses situated around the houses of the two brothers.Onesuch house is of Sardarkhan Muradkhan facing west abuttingthe road, two houses north of the house of the deceased.Jamiyatkhan is the son of Sardarkhan, father-in-law of thedeceased Gulabkhan.In the month of June, 1968 a complaint. was made to theKalol Municipality by persons of the locality including thedeceased and some of the prosecution witnesses thatAllarakha, husband of respondent no.1 was discharging dirtywater of his house towards East which collects on the roadand causes nuisance to the residents of the locality.Thathad caused friction between the families of the twobrothers.On 27.6.1968 according to the prosecution story there weretwo incidents in the Angana i.e. space on the road in frontof the houses of the parties-.one was at 5.30 p.m. and theother at 6.30 p.m. The, prosecution case is that a she-goatof Gulabkhan strayed in the house of Fatima. 'She begangiving blows to the goat.There, were altercations betweenthe members of the families of the, two brothers.who is a married daughter of respondent no.1and her son Liyakat who was 15 years old on the date ofoccurrence were also present at the time of this quarrel.They threw stones which hit P.W.3 Nannubibi, wife ofdeceased Gulabkhan, one Rahematbibi and P.W. 4 Noorbibi-aneighbourer and a close relation of Nannubibi Respondentno.1 is said to have come out with a stick from her house,and went to Gulabkhan to strike him.One Allarakha Rehman-aclose neighbour came there, caught hold of the stick,quietened respondent no. 1 and sent her back to her houseThe second part of the story is that Gulabkhan and Nannubibiwent and sat in the Angana of995Jamiyatkhan son of Sardarkhan, father-in-law of Gulabkhan.Respondent no. 1 about an hour later went with a stick inher hand and hurled a blow on Gulabkhan.Nannubibiintervened and got the blow on her right hand finger.Gulabkhan directed respondent no.1 to go back to her houseby gestures of his hand and he also proceeded and pushed hertowards her house.When Gulabkhan reached the Angana of hishouse, respondent no.1 is said to have put her leg acrosshis legs with the result that he fell down on his back.Respondent no.2 caught hold of the hands of Gulabkhan.Respondent no.1 sat on his legs and squeezed his testiclesand pulled them.The boy Liyakat is said to have bitten thedeceased on the left shoulder.Gulabkhan thereafter wasmade to recline on a cot.Eventually he.died of the shockdue to the pressing of his private parts by respondent no.Information was sent to the Police Station.Appeal by special leave from the judgment & Order dated the17th July, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl.R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.A. S. Qureshi, Vinal Deve and Kailash Mehta, for therespondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byUNTWALIA, J.-There is a locality known as Nani Malokoad inthe town of Kaloy, District Mehsena, Gujarat.In thislocality is a road (lane) running north to south.BaiFatima, respondent no. 1 in this appeal filed on grant ofspecial leave by the State of Gujarat, is the wife ofAllarakha Hussemkhan.A complaintof Nannubibi was recorded at about 10.30 p.m. Liyakat wassent for trial before the Juvenile Court.Respondent nos. 1and 2 were tried by the Sessions Judge, Mehsana.The learned Sessions Judge held the prosecution story to beproved beyond reasonable doubt in all material particulars.Finding that the injury caused to Gulabkhan in ordinarycourse of nature may not be sufficient to cause his deathbut was likely to cause his death, he convicted respondentno.1 under section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.She was further convicted under section 323 and was given aconcurrent sentence for 3 months under this count.Respondent no.2 was convicted of an offence under section323 read with section 114 of the Penal Code and wassentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.The respondents filed an appeal in the Gujarat High Courtfrom the order of conviction recorded against them and theState went up in appeal for their conviction under section302 of the Penal Code read with section 114 in the case ofrespondent no.2 The State appeal was dismissed by the HighCourt and that of the respondents allowed.The State cameto this Court and obtained special leave from the judgmentof acquittal recorded by the High Court in the respondentsappeal.The dismissal of the State appeal by the High Courtis final.The three eye witnesses to the occurrence are P.W.3Nannubibi, P.W.4 Noorbibi and P.W.6 Jenatbibi.The lattertwo are neighbourers and related to Nannubibi.The TrialJudge believed their evidence.He also believed the evidenceof P.W.7 Gulamanabi Shermohmad-a close neighbour of theparties to whom an oral dying declaration is said to havebeen made by Gulabkhan before his death.He got the information at about 9.45 p.m.about the death of Gulabkhan.He rushed to the PoliceStation and merely informed about his death.Prosecution did notexplain the injuries on her person but the Trial Judgeinferred that they must have been caused in the firstincident which took place at 5.30 p.m. and not in the secondwhich was the subject matter of the charge against therespondents.The High Court has held in favour of the prosecution on themain part of the occurrence, namely, squeezing of thetesticles of the deceased by respondent no.1 as a result ofwhich he died.Yet it has disbelieved the prosecution casein regard to some other aspects.It has not accepted theprosecution story that there were two incidents in theevening.Nor has it accepted the version that shortly afterthe first incident Gulabkhan and Nannubibi had gone to theAngana of Jamiyatkhan.The, story of falling down of thedeceased by the tripping of his legs by respondent no.1 hasbeen discarded by the High Court.So also the evidence ofP.W.7 Gulamnabi.(1) "There is also no doubt that since some days prior to the date of the incident the relations between the deceased and the family of accused no.1 were not cordial." (2) "There is no doubt that a quarrel did arise on that day" (meaning thereby the date of occurrence "between the deceased and accused no. 1 in respect of a goat." (3) "It is very reasonably clear that the squeezing of the testicles of the deceased was in all probability the act of accused no.1" (4) "There is further no doubt that the deceased did die on account of squeezing of his testicles in the evening that day at round about 8.30 p.m."On the findings aforesaid if the claim of right or privatedefence put forward on behalf of respondent no.1 wasuntenable as we shall show hereinafter it was wholly so,then it is plain that the High Court ought not to haveinterferred with the order of conviction recorded by theTrial Court.Even in face of the said findings the HighCourt criticized the prosecution case as regards somedetails of the occurrence or the ,incidents and rejected agood portion of it.We shall briefly show that the saidrejection by the High Court was wholly unjustified.There were two incidents according to the prosecution casewhich happened in the evening at an interval of about anhour.High Court says it was not so and says so without anybasis.The prosecution did not stand to gain anything bysplitting up the evening incident in two parts.Even in theFirst Information Report, Ext.32 recorded at 10.30 p.m. inthe night the two incidents were separately narrated.Therewas absolutely no reason for the High Court to interferewith the findings of the Trial Court in that regard.The High Court does not accept the prosecution story thatdeceased Gulabkhan had gone to the `Angana of Jamiyatkhanand respondent no. 1 went there as an aggressor with a stickin her hand.This story has been discarded on the groundthat it is not mentioned in the First Information Report norin the statements of the other two witnesses before thepolice.We may observe again that the prosecution did notstand to gain anything by unnecessarily or falselyintroducing the story of Gulabkhan's going to the Angana ofhis father-in-law.The main occurrence happened in theAngana of Gulabkhan.The places are so very near that thestory of Gulabkhan going to the Angana of his father-in-lawwas not an important one to be remembered by the witnessesto be recited before the police.It mattered little whetherrespondent no.1 went as an aggressor to the Angana of thedeceased or a bit further North to the Angana ofJamiyatkhan.It must, therefore.be presumed that they had givenout the tripping story before the police.The High Court has not thought it safe to rely upon theevidence of the three eye witnesses none of whom was foundto be disinterested in the prosecution.The comment is thatAllarakba Rehman and Mansabu who lived in the house oppositeto the deceased have not been examined by the prosecution.According to the prosecution, case the said Allarakha hadmerely quietened respondent no. 1 in the first incident andMansabu came after the second incident was over.he put aquestion to Gulabkhan who being in a position to give theanswer gave it, it was not necessary for him to talk to thewomen thereafter.Gulamnabi was the person who had gone tocall Dr. Rao to examine Gulabkhan.Dr. Rao came at 8.30p.m.and declared him to be dead.It was not necessary forGulamnubi to relate the details of the occurrence to Dr. Raoas he himself had not witnessed it Another reason given fordiscarding the evidence of Gulamnabi is with reference tothe evidence of Rasulbhai that upto 10.00 p.m. no one knewthe exact reason for the death of Gulabkhan.Havingaccepted the prosecution story about the cause of his deathit was unnecessary to dilate upon the matter any further.The High Court has not disbelieved the lodging of thecomplaint before the police on the statement of Nannubibi at10.00 p.m. The last reason given is the non-examination ofDr.Rao by the prosecution.The HighCourt differed from the view of the Trial Judge on flimsyand unsustainable grounds.Now we come to deal with the question of right of privatedefence.Threepersons named' in the complaint were Gulabkhan, Bai-bibi,mother-in-law of Gulabkhan and Nannubibi, his wife.The twoladies caught hold of her Odhana and began to give herblows.of kicks and fists Gulabkhan gave stick blows on theright hand and so she fell down on the ground and began toshout.The injuries found on the person of Fatima Bibi were5 in number.Three contusions on the right forearm, onecontusion on posteric-parietal part of right side of scalpand one contusion on scapular part of right side of back.The injuries were all of minor character.Nothing wasstated to give any inkling of her having squeezed thetesticles of Gulabkhan999in exercise of her right of private defence to protect herfrom further assault.Nor was any evidence adduced in Courtto give any counter version of the occurrence.Nofoundation was laid to enable the court to acquit therespondents granting them a right of private defence.Itdid require a pure conjecture and imagination to hold therespondents not guilty by extending to them the right ofprivate defence.In a situation like this when the prosecution fails toexplain the injuries on the person of an accused, dependingon the facts of each case, any of the three results mayfollow :
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,660,747 |
ORDER Ajit Singh, J.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,078,714 |
This application u/S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant Surajsingh who is in custody since 1/5/2018 in connection with Crime No.111/2018 registered at P.S. Shamgarh for commission of offence punishable u/S. 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 19/6/2018 passed by this Court in M.CR.C.No.20834/2018 (Goverdhan and another Vs.State of MP).The order dated 19/6/2018 reads as under :M. Cr. C. No.20834/2018 (Goverdhan & Anr.State of M. P.) Indore, dated 19/06/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State.Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is the first bail application preferred by the applicants under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial.The applicants are facing prosecution for offences punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A and 34 of the IPC registered with Police Station Shyamgarh, Distt.The applicant No.1 is brother-in-law and the applicant No.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased.Learned counsel for the applicants has argued before this Court that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison and there is no dying declaration nor there is any prior report to the incident.He has argued that on the basis of omnibus statement made by the parents of the deceased, entire family has been roped in.A prayer has been made for grant of bail.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail.However, the fact remains that there is no report lodged earlier prior to the incident and there is no dying declaration.This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the circumstances of the case and on perusal of the case diary, is of the opinion that the present bail petition deserves to be HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M CR C No. 25242 / 2018 SURAJ SINGH VS.STATE OF MP--- 2 ---allowed and is accordingly allowed.The applicants Goverdhan and Gangaram are directed to be released on bail on their each furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with separate surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance as and when directed.Certified copy as per rules.By the aforesaid order, co-accused persons have been granted bail.There is no dying declaration and there is no report prior to the incident.Learned counsel for the respondent - State has read out the statements available in the case diary.He has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR Digitally signed by Kamal Rathor Date: 2018.07.17 13:56:12 +05'30'
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,977,861 |
Shri Shanker Pd Singh, learned counsel for the objector.This is the first application filed on behalf of applicants under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are permanent resident of District Sagar and there is no chance of applicants fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.They are ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by this Court.Hence, prayer is made to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,029,784 |
Initially, the police investigation concluded that thedeath of the deceased BIswajit was a suicide.They filed a chargesheet 3against Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) only for the offences punishable underSection 324 and 309, IPC.Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) admitted her guilt andwas released under the Probation of Offenders Act. The complainant Dr.The prosecution story as was unfolded by the complainant was thatdeceased Biswajit met Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) in 1976, when he was about17 years old.It was he, who introduced Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) to hisparents, however, the parents felt that he was too young for the marriagenor he had completed his studies and, therefore, objected to theassociation.Subsequently, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) got married with oneAloke Sarkar, however, apparently even after the marriage, the deceasedkept in touch with Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and after about six months, heexpressed his desire to take care of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1), since herhusband was torturing her.The parents felt that the deceased should nothave any connection with a married woman and hence, he was sent toUSA to pursue his higher studies.However, after the deceased cameback from USA, he allegedly got married to Sonali Mukherjee (A-1).Hetried to take Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) to USA, however, could not succeed.He discontinued his studies and returned to India in 1981 and thereafter, it 4was decided that Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and the deceased should live inPondicherry, since his grandmother was living in Aurobindo Ashram atPondicherry.In September, 1983, they again tried to go back to USA,however, they could not succeed.It was the complainant Dr. Battacharya(PW-1), who started a shop in Pondicherry for Bengali Sarees and it wasonly in order to establish the deceased.The business was doing well,however, the deceased went thrice to Calcutta between January, 1984 toMay, 1984, leaving Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) alone in Pondicherry.Before three or four days ofhis arrival to Pondicherry, the parents of deceased got a phone call fromSonali Mukherjee (A-1), complaining that deceased was visiting theprostitutes in Calcutta.At that time itself, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) allegedlythreatened Geeta Battacharya (PW-3, the mother of the deceased) onphone that she would cut the deceased to pieces.This was reported tothe deceased by his mother (PW-3).He had also sent a telegram to Assadid Poddar (A-2), who wasfriend of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1), informing him of his proposed arrival on15.5.1984 in the night by Coromandel Express and therein, he alsorequested to tell Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) not to leave for Calcutta.On 16.5.1984, early morning, Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) received aphone call from his brother-in-law in Cochin, informing him that thedeceased was in a serious condition.Therefore, Dr. Battacharya (PW-1)and Geeta Battacharya (PW-3), as also their other son took the eveningflight from Calcutta and reached Pondicherry.A car was sent for themfrom Aurobindo Ashram and it was informed that their son Biswajit(deceased) had already expired.Here in Pondicherry, on receipt of the information from the hospital,First Information Report (FIR) was registered by Muthialpet Police Station,being FIR No. 103/1984 under Section 174 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C." for short).Dr. Battacharya(PW-1) identified the dead body of his son (deceased).The body was sent for postmortem.Dr. Sahay (PW-4) conducted the autopsy and found on hisexternal examination:-(i) copious amount of latery froth, white in colour, mixed with tinge of blood, present around the mouth and nostrils.(ii) scalp hair, in and around anterior fontonella area, were found to be cut short compared to rest of the hairs and(iii) eyes and mouth were closed.The injuries, which were found in the post mortem were:-(i) seven burn marks round in shape, each of 0.5 c.m. in diameter on the lateral aspect of left upper arm, each at a distance varying from 3 to 7 cms.from each other.The most marked one had caused subcutaneous haematoma of 1 c.m. diameter in six (including depth).Rest were skin deep only.(ii) Left upper eye-lid was swollen and bluish in colour.Conjunctive of both the eyes were congested.(iii) Three linear scratches running along the length of upper limb situated in the middle of lateral aspect of left forearm.Each was a line's width, carrying in length from 3 to 6 cms.These were parallel to each other.Each was situated at 1 c.m. distance from the closer one.The viscera was sent by Dr. Sahay (PW-4), the Doctor conductingautopsy, for chemical examination and it suggested the presence ofbarbiturate and alcohol.The cause of death, according to Dr. Sahay (PW-4), was due to Gardenal poisoning.Ultimately, the body was cremated on17.5.1984 in the evening.Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) and his wife GeetaBattacharya (PW-3) returned to Calcutta and thereafter, Subbash Dass(PW-5), a servant of the deceased, also reached Calcutta after some days.He raised agenuine doubt as to whether the death was a suicidal or homicidal death.The investigation was transferred to CBCID and was continued by S. 12Shanmugasundaram (CW-3), the Inspector of Police, CID Branch,Pondicherry.On 30.5.1984, Subbash Dass (PW-5) was threatened at Calcutta bythe brother of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and, therefore, he was entrusted byDr.V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.This judgment will govern Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 2001, filed byone Sonali Mukherjee, original accused No. 1 (hereinafter called "A-1" forshort), who stood convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, 2Pondicherry and Madras High Court and Criminal Appeal Nos. 835-836 of2002 filed by one Dr. Battacharya, the father of one Biswajit (deceased),challenging the acquittal of one Assadid Poddar (respondent No. 2 inCriminal Appeal Nos. 835-836 of 2002), original accused No. 2 (hereinaftercalled "A-2" for short) by the Madras High Court, as also modification of theconviction of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) from Section 302 of the Indian PenalCode (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) to Section 304 Part (I) IPCand imposing lesser sentence.Both Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and Assadid Poddar (A-2) were tried onthe allegation that both of them had developed illegal intimacy betweenthem, as a result of which, they (the accused persons) committed murderof Biswajit (deceased), who was the husband of appellant SonaliMukherjee, at Pondicherry.Both of them were convicted by the SessionsJudge, however, the appeal filed by Assadid Poddar (A-2) was allowed bythe Madras High Court and he was acquitted.The High Court alsoacquitted Sonali Mukherjee of the offence under Section 302 but convictedher for the offence under Section 304 Part I, IPC.This prosecution arose out of a private complaint by PW-1 Dr.Battacharya (appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 835-836 of 2002), thefather of the deceased.It was through him that Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) cameto know that barbiturate tablets were consumed by the deceased, with theknowledge of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and Assadid Poddar (A-2) and thatA-1 and A-2 had illicit relationship, which was objected to by the deceased.On that day, after closing the shop, the said witness went tothe house of the deceased and he was informed by Sonali Mukherjee (A-1)that they had to go to Madras on the next day.He was also told that if thedeceased does not arrive from Calcutta, then Sonali Mukherjee (A-1),herself, would go to Calcutta, since the deceased was spending all his timein the company of prostitutes.According to Subbash Dass (PW-5), he hadrefused to go.However, on the next day, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) insistedon Subbash Dass (PW-5) to accompany her to Madras.Therefore,Subbash Dass (PW-5), Sonali Mukherjee (A-1), Assadid Poddar (A-2) andone Subir, reached Madras at 5.30 p.m. and went to the Railway Station.There, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) again told Subbash Dass (PW-5) that if thedeceased does not arrive by Coromandel Express, she would herself go toCalcutta on the next morning.Coromandel Express arrived a little late andthe deceased did come out from the train.When he reached the gate ofthe Station, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) went to him and began to cry in 8presence of Assadid Poddar (A-2) and others.A Police personnelintervened, however, the deceased said that it was a domestic matter andthey returned to the hotel.Then, Assadid Poddar (A-2) engaged a taxi at the instance of thedeceased and all of them started for Pondicherry.Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) ,the deceased and Assadid Poddar (A-2) sat in the rear seat, whileSubbash Dass (PW-5) sat in the front with the driver.On the way,Subbash Dass (PW-5) heard a cry of pain and he turned back only to findSonali Mukherjee (A-1) burning the left arm of deceased with the lightedcigarette end.When Subbash Dass (PW-5) tried to stop it, SonaliMukherjee (A-1) asked him not to look behind and just sit in the front.Ultimately, they reached Pondicherry, released the taxi and entered thehouse.Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and the deceased went to the bedroom,while Assadid Poddar (A-2) and Subbash Dass (PW-5) remained outside.Subbash Dass (PW-5) could hear cries from inside the room and when hewas about to knock, Assadid Poddar (A-2) prevented him, saying that itwas a matter between husband and wife.He heard a loud cry and,therefore, he kicked the door and the door opened.He entered the roomand found that the deceased was lying on the bed with face downwards.There were pieces of cut hair on the bed alongwith a hair brush and a wireand Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) was beating the deceased with a piece of 9antenna wire.When Subbash Dass (PW-5) tried to stop, he was alsobeaten by wire.Subbash Dass (PW-5) found swelling on the back of thedeceased.He also found the parts of mustaches and cropped pieces ofhair lying on the floor.After sometime, deceased got up to go to thebathroom.He was staggering and hence, Subbash Dass (PW-5) tried tohelp him, but deceased refused his help.Afterwards, Subbash Dass (PW-5) heard a sound of crying from inside the bathroom.Since the deceaseddid not come out for considerable time, Subbash Dass (PW-5) put his armon the top of the partition wall between the bathroom and lavatory andfound the deceased standing and crying.He found that door was notbolted but simply closed and, therefore, he opened the door and broughtthe deceased to his bedroom, when he found Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) andAssadid Poddar (A-2) talking to each other.He made deceased lie on thebed.Subbash Dass(PW-5) asked the deceased whether he should fetch a Doctor.Deceasedrefused, however, Subbash Dass (PW-5) had fetched a Doctor.AssadidPoddar (A-2) came from behind and said that there was no need to call aDoctor.When Subbash Dass (PW-5) ultimately returned, he found A-1 andA-2 in the room and the deceased was lying in an unconscious state andsome white things like pieces of white tablets were coming out of hismouth.Subbash Dass (PW-5) found a phial.He showed it to AssadidPoddar (A-2), who said that it was poison.Therefore, some salt water wasgiven by Subbash Dass (PW-5) to the deceased.The deceased vomitedsome small broken and whole pieces of tablets.Subbash Dass (PW-5)insisted on calling a Doctor, hence, Assadid Poddar (A-2) went to thehouse of Dr. Datta.Assadid Poddar (A-2) had gone to the Doctor withphial, while Subbash Dass (PW-5) went in search of father and mother ofAssadid Poddar (A-2).Doctor also said that it was a poison and askedAssadid Poddar (A-2) to shift the deceased to JIPMER Hospital.Theywent to the Hospital together.The Senior Doctor, who came, pronouncedthe deceased as `dead'.Hence, a medical officer lodged an FIR D-47 at3.30 hrs., reporting the death that the deceased had swallowed about 100tablets.It was thereafter that the dead body was sent to mortuary.ThenSonali Mukherjee (A-1), Assadid Poddar (A-2) and Subbash Dass (PW-5)returned back.When they returned home, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) andAssadid Poddar (A-2) asked the maid servant to clean the room.Whenfather of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) arrived, Subbash Dass (PW-5) began toexplain everything and he was told that he should not tell anything to thepolice.Then on 20.5.1984, the elder brother of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) 11arrived and again Subbash Dass (PW-5) was tutored that he should notsay about what had happened.He was kept under lock by the family ofSonali Mukherjee (A-1) and was threatened by the brother of SonaliMukherjee (A-1) that he would be beaten, if he tried to escape, however,he managed to run away and reached the police station.On the sameday, he reached Madras and boarded the Howrah Madras Mail andreached Calcutta and met Dr. Battacharya and narrated the whole storyleading to the death of Biswajit.In the meantime, on 21.5.1984, the provisional post mortemcertificate was sent by Dr. Sahay (PW-4), wherein it was stated that thecause of death may be homicidal because of the injuries which were notself-inflicted.The investigation at this stage was shifted to Ramalingam(CW-1) and ultimately, the original chargesheet for offence under Section174 Cr.P.C. was altered into Section 302 IPC.CW-1 then proceeded withthe investigation.A letter was sent by Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) to theSenior Superintendent of Police on 26.5.1984, wondering if there wastrace of foul play.Again one letterwas written to CW-1, bringing to his knowledge, the information receivedby Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) from Subbash Dass (PW-5).Battacharya (PW-1) to the care of one Sarogi.The same was alsoforwarded to S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3), the Investigating Officer.CW-3 found that the bottle, which contained the Gardenal tablets, waspurchased at Calcutta.He, therefore, went to Calcutta for furtherinvestigation and after thorough investigation, CW-3 concluded that fromthe material available, no offence under Section 302 IPC could be madeagainst the accused, however, the only charge that could be made wasunder Section 306 IPC.However, he was of the opinion that SonaliMukherjee (A-1) should be prosecuted for offence under Section 324 IPCfor causing injuries to the deceased, as also under Section 309 IPC forattempting to commit suicide.Accordingly, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) waschargesheeted.This was informed to Dr. Battacharya (PW-1).On22.3.1985, final order came to be pronounced in aforementioned CalenderCase No. 4 of 1985, whereupon Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) pleaded guilty tothe charges and instead of convicting her, she was released under Section 134(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act on executing a bond for Rs.500/-.When all this was known by Dr. Battacharya (PW-1), he filed a complainton 21.6.1985, in which he made all the aforementioned allegations.After the complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate(CJM), Pondicherry on 21.6.1985, the CJM committed it to the Court ofSessions Judge.In all, five witnesses wereexamined on behalf of the prosecution, while four witnesses wereexamined as Court witnesses.The defence also led some evidence and on the basisof all the evidence, the two accused came to be convicted by the SessionsJudge for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34IPC and were sentenced to undergo the life imprisonment.A fine ofRs.100/- was also imposed upon, in default of which, they were to undergoimprisonment of one more month.As has been stated earlier, the appeal was filed before the MadrasHigh Court, wherein Assadid Poddar (A-2) came to be acquitted, while theconviction in case of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) was modified to one underSection 304 (I) IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment under Section302 IPC was set aside and lesser sentence of nine years' rigorousimprisonment under Section 304 Part (I) IPC was awarded.While Sonali 14Mukherjee (A-1) has challenged her conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 673of 2001, the original complainant Dr. Battacharya, by filing two separateappeals, has challenged the verdict of the High Court, converting theconviction of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) from the offence under Section 302 toSection 304 Part (I), as also the total acquittal of Assadid Poddar (A-2).Allthese appeals are now before us for consideration.Facts can be more fanciful than fiction and that was the case in thisprosecution, as also in appeal.Here was a case, where according to theprosecution, Biswajit (deceased), who was a teenager, got infatuated bySonali Mukherjee (A-1).So much so that his parents got worried, as inthose initial days of infatuation, he was neither a major nor had hecompleted his education.He was, therefore, sent to USA, wherefrom hecame back and got married to Sonali Mukherjee (A-1).Sonali Mukherjee(A-1) pleaded in her examination that she was married to the deceasedeven when she had not obtained separation (probably meaning, divorce)from her husband Aloke Sarkar, with whom she was already married.There does not seem to be any serious dispute about the relationsbetween Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and the deceased prior to her marriage,but it is clear from the evidence of Dr. Battacharya (PW-1), as also GeetaBattacharya (PW-3) that there was a love affair between Sonali Mukherjee(A-1) and Biswajit (deceased) and the parents, i.e., Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) 15and Geeta Battacharya (PW-3) had initially not approved of the same.It isafter her marriage that Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and the deceased came toPondicherry after a brief stay at Bombay and Cochin.According to theprosecution story, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) developed illegal intimacy withAssadid Poddar (A-2) and probably as a result of the same, committedmurder of Biswajit.Before proceeding, it would, therefore, be necessary toexamine as to whether Biswajit (deceased) died a homicidal death.Biswajit (deceased) was brought to JIPMER Hospital and theDoctors declared him "brought dead".We have already referred to theinternal and external injuries in the earlier part of this judgment, therefore,we need not repeat them.Fact of the matter is that there were seven burnmarks on the left upper arm.Secondly, his left upper eye-lid was swollenand bluish in colour and thirdly, there were three linear scratches alongwiththe length of upper limb of his left forearm.In the final opinion given by the Doctor in thepost mortem examination, which was after the examination of viscera, itwas suggested that his viscera contained barbiturate, as also alcohol.Evidence of Dr. Sibal, who was examined as Court Witness (CW) No. 4, 16does not help the prosecution for the reason that he had refused to identifythe initials Dr. Shyam Mohan on Exhibit C-1, which was the first documentrelating to Biswajit's death.Exhibit D-55 is the report by the CausalityMedical Officer and it was at 3.50 a.m. on 16.5.1984, allegedly signed byDr.Shyam Mohan, whose signatures were refused to be identified by Dr.Sibal (CW-4).According to the opinion ofDr.Sahay (PW-4), the death was caused as a result of ingestion ofbarbiturate.He also deposed thatbarbiturate should have dissolved in alcohol and that the presence ofalcohol aggravates the action of barbiturate.A very important statementhas come in his evidence that:-"Normally, one cannot distinguish between homicidal poisoning and suicidal poisoning."In his remark, he had suggested that it might have been homicidal,since there were injuries on the body of the deceased, which arosesuspicion.He admitted in his cross examination that from October, 1964,for three years, he was not allowed to conduct post mortem examination,as those were conducted by the Pathology Department.A very interesting 17answer comes to the effect that because he was following the righteouspath, though there were no charges against him, he was not allowed to dopost mortem examination.He, however, admitted that though after initialdenial, he appeared before the Medical Board and he was asked by theBoard to take treatment in the Psychiatric Department.He further deposedthat he did not know whether the Board certified that he suffered fromParanoid Schzopherenia.He was put a direct question that before heconducted the post mortem, he was suffering from hallucination andillusion, which he denied.He further denied that the description of theinjuries given by him was illusory and that Dr. Baruva had instructed him totake special interest in this case.He, however, admitted that Dr. Baruvatold him the family history of the deceased.He was confronted with hisearlier statements made to the police that he took interest in this case,which he denied.He, however, admitted that Dr. Baruva, who was astudent of Dr. Battacharya (PW-1), though had made a statement that he(Dr.Sahay) had handed over the viscera to Dr. Bala Subramaniam, hedenied the fact, but admitted that he might have accompanied the staff.Inhis further cross examination, he asserted that the injuries were anti-mortem and gave the reason therefore, however, admitted that the quantityof barbiturate was not mentioned, as it was not possible to mention thequantity.He further 18expressed his inability to fix the duration of injuries as the case was oldand he was not having the records.He was given a direct suggestion thatin order to oblige Dr. Baruva, he had mentioned in Exhibit P-22 that it wasa homicidal death.He was confronted with the original of Exhibit P-22 andhe admitted that the words "may be homicidal" were the additions made.This was after he was made to say that he should be careful in insertionsand deletions in post mortem certificate.To the specific question thatminus these words, Exhibit P-22 would be different, his answer was that:-"It is for you to decide."One more contradiction was put to him to the following effect:-"I mentioned as homicidal, it does not mean, it is a murder.It indicates that the injuries found on the body of Biswajit were not self-inflicted.In other words, the injuries were caused by other persons which is technically called as homicidal injuries."Further statement made by him was also put to him, which is to theeffect:-In other words, it may be suicidal also.It is difficult to explain the difference between homicidal poisoning and suicidal poisoning."He was then confronted with his following statements:-All these statements were got proved by the defence in theexamination of the witness S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3) who wasSuperintendent of Police, South Pondicherry and at the relevant time, wasInspector of police.He was the one, who recorded the statement of Dr.Sahay (PW-4).All the aforementioned statements were got proved fromhim.The evidence of these two witnesses and more particularly, theDoctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, puts us on guard.Theevidence of Dr. Sahay (PW-4) very clearly suggests that the Doctor wasnot himself certain as to whether the death by poisoning was homicidal.Inhis evidence, he specifically admitted that it was very difficult todifferentiate between suicidal poisoning and homicidal poisoning.Wemust note that the Doctor has not given any specific reason to support hisdeduction that the death might have been homicidal.On the other hand,his evidence in the Court was riddled with contradictions, whichcontradictions were got proved through the police officer, who recorded hisstatement.They are very substantial contradictions.It was suggestedfirstly that this Doctor was himself a mental patient.We of course, cannotsay as to whether at the time when he conducted the post mortem, he 20continued to be a mental patient of Paranoid Schzopherenia, but hehimself admitted that he was asked by the Medical Board to take thetreatment for mental disease.Secondly, he appears to be extremely fickleminded.His evidence does not create any confidence.He came as anexpert witness and he had no explanation as to why he had expressed thatit could be a suicidal poisoning.We do not give much importance to thesuggestion by the defence that here was a witness, who was asked by Dr.Baruva to take interest in the matter.It will be too far-fetched to hold that itwas because of the intervention of Dr. Baruva that the witness took the so-called interest in the post mortem.Further upon a basic fact as to whetherthe poisoning was suicidal or homicidal, much better evidence wasexpected from the prosecution.The witness has not explainedalso.This puts us on guard.His damaging statements made, which wehave quoted above, were got proved, wherein he had made somesuspicious and casual statements like though he had mentioned it ashomicidal poisoning, he did not mean that it was a murder.Therefore, thecircumstance that the Gardenal tablets were purchased from Calcutta,does not help the prosecution.On this backdrop, when we examine the prosecution case, it isshrouded in confusion.On the other hand, the prosecution specificallycontends or at least seems to contend that the tablets were not taken byBiswajit accidentally.Now there remain only two possibilities, one, that thetablets having been swallowed by Biswajit himself; and second, theaccused persons putting the tablets into the mouth of Biswajitsurreptitiously or under some pretext or forcibly.But the number had to be substantial otherwise Biswajit would not havedied because of the swallowing of those tablets.Of course, it has come inthe evidence of the doctors that alcohol might have aggravated the effect 23of barbiturate and the barbiturate was soluble in alcohol.It is nobody'scase and, more particularly, that of Subbash Dass (PW-5) that there wasany drinking activity after the accused persons and the deceased cameback from Madras.There does not appear to be any evidence on recordsuggesting the availability of the alcohol in that room at the relevant timeand that the deceased was so inebriated that he had lost all his control andcould be made to do anything including swallowing of the tablets.On the other hand, the evidence of Subbash Dass (PW-5) suggeststhat Biswajit was crying and he was conscious in the sense that he was notimmobilized at that time.The injuries were onthe other parts of the body and they were extremely insignificant injuries.For that matter, if we accept the evidence of Subbash Dass (PW-5) on the aspect as to what exactly happened on that night in that room,then there would be no other view possible excepting to exonerate AssadidPoddar (A-2) at least insofar as the introduction of the tablets to Biswajit isconcerned.The witness very clearly says that all the time till the door wasclosed, Assadid Poddar (A-2) was outside and it was only SonaliMukherjee (A-1), who was with Biswajit."I did not tell the police Inspector Ramalingam of Muthialpet, Cirol that when I scaled the wall which separates the latrine from the bathroom, I found that Biswajit was slanting on the wall, holding a plastic mug in one hand and a plastic container in the other hand."The witness Ramalingam in his evidence admitted in the followingwords:"Subhash Bhattacharya told me that he climbed over the wall and peeped through the opening to see inside the latrine and saw Biswajit slanting on the wall of the latrine holding a plastic mug in one hand and a small plastic container in his other hand."This witness was specifically asked about the condition of Biswajit when heforced open the door.He asserted that in the following words:But he was weeping, crying, when he was going.It is not correct to say that he was normal when he was going to the bathroom.He was swaying from side to side.He was holding on to things on his left hand side and he, then, entered the bathroom which was on his right hand side."This suggests that even at that time, which was much after thecouple entered the room for the first time, that Biswajit was not only alivebut he was in a position even to refuse anybody's help to go to thebathroom.The only other possibility left is that BIswajit wasforcibly made to swallow the tablets.We have already looked into themedical evidence for that purpose and more particularly, the injuries on thebody of Biswajit (deceased).The injuries are not suggestive of forcefuladministration.The injuries are of three types.Firstly, there are sevenburn marks, which according to Subbash Dass (PW-5), were given bySonali Mukherjee (A-1) when they were traveling from Chennai toPondicherry in a car.These burn marks cannot have any nexus with the 29swallowing of 100 tablets forcefully.Second injury is left upper eye-lid wasfound swollen and bluish in colour.Even this injury has nothing to do andcould not be connected with the forcible swallowing.Then there are threelinear scratches on the left forearm.Obviously, these injuries would havenothing to do with the forcible administration of tablets to Biswajit.Verysignificantly, there are no injuries on the mouth or cheek of Biswajit, whichwe would have expected if there was a theory of forcible ingestion of thetablets.The prosecution has no evidence whatsoever, nor did theprosecution suggest that the tablets were fed by some trick like, firstly,dissolving the tablets in alcohol and then giving that alcoholic drink toBiswajit (deceased).The theory of mixing thetablets in the drink gets further blow, inasmuch as, when Biswajit wasmade to vomit by Subbash Dass (PW-5) by giving him the lukewarm water,he actually vomited the broken and intact tablets.Therefore, one thing iscertain that Biswajit had swallowed the tablets straightaway without mixingor dissolving the said tablets in any other drink.There is enough evidenceto the effect that when Biswajit vomited, some half broken tablets came outfrom his mouth.In fact, only on that basis, it was deduced by SubbashDass (PW-5) that Biswajit had swallowed certain tablets and from a phial,which he took to Dr. Datta, who told him and Assadid Poddar (A-2) that the 30tablets were poison and on that basis, Biswajit was also advised to beshifted to the hospital.At this juncture, it will be helpful to see the evidence of SubbashDass (PW-5) in details.He is the only witness at Pondicherry, whosuggested that Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) had illicit intimacy with AssadidPoddar (A-2) and she used to share Assadid Poddar's bed during theabsence of Biswajit.In his evidence, Subbash Dass (PW-5)asserted that from 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. on 16.5.1984, Sonali Mukherjee (A-1)was alone with Biswajit and at 3 a.m., when he entered the room bykicking the door, he found Biswajit crying.The witness has asserted thatthere was bleeding on Biswajit's back and there was also swallowing.If at 3 a.m., Biswajit could write something and tell 31this witness to reach the letter to his father and further to see that his deadbody is not removed before his father's arrival, then it cannot be deniedthat Biswajit was alive at 3 a.m. The witness saw the further happeningsfor some time, waited for about 10-15 minutes, when he found Biswajitunconscious.The witness also goes on to say that Biswajit was moved toHospital and he was declared dead at 3.50 a.m.The claim of this witness that Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and AssadidPoddar (A-2) had asked the maid-servant to clean the room and sweepaway everything that was in the room, appears to be far-fetched for thesimple reason that even Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) admittedly was in thehospital and was under the treatment because she had attempted tocommit suicide while the presence of Assadid Poddar (A-2) in the house ofSonali Mukherjee (A-1) and the deceased in their absence was notprobable.The sinister silence of this witness speaks volumes against him.According to him, he was questioned by Ramalingam (CW-1) on 20.5.1984and he was instructed by the relatives of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) not tospeak out the things to Ramalingam (CW-1).Then hemade a fantastic claim that he was kept under the lock and key and hewas beaten.It is ridiculous that he could escape easily by the backdoorand in that attempt, he was tried to be assaulted by Sonali Mukherjee (A-1)by bonti (an instrument for cutting vegetables).He further claimed that he 32had reached Howrah somewhere on 23.5.1984 and went to the father ofBiswajit and narrated all the events that had happened.Even there inCalcutta, he was accosted by Rana (the brother of A-1), who threatenedhim.Thereafter, he interacted with Sarogi, who was admittedly the patientof Dr. Battacharya (PW-1).He is said to have remained with Sarogi andthat is how Exhibit P-23, the original affidavit, is said to have come intoexistence.Subbash Dass (PW-5) admitted in his evidence that he had neverspoken about Sonali Mukherejee (A-1) and Assadid Poddar (A-2)occupying the same bedroom.In the later part of his cross-examination,he also denied to have told the police that Biswajit frowned at SubirMajumdar because Biswajit knew that Subir had divulged to SonaliMukherjee (A-1) that Biswajit had an amorous affair with one Anju Singh inCalcutta.His evidence is replete with contradictions and omissions, whichcontradictions and omissions have been proved by Ramalingam (CW-1),as well as, S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3).In fact, he had told the policein his statement about Subir's narration to Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) aboutBiswajit's spending nights with one Anju Singh and further about he beingin the company of one Tara, which he denied in evidence.All thesecontradictions have been proved thoroughly.Even about the mainincident, his whole evidence is full of contradictions and omissions, which 33are of a very substantial nature.His interaction with Sarogi, who ran a detective agency atthe instance of Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) appears to be extremelysuspicious.He did not even remember the name of the person in Ashramwith whom he had gone to the Police Station in Pondicherry.In short, allthe statements made in the Court were found admittedly not to have beenstated to Ramalingam (CW-1).All this evidence is in the question andanswer form.The whole texture of the evidence is extremely coarse andin our opinion, the witness was not liable to be believed at all.Same thing goes about the evidence of Dr. Battacharya (PW-1), whoinitiated this prosecution.His evidence about the illegal intimacy betweenA-1 and A-2 was all hearsay.He had seen nothing.His further evidencein examination-in-chief could not have been allowed to be brought onrecord because he was admittedly not present on the spot, where theincident took place.It is his contention that it was on 24.5.1984 thatSubbash Dass (PW-5) narrated the whole incident to him.Since hisevidence is only inferential, it will be of no use to the prosecution.All thephotographs like D-1 to D-4 belie his claim that he was not aware of therelation between Biswajit and Sonali Mukherjee (A-1).The tone of letters 34written by PW-1 suggests that parents of Biswajit have accepted hismarriage and everything was alright with them.Even if everything in hisevidence is accepted, all the letters written by him belie the claim made bythe witness that Biswajit was murdered.It is for the first time that he toldthat he came to know from the Ashram people that there was illegalintimacy between Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and Assadid Poddar (A-2).However, in his letter Exhibit D-28, he does not seem to havereferred to any such illegal intimacy, which was extremely strange.Hiscomplete silence in the letter Exhibit P-12 dated 26.5.1984 about hishaving been told by Subbash Dass (PW-5) about the happenings, raisesdoubts.He clearly admitted that when he wrote the letter Exhibit P-12, hewas not sure whether the death of Biswajit was homicidal or suicidal.Hemade an assertion that the Police officers, investigating the case, stayed inthe flat belonging to the family of A-1, which was flatly denied by both thepolice officers, namely, Ramalingam (CW-1) and S. Shanmugasundaram(CW-3).The witness was candid in accepting hisrelationship with Sarogi.It is obvious that Exhibits P-10 and P-12 were the 35wild guesses made and therein some suspicious statements have beenmade which belie the claim that this was a murder.The witness went tothe extent of saying that he had not given any statements to Ramalingam(CW-1) or S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3).On that basis, thewitness refused to answer any question about his having made anydisclosures to S. Shanmugasundaram (CW-3).In short, the evidence ofDr.Battacharya (PW-1) does not inspire any confidence and has to berejected.That leaves us with the other witnesses like Dr. Baker Fenn (PW-2),and Geetha Battacharya (PW-3), the wife of Dr. Battacharya (PW-1) andthe mother of the deceased, which is of no use.Evidence of PW-3 relatesto as to how Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and Biswajit came closer.She hasvery specifically admitted that they (she and her husband - PW-1) hadaccepted Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) as their daughter-in-law.Her claimsregarding Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) and Assadid Poddar (A-2) dependedonly on one circumstance that Assadid Poddar (A-2) was seen in thehouse with flowers, gifts and photos of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) forcelebrating the birthday of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1).Her evidence does not really take the prosecution any further.Having discussed all these witnesses, we are of the firm opinion thatthe whole prosecution rests on suspicions and it is trite law that meresuspicion is not enough to convict the accused persons.In fact, in this case, the whole basis of the complaint was thedishonest investigation on the part of Ramalingam (CW-1) and S.Shanmugasundaram (CW-3).Seeing their evidence closely, we do notthink that such an inference was possible.He was alwaysunder the thumb of Dr. Battacharya (PW-1), as well as, his friend Sarogi,with whom the witness admittedly lived and served for some time.This takes us to the appeal against the acquittal of Sonali Mukherjee(A-1) for offence under Section 302 IPC and Assadid Poddar (A-2) of allthe offences.The appeal against acquittal of Sonali Mukherjee (A-1) isdismissed in view of her total acquittal.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.
|
10,297,890 |
The allegation against petitioner Prashant Tiwari is that he asked witnesses to alleged forged will namely Gendalal and Vikas, to sign the same.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case.Krishana Bai had no stakes in the house of Chandra Khare because she was not related to her in any manner.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge ahd Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD Date: 2018.06.27 05:05:36 -07'00'Since both the miscellaneous criminal cases have arisen from the same crime number, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.Heard on these first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Prashan @ Tamantu Tiwari and Pankaj Bairagi in crime no.172/2018 registered by P.S.- Kotwali, District- Hoshangabad under Sections 448, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C.As per the prosecution case, one Chandra Khare died intestates without leaving any heir behind her.First informant Krishana Bai used to work as a maid at her house.Krishana Bai lodged first information report to the effect that after the death of Chandra Khare on 19.4.2017, petitioners Pankaj Bairagi and Prashant @ Tamantu Tiwari have taken possession of her house and have led it to one Ahsaan.Petitioners Pankaj Bairagi and Prashant @ Tamantu Tiwari have stated that Chandra Khare had THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Misc.Criminal Case No.13632/2018 Prashant @ Tamantu Tiwari Vs.State of M.P.Criminal Case No.17553/2018 Pankaj Bairagi Vs.State of M.P.executed a will in favour of petitioner Pankaj Bairagi and therefore, petitioner Pankaj Bairagi had become the owner of the house after the death of Chandra Bai Khare.The charge sheet in the matter has been filed.Petitioners Prashant @ Tamantu Tiwari has been in custody since 18.3.2018 and petitioner Pankaj Bairagi has been in custody since 24.4.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioners be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that petitioner Prashant @ Tamantu Tiwari is a habitual offender and there are as many as 30 criminal cases registered against him.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, these first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Pankaj Bairagi and Prashant @ Tamantu Tiwari, are allowed.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Misc.Criminal Case No.13632/2018 Prashant @ Tamantu Tiwari Vs.State of M.P.Criminal Case No.17553/2018 Pankaj Bairagi Vs.State of M.P.It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,980,742 |
The incident was witnessed by various persons of the locality but accused persons escaped from the spot unleashing reign of terror.Accused respondents are now roaming freely and extending threat to life of petitioner(complainant) and his family members.Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to ensure fair and impartial investigation in Case Crime No.250 of 2020 under Sections147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station-Mau Aima, District-Prayagraj.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had lodged FIR on 06.05.2020 against named accused persons, who have been arrayed as respondent nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 namely, Mohd. Javed, Naved, Tanveer and Sonu respectively.The incident occured on 06.05.2020 for which FIR was lodged on the same day for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC and case was registered as Case Crime No.250 of 2020 against the accused-respondents, who had fired upon complainant's nephew, resulting into serious injuries over his abdomen.Even the statements of injured and complainant have not been recorded till date.Thus, investigation of the case is going on in snail's pace and hence petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondent authorities for speedy investigation.The respondent authorities are under bounden duty to carry out fair and unbiased investigation within the shortest possible time.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,298,358 |
The application is hereby allowed.In the event of the arrest of the applicant GAJANAN S/O. HARI BELDAR in connection with Crime No. Crime No.29 of 2020 registered with Bodwad Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offence punishable under sections 354, 354-A, 448, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, he be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/-(Rs.Fifteen Thousand) with one surety of the like aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2020 23:44:36 :::5 ABA 550.2020.odt amount on the following conditions :-a] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 8 am to 11 am till fling of the charge-sheet.( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2020 23:44:36 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
10,299,255 |
In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.Heard, learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.This is first application, under section 438 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of anticipatory bail.With the aforesaid submissions prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is made.In response, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the anticipatory bail application and prays for its rejection.The application, accordingly, stands rejected.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTAV A 2020.09.18 18:50:59 +05'30'
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,030,021 |
a)P.Ws.1 and 2 are the wife and sister respectively of the deceased andthey are eye-witnesses to the occurrence.P.W.1 deposed that the accused and thedeceased belong to the same village and the deceased was working with the firstaccused for two months prior to the occurrence and since the salary given by theaccused was insufficient, the deceased went for employment with some otherperson and on account of that, there was enmity between the first accused andthe deceased and ten days prior to the occurrence, the deceased was arrested andsent to jail in a prohibition case.During the absence of the deceased, therewas a wordy quarrel between P.W.1/wife of the deceased and the appellant and onthe same being reported to the deceased on release from prison, the deceasedquestioned the accused and under such circumstances, on 13.02.1996 at 5.30 p.m.when P.W.1 was standing in the bus stand along with P.W.2 and the deceased, allthe three accused came there, A-1 with wooden log assaulted the deceased on thechest and when the deceased fell down, A-2 stamped him on the chest while A-3with wooden log assaulted the deceased on the head and backside of the neck.Theaccused, after threatening P.W.1, ran away from the scene of occurrence.Thereafter, with the help of a police jeep, the deceased was taken to theMedical College Hospital, Palayamkottai, and on examination of the deceased, theMedical Officer declared him dead.The Head Constable, who accompanied P.W.1recorded her statement under Ex.d)P.W.5, Jeep driver deposed that on the request of P.W.1, he took thedeceased to the Hospital.e)P.Ws.4 and 6, who were examined to speak about motive part of theprosecution case and the enmity between the accused and the deceased did notsupport the case of the prosecution, therefore, they were treated as hostile.f)P.W.12, Head Constable, in his evidence, stated that he was travellingin the Jeep driven by P.W.5, on 13.02.1996 and at Anandanambi Kurichi Bus stopon hearing the noise of P.W.1, he enquired P.W.1 and took the deceased who wasin unconscious condition in the Jeep to the Medical College Hospital,Palayamkottai at 7 p.m. At 8 pm., the Medical Officer/P.W.14 on examination ofthe deceased, declared him dead, whereupon, P.W.12, received thecomplaint/Ex.P.4 at 7.00a.m., took up investigation and reached the Medical College Hospital,Tirunelveli where he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in thepresence of panchayatars and witnesses.Ex.P.12 is the Inquest Report.At thescene of occurrence, he prepared observation mahazor and rough sketch Exs.P.2and 13 respectively.He sent the dead body through the Head Constable P.W.11with a requisition/Ex.P.9 to the Medical Officer to conduct post-mortem.h)P.W.9, the Medical Officer, on receipt of the requisition from theInvestigating Officer, conducted post-mortem at 1.15 a.m on 14.12.1996 andissued post-mortem certificate Ex.Fracture of posterior cranial fossa of base of skull on the right andleft sideHeart: All Chambers contained a little bloodLungs:Cut section congestedHyoid bone: IntactStomach: EmptyMucosa: NormalLiver:Spleen and kidneys: Cut section congestedBladder: EmptyBrain : Cut section congested and oedematous"The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multipleinjuries.i)P.W.11, Head Constable, recovered M.Os.1 to 3, the bloodstained clothsof the deceased and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police.j)P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, on coming to know about the surrenderof the accused before Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, took them into policecustody on 04.03.1996. A-1 gave voluntary confession statement and theadmissible portion thereof is marked as Ex.In pursuance of the same, theInvestigating Officer recovered wooden logs M.Os.4 to 6 under Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.REGUPATHI, J.) Among three accused in the case, who are brothers; the appellant is A-1and the accused were charged under Section 302 read with 34 IPC by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, inS.C.No.47/98 on the allegation that on 13.02.1996 at 5.30 p.m. A-1 to A-3, withan intention to finish off the deceased, attacked the deceased, in that, A-1beat the deceased with wooden log on the chest and A-2 stamped him on the chestand stomach while A-3 beat him with wooden log on the thigh, hand and rearportion of head with the result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries at 8p.m.The learned trial Judge, on conclusion of the trial, by order dated07.11.2002, acquitted A-2 and A-3 however convicted A-1, the appellant herein,for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced himto undergo imprisonment for life.Aggrieved against the order of conviction andsentence, the present appeal has been preferred.After reaching thepolice station, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.26 of 1996 for the offencepunishable under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the FIR/Ex.P.4 to the Court andcopies thereof to the superior officials.g)P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of copy of Ex.P.10, wherein, he noticed the following:-"Injuries:1.Abrasions: 2x1 cm on the left shoulder, 4x2cm on the front of right knee;2.On dissection of Thorax:Fracture of 5th to 8th rib on the left side in its back portion withbruising of surrounding tissues.3.On Dissection of head:Bruising of inner aspect of tissue of scalp on the right side of occipitalregion.P.15.Thereafter, the accused were sent to judicial custody.k)The recovered material objects were despatched to the Court along withrequisition under Ex.P.5 to send the same for forensic examination.P.7 and8 are chemical analysis and serological reports respectively.The InvestigatingOfficer, after examining the witnesses and receiving medical and forensicopinions, concluded the investigation and on 15.05.1996, laid final reportagainst the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.3.The learned trial Judge, with reference to the oral and documentaryevidence adduced by the prosecution, questioned the accused under Section 313Cr.P.C., for which, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleadedinnocence.No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the defence.4.The learned trial Judge, after assessing the materials placed andconsidering the arguments advanced by both sides, convicted and sentenced theappellant/1st accused as stated supra; hence, he has come up with the presentappeal.5.Learned counsel for the appellant states that A-2 and A-3 were acquittedby the trial Court since there was no direct motive alleged as against them,though it has been stated that they are brothers of the appellant.He submitsthat there was no corresponding injury to the overt act attributed to A-1 by theeye witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and for the purpose of convicting the appellant, thetrial Court relied on the evidence of those highly interested witnesses andtheir testimonies suffer from contradictions.6.It is submitted that the motive put forth, viz., due to the quarrelbetween the appellant and the wife of the deceased, on release from jail, hequestioned the appellant which resulted in the occurrence, seems to be veryflimsy on the face of it and further, even if that be so, the role played by thedeceased in reacting and quarreling with the accused has been totallysuppressed.Further, the place where the occurrence is said to have taken placebeing Bus-stand, the prosecution did not take pains to examine any independentwitness conveniently with a view to suit its case and project it through P.Ws.1and 2 with their own version.7.Learned counsel next submits that even if the testimonies of eyewitnesses/P.Ws.1 and 2 are accepted and acted upon the offence alleged underSection 302 IPC is not made out since, according to the prosecution, theappellant delivered only a single blow on the chest of the deceased.Though itis stated that another injury caused on the head of the deceased is alsoresponsible for the death of the deceased, the co-accused in the case wasacquitted by the trial Court.Ultimately, by submitting that the prosecutionversion that the appellant intentionally committed the offence is not proved, itis pleaded that he may be convicted for a lesser offence.L.J 3673(1)iii)In Chuttan and others Vs.8.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by pointing out thatthe occurrence took place at 5.30 p.m. and the deceased was taken to thehospital and declared dead at 8 p.m. and thereafter, the complaint lodged byP.W.1 and attested by P.W.2 was registered by the police at 8.15 p.m. wouldsubmit that the case was taken on file without any loss of time and delay.Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are consistent insofar as the overt actsattributed to the appellant is concerned.It was the appellant, who wasinimically disposed of towards the deceased and, accompanied by other accused,caused fatal injury on the chest resulting in the death of the deceased.Theocular testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 is well corroborated by medical evidence aswell as other contemporaneous materials.9.We have meticulously perused the materials available on record in thelight of the rival submissions made on either side.10.The deceased was working as an employee with the appellant/firstaccused.There arose quarrel and dispute between the appellant and the deceasedsince the deceased refused to work with him.When the deceased was in Prison,there was a wordy quarrel between A-1 and P.W.1/wife of the deceased.WhenP.W.1, informed the same to the deceased on his release on bail, the deceasedtold her that he would question A-1 for his conduct.Under such circumstances,the occurrence is said to have taken place.It is stated that A-1 and A-3 werearmed with wooden log and A-1 caused injury on the chest of the deceased.Thirdly was notattracted.The Inspector of Police, Morappanadu Police Station Thoothukudi District.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,030,030 |
2.On January 11, 1986 Mansa Ram (PW 8) made anapplication to the chief Minister of Haryana to the effectthat his son Saturday is serving in he Army and his wifeNirmala (daughter-in-law) is living in the village with him.She was suffering from malaria.Therefore, he took her onOctober 20, 985 for treatment to a private medicalpractitioner, namely, Dr Ramesh kumar (accused 1) who hadhis clinic at Satnali in the market.He and Nirmala reachedthe clinic at about 1 p.m. and contacted the doctor whoassured them of curing her.He gave Nirmala two tabletswith a glass ofFrom the Judgment and Order dated November 1, 1989 of thePunjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 464-SBof 1988492water and asked her to lie down on the cot behind a curtain.Dr Ramesh called Nathu Ram, Secretary of the MarketCommittee, accused 2 (the appellant herein) whom he calledhis guru.Dr Ramesh then asked Mansa Ram (PW 8) to bringhot water from outside.When he returned with hot water andentered the clinic he found that they had attempted to rapeNirmala.On seeing him, the appellant, Nathu Ram ran away.Dr Ramesh was caught and given a beating by him.Some otherpeople intervened and got Dr Ramesh freed.He thereafterwent to Ganga Ram, Havaldar of Police Station, Satnali whosaid that he would himself arrest him but he did not takeany action.He requested the Chief Minister to get theinvestigation of the case done.The above complaint was marked through the DeputyCommissioner, Namaul to the Senior Superintendent of Police,Narnaul for enquiry.On enquiry, he filed the report thatthe allegations in the complaint were false.Not beingsatisfied with the report of the police, the DeputyCommissioner of Namaul marked the complaint on September 11,1986 for a fresh enquiry to the SDM, Mahendragarh.Heconducted the enquiry at Satnali.The case of the prosecution is that on June 22, 1988,at about 7.00 p.m. Rohan (PW 14) and Chelan (deceased), thetwo sons of the informant, Col. Ajit Singh Saharan (PW 13),started for Rohtak, from the residence of the informant atNew Delhi, on a motorcycle bearing No. HYU-5550, to meettheir mother Shakuntala Saharan who was residing then atAshiyana Green Road, Rohtak.They stopped at Bahadurgarh onthe way at about 7.45 p.m. at a shop for refreshment.AMaruti car bearing No. HYU-9808 was parked and the two sonsof the informant parked their motorcycle in front of thesaid car.In the meantime, the accused Manoj Kumar came andsat in his car aforesaid.But due to cycles and motorcycleaforesaid parked there, he could not take out his Maruti carand he started blowing the horn of his car continuously.Healso started abusing loudly as to why those cycles andmotorcycle had been parked there.As soon as Chetan heardabuses, he came to remove the motorcycle and asked theaccused not to hurl abuses.There was exchange of hotwords.Rohan also reached near the car, after parking themotorcycle, but exchange of hot words continued.Theaccused threatened both of them saying, "Come out ofBahadurgarh.I will see you."Rohan retorted, "What you will see us outside? See ushere." The accused repeated, "Come outside.I will killboth of you." Thereafter the accused went away, but Rohanand Chetan remained there in front of the said shop out offear.On enquiry, Rohan and Chetan learnt that the name ofaccused was Manoj Kumar and he was the son of Surat Singh,who was a property dealer in Bahadurgarh.Rohan also noteddown the number of the said car.After some time, theystarted on their motorcycle for Rohtak.On the way they sawthe accused going from Bahadurgarh side to Rohtak.The carof the accused was going at a slow speed.Rohan who wasdriving the motorcycle overtook the car.As soon as theaccused saw that Rohan and Chetan had gone ahead of himovertaking his car, he raised the speed of his car andstarted following the motorcycle.Rohan also increased thespeed of his motorcycle out of fear.But they had to slowdown the speed of their motorcycle when they reached nearvillage Sankhol, because of the rush on the road.It isalleged that in the meantime accused Manoj Kumar overtooktheir motorcycle and again slowed down the speed of his carand gave them a signal to proceed ahead.It is further thecase of the prosecution that as soon as Rohan tried toovertake the said car, accused swerved his car towards theright side, whereupon Rohan applied the brakes.Rohanstopped the motorcycle, thereupon accused Manoj Kumar whohad gone ahead of them brought back the car in reverse geartowards Rohan and Chetan at a fast speed.Accused tried tobring Chetan under his car, but Chetan retreated.However,his left foot came under the wheel of the said car.Seeingthis, some persons came near them.Chetan told them thatthe accused had run over his foot with his car and he washaving great pain.After some time the accused again cameback to the spot with his car.Persons who were presentthere, shouted that the said car was coming again.On this,Chetan climbed on the road divider and threw a stone on thesaid car.As Chetan had climbed on the road divider, thecar went towards Bahadurgarh at a fast speed.Both thebrothers again started towards Rohtak on their motorcycle.After they traveled for some time, again the accused camewith his car from behind at a fast speed and accused swervedhis car towards left in order to hit the motorcycle.Rohantook the motorcycle on the 'kachha' portion of the road onthe left side and stopped it.When the car of the accusedproceeded towards Rohtak, they again started from there ontheir motorcycle.When they had covered some distance, itis alleged that Rohan again saw the car of the accusedcoming from the opposite direction i.e. from Rohtak side.Out of fear they stopped the motorcycle on the side of theroad, in front of a tractor trolley to save themselves.Inthe meanwhile, Chetan came down from the motorcycle andwanted to go behind the tractor-trolley to take shelter.The accused hit Chetan who was on the road by the right sideof his car with force.Thereafter the car proceeded ingreat speed grazing with the tractortrolley.Because of theimpact, Chetari was thrown from the road inside the trolley.Seeing the serious condition of Chetan, Rohan stopped aMatador, driven by one Vinod Kumar of Rohtak and asked himto take Chetan to the hospital because his brother'scondition was serious.Chetan was put in the Matador andRohan followed the Matador on his motorcycle.Chetanreached hospital at 9.30 p.m. and after half an hour he wasdeclared dead.Ajit498Singh Saharan the father of the victim was informed, whoproceeded from Delhi to Rohtak.1 5 a.m. on June 23, 1988, bythe father of the victim.It is said that Rohan, because ofthe shock, virtually remained unconscious throughout thenight and at 9.00 a.m. he started narrating the details ofthe occurrence, to his father, the informant.In the firstinformation report all the aforesaid facts relating to theoccurrence were mentioned by the informant, on the basis ofthe information given to him by Rohan.On the date ofoccurrence the two brothers, Rohan and Chetan, were agedabout 19 and 17 years respectively.4.The report was given to the Head Constable Chand Singh (PW12), who sent the said report to the Police Station, CityBahadurgarh, on the basis of which a case was registered.The copy of the first information report reached theAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate on June 23, 1988 at4.00 p.m. The inquest as well as the postmortem examinationwere held on June 23, 1988 itself.The motorcycle bearingNo.The Investigating Officer(PW 16) reached the place of occurrence.He picked up glasspieces from the spot as also blood-stained earth includingthe plastic strip "Maruti800", which was lying on the road.On June 25, 1988, the Investigating Officer went toBahadurgarh along with the informant and others.Hereceived a secret information at about 4.15 p.m. that theaccused Manoj Kumar was present in his house with the carand could be apprehended there.Whereupon all went to hishouse in Daya Nand Colony, Bahadurgarh, and at the pointingout by Rohan (PW 14), the Investigating Officer (PW 16)arrested the accused and took into possession the Maruti carNo.The car was badly damaged on the right side.From inside the car, broken pieces of glass and stains ofblood were recovered which were seized and put into sealedparcels.The clothes of' the accused were also seized.TheInvestigating Officer got the Maruti car photographed andsent the accused for medical examination as he was havinginjuries on his person.The Investigating Officer also gotthe car and the motorcycle mechanically examined by a motormechanic.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.MOHAN, J.- The appellant along with one Dr Ramesh Kumarwas sentenced to 3 1/2 years' rigorous imprisonment withfine of Rs 1,000 each under Sections 376/511 of the IndianPenal Code and in default of payment of fine the defaulterwas to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of threemonths.The conviction and sentence imposed by the learnedSessions judge of Namaul was unsuccessfully appealed againstbefore the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 464/SB of 1988.The present appeal is directed against the said convictionand sentence by Nathu Ram, accused 2 (appellant herein).The prosecution case is as follows.He made his report onFebruary 4, 1987 recommending for registration of the caseagainst the doctor and the appellant.This was marked tothe SPO, Namaul for registration of the case.AccordinglyFIR No. 31 dated May 18, 1987 in P.S. Satnali was registeredunder Sections 354 and 376 read with Section 511 of theIndian Penal Code.After investigation the appellant and DrRamesh were sent for trial.Before the learned Sessions Judge Mansa Ram appeared asthe main prosecution witness (PW 8).He deposed thatNirmala (PW 4) is the wife of his son who is employed in theArmy.He took her to the clinic of Dr Ramesh (accused 1).It was at about 1 o'clock in the day.Dr Ramesh told thathe will cure her and gave two tablets to Nirmala (PW 4) witha glass of water which she took.Dr Ramesh called his guruNathu Ram, accused 2 (appellant herein), who is theSecretary of the Market Committee.Nirmala was asked to liedown on a cot behind a curtain in the clinic.Dr Rameshthen asked Mansa Ram (PW 8) to get hot water from outside.When he entered the clinic with hot water he saw Dr Rameshtotally naked and Nathu Ram, the appellant, in his nikar andjersey.They were standing there and Nirmala was on a cot.She was unconscious and her salwar had been folded to theextent of half.Mansa Ram (PW 8) raised an alarm.Theappellant ran away.Banwari (PW 6) and Mool Chand (PW 5)came inside the clinic.Mansa Ram (PW 8) gave slaps to DrRamesh.Several other people assembled there.He put thesalwar of Nirmala (PW 4) in order and covered her and tookher back.The same day, he handed over a complaint to GangaRam, HC of Police Station, Satnali.He did not take anyaction.Therefore, he made a complaint to the DeputyCommissioner and the Chief Minister.Though he was cross-examined at length his evidence could not be shaken, in anymanner.His evidence was corroborated by Nirmala (PW 4) inmaterial parts.Mool Chand (PW 5) also stated that he andBanwari (PW 6) saw Nathu Ram, accused 2 (the appellant493herein) present at the relevant time in the clinic in akachha and a banian.Dr Ramesh, accused 1, was wearing onlyan underwear.Nirmala (PW 4) was lying unconscious on acot.Her salwar was lying open.Nathu Ram ran away fromthe back door of the clinic.Ganga Ram, the Head Constable(CW 2), was examined.He denied that any complaint wasgiven to him by Mansa Ram (PW 8).Narsingh Das (CW 1) wasthe person who wrote the complaint for Mansa Ram (PW 8).5.On accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses thelearned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the delayin filing the first information report was satisfactorilyexplained because Mansa Ram `PW 8) gave the complaint in1986 as well as in 1987 and he was relentlessly pursuing thesame.6.As regards the so-called discrepancies in the evidencehe was of the view that the statements of Mansa Ram andNirmala, PWs 8 and 4 respectively, sound natural, more so,when they were illiterates.The version by the defence thatthe doctor refused to perform the abortion or that theSecretary (the appellant herein) was in the knowledge ofsome secrets of Mansa Ram (PW 8) and, therefore, he wasbeing pressurised are absolutely preposterous.If anabortion had been refused the complainant could have gone tosome other clinic.Why should he involve the doctor in afalse case? Mansa Ram (PW 8) had no prior enmity against DrRamesh.Nathu Ram (accused 2) could have disclosed thealleged secrets against Mansa Ram (PW 8) during the trial.So, the pleas taken by the accused persons are totallyimaginary.7.In Criminal Appeal No. 464/SB of 1988 the High Courtcame to the same conclusion that the delay in filing thefirst information report had been satisfactorily explained.8.It was concluded that an illiterate villager had takenhis daughter-in-law toa private medical practitioner whoabused his position and tried to molestthe lady.NathuRam, the appellant exploited the situation as there wasnobody to help Nirmala (PW 4) who had been made unconsciousby Dr Ramesh Kumar (accused 1).He also tried to misbehavewith her.The testimony of prosecution witnesses was foundto be convincing.Therefore, the conviction and thesentence were confirmed.9.In this appeal before us, it is argued by the learnedcounsel for the appellant somewhat vehemently, that theevidence of Narsingh Das (CW 1) is categoric that nocomplaint whatever was given to him.It is only at theinstigation of some others a false complaint had come to bepreferred whereas he had nothing to do with the allegedoffence.Besides, that day was a Sunday.There was nopossibility of the appellant going to the doctor's clinic.10.Mansa Ram (PW 8) is the main witness in this case.Since Nirmala (PW 4) became unconscious the moment she wasadministered two pills by the doctor, she could not knowmuch.On an analysis of the evidence of494Mansa Ram (PW 8) it is found there are vital discrepancieswhich will clearly belie the case of prosecution.Merelybecause the appellant was standing in kachha and banian,that cannot straight away lead to an inference of abetmentof rape nor attempted rape, when no overt act is alleged.11.We have given our careful consideration to the abovearguments.We may straight away say that we are not in aposition to accept any of them.This is a case in which anilliterate villager with his daughter-in-law came formedical treatment but the appellant as well as the doctorhad other designs to exploit the situation.When Mansa Ram(PW 8) returned with hot water what he saw had alarmed him.He is positive that doctor was standing naked while theappellant was scantily dressed in his kachha and banian.The salwar of Nirmala (PW 4) had been half folded.How theappellant came in was when Dr Ramesh (accused 1) assuredMansa Ram and Nirmala, PWs 8 and 4 respectively, that hewill cure Nirmala with the help of his guru who is none elsethan the appellant.Merely because it happened to be aSunday, it does not mean there was no possibility of theappellant not being there.12.There may be minor discrepancies in the evidence ofMansa Ram (PW 8), as rightly held by the learned SessionsJudge but they are natural.A tutored witness will deposein a parrot-like fashion.In any event, these discrepanciesare not so material as to reject his testimony.Above all,the two rustic villagers Nirmala and Mansa Ram, PWs 4 and 8respectively, could not have ever thought of foisting afalse case, more so, when there was admittedly no enmitybetween the appellant and Dr Ramesh on one hand and theseprosecution witnesses on the other.13.No doubt, Ganga Ram (CW 2) would say that no complaintwas preferred to him by Mansa Ram (PW 8) but positive caseof Mansa Ram (PW 8) is he promised to take action but he didnot do anything.Therefore, he had to go up to the ChiefMinister and the higher authorities.It is this relentlesspursuit which made the police register the case.Thesentence cannot also be called excessive, under thesecircumstances of the case, when in complicity with Dr Ramesh(accused 1), the appellant abetted the offence of rape.Itis not that he was a mere bystander or onlooker.In thecircumstances narrated above, the scanty dress clearly willmake him fall under the said two sections with which he ischarged."It is the apparel that proclaims." For all thesereasons, we find no ground had been made out warrantinginterference.Accordingly, the appeal will stand dismissed.This appeal is on behalf of the State of Haryana forsetting aside the judgment of the High Court, acquitting theaccused-respondent Manoj Kumar, who had been convicted underSection 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for life, by the Sessions Judge,Rohtak.HYU-5550 was produced before the Investigating Officer(PW 16) on June 23, 1988 itself.It was alsofound that the plastic strip with "Maruti-800" found on theroad was of the same car, because the said strip in the carwas missing at the time of seizure.5.After investigation, report under Section 173 of theCode of Criminal Procedure was filed.The accused was puton trial.He was convicted for an offence under Section 302of the Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.However, as already stated above, the High Court set asidethe conviction and sentence of the accused-respondent andacquitted him of the charges levelled against him.6.On behalf of the State, it was pointed out that therewas no reason for the High Court to reject the evidence ofRohan (PW 14), the brother of the deceased whose presence atthe time of the occurrence and his going from Delhi toRohtak along with the deceased, was never questioned by the499accused during the trial.It was urged that thecircumstantial evidence collected during investigation,fully supported the case of the prosecution.7.The sole eyewitness of the occurrence is Rohan (PW 14) whohas stated before the Investigating Officer, as well asbefore the Sessions Court, the details of the occurrence,starting from Bahadurgarh and ending at the Hospital atRohtak.The other witnesses and circumstances onlycorroborate the statement of Rohan (PW 14).According tous, the High Court should have first examined as to whetherin the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence ofRohan (PW 14) should be accepted.It appears that the HighCourt mainly considered the questions as to whether therewas any reasonable explanation for not informing the policeduring night, and as to whether Rohan (PW 14) was withChetan (deceased) on the motorcycle when Chetan left Delhifor Rohtak.The special feature of the case is, thataccused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure admitted that his Maruti car was standingat the shop of one juice seller at Bahadurgarh.When hereturned to the car, he found a motorcycle parked in frontof his car.Then he blew the horn twice or thrice.Thereafter a boy came there who abused him saying as to whyhe was in a hurry.Thereafter there was exchange of hotwords between them.He also admitted that at villageSankhol somebody threw a stone at his car.No suggestionwas given to Rohan (PW 14) that he did not accompany Chetan(deceased) on motorcycle from Delhi.The motive, as well asthe genesis of the occurrence have been virtually admittedby the defence.8.Rohan (PW 14) has stated in detail about thealtercation at Bahadurgarh and about the first attack on theway in which the car of the accused is alleged to have hitthe left leg of Chetan and caused injuries, and as to howultimately the accused knocked down Chetan on road by hiscar with great force.He also stated that after hittingChetan by the right side bonnet of the car, accusedproceeded ahead grazing with the tractor and trolley.The car of the accused was seized on June 25, 1988.The right side of the car was found to have been badlydamaged.This was mainly due to the car grazing with thetrolley.If Rohan (PW 14) was not with Chetan (deceased),how this fact that the car grazed the trolley after hittingChetan, could have been mentioned in the first informationreport lodged on June 23, 1988, before the car was seized.From a bare reading of the evidence of Rohan (PW 14), itshall appear that he has deposed in a very straightforwardmanner, giving every detail of the incident and as to howthe accused-respondent made repeated attempts to crush themon the road, because of the altercation at Bahadurgarh.Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination.No partof the evidence of Rohan (PW 14) has been demolished.The HighCourt has observed only "that the evidence of the eyewitnessin the court was a belated500attempt to improve their testimony and bring the same inline with the Doctor's evidence with a view to support anIncorrect case".9.On the person of deceased, 11 injuries were foundduring postmortem.Most of the injuries were on the leftside of his body which is consistent only with the case ofthe prosecution that while Chetan was standing on the road,the accused knocked him down by the right side of the car,causing injury on the left side of Chetan.He was thrown onthe trolley.The trolley was carrying agriculturalimplements which caused some of the incised wounds whichwere found on the person of Chetan during postmortemexamination.During the cross-examination of Rohan (PW 14),the suggestions which had been given, on behalf of theaccused, do not dispute the case of prosecution that bothbrothers left Delhi on the motorcycle.The High Courtcommitted a grave error in rejecting the evidence of Rohan(PW 14).The High Court doubted the presence of Rohan (PW14) with the victim, merely on the ground that Rohan did notreach the hospital along with the victim.Since the verybeginning, the case of the prosecution is that Rohan (PW 14)got a Matador stopped on the way and asked the driver of theMatador to take his brother to hospital.Rohan followed thesaid Matador, on motorcycle.The distance between the placeof occurrence and the hospital is about 35 kms.In normalcourse the Matador must have reached before Rohan reachedthe hospital on motorcycle.Similarly, the adverseinference drawn by the High Court, as to why Rohan (PW 14)did not inform the police regarding the occurrencethroughout the night, according to us, is withoutjustification.A young boy of 19 years, who escaped deatheven after several attempts on the road and ultimately foundhis brother becoming victim of the said attack, must havebeen completely broken.It was too much to expect from himthat before his father arrived, he would have taken legalsteps for prosecuting the respondent.10.The prosecution has unfolded and disclosed theprosecution case in a most natural manner and there is noscope for imaginary doubt about correctness of the version.Rohan (PW 14) is the sole eyewitness of the fatal knockdown, by the accused.But, that cannot be held to be aninfirmity of the prosecution case.A conviction can bebased and the verdict of the court can rest even on thetestimony of a sole witness, if the court is fully satisfiedthat such witness is a truthful witness and his presence atthe time of occurrence has been proved beyond reasonabledoubt.The evidence of Rohan (PW 14) is fully corroborated,by the damaged Maruti car found in the premises of theaccused with the missing plastic strip "Maruti-800", whichwas found on the spot and collected by the InvestigatingOfficer.The comparison of the broken glasses found on theroad with the broken glasses found in the Maruti car of theaccused; the damage found only towards the right side of theMaruti car; most of the injuries on the person of deceasedbeing on the left side, according to us, go a long way toprove that Rohan (PW 14) has disclosed the correct versionof the occurrence.No adverse inference can be drawn in thefacts and circumstances of the present case, because RohanPW 14 or an one did not lodge the first information501during the night itself.PW 13, father of the victim, whois a military officer, has stated on oath, that he got theinformation from Rohtak at about 2.00 or 2.15 in the nightand he immediately proceeded for Rohtak and reached there atabout 4.00 or 4.15 in the morning.He found Rohan (PW 14)in his house at Rohtak, but he was "besudh" (not in hissenses) and was lying on a "Charpai".At about 9.00 a.m.,in the morning he tried to know the full details from hisson Rohan and then he lodged the first information report onthe basis of the facts narrated by his son Rohan.We findhardly any reason to doubt the evidence of the informant (PW13).It is true that time factor has an important role incontext with lodging of a first information report.But, ifthe prosecution explains the delay satisfactorily, the Courtis not expected to reject the whole prosecution case merelyon that ground.The present case is one such case wheretaking all facts and circumstances into consideration, theprosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground that thefirst information report was not lodged during the night.The agony of the mother of the deceased and other members ofthe family at Rohtak in absence of the father of the victim,who was then at Delhi, can be well appreciated.11.On behalf of the accused-respondent, it was urged thateven if the prosecution case is accepted at its face value,still the accused-respondent cannot be convicted for anoffence under Section 302 of the Penal Code; at the most hecan be convicted for an offence under Section 304 of thePenal Code.It is not possible to accept this contention.The accused after leaving Bahadurgarh, made repeatedattempts to knock down the two brothers by his car andultimately he succeeded in doing so, when Chetan wasstanding on the road.The impact was so serious that Chetanwas thrown from road to the trolley.It is fullyestablished that accused intentionally caused such bodilyinjuries, as the accused knew to be likely to cause thedeath of Chetan.As such he committed the offence of murderwithin the meaning of Section 300, liable to be punished foran offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code.12.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,430,213 |
(Jabalpur dated: ___.01.2018) Per: Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-In both the appeals, a challenge has been made to the common order of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2006 passed by Special Judge (SC.ST) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Chhatarpur in Special Case No.05/2003 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Appellants in Cr.A.No.2093/2006: Khillan @ Khilanand & Baijnath Conviction Sentence 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life.In the night at about 9 pm, Halki Bai heard the noise when she was cooking food and when she came out from the house, she found that her husband deceased was being beaten by appellant Khillan with the help of iron pipe and the other accused persons namely Baijnath, Bandu Dhobi and Ramnath Baniya were beating him with lathi.She also cried for help but the accused persons continued to beat her husband.She came back to house and informed his brother-in-law Damaruwa and son Gorelal.She again rushed to the spot along with his brother-in-law Damaruwa and found that her husband was laying in wounded condition.The blood was oozing from his head.With the help of Veeran and Damaruwa she had taken the deceased to the house and thereafter a jeep belonging to Suresh was brought and the deceased was taken to Police Station.Initially a marg intimation 37/01 was registered.The investigation was carried out by P.W/11 J.L.Ahirwar who has prepared dead body panchnama and sent the dead body for postmortem.P.W/10 Premabai stated that after hearing the shouting of her daughter-in-law she had rushed at the spot and had seen that all the accused persons were beating him.She has also stated that Damaruwa was also with her.She has also stated that her son was being beaten by the accused persons because he refused to give evidence in favour of Bandu Dhobi, one of the accused persons in other case.He also deposed that his daughter-in-law P.W/8 Halki Bai came to him and informed that his brother was being beaten by the accused persons.He immediately rushed at the spot and had seen that accused Khillan was having iron rod and the other accused persons were armed with lathi.They were beating the deceased and thereafter the deceased was brought at home and thereafter was taken to the Police Station.The postmortem was carried out by Dr. M.L.Khandelwal who found 19 injuries on the person of the deceased.The cause of death was Coma due to head injuries.He stated that he was posted as City Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur and about the registration of the present case, he was informed by the incharge of the Police Station Civil Line.He had prepared the panchnama of the dead body and had sent it for postmortem.The said memo is Exhibit-P/29 which bears his signatures.He had also seized the blood stained soil etc. from the spot and on the disclosure statement of the accused persons he had affected the seizure of the weapons.In para 3 of his deposition he had stated that on the disclosure statement iron rod was recovered which was concealed in his house.The seizure memo is Exhibit-P/20 which bears his signatures.From accused Ramnath also lathi was recovered vide Exhibit-P/19 of his disclosure statement.He stated that the iron pipe was having blood spots and the same was hidden in the concealed place of the house.Fine of Rs. 2000 each in default RI for 6 months each.Appellants in Cr.A.No.2311/2006: Bandu Dhobi & Ramnath Baniya Conviction Sentence 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life.Fine of Rs. 2000 each in default RI for 6 months each.Wife Halki Bai and his son Gorelal had come back from the field but the deceased had stayed at the field.During the investigation, Halki Bai also named Munnilal and Sukhlal to be involved in the commission of offence and therefore, they were also arrested.Weapons, iron rod and the lathi were seized on the disclosure statement of the accused persons.The same was sent for chemical report to FSL.In the said report, blood was found on iron pipe but on lathi the same was not found.After investigation against six accused persons, the charge-sheet was filed and the charges under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC were framed.The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.It was contended that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution could not establish its case beyond doubt.The evidence of P.W/8 who is the sole eye witness is not reliable as she herself has stated that the report was lodged in the morning.Once two accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons could not have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC as there was no intention to cause murder of Darauwa.It is also submitted that all the witnesses are relatives and their testimony could not have been believed as the incident had been taken place in the village and therefore, the other witnesses ought to have been examined by the prosecution.The prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any doubt on the basis of the testimony of about six witnesses which is further corroborated with medical evidence and other evidence.After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to examine the testimony of eye witnesses P.W/8 Halki Bai, P.W/10 Prema Bai and P.W/11 Damaruwa.P.W/8 Halki Bai who is wife of the deceased has deposed that she heard the shouting of her husband then she rushed at the spot and saw that the accused Khillan was beating her husband with the help of iron pipe and other accused persons namely Baijnath, Ramnath, Bandu Dhobi, Munnilal and Sukhlal were having lathi in hands.She immediately raised alarm and called her brother-in-law (Devar) Damaruwa who also rushed at the spot along with one Gorelal.When they all reached at the spot, they saw the accused persons were still beating her husband and were shouting that they will kill the deceased Kumbhar, addressing him by his caste and uttered since he had not given the evidence in favour of Bandu Dhobi, therefore, they will have to kill him.He received multiple injuries on head, face, shoulders etc. The blood was oozing from the wounds.She has further stated that thereafter all three had taken the victim to her house and thereafter a jeep belonging to Gorelal was brought and the deceased was taken to the Police Station and the report was lodged.Her testimony is further supported by witnesses P.W/10 Premabai and P.W/11 Damarua.The exhibit seizure memo was signed by witnesses Damaruwa P.W/11 and Karonji Kumhar.The seized articles were sent for chemical examination.In the seized weapon iron rod article D the blood was found but on the lathi blood was not found.However, the human blood could not be confirmed in the said report.That out of seven eye witnesses, three were declared hostile.They did not support the prosecution case.All the accused persons were acquitted for the charges under the SCST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial Court after assimilation of entire facts acquitted the accused persons of the charges under Section 148 and also accused persons Munnilal and Sukhlal under Section 302/149 IPC.The appellants Khillan and Baijnath (Cr.A.No.2093/2006) and the appellants Bandu Dhobi and Ramnath Baniya (Cr.A.No.2311/2006) have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced as mentioned in the earlier paragraph.On the evaluation of the testimony of eye witnesses Halki Bai P.W/8, Smt. Premabai P.W/10 and Dhamaruwa P.W/11, it is clear that the deceased was caused injury with the help of iron rod by appellant Khillan and was also beaten by the other appellants.The testimony of these three eye witnesses is coherent and consistent.Their cross- examination does not indicate any material contradiction or suggestion to discard their testimony.The testimony of these witnesses is further corroborated by three witnesses P.W/1 Biran, P.W/7 Tijva and P.W/9 Kalyan.P.W/1 Biran in para 2 of his statement has stated that two persons were beating Darauwa but he could not identify them.P.W/7 Tijva though declared hostile but in para 2 of his deposition he has stated that he had seen two persons running from the spot.In the case of Nethala Pothuraju & Ors.(1992) 1 SCC 49, Hamlet alias Sasi & Ors.In the facts of the present case, it has been established that the appellant Khillan had caused injury with the help of iron rod and the other appellants cause injury to the deceased with the help of lathi.The deceased had received as many as 19 injuries.P.W/3 Dr. Khandelwal in his testimony has clarified that the injury no.16 was grievous in nature.The other injuries were caused with the help of hard and blunt object.Thus, there was common intention of the appellants to murder Darauwa.The Doctor's evidence is an opinion.The testimony of eye witness P.W/8 Halkibai supported by the other witnesses P.W/10 Premabai and P.W/11 Damaruwa cannot be discarded merely because they belong to the family of deceased.(1) SCC 590, the Apex Court has held that the testimony of relative witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that they are relative of the deceased.In the case of Bhimabhai and others v. State of Gujarat AIR 1993 SC 1193 the Apex Court has further held that even the conviction on the basis of testimony of one eye witness is good as it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of witness is relevant for the purpose of conviction.The evidence of these three witnesses gets corroborated with the testimony of Dr. M.L.Khandelwal P.W/3 and his medical report.The seizure have been proved by the investigating officer and the witnesses as they have admitted their signatures on the seizure memo and further in FSL report, the blood has been found to be present on the iron rod.Thus, the ocular evidence is well supported by medical evidence and the other evidence.In view of aforesaid assimilation of facts and evidence, we do not find any error in the order of conviction and sentence.Hence, the appeals do not warrant any intereference.Both the appeals are dismissed.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.2093/2006 Khillan @ Khilanand Vs.The State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.2311/2006 Bandu Dhobi Vs.A.No.2311/2006 .01.2018 Judgement passed separately, signed and dated.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
894,310 |
Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 323 of 1984, connected with S.T. No. 368 of 1984 and S.T. No. 370 of 1984, whereby he convicted all the three accused-appellants of the offence under Section 396 IPC and sentenced (hem to undergo imprisonment for life and further convicted Chhotey accused-appellant and Khan Singh alias Ujagar Khan accused-appellant of the offence under section 25 Arms Act and sentenced Chhotey accused-appellant to undergo six months R.I. for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act and sentenced Khan Singh alias Ujagar Khan accused-appellant to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act.The prosecution story was to the effect that a dacoity took place on 12-2-84 at about 7.30 P.M. in village Kumbhia Maphi.P. S. Khutar, district Shahjahanpur, in which six.dacoits participated and they looted licensed gun No. 89963 from Sunder of his brother and looted licensed gun No. 2283 from Badshah, which was of his father, that when the looting was resisted and an alarm was raised and village people were seen coming the dacoits shot Badshah dead and also injured Sunder by firing two shots; that thereafter the dacoits fled away with the looted guns and cartridges; that Rampal witness also received Lathi injuries in the occurrence, that it was moonlit night and that Sunder died later.The assailants were identified in the moon light and in the light of torches.In another incident, of dacoity at the house of Chholey Lal, in village Kisariapur, police station Schra Mau North, Chhote Lal snatched above licensed gun No. 2283 from the dacoits and deposited the same at police station Sehra Mau North.None of the witnesses in the present dacoity knew the dacoits from before.The usual FIR was lodged and the investigation started.During the course of investigation Vijai Bahadur accused-appellant was arrested on 25-4-84 and made Baparda and sent to jail.On 17-5-84 accused appellant Khan Singh alias Ujagar Singh and accused appellant Chhotey both were arrested by the police party led by I.O. K.P. Pandey.JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J.Both these appeals have been heard together as they arise out of a common judgment dated 1-8-85 passed by Sri P. N. Lal, the then Special Judge/Addl.From the possession of Khan Singh alias Ujagar accused-appellantaforesaid looted licensed gun No. 89963 was recovered and from the possession of Chhotey accused-appellant an unlicensed gun was recovered and from the possession, of Ramesh accused (not an accused here) a country-made pistol was recovered.They could not produce any licence for the weapons recovered from their respective oosscssion.The identification proceedings in respect of Vijai Bahadur accused-appellant took place on 23-5-1984 at the district Jail.Therein Vijai Bahadur accused-appellant was correctly dentified by all the six witnesses, namely Ram Autar, Madan Lal, Munnu Lal, Puttu Lal, Ahibaran and Rampal, who went for identification.Seven persons went to dentify them.Out of them five witnesses, namely Ram Autar, Ahibaran, Madan Lal, Munnu Lal and Ram Pal correctly identified these accused-appellant at the identification parade without Making any mistake.Out of these witnesses only Ram Autar (PW 1) Madan Lal (P.W. 2) and Munna Lal (PW 4) were produced at the trial, Where they made positive identification of both he accused-appellants without making any mistake.The learned Sessions Judge held that a lacoity took place in which a murder took place in the date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution, in which Badshah was shot dead at he spot and Sunder was injured, who died later on due to his fire arm injuries.He also placed on record corroborative fact that one looted licensed gun No. 89963 was recovered from the posses-sion of Khan Singh accused appellant and the other 1ooted gun was snatched in another incident in the circle of another police station subsequently by Chhotey Lal from a gang of dacoits who looted his house.He also believed the identification evidence given by the witnesses at the trial.Consequently he made the convictions and awarded the sentences noted above.There is no doubt that two licensed weapons were looted on the date, time and place alleged by the prosecution and in the course of the dacoity nurder was also committed by dacoits as claimed the prosecution.The identification proceeding may not be said to be unduly delayed but there is substance in the argument that the result of the identification in respect of this accused-appellant was too good to be believed (because all the six witnesses who went to identify him at the district jail correctly identified him without making any mistake) particularly when no Hulia or special feature or features of the dacoits were disclosed in the FIR by the informant.Link evidence means evidence to show that accused was not shown to any witness from the time of his arrest till the time of his lodging at the jail.There is only the evidence of I.O. K.P. Pandey (PW 11) that he made this accused-appellant Baparda at the spot and it was only to the effect that the accused was arrested along with a gun and his statement was recorded and he was made Baparda and was sent to jail Baparda and that a report was made for identification proceedings.The Investigating Officer did not say in so many words that it was he who made the arrest.He did not disclose as to on what date, time and place this accused was arrested.He has not proved any memo about this arrest.He also did not place on record any G.D. entry of his lodgement in the police station after the arrest made by him.He also did not say that he got the accused made Baparda.He also did not say as to who took this acccused-appellant Baparda and lodged him at the district jail.At the time of identification proceeding this acccused-appellant has stated before the Magistrate "POLICE NE MUJHE PAHICHAN KARTAON KODIKHAYA HAI.... " This statement is of great significance when the prosecution does not say as to on what date, time and place he was arrested and at what place he was taken from time to time and where he was kept in the night.The memo of identification proceeding is Ex.ka 33 which shows that he was lodged at the district jail on 26-4-84,which means that in the night of 25-4-84 he was kept isomewhere, may be at the police station, may be somewhere else.The constable who took the accused and lodged him at the jail was not produced by the prosecution, he was not even named before the court to enable the court to summon him as a court witness.In the total absence of link evidence, the identification evidence given by the witnesses at the trial cannot be made the basis of conviction.I may place on record a Division Bench authority of our High Court, Mahendra Singh v. State, 1991 Cri LJ 1381 where it was said (at Page 1385):...The prosecution has, however, not given any link evidence to prove that Mahendra Singh alias Birendra Singh was brought Baparda from jail on that date and was kept Baparda till he was again lodged in jail the same day and he was not shown to any prosecution witnesses on that day.In those circumstances it was held that the explanation offered by the prosecution cannot discharge the burden of prosecution to adduce a formal link evidence about the same in respect of taking the accused Baparda.I may mention here that so far as this accused-appellant Vijai Bahadur is concerned, there is no recovery from him of any of the weapons looted in the present dacoity.I.O. K.P. Pandey has claimed that there was recovery of a fire arm from the possession of this accused-appellant but it is immaterial because the alleged recovered weapon was not said to be looted in the present occurrence.In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that any fire-arm of any kind was recovered from the possession of this accused-appellant at the time of his arrest.Now we come to the other two accused-appellants Khan Singh alias Ujagar Khan and Chhotey.They, were arrested on 17-5-1984 and were put up for identification on 30-5-1984 and so there was no abnormal delay in getting the test identification done.The identification evidence , led at the trial, however, suffers from the same fatal flaw of absence of necessary link evidence.There is only the statement of I.O.K.P. Pandey (PW 11) that both these accused-appellants were arrested on 17-5-1984 and they were made Baparda at the spot and they were given direction to keep their faces concealed and not to allow any one to see their faces because they were to be put up for identification test.Beyond this there is also his evidence that from the spot of arrest they were brought to the police station and lodged there baparda.If we take the statement of the Investigating Officer at its face value, it at the most shows that the accused remained Baparda from the time of their arrest till 13.30 hours on 17-5-84, the time of their lodging at the police station.Beyond this there is evidence of Investigating Officer that the departure (Rawangi) of these accused from the police station for district jail was made Baparda on 18-5-84 and further that Constable Kamlesh and Constable Sukhbari Lal took the accused-appellants to jail Baparda.The time of departure from police station and the time of lodging at jail were not disclosed by the Investigating Officer.He did not say that he himself remained at the police station from the time of their lodging at the police station on 17-5-84 at 13.30 hours till the time of their departure from the police station on 18-5-84, so as to be able to say that they were kept Baparda so long as they remained at the police station.No. G.D. entries of the period from the time of lodging of the accused-appellants at the police station till the date and time of their departure from there have been produced and proved.None of the constables who were on duty during all this period were produced by the prosecution to show that during the said period they (the accused appellants aforesaid) were kept Baparda in the Hawalat of the police station.In fact, the Investigating Officer did not even say that during the period these accused appellants were in the lock-up at the police station, they remained Baparda and that no body was allowed to see their faces.Constables Kamlesh and Subhkari were also not.produced by the prosecution to give their evidence that they started from the police station with these accused Baparda and that they kept them Baparda all along til! the time of their lodging at the district jail and further that they did not allow any one to see their faces in the intervening period.We may only add that the Investigating Officer did not claim that he had accompanied the constables when they took these accused-appellants from the police station to the district jail.This absence of link evidence assumes more significance when we notice that Khan Singh accused appellant stated before the Identifying Magistrate, "THANE MEN PHOTO KHEECHA GAYA".The accused-appellant Chhotey no doubt stated before the Magistrate that the witnesses knew him from before.Nonetheless, the prosecution was bound to prove its case against this accused also by producing link evidence because its case was that the witnesses did not know the accused appellant Chholey from before.The statement of this accused that the witnesses knew from before if taken to be correct, then the fact that he was not named in the F.I.R. even then, becomes fatal for the prosecution.Now we have to consider the recovery of fire arms from these two accused-appellants.So far as the recovery from Chhotey accused-appellant is concerned, it is of an illicit weapon and it establishes the offence under Section 25 Arms Act against him.But it shall have no bearing on the charge for the offence under Section 396 IPC.There is no recovery from his possession of any of the two weapons looted in the present dacoity.So no adverse inference can be drawn against this accused- appellant Chhotey in regard to the charge under Section 396 IPC.Consequently, in the absence of link evidence, the accused-appellant Chhotey lias to be given the benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 396 IPC and his con vie-tion for this offence cannot be sustained but his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act ought to stand.Now we come to the recovery of the weapon from Khan Singh accused-appellant.This recovery is of the licensed gun No. 89963 looted in the present occurrence.The defence suggestion to the Investigating Officer in regard to the same is that Badhshah son of Deena and Sunder the brother of Dayaram had taken the gun for committing the dacoity and in the dacoity an encounter took place and they were killed in that encounter and further that in collusion with the licence-holders of the guns incorrect charge-sheets have been submitted against the accused persons.However, there are no circumstances and no evidence to lend support to the said plea.The evidence of the Investigating Officer in respect of the said recovery has, therefore, to be accepted and this establishes the charge under Section 25 Arms Act against this accused appellant.The learned Sessions Judge had framed the charge under Section 396 IPC and also framed the charge under Section 412 IPC against the accused-appellant for retaining the said licensed gun No. 89963 along with eight live cartridges knowing and having reasons to believe that the possession of the said licensed gun has been transferred by commission of dacoity.The learned Sessions Judge being of the opinion that the evidence establishes the offence of dacoity with murder against this accused-appellant did not make a separate conviction for the offence under Section 412 IPC.Even though the charge under Section 396 IPC will have to fail against this accused appellant also in view of the absence of the link evidence, a presumption can certainly be raised on the basis of the said recovery that he was a 'receiver'.Now the question arises as to whether the presumption should be whether he was a 'receiver' with the knowledge that the said firearm had been ac-quired by commission of dacoity.Since there is no such material on record, it will only be safe to draw a lesser presumption that he knew the fire-arm to be a stolen property.A factory made weapon is not something readily available in the market, which can be acquired just by throwing money.So, the charge under Section 411 IPC only is brought home to this accused-appellant Khan Singh, which is a minor offence with reference to the offence under section 396 IPC.Moreover, this accused-appellant had been tried by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 412 IPC but he did not make a separate conviction for the offence under section 411 or 412 IPC because the major offence under section 396 IPC was established on his assessment of evidence.However, since he was arrested on 17-5-84 and was admitted to bail by this court on 18-9-92, he has already served out the period of sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge for the offence under section 25 Arms Act. At present he is on bail.He need not surrender.His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.Criminal Appeal No. 676 of 88 in respect of Khan Singh alias Ujagar Khan accused-appellant is also partly allowed.However, he is convicted for the offence under Section 411 IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for the said offence.It means that he has already suffered imprisonment for seven years and four months as under trial or against the sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge for this offence.Consequently, he need not surrender.His bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.20. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in a week from today for information and compliance.The compliance report by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur shall be submitted to this Court within a month from today..
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,439,195 |
Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, and Roshan Singhwere also convicted under Section 201 r/w 120-B of the IPC.On that day, he lefthis residence around 10.30 a.m. informing his wife SumitraGupta (PW-18) that he would first be going to the house ofanother Councillor of the MCD, Sharda Jain (A-1) and then beproceeding to attend a Congress Party rally at the FerozshahKotla Grounds along with her.His driver, Prabhu Yadav (PW-17)drove him to the residence of Sharda Jain and upon reachingthere, the deceased instructed the driver to take the car backto their residence.When the deceased did not return homeuntil evening, enquiries were made by his wife and family 2 members.MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.Signature Not Verified1.Digitally signed byGULSHAN KUMARARORA The judgment dated 27.08.2009 passed by the High CourtDate: 2019.10.2416:47:09 ISTReason:of Delhi in Criminal Appeal Nos. 144 of 2007 and 51 of 2007 1 has been called in question in the instant appeals.By theimpugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the order ofconviction passed by the Trial Court against Sharda Jain (A-1),Raj Kumar (A-2), Pushpender (A-3), Nirvikar (A-4), Rajender (A-Ultimately, the body of the deceased was foundon 31.08.2002 in a sub-canal of the Bulandshar Rajwaha/SanotaCanal.A charge sheet came to be filed against nine accused,namely, Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), Pushpender (A-3),Nirvikar (A-4), Rajender (A-5), Roshan Singh (A-6), Shri PalSingh Raghav (A-7), Satender Kumar (A-8) and Rakesh Kumar(A-9).The Trial Court convicted Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar(A-2), Pushpender (A-3), Nirvikar (A-4), Rajender (A-5) andRoshan Singh (A-6) for the charges framed against them.Asregards the other three accused Shri Pal Singh Raghav (A-7),Satender Kumar (A-8) and Rakesh Kumar (A-9), the Trial Courtfound that they were not party to the conspiracy hatched bythe other convicted persons.However, they were convictedunder Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence.In effect,the conviction of Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), Rajender(A-5) and Roshan Singh (A-6) was affirmed, while the otheraccused Pushpender (A-3), Nirvikar (A-4), Shri Pal Singh Raghav(A-7), Satender Kumar (A-8) and Rakesh Kumar (A-9)were acquitted.The convicted persons have approached this Court in theinstant appeals.Among them, Roshan Singh (A-6) who had filedAppeal No. 1888 of 2010 expired on 02.05.2017 and his appealhas therefore been dismissed as abated.Accordingly, only theappeals filed by Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2) andRajender (A-5) were heard and have been decided by thiscommon judgment.It is the case of the prosecution that Sharda Jain (A-1) haddeveloped close relations with the deceased.When he beganignoring her for another woman, she hatched a conspiracy withher brother, Raj Kumar (A-2) and two other persons, Rajender(A-5) and Roshan Singh (A-6) to murder him.Pursuant to this,the deceased was taken to village Chajjupur in her car, where 4 two hired assassins, namely, Pushpender (A-3) and Nirvikar (A-4), shot him dead.It is alleged that the dead body was disposedof with the help of three police officers, namely, Shri Pal SinghRaghav (A-7), Satender Kumar (A-8), and Rakesh Kumar (A-9)who threw it in a canal.There are no eye witnesses to the incident in question.The case of the prosecution fully rests on circumstantialevidence, which has been used to weave a chain that points tothe guilt of each of the convicted persons.7.1 With respect to Sharda Jain (A-1), the Trial Court and theHigh Court have considered the following circumstances:(c) no plausible explanation has been given by her as to how and when the deceased parted company with her on 24.08.2002;(d) a false claim was made by her that she did not visit Ghaziabad on 24.08.2002;(e) she misled the family members of the deceased when they made enquiries from her about the whereabouts of the deceased;(f) two meetings took place between Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Rajender and Roshan Singh at the residence of Sharda Jain, just a few days prior to 24.08.2002;(g) her conduct of visiting the house of her driver, Om Prakash in the late hours of the night on 24.08.2002 is suspicious;(h) that she had motive to kill the deceased.7.2 As regards Raj Kumar (A-2), the brother of Sharda Jain, thelower Courts have considered the following circumstances:(a) that he visited the house of Sharda Jain (A-1) on two occasions along with two other persons just a few days prior to 24.08.2002;(b) that he pointed out the place of the murder of the deceased;(c) that his place of residence was in the vicinity of the place of murder of the deceased;(d) that he did not controvert the fact of acquaintance with other co-accused, Rajender (A-5) and Roshan Singh (A-6); and(e) that the wrist watch of the deceased was recovered at his instance.7.3 As regards Rajender (A-5), the Trial Court and the HighCourt have considered the following circumstances:(a) that the deceased was last seen alive in his company and that the time gap between the last seen and time of the death of the deceased is so small that it makes the possibility that the deceased could have come in the contact of any other person too remote;(b) no plausible explanation has been given by him as to how and when he parted company with the deceased on 24.08.2002;(c) that he has not controverted the fact that he used to drive the car of Roshan Singh (A-6) on a temporary basis and therefore, he was associated with Roshan Singh;(d) that he made a false claim about never having visited the house of Sharda Jain (A-1);(e) that he refused to participate in the test identification parade (TIP) and the reasons for such refusal are not plausible.Upon considering the aforementioned circumstances andappreciating the material on record, the High Court found thatthe chain of circumstances as against Sharda Jain (A-1), RajKumar (A-2), and Rajender (A-5) was complete and it wasproven that these persons had entered into a conspiracy tomurder the deceased.It is well-settled that in cases where the prosecution relieson circumstantial evidence to establish its case, suchcircumstances should be duly proved and the chain ofcircumstances so proved should be complete.This means thatthe chain formed must unerringly point towards the guilt of theaccused and not leave any missing links for the accused toescape from the clutches of law.Further, with respect toconspiracy, it is trite law that the existence of three elementsmust be shown– a criminal object, a plan or a schemeembodying means to accomplish that object, and an agreement 8 or understanding between two or more people to cooperate forthe accomplishment of such object.In light of these observations, we shall proceed to examinethe cases of each of the three appellants, Sharda Jain (A-1), RajKumar (A-2) and Rajender (A-5) in order.Sharda Jain (A-1)As mentioned supra, the lower Courts have consideredvarious circumstances against Sharda Jain (A-1).While somecircumstances used by the Trial Court have been found to beproven by the High Court as well, some others have been ruledout.For the purpose of our consideration, given that thelearned Counsels for both sides have premised their argumentson the circumstances finally used by the High Court to establishthe guilt of Sharda Jain, we will be adverting to each of those inturn.11.1 To prove the first circumstance of Sharda Jain pointingout the place of the murder of the deceased ( hereinafter ‘SpotA’), the prosecution has examined police officials, namely,Inspector V.S. Meena (PW-62), HC Sunita (PW-31), SI RamKumar (PW-32), SI Anil Kumar Chauhan (PW-44), and SI Shiv RajSingh (PW-55).It also examined one Mahender Pal Gupta (PW- 98), but the High Court has entirely disbelieved his testimonydue to several discrepancies.Apart from this, with respect to the evidence of the policeofficials who accompanied Sharda Jain (A-1) to Spot A, i.e. PW-62, PW-31, PW-32, PW-44 and PW-55, we find that theirevidence cannot be discarded.These prosecution witnesseshave withstood the test of cross-examination and clearly statedthat Spot A was not in the knowledge of the police up until28.08.2002, which is when Sharda Jain (A-1) took the policeofficials to this spot.We do not find any valid ground todisbelieve their testimony, particularly when they areindependent, unbiased police officials.There was no reason forthem to falsely depose against Sharda Jain, who was also apublic servant, being a Councillor of the MCD.In addition to this, Manish Kumar (PW-14) has stated that,as a matter of chance, he saw the deceased at this rally,around 12 noon.Thereafter, he saw him leave in a car whereSharda Jain was also seated.Further, the records show that the place of murder of thedeceased was a secluded area.PW-11 has emphatically deposedthat he got down from the car at I.S.B.T. and the deceasedproceeded on the onward journey to Ghaziabad along withSharda Jain and Rajender (A-5), who were also seated in thecar.Applying this test to the present case, if an objection was taken to the CDRs being marked without a certificate, the Court 18 could have given the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the deficiency.It is also clear from the above judgments that objections regarding admissibility of documents which are per se inadmissible can be taken even at the appellate stage.If the objections to the mode of proof are permitted to be taken at the appellate stage by a party, the other side does not have an opportunity of rectifying the deficiencies.The learned Senior Counsel for the State referred to statements under Section 161 CrPC, 1973 as an example of documents falling under the said category of inherently inadmissible evidence.Since no such objection was raised at the time ofmarking of these records before the Trial Court, we find thatthese records can be considered.11.4 The fourth circumstance relates to Sharda Jainmisleading the family members of the deceased about hiswhereabouts.Likewise, the evidence of hismother, Shanti (PW-10) that a boy came to her house and toldher that Sharda Jain was calling Om Prakash has also not beencontroverted.11.6 Lastly, as regards the motive of Sharda Jain based on herclose relations with the deceased and her discontent with hisgrowing relationship with another woman, (Memwati Berwala),we agree with the High Court.Be that as it may, the foregoing discussion on the othercircumstances against Sharda Jain clearly establishes that shewas last seen in the company of the deceased in the afternoonof 24.08.2002, which is the day on which he went missing andwas killed.Further, it is established that she was going with thedeceased to Ghaziabad on that day and was the first to pointout the place of murder to the police.In lightof all these circumstances, we find that the prosecution hassucceeded in making a case against her for the offence underSection 302, IPC.Raj Kumar (A-2)With respect to Raj Kumar (A-2), two circumstances meritour consideration – first, that he visited the house of ShardaJain along with two other persons on two occasions just a fewdays prior to 24.08.2002; and second, that the wristwatch of the deceased was recovered by the police at hisinstance.Being the brother of Sharda Jain, it is butnatural for him to visit her house frequently.Merely because hevisited her house on two occasions, just a few days before the 23 date of incident, an inference cannot be drawn that these visitswere for conspiring to commit the murder of the deceased.Inany case, it is not clear from the material on record as to whowere the other two persons who accompanied him to the houseof Sharda Jain and how many days prior to date of the incidentwere such visits made.Thus, in our considered opinion, thiscircumstance has not been proven against Raj Kumar.13.2 The second circumstance is that the wrist watch of thedeceased was recovered at the instance of Raj Kumar.To provethis circumstance, the prosecution examined police officials,namely, Inspector V.S. Meena (PW-62), Anil Kumar Chauhan(PW-44), and SI Shiv Raj Singh (PW-55).These officials havedeposed that on 28.08.2002, Raj Kumar got the wristwatch of the deceased recovered from behind a speaker keptat a ventilator in the balcony of his house.Moreover, the wrist watch 24 seized from his house was identified by one Rajender Pal Gupta(PW-9), who resides about 10 km away from the residence ofthe deceased.In his cross-examination, PW-9 has admitted thathe went to the spot of the murder on 31.08.2002 and that thewrist watch was still on the hand of the deceased at that time.This issupported by the testimony of Dinesh Kumar (PW-43) who hasalso deposed that the said wrist watch was deposited in themalkhana on 28.08.2002 and that he had made an entry in themalkhana register accordingly.However,given that these officials are independent, unbiased witnessesand the fact that none of the close family members of thedeceased were called on to identify his wrist watch, we areinclined to believe the testimony of these officials.Thus, itappears that the prosecution has tried to improve its case byplanting the said wrist watch so as to falsely implicate RajKumar in this case.In light of this, we find that the prosecutionhas failed to prove the recovery of the wrist watch at the 25 instance of Raj Kumar (A-2).Given that the High Court hadsustained the conviction of A-2 primarily on the basis of thisrecovery, we are of the opinion that he should given the benefitof doubt.13.3 As regards other circumstances considered by the lowerCourts against Raj Kumar (A-2), we find that there is noadequate material brought on record.Clearly, there cannot be a discovery of analready discovered fact.Moreover, merely because A-2 knewthe other accused Rajender (A-5) and Roshan Singh (A-6), itcannot be said that he was complicit in the commission of acrime with them.In our considered opinion, theentire evidence on record is insufficient to bring home the guiltof Raj Kumar (A-2).Accordingly, he deserves to be acquitted forthe charges framed against him.Rajender (A-5)Thisis corroborated by the testimony of Om Prakash Chauhan (PW-11) who has deposed that the deceased arrived at theresidence of Sharda Jain in the morning, sent back his car withPW-17, and then proceeded to the rally with Sharda Jain in a carthat he was driving.As mentioned supra, PW-11 has alsodeposed that while coming back from the rally, Rajender (A-5),the deceased and Sharda Jain were in the same car which wasbeing driven by him towards Ghaziabad.It was during thisjourney that Sharda Jain instructed him to get down from thecar near I.S.B.T. and go back to his house.Accordingly, PW-11 27 got down from the car at I.S.B.T. and left the company of theaccused and the deceased.From that point onwards, it isstated that Rajender (A-5) was driving the vehicle.The testimony of Om Prakash Chauhan (PW-11) wasvehemently challenged by the defence.During his cross-examination, many suggestions were made to him, but theywere all turned down.14.2 In addition to this Rajender (A-5) has admitted that hewas the driver of the car of Roshan Singh (A-6) on a temporarybasis.This establishes his association with another convictedperson in this case.Notably, this connection has not beencontroverted.Moreover, it has been found that the claim madeby Rajinder Singh (A-5) that he has never visited the house ofSharda Jain is false.This is clear in light of the reliable evidence 28 of Om Prakash Chauhan (PW-11) who has stated that Rajender(A-5), Sharda Jain, and the deceased had left from the house ofSharda Jain to proceed for the rally at the Ferozshah KotlaGrounds.14.3 Another circumstance against Raj Kumar relates to theplace of the murder of the deceased.It has been proved thatSpot A is the place of the incident.Thus,we find that this circumstance indicates the involvement ofRajender (A-5) in the commission of the crime. 29In light of the foregoing discussion, it is proved thatRajender was driving the car in which the deceased was lastseen with him and Sharda Jain (A-1).Further, it is also proventhat this car went up till Spot A, which is the place of theincident as is evident from the existence of the mud from thespot on the tyres of the car.In the absence of any plausibleexplanation put forth by Rajender as to his actions on24.08.2002 and thereafter, and given the totality of material onrecord, we find that the circumstances considered against himestablish his complicity in committing the murder of thedeceased.On going through the entire material onrecord, we find that a criminal conspiracy has not been provedin the instant case.Thus, the charge against Sharda Jain (A-1)and Rajender (A-5) under Section 120-B, IPC for conspiring tomurder the deceased cannot be sustained.In the absence ofany missing links, they cannot be given a chance to escapefrom the clutches of law.In view of the foregoing discussion, the following order ismade:Vide order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court, Sharda Jain (A-1) was granted bail.She shall be taken into custody immediately to serve out the remainder of her sentence.The judgment and order of 32 conviction passed against him stands affirmed for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, IPC.Vide order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court, Rajender (A-5) was granted bail.Accordingly, his bail bonds are cancelled.He shall be taken into custody immediately to serve out the remainder of his sentence.Vide order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court, Raj Kumar (A-2) was granted bail.His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.(Mohan M.October 24, 2019 33
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
894,577 |
ORDER Harish Chandra, J.A criminal complaint was brought against the applicant Sardar Swarup Singh by a man called P.C. Sharma under Sections 352 and 506, Penal Code.The Magistrate, however, followed the procedure prescribed for the trial of a warrant case and proceeded with the trial and some evidence was recorded.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,458,154 |
Item no. 32 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.6431 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 20.08.2018 in connection with Durgapur Coke Oven Police Station Case No. 114/2018 dated 09.07.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/307/34 read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Manabi Nag & ors.... Petitioners Mr. Dipankar Aditya, Advocate Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate Ms. Denjani Sahu, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Durgapur Coke Oven Police Station Case No. 114/2018 dated 09.07.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/406/307/34 read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of the Indian Penal Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 3
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
894,595 |
The complainant Bank alleged that the applicant Narayandas Sarda (original accused No. 4) was an agent of one Raju and Mannar Lorry Transport, Nagpur, of which the non-applicants No. 3, and 4 (now deleted) (original accused No. 2 and 3 respectively) were partners.The said Transport Company was a common carrier.It had entered into arrangements with the Indian Bank Association and got itself classified as approved carrier.The non-applicant No. 2 S. Srinivasgem (original accused No. 1) had an account with the complainant Indian Bank (non-applicant No. 1) which had granted credit facility of Rs. 4,00,000/- to him.The complainant Bank used to advance money to non-applicant No. 2 S. Srinivasagam (original accused No. 1) on the strength of the lorry receipts received by it which were issued by the common carrier Raju and Mannar Lorry Transport, Nagpur.A number of lorry receipts were produced by non-applicant No. 2 S. Srinivasagam (original accused No. 1) to the Bank for various consignments, for example, Lorry Receipt No. 3304 dated 25-1-1977 valued at Rs. 17840/- (Annexure 'A'), Lorry Receipt No. 3335 dated 15-2-1977 valued at Rs. 12,835/ (Annexure 'B'), Lorry Receipt No. 3341 dated 21-2-77 valued at Rs. 19,110/ (Annexure 'C'), Lorry Receipt No. 3343 dated 21-2-77 valued at Rs, 9260 (Annexure 'D'), Lorry Receipt No. 3342 dated 23-2-77 valued at Rs. 9260/ (Annexure 'E'), Lorry Receipt No. 3358 dated 25-2-77 valued at Rs. 19,216/ (Annexure 'F') representing a consignment of 190 of bags of 'popat' and Lorry Receipt No. dated 25-2-1977 valued at Rs. 13,875 (Annexure 'G') representing a consignment of 90 bags of grain.All these Lorry Receipts were drawn in favour of the complainant Bank as the consignee.The complainant alleged that by producing the lorry receipts along with the bills and other documents, the complainant Bank was induced to part with respective amounts on the clear understanding that the goods mentioned have in fact been despatched or accepted for despatch to the destinations and the documents will be met at the destinations by appropriate remittances by purchasers in payment of the goods sent.It was only against the security of goods mentioned in the lorry receipts that the complainant parted with the respective amounts in favour of the accused.JUDGMENT B.G. Deo, J.This is an application filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the original accused No. 4, the present applicant Narayandas son of Gopikisan Sarda, Proprietor of M/s. Sarda Goods Transport, Bhandara Road, Bagadganj, Nagpur, for quashing the proceedings against him and others in Criminal Case No. 191 of 1978, pending on the file of the 7th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur.The challenge to the aforesaid proceedings is mainly on two grounds.Firstly, according to the applicant Narayandas Sarda (original accused no. 4), there was no prima facie case against him and the order passed against him for issuing process under sections 467, 471, 407 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was an abuse of the process of law.The second and the most important challenge to these proceedings is on the ground that the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 191 of 1978 instituted in the year 1978 (the complaint having been filed on 13-2-1978 before C.J.M. who then transferred it to J.M.F.C. on 20-2-1978) have been pending since then at the stage of recording evidence before charge.Not a single witness was examined in that case before filing of this application.The applicant has a constitutional right to speedy trial as implied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said right having been compromised so far for a period of nine years till this application was filed and even till today till the application is being decided, amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law and therefore, the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed to save the applicant and the other accused from further harassment.The learned Advocate Shri Gaikwad for non-applicant No. 2 has echoed the said feelings, while Shri Ghate for the complainant (non-applicant No. 1) has contended that quashing the proceedings in a serious case like this would not be conducive in the interest of justice and in the interest of society at large.I have heard at length Shri Shukla for the applicant (original accused No. 4) Shri Ghate for non-applicant No. 1 Bank (original complainant), Shri Gaikwad for non-applicant No. 2 (original accussed No. 1) and Shri Patil for State.The Complaint further alleged :"The complainant Bank had paid the price of the goods in advance and the goods were entrusted to the accused No. 4 as the authorised agent of accused 2 and 3 on terms stated above.The accused No. 2 and 3 in collusion and conspiracy with the accused No. 1 and 4 misappropriated the goods or in the alternaive committed criminal breach of trust in disposing of the goods contrary to the trust reposed in them.The accused No. 2 and 3 along with accused no. 1 and 4 have thus committed the offence punishable under section 407 read with section 34, I.P.C."The complainant alleged that original accused No. 1 S. Srinivasagam had a Bank account with it and he, with common desire and conspiracy with accused Nos. 2 to 4, withdrew the aforesaid valuable considerations on the basis of the lorry receipts and the series of acts are so connected as to form the same transaction.All those acts were done by the accused with common intention having conspired together and offences of criminal breach of trust, dishonest misappropriation of property, falsification of documents were committed by all the accused and they could be tried in one trial for all the offences charged.The complaint was presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on 20-2-1978 for offences punishable under sections 420, 407, 468, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the complainant Indian Bank , alleging common intention on the part of all the accused of cheating the complainant Bank.The process was issued to all the accused under the following order passed by the Court :"Issue process to all accused u/s 420, 468. 471, I.P.C. on payment of P.F. within 3 days."The complaint was dismissed by order dated 2-5-1979 which is reproduced below :An application (Exhibit 40 ) was made by the complainant Bank on 4-5-1979 for restoration of the complaint.The learned Magistrate heard the application and passed the following order on 10-5-1979;Order "Heard.Complaint was dismissed on technical grounds under section 204(4), Cri.Counsel for complainant relies on A.I.R. 1930 Bombay Page 10 in support of his application.Hence, the case is ordered to be restored to file.Complainant to pay P.F. within 7 days."There is an application on 9-7-80 on the part of the complainant for adjournment.Then there was no time to the Court for taking up the case and on 18-11-1980 accused No. 3 filed a pursis (Exhibit 80).No order appears to have been passed on the pursis (Exhibit 80).The record of the order sheets shows that from 18-1-1980 to 26-7-1984 i.e. for a period of four years, no progress was made in the case which was adjourned from time to time, at times on an application by the complainant and many other times as the Court was busy with other matters.A perusal of the order sheets would show that for a period of four years from 1980 to 1984 the delay was caused on account of want of time to the Court and also to the complainant.It was for the first time on 26-7-1984 that the case was fixed for evidence before charge.Even thereafter on 23-8-84, it was the complainant who applied for adjournment.On 20-12-84 the complainant applied for issuing requisition to the High Court for getting the record of the relevant civil suit from the High Court.The original documents in that suit could have been called or a certified copy could have been obtained.From then onwards, the case was adjourned from time to time, although all the accused were present, for evidence before charge.In the meantime, the original accused No. 2 Mr. K.S. Raju Naidu expired.On 9-12-1986, original accused No. 3 Mr. R. Nagamanlckan was found absent.The complainant applied vide Exhibit 98 for issue of a bailable warrant against original accused No. 3 by Hamdast.On 7-7-1987 fresh bailable warrant was issued.However presence of original accused No. 3 R. Nagamanikan could not be secured, as it appears till 19-6-1989 mainly because the complainant had not paid the process fees.On 2-8-1986, the Court was informed by pursis (Exhibit 97) that original accused No. 2 K.S. Raju Naidu had expired.In the year 1986 and 1987, the case lingered on till the pursis was filed by the complainant Bank.At the same time, original accused No. 3 R. Nagamanickan was not present and it was because of the complainant's default in the payment of process fee that bailable warrants are not issued and the year 1987 passed.The order-sheets dated 18-2-1989, 27-3-1989, 26-4-1989 and 19-6-1989 respectively (the last order sheets) show that for want of payment of process fee the case has to be adjourned from time to time and now the case stands fixed on 5-8-1989 for went of payment of P.F. to secure the presence of original accused No. 3 R. Nagamanickan.Some salient features deserve notice.Lorry Receipt No. 384 dated 27-2-1977 (Annexure 'A') gave rise to the offences for the first time.The complainant, however, did not report the matter to the police nor did the learned Magistrate take any action for obtaining the police report under section 202 of the Cri.The statement of the complainant was recorded on 2-10-1978 and there was delay on the part of the complainant for payment of process fee from time to time.Thereafter till date, the delay caused was squarely for want of payment of process fee by the complainant.There is no doubt that some period of delay caused is attributable to want of time to the Court.Yet another feature to be noted is that it was the original accused No. 1 S. Srinivasagam against whom the brunt of allegations i.e. misappropriation of amounts, breach of trust, falsification of documents etc. were made.The present applicant Narayandas Sarda (original accused No. 4) has contended that he was neither the agent of M/s Raju and Mannar Lorry Transport Company not did he forge any documents.Several questions arise for consideration in this connection.The questions which arise for consideration are:
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,463,028 |
A.Nos.560/1999 Page 1 of 22The fact that Sangeeta has died homicidal death and her dead body was recovered from a well in the agricultural fields, at Yamuna Khadar on 8th August, 1997 at about 11.30 - 12.00 p.m. is undisputed and also proved beyond doubt.The said factum has been proved by Sarjit Singh (PW-1), brother of Sangeeta and Maharaj Singh, (PW-2).PW1 has deposed that Sangeeta was missing since 7th August, 1997 and did not return home after she had gone to the fields to cut fodder.PW-2, along with the villagers, were searching for Sangeeta in the fields and on 8th August, 1997 at about 11.30 a.m., a dead body was found lying in a well by Maharaj Singh (PW-2).Thereafter, he informed Sarjit Singh (PW-1) and Chander Pal (PW-7).The post mortem of Sangeeta was conducted by Dr.K.L. Sharma (PW-10), who had received the inquest papers on 9th August, 1997 at 11.20 a.m. On post mortem examination, it was noticed that Sangeeta had suffered three external injuries detailed below:-"Injury No.1- There were multiple incised punctured wounds, four in number, one below the other over front of the neck slightly on antro lateral part.All wounds were transverse in disposition.Both angles of the wound had abraided lines, upper wounds measured 2.5 cm x 1 cm Crl.On internal examination, it was found that the Injury No.1 upper wound had resulted in cutting of the skin under the platysma muscle.Trachea, oesophagus were obliquely cut through with the cut measured 2.5 x 2.5 cm.It had further penetrated and hacked the intervertebral disc between 3rd and 4th vertebra of cervical region and partially cut the spinal cord.The other lower wounds were muscle deep.There are no eye-witnesses in the present case.Suresh Pal (PW-8) has deposed that on 7th August, 1997, he was going to fields for cutting fodder when he saw Sangeeta going towards the fields of Rattan Singh, in the bullock cart (buggi) of Narender with Kamlesh, sister-in-law and Munni, sister of Narender.The buggi stopped near the fields of Rattan Singh.Kamlesh and Munni stepped down from the buggi and went towards the fields for cutting fodder.Sangeeta also got down and went to the fields of Rattan Singh.Neither did PW-8 specifically indicate Crl.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 4 of 22 where Kamlesh and Munni went for cutting fodder.He has simply stated that they had went towards the fields for cutting fodder, near the fields of Rattan Singh.PW-8 has further deposed that he went to his own fields for cutting fodder and came back after about 30/45 minutes.At that time he had seen the appellant looking around while being engaged in harnessing the buffaloes who had to be attached with the buggi.The appellant was looking around and had come out from the fields of Rattan Singh.The sister-in-law and sister of the appellant had come there, after cutting the fodder, and the same was loaded into the buggi.Thereafter, the appellant along with his sister-in-law and sister went towards the pontoon bridge.However, PW-8 did not see Sangeeta thereafter.In the cross-examination, PW-8 has stated that he had seen Sangeeta with the appellant, his sister-in-law and sister near the fields of Rattan Singh and then on the way back, he had seen the appellant, his sister and sister-in-law in the buggi towards pontoon bridge.He was confronted with the statement of PW-8 recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC where the word pontoon bridge was not mentioned.He has stated that he came to know about the murder of Sangeeta on 8th August, 1997, as he had gone to his sister's house on 7th August, 1997, after cutting the fodder and had returned the next day.However, in his statement recorded by the police, dated 9th August, 1997, he did not tell the police that he had gone to his sister's house.He has further Crl.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 5 of 22 deposed that he returned from his sister's place at about 2/2.30 p.m. on 8th August, 1997 and had told his chacha (father's elder brother) Chander Pal (PW-7) that he had seen Sangeeta in the buggi of Narender.He met police on 9th August, 1997 and his statement was recorded.He has further deposed that his chacha Chander Pal (PW-7) had gone to the house of Narender on 8.8.1997 but PW8 had not met Narender on the said day.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 4 of 22A.Nos.560/1999 Page 5 of 22Maharaj Singh (PW-2) has stated that on 7th August, 1997, he had seen Sangeeta with Narender, his sister and sister-in-law in the buggi and when they reached the fields of Rattan Singh, sister and and sister-in-law of Narender alighted from the buggi.Appellant Narender and Sangeeta also got down from the buggi and started talking to each other.After some time, Sangeeta went into the fields of Rattan Singh to cut fodder and Narender followed her.Thereafter PW-2 returned to his house.The next day he came to the fields of Yamuna Khadar at about 9.30/10.00 a.m., and saw a crowd had collected there.He came to know that Sangeeta, who had come to the fields on 7th August, 1997, had not returned home.He joined the search for Sangeeta with others.During the search, dead body of Sangeeta was found lying in the well, in the fields of Rattan Singh.With the help of fire brigade and police, her body was taken out.He had informed Sarjit and Chander Pal, PW- 1 and PW-7, respectively.He identified the appellant Crl.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 6 of 22 Narender in Court.PW-2 is the nephew of Chander Pal (PW-7) and Sangeeta was the niece of Chander Pal.PW-2 and PW-7 were neighbours.In case PW-2 had seen appellant and Sangeeta together in the buggi and the appellant going behind Sangeeta, when she had gone to the fields of Rattan Singh, he would have been concerned and so warned Chander Pal and Sarjit Singh, PW-7 and PW-1, respectively.Similarly, PW-8 Suresh Pal had first informed the police and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 9 th Crl.PW-8 was closely related to Sangeeta, being his cousin brother.PW-2 is equally closely related as PW-7 is his chacha.PW-2 has stated that it takes about 30-45 minutes to cut fodder.(Thokar is a village path passing through the fields).We have DD entry No.35 (Ex.PW17/A) recorded on 7th August, 1997 which was proved by SI Vijay Kumar (PW-17).PW-17 has deposed that he was Incharge, Police Post Mayur Vihar Phase-I and on 7th August, 1997 at 8.00 p.m., he had received information about drowning of a girl.He went to the fields of Yamuna Khadar.The fields were flooded with water as it was rainy season.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 8 of 22 The villagers had gathered there and were trying to find Sangeeta.Fire brigade personnels were there with boats and everyone was searching for Sangeeta as they suspected Sangeeta had drowned.Inquiries were made from the persons present.Despite thorough search Sangeeta could not be traced.He went back to the police station and accordingly recorded DD entry No.35 (Ex.PW17/A).The next day about 12.30 p.m., he received DD entry No.15 that dead body of Sangeeta had been found.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 8 of 22In DD entry No.35 (Ex.PW17/A), PW-17 has recorded that on inquiries from persons, it came to his knowledge that one Narender @ Ninder had seen Sangeeta in the fields of Rattan Singh.In the police diary dated 08th August, 1997, it is recorded that investigations on 8 th August, 1997 started at 12.15 p.m. and continued till 11.45 p.m. During the course of inquiries/investigation, Sarjit (PW-1) had stated that on 7th August, 1997, he had contacted the appellant who had informed him that he had seen Sangeeta in the fields of Rattan Singh.The daily diary entry records that Sarjit suspected the appellant.Sarjit,(PW1), in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 8th August, 1997, has not stated that Maharaj Singh (PW-2) or Suresh Pal (PW-8) had informed him that they had seen appellant Narender with his sister-in-law and sister on the buggi with Sangeeta or thereafter the appellant had followed Sangeeta in the fields of Rattan Crl.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 9 of 22 Singh.Sarjit, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has referred to statement made by his chachi Ramvati that the appellant, his sister- in-law and sister had also gone for cutting fodder and had seen Sangeeta in the fields of Rattan Singh.Ramvati thereafter had made inquiries from the sister-in-law of Narender namely, Kamlesh who had confirmed that they had gone for cutting fodder and had returned.At that time, Sangeeta was cutting fodder in the fields of Rattan Singh.Sarjit had spoken to the appellant Narender, who had made a similar statement.Sarjit (PW-1), in his deposition in the court, has stated that his Chachi Ramvati had stated that, Narender, his bhabhi and the appellant sister had gone to their field to fetch fodder.Bhabhi Kamlesh had stated that she had seen Sangeeta in the fields.PW17/C was prepared on 8th August, 1997 and as per the deposition of Inspector Devender Singh (PW-19), site plan Ex.In the site plan Ex.PW17/C, the field from where dead body of Sangeeta was recovered along with pant hooks etc. is mentioned.The location where the cycle and slippers of Sangeeta were found is mentioned.The location of place where PW-2 and PW-8 had seen the buggi, where the appellant Narender had stopped his buggi or the place where sister-in- law and sister of Narender had gone for cutting fodder etc. is not indicated.Similarly, in the site plan Ex.She had not gone with Narender.It is therefore difficult to accept that Sangeeta would have taken lift from Narender in his buggi.We have already disbelieved the statement of PW-2 and 8 on the said aspect.The cycle and slippers of Sangeeta were found near the fields of Rattan Singh and near the place from where her dead body was recovered i.e. the well.The fields were flooded.Sangeeta would have removed her slippers, in order to enter the fields for cutting fodder.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 12 of 22If he had seen Narender with Sangeeta or had seen Narender going behind Sangeeta in the fields on 7 th August, 1997, he would have informed others.PW-2's statement that he had gone to a third place, after coming back from the fields on 7th August, 1997 is untrue and incorrect.(viii) Cycle and slippers of Sangeeta were found near the field of Ratan Singh.Her dead body was recovered from a nearby spot.Appellant had gone with his sister and sister-in-law and returned with them after collecting fodder within 35 to 40 minutes.Narender could not have possibly physically assaulted Sangeeta in their presence or when his sister and sister-in-law were in the vicinity.There is no evidence or material to show that Narender was not present and had gone out of the visibility range of his sister and sister-in-law.Sangeeta too would have shouted and attracted attention of the sister and sister-in-law.(xi) The fields had fully grown crop of jawar upto height of seven feet.Possibility of a third person being present in the jawar field cannot be ruled out.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 16 of 22The prosecution version is that there were blood stains on the shirt and the pyjama and the FSL report Ex.PW19/A confirms the blood group which matches with the blood group of the deceased.As per the prosecution case, the appellant had come back to his own house in the buggi with his sister and sister-in- law.In case there were fresh blood stains on the clothes worn by the appellant, it would have been noticed and the appellant would have been questioned.The clothes would also have been washed as nobody would like to keep dirty blood stained clothes in their house.The appellant, as per the police case was arrested on 10th August, 1998 and had made disclosure statement Ex.PW7/B on the same day.The said disclosure statement does not mention the place where the clothes were concealed and hidden.As per the seizure memo, Ex.On the same day itself i.e. 10th August, 1997, the appellant was taken to the fields of Rattan Singh where he purportedly identify the place of Crl.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 20 of 22 occurrence.The pointing out memo (Ex.The appellant is also being convicted, under Section 354 and 201 IPC, but has been acquitted from the charge under Section 376 IPC.State has not preferred a leave to appeal against acquittal of the appellant under Section 376 IPC.By order of sentence dated 18.9.1999 for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- Crl.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 1 of 22 , in default of which, the appellant has to suffer 30 days rigorous imprisonment.For the offences under Sections 354 and 201 IPC, the appellant has to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment, on each count.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 2 of 22 below the level of apple of adam, margins were inverted, second wound was placed below it 1.5 x 1.5 cm in measurement, lateral below the first wound.The third wound on the body of the deceased was located over front outer part of the neck, left side 1 x 0.5 cm its angles continued with abraded lines, both sides transversely, the blood was seen oozing from all these wounds.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 2 of 22Injury No.2 - On the body of the deceased was incised punctured wound 4 x 2 cm over left side upper part of neck, disposition was vertically oblique, margins were overted, upper angle being 2 cm below the left ear lobule, blood was oozing with fresh blood clots present.Injury No.3 - On the body of the deceased was transverse semi circular non continuous multiple linear abrasions over back side of neck.No defence was seen."K.L. Sharma (PW-10) opined that the cause of death of Sangeeta was asphyxia and haemorrhagic shock, consequent to injury No.1, on the upper wounds.The post-mortem report was marked Ex.PW10/A. We shall subsequently also refer to the testimony of PW-10 on certain other aspects.The principal issue raised in present appeal is whether the appellant is the perpetrator who had committed the said crime and has Crl.Prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence consisting of evidence of last seen, disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/B) pursuant to which blood stained pant and shirt of the appellant and sickle (darati) were allegedly recovered, FSL Report dated 28th January, 1998 (Ex.PW18/A), which opines that the human blood of AB group, found on the appellant's shirt and the pant and the weapon of offence, tallied with the blood group found on the clothes of the deceased.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 3 of 22On the question of last seen, the prosecution relies upon statement of of Maharaj Singh (PW-2) and Suresh Pal (PW-8).The appellant Narender, who was sitting in the buggi, got down and thereafter went into the fields of Rattan Singh.We may, at this stage, note and record that PW8 has not specifically averred that Narender had gone behind Sangeeta.At this stage, it is relevant to record that PW-2 had deposed that he had gone to his relative's house, after he came back from the fields on 7th August, 1997, and then had come back to Yamuna Khadar on 8th August, 1997 at 9.30/10.00 a.m.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 6 of 22Statements of PW-2, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as r.In the cross-examination of PW-2, he has stated that his statement was recorded on 9th August, 1997 at 11.00/12.00 noon at his house.Chander Pal (PW-7) in his cross- examination has accepted that Maharaj Singh (PW-2) is his nephew and lived adjacent to his house.We have grave doubts about truthfulness and credibility of depositions made by PW-2 and PW-8 and there are various reasons for the same.In that case, Sangeeta should have returned home on 7th August, 1997 by about 11.00 a.m. and any considerable delay should have raised concerns.Sangeeta was a young girl and the fact she was missing would have been a matter of grave concern and anxiety for the entire family.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 7 of 22There is ample evidence to show that a police complaint was made and report was filed with the fire brigade on 7th August, 1997 itself.On the said date, cycle and slippers of Sangeeta were found on a "Thokar" near the fields of Rattan Singh.PW-1 therefore has not deposed or stated that PW-2 and PW-8 had informed him that they had gone to the fields on 7 th August, 1997 and had seen the appellant, Sangeeta and others in a buggi or the appellant had followed Sangeeta into the fields.This creates a grave doubt regarding presence of PW-2 and PW-8, at the place in question at the relevant time.Their depositions have to be accordingly disbelieved.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 9 of 22The factual information recorded in Ex.PW17/A by SI Vijay Kumar (PW-17) indicates that it was the appellant Narender who had informed that he had seen Sangeeta in the fields of Rattan Singh, in the Crl.In fact, PW2 had located the dead body of Sangeeta in the well on 8th August, 1997 at 11/11.30 a.m but even at that time had not stated that he had seen the appellant Narender going after Sangeeta, in the fields of Rattan Singh, supports our conclusion.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 10 of 22Appellant Narender, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has accepted that he, along with sister-in-law and sister had gone in a buggi for cutting fodder.Thereafter they returned.He has stated that he came to know later, on 8th August, 1997 that dead body of Sangeeta has been taken out from the well but he could not see, as police was there.A big crowd had gathered and nobody including him, was allowed to see the dead body.The prosecution has placed on record two site plans Ex.PW17/C, which is the unscaled site plan and Ex.PW19/A, which is the scaled Crl.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 11 of 22 site plan.PW19A the place from where PW-2 and PW-8 had allegedly seen the appellant and deceased Sangeeta and others in the buggi has not been stated.The place where sister-in-law and sister of the appellant had got down for cutting fodder is not indicated either.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 11 of 22In the deposition of PW-2 and PW-8, it has come on record that jawar was grown on these fields and it had grown to the height varying between 4 to 7 feet.The deceased Sangeeta was aged about 14-16 years.It would have been virtually impossible for anyone to see when Sangeeta was moving in the said fields for cutting fodder.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached the following factual conclusions:(i) Testimonies of Maharaj Singh (PW-2) and Suresh Pal (PW-8) to the effect that they were present near the fields of Ratan Singh in the morning of 7th August, 1997 are not reliable, trustworthy and credible.PW-2 and PW-8 had belatedly made the said statements to the police on 9th August, 1997, two days after Sangeeta had gone missing on 7th August, 1997 and nearly one Crl.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 13 of 22 day after the dead body of Sangeeta was found on 8th August, 1997 at about 11.30 A.M.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 13 of 22(ii) PW-1 and PW-8 had not made any such statement to the family members on 7th August, 1997 and 8th August, 1997 though they are closely related to Sangeeta and her family.(iii) Maharaj Singh (PW-2) had searched for Sangeeta on 7th and 8th August, 1997 but he had not at that time implicated or suspected the appellant Narender.The said averment appears to be a statement of convenience as PW-2 wanted to explain the delay.(iv) Exhibit PW-17/A, i.e., DD entry No. 35 recorded by SI Vijay Kumar (PW-17) on 7th August, 1997, indicates that the appellant, i.e., Narender had himself stated that he had seen Sangeeta in the fields of Ratan Singh.As per the recording made in Exhibit PW-17/A by SI Vijay Kumar, Narender had informed the family members of Sangeeta that he had seen her in the fields of Ratan Singh.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 14 of 22A.Nos.560/1999 Page 14 of 22(v) Somewhat similar statement has been made by Sarjit (PW-1), brother of the deceased, who has stated that on 7 th August, 1997 his Chachi Ramwati had stated that Narender, his bhabhi and sister had gone to the fields to fetch fodder and bhabhi Kamlesh had told her that they had seen Sangeeta in the fields.(vi) Narender had accepted and admitted that he, along with his sister-in-law and sister, had gone in the buggi to collect fodder on 7th August, 1997 at about 8 to 8.30 A.M. Sangeeta, as per the testimony of PW-1, had also gone to collect fodder in the fields of Yamuna Khadar on 7th August, 1997 in the morning.(vii) In case Sangeeta had gone with Narender, his sister and sister-in-law in the buggi, it was likely and probable that she would have returned with them.This belies and does not support the statement of PW- 2 and PW-8 that they had seen Sangeeta in the buggi.(ix) Dr. K.L. Sharma (PW-10) had conducted post-mortem on 9th August, 1997 vide report Exhibit PW-10/A. Time of death as recorded was 48 hours.PW7/D) is not admissible and would not be covered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The place of occurrence was already known to the police and as per the investigations made by them on 8.8.1997, the dead body of Sangeeta was recovered from the same place.On 11th August, 1997, one day police remand was obtained from the Metropolitan Magistrate and the sickle was recovered as per seizure memo/pointing out memo Ex.It is not indicated in the seizure memo/pointing out memo or in the sketch (Ex.PW7/F) that any blood stains were found on the sickle.A.Nos.560/1999 Page 20 of 22The sickle, as per the prosecution version, was recovered five days after the occurrence.As noted above, there is evidence to show that there was considerable rain in the said area and the fields were water logged.The sickle, as per the seizure memo Ex.PW7/E, was lying in the water.Surprisingly, however, as per FSL report (Ex.PW18/A), human blood of AB group was found on the sickle i.e. the weapon of offence.There is, therefore distinct possibility that the blood stains were planted on the sickle.The circumstances so proved must form a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused.The circumstances should not lead to any other hypothesis [See Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Another (supra)].The appeal is disposed of.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,465,926 |
Present revision has been filed against order dated 20-05-2004 passed by Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, in Criminal case no. 3001/ 2004 Smt. Bandana Srivastava versus Rajesh Kumar & Others.After receiving evidences under section 200 and 202 CrPC from the complainant/ revisionist, the Court below had passed summoning order dated 20-05-2004 by which out of five accused named in complaint only three accused were summoned for offences u/ss 498-A, 323, 504 IPC & section 3/4 D.P.Act; and no prima facie case for summoning remaining two named accused, namely Smt. Gudiya and Km.Bandana @ Neetu (O.P. no. 2 and 3 of revision).Aggrieved by this impugned order complainant had preferred present revision with prayer to summon remaining two named persons, namely Smt. Gudiya and Km.Bandana @ Neetu (O.P. no. 2 & 3) as accused.None was present from revisionist side at the time of hearing.Heard learned AGA and perused the records.Like other three summoned accused, remaining two persons (O.P. no. 2 and 3 of revision) should have been summoned.A perusal of impugned order shows that lower Court had appreciated the evidences and circumstances of the case and thereafter reached to its conclusion.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,669,642 |
As such, this appeal is being considered in respect of only appellant Prakash Singh.The prosecution story may be summarized as hereunder: On 14.01.1998, a written report was lodged on behalf of Railway Inspector, Guna stating that dead body of a person was lying across the railway track on Bina-Kota at Ashok Nagar.A police party reached the spot and discovered mutilated dead body of a girl aged about 9-10 years, lying on the railway track.It was apparently run over by a passing train.At that time Islam Khan reached the spot and identified the dead body as belonging to his daughter Chand Bee.During investigation, it was learnt that a day prior to the discovery of the dead body i.e. on 13.01.1998, at around 2 P.M. on 13.01.1998, accused Lallu Singh had come to the grocery shop of Smt. Akeela (PW/4) and had given her a Rs. 100/- note after purchasing biscuits and balloons for a child he was carrying.Smt. Akeela (PW/4) had returned nine new Rs.10/- notes bearing the image of Mahatma Gandhi, to him.Thereafter deceased Chand Bee had gone to the floor mill where her brother Iskan worked.Chand Bee told Iskan that accused Lallu Singh had given one of those Rs. 10/- notes to her for fetching cigarettes.Thereafter, Chand Bee had returned.In the evening witnesses Majit Khan (PW/1), Afroza (PW/2), Layeek Khan (PW/3) and Leela bai (PW/10) had seen deceased Chand Bee in the company of appellants Lallu Singh and Prakash Singh.After that no one saw her alive.The scooter on which the deceased Chand Bee was last seen in the company of the appellants Prakash Singh and Lallu Singh, was purchased by appellant Prakash Singh from Firoz Khan (PW/6).During post mortem examination, it was discovered that the hymen on the dead body of deceased Chand Bee was found to be torn and there were blood clots in the vagina.Thus, in the opinion of the doctor conducting post mortem, aforesaid injury was caused by insertion of some hard and blunt object.It was also found that there were two lacerated wound in the parietal and frontal region of the head of deceased which lead to her death.The injuries to her head and vagina were ante-mortem in nature and after her death the dead body was thrown on railway track; whereon, it was mutilated under a running train.During investigation, at his instance of appellant Prakash Singh a pant, a bush shirt and an underwear wer seized from the house of accused Prakash Singh.A blue-black coloured LML Vespa Scooter was and seized from his house.A solitary strand of red wool entangled with the button of the left pocket of the bush shirt recovered from the possession of appellant Prakash Singh was also seized.As per the FSL report, strand seized from the spot and strand seized from the button were found to be identical.At the instance of appellant Lallu Singh, his bush shirt with four thistles and one strand of hair sticking to it, one blue underwear with blood and semen like stains, a pant with blood like stains and a three foot longs stick with blood like stains, were recovered from the house of appellant Prakash Singh.In the FSL report, the thistles seized from the bush shirt of appellant Lallu Singh were found to be identical to the ones seized from the spot.During serological examination blood was found upon the bush shirt, underwear and the stick seized at the instance of accused Lallu Singh.On this point, the investigating officer Surendra Singh Tomar (PW/19) has stated that he had arrested appellant Prakash Singh on 16.01.1998 vide arrest memo (Exhibit P/25).Appellant Prakash Singh had stated that he would produce clothes and scooter for seizure.Consequently, he had prepared memo (Exhibit P/27) he has also stated that he had seized a pant, a bush shirt and an underwear from accused Prakash Singh vide seizure memo (Exhibit P/23).The clothes contained stains resembling blood stains.It has been recorded in seizure memo (Exhibit P/23) that there was a button on the left pocket of the bush shirt belonging to Prakash and a red strand of wool was entangled with the button.The strand of wool was taken out and separately sealed.The investigating officer Surender Singh Tomar (PW/19) has also stated that on 16.01.1998 he had seized two red strands of wool originating from the red sweater worn by the deceased at the time of the incident from the spot.In this regard Shakil Ahmad (PW/15) has stated that about 7-8 months ago, he had gone to railway track, where the police had seized the dead body of a girl and also her frock, pant and woolen sweater.The Investigating Officer Surendra Singh Tomar (PW/19) has stated in this regard that he had arrested appellant Lallu Singh in the presence of witnesses and had prepared document (Ex.P/24).On interrogation, appellant Lallu Singh furnished information regarding recovery of clothes and stick; whereon, he had prepared document (Ex.P/26).He has further stated that he seized a white shirt with lining having blood like red stains at several places.A thistle near the button on right side was stuck to the shirt.He had extricated the thistle from the shirt and seized it separately.On the left side of the shirt, a long strand of hair like those belonging to the deceased, was found entangled in the shirt.He had also seized blue under-wear which also had blood like stains.( /3/2015) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by:-Shri C.V. Sirpurkar, J.In this criminal appeal challenge is made to the judgment dated 22.09.1999 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Chachora, Camp Guna, Shri S.R. Nag in Session Trial No. 123/1998, whereby learned Additional Session Judge had convicted and sentenced appellants Lallu Singh and Prakash Singh as follows:Name of the Provision of Sentence of Sentence Sentence of appellant the IPC Imprisonment of fine imprisonment in default of fine Prakash 302/34 Life Rs. Rigorous Singh imprisonment 5000/- imprisonment for 2 years 376 10 years Rs. Rigorous 2000/- imprisonment for 1 year 201 3 years Rs. Rigorous 1000/- imprisonment for 6 months Lallu Singh 302/34 Life Rs. Rigorous imprisonment 5000/- imprisonment for 2 years Lallu Singh 376 10 years Rs. Rigorous 2000/- imprisonment for 1 year Lallu Singh 201 3 years Rs. Rigorous 1000/- imprisonment for 6 monthsThe sentences under aforesaid provisions were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone by each of them during investigation, inquiry and trial was to be adjusted in accordance with section 428 of the Cr.P.C.Co-convict Lallu Singh and present appellant Prakash Singh had jointly preferred a separate Criminal Appeal No. 665/1999 against their conviction and sentence imposed by the impugned judgment; however, that appeal in respect of co-convict Lallu Singh was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 11.08.2014 because co-convict Lallu Singh had already undergone sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court and he had been released from the jail.During identification parade conducted by Executive Magistrate, Lachhiram Koli (PW/14), Afroza (PW/2) identified accused Prakash Singh and Leelabai (PW/10) had identified the sweater seized from the dead body as being the one worn by the small girl who was seen with appellants on the eve of the incident.During medical examination of appellant Prakash Singh, three parallel abrasions were found on his back.After investigation, the police concluded that deceased Chand Bee was enticed away by appellants Lallu Singh and Prakash Singh and was taken to bushes near the railway line and was raped there.Thereafter, in order to destroy the evidence of the crime, she was killed by them and her body was thrown on the railway track, which was then run over by a passing train.Consequently, a chargesheet u/s 376, 302 and 201 was filed against the appellants Lallu Singh and Prakash Singh.Learned trial court framed charges against accused persons Prakash Singh and Lallu Singh u/ss. 376, 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC or 376, 302 and 201 of IPC.In his examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. appellant Prakash Singh has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the incident but he does not want to adduce any evidence in defence.After trial, learned Additional Session Judge concluded that prosecution was able to prove the guilt of appellant Prakash Singh beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.In the impugned judgment, learned Additional Session Judge recorded the following findings on the basis of prosecution evidence against appellant Prakash Singh.The deceased was last seen in the company of appellants Prakash Singh and Lallu Singh because Afroza (PW/2) had identified him during the identification parade.Blood stained clothes and blood stained weapon of offence (a stick) belonging to appellant Lallu Singh were recovered at his instance from the house of appellant Prakash Singh.The red strand of wool seized from the button over left side pocket of the bush shirt belonging to and recovered at the instance of appellant Prakash Singh, was identical to the two strands of wool which were recovered from the place of incident.There were three parallel abrasions over back of appellant Prakash Singh which were presumably caused by the finger nails of the deceased while she offered resistance at the time of the rape.Consequently the learned trial court convicted appellant Prakash Singh along with appellant Lallu Singh.The conviction of appellant Prakash Singh has been assailed mainly on the ground that none of the prosecution witnesses had testified to the fact they had seen appellant Prakash Singh in the company of deceased Chand Bee on a scooter or otherwise; thus, learned trial court grievously erred in concluding that the circumstance of "last seen together" was established only on the basis of the evidence that Afroza (PW2) had identified appellant Prakash Singh in test identification parade.It has further been submitted that the strand of wool allegedly recovered from the shirt button of appellant Prakash Singh being identical to two strands wool seized from the spot after two days of incident is too tenuous a link to connect appellant Prakash Singh with the crime.It has further been suggested that this kind of evidence can easily be planted.It has also been stated that the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the whereabouts of aforesaid strands after their seizure and before they were sent to the FSL.Attention has been invited to the fact that the strands were forwarded to the FSL 12 days after their alleged seizure.It has also been argued that recovery of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence belonging to appellant Lallu Singh from the house of accused Prakash Singh at the instance of co-accused Lallu Singh, is not trustworthy because it is highly unlikely that anyone would permit concealment of such articles in his house by a co-accused.It has been submitted that in any case the blood on the articles found in the house of appellant was not established to be of human origin.Now the court shall proceed to consider each argument one by one.It is evident that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and this case is based entirely upon circumstantial evidence.The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, andFirst of all, it will be considered whether the deceased Chand Bee was last seen alive in the company of appellant Prakash Singh? In this regard, Majit Khan (PW/1) and Layeek Khan (PW/3) have refused to identify appellant Prakash Singh in the dock.They have categorically stated that they never saw deceased Chand Bee being taken on a scooter by anybody.Afroza (PW/2), who is 7 years old girl and neighbour of deceased Chand Bee though has identified co-accused Lallu Singh in dock and has stated that in the evening of the day before the discovery of dead body of Chand Bee, she had seen Chand Bee in the company of appellant Lallu Singh; however, she has stated that she did not see accused Prakash Singh there.Learned trial court has relied upon the statement of Executive Magistrate Lacchiram Koli (PW/14) who has stated that he had conducted identification parade at around 12.20 PM on 24.01.1998 in sub jail Guna; wherein, Afroza had identified appellant Prakash Singh; however, Afroza has contradicted him and stated that she had never gone to sub-jail Guna to identify appellant Prakash Singh and she never participated in any test identification parade.She did not identify appellant Prakash Singh in any such parade.Her thumb impression on a paper was not taken in jail but at her home.Learned trial court has found the circumstance regarding "last seen together" established on the ground that inspite of denial by Afroza, Lacchiram Koli (PW/14) has stated that Afroza had identified appellant Prakash Singh during test identification parade.The police had prepared seizure memo (Exhibit P-21A).Police had also seized a pant, underwear and a shirt of appellant Prakash Singh and had prepared a seizure memo (Exhibit P-23).Police had also arrested appellant Prakash Singh and had prepared arrest memo (Exhibit P/25).However, the appellant Prakash Singh had not given any information to police in his presence.Prakash Singh never told police that the clothes are at home, which he will produce.He further stated that the sweater which was recovered from the dead body, is Article-A; however, he has stated that colour of the sweater was ash.Shabbir Khan (PW/18) has stated that the police had not arrested appellant Prakash Singh in his presence; however, the arrest memo (Exhibit P/25) bears his signature.He has further stated that the appellant Prakash Singh had never given any information with regard to any vehicle or clothes to police in his presence; however, memo (Exhibit P/27) contains his signature.He has further stated that police had recovered a sweater and clothes from the dead body of a girl lying on the railway track.The seizure memo (Exhibit P/21-A) contains his signature.Police had not recovered any clothes from appellant Prakash Singh in his presence; however, seizure memo (Exhibit P-23) contains his signature.The investigating officer has further stated that all seized articles were sent to Chemical Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, through a letters (Exhibit P/51 and P/52) written by Superintendent of Police, Guna.(Exhibit P/57) based upon microscopic test, TLC test, flame test and inflammability test, the strand seized from left shirt button of appellant Prakash Singh resembled with the two strands recovered from the spot.The learned Additional Advocate General has laid great emphasis upon aforesaid circumstance to build arguement that there can be no explanation for the seizure for a strands of wool from the button of shirt pocket of appellant Prakash Singh exactly resembling the strand originating from the sweater worn by the deceased at the time of incident other than that the appellant Prakash Singh was involved in the incident and the strand from the sweater got entangled with the button during struggle.As already observed, each link in the chain of circumstance forming evidence has to be firmly and cogently established by the prosecution.All archaic notions to approach actions of police with initial distrust, should be discarded and official acts of police should be presumed to have been regularly performed.It is true that the statement of police officer should not be viewed with suspicion merely because he is a police officer; however, it is important that in the case based purely circumstantial evidence, the statement of the police officer should inspire confidence.In the instant case, we find that the statement of investigating officer Surendra Singh Tomar (PW/19) is laconic and shorn of essential details on vital aspects; for example, it has nowhere be stated in his deposition that a red sweater was also recovered from the dead body.On the point of the memo of appellant Prakash Singh preparedd u/s 27 of Evidence Act (Exhibit P/27), he has only stated that the accused Prakash Singh had made stated regarding seizure of clothes and scooter.His statement contains no information with regard to whereabouts either clothes or scooter.This statement also does not contain any indication regarding the place from which pant, bush shirt and underwear belonging to appellant Prakash Singh were seized.In the opinion of this court, on the basis of such cryptic rather inchoate statements, neither the preparation of memo u/s 27 of Evidence Act nor recovery of bush shirt from the possession of appellant Prakash Singh pursuant to such memo, is fully established.Moreover, the two strands of red wool, which were sent to FSL for comparison with the strand allegedly seized from shirt button of appellant Prakash Singh, were recovered from the spot two days after the incident.There is no explanation as to why were they not recovered on 14.01.1998 at the time of discovery of dead body.The investigating officer has not stated in his deposition that these strands were properly sealed after their seizure, although this fact finds mention in the seizure memo (Exhibit P/23 and Exhibit P21-A).The seizure was alleged to have been made on 16.01.1998; whereas, these strands were sent to FSL, Sagar vide (Exhibit P/55) on 29.01.1998 i.e. to say, after a delay of about 13 days.There is no evidence to indicate as to where these strands were kept, after their seizure.He had also seized a three foot long stick, which also had blood like stains.After seizing the aforesaid articles, he had prepared the document (Ex.P/28).On 16.01.1998, he had seized hair entangled with the wool originating from the sweater worn by the deceased at the time of the incident and some other hair from her head and prepared document (Ex.P/21A).A perusal of the FSL report (Ex.P/56) reveals that the hair taken from the head of the deceased and the one seized from the shirt of appellant Lallu Singh showed similar morphology and microscopic characteristics; however, no definite opinion could be given as to whether or not they belong to one and the same person.Likewise, the thistle seized from the Shirt of appellant Lallu Singh and those seized from the spot, showed same morphology and microscopic characteristics.It may be noted in this regard at the outset that this circumstance appears to be highly improbable because no person in his right mind would allow blood stained clothes and weapon of offence belonging to co-accused to be conceded at his residence.Even otherwise, as discussed earlier, even with regard to recovery of the blood stained clothes, Investigating Officer Surendra Singh Tomar does not state in his deposition that blood stained clothes and weapon of offence belong to Lallu Singh were recovered from the residence of appellant Prakash Singh.This fact found mention only in (Ex.P/25); wherein, it is written that the articles have been recovered from the residence of the appellant Prakash Singh located near Jyoti Talkies on Hat Road, Guna.In these circumstances, on this point also cryptic statements of the investigating lack necessary details and do not appear to be reliable and in the absence of other corroborating circumstances, this circumstance alone cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant Prakash Singh guilty of rape and murder.Even if we assume for the sake of argument that blood stain clothes and stick were recovered from the residence of appellant Prakash Singh as alleged, it does not give rise to a presumption of his complecity in rape and murder.It may, at best amount to concealment of evidence of offence.However, there is no charge against the appellant Prakash Singh that he concealed evidence in aforesaid manner.The against him is to the effect that he, along with appellant Lallu Singh, threw the body of the deceased on railway track in order to wipe out the evidence of rape and murder and make it look like an accident.In any case, in serological examination, only the presence of blood was confirmed upon the clothes and stick recovered at the instance of appellant Lallu Singh.The blood was not confirmed to be of human origin let alone belonging to the same blood group as that of the deceased.Now the Court shall consider the last circumstance regarding three parallel scratch marks found on the back of appellant Prakash Singh.In this regard, learned Additional Advocate General has invited attention of the Court to the statement of doctor Shivram Singh Raghuvanshi, (PW-16), Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital- Guna wherein, he has stated that he had examined the appellant Prakash Singh at about 01.15 am on 17.01.1998 in district Hospital- Guna.There were no marks of injury upon penis; however, there were three long parallel abrasion marks on his back ad-measuring 2.5 x 0.3cm, 2.6 x 0.4cm and 2.6 x 0.4cms respectively.This injuries was simple and was caused by hard and blunt object within 3-4 days of the examination.His examination report in this regard is Ex.On the basis of aforesaid scratch marks, learned Additional Advocate General for State has contended that such marks could only be caused by finger nails.In the absence of any plausible explanation for aforesaid marks forthcoming from the side of the appellant, it may be presumed that they were caused by the deceased while she was being subjected to forcible intercourse.In aforesaid circumstances, even on the basis of aforesaid alleged injury, appellant Prakash Singh cannot be linked to the crime.Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State has invited attention of the Court to the several judgments passed by the Supreme Court on the subject.The case of Dinesh alias Buddha Vs.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,236,751 |
(d) PW 2 is also a resident of Thirumoolanagar.When PW 2 and one Varuvel were returning home on the early morning hours of the day of the occurrence, they happened to see the assemblage of all the accused in front of the house of accused 6 and at that juncture, accused 6 and 7, after discussion with the other accused present there, appeared to have issued directions to the rest of the accused, namely, accused 1 to 5 and the juvenile accused Kannan to finish off the deceased Dhasan, in prosecution of their common object by handing over the lethal weapons to them.Immediately thereafter PW 2 was stated to have gone to the house of the deceased and intimated to PW 3 about the design of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased.e) In the meantime, the deceased and his daughter, PW 1 went to the coconut tope of one Thyagarajan for taking drinking water from the pumpshed therein.They, in fact, procured drinking water.Once again, they went to the said tope for procuring the drinking water and while so going, the deceased as well as PW 1 were each in possession of a vessel for procuring water.While the deceased and his daughter PW 1 were returning home, taking water from the pumpshed, along the ridge of a channel, PW 1, going ahead of the deceased and the deceased coming behind her, all the accused inclusive of the juvenile accused, came from behind the deceased and were stated to have proclaimed, "don't allow the deceased to go from there and finish him off".On hearing the same, PW 1 turned and saw what was happening.Accused 1 was wielding then a stick in his hand.With the aid of that, he aimed a hit on the head of the deceased and the hit so aimed fell on the utensil (MO 1) filled with water carried on by the deceased on his head and after the receipt of the hit so given, the deceased fell down on the left side of the ridge, on which he was treading on and the vessel he was carrying on his head also fell down.Accused 2, with the aid of spear he was having in his hand, inflicted a stab on the left upper arm of the deceased.Accused 3, on his part, with the aid of an aruval he was having in his hand, inflicted a cut on the backside of the head of the deceased.Accused 4, who was then stated to be possessing a spear, was stated to have inflicted a stab on the back of the left thigh of the deceased.Accused 5, with the aid of a stick he was having in his hand, inflicted a beating on the left upper portion of the hand of the deceased.The juvenile accused, with the aid of stick, he was having in his hand, was stated to have given a beating on the left thigh of the deceased.PW 1, who was stated to be standing, was raising a hue and cry stating that her father was being done to death.On receipt of the injuries on the person of the deceased by the overt act of all the accused, he was stated to be rolling on the ground.Thereafter, all the accused, inclusive of the juvenile accused, ran towards east carrying the weapons of offence along with them.(f) While all the accused were escaping from the scene, along with the bloodstained weapons of offence in their hands, all of them were seen with such weapons of offence in their hands, by PWs 5 and 6 near Kailasapuram pathway.(g) Thereafter, PW 1 came near the victim-deceased and at that time, the victim-deceased was stated to have divulged to his daughter, PW 1 that accused 6 and 7, pursuant to a conspiracy they had hatched with the other accused, had inflicted injuries on his person with a view to murder him.PW 3, along with PW 1 rushed to the scene and by the time they reached there, the victim-deceased breathed his last.(h) PW 3, along with PW 1, went to Alagappapuram to inform her son PW 4 about the occurrence.From there, they went to Anjugramam Police Station for lodging an information respecting the occurrence.They reached the police station at 8.30 a.m.(i) PW 10, then Head Constable bearing registration number 1225 was then in charge of the police station.To him, PW 1 gave a statement.The statement so given was reduced into writing by him.Thereafter, he read over the same to PW 1 and when PW 1 accepted the same to be correct, her signature had been taken in the said statement.PW 3, her mother also attested the statement.On the strength of the statement, PW 10 registered a case, as stated earlier.He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials, through PW 11 Constable and he, in turn, took the express FIR and handed over the same to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagercoil Taluk at 12.30 p.m., besides handing over the other express reports to the concerned officials.PW 10 also intimated the same to the Inspector of Police over phone.Exhibits P2 is the printed F.I.R.(j) PW 13 was the then Inspector of Police.On receipt of the telephone information at 8.30 a.m., he rushed and reached the police station at 9.15 a.m. and got a copy of the express FIR from the station and he took up further investigation in the case.He caused photographs to be taken of the scene of occurrence from different angles, utilising the services of PW 9, photographer attached to the Mobile Forensic Laboratory.PW 9, in turn, took photographs from different angles.Exhibit P.9 series are the photographs and Exhibit P.10 series are the negatives.(k) Between 11.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., he held inquest over the body of the deceased.Exhibit P.13 is the inquest report.JUDGMENT Janarthanam, J.In respect of a transaction that took place on 1-5-1986 at about 6.30 a.m., at the coconut tope situate at Thirumoolanagar, belonging to one Thyagarajan, one Dhasan was done to death, giving rise to the registration of a case in Crime No. 77/86 on the file of Anjugramam Police Station for the alleged offences under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 302 read with S. 109, IPC and culminating, on investigation, in the filing of a final report under S. 173(2), Cri.P.C. against the following eight accused, namely, Kosal (accused 1), Mannar alias Rajamannar (accused 2), Durai alias Rajagopal (accused 3), Thiraviyam (accused 4), Kannan (accused 5), Bhaskar (accused 6), Ayyakutti alias Kurus Mariyan (accused 7) and Thomas (accused 8) before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagercoil (Taluk) for the alleged offences under Ss. 147, 148 and 302 read with S. 149, IPC.The final report so filed had been taken as PRC No. 24 of 1986, as against the adult accused (accused 1 to 4 and 6 to 8) and P.R.C. No. 37 of 1986, as against the juvenile accused (accused 5) on the file of the said learned Magistrate's Court.All the accused were committed to Court of Session, Kanniyakumari Division at Nagercoil.The trial, as against the adult accused in S.C. No. 88 of 1986 and the trial as against the juvenile accused in S.C. No. 89 of 1986 took place separately and the requisite procedure had been adopted in the trial of those cases.On trial of the adult accused, accused 1, was found guilty under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.Accused 2 to 4 were likewise found guilty under S. 302, IPC, convicted thereunder and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life.However, the rest of the accused, namely, accused 5 to 7 were found not guilty of the offences, with which they stood charged and they were acquitted thereof.Likewise, on trial, the juvenile accused was found not guilty of the accusations levelled against him and he was acquitted thereof.Desirable it is to pen down a common judgment in all these appeals, in as much as the evidence recorded in separate trials against the adult accused and the juvenile accused is one and the same and no prejudice is likely to be caused by rendering a common judgment in these appeals, in as much as we are going to consider the evidence already recorded and give finding thereon.Brief facts are :(a) The scene of occurrence, namely, Thirumoolanagar is situate within the jurisdictional limits of Anjugramam Police Station, five kms.The deceased Dasan, as well as the adult accused and the juvenile accused hail from the Seene village.PWs 1 and 4 are respectively the daughter and son, while PW 3 is the wife of the deceased.PWs 1, 3, 4 and the deceased, it is said, were living as members of the joint family.Thereafter, it appears that went of cordial atmosphere that existed between the two families developed further and embittered relationship came to prevail between the two families.Apart from the said case, security proceedings under S. 107, Cr.P.C. appeared to have been initiated between the members of the family of the deceased on the one hand and the accused put together on the other hand.During inquest, he examined PWs 1 to 5 and others.After the inquest was over, he handed over the body of the deceased to the Constable, PW 12, along with Exhibit P.3 requisition for the purpose of autopsy.He also seized from the scene, M.O. 1 brass vessel, M.O. 4 bloodstained earth, M.O. 5 sample earth and M.O. 6 stem of coconut leave under Exhibit P.14 mahazar.(l) PW 7 was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nagercoil.On receipt of Exhibit P.3 requisition, he commenced autopsy over the body of the deceased at 4.30 p.m. Exhibit P.4 is the post-mortem certificate, he issued.He would opine that the fracture of the skull corresponds to the external injury No. 1 and the said injury could have been caused by a cut with an aruval from behind.He would also opine that the external injury No. 1, together with internal injury is necessarily fatal.He would further opine that injuries Nos. 2 and 5 could have been caused by stabbing with spear and injuries Nos. 3 and 4 could have been caused by beating with sticks.(m) After the autopsy was over, the Constable PW 12 seized from the body, M.O. 2 lungi and M.O. 3 jatti and handed over them at the police station.(n) The further investigation of the case was taken up by the successor Inspector, PW 14 on 5-5-1986 and on the same day, he examined the doctor PW 7, besides sending Exhibit P.5 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Nagercoil (Taluk) for the purpose of sending the incriminating material objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis.(o) PW 8 was the then Headclerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Nagercoil (Taluk) and on receipt of Exhibit P.5 requisition, pursuant to the directions of learned Magistrate, he separately packed and sent the incriminating material objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination, under the original of Exhibit P.6, office copy of the letter.Exhibits P.7 and P.8 are respectively the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist.(p) On 11-6-1986, PW 14 was stated to have examined some more witnesses.On 24-6-1986, he examined PWs 10 to 12 and on that date itself, he filed the final report under S. 173(2), Cr.P.C. against all the accused, inclusive of the juvenile accused, as stated earlier.(a) When questioned as respects the charges framed against each of the adult accused 1 and 5 under Ss. 147 and 302 read with 149, IPC; each of accused 2 to 4 under Ss. 148 and 302, IPC and each of accused 6 and 7 under Ss. 302 read with 149, IPC (in S.C. No. 88 of 1986), they denied the same and claimed to be tried.(b) Likewise, when the accusations against the juvenile accused (in S.C.No. 89 of 1986) under Ss. 147 and 302 read with 149, IPC, were explained to him, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.(b) In the trial of the juvenile accused (in S.C. No. 89 of 1986) conducted separately the same set of witnesses had been examined, besides the same set of exhibits and material objects had been marked.The accused in the respective cases, when examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, denied their complicity in the crime.They did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf.Learned Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration the materials available on record and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the respective accused in both the cases and learned Public Prosecutor, rendered the verdict, as stated above.PW 2 when examined in Court, however, turned hostile wholesale and the prosecution, however, utilising the requisite provisions of the Evidence Act, brought his evidence on record.The evidentiary value of such a hostile witness, though brought on record in the manner allowed by law, is hardly 'nil' and therefore, such evidence of PW 2 cannot at all be stated to advance the case of the prosecution to any extent whatever, as relatable to the design plan, on conspiracy the accused had sometime prior to the occurrence.Similarly, the prosecution, gathered materials, during the course of investigation, in the shape of S. 161(3), Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 5 and 6 as to the factum of their seeing the accused carrying with them the bloodstained weapons.The prosecution adopting the same requisite procedure, of course, brought on record, their earlier version, as projected by them.What remains for consideration is the lone and sole direct testimony of P.W. 1 who is none else than the daughter of the deceased.It is the case of the prosecution that on the morning of the day of the occurrence, at about 6 a.m., the deceased and his daughter P.W. 1 went to the coconut tope of one Thyagarajan for fetching water from the pumpshed there.It is the further case of the prosecution that the drinking water had been procured once and when the deceased and his daughter P.W. 1 were returning after taking water for the second time, each one of them carrying a vessel on their respective heads, by P.W. 1 proceding ahead of the deceased, all of a sudden, accused 1 to 5 and the juvenile accused came there behind the deceased, arming themselves with the weapons in the same ridge, in which the deceased and P.W. 1 were proceeding.On nearing the deceased, accused 1, with the aid of a stick, which he was having in his hand, was stated to have given a hit on MO 1 Vessel, which the deceased was carrying on his head, with the result, the deceased fell on the left side of the ridge, allowing the vessel MO 1 on his head to fall aside.Accused 1 was stated to be rest content without making further attempt to inflict any beating on the person of the deceased.Accused 2 was stated to have inflicted a stab on the left upper arm of the deceased.Then he was stated to have inflicted a stab on the left upper arm of the deceased.Then he was stated to have allowed accused 3 to inflict a cut by means of an arruval on the backside of the head of the deceased.He would also give way for accused 4 to play his part and accused 4, in turn, was stated to have inflicted a stab with the aid of a spear on the back portion of the left thigh of the deceased.Accused 4 also would move away for a part to be played by accused 5, who, in turn, was stated to have beaten on the left upper arm of the deceased by means of a stick.He was also stated to get satisfied with his part and he would allow the juvenile accused Kannan to play his own part and he, in turn, was stated to have beaten the deceased by a stick on his left thigh and thereafter, all the accused ran away from the scene with the weapons, which they wielded at the time of occurrence.P.W. 1 was stated to be standing there and had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence.P.W. 1, as already stated was the blossoming young girl of 14 years then.Her age was, at the relevant point of time, such as to do anything for the vindication of truth and in such a process, even to render sacrifice.The person assaulted being none else than her father and going by the adage, "blood is thicker than water", it is but natural for a girl, like P.W. 1, to have rushed to the rescue of her father, when he was racing perilous consequences at the hands of the accused, as stated above.She had not gone to his rescue.Further, it is quite unnatural for a person like her, if she had not gone to the rescue of her father, not to have been allowed to be peresent there by the accused and the imminent threat would have emanated to her, the consequence of which was that she, daunted by the instinct of self-preservation, would have run away from the scene of occurrence.Even that she has not done.No doubt this may not be visualised in every case of this nature.In such a situation can we take it for granted, that P.W. 1 could have been present there and had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence ? We are rather constrained to feel that she would not have been present in the scene and had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence.Further, when all the accused, as stated above, arming with all sorts of weapons came to the scene of occurrence, to finish off the deceased, it is also quite unnatural for those accused to play a minimal part, as if players in a drama enact their respective role and go away for others to enact their part.The evidence, as narrated above points out that each one of those accused was rest content to play a minimal part, by either beating or stabbing or cutting the accused only once.Can such a thing could be expected to have happened in the normal course of human affairs ? An air of un-naturalness in the evidence of P.W. 1 is built in, when we see that she has chosen to implicate, each one of the accused with a minimal part, to play.Further, the subsequent conduct of P.W. 1 in reporting the occurrence to her mother, P.W. 3 raises a serious doubt as to her having been present in the scene and had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence.This apart, as relatable to the part played by accused 5 and the juvenile accused, P.W. 1 prevaricates in her evidence.P.W. 1 would ascribe an overt act to accused 5 in her chief examination, as if he was responsible for inflicting a beating on the left hand of the deceased and the juvenile accused was responsible for inflicting a beating on the left leg of the deceased.During the course of cross-examination, she would change the respective overt acts of accused 5 and the juvenile accused and give an answer contrary to what she has stated in the chief-examination.This sort of prevarication as to the overt acts relatable to accused 5 and the juvenile accused is a positive indication that the possibility or probability of her being tutored to implicate the accused in a particular manner cannot be ruled out of consideration and obviously such a tutoring was unable to be withstood by the onslaught of questions put to her in cross-examination.Apart from the inherent improbability, attaching to the evidence of P.W. 1, the medical testimony available on record does not appear to lend any sort of corroborative support to the lone and sole testimony of P.W. 1 an interested witness.The postmortem certificate, Exhibit P. 4 reveals the presence of the following five injuries only.1) 4" X 2" bone deep incised wound in the left fronto parietal region longitudinal fashion present.2) 1/4" X l/2" stab injury present over outer aspect of left arm.3) Clinically fracture lower half of left humerus present.4) Clinically fractured lower half left femur present.5) Stab injury 1/2" X 1/4" in size present over lateral side of left thigh.Injuries Nos. 1 to 5, as described above respectively, are attributable to the overt acts of various accused -She would not at all demur any sort of a further injury being caused to the deceased.The doctor P.W. 7 during the course of autopsy found on internal examination, fractures of ribs and sternum and collection of blood in the thoracic cavity due to fractures of ribs and sternum.What is puzzling is that the said doctor did not find any external injuries corresponding to the fractures of the ribs and the sternum.He would also state that if those fractures were caused by beating with sticks, there could have been some stick mark and that he did not find the presence of any such stick mark.Pertinent it is to note at this juncture that the doctor would state that the collection of blood in the thoracic cavity was due to the fractures of ribs and sternum and those injuries are necessarily fatal.No explanation, however forthcame from the side of the prosecution as to how the fractures of ribs and sternum had been caused to the deceased.It is not at all the case of the prosecution that the deceased, after his having fallen on the ground, had been either repeatedly beaten with sticks of trampled, which resulted in the fracture of his ribs and sternum.The absence of any evidence emerging from the mouth of P.W. 1 as relatable to the causation of fractures of the ribs and sternum also creates a doubt in our mind as to her having been present in the scene and had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence.Likewise, the acquittal of accused 5 and the juvenile accused cannot at all also be interfered with.Before parting with the case, we have to point out the grievous error committed by learned Sessions Judge in awarding a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years to accused 1, on his being found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. We are unable to understand as to how learned Sessions Judge found accused 1 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. when especially, the overt act attributable to him was that he did inflict a hit on MO 1 vessel, which the deceased was carrying at the relevant point of time.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 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.
|
1,236,814 |
JUDGMENT Monoranjan Mallick, J.The facts are briefly as follows :The opposite party No. 2 as complainant filed a petition of complaint before the learned Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on Feb. 22, 1986 against the present petitioner along with two others, inter alia, on the ground that the complainant and the accused petitioner along with other brothers started a partnership business in the year 1966 and the complainant opposite party regularly participated in the business up to 1978, but thereafter the complainant opposite party became sick and went to his native place, but when he came back in the month of Sep., 1985, he found that name of the partnership business has been changed and the petitioner has been running the said business by converting the said partnership into a ownership one without giving any share of the partnership business to the present opposite party.The revision has been contested by the opposite party complainant.The revision petition be thus allowed.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,236,927 |
The appellant Sahadeb Mondal alias Kshyapa Mondal feeling aggrieved with judgment of conviction under Section 302, IPC and order of sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years as was passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, E.C. Act on 20-12-2001 in Sessions Serial No. 67 of 1996 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 1(5) of 2001 in Sessions Serial No. 67 of 1996 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 1 (5) of 2000 has preferred the appeal on two-fold grounds namely (i) the charge of murder was not proved through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and (ii) that at the time of alleged commission of offence he had been suffering from insanity.Sukurnar Mondal of village Mankara under police station Berhampore of the district of Murshidabad lodged a written complaint with the O.C. Berhampore P.S. at 8.20 a.m. on 9-6 1987 alleging that at 3 a.m. Rabi, the eldest son of his elder sister Nirmala Mondal who was married to the appellant a couple of years preceding the happening of the incident came from Kalitala village to him and reported that the appellant herein had been assaulting his mother Nirmala.Sukumar Mondal being accompanied by Sudhir Mondal of his village, his mother and Rabi came to the house of the appellant where it was found through focussing a torch light by Sambhu Mondal that his sister Nirmala was lying dead on the floor with cut injury on throat and on different parts of the back with deep bleeding injuries.The appellant fled away from the house but in the morning he was apprehended while he was found naked in the village Mankara and at the time of apprehension the appellant confessed to have murdered his wife by Hasua by cutting her throat.JUDGMENT Partha Sakha Datta, J.On this complaint (Ext. 1) Berhampore P.S. Case No. 13, dated 9-6-1987 was registered against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and upon completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under that section of the law and the trial that followed ended in conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.The oral testimonies in the case are indeed very brief inasmuch as there is no direct evidence of murder and the entire prosecution case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence.The FIR-maker (P.W.I) said in his evidence that the relationship of the appellant with his wife deceased was a strained one and he would abuse her and at the call of the son of his sister he came to the house of the appellant where the two sons of sister told him that the appellant had assaulted their mother and by focusing torch light inside the room of her sister she was found lying deep with cut injury on her throat.The appellant was apprehended by the members of the village.The testimonial value of this witness lies in his being reported by Rabi about murdering Nirmala by the appellant and finding the dead body of Nirmala through the window of the room.Sudhir Kumar Mondal P.W. 3 who accompanied P.W. 1 to the house of the accused found the deceased lying dead in their room and sons of the appellant disclosed to him that her mother was assaulted by his father P.W.2 another Sudhir Mondal, son of Nani Gopal Mondal, P.W. 4 Sirish Ch.Mondal, P.W.7 Jnanath Mondal, who is the younger brother of the appellant, P.W.9 Bulbudi Mondal, the wife of P.W.7, P.W. 12 Nityananda Mondal and P.W. 15 Hari Charan Mondal said in their evidence that after having received the information of murder they came to the house of the appellant and found Nirmala lying dead in the room.P.W.5 Ganesh Mondal deposed that at about 5 a.m. when he was going to field to attend to nature's call he found the appellant standing by the side of the house of Yasin Molla in naked condition and soon thereafter the villagers came and took away the accused.P.W. 13 Yasin Molla says that near his fertilizer shop at Mankara he found the appellant standing in undressed condition with a hasua stained with blood and subsequently the elder brother-in-law of the appellant came there, caught hold of the appellant, tied him in a tree nearby and then the accused/appellant confessed to having committed murder of his wife.Rabi Mondal (P.W.8) who according to P.W.1 and P.W.3 told them that his mother was being assaulted by his father turned hostile to say that he was not present in the house at the material time.P.W. 11 Ismail Sk.who according to the prosecution told the I.O. that the appellant escaped by the side of the shop of Kalitaladiar and was apprehended by his brother-in-law in his presence turned hostile.P. W. 16 Dr. A. K. Maitra who held postmortem examination on the body of the deceased found the body beheaded - the head being attached only with the skin on the left side of the neck, multiple overlapping incised wound on left scapula region and left shoulder joint measuring about 8" x 4" x bone deep, and one stabbed wound on lateral aspect of right shoulder measuring about 2" x 1/2 muscle deep.The factum of murder of Nirmala in the early morning of 9-6-1987 in the house of the appellant who was the husband of the victim admits of no dispute.It is also not in dispute, as there is evidence in plenty, that the deceased lived with the appellant in the house along with her children of whom Rabi was one as an eldest son of the appellant as also of the deceased.The doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased was clearly of the opinion, unchallenged and unrebutted in cross-examination, that the injuries as were noticed on the body of the deceased might have been caused by sharp cutting wound like hasua, a kind of which was found in the possession of the accused while he was found standing with hasua stained with blood by the side of the shop of P. W. 13 Yasin Molla at Mankara.The only question, therefore, is whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient enough to record the judgment of conviction.Mr. Bhattacharyya raised volley of questions to submit that apart from the plea of insanity which is the second chapter of his argument evidences do not suggest that it was so convincing as to find the appellant guilty of the offence of murder, for, according to him the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant when he was allegedly apprehended by the members of the village was vague one since there is no evidence that it was addressed to any particular member of the village who was present when the appellant was apprehended with hasua in his possession.According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, save and except alleged apprehension of the appellant in the village Mankara by unascertained members of the village there was no evidence, worth considering, to connect the appellant with the offence complained of.In the night between 1-6-1987 and 2-6-1987 there was no other adult male member in the family.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,693,683 |
The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-The deceased developed illicit intimacy with the accused, after coming to know about the same, P.W.1 warned the deceased, so she severed the connection with the accused.On 18.02.2010, P.W.1 received information that deceased was taken to Karaikal, Government Hospital with burn injuries, immediately, he reached the hospital, where the deceased told him that due to severe stomach pain, she herself poured kerosene and set fire on her.Thereafter, the respondent police also obtained statement from the deceased.Subsequently, on 23.02.2010, the deceased told to P.W.1 that it is the accused who came to her house on 18.02.2010, and he only poured kerosene and set fire on her, but, she wrongly stated that as if she poured kerosene and set fire on her.Thereafter, P.W.1 informed the police about the same and given a requisition letter to the police to record a fresh statement from the deceased (Ex.p.1)On receipt of Ex.P.1, P.W.8, went to the hospital and obtained a statement from the deceased(Ex.P.11) and registered a case in Crime No.54 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 452, 294(b) and 307 IPC against the accused.Ex.P.12 is the First Information Report.In the meantime, on 23.02.2010 at 10.30 a.m., P.W.2, the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Karaikal, on receipt of requisition letter (Ex.P.2) for recording dying declaration, went to the Government Hospital, Karaikal and recorded the dying declaration(Ex.P.5) of the deceased stating that it is the accused who poured kerosene and set fire on her.The deceased succumbed to injuries on 23.02.2010 itself.Hence, P.W.8 altered the case into 302 IPC and the Alteration Report is Ex.P.13, he forwarded Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 to the higher officials and to the Court.On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W.14, Inspector of Police, commenced the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar(Ex.P.14) and Rough Sketch(Ex.P.19) and also recovered an inskirt(M.O.1), in the presence of the P.W.11 and another witness.On 24.02.2010, P.W.14 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayathars and prepared inquest report (Ex.P.20).He recorded the statement of the other witnesses.At about 2.00p.m., near Kattucheri Bus-stop, he arrested the accused.On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession and based on the disclosure statement, he recovered plastic cane(M.O.2) and match box(M.O.3) under Mahazar(Ex.P.17) in the presence of P.W.12 and another witness.Then, he sent the request for post mortem of the dead body.On 24.02.2010 at 11.45 a.m. P.W.6, the Medical Officer, Karaikal Government Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased He found the following injuries: External examination : (including external injuries) Deceased is an adult female of moderate built and nourishment.Eyes closed, pupil dilated and conjunctiva pale.Superficial infected external burns seen all over the body except portion of scalp, thighs and soles.Lesions seen covered by greenish yellow coloured slough.About 90 percent involvement (dupytren's 2nd degree to 3rd degree).P.9 is the Postmortem Report.He also gave a opinion that the death is due to speticaemic shock as a result of burns sustained.P.W.15, took up the case for further investigation, and completed the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.7.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against the accused.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on its side , as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 20 documents were exhibited, besides marking 3 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased.P.W.3 is a doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Karaikkal, he has given a certificate(Ex.P.4) that the deceased was found conscious and in a fit state of mind to give a dying declaration.P.W.4 is the another doctor working in the Government Hospital, Karaikal.10. P.W.7, the then Head Constable, informed the death of the deceased to the respondent police.J) The sole accused in S.C.No.233 of 2010 on the file of the Fast Track (Mahila Court), Nagappattinam, is the appelllant herein.He stood charged for offences under Sections 449 and 302 IPC.By judgment dated 28.03.2014, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 449 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to under go simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC, and the trial Court ordered the above sentences to run concurrently.Then, he sent the accused to the Court for judicial custody and also forwarded the material objects to the Court.Rigor mortis well established and retained all over the body.Tips of fingers and toes pale.All external orifices normal.No other external injuries.Ex.He has spoken about the illicit intimacy between the deceased and the accused and after he warned the deceased she has severed the connection with the accused.According to him, at the time of admitting the deceased in the hospital, the deceased has stated that due to severe stomach pain, she poured kerosene on herself and set fire on her.The respondent police also recorded similar statement of the accused.Once again, the respondent police obtained another statement from the deceased and registered a case against the accused.9. P.W.2, the then Judicial Magistrate,No.II, Karaikall, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased.He has made an endorsement on 23.02.2010 that the deceased is in a fit and conscious mind to give a statement to the respondent police.P.W.5, doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Karaikal, has spoken about the admission of the deceased in the hospital and also issuance of Accident Register (Ex.P.7).Since the doctor, who admitted the deceased, was on leave, he has given the evidence based on the records and as per Accident Register(Ex.P.7), as per the records at the time of admission, the deceased has stated that it is a self immolation.P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and gave the final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.8 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police Station.According to him, on 19.02.2010, at about 10.00 a.m., he went to the Government Hospital, Karaikal and obtained a statement from the deceased(Ex.Subsequently, on 23.02.2010, at about 9.30 a.m., on receipt of requisition letter(Ex.P.1) given by P.W.1, he proceeded to the hospital at about 12.15 p.m. and obtained another statement (Ex.P.11) from the deceased.Based on that, he registered a case in Crime No.54 of 2010 for offences under Sections 452, 294(b), and 307 IPC.Subsequently, after the death of the deceased, he altered the section into 302 IPC and the alteration report is Ex.P.W.9, Head Constable, submitted the First Information Report and alteration report to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Myladuthurai.P.W.10, father of the deceased, reached the hospital on 19.02.2010, where the deceased told him that due to severe stomach pain, she has set fire on her.Once again, on 23.02.2010, she told him that only the accused poured kerosene and set fire on her.P.W.13 is a neighbour of the deceased.Her evidence was that after hearing the noise, she went to the house of the deceased and sent the deceased in an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Karaikal.P.W.14, Inspector of police, conducted the investigation, arrested the accused and recorded the statement of the witnesses.P.W.15, took up the case for further investigation and on completing investigation, he laid a charge sheet in this case.12.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.On his side, the president of the village panchayath was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 have been marked.13.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Challenging the same, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.14.We have heard Mr. V.Sathish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.It is a case of circumstantial evidence.The prosecution mainly relied upon the dying declaration of the deceased.There are four dying declarations.The occurrence took place on 18.02.2010, at about 8.00 p.m., and the deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital, Karaikal.At the time of admission, she told to the doctor that it is a self immolation and in Ex.P.7, Accident Register also it is mentioned as alleged suicidal burn injury.Thereafter, P.W.8, obtained a statement(Ex.P.10) from the deceased on 19.02.2010, at 10.00 a.m., and she told that due to severe stomach ache, she herself poured kerosene and set fire on her.Based on that P.W.8, registered a case in Crime NO.35 of 2010 and the case is pending.(But the above First Information Report was not produced before the Court).On 19.02.2010 itself the deceased told to P.W.10, who is father of the deceased, that she attempted to commit suicide.Subsequently, on 23.02.2010, she changed her version and informed to P.W.1, that it is only the accused who poured kerosene and set fire on her.Based on that, another statement was obtained from the deceased by P.W.8 and a case was registered in Crime No.54 of 2010 for offences under Sections 452, 294(b), 307 IPC.On the same day, she has given a dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate stating that only the accused had poured kerosene and set fire on her.From 18.02.2010 to 23.02.2010, for 5 days, the statement of the deceased was that it is a self immolation and after 5 days, on 23.02.2010, she totally changed her version and given a new statement that it is only the accused who poured kerosene and set fire on her.In the instant case, from 18.02.2010 to 23.02.2010, the deceased maintained that it is a self immolation.But, all of a sudden, after 5 days, i.e. on 23.02.2010, she changed her version and put the blame on the accused.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagappattinam, in S.C.No.233 of 2010, by the judgment dated 28.03.2014 is hereby set aside.The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him and he is directed to set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
12,369,639 |
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision, in short, are that the applicant was driving the Bus 2 CRR-1537-2018 bearing registration No. MP08-F-9685 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the Bus turned upside down causing death of 8 persons and injuries to 26 persons.The applicant did not examine any witness in his defence.The Trial Court by judgment dated 14.12.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 126/2010 acquitted the applicant for offence under Section 338 (14 counts) of IPC and convicted the applicant for offence under Sections 279, 337 (26 counts) and 304-A (8 counts) of IPC and Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced the applicant to undergo three months' RI with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 279 of IPC, three months' RI on each count for offence under Section 337 of IPC and two years' RI on each count for offence under Section 304-A of IPC and a fine of Rs.2,000/- has been imposed for offence under Section 66/192(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with default imprisonment.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The applicant was not supposed to allow the passengers more than the capacity of the Bus.
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,236,965 |
No.486/2010 under Sec.379 IPC, and also in a ground case registered by G7 Chetpet PS in Crime No.546/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 28.8.2010, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the entire materials took the view that the detenu has indulged in such activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence he has got to be termed as a Goonda and passed the order under challenge.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, he was actually arrested in the sixth adverse case and also in the ground case on 28.8.2010; that the sixth adverse case was registered under Sec.379 IPC @ 392 IPC, and the ground case was registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC; that while the matter stood thus, he did not move for bail in neither of these cases; but, the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail; and that this observation made by the authority, was actually without material, much less cogent material.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,399,960 |
Heard on the question of admission.The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on IA No.944/2017, this is an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that according to the prosecution case, the appellant along with co-appellant Sukhpal abused the injured Vishram Singh.The co-appellant Sukhpal gave a lathi blow on his head.Thereafter, a gunshot injury was caused to the injured Vishram Singh.So far as the present appellant is concerned, the only allegation against him is that he has assaulted Ramkumari (PW-2).The appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple injury to Ramkumari (PW-2).The appellant was not aware of the fact that the co-appellant Sukhpal fired a gunshot causing injury to the injured Vishram Singh (PW-3).The appellant is in jail from 21.1.2017 and 2 CRA No.177/2017 had also remained in jail for sometime during trial.The hearing of the appeal is likely to take sometime and the appellant undertakes to appear before the Office of this Court without any default.2 CRA No.177/2017The application is opposed by the counsel for the State.Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and subject to deposit of fine amount, it is directed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellant shall appear before the office of this Court on 24.07.2018 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,400,634 |
This is first bail application filed by the applicants/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. No.87/2020 registered at Police Station- Gadh district Rewa (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 294, 323,336, 326, 506 B/344 of the IPC.Learned Panel Lawyer further seeks time to call for X-Ray report or CT Scan of Gyanwati and Pradeep Gond.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present application is pending since 16.7.2020 and the police is trying to arrest the applicants while no major offence under Section 326 of the IPC is made out as there is no evidence as to whether any grievous injury was caused either by sharp object or dangerous weapon.Therefore, in the meanwhile, the applicants be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail.Looking to the nature of the allegations, without commenting anything on merit, it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants Bodhan Gond and Narendra Gond, they shall be released on ad-interim bail till next date of hearing on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.They shall co-operate in the investigation and shall remain present as directed by the Investigating Officer in furtherence of the investigation.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,400,778 |
Heard Shri S.H. Quazi, Advocate for the appellant / accused andShri T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for the respondent / State of Maharashtra.The appellant / accused has challenged the judgment passed by theSessions Court by which he is convicted for the offence punishable underSection 304-I of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand)and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for6 months.The case of the prosecution is that the accused and Sevakram ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 ::: 2 apeal70.16(deceased) had been residing in the same locality, 15 days prior to incidentthere was a quarrel between accused and son of Sevakram, the accused hadabused and beaten son of Sevakram.On 25th April, 2014 i.e. on the date ofincident at about 6 p.m. Sevakram returned home from his field and as his wifewas cooking food, Sevakram told his wife that he was going out and went out,at about 8 p.m. neighbours informed Lata (wife of Sevakram) that a quarrelhad taken place between the accused and Sevakram and, therefore, Lata wentto the spot, the accused and Sevakram were abusing each other, Lataintervened and brought Sevakram towards home, the accused followed them,took out a knife and gave three blows on chest, stomach and thigh of Sevakramand because of the injuries and loss of blood Sevakram died.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 :::On receipt of complaint, F.I.R. was registered, investigation wasundertaken, accused was arrested and after completing the formalitiescharge-sheet was filed before the trial Court.As the offence punishable underSection 302 of the Indian Penal Code is triable by the Court of Sessions, thecase was committed to the Sessions Court, charges were framed, read over andexplained to the accused, the accused did not accept the guilt and claimed tobe tried and, therefore, the trial was conducted.After conducting the trial, thelearned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution has provedthat death of Sevakram was homicidal and the accused had committed hismurder and convicted the accused and sentenced him as per the order.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 :::Shri S.H. Quazi, learned Advocate for the appellant tried to pointout certain discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of Lata (P.W.1),but, after making submissions for sometime, fairly conceded that conclusions ofthe learned Additional Sessions Judge regarding occurrence of incident andinvolvement of the appellant / accused in the commission of crime cannot befaulted with.However, he submitted that the learned Additional SessionsJudge has committed an error by convicting the accused under Section 304-I ofthe Indian Penal Code overlooking the fact that the prosecution has not beenable to point out any motive for the deadly assault by the accused.The learnedAdvocate has pointed out the nature of injuries from the report of postmortemexamination and has referred to the opinion of Medical Officer which showsthat the death of Sevakram was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to massivehemorrhage under left thoracic cage causing shock.It is submitted that overallassessment of the evidence clearly suggests that the quarrel took placesuddenly and the accused assaulted Sevakram and there is nothing on record toshow that the assault was premeditated.It is further argued that the evidenceof Dr. Premanand (P.W.6) also does not conclusively show that any injury wascaused to Sevakram with intention to kill him.After going through the evidence on record, I find substance in thesubmissions made on behalf of the appellant / accused.The prosecution has ::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 ::: 4 apeal70.16not been able to establish beyond doubt that there was any intention on thepart of appellant /accused to cause death of Sevakram nor the prosecution hasbeen able to establish any motive.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 :::In view of the above, I find that the conviction of the appellant /accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-I of the Indian PenalCode is not sustainable but it should be under Section 304-II of the IndianPenal Code.I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant / accused on thepoint of sentence.It is submitted that the appellant at present is aged about 48 years,is married and has marriageable daughter and school going children.It issubmitted that the appellant was granted furlough leave for 15 days inDecember, 2016 and nothing adverse has been reported against him and hehad voluntarily surrendered.It is submitted that the accused has undergoneimprisonment of 3 years and 2 months.Considering the above facts, it is directed that the appellant /accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay fine ofRs.60,000/- (Rs. Sixty Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergofurther rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.Hence, the following order:::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 :::Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code is modified and the appellant / accusedis convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian PenalCode.(ii) It is directed that the appellant / accused shall undergo rigorousimprisonment for 5 years and shall pay fine of Rs.60,000/- (Rs. SixtyThousand) and in default of payment of fine shall undergo further rigorousimprisonment for 1 year.(iii) If the amount of fine is deposited, out of it Rs.50,000/- (Rs. FiftyThousand) shall be paid to Smt. Lata Wd/o Sevakram Kadu.(iv) The District Legal Services Authority, Nagpur shall pay furtheramount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) to Smt. Lata Wd/o SevakramKadu.This amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) shall be paid toSmt.Lata Wd/o Sevakram Kadu within 3 months.(v) The impugned judgment is modified in the above terms.(vi) The appeal is partly allowed accordingly.The learned A.P.P. shall issue appropriate communication to PoliceStation Officer Parshioni, Tah.Parshioni, Distt.Nagpur to give intimation ofthis order to Smt. Lata Wd/o Sevakram Kadu.JUDGE Tambaskar.::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:35:18 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,412,662 |
Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Rajeswara Rao Mantha, Advocate Heard on : 06.11.2013, 20.11.2013, 21.11.2013, 28.11.2013, and 04.12.2013 Judgement on : 15.05.2014 Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.:The petitioner is the widow of a former bank employee who died on July 24, 2006 before he attained the age of superannuation.When he was in service of the concerned bank a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on charges of certain financial irregularities.He was found guilty and an order of removal was passed against him.An appeal taken against the said order of the disciplinary authority was ultimately rejected.Simultaneously with the departmental proceeding the bank authorities had lodged a complaint with the police and a criminal case was started against the said employee.Ultimately the said employee was found not guilty and was acquitted.After acquittal in the criminal case the petitioner's husband had filed a representation before the bank authorities for his reinstatement in service.Since the petitioner's husband died in the meantime his widow, i.e., the present petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court which was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the bank ventilating all her grievances including the appointment of her son on compassionate ground.The instant petition had been filed challenging the order dated May 9, 2008 whereby the representation of the petitioner for compassionate employment of her son was rejected.The order of termination was never challenged by the petitioner's husband during his life time.He had thereby accepted the termination and it was only after his death that his wife has started filing writ petitions seeking compassionate appointment on the ground of premature death of her husband treating him to be in service on the date of his death.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,413,806 |
A. No.804/2015 filed by appellant Mohd. Nadeem has come up for hearing pursuant to the directions issued for expediting hearing in appeals filed by persons in custody (with sentence more than seven years and upto ten years).Since vide impugned judgment dated 06.06.2015, two other accused persons namely Juhi Khanam @ Farhana Talat and Farhin Talat, who are mother and sister of appellant Mohd. Nadeem, have also been convicted, the appeals preferred by them i.e. Crl.A. No.793/2015 and Crl.Pursuant to the production warrants issued against the appellant Mohd. Nadeem, he has been produced from J/C.Appellant Mohd. Nadeem (in Crl.A. No.804/2015) U/S 376 IPC - to undergo RI for ten years with fine of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to Crl.A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 2 of 8 undergo SI for thirty days.A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 2 of 8U/S 377 IPC - to undergo RI for ten years with fine of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty days.U/S 323 IPC - to undergo RI for two months with fine of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty days.U/S 23 of Juvenile Justice Act - to undergo RI for two months with fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for ten days.Appellant Juhi Khanam @ Farhana Talat (in Crl.A. No.793/2015) U/S 323 IPC - to undergo RI for two months with fine of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty days.U/S 23 of Juvenile Justice Act - to undergo RI for two months with fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for ten days.There is history of physical assault and the son of owner named Nadeem has also sexually assault the girl 1 wk.Patient has changed her clothes and bathed.There is no h/o intoxication.P/A soft L/E - No sign of external injury.No bruise, no hematoma No scratch marks Hymen ruptured.'She was again medically examined on 14.04.2012 at 1.30 pm when she was accompanied by SI Jitender and Ms.Ravinder Kaur from Butterfly NGO.At that time, she has mentioned about beating being given to her with danda and burnt with Chimta.In view of the observation made by the examining doctor at the time of her examination on 11.04.2012 wherein no injury was noticed, I am Crl.A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 5 of 8 inclined to take lenient view on the quantum of sentence.A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 5 of 8Further, as per Section 23 of J.J.Act, limit of fine to be imposed on the accused persons is not specified.In the given circumstances, the sentence of the appellants is modified as under :A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 7 of 8These three appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging their conviction and sentence in case FIR No.268/2012 under Section 376/377/323/324 IPC, under Section 23/26 of J.J.Act and under Section 3/14 of Child Labour Act.Vide impugned judgment dated 06.06.2015 and order on sentence dated 03.07.2015, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:Appellant Farhin Talat (in Crl.A. No.797/2015) U/S 324 IPC - to undergo RI for one year with fine of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty days.U/S 23 of Juvenile Justice Act - to undergo RI for two months with fine of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for ten days.A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 3 of 8I have heard the appellants as well as their counsel.The appellants submit that they are not challenging their conviction and limiting their prayer only to the extent that lenient view may be taken on quantum of sentence.In view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, the conviction of the appellants Mohd. Nadeem, Juhi Khanam @ Farhana Talat and Farhin Talat is maintained.The appellant was a student of Engineering when this case was registered against him.He has no criminal antecedents except this case.Due to the substantive sentence awarded to her in this case, her career and marriage prospects may be ruined.Mr.K.K.Manan, learned Senior Advocate submits that the appellant Farhin Talat has undergone thirty days in judicial custody and prays that appellant Farhin Talat may be sentenced to fine.A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 4 of 8I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.Perusal of the MLC Ex.PW4/B of the Prosecutrix reveals that it was prepared on 11.04.2012 at 2.20 am and the history recorded on the MLC and observation made on local examination are as under:-Girl is working as housemaid in Jamia Nagar as above address.Girl is recovered by Child Helpline on a neighbour complaint.It is relevant to mention here that as per the order on sentence dated 03.07.2015, the learned Trial Court while awarding substantive sentence of RI for two month to the appellants Mohd. Nadeeem and Juhi Khanam @ Farhana Talat for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, sentenced them to pay a fine of 5000/- each.However, as per Section 323 IPC, the maximum fine of 1000/- can be imposed on the accused for the said offence.Appellant Mohd. Nadeem Under Section Earlier Sentence Modified Sentence U/S 376 IPC to undergo RI for ten to undergo RI for seven years with fine of years with fine of 5000/- 5000/- and in default of and in default of payment payment of fine, to of fine, to undergo SI for undergo SI for thirty thirty days.U/S 377 IPC to undergo RI for ten to undergo RI for seven years with fine of years with fine of 5000/- 5000/- and in default of and in default of payment payment of fine, to of fine, to undergo SI for undergo SI for thirty thirty days.U/S 323 IPC to undergo RI for two to undergo RI for two months with fine of months with fine of 5000/- and in default of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty undergo SI for thirty days.A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 6 of 8U/S 23 of J.J. Act to undergo RI for two to undergo RI for two months with fine of months with fine of 1000/- and in default of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty undergo SI for thirty days.Appellant Juhi Khanam @ Farhana Talat Under Section Earlier Sentence Modified Sentence U/S 323 IPC to undergo RI for two to undergo RI for two months with fine of months with fine of 5000/- and in default of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty undergo SI for thirty days.U/S 23 of J.J. Act to undergo RI for two to undergo RI for two months with fine of months with fine of 1000/- and in default of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty undergo SI for thirty days.Appellant Farhin Talat Under Section Earlier Sentence Modified Sentence U/S 324 IPC to undergo RI for two Sentenced to pay fine of months with fine of 5000/- and in default of 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty undergo SI for thirty days.U/S 23 of J.J. Act to undergo RI for two Sentenced to pay fine of months with fine of 5000/- and in default of 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to Crl.A. Nos.804, 793, 797 of 2015 Page 7 of 8 payment of fine, to undergo SI for thirty undergo SI for thirty days.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.As prayed, copy of the order be also given dasti to learned counsel for the parties.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,415,938 |
Mr. R.K. Handoo, Advocate has handed over his vakalatnama in Court.The same is taken on record.M.A. No. 10618-19/2014 (for exemption) Exemptions, as prayed for, are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The applications stand disposed off.CRL.M.C. 3070/2014 This petition has been moved by Mukesh Bansal under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that FIR No.92/2004 registered at Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sections 420/468/471 IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, including the charge framed by the Trial Court against the petitioner under Section 465/408 IPC on 12 th November, 2013, be quashed.Issue notice.CRL.M.C. 3070/2014 Page 1 of 6Mr. O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor, and R.K. Handoo, Advocate, enter appearance and accept notice on behalf of State and respondent No. 2, respectively.The Registry to put up a report in this respect within three weeks from today.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,416,615 |
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and thelearned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent.3.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, he defactocomplainant is present and the accused are also present before this Court.The identifications of the accused were also verified by this Court.4.Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, a case was registered in Crime No.26 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections147, 148, 294(b), 336 and 307 IPC and 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, r/w 149 IPC.After filing the chargesheet, the case was taken on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,Mudukulathur, in P.R.C.No.7 of 2016, against the 26 accused.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that both thePetitioners and the de-facto complainant had entered into compromise.6.It appears that on the advise of the elders and friends, thepetitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 in this case have agreed into acompromise.A Joint Compromise Memo, dated 05.03.2018, signed by the both parties, in the presence of their respective counsel, is also filed to thateffect.As per the Joint Compromise Memo, the de-facto complainant, namely,the second and the third respondents, have given their consent to quash theentire proceedings in P.R.C.No.7 of 2016 in order to maintain peace.7.In view of the above, the impugned proceedings quashed insofar asthe petitioner/ accused No. 4, 5, 7 to 11, 13, 15, 19, 20, 22, 24 to 26 areconcerned, the criminal original petition is allowed and the petitioners aredirected to pay the cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each to theTamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Bench, underthe head of the Infrastructure Fund, within a period of two weeks from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.The Joint Compromise Memo shall formpart of the order.1.The Inspector of Police, Elanchembur Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
674,173 |
The petitioner who was in jail during pendency of the appeal, continued to he in prison until on 23-1-1988, when he was released on probation by the State Government under an order of licence (vide Annexure P-6), passed on 23-12-1987, Under Section 2 of the M.P. Prisoners (Release on Probation) Act, 1954, (for short, The M.P. Act').The petitioner was placed under the supervision of one Mukund s/o.The petitioner after his release as aforesaid, contested elections for M.P. Legislative Assembly in 1993, Janpad Panchayat, Manawar, in 1994; and, 11th Lok Sabha in 1996, of which he was a member till its dissolution.ORDER N.K. Jain, J.AGGRIEVED by the Order dated 5-2-1998 (Annexure P - 11) of the Returning Officer, Dhar, rejecting nomination papers filed by the Petitioner as a candidate to contest General Elections for 12th Lok Sabha from Dhar (S.T.) Lok Sabha Constituency, held on 22-2-1998, in which respondent No. 1 Gajendra Singh was declared elected defeating respondents No. 2 and 3; the Petitioner has filed this Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (for short, 'The R.P. Act'), calling in question the election of respondent No. 1 on the ground specified in the Clause (c) of Section 100(1) of the R.P. Act, to obtain under noted reliefs:(i) that the election of respondent No. 1 be declared as void; and(ii) that Order dated 5-2-98 (Annexure p. 11) be quashed.Although the 12th Lok Sabha has since been dissolved rendering the relief No, 1 above as in fructuous, the petitioner has been allowed to prosecute this petition as the Order (Annexure P 11) still looms large and may hamper his prospects to contest the forthcoming Lok Sabha and other future elections to a Public Office.3. Facts material for the purpose of this petition are not in dispute.On 11-3-1981, petitioner Chhatarsingh was convicted under Sections 302, 307, 307 & 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the former charge and 7 years R. I. each for the latter three charges, by the 1st Addl.Advocate, in deciding this petition.I also commend the well reasoned order passed by the Returning Officer, Dhar.In the result T dismiss the petition with costs.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
67,417,979 |
Learned Advocate for the State produces the case diary and opposes the prayer for bail.He further submits that due to the assault public servants had suffered injuries.We have considered the injury reports of the public servants, particularly that of Suman Ghosh and Tapan Dey and we note that petitioners nos.1,2,4,11 and 19 are named as assailants in the aforesaid injury report at pages 33-34 of the case diary.Hence, we are 2 of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioners no.1,2.4,11 and 19 may be necessary in the facts of the case.Injury report of the other public servant does not disclose any external injury and in view of the extent of complicity of the other petitioners, namely, petitioners no. 3,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 in the alleged crime and the general and omnibus nature of allegations against them, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to them.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, partly allowed.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) 3 31.01.2018 Ct.28 RP 83
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,040 |
It is also possible that when he is on the verge of retirement he wanted as much money as possible when the going was good, because nobody would give him bribes after retirement.Chenniyappan P.W. 2 resides near Erode.In June, 1957, he came to Golden Rock to find out if he can get employment as a kalasi in the Golden Rock Workshop.He made enquiries of some persons in Golden Rock about the job and learnt that if he contacted the accused who was residing in H-1 Quarters, Golden Rock, he would be able to do something for him.It may be parenthetically pointed out here that much point was made and rightly disbelieved by the lower Court that the accused was not in a position to recruit kalasis a job for which this untrained P.W. 2 was eligible.But unfortunately in this country of illiterates and needy people out to secure a job by hook or by crook, people who are in a position to give job as well as people who pretend that they will be able to secure a job for the applicants by siparsu or otherwise, take money and this is a notorious fact of which judicial notice can be taken.Therefore, P.W. 2 met the accused at 6-30 p.m. on a day in June, 1957, at his requested and required him to advise him how he can get the job of a kalasi.The accused told him that when vacancies arose it will be notified and that if P.W. 2 applied when vacancies were notified he would be sent for.P.W. 2 went to Golden Rock on 2 or 3 further occasions but he was not able to get any information.In the 1st week of August, 1957, P.W. 2 met accused for the second time at his house and asked him if recruitment was likely in the near future.Accused told P.W. 2 that, in a month or two, candidates are likely to be recruited and if P.W 2 agreed to pay him (accused) Rs. 100 before the end of that month and a further sum of Rs. 100 after P.W. 2 got the appointment, he would help P.W. 2 in getting an application form and also in getting him selected.To this, P.W. 2 who was hard pressed for securing a job readily agreed.I may point out here that on account of the growing civic consciousness in this country it is very fortunate for us that people who give bribes also co-operate with the authorities for the exposure of the bribe-takers once they are convinced that it is their duty to do so.Therefore on being questioned by P.W. 7, P.W. 2 told him the gist of the conversation between himself and the accused and the demand made by the accused for payment of Rs. 200 for securing him the job of a kalasi.P.W. 7 asked P.W. 2 to give a written complaint.P.W. 2 consented to the same.P.W. 7 thereupon arranged for a trap being sprung and took preliminary steps.P.W. 7 after directing P.W. 2 to meet the accused on 21st August, 1957 and find out if the accused asked for the money and if so meet him on 22nd August, 1957 night at the Tiruchirapalli Junction Railway Station, sent Exhibit P-2 to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment at Madras, requesting for an authorisation letter to the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, to permit him (P.W. 7) to investigate into the case.P.W. 7 got the letter from Sri C. V. Narasimhan, Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment authorising him to investigate into the case.The Additional First Class Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, passed an order Exhibit P-8 authorising P.W. 7 to investigate into the case.In the meanwhile on 21st August, 1957, P.W. 2 proceeded to Golden Rock and was sitting in the Park near the house of the accused.At about 11-30 a.m. the accused returned home.P.W. 2 met the accused and the latter enquired him if he had got the money.P.W. 2 told him that he would pay the money day after next.The accused told P.W. 2 to wait for him in the same place and time on the day after next.On 22nd August, 1957, at about 8 p.m. P.W. 2 met P.W. 7 at about 8 p.m. at the Tiruchirapalli Junction Railway Retiring Room and informed P.W. 7 of the conversation between himself and the accused.Nataraja Mudali P.W. 3 is the Karnam of Thayanur.He resides in Beemanagar, a suburb of Tiruchirapalli.P.W. 7 sent for P.W. 3 through a Railway Police Constable.P.W. 3 met P.W. 7 at 9 p.m. on 22nd August, 1957, in the Railway Retiring Room, Tiruchirapalli Junction.P.W. 7 directed P.W. 3 to meet him on the next day at 7-15 a.m. in his room.P.W. 3 met P.W. 7 at the retiring room as arranged.At about 7-45 a.m. P.W. 2 met P.W. 7 at the Railway Retiring Room taking with him ten-ten rupee currency notes, M. Os.1 to 10, and a change of eight annas towards bus fare.P.W. 2 handed over M. Os.P.W. 3 attested it.P.W. 7 directed P.W. 2 to proceed to the place mentioned by accused on 21st August, 1957 and give M. Os.1 to 10 if accused demanded the money and then signal to him as pre-arranged by dropping his towel and retrieving it back.P.W. 2 agreed and went to Golden Rock by bus.Before P.W. 2 went for Golden Rock P.W. 7 searched his person and found that there was no incriminating material.Some time later P.W. 7 instructed P.W. 3 to follow P.W. 2 and stay somewhere nearby without drawing any attention to himself, and watch what was happening.P.W. 3 left for Golden Rock.P.W. 2 sat on a bench in between the Armoury Gate of the Golden Rock Workshop and the Park, at the place indicated by the accused the day before.P.W. 3 went to the same place and sat on a bench by the side of the road in the opposite direction and a little away from the place where P.W. 2 was sitting, as if he was a casual wayfarer resting there, but sufficiently near to see what was happening.By 8-45 p.m. P.W. 7 left for Golden Rock by bus, got down at Park Bus stop.In fact they could even overhear part of the conversation between the accused and P.W. 2 and as soon as accused had proceeded about 25 feet along the Southern bend of the road, round the Park, P.Ws. 4 and 7 stopped the accused.By that time P.W. 3 had joined them.The accused did not offer to get a job of kalasi to P.W. 2 if the latter agreed to pay him Rs. 200, Rs. 100 immediately and the balance of Rs. 100 after P.W. 2 got the job.On 23rd August, 1957, at about 11-15 a.m., while the accused was returning to his house from the Golden Rock Workshop P.W. 2 met him and gave him a sum of Rs. 100 consisting of M.Os.1 to 10, which he received.Till May, 1957, his salary stood attached in execution of a simple money decree and he was getting only between Rs. 156 odd and Rs. 197 odd by way of net salary.It is also possible that the accused was leading a standard of life a cut above his resources.But in these cases of corruption it is not possible, however to find out the motive, because incorruptibility depends upon the strength of character and not upon the financial resources.It is within our common experience that many low-paid servants are incorruptible and many high-paid servants are corrupt.There he met Sri J. M. Davis (P.W. 4) a B.A. B.T. employed as an assistant in the Golden Rock Railway High School, who was on his way back from the Railway Hospital.P.W. 7 disclosed his identity to P.W. 4 and requested him to assist him in a trap against an official.After some reluctance P.W. 4's sense of duty overcame the unpleasantness of the duty he was asked to discharge and he consented.Thus, the stage was set for a trap being sprung.At about 11-15 a.m. accused came out of the Golden Rock Workshop through the Armoury Gate and was walking towards the Park.Accused was wearing a dhoti and a slack shirt.Some one leading a cycle was accompanying him.On seeing the accused P.W. 2 got up and made a Namaskar.The accused asked P.W. 2 to follow him.After they had gone a few feet west, the person who had the cycle got on it and proceeded along the Post Office Road.Accused enquired P.W. 2, who was trotting along, if he had brought the money.P.W. 2 told the accused that he had arrived just then and he had brought the money.P.W. 3 slowly followed accused and P.W. 2 from behind.P.Ws. 4 and 7 were observing the movements of the accused and P.W. 2. 2Thus, while three pairs of eyes were being trained on him at unsuspectingly fairly close quarters P.W. 2 took the sum of Rs. 100, M.Os. 1 to 10, and gave them to the accused.The accused received them with his right hand and put M.Os.I to 10 into the left side pocket of his slack shirt.Accused told P.W. 2 not to worry about the job, that he would attend to it, that P.W. 2 was to keep himself in touch with him and that as soon as there were vacancies P.W. 2 would be given an application form and that he (accused) would see that P.W. 2 got selected.The accused also told P.W. 2 that if any other persons desired to get the job of kalasis, P.W. 2 might take them to him and that he would oblige them also for similar considerations.By this time P.Ws. 3, 4 and 7 closed upon this accused.The accused took out the currency notes M.Os.P.W. 7 verified the numbers in M.Os.1 to 10 with the numbers recorded by him in the Mahazar Exhibit P-3 and found the numbers tally.But he did not receive them as bribe or as illegal gratification.Immediately afterwards P.W. 7 stopped him and asked him to produce the currency notes which P.W. 2 gave him and he produced M.Os.Accused knew P.W. 2 for the past four years.P.W. 2 used to go to him very often and take small loans and return the same on the promised dates.On nth August, 1957, P.W. 2 came to him and asked him for a loan of Rs. 100 stating that P.W. 2 had spent the money given by his.mother and promised to repay the same in 2 or 3 days' time.On 16th August, 1957, P.W. 2 met him and told him that he was not able to repay it as undertaken by him and promised to repay the same in two or three days' time.Accused abused P.W. 2 and sent P.W. 2 out of the house.P.W. 2 asked the accused where he could give the money.Accused told him that he could repay the money wherever he chose and whenever he chose.Because he pressed P.W. 2 for repayment of the loan, P.W. 2 had given false evidence against him.He did not know P.W. 3 at all, that P.W. 3 was not present on 23rd August, 1957 and that P.W. 7 might have asked P.W. 3 to give evidence against him.The learned Special Judge has exhaustively examined the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 in paragraphs 12 and 13 of his judgment and has come to the conclusion that one has only to read their evidence to be convinced that both of them are speaking to unmitigated falsehoods.From the admissions of D.W. 1 it is seen that he had been prematurely retired from the Railway Workshop where he was employed in an inferior position and that he had been committed to civil prison for non-payment of a small decree debt.There was no necessity for P.W. 2 to borrow from the accused.The accused was not in flourishing circumstances.His own salary was under attachment.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,043,641 |
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Vinay Joshi, J.)The claim of the petitioner for releasing him on furlough leave for21 days has been rejected by order dated 19.12.2018 passed by DeputyInspector General (Prison), Eastern Region, Nagpur.This is the subject matterof challenge in this petition.::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:08:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:08:54 :::The petitioner is convicted for offence punishable under Sections304-II and 307 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 7 of the Arms Act.The petitioner had undergone imprisonment of 4 years and 7 months till filingof application for grant of furlough leave for 21 days.The reason assigned forrejection is that, on releasing, the petitioner may threaten the witnesses andwould create law and order problem.The release of the petitioner on furloughleave is not recommended by concerned police Authority.We have gone through the report dated 5.10.2018 of Deputy PoliceCommissioner, Mumbai.The petitioner's real brother came-forward to standas surety and undertakes to ensure the petitioner's return to jail.Onlysuspicion expressed is that there is possibility of threatening the witnesses andcreating law and order problem.It is brought to our notice that after conviction, first time thepetitioner has applied for furlough leave.It is not the case that on earlierrelease he never failed to return or misused the liberty.There is no adversematerial on record to deny the petitioner's claim.Thepetitioner is held entitled to be released on furlough leave of 21 days, on suchterms and conditions as the Authority shall deem fit and proper.If thepetitioner commits any act of misconduct or fails to return on due date, hisright to claim furlough leave for the further period of two years shall standforfeited.::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:08:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2020 14:08:54 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,066,181 |
O.P.[MD]No.3206 of 2019 15.03.2019http://www.judis.nic.in2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police.http://www.judis.nic.in 2Originally the FIR is registered for the offence under Section 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the case has been charge sheeted and final report is laid before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam on 14.02.2019 and it is yet to be taken on file.In view of the above submission, since the trial Court only has got the power under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., to order for further investigation, if it requires, this Court does not want to interfere with the same at this stage.However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedy as may be available to him under law before the concerned Magistrate.With the above direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of.15.03.2019 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No tahttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 To1.The Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District.2.The Inspector of Police, Thalavaipuram Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 N.SESHASAYEE, J., ta Crl.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,068,792 |
3.The case of the prosecution stems from the complaint of oneMuthupandi, son of Nallaperumal, against Muthukannan [A.1], Taluk Surveyor,Usilampatti and Raman [A.2], Village Administrative Officer at Veppanoothu.The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:One Muthupandi(P.W.3)-de facto complainant and his brother Amavasai purchased 30 cents of land at Veppanoothu Village, Periyakulam Taluk, MaduraiDistrict from Poun, Son of Mahadevan on 11.02.2002 and got it registered atSub Registrar's Office.A.2wrote the application and asked the complainant to pay Rs.40/- through bankchalan and submit the application to the Tahsildar.The application writtenby A1 for the complainant is marked as Ex.The Bank chalan is marked as Ex.On the same day, the complainant went to the Tahsildar's Office.Since the Tahsildar was not present, he handed over his application andchalan to the Record Clerk, Gandhi Krishnan (P.W.8), after taking photocopyof the same for his reference purpose.While so, on 27.02.2002, Perumal(P.W.7), the village menial came to the complainant's house and told that thesurveyor (A.1) and Village Administrative officer (A.2) are waiting for himat Usilampatti to discuss about his application for measurement and fixingboundary.Since the land itself costs only forRs.5,100/-, to measure the land, the demand of Rs.2,500/- was felt excessiveby the de facto complainant.Therefore, he bargained with the accused.Theyreduced the demand to Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1000 each) and told the de factocomplainant to bring the money on 01.03.2002 at 08.30 a.m. and met them at the tea shop near the Government Hospital, Madurai-Peraiyur Road Junction andassured him that on the very same day, they will measure the property.Narrating the above fact, he gave the complaint, whichis marked as Ex.Based on the complaint, Esakki Anand [P.W.14] registered FirstInformation Report (Ex.P.10).He arranged for witnesses, Jothinath andMuthukalai.On the next day [01.03.2002] morning at about 05.30 a.m., thewitnesses and the de facto complainant were present at the office of P.W.14.Pretrap proceeding was conducted.The bribe money of Rs.2,000/- [100 x 20]M.O.1 was smeared with phenolphthalein and entrusted to the de factocomplainant.The entrustment mahazar [Ex.P.11] was drawn.The de facto complainant [P.W.3] and Muthukalai, the shadow witness [P.W.5] were asked to meet the accused at the place mentioned by them and if they demand bribe tooffer the tainted bribe money to them.P.W.3 and P.W.5 went to the tea stallat about 08.45 a.m. and waited for the accused persons.They both came atabout 09.45 a.m., A.2 asked whether P.W.3 has brought the money.Answering in affirmative, A.2 took the tainted money from his pocket, counted and gaveRs.1000/- to A.2, who received and kept it in his shirt inner pocket.demanded his share of bribe.A.1 received it and kept it in his shirt left side innerpocket.P.W.2 showed the prearranged signal to the trap team.A.2 told the trap team that he received money from P.W.3 towards the kistarrears.From out of Rs.2,000/- he has handed over Rs.1,000/- to A.1 todischarge his debt, which he borrowed a day before.The hand wash of A.2,while dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution, turned into pink.The hostility of P.W.10 regardingthe trap proceedings is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.P.W.10evidence to the extent that on the day of trap, A1 and A2 came to the shop;P.W.3 and P.W.4 met them at around 9.45 a.m.; and the arrival of trap teamand Tashildar; substantially lends corroboration to the prosecution case.Having admitted the receipt of money and the explanations offered by theaccused persons is nowhere near possibility.The appellant is the accused of offences under Section 7 and13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of oneyear and fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo four months simpleimprisonment for each of the offences and period of substantive sentenceordered to run concurrently.Thereafter, thetainted money of Rs.1,000/- was recovered from him.His shirt was seized andpocket portion was subjected to phenolphthalein test with Sodium Carbonatesolution.Similarly, from A.1, after conducting phenolphthalein test of hishands, tainted money was recovered, shirt pocket was tested with Sodium Carbonate solution and found positive to phenolphthalein.Recovery mahazar detailingout the entire process of seizure was prepared by the trap laying officer inthe presence of witnesses.After obtaining the sanction (Ex.P.1) to prosecute A.1 fromP.W.1 and sanction (Ex.P.2) to prosecute A.2 from P.W.2, final report wasfiled along with the documents.(iii)To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses,marked 29 exhibits and 9 material objects.In defence, the accused haveexamined one witness by name, Kasinathan, a former Village AdministrativeOfficer and President of Village Administrative Officer's Association.(iv)The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence and the explanationgiven by the accused persons for the money recovered from them, held them guilty of both the charges and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorousimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to undergo 4 monthssimple imprisonment for offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act and also toundergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,500/-, indefault, to undergo 4 months simple imprisonment for offence under Section13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.Accordingto the appellants, the money was received towards the kist (land tax)payment.He used to collect the kist payable by hisrelatives, consolidate the same and pay to the VAO in lump sum.DuringJamabandhi, Village Administrative Officer used to pay his own money andremit the kist to the Government.Thereafter, he used to collect from P.W.4,Nallaperumal.The de facto complainant under the pretext of paying theconsolidate kist of his villagers, who are all his close relatives, hastrapped the appellant with the malafide intention, since the accused personssent word through village menial to his father to remit kist.Infuriated bythat, they have invented the story of demand of illegal gratification.To buttress their submission, the learned counsels appearingfor the appellants would refer the judgment of this High Court rendered inTulasiram vs. State, reported in 2012(1) TNLR 193 (Mad), wherein this Courthas observed that when no opportunity is extended to the appellant,immediately after trap, for him in a position to explain about the possessionof the tainted money, would entitled him to get acquittal of all the charges.Theother contentions were also raised regarding merits with which we are notconcerned.On his instruction, Rs.40/- was paid through bank challanand the said challan is Ex.P.W.7-Perumal, Village menial though treatedhostile by the prosecution, admits that on 27.02.2002, he met P.W.3 andinformed him that A1 and A2 wanted to meet them regarding the application forsurvey and fixing boundary.The finding of the trial Courtis unassailable.Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.12. Point for consideration:Whether the explanations offered by the appellants for thereceipt of the money Rs.2,000/- is sufficient, to rebut the presumption underSection 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?The sale deed is marked as Ex.P.3.Application for measuring the land and to mark the boundaries submitted tothe Tasildar along with requisite fee Rs.40/- on 25.02.2002 are factsadmitted.The appellants and P.W.3 met on 27.02.2002 at Taluk Office isproved through the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and also by P.W.7-Perumal, who is none other than the Village menial and subordinate to the appellants.Acombined reading of the evidence of the defacto complainant-P.W.3, shadow witness-P.W.5, evidence of P.W.10-Ananthakrishnan, tea shop owner and the trap laying officer-P.W.14, read with the seizure mahazar-Ex.The money recovered from them tally with the numbers recorded in theentrustment mahazar-Ex.P.11 prepared earlier on that day.As faras this case is concerned, the pendency of application-Ex.P.6 for measurementof the land; calling of defacto complainant through P.W.7 to meet the accusedpersons at a specific place.Meeting of the accused and the defactocomplainant at a tea shop on 01.03.2002 at about 9.45 a.m. and receiving themoney from P.W.3 are all proved and not disputed.The explanations offered by the accused form part of themahazar.Therefore, the ground no opportunity to explain does not stand thescrutiny.Whether the explanation offered is plausible or not alone need tobe found.P.W.4-Nalla Perumal has paid Rs.50/- as kist on 19.02.2002 and his receipt number is 273820 (Ex.P.12).While Nalla Perumal has already paid kist for his land, which according tohis deposition, was paid when he enquired A2 about the measurement of hisland, there is no necessity neither for P.W.4-Nalla Perumal or his sonMuthupandi-P.W.3, the defacto complainant in this case to pay any furtherkist.The contention of the appellants that Nalla Perumal used to collectkist from his relatives and pay to A2 is not in consonance with the Rules.Though DW1, Thasildar examined as P.W.12 would say that sometimes VAO's used to remit kist from his own pocket and later collect from the land owners, DW1evidence cannot be a plausible explanation for receipt of Rs.2,000/-from P.W.3, who is neither a land owner liable to pay kist, nor his fatherP.W.4, due to pay kist of Rs.2,000/-.Further, the explanation that P.W.4 asheadman of the village has collected kist from his relatives and paid inlumpsum to A2 is very hard to believe.Since A2, who is vested withresponsibility of collecting tax from the land owners, first of all need notpay the tax out of his pocket in advance.Next, he cannot delegate theresponsibility of collecting tax to any private individual, when he is paidfor that job from State exchequer.It is pertinent to point out that the receipts found inEx.P.13 has been issued by the second appellant to various persons on variousdates.When P.W.4 was cross-examined and suggested that the tainted money of Rs.2000/- was paid by his son to A2 towards kist arrears of the villagers, hehas categorically denied the suggestion.It is also pertinent to note thatP.W.3- the defacto complainant is not an ordinary resident of Vepanuthuvillage.He has settled in Perampakkam, Tiruvallur District near Chennai,some 20 years back.He has come to the village for the purpose of measuringhis land.His evidence is cogent, convincing and sufficient to inspireconfidence.Having demanded and received illegal gratification, just toescape from prosecution, A1 has come out with a very flimsy defense, whichhas failed to clear the judicial scrutiny.The presence of the Surveyor(A1)along with VAO(A2) on 01.03.2002 at Ananthakrishnan Tea Stall is a predesigned event.Expecting P.W.3 to come there and give bribe to them, theseappellants have come to the tea stall, the scene of occurrence.Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.The trial Court judgmentpassed in Spl.The trial Court is directed tosecure the first appellant (Muthukannan) and commit him to prison to undergothe remaining period of sentence.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,068,869 |
and, thus, at the time of occurrence she was major above 18 years of age.The allegation against the non-applicants that they forcibly abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her.The report was HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.After number of days the prosecutrix was recovered and, thereafter, on the basis of FIR lodged by her the alleged offence has been registered against the non- applicants.As per statement of Dr. Laxmi Namdeo(PW4) and Dr. Avnish Shrivastava(PW13), no internal or external injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix.Prosecutrix(PW1) in her statement very categorically admitted that she was with the company of the non-applicants, but she never raised any alarm nor tried to run away from their company.C. No.9018/2018 filed by the applicant/State has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,506,923 |
Heard Shri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Vishal Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Nirbhay Singh, learned counsel for the complainant; learned A.G.A. and also perused the record.Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that initially the F.I.R. was lodged by Shri Dayaram under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act against the husband Chandrabhan and two others mentioning therein that the marriage was solemnized about six years back and on account of additional dowry the informant's daughter was done to death by hanging.Unfortunately both the times she lost her progeny.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
155,070,942 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.599 of 2013 on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the materials placed on record.It is seen that, on a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2012 under Section 498A, 406, 494 read with 109, 506[ii] IPC against six accused including the petitioner herein.After completing the investigation, the police filed a Final Report, which has been taken on file as C.C.No.599 of 2013 by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and after framing of charges, one witness has also been examined.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, earlier, the same defacto complainant had filed a private complaint, which was taken on file as C.C.No.5318 of 2009 for offence under Section 494 IPC and in that, the learned Magistrate by order dated 01.10.2014 had dismissed the private complaint as against this petitioner, holding that the complainant had failed to prove that this petitioner had married A1, knowing full well that he was already married.He relied upon Article 20 of the Constitution of India to drive home this point.Here, earlier prosecution was by a private complaint and on the failure of the private complainant to adduce evidence incriminating the petitioner, the Magistrate dismissed the private complaint as stated above.That cannot be a bar for the present prosecution, which proceeds on a police report.P.C and on the date of judgment.For the other hearings, if the petitioner files a petition undertaking that her counsel will examine the witnesses, even in her absence and that she will not dispute her identity.The Trial Court is directed to liberally consider the same.Consequently, connected MP.No.1 of 2015 is closed.1.Inspector of PoliceW13, All Women Police Station,Tondiarpet, Chennai.gya CRL.OP.No.15504 of 201525.06.2015
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,575,969 |
M.C. No.3601/2014 Page 1 of 6 respondent No.3 Bahadur Singh, who is the other injured; are all present and identified by the Investigating Officer ASI Om Prakash in Court.M.C. No.3601/2014 Page 1 of 6This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that FIR No.83/2013 registered under Sections 308, 323 IPC at police station Hauz Khas, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, be quashed, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the complainant and the accused / petitioners.2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the matter arose out of some misunderstanding and altercation between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, as a result of which, certain injuries were received not only by the said respondents but also by the petitioner.Issue notice.Mr. Amit Ahalwat, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, accepts notice.Respondent No.2 Dhan Singh, who is the complainant, as well as Crl.The complainant Dhan Singh and the injured Bahadur Singh, both state that they have amicably settled the matter with the petitioner / accused; and that they do not wish to proceed any further with the matter.In support of the petition, and while affirming the fact of settlement having been arrived at, the affidavit of complainant Dhan Singh, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to this petition, has also been annexed.M.C. No. 6621-24/2006 decided on 3rd September, 2007, wherein it was, inter alia, held as under:-This payment has been paid to them by the petitioner in Court today and they acknowledge the receipt of the same.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J AUGUST 13, 2014 dr Crl.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 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.
|
1,885,782 |
JUDGMENT Anantanarayanan, J.The appellant before us, an elderly man, named, Vairana Pillai, has been convicted by the learned Session Judge, Madurai, of the murder of his wife, Nallammali and also of causing grievous hurt with 'a deadly weapon to his sister-in-law Vallayammal (P. W, 1) during the course of the same transaction.We have the evidence of close relatives and neighbors like P. Ws. 1 and 4, who have certainly no reason to distort the facts in favour of the appellant, that the deceased was not giving even a quarter and to the appellant for his expenses, though he was turning over all his earnings to his wife.Actually, one of the witnesses picturesquely states that even if the appellant went on his knees before Nallammal (deceased) and implored her, she was likely to prove obdurate, and would not grant him cash for his expenses.In addition to this there was discord because of the food habits of the pair; the appellant was a non-vegetarian; and the deceased was a woman of pious disposition who observed vegetarian restrictions, and would not prepare non vegetarian food.Above all, the deceased who was In her early forties, was a devotee of Lord Murugai and, in consequence of her vows she persistently denied the appellant his marital rights.There is abundant evidence on this \ point, and of frequent quarrels between the pair on this account.We now come to the events of the actual date of occurrence (30th September 1961) at about 10 a. m. and the facts here are very simple.It appears that Nallammal, deceased, was conversing with P. W. 4, when the appellant called her.As the deceased was then engaged in taking cow dung for domestic work, she said that there was no hurry, and that she would come later after fetching the crowding learned Counsel for the appellant argues, upon the facts of the record, that, shortly after this, not merely should the appellant have gone into his house, but also that the deceased and P. W. 1 should have done so.The record does show that a very brief altercation between the husband and wife might have immediately followed.In any event according to P. W. 1, she heard the cries of the deceased, and ran in and saw the appellant stabbing his wife with a knife, M. 0.1, on her chest, flanks and other parts of the body.When P. W. 1 attempted to intervene, the : appellant stabbed her on her forehead left arm and back.A little boy Ramaswami (P. W. 2) son of P. W. 1, tried to interfere and protested.The appellant chased this boy, and the evidence is very clear that the boy had to escape an assault with the knife by taking to his heels, A little later P, W. 3, the village munsif, P. W. 9 and the Talayari and others came to the spot, and the appellant was disarmed.After M. 0.1 was wrested from him, he was tied up.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,588,677 |
Considered I.A. No.3463/2020, which is second application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant No.4- Madan Singh S/o Shyam Singh.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur vide its judgement dated 04.09.2019 passed in S. T. No.12/2012 as under:-Learned counsel for the appellant submits that first 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.7904 of 2019 (Bhagwan Singh & others vs. State of MP) application for temporary suspension of jail sentence was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2020 however, jail sentence of other appellants namely, Tufan Singh, Antar Singh, Shambhu Singh and Kushal Singh have been suspended vide order dated 12.03.2020 and the case of the present appellant is not different from those appellants and on the basis of parity, suspension of jail sentence of present appellant has been sought.The prosecution story in short was that on 27.09.2011 at around 5.00 PM, complainant Umarao Singh was stopped by the present appellant along with other co-accused persons and was attacked by them.However, the complainant ran and entered the house of Kishan Singh meanwhile, brothers of complainant came to intervene.The co-accused Bhagwan Singh dealt blow on Shiv Singh, brother of the complainant on his head and rest of the accused also dealt lathi blows on Shiv Singh who succumbed to his injuries.This Court in its order dated 12.03.2020 has noted that the post- mortem report of Shiv Singh does not reveal any external injury on his abdomen and therefore, there is substance in the submissions that spleen could have ruptured due to fall and on these grounds, jail sentence of four co-accused persons were 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.7904 of 2019 (Bhagwan Singh & others vs. State of MP) suspended.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant No.4 - Madan Singh is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount (if not already paid) and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 24.07.2020 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.List for final hearing in due course.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,589,771 |
He took me through the statement of the wife of the deceased and the other witnesses and submitted that the police have recorded statements of wife of the deceased.She has only stated that her husband was Digitally signed by Jagdishan Aiyer Date: 12/07/2019 16:54:00 Cr.The facts in detail need not be stated, for the controversy really lies in a narrow compass.R. No.3155/2019 2
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,594,563 |
She lives in village Lanji.Her matrimonial home is at village Bhanegoan.Accused Madan Meshram, who is resident of village Bhanutola, Nandora spread a canard in village Bhanegoan that Devalabai has illicit relations with her driver Santosh Sonwane and her husband Chetram Meshram is making money from his wifes illicit relations with others.He also told about it to younger brother of Chetram.He confessed to Roop Chand Ravte, the President of the Kunbi Society, to which the parties belong that he had defamed Devalabai in aforesaid manner and had enquired as to what was the way out of this problem.When Devalabai learnt about aforesaid defamation, she felt hurt and humiliated and consumed insecticides at about 11:30 a.m. on 14.10.2015 in order to commit suicide; however, due to prompt treatment her life was saved.(24/06/2016)This criminal revision filed on behalf of the accused Madan Meshram has been preferred against order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the Court of 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, in S.T.No.303/2015, whereby a charge under Section 306 read with Sections 511 and 509 of the IPC was framed against accused Madan Meshram.The case of the prosecution before the trial Court in short was that victim Devalabai is a 36 years old married lady with four children.In the result, this criminal revision succeeds.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,597,909 |
Heard on the question of admission.sh Appeal is admitted for hearing.e Let the record of Court below be requisitioned.ad Heard on I.A.No.26620/2017 an application for suspension of Pr sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.The appellants stand convicted for commission of offence a hy punishable under Section 467 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, ad additionally they are sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months, under M Section 468 of IPC they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additionally of they are sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months, under Section 471 of rt IPC they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, with fine of ou Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additionally they are sentenced to undergo S.I. for 3 months and for Section 420 of IPC C they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, with fine of Rs.500/-, in h default of payment of fine amount, additionally they are sentenced to ig undergo S.I. for 3 months.H Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are on bail till 20.1.2018 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I.A.No.26620/2017 is allowed, subject to deposit of fine amount if not already deposited.It is directed that the custodial sentence of appellants-Mohd.Abid and Shamim Bano be suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each, along with one solvent surety each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20.06.2018 and on such other future dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard, till disposal of the appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE Digitally signed by sh ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2018.01.09 e 04:47:31 -08'00' ad A.Praj.Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,602,075 |
CRM No. 5391 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.7.2018 in connection with Moyna Police Station case no. 138 of 2018 dated 21.05.2018 under sections 341/324/325/307/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code;And In Re:-Bablu Hait ... Petitioner Mr.Saibal Mondal, Advocate Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. J. Basu, Advocate Mr. Shashanka Shekhar Saha, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mrs. Anasuya Sinha, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Moyna Police Station case no. 138 of 2018 dated 21.05.2018 under Sections 341/324/325/307/379/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code.The State says that a similar complaint as in the instant case was lodged against this petitioner in the same Police Station.The charge-sheet in the earlier matter has been filed but the investigation in the present matter has not been completed.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,860,217 |
The parties are present in court.The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 301/2014 (PS Patel Nagar) instituted for offence under section 420 of the IPC on the strength of a settlement having been arrived at with the complainant/informant (respondent No.2).As per the FIR, the petitioner had approached the respondent no.2 for purchase of the Ground Floor of property bearing no. M-118, Vikas Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the property').The petitioner is said to have represented himself to respondent no.2, as the owner of the W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 1 of 10 aforesaid property and that the said property was free from all encumbrances, lien, decree etc.W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 1 of 10It is submitted, that on such representation the respondent no.2 agreed to purchase the said property and entered into an agreement to sale with the petitioner.It is alleged that the respondent no.2 subsequently came to know that the said property was already mortgaged with a bank and moreover, the petitioner had also entered into another agreement to sale, with another individual, in which the petitioner had even received earnest monies.The aforementioned facts and circumstances compelled respondent no.2 to approach the police authorities which led to the registration of the present FIR.The respondent no.2 has also filed a civil suit before this court, bearing C.S.(OS) No. 987/2012 praying for, inter alia, the specific performance of the aforementioned agreement to sell.During the subsistence of the investigation in the subject FIR (FIR No. 301/2014) the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2 was settled in the civil suit and it was decided that the petitioner would pay to the respondent no.2 an amount of Rs. 28,60,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) towards full and final settlement of all her claims.Thus, simply quashing the subject FIR on the basis of the settlement would not adequately serve the ends of justice.However, this Court also notes that the wrongdoing is not of such a nature as to disturb the even tempo of society as it is private in nature and arises out of a purely commercial transaction.It is also pertinent to mention that the case is still at the nascent stage of investigation and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 3 of 1012.On payment of such amount and after obtaining the receipt, intimation shall be given to the SHO/IO of the concerned Police Station.A copy of such receipt would be filed in the Registry for future reference.13.In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court has held that cases which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. could also be quashed, when continuation of any criminal proceeding would be an exercise in futility and where justice demands that the dispute between the parties should be put to an end and peace is restored.But ending of such criminal proceedings could only be ordered for securing the ends of justice14.The Supreme Court has further observed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another (Supra):"58............................ No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 4 of 10 been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court.In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 4 of 10However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive.Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." [Refer to B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC 1.] W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 5 of 10Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court.Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 7 of 10W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 8 of 1016.Thus, the inherent powers of the High Court, having a wide plenitude could be used for quashing the FIR for securing the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court.17.The payment of the compensation amount by the would serve the interest of justice as it would make him wary of adopting any illegal means in the future.W.P. (CRL.) 2716/2015 Page 9 of 1018.The subject FIR (FIR No. 301/2014, PS Patel Nagar) and the emanating proceedings thereof are, for the reasons aforestated, quashed.19.The petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid.All the pending applications are accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,027,113 |
(Order of the court was made by MRS.R.HEMALATHA.J.,) Challenge is made to the Order of detention passed by the second respondent viz., the District Collector and District Magistrate, dated 23.10.2019, whereby the friend of the petitioner by name Sangili @ Vijidaran @ Vijayadoss S/o.Bagavandoss aged about 28 years was ordered to be detained under the Provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (in short Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).2/6http://www.judis.nic.in H.C.P.No.2574 of 20192.As per the grounds of Order of detention dated 23.10.2019, passed by the second respondent, the detenu was detained under the aforesaid Act since a criminal prosecution was initiated against him in Cr.No.183 of 2019 of Chunambedu Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 506(ii), 302 of Indian Penal Code read with 4 (b) of Indian Explosive Substances Act. Apart from this case, there is an adverse case against the detenu in Cr.No.11 of 2019 of Chithamur Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294 (b), 324, 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code.3.Heard Mr.D.Gopikrishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.Since there is an unexplained delay in considering the representation submitted by the detenu, the detention order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, this petition is allowed by setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.75/2019, dated 23.10.2019 and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.It is also made clear that this order will not affect the criminal cases pending against the detenu.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.H.C.P.No.2574 of 2019 Dated:12.03.2020
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
280,341 |
ORDER S.K. Chawla, J.This is revision by an accused challenging his conviction and sentence for the offence of house trespass under Section 448, Indian Penal Code.This was followed by an oral agreement whereby the applicant agreed to sell the entire house for Rs. 21,000/- Shishir Kumar Das paid from time to time upto July 1983 a total consideration of Rs. 18,551/-.After Shishir Kumar Das had remained in possession of the house for about 2 years, the applicant in April 1985 forcibly entered into the possession of the house by breaking open its lock and started to live in it with his family.Shishir Kumar Das (P.W.7) was transferred to another place and was not present when the house was actually broken open.His wife Smt. Anita Das (P.W.6) who lived in the village protested to the applicant but the latter greeted her with abuses.The applicant continues thereafter to live in the house with his family.In appeal carried by the applicant, the learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat affirmed the applicant's conviction for the offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence by substituting fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to simple imprisonment for 3 months, for the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months.Now the accused has come in revision to the High Court.Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant/accused, confined his submission to the question of sentence.It was argued by him that complainant Shishir Kumar Das had admittedly not paid the entire price of Rs. 21,000/-.Having obtained possession of the house, the complainant had unjustly delayed the payment of full price.In the circumstances the applicant in desperation and under provocation had taken back possession of the house.It was argued that considering the circumstances of the case even the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the learned Sessions Judge was too harsh and severe and the applicant deserved to be released on probation.It is an admitted position that the complainant had paid the bulk of the price i.e. Rs. 18,551/- out of a total of Rs. 21,000/-.He had locked the house and on the evidence accepted by the Courts below, the complainant had fixed doors and windows to the house and had also got some reconstruction work done.He had also put some building material inside the house.Taking advantage of the absence of the complainant, the applicant broke open the lock of the house and re-entered into its possession with his family, even though the complainant was earlier in possession of the house for the last two years.If the complainant was not ready to pay the balance price; about which also there was really no evidence, the proper remedy of the applicant was to bring a suit for recovery of the balance price.On the other hand, the applicant chose to take the law into his own hands.He acted in a very highhanded manner in forcibly breaking open the lock of the house and in re-entering into its possession.He greeted the complainant's wife with abuses when she came to protest to him.The land was lying vacant thereafter.Non-payment of balance of the price could not be a justification for unlawful act of breaking open the lock of the house and forcibly re-entering into its possession.In Evaristo Antonio v. State, AIR 1968 Goa Daman Diu 14, an accused was evicted from a house under an order which was subsequently held in writ proceeding to be illegal.The accused had meanwhile re-entered into the house after eviction.
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,803,750 |
The appellant is seeking appointment to the post of Supervisor Trainee (HR) in Bharat Heavy Electronics Ltd. (BHEL) by setting aside of the order of cancellation of the offer of her appointment."12.Whether involved in any Criminal case / Law suit at any time?Yes No If yes, please give current status ......................................."2.2 On 3rd September, 2012, BHEL issued the provisional offer of appointment to the appellant.The appellant was required to submit the attestation form before the issuance of final offer of appointment.In this connection your attention is invited to the clause published on the Web site for recruitment which provides: "In case it is detected at any stage of recruitment process that the candidate has suppressed any material fact(s), the candidature of such candidates is liable to be rejected." Accordingly your candidature is rejected and the Provisional Offer of Appointment is hereby withdrawn and cancelled.Yours faithfully, LPANo.736/2013 Page 4 of 159 For & on behalf of BHEL sd/-LPANo.736/2013 Page 4 of 159(Radhika Jain) Manager (HR)"Yours faithfully, For & on behalf of BHEL sd/-(Radhika Jain) Manager (HR)"Even he was a victim of a trivial dispute involving neighbours.He and all male family members were named as accused.Tempers cooled.The dispute got settled.The five young men before us come from humble socio-economic background.The incidents alleged against them have a rural setting.(b) if the aggrieved person does not want to initiate criminal proceedings, then make daily diary entry as per the information contained in the domestic incident report with a remark that the aggrieved person due to the intimate nature of the relationship LPANo.736/2013 Page 29 of 159 with the accused wants to pursue the civil remedies for protection against domestic violence and has requested that on the basis of the information received by her, the matter has been kept pending for appropriate enquiry before registration of an FIR.LPANo.736/2013 Page 29 of 159LPANo.736/2013 Page 86 of 159The appellant has placed on record the copy of the application under Section 12 of the DV Act which arises out of a matrimonial discord between the appellant's brother, Rohit Kaushik and his wife, Suman Sharma who were married on 11th May, 2011 and they separated on 10th July, 2011 due to temperamental incompatibility.The complainant impleaded her husband, Rohit Kaushik and her seven relatives, namely, father-in- law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and four uncles.The petitioner is the sister-in-law and the main allegation against her in para 2(i) is that six days before Karvachoth', the appellant and her mother LPANo.736/2013 Page 87 of 159 dragged the complainant out of the bedroom and pushed her on the water bucket in the bathroom and the complainant got an electric shock whereupon the MCB tripped.The petitioners have been living separately since 10/07/2011 due to temperamental incompatibility.All the efforts made by the parties to sort out their differences and reconciliation failed."LPANo.736/2013 Page 88 of 159This appears to be one of the cases of matrimonial discord where the aggrieved wife has made complaint against the husband and all her family members and levelled all sorts of allegations.The respondents have failed in their duty to be fair and reasonable.A senior officer from the office of Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises shall remain present with LPANo.736/2013 Page 157 of 159 complete instructions.J.R. MIDHA, J.The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 4 th September, 2013 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed her writ petition.LPANo.736/2013 Page 1 of 159Factual matrix 2.1 The appellant, BBA from I.P. University and Chartered Financial Analyst in ICFAI University, applied for the post of Supervisor Trainee (HR) in BHEL and was selected on the basis of performance in the written examination followed by the interview.At the time of interview dated 18th June, 2012, the appellant's submitted the bio-data form.Para 12 of the said form is relevant and reproduced hereunder:2.3 On 24th September, 2012, the appellant submitted the attestation form in which, in reply to Para 12(i)', she disclosed that an application was pending under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to in short as DV Act).The appellant attached the copy of the notice with the attestation form.Relevant portion of the attestation form is reproduced hereunder:2.4 On 26th September, 2012, the appellant reported for joining but was not allowed to join and was told to furnish the copy of the application under DV Act mentioned in her attestation form.On 28th September, 2012, the appellant visited the office of the LPANo.736/2013 Page 3 of 159 respondents to submit the copy of the said application but the same was not taken and she was told that these documents are not needed anymore.The appellant sent an e-mail to the Manager (HR) on 28th September, 2012 to place this fact on record.The copy of the same has been filed along with the writ petition.The letter dated 9th October, 2012 is reproduced hereunder:LPANo.736/2013 Page 3 of 159"Ref.PA: HRM:101-05 Dated : 09.10.2012 Ms. Nidhi Kaushik C-2/38A Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, Pin-110053 Sub: Provisional Offer of Appointment - Cancellation This has reference to Provision Offer of Appointment dated 3rd Sept., 2012, for the post of Supervisor Trainee (HR).You submitted the attestation form on 24th Sept., 2012, in which you have indicated that there is a case pending against you under Domestic Violence Act. It is noticed that you had suppressed this material fact in the Bio-data form, which you filled on 18th June, 2012 at the time of interview.2.6 On 15th October, 2012, the appellant preferred a departmental appeal against the order of cancellation of appointment dated 9th October, 2012 before the Chairman and Managing Director of BHEL on various grounds inter alia:- 2.6.1 The proceedings under the DV Act arising out of matrimonial discord between the appellant's brother and his wife are civil in nature.2.6.3 The appellant bonafidely believed that no criminal case was pending against her.2.6.4 In any case, there is no intentional/deliberate concealment of any material fact as the appellant voluntary disclosed the information relating to the complaint under the DV Act in the attestation form.2.6.5 In Commissioner of Police v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, the Supreme Court condoned the minor indiscretions and granted relief to the candidate who had concealed the involvement in a FIR whereas in the present case, no FIR had been registered against the appellant.2.7 Vide letter dated 5th December, 2012, the departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected by the appellate authority of BHEL.The rejection letter dated 5th December, 2012 is reproduced hereunder:"Ref.PA:HRM:101-05 Dated : 05.12.2012 Ms. Nidhi Kaushik C-2/38A LPANo.736/2013 Page 5 of 159 Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, Pin-110053 Sub: Appeal regarding your candidature for the post of Supervisor Trainee (HR) This has reference to your appeal dated nil to CMD, BHEL regarding your candidature for the post of Supervisor Trainee (HR).LPANo.736/2013 Page 5 of 159Your appeal has been examined in detail by us.We regret to inform you that our decision for cancellation of your provisional offer of appointment for the aforementioned post, communicated vide our letter Ref.No. PA:HRM:101- 05 dtd.09.10.2012, remains unchanged.One lasting word.The respondent has cancelled the appellant's provisional appointment on the sole ground that she was involved in a criminal case.In terms of the said settlement, the parties dissolved their marriage by mutual consent vide decree of divorce and Rohit Kaushik paid a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- to the complainant.The copies of the first motion has been placed on record by the appellant whereas copies of the complete order sheets of the complaint have been placed on record by the respondent.The complainant as well as her husband Rohit Kaushik have deposed on oath before the learned District Judge that they married on 11 th May, 2011 and separated on 10th July, 2011 due to temperamental incompatibility.In the order dated 15 th January, 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge accepted the said statement.Para 4 of the order dated 15th January, 2013 is reproduced hereunder:Did the competent authority ever have a look at it, before passing the order of cancellation of candidature? The cancellation of the candidature under the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material.The Tribunal, therefore, rightly set it aside.While disposing of the writ petition and directing the respondents to treat the mandamus issued vide order dated 9.10.2009 passed in WP (C) No. 12258/2009 as the mandamus issued in the instant writ petition, we censure Sh.The relevant portion of the order dated 28 th May, 2010 passed in the above matter is reproduced hereunder:-The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Air Headquarters, Department of JAG (Air) has issued as circular dated 12th May, 2010 to all its departments directing them not to raise the plea of sovereign immunity in any case of motor vehicle accident.It has been further directed that if any such case has been filed, the same may be withdrawn.Copy of the said circular has been placed on record.The learned counsel for appellant submits that the memorandum is expected to be issued shortly."LPANo.736/2013 Page 117 of 159Respondents no.2 to 4 filed a reply dated 6th April, 2013 and additional reply dated 23rd August, 2013 supported by an affidavit of Shri B. Shankar, Executive Director (HR & CC) before the Writ Court.The respondents have made the following false and misleading statements in the replies dated 6 th April, 2013 and 23rd August, 2013 as well as the synopsis dated 21 st November, 2013 and 22nd February, 2014 which are as under:-The appellant is involved in a criminal case in under DV Act in which she is accused of having committed offence of attempt to murder which is punishable under Section 307 with imprisonment for a period of 10 years.The appellant was accused No.4 in the said criminal case.Thirdly, the appellant was respondent no.4 and not accused no.4 as deposed by respondents in their affidavit.Fourthly, the appellant never admitted the pendency of a criminal case in the attestation form.LPANo.736/2013 Page 118 of 159The appellant's appeal was considered by the same officers who had earlier taken the decision to cancel and appellant's offer of appointment.The respondents have also admitted this fact in para 8 of the synopsis dated 22 nd April, 2014 where it is stated that the appeal was considered by eight senior officers of BHEL and rejected by the Director (HR).LPANo.736/2013 Page 119 of 159The original records produced by the respondents further reveal that the appellant's appeal was not considered on merits.Although the Executive (Law) had observed in his note dated 9th November, 2012 that the HR Department may consider whether pendency of application under Section 12 of the DV Act is a material fact, AGM (HR-RMX) declined to consider this important aspect on the ground that the appellant herself considered the Court notice under DV Act to be material and therefore, it was concluded that the notice under DV Act was a material fact.We do not find any admission of the appellant in this regard and the observation clearly appears to be perverse.The AGM (HR-RMX) further observed that there was no provision for review by the recruitment section and therefore, declined to consider any of the grounds raised by the appellant.It is thus clear from the record that the respondents rejected the appeal of the appellant without considering it on merits and therefore the statement made before this Court the appellant's appeal was considered and rejected after due deliberation is absolutely false.This Court would not have known the truth if the original records would not have been called and perused.Concealment of material facts.The respondents are also guilty of concealment of material fact from this Court that the appellant's appeal was not put up before the Chairman and Managing Director; there was no LPANo.736/2013 Page 120 of 159 authorization by the Chairman and Managing Director to the officers to consider the appeal and the appeal was considered by the same officers who had initially cancelled the appellant's offer of appointment and further that the appeal was not even considered on merits and none of the grounds raised by the appellants were even looked into.LPANo.736/2013 Page 120 of 159The respondents misled this Court.The respondents attempted to mislead this Court by raising a frivolous defence with respect to the nature of proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act and the catena of judgments referred to and relied upon by the appellant.The law with respect to the nature of proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act is clear and unambiguous from the relevant provisions as well as the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts including this Court that the proceedings are civil in nature; domestic violence is per se not an offence; the Civil Court, Family Court and Criminal Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain and try the application under Section 12; the Court can formulate its own procedure to conduct the proceedings under Section 12 and the DV Act is not in derogation with other laws and that the appellant had to invoke the offences under IPC by a separate action.The respondents however, did not controvert or respond to any of the provisions or the judgments referred to hereinabove and still took a stand that the case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act is a criminal case and attempted to meet the settled position of law by calling it irrelevant.This is a clear attempt to LPANo.736/2013 Page 121 of 159 mislead this Court.First of all, no additional ground can be urged which was not there in the original order of cancellation of appointment.Secondly, the additional ground urged is contradictory and inconsistent to the first ground.Relevant extract of the reply dated 6th April, 2013 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS1. ...While appearing for interview she filed Bio- Data form on 18.6.2012, wherein she made a deliberate false declaration in response to the specific query No.12 LPANo.736/2013 Page 123 of 159 wherein she declared that she was not involved in any criminal case/law suit. ... Later on petitioner herself admitted that the criminal case was pending against her, while signing the Attestation Form on 24.9.2012...LPANo.736/2013 Page 123 of 159Lastly, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the same officers who had cancelled the provisional appointment without even considering the grounds raised by the appellant.The records do not show any deliberation as the appeal was not even considered on merits.The respondents are guilty of concealment of material facts from this Court.LPANo.736/2013 Page 151 of 159The respondents misled this Court and failed to disclose material facts.Ordinarily, the Courts believe the statements made on affidavit.It appears that something has gone seriously wrong in working of the Legal and HR departments of the respondents.The respondents need to do serious introspection.The respondents have filed an affidavit dated 20th January, 2014 in which they have disclosed that initially 150 posts were advertised but management subsequently reduced the number toOut of 100 candidates, 94 candidates joined the training.After the training, written test and interview only 88 persons were found fit for absorption into service.In the synopsis dated 22 nd April, 2014, it is stated that it is not practicable to train the appellant.It is noted that vide order dated 3 rd December, 2012, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to keep the one post of Supervisor Trainee (HR) of general category vacant till the next date of hearing.This Court is of the view that in view of the statement made by respondents before the Writ Court on 15th April, 2013, the respondents cannot now refuse to appoint the appellant.In the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 4 th September, 2013 is set aside.The order of cancellation of the offer of appointment of the appellant and the letter dated 5th December, 2012 dismissing the appellant's appeal are hereby quashed.The provisional offer of LPANo.736/2013 Page 156 of 159 appointment of the appellant dated 3rd September, 2012 is restored.The respondent BHEL shall complete all the formalities and issue the final offer of appointment to the appellant within five days and the appellant shall report for joining the respondent on 2nd June, 2014 at 10:00 am.The respondents shall pay a costs of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant.LPANo.736/2013 Page 156 of 159List on 30th May, 2014 for response from the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises and CMD of BHEL.He shall also disclose the names of other officers responsible for the lapses.Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the Standing Counsel for Union of India, who shall have the same delivered to the Secretary, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises and CMD of BHEL without any delay.The Standing Counsel shall also send a copy of this judgment to the Secretary (Law & Justice) and U.P.S.C. for considering the suggestions of this Court to incorporate additional questions in the attestation form for appointments in government and statutory bodies.Pending application is disposed of as infructuous.J.R. MIDHA, J.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,041,821 |
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 140/2018 registered at Police Station-Dehat, District-Satna (M.P.) for the offence under Section 498-A, 34, 494 of IPC.Prosecution story in brief is that complainant Devki married with Ramprakash 9 years ago and by their wedlock, there is two child.It is alleged that the husband was not keeping her and for this she was ill-treated by the applicants-Ramrudra Loni (father-in-law), Munni Bai (Mother-in-law) & Smt. Sanjan Loni (Jethani) then she narrated this story to her parents, thereafter compromise was made and matter was settled.On 12.05.2017, applicants and her husband torture her and keep away from house, thereafter she was living with her parents, in between husband neighbor to her parents house for taking her back.The husband of the complainant performed second marriage with Sanjana-younger sister and on 02.07.2018 the second wife delivered one son and without getting divorce he performed second marriage an because of this reason the complainant-Devki has submitted report in police station against the applicant and offence has been registered under the abovementioned offences.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.The applicants have never tortured the complainant while the conduct of the complainant was not proper.He further submits that no offence is made out u/s 498-A of IPC so far Section 494 if concerned, there is no proper evidence produced by the Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 11/10/2018 16:17:10 2 MCRC-39642-2018 complainant.So, he prays for bail.Per-contra, learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the anticipatory bail application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in the opinion of this Court, applicants-Ramrudra Loni, Smt. Munni Bai & Smt. Sanjana Loni are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.Consequently, this application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of applicants-Ramrudra Loni, Smt. Munni Bai & Smt. Sanjana Loni is allowed.It is directed that in the event of their arrest, the applicants shall be released on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each and a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for their appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Cr.P.C.as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 11/10/2018 16:17:10
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,042,935 |
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 31.5.2009, a police force went to the house of the respondents Arjun etc. to arrest Arjun Singh etc. Force was comprised with SDOP, Shri Avanish Bansal (P.W.4), Constable Id-ul-Baksh (P.W.2), Constable Kishori Lal (P.W.3), Constable Sunil Mishra (P.W.5) and other officers.The respondents Arjun Singh, Virendra Singh and Gulab Singh were arrested and thereafter, the respondents came with the sticks etc. and started assaulting them and therefore, the victims Id-ul-Baksh, Kishori Lal and Sunil Mishra sustained injuries.Out of them, injury caused to the victim Kishori Lal was found to be grave.He sustained a fracture in his left wrist.An FIR was lodged by SDOP Shri Avanish Bansal and a prosecution was initiated.acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 332, 333 and 353 of IPC.C.No.5930/2012 The respondents abjured their guilt.They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter.In defence, Gyan Singh (D.W.1) and Guman Singh (D.W.2) were examined.After considering the prosecution's evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents.After considering the submissions made by the learned G.A. for the State and considering the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court, it appears that the police constables and SDOP could not say any positive version before the trial Court.The constable Id-ul-Baksh (P.W.2) has turned partly hostile.He said that it was the respondent Arjun Singh, who used criminal force against SDOP Shri Avanish Bansal, whereas Avanish Bansal did not accept that any scuffling was done by anyone with him.According to the evidence of Avanish Bansal, no criminal force was used against him and no offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC is made out for the public servant Avanish Bansal.The injured witnesses Id-ul-Baksh, Kishori Lal and Sunil Mishra were examined.Sunil Mishra (P.W.5) has stated that SDOP held the respondent Arjun Singh and other respondents were trying to M.Cr.C.No.5930/2012 rescue Arjun Singh.He could not say as to who assaulted him and how he sustained the injuries.Constable Id-ul-Baksh (P.W.2) has turned partly hostile.He has stated that some scuffling was done with him but, he could not say that amongst the respondents who did such scuffling with him.Similarly, Constable Kishori Lal (P.W.3), who sustained a fracture on his left wrist could not say the name of the person, who assaulted him on his left wrist.In para 5 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he could not identify the person amongst the respondents, who assaulted him on his left wrist.Under such circumstances, no witness could ascertain the actual culprit out of the respondents, who assaulted either Id-ul-Baksh or Kishori lal or Sunil.Under such circumstances, none of the respondents could be convicted for offence punishable under Sections 332, 333, 353 of IPC with help of such evidence.The witnesses could not identify the respondents.They could not say about the overt-acts of the respondents to consider that the respondents had common intention with the culprits, who assaulted the victims Id-ul-Baksh, Kishori Lal and Sunil and therefore, the respondents could not be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 333 M.Cr.C.No.5930/2012 or 332 of IPC with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.It appears that the incident took place at the spot when the police was trying to arrest Arjun Singh, Virendra Singh etc. but, it was not established that the respondents were the persons who assaulted various officers of police force, causing them simple or grave injury.According to the evidence of various witnesses, it would be apparent that Arjun Singh, Gulab Singh and Virendra Singh, the persons arrested by the police did not make any violence but, violence was done by the crowd.For proof of such offence, the overt-acts of each accused should be duly established by the prosecution.Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to prove the overt-acts of the respondents and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges.Consequently, application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed at motion stage.C.No.5930/2012 A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,048,259 |
This criminal revision case has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.05.2016 made in Crl.It is the case of the revision petitioner that she filed complaint against the respondents under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 190(1)(a), for the offences committed under Sections 420 IPC read with 34 IPC and 120-B read with 420 IPC.During the pendency of the trial in C.C.No.10353/2009, the respondent herein filed petition Crl.The learned 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, after hearing both sides, allowed the petition in Crl.Against the discharge of the respondent from the Crl.M.P.No.3600/2015, the petitioner herein has preferred the present criminal revision case.It is the case of the revision petitioner that the suit property in Plot No.62, Shri Sai Nagar, 1st Main Road, Senjari Village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai, belongs to her and the respondent herein approached the petitioner to purchase the undivided share of the above mentioned property.It was agreed by both the parties, that the price of 549 Sq.ft of undivided share in the property mentioned above is Rs.4,94,100/-.The respondent herein, not having any assests to purchase the said property, requested the petitioner to execute the sale deed in respect of undivided share of the land, so that he could get a loan from the bank and from that he could pay the sale consideration.For which the respondent informed that he is having immovable properties at Nagarkoil and also owns a flat in Navi Mumbai and he would sell the same and pay the sale consideration, or else his wife one Mrs.Selvi Ganesan, who is working as an officer in Central Excise Department, also given assurance that she will obtain loan from her department and pay the sale consideration.In view of the representations by both the respondent and his wife, the petitioner decided to register the undivided share of the land in favour of the respondent without receiving the sale consideration.The respondent informed the petitioner that he will pay the sale consideration within a month and till then she can receive the document from the Sub-Registrar's Office and keep it in her custody.After completion of registration on 14.06.2006, the petitioner herein received the document from the office of the Sub-Registrar.Afterwards, the respondent paid Rs.50,000/- on 21.06.2006, Rs.75,000/- on 02.07.2006 and on 27.07.2006, Rs.50,000/- to one Mr.P.Krishnaswamy, who in turn gave the amount to the petitioner.But, thereafter no payment for balance sale consideration was paid to the petitioner neither through Mr.P.Krishnaswamy, nor directly by the respondent, instead the petitioner received a letter dated 09.01.2007 from the respondent for returning the original sale deed.Against which, the respondent herein preferred the discharge petition in Crl.M.P. No.3600/2015 and the same was allowed.M.P. No.3600/2015 dated 06.05.2016, the petitioner is before this Court with this present Criminal Revision Case.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly sale deed was executed on 14.06.2006 and the recitals of the sale deed was clearly exhibited.It is crystal clear from the averments made in the complaint subsequent to the examination of the petitioner herein and other witnesses would constitute the offence of cheating.M.P.No.3600/2015 in C.C.No.10353/2009 dated 06.05.2016 may be confirmed.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.The main issue involved in this case is whether the petitioner has agreed for or was made to agree for the registration of the document without payment of sale consideration by the respondent and on the strength of false representation.This can be decided only on considering the entire evidence let in by the petitioner and defence and not at this stage.Accordingly, the order passed by the learned 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3600/2015 in C.C.No.10353/2009 dated 06.05.2016 is set aside.The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,056,185 |
The accused was living with his wife and children at Village Ransai, Adivasiwadi in Khalapur Tehsil.On 14th March, 2006 it was a "Holi" day.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::2 appeal 234.07.sxw The accused wanted his wife Tara to cook food but she refused and, therefore, the accused started beating her with sticks on account of which his wife suffered head injuries and died due to intra cerebral and extra cerebral hemorrhage.PW3 Narayan Pawar who returned to his house in the morning of 15th March, 2006 after celebrating Holi found Tara lying dead and the accused sitting nearby.The Sarpanch of the village was informed who in turn gave telephone call to police.The police came to the spot and recorded the First Information Report Exhibit 8 of Janu Pangya Waghmare on the basis of which the offence under Section 302 IPC was registered against the accused.Thereafter, the inquest punchnama and scene of offence punchnama were drawn and dead body of Tara was sent to Medical Officer of Khalapur for postmortem examination.3rd February, 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT(PER A.P. LAVANDE, J) By this Appeal the appellant takes exception to judgment and order dated 18th September, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Sessions Case No. 78/2006 convicting the appellant ('the accused' for short) for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo RI for six months.In the course of investigation blood stained shirt of the accused was attached and the accused was arrested.The statements of several witnesses were recorded.The Muddemal articles seized during investigation were sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis.After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court of JMFC Khalapur against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.In Sessions Case No. 78/2006 which was made over to Additional Sessions Judge, charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of the charge.The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded.The accused did not lead any evidence.Upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge held that the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and convicted and sentenced the accused as above.Mrs. Kuttikrishnan, learned Counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution does not establish the offence of murder against the accused.Learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution evidence itself suggests that the accused did not have an intention to cause murder of his wife Tara and according to prosecution itself the assault was on account of fact that Tara refused to cook food for him.Learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence led by the prosecution does not establish the offence of murder against the accused and as such the accused is liable to be acquitted.In the alternative learned Counsel submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted in toto, at the most the offence under Section 304(I) of IPC is made out against the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::4 appeal 234.07.sxwPer contra Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the prosecution has led cogent evidence to prove the offence of murder against the accused and the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are borne out from the evidence on record and as such no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order.We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances:-(i) Death of Tara was homicide.(iii) The conduct of the accused after the commission of the offence.(iv) Presence of the blood on the clothes of the accused and sticks.Insofar as homicidal death of Tara is concerned, there is no serious dispute.The postmortem report Exhibit 14 which has been admitted by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 ::: 5 appeal 234.07.sxw accused discloses that the following external injuries were found on the dead body of Tara:::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::(i) Contused lacerated wound over forehead, just above the base of nose 3 inches x 2 inches x bone deep.(ii) Contused lacerated wound over the right side of the forehead of the size of 9 inches x 4 inches x bone deep.(iii) Contused lacerated wound over the right temporal region of the size of 5 inches x 3 inches x bone deep.(iv) Vertical and obligue tear of the middle of right ear pinna and the fracture of the right side of the forehead.The Doctor also found corresponding internal injuries.All the injuries were on head and having regard to the nature of the injuries the only conclusion that can be drawn is that death of Tara was homicidal.Thus the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of Tara was homicidal.In order to prove extra judicial confession made by the accused the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of four witnesses namely PW1 Janu Pangya Waghmare, PW2 Barku Mahadu Pawar, PW3 Narayan Pawar and PW4 Laxman Waghmare.PW1-Janu who had lodged the First Information Report Exhibit 8 deposed that the incident occurred on the next day of the Holi about a year prior to the date of his deposition.He stated that on the next date Narayan, the brother-in-law of the accused came to his place and told him that the accused had murdered his wife.He went to the house of Sarpanch and told ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 ::: 6 appeal 234.07.sxw him about the incident.Sarpanch informed the police on telephone about the murder and thereafter all of them went to the house of the accused.When he went to the house of the accused, he found that it was only a plinth with an enclosure on site without a roof.He found Tara lying dead on the platform with a bleeding injury on her head and the accused sitting nearby.When he enquired with the accused as to how his wife had died, the accused stated that the previous night he asked his wife to cook food for him but she did not and, therefore, he got annoyed and he assaulted his wife by means of sticks.He also stated that he had consumed liquor.He also identified the sticks which were seen by him.In the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::examination of this witness nothing tangible was brought on record to discredit the testimony.PW2 Barku Pawar, the brother of Tarabai deposed that he has gone to the house of the accused on the next day of 'Holi' and he found the accused sitting near the dead body of his sister Tarabai which was with bleeding injury on head.He deposed that on enquiry the accused told him that he had assaulted his wife since she had not cooked food.In cross-examination the witness denied the suggestion that accused had not stated that he had assaulted his wife.The evidence of PW3 Narayan Pawar (brother-in-law of the accused) and PW4 Laxman Waghmare (brother of the accused) also discloses that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 ::: 7 appeal 234.07.sxw accused had stated before them that he had assaulted his wife since she did not cook the food for him.The evidence of above four witnesses which has not been shaken in cross-examination clearly proves that on the next day of 'Holi' in the morning the accused was found sitting near the dead body of his wife Tara with bleeding injuries on her head and that upon being questioned he stated that he had assaulted his wife since she had not cooked food for him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::There is absolutely no reason for us to disbelieve the extra judicial confession made by the accused to these witnesses.The evidence clearly discloses that the accused had repented for this act and as such made extra judicial confession to the above four witnesses.Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish the extra judicial confession made by the accused to above four witnesses.The evidence of above referred four witnesses discloses that when they went to the house of the accused, the accused was sitting near the dead body of his wife with his hands on his forehead.This clearly discloses that the accused was repenting for his acts.Moreover, this conduct on the part of the accused clearly establishes that he was responsible for causing death of his wife.If the accused was not the author of the crime, the accused would have surely contacted either the police or would have taken help of his relative to lodge report against the person who was responsible for causing death of his wife.Therefore, this conduct of the accused clearly establishes his complicity in the commission of the crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::8 appeal 234.07.sxwThe above referred evidence also stands corroborated by spot panchnama pursuant to which the two sticks (Articles 1 and 2) which were seized by the police.Moreover, the reports of Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit 17) also establishes that blood stains were found on the shirt (Article 5 of the accused) and also on the blouse and saree of the deceased.The report further discloses that group of blood found on these articles was 'O'.The presence of blood of 'O' group on the shirt of the accused as well as on clothes of deceased also leads corroboration to the prosecution case that it was accused who was the author of the crime.Thus, upon reappreciation of the entire evidence we have no hesitation to hold that it was the accused and accused alone who was responsible for causing the death of his wife Tara by assaulting her with sticks.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person-inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner;(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows.The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention.The prosecution evidence further suggests that on 15th March, 2006 was 'Holi' day and accused had consumed liquor.The prosecution evidence itself suggests that the assault on deceased was not preplanned and the accused assaulted his wife Tara with sticks which must have been on the spot.Having regard to the above referred tests laid down by the Apex Court in the case of H.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::10 appeal 234.07.sxw Pulicherla Nagaraju(supra), we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution evidence establishes that the accused did not intend to commit murder of his wife but intended to cause injuries to her which were likely to cause her death.Therefore, in our view, the offence under Section 304(I) and not 302 IPC is made out against the accused.Therefore, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable in law.In the result, therefore, the Appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of the appellant - Kamlya Dehu Waghmare for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentence imposed against him are quashed and set aside and the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(I) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for three months.The accused is entitled to set of in terms of section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The order passed by the learned trial Judge insofar as disposal of the property is concerned is maintained.The fees payable to advocate Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan is quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.The Appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:08:16 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,057,523 |
We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioner and for the State.This application is, thus, disposed of.(Kalidas Mukherjee, J.) 2 (Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J.)
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,057,723 |
In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for six months' R.I. in addition.Prosecution's case in short is that on 28.9.1993, the prosecutrix aged about 14 years, went to graze the cattle of one Raju Soni in the jungle of village Satai.In the noon, some buffalo of the prosecutrix went inside the Beda (closed field) of the appellant and when, the prosecutrix went inside the field to fetch her buffalo then, the appellant tied her 2 Criminal Appeal No.1366/1996 hands and legs by a rope and threw her on the earth.Thereafter, one cloth was pushed in her mouth by the appellant and ultimately, he pushed his penis into her vagina.The prosecutrix gave a kick to the appellant and removed the cloth plugged in her mouth and she shouted for the help.After hearing her hue and cry, her aunt Benibai and cousin Durjana (PW-4) came to the spot and saw that the appellant was lying on the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix narrated about the incident to Benibai and Durjana.When she took her cattle back to her home, she also narrated the story to her uncle Halke (PW-6) and Raju Soni (PW-7).The prosecutrix was shown to be a small girl of 14 years of age and she had alleged that the appellant threw her on the earth and pulled her clothes and after removing her panty, he pushed his penis in her vagina, though she had not stated about the complete ejaculation, whereas she had stated that the appellant pushed his penis in her vagina.Looking to the age of the prosecutrix, there must be some injuries on her private part due to that insertion, but it is strange that Dr. Usha Khare did not find any external or internal injury to the prosecutrix, whereas her hymen was found torn in the shape of "3 o'clock" position, but that was an old rupture and it had no connection with the present event and therefore, the story to the fact that the appellant pushed his penis in her vagina appears to be incorrect.The prosecutrix had accepted in para 6 of her statement that as soon as, her cattle went inside the Beda of the appellant, the appellant shouted that whose cattle entered in his field and thereafter, when the prosecutrix went inside the Beda to take out the cattle then, the appellant came and gave two slaps to the prosecutrix.She had also accepted that when the appellant gave her two slaps then, she made a hue and cry and started weeping.(Passed on 3rd day of August, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.32/94, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced for seven years' R.I. with fine of `1,000/-.Thereafter, she was taken to the Police Station Satai, District Chhatarpur, where she lodged an FIR Ex.She was sent for her medico legal examination.Dr. Usha Khare (PW-5) found that, there was no external or internal injury on her person but there was an old rapture of hymen in the shape of "3 o'clock'' position.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Bijawar, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chhatarpur for the trial.The appellant abjured his guilt.He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter.Since he gave slaps to the prosecutrix because she pushed her cattle inside his field and therefore, to take the revenge, the prosecutrix had lodged an FIR.However, no defence evidence was adduced.3 Criminal AppealAfter considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur acquitted the appellant from the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.He was falsely implicated in the matter.The alleged incident took place in the noon, whereas FIR was lodged at about 8:30 p.m. in the night.The prosecutrix had not shown any hurry in reaching to her house and to inform her parents etc. Actually, the prosecutrix was grazing the cattle of one Raju Soni in the field of Harnarayan and there was enmity between Harnarayan and the appellant, hence due to the instigation of Harnarayan, a false report was lodged against the appellant.Hence, he remained in the custody for 11 months approximately.Also he has faced the trial and appeal for last 16 years, therefore, it is prayed that he may not be sent to the jail again.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court appears to be correct and therefore, no interference is required to be done in the judgment passed by the trial Court.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the prosecution's evidence, it is to be deduced that whether the appellant attempted to commit rape with the prosecutrix? and; whether his sentence can be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody?In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW-3), Durjana (PW-4) and Benibai could be the eyewitnesses.However, the witness Benibai was not examined before the trial Court.She appeared before the trial Court on 10.8.1994 and she was given up.When the prosecutrix came out of that Beda, she stated the story.Under such circumstances, except the 5 Criminal Appeal No.1366/1996 prosecutrix, no one remains as an eyewitness.Her vaginal swab was taken by Dr. Usha Khare on a slide and her underwear was also taken and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory for the analysis, but no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was submitted before the trial Court during the disposal of the case.In the present case, where the prosecutrix had not alleged about the ejaculation then still some blood could be found on her underwear because it would have oozed due to that insertion of the penis.However, the trial Court found that no penetration was done by the appellant and therefore, 6 Criminal Appeal No.1366/1996 the appellant was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.When she shouted after getting two slaps, Durjana and Benibai immediately came to the spot.Durjana asked the appellant as to why he slapped the prosecutrix and thereafter, Durjana took the prosecutrix with him from the spot.If such an admission done by the prosecutrix is considered then, it would be apparent that no such type of alleged attempt was committed upon the prosecutrix by the appellant.The incident would have taken place in such a manner that the appellant gave two slaps to the prosecutrix 7 Criminal Appeal No.1366/1996 because of some cattle, who entered into his Beda to spoil his crops and when he gave two slaps to the prosecutrix, then on her shouting, her cousin Durjana and Benibai came at the spot and took her, then the appellant had no opportunity to do any intercourse with the prosecutrix or use any criminal force to outrage her modesty.Under such circumstances, if the consequential conduct of the prosecutrix is seen that after the incident, she remained there and continued to graze her cattle till the evening, then it would be apparent that no such grave incident took place with her.After the incident, which was done by the appellant with the prosecutrix, her cousin Durjana was informed about the incident immediately then, certainly she should have taken to her house soon after the incident and an FIR must have been lodged thereafter but, it is apparent that she went to her house at 6:00 p.m. in the evening and thereafter, she informed her parents and also to one Raju Soni, owner of the cattle.Halke (PW-6), uncle of the prosecutrix and Raju Soni (PW-7) have stated that they were informed by the prosecutrix about the incident and therefore, Halke went with the prosecutrix to the Police Station, Satai and lodged an FIR.In the cross-examination, Halke has accepted that he was also in the forest to fetch some wood and when he came to his house in the evening, he was 8 Criminal Appeal No.1366/1996 informed about the incident.Under such circumstances, it appears that the story told by the prosecutrix to her uncle at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening, whereas FIR was lodged at 8:30 p.m. in the night.It is pertinent to note that the concerned Police Station was hardly 3 kms.away from the spot.Under such circumstances, it is apparent that FIR was lodged with the delay of at least 1 hours.It is apparent that the prosecutrix had cried after getting the slaps from the appellant and thereafter, her cousin took her from the spot and therefore, there was no opportunity to the appellant to do any intercourse or insert his penis in her vagina.No injury either external or internal was found on her person.As per her allegation, she remained to graze her cattle in the field upto the evening.Her conduct appears to be unnatural.Thereafter, when she informed the incident to her uncle Halke and Raju Soni, owner of the cattle then still the FIR was lodged with the delay of at least 1 hours.Under such circumstances, it is possible that the appellant had not done anything with the prosecutrix of such nature and he was falsely implicated in the matter because of the rival group.He simply slapped the prosecutrix in the noon.The entire prosecution story comes in the clouds of the doubt and therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted for 9 Criminal Appeal No.1366/1996 the offence punishable under Section 376/511 of IPC or Section 354 of IPC even.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable.He cannot be convicted either for the offences punishable under Sections 376 or 354 of IPC or for any inferior offence of the same nature, therefore, the appeal filed by him is hereby accepted.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE 03.08.2012
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,058,423 |
Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI, for short) on 24th December, 1999 filed a charge-sheet under Sections 120B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC for short) and Section 13(2) readwith 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 ( PC Act for short) against the petitioner and others.However, along with the charge- sheet, documents and statements of witnesses were not filed.On 17th February, 2000, the following Order was passed :"17-2-2000 Pt.: Shri Thakur Dass, Sr.PP for CBI.Despite of the opportunity given to the prosecution, relied upon documents and statements of witnesses have not been filed on record.In absence of those, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed by prosecution has no meaning.File be consigned to record room.On 8th July, 2005 a chargesheet was filed by the prosecution-CBI before the Court.On 15th July, 2005, the Court passed a detailed order on certain other aspects.The matter was adjourned on some dates for clarifications and for examination of the chargesheet.It appears thereafter the documents as well as statements of witnesses were filed.On 8th February, 2007, the Court took cognizance and summoned the accused by passing the following Order:"Present : Shri S.Islam, Ld.PP for CBI.An application has also been filed by the IO alongwith letter no. HO/Vig/CBI-19/V 1156 dated 7.2.07 of Asstt.I have perused the report U/s.173 Cr.PC., some of the relied upon documents and statements U/s.There is sufficient material on record for summoning the accused persons for the offences complained of.I, therefore, take cognizance.Accused nos. 1 to 8 may be summoned.Sd/ Special Judge:Delhi:8.2.07"It is submitted that the allegations in the two chargesheets i.e the first chargesheet which was subject matter of the Order dated 17th February, 2000 and the second chargesheet which was subject matter of the Order dated 8th February, 2007 are virtually identical except for one additional witness i.e. the new Investigating Officer.It is further stated that the prosecution-CBI has filed 12 extra/additional documents with the second chargesheet and ten additional documents relate to findings on specimen signatures and two additional documents are CFSL reports.The contentions raised by the petitioners are without merit.The Order dated 17th February, 2000 has been quoted above.The chargesheet which was filed was not taken on record and was not registered as the prosecution-CBI did not file the documents and the statements of the witnesses.Liberty was however specifically given to the prosecution-CBI to file a fresh chargesheet if it so desires along with documents and statements of witnesses.This order dated 17th Feburary,2000 cannot be construed and regarded as an order dismissing or declining cognizance on merits.In plain and simple language, the court permitted the prosecution-CBI, if it so desired, to file a fresh chargesheet with documents and statements of witnesses.It is pursuant to this liberty in the Order dated 17th February, 2000 that the so-called second chargesheet was filed.The prosecution-CBI did not conceal any fact and in the second chargesheet it was specifically mentioned that a chargesheet was earlier submitted to the court on 24th December, 1999 but vide Order dated 17th February, 2000 was ordered to be consigned to the record room with liberty to the prosecution-CBI to file fresh chargesheet along with 3 CRL.M.C. No.964/2007 documents and statements of witnesses.As noticed above, vide order dated 8 th July, 2005 the earlier file was summoned by the Special Court (CBI) from the record room and thereafter vide order dated 8th February, 2007 cognizance was taken and the accused were summoned.3 CRL.M.C. No.964/2007The reason why the petitioner has given up the challenge to the Order dated 17th February, 2000 is apparent.Title and Citation A. Option available before the Magistrate on receipt of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.Abhinandan Jha and others versus Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC 1173. Dr.Kapil Garg versus State 107 (2003) DLT 228 B. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. should contain all details required in sub-section (2) and should also accompanied by the document and the statements required under sub-section (5).Satya Narain Musadi & others versus State of Bihar (1980) 3 SCC 4 CRL.M.C. No.964/2007 152, C. After the submission of Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on completion of the investigation, the police has a right of further investigation under sub-section (8) but not fresh investigation.4 CRL.M.C. No.964/20071. K. Chandrashekhar versus State of Kerala and others (1998) 5 SCC 2235 CRL.M.C. No.964/2007
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
280,605 |
On arriving at the BarrierGate, 4 currency notes of Rs. 10 each were given by JagatSingh, P.W. 2, to his Driver who was sent to the Barrieroffice along with P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 to give the same, ifdemanded, and after they were accepted an agreed signal wasto be given.Accordingly, the Driver went to the Barrieroffice along with P.W. 6 Hardeet Singh and P.W. 7 Munna Laland after the amount was received by accused Narayan Singh,P.W. 6 Hardeet Singh came out of the office and gave theagreed signal.Immediately, P.W. 1 Ranjit Singh proceeded-to the office and when the accused Narayan Singh saw himcoming, he felt suspicious, went inside the inner apartmentof the office and concealed the notes under the over-coatlying there.As soon as P.W. 1 entered the office, theDriver Jeet Singh informed him that the Constable hasconcealed the notes under the over-coat in the innerapartment.P.W. 1 then disclosed his identity and afterhaving his person searched, went inside the inner apartmentand recovered the currency notes lying beneath the over-coat.V. A. Seyid Muhammad and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appel-lant (in Cr. A. No. 80 of 1969).R. A. Gupta, for the appellant (in Cr. A. No. 81 of1969).I. N. Shroff and R. P. Kapur, for the respondent (in boththe appeals).The Judgment of the Court was delivered byP. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. The appellants along with anotheraccused, Narayan Singh, were convicted by the High Courtunder sections 332, 353, 342 of the Indian Penal Code andwere sentenced424to one years' rigorous imprisonment on each count, thesentences to run concurrently.These two appeals are byspecial leave.On 26-5-1965, Sardar Jagat Singh, owner of a lorry made anapplication to tile Vigilance Commissioner, Bhopal Divisionthat the appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 80/69 Shyam LalSharma, Barrier Inspector at Village Multai, District Betul,has seized the licence of his Driver stating that if he hasto pass from the Barrier, he should bring Rs. 5 per trip orRs.40 p.m. but the Driver refused to pay him anything andhas declined to go there as a result of which he is likelyto suffer heavy loss.He, therefore, offered to givecurrency notes which may be signed and requested that a pro-per person may be given to him to arrest the BarrierInspector Sharma and his staff and save him from tilecorruption.Oil this application, Circle Inspector RanaRanjit Singh, P.W. 1 was asked to attend to it.Accordingly, he along with Jagat Singh, his Driver andPanchas Hardeet Singh, P.W. 6 and Munna Lal, P.W. 7 pro-ceeded to, Multai Barrier by truck to arrange for a trap andcatch the culprits red-handed.The notes were seized and while he was preparing thePanchnama, accused Udho Prasad-appellant in Crl.Appeal No.81/69-arrived on the scene and started taking P.W. 1 to taskfor having entered his office without permission orreference to him.He then asked accused Narayan Singh notto sign the seizure memo.While this altercation was goingon, the accused Shyam Lal arrived there and he alsoreprimanded P.W. 1 and questioned his authority.Eventhough P.W. 1 asserted that authority was conferred upon himto make a search, accused Shyam Lal asked him to give him inwriting that he had entered the Barrier office without thepermission of the Person incharge otherwise he would not beallowed to go out.P.W. 1 then assured himthat he would give the seizure memo and the writing to saythat he searched at the Dak Bungalow opposite and thataccused should accompany him.He was accordingly allowedand he then left the office without getting the signature ofthe accused Narayan Singh on the seizure Memo.But nosooner had P.W. 1 come out of the office on to the road,Udho Prasad again insisted on the writing being givenwhereupon Shyam Lal caught P.W. 1 by his waist and forciblylifted him, took him to the Barrier office and threw him ona chair.The accused Udho Prasad asked accused NarayanSingh to take out a Danda so that these Police officialsraiding the office may be taught a lesson.Accused ShyamLal insisted that unless P.W. 1 gives him then and there acopy of the seizure memo as also a writing to the effectthat search was taken, the latter would not be allowed toleave the office.P.W. 1 faced with this situation couldnot but comply with the demand made by Udho Prasad and ShyamLal.It is only after he had given in writing that he hadmade a search, he was allowed to return to the Dak Bungalowand that too when Misra, Station Officer, P.W. 8 who hadcome there went to telephone.Thereafter P.W. 1 gave awritten information, Ex. P-4 on 2-6-65, as follows :-"It is submitted that today-at 7.25 a.m. I had arranged the trap at the traffic barrier Multai.After taking the search of the Barrier currency notes of Rs. 40 were found beneath the over-coat.While I was recording the seizure-memo of these notes, Shri Sharma, Station Officer Traffic abused me and uttered bad words.Thereafter, he said to me, "You have no powers of trap".I repeatedly told him that recently the State Government have authorized the Circle Inspectors for trapping.But he did not agree and he created- obstruction while I was discharging my duties.He grappled with me.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
27,877,019 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 79 of 2013, under Sections 363, 366, 376Jha I.P.C. and section 3/4 The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Hathigawan, district-Pratapgarh, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the prosecutrix Khushboo Singh in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (annexure-5) has categorically stated that she is aged about nineteen years and she was in love with the applicant, Man Singh Yadav for the last more than four years.She had left her parental home on her own accord with the applicant and solemnized marriage with him in Pune voluntarily and she has a fifteen months' old daughter from her marriage with the applicant.He next submitted that the prosecutrix having denied the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it can not be said that the applicant has committed any offence especially in view of the fact that there is no evidence on record indicating that she is minor.He lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent to his credit and is in jail since 9.10.2015 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,788,019 |
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases the accused was granted bail, viz., [a] by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, in Crl.No. 26 of 2009 for the offence under Section 379 IPC on the file of R-1, Mambalam Police Station; [b] by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1259 and 1364 of 2012 in respect of the case in Cr.No.1062 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC on the file of P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station; and [c] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
27,887,959 |
And In Re:- Sk.Nazrul & Ors. .Mr.Tapas Kumar Ghosh Mr.Tanmay Chowdhury .. for the petitioners.Manjit Singh, ld.PP Mr.This is a case, where one person was killed, while members of two political parties were fighting with each other and in course of such fighting, indiscriminately bombs and firearms were used.Opposing the prayer for bail, the learned counsel for the State draws our attention to the statements of the injured witnesses, which are at pages 14, 15 and 71 of the case diary.This is a case, where one police officer was killed, when he had been to the spot to maintain the law and order and to prevent the free fighting between two groups of political party.At the time of the incident, bombs and firearms were used indiscriminately.We find that after sustaining bomb-blast injury, the police officer survived for 54 days and his statement has also recorded, which is at page 120 of the case diary.We have very carefully gone through the same.Now, considering the nature and seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the offence and more particularly when the trial has commenced and it cannot be said that the progress of the trial is slow, the prayer for bail stands rejected.Accordingly, this application stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (C.S.Karnan, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 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.