id
int64 17
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 8
539k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.25k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
27,889,087 |
(Allowed).(AS) C.R.M. 1080 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05.02.2018 in connection with Burwan P. S. Case No.475 of 2017 dated 04.12.2017 under Sections 147/148/149/341/325/326/307/353/332/333/354/286/427/1 86/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 / 4 of E. S. Act and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Highway Act. In the matter of : Dipu Sk. 2 Safikul Alam Sekh & Ors.... Petitioners.Mr. Manas Kumar Das, Adv....for the Petitioners.Mr. Sudip Guin, Adv., Mr. Apurba Kr.Dutta, Adv......for the State.Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall meet the I.O. once in a week until further order.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Rajarshi Bharadwaj,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
27,890,074 |
Psychiatric examination, Clinically she is of average intelligence.No active current psychopathology.Her concept and judgement are intact.She is aware about the incident and the consequences about the continuation of pregnancy.The conclusions of the Committee are as follows :Current pregnancy, on clinical and ultrasonographical examination is around 20 weeks 2 + or - 10 days by gestation.No gross lethal congenital anomalies in the foetus.Her Physical and Mental Health is within normal limits.Rule made returnable forthwith.02. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.The unfortunate victim who has already suffered physical abuse and mental torture has approached this Court seeking direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 3 to carry out termination of unwanted pregnancy which is ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:51:55 ::: (Judgment) (2) W.P. No. 12408 of 2017result of physical abuse thrust against her.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:51:55 :::After her medical examination was conducted during the course of investigation, it is found that she is pregnant and length of the pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks.Taking into consideration the contentions raised in the petition, by order dated 10.10.2017, we had directed and referred her for medical examination before the Board constituted at Government Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad.Petitioner, at her request, was referred for medical examination to the Board constituted at Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad.Petitioner was medically examined by five members Expert Committee constituting of --1) Dr. Sonali Deshpande (Chairman), HOD Dept. of OBGY,2) Dr. P.S. Patil (Member), Prof. & HOD Paediatrics.3) Dr. Varsha Rote (Member) Prof. & HOD, Radiology.4) Dr. Suhas Jewalikar (Member) HOD, Anaesthesia.5) Dr. Sanjay Ghuge (Member) HOD, Psychiatry.The Committee has recorded following findings in the report tendered to this Court :::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:51:55 :::(Judgment) (3) W.P. No. 12408 of 2017From general examination she has no active medical complaints.On examination her vital parameters are within normal limits.With of 20 to 22 weeks of pregnancy.Ultrasonographic examination suggestive of single live intrauterine foetus of approximate 20 weeks 2 + or - days.Risk of termination of pregnancy is within normal acceptable limits.The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 provides for termination of certain pregnancy by the registered Medical Practitioner.Sections 3, 4 ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:51:55 ::: (Judgment) (4) W.P. No. 12408 of 2017and 5 of the Act are relevant which read thus :As has been stated above, the freedom of petitioner to make choice to terminate unwanted pregnancy which is result of physical abuse needs to be respected and such freedom of choice shall have to be construed as integral part of her personal liberty.In the circumstances, we do not notice any impediment in permitting petitioner to terminate unwanted pregnancy.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:51:55 :::Learned counsel for petitioner, states on instructions, that the petitioner would like to complete the procedure of termination of pregnancy at Government Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad.The Dean of Government Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad is thus directed to forthwith complete the procedure of termination of pregnancy of petitioner under supervision of the team of medical experts.Two members of the team shall be experts in Obstetrics and Gynecology.Since according to petitioner, the pregnancy carried by her is as a result of offence of rape, complaint has already been lodged and the matter is under investigation, the Dean, Government Medical College & Hospital, Aurangabad is directed to preserve tissue sample and blood sample of the foetus for carrying out necessary medical tests including DNA, finger printing/mapping.The Investigating Officer conducting investigation in the matter shall ensure that the samples of tissues and blood etc. shall be forwarded to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Aurangabad, for DNA, Finger printing/mapping and for carrying necessary tests and the samples and report ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:51:55 ::: (Judgment) (11) W.P. No. 12408 of 2017shall be preserved for the purpose of trial of the offence.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:51:55 :::No costs.::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:51:55 :::
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,789,013 |
/34 of the Indian Penal Code..They have been falsely implicated due to village rivalry.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 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.
|
27,897,993 |
The prosecution story as reflected from the records is as follows:-On 15th December, 2007 at around 1:15 a.m., the informant Munnu Singh lodged a First Information Report at police station Bichhawan, district Mainpuri.It was disclosed that on 14th December, 2007 when he was sitting in front of his house along with Dinesh Singh and Ajit Kumar, who are residents of the same village, the accused Rishi Dev @ Rinku and Pintu @ Pradeep came on a motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 76D 3692 and asked for Monu Singh @ Bhupendra Singh (Deceased).The informant, who is the grand father of the deceased called his grand son from inside the house.The two visitors had some talk with Monu Singh.After some time Monu Singh informed his grandfather that the two boys were Rishi Dev S/o-Sobaran Singh Yadav and Pintu @ Pradeep S/o-Durbin Singh residents of village Habiliya, police Station Bichhawan, District Mainpuri.They were known to him since before, they required Monu Singh to come with his Armada Jeep bearing registration No. HR 51A 7591 for two hours.Monu agreed and went with the visitors on his Armada Jeep which was being used as a Taxi.When Monu Singh did not return till the evening, the complainant and his family members made a search for him.They went to village Habiliya and asked the family members of Rishi Dev @ Rinku about the whereabout of Monu Singh as well as two visitors but no satisfactory answer was given.After search, they developed a strong apprehension that Monu Singh has been kidnapped and murdered by the two visitors.The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No. 702 of 2007 at police station Bichhowan on 15.12.2007 at 1:15 a.m. Chik F.I.R. was prepared and relevant entries were made in the G.D. of police station.For the said purpose, the police reached the house of Rishi Dev @ Rinku and Pintu @ Pradeep and made enquires when the police did not receive any satisfactory answer, information was sought about the village where the in laws of accused Rishi Dev reside.The police was informed by the father of Rishi Dev that he was married with the daughter of one Deshraj in village Dalpatpur.The police visited the house of Deshraj at village Dalpatpur in search of both the accused.Armada jeep was also found parked inside the house of Deshraj.Both the accused were present inside the house of Deshraj and on being called they came out.Armada jeep was also found parked inside the house of Deshraj.Rishi Dev as well as Pintu were arrested by the police.A recovery memo of the Jeep and memo of arrest of accused was prepared.Both the accused confessed their guilt before the police and had stated that Monu Singh had been strangulated to death by them with the help of a cloth "Gamcha".His dead body has been hidden in the Ghoora, i.e. heap of dry straw, lying on the roadside of village Dharenda.Both of these accused were taken to village Dharenda by the police and on their pointing out dead body of the deceased Monu was recovered from under the heap of straw with a Gamcha tied around the neck and a Mufler tied on both of his legs.The informant and other witnesses had accompanied the police at the time of search of the two accused as well as at the time of arrest and recovery of dead body of Monu Singh.Inquest was prepared.Superior iliac spine left."The post mortem specifically recorded the cause of death as Asphyxia due to strangulation.Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.Heard Sri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Session Trial No. 116 of 2008 (State Vs.Rishi Dev @ Rinku and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 702 of 2007 under Sections 364, 302, 34, 201 I.P.C., police station Bichhawan, District Mainpuri.Under the judgment impugned, the appellants, who are two in number, have been held guilty of an offence under Sections 364, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 364 I.P.C. both have them have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default they have to undergo additional one year R.I. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. they have been sentenced with life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-each.For the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. they have to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default thereof additional imprisonment of one year R.I. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The investigation was started by the police on 15th December, 2007 itself.Search for Monu Singh was made.Dead body was sealed and similarly Gamcha and Mufler were also sealed.The dead body was dispatched to District Hospital Mainpuri for post mortem.The post mortem on the dead body of the deceased was performed by Dr. A.K. Gupta.The doctor found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-Ligature mark around the neck, no gap, horizontal 40 cm x 7 cm width, 7 cm below chin and 7 cm below ear both side base red, congested, margin abrased and echymoised, subcutaneous tissue echymoised, hyoid bone fractured.Abrased contusion left side chest 11 cm x 17 cm below nipple.Abrased contusion left side adbomen 10 cm x cm.Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm over ant.Ajit Kumar Singh as well as Dinesh Singh, who were present at the time when Monu Singh was taken away by both the accused persons were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively.Following documents were produced and marked as exhibit by the prosecution.Site Plan of the place from where Monu was taken away-Exhibit-Ka-10After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 I.P.C. In their statement, both the accused denied their involvement in the case and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity.They produced three witnesses in their defence.He deposed about the geographical position of villages situated in the area of his jurisdiction, including villages Habiliya, Bichhawan, Suranpur and Aurandh.No documentary evidence was led by the accused.The trial Court considered the case of the prosecution, and of the defence and examined the evidence and submissions made.The trial court specifically noticed that the informant Munnu Singh was the grand father of the deceased, was an eye witness of last seen.He had stated on oath the facts which had taken place on 24th December, 2007 and as were recorded in the F.I.R. He specifically stated that Rishi Dev sat on the vehicle while the other accused, i.e., Pintoo @ Pradeep went away on the motorcycle.He did not know the accused earlier and it was only on the information given by Monu that he came to know the names of accused, parentage and address.He also went to house of Rishi Dev in search of Monu but no satisfactory answer was been given by the family members of Rishi Dev.Hence he got the F.I.R. registered on 15.12.2007 at 1:15 a.m. He also deposed that the accused persons were arrested from the house of one Deshraj Yadav, who happens to be the father-in-law of accused Rishi Dev, at village Dalpatpur and on their pointing out the dead body was recovered from the village Dharenda.The postmortem report specifically records that the death had been caused by Asphyxia due to strangulation.After considering all these aspects of the matter, the trial court came to the conclusion that the two accused were guilty of offence under Section 364, 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced them for the aforesaid offences as noticed above.Challenging the order so passed by the trial court, learned counsel for the appellants contended before us that absolutely no motive has been pointed out and, therefore, in absence of any motive having been established, the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained.It is also contended that from the entire evidence which has been brought on record, only Rishi Dev is stated to have accompanied Monu on the jeep, there is no evidence of last seen as against accused Pintoo.It is also contended that no independent witness of the arrest of the accused from the village Dalpatpur was noticed in the arrest memo and similarly in the search memo of Armada jeep there is no independent witness.It is also contended that the recovery memo of the dead body and in the inquest report no independent witness has been shown.It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the complete chain in the facts of the case which could lead to only one conclusion that is the accused had committed the murder of the deceased and, therefore, the accused are liable to be acquitted.It is also submitted that the F.I.R. was ante time, inasmuch as, the details of the F.I.R. were not forwarded to the Magistrate as well as the S.S.P. within the time required.The learned A.G.A. has argued that there is sufficient evidence of last seen of P.W.1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 against the accused persons.He further submitted that the accused were arrested from the house of in-laws of accused Rishi Deo in village Dalpatpur.The Armada jeep of the deceased was also recovered from the house of Desh Raj in village Dalpatpur, who was the father-in-law of the accused Rishi Deo.It was on the pointing out of the accused that the dead body of the deceased Monu Singh was recovered from village Dharendha, hidden in a heap of dry straw.The chain of circumstance is complete and the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the argument of the learned A.G.A. and submitted that conviction of the accused appellants by the trial court is absolutely just and legal.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the present appeal.In the aforesaid legal background, we find that the grandfather of the deceased P.W.1 as well as the eye witnesses P.W. 2 and 3 were present at the place of last seen together on 14th December, 2012 when the accused had driven away with the deceased in his Armada jeep.From their statements it was also established that the accused had asked the deceased to go with them along with his Armada jeep for two hours and when the deceased did not return, a search was made by P.W.1 in the evening.He went to the village of accused Rishi Deo but when no satisfactory answer was given by their family members.The F.I.R. under Section 364 I.P.C. was lodged.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
27,902,438 |
And In Re:-Montu Das and others ... Petitioners Mr. Arup Sarkar, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. S.G. Mukherjee, Ld. P.P...for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No. 730 of 2017 dated 28.11.2017(Corresponding G.R. No.2368/2017) under Sections 498(A)/304 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners are the parents-in-law and a married sister- in-law of the victim who apparently committed suicide by setting herself on fire.1 2 The State produces the case diary and there are allegations of general nature of these petitioners having demanded dowry and inflicted torture on the victim.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.2 3 A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,213,565 |
advance notice.Heard on the question of admission.Criminal appeal is admitted for final hearing.Mr. Lokesh Bhargava, learned Public Prosecutor received the notice on behalf of the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, no separate notice is re- quired.In the meanwhile, let the record of the case from the concerned trial Court be requisitioned, if not already received.Also heard on IA No.993/2019, first application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of custodial sentence of appellant Aakash s/o Ramu @ Ramesh Nahal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.It is further submitted that there is fair chance of success in the appeal; there is no possibility of early disposal of this appeal; and if the sentence is not suspended, the present appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant and grant of bail to him.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the application by submitting that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the appellant on bail; hence the application filed by the appellant be dismissed.The appellant, after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 06.05.2019 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.List the matter in due course for final hearing.C. c. as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge rcp Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2019.02.06 17:01:25 +05'30'
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,214,655 |
Shri D. D. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted as it is 2 even then the offence alleged to be committed by the appellant would fall under Section 304-I of IPC and for that the appellant has already undergone actual jail sentence of ten years.Prosecution story in brief is that, on the date of incident there was a quarrel between Kamla and co-accsued Dadabhai.The deceased came out from his house and tried to pacify the quarrel, in that event appellant- Heeralal had inflicted blow of Lathi on the head of the deceased.He ran away in his house.Other accused persons chased the deceased; they abused him and inflicted injuries on him.Keshkali wife of the deceased and her daughter had also received injuries.The report of the incident was lodged at the police station.Keshkali (P.W.5) is the wife of the deceased; she is injured eye-witness.She deposed that she was cooking food, there was a quarrel in front of the house.(Passed on 21.11.2017) As per S.K. Gangele, J:The trial Court convicted the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence of life with fine of Rs.3,000/-.Nine persons have been prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 147, 452, 302/149 and 323/149 of IPC.The trial Court acquitted all other accused persons except the appellant.Allegation against the appellant is that he had inflicted a blow of Lathi on the head of the deceased, due to which the deceased was died.Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against Nine accused persons.Appellant and other accused persons abjured their guilt.The trial Court held appellant guilty and acquitted all other accused persons.Thereafter her husband-deceased came out from the house, all accused persons chased him and they had inflicted injuries on him by Lathis.She tried to save him then Umashankar @ Dada Bhai inflicted a blow of lathi on her daughter Panwati also.Thereafter, she lodged the report of the incident at the police Station (Ex.P.8).Rajaram P. W. 10 deposed that on the date of the incident at about 1.30 in the noon, I was at my home, there was a quarrel between Kamla and Dadabhai.Dadabhai was abusing Kamla then the deceased told Dadabhai not to abuse Kamla at that time appellant came from his house, he was armed with Lathi and inflicted a blow of lathi on the head of the deceased.Other accused persons chased the deceased and also inflicted injuries on the body of the person of the deceased.Ramautar P. W. 11 is also a witness of incident.He deposed that on 23.6.1992 he was at his house, at around 1.30 in the noon there was a quarrel between Kamla and Dadabhai then the deceased came out from his house, he told Dadabhai why you are abusing Kamla, thereafter Heeralal came out from his house.He was armed with Lathi.He had inflicted a blow of lathi on the head of the deceased then deceased ran away to his house and other accused chased the deceased.Sundariya P. W. 14, Kamla Prasad P. W. 15 and Rajmani P. W.20 also deposed the same facts that there was a quarrel between Kamla and Dadabhai and appellant had inflicted a blow of lathi on the deceased.Dr. R. B. Patel (P. W. 12) who performed the postmortem deposed that he noticed following injuries on the body of the persons of the deceased :(i) Contusion 10x5 c. m. on left parietal bone of the head.(ii) Contusion 10x3 c. m. on upper side of left eye.(iii) Contusion 10x3.5 c. m. on the left side of back.There was a fracture on left parietal bone.The cause of death of the deceased was head injury.Keshkali (P. W. 5) did not make specific allegation about the nature of injury caused to the deceased.However, other eye- witnesses have specifically deposed that there was a quarrel between Kamla and Umashankar @ Dadabhai, thereafter deceased came out from his house and told him not to abuse in that event appellant came there, he was armed with lathi and he inflicted a blow of lathi on the head of the deceased.Consequently, this appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.His conviction for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and fine are hereby set aside.He has already undergone the aforesaid period.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,217,338 |
(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,221,163 |
1. Heard Sri Vidhu Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.Referring to the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it has been further submitted, no allegation was made, even during investigation, of the applicant having committed offence under Section 326 IPC.Thus, it has been stated that the charge-sheet submitted against the applicant is wholly unfounded, based on false prosecution narration.(vii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State and that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
163,231,209 |
Both the sides are heard.The crime is registered on the basis of F.I.R. given byMangeshkumar Shaha, Assistant Registrar of the Jamner, whois the ofcer having power to make enquiry under theaforesaid special Act of the State, Money Lending Act. The FIRshows that three persons like Pandurang Wani, Atul Jaiswal andSubhash Khaywade had made complaint to Dy.Registrar of Co-operative, authority created under the Special Enactmentagainst present applicants.Applicant No.1 Kadu is father ofapplicant No.2 Manoj.They had made allegations that the::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 21:03:25 ::: 3 Cri.No. 2987-2018.odtapplicants were doing money lending business illegally.On thebasis of allegations made by them, which were in respect oftheir personal transactions, enquiry was made by aforesaidofce.Hearing was given to the applicants also.When searchof the house of the applicants was taken, the ofcersrecovered 7/12 extract of 37 owners of the agricultural lands,two blank stamps, four sale deeds in respect of the aforesaidcomplaint and some other record.The applicant could notexplain circumstances collected like the land of PandurangWani was purchased and accounts of the loan and interestwere given and to support that record afdavit was there.Thecircumstance that the portion which was shown to be sold byPandurang Wani was not his separate property and he hadshare in that agricultural land but that property was shown tobe sold by giving specifc description of the share is also there.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 21:03:25 :::3 Cri.Case of Atual Jaiswal shows that out of land which was sold,some portion was reconvened to the Jaiswal and on the sameday the remaining portion was transferred to third party.Thus,on the same day two documents were created.Statements ofsome persons who had signed on the sale documents aswitnesses are also recorded and they are to the efect that the::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 21:03:25 ::: 4 Cri.No. 2987-2018.odtsale deeds which were considered by the authority were notreal sale deeds but they were made only for the securitypurpose in respect of loan taken from the present applicants.There is record to show that during short span, lands of almost12 persons were shown to be purchased.As per the recordland of Nikit Patil, Atul Jaiswal was shown to be reconvened.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 21:03:25 :::4 Cri.This document shows that most of theconsideration was repaid and after payment of Rs. 20,000/-which was remaining amount, Kaduba was to reconvey theproperty.All the aggrieved persons have contended that theyhave paid the principal amount and interest.When some landwas re-conveyed to Jaiswal in the year 2017, the applicants didnot give no objection for efecting mutation on the basis ofsale deeds and there is allegations that the applicants aredemanding more money when entire loan amount and interestis repaid.The aforesaid record which is voluminous is sufcient to::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 21:03:25 ::: 5 Cri.No. 2987-2018.odtcreate probability that the applicants are doing money lendingbusiness.Admittedly, they have not obtained the license fordoing such business.There is also allegations that byexploiting and by deceiving farmers the documents like saledeeds were obtained.::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2020 21:03:25 :::5 Cri.The State of Maharashtra and others ) decided on22.06.2017).Criminal Application No. 3884 of 2017(Baliram Ashroba Kadape and others Vs.The facts ofthese two cases were diferent.In those cases transactionswere not those many and in view of the facts of that case therelief was given by holding that the transactions were not postyear 2014 and further in view of provision of 468 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, the cognizance could not have beentaken by the Magistrate.In the past punishment provided wasone year and the ofence was non cognizable at that time.In the result, the application stands dismissed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,451,498 |
2) The detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was possessing dangerous weapons and indulged in creating terror and fear amongst the people.The petitioner committed offenses as mentioned in Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner has no fear of law.Due to the activities of the petitioner sense of insecurity prevailed in the minds of general public.The detaining authority further observed that the petitioner is a rancorous person of vindictive nature who prevents people from lodging complaint against him.27 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 Ground XVII of the petition relates to in-camera statements.It reads as under :"The Asst.Commissioner of Police, Sakkardara Zone, has failed to record proper verification under the statements verifying the truthfulness of the contents and has also failed to record his satisfaction as per the law.The Asst.Commissioner of Police while verifying the statements ought to have recorded his satisfaction about the truthfulness and genuineness of the so called in-camera statements of witness "A" and "B".The statements if perused would show that the name of the complainant, date and time of the alleged incident are deliberately kept blank in the copies supplied to the petitioner.A statement without the above details has resulted in adversely affecting the petitioner's right to make effective representation.The petitioner hurled abuses against the witness.The witness fell down from his vehicle.The petitioner came out of his vehicle manhandled the witness and snatched gold chain.The family member of the witness was horrified to see this incident.The wife of the witness prayed for mercy with folded hands before the petitioner.The petitioner along with his associates had damaged the vehicle of the witness.Family members of the witness started crying.The witness was threatened by the petitioner.Due to fear and the petitioner's activities the witness did not get any courage to go to the police station and lodge complaint.But on assurance of police that the witness would not be called in Court or police station he had made the statement.1) Through this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 14-9-2012 passed by District Magistrate, Jalgaon, detaining the petitioner for one year in exercise of powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, "the Act of 1981") is challenged.There are various offences registered against the petitioner in several police stations of Jalgaon.Despite ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 ::: 3 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 repeated initiations of preventive actions against the petitioner no improvement was noticed in the behaviour of the petitioner.The detaining authority was of the opinion that the tendency of committing offences in a variety of modes was increasing.Due to activities of the petitioner, the petitioner had become a notorious person causing danger to the lives of peace-loving and law-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::abiding general people of Jalgaon city.3) The detaining authority had mentioned details of registration of several offences against the petitioner in various police stations of Jalgaon city including Shanipeth Police Station, Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon City Police Station and MIDC Police Station.The steps taken in respect of preventive action initiated against the petitioner were also mentioned which were in the jurisdiction of Shanipeth and Zilla Peth Police Stations.The offences registered against the petitioner from the year 2004 onwards were mentioned.4) The detaining authority had referred to confidential statements of confidential witness "A" and witness "B".The detaining authority had informed the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 ::: 4 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1981 that petitioner has a right to make representation against the detention order to the detaining authority i.e. the District Magistrate, Jalgaon.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::The petitioner was further informed that he has a right to make representation against the detention order with the State Government which could be made through the Superintendent of Prison of the prison wherein the petitioner at the relevant time was lodged.The said representation was to be addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Maharashtra.The Advisory Board was entitled to hear the petitioner personally.5) According to the petitioner the detaining authority had considered some of the offences in detail for forming its opinion.In respect of following offences, the petitioner submits that, the detaining authority had exhibited non application of mind:--::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::5 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 (A) SCC No. 261/2008 arising out of Crime No.36/2007 registered at Shanipeth Police Station Jalgoan is shown to have been pending.This fact was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority.(B) Crime No.90 of 2011 was registered in Jalgaon City Police Station.It was mentioned by the detaining authority that charge sheet is filed and the case bearing RCC No.406 of 2011 is still pending.(C ) Crime No.101 of 2007 was shown to have been registered in MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon.The confidential statements ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 ::: 6 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 do not show any dates of the incidents and blank space is left to be filled up as per the convenience of the authority concerned.The petitioner was released on bail in Crime No.3/2012 on 15th May 2012 and thereafter in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B" have been shown to have been recorded.It was submitted that there is no live link established between the incidents, statements of confidential witnesses and the detention order.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::7 Cr.9) The learned counsel Shri.Full charge sheets of the cases refereed to and placed before the detaining authority were not supplied to the petitioner.Extract of bail orders was placed on record which did not suffice the purpose.Except in a case i.e. Crime No.3/12 charge sheet and bail order were not produced by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::There is no satisfaction expressed as to whether the in-camera statements of the persons were in relation to the incident which was truthful and voluntary.11) Through the affidavit-in-reply the respondent No.2 had replied the objections raised by the petitioner.The deponent had clarified that certain typographical mistakes occurred while referring to description of offences in respect of complainant Dattatray Narayan Khonde.The deponent denied that on account of the said typographical error the petitioner could not make proper representation.In-stead it was submitted that the petitioner chose not to make any representation.No prejudice is caused to the petitioner inasmuch as, the petitioner, as per the record, was shown assailant using sword to cause injury on the head of Narayan Khonde.The typographical error occurred, according to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 ::: 9 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 deponent, was unintentional and through inadvertence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::Details are provided in the order and in the affidavit-in-reply which show the antecedents of the petitioner.13) The respondent No.2 had in clear terms taken a stand in para 6 that the fact of registration of offences was considered for the purpose of antecedents of the petitioner.In respect of in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B" the detaining authority replied that the Police Inspector of Local Crime Branch Jalgaon conducted confidential inquiry.The police got information during inquiry that the petitioner is a dangerous person and nobody was willing to file complaint against the petitioner openly due to fear of retaliation.On the assurance that their names and identity would be kept secret, they shown their willingness to make statement and accordingly their statements were recorded.The Sub Divisional Police Officer had verified the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 ::: 10 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 facts mentioned in the statements and the apprehensions expressed by witnesses "A" and "B" which was found to be true and reasonable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::The detaining authority referred to Crime No.3 of 2012 in the grounds of detention.The original order of detention was passed in Marathi and English translation of the order was also prepared and forwarded to the State Government.The grounds of detention and other relevant documents were served on the petitioner in Marathi, according to the deponent.Both, the sponsoring authority and the detaining authority have recorded their satisfaction.However, relevant copies produced by the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 ::: 11 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 along with the petition were not the copies submitted and supplied to the petitioner.It is totally a different copy.The deponent alleges that there is attempt to mislead the Court by submitting wrong document and incorrect and untrue copy.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::The in-camera statements were recorded after the inquiry officer was convinced that the witnesses were not coming forward to make statement openly against the petitioner.The sponsoring authority expressed its satisfaction and made appropriate endorsement in the verification column.The sponsoring authority had in clear terms mentioned that there was fear in the mind of the witnesses against the petitioner and the sponsoring authority was satisfied with the same.It was further noticed by the sponsoring ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 ::: 12 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 authority that, the incident explained by witnesses and recorded in the said statement was a true incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::WP 1081 of 2012 rendering the impugned detention order invalid."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::We fail to understand that how a document which is vital to consider whether it is a fit case to pass an order of detention cannot be taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Police especially when he has specifically made reference that the detenu was released on bail by the Court.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that if the order releasing the detenu on bail had been before the Commissioner of Police, he would have formed some different opinion than the opinion which is formed by him.Anil Damodhar Paunipagar V/s State of Maharashtra, 2000 (Supp.) Bom.Now we will take up for consideration the material which was considered by the Commissioner of Police while passing the detention order.It is not disputed that in the 14 cases which were placed before the detaining authority at least in one of such cases i.e. Crime No.408/92 registered against the petitioner and his associates for committing offence under section 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on 3-8-1992 the petitioner came to be acquitted on 15-1-1999 much before the proposal for detention order came to be placed before the detaining authority.The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. is not able to apprise us of the progress and development in all the remaining 13 cases even from the record available with the detaining authority.Not only this, the three detentions under the National Security Act, 1980 also weighed on the mind of the detaining authority out of which the petitioner could only place on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 ::: 15 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 record the quashing of the detention order passed on 31-3-1994 by the Commissioner of Police under section 3 of the National Security Act in Writ Petition No.161/94 dated 17-1-1995 which has also been not placed before the detaining authority.We further find that as in the earlier detention order which has been quashed by this Court on 17-1-1995 one of the cases listed in para 2 was also within the consideration of the Detaining Authority i.e. the case registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.40/90 for having committed offence under section 4/25 of the Arms Act read with section 135 of the Bombay Police Act registered on 28-2-1994."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:52 :::No explanation is forthcoming in respect of the delay in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 ::: 16 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 deciding representation filed by the petitioner in respect of the order of detention.There is substance in the contention of the petitioner that, if the entire documents in respect of criminal cases which were pending against the petitioner, which was the basis for passing the detention order, were placed before the detaining authority, then the detaining authority could have been placed in a much better position to understand, appreciate and assess the merits of the proposal forwarded by the Police Inspector against the petitioner.Vijaya Raju Gupta V/s R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, 2001 Cri.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::18 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 "6. . . . . .The English translation of the verification made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police below the in-camera statements reads "my statement was translated to me in Hindi which is in accordance with what I stated." This means that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has only verified that the statement made by the witness was recorded as actually made by him.Abdul Kayyum Shafi Mohamed Shaikh V/s M.N. Shingh, Commissioner of Police, 2003 Bom.The two in-camera statements also could not have influenced the Detaining Authority as the facts stated therein are unverified, moreover, they do not appear to be serious enough to affect public order."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::the learned Additional Public Prospector as under :-The next ground raised is ground No.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::The Asst.Commissioner of Police has failed to record his satisfaction about the truthfulness and genuineness of the contents of the said statements as well as the incident."Ground No.It is contended that the Assistant Commissioner of Police while verifying the statements ought to have recorded his satisfaction about the truthfulness and genuineness of the in- camera statements of witness A and B. As far as this contention is concerned, the endorsement of the Assistant Commissioner of Police below both the in camera statements shows that he has indeed recorded proper verification after verifying the truthfulness and genuineness of the contents of both the in-camera statements as well as the incidents stated therein.We find no error in the verification recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police about truthfulness and genuineness of the contents of the in-camera statements as well as the incident narrated by witness A and B. The verification recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police below the in-camera statements clearly shows that he is satisfied about the truthfulness and genuineness of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 ::: 28 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 the contents of the statements as well as the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::In respect of the said crime copies of charge-sheet and bail order were produced by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority.In the facts of the present case and the record placed before the detaining authority, we are of the view that the reference to the earlier cases lodged against the petitioner was by way of preamble and did not form ground for satisfaction of the authority concerned.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::20) The second objection raised was in respect of in-camera statements recorded by the enquiry officer.We have noticed from the record that after enquiry officer was satisfied that there was fear in the mind of general public to come forward openly and make statement against the petitioner, on assurance given by the police, witnesses came forward and made statements before police.At that time the petitioner along with his two associates came in a vehicle and made the witness to stop.The statement was recorded by Police Inspector of Local Crime Branch.Even the detaining authority has put up endorsement.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::witness "B" dated 4-8-2012.The said witness had given a detail account of the incident of 25-7-2012 at 7.30 pm.The petitioner threatened the witness.He demanded Hapta from the witness.The witness was assaulted by the petitioner and his associates.During scuffle, an amount of Rs.860/- of the witness was snatched by the petitioner.The other persons gathered around did not have courage to interfere as they were threatened by the petitioner.The petitioner had come in a vehicle and by laughing loudly they left the spot.The witness stated that the people in the area are under lot of fear of the petitioner and nobody dares to file complaint or make statement against the petitioner.The petitioner extracted money from the people in the area.The associates of the petitioner misbehaved with the people under influence of liquor.night and the petitioner cut the birthday cake with sword.The sponsoring authority had verified the statement and made endorsement in respect of its truthfulness and genuineness to the effect of his satisfaction.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::petitioner that the sponsoring authority's satisfaction in respect of the incident, its genuineness, truthfulness and genuineness of the statement is lacking.After considering the endorsements made by the sponsoring authority and the affidavit-in-reply filed we are of the view that the sponsoring authority was satisfied in respect of the truthfulness of the incident narrated by the witnesses and the fear expressed by them.After verifying the same he had put necessary endorsement.23) Law is settled that if in-camera statement discloses verification about truthfulness of such statement and the identity of the person concerned to the satisfaction of the officer verifying the statement, no challenge could be entertained on the ground that the verification was defective.24) The learned counsel further raised third ground that there was no live link between the statements, the fear expressed by the witnesses, the crime registered and the detention order.From the material placed on record we find that there is material ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 ::: 33 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 against the petitioner in the form of record of criminal cases and the confidential statements of the witnesses, based on which the detaining authority recorded its satisfaction to detain the petitioner.Therefore this ground does not survive.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 :::The people at large are under ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:46:53 ::: 35 Cr.WP 1081 of 2012 fear and reluctant to come forward to lodge complaint against the petitioner.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,458,802 |
1. Leave granted.Appellant herein had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2011, contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, lodged at crime No. 797/11 under Sections 419/420 IPC, at Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki;ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Superintendant of Police, Barabanki, the opposite Party No. 2, and the Investigating Officer, Case Crime No. 797/11, under Sections 419/420 IPC, Police Station, Zaidpur, District Barabanki, the opposite party No. 3, to defer the arrest of the petitioner until collection of the credible evidence sufficient for filing the charge-sheet by following the amended proviso to Sections 41(1)(b) read with Section 41A CrPC;iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki, the opposite party No. 2, for compliance of the provision of Sections 41(1)(b) and 41A CrPC in the investigation of the impugned FIR dated 21.12.2011 contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, lodged in crime No. 797/11, under Sections 419/420 IPC, Zaidpur, District Barabanki; andiv) Allow this writ petition with costs.The High Court, after hearing the parties as well as the State, dismissed the writ petition on 9.1.2012 and passed the following order:“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.Under challenge in the instant writ petition is FIR relating to Case Crime No. 797 of 2011, under Sections 419 & 420 IPC, police station Zaidpur, district Barabanki.We have gone through the FIR, which discloses commission of cognizable offence, as such, the same cannot be quashed.The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.However, the petitioner being lady, it is provided that if she surrenders and moves application for bail the same shall be considered and decided by the courts below expeditiously.”The appellant, complaining that she was falsely implicated in the case, has approached this Court contending that the High Court had failed to exercise its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in not quashing the FIR dated 21.12.2011 and in refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.Appellant submitted that the High Court ought to have issued a writ of mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki to defer the arrest of the appellant until the collection of credible evidence sufficient for filing the charge-sheet, following the amended proviso to Section 41(1)(b) read with Section 41A Cr.P.C.The Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Board, Allahabad and the District School Inspector vide their letter dated 8.12.2011 registered a complaint alleging that the appellant had committed fraud and forgery in the matter of preparation of documents of Government Office regarding selection for the post of Assistant Teacher and, consequently, got appointment as the Assistant Teacher in Janpad Inter- College at Harakh, District Barabanki, with payment of salary amounting to Rs.1,10,000/- from the Government exchequer.On the basis of the FIR, Case Crime No. 797 of 2011 was registered under Sections 419/420 IPC before the Police Station, Jaizpur, District Barabanki.After having come to know of the registration of the crime, the appellant filed a representation on 27.12.2011 before the Superintendent of Police, District Barabanki and the Investigating Officer making the following prayer:Shri Aseem Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court has committed an error in not quashing the FIR, since the registration of the crime was with mala fide intention to harass the appellant and in clear violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the appellant under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.Consequently, once a writ is dismissed, all the interim reliefs granted would also go.This Court has already passed an interim order on 1.3.2013 granting bail to the appellant on certain conditions.The said order will continue till the completion of the trial.However, if the appellant is not co-operating with the investigation, the State can always move for vacating the order.The appeal is accordingly dismissed as above.eard Hear……………………………..J.[REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 146/2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7439/2013) Km.Hema Mishra …..Appellant Vs.
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,461,852 |
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there are previous cases against the petitioner and all those case s are related to political disputes.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, 2/4http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offense punishable under Sections 143, 188, 506(i) , 504 and 505 (i)(b) of IPC in Crime No.145 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.7100 of 2020 N.ANAND VENKATESH., J jrs [f] If the accused persons thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.10.06.2020 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking jrsThe Inspector of Police, Sirkazhi Police Station, Nagapattinam District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam District.Crl.O.P.No.7100 of 2020 4/4http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,462,545 |
Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No. 2 Smt. Girija Bai and respondent No.3 Budhiya Bai filed a private complaint before JMFC, Jabalpur averring that the land survey No.664 measuring 1.13 Hectares situated at village Maharajpur, Block-Panagar, Tehsil-Jabalpur was earlier owned by Barelal father of the complainant who died on 28/07/2001 and complainants/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were only 2 M.Cr.C.No.11751 of 2013 heirs of deceased Barelal.Co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani in connivance with the applicant made Barelal's fake power of attorney on 21/11/2001 i.e., four months after his death and on that basis co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani executed registered sale deed of said land in favour of applicant/accused Maulana Imtiyaz Kadri, while Barelal did not execute any Power of Attorney in favour of Israr Hussain Gilani.Applicant in connivance with other co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani prepared false power of attorney of their father deceased Barelal after his death and on the basis of that forged power of attorney to grab the land of complainants.After purchasing the said land applicant applied for getting his name recorded in the revenue record of said property.In that mutation proceeding, Sakun Bai, daughter-in-law of the deceased also appeared before the Revenue Court and her statement had been recorded by the Court.At that time Barelal was residing with Munna Lal Kewat as Barelal's daughters were already married and had been residing in their maternal houses.On the basis of registered sale deed, in the year 2003 name of the applicant was recorded in the revenue record, on the said land.Thereafter applicant also sold some part of that land to Smt. Sikandar Bano 3 M.Cr.Reserved on : 16/08/2018 Delivered on : 21/08/2018 This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 26/04/2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in criminal case No.6132/2013 whereby he took cognizance against applicant Maulana Imtiyaz Kadri and other co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120/B of IPC on the complaint of respondent No. 2 Smt. Girija Bai and respondent No.3 Budhiya Bai.Co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani executed sale deed of said land in favour of applicant/accused and applicant/accused also sold some part of that property to Smt. Sikandra Bano by registered sale deed.So cognizance be taken against applicant and co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani and Smt. Sikander Bano for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC.On that learned JMFC recorded statements of complainants Smt. Budhiya Bai, Smt Girija Bai and Mannu Kewat under Section 200 and after hearing arguments, by order dated 26/04/2013 took cognizance against the applicant and co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of IPC.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this petition.2 M.Cr.C.No.11751 of 2013 on 17/09/2004 by the registered sale deed.On 15/03/2012 respondent No.2 and 3 filed civil suit no.___against the applicant in the Court of 13th Civil Judge Class-II Jabalpur.When learned civil judge did not grant stay in complainants' favour they filed this complaint after lapse of about 11 years.It is clear from the death certificate of the deceased Barelal filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 in support of their complaint before JMFC that the said certificate was issued on 19/12/11 i.e. after lapse of about more than 10 years of death of Barelal which shows that complainants got this certificate on the basis of wrong information.3 M.Cr.C.No.11751 of 2013Learned Trial Court committed mistake in taking cognizance against the applicant for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of IPC.This Court has gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.It is admitted that the land survey No.664 measuring 1.13 Hectares situated at village Maharajpur, Block-Panagar, Tehsil-Jabalpur was earlier owned by Barelal.Co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani executed sale deed of said land in favour of applicant on 20/11/2001 on the basis of the allegedly fake power of attorney executed by Barelal in his favour.In the death certificate of deceased Barelal produced by the complainants in support of his complaint it is clearly mentioned that Barelal died on 28/07/2001 well before the execution of said sale deed.But only on that basis at this stage it can not be said that said complainants obtained the said documents by giving wrong information regarding Barelal's dob.From this certificate it prima facie appears that applicant got sale deed of said land executed in his favour from co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani after the death of Barelal on the basis of power of attorney allegedly given by Barelal.But even if it is 4 M.Cr.4 M.Cr.From the documents of mutation proceedings of the said land produced by the applicant in support of his petition it also appears that applicant filed application of mutation of said land in his favour in the year 2003 stating that he had purchased said land on 24/10/02 .Further the documents show that the notice of this proceeding sent to Barelal was received back on 29/05/03 with the note that he had died two years before which prima facie shows that Barelal had already died before execution of said sale deed.In the complaint, it is clearly mentioned that Respondent/complainant Nos. 2 and 3 were only heirs of deceased Barelal.Co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani in connivance with the applicant made fake power of attorney of Barelal on 21/11/2001 i.e., four months after the death of deceased Barelal and on the basis of that co-accused Israr Hussain Gilani executed registered sale deed of said land in favour of applicant/accused Maulana Imtiyaz Kadri, while Barelal did not execute any Power of Attorney on 28/12/1996 in favour of Israr Hussain Gilani.Applicant and other co-accused have grabbed Barelal's land on the basis of a fake documents.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,473,825 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 19/09/2016 relating to Crime No.104/2016, registered at Police Station Mahua, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.Initially, it was alleged that the fire was done by some unknown person causing death of deceased Banwari Lal Sharma and thereafter, the applicant was identified in the Test Identification Parade by Shriniwas (PW1).However, at present, Shriniwas (PW-1), Ramkumari (PW2) and Kishan Lal alias Anil (PW3) are examined as eye-witnesses and they did not identify the the applicant that he was the culprit.Under these circumstances, by seizure of gun the applicant cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 302 or 307 of IPC.The applicant is in custody since 19/09/2016 without any substantial reason.Consequently, he prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE MKB
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,489,573 |
Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.498-A, 365, 367, 370, 376 of IPC registered as Crime No. 158/2014 at Police Station Chachoda, District Guna.Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Applicant who is mother in law of the complainant apprehends arrest in respect of aforesaid offences, where allegation of dowry demand related cruelty has been levelled against her and the offence punishable under section 367, 370 & 376 of IPC are not alleged against her but the same are alleged against co-accused, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.Accordingly, bail application u/S 438 Cr.P.C is allowed in the following terms.It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge SD
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
245,078 |
It appears that the applicantNo.1 Smt. Neelam due to frustration and depression took poison.She was admitted in the hospital.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filedfor quashing of the proceeding in Case No. 206 of 1992, underSection 306, 498A I.P.C. , P.S.Shahganj, District Agra, pending inthe Court of A.C.J.M.Ist Agra.On 17.8.1993, the notice was issued and further proceedings werestayed.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. andperused the record.Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant No.1 isthe husband, applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased.The deceased was married with applicant No.1 ten years before theincident.However, there was no issue.Fatherof the deceased participated in the cremation.Subsequently, just toblackmail the applicant and to extract the money, First InformationReport was lodged on 03.3.1991 at P.S. Shahganj, District Agra.After investigation Final Report was submitted.Subsequently, oncomplaint of informant, O.P.No.2 the matter was furtherinvestigated and again Final Report was submitted.Thereafter, anapplication was made to the Chief Minister and other higherauthorities and third time matter was investigated by the C.B.C.I.d.and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted under Section 306,498A I.P.C. He further contended that in fact there was no demandof dowry or torture.Accordingly, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ishereby allowed.No order as to cost.Order Date :- 5.8.2010S.A.A.Rizvi
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
24,511,172 |
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation is that a crowd of about 15 persons had attacked the police personnels and that the applicant has been falsely implicated as is clear from the fact that he was not arrested from the spot.He further submits that the allegation against the present applicant is in respect of causing injury by means of Lathi to Constable Brijnandan Mishra but the said injury is simple in nature and the offence under Section 307 has subsequently been added because one Bhagirath Sharma had suffered fracture but there is no allegation that the applicant had caused any injury to Bhagirath Sharma.He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 15/03/2020 and that the investigation is complete and challan has already been filed and the conclusion of trial is likely to take time.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application for grant of bail by referring to the FIR allegation and by submitting that the applicant has criminal antecedents.Certified copy as per rules.(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge krjoshi Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI Date: 2020.06.29 17:12:23 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 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.
|
63,938,692 |
CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 32] The prosecution case in nutshell is as under :In Wardha District Central Co-operative Bank, Branch Nandori, one Pandhari Shamrao Tembhare was working as watchman.His son Deepak Pandhari Tembhare (PW-1) was requested by his father Pandhari, as he was keeping well, to perform his duty as watchman at the bank during night hours.Accordingly, Deepak entered inside the bank, closed the main door and he went to sleep on the bench kept in the varandah with the keys of the inner door of the bank.During midnight at about 12.00 - 12.30 am of 30.07.2005, he heard noise of opening the door.Deepak put on lights and he noticed the four persons, who had covered their faces, entered inside the bank.Out of them, two persons assaulted him by means of gupti and one person assaulted him by means of iron rod.Deepak was taken inside the room and tied with chair.All the accused then committed the robbery in respect of the cash with the locker itself.Thereafter, all the accused fled away.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 ::: CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 4::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 4It is the case of the prosecution that during the same night there were two more robberies, one in the MSEB sub-station and the other one in two MSEB quarters.Accordingly the reports were lodged by the victims vide Exh.51 and 54 respectively.The investigation is carried out by the Investigating Officer PI Yadav (PW-10).The spot panchanamas were recorded.The statements of the witnesses were recorded.Accused were arrested.On 4.8.2005, accused no.1 Shantaram showed his willingness to produce the amount of Rs.7,000/- from his house.Accused no.1 then took the police and panchas to his house at Pardhi Beda and produced an amount of Rs.7,000/- from his house.On the same day, accused no.5 Hingya showed his willingness to produce an amount of Rs.15,000/- which he had kept in his house.The accused then produced the amount of Rs.14,900/- from his house, so also Hero Honda motorcycle from his house.On 4.8.2005 itself, accused no.2 Parmeshwar showed his willingness to point out the cash amount kept in his house.On the same day, accused no.3 Guddu showed his willingness to point out the cash kept in his house.On the same day, accused no.4 Gurucharan showed his willingness to produce the amount of Rs.15,000/- from his house and cash box from the water tank.Accused no.4 Gurucharan also showed the place where he had thrown the cash box.Accordingly, the memorandum panchanama was drawn and the cash box was seized.CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 5::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 6ORAL JUDGMENT 1] This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2006 delivered by the learned 2 nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.144/2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 412 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 ::: CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 3 for five years each and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month each.However, all the accused were acquitted for the allegations of dacoity and other connected sections.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 ::: CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 6::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::He took the police and the panchas to his house at Pardhi Beda at Kolhi and produced the amount of Rs.7300/- from his house.After necessary investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence and hearing both the sides, convicted all the accused as aforesaid.3] Heard Shri R.M. Ahirrao, the learned counsel for the appellants- accused and Shri Amit Chutke, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case.The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses.The defence of the accused was of total denial.4] At the outset, it is significant to note that all the accused persons are also acquitted from the offences punishable under sections 392 r/w 395, 392/395 r/w 398, 395, 342 r/w 34 and 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The only allegation against the accused under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 ::: CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 7 5] In order to prove those allegations against the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-9 Vasudeo s/o Uttam Pantawane, the recovery panch and the Investigating Officer PW-10 PI Gomatishankar Brijmohan Yadav.As discussed above in the prosecution case, PW-9 Vasudeo, who is the panch witness, has deposed about the memorandum panchanamas and the seizure panchanamas in respect of the cash amount at the instance of the respective accused as well as the seizure of Hero Honda motorcycle at the instance of accused no.5 Hingya Karu Raut, the sword from accused no.3 Guddu Bhosale, spear and crow bar at the instance of accused no.4 Gurucharan Pawar, so also accused no.4 pointed out the place where he had kept the cash box.It is also deposed that accordingly panchanamas were prepared by the police.Significantly, in the cross-examination, PW-9 stated that all panchanamas were recorded on one and the same day.There were nine panchanamas.PW-9 failed to state the consequences of the memorandum panchanamas.He also failed to state as to from which accused what amount was recovered.He fairly admitted that no currency numbers were mentioned in the seizure panchanamas, so also he failed to state the numbers of bundles of the currency notes and the loose notes.According to him, half an hour was spent on every seizure panchanama.He however failed to state as to what time seizure panchanamas::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 ::: CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 8 were recorded exactly.He also failed to state the boundary marks of the places from where the properties were taken charge.Similarly, he admitted that he does not remember the name of the accused from whom the weapons were taken charge.He admitted that none of the panchanamas bear the names of the accused below their thumb impression and therefore he failed to identify as to whose thumb impressions were obtained on the different panchanamas.He however denied that all the documents were prepared at the Police Station.However, none of the seizure panchanamas, reveal the numbers on currency notes allegedly taken charge at the instance of the accused persons.In view thereof, it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that the currency notes which were taken charge by the police at the instance of the accused persons were the same currency notes which were taken away by the culprits while committing the robberies at the different places.Similarly, the Investigating Officer PW-10 PI Gomatishankar Yadav has not thrown any light on the aspect of seizure of the cash amount as well as other articles taken charge at the instance of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 7::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 8::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 ::: CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 9 7] It is worthwhile to note that in the instant case when the robbery was taken place in the Bank, according to PW-1 Deepak, the faces of the accused/culprits were covered and therefore he could not see their faces.Similarly, PW-3 Ashok Ande has also deposed about the robbery at sub station of MSEB, there also the faces of those culprits were covered by the clothes.PW- 5 Waman Devtale has deposed about the robbery in MSEB quarters, there also the faces of the culprits were covered with the clothes, so also PW-3 and PW-5 could not see the faces of the culprits.Since the accused persons were not identified as the culprits, they were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 392 r/w 395, 392/395 r/w 398, 395, 342 r/w 34 and 427 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Thus, there was no substantive evidence against the accused persons.Similarly, so far as the allegations under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is no convincing evidence on record to show that the accused persons were possessing the articles and the stolen cash amount.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 98] As discussed above, numbers of the currency notes were not mentioned in the panchanamas, therefore, it was not proved that those were the same currency notes which was taken away by the accused persons.Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons.The learned trial Judge should have considered the evidence led by the::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 ::: CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 10 prosecution witnesses in its right perspective.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal needs to be allowed and impugned judgment and order of the trial court needs to be quashed and set aside.Hence, the order :::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::CRI.APPEAL 157.06.odt 10ORDER i] Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2006 is allowed.ii] The impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2006 delivered by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.144/2005 is hereby quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 13:42:00 :::
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,945,290 |
None for respondent No. 2, even though served.Arguments heard.This is third appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST), District Jabalpur, passed in M.Cr.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant i s innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.Trial will take a long time to conclude.The appellant is permanent resident of the district and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.On these grounds prayer is made to enlarge the appellant on bail.Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection.The applicant - Ghashsu @ Ghassi @ Sourabh Koshta is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) wit h o n e surety in t h e lik e amo unt t o the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :(1) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions o f the bond executed by him;(2) The applicant will cooperate in the trial; (3) T he applicant will no t indulge himself i n extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer;(7) T he applicant shall inform the trial Court about his address and Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 26/11/2019 11:10:04 3 CRA-9322-2019 residence in case he moves out from his permanent address for any point of time; and (8) The applicant shall not contact any of the other accused persons in this case in any manner whatsoever.This order shall remain effective till the end o f the trial but in case of bail jump and breach o f any o f the pre-condition o f bail, i t shall become ineffective and cancelled without reference to this Bench.This appeal stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 26/11/2019 11:10:04
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,946,161 |
C/4906 of 2013 under Sections 420, 406/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, including all orders passed in connection with the said proceedings.The present petitioners are the accused of the proceedings mentioned above.Opposite party no.2, Ruia Sons Private Limited is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at 5, Russell Street, Kolkata-700 071, Police Station- Park Street and represented by its authorized representative Mr.Ashok Kumar Goenka.A petition of complaint being no.C/4906 of 2013 was initiated by the opposite party no.2 before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, Kolkata, against the present petitioners under the provisions of Sections 403,405,406,415,418,420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.On the basis of that petition of complaint, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, Kolkata, took cognizance of the offences alleged vide order dated July 1, 2013, and transferred the case to the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, Kolkata, for disposal.Learned Judicial Magistrate, 7th Court, Alipore, examined the complainant/opposite party no.2 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereafter, the Learned Magistrate opined that there was prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioners for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420,406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Learned Magistrate, vide order dated July 15, 2013, issued process against the present petitioners to face trial for commission of alleged offences.The petition of complaint has been annexed to the present revisional application.Annexure 'P-1' at pages 37 to 104 are the copies of the petition 2 of complaint, summons addressed to the present petitioners and the annexed documents.It was alleged in the said petition of complaint that the petitioners and the complainant were known to each other since long and the complainant was in urgent need of financial accommodation.Accused no.1, Sprite Investment Private Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and accused no.2 and 3 are the Directors of accused no.1 Company.Accordingly, on April 6, 2011, a loan agreement was executed between the complainant being the 'borrower' and the accused no.1 and its Director as 'lender'.Accused gave a loan of Rs.5 Crores in the form of an ICD.The said loan was for a period of 189 days.The rate of interest on the said ICD was fixed at 16.50% per annum to be payable on quarterly basis.The loan agreement was executed at the registered office of the complainant company.On 6th April, 2011, the complainant company through one of its group company, Wealth Overseas Pte Limited entered into a pledge agreement with the accused no.1 for pledging 18,52,000 number of shares of Dunlop India Limited owned by Wealth Overseas Pte Limited as a security towards repayment of the ICD.A letter dated August 20, 2011, was sent to the accused no.1 avowing volatile market condition and requested the accused not to sell any shares and to wait till the market was stabilized.The complainant had assured to pledge further shares in favour of the accused no.1 again towards its commitment.Form No.J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Present:The Hon'ble Justice Madhumati Mitra C.R.R. No.3624 of 2013 Sprite Investment Private Limited & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Ayan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Cedric Fernandez, Mr. Apalak Basu.Advocate for the Opposite party no.1 : Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Mr. Satadru Lahiri, Mr. Soumyojyoti Nandi, Mr. Safdar Azam.This is an application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No.The complainant approached accused no.1 to renew an Inter Corporate Deposit (hereinafter referred to as ICD) of Rs.5 Crores.5 A purported reply letter dated 5th October, 2011, was sent to the complainant company by the accused.On October 19, 2011, the accused in spite of receipt of such correspondence with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cheat the complainant presented the cheque of Rs.19,73,219/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Two Hundred and Nineteen) lying in the custody of the accused for encashment with its banker.On October 24, 2011, the said cheque was returned to the accused, dishonoured with the endorsement 'drawers signature differs'.On 11th November, 2011, a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sent to the complainant.From the materials placed on record as well as from the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that on the basis of the petition of complaint filed by the complainant Learned Magistrate issued process against the present petitioners/accused to face trial for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,947,810 |
M.C.692/2019 Page 4 of 4M.C.692/2019 Page 4 of 4Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of `10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within four weeks from today.Upon placing on record the receipt of costs, FIR No. 681/2018, under Sections 323/342/354/354B of IPC, registered at police station Shahbad Dairy, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.However, it is made clear that if the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner- husband again runs into rough weather, then this order will not stand in her way to have recourse to law.This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE FEBRUARY 07, 2019 r CRL.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,956,400 |
She had eloped with some unknown person on 24.12.2017 at about 06:00PM and when she did not return for long, he lodged the present F.I.R. In statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim has stated that she is 21 years of age and she had gone to the applicant's house of her own free will on 24.12.2017 at 02:00PM and was living with him for last 18 months and one child of four months was born out of the said wedlock.Her father wanted to marry her to some other person of his choice and because of that she had left the place of her parents and had gone to the house of accused.The same statement has been given by her in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. annexed at page 34 of the paper book.Heard Sri Manish Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G. P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 05.05.2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 23 of 2018, under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 P.O.C.S.O. Act, P.S. Kasganj, District Kasganj as well as entire proceeding of S.S.T. No. 28/19 pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (1st) Kasganj (State Vs.Satendra).
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
63,958,545 |
Facts of the prosecution story as discernible from record appear to be that informant Achchhey Lal Giri son of Ram Sakal Giri resident of Gore Pokhar, Police Station Maniyer, District Ballia moved a written report addressed to Superintendent of Police, Ballia on 21.05.2001 alleging therein that his brother Suresh Giri is engaged in the work of contractor-ship, in the irrigation department.His brother Suresh Giri proceeded for Ballia on 14.05.2001 at about 8.00 a.m. from his village intimating the informant that he had some work in the Irrigation Department and he will also obtain his money from Babu Surendra Nath Singh son of Kashi Nath Singh of the Irrigation Department to whom he had earlier given some money.He also told that he would return till evening the same day, but he did not return till today i.e. upto 21.05.2001 which embarrassed the informant and his other family members.Condition of informant's brother is not normal because he has not informed about his condition (whereabout) to the family members.Therefore, information is being given for taking appropriate action.Contents of aforesaid report were taken down in the concerned General Diary of date 21.05.2001 at 2.20 p.m. at Police Station Kotwali.Record also reflects that on 25.5.2001 one Chandra Bhan Giri son of Shivdas Giri, gave written information/application to the effect that the dead body of his cousin brother Suresh Giri, who was missing since 14.05.2001, has been found on the shore of river at Chandpur Ghat.Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the District Hospital, Ballia, for autopsy, where the Doctor G. Khan P.W.6, conducted autopsy.He noted following ante-mortem injuries on the cadaver of the deceased Suresh Giri:-"Antemortem strangulation mark found in nature present on upper part of neck at head neck joint."The time, since death, was stated to be more than one week, and in the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to antemortem strangulation leading to asphyxia and death.Record further reflects that on information being received on 30.05.2001 by the Investigating Officer Gauri Shankar Arya P.W.8 that accused Surendra Nath Singh, has appeared in Court, the Investigating Officer, sought one day remand of accused Surendra Nath Singh on 04.06.2001, and after obtaining information from him reached at Kakarghatta Ghat around 5.00 p.m., where, the informant and other persons also arrived.Surendra Nath Singh pointed out in sandy and marshy water, some clothes purported to have been worn by the the deceased Suresh Giri said to be 'Kurta', 'Paijama' and 'Gamchha', which were lying over there, which clothes were identified by the informant and others, as clothes of deceased.He also told him that he has to attend two marriage ceremonies at Ballia, therefore, possibility of his staying at Ballia is strongly felt and thereafter his brother left for Ballia.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he cannot say as to how Suresh Giri died.However, he has stated that accused Surendra Singh runs shop of paints near Panama Talkies and he is also also employed in Irrigation Department and this witness is court 'moharrir'.On 14.5.2001, he saw Suresh Giri in the shop of Surendra Nath around 5.00 p.m. Besides Surendra Singh, his son Praveen Singh and his relative Dhananjay Singh his servant Gopal and his wife Shiv Kumar were also present in the shop and some conversation was going on between them in respect of loaning transaction (of Rs.60,000/-).Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra,I J.) Aforesaid two appeals arise out of common judgment passed in the Sessions Trial No.184 of 2003, State Vs.Surendra Nath Singh and others, therefore, both these appeals are being heard together and decided by this common order.Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi Bhushan Kunwar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri A.N. Mulla, Sri Sageer Ahmad and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record of this appeal.The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of various witnesses, besides, doing other necessary work.After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet, Exhibit Ka-15 against the appellants under Sections 147, 302, 201 IPC.Thereafter, the case of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions, from where, it was made over to the concerned trial court for conduction of trial and disposal.After framing charges under aforesaid sections of IPC, the same were read over and explained to the accused persons, who denied the charges and opted for trial.The prosecution, in order to prove guilt of the accused examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses.Brief reference of the same is sketched herein under:-Akshay Lal Giri PW-1 is the first informant, who moved application for disappearance of his brother-Suresh Giri.Chandra Bhan Giri PW-2 is the witness of fact of identifying the dead body of Suresh Giri at the time of alleged recovery of the dead body.He is witness of fact and he is a clerk of some advocate and he also runs tea-stall near Zila Parishad Gate, Ballia.He has testified about fact that he saw the deceased in the company of appellants on 14.5.2001 at about 5.00 P.M. at the shop near Panama Talkies.He was witness of fact that around 9 a.m. on 14.5.2001 he saw the deceased in a Maruti Car being accompanied by the accused persons.However, this witness has turned hostile and has been cross-examined by the prosecution.He is witness of fact that he participated in the 'panchayat' that took place on 25.4.2001 near Panama Talkies.He has conducted inquest examination of deceased Suresh Giri and has prepared relevant papers and has proved the process undertaken by him.He is the Investigating Officer of this case and he has detailed the process undertaken by him for completing investigation of this case.He has filed charge-sheet Exhibit ka-15 and has also proved several other papers.Thereafter evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, they termed their implication false and submitted that there is no worthy testimony against them.It has been specifically stated that Suresh Giri the deceased use to participate in political activity of Rajdhari Singh- MLA of the area and the accused side opposed their political activity, therefore, they have been falsely roped in, in this case.The learned trial court also recorded statement of Surendra Nath Singh and Preveen Kumar as CW-1 and CW-2, respectively, but the same has no relevance with the merit of this case because the statement relates to and was confined to point of juvenility of another co-accused, therefore, the same does not require any consideration at this stage.He has testified about fact that he informed the police that he was Pradhan of his village Ramsher Garh and he informed about the dead body to the police.Thereafter Station Officer of the police station arrived at the spot, photographed the dead body, held inquest, and went away with the dead body.He has also deposed on point that Suresh Giri was a Contractor of Irrigation Department and he used to work in other districts also apart from district Ballia.Ratan Kumar D.W.2 is witness of fact that no shop for paint ever existed near Panama Talkies.Thereafter, the matter was posted for argument pros and cons between the parties and after considering the entire matter on its merit and on marshaling of facts and appraisal of evidenced so adduced, the learned trial court recorded aforesaid finding of conviction and imposed aforesaid sentences against the appellants.Consequently, this appeal.In this case, the last seen theory and motive for committing the crime, has not been proved.Not only this, the very identification of the dead body is dubious one.The recovery memo is full of legal infirmities.No copy of recovery memo Exhibit Ka-1 was ever handed over to the accused Surendra Nath Singh.Per contra, learned AGA has stated that all the links of the chain of circumstances including motive, last seen, recovery of dead body, recovery of clothes have been consistently proved and the chain is complete in itself, leaving aside every hypothesis of innocence of the accused.Evidence on record proves and establishes that the accused themselves have committed the offence to the exclusion of others, and the learned trial court has taken correct view of the evidence on record.Law on the point is specific and well settled.Now, we have to look into the various circumstances, and we have to evaluate and appreciate the evidence and facts on record which may give thrust to the aforesaid premise both positive and negative, as to whether, the chain of the circumstances is complete or in-complete and if so its overall effect, we have before us, prosecution witnesses of fact five in number who are in all-Akshay Lal Giri P.W.1, Chandra Bhan P.W.2, Manager Giri P.W.3, Chandra Shekhar P.W.4 and Ajay Kumar P.W.5, rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal witnesses, therefore, testimony of aforesaid five prosecution witnesses of fact is quite relevant for assessing and evaluating exact position.Here, in this case, the various circumstances, which require proof pertains to certain facts, which may be categorized for purpose of convenience by us.Circumstances (1) Evidence of fact that the deceased Surresh Giri left for Ballia on 14.5.2001 at 8 a.m. from his village Gore Pokher, Police Station Maniyer, (district Ballia) for city Ballia.(2) That deceased was seen in the company of accused persons either on 14.5.2001 or afterwords till 21.5.2001 and thereafter, he was never seen in the company of any other person.(3) Recovery of dead body and other material.(4) Possibility of intrusion of any other person than the present accused persons, for committing the crime with conclusion that the accused alone committed the offnece.Akshay Lal P.W.1 is the brother of deceased.He has testified on factual aspect that his brother told him around 8 a.m on 14.5.2001 that he had to do some contractual work at Ballia and he has to take back money from Surendra Singh today.After elapse of 2-4 days when his brother did not return, this witness started searching for his whereabouts.He has further elaborated that his brother had lent Rs.60,000/- to Surendra Singh.When the efforts for searching could not succeed, a report was made to the police after elapse of 5-6 days, regarding disappearance of his brother, at police station Kotwali Ballia.However, it is admitted position in this case that no worthy paper regarding borrowing or lending transactions, in its original shape, has either been proved or presented for perusal of the Court.However, during trial one paper Exhibit Ka-3 purported to have an endorsement, made by Surendra Nath Singh, the appellant, dated 25.4.2001 on stamped paper of Rs.20/-, has been moved, but, it is no where stated, as to when, this money was taken by Surendra Singh.Therefore, contention of the appellants to the effect that no worthy paper regarding appropriation or loaning transaction, has been proved by the prosecution, is upheld by us.This aspect of the case is vital for its reflection on the very motive, which was existing for committing the offence.May be that some loaning transaction was entered into, but it is obvious that no worthy paper whatsoever indicating/ facilitating the loaning transaction, has been brought on record.We may observe that in cases, like the present one based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes greater importance in comparison to other cases, which are not based on circumstantial evidence.Here, the very motive behind the crime is stated to be lending of money Rs.60,000/- by Suresh Giri- the deceased to the accused Surendra Nath Singh.More-so, no such statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer Gauri Shanker Arya that any loaning transaction was ever entered on paper also.There is no description in the FIR that Rs. 60,000/- is to be obtained by the deceased Suresh Giri from accused Surendra Nath Singh.On the point of holding of Panchayat P.W.5 Ajay Kumar Singh has been produced.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was informed about holding of some Panchayat meeting by deceased Suresh Giri himself that today i.e. on 25.4.2001, Panchayat meeting will take place near Panama Talkies and he was required to remain present.The paper was executed in proof of loaning transaction on Rs.20 stamped paper.Pradeep Singh first endorsed on it and thereafter this witness also appended his endorsement on it.But he has also stated that Surendra Nath Singh and Suresh Giri did not make any endorsement on it in his presence.This witness also express his ignorance about the fact, as to who wrote such words on this paper, and this witness went to the extent that he only made his endorsement on the paper because Pradeep Kumar had also made his signature on this paper and said that after appending his signature on this paper he went to his home.In this way, it is obvious that the entire process exercised before this witness in the context of Exhibit Ka-3 does not yield any worthy legal consequence and instead the paper loses its legal significance and the contents of Exhibit Ka-3 cannot be read in evidence as such.This witness has been confronted with glaring contradictions appearing in his testimony as given in the Court with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and this witness could not assign any reason for such apparent contradictions.Now we may move on to another essential link of chain of circumstances, which relates to the fact of last seen when the accused were sighted with the company of deceased Suresh Giri.Wife of Surendra Singh said that Rs.60,000/- will be given if he comes to their home and thereafter all the persons present departed for the house (of Surendra Singh) and this witness has further testified that he had gone to some PCO for giving telephonic call.In his cross-examination he has further testified that he works in the court as Moharir right from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily and thereafter he runs his tea shop near gate of Zila Parishad.He has admitted in his cross-examination that Telephone Department is located beside Zila Parishad and there is telephonic facility, made available for the public and the counter of the same has also been made.He has stated that he had to give telephonic call to advocate Awadhesh Tiwari.He has further elaborated that one client Rajendra Giri was to institute a new case and for which necessary inquiry was sought but no such case has been instituted till date.He has further testified that he tried for about 20 minutes but the phone was not connected to Awadhesh Tiwari's phone.This Telephonic call was given by this witness from a local PCO, which is located near shop of Surendra Nath Singh.We have carefully scanned the remaining part of his cross-examination, wherein facts have been abundantly and specifically proved and also admitted to the ambit that to the ambit a number of PCOs for making telephonic call near and around the tea shop of this witness at the gate of Zila Parishad, Ballia and in the vicinity of Zila Parishad, but this witness could not assign any worthy reason as to how and why this witness instead of utilizing services of nearby telephone booths, rushed to another public booth near Panama Talkies in the the vicinity of Surendra Singh shop.It appears that this story was devised in order to assert fact that he heard wife of Surendra Singh saying to Suresh Giri that Rs.60,000/- will be given to him if he comes to their house.It is highly improbable that a person who is busy in giving telephonic call in a PCO, would also hear all the details of negotiation, which is going on in a secluded shop.We have also waded through the record but we could not come across any specific testimony on the point of establishing fact of running of any shop of paint by Surendra Nath Singh.No factual testimony whatsoever, has come forth, which may inspire confidence giving rise to possibility of running of such a shop.Therefore, the testimony of P.W.3 Manager Giri specifically on the point of last seen becomes irrelevant and wholly unreliable.Thus cumulative outcome of testimony of this witness, renders his testimony sketchy improved one and full of improbabilities and contradictions which terms his testimony not reliable.Now, it would be appropriate to have discussion on another vital aspect of this case, which relates to fact of discovery of dead body and its identification by the witnesses.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he identified dead body of Suresh Giri, which was recovered from Chandpur Ghat.He deposed that he identified the body after watching the same very closely.He further deposed that besides him, Jumni Giri, Tarkeshwar Giri and Janardan Giri were also present over there.He further stated that on 4th June 2001, clothes of deceased were also recovered.He has stated that these clothes so recovered are 'Kurta', 'Payjama' and 'Gamacha'- which were recovered at the pointing out of Suresh Singh.One of the prosecution witnesses has said that when he arrived on the recovery spot, he saw Surendra Singh carrying 'Gamacha' in his hand.The Investigating Officer Gauri Shanker Arya P.W.8, has stated in examination-in-chief appearing on page-37 of the paper book that after obtaining signature of accused Surendra Singh, a copy of the recovery memo was handed over to the accused.On what base, handing over of the copy of recovery memo to the accused is reasonably proved, has not been satisfactorily explained.More so, this recovery was made only on 4.6.2001 and till then the clothes were, though allegedly placed under sandy water, remained lying over there on that spot, right from 14.5.2001 till 4.6.2001, is well thought out process and the same is highly improbable story, to be believed at this stage.He has stated in his cross-examination in answer to specific question put to him about duration of postmortem examination from the time of possible death, then the doctor has stated in the last line of his testimony, in answer to the specific query that "yes" this duration may exceed one month's period.Not only this, he has also stated in his cross-examination that the skin of the dead body had peeled off from the different parts of the body and it was not possible to identify the dead body.There were other witnesses of last seen say- Subhas Yadav, Nandji Ram and Arvind but they have not been examined.Learned trial court while appraising evidence and marshaling facts on record misread the evidence and based its conviction more on whims and imagination than on evidence on record, leaving aside the guiding principles to be applied in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,396,174 |
He sustained grievous injuries all over his body.Shri Brahma Datt Singh, learned Government Advocate for the Applicant/State.Heard arguments on the admission.Perused the record of trial court and material on record.The applicant has filed this application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2014 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.111/2014 State of M.P. through Police Station Taradehi, Damoh Vs.Virendra and three others, whereby the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused persons, who are non-applicant herein, of the charges punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34, 353 r/w 34 and 333 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.The applicant has sought the leave to appeal on the ground that the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused persons by misappreciating and misreading the prosecution evidence.Precisely stated, the prosecution case is that on 26.08.2013 Ravindra Singh (PW-7), the SHO of Police Station Taradehi, got a tip-off that some persons are carrying liquor in a huge quantity without permit in a jeep for sale to the villagers and the jeep would pass through Taradehi-Sarra Road.Thereupon, he divided police force in two parties to catch them.One party was headed by him and another one was by ASI Jagdish (PW-1).Jagdish's party consisted of Constable Kaluram (PW-2) and Head Constable Ashok Kumar Pandey (PW-4).The party laid a check point near village Mulara.At about 11:45 p.m., the party saw a jeep coming in high speed towards its direction.Kaluram gave a signal to the driver of the jeep to stop, but the driver did not stop the jeep and knocked him down with an intent to kill him.In the process, the jeep got stuck in a motorcycle owned by Kaluram and stopped.The jeep driver and one occupant of it got off and fled away.But, the police party caught accused Virendra and Laxman on the spot.They disclosed the name of the driver and the occupant as accused Rajendra and Punnu @ Fullu respectively.Upon the search of the jeep eight cartoons of English Wine were found.On the place of occurrence itself Jagdish lodged the oral FIR Ex.P-1 to Ravindra Singh, which was registered as Dehati Nalisi under Sections 353, 333, 307 and 34 of the I.P.C. against all the four accused persons.Vide the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused persons of the charges levelled against them on the following grounds:-Ravindra Singh (PW-7), the I.O of the case, has failed to explain as to why ther e is a differenc e in the registration number of the jeep in the FIR and the spot map.Fourth , Kaluram has stated in his evidence that the investigating officer Ravindra Singh has made Nuksani Panchnama of his motorcycle, but the same was not produced in the evidence.Fifth , Ravindra Singh has has stated in para 23 of his deposition that he had got the videography and the photography of the damaged jeep and the motorcycle done.But, the prosecution has not produced either the videography or the photographs to prove its case.Sixth , ASI transport Balram (PW-8) has stated in his evidence that he carried out the mechanical examination of the jeep bearing registration No.MP-C-9573 and gave report Ex.He has further stated in his evidence that in the course of examination he found that only the silencer of the aforesaid jeep was damaged.He has also admitted in para 3 of his cross- examination that he has not found any scratches, dents and bumps in the jeep, meaning thereby that the jeep had not involved in the incident.(2) As per the FIR Ex.P-1 and the statement of Kaluram (PW-2) he sustained injuries all over his body, but his treating doctor S.N. Gupta (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that he found fractur e in the tibia fibula of his right leg.He has admitted in his cross-examination that except the aforesaid injury he has not found even a single abrasion or contusion or bruise on his persons.If Kaluram had been the victim of the alleged incident he would have suffered not only fracture in his right leg, but also suffered the injuries of the aforesaid nature.(3) There are material discrepancies, contradictions and inconsistenci es in the evidence of Kaluram, Jagdish (PW-7), Manohar Singh (PW-3) and Ashok Pandey (PW-4), who are the eye witnesses of the incident as per the FIR.(4) As per the FIR Ex.P-1 the informant/complainant is Jagdish (PW-1) and the author of it is Ravindra Singh, but Jagdish in para 10 of his cross-examination has admitted that the FIR Ex.P-1 is in his hand writing.Not only that he has also admitted in the aforesaid para that the last six lines of the FIR is written in a different hand writing.The above evidence shows that the FIR Ex.P-1 was not recorded at the place of occurrence, but it was recorded somewhere else with after thought.Hence, the FIR can not be relied upon.(5) There is no cogent evidence on record that Manohar Singh (PW-3) and Ashok Pandey (PW-4) were present at the time of incident.Thus, they were arrested near-about 18 hours later after the incident.This fact was admitted by Ravindra Singh in para 14 of his cross-examination.In this para, he has not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the aforesaid accused were arrested after 18 hours later from the time of incident, whereas they were caught at the time of occurrence on the spot itself.Having duly considered the prosecution evidence, we find that the aforesaid findings of the trial Court are based upon just and proper appreciation of evidence.Consequently, we dismiss the application summarily at the stage of admission itself.
|
['Section 353 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.
|
63,962,869 |
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention orderpassed in C.O.C.No.65/2014, dated 29.11.2014 by the detaining authority, whohas been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by nameSelvam @ Chinnaselvam, Son of Arumugam and quash the same and thereby set himat liberty forthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, Sembanarkoil Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein itis stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case: ?Crime No.242 of 2009, Muthaliyarpettai Police Station, registeredunder Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(a) ofExplosive Substance Act, 1908 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code @Sections 148, 307, 109 and 120(b) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code andalso under Section 3(a) of Explosive Substance Act, 1908?.3.Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 02.11.2014, a case hasbeen registered in Crime No.434 of 2014 against the detenu under Sections147, 148, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of ExplosiveSubstance Act, 1908 and also under Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act, 1959 andultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 againstthe detenu.9.In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detentionpassed in C.O.C.No.65/2014, dated 29.11.2014 by the secondrespondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondentsare directed to set the detenu viz., Selvam @ Chinnaselvam, Son of Arumugamat liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connectionwith any other case.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.ORDER MADE INH.C.P(MD)No.1438 of 201424.03.2015
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 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.
|
93,827,283 |
This case only reminds the aboveTamil Proverb.The petitioner is a B.E. Graduate and he is working in a Bank inNamakkal branch for the past two years.On 28.06.2014, he was returning tohis native place via Madurai and he reached Mattuthavani Bus Stand at 09.30p.m and he was waiting for bus to reach his native place in Tuticorin Busplat form in Mattuthavani Bus stand.At around 10.15 p.m three persons camein casual wear showing the Police Identity Card (GR2) and asked him to comealong with them for conducting enquiry.Since they showed the Identity Cardas Policemen, the petitioner went along with them in motor cycle.Later, hequestioned them when they took different routes and they attacked himseverely all over the body and forcibly took the petitioner's Bag, CellPhone, Purse, Voter I.D Card and two A.T.M Cards.They also forciblyobtained the pin number of one of the ATM Card and later, they pulled thepetitioner out of the two wheeler and throw him on the road side.Thereafter, the petitioner approached E3, Anna Nagar Police Station, Madurai,narrating what had happened.The very fact thatthe condition was not imposed, would show that there was no objection fromthe prosecution.These are all the factors which would go to show that ifthe investigation is allowed to be done by the respondent police, definitely,it will not be conducted fairly.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai.The Officer in the duty informed the petitionerto meet the respondents 2 and 3 in the morning.The petitioner called up theBank Manager to block his ATM Card and even before blocking, the accusedwithdrew totally Rs.50,000/- through various five transactions each amountingto Rs.10,000/-.With the photographsproduced by the petitioner, the accused were traced out on 08.07.2014 andthereafter only, the complaint was registered on 08.07.2014 under Section 379IPC alone.The petitioner further contends that the original complaint givenby the petitioner has not been taken into account and the officials tooksignature in a blank paper and later, it was found to be made as a complaintwhich contained wrong informations, which the petitioner never intended tomake.That apart, the Inspector of Police asked the petitioner to settle theissue by way of a compromise as the accused are newly recruited BattalionPolice.As the petitioner refused, a sentence was stealthily included inthe alleged petitioner's complaint stating that he is a homo-sexual.Thesaid act is only to help the accused.Even a copy of the F.I.R was not givento the petitioner nor his Counsel and it was directed to be collectted onlyfrom the Court.Though the accused was secured in the morning itself, theywere produced only at 08.30 p.m in the house of the Magistrate to conceal theidentity of the accused..Making all these allegations, the petitioner has come beforethis Court seeking transfer the investigation from the file of the respondentto the C.B.C.I.D.Heard Mr.S.Siva Thilakar, learned Counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr.Very allegations are made against the police persons who aresupposed to be guardians of the Society.When a specific case has been givenin the complaint stating that the petitioner was abducted and his belongingswere taken away by using force, it is the duty of the respondents toimmediately register the complaint as the complaint makes out a cognizableoffences.Admittedly, even as per the C.D file, the complaint was receivedon 28.06.2014 at 22.30 Hours.Immediately, the respondents police shouldhave registered the case.Here also, the respondentpolice failed to do their functions properly.When the allegations made in the complaint make out differentoffences, the respondent police is bound to go by the allegations made by thecomplaint and all the appropriate Sections should have been included.Whereas for the reasons best known to R2 and R3, the case only under Section379 IPC was registered.They should have registered a complaint for theoffences under Sections 392, 383, 340 and 362 IPC also.The bail order is not even available with the police and it is not knownwhether the prosecution really opposed the bail or not.It is admitted by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)that A2 and A1 were granted bail on 23.07.2014 and 24.07.2014 and they werealready released from prison.It is only go to show that the police have not followedthe matter very seriously and obtained the order copy.It is a commonpractice that whenever the order copy is made ready, both the petitioner aswell as the prosecution would get the same at the same time.This itselfwould go to show the laxity of the respondents police.If really the bailapplication was opposed, the learned Magistrate would have either discussedthe bail petition or atleast granted conditional bail.Even in the initial stage itself, therespondent police bungled in every stage.Considering the above facts and also the position of the accusedas Constable, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the therespondent police to continue the investigation.Therefore, the matter isdirected to be transferred from the second respondent to the fourthrespondent namely, the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Madurai, who shalltake over the case and alter the F.I.R by incorporating appropriate Sectionsbased on the petitioner's original complaint and conduct the investigation asearly as possible and file final report.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition isallowed.2.The Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station , E3(Crime) Madurai.4.R.Bose, The Senior Sub-Inspector of Police, Anna Nagar Police Station , E3(Crime) Madurai.5.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D, Madurai.6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,838,342 |
C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2020.08.25 16:38:02 ISTThis is the first bail application filed by the applicant under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection w i t h Crime No.56/2020 for offences punishable under sections 354, 363, 506/34 of I.P.C. and U/s.5(L)(6) of the POCSO registered at Police Station- Prathvipur, District-The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case.The allegations against him is that the complainant, who is a minor girl aged about 15 years and 8 months, was coming back from her Coaching Class on 10.02.2020, when the applicant herein in his Scorpio SUV overtakes her, blocks her path, kicks her cycle, catches hold of her hand and tries to pull her inside his SUV Car, which the complainant resists.Around this time, she says that her mother and uncle reached the place of incident and the uncle blocks the path of the Scorpio vehicle with his vehicle and the mother of the Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2020.08.25 16:38:02 IST 2 MCRC-24337-2020 complainant is stated to have slapped the applicant herein.Learned counsel for the State has strongly objected to the anticipatory bail being granted to the applicant herein.According to him, the applicant was trying to kidnap the complainant by trying to force her into the SUV Car and that it was only fortuitous that her mother and uncle reached there on time and prevented the applicant from doing anything more.He further says that merely because the applicant did not touch any objectionable part of the complainant's body, which is associated with the modesty of a woman, does not dilute his act.Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents filed along with this application.One of them is a copy of Crime No.265/19 registered at P.S. Prathvipur, Distt.Tikamgarh dated 04.07.2019, which discloses an occurrence against the same complainant on 28.06.2019 wherein she has levelled similar allegation of holding of her hand and attempting to drag her into the shop against another person Ashish Kushwaha and that as her brother was nearby, who interceded the incident, she was able to run away.The said F.I.R. is registered Signature Not Verified SAN U/s.354 and 506 of I.P.C. inter-alia.The next document is Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2020.08.25 16:38:02 IST 3 MCRC-24337-2020 another F.I.R. which is Crime No.329/19 registered on 17.08.2019 at P.S. Prathvipur, Distt.Tikamgarh against four accused persons.This time by Smt. Archana Yadav, the mother of the complainant herein again alleging offences U/s.354, 294, 509 R/w. Sec.34 of the I.P.C. In this case, the mother of the complainant herein had alleged that the four accused persons surrounded her, abused her, caught hold of her hand and with an evil intent, one of them had placed his hand on her breast.The third F.I.R. is the present one, which has been registered against the applicant herein.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that within a span of seven months, three F.I.Rs. have been registered.Two by the complainant herein and one by her mother against different accused persons levelling the same nature of offences.Out of these three FIRs., two FIRs., have been registered within a span of just over one month, one by the complainant herein and the others by her mother.Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the statement of the complainant U/s.164 of I.P.C. itself wherein she has specifically stated that the applicant herein did not do anything bad with her, but only held her hand and also in view of what has been stated by the learned counsel for the applicant and which has been recorded by this Court hereinabove, the application is allowed and it is Signature Not Verified SAN directed that if the applicant is arrested by the Arresting Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA Date: 2020.08.25 16:38:02 IST 4 MCRC-24337-2020 Officer, he shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
938,392 |
JUDGMENT O.P. Dwivedi, J.This order shall govern the disposal of two connected revision petitions being Crl.Rev. 697/2002 & Crl.Both revision petitions are directed against the impugned order dated 25th June, 2002 passed by Shri Rajender Kumar, MM, Delhi under Section 205 read with Section 317 Cr.P.C.Briefly narrated, the facts leading to these revision petitions are that the respondent herein filed a criminal complaint under Sections 405/406/420/120-B, IPC and also under Section 193, IPC against the petitioners.When the case was taken up on 25th June, 2002 application for permanent exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of accused persons namely Surinder Kumar Goel and Virender Goel who are petitioners No. 2 and 3 in these revisions petitions.It was pleaded in the application that the accused are resident of Indore and Mumbai and hence it is very difficult for them to appear on each and every date.So they may be exempted from personal appearance.Learned MM granted them exemption from personal appearance for the next date with the observation that there is no ground for permanent exemption.3, Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have preferred these revision petitions.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.At the very outset, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature.The rejection or acceptance of the plea of the accused for permanent personal exemption would not conclude any particular proceedings.The test to judge whether a particular order is interlocutory or not, is whether upholding/rejecting any plea raised by a party, would result in culminating the proceedings? if it does, it will not be an interlocutory order.The impugned order is purely interlocutory in nature.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,839,946 |
According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant along with her husband has been made an accused in the aforementioned case U/s.417 and 420 of I.P.C. The complainant is a builder Mukesh Tayde, who is stated to have entered into a construction agreement which was executed on 28.3.2015 with the applicant and her husband.Pursuant to the said agreement, a cheque for Rs.20 Lacs was given by the husband drawn on his account to the complainant.The said cheque was not honoured on account of the signature of the husband not tallying with record which is there in the possession of the Bank.On the basis of the said cheque bounce, the FIR has been registered against the applicant and her husband.The applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. She shall however join the investigation as and when directed to do so by the Police.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE a
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,844,433 |
Heard, Case-diary perused.Earlier applications were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28/06/2017, 07/05/2018, 25/02/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.6248/2017, 13199/2018 and 6520/2019, respectively.As per prosecution story on 27/12/2016, village Banwara's guard Dharasingh informed Police through mobile phone No.9669185276 that one dead body was found in Chambal River.The applicant cannot be kept in custody for Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/01/2020 17:31:07 M.Cr.C. No.50393/2019 2 unlimited period hence learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.C. No.50393/2019 2Hence he prayed for rejection of the application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the certified copies of the proceedings of the trial Court, the present application is disposed off with the direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude it within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/01/2020
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,847,057 |
The second respondent/complainant, Gurpreet Kaur, is present.She is also identified by the Investigating Officer, Assistant Sub-Inspector Shri Ram, Police Station Hari Nagar.The complaint had also instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as well as under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the first petitioner.CRL.M.C. 4243/2014 Page 1 of 8This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.253/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, at Police Station Hari Nagar, on 15.07.2012 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State enters appearance and accepts notice.I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus at this stage itself since the parties have resolved their differences; which had arisen out of matrimonial and domestic disputes; to their mutual satisfaction, and have also obtained divorce by mutual consent; and more so, since the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the CRL.M.C. 4243/2014 Page 7 of 8 prosecution thereby diminishing its chances of success, no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the same.CRL.M.C. 4243/2014 Page 7 of 8Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 253/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, at police station Hari Nagar, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
93,853,956 |
I. The application is dismissed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,855,634 |
NOVEMBER 20, 2017 //gr/ CRL.REV.P.828/2017 Page 4 of 4CRL.REV.P.828/2017 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,467,557 |
I am shown as Defacto Complainant in the said complaint.It is respectfully submitted that inadvertently I became the DefactoComplainant in the said case as per the instruction of police.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondentregistered a case in Crime No.138 of 2016 and after completing theinvestigation, has filed a charge sheet in P.R.C.No.2 of 2017 before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District against thepetitioners herein for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(2) and 307 ofthe Indian Penal Code, for quashing which, the petitioners are before thisCourt on the ground that they have arrived at a compromise with the defactocomplainant.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.C.Johnson,Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station, is present.Thedefacto complainant is present and the petitioners are also present and theiridentifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to theconfirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal side) through Mr.C.Johnson, Special Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Thattarmadam Police Station.Under normal circumstances, a charge sheet under Section 307 of theIndian Penal Code cannot be quashed on the ground that the parties havearrived at a compromise.However, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjabreported in 2014(2) MLJ (Crl.) 365 (SC), the Supreme Court has stated thatthe prosecution under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code can be quashed, ifcertain conditions exist.In this case, it is the case of the prosecutionthat the defacto complainant was working in the Studio of A-3 and that whenthe defacto complainant asked for his salary, he is said to have been abusedby A-3 and his friends and that when A-1 attempted to attack him with aknife, the defacto complainant ducked and avoided getting injured.There areno pervious cases against these petitioners.The defacto complainant was notinjured at all.The defacto complainant has filed an affidavit dated 05.04.2017,wherein, it is stated as follows:That I am the 2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant and well acquainted with the facts and I am competent to swear this Affidavit.Further werealized our mistake and settled the same with the help of our elders.Sinceall the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 are my friends and we have no personalgrudges each other, I don't want to pursue the said complaint and I give myconsent at my free will without any coercion to close the above mentionedcase."Therefore, thispetition is allowed and the entire proceedings in P.R.C.No.2 of 2017, on thefile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District,in respect of all the accused including those who are not before this Courtare hereby quashed.The affidavit dated 05.04.2017 shall form part of thisorder.At the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioners, thepetitioners themselves voluntarily came forward to contribute some amount forthe purpose of removal of Seemai Karuvelam Trees.Accepting the submission, the petitioners are directed to pay a sumof Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) each, to the credit of Indian BankSavings Account No.6514082295, operated by the Registrar (Administration),Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, for the purpose of removal ofSeemai Karuvelam Trees, within a period of two weeks from today.After makingpayment, a copy of the challan shall be furnished to the Registrar(Administration), Madurai Bench of Madras High Cour, Madurai.1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sathankulam, Thoothukudi District.2.The Inspector of Police, Thattarmadam Police Station, Thoothukudi District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,498,982 |
It is not disputed that Bakhtu (PW 3) is the father of the appellant.Kanti Bai (PW 4) is the sister-in-law of the appellant.-:- 2 -:-A No. 1591 of 2005The prosecution story in brief is that the appellant- Khet Singh was residing with his grand mother Rama Bai.Rama Bai used to receive pension from the government every month.Kalia Bai used to deliver the pension to Rama Bai.The pension of December, 2004 was to be delivered to Rama Bai.On 26.02.2005, Kalia Bai handed over this amount to the appellant- Khait Singh to deliver it to Rama Bai.When Rama Bai demanded this amount, appellant- Khait Singh had a quarrel with her.Because of this appellant- Khait Singh inflicted injury by means of "Hasia" (sickle) and caused the death of Rama Bai.When Kanti Bai (PW 4) tried to save her, the appellant also ran after her.Hence, she ran to the field and informed the incident to Bakhtu (PW 3) her father-in-law.Bakhtu (PW 3) came to the house and saw the dead body of his mother.He then went to the Kotwar to inform about the incident.Police Kindarai lodged Crime No. 5/05 for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C at 10.45 am.The report Ex. P/2, Merg Intimation 1/05 Ex.P/1 lodged.After reaching the place of incidence, notice Ex. P/3 was given to the witnesses.In presence of the witnesses, Panchnama Ex. P/4 was drawn.By requisition Ex. P/17, the dead body was sent for post mortem.Post mortem report Ex. P/14 has been received.Deceased died due to shock as a result of haemorrhage.Spot map Ex. P/16 was prepared.According to Dharam Singh (PW 1), it was about four and half months ago, Bakhtu (PW 3), the father of appellant, had come to his house and informed that his son, the appellant, had killed his grand mother by means of a sickle.The dead body is lying on the parchhi.He further states that when he came to the house of Bakhtu (PW 1), he saw the dead body of Rama Bai who had sustained injuries.There were several wounds on her head and hand.Kanti Bai (PW 4) was also present there.Kanti Bai (PW 4) informed him that the appellant was causing injuries to the deceased by sickle.When she tried to save her, the appellant- Khait Singh ran after her.Hence, she fled away from the spot and went to the field.She then informed Bakhtu (PW 3) about the incident.When Dharam Singh (PW 1) came to the scene of crime, he found Trilok, Bakhtu.According to him, he went to Sarpanch Ganaram (PW 2) and informed him about the incident.Ganaram (PW 2), the Sarpanch of the village states that on the same day in the evening, he received the information from the son of Kotwar Dharam Singh (PW 1) and asked to go to Kindarai to lodge the report.He told him that it has become dark and there is chances of heavy rain.Therefore, let us inform the police by telephone.They went 5 kms.to village Sarra and from there tried to contact the police by telephone but the call could not materialize.-:- 5 -:-A No. 1591 of 2005 Therefore, he asked the son of Kotwar- Dharam Singh to lodge the report on the next date.On the next date, he went with the Kotwar to the Police Station Kindarai.Along with police, they came to the village.At that time, the appellant was present at the house.When police asked the appellant about the incident, he started crying and in front of police, he stated that he could not know how he killed his grand mother.The appellant as informed the police that he caused death by means of sickle.Asharam (PW 5) is the Secretary of Panchayat Sara who had sent Kalia Bai to hand over the pension to Rama Bai, the deceased.When Kalia Bai could not found Rama Bai, she handed over the amount to the appellant.The record of the pension are Ex. P/12 which were seized by police vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11).Shri M.D. Nagotia (PW 8), is the Investigating Officer of Police station Kindarai at the relevant time.As Per S.K. Palo, J :The appellant- Khait Singh, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.2005 passed by A.S.J, Lakhnadon, Distt.Seoni, in S.T. No. 59/05 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced for life imprisonment, has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C.Deceased- Rama Bai was the mother of Bakhtu Singh (PW 3) and grand mother of appellant.On 28.02.2005 at about 5.00 pm, Rama Bai died in her house.The appellant who is the resident of Karhaiya Bara Tola, Police Station Kindarai.Dharam Singh (PW 1) is the son of village kotwar.After arrest of the appellant, memorandum Ex. P/6 was prepared and on the basis of memorandum, sickle has been seized by seizure memo (Ex. P/5).The clothes of accused has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P/8).The clothes of the deceased handed over to the police by the hospital authorities are seized by seizure memo (Ex. P/3).The spot map Ex. P/13 has been prepared by the Patwari.The sickle was sent to the hospital for the examination by the medical officer.-:- 3 -:-A No. 1591 of 2005After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded false implication.After examining the prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court passed the judgment impugned holding the appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced the appellant as stated above.The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the findings of the Court below are contrary to law and the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the offence.The witnesses have been declared hostile and they have not supported the version of the prosecution.The learned Court failed to consider the necessary ingredients to prove the offence.Learned G.A for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that death of Rama Bai has been caused by sharp cutting instrument.The opinion of the medical officer that the injuries could have been caused by the sickle which was seized from the appellant and the circumstances cumulatively proved the offence against the appellant.The report indicates four injuries caused to the deceased as follows:-(i) A lacerated wound over front of right side of head;(ii) An incised wound of 3x1 cm on the medial to the previous wound;(iii) An incised wound of 2x2 cm over left side of front of head near hair line;(iv) An incised wound of 5x2 cm over central part of right hand.The medical officer vide Ex. P/15 after examining the iron sickle has opined that this injury could have been caused by the weapon seized from the appellant.It would be appropriate to examine whether the said injury has been caused by the appellant which resulted the death of Rama Bai.Kanti Bai (PW 4) is the sister-in-law of the appellant.According to her Rama Bai was mother of her father-in-law.She has been declared hostile, for she did-:- 4 -:-A No. 1591 of 2005 not support the prosecution story.According to her, the appellant is her brother-in-law.She has not seen any incident.She admits that her father-in- law has two houses.In one house, she, her husband and the appellant are living.In the second house, her father-in-law and family of another brother- in-law are residing.Rama Bai was living with the appellant.He has admitted that he had gone to the Kotwar to inform about the incident and the son of Kotwar Dharam Singh (PW 1) had come to his house to see the spot.Dharam Singh (PW 1) has been examined by the prosecution.At the instance of the appellant vide memorandum Ex. P/6, sickle was found and the same has been seized by Ex.The accused was arrested vide Ex. P/18 (arrest memo).The property seized were sent for chemical examination to F.S.L. The blood on the sickle was found, was insufficient for test, whereas the blood stained soil, the blouse and sari of the deceased E 1, E 2 were found to be of human blood.Kanti Bai (PW 4) is the sister-in-law of appellant and Bakhtu (PW 3) is the father of the appellant.They did not support the prosecution story which is but obvious.The statements of the witnesses and the documents invariably show that the deceased was living with the appellant.The pension amount of Rs.150/- was received by the appellant on behalf of Rama Bai.The deceased- Rama Bai was found dead in the house, where-:- 6 -:-A No. 1591 of 2005 she was living with the appellant.The injuries caused to the deceased were caused by sickle.Dharam Singh (PW 1) is an independent witness.He is the son of Kotwar.Therefore, reliance can be placed on his statement.According to him, Kanti Bai informed him that she saw the appellant causing injuries to the deceased by sickle.When she tried to save her, the appellant ran after her.Therefore, she fled away from the spot.Ganaram (PW 2) has not supported the prosecution story but the statements of Dharam Singh (PW 1) and Ganaram (PW 2) clearly indicated that the incident took place in the house of the appellant.At the instance of the appellant, the sickle was seized which was found stained with blood.If the whole circumstances considered cumulatively, specially when the appellant has not offered any explanation how Rama Bai sustained such injuries, even though Bakhtu and Kanti Bai have not supported the prosecution story, it would be appropriate to hold that the appellant has caused the injuries for there was a dispute of payment of pension amount.The statements of Dharam Singh (PW 2), the medical evidence and the F.S.L report cannot be brushed aside.Keeping in view the injuries which are lacerated wound and incised wound, it seems that the appellant did not premeditate in committing such offence.When there was tussle between the appellant and his grand mother, suddenly the appellant inflicted injuries to his grand mother by means of sickle which is easily available in the house of every village.The act, by which the death is caused, is done with the intention of causing death or of such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.Two of the injuries were on the head and one injury was found on the hand of the deceased- Rama Bai, who was 82 years.The appellants caused the injuries without premeditation.Therefore, it would be appropriate to convict the appellant for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for there was no previous enmity.There was no prior preparation.They quarreled over the possession of the pension-:- 7 -:-A No. 1591 of 2005 amount and because of this dispute, the appellant mercilessly beaten the deceased without any justification.In these circumstances, the guilt of the appellant has been proved.Hence, this appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the I.P.C is set aside.The appellant is convicted for offence under Section 304 (1) of I.P.C and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in lieu of fine, he has to undergo additional sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment.A copy of judgment be sent immediately along with the record to the trial Court for drawing supersession warrant.
|
['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.
|
33,503,246 |
1 Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned A.P.P. for the Respondent - State.2 The applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in crime No.708 of 2019 registered with the Bandra Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 326 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').It is alleged that the applicant gave blow by hammer on his left wrist and caused fracture.On the same day, he was examined at K.V. Hospital Bandra.Ethape 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2019 00:18:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2019 00:18:56 :::915.ABA.2193.19.doc Injury report shows nature of injury was grievous.On the same day at 2:45 p.m., the complainant lodged cross complaint with the Bandra Police Station, complaining the altercation between the complainant / brother-in- law.In view of the facts of the case since complainant has suffered a grievous injury (fracture), Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2019 00:18:56 :::
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,723,112 |
Heard on admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.6946/2017, an application for suspension of sentence.The applicant has been convicted under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 506-B of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.300/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated 27.6.2017 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Garoth, District Mandsaur in Cr.It is submitted that learned Courts below have wrongly convicted the applicant.The learned Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence.The applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty.The disposal of revision will take time, hence prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence.The prayer is opposed by the learned Govt.Taking into consideration that the applicant was on bail and he has not misused the liberty, the disposal of revision will take time, subject to depositing the compensation amount, the application is allowed.It is directed that the jail sentence of the applicant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 23.10.2017 and on other dates as may be fixed in this behalf.Accordingly, the IA stands disposed of.C.c.as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE patil
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
317,267 |
I.A.18852/10 : Under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for suspension of sentence and release on bail of the appellants.This is the fourth application on behalf of the applicants.We have perused the order dated 5.5.2009 in Cr.Appeal No.1450/08 by a Coordinate Bench allowing the application of co- accused Rakesh which reads thus :-"Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations against the appellant Rakesh are that he was armed with a ballam (a piercing object) and that he stabbed with the said ballam in the chest of the deceased.It is also submitted that accused Mohan was also armed with a sharp cutting weapon and there are allegations against him that he also made assault on the deceased Limda Yadav and as accused Mohan has been admitted to bail the present appellant who stands on better footing is entitled to be released on bail.Cr. A.No.1787 of 2008 02.02.2011 Shri Rai, learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that bail application of the some co-accused has already been rejected in other appeal, therefore, present is not a fit case for granting bail.We have gone through the other orders also.Mohan has been admitted to bail basically on the ground that the accused persons were charged with offence punishable under Section 396 IPC, they were acquitted of the said charge, and were convicted under Section 302 or 302/149 IPC.The question posed by us was that in the given set of the circumstances, in absence of amendment in the charge and in the special circumstances of the case could the accused persons be convicted under Section 302 or 302/149 IPC.Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we grant the application.On appellant Rakesh furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, he shall be released on bail for his appearance before the said Court on all such other dates as are given to him by the said Court till final disposal of this appeal or as and when/where so directed."Similarly the other co-accused person Mohan was also enlarged on bail.the present appellants Radheshyam, Ishwar and Chhotu @ Ramnarayan were pelting stones on the deceased while fatal injuries were caused by Mohan and one injury by Rakesh by Ballam.So far as the appellant Ishwar is concerned, he was present on the spot.Considering aforesaid, looking to the subsequent events, this fourth application for suspension of sentence and release on bail of appellants deserves to be allowed andCr. A.No.1787 of 2008 02.02.2011 accordingly we direct so.The sentence of all the appellants shall remain suspended and they be enlarged on bail on following conditions :-The appellants to furnish solvent surety of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court and a personal bond for the like amount.2. Appellants to deposit fine amount.On compliance of the aforesaid conditions, the trial Court shall release appellants on bail.The appellants shall cause their appearance before the trial Court and shall continue to mark their attendance before the trial Court .C.C.as per rules.(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Sushma Shrivastava) JUDGE JUDGE vj
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,734,107 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1234 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District as against the petitioners.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that he is a head of C.S.I. Church.On 07.03.2018, when he along with his friend were sitting in their house, the petitioners called him over phone and questioned about the removal of one Ranjith and Jebas from the songs group in the Church.But, the de facto complainant refused the same and therefore, the accused persons abused the de facto complainant and also threatened him over phone.He further submitted that after conducting enquiry the first respondent filed a final report for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC., alone and the same has been taken cognizance.All the witnesses have spoken that they did not lodge such kind of complaint and the petitioners also never scolded him in filthy language and never threatened him with direhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 consequences.Considering the statement that the first respondent mechanically filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC.Therefore, he prays for quashing the entire proceedings.The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that on 07.03.2018 the petitioners called the de-facto complainant over phone and abused him with filthy language and he was threatened him with dire consequences.Unfortunately, the first respondent has left the other offences and filed a final report only for the charge under Section 294(b) of IPC.He further submitted that though the witnesses have categorically stated in the statement, the first respondent stereo typically recorded the statement as if no threat was caused by the accused and they did not abuse him with filthy language.After conducting investigation the first respondent filed a final report for the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC.The points raised by the petitioners could be raised during the trial.Therefore, he prays for dismissal of this petition.5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final report for the charge under Section 294(b) of IPC., as against the petitioners.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. all the witnesses have stated that the petitioners have not abused the defacto complainant and also they never threatened him with dire consequences.Further the entire allegations were trivial in nature.It is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.Even if the trial is conducted, no purpose will be served.Therefore, the petitioners need not undergo the ordeal of trial.In view of the above discussions, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1234 of 2018,on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District is hereby quashed as against the petitioners.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.23.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No vsd To1.The Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, Tirunelveli District.2.The Inspector of Police, V.K.Pudur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J., vsd Crl.O.P(MD)No.15538 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.6865 and 6866 of 2018
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
317,414 |
P.W. 1 is the son of Nagammal (deceased).P.W. 2 is Nagammal (deceased).P.Ws. 3 and 4 were working in the neighbouring fields near the scene of occurrence.P.W. 5 is the husband of P.W. 2 and the son-in-law of Nagammal (deceased).and Nagammal the deceased, were living together in the field shed of P.W. 5 at Chikkampatti.by his first wife, who is living away, separate from his father.On 18th may, 1969, P.W. 5 left Chikkampatti for Giddampatti Thanda for the purpose of participating in a panchayat.Prior to his departure for the panchayat, P.W. 5 asked P.W. 1 to sow gingelly seeds in his land and also plough the same.P.W. 1 left for the field some 150 yards away from the field shed for sowing and ploughing the land.At about 2-30 p.m. P.W. 1 returned to the field hut for taking water.As he neared the field hut, he saw his mother Nagammal lying on the ground on her back, with the appellant sitting on her, throttling her neck with his hands and biting her face and with his hands and biting her face and shoulder.he raised a hue and cry and rushed to the appellant.P.W. 2 returned on hearing the cries of P.W.1 in apprehending the appellant and tying him to a tree nearby.Nagammal, the deceased, was questioned and she told them that the appellant snatched away the pouch containing some money, when she reused to give him some change, and that when she came out to the kalam to call for aid and help, the appellant pushed her down and throttled her.The appellant was also questioned and he confessed, having committed the office.JUDGMENT K.N. Mudaliyar, J.Not merely that.The appellant also handed over back the pouch containing some money, some betel nuts and a chunnambu dabba, M. Os.By then, P.W. 3 Parvathi and P.W. 4 Chinna Iyathan came to the scene of occurrence.They were also told about the occurrence by Nagammal, the deceased.On their questioning the appellant, he again confessed, having committed the offence.Subsequently Natesan and others came to the scene of occurrence.P.W. 1 went to Kondagampatti to make a report to the village munsif but the village munsif was not available.Night set in.Only on the next morning, P.W. 1 took the appellant and Nagammal to Kadathur police station, by making the journey to Bommidi by cart and thereafter by bus.Even when the report was unnecessary for us to notice the other features of the prosecution case, as spoken to by the other witnesses, in vie of the question to be determined solely on the medical testimony in this case.P.W. 9 is a Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Head Quarter's Hospital, Dharmapuri.He found nine external injuries on the dead body of Nagammal.On dissection, he found that both the cornua of the hyoid bone were fractured.He gave the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia as a result of throttling.He also stated that death must have occurred some 20 to 24 hours prior to the commencement of the post-mortem examination.The nine injuries have been described more elaborately in paragraph 4 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.In the cross-examination of this witness, it has been elicited that in the case of asphyxia due to throttling, death need not be instantaneous, and even where the hyoid bone is broken, death need not be instantaneous, and the victim can survive for some time.It is regrettable to notice that there was no further pursuit on this aspect of the matter in the cross-examination of the doctor, particularly, when the doctor stated that the victim could survive for some time, whereas Nagammal survived certainly for 24 hours nearly.In fact, the doctor has stated that the fact the cornua of both the bones of hyoid bone were broken does not show that there is nothing to do with the air passage.After stating so, the doctor further states that once the air passage is obstructed, supply of oxygen to the brain becomes restricted.so even if death does not ensue immediately, the brain suffers a stroke resulting in damage and death after a few hours.The plea of the appellant is one of admission of his guilt in the court of the committing Magistrate, one of total denial in the court of Sessions and one of accident in his appeal petition before this Court.In fact, he states that at 2-30 p.m. he returned to the field hut to drink water.At that time Nagammal, the deceased was lying in front of the house.He worked in the hot sun with very bad eye sight and therefore he slipped and fell on Nagammal.As he fell down, he put his hand on her neck and rose up.As soon as he rose up P.W. 1 came to his house and saw him (Munusamy) raised from his mother.P.W. 1 came running towards the appellant.Munusamy, shouting.On hearing the noise P.W. 2 returned and saw what was happening.They tied the appellant to a tree.Nagammal stated that the appellant throttled her neck to snatch away the money and that the appellant snatched away the money.But the appellant maintained that he slipped and fell on the old woman.John Glaister on his book "Medical Jurisprudence and Texicology" observes as follows at pages 181-182:--On the right side of the neck, the tissues around the hyoid bone were bruised, and to a lesser extent on the left side.It travelled literally from the posterior border of the thyroid cartilage to the opening of the larynx.The epiglottis was congested, the left anterior part was oedematous and on the right anterior part there was burising.Bruising was also present on the right lateral anf anterior walls of the upper part of the larynx.The right vocal cord was bruised and edematous with a markedly diminished air channel.Further bruising affected the lining membrane of the oesophagus.The right superior cornu of he thyroid cartilage was fractured together with the left cornu of the hyoid bone.The right cornu was more mobile at its synchondrosis than its neighbour.Death resulted from oedema glottidis."In Modi's Text-book of Medical Jurisprudence and Texicology while describing the three stages of asphyxia and the symptoms thereof, the learned author makes the following observation at page 124:--"The three stages last for about three to five minutes before death takes place.They may be prolonged for two or three times as long occasionally asphyxia may bring about death almost instantly."According to the estimate of the learned author, it would appear that the maximum time generally might be as long as about 15 minutes.In the face of the opinion of the celebrated text-book writers, quoted above, we have grave doubts as to whether the deceased Nagammal died of asphyxia as a result of throttling, particularly in the light of her survival for 24 hours in a fit physical condition to talk and eat.These two physical symptoms would raise a considerable doubt about the death of Nagammal as a result of asphyxia cause by throttling.We also believed the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to some of the prosecution witnesses immediately.It may be remembered that the appellant was immediately tied to a tree by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and he was produced before the police on the next day.There is also the immediate narration of the entire occurrence as seen by P.W. 1 to other prosecution witnesses.We believe the entire evidence, including the admission of his guilt by the appellant in the court of the committing Magistrate.We reject the theory of accident now trotted out at a very late stage in his appeal petition.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
225,506 |
JUDGMENT K.S. Gupta, J.In this batch of petitions filed by Yoginder Kumar Modi, challenge is to a part of identical order dated 17th March, 2001 passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate whereby condition was imposed on him (petitioner) not to leave the country without the permission of Court.Persons arrayed as respondent No. 2 in these petitions are the complainants who have filed separate complaints based on different FDRs under Sections 403/ 406/ 409/ 417 and (sic.), IPC against the petitioner and three others.It is not in dispute that in all 7 complaints the petitioner was admitted to bail by an Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by a common order dated 17th March, 2001 on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in like amount each to the satisfaction of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.During the course of argument copy of said bail order has also been placed on the file.Thus, part of aforesaid order dated 17th March, 2001 that petitioner will not leave the country without the permission of Court deserves to be set aside being contrary to said bail order and both the said sections.Consequently, while allowing aforementioned petitions, part of said order dated 17th March, 2001 whereby petitioner was directed not to leave the country without the permission of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, is set aside.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,554,355 |
Learned counsel has also filed certified copy of the judgment and order dated 11.4.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad on the petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
225,561 |
Three brothers Pareed Pillai, Kader Pillai and Mohammed Pillai, partners of A. Pareed Pillai and Bros. Alwaye as well as K. M. Kurien Assistant Goods Clerk in the Southern Railway at Alwaye were tried In the court of Special Judge.Trichur for an offence under Section 120B Indian Penal Code on the following charge:at Alwaye agreed to do an illegal act or acts to wit.accused Nos. 1 and 2 to present forwarding notes in respect of coconut oil tins to be booked without actually tendering tins with coconut oil but only some empty tins, accused No. 4 to issue railway receipts in respect of such forwarding notes and accused No. 1 to present the railway receipts in support of hundies drawn on others in the Federal Bank Ltd. Alwaye and obtain value of the hundies and accused No. 3 to get empty tins transported and stored at the Alwaye Railway Station.The said acts were done in pursuance of the agreement between you.These acts constitute offences punishable under Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and Section 5(2) of Act 1947 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.Section 107 of the I.P.C. and Section 197 read with Section 109 of the I.P.C. You have therefore committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.14 and 17) for an offence under Section 109 Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Kader accused.Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and Section 420 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on the first count rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 5.000 on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on the third count.The substantive sentences of Imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.In default of payment of fine.We are thus left with appeal No. 71 of 1969 only.The prosecution case Is that the business of a firm A. Pareed Pillai and Bros, (hereinafter referred to as the firm) was to sell coconut oil and to send It by rail to different places in India.It had been engaged in this business for over 15 years.The firm had furnished securities to the satisfaction of the bank authorities for these facilities.Pareed was a shareholder of the bank.As the limit of overdraft facilities was reached, the partners of the firm with the help of Kurien accused resorted to the device of obtaining railway receipts of oil tins from Kurien accused without actually delivering oil tins for booking.The four accused accordingly entered Into a conspiracy and In pursuance thereof.Pareed and Kader accused presented forwarding notes to Kurien accused without producing coconut oil covered by the forwarding notes.Kurien accused on the basis of those forwarding notes Issued railway receipts.Thirteen demand drafts drawn on various parties were sent to the bank.In support of those demand drafts thirteen railway receipts were also sent to the bank.The goods in respect of those railway receipts were however not consigned to the railways.To avoid detection.It is stated Mohammed accused sent about 3.000 empty tins to the railway goods shed on or about the night of February 23. 1963 and stacked them in such a manner that they were surrounded by a few tins full of coconut oil.The case of the prosecution further is that on May 25, 1963 P. W. 1 V.C. Chacko.Inspector of Accounts.1963 to the firm in respect of 3-525 tins of coconut oil for being consigned to different stations.Although the loading register revealed that no tin of coconut oil in respect of the above thirteen railway receipts had been despatched from.Alwaye railway station, there were found only 43 tins containing coconut oil and 2.807 empty 'ins at, the railway station.The other bills were termed clean bills.JUDGMENT H.R. Khanna, J.19 and 20) were framed under Section 420 Indian Penal Code against Pareed Pillai accused.Charges 18 and 19 were also framed against Kader and Mohammed accused for offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, Charge No. 21 was for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code against Kader and Mohammed accused- Charge No. 22 was for an offence under Section 197 Indian Penal Code against Kurien accused, while charge No. 23 was for an offence under Section 197 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code against Pareed and Kader accused.Pareed accused No. 1 was convicted under Section 120-B. Indian Penal Code.Pareed accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.Kader, accused No. 2. was convicted for offences under Section 120B Indian Penal Code.Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code.Section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 420 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each of the four counts.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Kurjen accused No. 4. was convicted under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous) imprisonment for a period of three years on each of the first two counts and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on the third count.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.On appeal the Kerala High Court acquitted Pareed and Kader accused and set aside their conviction on all the counts The conviction of Kurien accused was maintained only for the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention to Corruption Act, The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on that count was confirmed.Appeal No. 71 of 1969 was filed by the State of Kerala against the acquittal of Pareed and Kader accused.It may be stated that appeal No. 31 of 1969 was filed by Kurien accused against his conviction under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act while appeal No. 73 of 1969 was filed by the State of Kerala against Kurien accused craving for his conviction for offence under Section 120B Indian Penal Code as well as for offence under Section 420 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code.Similar malpractices were found in respect of railway receipts issued in favour of the firm from Chalakudi and Irinjalakuda railway stations.We are not, however, concerned with the railway receipts issued from Chalakudi and Irinjalakuda railway stations.In the present appeal which relates only to the case covered by the thirteen railway receipts issued by accused No. 4 at Alwaye railway station.1963 was sent by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent of Southern Railway.Olavakkot to railway police Cochin Harbour on the basis of facts which had come to light as a result of the surprise check by Chacko.A case was registered on the basis of the above reportAfter the thirteen railway receipts in question were received by the bank the bank sent the thirteen demand traits along with the railway receipts to the bank branches in different cities for realising the amounts of the demand drafts.Two out.of those demand drafts were Nos. 1582A and 1582B drawn on Ramkumar Mataprasad.Govindram Khaitan (P. W. 29) is a partner of that firm.1963 for 350 tins.The amount of those two demand drafts totalling Rs. 33.600 was paid by the firm Ramkumar Matanprasad.The oil tins mentioned in the railway receipts were, however, not received by Ramkumar Mataprasad as those tins were not consigned to the railways by the firm of accused-respondents.As regards the remaining eleven demand drafts, the amounts thereof were not received by the bank from the parties on whom the demand drafts were drawn.Pareed and Kader accused denied having sent any empty tins to Alwaye railway station.The trial Judge as stated above accepted the prosecution case regarding the complicity of Pareed.Kader and Kurien and convicted and sentenced them as above.On appeal the High Court maintained the conviction of Kurien accused only for the offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held by the High Court that the evidence about the transport of empty tins to Alwaye railway station on.It was called documentary bill.K.P. Hormis (P.W. 20} was the Managing Director of the bank.According to this witness, the firm of the respondents had 251 shares of Rs. 20 each in the bank.Pareed accused had 110 shares while his wife had 101 shares in the bank.The wives of Pareed.Kader and Mohammed accused had assets and gave guarantee to the bank for the facility afforded to the firm.Equitable mortgage of four properties was also created in favour of the bank in that connection.Some vehicles like a lorry three scooters and a standard car too were hypothecated In favour of the bank.The witness has admitted that as a result of enquiry it came to his notice that the practice of crediting the demand drafts without the railway receipts had been In vogue.The evidence on record thus reveals that the practice followed by the bank In the case of the firm of the accused-respondents since 1959 was to give credit to the firm for the amounts of demand drafts without the production of the railway receipts.This was indeed the finding of the High CourtOn the contrary, the amounts of demand drafts were credited in the account of the firm immediately on receipt of the demand drafts even though they were not accompanied by the railway receipts.The railway receipts were, no doubt, to be sent by the accused to the bank subsequently.but there Is no cogent evidence to show that at the time when the accused sent the demand drafts they did not have the intention to send subsequently railway receipts in respect of oil tins which were actually delivered to the railways.Those oil tins were appropriated by the railway authorities towards the railway receipts of earlier dates and were sent to various stations.The fact that more than 5,000/- oil tins were despatched on behalf of the firm of the accused to the various stations during the above period is hardly consistent with a dishonest intention on their part.It may be that the accused could not keep up the delivery of the oil tins to the railways and no tins could be despatched in respect of the said thirteen railway receipts but that fact can give rise only to a civil liability of the accused.It is not sufficient to fasten a criminal liability on them.Mohammed was acquitted by the trial court and his acquittal was not challenged, in appeal.Pareed and Kader accused played no part In the transport of those tins to the railway goods shed.The High Court has disbelieved the evidence regarding the transport of the empty tins on behalf of the firm.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,566,106 |
He has also been convicted under Section 302 of 2 the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of the fine amount, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with the stipulations that both the sentence would run concurrently.The accused-appellant has been prosecuted for committing rape and thereafter murder of a 12 year old girl, namely, Subhadra Rajak by strangulation.When she did not come back to her house, her parents - Munnilal and Butibai and brothers - Suresh, Vijay and Ramswarup were making search of the deceased, the accused called them and said to seek the deceased towards the field of Munna Choudhary.Thereafter, the dead-body of the deceased was found in the field of Munna Choudhary.On the same date, a report was lodged to the Police Chowki, Amarpur and, thereafter offences were instituted and investigation was carried out by B.D. Shukla, Sub- Inspector of Police (PW-14).The investigating officer promptly reached at the spot and the dead-body of the deceased was found in a decomposed condition.Both hands of the deceased were found tied with an underwear and there was a rope tied around her neck.The investigating officer seized the blood stained soil and `shandle' (a footwear) etc. and also found that there were bunch of 8-10 hair 3 en-gripped in the fist of the deceased.She was firstly examined by Dr. (Smt.) Amrita Jain in the Primary Health Centre and thereafter by Dr. M.L. Maravi (PW-11), who conducted autopsy of the deceased.Injuries were found in the private part of the deceased and there was rupture in her vagina.The doctor confirmed commission of sexual assault and murder by strangulation.The accused-appellant was arrested and sent for medical examination.He was medically examined by Dr. U.B. Singh and was found capable of performing sexual intercourse.( Jabalpur, dt.11.01.2018) Per : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-In the present appeal a challenge has been made to the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, District Umaria in S.T. No.118/2002 [State vs. Singha Raghuvnshi alias Rukmangal Singh] on 22-02-2003 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10000/-.Scratches were also found on his left shoulder and upon his discovery statement, the undergarments he was wearing at the time of rape, were seized.The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis.The police after conducting necessary investigation and completing all requisite formalities filed the charge-sheet before the competent court of jurisdiction which in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Sessions for trial.The accused-appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.In para 16 of the impugned judgment the learned trial Court has found thirteen circumstantial evidence against the accused-appellant, which have proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.The first circumstance against the appellant has been found that Munnilal (PW-1) - father of the prosecutrix has stated that 10-15 days prior to the date of the incident when the accused was supplanting gram crops from the field of Munnilal his daughter Subhadra (the deceased) had said the accused that she would inform her father, then the accused-appellant had slapped her and the same was narrated by her to Munnilal and his wife Butibai (PW-2).Besides, the brothers of the prosecutrix- deceased, namely, Suresh, Ramswarup and Vijay were also informed about the said incident.In the cross-examination of these four prosecution witnesses nothing has come out to contradict the same.It has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses viz. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 that the prosecutrix had gone alone from the house and she did not return.The rape and murder of the prosecutrix - Subhadra, by strangulation, has been proved by medical evidence adduced by Dr. M.L. Maravi (PW-11).The strong piece against the accused-appellant is that the prosecution witnesses - Suresh (PW-3), Vijay (PW-4) and Ramswarup (PW-5) have specifically deposed that while they were searching the deceased the accused had met 5 and called them and had said them to go towards the field to find out the prosecutrix and from that particular place, later the dead-body was discovered.In addition to that scratches caused by nails were found on the shoulder of the accused-appellant, who was examined by Dr. U.B. Singh and observed that there were linear scratches on the left shoulder and the accused was found capable of ssexual intercourse.The medical report is exhibited as Ex.There is no explanation about the said scratches on behalf of the appellant.Bunch of hair seized from the fist of the deceased was sent for forensic analysis.The FSL report, Ex.P/16 reveals that no semen was found on the undergarment.There was swelling and insects were germinating and damaging the dead-body of the deceased.However, another strong piece of evidence in addition to scratches found on the shoulder of the accused, is the bunch of hair discovered from the fist of the deceased, sample of which was also sent for chemical examination.The FSL report, Ex.P/15 further reveals that hair sample of the accused-appellant was similar to the seized hair of the deceased from her fist.The expert has recorded the finding after subjecting both the samples to seven tests, i.e., (i) colour (ii) length (iii) adhering matter (iv) medullary character and index (v) root and tip end (vi) T.S. hair; and (vii) scale pattern.The Apex Court in the case of Kanbi Karshan Jadav vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1966 SC 821 held that in medical jurisprudence it is stated that from the microscopic examination of the hairs it is possible to say whether they are of the same or of different colours or sizes and from the examination it may be decided where the hairs come from.In Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence (1956 Edn.) Vol. 1, at p.122, some cases are given showing that hairs were identified as belonging to particular persons."On evaluation of the entire facts and evidence brought on record and taking into consideration the strong piece of evidence against the accused-appellant that the injuries caused on his person have not been explained by him and the hair seized from the fist of the deceased and the hair-sample of the accused was found similar to the seized hair as per the FSL report, Ex.P/15, we find that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant.7 Absence of DNA test would not dislodge the prosecution case, as the FSL report, Ex.Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, as the chain of circumstances is complete.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,579,667 |
CRM No.16458 of 2013 In re : Noor Islam Sk @ Nur Islam Sk & Anr......... Petitioners.Re : An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19th December, 2013 in connection with Shyampur Police Station Case No.413 of 2013 dated 21-10-2013 under Sections 354A/376/511/109 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Abdul Hamid, Mr. Anwar Hossain ..... For the Petitioners.Ms. Sudakshina De ..... For the State.We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the State.Considering the nature of allegation and the extent of involvement, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1 is rejected.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.Criminal Section is directed to supply urgent photostat certified copy of this order to the petitioners, if applied for, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Indrajit Chatterjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,582,029 |
The prosecution case in brief is as follows:The deceased in this case was one Jenci Beula.She was the wife ofthe accused.P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is a neighbour.After some time of themarriage, P.W.1 gave a landed property to the accused for the purpose ofconstructing a house.When P.W.1, suggested to the accused to raise housingloan for the purpose of constructing the house, the accused was not agreeablefor the same.The accused, therefore, said that he would give away the saidproperty to a local church by way of gift.The accused and the deceased wereliving in the same house, where P.W.1 was living.P.W.1 and his family memberswere living in the downstairs and the accused and the deceased were living inthe first floor.By that time, there was adiscussion about the construction of the house.Since the accused was adamantin his stand that he would give away the property in favour of the church, therewas a quarrel among themselves.The quarrel went on for quite some time.Afterthat, the deceased went to the first floor of the house, where she was residing.The accused followed her.After 10 minutes of their leaving, there was an alarmraised by the deceased.Attracted by the same, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others ran tothe first floor.According to them, they found that the accused was cutting thedeceased with aruval on her neck and on her hand.P.W.1 intervened andattempted to save.The accused flood away from scene of occurrence.M.O.1 isthe aruval used by the accused.Thereafter, P.W.1 took the deceased to thedownstairs for the purpose of taking her to a local hospital.He laid her onthe sofa.Even before, he could procure an auto for the hospital, she died.Immediately, thereafter he proceeded to Thiruverumbur Police station, where hepreferred a complaint under Ex.P.W.5, the Sub Inspector of Police attachedto Thiruverumbur police station, on receiving Ex.P1 complaint, registered a caseat 11 p.m., on 06.03.2003 in Crime No.177 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC.P8is the First Information Report.He forwarded Exs.P1 and P8 to Court forthwithand handed over the case diary to P.W.6, the then Inspector of Police, forinvestigation.Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.6 proceeded to the place ofoccurrence at 12.15 a.m. He arranged for photographing the place of occurrenceand the dead body with the help of a photographer.Then, he prepared anobservation mahazar in the presence of P.W.3 and another witness.He alsoprepared Ex.P10, the rough sketch.Then, he conducted inquest on the body ofthe deceased in the presence of witnesses between 01.15 a.m. to 04.00 a.m.Ex.P11 is the inquest report.Then, he forwarded the dead body to theGovernment Hospital, Trichy, for autopsy.2.2. P.W.4, Doctor Karthikeyan was the Professor of Forensic Medicine atTrichy Government Hospital.Blood is diffused into the tracks of all the wounds.(Judgment of the Court was delivered byS.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.142 of 2004 on the fileof the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Trichy.Byjudgment dated 11.11.2010, the trial Court has convicted him under Section 302IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up withthis Criminal Appeal.He conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on07.03.2003 at 2.00 p.m. During the autopsy, he found the following external andinternal injuries:1.An oblique chop wound, 14 cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep - 4cm below the lobuleof left ear to left nostril, underlying structures exposed.The muscles, bloodvessels and nerves are clean cut, the edges are clean cut.2.An oblique chop wound, 13.5 cmx 5 cm bone deep from the lobule of theleft ear to the centre of back of the neck.The edges are clean cut.Themuscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut.Cut fracture of occipital bonepresent.3.An oblique incised wound, 13 cm x 3.5 c.m x bone deep.5 cm above thesecond wound on the occipital region of the scalp.Cut fracture of occipitalbone present.5.A chop wound, 9 cm x 3.5 c.m x bone deep, on the left wrist.The edgesare clean cut.The muscles, blood vessels, nerves and tendons are clean cut.Cut fracture of the lower end of both bones of the left fore are present.6.A transverse incised wound, involving left thumb, index finger, middlering and little finger present, the distal phalanx of left thumb is hanging.7.An oblique incised wound, 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, on the back of lefthand, 2 cm below the back of little finger.8.Traumatic amputation of left ring finger at the level of 2nd phalanx,edges are clean cut.9.Fracture base of skull, posterior cranial fossa present.10.Sub arachnoid hemorrhage on both occipital lobes of the cerebrum.The above mentioned wounds are all ante-mortem.No other external, internal or bony wound present.Finally, he opined that "the deceased would have died of Hypoxia andhemorrhage due to multiple wounds".Continuing the investigation, P.W.6 examined few more witnesses andrecorded their statements.He also recovered the cloth from the body of thedeceased.On the same day, at 5.30 p.m., he arrested the accused in thepresence of the same witnesses.His dress was found to have been stained withblood.He recovered lungi M.O.2, full hand shirt M.O.3, which was stained withblood under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses.On 10.03.2003, he examinedthe Doctor, who conducted the postmortem.He also made a request to the Courtto forward the material objects for chemical examination.P16 is thechemical analysis report and Ex.P17 is the serology report.According to them,there were human blood on the material objects.On completing theinvestigation, he laid the charge sheet on 28.04.2003 under Section 302 IPC.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a charge underSection 302 IPC.When the accused was questioned in respect of the charge, hepleaded innocence and therefore, he was put on trial.During the course of thetrial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 6 witnesses were examined and17 documents were marked, besides 10 material objects.Out of the six witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses.When theabove incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he neither had chosen to examineany witnesses nor marked any documents.Having considered the above, the trialcourt found him guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly punished him.Thatis how, he is before us with this appeal.We heard the learned counsel for the appellant appointed as State Briefcounsel and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State andwe have also perused the records carefully.But, we find itvery difficult to accept the said contention.It is not the law that theevidence of a close relative deserves to be rejected always on that score.Thelaw is that the evidence of such a closely related witness needs a closescrutiny.Therefore, at that crucial moment, it would have been quite natural for him tobe in his house.P.W.1 has further stated in a vivid fashion about the quarrel,which happened in the down floor of the house with the deceased and the accused.The quarrel went on for quite some time.Though P.W.1 has been subjected tocross examination by the accused at length, nothing has been brought out onrecord to discard his evidence.Therefore, the contention of the learned counselfor the appellant that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are to be rejected holdingthe same to be unbelievable is only to be rejected.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is crystal clear that it was thisaccused, who cut the deceased with aruval indiscriminately.P.W.4, the doctor,who conducted autopsy has noticed as many as 9 external injuries.All the saidinjuries are cut injuries, which could have been caused only by aruval,according to his opinion.Thus, the medical evidence also during theinvestigation corroborated the same.The doctor has further opined that thesaid injuries would have been caused by M.O.1 aruval.M.O.1 has been dulyidentified by P.W.1, as the one with which the accused caused injury on thedeceased.The complaint lodged promptly in this case alsogoes to further strengthen the genuineness of the case of the prosecution.Forall these reasons, we are inclined to confirm the finding of the trial Courtthat it was this accused, who caused injuries on the deceased and further thedeath was homicidal.From the evidence of P.W.1, it is crystal clear that there was aquarrel among the family members including the deceased and the accused forquite some time during the night hours, in respect of the proposed constructionof the house.It was only at the end of the quarrel, the deceased went up tothe first floor.The accused also followed.It is clear from the evidence ofP.Ws.1 and 2 that there was a hue and cry.It gives an inference that therewould have been more quarrel between the husband and wife.The evidence ofP.Ws.1 and 2 clearly shows that the accused, while following the deceased, didnot have aruval in his hand.Now, coming to the quantum of punishment and sentence, the learnedcounsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a poor young man.He may be given a chance to reform and to be a useful citizen of this Country.In our considered opinion, having regard to the fact that he has killed his wifein a domestic quarrel, the same was unpremeditated, the number of injuriescaused, his family circumstances, his socio-economic background and all thematerial evidences, we are of the view that imposing a sentence of rigorousimprisonment for 10 years together with a fine of Rs.500/- will meet the ends ofjustice.
|
['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.
|
22,583,016 |
Heard Sri Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order dated 30.07.1991 passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.238 of 1987 (State Vs.Dasrath and another), Police Station- Kokhraj, District- Allahabad, whereby the appellant- Dasrath- has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I., under Section 323 IPC.Record reflects that in this case an FIR was lodged on 5.12.1985 at Police Station- Kokhraj at 10:40 a.m. by Informant- Lalloo s/o Bakridi Farmood regarding the incident having been caused by appellants- Dasrath Pasi and Narain Pasi by causing injuries on the head of the injured- Farmood Ahmad by assaulting with kudal (spade attached with iron rod) like weapons.The incident was stated to have taken place at 9:00 a.m. in the morning at Government Tubewell in Village- Bhiknapur within Police Station- Kokhraj.This contents of the report was noted in the relevant Check FIR at Case Crime No.265 of 1985, under Section-308/323 I.P.C. and case was registered in the concerned General Diary entry of aforesaid date and time at Police Station-Kokhraj.Medical examination of the injured was done at the Primary Health Care, Mooratganj, the very same day on 5.12.1985 by Dr. K.N. Singh - PW-6 at 12:45 p.m., wherein the following four injuries were noted on examination:-(i) Contusion 2 x 1/2" x 2" on left temporopercital region with 1/4" x 1/4" lacerated would in the middle of the continued swelling wound bleeding.(ii) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" skin deep on left side of forehead horizontally situated.(iii) Bleeding per ear left present.C/o Bleeding Per nose.(iv) Traumatic swelling 1" x 1" on left zygomatic bone.Injury no.1 was found simple, whereas the other three injuries 1, 2 and 3 were kept under observation and x-ray of skull was advised, however, on x-ray examination of the skull, no abnormality was detected.The matter was investigated into by S.I. Raj Bahadur Singh.As a sequel to that Magistrate concerned committed the case to the court of sessions.When the record was received in the court of sessions Judge, Allahabad he got it numbered as S.T. NO.238 of 1987 State vs. Dasrath and others under Section-308/323 I.P.C. Then the sessions trial was transferred to the court of Special Judge (Economic Offences) Allahabad.The then Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge Allahabad framed charge against accused- Dasrath Pasi under Sections-308 and 323 I.P.C. Simpliciter and again he framed charge against both the accused-Dasrath Pasi and Narain Pasi under Section- 308 I.P.C. read with Section-34 I.P.C. and 323 read with Section-34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section-313 Cr.P.C. The accused claimed his implication false due to enmity.No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused in their defence.The court below after considering the merit of the case recorded conviction for the charge under the aforesaid section 323 I.P.C. and passed the sentence for six months rigorous imprisonment.Resultantly, this appeal.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the point that he would not assail the merit of the case, but he would like to extend argument on quantum of sentence only because the conviction was made around 26 years ago and the appellant has grown old in the meanwhile.There was no motive for committing any offence and the dispute arose only on trifling issue of taking water from the tubewell, resulting into, heated altercation between both the parties, which led to sudden outburst resulting in injuries being caused to the injured- Farmood Ahmad.He next contended that in this case, initially an FIR was lodged, interalia, under Section 308 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kokhraj, Allahabad and the appellant stood suffered detention during the trial also.Therefore, sentence imposed by the trial court may be modified and should be reduced to the period of detention undergone and the injured may be compensated in terms of fine.Upon careful perusal of the written report, Exhibit Ka-1, it is noticeable that on 5.12.1986 at about 9 a.m. one Lalloo s/o Bakridi Farmood s/o Gherau and Lalmian s/o Azruddin of village Midhwapur, Police Station Kokhraj and Dasrath and Narain were present at the tubewell for water and heated altercation ensued between Dasrath Pasi and Farmood on account of getting water.On the instigation of Narain, Dasrath caused blow with a spade from its back side on the head of Farmood.Farmood received lacerated injuries on his head and ear.On receiving the injuries, Farmood fell down and was rendered unconscious.Dasrath wanted to give another blow, but was caught by Lalloo and in this process the spade slipped from the hands of Dasrath and caused injury on the back of Lalloo.On alarm being raised, the accused ran away towards their house.As the condition of Farmood was serious, he was brought to the Mooratganj Primary health Centre for treatment.Now, the question arises about the nature of the offence, committed by the accused.From the statements of Dr. K.N. Singh PW-6, it appears that when Farmood Ahmad was brought to the Civil Hospital for treatment, he was conscious and he could even walk and move.However, in case of deposition of fine, half of the amount shall be given to the injured or to his legal heir/ successor, as the case may be.Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the trial court on the accused vide its judgment and order dated 30.7.1991 stands modified, while the conviction under Section-323 I.P.C. is maintained.Order Date :- 20.9.2018 S Rawat
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,592,233 |
(Passed on the 17th day of February, 2020) This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the applicant challenging the order dated 5.3.2018 passed in ST No.253/2018 by the 8 th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, whereby the learned Judge of the trial Court has framed the charges against the applicant under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 294, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC.The order of framing of aforesaid charges has been filed by the applicant subsequently through covering memo dated 14.10.2019. 22. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case only because of his affinity with the main accused and on account of the fact that the complainant party in the present case is also involved in the murder of applicant's nephew namely Amit alias Goldi Sharma whose murder was committed by complainant Pradeep Patel and for which the Crime No.549/2011 was also registered under Sections 323, 324, 307, 302/34 of IPC, and with a view to falsely implicate the present applicant as a counter blast, the name of present applicant has been included in the present case.3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that in the Dehati Nalishi as also the FIR in the present case lodged on 10.1.2018 by the complainant Deepak Singh, the name of the present applicant does not find place despite the fact that the FIR has been lodged against as many as six persons along with other three unknown persons.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,593,120 |
/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
225,960 |
Discussions and debates were held in this regard in the State Legislative Assembly.(d) By accepting the special condition for the sale of T & P items (tools & plants) which could not be sold as per the general conditions of the contractiii) Contrary to the norms and circulars/procedures of the Board, in order to favour K.P. Poulose (A4), who was a friend of (A1), the Board has accepted all the conditions just to favour (A1) and (A3).5) Mr. U. U. Lalit, Mr. Amarendra Sharan and Mr. S.8) The Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in short `the Act') was in force at the relevant time.Section 5 of the Act mandates each State to constitute State Electricity Board for the management and supply of electricity.As per Section 78A, 12 which was inserted by Act 101 of 1956 and came into force w.e.f. 30.12.1956, in discharge of its functions, the Board shall be guided by such directions and questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government.As rightly pointed out by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellant that except on policy matters, the State Government has no role in the affairs of the Board.In view of the charges levelled against A1 who was the Minister for Electricity, Government of Kerala, we adverted to these statutory provisions.He further deposed that at the time when A1 was the 14 Minister, A6 was a Member of the Board who was very powerful having influence over the Minister.According to him, the voice of A1 is reflected through A6 with regard to the affairs of the Board.10) Shri Alexander Vellappally (PW-138), Managing Director of Asian Tech, in his evidence deposed that he was asked by A1 to quote for the Lower Periyar Project Headrace Power Terminal in 1980-81 when the pre-qualification system was introduced in the Board.The tender of Shri Alexander Vellappally was qualified and the lowest when it was evaluated.However, he was informed that further steps for negotiation and discussion regarding the acceptance of the tender would take place only with the concurrence of the Minister.According to him, though he was the lowest tenderer, the work was not awarded to him, but given to HCC.He further deposed that he had executed a promissory note for Rs.5,30,000/- in favour of one Yackochan, who acted as a middle man for the commission payment.He informed the Court that this contract was terminated by the Board.13) It was highlighted on the side of the appellant that it was during that period, when A1 was Minister for Electricity, the tender process of Idamalayar Tunnel and its concrete lining 16 and surge shaft work was started.The tender for surge shaft was invited and awarded to one E.M. Varkey at 21% below estimated rate.The estimated rate was Rs 74 lakhs for surge shaft.Whether Idamalayar contract was awarded at exorbitant rate causing loss to the Board15) The basic stand of the prosecution is that A1 entered into criminal conspiracy to award the disputed contract involving heavy financial gain to K.P.Poulose (A4) and the conspiracy and abuse of power by certain officials enabled the conspirators to earn a pecuniary advantage of Rs.2,39,64,253/-, in addition to the financial loss caused to the Board.It is the specific case of the prosecution that rate awarded in both the contracts is exorbitant.16) In order to appreciate the stand that the estimated rate and the tender quoted by K.P.Poulose was exorbitant was demonstrated by Mr. Shanti Bhushan by taking us through the estimated cost of the work awarded to skilled workers brought from Kulamavu and Moolamattom, who were awarded the tunnel driving work on piece rate basis.It is seen that the tunnel driving work was awarded to them at the rate of Rs.1,250/- per M3 which was enhanced later, and finally, at the time, when the workers stopped the work, the rate was Rs.This is clear from the settlement memorandum Ext. P-212 signed between the labourers and the Board.This fact was highlighted in the oral evidence of PW-7, Chief Engineer of the Board.The evidence led in clearly shows that the sale of materials listed in Clause E1-093 supersedes the general conditions of contract.In other words, it is clear from the evidence that those materials which were not mentioned in the Special Conditions were sold to the contractor on outright sale.In this regard, it is useful to refer the evidence of Udayabhanu Kandeth PW-136, Auditor attached to the Accountant General Office which shows that 126 items of tools and plants were sold to the contractor of which the cost of 117 items was Rs.16.5 lakhs.The Auditor of the Board, who was examined as PW-130, also explained about the sale of tools and plants to the contractor, which was not provided in the agreement.The evidence led in normally show that A3 was an intimate friend of A1 and very closely moving with him who was the Minister for Electricity during the relevant period.PW-21, in his evidence, has stated that A3 was an active 48 member and leader of Kerala Congress Party led by A1 at the time when works were allotted.PW-3, who was a watchman of the Inspection Bungalow at Idamalayar was examined on the side of the prosecution has stated that A1 and A3 used to come and stayed in the Inspection Bungalow.He further asserted that it was A3 and the deceased Paul Mundakkal, who were supervising the work at site.In addition to the evidence of PW-3, the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 8 who were Engineers at the relevant time at Idamalayar worksite and supervising execution of works corroborated the evidence of PW-3. PWs 24, 25 and 26 also supported the above claim of the prosecution.PW-25, one of the workers at Idamalayar also deposed that he was working with A6, who was managing Idamalayar works.PW-26, another worker also stated that when he went to the house of A3, he saw A1 in his house.It was 50 pointed out that usually the representatives of State Level Organisers representing various interests alone were nominated after consultation by the Government with such bodies.Admittedly, A3 was not representing any State Level Bus Owners Association.It has also come in evidence that on 30.07.1983, in a Conference held on Idamalayar Inspection Bungalow, attended by various officers of the Board and others connected with the execution of Idamalayar work, A1 declared in public that A3 was his bosom friend and requested everybody to cooperate with him for the successful completion of the project work.30) The prosecution has established the relationship of A1 and K.P Poulose even before awarding of contract.In November 1982 itself, A1 had chosen K.P. Poulose as prospective contractor for execution of the work which fact is spoken to by T.M. Prabha (PW-122) and also by Muraleedharan Pillai (PW-46).We have already adverted to the evidence of PW-46 in detail in the earlier paragraphs.Their evidence shows that when they met A1 requesting for the 51 award of the tunnel driving work to the workers at Idamalayar, who were brought from Idukki, Kulamavu etc, A1 told them that the execution of the Idamalayar work is proposed to be given to K.P. Poulose.This was on 29.06.1981 i.e. well prior to the execution of the contract, and indicate that there was prior contract between A1 and K.P. Poulose regarding the award of contract work at Idamalayer.31) The role played by A3 in fixing the contract to K.P. Poulose is also relevant to infer the formation of agreement between himself and A1, the Minister for Electricity.In addition to the same, the prosecution has adduced acceptable evidence that a company by name Hydro Power Construction Company was registered as a partnership firm with K.P. Poulose as Managing Partner and A3 and Paul Mundakkal as Working Partners.Further, close relatives of K.P. Poulose, A3 and Paul Mundakkal were parties to the partnership deed.The object of the partnership was to execute the Idamalayar tunnel work and also the surge shaft work in the name of the Company.K.P. Poulose, A3 and Paul Mundakkal were submitting income tax returns and this is evident from the evidence of PW-123, an Income-tax practitioner.In addition to the same, when A3 was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted that he invested good amount for the work and visited the site to watch the progress of the work.The fact that A1, while as a Minister for Electricity, interfered with the award of the contracts of the Board were spoken to by PW-64, PW-66, PW-138 and PW-146 which we have already discussed in the earlier paragraphs.It is also clear that A1 was awaiting for a probable contractor of his choice to undertake the Idamalayar works at exorbitant rates.32) There was labour agitation prevailing at Idamalayar work site.The evidence of PW-7, Chief Engineer and other witnesses stated that the awarding of Idamalayar work at exorbitant rate could have been avoided in case the labour issue was settled earlier.The prosecution has also highlighted labour unrest at Idamalayar which was kept pending at the instance of A1 and other interested parties so as to make it appear that no contractor will come forward to undertake the contract, so much so that there is possibility of choosing a contractor of their choice for the execution of the work at exorbitant rate.33) The prosecution has also highlighted that to achieve the illegal object of finding the contract in the name of K.P.This was after tendering process has started for the Idamalayar work.One Alexander Vellappally, who was examined as PW-138, explained before the Court that pre-qualification bid system was misused by the Board to safeguard vested interest by choosing contractors of their choice.I told to A6 about the call of Minister and my reply and difficulties.At that time A6 told him that the Minister directly asked you, so you do it as he say." The following statement is also relevant about the conduct of A1 and how much he was interested in awarding contract in favour of K.P.PW-7 deposed "the face of A1 shows much anger.He explained A1 that if tenders are invited after solving the problem of tunnel workers, rate will be reduced, that is profitable to the Board.He also informed him that the Minister agreed to avoid concrete lining works of surge shaft but only PW-7 opposed it.He also assured that if PW-7 gives his consent, they are ready to give anything.He further explained that he informed them that it is impossible for him because the technical design is his duty, being a Chief Engineer.After few days from this incident, on 13.10.1983, he was transferred and appointed as an Advisor of Electricity Board in respect of Hydroelectric Projects.He 69 is having six daughters.He constructed a shop room having 15 ft. length and 12 ft width.41) The analysis of the evidence of PW-7 coupled with the other prosecution witnesses and other notes and report prepared for the Board clearly indicate that though he reminded that certain things are not permissible, because of the fact that the beneficiaries of the contract are known to A1 and A6, he has no other option except to prepare notes in such a way and ultimately the Board accepted the same.42) We have already pointed out the statements of PW-46 who was a member of RSP, a political party.According to him, the workers of Idamalayar have a Union.The name of the said Union is Kerala Construction Labour Union and he was the General Secretary of that Union.They were skilled labourers and had good experience from projects like Idukki, Kulanam etc. He, as the President and others decided to file a memorandum before the Minister Balakrishna Pillai.P. Sathasivam, J.1) The challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the legality of the order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam allowing Criminal Appeal Nos.822, 823 & 824 of 1999 filed by the accused setting aside the order dated 10.11.1999 passed by the Special Judge Idamalayar Investigations, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 1 of 1991 convicting all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as 1 `the P.C. Act') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment.2) Brief Facts:-The work relating to power tunnel was awarded at 188% above the Probable Amount of Contract (PAC) and the work relating to surge shaft and allied works at 162% above the estimated amount with many special conditions, as requested by the contractor, involving heavy financial implications/advantages to him at the expense of the Board.(c) During the trial run, on 15.07.1985, several leaks and cracks were noticed in the tunnel lining which was a matter of great public concern and caused considerable anxiety and fear among the public and State as well.There was a public outcry for a judicial probe in this matter.Extensive rectification work to remedy the defects in the tunnel lining and surge shaft was undertaken at a considerable cost which was to the tune of Rs. 1.75 crore.(d) On 02.08.1985, the Public Undertaking Committee of the State Legislature inspected the site and submitted its report recommending a judicial probe.The State Government appointed a sitting Judge of the Kerala High Court as Commissioner of Inquiry to conduct the probe.The Commission came to the conclusion that materials placed before it prima facie disclosed commission of offences punishable under I.P.C. and P.C Act against persons responsible for the same and recommended for investigation 3 into these offences.The State Government accepted the recommendations and constituted a special team, headed by Superintendent of Police for Investigation.(e) During pendency of the case, an application for withdrawal of the prosecution against accused No. 5 - G.Gopalakrishna Pillai, who was the Secretary to the Kerala Government, Irrigation and Power Department was made by the then Special Public Prosecutor on 24.08.1992 under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short `Cr.P.C.') on the ground of absence of any material to sustain a successful prosecution of offences alleged against him.At this stage, the appellant herein - V.S. Achuthanandan, the then Opposition leader in the Assembly, in public interest, filed statement of objections against the move for withdrawal of the case against G. Gopalakrishna Pillai (A5).(f) On 03.02.1993, Criminal Revision Petition No. 762 of 1992, filed by the State against the order of Special Judge was allowed by the High Court.On the strength of the observations made in the order of the Kerala High Court, the State Government took the decision to withdraw the criminal case against all other accused.(g) The appellant challenged the above order of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 1994 before this Court which set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the Special Judge declining consent for withdrawal [vide V.S. Achuthanandan vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 299].Subsequently, the matter was further proceeded in the Court of Special Judge.In the meantime, A7 died.(j) The Special Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, vide its judgment and order dated 10.11.1999 found R. Balakrishna Pillai (A1), P.K. Sajeev (A3) and Ramabhadran Nair (A6) guilty of the offences punishable under Section 120-B and 409 IPC and Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 120-B of IPC.They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years each under Section 409 IPC and Section 6 5(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 120-B IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each.However, A1, A3 and A6 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 161, 201 and 430 IPC read with Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. It was also directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.Accused Nos. 2,4,5,8,9,10 and 11 were found not guilty of the offences and they were acquitted of all the offences with which they were charged.(k) Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, all the three accused i.e. (A1), (A3) and (A6) filed separate appeals before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.By the common impugned judgment dated 31.10.2003, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of all the three accused and acquitted them from all the charges levelled against them.(l) Questioning the order of acquittal, the appellant -V.S. Achuthanandan, filed special leave petition against the common impugned judgment and, this Court, by order dated 27.03.2006, granted leave to appeal.11) The next witness who highlighted the above issue is Kuriakose Chennakkadan (PW-64).He also deposed that A1 was interested for one K.P.Poulose (A4).However, the work was abandoned on 28.03.1981 due to labour strike.Thereafter, tenders were invited again for the surge shaft and four persons submitted their offers for tenders.The lowest rate was quoted by M/s We-Build Pvt.Ltd. and the next lowest rate was by E.M. Varkey at 57% above PAC.It is pointed out that though the work was recommended to be awarded, the Board decided to re-tender the work.Accordingly, the tenders were invited again and E. M. Varkey alone quoted for the work.During that time, two tenders were received, one by K.P.Poulose and other by Kuriakose Chennakkadan (PW-64), quoting special conditions.The cover containing the conditions and deviations was opened on 30.06.1982, when K.P.Poulose was present in the Board's Office.However, Kuriakose, the other tenderer was not informed and later on 09.09.1982, K.P.Poulose was pre-qualified and Kuriakose was disqualified which, according to him, was without notice.The contract for the balance power tunnel and concrete lining work of Idamalayar works was ultimately awarded to K.P.Poulose at 188% of the above estimated rate and the surge shaft work was also awarded to him at 162% above the estimated rate.14) It is clear from the above materials that the process of tendering of Idamalayar works was interrupted on several 18 occasions mainly by the Board by cancelling the tenders and ordering re-tender and by extending the period of validity of tenders more than once.The Special Judge, basing reliance on Board's resolution (Ex. P550(a)), has rightly concluded that there was inordinate delay in awarding the work which reasoning was not accepted by the High Court.In fact, the calculations made by PW-151 were not seriously disputed by the defence.In his evidence, he explained that the rate awarded to workers will be Rs. 2,500/-per M3 including cost of materials.PW-156, the Investigating Officer, also gave evidence on the basis of records collected during his investigation.P-52 agreement shows that the estimated rate for driving one meter tunnel was Rs. 4,090/-.Ext. P-19/Contract Certificate of the Power tunnel shows that the amount paid to the contractor for 24 meters tunnel driving was Rs. 2,39,961/-.The remuneration for 24 meters driving tunnel would come to only Rs.60,000/- the difference i.e. Rs.1,79,961 (2,39,961-60,000) would show that the tunnel driving work was given to K.P.Poulose (A4) at an excessive rate.17) It is pointed out that there is enough material to show that the labourers, who did the tunnel work, were prepared to carryout the balance work of the tunnel at the estimated rate of Rs. 4,090/-.At the relevant time, the representatives of the workers made a representation to the then Minister for Electricity, namely, R Balakrishna Pillai (A1) informing him that they are prepared to do the tunnel work and allied works 22 at the estimated rate.Divakaran Kutty (PW-24), Vadayattupara Radhakrishnan (PW-33), Sasidharan Nair (PW-34) and Muraleedharan Pillai (PW-46) have given evidence that they represented before the Minister as well as the officials of the Board and informed their preparedness to do the work at the estimated rate and also requested for absorption in the Board's service.In this regard, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant heavily relied on the evidence of PW-46 who had gone to meet A1 along with (late) N Sreekantan Nair and submitted a Memorandum Ext.It is relevant to note the response of the Minister (A1) for the above said request.PW-46 stated that A1 told them that there is no question of giving the works to the workers and he wants to give the work to K.P.Poulose.This instance pointed out that A1 had personal interest in K.P.Poulose and had decided to entrust the contract to him, though at that time, the said K.P.Poulose did not submit the tender for the work.In 23 support of the same, the evidence of PW-122, T.M. Prabha, the then President of the Kerala Construction Labour Union that he met A1 and gave representations and requested for award of work to the workers at estimated rate and also absorption of the workers in the Board's service on permanent basis is also relevant.The contrary conclusion arrived at by the High Court justifying the award at higher rate to K.P.Poulose cannot be legally sustained.The Board mainly relied on the labour problem that was prevailing at the relevant time.It is true that the tunnel workers went on strike on 20.04.1981 and the contractors submitted their tenders when there was labour unrest.However, the reason attributed for the delay cannot be accepted.As rightly pointed out, there were procedural irregularities and omissions by the Board authorities in the manner of dealing with tenders submitted by K.P.Poulose and Kuriakose, which ultimately eliminated Kuriakose from the scene, keeping K.P.Poulose as the sole tenderer, qualified by pre-qualification Committee of the Board and hasty steps were taken by the Board in awarding contract 25 in favour of K.P.Poulose in the meeting held on 19.11.1982 lead to the conclusion that the award of contract in favour of K.P.Poulose was an exorbitant one.The letters sent by A8 were marked as Exs.The High Court found that the contract was awarded at 188% above PAC for the tunnel work and 162% above PAC for the surge shaft work.It was pointed out from the side of the Board that the estimate rate was prepared taking into account the prevalent PWD rates for similar items of work like tunnel driving, concrete lining, earth work, cost of materials, labour charges, transportation charges of materials to worksite etc. It is not in dispute that the contractor was also given opportunity to conduct site inspection and decide other aspects connected with the execution of the works for submitting his tender rate.Though contractor can also quote special conditions involving financial implications and other conditions in the contract, which is usually settled by negotiations, but the general conditions of contract shall not be superseded while accepting special conditions to the detriment of the Board.The Special Judge had noted that the rate quoted by N.K.Kuriakose (PW-30) for tunnel driving and 29 surge shaft work was below 21.75% of the estimated rate and there was much difference in the rate quoted by K.P.Poulose and Kuriakose.It is further seen that the work was awarded to Kuriakose at the rate of Rs. 1,092.3 per M3 for sides and arches.The work awarded to Kuriakose was abandoned by him since the Board did not provide him with necessary materials for proceeding with the work as per the agreement.He adduced evidence for the said abandonment and also suffered loss in that regard for which Board was subsequently held liable and he was paid compensation as per the Court orders.The Special Court has pointed out that even though there was an increase of 25% of the actual rate awarded to Kuriakose, still there was wide difference between the rates at which the two works were awarded and on this ground also, the Special Court held that the works for floor concreting and for sides and arches were awarded to K.P.Poulose at a higher rate.However, the High Court disagreed with the conclusion of the Special Court.Though the High Court has agreed with the 25% increase in the rate of 1980-82, no acceptable evidence was adduced over-riding the documentary evidence furnished by Ext.P-299 and P174(2).In the said meeting, only A6 and A7 were present and A8, and another member of the pre-qualificaton Committee was not present.The fact remains, the Board has not considered his request and finalised the contract on 19.11.1982 in favour of K.P.Poulose.21) Another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the conduct of A1 with regard to settlement of labour dispute.091 could be sold to the contractors if available to the Board.It is clear from the evidence that the sale of tools and plants which could only be hired to the contractor as per the list in E1-091 was against the objections raised by A8, the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer of the Board during the relevant period.In his report, A8 had noted that the financial implications involved in the sale of items of tools and plants were not considered either by the Board or by the officers of 39 the Board at the time when the full Board decided to sanction the above special condition No. 4 of the contract.The contrary conclusion arrived at by the High Court relating to return of empty cement bags cannot be accepted.Fixation of security and retention:27) Yet another special condition involving financial implications sanctioned to the Contractor is with regard to the fixation of security and retention amount.Special Condition No.1 of Ext.P-588 deals with this subject.It is the prosecution case that restriction of security and retention amount is in violation of the provisions contained in the general conditions of the contract and it is a favour shown to the Contractor to make illegal gains at the expense of the Board.Clause E1-008 of Ext. P52(c) is the provision relating to security deposit of the Contractor which states that for major works where the cost of construction exceeds Rs.25 lakhs, the security deposit should be 2% of the PAC.The security for both works should be fixed at 2% of the PAC.Clause E1-011 of ExtP-52 is the general conditions of contract and instruction to the tenderers dealing with retention of the money from the bills payable to the 44 Contractor.As per this clause, from each bill of the Contractor 10% should be deducted towards additional security.However, the retention was not to exceed 5% of the PAC where cost of work exceeds Rs.25 lakhs.Therefore, 5% of PAC is to be retained as retention amount for both these works.In this regard, it is relevant to refer the special condition.In Ext.In the same report, PW-7 also mentioned the loss of interest for the same.All these aspects have been properly scrutinized by the Special Court.This was strengthened 47 by the evidence of I.K. Prabhakaran, Assistant Engineer, Quality Control, Idamalayar project who was examined as PW-21 and other witnesses.29) The prosecution has established the relationship and friendship between A1 and A3 by placing acceptable evidence.Under Section 16 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, the Constituting Authority is the State 49 Government.The evidence led in by the prosecution shows that A1 took initiative to include the name of A3 in the list of nominees for constituting the Consultative Council.The workers brought from Moolamattom, Kulamavu etc. went on strike demanding execution of the work on piece rate basis and also for absorption in permanent service of the Board.It is in evidence that after execution of the agreement of the Idamalayar work by K.P. Poulose, there was obstruction from the striking workers preventing him from entering the worksite and consequently A1 interfered and settled the labour dispute by awarding a compensation of Rs.11 lakhs to the striking workers and the worksite was made clear free of any labour unrest.From the proceedings initiated by the Board on 19.11.1982, passing a resolution to award the work to K.P.Poulose, a scheme of pre-qualification bid was successfully operated by the Board authorities at the instance of A1 for paving the way clear to K.P. Poulose to get the work at a very high rate.34) With regard to the relationship between A1 and A3, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW-19, receptionist of the Paramount Tourist Home who has stated that A3 was occupying a room on 17.11.1982 and 19.11.1982 on rent at Paramount Tourist Home.The Special Court noted the significance of his stay during the above period at Thiruvananthapuram.A3, in all probability, was at Thiruvananthapuram to meet A1 and also to meet PW-7, Chief Engineer, A6 and A7, to work out the scheme for getting the contract in favour of K.P. Poulose at a higher rate after avoiding other tenderers.It is further evident that A3 took the room on 17.11.1982 when the Full Board meeting was considering the tender of K.P. Poulose and left the room on 5:00 p.m. on 19.11.1982 after the tender was awarded to K.P. Poulose.The close intimacy of A3 with A1 is well known and his influence over A1 might have persuaded A6 and A7 to fix the contract on K.P. Poulose.PW-7, Chief Engineer has deposed before the Court that A3 met him on 04.11.1982 and requested him to make a recommendation for awarding the contract to K.P. Poulose.A3 also told PW-7 that when A1 was talking over phone to PW-7, while in the office of the Chairman 56 of the Board, the witness was present in the chamber of A1 and asked PW-7 what was the difficulty in recommending the contract even after A1 directed him to do so.The Special Court, after analysing the evidence in detail found that A3 is the man behind the manuring for getting the contract awarded to K.P. Poulose.K.P. Poulose, however, was only a benamidar and A3 and Paul Mundakkal were the beneficiaries though the work was awarded in the name of K.P. Poulose.From the above materials, it is clear that a criminal conspiracy among A1, A3 and A6 can be inferred.The officers and the Board members were under his pressure and fear which clearly seen 57 from the statements of prosecution witnesses, namely, PWs 8, 36, 60, 62, 138, 140, 64, 66 etc. It is also relevant to point out that A6 and A7 avoided considering the request of PW-4 in his telegram sent to the Board.We have already adverted to the fact that it was Sunny K. Peter, PW-4, who quoted a lesser rate than K.P. Poulose.He quoted only 135% above PAC.The request of E.M. Varkey for fixing another date for participating in the discussion for award of the contract was also rejected.From these materials, as rightly concluded by the Special Court, it leads to a conclusion that several out of way methods were adopted by the Board at the instance of A1 for achieving the object of conspiracy.35) As rightly pointed out by the Special Court, the confirmation of Hydro Power Construction Company consisting of A3, A4 and Paul Mundakkal and their close associates and relations for execution of Idamalayar contract 58 work, A3 supervising the execution of the contract work and the visit of A4 at the worksite only on rare occasions, the payment of wages to the labourers by A3 and Paul Mundakkal are all proved various circumstances that the conspiracy among the accused continued to operate even after the award of the contract.The High Court failed to consider various instances and materials placed by the prosecution in respect of charge relating to conspiracy.According to the High Court, "the proved circumstances are not sufficient to hold that there was conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution or as found by the Special Court." Before us, it was demonstrated that several material aspects have not been considered by the High Court, for example, the stay of A3 at Paramount Tourist Home, Thiruvananthapuram on the crucial dates i.e., on 17.11.1982 to 19.11.1982 has not been considered by the High Court in the correct perspective.As pointed out by the appellant, the High Court ought to have found that the evidence relating to A3 at Paramount Tourist Home is only to bring out one of the circumstances leading to the formation of criminal conspiracy hatched out by the accused.In fact, A3 59 has admitted his stay in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement at Thiruvananthapuram on those dates, hence, finding by the High Court on this aspect, faulting with the Special Court cannot be sustained.Even though, the High Court has admitted that A1 and A3 belonged to the same political party and close relationship exists between the two, the nomination of A3 in the Consultative Council of the Board as evidenced by Ex.P-180 was unfortunately not recognised by the High Court as a material evidence proved by the prosecution.Insofar as claim of PW-3 that it was he who settled the bill in the inspection bungalow, the perusal of his entire oral evidence clearly supports the case pleaded by the prosecution insofar as the close association between A1 and A3 during their visit to the worksite.PW-7, former Chief Engineer, a most reliable witness was examined in the presence of A3 on 04.11.1982 in the Board's office.The reasons relied on by the Board exposes the omission and negligence on its part in fixing the contract with PW-146 Kamalasanan or E.M. Varkey or with Kuriakose PW-22 or PW-4 Sunny K. Peter, who quoted lower rates then K.P. Poulose.Even before us, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused reiterated that it was a collective decision of the members of the Board to award the contract in favour of K.P.We have already highlighted the reasoning of the Special Court relating to the important fact that contract was awarded at exorbitant rate, reduction in retention and security amount, return of 50% empty cement bags and also acceptance of special conditions for the sale of tools and plants.In the instant case, all the ingredients of criminal conspiracy are satisfied for convicting A1, A3 and A6 for the offence charged against them.Special mention about PW-7, retired Chief Engineer of the Board & PW-4637) The High Court as well as learned senior counsel appearing for the accused commented the evidence of PW-7 by saying that there are inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies and his evidence is not cogent and convincing whereas among several witnesses examined, prosecution heavily relied on the statement of PW-7, a retired Chief Engineer.He joined the service of the Board on July 1954 as Junior Engineer and prior to that he was in the Electricity Department.It is also seen from his evidence that he participated in four major projects.He first examined on the side of the prosecution on 28.03.1996 and at that time he was 66 years old.In this background, let us test his evidence as discussed in the earlier part of our order.By his rich experience and worked as a Chief Engineer at the relevant time, namely, when Idamalayar project was commissioned, PW-7 furnished all the details with reference to various documents such as his report, opinion, minutes of the meeting of the Board with reference to Idamalayar project.No doubt, all the three senior counsel appearing for the accused A1, A3 and A6 severely criticized his conduct in not answering many of the questions in his cross examination.It is true that in chief-examination, PW-7 highlighted various aspects with reference to documents such as opinion, report and Board's proceedings and minutes thereon.From the perusal of his cross-examination, it cannot be concluded that he didn't answer or elaborate any of the question put by the counsel for accused.It is true that for certain questions he answered that he has to verify from the records and for certain questions he didn't answer or answered stating that "he do not remember".It is relevant to point out that he retired from service in March 1985 and he was called upon to give evidence only in March 1996 nearly after 15 years of the commissioning of the Idamalayar project.Agreement submitted by K.P. Poulose has been marked as Ex.P-52 and in that Paul Mundakkal was signed as witness.It is further seen that as Chief Engineer, he sent letters to K.P.He made a note that the tender is not in proper form and it contains many mistakes and requested them to rectify the mistakes within a time schedule.In this regard, it is useful to refer his categorical statement which, he deposed before the Court that "I considered it as a special case because the engineer member Mr. Ramabhadran Nair (A6) informed me that Mr. Balakrishna Pillai (A1) has a special interest to award this work to Mr. K.P. Poulose (A4), hence the mistakes happened in the tender should be rectified with K.P.Poulose himself and make a circumstance to award the work to K.P. Poulose..." About the disqualification of tender offered by Kuriakose, PW-7 64 deposed the decision was taken by a committee because he could not rectify the mistakes as directed by him.In respect of a question put to PW-7 about the response of A6 and A7, he answered "they stated that they are happy in disqualifying Mr. Kuriakose".According to him, because of this reason he informed A6 to take steps to solve the problem of workers and in fact PW-7 met A6 at his office on 04.11.1982 at 11:00 a.m. When the issue relating to labour problem was under discussion, according to PW-7, the P.A. of Board Chairman Sankaran Nair approched him and informed that Minister Balakrishna Pillai is willing to talk to me through telephone of the Board's Chairman.In view of the same, according to PW-7, he suddenly entered into the cabin of 65 Board's Chairman which is the next room and took the telephone.He introduced himself through the phone and according to PW-7 "A1 asked him why you were not recommended the tenders of Idamalayar tunnel and surge shaft to the Board.I replied to A1 I am going to talk about it with the contractor today and I am having same problem in this matter.There is only one tender submitted by K.P. Poulose, the rate is very exorbitant, if the work is awarded without solving the problem of tunnel workers, K.P. Poulose cannot start the work.A1 replied that you don't look upon it, K.P. Poulose will purchase all these workers, we granted this higher rate for that also, hence you recommend the Board to award both the works to K.P. Poulose without any delay.Then the conversation was concluded.A1 replied with higher anger that I know how to look after the Board, I do not want any advice from your people, are you approaching me with intimate talks, after this, I had no talk anything about it."It is further seen that thereafter a note was sent by Sreedharan Pillai and Unnikrishnan to recommend for awarding both the works to K.P. Poulose.Due to slow progress in the works, he castigated Paul Mundakkal who conducted the works.After few days, A3 and Paul Mundakkal came to his house and A3 told him that he is disturbing them without any reason by way of sending letters and reports, A3 further warned that if it continues, it will be harmful to them.He further explained that such a Post was not there and his transfer order was signed and taken on 13.10.1983 at 8.00 p.m. in a lodge where he was residing at 68 Thiruvananthapuram.He highlighted that for the post of Advisor, except chair, table, no other facilities including telephone facility, official vehicle steno and typist were provided.After him, A2 was appointed as Idamalayar Chief Engineer.He also informed the Court that he believed that he was transferred due to the difference of opinion with P.K.Thereafter, in 1982, he was transferred40) With regard to his financial and family position, he answered that he built two-storied building having built-up area of 2700 sq. ft. in 1965 after taking loan from the Board and he sold this building and property after his retirement.The memorandum was prepared in the letter pad of 70 Kerala Construction Labour Union.PW-46 and Srikantan Nair signed the said memorandum.It has also come in his evidence that at the time of submission of his memorandum PW-46 and others requested the Minister to give work to the poor labourers at least on piece rate basis for which A1 replied "no question of giving work to the labourers.It was given as contract to K.P. Poulouse...." The prosecution has highlighted the above statement of PW-46 to the effect that A1 decided and determined to award Idamalayar contract to group of persons headed by K.P.Poulouse and not to the workers who prepared to work on piece-rate basis.About maintainability of the appeal by the present appellant:43) Mr. Lalit and Mr. Saran at the end of their arguments submitted that the appellant being a third party unconnected with the Board or the State is not entitled to challenge the decision of the High Court acquitting the accused from all the charges levelled against them.In support of the above claim, they very much relied on the decision of this Court dated 23.07.2010 rendered in SLP Criminal No 2506 of 2009 -She left behind a suicide note wherein it was stated that she had taken tuitions from the accused, Amit, at her residence in Rajgarh Colony and during that period she had developed a deep friendship with him leading to physical relations as well.The accused also held out a promise of marriage but later backed off.She also stated in her suicide note that not only the accused continued to have sexual relation with her but also compelled her to have sexual relation with others as well, which was the reason for committing the suicide.The trial Judge relied on the dying declaration, which was the suicide note, convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and also imprisonment for life under Section 376 IPC and a fine of Rs.5000/-.Questioning the above order of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court.The High Court ultimately found that as the case 72 under Section 306 was not made out confirmed the conviction under Section 376 IPC.Taking note that the accused had already undergone imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months and his entitlement for remission on account of his conduct in jail, his term of imprisonment for life has been modified to one that of period already undergone.Neither the State nor the complainant or her relatives has chosen to file an appeal to this Court.The question in that case was whether the NCW is competent or entitled to file an appeal in this Court against the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court.44) In the above referred NCW's case, admittedly the complainant was the State and neither the State nor the heirs of the deceased filed any appeal/petition before the High Court for enhancement of punishment or challenged the same by way of SLP before this Court.45) In our case, certain special features exist.During the pendency of the trial before the special Judge, an application for withdrawal of the prosecution only against G.Gopalakrishna Pillai - accused No.5 was made by the Special Public Prosecutor on 24.08.1992 under Section 321 Cr.P.C.The main ground for such withdrawal was that with the available material successful prosecution against G.Gopalkrishna Pillai and the said accused may be discharged.The Special Judge considered the issue at length and after analyzing the entire material and finding that there are enough materials to proceed against A-5 refused to give consent for withdrawal.This was taken up by way of revision before the High Court.The High Court set aside the aforesaid order passed by the Special Judge in the revision filed by the State of Kerala represented by the Superintendent of Police.The said order of the High Court was challenged by the present appellant namely, V.S. Achuthanandan, to this Court by way of special leave petition.After adverting to the elaborate reasonings of the special Judge and the conclusion of the High Court, this Court concluded that "there was no ground available to the High Court to set aside the well reasoned and justified order of the learned Special Judge rejecting the application of the Special 75 Public Prosecutor and declining to give consent for withdrawal of prosecution.The High Court's order must obviously be set aside." By setting aside the order of the High Court, this Court restored the order of the Special Judge and declined to give consent for withdrawal of the prosecution and permitted the Special Judge to proceed further.Accordingly we 78 reject the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the respondents.a) By awarding both the works of Idamalayar at a very high and exorbitant rate with special conditions having heavy financial implications.b) By reducing the retention and security amount.c) By allowing the contractor to return only fifty per cent of the empty cement bags.On the other hand, we are satisfied that the Special Court after framing various points for consideration and after thorough discussion has accepted the case of the prosecution insofar as the work of driving the surge shaft, lining the surge shaft, balance driving the power tunnel and other allied works of Idamalayar Hydro Electric Power Project at a higher or exorbitant rates to the contractor K.P. Poulose and the accused persons have abused their official positions.The Special Court has also accepted the prosecution case founding that A1 along with K.P. Poulose, Paul Mundakkal and other accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and rightly convicted them.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
22,597,133 |
Item No. 06And In the matter of: Tapas Kumar Biswas & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Md.Z. Rahaman For the Petitioners Mr. Rudradipta Nandy For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 277 of 2013 dated 04.06.2013 under sections 363/366/368/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary.The statement of the victim has been recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.She has stated that she is eighteen and half years old.She has married Raj Biswas, who is the son of the present Petitioners.ALLOWED Hence in the event of arrest, the Petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,022,041 |
Report is filed on behalf of the police authorities wherefrom it appears that criminal case being Namkhana P.S. Case No. 124/16 dated 06.12.2016 under Sections 147/148/307/326/327/354/447/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the private respondents at the behest of the petitioner and in conclusion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed before the criminal court.On the other hand, criminal case being Namkhana P.S. Case No. 125/16 dated 09.12.2016 under Sections 147/323/427/379/506/354B of the Indian Penal Code has been started against the petitioner which also has resulted in filing charge-sheet.On the subsequent complaint of the petitioner, proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. has been instituted against one of the private respondents.Criminal cases registered by and between the parties shall be proceeded with utmost expedition and be concluded at an early date.Petitioner is at liberty to appear before the criminal court and ventilate her grievance therein in accordance with law.With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.Since no affidavits have been called for, none of the allegations shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,031,278 |
P Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by Priyanka Pithawe Date: 2020.08.24 17:10:57 ISTThis bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.677/2020 registered at Police Station Damoh Dehat, District Damoh for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D and 506 of IPC.Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Priya.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,031,525 |
Through: Mr. Anuj Agarwal, Mr.Ruchi Sindhwani and Ms.In this intra-court appeal, the assail is to the order dated 28.7.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.14237/2006 declining to interfere with the award dated 17.12.2005 passed by the Labour Court X, Karkardooma Courts in ID No.63/1998 whereby the reference was answered in favour of the respondent-workman on the foundation that the LPA 647/2010 page 1 of 32 order of termination which was passed on conviction for offences punishable under Section 323/149/148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) did not tantamount to conviction for offences involving moral turpitude and further the punishment imposed did not reflect proper exercise of discretion vested in an employer while dealing with an employee.On 4.5.1993, he was convicted in a criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 148/302/323 and 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were assailed in a criminal appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana wherein the High Court found him guilty of offences under Sections 323/149/148 of IPC but the charges levelled against him under Section 302 IPC were not found to have been proven.We have heard Mr.Sandeep Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Anuj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms.Megha Bharara, learned counsel on behalf of Ms.Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2, the workman.The seminal issues that emerge for consideration in the present appeal are whether the conviction recorded against the second respondent can be regarded as a conviction involving moral turpitude and whether the punishment is disproportionate in the obtaining factual matrix.Be it noted, the judgment of conviction is one under Sections 323/149 and 148 of the IPC.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that because of the acquittal of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, it cannot be said that other punishment does not relate to moral turpitude.In this context, we may refer with profit to the order dated 0.09.1996 which reads as follows:And whereas Shri Jai Prakash in the above manner has been convicted by two successive Courts including the Honble High Court.His involvement in the Criminal activity has been clearly established through the Police investigation and also during the regular trial of his case in the court of law and as such there is no need to institute a regular departmental inquiry.And whereas in the totality of the circumstances and after perusal of relevant records and careful consideration of the case the U/s is of the opinion that the conduct and character of Shri Jai Prakash is such that he is not a liability to a public utility organization like DESU and therefore the U/s exercising the powers conferred on him in the DESU(Delhi Municipal Corporation ) Service (Control & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 has no hesitation to impose the penalty of "dismissal from service" which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment on Shri Jai Prakash, E.No.25719, Peon.The above orders are subject to recovery of dues recoverable from him on any account."Clause 14 of the Regulations, 1976 deals with the disciplinary action for misconduct.In Hazarilal (supra), the respondent, a peon in a middle school, had assaulted one Ram Singh.He was prosecuted for the commission of the said offence and was convicted by the trial Magistrate under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one months simple imprisonment.On an appeal being preferred by him, the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs.500/- only.The revision preferred before the High Court was dismissed.In J.Jaishanker (supra), the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 509 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/-.The employee sought a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of his dismissal from service.The Central LPA 647/2010 page 17 of 32 Government declined to refer the dispute.Being dissatisfied, a writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge.Can a worker be put on a higher pedestal than as a government servant?There shall be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
57,033,071 |
Original accused no.1 - Kiran, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2014, original accused no.2 - Suresh, who is appellant no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2014, original accused no.4 - Dumya alias Lakhan alias Inamdar Bhosale, who is appellant in ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 4 criapl583-2014-group Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2014 and original accused no.5 - Santosh, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2015, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Each of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::Original accused no.6 - Kishor, who is appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal no.745 of 2014 and original accused no.7 - Appa, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.584 of 2014, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.Original accused no.1, 2, 4 and 5, as detailed above, were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(2) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to suffer ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 5 criapl583-2014-group rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::Original accused no.6 and 7, as detailed above, were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(2) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.Original accused no.1,2, 4 and 5, as detailed above, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act r/w.120-B of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Original accused no.3 was absconding and, therefore, the trial as regards him was separated.Aggrieved by the various convictions and sentences, as detailed above, the appellants have preferred the present appeals.For the sake of convenience, all the appellants would be termed as the accused in the serial as they stood in the chargesheet framed by the trial Court.The prosecution case would reveal that on 18 th April, 2009, at village Bhada, District - Latur ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 7 criapl583-2014-group post-midnight, dacoity has occurred.Sojrabai Gaikwad.The house-breaking and theft were also noted in the house of one Lochanbai Sarvade and one Mallikarjun Swami.Further one motorcycle, each of Yogesh Shivankar and Padmakar Chincholkar were also taken away by the dacoits.As per the FIR of PW1 - Sojrabai, there was Satyanarayan puja and jagran gondhal function in her house in the said night.The same was over by 10.00 pm.In the night at about 2.00 am, as her she-goats started bleating, she awoke and found that 4 unknown persons were in her house.One of them was carrying tin box of valuables.She therefore shouted as "thief thief" ("pksj pksj").One of the dacoits pushed her away and all the 4 started running away towards the field in front of her house.Upon hearing her shouts, her husband PW8 -Vishnu Gaikwad, her son - PW2 - Revnath, Nagnath and other neighbours started chasing those dacoits.After some time, however, PW2 - Revnath, Nagnath and Shivdas as well as her husband PW8 - Vishnu were brought by the ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 8 criapl583-2014-group neighbours in injured condition as the dacoits had hit them while they were making an attempt to catch hold them.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::Accused no.5 - Santosh Bhosale was, however, caught by the villagers in the nearby field red-handed.In the incident, three gold rings weighing 5 gm each, two mobile handsets of nokia company, one lady's wrist watch of titan make, totally valued at Rs.21,750/- were looted.From the house of PW4 - Lochanbai Sarvade, cash of Rs.10,000/-, three sarees, one pair of silver chain, gold marriage string and ear studs, totally valued Rs.15,000/- were looted.From the house of PW5 - Mallikarjun Swami, cash of Rs.5,000/- and gold ring weighing 5 gm, totally valued at Rs.10,000/- were looted.The two motorcycles, as detailed above were taken away.The FIR was filed by PW1 - Sojarabai.Accused no.5 - Santosh, apprehended by the villagers, was also handed over to the Police.He was, however, unable to identify any of the accused.PW 4 - Lochanbai and PW 5 - Mallikarjun Swami did not depose anything regarding identity of the present appellants.What thus can be gathered from this piece of evidence is that accused no.5 - Santosh was caught red-handed on the spot and accused no.1 - Kiran and accused no.2 - Suresh were identified by PW 2 - Ramannath.All the appellants in present five appeals were convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, "MCOC Act"), Aurangabad in Special Cae No. 10 of 2009, by judgement and order dated 31st July, 2014, for the offences punishable under section 395 r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Since the appellants were under-trial prisoners, set-off as per the provisions of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted.The dacoits had barged into the house of the complainant - PW1 -::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::PW13 - API - Nanasaheb Ubale of Bhada Police Station registered the crime and ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 9 criapl583-2014-group conducted the investigation in the case.The injured as well as accused no.5 - Santosh were sent for medical treatment at Government Hospital, Latur.The Investigating Officer carried further investigation like preparation of panchanama of spot of occurrence at three places.The necessary investigation of the seizure of the blood stained clothes was carried.From the person of accused no.5 - Santosh, two wrist watches, one bracelet, cash amount and mobile phones etc. were seized.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::During further investigation and interrogation, the other accused came to be arrested.Either from the their persons certain valuables involved in the offence were recovered or on the basis of the statements made by them, the recovery has taken place.It appears that thereafter, the test identification parade was held (however, the prosecution has not examined the witnesses regarding the test identification parade).Since it was transpired that all the present appellants had earlier committed similar offences regarding the property in the past in organised manner, the Investigating Officer sent the proposal to the ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 10 criapl583-2014-group Special Inspector General of Police to seek his permission for registering the offence punishable under various sections of MCOC Act, as detailed above.Upon grant of permission, he added those sections of MCOC Act. The Investigating Officer thereafter handed over further investigation to Dy.S.P. Mr. Survase.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::Upon registration of the crime for the offences under the provisions of MCOC Act, PW14 - Mr. Sanjay Latkar, the then Superintendent of Police, Latur, upon seeking necessary permission from his superior, gave direction to the then Sub Divisional Police Officer to carry further investigation.During his investigation, accused no.2 - Dumya Bhosale and accused no.6 - Kishor Bhosale voluntarily made confessional statements and after giving due time, the statements were recorded.Lateron, accused no.2 -Suresh Bhosale's confessional statement after taking due care was recorded.All these statements were forwarded for verification to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.PW15 - Mr. Krishnakumar Itolikar, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur has separately recorded their statements and thereafter the chargesheet came to be ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 11 criapl583-2014-group filed.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::Before the learned Special Judge, in all 15 witnesses were examined which included the inmates of the house, the injured witnesses, as detailed above, respective panch witnesses, Medical Officer - PW 12 -Chandrashekhar Ramshette, Investigating Officers and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as detailed above.The learned Special Judge found that the prosecution case has been fully proved and, therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence, as detailed supra came to be passed.The learned counsel for the respective appellants in each of the cases took me through the record of each of the case.They submitted that as per the complainant, only 4 persons had committed the offence.However, the prosecution has arrayed 7 accused persons.It was admitted by the complainant as well as other witnesses that there was darkness in the field and even the dacoits were masked.There are vague statements from some of the witnesses that there were 5-6 thieves.The property is not identified and no ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 12 criapl583-2014-group record regarding test identification parade was proved before the Court.There was no earlier crime committed by the accused persons in organised manner.Even in some of the crimes, the respective appellants were already acquitted at the time of invoking the provisions of MCOC Act or during pendency of the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::As regards accused no.4 - Dumnya, learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution case, one goldsmith has produced the golden ornaments on the statement that this accused had handed over the said ornaments to him.The said goldsmith, however, could not be examined as he has died during pendency of the trial.In the alternative, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the sentences imposed by the learned Special Judge are harsh.The appellants are behind the bars for a period of more than 5-6 years and, therefore, it was submitted that the appellants be released upon sentencing them for the period of ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 13 criapl583-2014-group imprisonment already undergone by them.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submitted that though the witnesses have admitted that there was darkness in the field and initially the dacoits were masked, it is to be noted that the injured inmates of the house as well as the villagers went in search for the dacoits.Even one of the dacoits was caught red-There was physical fight between the dacoits and the injured witnesses.In the circumstances, there could not have been any mask later-on and because of the physical contact between the witnesses and the accused, there was no difficulty in identifying them in the Court.It was further submitted by the learned A.P.P.that though the fact of holding test identification parade is not proved from the mouth of the Executive Magistrate, who has conducted the same or the panch witnesses, identification has been amply established as the witnesses have identified all the appellants in the witness box.They had no axe to grind against the appellants as they were not knowing the appellants earlier.Further there was a recovery of the valuables ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 14 criapl583-2014-group looted in the incident, either from the persons of some of the appellants or recovery of those articles on the basis of the statements made by the respective appellants.In the circumstances, it was submitted that all the appeals be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::As regards the sentences, it was submitted that the evidence on record would show that as three persons were injured, not only the dacoity was committed at three places and two motorcycles were taken away but also three persons were also injured by the appellants in the incident and hence it was submitted that no leniency is required to be shown to the appellants by interfering in the sentences awarded by the learned Special Judge.On the basis of above material on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the following points arise for my determination :-I. Whether the prosecution has proved that the present appellants along with the absconding accused had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit dacoity at ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 15 criapl583-2014-group villager Bhada and accordingly, committed dacoity at 3 places in the village in the night of 18th April, 2009 ?::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::Whether the prosecution has further proved that the appellants have committed the dacoity by using deadly weapons like Jambiya and caused grievous heart to injured Revannath and ig his family members ?Whether the prosecution has further proved that the present appellants have committed offence as a part of the organized crime by making preparation for commission of organized crime being the members of organized crime syndicate ?My findings to the above points are in the affirmative.The appeals are therefore, dismissed for the reasons to follow.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::PW 1 - Sojarabai, PW 2 - Revannath and PW 8 -PW 1 - Sojarabai is the complainant.She gave the details of the occurrence.During her cross-examination, she admitted that there was darkness in the field and the dacoits had masked their faces.It is, however, to be noted that the said witness has not identified any of the accused and has identified gold rings which were seized from the goldsmith, who has unfortunately died before the trial could begin.PW 2 - Revannath who was injured while catching the dacoits, has identified accused no.1 - Kiran and accused No. 2 - Suresh.It was argued that there was delay in holding the test identification parade.However, since we have no evidence regarding holding of the test identification parade, but only this witness stating that test identification parade was held, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of this witness since he was injured in the incident.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::PW 12 - Chandrashekhar Ramshette, the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Bhada, has deposed about the injuries to PW 8 - Vishnu and PW 2 - Revannath as well as his brothers - Nagnath and Shivdas.All the injury certificates were proved by him at Exhibit 117 toThere was no serious challenge to his testimony ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 18 criapl583-2014-group before the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::PW 7 - Jalindar Rathane was the panch witness to the memorandum-cum-seizure panchnama of the articles, as regards accused no.6 Kishor.According to him, on 10th May, 2009, while the said accused was in custody made a statement before him that he was ready to point out the place where the mobile involved in the offence was hidden by him.He thereafter led the police and the panch witness to his house at village Tirth.There, from one tin box, he recovered a mobile of NOKIA make and two pieces of broken SIM card.The said articles were identified by this witness in the Court.The property was identified by PW 1 - Sojarabai as belonging to her.PW 9 - Nandu Agalave was the panch witness to the fact of seizure of recovery of Hero Honda motorcycle from accused no.4 - Dumya.PW 10 - Kishore Joshi deposed that he along with another panch - Kaka Bansode were called at the police station.Accused no.4 - Dumya, in his presence, ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 19 criapl583-2014-group made a statement that he would produce the dagger (Jambiya) used in the offence and accordingly, led the police party to his house and therefrom, recovered the said Jambiya.The said Jambiya was identified by the witness in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::PW 11 - Suresh Kunjir has deposed that from the shop of one Tapase goldsmith, in their presence three gold rings, two gold marriage strings and one small ear-ring of child were seized.The said goldsmith Tapase, however, died during the pendency of trial.PW 13 - API Nanasaheb Ubale has deposed about the investigation carried by him and the seizure of the property etc. According to him, during interrogation with accused no.4 - Dumya, he got the information that he had sold the ornaments looted during the dacoity to goldsmith Tapase and therefore, he seized the ornaments from goldsmith and recorded his statement.He further deposed that on 7th September, 2009 the test identification parade of accused Kishor Bhosale and accused Dumya Bhosale was conducted by Tahsildar-cum-::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::20 criapl583-2014-group Executive Magistrate.PW 14 - Sanjay Lathkar, the then Superintendent of Police, Latur has deposed about recording of confessional statements of the relevant accused, as detailed above, after taking all necessary precautions as provided by law, at Exhibit 196 and Exhibit 201, respectively.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of this Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police that the respective appellants have voluntarily made the confessional statements.It is true that the learned APP in the trial Court failed to place the evidence regarding holding of the test identification parade, however, besides the said test identification parade there was volumenous evidence, though goldsmith Tapase has died before his ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 21 criapl583-2014-group deposition could be recorded.We have the additional substantive evidence as detailed supra against said Dumya.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::As regards the conviction of the respective appellants for the offences punishable under the provisions of MCOC Act, the learned counsel for accused No.1 Kiran, accused No. 4 Dumya and accused No. 7 Appa placed before me charts showing the status of pending cases against the respective appellants.The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the ratio laid down in the cases of "Altaf Ismail ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 ::: 22 criapl583-2014-group Sheikh Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others", reported in 2005 CRI.L.J. 3584 and "Sherbahadur Akram Khan and others Vs.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::In the case of "Altaf Ismail Sheikh Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others" (cited supra), the prosecution has alleged that the petitioner Altaf Ismail was involved in the organized crimes.The approval for recording of FIR was in relation to malpractices comprised of replacement of answer-sheets and forgery of signatures of invigilators and no other activities.However, the original complaint was not in relation to malpractices in selection process.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::In the circumstances, the following order.All the present five criminal appeals are hereby dismissed.[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE npj/criapl583-2014-group ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:48 :::
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
570,349 |
The prosecution case was started on the basis of First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Namita Mukherjee on 2.7.96 at Titagarh Police Station.JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.The prosecution story as depicted in the FIR was that, Soma Pal, daughter of de facto complainant Namita Mukherjee was married with Kaushik Pal under Special Marriage Act on 28.10.98 and after marriage Soma Pal went to her matrimonial home.About a month after the marriage, daughter of the informant was subjected to torture by her husband and other in-laws and she came out of matrimonial home.Soma Pal stayed in her mother's house for about 15/16 days and thereafter Kaushik Pal, husband of Soma Pal took away Soma Pal and they started living in a rented room in the house of Amalendu Hira at Talpukur within Police Station, Titagarh.On 31.5.96 de facto complainant received information that her daughter Soma Pal sustained burn injuries and she immediately rushed the house of Amalendu Hira, and reaching there heard from landlady that her daughter has been shifted to Dr. B. N. Bose Hospital.She lodged the FIR on 2.7.96 stating therein that due to mental shock she could not lodge the FIR in time and previous information bearing her signature was written by her son-in-law Kaushik Pal and she did not verify the contents of that written information.On the basis of the aforesaid FIR Titagarh Police Station Case No. 148 dated 2.7.96 under Section 498A/306 of the IPC was started and after completing investigation the police submitted chargesheet against the petitioners.After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions it was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barrackpore.The learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 31.3.05 framed charges under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC against the petitioners and being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the said order the petitioners have approached this Court in this revisional application for quashing the charges.Mrs. Pranati Goswarni, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that FIR was belated and it was lodged about a month after death of deceased Soma Pal.Before lodging FIR the informant Namita Mukherjee submitted in writing with her signature to the OC, Titagarh Police Station that, for the death of her daughter she is not making allegation against anyone and she would not file any litigation.Concerning death of Soma Pal there was enquiry by Titagarh Police Station immediately after her death, and in the enquiry the police officer submitted that the death was due to accidental burn and no foul play was detected behind the death.In the inquest report also no material of offence was disclosed against the petitioners.She further submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 reside elsewhere and they are residing at Gauhati in Assam.From the FIR and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code there is no element of torture demanding dowry and no element of abetment to commit suicide.In fact, from the FIR and other papers and documents including the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code no elements of offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC were detected or transpired against the petitioners.The learned Judge framed the charges without due application of mind.There was no material at all to frame charges against the petitioners.Accordingly, the order of the learned Judge framing charge against petitioners under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC are bad in law.The said order framing charges against the petitioners should be set aside.The learned Judge has framed charges against the petitioners after hearing both the parties.The previous information given by the de facto complainant to the Officer-in-Charge of Titagarh Police Station was written by the interested person namely, son-in-law of the de facto complainant.The son-in-law, i.e. husband of deceased Soma Pal is interested in having his acquittal.These matters cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceeding.Non-disclosure of elements of offence against the petitioners in the inquest report cannot be a ground of quashing the criminal proceeding.If the accused persons desire they may produce the report at the time of defence evidence during trial.The materials disclose that on 31.5.96 at morning there was some dispute and quarrel between the husband and wife concerning meal and the husband refused to take meal prepared by wife.Materials also disclose that thereafter the husband left the house and within half an hour thereafter Soma Pal sustained burn injuries.Whether it was accidental fire or, Soma Pal committed suicide for the behaviour of her husband is a matter which can be decided in the trial on the basis of evidence.In my opinion there is material at least prima facie to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC against the husband Kaushik Pal.At the stage of framing charge a Magistrate or a Judge is not required to see or consider whether it would surely end in conviction of accused.At the stage of charge even a strong suspicion can be basis for framing charge.If the prosecution in this case fails to lead evidence to substantiate the charge the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.Even if, there is no element of torture for the demand of dowry still other limb of Section 498A of IPC is there for continuation of the trial and to frame charge.The materials disclosed that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 also used to come off and on and tortured the deceased Soma Pal.Urgent xerox certified copy be given to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,580 |
The other three appellants Jagan, Ram Lal and Sheo Nath were charged Under Section 302 read with Section 34, but were convicted Under Section 325 read with Section 34 and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment each for the injuries which were caused to Ram Prasad deceased. 'The incident giving rise to the case against the four appellants took place at about noon on 4th April, i960, in village Khidirpur within the jurisdiction of P. S. Nawabganj, Report about the incident was made at the police station at 2.45 P. M., the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence being six miles.The facts giving rise to the case against the appellants were like this.The pigs of the accused Bhuwali were noticed damaging the khali-yan of Ram Prasad and his nephew Jabra at about mid-day on 4th April, i960.' Ram Prasad and his nephew Jabra and Lallu drove away the pigs and then went to the house of.Bhuwali to protest about it.It is alleged that when this protest was made, Bhuwali and the other accused started abusing Ram Prasad and his nephew and when Ram Prasad and his nephews told them that it was they who had been put to a loss and they were being even abused, all the four accused took up their lathis and Jagan Lai exhorted the others by saying "Pakar lev Saron ka, ghaire se nikal ke jai na paven".Ram Prasad, Jabra and Dallu (who is blind) ran for their lives from that place but they were chased by the four accused and when they were in Dudai's field, Ram Prasad Sass given a lathi blow on his head as a result of which, he dropped down and even Lallu was given a beating by Ram Lai and Sheo Nath.Jagan is said to have been exhorting the other three accused all the time saying "Maro saren ka".The lathi blow to Ram Prasad is said to have been given with such a great force that the lathi itseli gave way and broke on hitting Ram Prasad.AU the four accused are then said to have run away.Jabrs and Lallu then went to the police station and also took Ram Prasad with them on a cot.JUDGMENT S.D. Singh, J.This appeal has been preferred by four persons, Jagan Bhuwali, Ram Lal and Sheo Nath.All of them have been convicted Under Section 323 or Section 323 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment thereunder for having caused simple hurt to one Lallu.Bhuwali was charged Under Section 302 and has been convicted under that provision and sentenced to imprisonment for life.Report at the police station was lodged by Jabra, where after investigation followed in due course.4. Ram.Prasad and Lallu were both sent for medical examination and treatment.Their injuries were examined by Dr. C. N. Saxena, Medical Officer at the Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital at Allahabad.Lallu's injuries were examined at 8.20 P. M. the same day and he was found to have the following injuries: -Contused wound 2" x 3/4" skin deep, on the left- side of the head.There was traumetic swelling, 2" x 2", 3" above the left ear.A contusion 9" x 1" on the right side of the back going vertically.A contusion 5" x 1" on the left side of the back.A contusion 6" x 1" on the right scapular region.25 P. M. and he was found to have only one contused wound, 2" x i" x bone deep, on the left side of the head, 3" above the left ear.He found only one injury "healing ulcer with scab and scar formation in front part, 1 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/6" on left side scalp 3" from left ear and 4" from left ear brow."An internal examination, however, disclosed the following four internal injuries.Fracture of the whole left parietal bone with fracture of temporal bone.2. Clot, 3" x 3" on the membrane on the left side below the fracture clot adhered to the membrane.3. Depression in the left parietal lobe and congestion.Contusion and clot were present in the parietal area.Fracture of left anterior fossa.Dr. Srivastava was of opinion that death was caused by coma which was itself caused by injury to the brain and the skull.Investing Officer, S. I. Brahma Nand Sharma completed the investigation and prosecuted the four accused in due course, and they were tried for the offences and convicted as mentioned earlier.The accused Ram Lai and Sheo Nath denied the allegations against them, Ram Lai alleged that he was working in his field when the Incident took place and Sheo Nath stated that he was residing at Bhikhampur which is four miles from Khidarpur.Both shese accused, therefore, pleaded alibi.Jagan and Bhuwali admitted that there was an incident, though according to the in it took place just the other way and the injuries were caused to Lallu by Ram Prasad and to Ram.(After discussing the evidence, the judgment proceeds as under:) The facts as they have been put by the prosecution witnesses have been fully brought out in evidence.The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge-believing the prosecution case so far as the material facts are concerned is correct.Each one of them was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under the aforesaid provision.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,588,292 |
2.It is seen from the records that there was a pathway dispute between the parties and there was also a civil suit pending before the District Munsif Court at Namakkal.3.On 19.08.2013 at about 3.30 p.m., the father of the petitioner viz., Chellappan was attacked and done to death.This resulted in registration of an FIR in Crime No.290 of 2013 for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Parallely, the first respondent had also given a complaint against the petitioner and the same was also taken on file and an FIR was registered in Crime No.291 of 2013, for an offence under Section 324 of I.P.C.4.Both the cases were investigated by the second respondent.5.The first respondent did not choose to file any protest petition inspite of service of RCS notice.6.The first respondent has proceeded to file an independent private complaint against the petitioner and the Court below has taken cognizance of the private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 324 of I.P.C.7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police had investigated both the cases and found that the first respondent is the aggressor and has filed a final report against the first respondent for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and filed a closure report insofar as the petitioner is concerned.If really, the petitioner was aggrieved by the closure report, the petitioner ought to have filed protest petition after the receipt of RCS notice.However, no protest petition was filed and the petitioner has proceeded to file an independent private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, without bringing to the notice of the Court, the closure report filed by the second respondent police.The learned counsel would further submit this procedure adopted by the first respondent is illegal and the Court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner.The learned counsel would further submit that the Court below apart from taking sworn statement of the first respondent has also examined five other witnesses and it has found that an offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. has been made out against the petitioner.The learned counsel would further submit that both the cases will have to be tried before Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal and this Court should not interfere with the proceedings at this stage.9.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side.Crime No.290 of 2013 was registered against the first respondent for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Crime No.291 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner for an offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. Both the FIRs were investigated by the second respondent police.Ultimately, the second respondent has found that the aggressor in this case is the first respondent and therefore, has proceeded to file ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 final report in Crime No.290 of 2013 for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Insofar as the FIR registered in Crime No.291 of 2013 is concerned, the second respondent has proceeded to file a closure report.However, the first respondent has not chosen to file any protest petition.He has only chosen to file an independent private complaint in the year 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,590,935 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.40495/2019 (Prakash s/o Urkediya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 30.09.2019 Mr. Nilesh J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Though the prosecutrix claims that at the time of incident, she was aged about 17 years, however, there is no school certificate or horoscope of the prosecutrix available in the case diary to establish the fact that at the time of incident, she was minor.From perusal of statement of the prosecutrix, it appears that she visited various places with the applicant by public transport and remained in his custody for a considerable period; and during this period, neither she raised any alarm nor made any complaint to any body, which shows that she was the consenting party.The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.09.30 17:57:37 +05'30'
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,591,665 |
This writ petition came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.By the said representation sent to the second respondent Special Tahsildar, the petitioner claimed that when the acquisition of his land was made, he had agreed to part with his land after receiving the compensation of Rs.150/- per square feet.As per his consent, he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.74,32,500/-.But he had received only Rs.24,64,000/-.As per the gazette notification for acquiring land dated 12.3.2008, the extent of land was mentioned only in square meters.Therefore, the compensation should be awarded in terms of the square meters.It was also stated that even as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.This court even without notice to the requisitioning body, i.e., the third respondent State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. (for short SIPCOT), had ordered the representation to be considered by the second respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.It is pursuant to that direction the impugned reply came to be sent to the petitioner.As per the registered sale deed, by which the petitioner came to possess the land, the extent of land was shown as 1.12 acres.No.141, Industries SIPCOT-LA Department, dated 14.7.2008, he is entitled to get Rs.100/- per sq.ft as his property was situated with approach roads on three sides.Therefore, he claimed the balance amount of Rs.25,91,000/- or in alternative he sought for directing his case to the District Collector in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act for determination of the compensation.4.After sending the representation, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to dispose of his representation.It was only on that basis, the compensation was arrived at.Therefore, there was no possibility for the grant of higher compensation to the petitioner.Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.When the matter came up on 02.01.2012, this court directed the District Collector, Kancheepuram to file a counter affidavit.A counter affidavit, dated 30.11.2011 came to be filed by the second respondent.Though the petitioner filed an application for fixing an early date of hearing of the writ petition, no orders have been passed so far.The learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to circulate the original file relating to the petitioner's case, which was accordingly circulated for perusal by this court.An administrative sanction was given by the State Government by G.O.No.138, Industries Department, dated 03.11.2006 to acquire 349.51.0 hectares of patta lands.The said land is situated in the midst of the scheme area on Block No.2 of Unit-I. The area was kept vacant at the time when the acquisition process took place.Form 'B' publication of notice was issued calling for objections within 30 days from the date of publication.Out of 346 persons covered by the notification, 26 objection petitions were received within the stipulated period.The objections received from the land owners were sent to the requisitioning body, i.e., third respondent and their remarks were obtained.8.Subsequently, an enquiry was conducted on 21.11.2007 by the District Collector.The 26 land owners/interested persons have appeared for the enquiry.Though the land was converted into house sites, the lands were kept vacant and that no building and no superstructures were raised in the land.By virtue of the notification issued under Section 3(1) and in terms of Section 4(1), the lands to which the said notice was issued, from the date of such publication, will vest absolutely with the Government free from all encumbrances.Therefore, the notices were issued under Section 4(2) on 24.03.2008 asking the land owners to surrender their possession of land.The petitioner had received the compensation without any protest.9.The other allegations regarding the consent letter given by the petitioner was denied by the respondents.In paragraph 15 of the counter it was stated as follows:"15....It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner alleges that he gave consent letter to the second respondent agreeing to receive the compensation for a sum of Rs.150/- per sq.ft.Where as he further alleges that he requested the second respondent on many occasions that the compensation may be awarded in sq. meters.10.Even when this court on the earlier occasion directed his representation to be considered, a personal notice was sent to the petitioner, but he did not appear for the personal hearing.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,592 |
They purported to constitute a Special Police Force for the Chief Commissioner's Province of Delhi.We have already stated that the Delhi Special Police Establishment was a Central Government Police Force.It, however, belonged to Delhi inasmuch as it was constituted and functioned in Delhi.The consent given by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 6 of the Act is in the form of a letter dated 2nd July 1960 from the Government of Maharashtra acting through Shri J.C. Agarwal, Deputy Secretary to that Government in the Home Department.It is Annexure L at page 141 of the paper-book.Out of the four notifications which are mentioned in the said letter, we are concerned with the very first Notification, viz., Notification No. 7-5-55-AVD dated the 6th November 1956, which is reproduced as Annexure R2/B at page 204 of the paper-book.the system."Section 5(3) confers the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station situated outside the Union Territories on the Special Police investigating an offence within the limits of such a police station.Nothing can be clearer to show that Section 5 confers the same powers on the Special Police as are enjoyed by the ordinary police of the local area outside the Union Territories in which the offence is being investigated including the power of an officer-in-charge of the police station.We have, therefore, no difficulty in rejecting the contention that Section 5 does nto enable the Special Police to investigate an offence nto committed within a Union Territory.Point NO. (6):--The Bombay Police Act, 1951, no doubt consolidates the police forces of the different parts of the State into one common police force.Applying the above-mentioned.After reading and careful consideration of those ropers, the Chief Minister passed the order granting consent.The affidavit of Shri Agashe says that Shri Agarwal was authorised to sign the consent letter.Therefore, the question of the respondents trying to by-pass the requirement of sanction under the Insurance Act does nto arise at all.We find so.The learned counsel for the petitioner did nto press the contentions regarding mala fides and discrimination.It is well known that the question of mala fides does nto arise if the respondents have the power to investigate the offences against the petitioner and if there is nothing to show that they are influenced by irrelevant considerations in doing so.The question of discrimination also does nto arise inasmuch as the Delhi Special Police Establishment is precisely in the same position as the ordinary police in investigating the offencea against the petitioner.No question of discrimination, therefore, arises.Petition dismissed.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,597,956 |
Case diary perused.As per prosecution story a complaint was lodged by one complainant Jyoti Thakur stating that present applicant/accused Manish resides in front of her house and is harassing her from last one year.It was further alleged that the applicant/accused person used to make gestures at her while she was going and coming back to her home and also winked at her.It was also alleged that the applicant/accused person has been forced her to marry him and threatened her that she refused to do so then he would kill her family.The complainant also alleged due to such harassment, she could not attend school from last one year and also she could not give high School Examination.Under these circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Under these circumstances he prays for rejecting the bail application filed by the applicant.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,600,912 |
This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 21.12.2012 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.2.It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.03.2008, around 12.15 noon, Kamaraj (PW2) was brutally attacked with knives near his house by Balaji/A1, Boopathi/A2, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4, with the intention of causing death to him; on hearing the commotion, his brother Thirupathi (PW1) and his wife Durga Devi (PW3), came out of the house and witnessed the attack; when Thirupathi (PW1) went to the rescue of his brother, he was also attacked by Balaji/A1; as people started gathering, the accused fled from the scene in a motorcycle; immediately thereafter, Kamaraj (PW2) was rushed by his brother Thirupathi/PW1 to the Government Hospital, Salem for treatment; on information from the hospital, the police arrived there and obtained a written complaint (Ex.P1) from Thirupathi/PW1, based on which, Karunanithi (PW14), Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.554 of 2008 under Sections 342, 324 and 307 IPC against the four accused; Kamaraj (PW2) was examined by Dr.Saravanan (PW9) and the Accident Register was marked as Ex.P4; Kamaraj (PW2) was admitted as in-patient and was under treatment; the police completed the investigation and filed Final Report in P.R.C.No.58 of 2008 on 15.10.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem against Balaji/A1, Boopathi/A2, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4 for the offences under Sections 307, 341, 324 r/w 34 IPC.3.On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.354 of 2008 and was tried by the II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge (Sub Court), Salem.Balaji/A1 was charged under Section 307 IPC; Boopathi/A2, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4 were charged under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and Boopathi/A2 was charged under Section 341 IPC.When questioned, the petitioners pleaded ‘not guilty’.4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses, marked 25 exhibits and 4 material objects.On behalf of the petitioners, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.When the petitioners were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same.On behalf of the petitioners, no witness was examined.5.The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted Boopathi/A2, but convicted and sentenced Balaji/A1, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4 as follows.Karayan/A3 Section 307 read Three years rigorous imprisonment and and with 34 IPC fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default, to Dharma/A4 undergo 3 months simple imprisonment The convicted accused/petitioners preferred Crl.A.No.18 of 2012 in the Court ofhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Session and the same was dismissed on 21.12.2012 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, aggrieved by which, Balaji/A1, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4 have filed the present revision petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 IPC r/w 401 Cr.P.C.6.Heard Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.”http://www.judis.nic.in 8.Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel made the following 6 submissions:a) The first complaint has been supressed by the police and since the genuineness of the case has not been placed on record, the conviction and sentence stand vitiated.In support of this contention, he placed strong reliance on the following judgments:i. Selvi and Another Vs.State of Tamil Nadu [1981 AIR (SC) 1230] ii.R.Baskar Vs.State by Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station, Crime No.137 of 2011 [2013(3) MWN (Cr.) 16 (DB)] iii.b)Though Thirupathi/PW1 had implicated Boopathi/A2 in the complaint (Ex.P1), yet, the witnesses did not speak about the involvement of Boopathi/A2 and therefore, the evidence qua the other petitioners should be rejected.c)The FIR in this case reached the Court only on 28.03.2018 at 03.30 p.m. and hence, the version of the witnesses becomes suspect.d)That there was a previous case in Crime No.1280 of 2009 against Thirupathi (PW1) and Kamaraj (PW2) and there was a case in Crime No.577 of 2010 against Kamaraj (PW2) have been established by marking Ex.D1 and therefore, Thirupathi/PW1 and Kamaraj/PW2 are rowdy elements and their evidence does not deserve acceptance.e)There was also a previous case against Kamaraj (PW2), which washttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 registered on the complaint lodged by Balaji/A1, in which, Kamaraj (PW2) was remanded to custody and was released on bail.f)There are discrepancies with regard to the time of occurrence, in the evidence of Thirupathi (PW1), Kamaraj (PW2) and Durga Devi (PW3), inasmuch as Thirupathi (PW1) has stated that the incident took place at 12.15 noon, Kamaraj (P.W.2) has stated the time as 11.30 a.m and Durga Devi (PW3) has stated that the incident took place at 01.00 p.m.g)Thirupathi (PW1) has told Dr.Saravanan (PW9) that five known persons had attacked him, whereas, Kamaraj (PW2) has stated that four known persons had attacked him.9.Per contra, Mrs.His legal heirs have not come forward to prosecute this petition.12.Before adverting to deal with the arguments formulated byhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 Mr.K.S.Rajagopalan, it may not be out of place to discuss the evidence of the two injured witnesses, viz., Thirupathi (PW1) and Kamaraj (PW2).13.Kamaraj (PW2), has stated in his examination-in-chief that, he is an autorickshaw driver by profession; Thirupathi (PW1) is his brother; he knows the petitioners; prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between him and Balaji/A1, in which, he assaulted Balaji/A1; in that case, he was arrested and was released on bail; on 27.03.2008, around 11.30 a.m., he came out of his house and was standing; at that time, Balaji/A1 came with Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4; Balaji/A1 attacked him with a knife that is normally used for cutting palmyra fruit; when the attack was aimed at his neck, he defended it with his hand; at that time, his index finger got severed and fell down; his ring finger got cut and was hanging; he suffered cut injuries on his left foreleg, right hand and right hip; on hearing his cry for help, his brother (Thirupathi/PW1) came to his rescue; he was taken in an autorickshaw to the Government Hospital, Salem, where, he was under treatment for one day and thereafter, he was referred to the Government Hospital in Chennai for further treatment; he was in bed as in-patient at Chennai for 3½ months.14.In the cross-examination, Kamaraj (PW2), has stated that the petitioners are known to him and they are also autorickshaw drivers; he is a share-autorickshaw driver; he has admitted that two months prior to the incident, on the complaint given by Balaji/A1 that he had robbed him, a casehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 was registered and he was arrested; he pleaded guilty in that case and was fined Rs.1,000/-.He has admitted that he would consume liquor, but, denied that he would pick up quarrel with everyone after drinking.It was suggested to him that, he had picked up a quarrel near Kumaragiri area and the local people assaulted him and dropped him near his house, which suggestion he denied.It was suggested to him that, since he was arrested on the complaint given by Balaji/A1, he has falsely implicated Balaji/A1, which suggestion, he denied.15.Thirupathi (PW1), brother of Kamaraj (PW2), in his examination- in-chief, has stated that he is an autorickshaw driver and he knows the petitioners; on 27.03.2009, around 12.15 noon, his younger brother Kamaraj (PW2) went outside the house and within 10 minutes, he heard commotion outside; therefore, he went outside and looked; he saw Balaji/A1, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4, vehemently attacking Kamaraj (PW2); Balaji/A1 was having a knife with which, he attacked; he was not able to exactly notice, in which parts of the body they attacked; but, Balaji/A1 attacked him on his left shoulder; on seeing the people gathering, the petitioners, who came in a motorcycle dropped the motorcycle and ran away; he rushed his brother to the Government Hospital, Salem; police came to the hospital and obtained thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 complaint (Ex.P1); after two days, his brother was shifted to Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai for treatment.16.In the cross-examination, Thirupathi (PW1), has stated that he handed over the blood stained clothes to the police; he described the weapons held by Balaji/A2, Karayan/A3 and Dharma/A4; he knows the petitioners well and his brother also knows them.He conceded that the petitioners did not want to attack him at the first instance, but, they attacked him because, he went to the rescue of his brother.He also admitted that there are several criminal cases pending against him and his brother.She admitted that a few days prior to the incident, on the complaint given by Balaji/A2, Kamaraj (PW2) was arrested and he came out on bail.In the latter part of her cross-examination, she has stated that she did not actually witness the attack, but, when she went, she saw the petitioners with knives and so, no one dare to go near them.She has further stated in the cross-examination that she was carrying her seven-month-old infant and in that tense situation, she was not able to properly see, in which parts of the body Thirupathi (PW1) was attacked.It was suggested to her that, there are several cases pending against Thirupathi (PW1) and he picked up quarrel at Kumaragiri area, on account of which, he was attacked by someone and that, on account of previous motive, he has falsely implicated the petitioners, which suggestion, she denied.19.The fact remains that immediately after the incident,http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Dr.At the time of examination, Dr.Saravanan (PW9), in his evidence as well in the Accident Register copy (Ex.P4), has stated that the patient was conscious and he has noted the following injuries :Left hand middle finger lost2. Left hand ring finger severedParietal region 0.5 cm contusion on the left portion of the head4. 3x2x0.5 cm laceration on the right hand5. 0.5x0.5 cm laceration in the index finger6. 1x1 cm laceration on the upper lip7. 8x3x2 cm laceration in left leg2x1x1 cm laceration in the right knee"He has stated that there was profuse bleeding and issued Accident Register copy (Ex.P4).He has further stated that laceration can be caused by a weapon like knife and the injuries found on the leg, hip and neck could have been caused by a sharp instrument and there was an overwriting in the date portion, after the words, "assault by four known persons".He has stated that the injuries noted by him, could have occurred 4 to 4½ hours prior to his examination.K.S.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel, contended that Thirupathi (PW1) has stated in the cross-examination that the police examined him between 12.00 and 1.00 noon, whereas, Karunanithi (PW14), the Inspector of Police, has stated that the complaint was received at 14.30 hours.He built up this argument by further contending that Thirupathi (PW1) hashttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 stated that the incident took place at 12.15 p.m.; Kamaraj (PW2) has stated that the incident took place at 11.30 p.m. and Durga Devi (PW3) has stated that the incident took place at 01.00 p.m. He also contended that Durga Devi (PW3) has stated that the police came to the place of occurrence around 01.30 p.m. He summed up his submissions by urging that all these cumulatively show that there was an earlier complaint, which has been suppressed by the police, in order to falsely implicate the petitioners.21.The fact remains that Kamaraj (PW2) was examined by Dr.Saravanan (PW9) on 27.08.2008 at 01.00 p.m. Therefore, the incident must have taken place before 01.00 p.m. Dr.Saravanan (PW9) has noted eight injuries on the body of Kamaraj (PW2), which have been set out above.Kamaraj (PW2) was admitted as in-patient because, he was bleeding profusely, due to loss of two fingers and injury on his head.He was shifted to Stanley Hospital, Chennai for further treatment from Government Hospital, Salem.The defence have not refuted these aspects.The defence have not even suggested to any of the witnesses that a first complaint was given and after suppressing that, a second complaint has been lodged.22.Thirupathi (PW1) and Durga Devi (PW3) have stated that after meal, Kamaraj (PW2) went outside the house and was attacked.The incident had taken place on 27.03.2008 and the witnesses were examined before the trial Court on 22.06.2011, which is four years after the incident.But, indeed, we have never come across a case where the Station House Officer has taken the First Information Report Book with him to the scene of occurrence.According to the suggestion of defence the original First Information Report which was registered was something altogether different from what has now been put forward as the First Information Report and that the present report is one which has been substituted in the place of another which was destroyed.The F.I.R. book, if produced, would have contained the necessary counterfoils corresponding to the F.I.R. produced in Court. ..."On facts, the Supreme Court found that the police failed to produce the FIR book, despite the order of the Court and in those circumstances, acquitted the appellants therein.PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that the Police Station is only 10 feet away from the scene and as such, on hearing the hue and cry, the Police could have very well arrived at the scene immediately.Accordingly, PW1 also admitted that on hearing the hue and cry, the Police arrived at the scene.PW2 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that on hearing the hue and cry nearly 40 to 50 persons arrived at the scene and Police Constables came from the nearby Police Station and chased the accused. ..."A.No.18 of 2012 dated 21.12.2012 and the trial Court in S.C.No.354 of 2008 dated 14.02.2012 are confirmed.The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the petitioners, who are alive and commit them to prison for undergoing the remaining period of sentence, if any.1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.2.The II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Salem.3.The Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 20 P.N.PRAKASH, J.gya CRL.R.C.No.149 of 2013
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,356,017 |
Though the period of offences disclosed in the format of FIR is from 1993 to 29th June, 2002, the Clause 12 of the said FIR, which summarises the accusation against the persons named as the accused in the FIR, reads thus:-"Accused Nos.1 to 8 named in form 1-B were found to be members of an organised crime syndicate and continuing their unlawful activities by using unlawful means with the object of gaining pecuniary benefit or gaining undue economic or other advantage for themselves or any other persons for the last preceding 10 years and further committed malpractices in PSI Departmental Ltd. 1998 Examination conducted by the MPSC."The detail complaint of ACP Sudhakar Pujari which is recorded and attached to FIR discloses that pursuant to the complaint by Smt. Seema Dhamdhere, Secretary of MPSC, on 20th June, 2002, and registered as C.R.No.33 of 2002, investigations were carried out and in the course of investigation, a computer hard-disk was discovered from the accused Farook Kadage.On 6th February 2004, MPSC had also informed that out of the said 31 answer sheets, the 28 answer sheets were not printed by their agency.From the said facts, the modus operandi adopted in the Police Sub-Inspector Ltd. Departmental Exam-1998 appeared to be similar to the one adopted by the accused persons in the Asst./STI/PSI-1999 Examination i.e. printing of bogus answer sheets, marking them with correct answers, replacing them with the genuine MPSC answer sheets in the MPSC office by effecting unauthorised entry and committing theft of original answer sheets prior to the scanning of the said answer sheets.He thereafter had continued to visit MPSC office on one pretext or other.JUDGMENT R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.In all the petitions, rule, and by consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.Perused the records.Motor Vehicle Insp.Of those 31 candidates answer sheets of paper -I of 28 candidates were found to be bogus or forged on account of difference in print paper, ink, fonts and signature of invigilators.Further answer sheets of 3 candidates were suspected to be bearing forged signature of invigilators.
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,560,229 |
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 4 Crl.O.P.No.6973 of 2020Page 1 of 4After marriage the petitioner suspected her character and quarrel arose between them.On 30.01.2020, the victim hanged herself.The respondent Police register FIR under Section 173(4) Cr.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any such offence.The petitioner's wife has committed suicide for various other reasons and prayed for enlargement of the petitioner on bail.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner married Nadiyammal on 03.11.2019 and within a period of two months the petitioner quarrel with his wife suspecting her fertility and she committed suicide by hanging herself.Therefore, he strongly objected to enlarge the petitioner on bail.It is seen from the records that this Court by an order dated 26.03.2020 had released the petitioner on interim bail till 27.04.2020 onhttp://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 4 Crl.O.P.No.6973 of 2020 executing own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- before the Superintendent of the prison concerned and directed to list the case for further orders on 20.04.2020, that is the reason the present case has been posted today.Considering the submissions and since the petitioner has already been granted interim bail, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:Page 2 of 410.06.2020 rst To4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.O.P.No.6973 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 4Page 4 of 4The petitioner was arrested and remanded on judicial custody on 02.02.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 174(3) subsequently altered to 302 IPC.P.C and after investigation altered to 302 IPC against the petitioner.Initially the case was registered against the petitioner under Section 174(3) Cr.(b) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(c) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.(d) the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(f) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;(g) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];(h) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 4 Crl.O.P.No.6973 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.Page 3 of 4With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi.The Inspector of Police, Sirkazhi Police Station, Nagapattinam DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,898,589 |
And In the matter of: Dibakar Roy & Anr....petitioners Mr. Sabir Ahmed.........for petitioners Ms. S. K. Mahato...........for State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Ghoksadanga Police Station Case no. 80 of 2010 dated 27.5.2010 under sections 457/376/511/3213/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners and for the State.(Ashim Kumar Banerjee,J.) (Raghunath Ray, J.)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,490,269 |
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)At the outset, it may be mentioned that accused-appellant no. 1, Lakhan Singh having died, appeal in respect of him stood abated vide order dated 26.11.2015 passed by this Court.Therefore, this appeal presently survives with regard to appellants 2 and 3, i.e., Ran Vijai Singh and Shiv Vijai Singh.Factual matrix of case, as emerging from First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "F.I.R.") and evidence available on record, may be stated, in brief, as under :-A written report (Ex.Ka.1) was presented at Police Station - Bidhnu, District - Kanpur, by P.W.1 Ram Naresh Singh, Informant, alleging that he is residing in Village - Kathogar, within Police Circle - Bidhnu, along with his mama (maternal uncle) Shiv Mangal Singh and Girendra Singh from very childhood.A litigation in respect of wall and field was going on between aforesaid Shiv Mangal Singh and Girendra Singh on one side and appellants Lakhan Singh, Ram Vijai Singh, Shiv Vijay Singh and one Dhruv Singh on the other side.On account of said dispute, accused-appellants and Dhruv Singh bore enmity with maternal uncle of Informant.On fateful day i.e. 29.07.1982, Informant along with his maternal uncles Shiv Mangal Singh and Girendra Singh, was going to Kanpur in connection with pairvi of the case regarding dispute of wall and field.When they came out of the village, Shiv Mangal Singh was ahead of Informant Ram Naresh Singh and Girendra Singh.Accused-appellants Lakhan Singh and Shiv Vijay Singh, both armed with axe, Dhruv Singh armed with barchhi and accused-appellant Ram Vijai Singh armed with lathi who were hiding below the culvert (puliya) turned up all of a sudden and started assaulting Shiv Mangal Singh.When Informant Ram Naresh Singh and his uncle Girendra Singh raised alarm, Punnu Singh, son of Vihari Singh, resident of Village Nagwa and Ram Autar Singh, son of Shamsher Singh, resident of Village Orchhi, who were coming towards the village of the Informant, exhorted the accused.Thereafter, the accused appellants fled away towards West, after assaulting Shiv Mangal Singh.A pair of slippers and one bag of Shiv Vijay Singh and one pair of slippers of Ram Vijai Singh were lying at the place of occurrence.His maternal uncle and other members were present near the dead body.On the basis of written report Ex.Ka.1, Constable Moharir P.W.5 Nand Kishore Shukla prepared chik F.I.R. and registered the case in General Diary at Report No. 24, at 11.15 A.M.Investigation of the case ensued and it was assigned to P.W.6 Sub-Inspector Babu Lal, who was posted at Police Station - Bidhuna, as Second Officer.He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared inquest report Ex.Ka.2 and Ka.3; sealed the dead body and prepared challan lash Ex.Ka.4, photo lash Ex.Ka.5, report R.I. Ex.Ka.6, report C.M.O. Ex.Ka.7 and copy of specimen seal Ex.He also prepared site plan Ex.Ka.17; collected blood-stained and plain earth; material exhibits Ka-5 and Ka-6 and prepared recovery memo Ex.Ka.18; collected blood-stained axe Material Exhibit-1 and prepared recovery memo Ex.Ka. 19; took into possession one bag Material Exhibit-4 and prepared recovery memo Ex.Ka.20; prepared recovery memo Ex.Ka.21 in respect of slipper of blue colour, said to have belonged to accused-appellant Ram Vijai Singh; also took into possession clothe baniyan Material Exhibit-7, kurta Material Exhibit-8, saafi Material Exhibit-9, dhoti Material Exhibit 10, all belong to deceased and recovery memo in respect of these articles was prepared as Ex.(Emphasis added)On internal examination, left side frontal, left parietal and left temporal bone were found fractured.Left maxilla was also fractured.By impugned judgment, all accused-appellants have been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.") read with Section 34 I.P.C. and therefore, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.Autopsy on the dead body of deceased Shiv Mangal Singh was conducted by P.W.4 Dr. Shyam Mohan Krishna on 30.07.1982 at 04:45 P.M. In the opinion of doctor, deceased was aged about 58 years and 1½ day had passed since his death.Rigor mortis had passed off.He found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased :-Contusion 4 cm.x 2 cm.on back of left ear on temporal region.Contusion 4 cm.x 1 cm.on left side below Inj.no. 1 oblique.Lacerated wound 3 cm.x 1 cm.x bone deep placed on back near occipital region on back of left ear.Contusion 2 cm.x 1 cm.on left side of frontal region of scalp above left Eye brow.Contusion 2 cm.x 2 cm.on middle of left Eye brow.Contusion 4 cm.x 2 cm.at chin.Contusion 6 cm.x 2 cm.on left side of neck, oblique in middle.Contusion 5 cm.x 2 cm.on apex of left shoulder.Incised wound 6 cm.x 2 cm.bone deep on left cheek upper part oblique.Incised wound 4 cm.x 2 cm.bone deep placed on left cheek below Inj.Abrasion left side of chest lower part ant.aspect 5 cm.x 4 cm.Contusion 3 cm.x 1 cm.on left axilla on anterior axillary fold.Contusion 8 cm.x 2 cm.on left upper arm on lateral aspect oblique.Incised wound 5 cm.x 2 cm.on dorsum of left wrist in middle.Abrasion 10 cm.x 8 cm.on back left side upper part.Contusion 6 cm.x 2 cm.oblique on left side of chest lower part near Inj.Membranes were congested at fractured site; 8th, 9th and 10th ribs were fractured below injuries no. 11 and 16; lungs were lacerated in lower lobe; inside chest cavity contained half litre of blood; heart was empty; abdominal cavity contained about half litre of blood, due to rupture of spleen; stomach contained 200 grams of semi-digested food; small and large intestines contained faecal matter and gases; gall bladder was half full and weighed 11 grams; spleen was ruptured.In the opinion of doctor, death occurred due to coma as a result of ante-mortem head injuries.Thereafter, investigation was undertaken by Station Officer, who recorded statement of the witnesses and after conclusion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet Ex.Ka.23 in Court against accused-appellants under Section 302 I.P.C.The charge reads as under :-" I. V.P. Kalra, III Addl.Session Judge, Kanpur, hereby charge you Lakhan Singh, Dhruv Singh, Ram Vijay Singh and Shiv Vijai Singh as follows :-That on 29.7.1982 at about 8 A.M. in village Kathogar within the circle of P.S. Bidhnu, district Kanpur, in furtherence of your common intention armed with deadly weapons committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Shiv Mangal Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. & within my cognizance.And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge by this Court. "The accused-appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried.In support of its case, prosecution has examined, in all, six witnesses, out of whom, P.W.1 Ram Naresh Singh is the informant; P.W.2 Munnu Singh of Village Nagwa and P.W.3 Ram Autar Singh of Village Orchhi are eye-witnesses of the incident and have stated material facts about the occurrence.Rest three witnesses are formal witnesses.P.W.4 Dr. Shyam Mohan Krishna had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Shiv Mangal Singh and has proved postmortem report Ex.P.W.5 Constable Moharir Nawal Kishore Gupta has proved written report Ex.P.W.6 S.I. Babu Lal is the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "I.O.") and had appeared in court to prove the documents prepared by him during course of investigation, as already stated.He has also proved charge-sheet Ex.Ka.23 submitted in court by Second I.O. Sri R.K. Shukla.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have stated the prosecution story to be false and fabricated.All the accused-appellants have stated that witnesses are relatives of deceased Shiv Mangal Singh and hence, they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity.In defence, accused have got examined Raj Narain Yadav, Research Assistant at Chandrashekhar Azad University, Kanpur, Ajay Kumar Nigam, Advocate, Civil Court, Kanpur and Ram Babu, as D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3, respectively.After conclusion of evidence and hearing counsels for the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above.Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, all the accused-appellants have filed this appeal.Trial Court in holding appellants guilty, has recorded its finding as under :-(i) Death of Shiv Mangal Singh and his identity is not disputed by accused and stood proved as claimed by prosecution.(ii) The incident took place at around 08.00 a.m. on 29.07.1982 and F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 11.15 a.m. The distance from place of incident to police station was about 6 miles i.e. about 10 kms.That being so, it cannot be said that either F.I.R. was ante-timed or there was any delay in lodging the same and it has been reported with reasonable expeditiousness.(iii) The narration of incident in F.I.R. is sufficiently detailed.FIR is not an encyclopedia of entire bundle of facts so as to be treated as a document, giving minute details of incident.There was long drawn enmity between the parties.It was duly proved by witnesses.The incident has taken place in broad daylight and ocular evidence prove the same.Therefore, motive loses its importance, though in the present case, even otherwise, it was proved.There was no serious dispute with regard to the place of occurrence and hence it was proved.It was also proved by the witnesses and corroborated by post-mortem report.(vii) P.W.1 Ram Naresh Singh, P.W.2 Munnu Singh and P.W.3 Ram Autar Singh are eye-witnesses, who have proved the incident and their testimony could not be shaken in cross-examination.Therefore, the manner in which incident took place and also the fact as to who has committed the crime, has been proved by eye-witnesses.(viii) Presence of all the accused persons on the spot was also proved by witnesses.The fact that some other witnesses were not examined, could not vitiate the otherwise credible trustworthy evidence of eye-witnesses since in criminal tiral, it is not the quantity, but quality which is relevant.(ix) The defence witnesses were not found reliable.In the circumstances, accused persons have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced, as stated above.Heard Sri Apul Misra, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned Additional Government Advocate for State of Uttar Pradesh.20. Learned counsel for appellants before this Court has not challenged the finding of court below about the date, time, place and the manner in which death of Shiv Mangal Singh has taken place.Therefore, we are now required to examine only one question, i.e., "whether crime has been committed by the accused in manner prosecution has claimed and they have been rightly convicted by Court below".Ram Naresh Singh, P.W.1, is son of sister of deceased Shiv Mangal Singh (i.e. "bhanja").He was residing with his maternal uncle since childhood.There was old enmity between accused-appellant no. 1 Lakhan Singh and deceased and civil court cases were pending.All the accused-appellants as well as the deceased were residing in vicinity.Appellant no. 1, Lakhan Singh's house was in front of house of deceased Shiv Mangal Singh.Other appellants had their house around the house of Shiv Mangal Singh.Appellant nos. 2 and 3, who are real brothers.Shiv Mangal Singh lodged several complaints and applications against appellant nos. 2 and 3, expressing apprehension to his life.P.W.1, Informant, Ram Naresh Singh has stated that on 29.07.1982, he, Shiv Mangal Singh and Girendra Singh were going to Kanpur for pairvi of a case, in the morning.Shiv Mangal Singh was about 50-60 paces ahead of P.W.1 and Girendra Singh and when he reached near culvert (puliya), accused-appellants came out from behind the culvert (puliya) and attacked Shiv Mangal Singh with kulhadi, barchhi and lathi.Lakhan Singh had kulhadi, Ram Vijai Singh had lathi and Shiv Vijay Singh also had kulhadi in his hand.There was another person Dhruv Singh, who was also allegedly present along with accused-appellants and had barchhi in his hand, but he has been given benefit of doubt by Trial Court and he has been acquitted of charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C., hence we are not discussing the matter vis-à-vis Dhruv Singh.Injuries found by PW 4 on the body of deceased have been noticed in detail above.The deceased has multiple injuries showing attack by more than one person.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,902,834 |
Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are that on 4.10.84 DD No.13-A was recorded at police station Gandhi Nagar CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 2 of 36 and it was handed over to S.I. Balwant Singh for investigation, who along with S.I. Som Prakash, Constable Riaz-ul-Haz and constable Riaz went to the spot in Gali No.11, H.No.9/6682, Gandhi Nagar.From there he came to know that the injured had been removed to hospital and he went to JPN Hospital, in the hospital Sh.Teja Singh, the father of the deceased met him.He recorded his statement to the effect that he was residing at H.No.9/6682 and was running a shop at 149 Main Road, Gandhi Nagar under the name of Khalsa General Store.His sons Richpal Singh, Jasbir Singh and Charanjit Singh were also residing in the same house and are working with him in the same shop.On 4.10.84 due to Dusshera festival, they closed their shop at 5:00 p.m. At about 7:30 p.m. he went to Gurdwara Singh Sahab, Gandhi Nagar and when he was returning to his house at about 8:15 p.m. five boys were going ahead of him.He knew the names of four boys, Mukesh, who was running a readymade garment shop, and he was residing in his street, Vimal and Ajay @ Pappi and Mukesh s/o.Kartar Singh are well known to him.Fifth boy, whom he can identify, was young.His pet dog was sitting in front of his house.Mukesh s/o.Kartar SIngh gave leg blow to his dog.He asked him as to why he has given leg blow to his dog.On this he replied that they would beat him also.He caught hold of him and all the boys started abusing him and they also gave 2/3 slap blows to him.On hearing the noise, his elder son Richpal Singh also came out of the house and enquired as to what was the matter and started saving him.27. PW-5, Richhpal Singh, is the brother of the deceased.He has testified that he runs a shop in the name and style of Khalsa General Store.He has further testified that he, Charanjit Singh, Jasbir Singh (his brothers) and their father, Teja Singh, sit at the said shop.On the eve of Dussehra (4.10.1984), he closed his shop at 5.00 p.m. and returned home.His father left for Gurudwara at 7.30 p.m. He was sitting in his house wearing a banian and trouser, when he heard a commotion outside his house.He came out and saw five persons, namely, Mukesh @ Mukki, s/o Sh.Dhani Ram; Ajay @ Poppy; Vimal; Mukesh Kumar, s/o Kartar Singh; and one more person, whose name he learnt later on as Sudhir.All the four persons he identified in Court except Ajay, who had died.All the four persons were calling names to his father Teja Singh and beating him with fist blows.When he stopped them, Mukesh, s/o, Dhani Ram, attacked him with a knife.He sustained a simple injury on the right side bottom of his abdomen.Meanwhile, Ajay @ Poppy dragged him by his banian.On hearing the alarm, his younger brother, Jasbir Singh, reached there to intervene and save his father.All the three accused persons, Mukesh s/o Kartar Singh, Vimal and Ajay @ Poppy, surrounded his brother, Jasbir Singh.Sudhir stood in front of him.Mukesh s/o Dhani Ram attacked his brother with a knife, as a result of which, he sustained injury on the left side of the chest above the heart.He and his father raised CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 17 of 36 an alarm whereupon all the five accused persons fled from the spot and ran towards the main bazaar.His father removed Jasbir Singh in an auto to JPN Hospital.Police reached the spot and picked up the turban from the drain.He had told the Police the names of four accused persons.He has testified that he is running a shop along with his sons.On 4.10.1984 because of Dussehra shop was closed and he went home at about 5.00 p.m. He along with his sons were present in the house.At 7.30 p.m. he went to the Gurudwara and returned at about 8.15 p.m. While he was in the gali of his house, he saw five boys going ahead of him.This witness has further testified that he and his son Richhpal Singh shouted that they had CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 20 of 36 knifed his son and all five of them ran towards the bazaar on the main road.Another important witness is PW-14, Inspr.Balwan Singh.He has testified that on 4.10.1984 he was posted at Police Station Ghandi Nagar.As per the testimony of PW-5 their shop was closed at 5.00 p.m. on account of Dussehra.He and his father raised an alarm, upon which all five accused persons fled from the spot.Teja Singh, PW-6 (father of PW-5), has also testified that he closed his shop at 5.00 p.m. on account of Dussehra.Thereafter he had gone to the Gurudwara and when he was returning from the Gurudwara at about 8.15 p.m., five accused persons were ahead of him.Mukesh (one of the five boys) had kicked his dog and when he objected, all the five boys abused him and slapped him.58. Having held that the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 are not reliable, we have examined the communication dated 11.12.1984, addressed by the Investigation Officer to the Professor and Head of the Department, Forensic, Maulana Azad Medical College.The communication dated 11.12.1984 reads as under:"The Professor & Head of the Dept.Even though the inquest report, Crl.A 288/2011, Crl.A 402/2011, Crl.A 403/2011 & Crl.Four appeals have been filed by the appellants (Sudhir Kumar, Vimal Anand, Mukesh Kumar @ Mukki and Mukesh Kumar) challenging the judgment of the trial court dated 27.5.1998 by which all the four appellants were held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 28.5.1998 by which appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in case the fine is not paid, the convicts were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.The case of the prosecution as it unfolds and noticed by the trial court is as under:On this, Mukesh, who runs a shop in their street, took out a knife and attacked Richpal Singh but Richpal CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 3 of 36 Singh moved away and the tip of the knife hurt him on his abdomen.In the meantime his second son, Jasbir Singh also came to help them, on hearing the noise and he started saving them from those boys.Mukesh s/o.Kartar Singh, Ajay, Vimal and fourth boy exhorted Mukesh that what are you seeking, finish him by the knife blows.On this Mukesh s/o.Dhani Ram made a murderous attack on his son Jasbir Singh and stabbed him with knife on his chest.He as well as his son, Richpal Singh raised alarm to save Jasbir Singh.On this all the five boys ran away from the spot.Blood starting oozing from the chest of Jasbir Singh.He took to Irwin Hospital in an auto - ricikshaw.On reaching the hospital, doctors declared him dead.All the five boys referred above have murdered his son Jasbir Singh by giving him a knife blow with a common intention.Action be taken against them.On this statement of the complainant, Sh.Teja Singh, Investigating Officer made his endorsement and sent the ruqqa through constable Riaz-ul-Hassan for registration of the FIR."CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 2 of 36CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 3 of 36In support of their case, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses.No evidence was led by the defence.Statements of all the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.All the appellants denied their presence at the spot of the incident.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have jointly submitted that the judgment of the trial court is based on conjectures and surmises and the appellants have been falsely implicated in a blind murder.The testimony of two witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 who claim themselves as eye-CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 4 of 36witnesses are unreliable and not trustworthy; both the said witnesses (PW- 5 & PW-6 are the brother and father of the deceased) were not present at the spot of the incident.It is contended that the testimony of both these witnesses do not inspire any confidence on account of their respective conduct.It has also been contended that although three out of four appellants were named by PW-6 in the statement recorded before the police only a vague description of the fourth alleged assailant (Sudhir Kumar) appellant in CRL.A. 248/1998 was given.It is submitted that this lapse is fatal as it has come on record that an FIR was registered at serial no.278 on 3.10.1984 and thereafter present FIR was registered at serial CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 5 of 36 No.279 on 4.10.1984 at 10:58 p.m. and thereafter the next FIR is registered only on 8.10.1984 and this period was used to manipulate and falsely implicate the appellants herein.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 5 of 36Dhani Ram) had inflicted one knife blow on Jasbir Singh, whereas the post-mortem report revealed that there were not one but two knife blows at a distance of 15 c.ms.In order to falsely implicate the appellants the I.O. sought another opinion from doctor, Bishnu Kumar (PW-1).It is contended that the communication dated 11.12.1984 is suggestive of the opinion sought from doctor.Counsel for the appellants submit that the opinion procured from doctor (Bishnu Kumar) is absurd, as according to him the second injury was caused either by the same weapon during scuffle or while the weapon was being thrust on the chest of the deceased or during the process of its being taken out of the body of the deceased, as the distance between two wounds is 15 c.m., which would make it an impossibility.Dhani Ram, who was exhorted by other three appellants by saying DEKHTE KYA HO, ISE CHAKU MAR KAR KHATAM KAR DO.Additionally it is argued that neither there was any motive nor meeting of minds, as initially it was the case of the prosecution that all the four appellants had slapped PW-6 (Teja Singh) and on hearing commotion PW-5 had tried to save his father; he was attacked and when Jasbir Singh entered he was stabbed, it is thus contended that no role can in fact be ascribed to the three assailants; neither there was any meeting of mind, nor any conspiracy to do away with the Jasbir Singh, who was not even present when the initial incident sparked.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 7 of 36We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and also examined the testimonies of the witnesses.Before the rival submissions of counsel for the parties can be considered, we deem it appropriate to analyse the CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 13 of 36 testimonies of some of the material witnesses.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 13 of 3623. PW-1, Dr.Bishnu Kumar, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Malulana Azad Medical College, Delhi, has testified that he conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Jasbir Singh, on 5.10.1984 at 2.00 p.m. and he found the following injuries:"On external examination of the body, the following injuries were present:-Incised punctured wound 2 x 0.9 cm.on the left side front of chest, oblique both margins were clean cut and both angles were acute situated 2 cm to the left of mid line over sternum just below the attachment of 5th rib, lower outer end being 127 cm above left heel and it was going chest cavity deep.Linear verticle abrasion 3 x 0.2 cm on the right sub-costal margin 13.5 cm from mid line, just outside nipple line as if caused by a pointed weapon."PW-1 also opined that death, in this case, was due to cardiac temponade (heart failure) due to collection of blood in pericardial sac.All the injuries were ante mortem and recent.Injury No.1 was caused by a sharp, double edged penetrating weapon and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.His original post mortem report in this respect is Ex.PW.1/A which is in his hand, bears his signatures.This witness has further testified that subsequently on receipt of an application Ex.PW.1/8 he gave an opinion vide his letter dated 12.12.1984 which is Ex.PW.1/C that the injury No.1 was caused by a sharp double edged pointed weapon, while injury No.2 was caused either by some pointed weapon during scuffle or while the weapon was being thrust on the chest of the deceased or during the CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 14 of 36 process of its being taken out from the body of the deceased.In his cross-examination, this witness has testified that he had given the location of both the injuries when he examined the deceased.One of the injuries was on the right side at sub-costal margin while the other was on the left hand side of the chest just near the mid line, and in his opinion there is a difference of 15 cm.between these two injuries.This witness did not deny the suggestion that while performing the post mortem he was very much conscious to determine the kind of weapon used in inflicting the two injuries and he has already indicated above.The following amongst other questions were also put to the witness:CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 15 of 36It is incorrect to suggest that my second opinion was on speculation.It was mainly on the scientific evidence present on post mortem examination although no weapon was produced before me.A. The IO submitted the application in my office and not to me personally.26. PW-4, Balbir Singh, Assistant Drafsman, Crime Branch, Delhi, has testified that on 25.2.1984 he visited the place of occurrence, on the CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 16 of 36 pointing out of Teja Singh he prepared rough notes of the place of occurrence and thereafter he prepared the scale map.The original drawing was exhibited as Exhibit PW-4/A.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 16 of 36Ajay @ Poppy took off the turban from the head of his brother and threw the same into a drain.All the accused persons except Mukesh Singh s/o Dhani Ram exhorted Mukesh s/o Dhani Ram to finish off Jasbir Singh with a knife.The accused persons had refused to join the TIP.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 17 of 36During cross-examination, PW-5 has testified that he was taken to the hospital for medical examination.He denied the suggestion that the injury was self-inflicted.He was confronted with the statement, Exhibit PW- 5/DA, whereupon he testified in Court as well that the accused persons had exhorted Mukesh to finish off his brother.He has also testified in cross-examination that neither any lady from the house nor anyone from the neighbourhood reached the spot.He also testified that Jasbir Singh was a married person with a wife and children.He has further testified that his wife was present in the house at the time of the incident.He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot.Further during his cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused Mukesh, this witness has testified that there are houses on both sides as well as in front of his house.He has also testified that his father is not inimical to or hostile to any accused person.Similarly the accused persons are neither inimical nor hostile towards his father.The accused persons might have slapped his father for one or two minutes.He had heard the voice of his father as well as that of other persons when he came out.None was present at the time of quarrel in between his father and the accused persons.None came to the spot at the time of the incident of stabbing.The entire quarrel/scuffle was over including the stabbing incident within five minutes.He did not see any injury mark on his father nor he himself received any injury, except that of a scratch on abdomen CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 18 of 36 which tore his bunian.When he went to contact the police on telephone he was wearing a torn bunian.He has told the police on telephone that his brother has been stabbed.The witness then testified that he did not understand the question properly.He had never contacted the police on telephone.He simply contacted his relations on telephone.He contacted his relations on telephone from the house of Kishan Lal who resides in the same lane.He contacted only 2/3 relations on telephone.His brother was removed to the hospital in his presence.He did not accompany his brother to the hospital.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 18 of 3630. PW-5 has also stated in his cross-examination that he remained at his house during this period.He has further testified that he did not recollect as to whether he lifted his brother.He has further testified that he did not see any blood on the ground.He also did not recollect whether his clothes were strained with blood or not.During cross-examination on behalf of the accused Vimal, this witness has testified that he did not see any dog when he came outside his house, neither he heard any barking of the dog.He has also testified that there might have been 40 houses in his lane on either side and he knew 90% of the inhabitants of the houses in his lane.Also during cross-examination he has stated that by the time Mohalla people gathered at the spot the accused persons had already escaped.Further during cross-examination conducted on behalf of the appellant Mukesh @ Muky this witness has testified that his brother, Charanjit Singh, was not present at his house as he had gone to the house of his in- laws.He returned at 10.30/11.00 p.m. Telephonic message was sent to him, and a messenger was also sent.Other relations, who were nearby were informed on the same night about the incident.The remaining CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 19 of 36 relations were informed afterwards.This witness has further testified that he did not follow the scooter to the hospital neither did he go to the hospital.He has also testified that his father is short statured, he is old and weak.Although during cross-examination, he has testified that the Police had come to their house at 9.00 p.m. yet he did not tell the Police that he had witnessed the occurrence.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 19 of 36Another important witness is PW-6, Teja Singh, the father of the deceased.Mukesh s/o Kartar Singh kicked his pet dog and when he objected all the five boys abused him and slapped him (Out of five he identified the four accused persons in the Court).He raised an alarm.His son Richhpal Singh came out of the house and objected; upon which Mukesh s/o Dhani Ram took out a knife and assaulted his son Richhpal Singh but only the tip of the knife touched him and Richhpal did not suffer any major injury.The knife was pointed towards the right abdomen side of Richhpal Singh.There was bleeding and later on he was medically treated.On hearing the noise, his other son Jasbir Singh came out.The accused persons slapped him as a result of which his pagri went off and fell into the nali.All the accused persons except the accused Mukesh s/o Dhani Ram (including the deceased Ajay alias Popi accused) shouted that "DEKHTE KYA HO, ISE CHAKU MAR KAR KHATAM KAR DO." Accused Mukesh son of Dhani Ram gave a knife blow on the chest of Jasbir Singh.He removed the injured Jasbir Singh in a three wheeler to Irwin Hospital.The doctor declared him dead at the hospital.He made the statement to the doctor narrating the incident and the Doctor wrote his statement.In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused Sudhir, this witness has testified that after the occurrence, his other injured son Richhpal Singh had not accompanied him to the Hospital when he had removed the injured Jasbir.The doctor in the hospital did not take his signature on his statement.When the news of the death of his son Jasbir was broken to him, he became unconscious.In his statement on 4th and 6th October, 1984 he had mentioned that he knew the accused Sudhir but he had not given any description of the vocation of accused Sudhir as the same had not been asked for from him by the police.(Confronted with Ex.PW 6/A where it is not recorded that the witness knew the accused Sudhir and what is recorded therein is that the fifth boy was of young age and that he can identify him).This witness denied the suggestion that the accused Sudhir was neither known to him prior to the occurrence nor he was present at the spot nor had he participated in the incident.During his cross-examination on behalf of accused Mukesh s/o Pratap Singh, this witness has testified that his son had been inflicted one knife blow.Prior to the inflicting of the knife blow, there was a joint exhortation by the four accused persons except the actual assailant that "Maar Chaku".During cross-examination this witness has also testified that he reached the hospital with his son Jasbir; and there was nobody else with them.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 21 of 36Even after Jasbir was declared dead nobody from the family had come to the hospital.On hearing the news of his son, he had become unconscious and even after he gained consciousness he did not see any member of his family around him.He has also testified that he engaged the scooter himself for taking his injured son to the hospital and with the help of someone his son was put in the scooter as his son was not in a position to sit in the scooter.During cross-examination, this witness has further stated that he did not tell the names of the persons, who stabbed his son to the Doctor.PW-8, Harjeet Singh, another brother of the deceased, has testified that he identified the dead body of his younger brother at the mortuary.During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he lived at a distance of 4-5 kms.away from the house of his father.There were differences between brothers on the one side and the father on the other side.He learnt about the murder of his brother the next morning and came to the house of his father.He had reached the house of his father at about 9.30 a.m. He did not see any resident present at the house when he reached.This witness has further testified that his uncle Mehnga Ram was present.He has also testified that his statement was recorded during afternoon at about 1.00 or 2.00 p.m. By the time his statement was recorded by the Police, he had not come to know the name of the assailants.38. PW-9, SI Raj Kumar, has testified that he wrote the FIR in this case.A carbon copy of the FIR has been exhibited as Exhibit PW-9/A. In his cross-examination, he has testified that the earlier FIR No.278 is dated 3/10/84 at 3.15 pm and FIR no.279 is dated 4/10/1984 at 10.40 PM.FIR no.280 is dated 8/10/84 at 10.45 am.Name, CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 22 of 36 Number and departure of the Constable who took the special report are not mentioned in FIR.He has denied the suggestion that any Rukka was not received or that the FIR was concocted later on.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 22 of 3639. PW-13, Dr.V.K. Goyal, has proved the CFSL report.He had received DD No.13-A marked X and on receipt of the DD he along with SI Som Prakash, Const.Riazul Haq went to the spot when he learnt that the injured had already been removed to the hospital.Teja Singh was present in the hospital.His statement was recorded, he sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case and prepared a rukka.The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem.He has further testified that he reached the spot at 8.50 but no witness was available at the spot.The spot was situated in a thickly populated area.During cross-examination, this witness has testified that he did not know at what time the special report was delivered to the Ilaka Magistrate because it was sent by the SHO.The arguments of counsel for the appellants can be summarised as under:i) The spot of the incident is doubtful as no earth control was removed and neither blood was found at the spot of the incident;ii) Testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 are unreliable as they were not present at the spot of the incident;iii) Despite knowing the names of the assailants the father of the deceased stated in the MLC that his son was murdered by miscreants;iv) It is unusual that an old and infirm father would remove his CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 23 of 36 injured son in a three wheeler to the hospital when his young son was present at the spot;CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 23 of 36v) Clothes of the father soaked in blood were not seized;vi) Nothing on record to show compliance of Sections 154 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;vii) PW-8, Harjit Singh came at the spot only the next morning at 9.30 and he has testified that he was not aware about the names of the assailants till afternoon;eye-witness one knife blow was inflicted whereas the medical evidence suggests of two blows;x) Despite the area being thickly populated statement of single neighbour was not recorded.The arguments of learned counsel for the State and counsel for the complainant can be summarised as under:i) Case is proved beyond reasonable doubt;Both PW-5 and PW-6 claimed to be the eye-witnesses.His father had gone to the Gurudwara at 7.30 p.m. He was present inside his house and on hearing of commotion he came out and saw five accused persons were calling names to his father and beating him with fist blows.On account of his protest, he was attacked by Mukesh s/o Dhani Ram with a knife.He had sustained a simple injury on the right side bottom of his abdomen, when his brother, Jasbir Singh, also reached there and tried to intervene to save his father.Upon which Jasbir Singh was stabbed by Mukesh s/o Dhani Ram; the stab injury was inflicted on the left side of his chest above the heart.He raised an alarm whereupon his son, Richhpal Singh came out from inside the house and he was attacked with a knife.Thereafter his son, Jasbir Singh, came out.All the accused persons, except accused Mukesh Singh s/o Dhani Ram, shouted that "DEKHTE KYA HO, ISE CHAKU MAR KAR KHATAM KAR DO", whereupon Mukesh s/o CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 26 of 36 Dhani Ram gave a knife blow on the chest of Jasbir Singh.He had then removed his injured son, Jasbir Singh, in a three wheeler scooter, to Ervin Hospital.The Doctor declared him brought dead.He had made a statement to Doctor narrating the incident.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 26 of 36We find the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 to be unreliable for the reasons that conduct of PW-5 is highly unusual and improbable.In case, he was present at the spot, it is virtually unthinkable that he would allow his old infirm father to put his injured son in a three wheeler scooter and take him to the hospital while he stayed at home.It may be noticed that PW-5 has testified during cross-examination that he did not accompany his father and in fact did not go the hospital.He also did not recollect as to who lifted his brother to be put in the scooter.He has also stated in his cross-examination that he did not see any blood on the ground, neither did he recollect whether there was blood on his clothes.It is again very unusual that PW-5 would not try to save his brother or after being stabbed not put him in the three wheeler and accompany him and his father to the hospital.We also find it unusual that according to PW-6, Teja Singh, the appellants had kicked the pet dog, which was the genesis of the incident, but in the statement of PW-5, Richpal Singh, there is no mention at all about any pet dog, leave alone the appellants having kicked the pet dog.The father, PW-6, has testified that he took his son in a three wheeler.Neither his clothes were seized nor there was any evidence that his clothes were soaked in blood, nor his clothes were seized and sent to the FSL.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 27 of 36Another aspect, which creates a doubt with regard to the testimony of this witness, is that PW-6, who knew the names of four out of the five assailants, informed the Doctor that his son had been injured by some miscreants.Although it is not mandatory for the father to have given the names of the assailants to the Doctor but when he described the assailants as miscreants, despite having known their names creates a doubt in the testimony of PW-6, coupled with the fact that blood was not collected and not found from the spot of the incident.The submissions of counsel for the State that the incident took place in the month of October and the deceased would be wearing woollen clothes and the blood would not have oozed out of the clothes is without any force for the reasons that the month of October is not cold and having regard to the nature of injuries even if the deceased was wearing woollens blood would certainly have fallen on the ground.In the case of Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, reported at AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263, it was held as under:To add to this another important circumstances is the omission on the part of the prosecution to send the bloodstained earth found at the place of occurrence for chemical examination which could have fixed the situs of the assault.In almost all criminal cases, the bloodstained earth found from the place of occurrence is invariably sent to the Chemical Examiner and his report along with the earth is produced in the Court, and yet this is one exceptional case where this procedure was departed from for reasons best known to the prosecution.This also, therefore, shows that the defence version may be true.It is well settled that it is not necessary for the defence to prove its case with the same rigour as the prosecution is required to prove its case, and it is sufficient if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case which is sufficient to enable the Court to reject the prosecution version."CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 28 of 36Both PW-5 and PW-6 have testified that their house is situated in a densely populated area.During cross-exmination, PW-5 has testified that there are forty houses in his lane on either side.In fact PW-5 has testified that he knows 90% of the habitants of the houses in his lane.Similar statement has been made by PW-6 father.It is highly unusual that in the entire commotion (when five boys called PW-6 by name and slapped him; thereafter one boy stabbed PW-5 at the first instance and thereafter Jasbir Singh); not a single neighbour either saw the incident or came to the spot of the incident.For the reasons stated above the presence of PW-5 and PW-6 at the spot of the incident itself becomes doubtful.We are conscious of the fact that public persons avoid joining the investigation but having regard to the area in question and the number of houses, it is highly improbable that not a single neighbour would either join the investigation or at least come to the spot of the incident.Another reason why the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-6 are unreliable is that both these witnesses, who claim to be present at the spot and have witnessed the incident, have deposed that Jasbir Singh was stabbed only once, whereas as per the post-mortem report there were two injuries on the body of the deceased.Of Forensic Medicine, CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 29 of 36 Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi.CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 29 of 36Sub: Medical opinion in the case FIR No.279 dt.4.10.84 u/Ss.302/34 IPC P.S. Gandhi Nagar regarding death of Sh.Jasbir Singh.Sir, On 5.10.84 post-mortem (Vide) No.416/84 was conducted on the dead body of Sh.Jasbir Singh s/o.Shri Teja Singh r/o.IX/6682, Janta Gali, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.In this report two external injuries have been given.The Professor is informed that the eye-witnesses have stated that victim was stabbed only once.What is surprising is the explanation tendered by Balwan Singh himself in the last para of the letter, which reads as under:CRL.A.Nos. 248, 252, 253 & 261/1998 Page 30 of 36
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,904,724 |
Item no. 22 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.6419 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 Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 294 of 2018 dated 04.07.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/323/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Abdul Hoque @ Abdul Haque & anr.... Petitioners Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Advocate Mr. Avik Ghatak, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No. 294 of 2018 dated 04.07.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/323/325/326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and refers to the injury report.The State also says that the petitioners have been named by the victim before the doctors.Since the petitioners have been identified and there may not be any scope for them to abscond, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail as long as they cooperate with the investigation.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed 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.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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.
|
134,905,118 |
In brief the facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Police, Khandwa submitted a report on 6.10.2016 in respect 2 W.P. No.6627 of 2017 of petitioner Ganesh @ Gannu on the ground that he is a resident of village Borisaray, Police Station new Harsood, District Khandwa and he is continuously involved in criminal activities since 2008 and his presence in the city has created serious law and order situation and as such no person is coming forward to depose against him in the court of law.2 W.P. No.6627 of 2017A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in this behalf by the District Magistrate Khandwa and a reply was also filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice although neither the show cause notice nor the reply is placed along with the writ petition.Considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the District Magistrate passed the order dated 29.11.2016 whereby the petitioner is prohibited to enter into the boundaries of District East Nimar, Khandwa and the adjoining districts i.e. Burhanpur, Khargone, Dewas, Betul, Harda and Indore for a period of one year.Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that false proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 for the reason that although the petitioner is said to be involved in as many as 16 criminal cases but he has been acquitted in 11 cases and 5 cases are still pending.The learned counsel has also filed copies of orders of acquittal.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a patent illegality has been committed by the 3 W.P. No.6627 of 2017 District Magistrate in not recording satisfaction regarding the apprehension in the minds of the victims to depose against the petitioner and no clear cut opinion has been formed by the learned District Magistrate which has resulted in passing the impugned order.3 W.P. No.6627 of 2017On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order either by the District Magistrate or by the Commissioner in an appeal as the petitioner is a habitual offender being involved in as many as 16 offences under various penal provisions including IPC, M.P. Excise Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, Arms Act, SC/ST Act and his record clearly reveals that he is a man of criminal antecedent and cannot be restrained merely by registering cases against him.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.4 W.P. No.6627 of 2017The second condition which must be satisfied for passing of an order of externment against a person is that in the opinion of the District Magistrate, witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by a reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of person or property.Construing a pari materia provision in section 27 of the City of Bombay Police Act, 1902 in Gurbachan Singh vs. 5 W.P. No.6627 of 2017 The State of Bombay and another, AIR 1952 SC 221, the Supreme Court observed:-5 W.P. No.6627 of 2017"The law is certainly an extra-ordinary one and has been made only to meet those exceptional cases where no witnesses for fear of violence to their person or property are willing to depose publicly against certain bad characters whose presence in certain areas constitute a menace to the safety or the public residing therein."In the instant case, the District Magistrate has in the impugned order only baldly stated that the list of offences registered against the petitioner reflects that he is a daring habitual criminal and because of this there is fear and terror in the public and has not recorded any clear opinion on the basis of materials, that in his opinion witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by a reason of apprehension on their part as regards safety of their person or property.In most of the cases, Challans have been filed by the Police in Court obviously after examination of the witnesses under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and the cases are pending in the Court.There is no reference in the order of District Magistrate that witnesses named in the Challans filed by the Police are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner in Court.Hence, in the absence of any existence of material to show that witnesses are not coming forward by a reason of apprehension to danger to their person or property to give evidence against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences, an order under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 cannot be passed by the District Magistrate by merely repeating the language of section 5(b) of the Act of 1990."(emphasis supplied) 6 W.P. No.6627 of 20176 W.P. No.6627 of 2017In the present case also there is no reference of the witnesses who have been named in the charge sheets filed against the petitioner and who have not been able to depose against the petitioner but only a passing reference has been made in order to complete the formalities.In appeal also, all these points have not been considered.In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the District Magistrate and the order dated 24.4.2017 passed by the Commissioner in appeal are hereby quashed.Before parting with the case, it would be necessary to comment on the callous approach adopted by the District Magistrate and police officials in securing an order of externment under the provisions of M.P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 which finally gets quashed by the High Court.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,916,942 |
Therefore, these two allied petitions are decided onmerit by this common judgment.Facts leading to present petition are that :-4] The First informant - Kanhaiyalal Peshuram Arora, filedreport that on 30.11.2017 in the night hours at about 9.30 to 10.00p.m., he accompanied with his wife Rinka were proceeding towards ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {4} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odtthe bridge from School No. 58 located in Samata Nagar.He hadseen the petitioner - Yogesh Chandralal Bajaj sitting near theschool.The petitioner - Yogesh started hurling abuses to thecomplainant.There was bitter exchange of words in between them.The petitioner Bantiattacked on the complainant and his brothers with broken glassbottle of beer.The on-lookers Sandip Arora, Sunil GiridharilalSulaha and others intervened in the scuffle.The complainant andthe brothers received serious injuries.5] I.O. visited to the spot and drawn the panchanama ofscheme of occurrence.He recorded statements of witnessesacquainted with the facts of the case.I.O. collected medicalcertificate and also seized blood stained clothes of the injured.The petitioner Shashi Arora attacked him by means of aknife on his back.The petitioner - Mayur assaulted on his nose byiron rod and inflected fracture injuries.The petitioner Macchli @Santosh attacked him by kicks and fist blows and given threats oflife.The on-lookers thronged at the spot and intervened in thefight.In the argument, the petitioner Yogi Bajaj attacked the complainantKanhaiyalal on the right hand wrist by iron rod and caused fractureinjuries.The petitioner - Yogesh called other petitioners - HonuSundarlal Bajaj, Banti Honu Bajaj, Deepak Sablani and DhabuChandralal Bajaj, by making phone call.The other petitionersthronged at the spot and assaulted the complainant Kanhaiyalal andhis brothers Shashi and Santosh, who arrived, later on to intervenein the scuffle.The petitioner Dhabu Babaj, dealt a blow of sword onthe head of Shashi - brother of complainant.He dodged the blow,however, there were bleeding injuries to his ear-lobe.Thepetitioner Deepak Sabnani assaulted another brother of thecomplainant - Santosh with weapon - Knife.They were escorted to theSiddheshwar hospital for medical treatment.On the following day,after receipt of information, the police recorded statements of theinjured Kanhaiyalal and registered the crime against the petitionersunder Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of IPC ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {5} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odtand set the penal law in motion.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::I.O.recovered the weapon of crime at the behest of the petitionersYogesh @ Yogi Chandralal Bajaj, under Section 27 of the EvidenceAct.The petitioner Hitesh @ Dhabu also produced the weapon ofcrime - sword under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He seized theMuddemal and sent the sample for Chemical analysis.Criminal Writ Petition No. 78 of 20196] This petition is moved by the petitioners to quash thecriminal proceeding initiated against them bearing Crime No. 279of 2017, registered under Sections 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 r/w.34of IPC, and Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act, on 5/12/2017 at DhuleCity P.S. The petitioners, are seeking relief of quashing, on theground that the dispute has been settled amicably between thepetitioners - accused and the complainant.Facts giving rise to the present petition are :-7] The complainant Yogesh Chandralal Bajaj on 5.12.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {6} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odtapproached to the police of Dhule City P.S. and ventilated thegrievances that on 31.11.2017, he was proceeding towards KumarNagar to see his friend Ajay Durge.When he was passing fromSamta Nagar area, that time, he saw that respondent No. 6 Dhabu,petitioner Kanhaiyalal @ Kannumal Arora, petitioner No. 2, ShashiPeshumal Arora, petitioner No. 3 Mayur Shashi Arora and petitionerNo. 4 Macchli @ Santosh Peshumal Aroara were standing in frontof the dispensary of Dr. Palani.These petitioners, without anyreasonable cause, started abusing the complainant Yogesh.Therewas bitter exchange of words in between them.In the fight, thepetitioner Kannumal attacked complainant Yogesh Arora withweapon - wooden log of base ball and caused fracture injuries to hisright hand.Thereafter, the injured Yogesh Bajaj was admitted in the HireMedical Hospital and later-on in the private hospital of Dr. More formedical treatment.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::8] Pursuant to report of injured Yogesh, the police of Dhulecity P.S. registered the crime against the petitioners and set thepenal law in motion.I.O. recorded statements of witnesses ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {7} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odtacquainted with the facts of the case.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::9] Pending the investigation, the petitioners - accused andthe complainant in both the aforesaid proceedings, got their disputecompromised in between them.It has been stated that thepetitioners realized that they acted impulsively and now they do notwant to continue with the fight which could be un-ending and maytrigger future offences also.10] The petitioners and complainant, filed affidavits to thateffect and submit that they have settled their dispute amicably withthe intervention of relatives and responsible senior persons fromthe society.Therefore, both the present proceedings be quashed byexercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.11] Shri Parajanjape learned counsel for the petitioners inboth the petitions vehemently submits that the incident of assaultwas occurred on the spur of moment.The acts of both the partieswere not pre-determined.The petitioners realized that it isnecessary to patch up the dispute and differences to maintaincordial relations in between them in future as well in the interest ofcommunity at large.According to the learned counsel for the ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {8} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odtpetitioners, in view of amicable settlement of dispute, there is nochance to record conviction against the accused persons and theentire exercise of trial would be an futile efforts.Therefore, it wouldbe justifiable to compound the offence on the basis of compromisearrived at between the petitioners accused and the complainant.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the exposition oflaw delineated by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of"Narinder Singh & Ors.State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 6SCC 446; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.Kalyan Singh & Ors.2019 AIR (SC) 312; Gulab Das and Ors.V. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCALE 625; and unreportedjudgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Parbatbhai Aahir@ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Ors.State ofGujarat and Anr.in Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017."12] We have given anxious consideration to the argumentsadvanced on behalf of petitioners and the respondent State ofMaharashtra.It is not in dispute that the offence punishable underSection 307 and 326 are non-compoundable as per Section 320 ofCr.P.C. The allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution againstthe petitioners are serious and heinous in nature.The petitionersattacked the complainant with lethal weapons like sword, knife, iron ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {9} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odtrod, etc. and inflicted fatal injuries on the vital part of body.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::"29.6 Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone.However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor.On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak.In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties.At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {11} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odt future relationship."::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::{12} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odt "3.1 It is required to be noted that the original Accused was facing the criminal proceedings under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC.It is not in dispute that as per Section 20 of the Cr.P.C. offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are non- compoundable.It is also required to be noted that the allegations in the complaint for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are, as such, very serious.It is alleged that the accused fired twice on the complainant by a country- made pistol.In the said decision, this Court has specifically observed and held that, despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand and the accused on::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {13} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odt the other, the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the offences under Section 307 is a non- compoundable offence.Under the circumstance, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the original Accused for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::16] In the recent pronouncement of the Honourable ApexCourt in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::17] In the matter in hand, as stated above, in both thepetitions, the petitioners ventured to attack on the respectivecomplainant with lethal weapon and inflicted grievous injuries onthe vital part of their body.The learned prosecutor, produced thereport of I.O. and informed to this court that there are two criminalcases pending against the petitioner Yogesh Bajaj, Banti Bajaj, ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {15} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odtDhabu Bajaj and others for the offences punishable under Sections395, 307, 325, 452 etc. of IPC.The learned counsel for the petitionersdrawn attention to the fact that the petitioners Banti and otherwere acquitted in Sessions Case No. 118 of 2013, in whichpetitioners were tried for the offence punishable under Sections397, 355, 452 and 504 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::18] It is worth to mention that, if the recitals of the FIR, andthe statements of the witnesses acquainted with the facts of thecase are considered minutely, it reflects that the petitionersventured to attack the complainant, in brutal manner withdangerous weapon.The petitioner Yogesh Bajaj and others, seenhabituated for using the lethal weapons like knife, iron rod, hockeysticks, sword etc. casually during the course of assault.In view ofconduct and demeanor of the petitioners and the nature of crimecommitted by them, it categorically reveals that the aforesaidoffences committed by the petitioners are not the offences privatein nature, but it has a serious impact on the society.It cannot besaid that because of settlement, there are least chances ofconviction into the matter.Therefore, we are not inclined to acceptthe compromise arrived at between the petitioners and thecomplainant to quash the criminal proceeding.The gravity ofoffences and the conduct of the accused/petitioners do not persuadeourselves to quash the proceeding in exercise of powers under ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 ::: {16} crwp615.18 w 78.19.odtSection 482 of Cr.P.C. As referred above, offences under Sections307 and 326 are non-compoundable offences.While committingoffences, the petitioners/accused used the lethal weapons likesword/knife, iron rod etc. Pending investigation, the petitioners anyhow managed to enter into the compromise with the complainantbut it would not sub-serve the purpose.In case compromise isaccepted, it may result in cynical disregard of law, which wouldhave serious impact on the society at large and the people mayloose faith on the justice delivery system.In such circumstances,the very purpose and object of legislation about deterrentpunishment would be frustrated.::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 09:46:40 :::19] Hence, we are not prepared to exercise inherent powersunder Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of petitioners, even thoughthey have resolved the dispute amicably in between them.In theresult, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.Accordingly, both thepetitions stand dismissed.The prosecution shall proceed furtherwith the criminal proceedings registered against the petitioners, inaccordance with law.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,920,719 |
DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2018 P.C.:-Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.In Crime No.740/2018 for offences punishable under ::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2018 00:27:44 ::: 2 76) aba2361-18.docsections 304, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Coderegistered with Saki Naka police station, Mumbai, the applicantsare seeking pre-arrest bail.Applicant Nos.1 and 2 are father andmother of accused No.1 and applicant No.3 is their marrieddaughter.The cause of death of the victim is yet to be ascertained.::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2018 00:27:44 :::The victim has suffered in all four abrasion injuries.4. Learned APP to place on record the cause of death andalso the opinion of the experts as to the weapon or mode by whichinjuries were caused to the victim.Let this exercise be completedwithin three weeks from today.In the meanwhile,(i) In the event of their arrest in Crime No.740/2018 for offences punishable under sections 304, 323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Saki Naka police station, Mumbai, the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety in the like amount;::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2018 00:27:44 :::Mumbai on Tuesday, November 27, 2018 and on Friday November 30, 2018 between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till the returnable date;::: Uploaded on - 22/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 23/11/2018 00:27:44 :::
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,925,146 |
In short the prosecution case is that appellants, who happened to be Gond Adiwasi people, suspected that their pitcher of Lahan (Country liquor) was stolen by Gunthu @ Mangal Singh (deceased).On 11.3.2001, at about 9.00 am, they caught hold of Gunthu and carried him to the temple of Lord Hanuman for swearing, but appellant Chunnu put a Gamcha (towel) around his neck and appellant Gauli taking a stick of the flag assaulted him.Appellant Balwant and Annu also assaulted him with sticks.Balwant, Annu and Chunnu ran away, but Gauli continued to beat him.When Gunthu fell down, Gauli also ran away.Incident was witnessed by Mujru (PW-1) and Saman Singh (PW-2), the brothers of Gunthu.As a result of injuries, Gunthu died at the spot.Mujru (PW-1) went to Police Station, Damua and lodged first information report (Ex.P/1) at 9.40 am.Investigating officer sent the dead body for postmortem examination to Community Health Centre, Damua where Dr.Girish Chourasiya (PW-3) performed the postmortem examination.Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 31.1.2003, passed by Second Additional Judge to the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No.121/2001 convicting them under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-. 2In the course of investigation, police prepared spot map, seized blood stained earth, a stick and a pair of plastic shoes from the spot.After arrest of the accused persons, on the information of appellant Gauli and Chunnu, police seized blood stained shirt and a clothe from their possession.Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the 3 case was committed for trial.During trial, appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication because of enmity and suspicion.They also examined Kunwarlal (DW-1) in their defence.Learned trial judge relying on the evidence of eyewitnesses Mujru (PW-1), Saman Singh (PW-2) and the medical evidence of Dr. Girish Chaurasiya (PW-3) held the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, appellants have filed this appeal.Smt. Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned court below misappreciated the evidence of witnesses and committed error of law in holding the appellants guilty.Both the eyewitnesses examined in the case were brothers of deceased.Since their evidence was discrepant and contradictory, it was unworthy of reliance.No interference was called for in the impugned judgment of conviction.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record carefully.It has not been disputed that deceased met with homicidal death.After recording first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by Mujru (PW-1), investigating officer Akhil Verma (PW-8) went at the spot and conducted inquest proceedings.He recorded inquest memorandum (Ex.P/9) describing the injuries found on the body of deceased.He referred the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination to Community Health Centre, Damua where Dr. Girish Chaursiya (PW-3) conducted autopsy.Dr. Girish Chaurasiya deposed that on postmortem examination he found following injuries on the body of deceased."1. Lacerated wound on right ear..2. Abrasion on right side of neck going up to anterior part below the level of thyroid cartilage size 2cm x 9 cm.Reddish black colour.The injury was forming an incomplete circle.Lacerated wound on chest right side of the level of 6th to 8th ribs.Size 3 cm x 2 cm.Multiple abrasions present at surrounding area of the wound and other parts of chest.Size 2 cm x 3 cm.Reddish brown in colour.Lacerated wound on right maxillary region.Size 1 x 2 x 3 cm (deep in muscles and tissues).Lacerated wound on head on right temporal region.Size 4 cm x 2 cm underlying skull basis.Depressed fracture present.On internal examination, doctor found a depressed fracture of skull on right temporal region.Blood was present in the meninges and the brain.7Th & 8th ribs were fractured.There was a laceration of liver on the right anterior and superior side.In the opinion of doctor, the cause of death of deceased was injury to brain which caused cardio respiratory arrest.Injury to liver had caused excessive haemorrhage.All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused 4 to 5 12 hours before the examination.Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and were homicidal in nature."From the above evidence, in our opinion, it stood established that deceased died of a homicidal death.Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made.In such case, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible."Keeping in view the above principles we examine the evidence of eyewitness Munjuru (PW-1).He stated that at about 9.00 am all the four accused persons caught hold of his brother Gunthu and carried him near the temple of Lord Hanuman.He also followed them.Chunnu tied a towel around the neck of Gunthu, and Gauli, Balwant and Annu assaulted him with sticks.Out of fear he did not go near them.As a 6 result of injuries, Gunthu fell down.He then went to police station and lodged the report (Ex.P/1).Similar is the evidence of Saman Singh (PW-2), who reiterated that all the four accused persons came to his house and carried Gunthu near the banyan tree.Chunnu tied a towel around the neck of Gunthu and all others assaulted him with sticks.He died at the spot, then Mujru went to Police Station, Damua to lodge the report.A day before also there had been a quarrel between deceased and the accused persons.Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that Saman Singh (PW-2) in his police statement (Ex.D/2) did not disclose that accused persons had carried deceased from his house.She also pointed out that the facts that the cause of quarrel was a pitcher of liquor and that a quarrel had also occurred a day before the occurrence, were not disclosed by PW-2 in his police statement (Ex.D/2).In our opinion, these omissions did not affect the credibility of PW-2 since he remained firm on the fact that he saw accused persons assaulting deceased with sticks.It is also important to note that the facts which are alleged to be the omissions in the police statement were brought on record by the defence counsel in the cross-examination of the witness.If certain facts are disclosed by a witness in cross-examination by way of explanation or giving details of the occurrence, they cannot be held to be the omissions affecting credibility of the witness.The evidence of Mujru (PW-1) stood corroborated by the evidence of Saman Singh (PW-2) and also by the first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by him just after 14 minutes of the occurrence.Nothing has come 7 on record to indicate that there was any past enmity or grudge on the part of witnesses against the appellants for which they could have falsely implicated them.The evidence of Dr. Girish Chaursaiya (PW-3) also lended corroboration to the eviedne of aforesaid eyewitnesses by stating that he found injuries on the body of deceased caused by hard and blunt objects.After sincerely scanning the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, we find their evidence cogent, consistent and credit worthy.The evidence of defence witness Kunwarlal (DW-1) that deceased might have suffered injuries by a fall after consuming liquor and that because of old enmity Mujru might have implicated accused persons falsely, cannot be accepted since he expressed his ignorance about the occurrence and the manner in which deceased died.The learned trial judge, in our opinion, rightly held that appellants assaulted deceased as a result of which he suffered fatal injuries and died.Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the facts and circumstances of the case indicated that appellants did not intend to commit murder of deceased.There being some dispute about a pitcher of country liquor between appellants and the deceased and, therefore, appellants carried deceased to the temple of Lord Hanuman where suddenly the incident occurred in which appellant Gauli picked up a stick of the flag and assaulted deceased.It is true that Mujru (PW-1) in the first information report mentioned that accused persons carried deceased towards the temple of Lord Hanuman after putting a towel around his neck and Gauli assaulted deceased with a stick of flag.Appellants 8 Balwant, Annu and Chunnu ran away and Gauli kept on beating deceased.From the evidence of Mujru (PW-1) as well as of Saman Singh (PW-2) the genesis of the occurrence is not revealed since they remained away from the place where the incident occurred, but it appears that there occurred some quarrel about the pitcher of the country liquor.In these circumstances, in our opinion, it can be gathered, had appellants intended to commit murder of deceased, they could have assaulted deceased at his house itself and not carried him to the temple.In the aforesaid circumstances, we find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the incident occurred suddenly on a spur of moment in which appellants dealt stick blows to deceased causing injuries on his head and chest resulting in his death.As such, the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but since they caused injuries with sticks on the vital parts of the body of deceased like head and chest, it could be held with certainty that they acted with intention of causing death or causing such bodily injuries to deceased as were likely to cause his death making them liable to be punished under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction of appellants No.1 to 4 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is modified to one under Section 304-I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years.They be released, if not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,927,503 |
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 17.4.2013 at about 6:30 PM the appellant Rakesh Choudhary went with an unknown person to the house of the complainant Ramkumari (PW-1) situated at Village Ghansore (Police Station Ghansore District Seoni) on a pretext that the said unknown person was friend of her brother Shyam and he may be given some space in the house of Ramkumari and her mother Himma Bai (PW-6).Various children were playing in the courtyard.Himma Bai refused to provide the space to that unknown person, and therefore Rakesh Choudhary and his companion left the premises.After sometime it was found that the deceased-prosecutrix aged four years was missing.Ramkumari at about 8:35 PM lodged a missing report before the Police Station Ghansore.On 18.4.2013 some visitors found that one girl child was lying unconscious in the field of Badri Yadav.On getting information the witness Shyam Yadav went to the spot and found that the deceased-prosecutrix was lying unconscious and blood was oozing from her nostril.Her underwear was found lying in the side and skins of three bananas were also lying there.Shyam Yadav took the deceased-prosecutrix to the Government Hospital Ghansore.She was examined 4 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 by Dr. Bharti Sonkeshriya, who sent an intimation Ex.P-37 to the Police Station Ghansore.Thereafter with permission of mother of the deceased-prosecutrix and the SDM Ghanshore, the deceased-prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Bharti Sonkeshriya and thereafter she was referred to the Medical College, Jabalpur.The deceased- prosecutrix was unconscious and she was not able to give any evidence.In the Medical College, Jabalpur Dr. Bharti Sahu examined the deceased-prosecutrix and gave her report Ex.Dr. Hemant and Dr. P. Dhirawani had also examined the deceased-prosecutrix and treated her.They gave a report Ex.It was confirmed that rape was committed with the deceased-prosecutrix, and therefore the case was registered.Thereafter the deceased-prosecutrix was sent to the Care Hospital Nagpur so that her life could be saved, but on 29.4.2013 she expired at Care Hospital, Nagpur.Dr. Dipak Ramratan Goyal, who treated the deceased-prosecutrix found that due to pressure caused on the mouth and throat of the deceased, oxygen could not reach in the brain, and also due to contusion in the private part of the deceased-prosecutrix, she died due to cardiorespiratory arrest.Thereafter Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit did the postmortem on the body of the deceased at the Medical College, Nagpur and gave his report Ex.He also 5 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 found that the deceased-prosecutrix died due to bronchopneumonia and cerebral hypoxia owing to smothering.The various samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and investigation was done by the Investigation Officer.After much effort the appellant Mohd. Firoz was arrested.The identification parade was arranged with the help of Tahsildar Sudhir Jain (PW-16).Appellant Mohd. Firoz was duly identified by the complainant Ramkumari (PW-1), Ku.Priti Yadav (PW-7), Nitin Namdeo (PW-4) and Himma Bai (PW-6).Thereafter the clothings etc. of appellant Mohd. Firoz were recovered.Thereafter appellant Mohd. Firoz was permitted to change his position and Ku.Priti and Nitin Namdeo, it would be apparent that there is no illegality or perversity crapped up in the various identification parades arranged by the Tahsildar Sudhir Jain (PW-16).There was no police official present.It is proved beyond doubt that appellant Rakesh Choudhary took the appellant Mohd. Firoz to the house of complainant Ramkumari and thereafter he was the person who took the children Ramkishan and the deceased-prosecutrix.Nitin Namdeo (PW-4), fruit vendor has also identified the appellant Mohd. Firoz and he has categorically stated that appellant Mohd. Firoz purchased six bananas.Out of them three bananas were kept in a plastic packet, which was handed over to the witness Ramkishan and he was sent back to his house, whereas appellant Mohd. Firoz took the deceased-prosecutrix and plastic bag having three bananas in it.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 prosecutrix and she died due to activities done by the person, who committed rape.She has mentioned that blood was oozing from her nostril and surrounding of vagina was red.Looking to bad condition of the patient, she referred the patient immediately to the Medical College, Jabalpur and also sent an intimation to the police concerned.Dr. Bharti Sahu (PW-20) examined the deceased-prosecutrix at the Medical College, Jabalpur and gave a report Ex.She found that the deceased- prosecutrix was unconscious and in her arms and legs she was getting convulsions.There was redness on labia minora and abrasions on the surface on both sides.Hymen was torn for a length of 1cm at 6 o'clock position.She prepared the slides of her vaginal swab.She also took the frock of the child and thereafter handed over all such samples to the concerned Constable after their sealing.Dr. Hemant (PW-21), who treated the deceased- prosecutrix has found that the condition of the patient was bad.In the CT scan it was found that there was swelling on her brain.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 was feeling difficulty in taking breath.On 20.4.2013 the prosecutrix was discharged and referred to the Hospital of Nagpur.The physical condition of the prosecutrix- deceased could not be brought on record by such treating doctors because she was unconscious and she was unable to inform about the other injuries.But detail of various injuries etc. was given Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit (PW-24), who did the postmortem on the body of the deceased.He found that right upper central incisor tooth and left upper lateral tooth were missing.Upper left central incisor tooth was shaken and gums near those teeth were swollen and of blue colour.Labia majora and Labia minora were contused and swollen having blue colour.Wall of the vagina was broken at 6 o'clock position and also it was broken from various places.There was swelling on vaginal wall.Hymen was broken at 3, 6 and 7 o'clock position.Its opening was dilated.Swelling and bruise were found on her vagina.Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit found the following 13 injuries on the body of the deceased-prosecutrix, which are as under:-(i) A lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm muscle deep was found at centre of upper lip and limited portion of that lip was contused and blue.Shyam Yadav (PW-5) brother of complainant Ramkumari has stated that he was not residing with his mother Himma Bai in those days, but Ramkumari was residing with Himma Bai and he was not informed about the incident initially.On the next day of the incident, the Kotwar Santosh visited him with the intimation that one girl child was lying in a field.Witness Shyam Yadav went to the field along with the Kotwar Santosh and found that it was the deceased-prosecutrix, who was daughter of his sister.Underwear of the deceased-prosecutrix was lying in the side and skins of three bananas were also found near right hand of the deceased.The statement of Shyam Yadav is duly proved by Dr.She also gave an intimation Ex.P-37 to the police that the prosecutrix was brought to the hospital.Under such circumstances, it is duly proved that the deceased- prosecutrix was found lying in a field.Her underwear was removed and skins of three bananas were also found near her body.Also sum of Rs.25/- was found near her body.The recovery of unconscious injured prosecutrix from an open place with such other things, along with injuries on her private parts clearly indicates that she was given three bananas and sum of Rs.25/- and thereafter rape was committed with her.According to the evidence of the prosecution the prosecutrix was found in deadly condition within 10-12 hours of her kidnapping.But the prosecutrix remained unconscious for 12-13 days.Swelling was found on her brain and other respiratory parts.Ultimately it was found by the various doctors that due to suffocation caused sufficient oxygen could not reach to her brain and such symptoms were developed and ultimately she died.(15/7/2014) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by: N.K.Gupta,J:Since both the criminal appeals and criminal reference arose from a common impugned judgment 2 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 dated 26.10.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seoni in Special Case No.11/2013, and therefore these cases are decided by the present common judgment.Vide judgment dated 26.10.2013 the learned Sessions Judge, Seoni in Special Case No.11/2013 convicted and sentenced the present appellants as under:376(2)(i) of Life imprisonment with fine of IPC Rs.2000/-.5(m) r/w 6 Life imprisonment with fine of of POCSO Rs.2000/-.109 of IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-.Since the death sentence was directed to the appellant Mohd. Firoz, therefore a reference was made to this 3 Cr.His bag left in the house of Himma Bai was also seized and his various identity cards etc. were seized from that bag.Some of the documents relating to his identification were recovered from the room in which he was residing prior to the incident.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed.The case was duly committed to the Sessions Judge, Seoni being Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act").The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea.No defence evidence was adduced from the side of appellant Mohd. Firoz whereas one Virendra Choudhary (DW-1) was examined from the side of appellant Rakesh Choudhary to show his 6 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 presence in the shop of Virendra Choudhary on that particular day.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Seoni has convicted and sentenced the present appellants in the aforesaid manner.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.The circumstances proved by the prosecution may be considered one by one.Witnesses Ramkumari (PW-1), Madhu Yadav (PW-2), Himma Bai (PW-6), Ku.Priti Yadav (PW-7) and Ramkishan Yadav (PW-31) have stated that the appellant Rakesh Choudhary along with appellant Mohd. Firoz went to the house of complainant 7 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 Ramkumari and Rakesh Choudhary told Himma Bai that Mohd. Firoz would stay in the house, but Himma Bai did not permit them.Mohd. Firoz remained in the courtyard seated in a chair for a longer period and various children including Puja, Madhu, Ramkishan and Nilesh were playing near by him.Thereafter various witnesses have stated that the appellants disappeared from the house of Ramkumari and children Ramkishan and the deceased- prosecutrix were also missing.After sometime Ramkishan came back to the house.He informed that from the fruit vendor shop appellant Mohd. Firoz purchased six bananas.He gave three bananas to Ramkishan in a plastic bag and told him to go to his house and thereafter he took the deceased-prosecutrix with a plastic bag of remaining three bananas.The entire evidence proves the fact of last seen of appellant Mohd. Firoz with the deceased-prosecutrix.Appellant Mohd. Firoz was not known to any of the above witnesses, and therefore there was no enmity between appellant Mohd. Firoz and aforesaid witnesses.Hence there is no possibility that appellant Mohd. Firoz would have been falsely implicated by these witnesses.To prove the fact of last seen, it is true that appellant Mohd. Firoz was not known to the various witnesses, but after arrest of Mohd. Firoz the police had arranged 8 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Priti was called, who also identified appellant Mohd. Firoz and memo Ex.P-6 was recorded.Similarly, the fruit vendor Nitin Namdeo was called and after due identification a memo Ex.P-5 was recorded.Lastly, Himma Bai (PW-6) had identified appellant Mohd. Firoz in the test identification parade and a memo Ex.P-35 was recorded.After considering the evidence of Tahsildar Sudhir Jain and the witnesses Ramkishan, Himma Bai, Ku.There was no clue that witnesses could see appellant Mohd. Firoz prior to arrangement of test identification parade.Tahsildar Sudhir Jain permitted appellant Mohd. 9Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Under such circumstances, it is duly established that it was the appellant Mohd. Firoz, who was in the company of the deceased-prosecutrix soon before the incident and though he was not related with the children.He kidnapped the deceased-prosecutrix by giving promise to provide some fruits etc.Second circumstance which is proved by the prosecution is that a rape was committed with the minor 10 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.In that respect the prosecution examined series of doctors who examined the prosecutrix from time to time including Dr. Bharti Sonkeshriya (PW-17).Dr. Bharti Sonkeshriya examined the prosecutrix and gave a report Ex.When medicine for reduction of swelling was given, she was getting convulsions and she 11 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13(ii) A lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm muscle deep was found in the centre of lower lip.The connected portion of that lip was contused and blue.(iii) Abrasion 2cm x 2cm of dark brown colour on outer portion of right neck and 3cm on mastoil bone.(v) Abrasion 0.3cmx 0.3cm found on right side of submandibular region.(vii) Abrasion 0.2cm x 0.2cm on right back.(viii) Abrasion 1.5cm x 0.5cm on left back.(ix) Multiple abrasions of various sizes 0.3cm x 0.2cm, 0.2cm x 0.1cm found on the right side of the abdomen.(x) Multiple linear was found on the back of left thigh having dimension 4cm x 3cm, 4cm x 0.2cm.(xi) In front of neck a stitched wound was found which was opening done during her treatment for tracheostomy.(xii) A whole was found in right side of the neck which was created to know central venous pressure.(xiii) There were several puncture marks relating to provide I.V. fluids on both elbows and writs of both hands and legs.On opening of the body, the symptoms of pneumonia were also found.In internal muscle of neck, blood was 13 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 deposited and all such organs were found congested.Edema was found in the brain, and therefore some portion of vaginal and uterine swab was preserved for various chemical examinations and histopathology.According to the opinion of Dr. Dixit and his companions, the deceased died due to bronchopneumonia caused due to smothering.He found that the injuries No.11 to 13 were not the injuries but those were caused during the treatment of the deceased-prosecutrix.After considering the evidence of various doctors, it would be apparent that forceful rape was committed with the deceased-prosecutrix and she died due to smothering.Hence the prosecution has successfully proved that the deceased-prosecutrix died due to smothering and looking to her injuries, penetration was done by the person concerned.Bharti Sahu (PW-20), who prepared two 14 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit (PW-24) had also prepared the slides of vaginal swab of the prosecutrix on 30.4.2013 which was sent to the FSL.The deceased-prosecutrix remained unconscious for 12-13 days, who was suffering from convulsions, therefore her vaginal liquid would have discharged the entire portion of semen etc. in those 13 days.If the slides prepared by Dr.Bharti Sahu could be timely sent to the FSL, then the positive report relating to presence of semen would have been found, and therefore if in the FSL report Ex.P-72 no semen particles were found in the vaginal swab of the deceased-prosecutrix, then it makes no difference.Looking to the reports of various doctors and Dr. Dixit, who performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased-prosecutrix, it would be apparent that rape was committed with the deceased-prosecutrix and thereafter smothering was done to her.Hence the death of the deceased was homicidal which was caused after committing rape upon her.This is the second circumstance proved by the prosecution beyond doubt.So far as the motive is concerned, it would be apparent that initially the appellant Mohd. Firoz was not known to any of the family members of the complainant Ramkumari and he did not know about the family 15 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A currency note of 16 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 Rs.20/- and a coin of Rs.5 were also found.Thereafter he took the deceased Puja to the Police Station Ghansore and at that time she was alive, and therefore she was taken to Ghansore Hospital and referred to the Medical College, Jabalpur.If the accused would have kidnapped her for demand of ransom, then such demand would have been made.If he had handed over the prosecutrix to someone else for money or otherwise then 17 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Hence on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be clear that the rape was committed upon her.Investigation Officer R.N.Parteti and ASI Mohd. Sultan have stated that from the spot they have seized the skins of bananas and piece of earth containing some hair.Nothing has been brought in the cross examination of these witnesses to show that they were not believable.That piece of earth including hair was sent for forensic science analysis.Dr. Pankaj Shrivastav (PW-25), Scientist Officer of FSL Sagar has stated that after examining the various samples, he gave DNA report Ex.According to him the DNA from hair found on the spot in the piece of earth was the same as the DNA obtained from the blood of the appellant Mohd. Firoz.This is also the circumstance against the appellant Mohd. Firoz.Sub Inspector S. Ram Maravi (PW-30) has stated as to how he arrested the appellant Mohd. Firoz.According to him, they went to District Bhagalpur and traced the appellant Mohd. Firoz in District Banka of Bihar State but he was not found.Thereafter they 18 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 contacted aunt of appellant Mohd. Firoz who informed that appellant Mohd. Firoz went with a fresh mobile SIM.With the help of the call details, he was located.The local police of Bhagalpur District was also requested to assist in the arrest of appellant Mohd. Firoz.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 deceased-prosecutrix and Ramkishan was returned back, the offence under Section 363 of IPC is duly established against the appellant Mohd. Firoz.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13After considering the various injuries etc. and circumstances proved by the prosecution, it would be apparent that the appellant Mohd. Firoz had intended to kill the deceased-prosecutrix.If the appellant Mohd. Firoz was not intended to kill the prosecutrix, then such injuries could not be caused on the lips of the prosecutrix.Various abrasions found on the neck also indicate that the appellant Mohd. Firoz tried to 22 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 commit throttling and thereafter left the body of the deceased at the spot.But since the deceased survived for 12-13 days, therefore apparent symptoms of throttling had disappeared and due to her survival she could breath for more days.If suffocation was caused during the course of rape, then certainly there was no question so that the prosecutrix would have received such injuries on her lips as well as on her neck.Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit (PW-24) has also found that the prosecutrix got two teeth broken and the gums near those teeth had turned blue and swelling was found.And he had smothered her so forcefully so that she would die on the spot.Under such 23 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 circumstances, if the prosecutrix died after 12-13 days, then it does not mean that the injuries caused by the appellant Mohd. Firoz were not sufficient to cause her death in a routine course of her life.She survived for 12-13 days due to the best medical aid given to her by the State, otherwise she would have in all probability died in the field itself.Looking to the injuries caused to the deceased, it would be apparent that the appellant Mohd. Firoz had intended to kill the deceased, and therefore he smothered the deceased-prosecutrix till end and he left her when he thought that she has expired.Under such circumstances, where the murder was committed with intention, offence under Section 302 of IPC is established against the appellant Mohd. Firoz.So far as the crime of appellant Rakesh Choudhary is concerned, it would be apparent from the statement of Ramkumari, Himma Bai etc. that Rakesh 24 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 took the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz with him so that co- appellant Mohd. Firoz could get a shelter in the house of Shyam Yadav.Shyam Yadav has stated that in those days, he was not residing with his mother, and therefore according to Himma Bai she did not permit the co- appellant Mohd. Firoz to reside in the house.In this context, the statement of fruit vendor Nitin Namdeo (PW-4) is acceptable that when the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz went to his shop and purchased bananas and he was accompanied by Ramkishan and the deceased- prosecutrix and Ramkishan was returned back by the co- appellant Mohd. Firoz, but the fruit vendor did not mention the attendance of appellant Rakesh Choudhary.It is true that Rakesh Choudhary took the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz to the house of Himma Bai, but Rakesh Choudhary as well as Mohd. Firoz were not aware about the family members of Shyam Yadav or Himma Bai, therefore it cannot be said that prior to leaving the house of Himma Bai, there was a conspiracy of accused persons that the deceased-prosecutrix would be kidnapped and 25 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz would commit rape upon the deceased-prosecutrix.He tried to give some money to the children to attract them and thereafter he took two children with him out of four children to provide some fruits etc. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that either the appellant Rakesh Choudhary abetted the co- appellant Mohd. Firoz to do such crime or he had any common intention with the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz.A.No.3132/13 abettment or his common with the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz.A.No.3132/13 trial Court.
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,647,124 |
The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows:The deceased Jesmila Annal Rose (for short “Rose”) was the wife of Antony Michael Sahayam (for short “Antony”) (P.W.1) and mother of Joe Anto (P.W.4).The family of Antony (P.W.1) comprised his wife Rose, son Joe Anto (P.W.4), daughter Jositha and father Joseph (P.W.2).They were living in a house bearing Door No.16/57 at Annal Nagar, Thattarmadam.The appellant is the maternal uncle's son of Antony (P.W.1) and since his childhood, the appellant was brought up by Antony (P.W.1) and his father Joseph (P.W.2).The appellant was 27 years old at the time of the incident.He was provided a room in the house of Antony (P.W.1) and Joseph (P.W.2) put up a Tea Shop for the appellant in Thattarmadam Bazaar.Whilehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 that being so, the appellant is said to have blackmailed Rose by saying that he has taken her nude photographs in his mobile phone and that she should satisfy his carnal desire, failing which, he would upload those photographs in public domain.Rose informed this to her husband Antony (P.W.1).On coming to know of it, Antony (P.W.1) and his younger brother George Selvin Sahayam (P.W.3) confronted the appellant and checked his mobile phone, but, they did not find any obscene photograph of Rose.On account of these developments, the appellant was nurturing a grievance against Rose.On 06.12.2014, around 08.15 p.m., the appellant came with a wooden pestle (M.O.1) to the house of Rose, when her husband Antony (P.W.1) and father-in- law Joseph (P.W.2) were not there.Rose was lying down on the bed in her bedroom with her younger child Jositha.Joe Anto (P.W.4), the elder son of Rose, was in the house.The appellant asked Joe Anto (P.W.4) to stay out and went into the bedroom of Rose and attacked her indiscriminately on her head with pestle (M.O.1).Incidentally, Antony (P.W.1)http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and his father Joseph (P.W.2) returned home and saw Joe Anto (P.W.4) standing out.At the same time, they also heard cries from inside the house and so, when they rushed into the house, they saw the appellant attacking Rose and on seeing them, the appellant barged out of the room and fled.Rose was carried to Chidambaram Hospital in Thisayanvilai, where, she was examined by Dr.Since her condition was critical, Dr.Christopher Samuel (P.W.14) gave first aid and referred her to the Government Hospital.Antony (P.W.1) and George Selvin Sahayam (P.W.3) carried her to Thiraviam Hospital, Nagercoil, where, Dr.Sudhan (P.W.15) examined her and declared brought dead at 10.30 p.m. on 06.12.2014 and asked them to take the body to the Government Hospital.Accordingly, Antony (P.W.1) took the body to the Government Hospital, Sathankulam, where, Dr.Athikumar (P.W.16) examined and kept the body in the mortuary.On the written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Antony (P.W.1), Ravichandran (P.W.20), Head Constable,http://www.judis.nic.in 5 registered a case in Thattarmadam Police Station Crime No. 391 of 2014, at 04.00 a.m. on 07.12.2014, under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P22), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 06.30 a.m. on 07.12.2014, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.Thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken over by Robinson (P.W.21), Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P23) in the presence of the witnesses Dhevasahayam (P.W.8) and Michael Raj (not examined).Spleen : 200 gm pale.Stomach empty.Skull bone : occipital & parietal bone fractured and depressed some parts missing.Brain matter lacerated at that site & some parts missing.8410/2014/TIN/Tox.H/2513/2014) shows poison was not detected in any of them.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Opinion as to cause of death:Based on the disclosure made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer recovered the bloodstained pestle (M.O.1) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P6) in the presence of the witnesses Chinnadurai and Saravanan (not examined).Thereafter, on the disclosure of the appellant, a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN02 AR2075 (M.O.2) as well its key (M.O.3) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P7), in the presence of the same witnesses.From there, on the showing of the appellant, the Investigating Officer recovered a pair of chappals (M.O.7) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P8) in the presence of the witnesses Ravi and Saravanan (not examined).Since there were injuries on the appellant, he was produced before Dr.Athikumar (P.W.16), at the Government Hospital, Sathankulam, on 09.12.2014 at 05.30 p.m. Dr.Athikumar (P.W.16) examined the appellant, who stated that when he was wandering into the forest, he fell down and sustained injuries on his feet and right palm.The Accident Register was marked as Ex.Thereafter, the appellant was sent to judicial custody.The seized articles were sent by the Investigating Officer, through the jurisdictional Magistrate, to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department for examination and report.The Biology Report (Ex.P11), dated 16.02.2015 states that blood was detected in seven items, including the pillow cover (M.O.4), bedspread (M.O.5), garments of the deceased (M.Os.9, 11 to 13) and wooden pestle (M.O.1).The Serology Report (Ex.P12) shows that the blood group found in the aforesaid examined articles is “Human O”.These two exhibits, viz. Exs.P11 and P12 are admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C.Annal School; his brother George Selvin Sahayam (P.W.3) is living a little away in the house bearing Door No. 16/55 with his family; his mother died in the year 2012 and thereafter, it was the deceased, who was taking care of the appellant and providing him food and other necessities of life; his father Joseph (P.W.2) has put up a Tea Shop for the appellant in Thattarmadam Bazaar; the appellant was also provided a separate room on the western side of the house for his occupation; on 01.12.2014, while he (P.W.1) was at home with his father Joseph (P.W.2) and younger brother George Selvin Sahayam (P.W.3), his wife told them that the appellant was blackmailing her by saying that he has taken her nude photographs and that he would upload those photographs in public domain, if she would not satisfy his lust; on coming to know of this, he (P.W.1) along with his younger brother George Selvin Sahayam (P.W.3), accosted the appellant and questioned him about this; the appellant denied the allegation and on scrutiny of his mobile phone, they were not able to find any nude photograph of the deceased; after this incident, the appellant stopped talking to them; on 06.12.2014, he (P.W.1) went for work and was returning homehttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 around 08.30 p.m. via.[Judgment of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 13.04.2016, passed in S.C.No.458 of 2015, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, the accused is before this Court.From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer collected the spilled blood in a separate cloth (M.O.6) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P3) and seized the bloodstained pillow cover (M.O.4) and bloodstained bedspread (M.O.5) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P4) in the presence of the same witnesses.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer came to the mortuary and conducted inquest over the body of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 deceased and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P24).He gave a requisition for postmortem and accordingly, Dr.Sivakami (P.W.17) performed autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P17).Sivakami (P.W.17), in her evidence as well in the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P17), has noted as follows:“External injuries : 1) Deep lacerated wound A shaped 15 x 5 upto bone depth exposing the brain matter over occipital region.2) Deep lacerated T shaped wound 10 x 5 cm upto bone depth exposing the brain matter over right parietal region.3) Deep lacerated wound 5 x 2 cm over left parietal region.4) Deep lacerated wound 8 x 3 cm over occipital region near the 1st wound.Internal Exam : Neck : Hyoid intact.Heart 300gm empty.Lungs right 600gm both pale.Kidneys right 160gm left 160gm both pale.Death would have occurred 12-18 hours prior to postmortem.Viscera sent for chemical analysis.Visceral analysis report (T.No.After examining the witnesses and collecting various reports, Robinson (P.W.21), Investigating Officer, filed final report in P.R.C.No.16 of 2015, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, for the offences under Sections 449 and 302 I.P.C. against the appellant.On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.458 of 2015 and made over to the Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, for trial.The Trial Court framed two charges against the appellant, as detailed below:When questioned, the appellant pleaded "not guilty".To prove its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked 24 exhibits and 13 material objects.No witness was examined nor any document marked on thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 side of the accused.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.By Judgment dated 13.04.2016, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:Sentence of Section of Law Fine amount imprisonment To undergo rigorous Rs.1,000/- in default to 449 I.P.C. imprisonment for ten (10) undergo simple imprisonment years.for six (6) months.Rs.4,000/- in default to To undergo imprisonment undergo rigorous 302 I.P.C.The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this criminal appeal.R.C.Church; at that time, his father Joseph (P.W.2) was also returning home and joined him; when they came near the house, they found Joe Anto (P.W.4) standing outside; when they asked Joe Anto (P.W.4) as to why he is standing outside, he (P.W.4) told them that the appellant asked him to stay out; at that time, he (P.W.1) heard his wife screaming “Don't kill, don't kill” from inside the house; so, he (P.W.1) rushed into the house and saw the appellant attacking his wife with a pestle (M.O.1) saying, “You have brought disgrace to me”; when they tried to catch him, he escaped through the rear entrance of the house; at 09.30 p.m., he (P.W.1) along with his father Joseph (P.W.2) and brother George Selvin Sahayam (P.W.3) took Rose, in their car, to Christopher Hospital, Thisayanvilai, where, she was given first aid and thereafter, she was referred to the Government Hospital; he (P.W.1) brought Rose to Thiraviam Hospital, Nagercoil, where, Dr.Sudhan (P.W.15) examined her and declared that she was brought dead; from there, he (P.W.1) took the body of Rose to the Government Hospital, Sathankulam, at 02.00 p.m., on 07.12.2014 and thereafter, gave complaint (Ex.P1).On the same lines, Joseph (P.W.2), father of Antony (P.W.1), has deposed.The defence was not able to make any dent in the cross-examination of these two witnesses.The most incriminating evidence against the appellant is that of the child witness, viz. Joe Anto (P.W.4).Joe Anto (P.W.4) was 11 years old,http://www.judis.nic.in 13 when he was examined on 09.02.2016 before the Trial Court.The learned Trial Judge has conducted a thorough preliminary enquiry in order to ascertain the capability of the child to give evidence and thereafter, recorded his evidence.Joe Anto (P.W.4) has stated that on 06.12.2014, at 08.00 p.m., he was watching TV in the house; at that time, the appellant came there and asked him to stay out; the appellant went inside the house and closed the door; soon thereafter, his father Antony (P.W.1) and grandfather Joseph (P.W.2) came there and asked him as to why he is standing out, for which, he told them that the appellant asked him to stand out; his father Antony (P.W.1) and grandfather Joseph (P.W.2) went inside the house and he (P.W.4) also followed them; he (P.W.4) saw the appellant attacking his mother with a pestle (M.O.1); on seeing them, the appellant rushed out of the room and pushed his father Antony (P.W.1) and ran away.In the cross-examination, the child (P.W.4) has stated that after his father Antony (P.W.1) and grandfather Joseph (P.W.2) came to the house, he heard cries from inside the house, however, he (P.W.4) has stated that he had not witnessed the actual attack.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that when the child had not witnessed the attack, his testimony loses significance.We carefully considered the evidence of Antony (P.W.1), Joseph (P.W.2) and Joe Anto (P.W.4).From the evidence of these witnesses, the following facts stand established beyond cavil:(i) The family of Antony (P.W.1) comprising his wife Rose, son Joe Anto (P.W.4), daughter Jositha and father Joseph (P.W.2) was residing in the house bearing Door No.16/57 at Annal Nagar, Thattarmadam.(ii) The appellant is the maternal uncle's son of Antony (P.W.1) and since his childhood, he grew in the house of Antony (P.W.1).(iii) On the complaint made by Rose that the appellant was blackmailing her with her nude photographs, the appellant was questioned by Antony (P.W.1), Joseph (P.W.2) and George Selvin Sahayam (P.W.3) and his mobile phone was checked.This had strained the relationship between the appellant and the family of Antony (P.W.1).(iv) On the fateful day, at 08.00 p.m., Joe Anto (P.W.4) was watching TV in the house; at that time, the appellant came to the house and asked him to stayhttp://www.judis.nic.in 15 out; thereafter, the appellant went inside the house and closed the door; when the appellant was inside the house, incidentally, Antony (P.W.1) and Joseph (P.W.2) returned home and found Joe Anto (P.W.4) standing out; thereafter, when they questioned Joe Anto (P.W.4), he told them that the appellant had asked him to stand out; thereafter, when they heard cries, they went inside the house and saw the appellant attacking Rose with a pestle (M.O.1); on seeing them, the appellant pushed Antony (P.W.1) and ran away through the rear entrance.In the teeth of such overwhelming materials, the stray statement of Joe Anto (P.W.4) that he did not actually see the attack will not demolish the prosecution case.We have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Joe Anto (P.W.4) that he was watching TV in the house at 08.00 p.m. on 06.12.2014 and at that time, the appellant came there and asked him to stay out.The fact that the child (P.W.4) was standing outside the house stood corroborated by the evidence of Antony (P.W.1) and Joseph (P.W.2).May be, after hearing the cries, when Antony (P.W.1) and Joseph (P.W.2) rushed into the house, the child (P.W.4), who had followed them, might not have actuallyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 seen the attack.However, inside the bedroom, there were only three persons, viz. Rose, her daughter Jositha and the appellant.The appellant rushed out of the bedroom on seeing Antony (P.W.1), who found Rose with injuries on her head.Obviously, the child Jositha would not have inflicted the injuries nor are the injuries self-inflicted.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the complaint (Ex.P1) in this case was belatedly given and the F.I.R. (Ex.P22) itself was registered only at 04.00 a.m. on 07.12.2014 and therefore, the case of the prosecution itself becomes suspect, inasmuch as there was a delay of 7 ½ hours.In this case, after the incident, Rose was carried to Chidambaram Hospital, Thisayanvilai and from there, she was carried to Thiraviam Hospital, Nagercoil, and only thereafter, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Sathankulam, where she was examined by Dr.Therefore, the lodging of complaint (Ex.P1) by Antony (P.W.1) at 04.00 a.m. on 07.12.2014 cannot be said to be delayed.Hence, we are unable to agree with this contention put forth by Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant.http://www.judis.nic.in 17Apart from the ocular evidence, we also have the scientific evidence, which shows that the pestle (M.O.1) used by the appellant was found with human blood of “O” Group, which was that of the deceased, for which there is no satisfactory explanation by the appellant.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that even according to Joe Anto (P.W.4), the door was not locked, but, strangely, he did not enter into the house, even after hearing the cries and therefore, the very presence of Joe Anto (P.W.4) in the place of occurrence becomes doubtful.On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of Antony (P.W.1), Joseph (P.W.2) and Joe Anto (P.W.4), it is seen that the child Joe Anto (P.W.4) was made to stay out by the appellant and while the child Joe Anto (P.W.4) was standing out, Antony (P.W.1) and Joseph (P.W.2) came there and only thereafter, the shrieks emanated from inside the house.These factors are also to be borne in mind by the Court while appreciating the evidence of a child witness.Even assuming for a moment that the child heard the shrieks from inside the house, even before Antony (P.W.1) and Joseph (P.W.2) came there, his conducthttp://www.judis.nic.in 18 of not going inside the house cannot be faulted because, every person would not react uniformly in a given situation.After all, he was a 9 year old small boy.That apart, the appellant had specifically asked Joe Anto (P.W.4) to stay out and he (P.W.4) implicitly obeyed the appellant's bidding.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that someone could have also committed the offence.We are unable to countenance this submission, because, there is no reason for Antony (P.W.1), Joseph (P.W.2) and Joe Anto (P.W.4) to falsely implicate the appellant, who according to the witnesses, was part and parcel of their family and having grown up in their house since his childhood.It may also be pertinent to mention here that the bloodstained pestle (M.O.1) was recovered after the arrest of the accused pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him and the same was identified by Antony (P.W.1) in the witness box.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant, further contended that Joe Anto (P.W.4) has not stated that the appellant had entered into the house armed with a weapon and that the appellant had also suffered injuries, which shows that some struggle must have taken place inside thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 19 house and therefore, the conviction of the appellant should have been under Section 304 I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with this submission, because, the appellant,who was a 27 year old robust person, pitted himself against the deceased, who was a defenceless lady and the appellant did not set up such a defence either in the cross-examination of the witnesses or in the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Further, after the arrest, when the Police found injuries on the appellant, they promptly produced him before Dr.Athikumar (P.W.16), who examined the appellant.At that time, the appellant has told the Doctor that he had sustained the injuries when he fell down in the forest, while he was in hiding.That apart, there were four injuries on the occipital and parietal regions (head region) of the deceased, which show the intensity with which the attack was mounted.At this juncture, Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 449 I.P.C., cannot be sustained, because, even according to the prosecution, the appellant was living in the house of Antony (P.W.1) and therefore, there is no question of the appellant trespassing therein.We are in agreement with this submission.Therefore, we find the appellant not guilty of the offence under Section 449 I.P.C.http://www.judis.nic.in 20In fine, ➢ This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed;➢ The judgment dated 13.04.2016, passed in S.C.No.458 of 2015, by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, is hereby modified;➢ The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 449 I.P.C;➢ The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. are hereby confirmed;➢ Consequently, the connected Crl.
|
['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.
|
135,648,839 |
h (22.11.2017) ig Challenging the order dated 02/12/2016 passed by the Sessions H Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T No. 219/2014 under section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C regarding cancellation of the bail of the applicants this petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the order.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it emerges that on 13/08/2016 applicants/accused party and complainant party scuffled each other and assaulted with various weapons and both the parties sh lodged FIR at police station Baldevgarh, District Tikamgarh and e ad against the applicants Crime No. 24/2014 under section 147, 148, Pr 307, 323, 324 of IPC was registered and against complainant party Crime No. 25/2014 under section 147, 148, 451, 323, 324, a hy 294, 307 of IPC was registered and with regard to Crime ad No.24/2014, Session Trial No. 219/2014 is pending in which M applicants were released on bail by the trial court.On 13/08/2016 one Ravindra of complainant party was rt murdered in which applicants/accused persons are accused.In ou the trial court on behalf of Shobran Singh @ Gotiraja application C for cancellation of bail in S.T No. 219/2014 was made on the h ground that applicants/accused persons after release on bail ig consistently insisting or threatening to enter into compromise of H the criminal case and later on they have committed murder of his son Ravindra and some of them are absconding in that case and complainant have an apprehension to be falsely implicated and with regard to their absence in the case false information have been submitted about their absence.While they are absconding with a view to avoid their arrest in the murder case.Hence their bail be canceled and learned trial court finding substance in the application passed the impugned order and rejected their bail and sh directed to issue arrest warrant against them.It also emerges that only in the murder case, Crime Pr No.293/2016 all the accused persons except Pappu @ Premnarayan are on bail by the High Court.The petition under a hy section 439(2) of Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant-Shobran ad Singh for cancellation of bail of applicant/accused Rahul has been M rejected vide order dated 20/03/2017 in M.Cr.C No.2194/2017 on of the basis of report of the Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh, in rt which it is stated that the allegation with regard to misuse of ou terms and condition of the bail order is not established and C parties have long standing enmity and counter case have been h filed by both sides against each other.Learned Trial court has passed the impugned order on the ground that applicants were insisting or threatening to enter into compromise but in this regard before filing the petition on behalf of the complainant or any witnesses no complaint has been made sh to the trial court.However, it is alleged that report was made to e ad the police but merely lodging complaint or FIR is not sufficient to Pr presume that actually applicants were involved in the alleged act.There must be some substance to presume that applicants were a hy involved in the misdeeds.So far as involvement of the applicants in murder case is M concerned all accused persons except Pappu @ Premnarayan of have been enlarged on bail when they are enlarged on bail all rt accused persons of murder case were on bail cannot be cancelled ou on the aforesaid ground in previous case, particularly where the C previous case was not very serious.So far as allegation with regard to wrong information about ig their absence to the trial court is concerned, applicants/accused H persons were not declared proclaimed or absconded.of A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court concerned for information.rt ou (J.P.Gupta) JUDGE C KUMAR SALUNKEtarun/ Digitally signed by TARUN Date: 2017.11.23 13:16:43 +05'30' h ig H
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,652,597 |
As per prosecution story, the complainant Salman was brought to the Civil Hospital, Ratlam after sustaining an injury by a knife.On his information, an FIR (Exhibit P/6) was registered.According to the complainant, he was going to Alot and then the accused Khaju met and started abusing him, when he objected then Khaju took out a knife 2 and inflicted an injury on his stomach.Thereafter, the Police has arrested the accused vide Arrest Memo (Exhibit P/6).On his statement under Section 27, Exhibit P/3 the knife and two wheeler was recovered.The Police has also recovered clothes containing blood stains.(Delivered on 02/04/2018) The appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by the judgement dated 17.10.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.288/2010 by which he has been convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for 7 years RI with a fine of Rs.200 (in default 15 days RI due to non-payment of fine).All the seized articles were sent for examination.After completing the usual investigation, challan was filed before the JMFC and the trial was committed to the Sessions Court.Session Court has framed the charges under Section 341, 294, 506 (Part-II) 307 and 324 of the IPC.The appellant/accused denied the charges and trial was proceeded.Doctor P. Sharma gave a query report about the injury and submitted that the injuries caused on a vital part of the body is dangerous to life and on the basis of query report, the charges under Section 307 of IPC was added.After appreciating the evidence on record, learned Trial Court has discharged the accused under Sections 294 and 506 Part II but convicted him under Section 341, 307 and 324 of IPC, hence, the present appeal before this Court.Vide order dated 25.01.2012, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and vide order dated 30.01.2014, the 3 appeal was admitted for final hearing.The appellant did not filed any application for suspension of sentence, therefore, he has undergone the entire sentence and deposited the fine.An information was sent by the Jail Superintendent vide letter dated 22.03.2018 that the appellant has undergone the sentence and released from the Jail on 24.06.2016 after granting the benefit of remission.Since, the appellant has undergone the sentence, therefore, counsel for the appellant was heard on the question of conviction.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated and wrongly been convicted by the Trial Court and there was no material available against him.The prosecution examined complainant Salman as PW-1 who has specifically deposed that 7-8 months back, when he was coming with his Horse, then the accused met 4 and started abusing him and when he objected then the accused took out the knife and inflicted the injury.Thereafter, he was operated in the Hospital.He was cross- examined in detail by a defence counsel and his version remained unchanged.He has duly identified the accused and immediately lodged the report.His statement was duly supported by PW-2, PW-3 & PW-4 who were eye witness also.The prosecution has successfully proved the injury, medical examination, arrest and the seizer.The appellant is having criminal antecedents.As many as 14 criminal cases are registered against him.Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgment.The appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced on the basis of material available on record.Even otherwise the appellant has already undergone the jail sentence and deposited the fine amount.Hence, no interference is called for and appeal is accordingly dismissed.(VIVEK RUSIA) Judge Jasleen Digitally signed by Jasleen Singh Saluja Date: 2018.04.03 12:34:26 +05'30' 5 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.111/2012 24.03.2018 Shri Purnima Kanungo, learned counsel for the appellant through Legal Aid.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned GA for the respondent/State.Arguments heard.Reserved for judgment.(VIVEK RUSIA) Judge Jasleen 02.04.2018 Judgment delivered, signed and dated.(VIVEK RUSIA) Judge Jasleen 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE SINGLE BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.111/2012 KHAJU SHAH Vs.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Shri Purnima Kanungo, learned counsel for the appellant through Legal Aid.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned GA for the respondent/State._______________________________________________ JUDGEMENT POST FOR / /2018 (VIVEK RUSIA)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,658,399 |
Secondly learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the case of the prosecution in nut shell is that from 06.06.2008 to 27.04.2010 the petitioner was incharge Tahsildar of Tahsil-Khargapur, District- Tikamgarh.On 11.12.2010 the crops of 51 villages were affected by natural disaster (Olavristi).Revenue survey was conducted and Rs.4,37,45,270/- was sanctioned as Government Relief Fund for distribution amongst 7592 beneficiaries of 38 villages.It is alleged that petitioner has not properly distributed the cheques of Government relief and committed irregularities in it.Heard on admission as well as on IA No.13979/14, an application for grant of stay.This petition is preferred by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of registration of FIR (Annexure P/1) and Criminal Trial ST No. 14/11 pending before learned Addl.On the strength of case of Apex Court in P.S.Rajya vs. State of Bihar 1996(6) SCC 328, learned counsel for petitioner started his argument that the Apex Court in P.S.Rajya (supra) has held thus :-"If the charge in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings is one and the same, on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission, then impugned criminal proceedings are to be quashed."Under the direction of Collector, an FIR under Crime No.155/2010 was registered against the petitioner .After completion of investigation, the petitioner was charge sheeted.In his turn learned Sessions Judge vide Order dated 30.11.11 levelled charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420,409,377-A of IPC against the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as petitioner has committed procedural irregularities in distribution of account payee cheques, a departmental enquiry was constituted in respect of the same charges.Enquiry Officer, Addl.In this enquiry report, the petitioner has been exonerated from causing any kind of embezzlement, forgery or cheating.Only charge no.3 has been found partially proved.The Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 11.04.2014 after analyzing the reply submitted by the petitioner exonerated him from all the charges and closed the departmental enquiry.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,660,842 |
The Rule is made returnable forthwith.The learned APP waives service for the::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 23:46:40 ::: 2 Cri.Appln.927-19.odt Respondent-State.With the consent of both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 23:46:40 :::The applicants are seeking quashment of FIR No.She lodged the FIR on 10.12.2018 alleging that her marriage was solemnized on 14.06.2015 but there was a matrimonial dispute.Her husband and in-laws were insisting her to bring money.Her husband was addicted to liquor and used to assault her and because of such marital discord she was staying with her parents.She further alleged that the present applicants were the mediators due to whose intervention the marriage was performed.They had assured to hold a meeting to settle the dispute amicably.Accordingly a meeting was held wherein the applicants were present and she resumed::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 23:46:40 ::: 3 Cri.Appln.927-19.odt cohabitation in matrimonial home but the ill-treatment resumed.She informed her parents about it and again her parents approached the applicants.Again a meeting was held and at the end of the meeting the applicants allegedly asked her to pay her husband Rs.25,00,000/- and told her that else he would not cohabit with her and they would be helpless.When her father questioned the applicants about such behaviour, they abused her father.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 23:46:40 :::The FIR is conspicuously silent about it.However the applicants are only referred to as the mediators.During the course of arguments, even her learned advocate could not point out as to in what manner the applicants could be said to be related to the husband of respondent No.2 which is a sine qua non for attracting the provision of Section 498-A of::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 23:46:40 ::: 4 Cri.Appln.927-19.odt the IPC.For this reason alone, in our considered view, the applicants cannot be made to face the investigation and a possible charge.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 23:46:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 23:46:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2020 23:46:40 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,661,564 |
3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2013 made in C.A.No.24 of 2013 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, modifying the judgment of conviction dated 04.03.2013http://www.judis.nic.in 2 made in C.C.No.130 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem.P9 were marked and on the side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 were marked.No material object had been produced before the Court.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 4 The learned Magistrate, after trial, found the accused 1, 3 and 4 guilty of offences punishable under Sections 324 of IPC and found the second accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and by judgment dated 04.03.2013, convicted them and sentenced the accused 1, 3 and 4 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 324 of IPC, with fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month and sentenced the second accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.The Sessions Court, as a first appellate Court, after re-appreciating entire evidence on record, by judgment dated 30.08.2013, had dismissed the appeal and modified the sentence imposed on the accused 1, 3 and 4 from six months to one month for the offence under Section 324 and reduced the sentence imposed on the second accused from two yearshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 rigorous imprisonment to one year for the offence under Section 326 of IPC.Assailing the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 30.08.2013, the accused have preferred the present criminal revision before this Court.6 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, during pendency of this revision, third petitioner/A3 died and hence charges against him gets abate.Further, there are material contradictions between the entry in Accident Register and oral and documentary evidences produced by the prosecution.In the copy of the Accident Register, which is first available document, even before commencement of investigation, it has been stated that eight known persons had attacked, whereas, in evidence, it has been stated that four persons had attacked, which creates doubts and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.The weapons, alleged to have been used at the time of occurrence, had not been produced before the Court.Admittedly, there was a civil dispute between the parties and they are all close relatives and hence the alleged occurrence was not ahttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 pre-planned one.Both the Courts below had failed to consider the above facts and erroneously convicted the petitioners, which warrants interference.Further, now the fourth respondent/A4 is aged about 75 years.The petitioners/accused were in imprisonment for more than nine months, before granting suspension of sentence by this Court.Therefore, quantum of sentence may be considered and same may be reduced.7 The Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that P.W.3 is the Victim girl and P.W.1 and P.W.2 are her parents.Even though, in the Accident Register copy, it has been stated that eight known persons had attacked, after investigation, the police found that only the petitioners/A1 to A4 had involved in the occurrence.Hence the contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is only a minor contradiction, which will not affect the entire case of the prosecution.P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, had clearly spoken about the involvement of the petitioners/accused and stated that they only caused injuries.Further, from the evidence of ocular witnesses, medical records and the evidence of the P.W.7/Doctor, prosecution had clearly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence conviction recorded by the Courts below does not warrants any interference.8 Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.9 On reading of evidences of eye witness P.W.1 and P.W2 and the victim girl P.W.3, it reveal that the offence against the accused, had clearly been made out.Admittedly, the parties are close relatives and there is civil dispute between the parties.10 However, considering the fact that the fourth petitioner/A4 is aged about more than 75 years, the period of imprisonment already undergone by him shall be treated as punishment and the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioners/accused, at the time of obtaining bail, shall be paid to the victim girl P.W.3 as compensation under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and the victim is entitled to receive the same.The revision is dismissed as against the petitioners 1 and 2/A1 & A2, since the offence committed by them has been clearly proved.11 With the above modifications, this criminal revision is partly allowed.The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused 1 and 2 to undergo remaining period of imprisonment, if any.24.10.2018 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order cgihttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 P.VELMURUGAN, J., cgi ToThe III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.The Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.R.C.No.1497 of 2013
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,668,300 |
M.A. No.11654/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.140/2014 registered under Sections 448/380/34 IPC at police station Bhajanpura, has been moved by the petitioners all of whom were accused in the said FIR, on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled with the complainant, who is arrayed as respondent No.2 to this petition.The accused persons as well as the complainant are present in person in Court.They are identified by their respective counsel.The Investigating Officer, SI Surinder, police station Bhajanpura (DIU/NE), is also present in Court.M.C. No.3359/2014 Page 1 of 7The matter is stated to be under investigation and the charge sheet is yet to be filed.A Settlement Deed is stated to have been executed on 03.05.2014 between the parties, which has been annexed to this petition.Their signatures on the Settlement Deed are identified by counsel for the respective parties.counsel for both the parties state, on instructions, that as envisaged in this settlement, all the cross cases filed by the parties against each other stand withdrawn.The matter therefore deserves to be given Crl.M.C. No.3359/2014 Page 6 of 7 a quietus.M.C. No.3359/2014 Page 6 of 7The petitioners also undertake to pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- each to the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Fund of Bar Council of Delhi within one week from today.Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the Registry of this Court within two days thereafter.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.140/2014 registered under Sections 448/380/34 IPC at police station Bhajanpura, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.The petition stands disposed off.11. Dasti.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J AUGUST 04, 2014 dr Crl.M.C. No.3359/2014 Page 7 of 7M.C. No.3359/2014 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,356,750 |
ORDER S.L. Kochar, J.Just after the marriage, she was ill treated mentally and physically by petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for want of dowry.During this period, she had given birth to two sons.Between this period of 15 years, because of ill-treatment twice or thrice, she came to her brothers' house and lived there.On 31.1.1998, she lodged a report at Rajnagar Police Station.Thereafter, her husband petitioner No. 1 submitted written and oral excuse and took her to Kankroli where they were running 'Radhika Hospital'.But there was no improvement in the behaviour of her husband and he continued ill-treating with her.She further alleged that on 16.5.1999, she was turned out of the house after beating to bring money from her brothers for construction of a Nursing Home.A report to this effect was lodged at Police Station, Rajnagar.In the said report, she also made a request for not taking action on her complaint because, she was having belief of improvement in the behaviour of her husband.Thereafter, she lived for about four months with her brother at Neemuch where she and her brothers were getting threats on telephone.She further complained that on 15.9.1999 her husband-petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 4 Gopal Sharma a "TANTRIK" came to Neemuch and after submitting apology, took her with them.But her husband started beating while going to Kankroli on way and got signed on four/five blank stamp papers.She sent inland letters complaining the fact of ill-treatment by the applicant.On 29.11.1999, she was assaulted by kicks and fists resulting into fracture of nasal-bone.After snatching the list of her Stridhan, a document for movable and immovable property, Educational Certificates, degrees, mark-sheets, Registration Certificate, etc. she was turned out of the house.On the way, she met with one Shri Udaishankar who helped her for bus-fare.She lodged a report of this incident on 30.11.1999 at Neemuch Police Station.There she was medically examined.On this report also, the police did not take any action on her own request because, she was in a hope of change in the attitude and behaviour of her husband.The complainant again filed a complaint on 19.9.2000 because there was no improvement in the behaviour of her husband.This revision has been filed by the petitioner/accused persons against the order of framing of charge dated 12.4.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neemuch in Cr.Case No. 1002/2000 for quashing the charge and ordering discharge of the applicant-accused persons.On a typed complaint dated 19.9.2000 filed by the wife of petitioner No. 1, Dr. Smt. Kalpana Shrivastava as Cr. No. 559/2000 for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered by the Police Station, Neemuch.In this report, she has levelled allegations against the petitioner No. 4-Gopal Sharma alleging that he will destroy her whole family by playing witchcraft.After investigation, charge-sheet was filed.The petitioners were released oil bail.The contention of the petitioners is that the complainant has lodged a false report just to pressurize the petitioner No. 1 to settle down at Neemuch where her brothers are residing.The petitioners have filed number of documents, reports lodged by the petitioner No. 1 against the complainant/wife at the Police Station, judgment and decree of divorce passed by 1st Addl.Sessions Judge, Ratlam dated 18.1.2000 and submitted that by her own saying the complainant was residing with her brothers at Neemtich from 30.11.1999, whereas the First Information Report has been lodged for taking action against the petitioners on 19.9.2000 i.e. after ten months.She is a doctor and procured a false certificate of fracture of her nasal-bone.If this was true, why she did not pursue her report lodged at Neemuch Police Station on 30.11.1999 and as to how the Police also remained silent on this report which was disclosing cognizable offence against the petitioners.This goes to indicate that the police was acting as per and her brothers' desire.The brothers of the complainant are influential persons in Neemuch.The petitioners have also submitted that on 22.2.2000 a Divorce Petition was filed by the complainant.In this civil suit, the petitioner No. 1 Dr. Anand Shrivastava had also filed counter claim for grant of decree of divorce inter alia on grounds of cruelty and voluntary desertion by the complainant-wife.The complainant had submitted reply to the counter-claim denying the allegation levelled by the petitioner.Learned First Addl.Sessions Judge, Ratlam formed four issues.On the basis of the evidence and documents available on record, he answered the issues that the appellant-wife was ill-treating the husband-petitioner No. 1 Dr. Anand Shrivastava and was responsible for cruel behaviour.Initially the civil suit was filed by the complainant-wife and after filing of the counter claim by the petitioner No. 1, the plaintiff/wife submitted reply to the counter claim.Hearing of accused not confined to oral arguments.The Supreme Court also in the judgments reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, AIR 1972 SC 545, AIR 1990 SC 1962 and (2002) 2 SCC has held that the Judge while considering the issue of framing of charge against the accused persons or discharging them, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not merely required to act as the Post Office or mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider broad probabilities of the case the total effect of evidence and documents produced before the Court and should consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons in the matter or not.Now, this matter is to be tested on an anvil of law of framing of charge as discussed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.The First Information Report lodged by the wife after ten months is containing the fact that she had lodged some more reports prior to this report and simultaneously also not pursuing the same.On all these reports the police had also not registered the case against the petitioners.This shows that the wife has lodged the report just to put pressure upon the petitioners to submit to her demands.In this judgment, the learned Addl.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,677,062 |
He further submitted that the complainant himself has proceeded to investigate the matter and filed the final report.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the Officer, who lodged the complaint against the petitioner has himself investigated the matter and filed the final report.Apart from that, it appears that thehttp://www.judis.nic.inOfficer, who lodged the complaint has himself investigated the 5 matter and filed a final report.On that ground, the investigation is vitiated and the said FIR is also liable to be quashed.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.The proceedings against the petitioners herein in STC.No.56 of 2018 alone quashed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.22.01.2020 Index :Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No gv ToThe Inspector of Police, C-1, Kattoor Police Station, Coimbatore.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.The Judicial Magistrate II, Coimbatore.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 P.RAJAMANICKAM., J.gv CRL.O.P No.31451 of 2019 and CRL.M.P No.17196 of 2019
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,725,933 |
08 md.Allowed CRM No. 10258 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16th November, 2018 in connection with Chapra Police Station Case No.268/18 dated 20.09.2018 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Sadhan Kundu petitioner Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick, Ms. Sudeshna Das ... for the petitioner Mr. Debajyoti Deb ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Chapra Police Station Case No.268/18 dated 20.09.2018 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,357,310 |
The case of the prosecution, in short, as under :--Mangal was married to the accused about two years prior to the date of the incident.The incident in question occurred on 28th July, 1985 at about 9.00 p.m. when Mangal sustained burn injuries while she was in her house in Takar Colony, Baramati, which is owned by P.W. 4, Babau Jadhav.Accused No. 1 and Mangal were residing there as tenants.As per the version of the aforestated relations of Mangal is concerned, both stated that after marriage Mangal had visited her parents' house only once.That was in the company of the accused when her sister Sarlabai had expired.According to the witnesses, Mangal had told them at that time that the accused was ill treating her.According to Somnath the ill treatment consisted of quarreling, and beating over petty matters.JUDGMENT Ashok Agarwal, J.He claims to impugn the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon him by learned Addl.By the said order he has been acquitted of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code but has been convicted for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.For the offence under 498-A of the IPC he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment forgone year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months.By the very same order, accused No. 2 has been acquitted for both the charges under Section 306 as also under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Accused No. 1 on noticing the fire entered and tried to extinguish fire.Thereupon his clothes caught fire and he himself sustained burn injuries.He came out shouting for help.The fire was ullimately extinguished by the neighbours.Both, accused No. 1 and Mangal, were admitted in a local hospital.Initially the death of Mangal was recorded as accidental death.While in the hospital, P.W. 8, Suresh Dattatraya Kale, a Police constable recorded a dying declaration, Exhibit 21, of Mangal.As per the version of Suresh Kale, he sent message to the Taluka Executive Magistrate and the latter also recorded a dying declaration of Mangal.That dying declaration, however, is not forthcoming.The prosecution has not chosen to produce the same on record.A telegram was sent to the relations of Mangal.The investigation of the case was taken over by P.W. 9, Tippanna Kardas.He recorded the statements of neighbours as also the aforesaid relations of Mangal.P.W. 7, Aruna Baban Jadhav, is wife of Baban Jadhav.The statement of Somnath, Exh. 17, was treated as First Information Report.On the strength of the said First Information Report, the instant offence came to be registered.Aruna, who is wife of P.W. 4, Baban Jadhab.Baban Jadhav turned hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution.The learned Judge has further placed reliance on the evidence of the relation of Mangal, viz. p.W. 5, Zipru Bhoid, uncle of Mangal and P.W. 6, Somnath, the brother of Mangal.The prosecution has in support of its allegation of ill treatment placed reliance on the dying declaration, Exhibit-21, which was said to have been recorded by the Police Constable, P.W.8, Suresh Dattatraya Kale.As far as the evidence of the aforesaid neighbours is concerned, the learned Judge has noticed that they have deposed that accused No. 1 was beating Mangal.According to Aruna, P.W. 7, accused No. 1 used to quarrel with Mangal.On the aforesaid evidence, the learned Judge has concluded that accused No. 1 ill treated Mangal by quarreling with her and by setting her to physical torture and beating.The offence in question was recorded thereafter.No particular incident is deposed to.The question is whether the aforesaid evidence is sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code provides that when a husband or a relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand.It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that is cruelty and this made punishable under the Section.In other words, it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498A. It must be established that the beating or harassment was with a view to force the wife to commit suicide or no fulfil illegal demands of the husband or the inlaws.In my view, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses falls short of the requirement of cruelty as required under explanation (a) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Mere quarrels or mere cruelty would not be sufficient to level a charge of cruelty within the meaning of explanation to Section 498A. The degree of the conduct of the husband must such that it would reasonable expected of a wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health.For the foregoing reasons the appeal succeeds.The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused on by the learned Addl.
|
['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.
|
135,740 |
Mahendran, the son and Endammal, the mother were convicted for theoffences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Sections 498-Aand 304-B of I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years.Challenging the same, they have filed this appeal.Natarajan, P.W.1 is her brother working as a Professor in aGovernment College.At the time of marriage, 20 sovereigns of gold jewels andother articles were provided as Seervarisai to her.Out of the wedlock, afemale child was born.(b) The deceased Velumani was staying with her husband, the firstappellant as well as with her mother-in-law, the second appellant andfather-in-law.Not satisfied with the dowry already provided, the appellantsharassed the deceased asking her to get some more jewel and also to get aMoped from her parents.At the request of the deceased, P.W.1 and his parentsgave some more jewels and also money for purchase of Moped.(c) Even then, the torture continued demanding more money and jewels.Unable to bear the torture, the deceased Velumani lodged a police complaintagainst her husband and her mother-in-law, the appellants on 3.9.1985 toP.W.16 Sub Inspector of Police at Peelamedu Police Station.Ultimately, both the parties agreed to settle the matter and made anendorsement of compromise in Ex.(d) Thereafter, they lived together.Even then, the harassmentcontinued.About this harassment, the deceased used to complain to P.W.1 andP.W.4 Ranganathan, her brothers.Even when she was pregnant, she was drivenout from the matrimonial home asking for more jewels.The deceased went tothe house of P.W.1 and after birth of the child, the accused demanded jewelsfor the child as well as cash.Even after this incident,the harassment at the hands of the appellants continued.(e) On 25.9.1988 early morning, the deceased Velumani along with her 9months old child went to the nearby well and jumped into it for committingsuicide.On hearing the sound, P.W.2 Ramachandran who is residing nearby gotinto the well and was able to save only the child, but Velumani got drownedherself and died.The messages were sent to P.W.1 and P.W.4, the brothers ofVelumani.(f) P.W.1 and others came to the house of the accused and on seeingthe dead body of the deceased, went and gave the complaint Ex.P1 to P.W.19,the Deputy Superintendent of Police.The complaint was originally registeredfor the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. First appellant also gave complaintand the same was registered under section 17 4 Cr.P.C. Then, P.W.18, theExecutive Magistrate held the inquest and submitted his report Ex.P.W.19D.S.P. took up further investigation.However, both of them speak about the demand of dowry over which thedeceased was tortured earlier.According to them, at the time of marriage,they gave jewels and cash and within two months, the deceased came back totheir house and informed them that the accused demanded more money forpurchase of Moped and other things.P.W.1 gave Rs.2,000/- for purchase ofMoped, but even then, the torture continued demanding more money and jewels.Every time, P.Ws.1 and 4, the brothers used to pacify both thedeceased and the first accused and made them unite by trying to meet thedemand made by the accused.However, the deceased was driven out again by thefirst accused asking for more dowry.On the other hand,D.W.2 Srinivasa Naidu who was examined on the side of the accused himselfwould state that the deceased jumped into the well along with the child andP.W.2 got into the well and was able to rescue the child alone.According to the witnesses, the first accused did not make anyattempt either to rescue the deceased and the child or to assist P.W.2 .15-11-2002Index: YesInternet:3) The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4) The Inspector of Police, Gudimangalam Police, Station,Coimbatore.5) The Superintendent, Central Prison for Women, Vellore.6) -do- Central Prison, Coimbatore.7) The District Collector, Coimbatore.(g) In the meantime, D.W.1, the Sub Collector also conducted aseparate enquiry and submitted his report stating that the death was due todowry torture.Continuing the investigation, P.W.19 D.S.P. examined otherwitnesses.P.W.20 another D.S.P. took up further investigation and filed thecharge sheet against both the accused under Section 4 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct and under Section 498-A I.P.C."The Sessions Court on considering the materials available onrecord, framed the charges for the offences under Section 4 of the DowryProhibition Act and under Sections 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C.On the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 20 were examined, Exs.P1 toP12 were marked.On the side of defence, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.X1 to X3were marked.Originally, the trial Court acquitted the accused.Challengingthe same, the first informant P.W.1 Dr.Natarajan filed a revision before thisCourt.After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court on consideringthe materials available on record, remitted back the matter for freshconsideration.The deaceased was staying along with the husband andmother-in-law at Kallapalayam.On getting the information that the deceaseddied by falling into a well situate nearby to the house of the accused, bothof them along with the relatives went to the scene and enquired the residentsof the village and came to know that she was tortured by the first accused,resulting in her committing suicide.P.Ws.1 and 4 cannot speak about whatactually happened in the village of the accused, as they belong to differentvillage.Consequently, the deceased gave acomplaint Ex.In Ex.P7,it has been specifically mentioned that the accused demanded the amount forthe purchase of Moped and after beating the deceased, the first accusedobtained gold chain of 4 sovereigns from the deceased and sold the same andagain she was driven out insisting that she must get jewels of 10 moresovereigns.This complaint was enquired into by P.W.16,the Sub Inspector ofPolice and both A1 and the deceased made an endorsement under Ex.P8 that theywould settle the matter among themselves and accordingly, the case was droppedagainst the accused.Thus, it is clear from theevidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, the brothers, and P. W.16 Sub Inspector of Policethat there was a demand of dowry and the complaint of dowry demand given tothe police ended in compromise and consequently, both joined together.Admittedly, evenaccording to the accused, when the deceased died, the child which was born tothem was 9 months old.According to P. Ws.1 and 4, even subsequent to thecompromise, the demand of dowry in the form of cash and jewels was continuedand unable to bear the torture, the deceased would use to come back to theparental home and collect the money from P.Ws.1 and 4 to satisfy the demand ofthe accused.This evidence has been corroborated by P.W.5, residing in thesame village, who is a friend of P.W.1's family.The evidence of P.W.5 wouldreveal that even after the compromise, the deceased came to the house ofP.Ws.1 and 4 and received the cash and jewels and handed over the same to theaccused.Even after her death, some more amount was demanded andafter all the ceremonies were over, the deceased was sent to the matrimonialhome along with money.(a) By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or(b) By the parents of either party to a marriage or by any otherperson to either party to the marriage or to any other person;The above said observation would clearly indicate that anyproperty or valuable security demanded as a dowry even long after themarriage, the same should the construed to be dowry as defined in the section.According to him, one or twomonths prior to the occurrence when he asked the deceased as to the frequentquarrels in her house, the deceased told him that she was being tortured bythe accused asking her to get more dowry for the accused.The relevantportion of his evidence is as follows:@ehd; ntYkzpaplk; mof;fo rz;il nghLfpwha; vd;W nfl;lnghJ. khkpahUk;.fztUk; jk;gp tPl;ow;Fk;.2 khj';fSf;F Kd; dhy;,t;tpjkhf brhd;dhs;/@ (When I asked Velumani as to why you are quarrelling frequently, shetold that her mother-in-law and husband were torturing her to go to the housesof her brothers and get dowry from them.She told like this 1 or 2 monthsprior to the occurrence.)On the date ofoccurrence, the deceased was beaten inside the house of the accused.P.W.6,the sister of P.W.2 came out on hearing the sound of the deceased.After fewminutes, she went back to her house thinking that it was a routine quarrel.But however, she did not enter into the house of the accused in order to helpher, since they happened to notice the quarrel and beating sound frequently.According to P.W.2, on hearing the sound, he went to the sceneand he was told that the deceased along with the child jumped into the well.At that point of time, the first accused was standing nearby.Then, P.W.2with the help of a rope got into the well and attempted to save both thedeceased and child.However, he was able to rescue the child alone.Nextday only, the body of the deceased was taken out from the well on thecomplaint Ex.P1 given by P.W.1, and the complaint Ex.P10 given by the firstaccused, the case was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by P.W.17,the SubInspector of Police.P.W.18 Tahsildar conducted inquest next day and sent a reportEx.P11 stating that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well.In the subsequent enquiry conducted by D.W.1 Sub Collector, D.W.1 sent thereport Ex.X1 stating that the deceased died in the abnormal circumstances.The first document is the complaint which was given by the firstaccused to P.W.17 Sub Inspector of Police.In the said complaint, it has been specifically statedthat the deceased fell into the well on her own accord unable to bear herstomach pain.Strangely, this defence has never been put as suggestion to anyof the witnesses examined by the prosecution.P.C.On the side of the defence, D.W.2 Srinivasa Naidu was examined.He has alsonot pleaded this defence.There was no reason as to why the said Srinivasa Naidu (D.W.2)was not examined in the earlier trial.Furthermore, the plea of the defencemade through D.W.2 in the year 1995 before the trial Court is quitecontradictory to the facts mentioned in Ex.Even during the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., his answerto the question No.4 is not consistent with the contents of Ex.P10, hiscomplaint.As per Ex.P10, he went to the garden on 25.9.1988 at 7.00 a.m.and came back to the house and at that time, the deceased jumped into the welldue to her stomach pain.No reference about the child was mentioned therein.But, in the statement under Section 31 3 Cr.P.C., he said that on 2.9.1988night itself, he left the village for attending to his job and as such, he wasnot available when the occurrence had taken place.But, according to D.W.2,the first accused was standing there, when the deceased along with the childjumped into the well.All the other witnesses who were present at the time ofoccurrence had stated that the first accused did not make any attempt to savethe deceased and child.When such is the evidence by the prosecutionwitnesses, the first accused must have explained as to why he did not make anyattempt to rescue the deceased and child.The only suggestion put to all the local witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 to 9 that they wanted to get the land of the accused on leaseand they could not succeed and so, they became inimical towards them.This suggestion has no basis and the same has been rightly deniedby the witnesses.If P.W.2 had any enmity with the accused family, he wouldnot have made attempt to save both the deceased and child.On the other hand,D.W.2 himself would admit that P.W.2 alone got into the well and rescued thechild.Even D.W.2 did not state anything about the enmity between the accusedfamily and the witnesses.As a matter of fact, the second accused would state in herstatement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that P.W.8 Perumalsamy is her rpj;jg; gh(junior paternal uncle).Thus, it is clear that all these witnesses are notonly the local residents, who are having the houses nearby, but also therelatives of the accused and as such, there is no necessity for them to speakfalsehood against the first accused.Hence, it has to be held that thepresumption, which has been drawn under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act hasnot been rebutted.The counsel for the appellants would cite two authorities,namely, 1999(1) L.W. (Crl.) 127(supra) rendered by this Court and 1997(9)S.C.C. 759 (supra).In both these decisions, it has been held on facts bythis Court as well as the Supreme Court that subsequent to the compromise inthe panchayat, no evidence was let in by the prosecution to establish thatdowry torture continued thereafter and under those circumstances, the accusedwere acquitted in respect of Section 304 -B I.P.C., though they were convictedfor Section 498-A I.P.C. But, those decisions would not apply to the presentfacts of the case, as, in my view, as indicated above, the dowry torturecontinued on the deceased by A1 even after the compromise till her death.However, the evidence which is available on record with referenceto the complicity of A2, the mother of A1, in my view, is not sufficient tofind her guilty for the above offences.P.Ws.1 and 2 would make generalallegation with reference to the demand not only against the mother-in-law(A2), but also against the father-in-law, who has not been arrayed as anaccused.60. P.W.4, another brother of P.W.1 would speak about A1 aloneregarding the dowry demand and torture.P.W.5, a friend of P.W.1's family didnot implicate A2 at all.P.W.2, who is the star witness in this case, wouldstate that A1 was simply standing near the well and A2 alone cried statingthat her daughter-in-law had put a stone on head by jumping into the well.P.W.3 also would support this statement.P.W.6, another neighbour had statedthat there was frequent quarrel only between the first accused and thedeceased.Apart from this, on the complaint Ex.P7 given by the deceased on3.9.1985, the enquiry was conducted by P.W.16 Sub Inspector only with A1 andthe deceased.Both of them gave a letter Ex.P8 stating that they would settlethe matter among themselves.This would show that A2 was not interrogatedwith reference to the above complaint by the police as the deceased was notserious against A2 with reference to the dowry torture.All these things puttogether would make it clear that the available materials would not prove theoffences for which A2 was tried.It is also noticed from the evidence that P.W.19, theInvestigating Officer handed over the female child Dhivya Prabha to A2, as therelative witnesses of the deceased were not prepared to take the child.Evenin the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the second accused stated that thechild Dhivya Prabha is with her.Under those circumstances, A2 is liable tobe acquitted.As far as A1 is concerned, the discussion made with reference tothe materials available on record for the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C.would apply to the other sections, namely Section 4 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct and Section 498-A of I.P.C. also.As held by the Supreme Court in 1991 S.C.C. (Cri) 191 (supra),though Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C. deal with two distinct offences,"cruelty" is a common essential to both the sections and if the same isestablished, then the accused can be convicted under both the sections, but noseparate sentence need be awarded under Section 498A, in view of thesubstantive sentence being awarded for the major offence under Section 304-B.In this case, the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergoR.I. for 10 years for all the three offences.Section 4 ofthe Dowry Prohibition Act would provide for the maximum punishment of twoyears R.I. and fine.Section 498-A I.P.C. would provide for the maximumpunishment of three years R.I. and fine.Only Section 304-B I.P.C. wouldprovide for the punishment for a term which shall not be less than seven yearsR.I. and which may extend to imprisonment for life.Therefore, theimposition of 10 years R.I. for each of the offences is wrong.Under those circumstances, the interest of justice would be metby imposition of 7 years R.I. being the minimum for the offence under Section304-B I.P.C. and there need not be any separate sentence for the offencesunder Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.In fine, the appeal in respect of the second appellant (A2) isallowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on her and she isacquitted of all the charges.The bail bond executed by her shall standcancelled.The appeal in respect of the first appellant ( A1) is dismissedconfirming his conviction and reducing the sentence from 10 years R.I. to 7years R.I. for the offence under Section 304 -B I.P.C. The trial Court isdirected to take steps to secure the custody of the first appellant (A1) toundergo the remaining period of sentence.Thus, the appeal is partly allowed.1) The Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet.2) -do- the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
|
['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.
|
135,743,237 |
Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Jaynandan Singh Balendra in Crime No.163/2017, registered by Police Station- Kusaumi, District-Sidhi (M.P.) under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act.As per the prosecution case, on the date of the offence, the prosecutrix was a minor being about 17 years and 9 months old.On 19.11.2017 at about 8:00 a.m., the prosecutrix had gone to her uncle's house for fetching vegetables.When she was returning, the petitioner was standing outside her house; he asked the prosecutrix to accompany him but the prosecutrix refused to go with him; whereon, petitioner caught hold the hand of the prosecutrix and took her inside the house.He bolted the door and raped the prosecutrix; thereafter, he released her at about 3:00 a.m, the same night.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the prosecutrix is said to be a minor on the date of the offence, she had attained the age of knowledge and understanding.She is said to have accompanied the petitioner to his house without any resistance, which reveals the fact that the prosecutrix had accompanied the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13629/2018 (Jaynandan Singh Balendra Vs.The State of M.P.) 2 petitioner of her own free will and accord.The petitioner has been in custody since 24.11.2017 and charge-sheet in the matter has been filed; therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Jaynandan Singh Balendra, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the concerned 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.(C.V.SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Sha Digitally signed by SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2018.04.11 04:59:59
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,357,452 |
A.5was running a tiffin shop next to Palaniappa theatre at M.Kallupatti and theirresidence also situated by the side of the shop.The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12/6/1996, at 9.00p.m., P.W.1 came to the shop of A.5 and demanded a bunch of beedi and A.5declined stating that unless the dues are cleared, nothing would be given,whereupon, a wordy quarrel ensued between A.5 and P.W.1, who went back andinformed the same to his father, the deceased.The deceased along with P.Ws.2and 4, came to the scene of occurrence, namely the tiffin shop, and at thattime, the accused armed with knife and wooden logs assaulted the deceased andprosecution witnesses and ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.The trial Court framed six charges against the accused and asper the first charge, A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 armed with deadly weapons quarrelledwith the deceased and others and thereby committed the offence punishable underSection 147 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the second charge, during thecourse of same transaction, all the accused indulged in rioting and thereby,committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.Asper charge Nos.3 and 4, during the course of same transaction, A.3 and A.4wrongfully restrained the deceased and A.2 respectively and thereby, committedan offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code.As per thefifth charge, during the course of same transaction, the fourth accused hitP.W.1 on head with a wooden log and caused injury, thereby committed theoffence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the sixthcharge, during the course of same transaction, A.6 caught hold of P.W.2 and A.5hit P.W.2 on his head with wooden log and caused injury, thereby, they committedan offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The seventhcharge framed is that all the accused during the course of same transaction withan intention to kill the deceased joined together and A.3 caught hold of thedeceased and the first accused stabbed the deceased indiscriminately on theback and the second accused poked on the head and consequently, the deceasedsuccumbed to the injuries and thereby, A.1 to A.6 committed the offencepunishable under Section 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.Initially, when the accused were questioned, they denied thecommission of the offence and pleaded innocence.Therefore, the trial of thecase was taken up.The prosecution, during the course of trial, examined P.Ws.1to 12, marked Exs.The learned trialJudge, after hearing both sides; convicted A.1 and A.2 under Section 147 of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor one month.A.1 to A.3 were convicted under Section 148 of the Indian PenalCode and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for theoffence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, A.3 was sentenced to undergoimprisonment for two weeks.A.1 to A.3 were found guilty under Section 302 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and topay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default to undergo imprisonment for one month.The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently.During the course of trial, A.5 died.The case of the prosecution, as unfurled its witnesses, isbriefly narrated below:-On 12/6/1996, at 9.00 p.m., P.W.1 came to the shop of A.5 topurchase Beedi and A.5 denied because, there was an earlier due on the part ofP.W.1 and also scolded him.P.W.1 returned back to his residence and informedthe same to the deceased.There was a quarrel ensued between the accused anddeceased group in which A.3 caught hold of the deceased, A.1 armed with a kniferepeatedly stabbed the deceased on his back and A.2 on his head.The deceasedwas taken to the Government Hospital, Usilampatti and he was declared dead.P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who examined P.W.1 on 13/6/1996 and noted theinjuries on him and issued wound certificate Ex.P.W.11 theSub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of intimation from the Government Hospitalon 13/6/1996 at 4.30 a.m., reached the hospital and met P.W.1 who was takingtreatment, recorded his statement, returned back to the Police Station at 5.30a.m., and registered a case in Crime No.137 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148,341, 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Ex.P.12 is the printed FirstInformation Report.P.W.11 despatched copies of Ex.P.12 to the superiorofficials and to the Court.One Govindarajan is the Inspector of Police, who conductedinvestigation of the case and he died Four months prior to the trialproceedings, P.W.11, who is acquainted with the hand-writing of theInvestigating Officer, has given evidence with regard to the investigation donein the case.P.W.9 is the Head Constable who delivered the First InformationReport to the Court on 13/6/1996 at 6.30 a.m. On 13/6/1996 at 7.15 p.m., in thepresence of P.W.5 and others, the Investigating Officer prepared ObservationMahazar and rough sketch Exs.P.2 and P.13 respectively and from the scene ofoccurrence, recovered blood stained earth M.O.1 and sample earth M.O.2 underEx.P.3 Mahazar in the presence of witnesses.Thereafter, he proceeded to theGovernment Hospital, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased andexamined the witnesses present there.Ex.P.14 is the inquest report.A punctured wound (stab) present on the back of the left lowerchest just close to the spine at the level of inferior angle of scapula about 2cm x 0.5 cm.A punctured wound present on the back of the right lower chest 3cm x 0.5 cm at the level inferior angle right scapula entering into thoraciccavity.A punctured wound present on the centre of the back of theabdomen 2 cm x 0.5 cm at the level of L3."Further, the Medical Officer has given an opinion that the deceased would appearto have died of haemorrhagic shock due to rupture of large intestine.The Investigating Officer sent the Material Objects to the Courtwith a requisition Ex.P.8 and P.W.8 the Court Head Clerk forwarded these itemsunder Ex.P.9 to the Forensic Lab for chemical analysis.P.10 and P.11 arechemical analysis report and serologist report.On 14/6/1996 at 3.00 p.m., the Investigating Officer arrestedthe accused 1 to 5 who were admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Maduraifor treatment.The occurrence tookplace at the shop-cum-residence of the accused.The Inspector of Police Elumalai Police Station Madurai District.Thereafter, the dead body was forwarded through P.W.10 Police Constable for thepurpose of post-mortem.P.W.7 is the medical officer who conducted autopsyover the dead body of the deceased on 13/6/1996 and issued Ex.P.7 the postmortem report wherein he has noticed the following.An incised wound present over the right occipital region about5 cm x 1 cm skull deep.An incised wound present on the left parietal region about 2 cmx 1 cm skull deep.A.6 was also arrested at 4.15 p.m., on the same day.Thereafter, the accused were remanded to judicial custody.The Medical Officerand other witnesses were examined.P.Ws.2 and 4 corroborated the testimony ofP.Ws.1 and 2 who are injured eye witnesses.After completion of theinvestigation, final report was filed before the Court.The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure for which all the accused denied thecomplicity of the commission of the offence and pleaded innocence.On the sideof the defence, Ex.D.1 complaint given by A.5 and D.2 charge sheet filed inCrime No.136 of 1996 were filed and no oral evidence was let in.The learnedtrial Judge after hearing the argument advanced on either side and on perusal ofthe records placed, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.Aggrieved against that, the present appeal has been filed.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theoccurrence took place at the shop-cum-residence of the accused.The prosecutionparty namely P.W.1 and others are aggressors.Since there was dues, a quarrel ensuedin which both the parties exchanged words and P.W.1 returned back to hisresidence brought back the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 4 who are his brothers.Itis the deceased and his sons P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 who indulged in quarrel with theaccused and under such circumstances, the occurrence is said to have takenplace.Though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused armed withknife and wooden log assaulted the deceased and other witnesses, the roleplayed by the deceased and other eye witnesses were not at all explained beforethe trial Court.That beingso, investigation should have been taken up appropriately in the manner known tolaw with reference to the said case and final report should have been filedincluding the materials of the counter case like wound certificates, Doctors'opinion, etc. But in the case on hand, the case in Crime No.136 of 1996 wasreferred without any proper investigation and consequently, those materials weresuppressed.Though the accused sustained severe grave injuries and was takingtreatment in the Government Hospital, the wound certificates were not marked.Similarly, the complaint was also marked by the prosecution but only at theslackness of the defence, it came to be marked as Ex.Relying on thecomplaint, the learned counsel further submits that at the time of occurrence,both the parties exchanged the words and scolded the accused in a filthylanguage by quoting the name of their Community and took out the wooden logwhich was lying there and assaulted the accused, causing bleeding injuries.According to him, when it is very much apparent that the origin and substanceof the case had been suppressed and true account of the actual state of affairshas not been projected before the trial Court, in all probability the accusedmust be given benefit of doubt.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitsthat the occurrence took place in the presence of five eye witnesses near theshop of A.5 i.e., in the locality where the accused were having shop-cum-residence and it is the accused group who were armed with deadly weapons takingundue advantage, caused injuries not only to the deceased and also to otherwitnesses.Though the complaint has been given by the accused, it wasinvestigated and final report filed referring the case as mistake of fact.According to him, the prosecution has made out its case beyond reasonable doubt.Perused the materials available on record and heard thesubmissions made on either side.11. P.W.1, at the first occurrence which took place at 9.00 p.m.,demanded beedi from A.5 without payment and A.5 refused on the ground thatthere was already uncleared dues.A.1, who is the son of A.5 intervened at that time and a wordy quarrel ensued.Though the first occurrence took place at 9.00 p.m., it is P.W.1 who went to hisresidence and informed the same to the deceased, who accompanied by his threesons and others come to the shop of A.5 and indulged in the quarrel.It is thecase of the defence that during both occurrences, P.W.1 and others as well asthe deceased used derogative and filthy language touching their Community.We could see suppressionof material facts by the prosecution and further, the injuries sustained by theaccused were not at all explained.Very conveniently, the wound certificatesrelating to the accused were not produced.On perusal of the complaint Ex.The fact remains that boththe respondents had sustained serious injuries, Kishna mainly on the skullwhereas Madho on the skull as well as scapular region.Further, when four ofthe accused were also sustained injuries and they were sent for medicalexamination.It was thefifth accused who have lodged the complaint Ex.When quarrel ensued on account of that, it was the deceased party whoused abusive language and only under such circumstances, the occurrence hadtaken place.Two ofthe accused namely A.4 and A.6 were acquitted by the trial Court and A.5 diedduring the course of trial and A.3 during Appeal.The fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded forthwith.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
135,746,355 |
no.1/State.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.530/2017 registered by Police Station Kailaras, District Morena as well as the charge sheet for offence under Sections 341, 392, 294, 506/34 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK, Act.It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the applicant that the charges have been framed, however, it is admitted that the applicant has not challenged the charges.The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that on the report of one Shyam Prakash Singh Jadon the police registered Crime No.530/2017 for offence under Sections 341, 392, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 11/13 of the MPDVPK, Act. The complainant-Shyam Prakash Singh Jadon lodged a FIR on 18/12/2017 at 14:56 hours on the allegations that at about 10 AM he alongwith his driver Atendra were going on a Thar jeep from Rampur to Naipari.The jeep was being driven by his driver Atendra.When they crossed Sehadpur village, one Eco Sport car, Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 03/03/2020 10:31:41 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.40872/2019 Shyampal Singh alias Lalla Sikarvar Vs.State of M.P. and another which was not having any registration number, stopped their vehicle and the applicant as well as co-accused Bhanu, Neeraj and one more person came down.Bhanu was having a country made pistol, whereas Sonu was having a gun.Bhanu snatched the mobile of Nokia company from the complainant and Sonu by show of gun, snatched Rs.7,270/- from the complainant and they tried to keep the boxes of liquor in the jeep.When it was objected by the complainant, then they abused the complainant.The complainant after leaving the driver and the vehicle, ran away and took shelter in the fields.The police after completing the investigation, has filed the charge-sheet.Challenging the charge-sheet, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact on 18/12/2017 at about 10:45 AM the police had received an information that illicit liquor is being transported in a vehicle and accordingly, the Thar vehicle was stopped and the driver of the said vehicle disclosed his name as Atendra and it was found that 18 boxes of liquor were kept in the Thar vehicle and accordingly, an offence under Section 34 (2) of the MP Excise Act has been registered against Atendra.It is submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged with a solitary intention to create a defence in Crime No.529/2017, which has been registered by Police Station Kailaras, District Morena against Atendra and, therefore, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground of malafides.Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 03/03/2020 10:31:41 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.40872/2019 Shyampal Singh alias Lalla Sikarvar Vs.State of M.P. and anotherPer contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that whether the allegations made in the present FIR are correct or the allegations made in Crime No.529/2017 are correct, can be decided only after recording the evidence.Merely because the FIR in the present case was lodged after the FIR in Crime No.529/2017 was registered, it cannot be said that the FIR lodged by the complainant is an outcome of malafide intentions of the complainant.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,172,735 |
The prosecution case is that at about 10.00 p.m. on 4-9-2002, the accused accosted P.W.2; compelled her to satisfy his sexual lust; the deceased by name Hariram came to her aid and was escorting her to safety and enraged at that, the accused forcibly took Hariram to a nearby area where, he killed him by hitting him on his chest twice or thrice with la big stone and therefore punishable for the offence referred to earlier.C.16 to C.21 came to be marked through them.The defence neither let in any oral evidence nor documentary evidence.P.W. 1 is the wife of the deceased, who was a tailor by profession.Everyday, her husband used to go to Vellimalai to do tailoring work and return to the village.On a Wednesday in the 11th month of a year, her husband left to attend the betrothal function of one Palanisamy, an employee under him, at Nochimedu; till about 9.00 p.m. on that night, her husband did not return home; on the next day, she went in search of him and she did not find him anywhere The residents of Vellimalai were talking that there is a male dead body in the waterway at Ramakuthi, which made her to go to that place.She identified that dead body as that of her husband.She found that her husband had Injuries on his head, besides a granite stone kept on his chest.She returned to Vellimalai and with the help of a literate, she got the complaint reduced into writing.The scribe read over that complaint to her and finding what she told him are reflected in the said complaint, she put her signature in it.She went to the police station and gave it.On the next day, she was examined by the police.Police took her to the place where the dead body was lying.A number of people went to the crime scene.At that time P.Ws.2 and 3 told her "that the accused tried to misbehave with P.W.2 on the previous night; P.W. 1's husband escorted P.W.2 to safety; in the course of their move, the accused fisted P.W.1's husband; dragged him to a waterway at Ramakuthi and by pressing his chest with a big stone, killed him".She identified the dead body.P.W. 16 is the Sub-Inspector of Police.At 11.30 p.m. on 5-9-2002, P.W. 1 appeared before him and gave the complaint, which he registered as Ex.P. 1 in his police station Crime No. 133/2002 under Section 302, I.P.C. Ex.P. 15 is the printed first information report prepared by him.He sent the express records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.P.W. 15 is the police constable in the Investigating Police Station.At 6.00 a.m. on 6-9-2002, he collected the express records from P.W. 16 and handed over the same to the Court at Kallakurichi as well as to the higher officials.Pursuant to the Court's directions, he carried the material objects to the laboratory for examination and report.P.W.17 is the Investigating Officer.At 4.30 a.m. on 6-9-2002 when he was in the police station at Kachirapalayam (the complaint was registered at Kariyalure police station), P.W. 15 appeared before him and gave the express records.P.W. 17 accordingly took up the investigation.He sent an information to the scientific experts' office at Villupuram and to the sniffer dog squad and then in the company of P.W. 16, and others, he reached the crime scene.There in the presence of P.W.9 and another, he prepared Ex.P2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P22, the rough sketch.He caused photographs of the scene of occurrence to be taken.P.W. 11 is the Photographer, who took photographs of the crime scene from different angles.M.Os.10 and 11 series are the photographs and negatives.At 8.15 a.m. on that day, P.W.17, in the presence of P.W.9 and another, recovered a granite stone having a circumference of 87 cms, which was kept on the dead body.P.W. 17 examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and others by recording their statements.Then he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex. P. 23, the Inquest report.He then sent the dead body along with Ex. P. 24 (requisition) to the hospital for conducting post mortem.At 1.15 p.m. on the same day, P.W.17 recovered from the crime scene blood stained earth and sample earth (M.Os.3 and 4) under Ex.P.4 attested by P.W.9 and another.At 2.45 p.m. on 6-9-2002, from a place west of the waterway at Ramakuthl, P.W. 17 recovered a light yellow colour right foot chappal and white paper containing a written material as "Mathur Kuppusamy" (M.C.2) in the presence of P.W.9 and another under Ex.P.W.9 deposed in Court that he witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar; recovery of the article under Ex.P.3 and recovery of M.Os.3 and 4 under Ex.He also witnessed the recovery of the chappal as referred to above (M.O.5) under Ex.P.W. 11 is the police constable who accompanied the dead body along with the requisition to the hospital for post mortem.After post mortem, he handed over the dead body to the relatives.Before that, he removed the personal wearing apparels found on the dead body and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.P.W.13 is the duty Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Kallakurichi.At 4.30 p.m. on 6-9-2002, he did post mortem on the dead body on it's receipt along with the requisition.During post mortem, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex. P. 14, the post mortem report.The symptoms noted by him are as hereunder:Arms flexed.Eyes, mouth closed.Tongue protruded out.Body bloated.Based on the report from the Forensic Science Department, P. W. 13 opined that death would have occurred due to asphyxia as a result of the injuries sustained.P. W. 13 had deposed that death would have occurred 3 or 4 days prior to autopsy and with a stone like M. O. 1, if someone presses the chest of another twice or thrice, there is a possibility for death.P. W. 17 was continuing his investigation.He examined further witnesses by recording their statements.At 2.00 p.m. on 12-9-2002, he arrested the accused in the bus stand at Maniyarkundam in the road from Vellimalai to Karumanthurai in the presence of P. W. 10 and another and examined him.By giving change dress to him, the apparels owned by him were recovered.Pursuant to Ex. P. 25, a light yellow colour left foot chappal came to be recovered under a mahazar in the presence of P. W. 10 and another.The arrested accused and the incriminating objects were brought to the police station and the accused was sent for judicial remand.The case properties were sent to the laboratory.M. Os.As an enclosure to Ex. P. 9, the Court's letter, the case properties were sent to the laboratory.Ex. P. 10 is another requisition given by the Investigating Officer to subject the case properties covered under that letter for chemical examination.As an enclosure to Ex. P. 11, the case properties were sent to the laboratory.Ex, P. 12 is the third requisition given by the Investigating Officer to have the foot prints of the accused taken.Ex. P. 13 is the Court's order to take the foot prints of the accused.Accordingly, the Investigating Officer had taken the foot prints of the accused.P. W. 2 would state that after visiting her alling relative, she was returning home at about 9.00 p.m. in the 11th month of a year, As she was nearing the waterway at Ramakuthi, the accused appeared there and hugged her.to have his sexual pleasure satisfied.He called her for a sexual intercourse, which made P. W. 2 to shout.On hearing her call, the deceased came to the scene and with the help of the battery light, which; he had, he escorted her to her house.P. W. 5 would only state that on 4-9-2002, his betrothal function took place and Hariram (since deceased) attended the function.On 5-9-2002, residents of Vellimalai were talking that there is a dead body of a male in the waterway at Ramakuthi.Everyone went to see the dead body and he also went.He found it to be the dead body of Hariram and accordingly, he went to his village and told what he saw.At 11.00 p.m. on that night, the accused wanted a light from him stating that one of his chappals is missing.When P. W. 7 told him that he did not have any light, the accused left.P. W. 8 is the person, who had written the address of P. W. 6 in the paper as requested by the accused.C. W. 1 is a scientific expert in the scientific laboratory at Vellupuram.He had lifted the foot prints of the accused in the prison pursuant to Court's order.JUDGMENT R. Balasubramanian, J.The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 17, besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.15; P.22 to P.25 and M.Os.C.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined as Court witnesses and Exs.Appearances found at the post mortem: A body of a male lies on its back.Strotum bloated.Peeling of skin scattered all around the body.Foul smelling odour coming from body.Maggots crawling on the head and neck.Scalp hair peeling off on touch.Blood stained discharge oozing from the right ear and both nostrils.Faecal matter coming from anus.External Injuries : 1) A wide red contusion on the chest below the neck at central extending to both side of shoulder joint above extend to the mandible.2) A lacerated injury over right parietal middle 3rd 4 x 2 cm to bone depth.3) A lacerated wound over right side scalp zygoma 2 cm x 1/2 cm bone depth.4) Abrasion in front of right ankle joint present 2 x 2 cm red colour.Irregular abrasion both shoulder and inter scapular region of various size and shape and colour.Wounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are antemortem in nature.On dissection : Injury Nos. 2, 3 underlying tissues are infllterate with blood clots, congested and ecchymosed.Injury No. 1 : Tissues under which congested and ecchymosed infllterated with blood clots.On further dissection of wound, blood clots around 400 to 500 ml found in middle and anterior mediastinum (thoracic cavity) clots extend to greater vessels of heart with fracture of central part of sternum.Internal : Neck : On dissection muscles under which congested and ecchymosed.On opening, foul smelling gas emanating.Kidney : congested each 120 gms.Skull: normal.Bones intact.Meninges intact.Brain : liquified 100 ml.Hyoid bone : preserved.Following visceras are preserved for chemical analysis (1) Stomach and its contepts.The accused was accosting her.Then the accused caught hold of the chest of Hariram (since deceased) and fisted him on his nose, which made Hariram to fall down.Then the accused forcibly, dragged him by holding his shirt to a nearby waterway at Ramakuthi, where, picking up a stone available there, the accused hit on the chest of Hariram thrice stating that he must die with that.M. O. 1 is the stone used by the accused.Then the accused left the stone on the chest of Hariram P.W. 2 shouted.On hearing that, P. W. 3 (her brother-in-law's son) came running with a torch light.With the help of the torch light, P. We. 2 and 3 neared the place where Hariram was attacked.The accused criminally intimidated P. Ws. 2 and 3 that if they disclose the crime, they would also be killed.Out of fear, P. Ws. 2 and 3 went home.Police examined her on the next day and she disclosed to them what she saw.P. W. 3 would depose that he knows the accused, who is a resident of Velllmalal, where P. W. 3 is also residing.He also knows P.Ws. 1 and 2 as they are the residents of the same village.P. W. 2 is his aunt, having married his junior paternal uncle.On 4-9-2002, P. W. 3, the deceased and others went to the betrothal function of Palaniswamy, employed in the shop of Hariram.After the betrothal function, everyone went to their respective shops and P. W. 3 also went to his shop.Normally, P. W. 3 used to close the shop at 8.00 p.m. On that night, he went home and then took his bed.Since he had food outside that day, he was having some problem in the stomach.Therefore he came out with the torch light and at that time he noticed two persons were involved in an assault.Noticing that the sound is from the nearby cattle shed, he proceeded towards that place.He saw P. W. 2 standing In the harvested land.He switched on the torch light and found one person pulling another person.P. W. 3 asked P. W. 2 as to what it is about, for which, P. W. 2 disclosed as to what happened on that night as spoken to by her in Court.He also would state that the accused threatened him also with dire consequences, as a result of which, he and P. W. 2, out of fear, went home.On the next day, he claims to have told about the crime to some people but he does not know their names.He identified M. O. 1 as the weapon used by the accused in committing the crime.Since his brother did not return home on 4-9-2002, the family members sent P. W. 1 to find out the whereabouts of her husband (since deceased).P. W. 5, at 4.00 p.m. on the next day, informed him that near the waterway at Ramakuthi, his brother is lying dead.He went to that place along with others and observed the dead body.He noticed M. O. 1 kept on the chest of his brother.His sister-in-law (P. W. 1) gave a complaint to the police on the next day.P. W. 6 is a resident of Mathur.P. W. 7 asked him whether there are any agricultural labourer to irrigate his lands at Vellimalai? P. W. 6 offered to work and he went along with another person.At 12.00 noon in the 11th month of a year, they were irrigating the lands.At 5.30 p.m., they left the lands to proceed to Vellimalai.They were walking through the lands of the accused at that time.They noticed the accused standing near the bridge at Vellimalai and the accused asked him a sum of Rs. 500/-.P. W. 6 expressed his inability to pay the money, for which, the accused insisted that he must give.Once again, P. W. 6 expressed his inability.Then the accused asked him to give his address, which he got written with the help of a nearby shop owner.P. W. 7 is a resident of Vellimalai and he approached P. W. 6 whether he could provide labourers to attend to irrigation work.P. W. 6 offered and accordingly, he came with another person.All the three went to the lands of P. W. 7 and after completing the work, they returned home.In the grocery shop of Ramalirigam, the accused was standing.However the accused compelled him to give, money to him, for which, P. W. 6 said that if the accused comes the next day, he would give him the money.Then the accused, with the help of Ramalingam, took the address of P. W. 6 in a paper.9. P. W. 17 was continuing his investigation.He sent the viscera and the hyoid bone to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.He sent the rubber chappal recovered on 14-9-2002 from opposite to the house of the mother of the accused along with the foot prints taken by him from the prison to the laboratory for comparison and report.After completing all the other legal formalities, he filed the final report in Court against the accused for the offence referred to earlier.He handed over those foot prints to the Investigating Officer.Ex. P. 13 is the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in that regard and Ex. P. 16 is the ink impression of the foot prints of the accused lifted by him.Ex. P. 16 consists of three ink impressions of the right foot and three impressions of the left foot.C. W. 2 is the Assistant Director in the Forensic Laboratory.He examined M. Section 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 sent to him pursuant to Ex. P. 9 (Court's order).He also examined the viscera of the deceased.Ex. P. 18 is his report, which does not disclose either poison or alcohol in the viscera.C. W. 3 is the Assistant Director in the Forensic Laboratory.She examined a white colour right foot and left foot chappals having yellow strap.No blood was detected in those two chappals.Ex. P. 19 is her report.there was disintegration of blood.C. W. 4 is another scientific-expert in the Forensic Laboratory.She examined the ink impressions of the right and left fort of the accused and found that those impressions are tallying with the impressions found in the two chappals.Ex. P. 21 is her report.Ex. P. 13 is the requisition sent by the Court.Mr. N. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that P. W. 2 alone is examined as an eye witness to the occurrence.If really P. W. 2 had seen the crime, then, though she might have been under fear on the occurrence day itself namely, on 4-9-2002, especially when the occurrence is shown to have taken place around 9.00 p.m., she would not have failed to disclose the crime to others at least on the next day morning.In fact, P. W. 3 would state that he told the villagers on the next day itself as to what transpired on the previous night.Under these circumstances, this Court must consider the evidence of P. W. 1, who had given the complaint at 11.30 p.m. on 5-9-2002, almost 24 hours after the crime, stating that he is suspecting the involvement of one Ramasamy and Pitchan.The very fact that the name of the accused is not mentioned in Ex. P. 1 throws a substantial light regarding the presence of P. W. 2 at the scene of occurrence.In other words, the prosecution case is that, P. W. 2 told about the entire incident on the night of 4-9-2002 itself to P. W. 3, who in turn disclosed it to the villagers on the next day morning.Therefore absence of the name of the accused in Ex. P. 1 but on the other hand mentioning the names of two other persons as the suspected accused, would definitely eliminate the presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 as eye witnesses to the occurrence.Learned Counsel, by taking us through the evidence of the doctor, who did post mortem, would contend that the said evidence shows that death would have occurred three or four days prior to the occurrence and it definitely eliminates the presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 as eye witnesses to the occurrence.Though C. Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs.C. 16 to C. 21 may be incriminating in nature against the accused, yet, the evidence of C. Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs.C. 16 to C. 21 had not been put to the accused at all when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore those incriminating materials cannot be looked into at all for any purpose.We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State on the above points.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, we went through the entire records.P. W. 13 is the doctor, who did post mortem on the dead body and Ex. P. 14 is the post mortem report.The post mortem report and his oral evidence show that death would have occurred three or four days prior to the post mortem.This witness had not been further examined by the State on the above evidence.Post mortem report shows that the body was bloated; scrotums were bloated; peeling of skin scattered all round the body; maggots were crawling on the head and neck and scalp hair was peeling off on touch.Therefore, the above referred to symptoms are definitely in support of the conclusion arrived at by P. W. 13 that death would have occurred three or four days prior to post mortem.Of course, as already stated, medical evidence establishes beyond doubt that death is due to homicidal violence.The prosecution case is that it is the accused and accused alone, who committed the murder and for this purpose, they have examined P. W. 2 as an eye witness to the occurrence and P. W. 3. to speak about the presence of the accused at the crime scene when P. W. 2 was there and the accused criminally intimidating both P.Ws. 2 and 3 to keep quiet.If really P. W. 2 is an eye witness to the occurrence as spoken to by her, then, we fail to understand as to why she came to be examined for the first time only on 6-9-2002, on which date, P. W. 17 commenced the investigation.She had admitted in her evidence in cross that at 6.00 a.m. the following morning, she went to see the dead body and at that time, 50 or 60 persons were there, which included P. W. 9 and the village menial and that P. W. 9 sent information to the police station.That information stated to have been sent by P. W. 9 to the police is not forthcoming.P. W. 2 is very firm and positive that at 10.00 a.m. on the morning following the occurrence day, police examined her.P. W. 3, as already noted, had admitted that on the next day morning itself he disclosed the details of the crime to a few persons in the village but he does not know their names.Therefore the fact remains that on the morning of 5-9-2002 itself, P. W. 3 had disclosed to the villagers what he saw on the previous day.If we analyse the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 from the above angle, in the context of the oral evidence of P. W. l, then, we really fail to understand as to why P. W. 1, who could have, by the time she chose to give the complaint, definitely got the Information about the involvement of the present accused in murdering her husband, did not implicate the accused at all in Ex. P. 1 but on the other hand, mentions the names of two other persons as possible suspects.Those foot impressions lifted are found to tally with the impressions found In the chappals, which, according to the prosecution, belong to the accused.One chappal is shown to have been recovered west of the waterway where the dead body was found.The other chappal is shown to have been recovered from opposite to the house of the mother of the accused.When we have disbelieved the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, in our considered opinion, recovery of one chappal stated to be belonging to the accused from near the scene of occurrence, has no, relevance at all.In any event, as brought to our notice, the evidence of C. Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs.C. 16 to C.21 had not been put to the accused at all when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The evidence of C. Ws. 1 to 4 and Exs.C. 16 to C. 21 are definitely incriminating in nature, on the face of it.Therefore a duty is cast upon the Court to put those materials to the accused when he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code so that he would be in a position to explain those incriminating circumstances.Since that has not been done, we have no doubt at all that the accused had been considerably prejudiced on account of such failure as indicated above committed by the Court.Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation at all to conclude that the evidence of the Court witnesses and the exhibits marked through them cannot be looked into at all.The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,172,742 |
It is alleged that he made some arrangement of Puja etc. and received Rs.3 lacs from one deceased Vimla Bai but there is no clear cut evidence against the applicant regarding criminal conspiracy of triple murder.The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality.Heard both the parties.Case diary of Crime No.180 of 2009 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Dindori for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C is perused.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no allegation against the applicant for either offence under Section 302 or 201 of I.P.C. As per memorandum of accused Raj Kumar only three persons were involved causing triple murder and applicant was not amongst those three persons.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,276,058 |
He states that on the date of the incident he was at home along with the deceased when the two assailants pushed him aside, entered the house, threw chilli powder on his face and thereafter entered into a scuffle with the deceased and the witness.The applicant Sonu is stated to have stabbed the deceased on his stomach on account of which he died.Learned counsel for the applicants have drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 6 of the statement of the sole eye witness and has submitted that the eyewitness has stated that he knows the applicants by name.The learned counsel for the applicants says if that was the case the names of the applicants should have been mentioned in the FIR itself, whereas that was against unknown persons.Thereafter, the learned counsel for the applicants have drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph no.9 in which the last two lines the witness states as soon as the chilli powder was thrown into his eyes his vision became blurred and he could see very little.He further states that it is correct to suggest that as soon the chilli powder was thrown on to his face he rushed to the bathroom to wash his face before which itself the applicants had run away from the scene of occurrence.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the statement of this eyewitness in cross-examination clearly shows that he was not in a position to recognize the actual assailants in this case as the witness himself submits that his vision was impaired as soon as the chilli powder was thrown on his face and that he went to the bathroom first to wash his face before which the applicants had already left the scene of occurrence.Be that as it may, looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, firstly the fact that the FIR is against unknown persons though the eyewitness states that he knows the applicants by name and the fact that the TIP has been conducted after a passage of almost three months which would prima facie put its reliability in doubt and last but not the least the admission by the sole eyewitness that his vision was impaired upon the chilli powder being thrown on his face and that the applicants had left the scene of occurrence before he could wash his face in the bathroom and come back in the scene of occurrence, I am inclined to allow the instant applications and direct that the applicants be enlarged on bail upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge ss Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2018.06.22 11:59:02 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,291,164 |
The petitioners are the residents of Panangudi Village,Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukottai Village.There was a dispute regarding thealleged property in Survey Nos.178/3, 179/4, 179/10, 158/4, 158/3, 159/9 andother poromboke land through which the villagers have to reach the burialground.These petitioners claimed that they are using the poromboke land toreach the graveyard.However, the defacto complainant claimed that theproperty is owned by him for which the revenue official conducted PeaceCommittee Meeting to solve the law and order problem in the particularvillage.Accordingly, the Peace Committee Meeting was conducted on 06.02.2008 before the Revenue Officials / Tahsildar.In the Peace CommitteeMeeting, the respondent/complainant was ready to remove the fence put up byhim.Accordingly, the Peace Committee Meeting ended peacefully in order tosolve the law and order problem.He would further submit that in orderto wreck vengeance against these petitioners, the respondent foisted a falsecomplaint against these petitioners with an ulterior motive.The PeaceCommittee Meeting was conducted at the instance of the petitioners.In order todefame the respondent, the petitioners printed the poster in the locality.It is a clear imputation and the petitioners intentionally defamed therespondent and printed the posters and he prayed for dismissal of thispetition.5.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counselappearing for the respondent.There was a dispute with regard to the usage of the pathway by the generalpublic with the respondent for the purpose of using the pathway leading tograveyard which was settled before the revenue authorities.Even, thereafter,the respondent did not remove the fencing, for which, the general publicpasted the posters against the respondent.''BOYCOTT OF PARLIAMENTARY GENERAL ELECTION Though 63 years have gone after India's independence, PanangudiVillage not yet got independence.The Villagers of Panangudi Village, Thirumayam Taluk, PudukottaiDistrict are boycotting the Parliamentary Election condemning the in-actionagainst one S.Rethinasabapathy @ Appathurai, belonging to the same village,for encroaching their long used common pathway leading to graveyard and tocancel the bogus patta and condemning the action of the Pudukottai Revenue Divisional Officer in supporting the said S.Rethinasabapathy.The generalpublic made allegation against the respondent only with regard to the usageof the pathway and patta granted by the Revenue Authorities in favour of therespondent.I do not find any imputation words as against the respondent inthe poster.(iii) of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (cited supra), which are squarelyapplicable to the case on hand, I have no hesitation to quash the privatecomplaint.14.Further, the private complaint does not make any specificallegation or implicating the penal provision against the petitioners andwhen there is no specific allegation with regard to commission of offenceagainst the petitioners, this Court has no other option except to quashS.T.C.No.757 of 2010 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-JudicialMagistrate Court, Thirumayam, in respect of the petitioners.Accordingly,S.T.C.No.757 of 2010 pending on the file of the District Munsif-cum-JudicialMagistrate Court, Thirumayam, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petitionis allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.ToThe District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Thirumayam.
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,729,500 |
The learned counsel for the petitioners had also referred to the statement of the second respondent, wherein it is mentioned as follows:@//// vd; fzthpd; FLk;gj;jhh; gw;wp vdJ fzth; brhy;y mtu; K:yk; ehd; bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;/ vdJ fztiuj; jtpu mtuJ FLk;gj;jhh; ahiua[k; ghh;j;jJ ,y;iy/ vd; khkdhhplk; kl;Lk; gyKiw nghdpy; ngrp cs;nsd;/ vdJ fzth; mof;fo mthpd; bgw;nwhh; tPl;ow;F brd;W te;jjpy; ,Ue;J tPl;oy; ve;j bghUs; fpilj;jhYk; vLj;J vwpe;Jk;.nfl;lhy; vd;id moj;Jk; cd;id jpUkzk; bra;J bfhz;ljhy; jhd; ntiyna nghr;R. vdJ bgw;nwhu;fSk; brhj;J ju khl;nld; vd;W vGjp th';fpf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;W brhy;yp vd; kdk;nehFk;go jpl;o kdjstpYk; clystpYk; Jd;g[Wj;jp te;jhh;/ ////@http://www.judis.nic.inFrom the above statement, it could be seen that there was 3 no contact for the de-facto complainant at any point of time with the second petitioner who is father of the first petitioner, and therefore, there was no demand of dowry as such from the second petitioner and there was not entrustment also.Accordingly, no offence has been made out as against the second petitioner.In contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/de-facto complainant had pointed out from the complaint as well as the final report that the petitioners made certain demands for motor cycle and money from the de-facto complainant and the averments have also been verified by the investigating agency through examining the various witnesses and they also filed the final report.Regarding the entrustment of any jewels, the learned counsel for the second respondent/de-facto complainant has pointed out the relevant portion from the statement of the second respondent/de-facto complainant:@ /// 25/03/2009k; njjp vdJ fzthpd; ikj;Jdu; rz;KfRe;juk; v';fs; tPl;ow;F te;J vdJ fztiu mthpd; mg;gh Tl;o tur; brhd;djhf Tl;or; brd;whh;/ kWehs; fzth; tPl;ow;F te;j nghJ mtuJ fGj;jpy; eh';f nghl;l cj;uhl;rk; brapd; ,y;yhijg; ghh;j;J nfl;l nghJ jdJ mg;gh vd;ida[k;.This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.162 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,http://www.judis.nic.in 2 Sathyamangalam, to quash the proceedings pending against them.In support of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to the complaint and pointed out that there is no averment of demand of dowry and entrustment of any jewels to the petitioner and as such, the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC are not made out.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the alleged date on which the de-facto complainant was intimidated, is also not mentioned, and as such the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC is also not made out.cd;ida[k; gphpj;jJ ,e;j cj;uhl;rk; jhd; vd;W brhy;yp rz;il nghl;ljhy; ehd; fHl;o tpl;nld; vd;Wk; /////@The learned counsel for the second respondent/de-facto complainant had also pointed out that there was threat from thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 accused on 02.07.2010 as to whether she would sign the divorce notice, or otherwise, she would be done to death.As such, there are enough materials attracting the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC also.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent pointed out that the complaint was originally registered as against nine persons and the Police have conducted the investigation in fair manner and filed the final report as against first petitioner/A1 for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As far as the second petitioner/A2 is concerned, he is charged with only offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC.Totally, 13 witnesses have been examined during the investigation and enough materials have been collected to substantiate the complaint.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.The final report has been filed against these petitioners for the offences under Section 498-A, 406 and 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent/de-facto complainant and the second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner.As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the de-facto complainant has never met the second petitioner at any point of time and therehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 was no demand of any dowry or any entrustment or intimidation as against the second petitioner.As far as the the second petitioner is concerned, he is charged only with the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC.But there is no material whatsoever to connect the second petitioner with the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, and therefore, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed as far as the second petitioner is concerned and the proceedings as against the second petitioner are quashed.However, as far as the first petitioner is concerned, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with liberty to the first petitioner to raise all these points before the trial court and the trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.B.PUGALENDHI, Jhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 cs Crl.O.P.No.1976 of 2011 22.11.2018http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,370,316 |
and 5 C.R.M. 6587 of 2018 with C.R.M. 6636 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21 and 23/08/2018 in connection with Frezar Ganj Coastal P.S. Case No.43 of 2018 gd dated 16/06/2018 under Sections 447/427/354B/325/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.....petitioners.Mr. Tapodip Gupta ..for the de facto complainant in both matters.These two matters are connected and arise out of the same complaint.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Frezar Ganj Coastal P.S. Case No.43 of 2018 dated 16/06/2018 under Sections 447/427/354B/325/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.There appears to have been a dispute over a plot of land and the petitioners may have resorted to unnecessary violence.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.This order is subject to the further condition that the petitioners will not enter any place within the jurisdiction of the Frezar Ganj Coastal Police Station till the conclusion of the investigation, except to meet the Investigating Officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,373,092 |
It is W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 3 of 14 submitted that adding of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in the second FIR is a clear and blatant abuse of the authority vested with the police under the Law and in this manner a simple dispute which arose between the two factions of the parties on account of acts and omissions of some boys, now sought to be made a dispute between two communities by slapping the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of SC ST Act only to teach them a lesson and to ensure that the petitioners are not released on bail as and when they appear before the MM.It is submitted that the conspiracy involving the petitioner in a serious offence had started when one Ganga Devi lodged a report about a month ago where no such allegations were made.W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 3 of 14It is also submitted that the addition of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act in FIR No.78/2008 merely because a subsequent complaint has been filed or a report has been made by some of the influential persons whose conduct is subject matter of investigation in FIR No.77/2008 and at the most amounts to recording of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not have been done as no second FIR can be lodged at their instance even if FIR No.78/2008 is considered to have been lodged properly by the accused persons.W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 4 of 14It will be of importance to take note of some of the documents which have been annexed by the petitioners on record.The allegations in the FIR No.77/2008(first FIR) are to the following effect:"That I reside on the above noted address and am employed in DTC.On the night of 05.06.2008 at about 10.00 pm when I was strolling in my street after having my dinner, I saw 4-5 boys who were apparently in drunken position and were hurling abuses and making noise I prohibited those boys from doing so who after arguing with me left away from there and after some time the same boys came with a mob of people armed with their hands stones, bricks, lathies and glass bottles and while hurling abuses they came in front of our house in the street.This mob of persons consisted of Jaipal s/o Tara Chand and his brothers Prem, Nekram and Lal Singh s/o Johri Yashpal s/o Tota Ram, Bobby and Balu sons of Yashpal and Mohan Devi wife of Yashpal, Devendri w/o Nekram, Ramo w/o Naresh Kumar, Basant Vasi w/o Tejpal and Tejpal, Sanja, Billu, Mukesh s/o Des Raj, Kamal Kishore, Pappu sons of Kundan Subhash Yashpal and Kailash s/o Pyare and other persons whom I know by their appearance.These persons while hurling abuses at our house started attacking with stones, lathies, bottles and started pelting stones which caused me head injury and due to which I ran inside my house and thereafter all these persons assembled and mobbed outside my house in the street and set our motorcycle No.DL-8SY-4278 on fire and broke the doors and windows with stones and all in one voice started saying to set his house also ablaze like his motorcycle and meanwhile the police made a bid to intervene bu the mob also started pelting stones at the police.Legal action may be initiated against all the above noted persons.Satbir Singh Attested ASI Ramphool dated 06.06.08, P.S. Anand Parbat.After registering the FIR on the basis of the aforesaid allegations,i.e., FIR No.77/2008, the accused persons named int eh FIR lodged a counter complaint on 06.06.2008 at about 04:00am in the morning which is the basis of FIR No.78/2008 where the petitioner No.1 has also been shown as one of the W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 5 of 14 accused.The said complaint was made by Sh.Jaipal, one of the accused mentioned in the FIR of Sh.Satbir Singh where he made the following allegations Statement of Jai Pal s/o Shri Tara Chand r/o H.No.319/2, Gali No.2, Than Singh Nahar, Anand Parbat, Delhi, age 40 years phone No.9313616567 stated that I reside on the above noted address and deal in cosmetics items' shop.Today on 5.6.08 at about 10.00 p.m. when after closing my shop I reached the crossing near my house, I saw that some persons were standing at the crossing and just when I reached there I found among those persons Sonu son of Mr. Ram Niwas Kaushik @ Ramu slapped my son Deepak 2-3 slaps and when I asked "what is the matter and why are you beating him" then Sonu and his cousin whose name I do not know but Satbir @ Sattu who also lives in the neighbourhood is the sone of a neighbor started retorting and started saying that you cannot control children and children keep on running in the street and the child could have run over by my motor cycle and loudly spoke by hurling abuses that you will not be rectified/corrigible I asked him to behave properly at which he started indulging into abuses and just then people from the vicinity assembled there and just then Ram Niwas Kaushik @ Ramu and Satbir @ Sattu had reached I complained them about the indecent behavior and hurling of abuses by his sons so instead of persuading their sons both of them started abusing me and just then my nephew sandeep s/o Raj Kumar and some people from the neighbourhood indulged into altercation and all of a sudden Sonu Son of Ramu attacked on my head with an object resempling the cloth washing wooden device and by raising hue and cry started saying to "kill Ramu, Sattu" and sons of Ramu had entered the house and bolted the door from inside and reached first follor and second floor balcony and from where Ramu, Sattu and his son sonu and his cousin, whose name I do not know, and who is son of Sattu and whom I can identify if brought before me, and wives of Ramu and Sattu started hurling filthy abuses and started hitting us with bricks and stones and people of our community made every bid to persuade them but hey kept on throwing stones and whoever tried to intervene he was also hit by hurling of stones.Myself, my nephew and many other persons have sustained injuries and the mob set Sonu's motorcycle on fir and thereafter the police came on the spot and police somehow got control over the situation and rushed me to DDU Hospital and my nephew and some other perons, who sustained W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 6 of 14 injuries, were sent by persons from the public to someother unknown hospitals.My neighbor Ram Niwas Kaushik @Ramu, Satbir @ Sattu both of their sons, mother Shanti and wives of Ramu and Sattu have injured my nephew and our other people by hurling stones and they have abused us with filthy abuses and they are holding out threats and I apprehend that they may not give shape to any kind of incident.The aforesaid writ petition arises out of a dispute which arose between the two factions one led by the petitioner No.1 and the other led by Sh.W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 1 of 14The grievance made by the petitioner is slapping of provisions under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act) after more than 48 hours of the registration of FIR No.78/2008 on the basis of an additional complaint made by 24 person in writing to the senior officials of the police and recording of the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.According to the petitioner, after 4-5 boys in inebriated conditions were found indulging in lauding, abusing and using filthy language and were asked to stop that by petitioner no.1, the said boys went away but later came back with group of persons who were equipped with bricks, stones and glass bottles and started hurling abuses in front of the house of petitioner No.1 which is the basis of his complaint filed at about 12:10 am, i.e., almost in the midnight of 5-6th June, 2008 resulting registration of FIR No. 77/2008 under Sections 147,148,149,323 & 435 of IPC against Sh.Jaipal and Others.Soon thereafter, at the instance of Sh.The matter was also reported by the various dailies where the incident had been described as a fight between two rival factions W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 2 of 14 without a whisper about making of caste remarks.W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 2 of 14The petitioners claim to have come to know of this development only when on their bail application a report was called by the MM and this fact was informed by the police that provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act has been added.Action may be initiated against the above named person.RO & AC.Jaipal Attested ASI Ramphool, P.S. Anand Parbat.W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 5 of 14W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 6 of 14The perusal perusal of the aforesaid FIR shows that in the said FIR nothing had been stated by Sh.Jaipal which may attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Copies of the newspapers which have also been annexed with the petition does not talk of any allegations regarding the allegations which may justify slapping of charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC ST ActFrom a perusal of Annexure P-4 the allegations of the petitioners is also justified that there had been support coming to the petitioner party about the slapping of the provisions under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless they withdrew the FIR lodged by the petitioners no.1 against Sh.Jaipal and others.It is submitted that a bare reading of the representation dated 16.06.2008 goes to show that while registering FIR No.78/2008 since the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act were not slapped against the petitioners W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 7 of 14 and others, the Jatav Community decided to lodge a demonstration to force the authorities to add such provisions so as to protect the owner of the community.W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 7 of 14I have also gone through the case diary which was summoned.It has been fairly conceded by the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State that in respect of the incident dated 5/6th June, 2008 two FIRs have been recorded by the police.W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 8 of 14 The first FIR was registered at the instance of Sh.Satbir & Ors, the petitioner herein while the second FIR had been registered on the statement of Sh.ii) The police is entitled to investigate in respect of the charges leveled by both the parties and in this regard to collect the evidence which may disclose even the additional offence for which a report under Section 173(8) can also be filed along with the challan in respect of the investigation carried out by the police on the basis of the original FIR and the Cross FIRiii) However, any new fact which is being disclosed in the course of investigation and which makes out a new case cannot be slapped/added in either of the FIRs because that would be registration of a third FIR in relation to the same incident.However, the aforesaid directions would in no way affect W.P.(Crl.)1197/2008 Page 13 of 14 the rights of the investigating agencies to investigate the allegations made in the first FIR and the Second FIR which has been lodged by the parties against each other.With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,173,767 |
ORDER Vishnu Sahai, J.By means of this revision, the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 20-1-1992, passed by the Sessions Judge, Thane, in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1980, whereby the judgment and order dated 31-8-1990, passed by the VIth Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 422 of 1987, convicting and sentencing him to undergo three years RJ.and to pay a line of Rs. 500/ - in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months, has been confirmed.In short, the prosecution case is that the petitioner on one hand and the victim Bhalchandra Patil, P.W. 1 on the other hand, belonged to rival labour unions and there was an enmical strain between them.Bhalchandra, P.W. 1, witnesses Ratan and others were on duty at Raymond Mills.At about midnight, the petitioner along with three co-accused persons namely Dilip AHIRE, Prabhakar Ahire, and Umesh Joshi, came near them; whereas the petitioner was having a knife in his hand, the other three were armed with sticks.It is alleged that seeing them armed with weapons, Bhalchandra tried to run away but, was chased by the petitioner and others.When he had reached near the machine, in the Mill premises, one of the acquitted accused persons assaulted him with a stick, resulting in his falling down.At that juncture the petitioner inflicted a knife blow which struck on his chest, and resulted in bleeding.The petitioner is alleged to have given a second knife blow which struck him on his right arm.The acquitted accused persons are said to have given stick blows.Apart from Bhalchandra and Ratan, this incident was also witnessed by Suresh Pendhare.After assaulting Bhalchandra, the petitioner and others are said to have run away.The evidence is that Bhalchandra was taken to Civil Hospital, Thane, where he was medically examined at 1.50 a.m. by Dr. Suresh Bhoite, P.W. 3, who found on his person the following two injuries :---1) Incised stab wound, right side lower chest wall (anterior) directed outside (laterally) 7-8 x2-3x1-2 cm.It was bleeding injury.2) Incised wound, right forearm 5-6 x 1 x 1 cm.It was horizontal.The evidence is that Bhalchandra was admitted for one day at the Civil Hospital, Thane and thereafter, was treated by a private doctor who has not been examined in the instant case.3A. After the usual F.I.R. and investigation, the petitioner and others were charge sheeted for an offence punishable under section 307 read with 34 I.P.C. In due course, they were put up for trial in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane.It appears that before framing of charge, one of the acquitted persons namely Umesh Joshi died and consequently case against him abated.Hence this revision.I have heard Mr. S.G. Samant with Ms. Poonam Maria and Mr. G.H. Keluskar, for the petitioner and Mr. M.I.P. Galieria, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Maharashtra respondent.I have also perused the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment.After thoughtfully reflecting over the matter, I am of the view that this revision deserves to be partly allowed in-as-much as the conviction of the petitioner, deserves to be converted from one under section 307 to that under section 324 I.P.C. and his sentence also requires to be reduced .Mr. Samant, learned Counsel for the petitioner, first tried to assail the conviction of the petitioner on facts, but realising his limitations, came out with his alternative legal submissions.Before I consider them I would like to observe that 1 am seized of the matter in my revisionai jurisdiction.It is well-settled that acting in the said jurisdiction, the High Court only interferes with the concurrent findings of fact, if they are manifestly perverse.In the instant case, the finding recorded by the courts below that on the date and time alleged by the prosecution, the petitioner inflicted two knife blows on the victim Bhalchandra, is based on the statement of the victim, coupled with corroborative medical evidence, referred to above, The said finding in my view, cannot be castigated as being perverse.Mr. Samant urged that within 1 1/2 hour of the incident, the petitioner was medically examined by Dr. Suresh Bhoite, P.W. 3 at the Civil Hospital, Thane who found that he had sustained a contused lacerated wound on his left finger of the dimensions of 2 cm.x 2 cm.Technically speaking, Mr. Samant may be right but I am not prepared to believe that the petitioner is speaking the truth in his complaint, when he alleges that the victim Bhalchandra with a small sword, caused him the said injury.He urged that although the victim Bhalchandra received two incised wounds, but only one of them namely injury No. 1 was on the vital part of the body, namely chest.Mr. Samant urged that if the petitioner intended to commit the murder of Bhalchandra, he could have inflicted some more blows with knife on vital parts of his body.He urged that considering the totality of circumstances, it would be hazardous to sustain the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. Mr. Galieria, Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand urged that in as much as the first knife blow inflicted by the petitioner caused an injury on the chest of the victim and the petitioner aimed a second blow with a knife on a vital part of body, he had the requisite intention to commit murder under section 307 I.P.C. I am afraid, I cannot accede to his submission.The victim Bhalchandra, in para 5 of his deposition, only stated "He was about to give another blow of knife, I tried to avoid it, but the knife had hit me on my right hand." From this statement of the victim, I am afraid, I cannot infer that the second knife blow inflicted by the petitioner, was necessarily aimed on a vital part of the body.In the result, this revision is partly allowed and partly dismissed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,379,504 |
On 21.10.2005, at about 21.46 hours Daily Diary No.34A was recorded at Police Station Mayur Vihar to the effect that a quarrel was going on between 'two groups' in front of Baraat Ghar 35/109, Trilok Puri.The investigation was assigned to SI Onkar Singh who with HC Prabhat Singh went to the spot and came to know that the injured had already been shifted to Lal Bahadur Shastri (LBS) Hospital by PCR.He went to the hospital and collected Pradeep's MLC who was unfit to make statement.Adeesh Kumar, Pradeep's brother met him in the hospital and made statement (Ex.PW-7/A).The Investigating Officer recorded 'rukka' and lodged First Information Report under Section 307 IPC.Adeesh disclosed that at about 09.00 P.M., when he was present near Ashoki Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 2 of 18 Hotel, A-1 and A-3 picked up a quarrel with him.On hearing commotion, his brother Pradeep reached there at about 09.15 P.M. A-2 with one Vikas (since acquitted) also arrived there.A-2 had a churi.On the exhortation of A-1, A-2 inflicted churi blow on Pradeep's head, while A-3 and Vikas caught hold of him.A-1 also inflicted two or three knife blows on his forehead and back.The assailants fled the spot.He with Ajay brought Pradeep to LBS Hospital.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 2 of 18Later on, Pradeep succumbed to the injuries and the investigation was taken over by Insp.At around 02.30 A.M. Vikas and A-1 were apprehended and their disclosure statements were recorded.A-2 and A-3 surrendered before the Court.On 27.10.2005, A-2 recovered churi used in the incident from Safada Park.During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer sent the exhibits to Forensic Science Laboratory and collected reports.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against A-1 to A-3 and Vikas.They were duly charged and brought to trial.When he attempted to flee, Vikas and A-3 caught hold of him and A-2 inflicted 2/3 knife blows on his back.The assailants fled the spot.He and Ajay took Pradeep to LBS hospital in a TSR and was referred to GTB hospital but on the way, he succumbed to the injuries.The police recorded his statement Ex.PW-7/A in the hospital.In the cross-examination, he admitted that there were many public persons at the spot.He was not sure at what time his statement was recorded.He admitted that his and that of Ajay's bloodstained clothes were not seized by the police.He elaborated that there was street light and the lane where the occurrence took place was 10/12 feet wide.He admitted that he had not lodged report with the police for the previous altercation.He stated that there was exchange of hot words for 10-12 minutes and he sustained injury on teeth and kick blow on his abdomen but was not medically examined.He denied the suggestion that he and Pradeep used to indulge in gambling and on the day of occurrence, Pradeep had consumed liquor and when he was gambling at the house of Kunwar Pal, in an altercation, he sustained injuries there with brick bats and stones.He further denied any attempt to extort ` 1 lac from Subhash Chand, father of the accused- Crl.The victim was conscious and oriented at the time of medical examination at LBS Hospital.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 18 of 18Vikki Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar (A-1), Sunny (A-2) and Vikki S/o Prem Pal (A-3) have directed the appeals against the judgment dated 08.03.2011 and order on sentence dated 07.04.2011 in Sessions Case No.110/06/10 of learned Additional Sessions Judge by which they were held responsible for committing Pradeep's murder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine.The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses to prove the charges.Incriminating material appearing against the accused was put in 313 Cr.P.C. statements.They Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 3 of 18 pleaded false implication.The accused examined seventeen witnesses in defence.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 3 of 18After appreciating the evidence and documents on record and considering rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court acquitted Vikas and convicted A-1 to A-3 for committing offence under Section 302/34 IPC.Being aggrieved, A-1 to A-3 have preferred the appeals.We note that State has not filed appeal challenging Vikas's acquittal.Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and erroneously placed reliance on the testimonies of PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) and PW-8 (Ashish Kumar) who were close relatives of the deceased and were interested witnesses.It did not ensure their reliability and credibility.Conduct of PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) and PW-8 (Ashish Kumar) was unreasonable and unnatural and ruled out their presence at the spot.Neither of them lodged report with the police or took the victim to the hospital.They did not intervene in the occurrence.PW-12 (Ajay Nagwal)'s name alone finds mention in the MLC (Ex.PW-2/A).The appellants had no motive to inflict fatal injuries to the victim.Pradeep sustained injuries at the hands of unknown persons at the house of Kunwar Pal where he and PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) used to Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 4 of 18 consume liquor and indulge in gambling.PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) made vital improvements in his deposition in the Court.The Trial Court did not believe PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) and PW-8 (Ashish Kumar) to convict Vikas.It is further argued that even if case of the prosecution is taken on its face value, it is not a case of murder as single blow was inflicted in a sudden quarrel.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 4 of 18The appellants were annoyed due to a quarrel over bread with PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar).Though PW-12 (Ajay Nagwal) did not support the prosecution, exclusion of his testimony would not cause dent in the prosecution case.PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) and PW-8 (Ashish Kumar) had no animosity to depose falsely against the appellants and were interested to bring the real culprits to book.We have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the Trial Court records.He was brought in injured condition at LBS Hospital on 21.10.2005 at about 09:55 P.M. with the alleged history of 'assault'.PW-2 Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 5 of 18 (Dr.S.B.Jangpangi) examined him vide MLC (Ex.PW-2/A).Pradeep succumbed to the injuries and was declared dead at 11:15 P.M. PW-15 (Dr.Mukta Rani) conducted post-mortem examination of the body on 22.10.2005 vide report Ex.PW-15/A. The cause of death was hemorrhage and shock consequent upon stab injury No.(iii).All the injuries were antemortem, fresh and produced by stabbing and cutting weapon.Injury No.3 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.She opined in her report Ex.PW-15/B that injury No.(iii) was possible with the weapon of offence shown to her.Undoubtedly, it was a case of culpable homicide.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 5 of 189. PW-8 (Ashish Kumar), the deceased's brother-in-law claimed that the occurrence was witnessed by him.He deposed that on 21.10.2005 at about 9/9:30 P.M. when he was going to meet his sister, he saw A-2 inflicting a knife blow on Pradeep's head while A-3 had caught hold of him.When he started bleeding, A-2 further caused 2/3 knife blows on his back.Several persons gathered at the spot.He fled the spot.Pradeep had expired before he reached LBS Hospital in the night.Presence of this witness at the spot is doubtful.His conduct is unnatural and unreasonable.Pradeep was his sister's husband and was allegedly stabbed in his presence.He did not raise hue and cry and intervene to Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 6 of 18 save Pradeep.Neither did he assist PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) to take the injured to the hospital nor did he report the incident to the police.He did not explain the purpose of his visit to his sister at that time.There is inconsistency whether he had gone to meet his sister or a friend.He made vital improvements in his deposition in the Court and was confronted with 161 Cr.P.C statement (Ex.PW-8/DA).In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he named four assailants who caused injuries to Pradeep, however, in the statement before the Court, he implicated only A-2 and A-732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 6 of 18His version is contrary to PW-7's statement, an eye witness.PW-8 (Ashish Kumar) admitted that he did not meet PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) at the spot.There is delay in recording statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW-8's house was situated at a distance of half kilometer from the place of occurrence but he did not inform anybody in the house about the incident.When he met PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) in the hospital at 1:30 A.M., he did not inform him about his presence at the place of occurrence.House of his sister was at a distance of 10-20 yards from the spot.He did not go to inform them.PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) did not speak PW-8's presence at the spot.In 161 Cr.P.C. statement, he stated that Pradeep was taken to the hospital in a TSR by PW-7 from the spot.For all these Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 7 of 18 reasons, we doubt his presence at the spot and are not inclined to place reliance on his testimony and ignore it.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 7 of 18Undisputedly PW-12 (Ajay Nagwal) assisted to take Pradeep to the hospital.In MLC Ex.PW-2/A, he is stated to be the relative or friend of the victim who admitted him.PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) deposed that PW-12 (Ajay Nagwal) had accompanied him to the hospital in a TSR.PW-12 did not support the prosecution and expressed complete ignorance about the case.Instead of requesting the Court for permission to cross- examine him, Additional Public Prosecutor, without any reasons opted to 'give up' the witness as unnecessary.Consequently, he was not further examined in the court.PW-12 was not confronted with his 161 Cr.P.C. statement and it cannot be relied upon for any purpose.11. PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar), deceased's brother is a crucial witness as initial confrontation took place with him.He deposed that on 21.10.2005 at about 09:00 P.M., when he was present ahead of Ashoki Hotel, Extra Block No.35, Trilok Puri, Delhi, A-1 and A-3 met him.A-1 caught him by collar and inquired why he had quarreled over bread three days back and started abusing him.After sometime, A-2 who had a knife arrived there with Vikas and they started quarrelling with him.When around 09:15 P.M., his younger brother Pradeep @ Laloo reached there, Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 8 of 18 on the exhortation of A-1 to kill (maar do jaan se sale ko).A-2 attacked him (Pradeep) with a knife on his head.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 9 of 18 Vikas to settle the matter.He stated that Pradeep reached all of a sudden and could not get chance to release him from the clutches of the accused.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 8 of 18732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 9 of 18We have no reasons to disbelieve or doubt PW-7's presence at the spot.The initial confrontation took place with him for about 10/12 minutes and there was exchange of hot words.PW-7 even claimed that he sustained injuries when the accused quarreled with him before Pradeep's arrival.The occurrence took place at about 09:00 P.M. PW-16 (SI Onkar Singh) reached the spot on assignment of Daily Diary No.34/A (Ex.PW- 11/A).The victim had already been shifted to LBS hospital.He deposed that the injured's elder brother met him in the hospital and he recorded his statement (Ex.PW-7/A).He prepared rukka at 11.00 P.M. and lodged First Information Report at police station Mayur Vihar.In the instant case, the FIR was recorded promptly without any delay before there was time and opportunity to embellish the version.In his statement Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 10 of 18 made to the police at the first instance, PW-7 claimed that the incident was witnessed by him and the victim was admitted by him and Ajay at the hospital.PW-7 deceased's brother was acquainted with the accused.He attributed specific role to the each accused.They participated in the crime and fled the spot after the occurrence.It was the deceased's blood group.MLC ( Ex.PW2/A) was prepared by PW-2 (Dr.S.B.Jangpangi) on 21.10.2005 at about 09:55 P.M. and it depicted one incised wound and two lacerated wounds on the body.However, the post-mortem report (Ex.PW-15/A) proved by PW-15 (Dr.Mukta Rani) mentions three stab incised wound of various dimensions.The prosecution did not reconcile the two reports.MLC (Ex.PW-2/A) specifically records that injuries were caused by sharp and blunt objects.The injuries had not resulted in the death of the victim at the spot.PW-2 in the cross-examination admitted that victim was in a position to speak and he (victim) had given the history of 'assault' to him.It appears that the victim had sustained only one incise stab wound with knife which proved fatal.PCR record reveals that a quarrel had taken place between Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 13 of 18 two groups and stones were pelted.It seems that the lacerated wounds mentioned in Ex.PW-2/A were the result of pelting of stones.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 13 of 18The man's intention is a question of fact and it can be gathered from his acts.Intention to cause a specified result or actor's purpose has to be gathered and inferred from the action of the person and the surrounding circumstances such as motive of the accused, utterances made, nature of attack, the time and place of attack, the nature and type of weapon used, the nature of injuries caused and so on.These and other factors are to be taken into consideration to determine whether the accused had requisite intention.In the instant case, an altercation took place on a trivial issue between PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar) and A-1 and A-3 without any pre- meditation.They were not armed with any weapon and did not cause Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 14 of 18 physical harm to PW-7 (Adeesh Kumar).They did not anticipate that PW- 7 would be available at the spot.A-2 and Pradeep were not present during that scuffle.Both arrived later on.It appears that a quarrel without apparent excuse ensued in which stones were also pelted.There was no previous intention or determination to fight.In the said sudden quarrel, A- 2 on the exhortation of A-1 inflicted a solitary knife blow to Pradeep.We have also heard the parties on the point of sentence.Considering the role played by each accused, their young age, clean antecedents, the order on sentence is modified.A-2 who had caused the stab wound and had yield the knife is sentenced to undergo rigorous Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 17 of 18 imprisonment for eight years.A-1 and A-3 shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each.Other sentences are left undisturbed.The appellants A-1 and A-3 are directed to surrender and serve the remainder of their sentence.The Registry shall transmit the Trial Court records forthwith to ensure compliance with the judgment.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 17 of 18The appeals are partly allowed and orders of conviction and sentence are modified in the above terms.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE DECEMBER 21, 2012 Sa/tr Crl.732/11, 601/11 & 713/11 Page 18 of 18
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,384,800 |
In Re : An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 6.1.2020 in connection with Belghoria P.S no. 960 of 2017 dated 9.11.2017 under sections 366A/370/370A/376/109/120B of the IPC and sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Traffic Prevention Act and also 17/18 of the POCSO Act Allowed In Re : Sobhan Bag alias Shavan Bag ...... petitioner Mr. A K Chattopadhyay ...... for the petitioner Mr. N Ahmed Ms. T Mitra ...... for the State Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.In the event they fail to appear before the trial court without justifiable cause, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel their bail automatically without reference to this court.The application being CRM 163 of 2020 is disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.